I don't know. Okay. Well, let me make the call. >> Good evening everyone. >> Welcome to the series finale of the town zoning board of adjustment. Nicole, if you take a roll call, please. >> Mr. Ashkenazi >> here. >> Mr. Delommo
>> here. >> Miss Bele, >> Mr. Chamora >> here. >> Miss Lipin >> here. >> Mr. Kielli, Mr. Laneski >> here, >> Mr. Carameica, Vice Chairman D. Janeiro >> here. >> Chairman
>> here. Please rise to see the flag to the flag of the United States of America to the stand. >> Okay, if it sounds like I'm shouting because I am. Our microphones are not working. So, bear with us. Uh if you
can't hear us, please let us know politely and we'll speak louder. Um also that means if you're in the audience, try to keep the speak talking amongst yourselves to a minimum so that uh the microphone doesn't pick you up. It picks up the people in front of them. Uh chairman statement. 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 in the poster filed with the town of Austin Township Clerk. Emergency exit notice. There are emergency exits through the courtroom doors and two exits to the
rear of the room. No smoking, please. Notice I didn't get to the cell phone yet, but all cell phones must be turned off. If you need to make a call, please make your call outside of the meeting room. All meetings will be video and audio
taped shown on the county communication channel, channel 22, on Verizon Bios, channel 77 on cable vision. Board policy is usually that we will not we will not start cases after 900 p.m. We will suspend that tonight to make sure we get all these cases. Any objectives?
Yes. Resolutions memorialized. Uh we have none. There are four listed on the agenda. Those will have to be held to the next meeting. >> All right. Cases to carry. We have two Texas Avenue LLC, 219 Lewis Street,
block 17, lots 26 and 44. Uh that uh case will be carried to a future date in time to be determined. There will be new notice uh at that time. So if you're here for two Texas Avenue, it will not be heard tonight. It's going to be carried to a future date. We do not know
that date yet. And you will get notice in the mail and it'll obviously be on a future agenda of the new um what do we call this? combined board. >> We don't know. >> Land use board. Land use board. >> Future board.
>> Some boards just call it sometimes just call it the planning board. Sometimes some towns completely change the name. So >> to be named later, uh 260 Overbrook Avenue LLC, 260 Over Avenue, block 22, lot 40 uh in the R4
zone. They will notice for a future date as well. We do not know the date for that hearing. If you're here for 260 Brook Avenue, uh it will not be heard this evening. Look for a new future notice going forward. Uh township of
ocean 1313 South Roller Road, also known as block 142, lot 36. Uh they are requesting that will be carried to Thursday, July 16th, 2026. No future notice, no further notice will be given for that. So, if you're here for
township motion 1313 South Roller Road, that will be heard Thursday, July 16th. Uh, next to be carried, I think, uh, Miss Crimco speak to Abraham Benitar.
>> So, that's 517 Laurel. So, that was intended to go forward tonight. We did have the opportunity to revise plans to address all the comments from the board and the public. Unfortunately, they weren't in 10 days in advance. Sometimes the board would consider us going forward with it as an exhibit, but in
light of the fact that there were several interested neighbors. I conferred with your attorney and he felt it would be prudent to not go forward until the public has had an opportunity to review the plans, we agreed. So, we're asking to be adjourned without the need for further notice to the soontobe
named board's first hearing of July 27th, 2026. >> 27th and the 16th. >> I thought their first meeting was the 27th. supposed to be the 16th. Yeah, it's the 16th July 16th. >> Then July 16th, 2026 without the need
for further notice. >> Okay. >> And we extend the time in which the board has to act through the end of July. >> I'll send you a >> Yep. I'll sign it. >> Okay. So, if you're here for 517 Laurel Avenue, Block 68, that case will not be
heard this evening. It'll be carried until Thursday, July 16th, 2026. Uh you will not receive notice in May. And what time is that meeting start? >> 7 o'clock. >> Seven. Okay. >> July. >> July 16.
>> 16. >> July 16th. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> So all the those are all the cases that will be carried. If you're anybody who's here for any of those cases are going to be carried, you want to leave, you could certainly do so now. If you want to stay and watch, um certainly feel free.
And just for the people leaving on Benitar, all they have to do is email me at my office and I'm happy to email them a set of the plans. >> Okay. >> Or you can reach out to Nicole and and ask her to the board. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh next we have administrative
approvals. >> Thank you. >> Come on. I know well I know that uh Colleen had circulated the plans that we submitted. She advised and sent out the summaries. You want to
start with Alain or Oaker Synagogue? Make sense? >> Whichever you have. >> Okay. What's right in front of me is Alain High School. So essentially with Alain High School in the process of construction and working with the designer, there were some aesthetic changes that they wanted to make that
would help make the building a little more a little more continuity in the building. Uh in the first one, and this was actually approved administratively through Colleen, is that I'm going to go to the plan. And I unfortunately don't have a big one, but
I'll point it out to you. In the approved plan, there was brick on the bottom of the columns on the area facing on the approved left side and then a weird fin up at the top. The new architect
felt that it would be more appropriate to have a stucco column with an architectural band. So, that was one change. uh and then the stone and the brick was changed to stucco. As I had indicated,
there was if you look at on this want to make sure I'm pointing you to the correct one. Here it is on the first sheet. So, as if you remember, and we'll see on the second sheet, there was a faux kind of shed roof design built into
the Logan and it just ended and it didn't wrap around the building. So, all they're proposing to do is wrap it around the building and add the columns for some continuity. So, the side looks like the front. The stucco trim details have been incorporated everywhere among the
architectural elements. And then lastly, because I'd ask you to look at the second sheet of what was handed out, because of the new architectural element shown on A2 on the bottom of the page, it now brings an architectural band across the center of the stucco and
gives the columns and it goes right through where the signage is. So, we're proposing to just take the same signage and relocate it on the building. That's it. No zoning changes, all aesthetic. All aesthetic. No change to the building footprint. No change to occupancy
building area. >> Any questions? >> Any comments from other questions? >> Do we have a motion to accept or do we do public? >> It's an administrative approval. I mean, you can ask anyone's here. She didn't notice. She didn't have. I'll make a
motion for positive. I'll second. We do a vote one by one. >> Yeah. Roll call vote. >> Okay. Mr. Ashkenazi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Doma. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes. >> Miss Litman? >> Yes. >> Mr. Laneski?
>> Yes. >> Vice Chairman D Janeiro? >> Yes. >> Chairman Poland? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And >> yeah, with with synagogue brokers, it was the same kind of thing. So, as you know, it was all in preliminary. It came before the board based on the architecture. Then the building committee got involved and everyone got
their say and they wanted to make some changes to make it more aesthetic. And essentially again it's the same footprint except it's actually cut back a little bit and I'll show you where in a second. It's the same footprint and the modern and more institutional type
architecture in the front was taken off there. Um more architectural treatment added it. It basically it's just an aesthetic change. There's no change whatsoever in the um use. The signage is actually
reduced over what was previously. No change in height. And I'd ask the board to turn to turn to page A101, the second page. If you don't have it, I can show you. Basically, as approved,
the basement went straight across and the front went straight across. It was a flat wall. So, we're just proposing to put some notches in it to give it a little visual interest. And again, it's all aesthetic changes. And we did submit the letter from
Monford Architectural Studio. It's just warmer elements, more stone and wood. Everything else has retained its original design and shape. It's just the aesthetics and the signage is actually decreasing from nine signs
at 226 ft as approved to nine signs at 196 square ft is approved and the uh height remains the same and the loss of the footprint is approximately 24 square ft for the notches.
Any questions from the board? >> That includes all the donors on >> includes everything. I I I was because I know that you know I when I talked to Colleen about that's why we gave you this letter that went with it and there's a sheet that outlines all of the
signage. >> Yeah. Day one. >> Yeah. And I I was very careful about that because I knew that question would come up. >> Any more questions? Any questions, comments from our professionals? We have a motion motion for a positive
second. >> Uh, Mr. Ashkenazi, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Miss Litman, >> yes. >> Mr. Lineski, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman DJ Janeiro, >> yes. >> Chairman Fuller, >> yes.
>> Okay, now we can move on to old business. We'll do uh Abraham and Margaret >> Mos. I'm sorry. >> Okay. 491 South Edge Drive. >> And just for the record, Jennifer Crimco, attorney of attorney with Ancel
Gman Aaron, attorney for the applicant. Do you want to >> Yeah, I mean, so board, this uh this is a matter that the board originally denied. uh the applicant uh filed a case against the against the board and the judge essentially uh remanded the matter
back felt that the board did not use the correct legal standard as raised within the resolution. Um the record is closed. There will be no new testimony that was clear by the judge. I just want to make sure that everyone uh regardless of whether you were here for the original
application or not or at one of the meets and not the other, as long as you read the transcripts uh for those two previous hearings and you also read the court transcript, uh then you're eligible to vote tonight. So, if anyone did not read both transcripts or three transcripts, please let us know. Now,
we'll note for the record that no one that no one's indicating they haven't read it, so we will assume everyone has read it. >> Look, I think we've signed something >> and we all signed certifications. Okay. Thank you. >> From each board member up there. >> Okay. Great. >> And the order simply says it is on the 17th day of November 2025. Order as
follows. Following the following trial on the merits planet prevails, the resolution is vacated in the matter remanded to the zoning board of adjustment of the township ocean for reconsideration of the application under the governing standard. This order shall be served in seven days. Gregory L. Aabia.
And so the judge I I'll let Miss Ko go. We she and I have agreed that I would allow her and I think it's appropriate to um to give a presentation as as to how she wants to present this >> and not a presentation. I just want to be careful just for the >> It's not a presentation. >> It's not a presentation. It's the legal
argument in support of the motion on remand. That's it. Not motion order on remand. >> Correct. >> So the court remanded this for reconsideration of the application, not just a rewriting of the resolution with the same result. and that can be found at the opinion uh on pages 37 and 38.
Starting on page 38, the judge stated that the board will reconsider under the proper legal standard. There may be a different result considering the merits and demerits of the application under the proper legal standard. And he stated, I note in the hear, oh, and then
also in the hearing transfer on page 24, the court claims that it would be troubling to just deny it without freshly considering, which is why Mark and I spent a lot of time making sure the transcripts were correct and that everybody had a copy of one because it was important to the judge that you
actually considered it on the merits, not just on the resolution. So as it it relates to the appropriate legal standard as you're intimately aware is this does this microphone work or do I have to okay as uh you're intimately aware to obtain a variance we have to establish the positive and negative
criteria the positive criteria can be established using either the C1 or the C2 in order to establish a C1 or hardship you must demonstrate that due to the exceptional shape or topographic conditions a result of legally existing structures or other
exceptional situations affecting the property. The strict application of the ordinance would result in an undue hardship on the applicant. It's great. It's a lot of words. What does it mean? As interpreted by our courts and put in the most simplistic terms,
is this the type of lot that the zoning is aimed for? Or is there something particular, unusual, special, unique about the physical conditions of the lot itself, its size, its shape, its topography that would make it difficult
to comply with the ordinance if strictly applied? As you know, ordinances are drafted to regulate standardsized lots that meet certain lot areas and dimensional requirements that don't have severe environmental constraints. Here we had
it all. We had an oddly shaped lot. It was undersized. It had less depth and it was on the lake and encompions that severely limited the footprint of development that was permitted. Hardship does not require that we can
prove that without the variance we can't use the property. The fact that we have a house there today does not um does not obviate the hardship. The hardship is there because we can't develop it the same as a conforming lot. So we need
only demonstrate that due to the unique characteristics of the lot itself, not the person but the lot that the extent to which the property used can be used is inhibited. The hardship is related to the property not the proposed development. So
contrary to a statement in the resolution, a hardship is not self-created either by is not self-created based on the fact that you want a house that needs a variance or you have a house that's existing and non-conforming. The hardship exists because of the lot
itself. The negative criteria consists of two elements. No relief can be granted until one no substantial detriment to the public good and two without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan. Without substantial detriment to the
public good focuses on the impact the variance will have on the specific properties in the area affected by the permitted deviations not affected by construction but the deviations themselves. Unlike use variances, reconciliation
with the zone plan and zoning ordinance is uncomplicated because it depends on whether there's the grounds to support the variance and adequately justify the board's action in granting an exception from the ordinance. According to our Supreme Court in Nash versus Board of
Adjustment 96 New Jersey 97, if the positive and negative criteria are met, then the variance must be granted. Doesn't mean you have to find the positive negative criteria. It just means if you do find it. So why should the variance have been granted? Well,
the C1 hardship criteria was clearly established. It was testified to by the applicants expert. It was testified to by the board's expert and it was stained in the resolution. It's indisputable that the lot was undersized, that it was oddly shaped, that it had a severely
decreased lot depth, and it was unusually encumbered by significant environmental restrictions. Nobody doubted that. So the real issue and the standard at which the judge was challenging wasn't the right standard had to do with the negative criteria.
So it's your consideration can the board grant the relief without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan. With regard to the first prong in the public good, our Supreme Court has held that you evaluate the impact on the neighborhood and
determine if the granting of the variance will cause such damage to the character of the neighborhood to the rise to the level of substantial detriment to the public good. The way that you establish whether or not there is a negative impact so great that it is
um a substantial detriment to the public good is does it fit within the character of the neighborhood? Is it similar in size to some of the houses? Is it similar in architecture? Is the lot size similar? So, as requested by the um
board uh planner, we presented the character of the neighborhood by showing you the lot sizes and the existing housing stock in that neighborhood to show that over 60% of the those lots all require or were non-conforming as to building coverage, not to justify the
granting of the variance. The C1 hardship is the justification. The negative criteria is now that they've established they're justified to a variance, can we grant it without causing the substantial detriment? The evidence presented, the testimony
offered by applicants experts and the board's experts demonstrated a similar pattern of development and setbacks on the lakefront and a preponderance of houses on smaller lots in excess of the building coverage permitted similar to applicants existing within the neighborhood. This demonstrated that the
proposed house would fit within the character of the neighborhood and therefore it couldn't cause a detriment much less a substantial detriment. So now there's prong two and whether or not if this board granted the variance would it have a substantial impairment
to the zone plan of the ordinance. Zone planner had quote no significant planning issues with any of the variances proposed. And when I quote it's because I'm quoting directly from the transcripts. In fact, his testimony endorsed the application by identifying that the
positive criteria were met, arguing with a member of public that the claim relief should not be denied, and then disagreeing with the same member of the public who tried to formulate arguments for how the application had a negative impact. And that's in transcript 2, page 37.
There was simply no evidence in the record that supported a finding that there would be substantial detriment to the public good. nor was there anything in the record to substantiate substantial impairment to the intent of the ordinance in the zone plan.
Despite the lack of any evidence in the record, the board's findings in the resolution concluded essentially that since we established that our proposal was consistent with the character of the neighborhood in order to satisfy the negative criteria, that actually
strengthened the board's denial since the governing body did not amend the ordinance already. In the board's brief, it was further implied that the township had examined the specific RFI zone, elected to change zones calculations for building coverage
without changing the coverage amount, the calculation for coverage. It further speculated that because the township was aware of the overbuilding, it didn't change the ordinance and no variance should be granted. Neither position is legally or factually
accurate. And importantly, it wasn't part of the record. There was no testimony before this board as to any of that. So that isn't something that this board could consider as part of its deliberations. First, because it didn't happen, but second, because it wasn't part of even if it did happen, it wasn't
part of the record. There's no evidence whatsoever before this board that any study was conducted specific to this neighborhood and non-conforming building coverages within this neighborhood. Rather, the township did a study of
building coverage overall and the way it was calculated in a way that's different and unusual to any other town in New Jersey, at least Mammoth County, that I practice in. >> Is that in the record? >> No. >> Why are we talking about things that are not in the record? >> Okay, then I'll skip that. So, it wasn't
in the record. It's not for consideration. As the board is aware, the township doesn't zone for small portions of neighborhoods or larger zoning districts or individual properties. They're intended to set, and this was in the record. I argued it in the record.
>> I'm not stopping you. Only when you talk about stuff that's not in the record. >> Fair. The uh the zone plan ordinance are intended to set standards to be generally complied with in the district as a whole, assuming conforming lots. In other words, zoning standards are
reflective of the RFI zoning district as a whole, not one small neighborhood or the most serious individual property. Thus, a zoning standard that is appropriate for properties not subject to a hardship is particularly reasonable. But variances exist for the
very purpose to permit consideration on of a property's unique hardship to justify an exception from the zoning standard and whether or not it's appropriate. If you can demonstrate the negative criteria under the theory in the resolution and
in the brief, no variance would ever be granted because once the town is aware of a fact, if they don't change the ordinance, then you can't have a variance from. Most importantly is the only expert testimony that this board, excuse me,
that this board heard was in favor of the application. We had an expert engineer. We had an expert planner. The board has its own expert engineer and its own expert planner. There was not an expert witness before this board that gave any testimony to support a finding
of substantial detriment. While the board may reject expert testimony, it may not do so unreasonably and they can only do it based upon bare allegations or un unsubstantiated beliefs. state while statements or objectors are
no doubt important they cannot overcome that of an expert witness as a matter of law and I'm quoting from ourel 2004 appellet division New York SMSA versus board of adjustment of Lehawk the appellet division in a different
case in 2002 held that the board may not reject expert testimony where the only rebuttable information was un unsubstantiated lay objections Going back to the 2004 case, the board aired in rejecting the applicant's
expert testimony where only unsubstanti excuse my inability to say that word unsubstantiated lay objections were raised. Here we have unrebuted expert testimony both by the applicant and by the board's advisors
based on the applicant's objective survey of the surrounding area which supports the applicant's position that the variance is sought. do not and would not cause substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan. As
I said, the board's planning professional agreed and had no concern with the granting of the variances. During the course of the hearing and in the resolution, the board made no finding that our expert testimony was unbelievable. that our expert testimony was
unbelievable, incompetent, or conflicting. And those findings would have to be found in order to reject the expert testimony. It was merely issued it merely issued a conclusory denial because a variance was needed. There necessarily was an impact to the public good and the zone plan
without evaluating whether it was substantial in light of the expert testimony. The record before the board fully supports the grant of the variances saw. We have a lot that meets the hardship criteria in multiple statutory recognized ways and have demonstrated that the proposed house
would be entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood and therefore can't cause a a substantial detriment to the public good. Moreover, there is simply no basis on the record before you to conclude that the grant of the variances on this unique lot
encumbered with multiple hardships would have any impact on the master plan and zoning ordinance, much less a substantial impact. For all of those reasons, I hope that you would reconsider the initial vote and on this remand vote to approve the application as presented with all of the conditions
agreed to and offered to as part of that application. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, I'm just going to go back and let's talk about what's actually in the record. There was testimony about the fact that the there was conversation during the hearings about the fact that
the houses were built prior to the enactment of the ordinance which currently prohibits this type of an expansion. Um, there was an entire exchange between Mr. Diro and Mr. Jano about this and that was all in the record. >> Agreed. >> Okay. So to say that there was no
discussion about it and it's completely made up within the resolution is I don't believe is accurate. One more >> and I don't feel Go ahead. >> Okay. So I just want >> I don't want to have like a debate. >> No, this it's not a debate. I just want to clarify one point because I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. >> I didn't say how they got here. The the
municipal doesn't have to say that the character of the neighborhood was established by variance. Doesn't matter how it was here. What matters is is that that's the character of the neighborhood and we would not be a sore thumb. That's that's not what you're commenting on. What I'm commenting on, you made a whole statement, and again, I don't want to
have back and forth over this. >> Okay. >> Um, you made a whole comment that is completely made up within the resolution >> that that there that the town when it made it decision didn't know about the character of this neighborhood and there was no there was no knowledge of that.
But that that is made up within the resolution. It's nowhere within the record. You said that. That is not accurate because there was a whole conversation about it during the course of the hearing. So >> you said there was no study. >> You said more than that. But regardless, the fact of the matter is is that there
was there was conversation. It did come up during the hearing. It is not made up during it. Just made up as a uh commentary within the resolution. So I'm not advocating one way or the other on this application. That is not my role. It is the role of the board. But I think the board does need to take in and let's start off by saying I agreed with Mr.
Kimco completely and the board found the first time the positive criteria is met for C1 varants that there is absolutely no question about that. The only question before this board is the negative criteria and the board has to consider and look at the facts of the case and whether or not this is a
property where the building coverage is an already non-conforming 28.14% or 1,486 ft. So, it's already non-conforming to what the ordinance which was adopted after the building of this house already has. They want to then increase it to a new total of
33.01% or 1,743 square ft. The zoning ordinance only permits a building coverage of 25% of the total lot area, which would amount to allowable coverage of 1,320 ft. Uh, in other words, the applicant property already exceeds the the
allowable building coverage by 166 ft and they're now looking to bring it to an overage of 423 square ft. So, the board has to take that into consideration. is that does that create a substantial negative impact to the zoning ordinance, the neighborhood, and uh and everything else that's involved
in this? Um if Miss Krimco argues that it does not, um that is up for the board to decide. It's not up for me to decide. With respect to the argument that there was nothing in the record from the board planner uh or that the board planner spoke positively about this application,
I don't know that that's completely true. uh he uh the board planner did indicate that he has no significant which is not substantial. He said significant uh sign significant issues with the uh with the application but he didn't comment on the negative criteria.
He he simply made commentary to the fact that you definitely met your positive criteria and and he constantly says within his commentary the only issue really before the board is whether the negative criteria has been met or not. So again, that is open for board
interpretation. So with that said, I the real issue the judge had in this case is whether or not the uh the board used the correct standard in in uh making his negative criteria finding and what the and we used the language in the resolution. We said I wrote that it
overwhelms the property. Uh and then the judge wrote and this is from the court's transcript. It says what does overwhelm the property even mean? And more to the point has how does overwhelm the property relate to the actual standard substantial detriment to the public good or substantial impairment of zoning
purposes? Maybe they meant substantial but overwhelm that's a strong strong word which to my ear sounds like a higher standard than substantial detriment or substantial impair overwhelm's a big deal. Third, the and I'm quoting this. Third, the resolution
indicates that any damage to the antenna of zoning fails to satisfy the negative criteria. But that's not what the statute says. The statute there said substantial. So, not any old damage, not any old damage to the intent of zoning is a problem. That's why there's a variance. Obviously, there's an impact
of zoning. That's that's implicit in asking for a variance. So, it has to be substantial. And then he then he goes on to say, in fact, I didn't see anywhere in the resolution the word substantial being mentioned. They use the word significant. Maybe it's a kissing cousin in that context, but nowhere was there a
mention of substantial detriment nor substantial impairment. So again, the judge question the use of the words overwhelm and significant and felt that the word substantial needed to be in it. I agree with Mr. Primco 100% on the fact that this is not supposed to be a rubber
stamping of the previous resolution, but I think the board needs to understand the standard and the reason why this was set back down to us. And it really is the board the court questioned whether or not the board understood that the standard is not overwhelming. It's not significant. It is substantial
impairment and substantial detriment. So that's what the board needs to discern this evening. >> And I agree 100% with everything you said. Obviously, but again, this was for reconsideration of the application on its merits, not just rewriting. >> That's what I just said. It's not
supposed to be a rubber stamp. They're supposed to reconsider and find whether or not the applying the proper standard as the judge found it, whether whether it is s substantial detriment or not. And that's what the board needs to consider. And again, I'm not advocating
one way or the other. The board's heard it. They've read the transcripts. So, they're so the transcripts are fresh in their minds. And now they have to make a decision. >> I'll turn it over to the board. >> Any discussion to be? >> Yeah. So, basically what the judge said is he didn't like the other words that
were used because, you know, you use the word substantial. Is that what you're saying? Uh >> that's >> again that's partially what he said but but again the judge was implicit that you're supposed to reconsider the application knowing that the proper knowing that the proper legal standard
is substantial and not overwhelming or significant with that understanding in mind. Have they met their criteria? Is this or is this not a substantial detriment to the zoning ordinance and uh master plan and neighborhood? And just
from the applicant's position, this doesn't turn on I and Mark and I have had this back and forth. I don't think this comes down to the word significant versus the word substantial. I think it comes down to the entirety of
the basis for the denial and was it based on the proper standard, which isn't just does it overwhelm the property, but is it a substantial detriment to the public good? is a substantial impairment to the intended purpose of the zoning ordinance. So again, it's to relook at the evidence
and consider it under the standard and I think you'd agree. I read it right from the cases. What I read is the legal standard, >> right? So So you need to consider that. But again, this is not a rubber stamp that the judge could have, let's be very clear on this, the judge could have, if
he felt the board was 100% wrong, have overturned the board decision and granted the approval. Judge did not do that. Well, >> that he did not do that. He rem and I think you're incorrect, Miss Krimo, if you're going to suggest that's what the judge was intending because he could have done that. You're >> That's not what I'm saying.
>> Your office. Yes. >> Excuse me. So, >> the judge was clear in that he was given the opportunity to decide right there and not send it back. He was absolutely clear in that he wanted to send it back to us. He said, "I do." Page 38, "I do
hope these appointed officials recognize that they do have discretion and are not a mere rubber stamp and will reconsider the merits and demerits of the application under the appropriate legal standard, which as you've both pointed out, substantial is involved in both
definitions. The substantial impact on um the neighborhood and substantial impact on a public um good and substantial impact on the zoning plan. The judge also was very clear that the standard we use makes our decision arbitrary, capriccious and unreasonable.
So the entire piece of it, not just examining the word significant versus substantial comes into play. I agree. Everything >> in our decision is arbitrary capric and reason. >> And Mark, I think you think because I was going to say something, I was going to disagree with you. I wasn't. >> What I was going to
>> Usually you do when you look at me. >> Not always. Not always. What I was going to add to it was the board they could have he could have overturned it, but I think Mark will agree that the judges
try not to interfere with the process unless until they've given every opportunity for a board to correct what is a mis he wrote right in it that it's we we prevailed because the resolution didn't meet the standard of what you
needed to find. So again, he could have, but it the judges always give the presumption of validity to the boards and give them the opportunity to do the right thing, whatever that right thing is. So I'm just suggesting that the right thing to do here was to approve
the application based on the overwhelming proofs and virtually no testimony to the contrary. >> Right. But but again, I don't think I should be read into that. The judge was implying that you should approve the application or you I didn't say you did. that nothing should be implied that the
uh judge was asking you to approve this application nor to deny the application. He just wanted the proper legal standard to be employed. >> Yeah, I think that's clear on page 38 why I read that piece where 100% >> and consider the demerits and merits of
the application under the appropriate legal standard. And he said we'll go from there. >> Yes, agreed. And it's up to the board. >> Can I ask you a question? Did you just say, did I miss you, that um the judge intended you to prevail or did I miss you? >> No, the judge said in the order that
Mark read into the record that plaintiff prevails on a remand as it relates to that, not that. Thank you. Of course, we wouldn't be here >> if that's what the judge said with a period at the end. >> Any more commentaries from the board? I
would offer and I I wrote these down so that I would remember while you were speaking Supreme Cup so that I would phrase it correctly that by itself the increase of lot coverage from an already existing non-conforming by 5% or almost 300
square feet is a very clear substantial impairment of the existing zoning ordinance just by nature of the scale of that increase. Okay. Secondly, and maybe a little more,
we'll say enigmatic, you use the phrase entirely consistent with the character of the neighborhood. And this is where the I would say the detriment comes in. Um, when you use that term, you are citing lot size, lot size and building
height, which are two-dimensional qualities amongst other things. But those were a couple of the things that you listed and that were presented to us in the in the original application. I think a major issue is the scale of the massing in the front yard
been particularly in the front yard setback. That is something that the variance is is asking for. Um even in the revised application it extends the street wall substantially. um focusing on the lot size and the building height, I think it fails to recognize the three-dimensional quality of the
massing, which I would cite as a substantial detriment to the public good and with not within the character or consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Yeah, and I I think I would add that the the the
home that exists on the property already meets the character of the neighborhood and increasing the coverage to 33% would simply exacerbate the situation and
that is does not go in line with what our ordinance is. Uh, I appreciate, Mr. Crimco, you're pointing out the layman's arguments versus expert arguments. Um, uh, and and how much weight you're supposed to give or what you really consider, what you can't consider. I just want to point out
we have a very good attorney who loves to tell us what we can't consider, what somebody says something that we shouldn't be considering. Um, so I just wanted to point that out. Um, anybody else have anything before we uh, do we have a motion for a resolution?
Negative. >> A motion for a negative. >> I'll second. >> Oh, wait, wait, wait. Hold on, hold on, hold on. Jason. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Ashkenazi, >> yes. >> Mr. Delommo, >> yes.
>> U, Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Miss Litman, >> I abstain. I need more information to make a a determination. I have too many questions written down. >> Uh, Mr. Lineski, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman De Janeiro, >> yes.
>> Chairman Fuller, >> yes. >> Great. Now we'll find out if the judge really. >> Appreciate it. And now that it's over and it's not in the record anymore. >> Still on TV. >> That's okay. It's not a secret. We, as it relates to that masking in the front of house, we had an exhibit that showed
it's identical to all the houses on the roof. >> I respectfully disagree. >> Okay. picture. >> Okay, next up we have I missed something here.
Uh Anthony and Chloe. Sorry. >> Sorry, I apologize. 118 Darling Avenue block 138 lot 26 >> seeking permission to construct a twostory addition
that will happen for anyone seeking permission to construct a twotory edition second story edition uh covered front porch the existing minimum set back requires 30 ft whereas 27.1 is
existing and 25.21 ft proposed to the dwelling and ft is proposed in this chairman if I may mark the exhibit. >> Y >> we can't hear you. Your voice is dropping now. Could you speak a little
louder? >> I will stop reading and just start talking to you all so you can hear me. Okay. Is that better this way? Yeah. Okay. Good. >> All right. So, I'm going to mark in the following exhibits. Exhibit A1 is the variance
application itself. Exhibit A2 is the survey of the property. Exhibit A3 is are the architectural plans. Exhibit A4 is the grading plan. We then have exhibit B1 is the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 is board planner
report. And exhibit B3 is the board engineers report. And I'll just swear you in if you wave your right hand. He's swearing testimony that you're about to give will be the truth. The whole truth, nothing but the truth of God. Thank you. >> And just state your name to the record. >> Anthony Balome. >> Thank you, sir. Go. Go ahead.
>> Hi everyone. I'm Anthony Boral. I live at 118 Darling AB in W Massa. I live there with my wife, my 8-year-old stepson, and now my twoe old daughter, which is why my wife's not here with me. >> Congratulations. >> So, the reason I'm here is we're looking
to put an addition onto our house. Our family's expanding. I lived in Ocean Township my whole life. Uh came up through the school system. Um our game plan is to plant roots here and you know to ultimately be able to add an addition to our house so that way
it's something we can grow into rather than something that we're going to grow out. Um, so by proposing what we did, ultimately we're trying to expand on our living space a little bit by bumping out towards the sideyard because it's a 10-ft uh bump out to the side and then
going up over the top adding bedrooms, a bathroom, and uh some additional living space. Um, in terms of what we're proposing with the v or what we're looking for with the variances, front porch, there's a couple houses in the neighborhood that have a
similar size front porch as what we're looking to do. Um, very nice aesthetic and it's a nice covered entryway to the house, which is our main reasoning for it. Um, as for the lot coverage, that's the bump out on the side of the house, which is why we're trying to add some
additional living space. Right now, we have the kitchen and the dining room kind of cramped together and we're struggling to fit everyone in there, especially with the baby and all the baby bottles and everything like that taking up the very little counter space that we had. So, that's part of the reasoning for why we wanted a uh a bump
out onto the side there, so that way we have some more living space. Um, one of the last things that we were looking into was the driveway. Um, that's kind of what we're stuck on right now after having reviewed the board planners
report. Um, we'd like to request uh a design waiver to potentially make our driveway, I think right now it's set at 16 ft wide. We'd like to bump it out to 18 ft wide to provide two spots there. And we have, I believe it's 50 ft of on
street parking space, which is enough for two spots. So we would like to propose that we could instead of going for the variance which is in the plans now proposing a 27 foot wide driveway which I believe would be kind of an eyesore in front of the house rather
than going that far out. Make it just an 18t driveway an additional 2 feet from what we're proposing from what we have now and then consider the on street parking to fulfill the need that we have there. >> What does that do to the variance you're
requesting? It reduces the number of variances. >> So the he won't need less variance for the for the driveway. >> Residential site improvement standards allow you to make a finding that there is on street parking available to to
count towards the required parking requirement. And if you count the on street if you make the finding the on street parking is available and then it counts towards their parking requirement and they meet the parking requirement. in the township.
>> I think they originally wanted 27 feet for the driveway width because that's residential site improvement standards require 9 foot wide spaces for parking. So that would allow three spaces on site, but you can have one space
offsite. >> And just to note also, my wife and I are the only two adults who live there. We fit our car comfortably and we won't need to worry about another car being in the driveway for a decade. So, >> so we're so we're eliminating >> We're eliminating the driveway with barriers. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, >> so today um where the front porch is going to go, do you have a like a like a anything there now? >> No. So, we just have we have steps going out. Okay. >> The front porch would go to just from my
own measurements about where that front step ends. >> So, I think it's we're only proposing a six foot front porch. I know we have the pre-existing condition with the house being too close to the street as it is. So, we just wanted to move up a little bit further to add that front porch and
that covered entryway. >> The master plan recommends extending front porches up to 10 ft within the the front yard. It hasn't been codified yet. >> It's not inconsistent with the master plan.
>> Any more questions? Thank you for that clarification. Mr. >> You have anything else? >> No, the only other thing is I do have a variance for building coverage. 25% is uh permitted or going to 27% which is
about 150 square ft. And quite frankly, the the new porch is 416 square ft. And that's that's an open front porch. So I don't have a I don't have a substantial problem with that. Do
>> you have a significant problem? >> We're not doing this. It >> seems like we are. Mr. Paul, control your board. >> Mr. Malik, do you have any uh >> uh No, the only thing in my report was uh regarding the driveway width and the
number of parking spaces required by the number of bedrooms. So, that's been discussed. Uh I don't have any problem with with uh Mr. readings uh finally with regards to RSI standards. So I don't have any other
>> and and they do have a non-conforming shed which normally the board puts a condition that if it's ever replaced it has to be put in a conforming location. >> And then a question as well just from the reports u from what I had seen it was saying that we have two available on
street parking spaces. >> Would we then need to expand that driveway? >> No you wouldn't or expand the driveway. >> Okay. So we could leave that >> you can fit two cars in that 16 ft but >> the RSAS RSIS you just have one space on site but two offsite on the street so
you don't need to expand it. >> Okay. >> So is he increasing with 18? >> No they're not going. >> So we wouldn't even need to >> that was my recommendation in my report I think is that they >> should leave it as it is. >> Just leaving the parking not moving it. So it's a pre-existing not formity. I
just for the board's edification, I drove by the site. There were two cars parked in the existing driveway and it they seem to fit very nicely. >> One of them is a very large paint truck. So, >> any questions from the public or comments from the public?
>> All right, we close the public hearing. Do we have a motion? >> Motion for a positive resolution. >> Mr. Ashkenazi? >> Yes. >> Mr. Delmo? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora? >> Yes. >> Miss Litman? Yes, >> Mr. Weski. >> Yes, >> Vice Chairman Daneiro. >> Yes,
>> Chairman Fer. >> Yes, >> thank you. Congratulations. >> Put the baby time to go home and uh some >> You're a good dad. >> Okay, next up we have
>> All right, we have 238 Highwood LLC. 238 Highwood Road, block 25, lot 128 in R4 zone. Returning to the applicants, Mr. Farmer, >> Mr. Fer, ladies and gentlemen of the board, good evening. It's a pleasure to
be before you one more time after this. Um, in any event, this application is for 238 Highwood LLC. Uh, and uh, it is lot 128, lot 25. We are here before you primarily because it's a non-conforming
lot. In terms of the bulk criteria, they are met for the most part. There's one issue and there are a few little things I want to point out, but the lot is narrow by 15 ft and it is a few hundred square feet short of the minimum
required. So, we land before you in terms of coverage, in terms of setbacks and both concerns say one minor thing, everything is fine. There is some concern about a breakout basement window um which we can relocate if it's
problematic for the board. We prefer where it is but we can relocate if necessary. I will also say that two very nice objectors contacted me and they had some concerns which I have been able to address with both my client and them and
I think in hope it's to their satisfaction but they'll be able to get up and tell you whether it is or is it. Um, I would present as my first witness, uh, David Feldman as a licensed architect. You answer one minute. >> All right. First, I'm going to mark in
the exhibits. Exhibit That's okay. All right. The first exhibit is going to be A1 is the variance application itself. Exhibit A2 is the plan of survey. Exhibit A3 is the variance plan. Exhibit A4, the architecturals. Then we have the following board exhibit. Exhibit B1 will
be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner's report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report and then just fel the swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole talking about the truth. >> I do. >> And just say state your name for the record.
>> David Feldman Feld Man, principal architect of Feldman and Feldman Architects Wall Township, New Jersey. >> Okay. And you are currently a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. >> I am. >> Thank you. >> And you've appeared before this board a zillion times? >> I have. >> Okay. We ask that you accept his
and uh since he is a little bit under the weather because of the dangerous sport of pickle ball, Scotland is going to illustrate on the board with what he tells you. I apologize. We couldn't get Vanna White, but Scotland will do it for us. >> And uh regarding the house,
>> we need the laser pointer. Remember the guy with the laser pointer that was here last week? >> Oh, you have a pen. So, um, David, the plan is to raise the existing house, uh, build a new home and, uh, pool, uh, with
patio and sidage like that. Correct. It is. Okay. Why don't you describe the house and Scott, you meant to turn the pages? >> Absolutely. >> So, so basically what we're proposing is a two-story home, single family with a
basement. Um it basically meets all the criterias of the ordinance except as Mr. Farber pointed out the lot coverage is under the uh lot size um where 10,000 square ft is required. I believe the lot
is just under 9,400 square ft. Um and the lot frontage is uh deficient in the uh in the width of the the front yard. >> It's the lot width just a lot width. protect the frontage is okay because the frontage can be less than the width can be 60% of the required width. So the
frontage is okay but the width is is short. >> Just to be precise the lot is 9375 square ft whereas 10,000 is required. The width is 75 where 90 is required. Apologies for In addition to that we are
um proposing a egress window on the left side of the property. Um the house is at the 10-ft setback. the window well because of the design of it uh extends into that setback. Um in the past that's
never been a problem. I'm not sure why it was flagged on this application, but if need be, we could address that. Um the window well is at uh ground level, so it's not really obtrusive to uh to the neighbors in in any way. Um, the
home is going to have a front porch as well as a onecar garage. And on the first floor basically is going to consist of a um study, family room, dining room, breakfast area, and
kitchen. Uh, as well as a powder room, uh, mud room, butler's pantry, and the onecar garage. Uh, I know there was some concern with the study on the first floor um possibly being used as a
bedroom. Um, given the location of it right off the front entrance, given the fact that there's no full bathroom on the first floor, um, I find that to be highly unlikely. Um, and it's not the intention of the applicant to uh to
utilize that as a bedroom. Um >> going down one >> going down one uh one level into the basement. Um we're we are proposing two bedrooms um with legal egress, a full
bathroom, mechanical room, and a uh a playroom area. Um like I said, the window well to the left side of the property is the one that's encroaching. Um there is another window well that meets uh egress um to the rear of the uh
property. >> How visible is that window well which is it extended all above the >> uh maybe about 6 in above grade. >> Um and we're willing to put some shrubs around it as a as a means of uh you know covering it.
>> Yeah. >> As long as they're not so tall that you can't out correct. >> Yeah. it would be my shrubs. Uh on the second floor, um we're proposing um four bedrooms, uh two and a half baths, um with a pull down, um staircase
that would go up to the attic. So there's no habitable attic space. Um it would only be accessible via the pull down stair for means of storage and any mechanical um equipment needs to be uh
to be paired or or worked on. Um, the home is intended to have uh some uh clapboard siding um which would be probably a hardy board material. Um some railing in the front with a metal deck, a metal roof going
across the uh the covered porch. >> Did you look at another layout that would allow the window well to be in conformance? >> Uh I did not, but it's probably easy to adjust. I mean after getting the report
we can locate the um secondary room to the back right corner and provide a window well. So both window wells would then be to the rear. Um the problem with that though is if down the road they
want to put a deck or a patio >> be correct. So I opted not to look at that or suggest that. I think I like the idea of the landscaping on two of three sides. The
one side being that has a ladder, you know, they'll landscape that side >> which could be towards the rear of that >> egress window. Yeah, that would make sense. >> And then the front would be landscaped. >> I have a question for Mr. Um, it says
here that you're the modification of the proposed study to eliminate closet doors substantially addresses the prior state concern was to say they don't put the closet doors back on. >> That could be a condition of approval. Quite frankly, the location of that room
makes it highly unlikely to be used as a bedroom. Maybe occasionally for a guest or something to sleep in, but not as a bedroom on a regular basis. And if there were if you asked to sleep in that room, is that illegal? >> Yeah, it would be no different than
somebody coming to my house and sleeping on the couch in my living room. >> Any more questions for this? >> Any questions from the public for this witness? >> Um, there's a gentleman here. His name
is John St. James. He has some St. I'm sorry. He has some concerns about the gate and we would be relocating the uh pool filtration equipment. I I think that's more information for Mr. Lynn to
go over. There's also another object, not I won't call him objective, but someone who had an issue and is concerned about drainage and suggested maybe some uh plants be placed along the back, some bushes and stuff to help absorb any water. Um, again, I think
that's something that Mr. Lynn can address and and I will bring that all up, but Mr. St. James, you are well St. John, I'm sorry. You're welcome to ask uh Mr. Feldman any questions you'd like, but let him get sworn in. >> Yes. So, this is any any questions you have for what this gentleman has talked about specifically.
>> I have to come up. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, >> you're doing pretty good. Um, >> I sir, I'm just going to swear you in. Okay. Do you swear a testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but true, self? I do. >> And just state your name for the record.
>> David St. John SHN. >> Okay. And what is your address, sir? >> 239 Delaware Avenue. >> Thank you. >> Apologies for butchering your name. I was looking at my notes. >> Uh
the issue I sat down with Mr. Farber and we addressed these issues with the fence. He said he was going to put a fence totally matching the PVC fence going around the property going across the
back without a gate. So, I was I was happy with that. They agreed to move the the pool filter, but my only concern now was I'm not sure about that drain.
Where where does the water drain for? There there's a pipe trench >> and I I just want it on the record that I >> I was told it's it goes all the way to the front to the driveways. >> Mr. Far, will your next witness speak to that?
>> Yes, exactly. Mr. St. John, as I explained, the issues you're concerned about are going to be addressed by Mr. Lynn and they're more appropriately addressed to him as opposed to the architect. So, you're welcome to ask him, but you're asking the wrong guy. >> Okay.
Sorry. Sorry. >> But you can come back up here when he goes and you'll still be under some have to come back up because you >> we were actually going to do it before you got up. But that's fine. Okay. >> Have a seat and if you have any objection or questions, you can talk to
Mr. Lynn when he's done. Okay. Um the next witness I'd like to call is uh Scott Lynn. And I would like to be sworn in. Mr. is a craftsman uh state of New Jersey. He's been working
on engineering projects for how many years? >> 38. >> 38 years. And he has been accepted as an expert before this board on numerous occasions as a draftsman to go type concerns. >> All right, sir. Do you swear in testimony you're about to give will be
the whole truth and nothing? >> Yes. >> The state of the record? >> Scotland DS Engineering. >> And Mr. Lynn, just remind me what is your license? I do not have a license. You don't have any license in civil engineering? No, but I have uh a degree in civil engineering from NGIT, 38 years
experience. I'm here at some angels to provide factual testimony on engineering. >> So So Mr. Car, he's never been accepted as an expert here. At least at least graphs person who's >> right, but that's not an expert because he doesn't he doesn't have a license. >> I'm not going to argue semantics. >> Yeah, it's not semantics. He's he's he's
not he's not an expert. He he is a he's a draftsman and he can testify as a as a draftman. >> Very, >> but he's not licensed in anything. >> Thank you. Okay, Mr. Lynn, just very very briefly go over the full issues as
to property and the coverage. Guess the microphone's not working, right? >> Yeah. No, it's not working. I have to talk louder. You're outside. So, just just to reiterate some of the uh variances that Mr. Farber and Mr. Feldman already discussed, we're here uh
for two variances. Number one being the insufficient lot area and the insufficient lot width. Other than that, we do meet all the underlying bulk requirements of the R4 zone. Having said >> no >> sideyard setback >> sideyard setback correct
>> so then louder I can't hear you. >> Okay I will >> thank you >> the issue he he said that we're here for two variances for side width and for live coverage recap. >> Yeah and again we meet all the other
lying under bulk requirements of the R4 zone. So just to briefly give you an explanation of the proposed uh features on this property, there is an existing house which is situated on the property with an existing garage in the back. All
those structures are being removed. We are proposing a new dwelling, new driveway, new pool, and new patio. Along with the uh patio, there's also a cabana which is being proposed. It's less than 150 square ft, so it meets all the
requirements for a cabana being 5 ft off of the sideyard property. If we were over 150 square ft, we'd be having a different conversation. Uh the drainage that uh that the uh joint property owner brought up uh is
being mitigated by the fact that we do have a trench drain which completely surrounds the the pool patio. The gutters from the cabana and the house are being directed to the front of the property which there is a rather large dry well situated in this truck. So
there won't be any runoff to the neighbors to the right, to the left or to the rear. I just want to interject about something. There was concern by someone else that there might be a water flow
concern and we are under or at impervious coverage. Correct. under that. >> We are under at the uh and one thing it's not on the plan that we will be happy to consider is a line of bushes
along the back that might be available to absorb any water. It's not on the plans, but you can make that as a condition and we will be happy to abide by that. Um, another thing, and this is not anything that uh Mr. Lyn would
necessarily testify to the plans demon show cool equipment towards the property line. Uh Mr. uh St. John who was up here before is concerned about the noise level and we've agreed to move it so
it's going to be along the side of the cabana and far enough away from pointing to the approximate area. But the point is we wanted to be good neighbors and mitigate these concerns. As far as the water well um that has all been
addressed and we are under impervious so there's no variance for coverage and I am sorry to interrupt you sir >> Mr. Can you just go I'm sorry. Can you tell us about the fence issue? >> Yeah, I I can >> you're going to do that. Okay. >> So, on the plan there is a proposed
fence which is required by law to meet the pool code fence requirements. There are two gates proposed on either side of the house right and left. There's I think there's a a a little bit confusion because of the standard note that
describes the pool fence requirements. It points to the the rear line fence which has the word gate in it in that standard note. There will not be a gate along the rear property line. There won't be any other gate along the side property line. Two gates in the front.
However, yes. So, you may want to put a gate in in case you want to go swimming in this pool. What >> and and one other thing although this is not Allenhurst to lock or where we have to worry about texture and design from an aesthetic point of view we will match
the uh the uh plastic >> PVC vinyl fence >> PV vinyl fence which aesthetically concerned Mr. St. John >> you're matching it with which fence? >> Apparently there's some >> on the side already and it's just all
going to match. It's a fence on on your client's property. No, >> it's off property. >> It's off. Can you show us where the fence is that we're talking about? >> That would be along this side. >> That's your be the northern side. >> That's not your client's property. I'm confused.
>> No, no, no. Client's property is in this area. >> Okay. >> What they're what Mr. Farber is referring to is the adjoining property. >> Okay. So the fence they're going to put in is going to match the fences that are in that area up there. >> Exactly. >> For aesthetically reason. >> So it's not going to it's not going to
link up with it. It's it's >> Okay. All right. All right. Cuz it's on someone else's property. It'll be a separate independent fence. >> Understood. >> I think we hit all the points. >> Yeah, we did receive a report from Ben dated June 12th, 2026. Ben did have two
comments in that report. Uh we're certainly going to agree to both of those comments. One is to provide an engineering mounding analysis on the drywall and uh to make sure that the proposed drywall that's in the front yard doesn't conflict with any
utilities. And in the event that it does, we're going to have to resize and reconfigure the drywall. But that would have no bearing on whether or not this board decided to either grant or deny this. >> Those are postgranting compliance type engineering issues. Yeah.
Mr. Chairman, just just on that real quick. Um I agree with the testimony and and that that's fine. Uh the applicant the plan does show that a soil uh log was taken and they did not encounter uh
the groundwater down to a depth of 9 ft. So uh the groundwater mounting analysis may be just a formality, but it's something that that we want to see and have for the record. Um, and then uh I I agree the the uh underground drainage uh
drywall basically goes across the entire frontage of the house uh and it goes down uh 4 and 1/2 ft below grade. So I wanted to make sure that the the water, sewer, gas were not going through this dry well. So wherever those utilities
are located, we want to uh resize the dry well uh so that it doesn't conflict with that. So I I don't have a problem with that. >> Are those things will go into the resolution? >> Yeah, that those are the conditions that they
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And we're also fine with putting shrug around the side uh window. >> Any questions from the board? >> Uh just to follow up on Ben, your point about the drywall. I'm assuming there's
a volumetric calculation to determine the size of that drywall. >> There is. And actually the the applicant um it looks like they they size the drywall for the the total roof area. Uh but the the total area of the roof is
smaller than the amount of new impervious that's being proposed. So I think it's a little oversized. So, I I I have no issue with them uh reducing the size of it and then having a a popup drain emitter um that in the event of a
of a storm where where it needs needs uh to water needs to come out of the emitter, it can go flow right into the the street and um that's fine. >> Perfect. concerned just with what you said about the utilities if they occur
and you know let's say electric gas and whatever cable coming in three different places that it's going to completely kill the drywall but >> that'll be something that that we can review. It's it's possible that they may have to install two smaller dry wells in
that event, but that that is uh possible because they already have uh downspouts on both sides of the the house. So water can be collected in multiple places. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Or if it becomes an un unsolvable
problem, we can install new new uh utilities and put them all within one certain gets to the house. Okay. And then we'll we'll work around the time offer. >> Any more questions?
>> Any questions from the public? >> Just going to swear you in. Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth of God? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. >> And just state your name, please. >> Uh Edward Bounty. >> Just spell your last name, please. >> E B A N I. >> And your address, sir?
>> 240 Highwood Road. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Yeah, I'm the next door neighbor to the south. Um, just I couldn't see where you guys where the plan was going to be to move the pool filtration to. >> It's going to be moved to I believe here. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So, it's off the property line. Are you this house on the south? >> Okay. So, so it's on the other side of the house here. You're not going to hear it. And then the only other thing was, you know, given the small lot size and the the the size of the patio, just the
concern for the water runoff, um I I would just uh maybe request that I don't know if this make any difference, but maybe shrubs or trees along the south the south. Uh yeah, exactly. >> Sure. Certain water.
>> So at the end of the day, Mr. far. How many What? Show Show us where you're adding all these shrubs. I understand we haven't picked out the actual landscaping yet, but let's let's get them all down. >> So, based on the concerns of this property owner, we would put a row of shrubs along this property line
>> up to the house. >> Up to the house, right from the back of the pool patio, let's say, right up to the back of the house, if that if that suffices for you. >> I believe that's the south side of the south. >> Correct. So, you're going to have it and then along the rear property line, >> right?
>> Is that what you said earlier? >> I said that, but if you don't >> So, I wanted to clarify that. Yeah. Yeah. For me, it's the south the south side of >> Oh, this was the neighbor that you were >> This was the neighbor I actually spoke to your dad. >> But in any event, we will have no problem putting shrubbery in.
>> So, it's only going to that's the only place that you're agreeing for shrubbery then. It's not on the rear property line. is the south property line >> and the window and the >> and the eress window on the >> and around the window well around the ingress window. Yeah. >> Two sides. >> You could almost extend the bushes to
>> but the the other sides of the property are going to have a fence. >> Correct. A solid white fence. Yes. Yeah. >> Six foot six. Any M if you have any other questions or you want to look at anything on the plan? >> You good?
>> Okay. >> Okay. We'll close the public hearing. >> Uh do we have a motion for a positive resolution? >> I'll make a motion for a positive resolution. >> I'll second. >> Uh Mr. Ashkenazi? >> Yes. >> Mr. Delommo?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Chamora? >> Yes. Miss Litman, >> yes. >> Mr. Lineski, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Du Janeiro, >> yes. >> And Chairman Fuller, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Don't go far. >> I'll be right back. >> I will take a twominut
break. >> We are back. >> Members are presently accounted for. >> Everyone who was here before is still on the day. So no need to be. >> Okay.
We have uh Rob Cohen, 251 Howard Avenue, block 9, lot 52. Attorney for the applicant, Robert. >> Far Harbor. Why? >> No. Well, that's what I get for reading this. >> The R is missing.
>> Favor. >> Mr. Fab. >> Have I been called Barber and his paper this whole time? At least once. >> So, I'm glad I >> It's okay. Anyway, it's your swan song. You can mispronounce my name. Um, at least
maybe. So, um, good evening, Robert Farber, as indicated for 251 Howard Avenue. Uh, this is an application where the applicant seats to our front porch within the front yard setback and convert a pre-existing non-conforming
garage into a cab. And that is what we are here for on that. Um again the uh architect will be David Feldman who will describe it and back
because this is a matter >> I will first mark in the exhibits. Exhibit A1 is the variance application. Exhibit A2 is the survey of the property. Exhibit A3 are the is the architectural plan. Exhibit A4 is the proposed site grading variance soil erosion and settlement control plan. I
then have the following board exhibits. Exhibit B1 is the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2, board planners report. And exhibit B3 is the board engineers report. >> And I will swear in Mr. Feldman. >> Mr. Feldman. >> Yeah. Just Mr. Feldman. Do you swearing
testimony you're about to give will be defeated the whole chief by the police offic? >> I do. >> And just state your name spelling last name for the record. >> Uh David Feldman. F E L D M >> and you're a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey and your license is standing. Correct. It is. >> Thank you very much. That's all we need.
>> Mr. Feldman before David before we begin um one piece of uh homework to go over you didn't actually do the plans on this. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Um Gut Van uh is an architectural firm in Lakewood and they did the plans. Correct.
>> That is correct. They do not come to testify. Accordingly, you have reviewed the plans. You have gone to the property itself. You have spoken with Gut and Von. You've spoken with the homeowner. Correct. >> I have. >> And you are intimately familiar with the
plans? >> Yes. >> And able to testify? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um could you please describe what is being proposed starting with the main house? >> Sure. So, as far as what's being proposed uh regarding the main house, um
there is a front porch that is being proposed. The porch extends off the face of the home. Uh actually 8 ft and then there's a twoft planter in front of the porch. So the total depth of the for if
you go to A2 might go back a few. So looking at the foundation you could see the um the dimensions that are depicted as a total of 10 ft off the
base of the home. However, the first two feet uh will be a planter around the sides and perimeter uh sides and front and then basically an 8t deep porch um to the house. Uh the steps do not extend
beyond the 10 ft. They're recessed into the uh planter area. So, the full dimension is only going to be 10 ft. Uh according to your master plan um this is recommended and and suggested
uh however according to your master plan they only allow the width to be 3/4 as per Mr. Higgins report 3/4 of the width of the total house. Uh we're proposing to go the entire width of the home.
However, there is no roof over this porch. sort of call it a porch as opposed to a patio might be more appropriate. Um in addition to that out the towards the rear of the home um in the middle there is an existing deck um which we
are reducing in size um to provide a bathroom which would be accessible from the uh from the backyard and uh act as sort of like the little area. you know, kids coming off the pool could go in there without really having to go into
the house. Um the the main or the bigger issue. So, if you go to A4, which is the elevations, um you could see where the uh patio is uh proposed with with the
planting. Uh and then the rear of the elevation would show the door going into the full bath that's being proposed. Um, the other element uh of what's going on with this
project is that there's an existing garage to the back right corner of the property. Um, if you go to the next next page. So, so A3 um
is that garage although it currently does not look like that now. Uh currently the um the footprint is not changing. Okay. But the intent is to modernize the uh aesthetics on the
exterior. Um you might want to enter this into evidence. >> I would. where currently there is a gable style roof on the garage. It's the intent to remove that gable roof uh and create a flat roof
um to to make it more modern and to uh to go along uh with the with the look of the home. If I may interrupt you, Mr. Feldman and Mr. Chairman and board members dropped one. Here are three photographs that have been marked a
five. if we will show the key this garage. Those are photographs that I personally took this afternoon at the site. >> So, the height of the garage will be 12 ft or height of the cabana will be 12 ft. >> Uh height of the garage is
>> the height of the cabana is going to to roughly be about 13 1/2 ft to the top of the roof. The 12T dimension that's indicated is to the bottom of the sophet. >> Okay. Okay. So, >> okay.
That's not shown on the plan. Correct. You didn't do it. Fair enough. >> Um, like I said, the the footprint of what's currently existing is going to remain um in place and the uh height of
the um structure as Mr. Higgins pointed out or I or I pointed out is going to be a total of 13 1/2 ft to the flat roof, the top of the flat roof. Uh, the cabana is really basically just going to have a little kitchenet area in
there. Um, some sliding glass doors to the left which faces the pool. And then where the garage door currently is, um, it's the intention to put additional sliding glass doors and create a little sitting area within the space.
>> Thank you, Mr. Feldman. What surrounds the garage cabana? >> So on the right side um is a fence. >> Yes. >> Okay. To the neighbor uh to the rear of the property, right behind the cabana,
there is another fence >> um which encloses the backyard and the pool area. >> What about for the board's edification? What about the property behind that? >> The property behind that I believe is wetlands or owned by the university. >> That's what I Yeah, it's Mammoth University. It's well beyond Brook and
Mammoth University. >> So in my opinion, I'm not a planner. However, the increase in the height of the cabana, I think it's going to not have any impact on certainly not the neighbor to the north of them given the fact that it's Mammoth University, it's
wetlands, and it's never going to be developed. The existing roof um at the on the garage is up to 12 ft apable um starts at 8 ft at the sides and goes up to 11 and 1/2
>> and there won't be any openings in the cabana to the residence. >> That is correct. To the to the right side and to the north side >> um it's intended to be solid solid walls. So, you're leaving the walls of the
garage and taking the roof off? >> Yes. >> And then residing it. >> Restock the landing. >> I don't know how you're going to stuck away this fence there, but I'm an architect to build it.
You really need a really skinny person >> or someone who agrees to take the fence down so they can put the stuckco and then put the fence right back up. >> So So there's going to be openings on two sides. Yeah, there's going to be an opening to the
>> There's going to be an opening to the front, which is currently where the driveway comes up the side of the home and goes all the way back to the current garage. And then there's going to be a new opening on the left side which faces
an existing pool that's already constructed. >> And when you see the site plan, when Mr. Lynn testifies, you you'll have a better idea of the lay of the land to speak. Thank you. Any questions?
>> I just want to point out one thing on your on your plans here. You have the wrong town. You have long branch. So, >> you know, sometimes, and I think Colleen, Miss Mayor can back me up. Property in that area gets a long branch of mailing address,
>> right? >> So, I suspect that might be the case here, but it certainly is oceania. >> Yeah. If I could add to that, my son actually drove me to the site this afternoon and >> why >> and and we put it in ways. He asked me,
"Is it Long Branch or Ocean Township?" I said, "Because they both came up." >> It's like the section. >> I said, "It's the same." >> Yeah. >> But if it was us that prepared the plans, I would have picked up on. >> Okay. Any questions? Any questions for
the public for this witness on what he talked about? Right. Okay. Come on up. >> Hello everyone. >> All right. Do you swear any testimony that you're about? It will be the truth. The whole telling me about the true self of God. >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Yes. Chris Chambers.
>> Chris Chambers. C H A M B R. >> And your address, Mr. Chambers? Uh 247 Howard Avenue. >> Okay. And where are you in configuration of this property? >> We're 1.26 ft to the east.
>> Yeah. Um thanks for asking the questions earlier that informed me about some of the questions I had for the group. Uh anyway, my wife and I live immediately next door to the uh property drops and we uh love our sideyard. We use it as a perennial garden. We really appreciate nature. We're both biologists by
training. But we have questions about three general questions and then depending on the answers I might ask her more further answers, some more detailed questions. So just to confirm this renovation, the garage is it going to be completely demolished or is going to be
partly retained? No, it's going to all the walls will be retained and extended. >> So the drawing that you have here from future show shows a three-foot foundation. Is that correct? Is it going to be a new foundation? >> No, the foundation is remaining as well.
>> Okay. And it's going to be 14 ft high. Is that is that correct? >> 13 and a half to the top of the flat roof. >> Okay. Uh second question, I'll come back to that in a minute. Um the fence will be retained during the construction or taken down. >> I'm not sure the means and methods that
the builder will imply to to do this >> right >> construction. The fence is about right on the property. >> Whose fence is it? >> It's it's the owners of the property. >> Okay. So they have a right to take the fence down. They have about six inches of work. >> Yes. >> Yeah. That's part of the problem. Uh and thirdly, u you said it was going to be a
stucco stucco sighting. Is that correct? >> Okay. Um, I have a few visuals. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask uh Nicole to hand them out to the group. >> That would show to Mr. Farber first. >> I have I have one for Mr. Farber. Give us plenty.
>> He should see it first just to make sure that he has any objections. I don't think he will, but >> Ralph. >> Yes, we actually paid extra because we did the actual house.
>> We'll get to that. >> Okay. >> So, you have no objection. >> No objection. >> All right. All right. Mr. Chambers, will you tell us what this exhibit is? >> Yeah, it's a because there's no projector here, I made a nice little PowerPoint version of my images like to share with the audience and the board
members uh about particular issues that we have. There are three sets of issues uh numbered one, two and three. Um so on one a is a drawing of the the plan from the U south view our property view
meeting to the right side of that building. So I'm curious when you say the 1.26 bit setback, what point on that structure is being measured to the property line? >> I'm assuming it's the foundation exterior wall, but you could talk to the engineer or survey pertaining to way
back statement. >> I don't know. >> Yeah, I think it's the concrete on the original uh garage in my opinion. Um because that's the soft or the overhang may extend over into our property of the new new construction. I'm showing in picture 1B that the current garage and
the current vinyl fence. And if you look closely in 1C, there's a pole that's sitting right on top of the property uh pin. And you see the pole extended up this pole handle to contact the the soft above it. So the current structure in 1D
is in an encroachment into our property about 3/4 of a foot. So it's already encroaching on the property. When we reframe the roof structure, we will comply that the overhang does not encroach into your property at this point. >> Good. >> Won't have to comply with the setbacks
that you're stating in this on your drawings >> or in the drawings. >> You're saying you're only Well, you're 1.26 ft away. >> Correct. >> Proposed. >> Well, exist. >> Is that what's proposed?
>> Same. >> Okay. So, So you can't protrude more than 1.36 ft. >> That doesn't make any sense. I mean, you can't be you're already >> you're clearly measured to the the setback. >> I don't know about that. Not it can't
be. I mean, you're saying it is now 1.26 sideyard setback, but >> I did not. >> I know you didn't say that. But but I but that's what we universally just said, >> right? But my question then is I'll ask let's ask Mr. Higgins. Is is the overhang part of the setback?
the over. It depends upon what the surveyor puts on the plan. But what we're checking now is that one of the plans here shows the adjacent property is Wilson Drive, unimproved portion of Wilson Drive. And I'm just checking the
tax maps right now to see what they show. >> Yeah, that's I'm confused. >> We acquired that I think eight years ago. >> You did? Yeah. All of Wilson Drive. >> Okay. My tape measure shows the measurement is made of the foundation of the garage.
>> But this is an important point because if he's asking for a variance, >> it matters where you're going to where you can build. >> Jim, can't the overhang extend to feed into >> Yeah. So, so, so typically when when a a project comes before you, the setbacks
that are depicted on the engineering drawings are not depicted to the overhang, but the actual foundation of the home and then the overhang can extend 2 feet beyond that. >> This is I'm sorry to interrupt you, David, but I
think uh Mr. Lynn can enlighten us on this. And if it's all right and it's a little odd, can he just be sworn in briefly and address this issue and then he will sit quietly till I'm ready. >> All right, Mr. Lynn, do you swear a testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole thing about the
truth of God? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Scott Lynn Lynn Dering. >> And you're a craftsman of 38 years experience and you're intimately familiar with the engineering. >> Correct. I have to make clear for the record. He
is not a licensed engineer and he has no license. Thank you. I know you're not, but I just like to make that for the record. >> So noted. >> Okay, >> Mr. Lynn, enlighten us, please. So,
>> it's a little easier to see number one on this plan, but I also have a copy of the survey that was prepared by James Pickup, who's a professional land surveyor in the state of New Jersey. The existing garage right now is 1.25 ft off
of this property line. And I found >> to the foundation. It is not measured to the ease. So I'm assuming that this is your property which is just to the east. Correct. >> Okay. The rear of the existing garage/proposed cabana is only 2 in off
of the rear property line. So there is 1.26 ft from the foundation where every surveyor that I've ever known or worked with would measure off of the actual concrete foundation block siding whatever it may be over to the property
line. Uh, so in that 1.26 feet, does the overhang protrude over the airspace, if you will, over the property line? I couldn't tell you that. >> It looks like it does from the picture. >> Currently, it does. >> Yeah, the existing. So what we're what
we're proposing though is when we remove the roof and rebuild it, it will not extend beyond the property line, which is in fact it'll be short of the property line because we're willing to, you know, put a 1ft overhang and we're 1 foot2 off of that property. So So we'll
be 3 in >> correct >> into our property. And as far as the back of the cabana, where we're only 2 in off the property, we'll only have a 1 in overhang to the back of the cabana,
which will not affect the aesthetics of the of the project, and it will not encroach into um anyone's >> Mammoth University's property at that point either. >> All right. So, so you're saying just to be very very clear at the end of the day if the project is approved you're
eliminating the encroachment and the and the roof no part of the shed will be uh will be less than 1.26 ft >> no part of the >> Did I say petite I meant >> you said shed >> no you meant
>> I the walls will not be the existing wall will remain at 1.25 or 1.29 29 off the property. >> 1.26 is what? >> 1.26. The roof will be 26 off the property, allowing us a 1T overhang,
>> but it will still be set back. It will not be >> in away from the property. >> Existing overhang of the garage according to the picture that this gentleman provided. >> Okay. In other words, this if if this uh
application is approved, we will mitigate the overhang issue that pre-exist. >> So, this will be a flat roof. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Where's the water flow? >> We'll uh we'll pitch it to the left side so the water will not flow.
>> I can address that with the engineering test here. >> That's fine. >> A question for the neighbor there. So, I see you at the picture 2A. I assume you're concerned with the construction on your >> Yeah, that's my next set of questions.
>> I I know you want to save money by reusing the garage, but I'd prefer seeing >> proposal. >> He's not asking you. He's He's asking He's saying to the applicant, I believe. >> Yes. >> What are you saying? I think
>> the garage. He said the garage. What? What are you saying? >> He's saying he's saying to move. >> He said move a garage. Like didn't he said if he knows you're trying to save money, but he would suggest taking it down and putting a whole new >> You could eliminate the construction
worries of the neighbor by at least sliding it over to it. I I don't know. >> The issue is the size of the uh of the if we were to move it because it's pre-existing at a certain size it um
Kevin I think he's saying just take >> I think the footprint that's there slide it over. >> I don't know where it would be with regards to the proximity of the pool. >> It'd be quite a distance from the pool. So >> then if we could if we could have the same footprint of what's currently there and slide it to the left. I don't think
we're opposed to >> No, there's no options. Correct. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> So, in that scenario, you just knock it down. >> Would that help your concerns? >> Yeah. 2A shows my concern next and that is the slop and building materials and
that the workers being in ours. >> I would have the other board members feel that my concern. I would think we probably would need a new survey >> on this too, which I guess could be a condition of approval. I'll I'll defer to Mark and Ben on that, but the survey
that's submitted shows Wilson Drive. And if the applicant or the neighbors purchased that eight years ago, the surveyor dated 2025, so that would have to be corrected because the survey is incorrect. >> Yeah.
Did you file a deed with the town when you brought that back? >> Yeah, we did. >> Okay. >> Yes. Lawyers who did the team here actually. >> Oh, did we handle it? >> Yes. >> And whatever was done was done properly.
>> It was substantial. It was significant. >> Yes, it was significant. It was substantial. It was all >> I was wondering at me. I didn't know what I did. It wasn't me. It was my partner. But I'm sure it was done correctly. It was Peter Brown. >> Yes, >> it was right. >> I'll certainly reach out to James Pika
who prepared the survey and have that corrected if and so if >> if if it's not there. >> Yes. >> All right. Um, two more things I just ask in terms of protocol on 2B ask the Indian construction this site or any
site maintain the subtence and there's not creep up construction material in that neighbor's property which is what's shown in 2B and the >> if they're not maintaining the soil erosion you can call >> Mr. King those are concerns that if this
variance were to be granted you can I'm sure you will be vigilant watching and the civil offense is not there or if there is an issue you go across and tell them and it will be rectified that's I I can't guarantee it but there's a builder there and there's code
enforcement you call up the office and get someone there pretty quick >> uh probably not >> that's part of the problem sometime work takes place on Sundays and you know before you know it trees are gone you know the recruitions are
You can send him an email. >> My last question, if you don't mind, pertains to the stucco application. And you see in 3A and 3B and the earlier renovation of the home, the synthetic stucco method was used and the rasping of the styrofoam
to which stuff was applied just like a cloud of white dust everywhere. And you can see the worker covered head to foot almost and styrofoam bits in our garden 3B white styrofoam embedded in the soil and you can't get rid of it. So I ask I think
Ralph did on the second go around with the with the garage used a more preferred method. We appreciate that. I just want to make sure that there there's u informative sorry an informed analysis of that and that the owner takes a uh environmentally friendly
approach if possible. >> That's it. >> Ralph shaking his head yes behind you by the way. >> I'm sorry >> Ralph is shaking his head yes. >> Yeah, I saw. Thank you >> behind you. He already he did address some of your concerns when you pointed them out with
some of the construction afterwards. So, I'm sure they'll be a good one. >> Trust but verify is my my philosophy. >> If that's uh that work. >> All right. So, I just need to make sure and I'll ask the board and I'll ask our professionals. If the new proposal is to
tear down this this garage and build a completely new garage in a different location, are we comfortable proceeding tonight or do we need to see the plans with the correct location? >> I'm I'm not uncomfortable. Okay. If we
give them uh inspect dimensions, you know, how how far off the property line it should be. What is the lawful setback for that garage? >> The lawful setback and what is the size of the garage? >> It's 369 square ft. So it would be 10 side in rear.
>> It would be possible impossible to do it >> lawfully because it would require 30 foot rear yard setbacks. >> So it's still variance. >> But if it could be, you know, it could be 10 and 10, you know, 10 ft off the side, 10 ft off the rear because the rear, quite
frankly, it's it's all open. it's flood plane and then it becomes a large open space for a mama person. >> I don't I don't think 10 and 10 would work. >> Okay. >> Um I think you're going to start getting close to the rear of the home at that point. >> Okay.
>> Um but >> you might be right. >> I'll let the engineer. >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean I don't I don't have a problem with rear yard setback being five. Maybe 10 from the side and five from the rear. In order to meet the sideyard setback of 10 ft, we'd have to shift the cabana
over a total of about 7 ft. >> How would that we only have 1.2 8 ft, but with the overhang that we have? So, we're going to be >> and quite frankly, I don't even have a problem with the caber being closer than 5t to the rear property line because there's just nothing there. There's no impact.
>> All right. So, I need to before we leave here, we need to know exactly what the setbacks are going to be. >> I would say 10 ft from the side and 3 ft from the rear. >> Is that >> I think that gives you barrier to work. >> Yes. >> 10t from the side, 3 ft from the rear.
>> Well, okay. >> That still provides plenty of pool patio. >> Yes, >> it'll be fine. >> Okay. >> Verify five feet off the rear property. Great. >> And 10 ft.
>> And that's to the building walls. >> So you can have an overhang. >> So we can have a bigger overhang. >> Perfect. >> Around the perimeter. >> More than 2 ft. >> More than two feet. That's right. You're on. >> My mom. >> We were together last night. You're way
too old for me. That was a little too much. >> My daughter. Um sir has described because we didn't go into it the front of the house and and everything. >> Yeah. Let me just >> because it's getting late and there
other >> so again to reiterate sort of Mr. >> Barber represented and Mr. development. The front yard variance of 20 ft to the porch would be an open porch with the planters. The other variances being the
uh rear yard and sideyard setbacks for the cabana itself. Other than that, there aren't any other variances associated with this. We meet all the other underlying requirements of the R4 zone. uh to address the drainage that was brought up. The current plan and it
will still also be in integrated into the revised cabana, especially it's a flat roof. We do have drainage proposed to collect that that runoff from the cabana along with the pool patio and bring it into a drywall which would be situated opposite this gentleman's
property which would be on the other side. That drywall will be very similar to the one that was on the previous application. Uh but nevertheless we don't have any water draining off to either side properly joining properties.
The property to the rear is is um open space if I remember correctly is not right. It's all open space. >> Open space. >> Well, I don't know if there's wetlands but there is flood plane. Okay. the the FEMA maps do delineate uh it is a study
stream as part of the the whale pond creek that elevation that FEMA has uh studied is a 19.8 elevation 19.8 our property is up in the 22 23 ranges. So even though there is flood plane back
there this property does not contain any uh flood plane as might be shown on the uh on the FEMA maps. I know Ben wanted me to address that. I did have a conversation with him a couple months ago actually now and he just wanted me to make sure that this board is perfectly clear that there is no flood
plane on the property although it is behind the property. Other than that I don't have any other thing to say other if you guys have any questions and Mr. Chairman just for housekeeping purposes I'm going to mark in Mr. Chambers exhibit as exhibit C. C is in
chambers one question. >> Mr. Mat, do you have any issues that you've not addressed? >> No, I have a couple technical comments on the on my report. Um, as long as the applicant's willing to comply with them, uh, they're they're minor technical, uh,
modifications to plans, uh, such as providing inverts to the, uh, the PVC pipes, uh, drywall cleanout location, the type of patio, uh, to be, um, provided with the construction detail. As long as that stuff is is, um, part of
the conditional rule, then >> of course, we would do that. Mr. Higgins, did you miss anything? No, >> I don't think so. Right. >> All right. Do we have a motion or any request from the public? Uh, close the public hearing. We have a
motion for positive resolution with all of the conditions that have been noted which includes the uh move to 10 ft from the sideyard and three feet from the rear yard. Um, that
was Mr. Matlac. for Mr. Ashkenazi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Doma, >> yes. >> Mr. Chamora, >> yes. >> Miss Litman, >> yes. >> Mr. Laneski, >> oh, >> yes. >> Uh, vice chairman di Janeiro. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Fuller,
>> yes. >> Over the years, it's always been a pleasure hearing before you. I wish you good luck and I hope you guys or a lot of you are back on the successor. And I have a question for Mr. Lexi before I go that probably affects every applicant in
this room >> because this is the last meeting of this board. And there I've had two resolutions that have been voted upon positively. It's normal protocol at the following meeting to approve the resolution. And if you are not at the hearing, you generally don't vote on it.
How is the board going to handle resolutions when there's a new board in July? >> We're not just not going to top any resolutions. There you go. >> Presumably there will be some members of this board on the new board. >> Presumably.
>> Presumably. And those members will be eligible to vote on the resolution. >> You only need one. >> Okay. >> By doctor. >> I'm sure that fact will be taken into account when you have >> everybody. Thank you. Jen, have fun.
Last but certainly not least, >> first and last >> we have 716 Cory's Avenue, block 76.01, lot 2 and R4 zone also 720.
>> No, 716. It was erroneously listed as 720. Good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Jennifer Koffair here. I'm pleased to tell you that the application before you tonight is fully
conforming to all of your bulk requirements. We meet building coverage, lot coverage, side setback, front setback, height, parking, everything. The only reason we're here before you is we have a pre-existing non-conforming lot that shortened lot depth, but it
more than meets or exceeds the lot area. I understand that there are some neighbors here who object to, and I'll let them speak for themselves, but based on what I understand has been uh presented to my client as well as the board office, there are neighbors who
object to the removal of trees. They have concerns about the DP. I know that at least one of these, I'm not sure that he's a neighbor, but certainly active in the community, has called Freehold Soil, has called Inter Lake, and has called Ocean Township when my client was
removing trees with a valid tree removal permit for dead or dying trees. So, while I understand that there might be a lot to be made with regard to trees tonight, I'm happy to tell you that we will fully comply with the tree removal and replacement ordinance. that that is
not before this board because as you know that goes with a tree removal permit that goes to your tree officer post for approval for any kind of development. So to the extent that there's discussions about trees I would
ask that considering this is the last meeting and that the board should only consider that which would is within the jurisdiction. I'd ask that we stay focused on the one variance that we need and the only variance which is lock down. Is it lock? >> It's lot. >> Lot width. >> Live width.
>> Lot width. I apologize. It's right. Lot width. And then lastly, um, any other issue with environmental constraints? Just so the board knows, and you'll hear from Pat, we are regulated by the D. We've worked out all
of the issues with the DP. Several of the permits have been issued. The remaining uh permits are forthcoming and obviously we cannot commence any construction until such time as the D issues all of the >> you have to appear before Inter Lincoln also. >> No, we're not in Inter Lake. The >> Oh, this is wrong.
>> No, yes, that is wrong. >> Okay. there is the the lot is on there are there are two separate lots that uh one is 720 and that's block 10 lot 13 and the other one is ours which
is the one that's subject we're the only one in Ocean Township >> what is >> I'm going to tell you >> what is the No you're assuming what I'm what is the block and lot of this property >> 7601 is the block and lot is two >> okay
>> it's not wrong that It says Interlake. And as you're going to hear through the testimony, there is a pipe that extends through the center of this lot. It's a township drainage pipe, but they have no easement. So, we're relocating it to the joint property levy of the permission of
the adjacent neighbor who's in Interlaken. And we're formalizing and creating an easement that will grant rights to the township to actually have the pipe on the property. So, you know, aside from everything else that we're doing, there's the public benefit of now creating an easement to allow for this
drainage site to continue. So, that's why there's reference to inter. But it's and it it's in the it's in the notice and it's in my letter in parenthesis easement only on the adjacent lot, >> but it's not part of this application. So, therefore, you don't need to go >> we don't need any variance relief for
it. It's not anything that needs permits. >> That's fine. All right. So, I'm just going to mark in the following. Exhibit A1 is a variance application. And exhibit A2 is is New Jersey DP applications. Exhibit A3 will be the FHA verification. Exhibit A4 will be the topographic survey. Exhibit A5 will be
our technical plan. Exhibit A6 will be the PO plan. Then I have exhibit B1 will be the zoning officer's report. Exhibit B2 will be the board planner report. Exhibit B3 will be the board engineers report. And Mr. No, prior to that, prior to tonight, I was or prior to this
evening, I was advised that one of the objectors may have a notice argument. I think we should get that over with first. >> Sure. >> So, if so, I don't know if that's accurate or not. That's what I was told. >> Well, and we can do that. >> But be before they make that argument, Mark, I just want to make sure that
you've reviewed the the certified list. You reviewed our mailings. I >> I I don't even know what they're arguing. So So, so if I can I can hear what they're arguing and then we can deal with it. But I I reviewed everything. Everything seems to be in order. Go ahead. It has nothing to do with that. Don Brockl.
>> Okay. Let me just swear you in, sir. The story testimony you're about to give would be the truth, the whole truth. Let me let yourself die. And just state your name for the record. >> Donald Brockl B O C K 710 Laurel Avenue. And I got noticed the other today. I got
something in the mail that said I had noticed. I didn't get noticed. Um, but I know it was mailed. It was mailed to you on two import which is more than 10 days beforehand. >> Never got but I did I was aware neighbors are knocking on my door since I am a civic leader in the town. Um the
one question we had was jurisdictional we have argument judicial argument. Um and we believe there's more than the setback requirement we're talking about. We believe you look at the house. Let me get I'm sorry. Let me get that drawing there. >> There's no setback. >> I'm sorry. The >> it's just lot width. It's the only
variance. >> Right. That's a we're we're thinking that you really need a rear set back 30 ft um and 10 is all and for a lot depth of 100 when only 65 exist and the reason being is when you look at the drawing I think you have a drawing of a house here
>> is that >> we're just talking about notice now right? Yeah, this is not >> Yeah. Yeah, sir. We're just talking about notice. >> No, I'm talking jurisdiction. We're talking about jurisdictional, right? So, I'm saying the notice was improperly sent out because it's more than just the 65 ft to 9.
>> All right. So, let's deal with two different things, >> right? >> First of all, legally you were noticed. >> Yeah, no problem. >> Okay. So, we're waving that argument. >> No, no worry. >> Okay. To the extent that there is a substantive argument to notice, we identified those variances which our
experts believed, which your zoning officer believed, and which your town planner believed, and I did include, as I always do, any and all other variances that may be determined by the board upon review. So, to the extent that Mr. Buckle is correct, that there's an
additional variance. I don't believe he's correct, but to the extent he is, we're covered as to the notice of the jurisdictional issue because of that catch all language that's in that. >> I I would agree with you. Okay. I'm not an expert. I don't have time to get an expert. I request the board down the
road to give us more time to gather that, but we do believe there's additional. If you look at that, >> and I have to object, Mr. Brockl can't say we do believe Mr. Brockl is not an attorney. He can speak for himself and himself only. You can't speak for you can speak for yourself. >> Thank you. Speak for myself. So I wasn't
able to prepare. I don't have legal representation at this particular meeting, but we I believe there's a problem with particular notice that was sent out. And I believe you look at the front of the house, the front of the house is on South D. Obviously, you have a driveway right in front. And you look
at the house, it's it's it's looking at the front door, which is the real front door, not the side door. That's really it's you look at it's the side door going to court and that's what their official address is and so your notice argument is you believe there's another variance that is necessary.
>> Sure. >> All right. So that's not jurisdictional notice. >> That's you're identifying that you believe there's another variances. Miss Krimco indicated her notice does say any and all other variances. >> Okay. >> So it's covered. >> Okay. So there's not a jury. >> I just want to note that. Thank you.
Thank you. >> No problem. And I don't know if there is another variance, but you're saying there is, but I our professionals don't seem to think there is. >> So So Mark, as we talk about this, and not to prejudge where you're going, sir, but if you're going to say that
something should be further away from the property line, that should be able to be sused out tonight. >> Correct. >> And we will be able to figure it out. Okay. It's not a reason we're not hearing right now. >> Okay. Does >> that make sense more? >> Yeah, that makes sense to me perfectly.
>> That's it. >> As far as I'm concerned, the board has jurisdiction based upon assuming everything that was just said is accurate. I still think the board has jurisdiction to hear the application. And just so the board understands, and you've had the benefit of this with the planning, where you have a vacant lot and there is no house, the front yard,
the rear yard and the sideyard on a corner lot is determined by the orientation of the lot itself and the width and the distance. That's why the lot width is what I was calling lot depth. So again, >> it's just the way the ordinance defines it, whether you agree or not. Um,
>> but if we think something's too close to any property line, >> of course, we can discuss it. >> We can discuss it. So again, it's our position and your professionals seem to agree that no variances are necessary for the house. The only variances for the lot with as it relates to coral the
addresses on Coral's Avenue that's consider we have two front yards as you know >> and we're proposing a fully conforming house and it meets your ordinance and it meets the um D regulations. So with that, I'll turn it over to Pat Ward
having sworn as a professional engineer and a professional planner. and uh ask that he be accepted as both. Oh, and I'm sorry. And I'll move one more item into evidence. We left off as A6. A7 >> and that's the board that's up there. >> Yes.
>> Is A7. Okay. >> A7 is a rendered uh exhibit of the site plan. I'm sorry, the plot plan. And the only difference being, and you'll hear through the testimony while I'm passing this out, originally Pat thought there were six bedrooms. Some only showed the
three necessary parking spaces when it was correctly pointed out by Jim that there are seven bedrooms, and that ups the parking requirement to four. We just revised this exhibit to show that we have four legal parking spaces on the driveway as proposed. So, no variances
for that as well. Okay. So, oh, sorry. Was Ted? >> No, I didn't get a chance. Uh, his hands being very patient. Uh, Mr. Ward, do you swear your testimony you're about to give would be the truth holding about the truth of God? >> I do. And just state your name for the record. Patrick Cord Wet
Engineering 1955 34 W New Jersey. >> And you are a licensed planner and a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. Both licenses are in good standing and you'll be testifying in both capacities this evening. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> It doesn't. >> I could definitely do that. >> Project.
>> All right. Um, so what I'll start with is talking about the existing conditions of the property and then frame that in context of what's going on proposed. So what we have here is sheet one of seven of our plan which really shows the existing conditions. Um, we're at the corner of uh Corley's and South Edge
Drive. The municipal boundary between Ocean Township and the burrow of Interlaken and just so everyone knows West is on the right side here. It's upside down based on how the original survey was done. inner lake and boundary is here which is our west end the right side of the plan. Um the property is
vacant today. Uh there is a unique aspect of this property is that in Corley's Avenue there's a drainage inlet, a municipal drainage inlet and you can see here there's a drainage pipe 24in pipe that heads right to deal lake um traverses right across the property. There's no easement u associated with
that pipe um and takes municipal runoff from the street right into the lake. There are several D constraints on the property related to the lake including flood hazard area, freshwater wetlands and transition area and a riparian zone. And as I'll get to in a moment, D pros
are required for any development on the property. So what we're proposing is a new 2 and a half story dwelling containing seven bedrooms. We're proposing a new circular driveway here um off of South Edge Mir Drive that can
fit four conforming off- streetet parking spaces. And again, just note per Jim's uh review letter, we indeed have seven bedrooms and and we can fit four spaces as originally submitted. There is a small pool and patio at the rear u which is the south side of the house
facing the lake. The grading at the property mimics the existing conditions. There was a note in Mr. Mattlac's memo about the grading south of the pool. So this ties into the D constraints. Due to the D constraints, the south end of the pool will be supported by a wall so that
the existing grades around the south wall are maintained. So really there's going to be a little bit of a step down from the edge of pool to existing grades. To make that clear, we can provide a cross-section of the design uh to Mr. Matlac if uh so approved.
Um, all proposed improvements were designed considering the D constraints along the lake and we currently have multiple applications in with the state for same. To date, we've worked out all the technical issues on those permit applications and expect them to be issued soon.
Regarding the existing municipal storm pipe that traverses the property, again, it goes right through the the center there. Um, what we're proposing to do is really reroute it around uh the buildable area of this property. So, this plan shows it. We're proposing uh
three manholes connected by pipes that'll really reroute the existing pipe to just around the structure and it'll tie into the remainder of the existing pipe. The reason we're stopping here is uh multiple. One lot one to our south is
offsite on our property and anything closer than this to Deal Lake would require more extensive permits and more actual disruption to the bank um of the lake. Um, with that relocation, what we're proposing here is an easement uh for the
drainage pipe uh to the township and you know, obviously we'll work with the township if so approved to get that easement um properly recorded. In regards to the board engineer memo, I mentioned one thing about Mr. Matlac's comments, but we have no issues generally with any of the comments. We
will provide sidewalk along south edgemeir outside of any D constraints. Um, we do for there is the right of way is awfully close uh in spots to the pavement edge of South Edge Rear Drive. So, I just want to note if some of the
portions of the sidewalk have to be on our property, we do have available coverage well under the coverage limit for this property. Um, existing curbon sidewalk replacement will be shown as noted. We anticipate a black aluminum fence and we'll note and detail the same. Uh the pavement repair detail and
cross-section will be updated as as commented and we will confirm sanitary imprints of the proposed lateral and the existing sewer in the road. In terms of zoning compliance and Mr. Krimco mentioned this at the beginning, all proposed improvements are in compliance
with the requirements of the R4 zone. This includes all the principal building setbacks, the principal building height, uh the coverages, the pool setback, and any equipment setbacks. The lot meets the minimum lot area but it's deficient in width. So we have
68.55 ft as existing where 90 ft is required. That's along Corley's Avenue here. So we look at that in my opinion this is a clear hardship. There's no opportunity to cure this condition. So couple things. One immediately to our west is
the the burrow of inner laken and is deed restricted which means we can't acquire any land west and immediately to our east is south engineer drive. So with the significantly deficient lot width though development we're proposing here before the board is fully compliant
otherwise requiring no further relief. my opinion when we look at the negative criteria there is no impact from the lot with condition as it is existing and again all the improvements fully complied that's all I have to >> okay as it relates to the fact that we're a corner lot and you're
establishing the lot with um it's a vacant lot today correct >> it is >> okay and the address fronts on Cor's Avenue >> it does >> okay and typically speaking you when you need to have it let me rephrase In an
interior lot, the sideyard setbacks are typically much less. >> Yes. >> And the front and rear yard setbacks are typically much more for two reasons. One, the front is to allow for the light air and open space in the front. Correct. >> That's right. >> And secondly, the rear is larger to
allow for accessory structures and use of the rear property because typically that's where they're located, not in a side jar. >> Agreed. And so as a result of that when looking at which both are front both corley is a front and south vegetar. >> Yes. But when looking at which is the
rear for purposes of orientation on a vacant lot, since the setback is greater to the rear, it would make sense then that with the address being 16 Quillies Avenue, the rear would be on the south side where
there is the most room once you satisfy the front yard setbacks. >> Yes. So, if we sat aside front yard setbacks, there couldn't be a rear setback that could be complied with here if the west property line were the
>> Well, yeah. I mean, I just for hypothetical, this if the west was the rear yard, you'd have an 8ft sliver of a building envelope on a lot like this. So, that that >> and and more importantly, you're not offering any testimonies to the architectural design. We have an architect for that. But just from a planning perspective and when you have a
long narrow lot like this and it's up against a row of houses albeit in interlen all fronting on corly the intention was that this house fronts on cories. >> Yes. And this is this is the front porch cuz there's an entryway right there. not to get into
>> and and importantly the fact that there's a driveway on South Edge Mir is it's generally the principle in the municipality that if you have a corner lot you have to put your driveway on the less traveled road for lay purpose terms I don't remember what the actual
terminology is the ordinance >> requires >> the ordinance requires that the driveway must be on the road that is >> secondary >> secondary project I'm sorry so even the ordinance considers cor to be the main frontage based on the type of roadway it
is. And while it's still a front yard setback for set front yard for setback purposes, that's the secondary one. And the driveway is not indicative in any way of front yard, rear yard, sideyard. >> Yes, agreed. >> Okay, thank you.
>> The 65 is on court at least half the >> Yeah, it's this. >> What's the width on the other side >> on the back? Uh, you mean the at the rear? What's the depth I think is what you're asking? >> Sure. Depth. Yeah. From south. >> Yes. Correct. Because that's where the
variance is, right? The 65 ft is >> Yes. >> Yeah. 65 here. >> I'm just curious how wide that is. Is 83 83 >> variance either way whether it's >> I'm just curious because it does out, right? >> 83.4. But again, notwithstanding that
nonconformity, we're able to fit the house and not meet any variances. >> I know. I wasn't saying it >> I think that's a positive, not a negative. I'm just saying >> I know. I wasn't saying it for your benefit.
>> Any more questions right now? >> I I have one question. Maybe this is a legal question. Um the the pipe that's being relocated is going to straddle the property line and straddle the municipal boundary. The easement that's being proposed a 10 foot wide easement 5 ft on
this property and 5t on the neighboring property in inner lake. Right. >> Is the easement just going to Ocean Township or is it going to both burrows? >> I think it it's an Ocean Township pipe so it's just going to Ocean Township. It's a private easement on private
property in Interlac and but I don't know that there'd be any reason why Interlac and would get the benefit of the easement since it's not their pipe. >> Okay. >> Presumably. >> All right. And who who does the work? Who installs the >> We do. >> Any more questions?
>> You have more witnesses? >> Just the architect. But again, the house fully conforms which so she can't because of the way the ordinance defends it defines rear yard. I think it would be good to have some brief architectural testimony saying where the architectural
rear of the building is because the if rear yard is defined as the yard that faces the architectural rear of the building. Okay. >> So, here's what we'll do. Tell me if you agree. Uh we'll hear your next witness and then we'll open it to questions for the public so that any question that's
asked will be answered by one of your experts. And I'm and again I'm going to really have my architect focus on what the architectural rear of the building is. So I think you could just show the elevation for this point. >> And I know you haven't testified here
before. So I'm going to have you sworn and qualified. All right. Do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the true self, God? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Rachel Hari. >> And just spell the last name. Rachel. >> H A R A R I.
>> And you're a licensed architect, state of New Jersey. And your license is in good standing. >> It is. >> All right. Thank you. That's all we need. >> Thanks, Rachel. So there was a lot of questions with regard to where's the architectural front and where's the architectural rear. So where is it? >> So in our design the architectural front
of the building is along Corly's 716 Corles Avenue is the address and this is our front elevation. We have a front porch with a entry door. Um and >> and the roof uh the A-frame roof typically would run front to back on a
house like this. >> Correct. And that's how >> and that's how it's shown. Okay. The the elevation below is called the right elevation. Is that the one that's facing >> that is the uh it's facing the sideyard. So the west Okay lot.
>> Okay. Let's take a look at the rear. >> So okay. So let me just go back. So the the west side yard. Is there a door to access the alleged rear yard there? >> No. No. So, if it was a rear architectural rear, there'd be a door to access the rear yard, wouldn't there? >> Correct.
>> Okay. And how about in the architectural rear? Which one is that? Is that the one facing? >> So, this is the um the rear elevation. Architecturally, it faces um the lake, south side of the property. We have um a deck coming out to the back. There's
some sliding doors um and access to the rear yard. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> Um, so those the rear faces, this is lot one, I think.
>> What's on lot one right now? >> I don't know. >> I think it's empty cuz it's >> the shoreline of the lake. >> I was wondering if this house >> You know what? If you look at Pat's picture, >> it's easy.
>> Yeah, but I was just wondering if there was a house right there. No, >> lot of trees. No trees. A lot of trees. >> Any questions? >> Any questions? >> No, I don't. Oh, yeah. One quick
question. There's stairways where you have the driveway off of South Edge. There's a stairway that leads into the house. Where does that lead to? Um, this stairway leads to a mud room. >> Yeah, that's that's the point I want to get.
>> So, you don't have a mud room in your front. >> That's not a front entrance. You don't your front entrance doesn't lead to a mud room. And and just so the board is aware, I looked at this issue very closely because I was concerned as where the rear yard was. Discussed it with the zoning officer and she and I both agreed
that the rear yard is the yard that faces the lake to the south. Doesn't the address the address is 7164? >> But the address doesn't make any difference. The way the ordinance defines a a rear yard and a front yard. Yes. >> Thank you. Mr.
>> probably like are you going to pet just out of curiosity? You might want to petition the post office to change the address at some point >> because the front is going to be facing. >> No, the front is on cor. >> Oh, the front's still on. Sorry. I'm sorry. It's correct.
>> Yeah. Yeah. This goes to a Gotcha. Fair enough. Okay. Any questions from the public? >> Hello, sir. >> Hi. Will you stand up, please? William, >> I'm just going to square you. >> Uh, hi.
Do you swear testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So, I'll help you. >> I do. >> And just say your name for the record. >> William Eer. I L E R. >> Any related to Dan? >> No. >> The attorney? >> Uh, no. >> Okay. >> I am an attorney, but not related to the D. Okay.
>> Okay. And um and you spelled your name already. What's your address? >> Uh I own property at 711 South Edge Drive, West Alenhurst, 07711. >> 7Eleven South Edge Drive D. >> Mhm.
>> And are you here representing somebody or you're just representing yourself? >> No, I don't have any expertise in this area. I'm a real estate attorney and also a property rebuilder. I just wanted to make sure you weren't here nor do I have any experience in this area. Just trying to manage my way through the
questions quickly and I'm about 30 feet outside the notice zone, but I'm on the crescent of the smaller houses that face the lake there on South Edge. So, I have a number of questions. I'd like to address some to the architect, some to the attorney regarding the notice and some to the board about the D wetlands
issue as well. >> Well, respectfully, >> I don't know where I can I I don't want to testify. I have a question for you about. >> So again, I don't know that it's appropriate for the board to answer questions. >> Why don't we Why don't we do this? >> Why don't he ask his questions and then
we can figure out whether it's appropriate to ask those questions or not? >> Okay. Thank you. My first question would be addressed to Miss Grimco. Miss Grimco, the property was stated, I think, in prior testimony that it was a hardship and needed to be developed in a certain way because of its size. That's a correct.
>> That was not what was testified. >> Okay. Um, how did this property come to be in its current state? >> So, Mr. Ry, you really shouldn't be asking Miss Crimco because she's not a witness. You have to ask Mr. Ward the questions or are you aware of how this parcel came to
be this size? Was it the result of a subdivision or was it always this lot in existence since zoning occurred? >> I do not have the history of this property. >> I do. If that helps the board, can I testify to that?
Why is that relevant? I'm just curious. >> My guess is >> I can speak to that. >> I believe it's relevant because this lot was self-created by the owner of a lot next door after applying for a subdivision in Interlaken in 2025. Not sure how the subdivision occurred,
but the prior history of that lot was in 1975 it was bought by the owners of a lot next to it from the YMCA. This lot used to be the spot where a large canoe landing I guess public access point existed from the 1910s till about the 1940s.
So it had been a separate lot. It was never developed except for the purpose of lake recreation. And then the I guess was the prior uh persons that owned it from 1970 until 2025. The Schroth estate forebears bought that
lot. It should have merged into that lot. I believe it did. in some regard because it was common owners and they were non-conforming and that wasn't developed. There was a subdivision application in 2025 according to the deed records that I've been able to review quickly because I had no notice
of this and in 2025 the common owner who still owns that parcel and I believe is the applicant or related to the applicant and I ask anybody to correct me. I do not want >> well I'm going to let you finish and then I'll speak >> created this lot to put this house on
it. uh which I have other questions about the elevation of the basement. >> I can address the stairs which is >> at times exception regarding interconnection depending on the lot and the the width and >> so let me let me let me just couple things. Yeah, I I needed to
>> as it relates to the Lockchner doctrine emerging. Both of these lots were created previous for land use law. One was created by a map filing in Ocean Township and one was created by a separate map filing in Interlak. These have always been separate lots. While
they did come into common ownership at one point, they didn't merge as a matter of law because while it was not conforming as to the lot with on Cory's, it is a through lot and that it's a corner lot and you can't merge two parcels for zoning purposes in two
different towns. The distinction is if both of these lots were in Ocean Township, there may be an argument that they merge, but the fact that they were created by separate maps in two different towns with different requirements. And just so the board knows, we did attempt to acquire from
the adjacent lot. There's a deed restriction on that lot. It can't be further subdivided. I believe that might have been the subdivision. I'm not positive, but I can tell you that it would have been very easy to get the additional lot frontage, but there is a deed restriction on that lot that
prohibits any further subdivision of it. So, we couldn't acquire any land for it. So, the hardship is not relative to what we can or can't develop here because what we're developing is fully conforming. The hardship is we have a standalone lot in Ocean Township,
separate lot and block, separate address in Ocean Township that can't meet the requirements. So all we're saying is we can't make it any bigger. So >> determine under Lochner that if there's a contiguous property line and neither lot fits to zoning conformity, even if
they're different burrows, they don't merge by operation into one. >> Again, there is no way to determine confirmation in one and the other because they're different zoning ordinances. They're completely different requirements. >> My understanding is before zoning came into place in the 1940s. >> They don't merge until zoning comes into
place. >> That's my point. >> And when zoning came into place, they're in two different towns >> in the 60s or 70s is when they came into common ownership, and that would have been the merger. >> I can't speak to it, but they've always been in two separate towns. >> Okay. I'm going to put aside my
questions about whether this was a self-created lot division issue and I understand now why there's no ability to make this lot larger and what's like to just move on to my random questions or something. >> I'm I'm going to say listen I I've never
researched that issue and I'm going to be completely honest. I never run into the case where it's two separate towns where the lots are underside because I think Mr. I was right that they would merge if they were in the same town. Um I never had to consider before with two
separate towns. I I just don't know the answer and I want to be completely upfront on that. I I would need time to research that and I don't know that there's a case on it. I'd like to ask for that time as well because I believe that I've looked into that and I didn't find any case law on double town mergers, but there's plenty on when
rocks themselves merge when they're non-conforming. >> Yes, we just had this issue in Kingsburg. But again, if they're in the same town and >> I can't speak to N Crimco's experience except I have an eminent respect for her and on certain sides of the table with her and I just don't want to concede
that there wasn't some issue with the way this lot came to be >> that somehow we're not figuring the story of it at this point. >> The lot didn't come to be the lot has always been an individual lot. It's >> I guess the and I'm not and I understand >> individual on a tax.
>> Let me say let me say something. >> I understand the board wants to do this tonight. >> I have this is the first time I'm hearing any of this. I don't know the history of the lot. I'm sure you don't have all this information here tonight. We're just going by what you're telling us. I I don't know what Mr. I found and
I don't know the answer to the legal question. So if these lots have merged, that's a problem. But I I like that. >> There was commentary before about a Ocean Township drainage pipe, which is a
concrete pipe about a foot in diameter running straight through the center of this lot. And given that it was a YMC lot entitled prior to the 1970s and this was done when Milman Farms was developed probably in the 1950s or 40s >> Milan Farms the residential development was
>> my my understanding is this brought water from the other side of Corley under Corley's >> I can just tell you no one wasn't >> for whatever purpose this lot was it's a it's a public drainage pipe a municipal drainage pipe going bisecting this
private lot right down the center Uh, have you done a title search that's longer than a 60-year search on this property? >> I believe we did. >> Okay. I'd like to see that search. I'm also going to try to look for it myself, but it would be uh very interesting if
the burrow place a 1 foot wide concrete pipe through private property without some sort of an agreement or something in the record. >> If it did not, it would be my position that it's an easement of necessity or as of right for that drainage point. And we need to see engineering about whether it
have two 90° angles in it now and somehow be changed. >> It's still going probably from that street basin. It's going to have to go along the sidewalk up to the easement over and back again. >> Who's going to maintain and clean that? I wanted to ask questions about that. I think that needs more development.
>> So, as it relates to that drainage pipe, there is no easement of record. We have title insurance for this individual lot in Ocean Township. number one and their title search that issues the title title insurance there is no easement for the
lot. We looked for it because we wouldn't propose to relocate it to the extent there are questions about the safety of relocating that easement. The engineers proposing to relocate it is actually here. Additionally, it's not to the benefit of the public. It's to the
township of ocean. As far as I understand, you don't represent the township and no one from the township who who would be the one who holds the rights of the prescriptive easement. Is this a right of way? >> It's a flood. It's a flood grate on the street that I live on right at the corner. >> The street is a public right of way.
>> Right. >> I'm not talking about moving what's on the street. I'm talking about the pipe on private property. The public has no rights to that. Only the township would. I'm not sure of that because I had the exact same situation on a property I owned in Atlantic Highlands where a municipal water pipe bisected my 2acre
property on the hill that was considered an easement of necessity and the bur was ready to condemn the property and take it for the water. >> Correct. Is an option. >> An easement of an easement of necessity would be to the benefit of who belongs
to the pipe would be the township not the public. My point at this meeting is not to raise farther complicated legal arguments, but to bring these to the board's attention and to try to get answers to them if we can't get them tonight. I think it's important to get the time to look into them, which would be at least one more meeting. I can tell
you that from my own professional experience, title insurance policies generally do a 20-year search. Sometimes they do a 60-year search. If they don't find something in the record and it's aundred years old, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the record anymore. It means the title company has to recover
to your client for the value of what it may have missed. It also means that the burrow doesn't lose its rights to the existence and the use of that pipe through that lot. >> The township doesn't >> the township. I apologize. >> And again, we're not removing any rights from the township. We're formalizing it
now in a different location. >> Formalizing implies that you are absolutely certain there's nothing in the prior record from a 100 years ago about that pipeline. Do you have that record in front of you today? I do not have that record in front of me today, but certainly anything we would do would
be subject to the township accepting the easement and that's not this board that would make that. >> Mr. Eer, can I ask you a question? The the pipe where it is now is in Ocean Township. So, it's Ocean that would have the right if pipe ever broke to go on
that property and fix it at the moment. Right. >> It does. Absolutely. It's called an easement of necessity. >> I know that. I'm a lawyer. >> Right. Okay. Did not realize that. Perfect. knows. Um, so now that they're moving it, it's still the easement that they're they're going to file it now.
They're just making it formal regardless of whether one exists or not. If it can't be found or they did a search and nothing is there, they're now filing the easement in Ocean at probably like the day before closing most likely. So when when they're doing
that, Ocean is still going to have now formal rights to the pipe to access it. So I just want to understand your concern. Are you worried that the pipe's not going to work? Are you worried that it's going to now drain differently in that great by your house? I
>> Yes. All of those are my concerns. Okay. So I wanted to see the engineering on that whether 90° bends in a pipe on a 5ft ement is appropriate. I wanted to see how it was. >> What's a 10 foot ement? >> Five on each property. Okay. Um >> well the engineers here is being given by the other neighbor in the other
township. >> I'm just going to say again I am concerned about the merger issue and I don't know the legal answer to your question. >> My my other element is when you do several 90° bends on a 1 foot wide pipe and you're maybe creating the front of it from the street in onto the property over and >> that's a it's a question for the
engineer. We do 90° turns on pipes all the time for storm water and it's twoft pipe. Um, Mr. Matlac actually had asked for capacity calculations. >> The slope is slightly different, but we're trying to maintain basically from the point of rerouting it to the point
of reconnecting it. We're trying to maintain there's no drop across that. That's significant. So, in other words, capacity is maintained. The velocity is also >> I'm sorry. There's a drop on the street level, which is about 11 ft above the creek level. So, the back of Deal Lake is not a significant drop at 115.
>> The plans stay out of Deal Lake with the pipe. We connect to the >> pipe is in the lake. >> I understand. Well, then you haven't looked at the plans. The the plans I see the pipe at the right at the at the level of >> we're not going down to the lake. >> The mouth is here. >> Yes. We're not go right. We're trying to maintain the drop. So, sir.
>> Okay. >> We're we're connecting to the from the inlet in the street and we're going to tie back into at some point on the property on our property which there's also land south of us towards the lake and I agree with you there is a drop. >> Yes, >> I'm gonna get that in minutes. Okay,
that's fair enough. But let me answer your question. We are tying in at the same point on that pipe. And I could do a cross-section sketch for next meeting if we want. Basically, the elevations, we're not dropping the pipe steeper than it is today. We're just rerouting it at 90° is totally acceptable for storm
water management. >> Mr. Warden, I'd like to ask you another question as it relates to elevation since we're sort of on that topic a little bit. I'm recalling an ordinance that says that a basement level cannot be exposed more than 24 in above grade three. >> That's not correct. I believe I read the ordinance on that, but I'm looking at
grade exposures here that I'm not sure are proposed or existing in relation to the current grade. So, this property has a little mound and then it slopes heavily down towards the O lake. There was nothing in the application that I could see when I reviewed it this afternoon in front of the board uh front
of the zoning officer that showed me the four cuts of the existing elevation of the property and then the proposed I'll call it the final elevation whether there's grading or sloping or hills being pushed out including a line of disturbance with that. So the plans are
devoid of that. They're impossible to analyze correctly for the impact on the lake and actually to the neighborhood itself. >> Mr. Higgins is this something that also commenting more about the elevation. >> No, it would be it would be a bit >> Wait, that's let him finish his sentence and then we'll
>> go ahead because that's just not sorry. >> The Okay, let the engineer answer that. >> The plans are clear and it's really our plans are clear. We do this on every plan in Ocean Township. The plans are clear to demonstrate compliance with the story above grade ordinance. It's really the grade difference at the front of the house architectural front and the
architectural rear. We comply here with I think it's 36 inches at the front and 54 inches at the rear. So therefore proposes a two and a half story dwelling and that's the correct interpretation. >> I thought it was 48 24. I must have not read the reg. >> Okay. >> Understanding the rate changes. Is there
going to be any regrading of this property? >> So I I kind of mentioned this with the pool commentary. We are not we are not significantly regrading this property particularly on the south end for the reason that >> we have the D constraints. So they defined significantly like substantially like
>> well I you know so um >> less than two feet because we're not seeing a variance for the two foot change of grade >> but the the environmental constraints at our rear because of the flood zone the wetlands buffers we we can't regrade back there. >> Okay. Uh I'll parking lot my concern
about the pipe in the easement and the history of it whether there's already a right through the property. I'd like to say that my questions are presented. I got answers or at least put it on the record. Um I have a number or just not a number but just a couple of other
questions I'd like to bring up. >> Um there is a grading plan that shows the grade for new and existing >> recept any cuts in numbers and relations of the lake. I mean it's kind of all floating in the air. three of I mean I'm looking
at >> okay thanks >> pretty clear with existing area of expert >> and it's like a foot and a half is the looks like the foot and a half maximum on the back and we don't know where the pipe is on that but it's going to be moved to the side
>> it's all all everything all information for the pipe's on the same >> we do know where it is >> Mr. This is why we have builders architects on the board >> please I I appreciate that and I understand that it's why a member of the public who doesn't work in this area is asking I'm just letting I'm sure that
concerns of mine, >> but you're but you're stating that they're not there, which isn't true. And you didn't see them. You don't understand them. But that's different than they're not on the drawing. >> I didn't see anything about the pipe grade change elevation or design. I still don't think that's been presented
to us. >> Yeah, there's invert. The inverts are on there. >> The horizontal grade. >> There's the inverts are shown, >> but the grade drop is shown there. >> And It's not shown on >> Let me speed this up so we can get out.
>> Yeah. Let's take a look at >> Well, you raised a question. Let him answer the question. >> So, here's the rerouted pipe. All the new manhole rims are denoted. That's a vertical elevation. And the inverts, which is the bottom of the manhole or the bottom of the pipe, are >> shown. And then it has the slopes as
well. So you it it tells you where we're tying back in. So you know you're talking about the invert. >> What's the rim and the invert? What are the what are those? >> The rim is the top of the manhole. Great. >> You mean the height above zero elevation? >> Uh well it's a Yeah, it's an elevation. >> Sure. >> It's an elevation. So
>> it's not above zero though. It's not sea level. >> It's a >> So it's 13.75 ft at grade 3.8. >> That's how deep the manhole structure is. >> Got So you're showing the pitch by that contiguous. >> No, that's just the height of the structure. The pipe. The pitch is on
noted on the pipe. U 2% >> 2.67 >> 2.67 2.8. So again, it's a consistent. >> So you're pitching all the way down there. At some point we're going to find that pipe >> to the existing pipe. Okay. >> My apologies. It's clear on the plan that it's on that.
>> Um I'm also looking at this on the plan. If I could ask this. It says sorry. Yeah, you have to speak louder. >> I'm looking at a line on the plan that says 50ft wetlands transition area, >> which I believe is an area that is not
allowed to be disturbed or impact in any manner. And the arrow goes from this point to this point. >> Yes. >> And then it delineates a point on this line that looks like it crosses here. >> Am I correct in saying that this appears to be the delineation line all the way through the pool, the spa, and
>> no, this is this the line has WLT line. >> That's the wetland's limits. This is a 50 foot transition area buffer. >> Can you build in the transition area and buffer >> by certain permits that we're seeking? >> Yes. It's not off limits to do that. >> I just want to clarify for the record, >> we went back 100 year more than 100red
years in the title search and there's no east. >> Yeah. And all these these questions you're asking about the they have to go for permits through the state. >> This board doesn't make the decision. >> We can't make a decision on that or put that into play on our >> so feel that it's in a wet land zone. We
don't get to say no to that. >> Well, that's the only one that can say that. >> You can say no to it by offering comments to the D before they issue the permit, >> but not to this board. >> Correct. The D is the only one with jurisdiction over that. >> Can I ask a question, Mr. Matlock? So,
this is a pipe that the township is going to have to maintain. And just correct my ignorance, but would you be reviewing this or does this need to go to Ivakia? I we are reviewing it at the board and
>> but for infrastructure typically for a town like put sewer the sewer authority will >> ultimately Mr. Lineski we would need to get a performance bond for this and that's done by the township engineer. So he would be part of reviewing what we're
doing. Additionally, we would be submitting an easement not to this board but to the township provotion and that would be reviewed both by the township engineer as well as the township attorney and and again we we went back more than 100 years. I have deeds in the search back to 1926.
>> Thank you for clarifying that. But I think I would need to hear from the engineer that he's okay with how this is going to work. Well, any should this board grant an approval, it would be subject to them approving it
>> like any other multiple levels of approvals. >> Yeah. Like like the D thing, it can get through here, but if it doesn't get through township, >> right? If they if the township engineer says no, you have to do it differently or change it, then we have to change it. >> It's going to go through four different iterations of approval process before it
gets built by different engineers. I I've reviewed the plan and I'm the rerouting of the pipe >> uh is is acceptable. Um from you know logical standpoint. Uh I did have a
comment about and Mr. Ward uh mentioned this before that that I wanted to see capacity calculations to make sure that the proposed pipe has the same uh can handle the the flow going through the existing pipe uh with this change that's
being made. So that that's a condition that they agreed to that they'll they'll provide that uh and then yeah during construction it'll be reviewed by the township engineer >> to make sure that it's constructed in accordance with the approved plan. >> That addresses some of Mr. Isler's
concerns about the pipe and the flow and if it's going to maintain and do the same. >> Absolutely. Appreciate that. >> Thank you Mr. >> There's an assumption there will be construction so I don't want to say it's a foregone conclusion about a vote. However, my other concern is it is a
giant box facing edge mirror that's six times the volume of many of the houses. And I think it was stated that it was typical to have a gable roof go from front to back with the A at the front. The house directly across the street is the opposite of that. In fact, both of them are. The gable roof goes side to
side. The gables are at the ends and the pitch is towards the front door. I can't speak as to where those architectural I no I said it's typical that they are that it goes front to back from front yard to rear yard. I can't speak as to the other houses but again we don't need
variances with regard to the house and you don't have architectural guidelines we meet the coverage the height the setbacks everything I >> I also heard that the engineer and town planner have decided that the front of the house is correlates which is one
quarter of the volume of the side of the house and the window area is significantly larger on edge. >> Agreed. >> It looks like a house on edge. Mr. Lex might even have an edge address at some point. >> No, he he thought that he got the door.
>> Mr. Eer Mr. Lexi misunderstood where the front door was and that's why Mr. Higgins clarified where the stairs lead to and Mr. Mrs. Ms. Harrari Harrari explains that the steps were to a
mudroom on the side of the house. So the Mr. Higgins indicated that you would definitely not walk in a home the front door into another >> door is on. >> I I did see the first, second, basement,
four elevations. Um, I wasn't sure whether pitch the steps went down or up on what I'll call the lake side of the house, but it was also a concern about lighting on that side of the house and being in a D wet lands area even if they get to build the
bullets on and >> can we discuss what plans are for the outside lighting on the house or any reveation of the light if it does get approved and built? Again, the lighting will be typical residential lighting in full compliance with the ordinance and in full compliance with the D
regulations. >> Would the board be able to consider restricting lighting on that side of the house so it doesn't shine into or on the lake or the woods or the dark zone there? >> I don't believe that the board has jurisdiction to do that. >> I don't have the varian >> can't be offered as a condition of the variance.
>> Not above and beyond what the ordinance is allowed. >> They're not asking for anything. They're asked to do anything different. We can't stop Yeah, they're not for complying with codes. >> Correct. >> We're not code. >> Mr. Eer, it really sounds to me that you're troubled by the size of the house. I heard you say that because the
the >> It's the orientation of it. It's the orientation of it is your frustration quite frankly. But they're within their right to build that because they're not asking for relief or variance to go
larger. So there's you may not like the size and view it as a box. >> Mhm. And I >> no I'm not saying apologizing volume there's there was in their right to build that >> so the fact that it is considered facing
there and has very little rear yard that's open if we look at the lake on the >> they pointed out they don't need variances for any we're not doing anything wrong >> wrong's the incorrect word >> nothing that needs
>> nothing that requires relief M Mr. I you you had said before that you uncovered a subdivision. Was there a subdivision? Was there not a subdivision? >> I saw an interlaced approval in 2025 that relates to this lot and I can't figure out I didn't again I read something that said that
>> we never got a subdivision. I've represented the client since prior to 2025 we did not seek a subdivision from >> And what year do you have the subdivision? >> Uh let me get my Do you have a copy of it? >> I want to see what it was that I was reading.
I >> mean, this issue is important. If there was if there wasn't a subdivision, then that then it's a nully. But if there was a subdivision, it's important. You'll have to uh give me another minute to look through my paper. So, I apologize. >> Why don't we do this? Why don't you, Mr.
Why don't you step back, let other people talk? If you can find your proof of the subdivision, you know, we can talk about it. >> I'll call it an application before Interlen somehow involved this property. I don't know if it was a subdivision or maybe that was >> Well, maybe you can. Was that Was that the effort to get the extra feet off of
the other lot? >> No, we don't need a subdivision to get that. We don't We'd have to be able to do that. >> Okay. Uh, thank you for your time. Appreciate the answer. You want to take a break? >> Yeah, I'll take a two minute break.
>> All right, we are back. Uh, all the board members are present accounted for. Everyone that was here before is here now. >> All right, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say while we were on break, I did Mr. Iowa was able to find the document which he believed to be a subdivision for this
property. Uh, we reviewed it. It has nothing to do with this property. It was actually another property along the street and it was just >> across the street. >> It was a mistake on Mr.'s part which he acknowledges. >> My apologies. >> And so that issue is now alleviated and I don't have to worry about it.
>> Okay. >> Okay. And I just wanted to make sure we're on the record with that. >> Okay. So we're staying. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chairman, I will have to recuse myself from this case. I actually owned 708 cores for 5 years and it's occurring
to me that I know far too many people in in the public, right? So, I'm going to step out. Okay. >> Thank you. >> You just want to go home. >> Thank you for your service. >> Yeah. Right.
>> You going to bring us back? I should. Okay, we have um any more questions from the public? >> Sure. >> Does anybody else have any? >> Mr. Way, >> we just need you to restate your name for the record. >> Don Bro, >> thank you. Mr. Broccol, you're you're
still on your oath from earlier tonight. >> Um Mr. Do you have any idea who put the pie back on? >> No. >> No. Okay. Um, in terms of drive, I I heard there was reference to sidewalks. Is the sidewalk listed shown here and
blended into the driveways configuration? >> No, I testified that we'll add sidewalk as a condition of approval. >> Does that impact the parking? I I see one drawing was four parking spots that you could fit in there when you add the the the actual sidewalks. Does that
modify the overall dimension? >> No, these spaces we can um we have to show 9 by8 compliant spaces. these two spaces on the end we can pick take off of a 4ft sidewalk. We'll likely have a two-ft strip of grass um behind the curb and then a 4ft sidewalk. We have we have
room. >> We can just move the driveway back. >> Yeah. Yeah. And we have abundance of coverage. I think at 47% >> Mr. I'm sorry to interrupt on the color picture. >> Yeah. >> Does that I was kind of wondering that myself. >> We don't show the sidewalk. >> So the white that comes out beyond the
yellow that's not >> So this this is a this is the apron. >> Is that where the sidewalk would be? Uh, I would imagine we'll work with the town on this. I think we're either going to have it right immediately behind the the the curb because there really is no right of way here. Um, or like Jen
suggested, if these come into question at all, the driveway can slide closer to the house and we're not >> we're not close to the car. >> That's my point. It really has to be looked at and see actually have four cars in there. >> No, we're testifying that we can fit four cars. We can we don't we
>> irrespective of the sidewalk. >> Okay. >> Right. They'll push the driveway backwards. What they mean like so that the whole will just be set back >> and um there was some mention about flood elevation that was referenced in 2009
which is pretty sandy. I guess all that changed. I know the D is looking at that but what was is that is it that incorrect? >> There was a verification issued for the flood hazard elevation uh within the last couple years. It's still valid. Um, we're also seeking a permit for riparian zone disturbance with D.
>> Before you do that, I just want to explain to the board, I don't know what Mr. Brock was referring to, but the D confirmed our flood hazard elevation. We have it. We submitted it. It's moved into evidence. >> It was in the plans. >> Yes. >> And that's approved by the D.
>> Correct. >> What's approved by the elevation? Verify the elevations are the waiverss and the other things are not correct. or not all the three the three waivers and the permits you're asking for happen >> we're not asking for any waivers from the D transition area waiver that's the
word waiver is in the name it is a permit it is fully compliant with the rules it is not a waiver >> right but it's it's not approved >> it hasn't been issued yet but any approval here would be subject to which is typical since this board has step
toward time frames >> geo geotechnical information was there anything done on the property I never saw any. I lived I lived by the way right back right here. This is just my life. >> So was investigation to confirm the
depths of the groundwater. >> It was done. >> It was done. Sure. That allows a full basement because I get water in my crawl space. >> Yes. >> We can't speak to your property or the water elevation on your property. We submitted those soil borings. It's part
of our stormwater management report submitted. It was reviewed by Ben and Was that is that correct >> there? The I don't have have that in front of me right now, but the uh
elevation of the sea water table has to be 2 feet uh below the correct >> bottom floor of the basement. >> Yeah, and that's what we have. >> Can we get a copy of that? I didn't see in the town hall. Is that available to public? I believe it's on the plan.
>> It's it's written on the plan. Well, don't say for now because because this is I mean either you're done or you're done. >> Well, no. Asking questions that you know later on we have >> but there's there's no other this is it. >> Do we have open time to talk at the end? >> Do you want to do Mr. Kevin or not?
Yeah. >> I suggest make a feel free to make your comments right now. >> Okay. So what we did we heard all the witnesses so that way any question comes up will be able to be answered. So if you want to make a statement they know who also
the engineers and the engineer and the planner >> all questions now just so you know you'll have an opportunity to make a statement as well because you make you have questions I don't think you
>> Mr. Chairman, let me uh let me square in our because I I neglected to do it earlier. Let me let me swear in our engineer and planner. Uh Mr. Matlock, Mr. Mr. Higgins, do you swear any testimony that you're about to give or gave earlier in this application would be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
>> I do. >> I did. >> Thank you both. >> Okay, Mr. Higgins, how you doing? >> Good. Good. Um, you made a b bunch of comments on um on additional comments about parking spaces and it seems like they comply with four, but we also
talked about additional spaces if people their friends park on the street. >> Is that right? Is there any issues with street parking? >> There are no issues if they're providing the four spaces on the site and the street parking is irrelevant. >> Okay. So, is there
>> they're required to have four spaces? If somebody came, they had four spaces parked and another additional car parked in the front, would that would that be an issue with with safety? No. And access? No. >> As long as this on street parking is allowed by the municipality, it's not an
issue. um you want men's comment on the sidewall. Did you review their their sidewall issues yet? Did they give you You need to answer that. >> No, we've agreed to the condition of approval to provide sidewalks subject to
the D approving the sidewalks as they may not approve them within the wetlands or the waiver area. >> Okay. >> And as we talked about, what about the pool? Any special requirements on the pool that that they have to comply with?
>> Nothing more than than zoning requirements. >> Okay. There's no perk test or anything like that has to be done. The pool is not permeable. >> It is. >> Oh, what what construction is it? Do we know what constructor is? >> It's an ingground pool. >> In ground pool concrete.
>> Uh not specified. Not specific. >> Well, we will have to comply with all the building code requirements. That's for sure. >> Okay. So, now I'll talk. So, lived here all my life, right? Played in this lot
as six years old, six-y old, seven-year-old, 8y old. this lot, this stream, it I I considered the stream when I was a kid, right? There was a there was a hole in the road and water flowed out of it and it was it was it was basically the depth of the lake.
Um, same height all the way back. So, when it flooded and they flooded, it flooded. Years went by. I'm nine, maybe 10. Well, here's comes a clear cut clearcut. They take bulldozers and start going
down and they drag a barge in the lake. Pretty cool for a kid, right? So, that goes in the lake and they start dredging. They start putting a pipe in. I don't know who did it. Stro supposedly owned the property paid the YMCA. But all the material that was dredged in
the back of this section, the lake that went up the stream, there's a some kind of storm water device, big concrete structure to the west of this property. >> So, Mr. Can you limit talking about this property? >> I'm getting there. >> And the variance.
>> So, anyway, all material all the material went here. >> So, I'm just saying this material is dredge spoil. >> Who knows what what's in it? I don't know if there's any testing of the soil. Don't know. >> So that's why they need the D approval. >> I don't know if the D's even knows. >> That's why we need a construction
approval. That is not within the purview of this group. >> This is a zoning board. >> True. True. >> Great. >> But but the material every if everybody thinks this is regular land was >> Mr. Broco, I'll say I'll say again. >> Okay. >> I I mean again there's D approval. There
is construction building approval. >> Okay. What you're talking about now is whether this property can be environmentally built upon is essentially what you're saying this board that's outside of this board. That's totally >> we have nothing to do with it. >> That's good. >> That this board can't get involved in that.
>> Okay. So, >> we're not going to promise. >> Yeah. This was filled, right? And the trees grew back. So, and the trees were trimmed. They were cut down. I didn't I was working with the town on that. I knew about it. I was there. And what what's not known I think it's forgotten
the land along the lake is owned by the town. It's Township of Crawford. So that's another concern. Obviously we don't want those trees cut down in this process. >> We're not proposing a couple things. We're not proposing to cut down any trees except on our property with a tree removal permit. And while Mr. brothel
did call the township of ocean and the burrow of inter to report us for cutting down trees. He failed to recognize that we obtained a legal tree removal permit for dead and dying trees based on a report from a certified tree expert. I do have copies of that if the board I
have a copy of it too and I didn't call in I called and asked questions. I didn't go my god they're cutting down the trees. I was there when they're cutting it down. I did stop the tree cutter from going into township property. I did do that. So anyway, just to let you know. Um, but that's my
that's my life. I've been there all my life. I hate to see it built. It's totally out of character with with the community. All these properties along here are 100 100 foot plus frontages. Mr. Mr. Mr. Cohen's here. Same thing across the street. The property owner
here, the property owner here also owns the two properties across the street and they're becoming similar houses to this and this, but obviously it's in different shape. >> Mr. just just >> I hear your concern and this seems to now be um probably many a concern of
many in this room that >> I understand you've lived here your whole life and that this kind of change is hard to see and I understand and hear you loud and clear that you do not like it >> but again what I said to Mr. Er, they're well within their rights to do it. And I
I apologize that it it's I think it's heartbreaking to you to see your child and property being played to have >> this box as Mr. Eler referred to it filled, but that's not up for discussion because >> the law piece which you don't handle is handled by D. And
>> yeah, you will have the opportunity to manage that with D. >> Correct. >> Absolutely. Yes, you're right. >> It's just the other things you're addressing. It's not before us and and they can. >> But I thought you should know about the pipe and how it was filled in, why it was there. It was there to basically take that.
>> They wouldn't have put it the sewer pipe there if they didn't need the drainage. It's exactly >> who knows who did it. Who knows who bought it >> before the town hired somebody. >> Well, it's not the town. It was the county. It was a county road back then. >> Okay. So, but that's irrelevant because it's there and it's useful.
>> The other thing that was brought up was the location of the drain. Maybe the engineering team want would like to move that drain over so it's not a bend. That's another thought and change that grade a little bit, but that's that's up to you guys. So that's it. That's more questions.
>> No answer. >> Okay. Sir, >> sir, do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth? >> I do. And just state your name for the record. Eric Frl.
>> No relation. >> And is it Eric with a K or C? >> It is with a K. Yes. >> Oh, how'd you know that? >> Good guess. >> 715 South Edge Drive. >> Thank you. >> Uh, could the engineer point out the fence line on the property?
>> The proposed fence >> in relation to the storm line. So the fence starts here at the front which is the north side wraps around the rear and ties back into the southeast corner >> and that runs over top the storm line
and the manholes. >> Yes. >> How would you access the manholes between them? >> Remove the sections of the fence. That's part of that'll be part of the east. It can be. And just to clarify, much like what the sewer authority and the town requires now, it could be done in
foundations that are sleeves. So the sleeve of the post can easily be removed in order to access it. That is a town requirement when you're putting a fence in an east. They do permit fences in east. >> And the uh the D has only provided a
clarification on the elevation. They haven't provided any approvals yet. They approved the uh the limits of the uh flood hazard area that this this blue line that traverses all this. Um that was verified already. The pending applications which we feel are imminent
um have not been formally approved yet. >> And there's three separate of those. >> So there are uh yeah there's there's two specific wetlands permits and then there's one flood hazard permit. >> And do they involve the top of bank at all? >> Uh we have to keep 25 ft from the top of
bank. That's there's no um exceptions to that. >> And where's the top of bank line? >> That was verified um by the DVS color one. >> Um the top of bank was actually established. It's right here uh at the
the edge of the lake. Now it sounds like a misnomer because why is there a slope along the lake? That's what the Dictates as top of bank for. That is a verified top of bank by DV. Yeah. >> And is there a 25% standoff from that
top of bank? >> There's a minimum 25 foot offset from that. Yeah. >> And that's what our permits will have to reflect. Yeah. >> Is that fence within 25 ft? >> That was a one of the the comments that the DB had raised and um this fence will
be pulled in a little bit at this corner to uh adhere to that. So, how does the if when the permits come in, if they're denied or approved and the plans have to change, how does that affect this board? Does this board see those drawings and edits again?
>> Yeah. So, I can answer that. So, the if the change that we if there's any material change that affects the variance, which is the lot width, which it won't, we would have to come back. If there's a change with regard to a fence location that does not need a variance,
then that's just something we would submit as part of our resolution. We don't submit resolution compliance until we have all our permits. So once we get all the permits, we submit resolution compliance consistent with the D approvals and that does go to review by the board engineer and the board
planner. >> But does the board approve this easement and the storm line in this meeting here or is that a separate review? No, that would be >> we don't approve that at all. >> That's something that the council will have to accept. >> We're approving the fact that they're
we're allowing them to build on the property with a 65 foot >> lot width. That's that's all we're approving today. That's it. >> No saying what it looks like. >> We don't we don't say what it looks like. We have nothing to do with D. We have nothing to do with engineering. We
have nothing to do with geotech. We're limited to approving this six allowing them to build on a property that is 65 ft wide in one on the lowest point and then 85 ft on the other point. That's what we're approving today. >> There's many layers to this process. It's an excellent question.
>> It is a good question. >> Um and all of your questions actually are very good. Your father should be proud of that. He's a good young man. >> We're so happy that there's going to be a next generation brothel to take care of the delay. >> Maybe they'll sit on the couch. Do you go in the boat with your father? Cuz I
cuz I have been out kaying and paddle boarding and I've seen you multiple seen him multiple times. >> Um, >> so would the D have comments that would drastically change the storm pipe and possibly affect the building? >> We we know they don't because we've already gotten their comments.
>> We've gone through a couple iterations with them and to full honesty, we resubmitted this week with what plans that we expect to be signed off by. >> Yeah. No, it's a good question. And if something was materially going to change, we we wouldn't be here right now. So,
>> and so the storm pipe connects back into the existing pipe farther up like >> Yeah. So, from here to here is the existing pipe. So, we're basically going to take this section out elevation wise like we're we need to meet the elevation of the existing pipe here and here. So,
we're not making it steeper, not putting a drop in it or anything like that. So, the goal is to maintain the flow capacity, which we'll verify with that. Okay, >> thank you. That's all. Thank you. >> Good job, young man. >> I guess for the record, I am a licensed engineer in New Jersey,
>> but I'm just uh asking questions as resident. So, >> who do you work for? >> Thank you. Am >> I not? >> Um, I'm just here as res. >> No, I don't. You work for who? >> Eric A. >> Oh, yeah. >> You have a statement you want to make for uh
>> uh I do not. >> Okay. >> Any more questions? Come on up. >> This is for you. Do you swear I test you about to give will be the truth of all truth by the true God? >> Yes, I do. >> Can you state your name for the record? >> Joan Brown >> Brown.
>> Yes. >> Any relation to Sandy? >> No relation whatsoever. >> What is your address? >> 505 Ivy Place. >> And just so the board knows, this is the wife of the former planning board attorney for about 30 years. How long? I
don't know. >> Remember >> here long enough that he won't come out anymore. >> Was just here a couple months ago at something. >> John, I'm sorry. What's your >> 505 IV place? >> I'm not going to ask any questions because they've all been answered.
>> I'm just going to take advantage of the fact that I stayed up way past my bedtime after all this. So, I'm going to Well, I am going to make a statement. I'm going to ask a question. >> And I've clearly heard that you are going to approve this. I understand it's because this board is dissolving and you want to get this done. >> Um,
>> let me let me be clear. I don't think anybody said truth. >> I've heard it three times. We are approving this. We are approving that. >> But not because the board is dissolving, but because >> I know I'm assuming I said I assume it. That's why >> I'm going to I'm going to make it very very clear to this board that if anyone
has prejudged this application before it's concluded that you should not. I didn't hear anyone say that. Um I think what they I think that what they were saying was >> it if we approved it I believe what they said that that because that's what's important it is important because you
made an you made an allegation that the board has preddecided the application. >> I will tell you this. >> I do not believe that is accurate. >> When we broke before we thought this was going to be postponed to the next meeting because of something that was going to be prepared. So we were prepared. >> I would hope I I I feel sad that we're
rushed through this at any rate. But I do want to comment. >> I think we're rushed. It's 10:30. >> Look, this is true, but we're still here. We started after 10. >> Yeah. And I don't I I agree, Mr. Pier. I don't I don't think that we've been rushed at all. I mean, I would love to have gone home two hours ago. So,
>> that's really not what I came to say. >> This is not This is not what you want to say. >> What I wanted to say is we're here because they don't have enough space and they want more space. And I watch every me I'm, you know, they it's supposed to be 90 ft and it's 68 feet, whatever it
is. I watch every single meeting. I'm a junkie. You guys all look way younger in person, although it later gets older. Um, and normally I hear people saying, "We need five feet, we need four feet, we need 3 feet." This is like 28 ft or
something. So, it's a big difference of what they're doing. Um, I do want to comment and someone else brought it up. All the houses that are long are this way. They are not that way. So, when you I don't know if any of you have seen the property. I don't know if you've looked at it. It's I know you're saying the
architectural front is here. I get it. But we all know that the front is really where the mud room is and that mud room could change the day somebody moves in and they could make it a nice big hallway and that would be their entrance. They could it's not illegal. So I just want to say um it seems like a
lot of space that they're asking for. Um and I they're probably going to get it because the way they designed it. It does upset me. I do live next door to two houses that he has built. He is an excellent builder. The houses are very well built. I have no complaints. He's
complied with everything. It's just the neighborhood has changed. He has not kept it in the in the way that the neighborhood was. And it makes me sad. >> And I just wanted to make that statement because you guys don't live there. I don't know if you've seen a lot.
>> I do. It was not a walk. >> I know. Yeah. Yeah. But we're not in Lake. Oh, and I did have a question of Ben because I I read something that Ben said that when that >> Hold on. Can we address I want to address one concern you said about the mud room, >> Mr. Lexine. Can it be a D restriction
that that not change to a front access and it remain a mudroom regardless >> that that would be listen yes anything could be a D restriction. >> I don't believe that where the mudroom is located makes a difference as to the architectural front. I think the architectural front is based on the
architectural design of the exterior of the building. >> The more important more important thing is the architectural rear of the building is the south part. And there's no access out to the east to the west. >> So that's not the rear of the building. >> That's what's defining the rear. So it's
not where the front is. They're both front, >> right? >> It's which one's the rear. >> Yes. >> I know. I live in >> I didn't mean to interrupt you. I wanted to address that one issue while we were >> I think people can do what they want inside the houses. I don't think you can tell them they can't.
>> I think effectively that will be the front of the house. It even tricked the lawyer. He said, "Well, isn't this the front of the house?" It's going to look like the front of the house. >> Doesn't matter because it's that's >> I mean that's I I will agree with you on that. To me, that's the front of the house. But but I know legally by the legal definition it's not.
>> Which which is what's been brought out by our >> But again, they're both Let's just make it clear. They're both the front of the house. The question is which is the rear. >> There's two fronts to this house. >> It's the what's the legal front? >> That's why you're defining that there because you need the space. >> No, we're rev we're defining that there
because that's the only area that has a yard and the rear yard is where accessory structures are. That's what we testified. >> You wouldn't be able to build it if it didn't define it that way. So, >> no. Again. Okay. >> Right. Okay. So, everything complies. You need your variance. I'm sure you're
going to get it. And I just wanted to say something because it's bothering me and I say it here all night long. So I just want to make my statement and I'll let you go to hear from you. >> I just want to address one thing that Mrs. Brown said when she's talking about sometimes you ask for 5t some that's in
the context of setbacks as it relates to what you're asking for left a lot exists. There's no ability to acquire any more land. So again I I appreciate what she's saying but it's a whole different context. And the other thing is if if the lot
were wider, they could build the same exact house and the same exact footprint >> but bigger >> without any variances >> and bigger >> wider than the house. >> So again,
>> do you have any more questions? >> Yeah, I do. The comment just came up. >> You got to come up. I will >> and just state your name again for the record. >> No problem. >> And you are still under oair. >> Sure. The I know you said there was a deed restriction. I'm not sure exactly what that de restriction is. Put the lot
back. >> No, it's a lot to the side. An interlacen lot is a deed restriction that it cannot be subdivided. We were going to acquire land from it, but we can't because of that deed restriction. >> There's there's a couple there's two alternatives. One um
>> I have to have to make an objection. This isn't about alternatives, >> right? >> I can make a statement about >> what I envision as alternatives. >> Just one one envision was what a a green green acres area that could be bought by
the county, state or town. That's number two, the land could be >> bought bought by who? >> By the state or what does that have to do with this application? Great. I'm just saying if the house if the property owner wanted some payback on that because he had one property,
>> there could be a green acres area to be paid. Okay. >> Uh number two, it could be the whole land mass could be transferred inner lake and inner lake and deal does with deals with with a larger property and a much bigger house and maybe more valuable house. Just just some thoughts we were batting around today that I
wanted to put on the table. That's it. Thank you. >> But just just for the record, I mean the board has no power over anything. Oh, no. Yeah. Yeah. No, you would need you need a >> It has nothing to do with this application. >> Somebody else, >> but there's alternatives.
>> The county could have come to the owner. >> The county, right? >> Town could have offered to buy it from us. Don, I know, is in touch with the town quite a bit. So, wanted to buy it. Do >> you ever see me?
I want to thank the board for their patience. I'm sorry. Thank the board for their patience and I apologize for the misstatement about the subdivision. I correctly >> I my one question and I've heard Miss Brown's statement that it's just it's an unfortunate
use of that lot which again we're here for variance meaning it's a change of a rule to let this be built in this manner. What is the criteria that lets you say no, we don't want this?
>> Substantially substantial. >> We're all saying we don't want this. We get a lot. It's not buildable for this. >> I know we can all get to Yes. I can build on a postage stand 12tory building. Make it a variance, >> but I'm just I'm just trying to grasp
the idea. And I apologize. I didn't mean to use the word box negatively. >> You're honest. I respect that. >> No, that wasn't upset at the application. No, it was a misstatement. The architectural front of that is this giant glass threetory Claras story window and it's a circular driveway and
if I have a house driveway and a giant window, I'm going to be going in and out of there every time. I'm not going to walk around to my front side. >> We're not suggesting that we're not. So my point is if this large volume on this little street in the woods next to the
lake with a application for a pool and a sauna that's going to go into wetlands the last public access point Ocean Township has on that lake actually not public I'm sorry the last undeveloped access point. There's no other lot that's empty on that lake.
They're all taken. Okay. They're all township. They're all taken. This is a parking area. This is a walking trail. This could be passive recreation. >> I think they want for green acres. >> At what point would they just say no? We don't think >> Mr. No.
>> Okay. All right. Everyone stop. Mr. You're bringing up issues again that have nothing to do with this board. Could the county have come in and taken it or the state come in? >> Ask what were the criteria to say no to this? >> I can answer that question. >> That's all I'm asking because I don't understand. >> I can answer that question. So again,
when you have an undersized lot, you have to look at will the development be a substantial detriment to the character of the neighborhood. So we look at how okay, so how do we do that? So if we were building a house that needed a building coverage variance, for example, we were overbuilding the lot, that would
be inappropriate. If we couldn't fit a house of a reasonable size of similar size to what is allowed that needed setback relief, then you could say the house is too the lot is too small to build on. But the fact that we can
construct a sevenbedroom house on this lot, meet all your setbacks, meet all your impervious coverage, meet your building coverage, meet your height, that means that this lot is appropriate and there is no detriment to it. And again, the hardship is we try to we
can't acquire any more land. So we have this existing lot notion. We're entitled to develop it and the only variance is is what we're proposing on this lot that's undersized and width appropriate. Meaning does it need everything else? And the answer is yes. So that is the
balance that you're making. Is there anything we're doing on this lot that's inappropriate because of its lot width? >> Yes. The answer is you're putting a house on a lot. >> I wasn't asking you. Mr. answering to the board. >> And so again, if the house is
appropriate and the only means that you have is not if the neighbors like it, not if they like the architecture, not if they want to have a walking path on someone's private property. The only metric that you have to determine if it's appropriate is does it meet all the ordinance requirements for development?
And it does. >> May I point out to the public, please? I they're upset and I this board is not a rubber stamp. We take a lot of time making decisions. Um >> you just denied another application. I was going to say Miss Crimco had another
application in front of us. We denied it. She went to a judge that came back and we still said no. >> Well, we're not done. But anyway, >> for now, we're we don't rubber stamp things. We care about this community. That's why we volunteer our time. It's why we're here. We don't want to see
things done that are not in line or um being done the correct way. So, the reason this application can likely move forward is because it's in line with it aligns with the ordinance and everything
they're asking for is well within your right. It's one thing and the building that they're putting up is well within their right on the property. If it wasn't, we wouldn't agree to it. Yes. >> We're not afraid to say no. They can't deny the application because
the lot is on because the lot is deficient in width. They can't. They would you would have to show again that this house does not fit on this property because of the width. And clearly it does.
So it becomes very hardressed for me to think of a reason as the attorney why this application could be denied. Mark, I appreciate that's my direct answer. Yeah. But if it if it does fit, >> Bill, can you just come back up because we got to pick you up. I don't know.
And again, I fully understand it. I I'm not here to debate this until 11:00 at night. But if there's an answer that's no, >> I'm not getting a lot of love right now. I apologize. I I just want to know why we can't say this is Michelle. >> No, we're not giving that extra 30 ft to
this >> because the statute the statute clearly states that if you have a hardship, which they do. >> I don't think anyone can deny that this property has a hardship. It has a hardship because and that's why I was concerned, Bill, earlier with the whole subdivision issue because I wanted to
know if this is a self-created lot and and it's and it's not. >> So, um that was my concern earlier. But since it's not, this slot has a natural hardship based upon its size because it doesn't have the right width that conforms with the ordinance. You can't
just say this lot's not buildable. >> So every lot can't be built on. You have to just simply get the variances. Yes. No, >> it depends upon it depends upon >> I mean is that what we're all hearing in the audience? >> That's not what I'm because you're not listening. I you would have to it would
have to be that not every lot can be built upon depending upon what it is that you're looking to build upon the lot and they have shown that there are no other variances associated with this house other than the fact that the lot which they have no control over which creates a natural hardship for a C1
variance that's the only hardship >> C1 is bulk >> if we application that that's not why you voted I'm just letting you know he in the wrong, a judge would overturn it in a heartbeat and say, "You are absolutely wrong." It
wouldn't come back to us like the other application did, and he'd say, "I'm giving you a chance to rethink it." >> He would overturn it because we would just be dead wrong. >> Yeah. >> There's case law that says, >> "Guys, I got it. I I the answer is I
just wanted to have it heard why we are here >> about a variance that could be denied." And I guess we can Come on up. >> Hello neighbor. >> Hello. >> I'm gonna swear you in. Do you swear any test you have to give will be the truth
the whole future about the truth of God? >> Yes. >> And just state your name for the record. >> Jody Hines. >> And is it J Oi? >> J O H I N. >> Thank you. Go ahead. And what's your address? >> Um 512 Bridal Bridal Mir in Inter Lincoln. >> Bridal Mir in Winterl. Okay. Go ahead.
Um, so I I thank you for your service here too because I'm on the planning board in Inner Lake and I know what you go through and I've seen Jet many times personally and also um, professionally. Um, so I'm here because I do have
concerns about and I I realize that the laws are the way they are, but I So from my standpoint, I've seen like that used to be all green like across the street from me and now there's like trees that have gone because of all the building
that's happening. And um I am concerned about the lighting now because it's AC I'm across the street from the backyard neighbor then that where we built and what is the law here like you're taking down some trees. Are you planning?
>> Do they have to put trees now back behind that area so that way there's not going to be that lighting? >> Again, the tree or and this is for this board, but the tree ordinance is not relative to light. The tree ordinance is relative to tree preservation, right?
>> So again, there's a requirement that we either replace or we pay into the tree fund. They have a tree conservation officer who reviews that plan and makes that decision at the time of building permit, not at this point. But again, as it relates to the light, there are
ordinance requirements. You know this too, that they have to be shielded and down lit and can't extend onto neighbors property the same as everyone else. But just because you've enjoyed the benefit of trees >> across your neighbor, >> across the street doesn't mean that
that's where they're always going to be. the number of trees have to be accounted for, not necessarily the location. >> So any tree that they take down from this point, do they have to you have to I don't know the tree or >> only again it's not we can talk afterwards. It's not part of the board,
but it's any tree greater than 6 in in caliber has to either be replaced or paid into the tree >> company. Okay. >> Unless it's dead or done, which those are our own. >> Okay. All right. All right. Well, I just do want to say that I I I that is my
concern with being here, you know, and and also I love the environment. >> But the other thing is, just so you know, we're not taking trees back in between. We're only taking trees back up to where the wetlands are.
>> We can't touch the wetlands and we can't touch the property behind us that's not ours. So, all those trees are staying. We're only taking the properties that are land worth of where that all is. And we can't plant in the back. Even if we wanted to go put evergreens in there, we're not allowed to by the
>> D. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Any more questions? >> Four comments. Four comments. Thank you. >> I was um Brooke Midnick. M I N. >> Let me swear you in first. You're
jumping ahead of me. >> All right. All right. >> Do you swear? testimony you're about to give will be the tooth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Help you God. >> Yes. >> And Brooke, B R O K E. >> Yes. >> And how do you spell the last name? >> M I N D as in David. N again. I C H.
>> And your address? >> 707 South Edge Drive. >> Thank you. >> Just a just a comment for the record and I believe the applicant may have gone home. Um the applicant didn't go home. The applicant's here. >> Oh, he Okay.
>> Hi. I thought it was uh some other person that I see walking on the street. I just know that our um that street is narrow and I would it's I'm glad you're going to be parking
in the uh four spaces allotted in just consideration that it's a narrow street and parking on the lakeside. This is the first house going up on the lakeside and if we start parking cars along the lakeside on a regular basis it's going to impact that
corner people walking and I know it's just a comment stay make thank you and >> thank you any more questions >> or comments >> or comments >> or statements.
Okay, we'll close the public hearing. Do you want to sum up? >> I don't positive resolution. >> Um, yes, you can make a motion for positive resolution. What has to be included? Any uh >> What's your job, Mr. I can offer that it
would be compliance with all asset agency approvals including the DP and the B the township review and acceptance of the easement uh as well as compliance with Ben's letter the township >> but we got to be we got to be careful
that if the township does not accept the easement which which is always a possibility >> right then we can't relocate it >> then you can't relocate it and that would not impact the application. No. Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct. >> Right. It would just be the township would have to tell us we can't move it
and tell us where we can move it. >> So really would be compliance with the um wood engineers review letter and all outside agency approvals. >> Including the tree removal permit. >> So we have a motion. We have a second. >> Oh Lisa made the motion you said right?
Yes. Okay. Second. Second. >> All right. Mr. Ashkenazi, >> yes. >> Mr. Doma, >> yes. >> Miss uh Miss Litman, >> yes. >> Jason, Mr. Lowki, >> uh no.
>> Okay. Uh Vice Chairman D Janeiro, >> yes. >> And Chairman Fuller, >> yes. >> Thank you. And I hope to see somebody around. >> Hope you're on the next board. Thank you for your motion to >> adjourn.
I'll second. All in favor?