Good evening. Like to call this uh meeting the town of Ocean board of adjustment to uh order. Nicole can take a roll call, please. >> Yes. Mr. Here >> please rise for the state to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one
indivisible Liberty and justice for all. >> The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. Copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the coaster filed with the office of the township clerk. Emergency
notice. There is emergency rooms uh doors through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room. There's no smoking permitted in this building. Board policy. No new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m. No new testimony taken after 9:30 p.m. In addition, the applicant will be limited
to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceans cable, excuse cable channel, channel 22 on Verizon FiOS, channel 77 on cable vision. All cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a phone
call, please take your call outside of the meeting room. Resolutions for moralization. First one is WF Ocean Redevelopment LLC 1600 New Jersey State Highway Route 35 block 34 lot 4 in the C2 zone. And can
we do both at the same? No. Okay. Uh can I have a motion to approve? >> I'll second. All in favor? >> No, it's got to be you. >> Oh, we got to do that. >> Okay. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Pui. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yes. And >> yes. EOM41 Holdings LLC, 41 Peach Tree Road, block 3, lot 59 in the R5 zone. Can I have a motion? >> Move to approve.
>> A second. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah. So you can't make the motion. >> Okay.
>> Someone else has to make the motion. Someone who was actually here. >> Rule breaker. >> Motion. >> Second. >> And the same role calls. >> Okay. Then the other two resolutions on the agenda 553 North Edgemere LLC and 55
is it WPR Holdings LLC. Uh will be done next month. >> That's correct. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh minutes to for memorialization March 20th 2025 move >> to approve. >> I'll move to approve.
>> I'll second roll call, please. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. April 1st, 2025. I think that was when I was >> I'll second.
>> Mr. Ashi, >> yes. >> Miss, >> yes. >> Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Miss Lley, >> yes. >> Mr. Paramea, >> yes. >> And >> yes. December 22nd, 2025. >> I'll move to approve.
>> I'll second. >> I'll second. Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jamora. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ali. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> And >> yes. The following cases are being carried to the March 19th, 2026 meeting.
Floral lax 20ou excuse me 240 Overbrook Avenue block 22 lot 34 and two Texas Avenue LLC 219 Lewis Street block 17 lots 26 and 44 um this this one will notice for the March meeting
>> all right so 40ax will not >> so anyone who's here on the 40ax application 240 overbook Avenue block 22 lot 34 as was just announced that's not being heard tonight that's being carried to the March 19th, 2026 meeting at 7 p.m. If you want to be heard on that
application, you need to be here in this room at that date and time. >> Okay. Uh old, we have no old business, so we move on to new cases. First case this evening is Michael Rashanzamir. Get that right. Okay. Right. >> Attorney for the applicant, Jennifer
Krimco. >> Good evening, members of the board. Jennifer Krimco here on behalf of the on behalf of the applicant. Uh by way of very brief summary, he received building permits to construct two accessory structures, both of which were conforming according to the zoning
officer. Um as constructed, they're both a couple of inches off where they should have been. So we weren't coming for that, but we're going to ask for that while we're here. Um and what he's looking to do is essentially just connect the two with a roof to have a
covered area in between the two. It's not adding to the structure, but under your ordinance, it technically makes it one structure, which means the one that's closest to the property line is no longer 150 square feet. So, we're seeking a variance in order to do that.
The side that's facing that setback is not changing. The roof is in between. So, it's not really any impact to that neighbor. So, I know Mark, you probably have a bunch of stuff you pre-marked. >> Yeah. So, exhibit A1 will be the variance application. Exhibit A2 will be
the color photos of the property. Exhibit A3 will be the final as topographic survey. And then A4 will be the Fox plan. Exhibit A5 will be the pool cabana plans. Then I have the following board exhibits. Uh B1 will be
the notice of violation in order to terminate dated February 5th, 2025. Exhibit B2 will be the zoning officer report dated May 27th, 2025. Exhibit uh P3
will be the board planner report dated May 22nd, 2025. Four will be board engineers report dated uh June 16, 2025. I think I was off on that. >> Yeah, you zoning denial. >> I'm sorry. So the zoning denial was
exhibit B2. That's a zoning denial dated 121 2023. And then everything else is shifted down. >> Oh, that really messes us up. >> I'm sorry. >> Okay. >> What was the zoning denial dated? >> The zoning denial is dated 121 2023. That's B2. Then we have B3, the zoning
officers report B3, B5. >> Sorry about that. >> Okay. And um I just have an additional aerial exhibit as well. So that would be A6. who was here in his capacity as an engineer and a
planner. There are no real engineering issues here. So, but I'm sworn as both he's really just here as a planner. >> Okay. Could I have him sworn? >> Yeah, absolutely.
>> You swear testimony about will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but yourself, God. >> I do. >> Thank you. And just take your name for the record. >> Sure. Patrick Ward, WD with Inside Engineering. >> And you are a licensed engineer state of New Jersey. Yes. >> Yep. submit him as an expert and if I could
have him uh commence his testimony. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. All right, I'll get up for this. I think the best thing to focus on is the aerial exhibit. Just kind of gives you a sense of what's there in the property in the backyard and what's
going on in our immediate vicinity. Just um for reference, this aerial, the date of the image, the aerial image is uh July 6th, 2025. Um, the exhibit was prepared in September, but the image itself is from July, just for a point of
reference. So, not to repeat everything Miss Crimco said, but we're here to seek approval for connecting the two structures. That work had been started, not completed. We're here seeking um approval to hopefully complete the construction of the connecting roof um which will convert two separate
buildings into one single structure. Um there's also the noted two minor deviations of where the contractor placed the foundations of the buildings. So in terms of variances, we uh are here seeking a minimum sideyard setback to an accessory structure. It's required to be
10 ft and the existing and proposed condition and it's really for the um the structure closer to the house is 9.7 ft. Again, that's a construction error. >> And Pat, let me interrupt you. In this case, based on the shape of the lot, the sideyard is the one plan left or to the west. Yes.
>> And the rear yard is to the north, >> right? And you'll see that on also the plot plan that's in your packets. Left side is the sideyard that's 10 foot setback. And this is the rear line that has a 40 foot setback. >> And Pat, am I am I correct that the only reason that this variance is necessary is because of this that the structures
are being connected. If they were not connected, >> no, not this one. This one was a construction error. It should >> I'm talking about the other one. >> The rear yard. Yes. The fact that we're making one larger structure, which I'll which I'll point to. Yeah. >> If they were not connected, they would not need a barrier. >> Correct. They were granted zoning permits. >> Okay.
>> Right. Besides the minor construction deviation, >> correct? Understood. >> Yeah. So, I think what we're looking for on that one is some testimony as to the benefit plan. Clearly, there's no hardship, >> right? >> So, we need >> So, I think that was our encouragement
to move along to the positive criteria. >> Absolutely. So, >> did I read that correctly, Jim? >> Yeah. >> So, what's the justification here? Yeah, we have to I want I want to demonstrate that this is a better zoning alternative than having this structure in a
compliant location. So the ordinance requires a structure of this size over 600 ft to be compliant with the sideyard and the rear yard setback. So that would put it you'd have to rotate it and put it basically in the middle of the backyard, middle of the pool. So if you were to do that and have that in a
compliant location, the only sensible location for the pool would be opposite to that on the back side. So where that comes into play is does it make sense? So one um what you're doing by basically
having the pool north of the cabana is separating the activity of the yard from the house. So the view from a safety standpoint, which is really held most paramount here, you're separating the home from the activity of the pool by this structure that's 10 plus feet tall,
fully compliant, but in between the two structures, what when you have here is what, in my opinion, a better zoning alternative. The yard is open um and I'll get to the purposes of planning in a moment. The pool house is compliant on the sideyard, but it's only 10 feet off
the rear where um a smaller structure, for example, the bathroom, if it was just the bathroom, would only need to be 5t off. Same height, same width. And again, if we were in a compliant location and
we oriented it east west, that would have a greater effect to that neighbor potentially to the rear because now all they're looking at do you have the architectural plans there? >> I do. >> The side that they're looking at is
>> it would be this. Well, this side. >> Yeah. The side they're looking at now is just the one small structure, >> right? You have the narrow side of the building faces the neighbor that we're seeking the relief from, the rear yard. If you turned it, even if you're
compliant at the 40ft setback, you're seeing now a structure that's three or four times as long. >> Why do we need faces? >> Yeah. So, if we could that's what I'm struggling with. you have a basically a conforming situation with the very minor deviation for the sideyard setback. What
are the planning benefits of connecting the two structures which are there and are essentially conforming? >> Well, would you would you agree that it allows for the enjoyment of the property by blocking the sun and allowing them to
have a shaded area? I mean, we could do the same thing with giant umbrellas. Correct. You're >> talking about under the under the roof. >> The purpose for the roof is purely to give shade to that area, right? >> And you know, rather than haphazardly putting four or five umbrellas in there
that, you know, wouldn't be secure and that could blow away and might be less attractive, this builds into the architecture of the structure and makes it look a bit more uniform. >> It's like the umbrella defense. >> Yeah. >> Uniform and orderly. I mean, there there are no walls on that, right? It's open
air, which means it's solely the roof. Um, you know, we could get into an argument about whether it's a building or lock coverage issue, but that's not the issue at hand here. So, those items comply, it really is, in my opinion, it really the focus really always turns to
the negative. I know Jim, you said the negative is pretty clear here, which which I agree with. Um, but from the positive criteria, you have to look at what's what's a better planning alternative. Is is deviating from the rear yard better in this case than fully complying with the rear yard?
>> Or alternatively, is having a much larger structure in a conforming location with four walls a better zoning alternative than having this almost completely open structure that would otherwise be conforming. I think
that's the difference is that you look at the the better zoning alternative. Our position is that since the oneb structure conforms and the kitchen one conforms, it's a better zoning alternative to allow us to just connect it to get this covered area than to do
the same size structure in a conforming location. So again, I'm not going to claim that this is the strongest case I ever came to you with. Um, I recognize um where we are with it, but I think there is enough uniqueness about this
lot and the location where it is with the railroad tracks across from it and the desire to move the pool in the pool house as far away from the railroad as possible. We don't have any neighbors here that we're affecting and all we're really doing is asking to be allowed to
have some sun coverage over an existing patio with an existing fireplace. Are you planning on putting an enclosing it with other walls? >> Not at all. >> No, it's just a roof. >> It's just a roof. >> Just a roof. >> And again, it, you know, it it
begs the question, you know, does the does the roof make the structure? Meaning, you know, I know that that's the interpretation of the zoning officer and and that's why we're here. Excuse me. But if the intent of the ordinance was to prevent you from having these massive structures that are
blocking light air and open space, this isn't what that is. This is just, you know, the two conforming structures just being connected to allow the property owner to enjoy the space in between them. >> I just add to that the this is the bathroom at the northwest corner, the
northern building that was previously approved. That is 150 ft that got a zoning permit. that's allowed to be 5 ft from either property line by extending the roof line. And it's not quite an extension of the roof line. It's this, as you can kind of see, >> architecturally constructing something
attractive. >> It's kind of it's an open I call it trollus, maybe the wrong word for that. It's open air, right? There's not a ton of mass to connecting the structures. So, when we look at, and again, this is flirting with the negative criteria, Mr. Higgins, but we're looking from this
way. There's really no difference to the structure whether it's permitted or not. The fact that we're connecting them now, variance relief is needed, but when you're if you're sitting back here on the neighboring property, you're still seeing the same approved structure that was done by zoning permit. You're not seeing the extension. You're not seeing
a more massive building. Even if even if there's a sixft fence here, which there is, you're still not seeing that even if it was open and just a you know. >> So Patrick, you >> no impact. >> Yeah. Now Mr. Crimco or Patrick, I think one of you mentioned that this was, you know, started and stopped. Um, can you
speak to the zoning officer's report where she talks about the fact that the original application that was put in showed this? >> No, the original application didn't show this. The original application showed a pergola and I believe that pergolas are no longer considered building coverage.
Correct. >> Well, that's what Sam Lowden told me and I wrote you back and said, "Is this true?" So, and I didn't we didn't talk about it, but right with the open top. So, again, origin >> originally it was a pergola and they were required to do it separately and
the builder who I don't know if it was the same builder or not. I wasn't aware at the time went ahead and started constructing this roof without permits which is why we're here. >> Did you see?
>> Yeah. Would you agree to a deed restriction not to enclose it with walls? I'm just trying to prevent it from becoming a room or a bedroom. >> Of course. >> Or somebody renting it out at
>> We didn't get here in the most orthodox way. And they're not my client doesn't have entirely clean hands in this. So we come to you recognizing that. I think had they come to me first, we could have made a very strong argument for the
variance in the first place based on all these attenuating circumstances. And as you know, one of the things that you're supposed to do as a board is look at it as if it's not there yet. And excuse me. Wow. Uh look at it as if it's not there yet and see whether or not you know you
would have granted it. And I think that when you look at the to this is an odd lot on a corner across from the railroad tracks. It's tucked away. It is green all around it. Nobody sees it. It's it the only person that is affected by it
is our client to a benefit. There's virtually no detriment to it. >> I mean, I agree I agree as the board attorney that you're supposed to act as if it hadn't been built and that the board can't be punitive. And I'm not suggesting the board to ever do that because that'd be completely incorrect.
But the board also has to take into effect. You know, everyone talks about the negative criteria all the time. But the positive criteria matters and the question is whether or not what is the benefit of this other than the personal needs of the property owner. So again, so again, and and I I've been before
this board multiple times with variance relief for rear yard setback for pool houses where the board granted it. And the reason being, and the positive criteria was is that the short end is the one facing that neighbor and it's a
better zoning alternative than having a solid wall facing any neighbor. So again this and then you also looked at in the past what was on the other side what were the neighbors to be affected. So I mean I have successfully prosecuted
applications almost identical to this in the past. Now the difference being this is a corner lot. So we're we're the whole development is is shoved back. So you know Jim I don't know that I would agree with you that there's no hardship. I think with a
corner lot there is the inherent hardship of having two front yards >> so we don't have the benefit of pushing the house all the way out for me though before the restructure went up I think we're trying to >> understood understood >> I have a question I I disagree with you
general only because in that case every corner lot has a hardship >> well a more of a more something that's could be taken into consideration >> yes that's what I mean not the full justification but yes I I would say every corner lot has more of a hardship for compliance than an interior lot
does. I mean, that's fair. I >> It also depends on what it is that you're constructing. And in this case, you can do what more or less you wanted to do originally and you for what you got permits for as of right. >> So, let me ask a question. Why can't you just build some type of shade coverage without connecting the buildings?
Wouldn't that eliminate all this? No, because the shade the the side of the sh excuse me the shade coverage. What's the area of that? You're only allowed to have one structure >> of 150 square ft >> closer to the setback. We already have
the bathroom. So, anything else that is constructed here, shade structure, otherwise would have to meet the 40ft setback. >> Even if it's connected, >> right? >> No matter what it is. >> If it's not connected, it would fall under. not connected. We can't have it because it's so we're just looking to get some shade in between these two
structures again. And we we attempted to do it in an architecturally pleasing way that makes it as open as possible. If you look what's behind it is just a fire it's just a fireplace. There's on the gable end of the two sides. You see it's
filled in. I don't know if you could see from there. It's completely open here. So it's just basically a triangle sitting on top of them. Mhm. >> So to to his point though, rather than connect the two structures and with a hard roof, why don't you ask for a shade
structure? You still need the variance, but but but that would probably that may be a more acceptable something to the board, an awning or something. >> Well, an awning. We could >> Could you do an awning as a right?
>> You could probably put one of those crank awnings up. Yeah, >> you could. And again, when you talk >> shade, >> it would and when you talk about better zoning alternative, which is one of the is the positive reason, we think this is a much better alternative than two cloth
shade awnings that come in and out out of the sides of these buildings, >> right? Because no one will see it per per your per your per your testimony which was just given. This is situated in a place where it doesn't affect anyone because who's seeing the audience? It doesn't affect the neighbor
to the rear where we need the variance. >> Who is it affecting? >> The the neighbor behind us. And anyone driving down the street seeing these ugly cloth awnings there. >> They're going to see a cloth awning. >> Yes. >> They're going to see the roof. >> Yeah, conceivably >> from the street. >> Yes. I was out there. I walked the the
perimeter. You could >> No, you could see it from the street. There's no question about it. Do you think a cloth awning is really ugly? Lots of people have them. >> They're actually very nice. >> They're actually very nice. That's what I was thinking. and and and then you can do away with some of the fears of that I
think the ordinance is designed for >> um to eliminate the fear that it might be enclosed at some point in time because it's a hard structure now. Now it's a temporary structure. >> It it can't be enclosed. >> I mean yeah without substantial and significant alteration I think the way
this is basically a roof frame. It's not there's not even a gable face >> a roof frame placed on top. I think when you look at the purposes of planning, if we're going to tie that in, >> there's a lot of different awnings that could be done, right? >> Of course.
>> But I think this is in keeping with the roof that's the roofs that are out there. I think this is a a better, more desirable visual situation when you when you tie it into the purposes of planning than the awning. I still And I think from a from a land use standpoint,
>> I'm not saying awnings are ugly. I'm saying that this makes it >> I did >> this makes it a neater, more architecturally cohesive shade covering that is an aesthetic improvement over an awning or temporary umbrellas and that is a purpose of planning the aesthetic I
think >> and I think on the ground just real quick. >> So let's just go to Jim. So So Jim, are you in agreement that that an awning would look aesthetically unpleasing would be a detriment to the site? >> I don't think it would look unpleasing at all. I think what the board has to determine is to whether or not the a
roof is much more pleasing, so much more pleasing than having two awnings that it would be a a positive reason for the granting of the variance >> or one large awning >> or one large >> which could be done. >> It could be done. No, because if it if
it's one large awning and it's all connected and it it would become a roof and it would be >> Yeah, but it's an awning and you could be asking for that relief rather than a hard roof is my point. >> And again, it so to me that's if we're accomplishing the same thing, it sounds
like that's just looking for a reason not to grant it and giving an alternative where we think what we're proposing is the better alternative by making it part of the structure architecturally, visually, and aesthetically. I agree with you. That's the board's decision if awning's
attached to the building or having this cohesive attractive structure >> and and I don't is a better zoning alternative. >> And I don't agree with you that it's the same result. I think it's a different result because one is a permanent structure and one is a temporary structure. >> No, the awning would be permanent.
>> It's it's not permanent though. It's a temporary. It may be there permanently uh in the extent that it's it's there and it's not going to be taken down on a weekly basis. But a awning is a temporary structure whereas a roof is a is a permanent structure. There is a
difference. >> Again, if we put an awning, it'd be electric awning. It'd be wired in. It would be attached to the structure. It would be as permanent as >> and I'm not even saying the board needs to grant that. I'm just s and you're not asking for it. So, I'm just showing that there is there are other alternatives
that I think would uh accomplish the purpose of the zoning. >> And again, there's as as I've said multiple times before this board, there's always an alternative to do something different or not ask for the variance. We're asking we're not asking for an awning. We're asking for the
variance. And we believe that based on the totality of the two individual structures, the architectural design tying it in and how open it is and it's merely just serving as a shade structure that it is more attractive than putting
temporary shade structures on the building again. >> And you're not a planner and our planner is saying he doesn't agree with that position. So >> I'm not sure why Mark you're advocating one way or another. I'm not I'm not advocating one way or the other, Jen, but you're advocating one way or the other
>> because I'm the advocate >> and I and I and I have an I have a job which is when you say something which I do not believe to be true to counter it and say that I don't believe this to be true. I'm not here to rubber stamp what you say. So, >> so I have a different position which I
think needs to be articulated to the board. That is my job and I'm going to do my job just as you're going to do your job. So again, I believe my job is to advocate on behalf of my client and my planner is the one to give the planning testimony. I think that your job is to legally advise your client,
not advocate for them, but legally advise them. And it's Jim's job to offer his opinion. We heard his opinion. He said that. And I'm telling you our applicant's position. So the fact that your attorney doesn't agree is not of moment because I'm not making a legal argument. I'm telling you what the
applicant's position is. So again, it's not a legal issue. It is a decision. And I'm sure you'd agree with this. This isn't a legal issue. This is a decision by the board. Do you think that what we're proposing considering the location of the structure, the location of the
house, where the lot is, where the neighbors are, and what is legally allowed to be here is a better zoning alternative than attaching awnings to the structure. >> So I have a question. So, what's to say that after this is done, he's not going to decide to close it up? He's already
violated the trust of the board by doing this without a permit. >> So, what's going to what's to say he's not going to do something later on? >> First of all, one, we could, like we said, we would put a deed restriction on it, but two, and this is where it gets tricky, you you can't deny something
based on anticipated non-compliance. So again, if we're coming to you as if it's not here, >> then there was we we didn't do anything to the board, you know, you just said that, you know, so we didn't you have to look at it as it no matter who it is and
what would be the better design for this lot in this location. So I understand what you're saying and the protection for that, I think, is what Miss Libman said, a deed restriction. And and I do agree as I said before you have to look at it as if the applicant forget the past history. You're not allowed to consider you should not be considering
the past history here. You only can consider what is currently before the board as if this uh violation did not exist. And you have to decide whether or not this that the benefits of this application outweigh the detriments. >> And I think that the the position that
we have is is that there are no detriments that we can identify. I mean, we didn't get to the negative criteria yet, but you know, in your opinion, as a professional planner, are there any detriments to this? >> No. And Jim mentioned it very briefly.
Um, I see no detriments. I think to our north here, like I said earlier, it it's going to look like the same approved structure that was on the zoning permit. You're not going to see the the roof line coming down south. Um, from Washington, I'll just go on all four
sides. from Washington it complies >> from Washington complies. >> So we have to look at the detriment as to the variance. So the only difference is the rear, right? >> So again we comply to the side, we comply to both fronts. So really the board has to consider what is the
detriment to the property to the rear and is it so great that it outweighs the benefit the position that we're taking that this is a better zoning alternative than a conforming four-sided structure of this size or these two structures
somehow shaded with some kind of temporary shade. >> So it's not temporary shade, it's permanent shape. >> Well, no, I was giving you that one. >> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> Is your client trying to I see there's a fireplace on your backside. Is your
client trying to get year round use out of this space sitting out there in the fall? I'm I'm thinking >> presumably yes if there's a fireplace. Yeah. And also, you know, through in in different weather. I mean, if you know the kids are in the pool and it starts raining, they can run under this and
they don't have to go running into the house. >> Well, they can run under the other one, too. I'm just trying to get pictures. There's two other One's a bathroom. Yes. >> Right. But the one on the left, the kitchen, isn't there? >> Right. This is This is essentially the patio. This is the sitting area. >> I'm just trying to get the bigger
picture. And I see the fireplace. And I'm thinking, oh, maybe they want to use it in the fall or the winter. Sit out there if it's snowing with the fireplace going and not get covered with snow. >> It It definitely makes the fireplace more usable. I mean, could the structure be moved to
the other side of the pool and made a little smaller? Would that be conforming then? >> No. No. >> There's no way to make that structure conform anywhere on the property. >> The only way there is to make it conforming is to put it in between the house and the pool. >> What if you made it smaller? >> Would it matter? >> When was the pool put in? At the same
time as the other buildings or >> structure that could be made that's conforming with this? >> None. >> The two structures that were there were conforming. structure of this size if it's if any structure greater than >> 150 >> 150 square feet. So this structure is
conforming that's the 40 foot one. >> Well, we can't put it this way because it'd be in the pool. >> So the only pl and you can't put it this way cuz it would hit into the house. >> We put on the other side of the pool where it looks like it looks like >> front. That's the front setback. We need a variance and then that would put it
right in the front yard. So again, the this this part right here is the only part we're really asking for the variance for >> in the light gray. And again, it wouldn't be that it would be moved. What we're saying is if it were to be
constructed in a conforming location, it would be different. The alternative here is if we can't have the roof is to do some kind of awnings, umbrellas, something of that nature. But but to answer his question, you could come up with a smaller structure that accommodates both purposes. You could
have a kitchen with a bathroom on the side. That could be that would be under the the square footage of what you're proposing. Of course, that's what he's asking. >> But we No, but we couldn't have a covered seating area. No, we couldn't. I'm sorry. >> You couldn't do the covered seating area. >> That's what's putting us over is the
covered seating area. So, the the the answer remains no. Fair enough. Fair enough. >> You can't have a covered seating area, and that's all we're asking for here. When was the pool put in? I >> think it it has a CO I think within the last year or two.
>> Although you could you could move What if you just had a covered seating area in another location and that be under >> No, it would be a structure with a roof and it would count as a building and it would be more than 150 square feet. >> Football doesn't have to be 50 square feet seating area. >> I think when you have multiple accessories >> because the bathroom is there. That's
our only get because that bathroom structure is there. We're not allowed to have another structure. But you couldn't have three. >> You can't have two that aren't for You can have one that isn't 40t away. You can't have more than one. >> But if we're looking at this as if these things haven't happened yet, >> right?
>> Yeah. >> So then blank slate. >> That's why I'm asking when the pool the pool was put there, you kind of created and you put those two buildings in there and you created the situation where you're like, "Oh jeez, now we got to do the it was all done at the same time or basically the same time. It was
designed, >> but if we're going to look at is there's nothing there. So there is no bathroom there in my mind. There is no kitchen there. So you can come up with a different building that can maybe conform or be less intense >> and come to us with that. >> When you say less intense,
it's not going to be less intense to anybody because the only difference is is that if the board denies this, we're not knocking down the structures that are built and removing the patio and redesigning the whole backyard. We're going to have the the two structures that were legally permitted will stay and we'll have to come up with a
solution to get the same shades, some of the things we talked about, umbrellas, awnings attached to the building, things like that that aren't going to be as uniform and integrated as what we're proposing. So again, it's it's not a matter of
whether we put the pool in yesterday or we put the pool in five years ago. The pool's there legally. It's a legally existing structure. the two pieces are there legally. So, we're asking you we want to when we say pretend that the that the we didn't do it. I'm just talking about the roof. The roof's the
only thing that's at question. We're not removing anything. So, you know, it's either we we get the approval to keep the roof or we don't. And then at that point, we have to come up with a different shade solution. And again, it's our testimony that this is the best
solution considering that it's not really impacting anyone. If there were neighbors here complaining, if there was any impact to someone, if the sh if for example we if if we constructed the shade structure this way,
well then I I wouldn't be able to make the argument that there's no impact from the variance because the person the variance is against it. have this large structure facing them. What we're saying is the only variance we need other than the minor construction one is the
setback of this build this portion of the building from this property line and connecting these doesn't change that doesn't change anything. This is still going to look exactly the same to here. So there really is no impact from the variance it
>> but couldn't to Mr. floor's point. If if we're talking about a blank slate here, couldn't the pool have been relocated, built originally in a different location and these buildings built in a different location that didn't infringe upon step back? >> We're not talking about a blank slate as if nothing's on the property. The blank
slate you're looking at is as if we didn't already construct the roof. >> No, I understand that. I understand. What I'm saying is, isn't it some ways like a self-created situation wherein you built the pool knowing that
you wanted presumably these this this filledin uh space being that you applied for it originally but were but were sort of denied it. Um >> so I would agree that at that point they probably should have come for the variance then. >> Right. So it's sort of a it's sort of a
self-created hardship in some ways. >> Well, but we're not claiming a hardship. I I I know that Jim won't let us. >> I Well, it's not it's this clearly isn't a hardship. So, it can't be a self, >> but it's a self-created situation. >> But even if it's a self-created situation, you still look at the C2
criteria. Hardship isn't part of it. So, again, this is what's here. Pretend the roof isn't there right now. >> Would you prefer us to put up umbrellas and awnings or is the architectural design of the roof? Does it fit in? And
is there no impact on anybody? I mean, that's really what >> what it really comes down to is the benefit of doing this. So, is it a better zoning alternative? And that's what you're being asked to consider. Is it a better alter zoning alternative? And the question is it might not be
>> or the board may think it is. >> And the board may think it is. It's ultimately up to the board. And >> and and this is something that's totally up to the board because it's it's it's a you can look at it either way. Do you have more testimony? >> Well, we have a whole
>> We interrupted you with questions at this point. I think we I think we hit all of the points that we were talking about. >> Any members of the public have questions? >> No more no more witnesses. Okay. Any
comments from the public? Okay. We'll close the public hearing. You have anything you want to say? >> By way, a very quick breakdown. Again, we'd ask that you grant the variances for the slight discretion on the footprint where it was a couple of inches.
I understand the board's resistance, but at the same time, when you look at you have these two structures here. If we came in 10 years from now and asked for it, it's the same consideration. We have these two structures here. What's the best way to offer shade in this
yard? Is it with temporary or permanent awnings coming out of the building? Is it with a bunch of different umbrellas that are there or is cohesively attaching this with a generally lowprofile roof? And what I
mean by that is because it's open through it. There's that bar on the bottom. It's just it's just an A-frame and it's just connecting it for shade purposes. Again, it's your call if this is a better zoning alternative. I think both planners and everybody agrees
there's no impact to granting this variance because it doesn't change the building that is facing the setback from which we need the variance. If we were doing it in a way that made the area of building up against the rear property
line bigger and more impactful, I couldn't make the same argument. But here, no one the the one lot where it's impacting has no impact at all because it's not going to change their view. >> And the constru the construction defect um I mean that's sort of separate from
>> No, that's separate. I I do have >> I don't think I mean that that's what the existing structure >> and the town ever brought it up, >> right? >> You know, I mean it's just cuz we're here. I was looking to clean it up. Nobody brought it up. We got our CO, you know, as it relates to the pool and everything else. >> And you notice for the construction detail, right? Of course. So, so I mean
I don't think I think that's almost the minimus in the full scope of things. So I would just suggest to the board that and and Jim I'll let you talk afterwards. I just want to suggest to the board that perhaps you you can consider if you don't want to approve
the whole variance application approve the one and not the other is another alternative or you can deny everything >> off with that. >> I just wanted to end with it. >> Okay, fair enough. I'm going to suggest we take a motion on uh just something go
ahead comment and >> what about putting the shade structure on the south side of the cabana >> where there's plenty of room to do it. >> It wouldn't be anywhere. It wouldn't be where the fireplace is to go to Miss
Litman's comment. I mean the usable area adjacent to the pool is where it is and to put a shade structure in between the house and the pool. I know it's been a long time since your kids were little or your grandkids were little, >> but to put something that's going to >> impede your view from the house or the
back of the house. >> I've got a seven-year-old grandson. >> You do? >> I do. Yes. >> How do you have Fiona and a seven-year-old? >> No, that she that would be great grandson. >> Well, that in any event in any event, you could always put a shade structure
somewhere else on the property. There's no question. We're looking to put a shade structure on the patio where the fireplace is. And that's the variance we're seeking. So, yeah, you could always put it somewhere else. >> Okay. Uh, I suggest we have to do two uh two votes. Can we do the first one?
Anyone make a motion on the construction defects? >> I'll make a motion. >> A motion for what? >> Motion. Motion for positive resolution on the construction defects. >> A second. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. D. Yes,
>> yes, >> yes, >> Miss Litman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Pelli. >> Yes, >> Mr. Kamica. >> Yes. >> And chairman. >> Yes. Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion on the uh structure? >> Just accept that. >> I will motion on group structure
negative resolution. >> Do you have a second? >> Second. >> Wait, let me just get that. Who was >> Mr. was the first and was the second. >> So this is a vote for a negative resolution. >> Vote is to deny the application. Yes. The request,
>> Mr. Ashi. >> No. >> So you're voting no, but you want to deny it. You want to deny or you want to approve it? >> No, he's voting no on the denial, >> right? >> We We all get We know it. Thank you. >> And now you just confused me. I knew it
until >> Miss Leon. >> No. >> Okay. Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Miss Lintman, >> no. >> Mr. Fuji, >> yes. >> Mr. Caramatica, >> no. >> And Chairman Fer, >> yes.
>> So, we've got one, two, three, four yeses and one, two, three, four. >> So, that motion is to the negative. That means we're approved. >> No, wait a second. >> Does not >> Excuse me. If it was a motion, >> this is a zoning board. >> Yeah. >> We can only have seven people voting,
right? >> Oh, that's right. >> The alternate, right? >> Who's the alternate? >> Oh, that stinks. >> Yeah, it can't be four to four. >> Mr. Caramatic is out, so it's four. Yes, four to three to >> Okay. >> So, that means it's denied.
>> Yes. And you you would have I misunderstood what you said. Yes, you're right. >> It would not have meant that there was an approval either. It just would have meant that motion was denied. That motion didn't pass is what it would have. What I can tell you is that in the past when boards vote to deny something or vote to approve something and don't
do it and they don't vote to deny, the courts have held that that's the >> Well, then there would have been a there would have been a follow-up motion to approve the application which would not have passed either, >> right? >> Then we would had a problem. >> You guys would have been out of time and I would have won a shootout, right?
>> You got your construction. All right, our next case. Hollywood Golf Club, 510 Rosel Avenue, block 40, lots 1-2, 34, 82-84, >> 88. >> Yes, of course. Uh 111
in the R1 zone. >> Take two minutes while we uh >> Yeah, just switch stuff. >> Okay. You want a fivem minute break? So, let me take a five minute break. >> Five minute break. I said two minutes, but that's okay. We'll do we'll do five minutes because we know it's going to be
time. >> All right, we're back. Can we take a roll? >> You know what? The guys are at the golf course coming down about >> it. Roll call. >> I I know. I heard
>> Mr. Ashley >> here. >> Mr. Delo >> here. >> Miss >> here. >> Mr. Chamora >> here. >> Miss Litman >> here. >> Mr. Pui >> here. Carolina >> here >> and chairman Ford >> here. Okay, we were with we were at Hollywood Golf Club 510 Roosevelt
Avenue. >> Good evening members of the board. >> I'm still Jennifer Krimto here on behalf of the Aan. I have appeared on Hollywood Golf Club for the last 20 years now, but never in front of this board. The reason being that when I first did it and Jim,
I was not I was a long time ago. >> Yeah. Before we came for any type of improvement, Jim and I worked together when I was but a young attorney to develop an ordinance that would make this a conditional use and make everything there fit within those
conditions. So every time they did something, they didn't have to come to the board. And we spent a lot of time and were very careful as to what kind of structures, what the setbacks should be, and everything else. And through all of the 20 or 30 years of the club, they
were able to do everything they needed to do without having to come to the zoning board. What we're here tonight for is everybody knows what a hot box is, that silver ugly box that we see on the highway. Essentially, we would need a hot box and we would need to put it in the proximity
of Stevens Road because of and you'll hear through the testimony because the water company won't put their valve any further into the property than it is. So rather than put an ugly silver hot box, the club decided, well, let's make something aesthetically pleasing. Let's
build a structure that looks like it fits within the property and it's attractive. You're going to hear New Jersey Water constrained us as to where it could go. We moved it as far away from the neighbors as we possibly could, but it's not the full 100 feet. It's only 30
something feet away. Okay. So, two things. One, is this the kind of building that you guys were looking to keep 100 ft away where there's lots of activity and noise? And then two, more importantly, um how many people are affected
in that with that regard? I can tell you, and I sent a letter to Mark, Lois Sutton lives at 11 Dwight Drive, a local attorney who you might be familiar with. I know she's appeared before this board in the past. She was representing all of her closest friends starting at one
Dwight Drive all the way up to 13 Dwight Drive because when they got the notice, they were in massive objection to us placing that structure there. when they learned the height of the structure, the size of the structure, the limitations on New Jersey American water, as well as
the fact that there's only one property affected, meaning we meet the 100 foot setback to every property on Dwight Drive except for one. The one that we don't, following Jim's recommendation, and we have an exhibit for you, we're proposing a staggered row of evergreens
to completely block it from the view. I actually gave that property owner the option, do you want us to put the evergreens around the building or do you want us to put it on your property line? They opted for their property line. Um, so Lois didn't have to come tonight. Uh,
I sent an email to Lois and copied Mark and the rest of the board uh board's professionals confirming you were objecting. Now that you know what the building is for and we're going to put the trees there, you're withdrawing your objection. She confirmed that she did.
And I promised that I would stipulate right at the outset that should the board grant an approval, it must be with the row of evergreens that we have there. So I just want to give you that as a background to start because I think this is new to you. Although the planning board has heard this five, six,
seven times. It is new to you. So I just want to give you that background. >> And I'll just I'll just add that I >> I did not see the email know there was an email until Jen just mentioned it. Although I'm looking at it on my phone right now. you said I I didn't I didn't see it earlier today. So, I'm I'm
looking at it and you don't have a printed copy of it by any chance. I'm not expecting you to. Uh I mean, bas basically, it says that they will agree to the following. The the use use of the proposed pump house for water facilities only, no sewer, and that the pump will
only be used one time a year for testing and in the event of a fire. And that they'll install a staggered row of deer resistant evergreens on our property along the entire backyard of 125. as that property is the only property within 100 ft of the structure. The rest of the neighbors acknowledge that they enjoy setback greater than 100 foot
setback required. They're going to present the exhibit tonight showing this and they'll stipulated to it. And then uh Miss Sutton responded on behalf of her clients and confirmed that this was her understanding and that she responded she was with actions on behalf of her clients. >> So I just wanted you to know that
question. >> Yeah. So basically, you're here because the water company is not allowing you >> to move it further away. >> Move it further away. So that's creating a hazard. >> As I understand it, Mark, you can correct me or Jennifer, the hot box can be constructed, put on the site without
the building, without any approvals, >> but it's because of the water company is the reason why you're here. >> 100%. But there's two other things that we're doing that don't need variances that I don't want you to go past, but again it was looked at by by Jim and and so we went to before the planning board.
I don't remember how long ago now uh seeking approvals to expand the clubhouse and during that it was discovered after that approval that there needed for building code purposes to be certain ramps and steps out of the building. Those were not shown
originally. So, this plan shows them. Secondly, they're renovating uh pro shop and we're adding a covered porch onto it. Again, doesn't need any variance relief. So, we're just here for minor site plan for the things that
we're doing on site with the only variance being that setback to Stevens Road and that property. Otherwise, we'd be in front of the planning board. >> Okay. So let me mark. >> Yeah, let me mark in the exhibits that I have. Exhibit A1 will be the variance
application itself. Exhibit A2 will be the topographic survey. Exhibit A3 will be the pro shop additions and alterations plan. Exhibit A4 will be the plan entitled new water main pump house. And I'm going to mark in as exhibit A5 the email exchange of 21926 between Jen
Krimco and Lois Sen. I then have the following um exhibits on behalf of the board. Exhibit B, sorry, go ahead. >> There's a second page. >> Okay, I apologize. Um A6, thank you Nicole. A6 will be the plan entitled
proposed addition renovation prepared by Rottwan Blake and A7 will be the minor site plan prepared uh preparation. So those are all the exhibits. Thank you Nicole for correcting me on that. Exhibit B1 will be the minor site plan
subcommittee resolution dated 11:25 2024 from the planning board. >> That's when it was. >> Yes. Uh exhibit B2 will be the board planners report uh dated February 13, 2026. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report. Exhibit B4 will be the
memo from the code enforcement officer. Exhibit B5 will be the memo from DPW. Exhibit B6 will be the fire marshall's memo. Exhibit B7 will be the Traffic Safety Bureau's letter. Exhibit B8 will be the Crime Prevention Bureau's letter. And exhibit B9 will be the Environmental
Commission report. >> I don't think I got that. >> Doesn't matter. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. So again, I have Pat Ward here. his firm was the uh engineer prepared the site plan. He's going to testify as
a planner. I do have the architects who designed both the uh building in question as well as the uh minor changes to the clubhouse and the golf pro shop. Obviously, they're here for questions. They don't really have they don't really
have anything to add to the plan, but I didn't want to risk not bringing them in case there were questions answered. So we can rely upon the plan themselves rather than actually hear testimony from the architect provided that the board doesn't have questions. You're certainly free to ask. But I will swear in Mr.
Ward. Ward, do you swear any testimony you're about to give in this application will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the true self. >> I do. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Patrick Ward, WD with Engineering. >> And I assume you are still a licensed planner and still a licensed engineer >> right after that. >> Yeah.
>> In the state in the state of New Jersey, correct? Yes. Thank you, sir. Go ahead. >> And I just have two more exhibits. A7 is an aerial of existing conditions. >> A8. >> Yes.
>> A9 is just a closeup aerial showing the improvements. And what A9 also shows, where's the exhibit? Okay. I didn't know you did it separate. A9 is just a closeup of the improvements
on an aerial. >> Thank you. >> And again, this is just to you. If you haven't been here before, you may not be as familiar with what is. And then lastly, the most important exhibit, the one relating to the variance is a 10.
And what I had Pat do on this, show the location of the pump house and then put a 100 foot circle around it. So you could see that that 100 foot circle only crosses over one Dwight Drive. It's more than
the more than the setbacks required from every other property. >> Go ahead, Pat. >> Okay, I'll start with the existing conditions area. That's A8. just to orient the board. This shows the entirety of the property, but we also in
blue outline, we identify the two areas of improvements. And as you can see, they're around the clubhouse area and also by where Steven Road hits um the club, which Steven Road is, I think, used now for members access. Um so now
going to A9, which is going to show this a little bit clearer. I'll start with what all improvements that we're proposing specific to the buildings. So, this is the main clubhouse on the left side here of A9. What we're proposing, what you see in like the gold hatches
are the previously approved building additions. Uh, just to be very clear, we're not proposing any changes to the previously approved footprints or additions. What you'll see on this also are some concrete areas um that are labeled as stairs, landings, ramps.
Those are what's being added to this. Um, and then here on the same image off to the right here, this is the the pro shop. This golden rectangle is the 130 ft covered porch for lack of a better term that we're proposing and that'll be
connected to the driveway here with a concrete sidewalk. So, >> now there are other renovations to the club to the pro shop which is shown on the plans, but again, it's all within that footprint. >> Right. Um, now on the right side of A9, this is really >> Why don't you call up the bigger one?
Why don't you call up A10? It just be easier to show them. >> Actually, A10. I don't have printed full screen. >> Oh, then that then you >> But this is this is the same thing. Just yours has a a nice purple ring around it. That's the 100 foot offset. So, here's Steven Road and the terminus of Steven Road is where the club begins.
And here's Dwight Drive. This lot 143 is one Dwight Drive. Um, so what we have here is a 18 by 20 pump house building. Um, and really I'll get into just how we got here briefly with >> Yeah, let's talk about that and what's
actually in it. >> So right now, uh, Steven Road, there's a water mane, 8 inch water man that comes from Deal Road down into the site. It terminates at a hydrant in the club, right? And right now all of that is owned by owned and maintained by
American Water. So as part of the other upgrades to the facility, more spaces of the club need needed by code to be fire suppressed and sprinkler. So in order to do that um upgrades were needed to occur. Right now the water pressure in
the context of fire suppression from that water man is low. So how do you offset low water pressure for firefighting purposes? You have to install a pump. So, water mains and Steven Road that continues onto our driveway. Working with American Water,
we're trying to consolidate multiple service points, multiple meters into one. So, where do we start with that is, and you'll see this on the black and white drawing better. You have to start with a single water valve. That's a shut off valve for lack of a better term. That's where from from the valve into
the property is now our infrastructure. So all the existing piping, the hydrant from that valve which is 20 ft in from Steven Road becomes the clubs. Now from the >> and then New Jersey American water puts that valve in. We don't their valve. Yes.
>> They decide where it goes. They say this is where it is. And the reason is >> they want it as close to the property line as possible. oftentimes they put it in the right of way if it's possible because anything inward of the valve we own they want to own as little as
possible their pipes so they set that location we can't control that >> yes it's it was >> and that's why those ugly hot boxes are all up in the front of property lines because it has to be where they say it is >> totally this is rare Steven Road dead ends here most times we have a long frontage >> what is the maximum distance our
structure is allowed by their regulations to be from that valve So valves here, it's it's not the structure, it's what's in the structure. It's the me there's a water meter in there. They don't allow the water meter 20 feet in any direction from the valve.
No more than 20. So in this >> pump house, and you'll see it, it's actually on the plans. Um Chris from my office was very proud of this that that meter is 20 ft exactly from the valve location. >> And importantly, we in the house, >> we looked at putting it on the other side. We did,
>> but from where that cart path is, it's a big hill. It would be up on top of a hill for everybody to see as opposed to down in that one area. >> Yeah. This little lawn strip is a slope up about six feet to this carpet. This is the range. Um, this is the range
here. So, if this and this structure can't be subterranean. That's also why you see those big shiny boxes on the highways. They don't want people going in vaults. They want to just come out the great. So, we couldn't even sink it into the hill. We'd have to put it on top. Um it'd be earthworks operations to
get it done. We'd take out a couple trees and you'd probably see I would you would see more of the structure from multiple viewpoints. >> So where so rather than do the hot box, we designed a building. What is the building >> as far as what's it made of? Is it >> the building is a masonry walls uh
typical concrete foundation and then a a timber roof. Um it's about 18 by 20. Um, Jim's Jim took the words out of my pre-written testimony. It looks like a garage. It looks like a single family detached garage. A little smaller than a twocar, oversized one car.
>> Um, >> and one of the things that Lois asked on behalf of her clients and their biggest concern was not visual as much as is there going to be noise or is there going to be activity? >> So, what's in there and how often is it used? >> Water meter, which doesn't make noise. There's something called a backflow pre
which is for fire suppression. make sure that the water doesn't go back into the water system. And then finally, the pump, the fire pump apper uh mechanism. Um the pump will make noise when it's running. However, the reason it's now internal to a building like this, and
the ma the masonry walls will be insulated, um because the room has to actually be heat regulated. Uh it's an enclosed space. There's a there's a operable man door on the driveway side and then there's a window. The window is inoperable. Um the goal is to not have
any noise ambient or otherwise coming out of that building. >> Well, also it's the pump the pump doesn't it's not for domestic water. It's only fire suppression. >> So the only time it's going to operate is if there's a fire, >> right? >> I'm assuming the fire trucks might be
noisier than the pump. That's my point was the the sirens or even just the activity, the noise of the engines from the rigs will be louder than when that pump's running because it's in an enclosed space. They don't have to open the building up to run the pump. The pump turns on when the when the system starts.
>> Okay. And one more thing. When and this didn't get in the email, but I want to just put it on the record. So the way you did your staggered rows, there seems to be a little gap before you get to the westernmost edge of one Dwight, >> 11, whatever it was, one Dwight. So we
would be happy to add one more tree. So the entirety of their backyard was shielded by those trees. >> We'll make sure the Yeah, the each end of the trees. Yep. >> Okay. >> Yep. And those will be evergreen trees, not shrubs. And they'll >> And what's the height of this building?
>> Uh just under 14 feet. It's 1310. um which is which is low low profile considering um the just from a for what the I know we all know what the the relief is. It's 33.3 ft from the property line, 33.4 from the right of
way. Those need to be um 150 respectively. And that's why that what's that's what deviates from the conditional use standard. >> And and Jim, I mean I think that you can offer as the one who drafted the testimony a building like this wasn't really what that ordinance was intended to cover. No, what it was really
intended to cover was maintenance structures where there would be a lot of activity particularly in the early morning hours which the gentleman that just left was concerned about activity in the early morning hours. >> Well, not from this. He was concerned about the leaf blowing that >> leaf blowing. But but that's the type of
thing that type of building that we were considering at the time. It was not a uh something like this which is basically a utility. >> Yes. >> And we're just dressing it up. So basically this is a necessity because you have
this is for the safety of correct >> everybody. >> You want us to go through all the planning testimony? That's one of the points you >> but here so so you need to have this this um pump station because if you don't have this you may not be able to get the water that you need just in case
there's an emergency. >> Well they're going to have to have the hot box regardless of this. It's it's the question of whether you're going to allow the uh the shelter the building around it to hide it >> and that's that's essentially what they're asking. >> But to your to your point, if the border pressure was not enough, it wouldn't
comply with the fire suppression code and therefore it wouldn't >> but we would have we would have to come up with an alternative which might involve multiple hot boxes. It might involve multiple pumps throughout the property where here we're doing it in one. This is >> I was going to say I mean I mean
honestly this is a pretty simple application. It it's just I mean not that I'm the planner here but it's it's the better zoning alternative that we just heard about in the last application. Is this a better zoning alternative than the >> notice when he's on my side I don't interrupt him. You notice that right? >> I was just going to add if just for the
record this is a consolidation of all these components to make an efficient connection which I think is good for the service area of American Water but it also is >> good for the fire department. Good for the fire department, good for the of course good for the club in that all the components are consolidated, but it is a
full modern upgrade to what it needs to be sprinklered. So >> in there's Yep. They're single water now and there's one water meter. Now they have multiple. So we're going to consolidate to one which is again >> this is basically >> the standard that you have to look at. >> Yes. is whether or not the site can
accommodate the use which is the club use the the entire site despite the fact that you're granting this one variant >> right >> so Patrick what's this what's the square footage of this building I couldn't find
it anywhere >> 18 by 20 >> yeah it's about 360 ft >> does it need to be that big >> it does so that was something >> I didn't see any >> any draw. Did I miss a drawing that had the what's actually going
>> insight plans if you flip through them? >> I'll find the page for >> the details of what's in sh. >> Yeah, because that was important to make sure all the components can fit and can be accessed that's in here >> because I have plenty of hot. The reason I ask is I have plenty of hot boxes that
are a third of this size. >> So, I wanted to see what >> because it's more than just what has to be in a hot box. Again, it's all being consolidated, right? So, it's it's >> we're getting there. >> It's not just the valves, which would be the hot box.
>> Sheet C801. >> It's also the pump and the um backflow prevent. >> You'll see the pump, the inline pump, and there's a pump bypass. This this is the darker shape. This really takes up a lot of And to your point, I agree with
you. We've worked with many of many hot boxes that have the valve and the backflow pre in one. They kind of I always call them like fullsize SUVs that are really shiny. Um this the actual fire pump mechanism is big and you know again we have to also get in not we
gener but someone has to get in there and check it test it maintain it. There's also control panels uh on the by the mandor. Um and you'll you'll see that there's the uh the fire pump test header which is where they'll similar to how you see them flush out hydrants. um
short period of time. Just make sure the water's running through it. >> They don't need to access it to read the meter. Those are all digital now. So, >> sorry. >> They don't need to access that to read the meter that there because it's all digital now. They're
>> right. And to to Jim's point, he was mentioning maintenance buildings, which I've been part of an application for a maintenance building here that was compliant, but this is not similar to like a I don't want to say cell tower. No one's going to come and go on a daily basis. This is basically an offlimits building >> sit there,
>> right? >> So, you know, no activity, no one's parking out front every morning and checking something, right? And to your point, everything is remote now. February, >> any more questions? >> Any questions from the public? The only public are my two architects
that I made come because >> you never know >> because the head of the building committee would have had my head if we didn't finish in one night. >> Any more witnesses? >> I'm going to leave this. >> Okay. Any comments from the public?
All right. Close the public hearing. >> I'll second. >> We just close it now. We don't even need to do that. I just ask that you approve the site plan changes which don't need relief and the one conditional use variance for the setback of this necessary uh structure
to house the water utilities. >> Okay. Do we have a motion for positive resolution >> with everything that's contained in the agreement that was made with the objectors um >> which took more time than this hearing did. >> I'll make a motion for positive resolution.
>> I'll second. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Motion to adjurnn. All in favor? I