okay we will call the meeting to order may we ple please have a roll call nicole here here mr ashley here mr here mr here
here mr and mr here okay we can stand to salute the flag i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation
under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay the notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied a copy of the notice having been sent to the asbury park press in the coaster and filed in the office of the township clerk there is an
emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room no new cases will be started after 9:00 p.m and no new testimony taken after 9:30 p.m in addition the applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony all meetings will be video and
audio taped and shown on the township of oceanceans community cable channel channel 22 on verizon fios and channel 77 on cable vision all cell phones must be turned off or if you need to make a call please make your call outside of the meeting room we have the following
continued cases the applicant has requested to be carried to the may 15th 2025 meeting and will notice and will notice for the meeting ia aat services llc 1418 highway 35 oakurst in the 0140
zone iat services llc 9992 highway 35 ocean in the c5 zone we have the following resolutions to be memorialized 2795-2797 asbury avenue ocean first speaking baptist church zone r zone r2
and i will offer i'll second chairman yes mr ashenazi yes yes mr yes
yes mr okay uh the following i believe i can group together right i believe so seven well no because mr fuller did not vote you voted no on one of them correct okay okay so
you can't on on which i forget which one but it was it's feldman so so you can do you can do all of them except for feldman okay so 77 i'm sorry 717 cor's avenue block 65 lot 8 in the r4 zone michael
and elise linser 714 palmer avenue block 64 lot 5 in the r4 zone adam and michael cheney 34 shadow lawn drive block 25.35 lot 28 mosh and norit maymon 34 mammoth
road block 7 lot 31 in the r4 zone ruben antipy i'll second vice chairman yes yes mr yes okay the next one 300 runan avenue
block 49 lot one in the r2 zone nathan and sophia feldman i'll second yes yes okay our first case will be tony ceca
and nikki berete 19 deal lake point road block 112 lot 5 in the r six zone is seeking permission to construct a two-story rear edition new rear uncovered porch two new ac condensers and expand and cover the existing front
porch minimum front yard setback of 30 ft is required where 18.66 ft is existing the proposed covered front porch will maintain the existing 18.66 feet setback but expanding the pre-existing nonconformity by increasing
the width 3.5 ft horizontally and covering the porch maximum lot coverage of 25% 1,243 ft is permitted where building coverage of 29% 1438 ft is requested and if you two
can please have a seat and i'm going to mark in while they're sitting down i'm going to mark in the you can all sit down um i'm going to mark in the following exhibits exhibit a1 will be the variance application itself exhibit a2 will be the boundary and topographic survey exhibit a3 will be the prop plan
exhibit a4 will be the architectural plan and then i have the following board exhibits exhibit b1 will be the board planners report exhibit b2 will be the board engineers report and exhibit b3 will be the zoning officer's report okay and please pronounce your last
names for me so i don't if you can pull a chair and just have to share the microphone [Applause] oh that's what you were laughing at was meant to be sorry about that i was i was just
wrestling i was wondering what you were laughing in right and i'm sorry please pronounce your your names for me tony cec nicola barata barata okay and can you raise your right hand do you affirm
to tell the truth the whole truth i do i do okay and first i will ask mr higgins and mr padck for their reports let me just swear that you should just swear them do you two swear that any testimony you give this evening will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth of
god i do i do thank you go ahead okay the uh applicant is proposing to construct a two-story rear edition to expand a an existing and cover the existing front
porch put a new rear uncovered porch on the site and put two new air conditioning condensers uh it's a slightly undersized lot in terms of area and depth it's on delay point road i'll just summarize my report it's the r six
zone they require three variances the first is the front yard set back the existing uncovered front porch is set back 18.66 ft and they're going to widen that and cover it so they're expanding
both vertically and horizontally the 18.66 ft front yard setback but not making it any less than the existing setback so it's a it's a small addition to the front porch i think it'll make the house look nicer i don't have a i don't have a significant problem with
that that request the maximum lot coverage ordinance permits 25% they're proposing 29% uh that's basically a little less than 200 square ft over what the ordinance would permit and i just think
we need some testimony as to why they need the addition i i don't see any substantial negative impact to the grant of that variance again but we need a little bit of testimony as to why they need the addition with regard to uh the accessory structure front and sideyard
setback the air conditioning units are accessory structures the ordinance requires a 5-ft setback they're being proposed at a twoft setback so that variance is necessary and again i don't have a big problem in terms of negative impact but it looks like maybe they
could be put somewhere else that they would conform so we just need a little bit of testimony that says you know why they need them in that location or maybe there's something with regard to the interior of the home that would require that they do that it makes it a better
alternative okay mr pad [Applause] there's a plot plan submitted in support of this application they're not located in a flood zone nor in the wetlands so in addition to all those
improvements posted by mr hens uh they also propose to connect their roof leader a new roof leader to a conveyance system that has three yard inlets a stormwater conveying system that has three yard inlets uh
terminating at the end of the driveway near it and runs generally underneath the paved driveway for the proposed paved driveway uh running towards da point road um our our only our only engineering comment is the the inlets
there's only one of them located in the driveway uh should be rated for traffic should be hs20 rated for hs2 okay um can you tell us about your um basically why the addition um can you address the ac condensers as well as the
in whoever wants to speak um the addition will allow us a a small powder room on the downstairs level um an expansion to what is a very small kitchen um the
existing footprint of the house was about 1,300 square ft uh and then the second floor addition um takes a very very small uh third bedroom uh gives it some space for a
master bedroom with closets and uh a master uh bathroom um do you have an architect here yes yes maybe he could explain why the air conditioning condensers have to be where they are
if you can uh state your name please yes uh sorry uh anthony conduras c o n d o u r i s okay and have you testified before this oh um if you can raise your right hand do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth yes i do okay have you
testified before this board previously yes i have okay i'm a licensed architect in the state of new jersey okay u so the air conditioning units um we put them on the side the the main reason was to was to keep them out of off the
patio in the backyard um if if we put them behind the house uh they'd be right in the area that's actually the living space for the for the patio so uh wouldn't be ideal to have them in that spot um right now there is an ac unit i believe on the side there so we're just
adding one to that side so you're putting a second one in yes that's correct and you said it's not ideal because of why well if because if you put it behind the house here it' be right right in their patio space okay okay um to touch to kind of further
touch on the addition um mr cece said it pretty well it's it's a it's a relatively small house um the current house has a very small kitchen and there's only one bathroom on the second floor so this uh expansion um allows them to have a master a master bedroom with a with its own bath and on the
first floor we were able to expand the kitchen and make it a more updated floor plan okay and i believe mr pavick you mentioned the inlet there was a concern about that yes uh on the plot plan there's a there's a
storm water inlet a yard inlet if they're generally if they're located in a grass space it's okay to have the plastic covers uh but this one's located in the driveway so we recommend something uh rated for traffic if there's going to be cars driving over it yeah we'll make sure we do that is that
the hs20 correct sure not a problem okay and that's in his letter so you can file with the letter yes okay is there any other testimony you'd like to share uh well well yeah we could talk a little bit about the front porch so um yes the
front porch is existing it's already uh at an 18 uh sorry 18.66 uh front setback so as mentioned we're not bringing the porch any f farther to the street um we're
simply expanding it horizontally and putting a roof on it which is going to make the house look look a lot nicer it's it's it's an older home it it has a lot of charm i think um we're going to maintain that charm um the addition isn't really visible from the street so we're still going to have the same same
look of this house uh it's it's a nice old colonial and uh not changing the height of it or anything like that so it's it's it fits in well with the neighborhood as it's it's already there and of course they're going to upgrade it with new siding and new windows and everything like that
okay any questions from the board okay any questions from the public okay motion to close public hearing make a motion to close public hearing second all in favor i any opposed okay is there a positive
resolution motion for a positive resolution i'll second yes yes mr yes yes yes
yes yes okay best of luck thank you thank you very much thank you okay our next case 416 west park avenue llc 416 west lincoln avenue ocean township block 25.15 lot 40 in the r3 zone the attorney
is uh mr conbury yes the applicant is seeking to construct a single family dwelling with inground pool and cabana minimum lot size required is 18,750 ft where 14,29.7 ft exist and proposed minimum
lot width required is 125 ft where 59.49 ft is existing and proposed minimum 30 combined feet sideyard setback is required for 21.26 ft is being proposed the maximum stories above grade is 2.5
stories above um grade where three stories is being proposed the ordinance requires that accessory buildings over 10 ft in height and 100 square ft in area maintain the required setbacks of the principal building a 10-ft sideyard setback for a cabana accessory building
of 172 ft includes overhang and 11.6 ft in height is required where 5 ft is proposed the ordinance requires that the accessory structure other than buildings maintain the required 45- ft front yard setback and 10-ft side and rear yard
setbacks proposes 8.9 ft side setback to the pool patio and 6.6 ft side setback to the pool equipment ordinance requires a minimum of 5ft setback from side property lines for driveway where 4 0 feet set back for the 18t wide driveway
is being proposed madame chair i can clarify some issues with this application the applicant first of all this is a very it's a significantly undersized lot particularly with the width the applicant has indicated that they're
going to eliminate the variance for three stories that are going to comply with the 2.5 stories which i believe could be a condition of approval because i looked at the plans and it's only a matter of adjusting the elevation the the land elevation by about half a foot
or so maybe a little bit more than half a foot so it's doable the cabana has been eliminated so the variances associated with that are being eliminated it's my understand well and also the variance for the setback of the driveway has been eliminated also
and uh it's my understanding that they're going to relocate the the pool equipment also to be in a con conforming location i'm sorry so the pool's going to be conforming also what you said the pool's going to be i will need testimony on
that i all right so so let me mark in what i have as far as exhibits before mr conbury puts on his appearance so exhibit a1 is going to be the variance application this is the building law coverage exhibit a2 is going to be the survey of the property exhibit a3 is the topographic survey exhibit a4 is the
variance plan building permit block rating plan exhibit a5 are the is the architectural plan exhibit a6 is the letter from dim architecture exhibit a7 is the soil boring u results then we have the following board exhibits which
will be exhibit b1 will be the board planners letter exhibit b2 will be the board engineers letter and exhibit b3 will be the zoning officer's report so those are all the exhibits so i would just ask mr confrey to put his appearance on the record
no problem they're in the record and we certainly acknowledge that they are the exhibits and in the packet before the board which we will rely on in our testimony i'd like to clarify uh my son david is the attorney of record he was operated on and i am
appearing on his behalf samuel v conbury jr of matuchen and shrewsbury thank you mr conbury welcome thank you proceed yes madam chairlady members of the board
um we're dealing with lot 40 block 25.15 in an r3 zone uh the minutes or the uh agenda commentary as to the variances which we were seeking has been radically
reduced as noted by mr higgins to just three variances which we seek tonight two of which are pre-existing variances because they're based on the size of the lot the third is the minimum width both sideyards would combine so
we're seeking one new variance really uh for this property uh i have submitted an affidavit of publication an affidavit of service i'd like the attorney to rule that we have jurisdiction to proceed so rule
as noted uh the record is before you in the packet i have one witness tonight mr mark liieber from east point engineering who will proceed with testimony as an engineer and also as a planner um mr liieber have you appeared before this
board before yes i have and what licenses do you hold i have a license in engineering and a license in planning so we don't we don't need the whole va vir we'll just accept mr liieber as an expert as provided that his licenses are in good standing very fine thank you uh mr lieieber have you been retained by
the applicant to we do need to swear him in though if you can raise your right hand do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth yes i do thank you mr liber you were retained by the applicant for engineering and planning purposes with this application yes i was
and uh you prepared the plans and are familiar with the application i am and as such as a planner you're familiar with ocean township's master plan and the uh ordinances that are regulate land use yes all right what are your findings and what is your testimony uh as you
heard originally this lot is a little unusual in the sense that it's very deep but yet it's narrow the width is about 60 feet but the depth is around 250 ft and there actually was a dwelling on this property previously uh the lots that are next door to this property on
both sides are similar shape width and depth and they also have dwellings on those lots um in the zone which is r3 a conforming lot requires 18,750 ft this lot is a little undersized in the sense it only has
14,29.7 square feet um the lot width requirement in the zone is 125 ft minimum and this property has 59.5 ft lot width so what's proposed is a two-story
dwelling uh the architectural plans submitted there were also color renderings on those plans you should have them in your packets um so it is only two stories is not 2.5 correct okay uh there's a flat roof and
the footprint of that dwelling is 288 square ft we also show on the plan a proposed inground pool with a patio and a driveway that can accommodate four vehicles um there was a prior plan with a cabana that has been deleted now when we look through the
bulk requirements we do comply with the minimum front yard setback rear yard setback one sideyard setback uh we do need relief from the combined sideyard setback which is a 30-foot minimum and we're proposing [Music]
21.26 uh essentially because a lot is so narrow if we were to provide the combined 30 foot sideyards we would be reduced to a building shape and size that's not very practical for the width of this lot um and and those are the
only variances all other variances have been eliminated i actually had called out on my plan on the um left side a 8.95 foot setback to a pool patio where i believe 10 ft's required that's that's correct yes okay so that is let me just
make sure i get that right what is it i have 8.95 ft to the patio uh and 10 ft's required there so i had noted that as needing relief it's a it's a minor variance uh and it's only needed because um we wanted to have a pool where you
could walk around all four sides so what about the pool equipment i had moved that equipment to be 10 and 1/2 ft off the property line to a location that i believe does conform okay uh which is shown on the plan revised february 28th all right so all pool equipment will
conform all right so the pool is going to conform the pool equipment is going to conform the only thing that isn't conforming is the full patio correct okay now when we look at the variances and i went back to the town code there is a
chapter 2120 which does discuss existing non-conforming lots unfortunately in the town there's no grandfathering clause so although there was a dwelling there previously we would still have to come to this board for relief um and frankly all zoning boards were inundated with
these types of applications until 1987 when the court offered guidance as to how to handle this type of thing because in a situation where there was a lot where it was buildable and there's dwelling really a denial of variances could result in a lot that's un
impractical to be utilized so in addition to presenting you know the plans for the house and what efforts we've made to bring it into conformity um which includes trying to meet all the sideyard and front yard and rear yard setbacks as well as building and lock
coverage which we're significantly under on we also have to you know demonstrate that we're not violating any traditional zoning purposes when i look at that i go right to the purpose of the code which is to provide adequate air light and open space
um not to present something that's more or less a nuisance which this is not a nuisance and to provide a sufficient space in appropriate locations for the type of use that we're offering here which is in a residential neighborhood
so i don't see any violation of that um i do want to point out that all the lots around us are developed and there is no additional land available to bring this lot into conformity whether it be by width or a lot area um i don't see
any detriment to the public in this case um we're not impacting what you normally hear as negatives environmentally sensitive areas we're not in a flood plane there's no wetlands on the property we're not clear cutting wooded areas um it's really just an infill
project right now the lot is vacant and it looks like um really like a missing tooth on the street where something was once there and uh you know we had selected this house and designed this to both fit into the neighborhood and to be
sized appropriately for the size of the lot so so mark just to make this like really easy uh you've got an you've got an irreg irregularly shaped lot which is why you have the previous non-conformance if you you're having a pool which conforms it'd be impossible to essentially put the patio around the
pool without having a variance more or less it'd be virtually impossible and you have to have a patio all around the pool it's generally safer if you do yeah and that's literally the only variance you actually have actually i don't think they need that variance
um how wide is the pool surround at that point is it three feet it's three feet okay yeah then it doesn't count so that that you don't need a variance for that and why why don't they need it because it's 3 ft or less it doesn't it isn't
counted as a patio it's counted as a walkway and walkways are permitted but just to clarify the zoning officer's interpretation it's been interpreted that way a number of years right that i'm familiar with but as it approaches the house where there's a 10 foot area
look at that right it might be they were asking me to notch that out okay that's right right which makes it a little uh awkward i forget what i was just looking at i i had it out yeah but i saw yeah you're right you're right so you need it yeah you need it yeah to keep it square you
need awkward to notch it the lot is so narrow in comparison to what's required that's that goes also to the setbacks of the building i did a quick calculation if you had a conforming lot of 125 square feet with a 30-foot combined
sideyard setback the uh open space on either side of the building would be about 24% of the lot width what they're proposing is open space that's about 31% of the lot width so it's actually percentage- wise it's more than what the
ordinance would require yeah so if it's a c1 and a and it's almost a c22 because you need that you need that walkway around the pool so for safety purposes okay okay that's all and all i need did you have any additional yeah i do have a
few comments um the first being sidewalk ex curb and sidewalk exist on to either side both the east and the west within about 60 or 70 ft uh we recommend that they add sidewalk in this area to try to fill in
that that gap um i think that's fine second comment concrete curb um you're proposing concrete curb it should be class b concrete um that detail should be
revised looks like there is a basement with a bathroom and laundry room which have water water and sewer um we'd recommend you guys verify if the ejector pump is needed okay you know if if the sewer is if
those are lower than the existing sewer you need to get it up and out right um then freehold soil it looks like you're disturbing more than 5,000 square feet free soil conservation district approval should be required not a problem so you're going to do
everything that's in his letter that's still relevant right i do have one additional comment that's not in the letter um i'm looking at the plans last revised 228 it looks like in between the pool at the edge of the patio in between the pool and the house there are a couple spot shots that might be lower than
might be creating a low spot um i'm imagining that's supposed water is supposed to run off i'm see i'm seeing 48.9 in between a 49 and a 4950 um we just ask that that grading be uh be rectified can you just since it's not
in the letter can you just repeat that so i get it for the resolution uh at the edge of the patio in between the pool and the house it looks like on the north side the north side of the patio there's a couple of low spots uh that we'd recommend be regraded so that water
could flow off and not get stuck in that area not a problem okay any questions from the board questions from the public okay motion to close the public hearing motion to close i'll second all in favor
i any opposed okay uh do we have a positive resolution i move for a positive resolution within all the conditions that were specified is there a second a second okay nicole
yes yes yes mr yes yes yes okay thank you thank you thank you very much have a good night i hope your son is well okay next case solomon
chahabar 344 park avenue block 20 lot 5 in the r2 zone intersection of park avenue and mammoth road the applicant is seeking approval to expand existing driveway to provide more off- streetet parking and for expansion of pool patio into the required 10-ft side and rear
yard setbacks maximum width for a driveway within the front yard is per is permitted to be no more than 20 ft the proposed driveway with a 28.5 ft in the mammoth road front yard and with a 58.98
ft in the park avenue front yard and the attorney is miss jennifer krimco good evening madam chair members of the board jennifer crimco from anel grim aaron here on behalf of the applicant in addition to the driveway variants uh we discovered through the process of this application that the prior owner when he
constructed the house as well as the pool equipment and the pool patio uh they're all slightly conform nonconforming so they were called out by kate the zoning officer and uh some of them were called out by jim in his letter so in an abundance of caution for
going forward we would just ask for the variances related to those existing nonconformities as well again they all existed when my client purchased the house uh we'll go over those in detail through uh patrick uh when he testifies all right let me just mark in the following exhibit a1 will be the
variance application itself exhibit a2 will be the boundary topographic and utility survey exhibit a3 will be the fop plan those are the only exhibits i have so far on behalf of the app and i know we're going to have more uh we then have the following board exhibits
exhibit b1 will be the board planners report exhibit b2 will be the board engineers report and exhibit d3 will be the zoning officer's report thank you and i just have uh two additional exhibits excuse me
a4 are three photos of the subject property that i took today because patrick forgot to go out there and since i live closer than patrick i said anybody i'll run over on my way to the
office did you drive the bus here look at you you overachiever you that you ran over him with no he knows i adore him that's the only reason why i can tease him if i if i'm not making fun of you
it's more problematic uh a5 is a beautiful exhibit prepared by patrick uh it's a color rendered plot plan over [Applause] and that's the uh color rendering over an aerial and that's the same thing
that's on the correct so with that i'd like to introduce patrick have him sworn uh he'll be testifying in his capacity as a licensed engineer and planner as he always does here okay can you raise your right hand do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth i do okay
uh patrick ward with insight engineering 1955 route 34 wall new jersey licensed professional engineer and planner in the state both licenses current and valid okay and just before patrick starts the reason for these three photos uh are just to show you the
existing property both from the hardware store across the street on park avenue from the corner uh i did not attempt to cross either monmouth road or uh park avenue for the purposes of this so from the corner where i walked and then uh
driving south on monmouth road i actually pulled over and took that from my car and that again is just to show you that the yard in question as patrick begins to testify is completely enclosed by hedges and not visible from any of the streets and so patrick i'll turn it
over to you to walk through existing conditions and proposed okay so the property address 344 park a um we are at the intersection of mammoth road running north to south and park a the beginning of park a where it runs east uh as you know this is a very busy
intersection in town um our lot is a slightly undersized corner lot as you can see it's in the r2 zone so um the applicant seeking approval to expand their driveway in order to provide additional off- streetet parking as we'll get into it variance release required for driveway width and through
this application the applicants also seeking to legalize the non-conformities relative to some of the other site improvements um so what do we have today and i'll i'll i'll reference a5 as i talk about the existing conditions because the proposed conditions are pretty small compared to what else is
out there uh there's existing two-story dwelling um located on the property there's a single driveway access from park avenue and on our exhibit you can see a dark line that shows the current limits of the driveway so there's a little bit of a turnaround area and that's a garage doors right here sorry
oversized singlecar garage um typical rear yard improvements include a pool pool patio and a rear deck the property is fully landscaped as the photos uh evidence the two frontages are landscaped to the degree you'd expect for such a busy and active
intersection we have a solid row of skip laurel that run along the entirety of both frontages the property and structures are today are pre-existing non-conforming we're seeking to legal to legalize all existing non-conforming conditions so just to run through them
briefly lot area is 17,7 actually that so just so the board's aware in 2002 this board or the predecessors did grant variance relief for the development of this property it included a variance for the lot area it included a variance for a change of grade of 2t more or more and
it included a variance as it relates to park avenue for approximately 41 ft where 50 ft is required unfortunat so you don't need to go through the ones that were already granted but interestingly the house was constructed a couple of feet closer to park than was
approved so go ahead pat sorry yeah so the lot area is 17,795 where 22,500's required the principal setbacks um so the mammoth road setback from our survey is 49 ft where 50 ft's the requirement
and as uh mr scrim code noted there was a prior variance relief for the front yard to park at 41 ft we measured at 39.6 again um this those are the current aspill conditions based on our survey the principal rear yard is 39 ft where 40 ft's required the pool equipment
sideyard is 7.9 ft where 10 ft's required the driveway width today is actually non-conforming at its at its widest where this little turnaround area is is 39.4 ft where 20t as we know is the maximum and then the pool patio itself non-conforming front yards at
46.8 ft where 50 is required and the side and rear yards are 7.1 and 3.5 respectively where 10 ft is the requirement and this has existed since the house was built likely in 2002 or around thereabouts and nobody really
even knew about it including the inspector who did the co right at the time of purchase and you can't really see it so there's no impact on anybody correct i would agree with all those statements here okay so let's talk about what we're proposing so so what we're proposing here is we we did our best to try to match the color not to throw you
off but just to show what the it would look like from the sky in the future if this is approved we're proposing if you're ever flying over it you're ever flying above yeah the proposed driveway extension here is about 768 756 ft excuse me since we're a quarter lot and
the home is built on the easterly 10-ft sideyard setback any driveway expansion on this property would be in a front yard we have the front yard on park and the front yard on mammoth um the applicant's goal here is to provide additional off- streetet parking for his family and guests so due to the
extremely busy nature of the park and mammoth intersection on street parking here is unsafe and likely not permitted so before we made this application and and you provided the plan to me in an effort to try and avoid the variance we
did look at the possibility of doing a circ a conforming circular driveway correct such that would allow for more on street parking and would avoid the variance is that correct and you looked into it yes right and in doing so you discovered that it would require variances for setback to the property
lines and it would put one of the driveway entrances literally at the intersection of monmouth and park which in your opinion the county would not allow based on their requirements correct yeah two parts yeah there's a 50 foot requirement from the intersection for the township and then the county
would not um like it being close to the radius of the curb curve and um we wouldn't we wouldn't we wouldn't want a curb cut on mammoth road i don't think the county would accept that well and moreover the town would require variance for that because when you have a corner lot you have to be have your curb cuts
on the lesser classification correct i i think this this configuration is the best they can possibly do and i think the safest to do yeah um jim was that your way of telling them to wrap it up i would i was about
to do it too i wanted to put on the record it was something in this in uh in drew and ben's report um we will provide the details for the drywall we did add that as a quick revision just to you know commit to that we'll provide specific details to mitigate any increase in coverage does the board have
any questions sir patrick no um mr pav no they said they'll conform to the letter so no that was our only comment okay questions from the board questions from the public
okay motion to close the public hearing is there a second second okay all in favor i any opposed okay someone offer the second yes
yes yes yes yes yes thank you very much thank you have a good night okay the last case emerald j emerald jade llc 519 wildwood road block
61.05 lot 11 chairman uh we might want to take maybe like a 15-minute break mr farber is not here oh you want me to text him i have a cell number yeah you jinxed us take a 5m minute break maybe he misunderstood we thought we were
carrying it cuz there was issues you know the issues earlier today was going to be so we make a motion to to take a five 15-minute break motion to take a five minute second
all in favor i i any opposed okay i will move move to open the resume the meeting resume the meeting sorry about that is there a second second all in favor i any opposed and we'll and we'll note that everyone who
was here previously is still here so there's no need to recall the role okay and our next case is emerald jade llc 519 wallwood road block 61.05 lot 11 ocean township in the r5 zone applicant
is seeking to retain the existing garage structure and convert it to a cabana maximum building coverage is 25% of total lot um 100 1,562.5 square feet where
31.23% 1,952 ft is existing and 31.23% 1,952 ft is proposed accessory buildings over 150 ft must maintain the setback of
the principal building 7 1/2 ft sideyard and 30ft rear yard setbacks are required where 3.6 6 ft side and 3 ft rear yard setback are proposed accessory structures including pools patios pads etc must maintain required 30ft front
yard setback and 10t side and rear yard setback 0 ft front to 5 foot wide pad walkway 8ft rear to pool patio is proposed note previous zoning official was incorrect in issuing zoning approvals for pool in 2022 minimum side
yard i'm sorry minimum side setback for driveway is five feet where zero feet is existing the twotory rear edition shown on the variance plan shows a proposed inground pool with fencing and equipment that was also approved by the previous zoning official in 2022
[Applause] thank you madam chairman and i think uh uh our attorney wants to i i will mark in the following exhibits exhibit a1 will be the variance application itself exhibit a2 will be the survey of the
property exhibit a3 will be the project information elevations and for plan exhibit a4 will be the proposed cabana and variance plan those are the exhibits i have on behalf of the applicant and i'm sure you might have more and we'll mark them as the yes or no thank you and
then we have the following board exhibits exhibit b1 will be the board planner report exhibit b2 will be the board engineers report and exhibit b3 will be the zoning off report um i think there are more than one planner report
um and uh you only mark the most recent the most recent my most recent one says that none of the others matter anymore very good that's small print at the bottom i wish that would work with my wife anyway
this is being recorded we're back recording so she's not watching i guarantee anyway good evening madam chairman ladies and gentlemen of the board robert farber for the applicant emerald jade llc 519 wildwood avenue block 6105 live
11 this is an application with some history i just want to go over it because you can recite it but i i'd like to just make things clear and a little simpler is always helpful um back in 22 there were plans for an addition to the
back of the house zoning approval was given it was represented and condition that the garage would be removed um the plans were built subsequently there was also approval for a pool zoning approval has been given for the pool when you
when you say zoning approval you mean by the zoning officer or by the zoning officer so it never came to this board it didn't have to there was no uh bulk or a use issue involved same with the back because in 2223 when the construction was done to
the back of the home everything was per code the code had changed since subsequently but when everything was originally approved as far as the back of the home uh the board it was all permissible and all within code and
everything did get built with approvals of your code official in terms of the addition to the back of the home in terms of the pool the zoning approval not your approval but from the zoning code official was granted i think within
the past year um so it does pass muster under the ruling as given there's some issues about patioing as well as the garage uh when everything was built the client had subsequent thoughts of maybe converting
the garage into a uh cabana and note that the plans for the cabana just so you know do not include any bathrooms there is a sink there will be a refrigerator uh and it will just be used as cabana it's not going to have heating it's not going to have air conditioning
it will not in any way shape or form be used as livable space it's only going to be used as a combat regardless um i made as a as a early uh just to get it out of the way will you agree to a deed restriction that absolutely i i was going to add that mark i've been before
you before but before with you i should say not before you but in any event we filed the application a little less than a year ago for the garage um as um ben and jim's reports came in there were
some issues that arose and we offered and thought perhaps the thing to do is just withdraw the application and we had a technical meeting um with your with your officials and it was suggested that
the garage the conversion to the cabana would not be as problematic um the driveway as it exists is non-conforming the garage obviously has been there forever um the issue was create more parking space that will alleviate the
planning and the planning concerns for the most part and um that's really where we find ourselves today we have resubmitted plans now you may have heard some rumbling um some engineering drawings were submitted earlier today
even which of course is wrong because it's less than 10 days before meeting i'm not asking anyone to look at anything other than what's previously been reported on and submitted um the issues that arise from the plans
submitted today and and the issues that had been that arose in ben's init mr matlac's initial report really boiled down to construction issues and things and we will certainly abide with your
code official whether it's craig or ben or whomever should we be fortunate enough to be granted variance relief so in terms of water retention in terms of discharge in terms of the placement of
of venting or what have you we will abide by whatever your code official says and that was really the concerns that were raised in what was submitted today and i'm not presenting or talking about i'm just explaining to you so we
come simply asking to allow the uh cabana to the garage to become a cabana um and the garage is a source of the buildable problems i believe though uh drew can correct me if i'm wrong there
was patio placement that we originally had that we withdrew and we redesigned i i think we're okay on the patio and the walkways i think and correct me if i'm wrong but i think our issue is the uh
remaining um garage uh and again the driveway the garage these are all pre-existing these aren't things that we built or did these are things that pre-existed and uh and there you have it so uh miss spiel and board with your
permission i'd like to just describe through our architect what is proposed for a conversion to the garage and uh i would like to call um mr david feldman a licensed architect of the state of new jersey who has been approved as an expert before your board on many
occasions but would you swear him in please raise your right hand do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth i do okay and if you can just use that microphone please david you're a licensed architect of the state of new jersey and you've been before this board a couple of dozen times yes i have and i
would ask madame chairman to allow him to testify yes okay david mr feldman for the record can you please describe for the board and if anybody wants to see this they're welcome to come up uh what is proposed
so what we have uh before you is the um garage conversion into a cabana um basically the existing garage um in footprint in height in square footage is staying exactly the way it is do you
mind just turning it slightly i think some may want to see it in the audience that's that's good thank you we have no intention of changing the exterior except for the fact of cleaning it up um the stuckco would probably be
uh repainted and the only other thing that we're going to do is the existing garage door that faces south uh on the front elevation or faces the street is going to be replaced with a um roll down gate and the wall that faces the east
side which is going to now open up to the proposed pool area will also be um opened with roll down gates that could open up to create an open area to the pool uh as far as the interior the only
thing we're proposing is a um countertop with a sink and an underounter refrigerator the like i said the existing garage door that faces south is going to be replaced with a roll down gate that could be opened and closed during the summertime months and
closed during the winter for um probable storage of uh whether it be patio equipment or whatever they have around the pool and the wall that faces east is also going to be opened up with security shape uh
security gates as well that could be closed and opened mr fel let's go to the floor plan again no bathroom correct no bathroom no heat um it's not intended for livable space
uh there's three skylights that are going to be proposed for the roof and there isn't a standard door so a roll down garage that is correct okay um it's going to have electric i presume yes yes that is correct and the skylights
actually are going to be facing the interior of the property yeah the skylights will be facing the pool side or or the east side facing the interior you know um i don't think i have any further questions of you madam chairman
the board have any questions from the board is there plumbing in the building now uh i don't believe there is now there is electric though where are the services coming from i'm not 100% sure
okay just i would like to reiterate to the board that were we to be granted approval i will certainly prepare a deed um restriction that this is not habitable space and i think de facto in
its form david no one can really live there i mean um there's no windows you'd have to roll up well yeah i mean considering there there's no bathroom facilities um there's no windows there's no personnel door to be able to open and
close and go in and out yeah there are no man doors there are no man doors so if somebody wanted woman doors or x doors yes i if somebody wanted to sleep in there basically they'd have to
open up one of the security doors go in and either sleep with it open all night or close it in which case they don't have uh any windows or ventilation except for the skylights that are up in the in the roof and i'm sorry do do the do the doors face the pool uh they face
the yeah right so so the two doors um that currently this is a wall solid wall um there's no windows within the um structure currently nor are we intending to put any on the north elevation or the
west elevation um so the east elevation is a full wall currently um and what we're doing is proposing to open up that wall and put two doors to open it and make it as airy as possible the south that will face the pool that faces the
pool the front elevation which is the um south elevation faces the driveway and the street and that's going to be removed the garage door will be removed and replaced with a security
uh gate system that could open and close so when in the summertime they could theoretically open the east facing wall as well as the i'm sorry the south facing wall and the east facing wall okay yes and the two walls that are
facing north and west will remain solid as they currently are today are they going to put heat or air conditioning in the building no any other questions from the could you could you further explain i think i heard you say the original plan years
ago was to remove the garage the code official when my client went for the initial appro zoning approval and building approval indicated that he would remove the garage after everything
was done and he got the pool approval he thought you know this might be a nice cabana before we get rid of it and that's kind of the order of the way things went and as soon as they kind of had the pool approval they were approached any way we can keep the garage well yeah but you need a variance
because you told them you were going to remove it and that's why we find ourselves here if if they wouldn't have agreed to that back then would they have need a variance back then they pro they would have needed a variance then yeah they did it to avoid and my suggestion
to them since the existing driveway extended along the property line more than half the depth of the lot i said "if you remove that portion of the existing driveway get rid of all that asphalt then maybe that could give you a reason for leaving the garage and making
it a cabana because you're giving something back." that's probably better than removing the cabana removing the garage and incidentally mr aens you also suggested creating an additional parking space that's correct and you know it occurred to me i went into the architect
and your professionals didn't speak and this is ocean township and that's not the way you do things so um shame on me but while this witness is still here are you i think there's some objectors or pe members of the public who may have some questions but mr higgins and mr pavick
do you have anything additional that you need to hear no the the only other variance that they need is technical in nature as we said with the prior application if the sidewalk is three feet wide it's not counted as a structure the front sidewalk is intended
to match the width of the steps which is 5t so that goes out to the front lot line so technically that's a structure that requires a variance in for being in the front yard i mean it could be reduced to three feet and then we'd have to get to a certain point and widen out
to five feet which wouldn't make much sense okay mr pavl most of my comments are or my questions are engineering related uh so i'll save one for the engineer but there's one um the existing principal structure do you know can you
confirm how many bedrooms are in that structure i'm trying to determine the required parking if you need parking i don't know the answer off the top of my head i do know that during the technical review session mr
hagens didn't we address that issue and there were enough parking spaces for the number of bedrooms yes there were yeah i think there's there's three or four bedrooms i can't represent and i don't think ben was at that meeting so there are three it looks like there's space for three parking spaces in the driveway
correct correct which would mean as long as the principal structure doesn't have more than five bedrooms yeah that's correct and again bless you bless you um the there really isn't a variance before you
about the interior of the home but when i do a deed restriction if we're fortunate enough for the garage not having livable space i'll happily add there never to be more than five bedrooms in the house um so that can
cover kill two birds with one stone and i hope no one likes birds so thank you okay if there are questions from the public i'm sorry i had another question apologize the the drawings call for a proposed front covered porch is that
built or is that proposed i'm really not sure david do you know the answer to that i'm only the architect for the cabana to my knowledge the principal structure is complete nothing is happening to the principal structure it's done i think the issue
was the width of the walkway and whether or not the uh the um garage is to be removed yeah because that that's contributing to your building coverage is the front porch so i think the it says it says
existing 84 proposed 140 and then it says covered rear porch proposed sorry it's on the existing zero proposed 104 so i don't know what we're approving here [Applause]
see it's right here it does it does say proposed front covered porch i mean it's on the same drawing where it says we're removing the driveway and you're converting the cabana may i ask for a twominut recess and get
you a definitive answer to that um i'm okay with that or do you want to hear if there are questions from the public first for questions of the whatever let's do through the public first okay if there are questions from the public if you can come up to a mic to the microphone
right no one from the public is interesting make a motion for a threem minute recess thank you mr fuller second all in favor i thank you any opposed okay i move that we resume the meeting
first second second second all in favor i vote for the record again that everyone who was here prior to the break is back so we don't need to do the roll and i would like to thank you madam chairman and board members for allowing these
adjournments and this disjointed way we had to do this and i appreciate it very much um i would ask that uh mr scotland be sworn in mr scotland if you can do you affirm to tell the truth the whole truth i do and have you testify before
this board yes i have okay many times i'd ask that he be accepted to testify as to the engineering features on the plants okay okay you just spell the last name lynn n thank you j scott um the board is very
familiar with this so i'm going to ask a few questions the main issues here are the existence of the garage and the front walkway the uh front plan show proposed front covered porch but it's actually existing as is the outcome in
the back so that's a mislabel am i correct uh yes now it has been suggested uh by mr higgins that if you were to review around the garage there is some concrete
and that concrete could be removed and that concrete if removed would mitigate um somewhat the building coverage issue am i correct i i i don't believe that concrete was actually calculated in the impervious coverage or the building
coverage okay so but we nonetheless can remove it and that will improve yes yeah so and and just to mark on the plan um now the uh board has marked as a3 the uh
site plan and i'm going to ask you to just mark on this and make this perhaps a5 um what you would remove just um you could hatch it that portion of it so the board is aware certainly actually the
concrete is within this area here okay right up to this dashed line okay shade it maybe yeah shade it that would be a good idea all right so this is a copy of a3 which is being marked up by the ar by the engineer to show what's
going to be removed concrete wise and i would ask that this be marked as a5 so it can be that's not a problem thank you um mr pav it's this shaded in here it's also i think oops there's the survey
shows concrete in this area too so be anything basically any concrete other than the pool patio that's beyond where this is shown to be okay um scott
um mr higgins indicated that this area in front of the garage up to the hatcheted area if there's concrete that will be removed correct correct okay just just mark that on it's that whole driveway from the garage back just shave
it so frustrating you color so well many years experience it's hatched it over here um this yes that's right
um actually i should chair lady first being chairperson has this is the area where there's concrete around it ends here and this area which is hatcheted has concrete that's to be ready and i will now go back to the
books this is the hatcheted area this is a shaded a little yiddish work in it just full of comedians tonight that will be removed hatched yes just i'm going to provide a5 um to the
attorney and that will be part of the file mr farmer will you just do me a favor will you will you actually give this to nicole because she's she's the cuz she loses and uh okay so mr lynn we've established
that the front porch is not proposed covered its existent correct uh yes and you'll remove that from the plan that reference that it is it's proposed okay now there were some communications and a new report that was submitted today
that's verbot and for purposes of this meeting but technically the information on it pertains to basically engineering concerns more than zoning concerns and they were addressed to swage the concerns that mr
matleck had and perhaps greg had um and of course any approval will be subject to the town's engineers approval correct correct okay um does anybody have any questions for mr lynn questions from the
board i'm i'm still i'm sorry but what is the existing building lot coverage and what is the proposed scott certainly so uh there's several answers to that actually uh there was an existing site
which was prior to the i'm sure robert explained the pool application and the addition application being approved and constructed so right now uh the impervious the existing coverage is a
31.23% okay with the with leaving the the garage in place um taking out the big portion of the driveway so on and so forth our end impervious coverage would be
54.10 that's with all the improvements as shown on this plan that includes the house the addition the pool although the pool's not considered in previous coverage the pool patio and the cabana and the uh reconfiguration of the
driveway in the front so that's below the 65 correct so we are complying in terms of total impervious correct building coverage we're over but in terms of impervious we're fine so you're not changing the your your existing is
31.23% 23% and you're staying at 31.23% per the application today in building carbon for building yes so the so the uh the variance plan says existing is 19 point excuse me
34.9 for existing was that based upon the idea the garage wouldn't be there i'm sorry that's the impermanence coverage right it's 34.9 uh with the garage being removed and then 54.1 so so everything that says existing here isn't isn't actually
what's existing it's existing as if the garage wasn't there no that's existing as if the garage were there how's it changing how's it changing then uh we are taking away some of the driveway to the left we're adding a
little bit of driveway to the front we reconfigured the pool patio uh from the other from the previous approved plan you confusing does well the building coverage is changing too the building
coverage is changing too with the addition with leaving the garage so the 198 8 right is assuming the garage is not there i think the 19.8 is prior to the twotory edition here maybe the problem can we
just get that zoning chart i mean there's got to be a real number so so we need we need if we're going to accept to accept the plan we're going to need yeah i understand i mean no one has a i don't think i don't think anyone i don't want to speak for the board i i don't think anyone on this at this table here from a professional standpoint has any issue with the application but we need to get
the zoning chart right i think scott's going to work on that in about a minute or so i'll have it okay and because of the way the house was approved and then the garage was proposed to stay and then the pool was added it's a bit of a
frankenstein short just when you look at the building coverage summary the building coverage summary says the existing prior to construction so clearly that 19.8 is what existed prior to the construction uh based on the
numbers that is correct jim yes so the proposed captures literally everything exactly the pool it's the sidewalks it's the garage everything yeah okay but the proposed takes into gets into account the garage that was supposed to be torn down correct yeah correct all right i'm
just going to make a condition that that that you have to revi just make sure the zoning chart is right mhm confirm that with the board engineer and planner and uh so that that we have it and presumably there won't be any any extra variances there's another variance that shows up you're going to have to come
back obviously but i think if you look at my report i i think i figured that all out and this was four months ago so i'm saying i think i'm not 100% certain but i think the figures in my report are probably
accurate okay any other questions for mr lyn yes i just had a couple questions um there's some inconsistencies here with um fence height and the gate and some
spot grades that need to be adjusted uh but my major comment is about the the storm water um if you're adding this much impervious we'd ask that you mitigate that with the with the system and submit the calculations and right in
regard to the comment on the fence uh the pool code says it has to be 4 ft in height but the but the latch has to be at 54 in um i i read that but the the note on the plan clearly states that that the uh the the actual latch has to be higher than the actual fence so is
that one of the latches i'm not sure the technical term sticks above the fence exactly yeah that has to be 54 in that's why it appears as though there's a discrepancy but there's really not it's the height of the fence plus the height of the latch okay and then there are a couple spot grades um
yeah in the back i assume they're with the assumed datim that don't that didn't convert correct yes sir yeah and then as far as the storm water management um so we did get an approval from uh greg
blash's office for the pop-up emitter with the small dry well which is situated at the end of the uh popup emitter um i know that ben and your office had requested that we do an actual dry well size to the hundredyear
event um we can do that uh certainly i i just might add for the board that were this to be favorably granted um we will abide by whatever ben and greg tell us to do in terms of storm water mitigation
okay yeah just for the board's benefit where would that dry well be located uh based on this plan would be in the front yard okay any other questions question mr higgins what are you going to say okay questions from the
board okay questions from the public okay motion to close the public hearing motion to close second all in favor any opposed is there a positive resolution
make a motion for a positive resolution conditions have been discussed already including the drywall okay is there a second i'll second oh i'm sorry roll call
yes mr yes mr ashley yes no mr yes yes and mr yes thank you very very much
and i apologize for our combined party you don't need to apologize i really seriously thank you all i love that word tardiness and a motion to or motion to adjurnn tojourn second second all in favor i okay