You ready? You turn the heat back on. Hold on. Hold on. >> I forgot my >> Okay. >> And we're rolling, right? >> Oh, wow. >> Okay. Welcome to the penultimate edition
of the Township Provotion Board of Adjustment. Nicole, can you take a roll, please? >> Sure. >> Mr. Ashen, >> here. >> Mr. Dammo, Miss Deal, Mr. Chamora >> here, >> Miss Litman >> here, Mr. Fujielli >> here, >> Mr. Lineski >> here,
>> Mr. Karamatica >> here, >> vice chairman Daneiro >> here, >> chairman >> here. Please rise to salute the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. A copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk. There are emergency exits through the courtroom
doors in the back and two exits uh at the actually this back and then the rear of the room. That's always gets me. No smoking, please. As we all know, board policy, no new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. So, we're going to try and get to all these. No new testimony taken after 9:30. 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 Oceanceans Community Cable Channel, channel 22 on Verizon FiOS, channel 77 on cable vision. Please turn your cell phones off. If you need to make a phone call, please leave the
room. Resolutions to for memorialization. We have uh one, two, three, four. We have to do them individually. >> We can be done together. Okay. We have Jeff Barnes, 8 Klein Street, block 33, lot 13. Uh, in the R4 zone, Jeff
Fontana, Joseph Fontana, excuse me, 117 Cold Annie Springs Road, block 37.04, lot 5. 149 Chattam LLC, 149 Chattam Avenue, block 25.05, lot 6, and Mark
Sith, 508 Palmer Avenue, block 62, lot 12. All in favor? I'll make a motion positive resolution. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? >> Hearing none.
Okay. Um, old business. We have a few things that are going to be carried, so we should announce that. Correct. Um, 260 Overbrook Avenue LLC. 260 Overbrook Avenue, block 22, lot 40 in the R4 zone.
Um, this will be carried, this case will be carried to Wednesday, June 17th with new noticing. If you're in the room to hear this case, uh, it's going to be heard in this room on Wednesday, June 17th, uh, 2026.
>> You will not receive any further notice, >> right? >> There will be new notice. >> There will be new notice. Okay. >> Yeah. uh Abraham Benitar 517 Laurel block Laurel Avenue block 68 lot 6 in the R5 zone that will also be carried to
Wednesday June 17th 2026 with new noticing. So if you are here to to for that item come back here on Wednesday June 17th >> excuse me. Um we also had 251 Howard.
It's my my error that I didn't put it on the agenda. They did notice for tonight's meeting. >> Okay. >> There was a problem with the plans. So, they asked if we would uh carry it with no new noticing to the June 17th. >> Okay. So, that's 251 Howard.
>> Okay. So, you you may have heard that we were going to hear a case for 251 Howard. We are not. That's going to be also moved to Wednesday, June 17th. >> Is that right? Okay. Uh finally,
Township of Ocean 1313 South Roller Road, also known as block 142, lot 36. Uh that will be carried to Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 with no further notice on that one. Is that everything? Okay.
All right. Now, on to old business that we'll actually hear. to Texas Avenue LLC 219 Lewis block Lewis Street block 17 attorney for the applicant Jeffrey Donner >> I'm here Mr. Chairman >> Hello sir >> I'm delighted to start but Mr. Akens my
good friend has indicated he's in a time stress he has an application he said it's not going to take that long and I have agreed to let him go before us okay professional accommodation >> very good >> thank you Mr. >> Thank you Mr. Thank you, chairman. >> Okay, >> board members.
>> So that means 260 Howard Family LLC, which is 260 Howard Avenue, block 49, lot 9 in the R4 zone. Turning for the applicant, Mr. Mark Akens. Uh good evening, chairman, board members. Mark Aikens on behalf of the applicant, 260 Howard LLC. As I'm
setting up, if council could just confirm uh that my service by publication certified mail is in order and then I'll >> and and I can mark the following exhibits and evidence. Exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the boundary and
topographic survey. Exhibit A3 will be the architectural plans. Exhibit A4 will be the plot plan. Then I have the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planners report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineer report.
>> Thank you very much. Um ladies and gentlemen, by way of application uh and background, uh this is an existing two-story single family residence at 260 Howard Avenue which is proposed to be removed. A new residence of two stories is proposed to be constructed. This
property is slightly undersized at um about 7800 square ft where 10,000 square ft is required in the R4 zone. The property is also undersized in in lot width at 78 ft where 90 ft is required.
Um the property has some topographical constraints as well. It's high in the back and then the elevation drops to a lower elevation by about 8 feet during the 100 ft depth of the property. um along uh Howard Avenue and that's an
approximately 8% grade change if my math is right. So variances are sought this evening uh for the front step setback along Howard Avenue where 30 ft is required and 27.43 43 ft is what we're proposing. Combined setback uh for the
um basement area way because we do have a ba a bedroom basement that's proposed at 23.14 ft where 25 ft is required and then as I referred to with earlier with regard to the topographical change a change greater than two uh 2 feet with
regard to the the topography and grading at the property. Um with that I would introduce uh the applicant's team this evening. Edward O'Neal, an architect to my right, Patrick Ward, a licensed professional engineer and licensed professional planner to my left. Um, and
at this time, chairman, I would call Edward O'Neal and ask that he please be sworn. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. >> O'Neal. The swearing testimony about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the true self you got? >> I do. >> And just confirm your name for the record. >> Edward William O'Neal Jr. >> And you are a licensed architect in the
state of New Jersey. >> Yes. >> And your license is a good standing? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Go ahead. Just want to grab my >> Please do. >> Uh good evening, Mr. O'Neal. Can you review the board the existing conditions present at the property? >> Well, again, the site the site is
slightly unders sized. Uh what is being proposed is a new single family residence which would have 1,890 ft on the first floor, uh 1,756 ft on the second floor. It has a finished basement of 1,771
ft. And uh do you have elevations to uh review at the board? I do. referring to um A3 as uh identified by the board's council. Thank you.
So these are the proposed elevations. You see front elevation, right, rear and left side. So the total height to the peak is 31 ft 5 1/2 in. Um, it would be a stucco finish. The stucco
finish is um kind of an off-white. It would have oak wood siding accents here. The front elevation would have a metal roof. The others are more of a standard um asphalt roofing shingle. There will
be black aluminum railings, dark bronze windows, um cream limestone accents. Again, in certain parts of the facades have stone. >> Terrific. And all all new construction, correct? >> All new construction. Yes. >> Great. So, that'll meet uh building,
fire, and safety codes. >> Yes. As a matter of fact, some of the one of the variances is has to do with the uh one of the life safety codes in the basement. >> Okay. And can you take a moment and review that with the board? That's the one where we identified as the area wait for the basement. Correct.
>> Right. So, I'm going to go back to the uh this is the proposed basement plan. So, these two bedrooms are technically underground, but they're the basement level. They require two means of egress. One means of egress is
the main stair of the house. The other has to be directly outside. It's no different than one of the uh base one of the uh bedrooms on the second floor having a window that meets that requirement. So there's actually a company in Lakewood which pre-manufactures these egress windows
for basement conditions. Their name is Bowman Kemp. And so we have one suggested for each bedroom to make them fire egress code compliant. >> Terrific. Okay. And those are shown on sheet A101 of your plans. Correct.
That's correct. And >> it's your testimony that that would be part of the applicant's installation and construction should the board be fit to approve this matter. >> Yes. And just to make sure everyone understands that the the areaways
um the top of the area way is at grade so they don't protrude up in the air. They're um maybe a few inches. >> So when you're when you're driving along Howard, you don't see them. >> No, you would have to be almost on top of them to see them. >> Terrific. Great. Uh chairman, board
members, I have no further questions of Mr. O'Neal. >> What's the current square footage of the first floor now? >> The existing structure. Um may I defer that to um the engineer? I'm I'm guessing he has that calculation.
>> Thank you very much. >> 162 ft. >> Any questions for this witness? Anybody over there? No. Okay. >> Sure. Roll. Roll off. >> Okay. Applicant now calls Patrick Ward, licensed professional engineer, licensed
professional planner. Ask that he be sworn, please. >> Mr. Ward, do you swearing testimony about the give? Will be the truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. yourself. Scott, >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Sure. Patrick Ward, WD with Inside Engineering. >> And you are a licensed engineer and planner? >> Yes, I am.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> And your credentials are in good standing. >> Yes, they are. Terrific. >> Thank you. Um, so Mr. Ward, you've heard the testimony of the architect, Mr. O'Neal. You're familiar with the site. >> I am. >> You've prepared the plot plan. >> Yep.
>> And the uh the relevant exhibits associated with that plot plan. What can you tell the board about the engineering drainage and related issues in connection with this application? >> Yes, absolutely. >> No, I know.
>> Yes. So, what I'll do is excuse me. I will uh start with the existing conditions because some of that has to do with the v one of the variances we're seeking tonight. So, this is the survey. I believe it's marked as A2. And one of the things I did want to point out besides the fact that there's an existing two-story dwelling, um, our
westerly sideyard setback is non-conforming by a few inches is the topography. And Mr. Akens alluded to this. The curb line is at elevation 30 to 31. And in the back corner here, we're above elevation 39. So it is about
8% slope. Um, you also see on the survey that there's a concrete retaining wall along the west side. Um, that's really what from what I gather was done to provide some sort of usable rear yard for this home when it was built. We're proposing to remove all existing
improvements. So, what we're proposing is a new two-story home. Uh, this is a new exhibit. Um, if we want to mark that. >> Exhibit A5. >> A5. >> A5. >> What would you call it? A colorized. >> Uh, yeah, colorized rendering. Um the
date of that is May 27th, 2026. Okay. So, new two-story dwelling. Starting at the front, we have a fully compliant um circular driveway for the front yard area. Uh it does meet all the required uh quantity of parking per RSIS
for the number of bedrooms we're proposing. Um along the left side of the home here is the mechanical equipment. We show AC uh units and pool equipment. And as you get to the rear yard, um there is a pool patio area and a swimming pool that we're showing. There
are three qualifying trees on the property today that we're removing, but based on the tree ordinance, um we're permitted to remove those three without replacement. We are proposing two street trees as you see on the plan as well. And now for the grading of the property,
which is really one of the variances we're talking about. That's why I wanted to talk about the existing topography. I'm going to turn to sheet three of seven of our plan set which is our grading plan. Just kind of explain what
why we did what we did. So we designed the grading of the property to work with the existing slope from the rear to the front really to accommodate the new home footprint without the need for any new retaining walls. So that existing retaining wall is not is going to be removed and we don't want to replace it.
So what we do is we slope the front yard up to the front of the home. It's about a 3-ft grade change across that front yard. And the goal here by doing that was to try to minimize the number of steps at the front. So we have three steps as currently proposed. At the rear
we have just one step out onto a patio step down onto the proposed patio area. If we added any more steps at the rear, it would require more steps at the front. We were trying to avoid that. So then in order to make this rear yard usable and suitable for the pool and
some limited patio space, what we have to do by as proposed is raise the there's a low part of the backyard really on the east side of the pool area. Um by raising that we do uh exceed
the twoft grade change rule, but as you can see, we're not trying to raise the the backyard all the way up to where the rear property line is. We still do have a slope in this southwest corner of almost 3 ft up to the corner. So, the pool area sits a good two plus feet lower than the neighbor behind us and
also to the west. Uh the runoff condition mimics the existing um most of the site drains towards Howard Avenue today. There's a small sliver on the east side that does drain to our neighbor to the east. By raising this backyard area, it
actually is advantageous to us because it allows us to then drain everything, almost everything except for the site side of the burm that we're proposing out to Howard Avenue. So, we're improving the drainage condition as a result. The limits of the dwelling, the actual, you know, building envelope, the pool,
the patio, uh the driveway, the mechanical equipment, and all the coverages comply as proposed, but we are seeking variances for some of these some other uh pertinent items. So, the existing lot area is non-conforming at 7,878
ft where 10,000's required. The lot width is non-conforming. Um, 90 ft's required and we have 78.02 ft. The front yard setback is required to be 30 ft. The building's at 30.43 itself. The steps protrude as proposed into the
setback and their setback is 27.43. And there's three steps. the steps are uncovered and in my opinion will have a limited visual impact from the street. The minimum both sideyard or combined sideyard setback uh variance we're seeking is really as a
result of the window wells or the areaways were described before. The combined sideyard setback is 25 ft as proposed to the the walls of the home. We're at 26.47. So that exceeds the requirement. However, if because the window wells are treated as part of the
building, the combined setback's 23.14. So, it's a deviation of just under 2 feet. The window wells, as Mr. O'Neal said, will be flush with grade and not visible. Um, they do conform to the 10-ft setback on this side. They're actually proposed over 12 ft away. Uh,
the again, the exterior walls of the dwellings fully comply with the setbacks with a little bit of room to spare on each side. And we are eliminating an existing sideyard setback nonconformity on the west side. We are also seeking a maximum grade change um in the rear yard area where 2
feet's the maximum and we're proposing a grade change um right here on the east side of the pool of up to 3.8 ft. So in terms of the variance justification in my opinion the grade change can be analyzed as a C1 hardship variance due to the unusual topographic condition of
the property today. The existing topography limits the extent to which the property and specifically the rear yard can be developed by right. By requesting this grade change while also avoiding new retaining walls, we actually see a benefit of a more advantageous grading scheme to direct
runoff to the street and not to the neighbors. The combined sideyard setback variance which is triggered by the ACT grade window wells can also be analyzed as a C1 hardship as a result of the narrowness of the lot. If this lot were the compliant 90 ft, they would comply.
Um, but the narrowness limits us here. The front uncovered stair encroachment can be analyzes under the flexible C2 criteria. In my opinion, it's a it's a dimminimous deviation, especially since the stairs are uncovered, and there's only three of them. The following
purposes of the municipal land use law are advanced. Purpose C. Adequate light air and open space is provided. Nearly all the improvements are compliant with the ordinance. Even though we are on an undersized lot, the small stair encroachment does not impede light air and open space. The front step
encroaches 2 and 1/2 ft into the front yard. The steps are uncovered and in my opinion, light air and open space is maintained here as the ordinance intends. Purpose E. This application promotes appropriate population density. Although the lot is undersized, the home and
improvements are nearly fully compliant. This is an appropriately sized home on this lot meeting the building coverage and the height and it's appropriate for the zoning district. The stairs don't contribute to building mass or the floor area and purpose I. This project promotes a desirable visual environment.
The development of this property represents an aesthetic upgrade to the property and the stair encroachment has no effect on the aesthetics. They're designed to be as inconspicuous as possible. Um when we analyze the negative criteria, we must determine if any of the relief sought has an impact
on the public or neighboring properties. So starting with the grade change variance, there is no impact in my opinion. We're actually improving the grading condition on the property, allowing nearly all runoff to be directed towards the street. The window wells are to be constructed at grade and are intended to be imperceptible from
the public rightway or our neighbor to the east. The intent of the sideyard setback regulations is to ensure there's adequate light air and open space between the houses and to create a rhythm on the streetscape. While they do meet this actual the single sideyard setback, the minor
intrusion into the combined sideyard of this great feature has no impact um on that streetscape. And then the front setbacks have little impact visually as well. They're uncovered and slightly above grade. I believe the encroachment is dimminimous in this case like the side setbacks. The intent of the front
setback is to ensure adequate light air and open space in the front yard. Steps have no impact on the light air and open space here. So to summarize, this proposed development would not cause substantial detriment of the public good nor substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. And on
balance, it's my opinion that the benefits of the application substantially outweigh its detriments, if any, giving the board the ability to approve the application with confidence. >> Thank you, Mr. Ward. >> I have a question. >> Sure. >> The proposed placement of the AC unit. Yeah.
That still once it's placed there following the setback limit. >> Those are those meet the required setback of 10 ft. Yeah. They're they're beyond the building the combined building, but they're not uh that doesn't apply to those features. So,
they're fully compliant. >> Do you know how close the neighbor is the adjacent property or what is there? little garage with the bedroom windows. It was giant >> um you know I don't know what exactly is
interior. This A5 here shows the aerial. So we have um it's 15 and 1/2 ft to the wall of our house. Um the equipment and and the areaways or the window wells are 12 ft. Uh this appears to be about 6 feet over on lot 48 to our east. So it's
about 18 feet between the structures. And just a couple of followups, Mr. Ward. Any problems complying with the requirements of Mr. Higgins uh letter of um May 11th? >> No, no, no issues with the >> I think the revised plans that were submitted did comply with the
>> Yes, >> those comments was just >> changing the building height. >> I was away so I didn't have time to do a revised report >> and the labeling of the bedrooms. >> Yes. >> Great. Yes. Thank you. Terrific. >> Um and with regard to uh Mr. Matt Lack's comments. Can you provide some testimony
uh in particular with regards to the 5ft aluminum fence? >> Oh, sure. Yes. So, uh you know, this doesn't show it as well. Um I'm looking at sheet 307 now on our plan. There's a question raised. We're proposing a pool, so we have to have a compliant pool code
fence um which requires it to be fully on our property. We can't rely on the neighbor's fence. The optim here is to our west, which is lot 36.01. there's their fence is about I would say six feet off the property line. There's a six foot chain link fence. Yeah. So,
the concern is what maintenance there. Um it's all it's not our property to maintain. Um you know, we could put a gate there for maintenance, but I I don't think it's our responsibility. Um we're proposing a pool fence for again it has to be our fence. uh we can't rely
on the neighbor >> is there on the I guess in the existing condition there's uh there are sections of fence that run perpendicular to that that fence >> yes >> are those going to stay because that
looks like that'll just create a locked uh area where you can't get into >> so yeah we would end that perpendicular section at the property line as proposed um I think it would behoove us to talk to that neighbor about maybe fully eliminating hitting that perpendicular
section. It's kind again, it's a little I think the prior owner of our property had the benefit of that 6 ft because of where the fences are and they probably thought they had it, but it is it's pretty there's vegetation over there, so it's not exactly like lawn space that you'd mow every every week. Um, but I
think we could work with that neighbor and just let them know where our fence will be if they need to put a gate in or what have you or maybe relocate their fence. Um, yeah. I mean, I I might defer to our attorneys. Is that something that you
need condition that that agreement of the neighbor to remove that that section offense so so that you can access it? >> The problem is the neighbor doesn't agree, >> right? >> That's what the problem is. We have no to the neighbor. >> We could certainly agree to remove, you
know, the perpendicular section that's on our property. That's no issue there. and and we can request of the neighbor. I >> I mean, look, see, no objection for us requesting, you know, I'll I'll make that proper for the board's consideration. No problem reaching out
to the neighbor as a request, but of course, we don't control the neighbor's property. >> Fence in their property, right? >> Yes. >> Is the neighbor here by any chance? >> No. Okay. >> It's it's not the applicant's property. So, I don't know if that I guess that m
means that it's it's not as not their concern, maybe not their not part of the application. >> That's kind of >> uh it's just something that I you know I wanted to bring up that maybe make the board aware. >> Are you okay with the testimony on the um uh grade change?
>> Yes. Uh the the testimony was that the drainage patterns are being maintained or improved and uh I agree with that. You know, everything's still sloping uh towards Howard Avenue. So, I don't have a problem with that. >> Mr. Would you say confidently that under
the plan less drainage over less runoff will go to the neighbor's property? >> Yes. >> Any questions? Any questions from the audience? Come on up, sir. >> We'll need you to come up and grab the
microphone, sir. >> Can I bring him the microphone? >> Yeah. You want to bring it to him? >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> So, I'm just going to swear you in. You swearing testimony. Do you have the information about the truth? >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record?
>> Norm Ginsburg. >> And your address, Mr. Ginsburg. >> Uh I'm at 258 Howard, house immediately adjacent to the east. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah. My my uh
only concerns uh some of which have been met, particularly the drainage. >> Just talking to them. >> Particularly the drainage. Um, but I do have a question about uh three air conditioner condensers uh which you haven't mentioned and may
not be the need a variance for, but I would like to know where those air conditioner condensers will be placed. Will they be between the new house and my house? >> We can show you Pat. Can you flip that? So, >> it's right on the uh
>> Got it now. Yeah. So they're they're proposed on the east side. >> On the east side. That's nice. >> Facing us, you mean? >> Is that your house? >> Yes, it is. >> That's your house. >> Yes. I believe that. Again, not your air conditioner. And again, not to say that
this is a problem for us at all, but your AC, I think, is at the front. >> That is correct. >> Front right corner facing the street. >> So these comply. They have to be 10 ft minimum. They're at 12 ft. So they're >> Okay. So the
The separation from the property line on the east is the is 12 ft not the 10 ft >> air conditioners. The house will be 15 and a half. >> Oh, okay. Uh that's fine. And you've explained the grade change
and etc. I think that's all my questions. >> Thank you very much. And can we just make a general announcement that anyone talking in the even if you think you're whispering please don't do so because the tape is actually picking you up. Uh it's very
it's very sensitive. Any other questions? Any comments on this application? Applicant rest chairman board members thank you for the opportunity to make the presentation. All right. So we'll close the public
hearing. Do we have a motion? >> Motion to close. >> Second. >> We closed it already. We motion for approval. >> Motion for >> There we go. >> All right. Mr. Ashkenazi, >> yes. >> Mr. Chammorra, >> yes. >> Miss Libman,
>> yes. >> Mr. Fuji Ali, >> yes. >> Mr. Lineski, >> yes. >> Uh, Vice Chairman Daneiro, >> yes. >> Chairman Fuller, >> yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, chairman and board members and Mr. Donner for the accommodation. Good evening everyone.
Okay, next we have two Texas Avenue LLC, 219 Lewis Street, block 17, lots 26 and 44. Mr. Donner, I don't know if you think that was quick or not, but you could tell us after Mr. Akens leaves.
Good night. Thank you. Good luck. >> So, as we start, Mark, I think you have to handle >> We have a bunch of housekeeping to do on this one. So, just give me a moment. >> Um, >> all right. When we were last here, Mr. chairman. Uh well, originally we came
here in September and in September we got up to exhibit A6 in we then returned in November and we were here briefly and I'm told by Nicole which is I'll take blame for it that we
did not mark anything in that evening. So I just want to deal with that for housekeeping purposes. At that point, we had architectural plans which were revised through November 4th, 2025. I'm going to mark that in as exhibit A7.
We had a plot plan uh which was revised through November 6, 2025. We're going to mark in exhibit A8. We then had the following board additional board exhibits. Uh the zoning officer report dated November 14, 2025 was exhibit B4.
Board's planners report dated November 18, 2025 is exhibit B5. The board engineers report dated November 17, 2025 was exhibit B6. So that then brings us to today. And we have the following
additional exhibits this evening. Uh exhibit A9 are going to be the architectural plans which have now been revised through February 27th, 2026. That's exhibit A9. and the plot plan which has now been revised through through February 16, 2026 is going to be
exhibit A10. And then we have the zoning officers report which is now dated March 24th, 2026. That's going to be exhibit B7. Board planners report which is dated 318, 2026 is going to be exhibit B8. And the board engineers report dated March
13, 2026 is going to be exhibit B9. So that should be everything. Um, there's also a the drains report was marked a while ago. So, so I think we're okay. Um, as far as that, Mr. Bonner, is there anything else that you can think of that we need to mark?
>> Uh, I just have two additional exhibits. >> Uh, we introduced these photos last time, but sort of incompletely. So, I like this as the next a exhibit in order. the A11 and and this is this photographs of the interior
>> the interior of the existing uh building which shows commercial use of building cabinets is whether that can establish that use and uh my client Mr. Matut will in fact testify that he took these
pictures and they are accurate portrayals of what the interior of the premises looked like at that time. So those are six photographs on one, two, three, on four sheets and that's exhibit A1. >> Correct. And then we have A12. I have a
larger size of this, but for purposes of your convenience, this would be the next exhibit. This is just a rendering of what the new design of the renovation will look like. >> All right. So that's going to be A12 is a is a draw artistic rendering of what
the house is going to look like. Okay, >> that's fine. All right. So, yeah, hold up till we get to it. And then, Mr. Donner, I know for the record, uh, I received an email from you at I
guess you said about 4:30. I saw at about 5:00 tonight, uh, over an issue which I know that Mr. Assad, who's representing an objector, uh, had sent a while back arguing over whether this is actually a through lot or not in the rear. came with my
>> um I know you actually noticed I just reviewed your notice at the beginning of this hearing. You actually noticed for the through lot issue >> even though we dispute it but >> you dispute it and you note that in your notice >> I want to have the jurisdiction. >> So so it's in there. >> Um but I think in order to proceed just
so we all know what we're doing here tonight that we should probably argue that issue first. Okay. >> And get the through lot out of the way. >> Great. >> So if you want to start and then I'll let Mr. Assad come up and rebut and then you can answer and then the board can make a ruling.
>> Absolutely. Members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to allow me to make this presentation regarding whether or not 219 Lewis Street is in fact a through lot. Now, the definition of a through lot under the land use ordinance is a lot that flows from one street to
the other. In our case, it would if we are a through lot, it would flow from 219 Lewis Street where we're situated back to Jerome Avenue. But as we will see, and I have some details, and uh Mr. Zanillo, who is our engineer tonight,
will point it out on his engineering plan what I'm talking about. Jerome Avenue does not abut our property. Our property consists of lot 26, which is where the residence that we're proposing will be located, and lot 44 that we're
looking to consolidate with lot 26, which is at the rear part close to Jerome Avenue. But Jerome Avenue is only improved up to a point that is before the rear line of 44. Okay. So what is
the continuation of Jerome Avenue is basically trees and woods and impassible and is not a functional roadway whatsoever. So when we look at the facts, the question becomes, do we need a front yard variance because we have
some type of a through lot with functional frontage on Jerome Avenue, or are we looking at that as a technicality because Jerome Avenue hasn't been improved up to our lot, but technically there's a right of way that could be
improved. But we're called upon, I believe, and I going to give you some authority in this direction that when you read the zoning ordinance, we're not there to look at hyper techchnicalities. What we are there is to look at what is actually being dealt with and what is
the actual function that we're talking about. There's no doubt that our property at 219 Lewis Street is oriented to a front yard on Lewis Street and there's no potential frontage whatsoever that we could be oriented to Jerome
Avenue for a second front yard. So, we're not a through lot. And u the the one thing I gave to uh both Mr. Assad and Mr. uh Lexine. Uh I don't know that I've had a chance to necessarily look at it, but it's really a fairly simple
concept. This is a Supreme Court decision. It was issued in 2004. Case is called Bubis, Bubis versus Cassiden. It took place over here in Lock Arbor, not far from where we are right now. And it was a situation where under the Lock Arbor ordinance, there
was a limitation on the height of fences to 6 feet or less. So the owners of this property at issue went ahead and installed a burm and on top of the burm they put high trees. So what they >> interfere just for a second. I have a
question for Mr. Lexi. I was the planner of record for Miss Bubis on that application that went to the Supreme Court and they referenced me at my testimony at as part of their decision. And I just I don't know if that's a
conflict on my >> I don't think I don't think it's a >> Yeah, I I don't either, but I wanted to get that on the record. >> No, I I think >> it it's an interesting and and the I'll I'll say the attorney who won that case, Glenn Needle, was my father's law
partner in an earlier life. So, so it's a it's a very very small universe. >> I I will also say that the holding of the case matches what Mr. Higgins has said in his current planning report regarding our application. And I'll get to that in a moment. But in the BBA's
case, they put this burm out there. Wasn't a fence. It was a burm. And they put trees on top of the burm. So rather than having a 6-ft barrier, it was actually 18 ft. And needless to say, some of the adjoining uh homeowners were
upset about that. And the issue was, did the ordinance barring a fence apply to this 18t burm? Because a burm is not a fence. And what the Supreme Court said was we have to look at the function. We have to look at the actuality. We have
to look at the practicality. And whatever they did there, it may not be within the definition of a fence, but the function is exactly what a what a fence does. And because you're 18t up in the air rather than 6 feet, that doesn't fly. You're prohibited under the zoning
ordinance from having an 18t burm with trees on it uh under the six-foot limitation of a fence. Now, how does that apply to what we're talking about? The principle that the Supreme Court is talking about is actuality, functionality, and and how things really
are working at a given site. And at our site, there is no front yard orientation to Jerome Avenue. There's no possibility of us using Jerome Avenue as something that's adjacent to our property. We have no frontage either for lot 26. Certainly
nothing there, but not even for lot 44 because the improved portion, the paved portion of Jerome Avenue stops before our lot line of lot 44. So under those circumstances, I think the facts don't
show the definition of a through lot under our zoning ordinance, land use ordinance. We don't have a situation where a lot flows through from Lewis Street all the way to Jerome Avenue. What we have is Drone Avenue situated in a position that may be close to our
property but doesn't give us any functional frontage on it. So on that basis I would contend that in fact we don't need we are not a through lot and we don't need a front yard variance although I did notice for it just to give the board the jurisdiction on the
issue. >> Question any of the cases cited in the Supreme Court case? Yes. Do they do you know if any of them deal with anything other than offenses? Did you >> in other words in in the case?
>> So I'm sure it cites other authorities those can I see that? >> Yeah of course question is in in the code itself. >> It talks about some other issues. >> Does it discuss functionality in the notes? Does it report a functionality or
I just these all deal with senses? I'm not sure how to translate that to this matter when we're looking at a pass through um and if functionality is really applicable if none of the cases discuss anything other than fences.
I I think basically what that case is saying and I didn't get a chance to reread it in detail is that basically the the firm was functioning as a fence and that's why and Mr. Donna you've read it far more intently than I have recently and that's essentially what they said is that the the intent you had
to go to the intent of the ordinance and in this case they didn't define the burm as being the burm and it was acting as a fence. it just wasn't what we traditionally think of as offense and the Supreme Court ruled, you know, it's a firm pretending to be a fence. So therefore, we're going to apply the
defense code and that's essentially what the case stands for. >> I don't know that that's necessarily what's happening here, but but >> that's what I'm trying to understand if any of the cases cited by the Supreme Court perhaps addressed pass through streets or um
>> I don't believe they do. And and then in in the notes for our code, does it discuss functionality as an element of defining a cost? >> No. No. But I wanted to point out one additional thing in Mr. Higgins report
as the planner for the board. He does say at page four, at the top of page four of his most recent report, March 18, 2026, it should be noted that the front yard setbacks of the pool surround and pool are technicalities since they
abut the unimproved portion of Jerome Avenue and we do not function as a front yard. >> So, so Mr. Higgins knows and I say this every single time, there is no such thing as a technical variance. It either is a variance or it's not a variance. Mr. Higgins likes to say technical. It
drives me nuts and I yell at him every single meeting. Uh but but I am pretty consistent on that and the board's heard me say that there's no such thing as a technical variance. Either it is a variance or it's not. >> And I wasn't saying that there was not a variance required. I was saying that it
wasn't a budding a an improved portion of a street. And I think the the important thing here is that the definition of a street in the municipal land use law and also in the ordinance says it's whether improved or
unimproved. >> And that's my issue that whether or not it's an improved piece of Jerome Avenue, it it still passes through. is I don't understand or I don't see where um it is
applicable that functionality is an element of a pastry. >> Well, it becomes applicable under the Supreme Court case. >> You make a good argument. >> It li but but as as a matter of law, not at all to be uh in any way uh stepping
away from Miss Lipman's point, the law does get shaped by what we call the common law, what the courts rule. We don't have a higher ruling in common law in the state than the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Supreme Court of New Jersey says we should look at our
ordinances and consider practicality. >> Do you have any law about pass through streets? Did you look at that? >> Look at what man. >> Do do you look do you have any case law with you? >> Yes. >> About pastors? Did you do any research
on that? Well, I I didn't have a case on that because I I thought that the Supreme Court case is about as good as you can get, but I do have the definition of a through street. >> So, I'm just wondering if if I, you know, looked it up right now on Lexus and it it would show that pass through
streets are pass through streets regardless of functionality. Like I'm just wondering if that has been the holding of courts with regard to >> So, so let me just Mr. If I can I just want to point out because I think this is important to the decision and Mr. Assad still is going to have to speak.
>> Yeah, I was going to ask the the process here just before you go. Should we stop asking I'm going to let you talk? Should we hold on questions until we hear what uh Mr. Assad has to say? >> I mean, I don't mind ask questions, but that's up to you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I would just point out that the case
starts off more or less pointing out that the zoning ordinance in the in this town, which was where it was a Lock Arbor, didn't define what fence was. >> So, the Supreme Court therefore was stuck having to say what I said before.
We're going to go to what the common definition of a fence is, and this firm is acting as what we understand to be. That's different than what we have here in Ocean Township because we specifically define what a street is. we specifically define what a through lot is. So I'm not sure this this case is
completely applicable because it doesn't meet the same facts. >> No, it it it the definition as I said says a through lot is a lot that flows from one street to another. Okay. Now understand that's the definition. What do you do with what the Supreme Court
has said that when you look at your definitions, you should consider the practicality and functionality. There is no other Supreme Court decision that takes away or changes the meaning of what I just gave you. And there's no other court in the state that has the
ability to reverse the Supreme Court. So what I'm going to suggest respectfully to this board is that the Supreme Court has added law to the interpretation of your land use ordinance. And in cases like this, you should consider doesn't
mean you're bound, but you should consider the practicality and functionality and what is actually happening. There's no way that my client is going to be able to utilize Jerome Avenue. There's no way that my client
has a front yard that's oriented to Jerome Avenue. >> But but wouldn't that mean then? I'm sorry, Jim. Go ahead. >> The question I have is you have an unimproved street, >> right? a section of it. Who's to say it's not going to be improved in the future? What you're saying is it's never
going to be improved and it might very it could be improved right up to the very end of the of the right of way. >> Well, I think we have to f we have to deal with the facts on the ground right now. A lot of things can happen changes can happen on any piece of property and
any adjoining street in the township. But Mr. Donna we make decisions on what's existing in the application. I just think the issue with regard to the definition is so salient here because we have the municipal ordinance and the
>> our code our regulations also define what a passage is unlike your Supreme Court case where they were seeking a definition. This is probably one of the reasons it went all the way up to the Supreme Court. I just don't see how the
facts are so distinguished here. I don't see how this is applicable >> and and I would just Mr. done by that logic that you're advocating like a paper street. Would would you not make any setbacks? This is a paper street that isn't likely to be developed at any point in time.
>> Well, if you need the variance because it's deemed to be a food lot through food lot. I made an application for it. >> I'm not disputing that you did. >> I do need it, but I certainly if the board disagrees with me on that point, obviously I'm going to be applying for it. Uh >> I I'm just asking you to follow your
logic. If there was a paper street, do not the setbacks apply to a paper street? It It's not something you can access. You can't drive down a paper street, but but we routinely in this board and every other board I represent, we always apply the stepbacks to a paper street.
>> Well, under the Supreme Court case, I would answer your question. No, because the practicality and the actuality would would disprove that approach. However, even if that paper street gets extended and it's only the the extent of it is
only a few feet, okay? It only comes maybe just adjacent to lot 44. It doesn't touch lot 26 at all. With what we're proposing now in terms of the cool and the area that we're going to have there and the walls and the retaining
walls, they can they could put the the the street right on right on through as far as it could go. We're not going to use it. We're not going to be oriented to it as a front yard. >> Speaking of the pool, how are you gonna put the pool in without using Jerome Avenue? >> How we put it where with what?
>> The pool. How are you going to put the pool out? >> I don't understand the question. >> I would say how how are you going to dig the pool out? I The only way to do it is using Drum Avenue. >> He's asking how are you going to install the pool and access it? >> I walked that lot. It's only
>> 35 ft wide. >> 35 ft wide. >> Unless you're going to take it out. improvements that >> I I uh haven't addressed that. We My engineer may have an answer to that and my architect may have an answer. I think there is space around the existing
building to uh to construct this. I think nine over 9 ft on one side. >> So, if I can just make a recommendation that we hold off on that type of question. >> Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to hear from Mr. Assad uh if we could and then Mr. Donner will come back with any further questions and
then figure out our next steps. Nicole, could you give my mic? >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Hope I'm talking too close into the mic. Yeah, sorry about that. So whether
>> I think we need to make your >> Oh, I'm sorry. Kevin Sotti on behalf of Jay Stolman. Jay Scholman lives at 400 Jerome Avenue, which is adjacent to lot 44. >> Sorry. >> Is it right side, left side? I'm just curious.
>> If you're if you're standing on Jerome Avenue, lot 44 would be sort of to the right. >> Can you kind of show us where I I'm sure it's not exactly on there, but it' be more or less >> So he would be this lot right here. >> Okay.
I I I think it's up a little higher actually. Is it? Yeah. >> I think my engineering will back back me up that he would be across Jerome Avenue over like over here. Okay. He's not. >> Oh, no. He's adjacent. He's adjacent.
>> I've stood there and looked at it. >> I don't believe he is. He's on the other side of Jerome. >> We happen to have somebody here. >> What was the address? >> 400 Jerome. >> Yeah. 43. What is that? >> It's right here.
>> Yeah, >> it's not included. 43. It's >> It's adjacent. >> Okay. >> Right. So, we'll establish for the record that I thought was >> okay. I was the wrong law. I thought he was right over here. >> Got the idea is adjacent. >> So, I've never heard of this proposition
before that for it to front on a street, the pavement has to actually be paved all the way up to the property line. No, we all know that that's not true. Okay. Um, and as far as functionality, does this function as a primary art? Doesn't
matter. Um, the the site itself, if you look at the um if you look at the plot plan, at least in prior editions, I'm not sure if tonight's version of it has this, but there's a gate from the pool area that opens up into Jerome Avenue.
Now, how can you simultaneously argue that the frontage on Jerome Avenue is insignificant and technical and not functional and shouldn't be regarded by the board if we're actually using it to exit our backyard onto the public right
of way of Jerome Avenue? This means if we're having a party in the back, maybe the guests should come and park on Jerome Avenue and walk through the gate. This means people that want to walk from Lewis onto Jerome, if they have permission, could cut right through.
It's a public right of way. So to say it's not a through street, it just makes no sense. Now, Miss Litman, Mr. Lexine stole a lot of my thunder, so I'm not going to repeat the points that you've already made, but there is a point on the Bubis case that
has not been mentioned. Um although it's been touched on and while in the Bubis case the word fence wasn't a defined term in the ordinance and that's why the courts had to figure out what they mean by fence. Right here it's defined and
when a term is defined bubis says where statutory language is clear courts should give it effect unless it is evident that the legislature did not intend such meaning. So here we have a situation where you have a defined term. The language couldn't be more clear. The
situation on the surveys, the application materials, the tax map, that couldn't be more clear. The intention to use Jerome A as a right of way by virtue of the poolgate couldn't be more clear. This is a through lot. There's no doubt
about it. And you know, I'm not going to belabor it. I think I heard a lot of the same points made that I was going to raise, so I'm not going to repeat those points. Um but I think it's very clear that the board should find this is a through lot. >> Can we just get the definition? Someone
say it precisely. What is the definition of the ru under under our >> ordinance? Any of your letter I have your case. I don't know if I pointed your letter out >> through lot shall mean a lot running through from one street to another. A
corner lot shall not be considered a through lot. And just for the board's edification, it defines a corner lot as as a lot that's at one or more two or more intersecting streets. Clearly Jerome and Lewis don't intersect. So
it's it's a through lot. And also in the definition of street, it it says there's a catchall at the end that that there's like four different categories that can be a street. And then at the end it says and that a street shall be improved or unimproved.
>> So Jim, in your opinion, this is a through law. >> Yeah, it's a through line. >> Does anyone have questions? >> I'll take a guess for an answer. >> I was going to see. Does nobody Does anybody have questions for Mr. Assad? >> Kevin, where does it say Mr. Assad? Sorry. Where does it say in um in the
case that you're referencing that um here in what section? >> I I only just got the case. I only just saw it at six o'clock, but I read it on my phone. I could probably locate that for you pretty pretty quickly.
>> And if you have the headnotes, it's one of the it's one of the first headnotes. I think it's headnote number two. Just joking. >> It's in two and it's a second head note. And let me just see where the second
head. But it does say headnote two is where statute where statutory language is clear. court should give it effect unless it is evident the legislature did not intend such meaning. Moreover, statutory provisions should be given their literal significance unless it is clear from the text and purpose of the
statute that such meaning was not intended. So that's the second headnote of the case. I'm just having trouble finding that within the case itself, but I have no doubt that it's in here. Well, it's ultimately up to the board.
Uh I I tend to agree with Jim and Miss Litman. Oh, here it is. I found it. It and and the case says I'll I'll read it right now. In determining whether the fence violates the ordinance, we must adhere to the principles of statutory construction. Where statutory language is clear, court should give it effect
unless it is evident the legislature did not intend such meaning. Uh that's the Rumson Estates Inc. versus Mayor of Fair Haven uh case. Moreover, statutory provisions should give their literal significance unless it is clear from the text and purpose of the statute that
such meaning was not intended. >> Yeah. And as far as is and I'll just add to this as far as the intention of the legislature, >> the people in Jerome A are going to be looking at somebody's swimming pool that's adjacent to their own front
yards. You know, you you pull up your driveway and instead of seeing your neighbor's front yard, you see a swimming pool and swimming pool area, you know, accessories. This is exactly the kind of thing that this through lot ordinance is trying to prevent. Not cars
coming in from both sides, but having someone's backyard in someone else's front yard. And that's what we have here. >> Okay. >> It's up to the board. I mean, the board >> I I have some I want to make it very easy for this board. I have no intention
to litigate with Mr. Assad in the appellet division. I already have a case in the appellet division. Uh uh what I want to do is withdraw that situation that that uh exemption from the through lot and I want the board to consider
affirmatively granting me the variance for the front yard in this in this matter. And I will also say that that gate is going to be eliminated. We're not there's not going to be any gate. There happens to be a line on a plan right now. We're removing that gate.
That's number two. Number three, no one's going to see this pool because one of the variances that Mr. Higgins has asked us to get or at least mentioned to the board is that we have a fence and then another wall adjacent to it. So, there's going to be 6.3 ft of barrier
between the pool and anything beyond the borderline of lot 44. So, that pool will not be in anybody's face and uh uh that's not our intention. withdrawing the application for the pass through then um
>> you we are saying then that this is a pass through street you're >> I'm not litigating that issue that is >> I'm just wondering >> yeah he's asking for the variance >> how it affects the other how it affects the case overall >> what is the impact >> the impact as I understand it is that I
would need a front yard for front yard variance for uh the uh portion of the property lot 44 four uh as it borders on Jerome Avenue. >> Thank you. >> So, we're we're basically talking about
Jerome Avenue is not squarely faced with the uh back part of our lot 44 is really off the It's the side of lot 44. >> You need a var variance in the fence that that's furniture. >> You also need the variance for the
swimming pool in the front yard. Yeah, >> it would be the swimming pool to surround the fence. Uh, I'm asking for that varian. >> So, I'm just going to point out um because now I'm thinking about it and and I'll leave it to you, but the notice
that was there's no you didn't notice for a variance for a pool in a front yard. You notice for the setback in a front yard. So, I'm just pointing that out. Um, how you want to proceed with that? >> I do. I most definitely noticed for uh
side door set back and rear door setback. >> You did on on the accessory features including the wall. Yes. And I do have some cash on my notice looking for any additional variance that I might need in the course of the hearing. I already covered accessory items and sideyard and
grard setback. So, I treat it be within the uh the catch all phrase that the public was had adequate notice. >> And and I'm not necessarily saying it's fatal, but I just wanted to bring it to your attention that that that that was not noticed. The actual prohibition
against pools in the front yard is not in your notice. Um so again, I don't think I'm not going to say it's fatal. I just wanted to put on the record for you to be aware of it >> because you do have an you do have an objector to this application. >> Okay. I I understand. I've noticed as
much as I can and if I have to fight him, I'll have to fight him for the people before. That's what I do for a living. >> Mr. Assad, do you have any comments or >> before we go into the heart of the application again? >> Yes, please.
>> So, we make sure we get you. >> I could probably speak from here. Sorry. >> I think if this issue were clear from the very start, this is the kind of thing that would be in a notice, uh, swimming pool in a front yard area. Um,
I my client's here, so he's not been deprived of of fair notice. I don't know who else resides on Jerome Avenue that might take exception to a swimming pool in the front yard area, but nobody that I represent currently.
>> Okay, >> Mark, it's fair to say we're not going to complete this tonight. >> Um, what are we at? >> We're at a half hour. >> We're at a half hour now. >> Um, so I imagine >> So, Mr. We have a 45minut uh limitation
for all applications. >> Well, I saw that Mr. um Aikens only took uh about 30. >> That gives me >> I'll give you those 10 minutes. >> Fair play another 10 minutes or so since I was at sport. >> I will give you those 10 minutes, but I
still I I highly doubt we're going to finish this evening. >> 20 minutes. So I imagine um you'll have to notice and then when you notice then it'll be for all these things that right pool in the front yard set back and all that stuff and so the issue of notice
will kind of take care of itself. >> I I I I'm I'm disputing that I need a separate notice on that. I want to go forward. >> Okay. Well, we can talk about that. >> You know what? I just want to confer with my client about that. Can I have 30 seconds? >> Yeah, sure. Certainly. I think it would be important for us to understand what all the variances are
going to be. >> Yeah, >> they are going to have to come back with a hole in the list. >> Yeah. >> The engineers test go through it all. the other night. >> I don't even know like what's the front
yard? Is it just this or is it this whole? >> No, >> it would be the two short pieces. >> It's just these two short >> that one going north south. >> So three. >> So theoretically from this corner >> I think I'm going for the record of the most adjournments on any one
application. If that's so I want an award going to adjourn because I see no reason to expose my client to a uh technical excuse me using the term a technical objection on jurisdiction or whatever.
We'll come in we'll notice to the world everything and hopefully in the next meeting in June we'll present the entire application and this time Mr. Akens is going to have to fend for himself. So, so I just I want to um make sure out
of the out of fairness to everyone, this board ceases to exist after the June meeting because it's being consolidated into the planning board. >> We'll start again. >> Yeah. And and that's So, I just want to make I just wanted to make sure that was on the record that you were aware of that. If we don't finish in June, um I
imagine what you would have to do is get the transcripts and give it to whatever the new board is that that that's going to be historic for new exhibits and everything like that. >> I don't know. I'm I'm going to have to think about that. I don't know. But we'll talk about it. But hopefully we will finish in June.
>> We finish in June. We don't have that problem. >> You don't have that problem if we finish in June. >> Can you make sure that when you come back all those new variances associated with this >> front yard setback? Yes. >> Are listed then? Because I >> Yes, sir. I I don't want you to think we didn't list a lot of variances. I mean,
I have >> He listed a lot of variants full of variances. I'm not adverse to listing. >> Yeah. No, I just don't know what the new ones are based off of this new requirement. >> It's going to We're going to We're going to rely on our our experts to walk us through them. Yeah. >> Everything else I believe is covered. I
will do my level best. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, board members. >> One second, Jeff. Just one second. >> Yes. I'll have the review. All right. So, what's going to happen? The conversation just happened on our side. I know there multiple conversations is Jim asked Colleen whether the zoning
officer would issue a new letter based upon the establishment that this is a through lot. And the question the answer from Colleen was yes, she will. So, there will be a new zoning officer letter to you so that you can basically work off of that. >> Okay.
>> And I will also amend my >> do an amended report listing those variances too. May I have my case back? I sort of >> By the way, for the board's edification, Miss Bumis won the case and she lost the
battle because she lost her house during Sandy. And if that BM had been there, she might not have lost her house. >> See, practicality and functionality. >> All right. And Okay. So, >> I know there All right. So, so Mr. Chairman, I think there's a member of
the audience, the member of the public who has an issue with that date. So, I just want her, you want to give her a chance just to be heard, I think, out of fairness. >> Uh, yeah, we can do that. >> Ma'am, go. You want to stand up and take the mic and just tell us who you are and
what's going on. I just keep seeing your hand go up. So, >> yeah, you have to take you have to take the mic and I might not let them answer the question, but it's going to depend. What is the date to call for the June meeting? >> June 17.
>> M if you could come over and just grab the microphone. >> Identify yourself. >> Dorothy Goodrich, 221 Lewis Street. >> Thank you. Go ahead, Miss Goodri. >> Uh, one of my questions was, you know, if this isn't finished after the June
meeting, when's the next meeting after? When when did we get together again? It would be it would we don't know as as Colleen's saying but >> presumably it would be in July. It's just going to be a different board. So
what so Mr. If we don't finish in June and the intent will be to finish in June. If we don't finish in June then we'll then there's going to be a reorganization which there would have been anyway at the July meeting. >> That's what we're going to find out what date that is. That meeting
will happen. business or you >> Oh, I hear what I hear what you're saying. Okay. >> July 22nd is the plan. Oh, no. No. I'm sorry. >> July 27th for July. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> I'll just mention I do have other objections which >> So, we can't go in. I'm not going to like >> Right. I understand that. >> An objection about the application. >> I understand that. >> I will. But you just want me to talk about the fence in the back? >> No, I don't. Oh, you just wanted me to
ask my question. >> All we wanted to know was it I thought you had an issue over the date. >> No, no, the it's fine. The next meeting is fine and the and the July 27th meeting is fine. I was concerned if you
had the July meeting earlier than planned. Okay. Okay. That's that's all I wanted to know. Thank you. >> All right, Mr. Chairman, we are carrying this application to the June 17th meeting in this room at 700 p.m. You
will not re You want to talk about notice? I mean, I don't Oh, you're going to give new notice. >> So, he's going to give no, right? He's going to give new notice. So, you're going to get the notice, but nevertheless, be here on June 17th in this room at 7 p.m. regardless of whether you got the notice or not. So,
how soon does he have to be able to you need the letter from the town to be able to do proper notice, right? >> He has to do it within 10 days. Um, I know time's growing very short. You might just >> I don't know if it's going to be >> I think I know where the zoning off is
coming from. She did mention something that effect in the existing letter. >> Okay. >> Just want us to recognize that you need that information quickly and be able to do that, right? >> Proliferate notices. That's all. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Don. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you board members.
>> June 17th is a Wednesday. >> Okay. Our next case is Zachary and Gretchen Wilson, 1307 Edgewood Avenue, block 127, lot 17. See you later. Happy night. Just going
to make sure There's no >> because I will walk off. >> I'll give it to That's the most important thing. I've proven notic. >> Okay. And your pajamas. >> Mr. Wilson, you ready?
>> How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Just give me one moment. Sure. I just want to make sure I get organized. I apologize. Dr. Gretchen Wilson. All right. I'm going to mark in the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 will be
the survey. Exhibit A3 will be the architectural plan. Uh, exhibit B1 as in board one will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. And exhibit T3 will be the board engineers report. And Mr. Wilson, let me just uh swear you in. The swearing testimony you're going to give
this evening will be the truth, the whole truth, looking for yourself, Scott. >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Zachary Wilson. >> Hi, Mr. Wilson. You are under oath. U Mr. Chairman, it's all yours. >> Okay. Okay. Mr. Wilson, if you could explain to us uh what you're doing and
uh your understanding of what uh variances you need, please. >> Sure. Um we are adding a second story addition to our um split level on the left side where there's there's a single level. Um we're going to do a porch upgrade. We're going to cover the porch
and we're going to u relocate the porch steps to the front and the walkway to the front. Um the house is currently at a 23.5 ft setback and the porch is 18.6. This all makes sense cuz
um and so with the change the house will just be a little bigger with 24.9 set back and then with the stairs in the front would be 13.6. Um should I talk about the stairs? >> Okay, so your stairs are going 5 ft closer.
>> Yeah, so right now the current stairs are on the side. They're very steep. They're dangerous. Um we have a lot of old people in our family. uh when bad weather it just it's not a good situation. So for safety reasons is one of the reasons we want to move into the front. We want a more of a grade with
the stairs, safer stairs, a little bit wider. Um and also with the plans um of the covered porch aesthetically it looks much nicer. Um our street, you know, south one of Mass, if you're heading west, it's perpendicular to Edgewood.
And we are the house you see when you walk west on that street. if you drive west on that street. So, you know, aesthetically in the curb appeal, it'll look good for the neighborhood. >> Okay. >> So, it's just a front yard setback. >> That's it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> A little easier than the last one.
>> We can make it. >> Uh Jim, do you have any um comments? >> No, the only comment I have couple comments about Sure. >> Uh the architectural plans. >> Sure. >> Uh what are the number of bedrooms? >> Okay. So, we currently have four bedrooms and we are adding a bedroom but
taking away a bedroom. >> So, we're still only going to have four bedrooms aren't increasing. So, it doesn't affect the parking requirement. >> Correct. >> It's the same. Um, and uh that there's there's a shed in the rear
yard that's non-conforming. Should it ever be uh replaced, it should be put in a conforming location. >> Okay. Other than that, I I don't have I wanted to hear testimony as to why they were relocating the steps and making the setback smaller, but that makes sense.
If it's not a safe condition and this is a safer and a much more aesthetically pleasing condition, I don't have a problem. >> Yeah. And you said in the past steps usually are considered a worthy exemption, right, from events. Mr. Malik, do you have anything? Uh the only
thing I I had was uh there's a a garage that with a garage door that um opens to the back of the house. >> Correct. >> But there's no driveway that uh leading up to the garage door. Is is that >> you ever going to put in your driveway?
>> No, we when we bought the house, the driveway went to the back and it was half the backyard. We never used the garage. Used as like a workshop, stored bikes. Um, and so we just got rid of the driveway in the back and put in sod for the kids to play. >> Okay.
>> It'll it'll never be a garage. >> Okay. >> Any questions for Mr. Wilson? Any questions for the public? Any comments from the public? All right. We'll close the public hearing. Can I get a motion?
>> Move the positive resolution. >> I'll second. Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Litman. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Vice Chiro. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> All right. Thank you. Have a good night. >> Oh, you had professionals. We could have had him talk. >> We gave him an off. >> You guys never want to let the architect know. >> You don't have to pay him if he doesn't talk.
I listen to him all day. >> We have you. We don't need. >> All right. Uh, next we have Lewis Victoria Hoffstein. Uh, sorry, or Hoffstein. Uh, 487 Stafford Street, West Alenhurst, Block 73, lot 13.
>> Good evening. Jeffrey Beman of Beacon Law Firm. I represent Lewis and Victoria Hoffstein. properties 487 Stapus Street, West Allenhurst. Uh, and the block and lot is block 73, lot 13. While um, Mr.
Bell's getting ready here, I'll just go over quickly what we're doing here as far as >> Let me mark in. >> All right. So, I have the following exhibits. Exhibit A1, it will be the variance application itself. Exhibit A2
will be the color photos of the existing landscaping. Exhibit A3 will be the fence specs. Exhibit A4 will be the survey of the property. Exhibit A5 will be the architectural plan. Exhibit A6 will be the plot grading plan. I then have the following board exhibits.
Exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board engineers report. Exhibit B3 will be the board's planners report. And exhibit B4 will be the board's planner report with respect to the landscaping. >> Yes.
So quick overview. Uh the applicant has a uh uh two and a half story dwelling that is um fronting three streets. So we are asking for variances for front yard setbacks as a result of the uh existing three streets. Uh we are also asking for
a slight building coverage uh which uh will be explained uh what that is for but uh in essence is about 80 square ft uh the building coverage. We're asking for 25.8% 8% um building coverage where where 25% is permitted. Um in addition
to that, we uh again we have a lot with three streets. We're asking for a variance for a front yard setback to the pool patio that's being proposed. Uh the pool is fully compliant. The pool equipment will be compliant. Any additional equipment as far as um uh
mechanicals will also be compliant as far as the application goes. So this evening I have my clients here. if there are any questions, but I also have Jeffrey Bellow, architect, who prepared the architectural plans and also worked with Charles Sermont to prepare the um plot plan.
>> Okay. Sorry, let me swear in. Do you swear any testimony about the give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth about South? >> Yes, sir. >> And just state your name for the record. >> It's Jeffrey Bell. B L >> and you're a licensed architect state of New Jersey. >> Correct. >> Are you a RA or AIA? >> RA.
>> All right. Thank you. And your license is in good standing? >> Yes, sir. Thank you very much. >> So, Mr. Bell, if you could just explain what's being proposed here as far as the uh the two front facades, particularly as we're talking about Stafa Street as
well as Beachwood Avenue >> and we're referring to sheet A2. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um so this um is the proposed uh front elevation. Um and this is the other front elevation. Um
we're proposing um squaring off the building essentially. Um there's corners missing from the the bulk in the when you're looking at this this portion is set back currently. And when you're looking at this side, this portion here
is also um set back existing. So, we're proposing to fill this in with um twotory and fill this part in with twotory also. >> And Jeff, if you want to just go back to the plot plan
and if you could just show the board on from the plot plan, those areas that you just talked about as far as infill. >> Sure. That would be this part here and this L-shaped piece here. >> All right. And when we're talking about that L-shaped piece, there's actually a
piece that's existing within that area. If you can just identify that, >> that would be it's shown here, but there's also a faint line that indicates that this is an existing um singlestory part of the uh structure. >> And and the plot plan is shown shaded in
because you're proposing to go up in that area. Is that accurate? >> That's correct. Here and here. So, if you just show that area that you were talking about, >> this area >> and this L-shaped area here.
>> So, as far as the setback's concerned, are you going any closer to Stafford Street than the existing dwelling? >> No, sir. the uh proposed is flush with the existing um part of the uh house on Stafford Street.
>> And in addition to that, you're proposing a wraparound porch. >> Correct. So, is there an existing covered porch? Uh we propose having it wrap around and go the length of the house to the rear um being equal to that existing singlestory portion of the
house. >> And that covered porch, is there anything above it? Uh, no, >> just roof. >> Just roof. It's just it's just a covered porch. Um, and that's um proposed to um ease the massing of the house along with
the uh roof structure to um preserve the light, air, and open space to make it so it doesn't seem so large um and that much of an addition to make it blend in. and uh the hip roofs the the existing design is we're making making it very
similar just a little bit taller. >> Can we go back to sheet A2? >> So now that we have the uh the facade plans again and you show on A2 where the um the wraparound porch is on both of those frontages.
So we would start here where this is the existing part and then the new part would be here and then turn the corner and go down the length of the structure. >> Um and and in your opinion as an architect does that create a uh any
aesthetic value to the property? >> It does. It creates um a nice shaded space on the south facing portion of the house. So it'll help with heat gain. Uh it'll also um makes the house um you know look a little nicer and have it breaks up the facade um and makes it
more interesting. So it's not like we're looking at the side of the building. The um the owners wanted to um make an effort to have this side look appealing as well as the front when dealing with the multiple front edges. And the fact
that we have a a lot with three streets, does that have any impact on developability of this pro property? >> Uh yes. The um the zoning laws make it um difficult to um to fulfill any of the well um setbacks.
>> One of the variances that we're asking for is building coverage. >> Correct. >> Right. Can you just explain uh how large square footage wise that what we're asking for? I believe it's uh 80 square feet. >> And and the singlestory
uh wraparound porch, how large is that? >> This part here? >> Yeah. The entire wraparound porch approximately, how large is that area? >> Um square footage wise or dimension? >> Square footage. >> Um it's not noted on here, but we have uh
roughly 52 u by 8 is the proposed size. So somewhere in the neighborhood of 4 to 500 square feet. >> Yes. >> You said 52 by 8. >> Uh roughly. Yes. >> Um
and so the other thing we're asking for and we'll go back to the plot plan. Um the beginning of this project, you were involved with assisting the applicants preparing the plot plan. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Um and one of the things they were proposing to do is a pool.
>> Correct. Yeah. And as far as the pool is concerned, location of the pool, it's the pool itself is in a compliant location as far as front yard and the rear yard setback. >> Correct. >> Um the patio to the south side, which is the right side >> right here.
>> The other side. >> This side. >> Yes. That patio area that's being proposed, that's also conforming to the front yard setback at being at least 30 ft. >> Correct. And we're proposing a small uh setback deviation on the left side, the
north side. Um and what is that dimension? >> Uh 15.5. >> And we're proposing the patio to be 15.5 on that side. Correct. >> Correct. Which makes it align with the existing concrete patio. And it is also a more desirable uh space of the yard to
be used for sunning and uh poolside. A and as far as that patio is concerned, the fact that this property has three streets, there's going to be some limitations on setbacks. >> Correct. >> If it were sideyard setback, would we even have a variance?
>> No. >> And the other question is as far as the total impervious coverage, what we're proposing is completely compliant impervious coverage. Correct? >> That's correct. Yep. So, if we just quickly reiterate the variances, we're
looking for two variances on the Beachwood side. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> And one one of those variances is the setback to the structure, the the actual living area >> that's here. Yep. >> Right. And what's what's that distance?
>> Um 15 + 8. It's uh 23.3 ft. >> And that's the same as what's existing as well? >> It's in line with the existing U frame. And then the porch setback, what is the proposed singlestory porch setback? >> 15 ft. >> And in the front yard of Statha Street
again, what's the variance we're proposing? >> Um, it's 20.8 ft >> which is in line with the existing building. >> And the ex there's an existing singlestory covered porch as well. >> Correct. >> And what's the the depth of that or the
setback of that? >> It's uh 20.8 ft. Actually, no. Sorry. That's uh 13.1 ft to that. >> 13.1. And And again, we're not going any closer to that the staff street. >> Correct. Correct. >> Yeah. And the intention was to um have
the uh porch corner be curved so we're maintaining the same distance. So with the geometry of the building, it makes a nice turn and uh when it makes its way down to uh Beachwood Avenue. >> And what's the depth of porch?
Um, I think it was around 8 ft roughly. Roughly 8 ft. >> As an arch architect, is that a pretty standard depth porch? >> Um, it's it makes it usable. Smaller than that, you know, it's tough to furnish. Um, things get tight. So 8 ft
is is good enough for a small table with uh with walk through with pass through. >> All right. Thank you. I have no other questions. Any questions? No questions. >> Any questions from the audience?
Come on up. >> So, these are question. We're going to try to limit these questions to the testimony of the architect. How many witnesses, Mr. Beman, do you have? >> I I only have the architect. >> You only have the architect. All right. I guess ma'am, do you just swear that any
testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. You got >> Yes, I do. >> And just state your name uh is by your last name for the record, please. >> Melanie Nolan. N O W L I N. >> N O W L I N. >> Yeah. >> And it's Melanie. >> And what's your address?
>> I own property at 605 Laurel Avenue. >> Laurel Avenue. Okay. Is that anywhere near this propert? It's right around the corner. >> It's around the corner. Okay. But it's not it's not immediately adjacent, but it's around the corner. >> No. >> Okay. >> I just have a question um about
impermeable coverage. How much is allowed? Because you're going to have a pool and a patio around the pool. That all adds to impermanmeable coverage. And since we are in a flood zone and >> coverage is very important in that area.
Why don't just just uh indicate what the coverage is allowed and what the coverage is proposed. >> So total coverage >> yes total coverage >> we have um
existing is uh 3,1 50 square ft and their proposed is 4,50 square ft. >> So what is >> and the max the max percent is 6500? So they're way under. >> So that's that's 40.5%.
>> That's right. They're permitted%. >> The maximum is how much? >> 65%. They're at they're proposing 40.5. >> So 65% coverage. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> It's all here if you want to take >> fine. I just did not know what the
coverage limit for ocean was. I'm kind of surprised that it's that much since we're, you know, blocked from the lake. >> It's different in different zones, but in this zone, it's 65%. >> Sir, let me do the same thing. Do you do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth of all?
>> Yes, sir. >> I'm sorry. from. >> Yeah. Maybe come over here. >> Jean T. >> And spell the last name, please. >> T A E T S C H. >> T A H T C H. >> S C H
>> S C H. Okay. And your address? >> 604 Laurel Avenue. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh question I have is uh originally when this house was sold uh the MLS listing stated that there was uh environmental
damage and I don't know if it was ever remediated uh with the soil. Has any soil test been performed on this area? >> I would just say that's not part of this testimony. Um I don't know that architect can answer that question. >> I don't know that that's relevant to to
this application. If if they had to do remediation with the D, they have to do remediation with D, but it's not relevant to a land use application of the state. >> Not even if they're up for a pool, >> that they're going to have to do the appropriate permitting that they're going to have to get. >> Okay.
>> So, they wouldn't agree to close on the house unless they remediated the property first and they needed an letter from the D stating that it's come. So a letter is available for that.
>> Um I open the public records act. It might be a matter of a public record or or >> through the D. Yes. >> D on the site. There's a it's called open OP. You can just make an application for
it. >> Okay. >> They wouldn't have been allowed to close the bill. >> Okay. One other question I had was um the front setback on to Stafa with the existing structure and the additional
porch is only going to be 13 ft. Is that correct street? Yes. 13.1 exists to their existing cover porch and then we're coming from that corner and wrapping it down each. And so
the so the um the setback on Beachwood Avenue will be with porch. >> It will be 15 ft from the property line to the proposed. >> And what is it now? Is it >> right now? It's 23.3
from the property line to the building. >> So it's almost 8 ft difference. >> Yeah. Yep. >> Okay. Now, is there going to be fences required because of the pool? that's going to be part of that setback issue. >> Yeah, the pool does require a pool
compliant fence. >> So, does that make the the setback even less? >> No, no, no. That the fence has nothing to do with with that with the front yard setback. We're proposing a uh I believe we're proposing a fence in a compliant location, but perhaps Mr. Higgins uh or
Mr. Matlock can chime in. I believe it's conforming where we're close >> would be if it's in the front yard it has to be four maximum four feet high in the building >> and on the side yard it could be sixt high. So, but but the fence
>> being requested a fence for the pool is that going to uh play how does that play with the setback in the front yard with a fence going there around >> the fence is not does not have to comply
with the front yard setback. >> As long as the fence is four feet high or lower and can be seen through, then it can be right up on the front property. >> And m Mr. Tes, if I may, Jeff, if you could just point out where the uh that proposed addition is on Stafa
>> the front. Yeah. To the left of that shows the fence. That area right there, if you can see that. Okay. And do we have do we have locations of where garbage containers are going to be stored? So, they're not out on the street.
>> Garbage. >> That's not We don't Yeah, this is a single family residential lot. We don't we don't show garbage loca camp locations. >> Okay. So, the garbage can be anywhere other than
it doesn't have to go on a plan. >> Property maintenance. >> And is there how many how many trees are going to be removed from the pool? >> The you know, I I can have my client come up and and answer that question. >> Yeah. They're going to have to comply
with the with the tree ordinance, tree preservation ordinance. >> That's right. >> Thank you very much. >> So, what you're asking for is a clearance. >> Thank you very much.
Was there an answer to how many trees are going to be removed? >> So, um I'm going to come up, Louis, you're you're going to have to be sworn in though. >> Just swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth about the trees of God. >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record.
>> Le Hoffstein. >> And you are the opposite of this matter, correct? >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> So, Lewis, in your backyard where the pool's located on the on that plot plan, are there any trees in that area? No, >> the only trees in that in your backyard are along the property line. Correct. >> Correct. There's trees on in the front
over here, like on the side of the house over here, but where the pool is going, there's no trees over here. There's only um bushes around the house. >> Okay. And you're not proposing any changes in those bushes? >> No. >> And we we provided as part of the application photos that you took showing those bushes. Correct.
>> Correct. >> So there no trees being removed as part of this application >> for the pool. for the pool area. >> Pool area. No, there's no no trees whatsoever on this side. >> Well, how how many how many trees are actually being removed to do the project?
>> Um there possibly one tree that's over here that's um that we're thinking about that's um that's already not okay because one last year it fell down. Two years ago it fell down on the power lines and last year it fell down
on my house half part of my house. But you think at the end of the day there's only one tree that's going to be removed. >> Most likely one tree. >> Okay. Is there a potential for two? >> I just I I just don't want >> possibly, you know, saying yeah, >> I don't want I don't want you to say one tree and then suddenly there two and
someone screaming down. >> I know for I know that there's one tree for sure. There may be another tree depending on how but we will be adding new trees to the >> if we take anything down. >> So you think the maximum would be two? >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> And Mr. Lexine obviously any resolution of approval could indicate that the applicant must comply with the tree preservation plan. >> Thank you. >> Any more questions you >> and if you come over here the feedback
>> get away from all the feedback. >> Testimony you're about to give will be the truth. The whole truth about the truth you got. >> Yes I do. >> I state your name for the record. Uh yeah, Patty Cronheim and I live at 486 Stafa. So I live right across the street and I just have a couple you >> please spell your last name.
>> C R O N H E I M. >> And I'm sorry, your address again. >> 486 Stafa >> which is directly across the street and I also have a three-sided property so I understand the limitations and everything with that. I I just have some questions. Right now the house had a big
addition a few years ago. So, like the whole part that they're going to bring forward was was an addition to the house to begin with. But I'm wondering, does the porch go It's hard to tell from these pictures. Does the porch is the porch going to go all the way across or is it just going to stop where it
already does in the front? >> No. So, on this side where the addition the existing porch is going to remain as it is. >> So, it's going to end. >> It's going to remain where it is as it is. No changes to the expansion of that front porch. The expansion is proposed
only to the Beachwood Avenue. >> So, it's curving around here. And so, this is going to just be one wall now going up. Two stories. >> This is a Yeah, this is a twotory wall. Half of it has a covered um porch roof
on it. So, it'll look something like this. So, this is it now. >> Uh-huh. >> The setback. >> And this is set back how many feet now? Um, >> from the from the building, >> it's about um, let me see, five about 8 ft.
>> Uh-huh. >> From the front existing front corner to where it sits today. >> Mhm. >> And we propose is to make it flush with the wall. >> So, it's going to look like this. >> So, it'll look similar to how it looks
today. The roof geometry stays the same. >> So, it's going to be a different roof here. Well, it's not going to look the same. It's going to look like a >> It's the same roof, but this is forward now. Proud. Yes. >> Proud. Okay. That's >> equal. Sorry. >> Right. Okay. So, it's going to be a So,
where it was set back and there was no air and light, it's going to be more forward now up to the front. >> Equal to the front. Yes. >> Okay. Um, and the tree, by the way, I just want to say that tree did have a branch that came down, but that's like a hundred-year-old gum tree. And I know
those trees, people don't like them because of the gumballs, but it's a beautiful tree. I I love sitting on my porch and looking at that tree. And I I understand gum trees are difficult. I have to sweep all them up, too, on my they come on my yard, too. But it is a
beautiful old tree. I'm on the shade tree commission, and I know they have the right to take down what they want. But that's that's a real loss. And I would hope that if they are going to take that down that they're going to put a sizable tree up, not just like a crepe myrtle or something, but actually a beautiful tree because we're trying to
have it goes over the street. It's one of the largest prettiest trees in the neighborhood in this old historic type neighborhood and it would be a and now it blocks, you know, it sort of provides coverage and and blocks like having, you know, just structures. So, we want to
keep the character. It's just would be nice to have have that be there. But and and I'm concerned about flooding because we all flood and I got three sump pumps that go constantly. But those are my concerns. It's just light, air, space, tree flooding. But um I understand wanting more space, but I wish it was a
little more elegant where it set back a little bit so it was just a little more interesting. But I understand that's not a design is not something you guys go in on. But uh that's just my thoughts. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any
more questions? >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Ma'am, you're you're still under oath. Just repeat your name for the record. >> Melanie Nolan. >> You're still under oath. >> Yes. Uh just a comment about the trees. Ocean is taking down an incredible
amount of trees. Every time I turn around, there's trees down. And people don't seem to understand that a new tree does not do the same thing that an old growth tree does. An old growth tree holds water in the ground. Since we live
in a flood area, that's an extremely important thing. For some reason, people don't want to understand. But when your house is being pumped out, you're slloshing around, then you start
to understand all growth trees are very different. They're not like arborite or any of the other things that are put in or a new tree. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Higgins, I didn't ask you
about your report. Is there anything that you wanted to mention? No, I think they basically were they were very cooperative. They had changed a number of things that we had comments about and it's it's a very difficult site with with the three frontages. Um so I I
think they've done a fairly good job. >> Okay. Mr. Malik, did you have anything? >> Uh my original report had a list of comments and the plans were revised and they address all all the comments. Um there I do want to clarify something.
There was mention about um this property being in a flood zone. Uh according to the FEMA flood maps, this property is not in the flood hazard area. Um so I just want to clarify that for the board. >> Okay. But high water table probably
certainly, right? Just like a lot. >> Yeah. >> So some pumps going all day long and stuff. >> Any questions? Last chance. Okay. Close the public hearing.
Do we have a motion for approval? >> I'll second. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fuji Ali. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Good luck. Okay, lastly we have Raquel Laniado. Apologize if I mispronounced that name. 9 Shadow Lawn Drive, block 25, lot 41 in the R2 zone.
I didn't see any looked at him today. >> Good evening. >> How are you? >> You ready? >> Yeah. >> Good. Okay. >> Miss Liato, is that >> pronounce that correctly? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Mark, are you ready? >> We just need one moment.
based on what I've I I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that indulgence. All right. So, I'm going to mark in the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 is the variance application. Exhibit A2 will be the freshwater wetland delineation field study. Exhibit A3 will
be the recorded retaining wall easement. Exhibit A4 will be the topographic survey. Exhibit A5 will be the architectural plan. Exhibit A6 will be the addition pool and patio variance control plan. Then I have the following board exhibit. Exhibit B1 will be the
zoning off author's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report. So, let me just swear you in, sir. Or who am I swearing in? >> You're not Raquel, obviously. >> I'm not Raquel. No,
>> you're not Raquel. >> Okay. I'm >> Do you swear a testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the true self of God? >> Yes. >> All right. And just state your name for the record. >> Raquel Liato. >> And you're the property owner. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Miss Liato, you want to you can
tell us briefly why you're here. Um, you can introduce who's with you. Will he be testifying? We can swear him in right away as well. >> Okay. Thank you. My husband, Mosha Lunado, is here and he will tell you exactly why we're here. >> Is it on you? >> All right, sir. What you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth. Help you God. >> Uh, yes, I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Mosha M o e, last name, l i a d o. >> Okay. Thank you. Are you a coowner? Co-owner of the house. Um, I don't think
my name is actually on the deed. >> That's fine. I I just wanted to I just wanted to make sure. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, if you could tell us what you're doing and to your understanding why, you know, what variances you need in order to get done what you want to do. >> Sure. We um we're proposing a second
floor extension. I don't think we need a variance on that. Um, I think the variance comes into play with um, uh, extending our front or side yard to become part of our backyard and put a pool in that area. And that was due to
some hardship due to a sewer easement. Um, that was there from a long time ago. And we have uh, Tammy, >> architect and engineer right here behind me. Okay. If >> you have any specific questions, >> um, do you want to have the engineer?
Uh, would it make sense? Give a brief overview what's going on. >> Yeah, sure. >> Is it I'm sorry. Is it a hot tub or a pool? >> I'm sorry. It's a It's a pool that we plan to install. >> Oh, I'm sorry.
>> All right. Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, help to God? >> Yes. Just state your name for the record. >> Yeah. Scott Lynn, spelled L Y N. DS Engineering, Rocky Hill, New Jersey. >> And you're a licensed engineer, state of New Jersey. >> I am not a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. However, I have
appeared before this board multiple times. I do have a a degree in civil engineering from NJIT and about 38 years experience. I hate saying that 38 years, but unfortunately, it's what it is. >> I never know what to do with this. Um
>> I am a designer and I can provide uh testimony on behalf of the application. >> But you can't but you can't give engineering testimonies. >> Correct. >> Okay. So you're not going to give engineering testimony? >> I am not. >> You're going to give Do you do you hold any certifications?
>> Yes, I do have an EIT uh which is engineering training that was obtained probably 35 years ago. >> And that's that's a degree that's not is that from the state or >> is from the state >> and it's an EIT? EIT engineering training which is a prerequisite for the PE
and that's a license. >> It's not a license. It it it it entitles you to sit for the PE exam. >> Okay. It's like a prerequisite to that. >> Correct. >> Okay. Yeah. I'm not familiar. I've never heard of that before. I I I >> the planners have a similar thing.
>> Oh, okay. You have to go through like something before you can go. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You have to take it two tests to become an engineer. >> Okay. That first one was the EIT then the P. >> All right. All right. So, so as long as the board understands that he can't give
testimony spec his test his testimony he's a lay person as far as actual engineering testimony is concerned. So the board so that's why we have Bennett here I guess to uh Okay. Because you actually are licensed.
>> Go ahead Mr. Mr. >> Okay. So >> yeah, absolutely. >> Absolutely. Okay. So although the applicant uh did testify or give testimony that there is no rear yard variances, we actually do have two
variances associated with this application, which I will get to. But let me just um go through exactly what it is we're we're here tonight for. If you look at this side of the the plan, this is the existing uh house patio, no
pool, and the existing driveway, which sort of meanders across the front, has two axis on Shadow Lawn Drive. Although it's not a a corner lot, it appears as though it could be a corner lot. It's a very irregular shaped lot on a in a very
large radius. Um there is a front yard across the whole frontage if you will of Shadow Lawn and uh this being the rear yard and this being a sideyard.
Currently the house does not meet the rear yard setback requirements. Uh it is short by about 2 1/2 ft. This uh the rear yard requirements is 40 ft. We're at 37 1/2. Again, that's a pre-existing
condition. We're not making that any worse. The front yard setbacks we do meet. However, we are proposing um a if I can get to this side, hopefully you can see better. We are proposing a
second story addition over the current first floor of the of the house with a small 71 square ft addition to the first floor. There is a proposed pool which although
is shown in the front yard, one can conrue that that's more of a sideyard. If you looked at the actual configuration of the house, by definition, it is the front yard. There is a variance associated with that which is a 14 1/2 ft setback from the front right ofway line which is the
property line just there's also an 11 ft set back to the pool surround >> that is correct >> not indicated on the plan that's why I want to point it out >> that's correct right to to the water line is 14 1/2 ft plus the coping plus a
three-foot sidewalk which is >> along this area >> I'm sorry Jim that Is it there's one v there's an extra variance? >> Well, that's the the setback is to the patio and the the chart on the on the plan says it's the water set back
>> 11 ft and and what's required >> what's required is the front yard set back >> 45 ft. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, that's an extra one. >> Correct. There there is a to this aside
there is a rear yard variance that we are seeking as well. Uh there is a a roofed uh I guess that's a covered covered terrace which is proposed to be built on the back of the house that also is going to require a rear yard setback.
That setback is required is 40 ft and we are proposing that roof structure to be at 26.4 ft. So those are the two variances associated with with this application. Um
we are planning to >> can we just I just want to make sure that just for the sake of the resolution when we finally get to this. >> So Jim's letter points out more than two variances and I don't know I I understand it's changed. >> So the change of grade is no longer a
variance. So, I wanted to talk to talk about that when I got to the conditions in Jim's report and in Ben's report. Um, but we can certainly talk about that now. Uh, Jim's report does mention the fact that we may need a a the township
has, as you guys know, an ordinance that only requires a two-ft change in grade. Right now, uh, the pool the intent of the pool and patio elevation was to be less than two feet. However, there's an
I call it an erroneous uh elevation and contour sort of right in this area that puts us slightly over the twoft requirement. Um so could that constitute a variance? Yes. But I have a feeling,
Jim, with all due respect, that based on the asbuilt that the surveyor prepared might have picked up some some elevation that doesn't look to be correct based on, and I say that based on the existing contours, the way that they meander all
through this portion of the property. Um, so >> this would have to be clarified. >> Yeah. So, one of two things. We can either seek the variance for the two-foot change in grade or if the board doesn't seem fit to do that, I can
certainly revise to grading to thus eliminate that twoft differential. >> Patio is that is your step back is so small. Yeah. So, the >> the reason why we've done this and we're going almost two years trying to figure
this out is there's a sewer easement. >> Yeah. Mrs. Leman, I can I can get to >> Yeah, I can get to that. Let me if you can just can just continue. >> Patio. >> Yeah. So, why is the why is the pool situated in in this area? Um, currently
there is a 20 foot wide sanitary store easement which runs up the entire back of the property leaving virtually no room for any improvements between that easement and uh the actual house. It's about 20 ft in
width. So there's there's no room to pull and and Jim does make mention of this in his report that there really isn't any room in the rear yard for a pool or the sideyard. This is really the only location. >> I know
when you're trying to find a home. >> Couldn't you put the pool for argument sake in front of the tree line where it doesn't or is just the digging that close to the sore um ement station?
>> Uh which tree line? There seems to be trees along >> the new one >> along the um shadow lawn drive proposed site plan. >> She's looking at the new plan.
>> I'm looking at page one of >> one of my comments was they show trees or or plants there but there's no definition of what they are. They could be shrubs. They could be trees. >> Okay. Right here.
No. >> Yeah, if I may >> about the tree line behind the house. >> Behind. >> Yeah, those are proposed trees. >> Sewer easing, >> can't you just put there in front of that?
>> Or is it too close to to the sore line? I don't know. because you're pretty close. >> Yeah, I understand exactly what you're saying. I think that would be a conversation with with the homeowner. >> Sure. So, where >> No, where Mrs. Litman is referring to is
not putting the pool here, but rather put the pool in this area. >> You put the short bed. >> Oh, I need space from the house. But even if you put it 10 ft still would be and square it right make it
parallel to the second floor. Thank you. Um you still wouldn't be required for set. >> You're saying you're saying squaring off to the house. She saying she's saying turn it square it off the house and move
it 10 ft from the house. So you're moving it 8 ft closer to the house. >> You're saying it pull it, you know, pull it back 8 ft into the property and turn it only the bottom right corner of the
pool would be would be the closest point >> to the road. their own. >> So by just doing a quick calculation uh by doing what you're saying, moving the moving pool 10 foot off of the existing house sort of in this area, it would
reduce that that front yard setback probably only by about four or five feet >> just in the corner. >> Just in the corner. Correct. >> But the rest of the pool will drastically further away from the property. >> Yeah. at its closest point. Yeah.
>> So, I'm just going to point out you're hearing some reservation. I don't know if Miss Litman if other board members are following her or not because you never know, but you're hearing some reservations about how the proximity of that pool to the street. >> Yes.
>> Um I don't know if you want to consider revisiting this plan and coming back to the board with a revised plan to Okay. All right. Um, we're going to take a recess and and speak to our client. >> Can I ask a question though?
>> I was going to suggest we ask any other questions. >> Line that goes around the pool patio. Is that a retaining wall? >> So, that is a actual trench drain that's going to uh collect the drainage off of the pool patio. >> That's what the double line. >> Yeah. Yep. Yeah. >> Cuz there's a there's a retaining wall
detail on the civil droids. Where does that go? >> Yeah, that that retaining wall is back here where these plantings are to be proposed which uh starts here, goes along right along the easement, as a matter of fact. >> But it stops at the end of the plants
into the trees. >> Yes. And then it then it makes a 90° and comes back into the patio just at those steps. If they're going plan east, >> I don't know if that's truly east, but plan east. >> Yes. >> Direction, it stops at the edge of the
shrubs. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So, it doesn't So, that line that continues on along the back side of the pool is a drain, not a retaining wall. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Are you you're not able to do anything above the sanitary easement?
>> We are not. Yeah. They can't build. >> No. >> 100%. >> Um temporary seating areas, things like that. >> Nothing. Right. >> Yeah. They can't they can't build I mean a temporary seating area like like they stick a chair out there. So I mean
technically they clearly no one's going to stop. >> How creative could they get? the board can or the town can allow um somebody to to build like a patio or something uh or >> you know anything in the easement but it
is subject to removal at any time by the town if they ever had to >> perform maintenance on the pipe. They're going to go in there with an excavator and dig up the patio without this board can't grant that permission. >> That was that was one of my next questions. Okay. So, because here's my
here's my line of thinking. One suggestion is to rotate, right, the pool or maybe make it smaller, but rotate it 10 ft, right? Um, which will then open up space on the other side of the pool, which naturally you may think, okay,
maybe we'll put some chairs over there. So, what's better to have a pool that close and properly shielded or have seating areas over there? So, then we say, okay, maybe we'll say you can't put a seating area over there. You can't put a patio cuz that would then be too close to that front yard set back. Is there
any way that they can still have seating area? Um, and I was thinking onto that area, but we can't give them that ability is what I'm hearing. Right. >> In the front, not not over the sewer. Correct. Because it doesn't break in the
line where the patio or pool or something is like said. They're just coming in. >> Well, yeah. they would be at their own risk. >> The town would never allow schools to building >> understood there. Yeah, that's understood >> because you're digging too close to the
to whatever uh infrastructure is in that. If >> you're worried about the street 10 ft, I don't see it's going to be a whole lot. If you're able to keep I think it's better than what it is right now.
>> I agree. And I think you put the chairs around like in an L along the side and along the front. >> Do you want to take your few minutes? >> Could I just bring up just an idea? >> You certainly can. I'm a total lay
person when it comes to all this, but it was my understanding that because of the hardship of the sewer easement that we were going to ask the board, I guess in concept to look at the what you're calling the front yard where our um
proposed pool is going to be to be more like a sideyard and treat us like a corner. >> That's the argument you're going. >> Yeah, that's that's the Yeah, >> that's the argument. But it doesn't mean the board has to know and >> I think I mentioned that it's all Chinese to me.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, no, you're you're right. And and the uh that is a hardship that you have. Uh and we just have to struggle with the fact that okay, how how much of a hardship is it? Um because you know it might >> created >> right are there things you can do toate that hardship?
>> I got >> and that's Miss Lman is basically suggesting that there things you can do to lessen that hardship. It may be the people who lived there before you had the same hardship. They did. Uh and they chose instead of having a pool, they had a hot tub or something like that. That maybe that was how the hot tub ended up there >> or sold the house. >> Sold the house to be able. But I mean
that's that's what people do, right? >> When you're thinking things through, >> you you're showing 27 plants of some sort on shadow lawn between the road and the pool. >> Yeah. The ordinance will only permit a
hedge four feet high in a front yard. So whatever those are, unless you want to look for a variance to screen the pool and patio area, that can only be 4t high. So that would be another variance you would need. >> Is that only because it's close to the
curb? >> No, it's because it's in within the front yard within that that 45 foot front yard. You can't have a hedge that's higher than 4t. Uh-huh. Okay. >> Okay. >> So,
>> okay. So, if we can just take >> the variances for that before, but I just want want you to know it would be a variance, which is why I asked for to identify what kind of plants they're going to be. >> You want to take five minutes? >> Five. >> We are back. Can you take a roll?
>> You can you can we don't need to do a full roll call. We can note for the record that everyone who was here prior to the break is still here. >> I am too. And then I get it. >> All right. Okay. So, >> you want me to know >> what you want to say? >> He said it. We're good.
>> Say what? >> I thought you wanted me to say that. >> Everybody that was here before still is here now. >> I didn't know I didn't know what you were asking. >> We took the role. It would be done already. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. >> Do you swear any testimony that you're about to give will be the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. Have you gone? >> Yes, I can. >> And just state your name for the record.
>> Laura Korn with the K. >> Sorry, how do you spell the last name? >> Uh, K O R N. >> And you are >> a registered architect. >> You're the architect. Okay. >> And you're an RA or an AIA? >> AIA. >> I never know what the difference is, but I I honestly don't know. >> You always ask.
>> It's more. I'll explain it later. >> Okay. >> Go ahead. >> At the July meeting. Um, no. So, I just wanted to point out we reviewed many different positions for the pool. The reason we kind of put it over here and have more separation from the house was
so that the activity that's happening at at the pool, the gathering space is closer to the house and farther away from the street. Um, that was the thinking. And if you flip it, you're kind of then moving the noise and the commotion and the kids and everything closer to the street. >> Those children. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. You want the children closer to the house >> right down to the street. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that I mean that was the design thinking uh for why the pool was positioned the way that >> but then I guess the thing we were
trying to get feedback and what we were just discussing in the hallway was if we were to rotate the pool to bring it closer to the house and have the gathering space on the other side. Would we still be allowed to fall within the setbacks that were showing which would meet a sideyard setback but is not going
to meet the Sounds like the question I asked before they went out. >> It's not 14. It's 11 or 10. It's 11 11 to the patio. >> What are you thinking? >> Well, just so if we rotate the pool and bring it so it's closer, we always
maintain 10 ft from the house for the pool. >> Um to have actual be able to have seating on that area. Like you only have three feet of paving. It would be enough. It' be enough for a walkway, but not to have like chairs and gathering space. So just say we went 10 ft from the house, another 8 ft for the pool and
then have another 8 ft beyond that to have seating. that would get us to. But if you imagine an L around the pool towards you could put seating in the front and towards come down here >> shallow lawn and then along the side
also so it's not all by the street cuz I understand that and I I completely respect that but I'm thinking okay >> there is an opportunity exist in a different
>> do you want me to Are you sure the way you're >> No, no. The person who's doing the recording is asking you to speak into >> Oh, no. I just want to see what she's talking about, but I don't know if it's going to >> feel like a coach like here. So, if you
squared this somewhat and then you could have this existing space for seating and then also >> Yes. You're saying like this point's not getting any better, but it's fixt. >> Yeah. I mean 10 ft coming in, you know,
clearly I'm not >> Yeah. >> No, I get what you're saying. >> I know what you're saying >> again. You're just moving. >> Yeah, she's saying put seating here and there and rotate the pool that way and keep only three. >> So, everyone doesn't have to be all on that side, >> right? You can
you can redesign that piece to to allow proceeding in that out formation. >> Okay. But so we still it wouldn't be necessarily improving the setback at that corner. We would still be requiring a variance for this. >> Understood. You would, but you wouldn't see it here.
>> You would now come Yeah. >> You know in what you're saying >> and even here you would come in. >> Yeah, I get what you're saying. Thank you. >> And you're only putting three feet around one side here and all on the street.
That's why I met when >> so Miss Litman obviously on the other side Miss Litman obviously has some concerns with the location of the pool and the proximity. >> I don't know how the other board members feel. >> You have a concern as well. Okay. >> I understand you still will, but I I
think you could increase the >> We've heard two board members have a concern. So you So I leave it to you what you want to do. In my I don't agree that I would move the whole pool and only allow three feet on the one side too. >> Okay.
>> And I think all the seating should be on the south and west, not on the east. But that's just my >> He's the builder. That recommendation I would say not. >> Let's just take a little bit of straw vote for you. Okay. How what do others
think on this? Anybody have an opinion? >> I agree. Anybody else have thoughts they want to >> I think I I wouldn't vote against it the way it is, >> right? >> I don't have so much an issue with it. I
don't like seeing them especially kids on the opposite side of the pool. >> That's that's that's >> I think that's a safety concern. >> Yeah. I I kind of I think if we could talk about ways to shield this um really well that having the people where they
they are in this plan um is better than spreading them out uh in my opinion. I generally hate voting for pools in these type situations. I've never done it, but um if I were, I would lean towards this one rather than the other way. Um, do
you have what were you gonna do to shield this as? So, Jim had brought up the the fact that these can only be four feet high, which is not really shielding, right? >> I mean, I clearly it's going to need the the hedge is going to have to be more than four feet high and it's going to
require a variance. >> Were there thoughts into what the shield what was going to get? >> Yeah, I mean, that was along. We were thinking that there would be a fence and then planting. Um, but we're limited by the 4t high. Yeah. >> Yeah. I was just going to say we would
be open to it if >> done that before. >> There's one on Whale Road. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The house is not on I mean it's not really on a corner. So you It's not like you can't see because the plants are too high.
>> Yeah. So the It's a good point you bring up. Uh it's not a corner lot, >> but it's a it's a bend in the road. >> Yeah. >> So the the house has a front a front property line, a side property, one side, and one rear. So there there only
three sides to this this lot. Um and Mr. Ashkenazi is right. There's no um sight triangle issue. There's no because there's no stop control uh where you have a car waiting to turn somewhere where you have to be able to get get a a
sight distance. Um so that's that's just another thing for the board to take into consideration. If I may just interrupt on that on that point and I speaking of the sight triangle uh based on the location of this driveway if we
were to position a car let's say 10 ft back from the right of way and project a line 100 ft out uh the pool wall and shrubs just are outside of that sight triangle just to address Ben's concern.
And the way you're you depicted on your plan too, the cars are kind of entering that that driveway from from that entrance anyway and the exiting the other side. Not that that it's controlled to a one-way street in the driveway, but that's just uh something
that that the homeowner can can manage themselves to. And then the shrubs are coming just on the what side is that? >> So on on this side of the >> west side. Yeah. >> And it stops there that doesn't then it
doesn't then turn with the pool at all towards the house. >> Um currently we're not showing it that way but again if it's a condition they be open to it >> something this this way
>> between the pool. And I I hate to bring this up, but another consideration is reducing the size of the pool. It's a fairly large pool. >> And I I understand you want that size pool. >> I didn't think it was large enough.
>> All right. >> But it's something you might might want to look at. You know, I'm throwing it out. I don't know what the board's feeling is. I mean, you have >> So, so far as I'm counting, you have three board members who have definitely have an issue with the location of the poll. You have three are saying it's okay where it is because they don't like
the alternative. you know, you need four votes. I I you may seriously want to consider carrying this and seeing what you can do and maybe coming with with with an alternate a and and and and this is the
plan we want. Here's an alternate um and see what happens. I I don't know. >> I I feel bad, but but I'm just not that I'm one to give you advice and you can proceed and and take your chances, but I know what I would do.
Did Mark just count that right? >> I I heard I heard three people definitely said they were not happy with the location of the pool. >> You're good. >> There's only seven votes. There only seven people up there, but I'm good. That's four.
>> Who's the Who's the European? >> He's just here. He's just got nothing to do. Did I count wrong then? So there's other people on this side. >> That's what I said. That's around.
>> Okay. So I'm thinking >> between the house and the pool and and on the west side. I'm sorry. Whatever side that is. >> I'm okay. >> I would do both. But yes, in my opinion, I would rotate the pool and disrupt
>> and give a bigger fence or I would approve any of Yeah, I'd prove anything on the back side here for shielding privacy, but I think here down here my my concern is that you know we're talking about changes, making changes, and we don't even have a clear I don't
have a clear list of what the variances are. >> Agree. And and I think I think it's a problem. So you're we're either to your point, we're either approving it the way it is or they're coming back. >> Yeah. >> With the additional barren is needed. >> Yeah. Right.
>> And if they submit the plans in enough time and Jim can review it and if Jim didn't have an opportunity to review these plans in advance of the hearing. So that's why his report's a little um uh stale and I don't know if I don't think I think Ben is in the same boat.
So >> Oh Ben got his. Okay. official officer didn't get his guess her person on time either. So >> the zoning officer was on vacation too. >> Yeah, that that's surprise. Um >> wait, did we want to summarize the
variances? Because there's the two and then the optional three with the hedges, right? So it's the rear yard setback, the front yard setback for the pool and then the optional variance for the hedges. >> I'm hearing there according to these plans there are two variances that are listed. There is the front yard to the
pool 14.5 ft. Correct. >> Yes. >> And then the front yard to the >> paving >> the pool surround which is 11 ft. >> Which is 11 ft. That's the second. And then what about the rear yard? >> So the rear yard will be to the covered terrace in the back. >> So there three variances all as the
plans sit today. There are three variances. >> You can't have higher than a 4ft high edge >> along. It's on shadow. >> Yeah. So that would be the optional. And it's and and we haven't decided whether we're doing the two the two feet
grade or not. >> I think you need it based off what I >> based on the the plan that was submitted. It it shows a it it looks like you need it. If if a revised survey was submitted that if if there was an
error in the survey uh and that variance is no longer necessary then that could be submitted and that'll address it. But >> I mean I don't think this application is rising and falling over over two feet. >> No, I mean that's not like the the main variance of this case. So I would just
request it. But >> um >> that's I I do have one other thing. Um, >> oh, better before you do it, just so I don't lose my train of thought. In Jim's letter, it says the setback is 37.1
the second floor edition for the rear yard setback. The plans say 26.4 to the coverage of Paris, which what am I doing? >> We revised the plans. >> Yeah, >> revised. That was one of the things.
>> So, the correct number is 20 is 26.4. >> Yes. What's on these drawings? Yes, because the covered terrace was moved to the back. >> Okay, I'm sorry about it. I just wanted No, no worries on that. >> Um there was a a um freshwater wetlands elimination field study submitted and it
referenced a um a plan which maybe it was submitted, but I don't didn't get a copy of it. Um, so I just want to make sure that I see that because it uh there are wetlands on the adjacent properties and they have a 15 foot wetlands buffer
associated with them. Um, so that might impact could impact the testimony uh in their favor of why, you know, the pool has to be where it is, but it also uh may impact whether or not they need a uh a permit from the NJBP.
Um, >> Mr. Matt, where are the wetlands? Um, I don't see a reference to it. Um, >> they're I believe they're on lot 22 or maybe >> I bet. Yeah, certainly. Let me address that. Um,
Peter Richings from environmental management. Uh he did go out about a about a year ago at this point and did a uh a um wetland investigation for this property with concern that there might might be there's a drainage ditch which
runs uh believe it or not along this area which is just on the other side of that existing retaining wall. Uh Peter Richings did do some mapping and Ben, I believe it was in Peter's report, uh the last page which shows a W2 through a W5
wetland delineation line. Oh, there we go. Perfect. Can Yeah, you can hold that. That'd be great. So that wetland area that is number one on the GIS mapping for New Jersey but also verified by Peter in
this area. Um more than likely there are wetlands there. I did have an opportunity >> 45 minutes. >> There's a 45minut timer on that. Okay, cool. Um, so I did have an opportunity to speak to Richard this afternoon, uh, Peter about about this
this afternoon. Uh, more than likely we will be seeking a GP8 uh, as part of the home improvement uh, so on and so forth permit from NJD. um the fact that there's an existing patio network in the back of the house
now and some other existing features. Uh Peter was pretty confident that uh DP would be able to issue a a a GP8 which is a buffer averaging transition area. Hopefully that answers the question.
>> Yeah. Uh so outside agency approval um is always a condition of any approval by the board. We don't have jurisdiction over, you know, the D. Um, but they would be required to get the D permit. Um, if the board approved it, approved
it. >> Okay. >> So, >> are we are we doing enhanced landscaping along the border? Did I hear that? Did I not hear that? >> I was going to ask the applicant. They've heard kind of reactions.
Um, do you want to push forward tonight and try and get a vote? Uh, do you want to pull back and come and see if you want to sharpen your pencils? Um, >> take note that if the application, just so you know, if the application was to be deni, if you call for a vote, the
application is denied, you can't say, "Okay, let me come back and try to present a different plan." Uh, you'd have to subst come in with a substantially different plan in order to come back from the board. So that's the risk of asking for a vote tonight and having it not go in your favor >> and start over the process. >> You'd have to start over the whole
process. Exactly. >> I'm a little confused. I thought there was some indication that there were only a few negatives. Is that not >> I >> I can't exactly tell you how many people will vote for or vote against, but that's why I kind of we had the
discussion for you to try to keep track of that for yourself to decide whether or not you want to push forward. >> It's close. You need you need four votes. >> I honestly I'm just speak publicly and openly. I don't really want to turn it that way. The kids being on the other side. It's this is just for the kids. If they're going to be on the other side of
the pool, it's also like you can't really control their movements. Like they're jumping out of two, three, four sides of the pool. I kind of like it where it's like in the corner there kind of controlled. You can watch where they are. So
>> I would just go for the vote. This is going on for two years. >> Yeah, >> I'm done. >> So, see what happens. >> I'm saying like that southwest, right? When you rotate the pool that that southwest as planned, >> you can move the seating area down there, >> right? But there's
>> there's still going to be significant like we did do it originally >> be pushed around around the back of the pool like most pools have. Well, I I'll just show you like we did it originally >> and it's just this just becomes this
open gnome kind of like a no man's land where I don't know. I just >> the question can we >> can we break the vote up for the addition and separate out the pool?
>> No, no, you can. I mean, I've seen that done before. What's >> I mean, we've done that before. >> I don't think we have a variance on the extension. >> The house itself doesn't require. >> Oh, it's just the It's just the pool area. >> Okay. So, the answer is it's irrelevant,
>> but you could. >> I was trying to help them move forward with something versus >> at least saying yes to a portion of it and not holding the whole project up on you, but >> All right. So, what kind of um screening uh for the pool would we want to have
included if we were to approve this? That should be part of the application. >> It's up to them what they want. Yeah. >> Yeah. Do I'm just my just to put my two cents in. >> If I were doing this,
>> I you've been hit with a lot of information tonight. And if it were me, I'd want to take a couple weeks anyway to think it through to make sure I'm making the right decision which direction I want to go.
>> You're totally respected. But like I said, we've been literally doing this for two years. >> I mean, if they deny your applications, you're done. >> I don't know why, >> Mark. Mark, I think he's they've heard that. They've heard that. I just don't know what they
>> turning it. >> We also don't need to scare them out of getting a vote. Okay. >> I mean, >> that's a bit much. >> It's just when someone >> I know, but you said it four times. >> When someone without an attorney, I sometimes they don't fully comprehend
what it is that we're saying >> because they don't understand the legal side of it. >> You have an obligation to reiterate yourself and make sure that you fully understand the process and what you're doing. So, I don't think Mark is badgering you. Mr. Lexine is badgering you.
>> No, no, I'm not. I'm not badgering me at all. >> Record whichever way it goes. So, we can say you were filling the form. >> Whatever the boss says. >> You want the vote? Know I was the boss. >> Tammy, what do you think?
>> I You didn't know you were the boss. >> I just I don't know. I feel we've been >> either we vote or don't vote. come back in another month. I don't really want to do it the other way. I'm kind of over it. >> I think this is the safest way for our
children and whoever whatever guests come over and are in the pool that I'm responsible for and that's the best that I could supervise and that's what I'm comfortable with and I wouldn't feel comfortable moving it another way where the kids are
farther away from me and that's just from me a mom's point of view. I feel um I take complete responsibility for whatever comes into my backyard and um yeah, we've been working on it for a couple of years and I think that we should just see it
through tonight. I really do. I I I mean, but it's What What do you say? What's your final? >> You're the boss. >> I mean, I don't get in trouble with >> It's not posing a safety threat to anyone in any way. I mean it's it's just
I mean you just it's fine like >> I'm I'm with her. >> I mean is there any >> No, no, it's all you know >> we tried >> Yeah. >> The the reason being that we tried to make the setbacks um as as big as you
can considering the the odd shape of the property, the small property and the hardships involved. So, um, just be in in fairness to you, your neighbors, and any other application, >> we just >> sure
>> don't want to see or meet and I think some members of the board in certain circumstances don't want to see something abuing um the the street or so close to it. >> That's a when there's an opportunity to move it in and compromise,
>> right? So, >> I mean, there's other options, right? I mean, >> an opportunity for compromise. >> You could put in a swim spa or a hot tub, right? You're putting in a pool, but I understand why you want a pool. I have a pool. I love it. But >> there are other options, right? You could put a hot tub in or a swim spa or
a footprint in the pool. >> With all due respect, it's just for the kids. So, I'm like, >> with all due respect, you don't have a legal right to a pool. >> So, so, so that's what he basically said. >> Mr. Higgins, yes. Is there room as is to
put a hedge like arborites in there like a deer resistant arborite? >> There's there's room to put a hedge along the street. Yes. You know, you don't want to put a huge There's some arborites that grow 20t wide and 40t
high. You don't want to do that. >> But there's there's room to put a hedge there. They could there's there's a variety of different plants. And that's something if you do vote for it, I would say that you have to make a condition they submit a landscape plan that's
acceptable to Ben and I. >> I I don't see anybody here objecting to their plans. >> They're not. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. So, so >> Okay. If there's nobody from the audience to uh to ask questions or
testify or give uh comments, so we're going to close the public hearing. >> Okay. No, I just I was confirming with them were they open to adding higher hedges along the southern portion of the pool and they agree. >> Yeah. Okay. So, I would um I would offer
for positive resolution uh the plan as it is adding to it the um you would have to give to Jim and to Mr. Matlac uh a planting plan, right? Um that shows uh
uh plantings taller than four feet. >> Yeah. But do you want to put a height limit on it? >> Well, that's I was asking kind of asking before foot 10ft height. >> I would say 10 8 to 10 ft. >> Okay. And then that's along the street and then I would also like to see it
head towards the house as well. >> Like southern side of the >> southern side. Yeah. >> So as you're coming along the shadow lawn, if you look to the left, you will not see that there's a You're going >> exactly. >> All right. So, you want 8 to 10 feet
along the street. >> It has to be maintained at 8 to 10 ft. >> Right. So, it's going to have to be sprinklered and make sure that it is >> Yeah. Planted 5 to six feet and maintained at 8 to 10 ft probably. >> 8 to 10 feet. It's got to be sprinklered and it's got it and then it's going to run. Mr. Fuller, chairman, I just want
to make sure I understand. When you say go back towards the house, you just want it coming down the property. >> Correct. Is that what I'm hearing you're saying? coming across. >> Wants it to go. >> There's a dot. I think that's a fence line. >> So, >> oh, he wants it to swing. You want it to swing in? >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Okay, I got it. I got it. >> Somebody riding. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, on the outside of the of that fence area. Okay. >> Understood. >> I'll second that. >> Mr. Ashkenazi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes.
>> Miss Litman? >> No. >> Mr. Pujielli? >> No. Mr. Laneski. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman D Janeiro. >> No. >> And Chairman Fuller. >> Yes. >> So that's uh >> 4 to three. >> That's one, two, three.
That's >> four. Yes. >> Four. Yes. >> Hardest no. By the way, I just wanted to point that out. Honestly, that's >> happy for you that it got voted through, but I >> respect your opinion.
>> I just want to say that we like um aside from all this, we recently became official residents of New Jersey, even though we've lived in the house for 10 years. >> Uh but I'm saying we really appreciate all the care that you guys take care of of the town and we love it. So, thank you.
>> Thank you. Have a good night. Motion to adjurnn.