e e e e e e e e e e
e e pledge allegiance United States of to the standy please be seated welcome everyone to Township of Oldbridge Zoning Board of adjustment
March 6 2025 adequate notice of this meeting of the Oldbridge Township uh Board of adjustment has been provided in accordance with the open public meetings act at least 48 hours prior of the commencement of this meeting by permanently prominently posting in the
municipal complex an announcement giving the time the date the location and the agenda of this meeting mailing such announcement to the home news and Tribune fing a copy of such announcement with the municipal clerk and posting the agenda on the Municipal website by secretary pelli could we have
a roll call please certainly Mrs Andrews present Miss Chevalier here Mr ISO here Mr scagno here Mr Stoner here miss testver here Mr Singh Miss Gomez here chairman Sullivan
here uh housekeeping issues uh I would ask everybody in the audience if you have one of these which I'm sure does please mute it so it doesn't doesn't interfere with our testimony this evening uh this meeting is being simultaneously televised on OBT channel 15 as well as YouTube live if you ever
want to look back at the meeting you can find it easily on YouTube live after just a few days uh having said that the microphones are directional for anybody testifying tonight please make sure there's a little red light or a green light on them when it's green it's good to go when it's red we can't hear
anything so just pull them close to you but not necessarily uh into your face but close uh if anybody from the audience is going to be speaking there's going to be a portable mic that's going to be handed to you by the uh television operator Jake over there thank you Jake
with that we're going to move to item number three on the agenda it's uh for an adoption this is for an adoption of amended Zoning Board of adjustment rules and regulations 2025 Section 1 colon
2-4 order of business to include salute to the flag swearing in of professionals and general public comments board having heard that someone move it for adoption move it scagno is there second second Andrews roll call please Mrs Andrews yes
Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Miss tester yes chairman Sullivan yes item four is minutes we have two this evening board I'll go first to the January 30th 2025 meeting hopefully you've had attempt a
time to review it absent any concerns for additions or deletions I would ask someone to move that for adoption Andrews move it s second second scogna uh Vice chair Chevalier got that okay okay sir oh miss chalier got that
yeah roll call please Mrs Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes M tester yes chairman Sullivan yes uh board the the second one would be the minutes of February 20 2025 someone move
that for adoption CH move it is there a second second M Andrew seconds roll call please Mrs Andrews yes M Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Miss testy yes chairman Sullivan yes we
come to item five on the agenda um before I call the resolutions this evening I just if you're here on a matter there's I I have to inform you that uh on the agenda 40- 2024 Z that's Matthew and Sarah LaVine the location
it's block 12.25 lot 22 the physical location is 35 uh lak Ridge Drive M1 address uh it's a mailing address C and D variant applicant proposes an addition of approximately 191.168 7 squ ft to the second floor of
an existing single family home this application has been withdrawn without prejudice so that means that the application is not to be heard by the board if you're here on that matter uh there's not going to be any further uh action by the board because it has been
withdrawn without prejudice all right having said that I'll move on uh for Resolutions Mr dasty if you will 55-220 for Z Rael Bellow it was a c variant sir yeah I don't have I have them here should be right there the first
one application R raell was oh I'm sorry thank you I'm sorry asking for to uh for a sideline setback approval of an existing shed which was placed there by
the shed company uh 3 foot minimum from the setback and the shed company misplaced it it's only 14 ft 14 in from the common side boundary so she asked for a variance for uh whatever I think 22 in uh the shed's been there for two
years it's on a concrete slab and the board felt sufficient uh evidence was presented in terms of a hardship and she was granted a variance under C2 thank you Mr rasty board members you've heard the resolution someone like to move that
for adoption Andrews move it is there a second ISO Mr Rizo seconds roll call please Mrs Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Miss testy yes chairman Sullivan yes
58 days 2024 Z Eric Savvy was for z c variany application was denied Mr Dy thank you Mr Savvy uh the home is at 51 Shirley bouevard and the purpose of the application was to obtain approval to uh
uh replace a pre-existing non-conforming existing deck or deck which which he had removed uh he wanted to replace it in the same spot and continue with that non-conformity um the board denied the application thinking that he certainly had the opportunity and would still have
the opportunity to move the deck so that it would not violate any of the setback requirements thank you Mr Dy board members someone want to move that for adoption please chier will move it Andrew second please Mrs Andrews yes M
Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mrs Gomez yes I'm sorry Mr Stoner yes Miss tester yes chairman Sullivan yes 59-22 24z it's Derek foron was a design waiver application denied Mr Dy thank
you uh the property is at 164 Austin Avenue Mr foron was asking for design wer approval um two family is allowed in this Zone he was going to U fix up the basement for two family for his I think his aging parents but the design waiver
that he needed was for a dual driveway the property is I think it was 110 ft the varant I'm sorry 104 excuse me 104 ft the requirement would have been a minimum of 200 and for the reason set forth in the applic in the resolution
the application was theoy it's a good thing we have Miss chaver here absolutely my head board members you've heard the uh the uh resolution someone move it for adoption please Andrews move it is there second Chevalier roll call please Mrs Andrews
yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Mr TTI yes chairman Sullivan yes this time I'd ask Mr Dy to swear in our professional for the evening Miss SW
solo tonight you swear or affirm to tell the whole TR thank you all right we'll move forward with our applications they will be taken in order I did tell you the one is not going to be heard a total of three this evening first up 20 28
22z uh interbel Automotive is amended this is Zone edo1 Economic Development opportunity lock 20001 Lot 25 and 26 physical location 1706 Englishtown Road use car dealership license requiring a devarian as a continuance Wayne Elaine
Miller excuse me uh representing the applicant sir thank you Mr chair members of the board um my name is Lane Miller I am here on interbel and as the chair um summarized this is an application for a modification of a pre-existing D
variance for a um use as a car dealership my client is actually in the business of disassembling and shipping overseas cars as he testified at the last hearing um send him internationally he had gotten an
approval for that use back in 2017 business was good he was a good neighbor good operating business here in Albridge I don't think there is or has been any complaints his business is unchanged but circumstances have changed
how he has to affect that business with the Advent of covid and more importantly the Ukraine war how he can Source his Vehicles has changed dramatically so what he does is he buys used cars or wrecked cars takes them apart for parts
ships the parts overseas previously prior to the Ukraine war his primary customers which were based in Russia and Ukraine had licenses that allowed him to acquire through their license the vehicles here given
the Advent of the Ukraine war that has gone away and I should really call it Russia's war with Ukraine in any event um he came in front of this board in 2022 an application was approved in
2023 allowing him to get a um limited use for used car sales so he could acquire a dealer license which was necessary for him to buy the cars at auction new source of his supply for the
shipping overseas even though his was apply for a used car license never a desire or intent to sell any cars on site and he expressed that to the board at the time his understanding of the DMB regs and his discussions with DMB was
this would allow him to get a used car dealership license the board granted it put restrictions because you didn't want car sales occurring on site and restricted specifically that no car sales could occur on site that was put in the resolution it was put in a deed
restrict ition my client went submitted down to DMV to get his car license um one of the things to get the used car dealership is license is to get proof that the use is permitted by Township
the township zoning he got a letter from Damien Gil said used car sales allowed no sales on site as per the resolution which was an accurate description he submitted that to DMV and although they initially
indicated that they would approve it they came back new examiner said you can't do it under the statute and under the regulations you have to be able to one show you have spaces where you can show two cars you don't actually have to have them you have to have two spaces
that you can show cars and more importantly you have to be able to have sales on site have to be able to what sir have sales on site I went through an extended um series of correspondences and emails with that
investigator I attached to the application some of those Communications basically laid out what my client was doing why he needed it didn't really sell cars just needed it so he could buy from the um from the auto auction places they
didn't care they said this is the only thing under the Reg that allows you to get a dealer license denied so here we are back in front of the board asking to allow the applicant to get a license that meets those minimum requirements understanding he still
doesn't intend to do anything other than what he's doing I know the board's concern is that this opens the door to a full-fledged auto dealership that is not what's being sought I think there was also at the last meeting some concern from some of the board me members that
maybe we were trying to in some way mislead DMV and as to what was going to happen on the site that is not the case I laid everything out in my communications with
DMV we would expect that any approval that comes out would be limited and those limitations would be set forth in the approval that we can send to DMB what are we looking for from the board the ability to have two spots on site
that would allow would be available to show cars for sale again no intention to sell we would locate those spots on the property anywhere the board wanted my client has no desire to have cars up front on the
property showing them for sale or the like could be at the far rear of the property you have to be able to have retail sales we'd like to have a limitation no more than one retail customer can be on the site at any time things that are really inconsistent with
a large or active card dealership as we would picture it in terms of signage my client has a sign on the property says interbel Automotive would have no change to that signage you wouldn't have the flags outside you wouldn't have you know
big sale present day weekend any of that the only signage she's requesting is the ability to continue interbel or Automotive as his signage and again we would expect those limitations to be in any resolution of approval we would be
more than happy to put all those limitations in a revised deed restriction he wants to Simply Be able to buy the cars so he can continue to sell the parts disassemble them sell the parts [Music]
overseas um I have my planner here I have the applicant here at the end of the last hearing there was a little bit of an academic discussion between the um attorney who was present at the time for the board and our planner as to whether this is a D2 variant which is an
amending of a use which has a lower standard or a D1 and I think my planner went a little bit off into the pedantic side of things and was arguing for a D2 We defer to the board we think we meet the requirements either as a D1 or D2 with a testimony
that was presented before we are not trying to create a opening that we can wedge ever wider we are merely trying to get my client the ability to Source the cars that he needs so he can disassemble them sell the parts
overseas and as I said I have the planner here I have the applicant here any restrictions the board wants to put into the resolution that allows my client to Source the cars and get his dealer license we're happy to have there
again he's not looking to have a car dealership as we know it he merely needs a dealer license so he can acquire cars take them apart sell the parts overseas doing essentially what he's been doing since n um
2017 but with a different source of Supply because of the change that occurred in the operations um I don't know if the board has any questions of me the applicant or our planner Mr Mr Miller uh I'm certainly going to go for the legal
advice to our Council and the advice of Mr want and reference to whether it's a D1 D2 um my impression was that you rested your case last time we we put in the testimony we had yes we did so if you've arrested your case I don't think
the Board needs to hear anybody else I'll ask but but uh but let's get to the first matter as the D1 or D2 then we'll come back and see if the board has any questions okay okay without a question that okay with you sir absolutely all right Mr one um in my opinion it's a D1
um because a D2 is only when it's a pre-existing non-conforming use the use was granted a use variance when a use is granted a use variance and you come back
for an amendment it is not an expansion of a non-conform pre-existing non-conforming use because the use was granted by the board um so I would still uh review it for the higher standards
and I believe a D1 would be required Mr Dy chairman I agree as D1 it is yes and as I said you're Mr chair members of the board we we are not going to just for the record though obviously we're gonna we're going to have this as D1 let me see if any of the board
members have any have any questions and then I'm going to ask them for any comments okay thank you question as to the D1 or D2 We Understand it was it was a D1 use variant and that's what that's there's an amendment to that not to A2 understood okay everybody on this side
all right uh anything you want to say finally sir I think I gave my summary as I said if there are any questions that you need of the applicant or are professional we have them here otherwise I understand this is just board discussion any questions to the applicant or the attorney who will speak
on behalf of none none go ahead coun chairman Mr Miller we certainly AC representations can we just can we just have your um your client testify that he agrees with what all everything you just said and oh
absolutely all right so that's in the yes sir would you come on in yeah Mr Vasan right I believe you you're previously sworn so so you're still under oath why don't you give us your full name and spell your last again
please um my name is Dimitri vren v a zg r y n okay and you heard the testimony just now or not excuse me the representation just now from your attorney Mr Miller of course and you agree with the statements that he made that they are true and
correct of course and you abide by them of course thank you thank you thank you sir all right having said that now it's time for the board's comments oh I'm sorry chairman chairman Maybe it's a question for Mr Dy actually and uh some
maybe maybe the question and the answer helps the Board too uh I have been involved in this application since its Inception and uh the back and forth that went between the zoning officer and um
the applicant um time and again the applicant had said that the dealership license is a state requirements it's a DMV requirement not that he wants to operate a car use car dealership his
business is what it is it it's I know when when it's a D3 use variance the board has the ability to put in conditions I know that's not a typical case when it is D1 however and I missed
the last meeting but if the planner has presented his testim as to a D1 is there something that the board can put in conditions should they want to
act favorably and maybe the use variance is granted only for some time so that the board gets the ability to see what comes out of it because it's a very different type of use it's not something that we have approved in the past or not
something that we have seen in the past but what I noticed and in front of the zoning board or after covid there have been many uses that were not contemplated before like Phoenix salons um I'd never seen a shared salon uh
space in the past and it came out of covid it was a different idea so um is there something like should the board act favorably are there any conditions the board would want to impose of food
for thought well in terms of conditions I think that Mr Miller has indicated what the amended use application is for and those would be the conditions I think you asked me if you could put a time limit correct and and my belief is the use variances go with the land
they're not going to change I don't think we can say it's only good for five years or only uh I have seen so and I don't know in the past even before I uh came to Oldbridge as a planner I have have seen some uh resolutions that were
passed where the board had said you have to act within 2 years of granting the variance or three years and if you don't add then the used variance goes away but you're an expert I just wanted to I took it the other way I thought you meant could you limit the number of years that
the use variant would expire then and I don't think you can do that okay you I think your question just now was can we require the the use variant to kick in yes well I think already kicked in so I don't think that's the issue okay but um certainly I think you might be able to
do that I never heard of that one before usually when approved you get started no so I had I I have seen and it was an Old Bridge itself but it was many many moons ago and I was looking at some of the resolutions and I had seen there was a
stipulation that if it doesn't work the applicant has to come back to the board and it expires but the Ed variant expires but it has to be specifically stated in the resolution and that was my understanding I'm not familiar with Ed
Varian is expiring uh they run with the land okay so unless some of the conditions no longer are being met then obviously it gets voided because the board has some Fair concerns and so were my concerns that what if this and especially along that area we have
noticed that uh you know the area is deteriorating because of the type of uh vehicles that have infiltrated into the area and parking maintenance of those sites have been an issue so I understand the board's concern it was just a food
for thought Mr mer I light a comment if you want um well if it were possible I mean we would have no problem with coming back in five years to try to renew the variants if that was a condition that could be in place and the board was okay with that I think the
other limitations that would protect the board's concern again are specifying in the variants and again with a deed restriction as to where the location of the two vehicles for sale would be on the property anywhere the board wants
they're going to be as we plan it it would be far in the back far removed from everything not one of the you know usually car dealerships are right up on the curb this will be far back or it'll be right next to the building whatever the planner in the board thought were
most appropriate for their concerns restriction that there can only be one retail person on site um restriction that the signage on the property can say only interbel Automotive um no holiday
sales no whatever uh the board for the record hasn't offered any I'm not suggestion to I if I suggested that conf between between the planner and the and Council but this board has not recommended
anything understood completely um one of the questions obviously is going to be if the board would allow for the two spaces where are they going to go are you saying that you would leave that up to our planner to determine yes wherever the planner felt was appropriate yeah for Mr
Dy the building is pretty much almost up to the front there would be nothing available in the front it's a twostory facade I guess good um so there's no glass there's no anything it would have to be if it were if it happened it would have to be somewhere behind the building yeah and
we have no problem behind the building anywhere yeah uh I'm going to make a comment and then I'll open it up to the rest of the board okay uh Mr Miller I've been sitting on this board for a long time and I was here for the original uh application it was lnc uh Associates I'm
sorry l& Associates LLC I don't know if Mr vasr was a princible in that or not and it really has no merit as far as I'm concerned at that time the facility was allowed to do what it does now in in
part uh dismantle cars uh in uh 2017 Mr vasr I guess representing the business if he's the sole owner came forward and looked for uh this
modification um by uh by 2020 22 this board had granted the use of a license with a deed restriction M that's in place yes for no
sales on the property so when I saw this when I first got this back in 23 or whenever it was I said to myself when I read it online why are you coming here I don't
understand you've got what you want I don't want I don't think this board should be involved in circumventing regulations by DMV uh or otherwise quite frankly I was uh in in part uh opposed to this going
back to the 2022 modification I voted in favor but in 2017 I also V voted in favor for the facility I was reluctant on this dealer license only because I don't think that geopolitical issues
should have any place in ml and I don't think this board should decide that based on that uh it may have been a kind thing to do but I don't think they should be intertwined and I I spoke to that uh previous Council was here for
that matter I still don't think that um the applicant himself went on the record and he said his business wouldn't change one way or another if he didn't have it it would be a little bit better financially because I guess he pays some sort of a stien for to use someone
else's license I don't know what you'd call it a fee whatever it may be once again I don't think there's any undue hardship this board shouldn't create or be be led by business models uh as to whether they Grant variances if one man
makes more than the other that has nothing to do with Municipal lus law nor the zoning Board of adjustment so have I really have a hard time with that I find it hard to believe that someone who's been in this business and is in the auto
business whether you sell buy repair dismantle doesn't know what the law is about licenses I didn't know but I'm not in that business he should have known when he came before and it raises the question
was this a Roose or how did this all of a sudden come in three parts I'm a little curious about that however I don't think that's going to alter my mind in any in any way um if he has the ability to get a license
legally why doesn't he go hang a shingle somewhere else and do that type of modification to his business to buy these things this license has nothing to do with him dismantling cars it has to do with how he can buy from uh auctions
and how it he can resell so it re it really has well he resells in the sense of Parts it really has nothing to do with what happens there so I'm I'm I I I don't understand the connection between the two and I
certainly don't stand in favor he got a license from us he's already been granted that but it comes with a restriction he can't sell on the property that's a motor vehicle issue not his own Board of adjustment issue and I don't think we we should stick our
noses in where it doesn't belong uh I don't think we have the I don't think we have the purview to do it to tell you the truth so as far as what I'll put on the record I find no special reasons because one of the specific reasons was no one would be on the site going back
to l& no one would be on the site employees only so it's not a retail operation and I know his isn't a retail operation either but specifically no one comes to the s it's not particularly suited as we just spoke I just spoke to you about the building it it would wouldn't look
anything like a car dealer and I don't I don't believe in these in this Zone that that should happen I think we went out on out on a limb when we granted it wellbe it it's still in existence how he handles that I don't know uh I don't think a municipal land use law is
Advanced uh by by purpose or I I think this does impair the intent and the purpose of the zone I believe any hardships here are self-serving so I cannot support the application all right does anybody else on the board would like to comment no we haven't taken a
vote obviously that'll be your decision we'll get to that yeah keep it short and sweet the Varian is follow the land this gentleman can sell the land and then it's a full-blown Auto Sale lot sorry if anybody else wants to comment
they can it's this is not a vote none other okay I guess that would close the comments the decision would be are you looking to take a vote can I address some of those concerns you can sir yours to prosecute yeah understood
but addressing first the chair's comments um in terms of it being a self-created hardship it really resulted from the change in business operations because of
War as I described when he came in front of this board and got the variance that you gave previously to assist him with his sourcing of the vehicles because that's all he's looking at how to buy the vehicles um the
board although reluctantly was willing to give him that variance and allow him to try to get the License To Source the vehicles at the time and this isn't part of the record ready but I guess I could
testify because I personally did it if you want to swear me I spoke to Damen Gil who expressed shock because he said this has always worked before he's never heard of a thing like that all you need is the ability to have um the use
variants and you can get your license he should be able to get it so he can buy from the auctions DMV disagreed there is no intent or desire to create any subterfuge with DMV and I attached the DMV Communications to the application to
show that the applicant went in good faith believing that this board had given him everything he needed and it was only that DMV denied him that ability to acquire in terms of being a fullblown um dealership as Miss chaler
was commenting that's why we've commented on the restrictions that are completely inconsistent with a full-blown dealership limited to two spots behind the building limited signage no more than one customer at a
time possible that's not a full-blown dealership and in terms of trying to mislead the MV as I said I laid all this out when I spoke to them last time they didn't care I have no problem with
laying it out be again and saying these are all the restrictions we can only have one person we can have only two spots available not saying there are ever going to be cars there our signage is limited to the words interbel
automotive there's not any misleading we're just trying to crawl over that bar the minimum bar to get the dealership license so that my client can buy the vehicles that he needs the chair had mentioned that he has a workaround he
used as I mentioned in the last hearing the problem there is that is a gray zone of dubious viability whether or not he's supposed to be relying on another person's license is open to question and could go
away at any time he's trying to have his business live and survive he's made it this far um it's been tough while this application was pending but he came back before the board because this is something that's crucial to his
continued operations on the site uh um I volunteered as I said before we could come back in 5 years whatever the Board needs to give itself Comfort but he is asking for this change in the variants so he can Source his cars and
continu in business operating exactly as he has um one of the reasons I suggested coming back in five years is you would see if you approve this variance he's going to get his license there will be absolutely no no change that's perceptible to the residents of
Oldbridge or this board 5 years from now we come back you would know and see that so I don't know if that addresses the concerns that were raised sufficiently but that is the applicant's position we thank you for your honesty I have to go to the public and at least
open a public portion this evening as you well know 28 is 2022 Z in Bell Automotive the matter is at 1706 English joh Road is any one want to be he heard on this matter tonight that's sitting here this will be the only opportunity
to speak if you're interested okay I'll close the public portion back to you Mr L and I would even note in that regard Mr chair none of the residents around him are concerned he's been a good resident of Oldbridge would like to remain a good
resident of Oldbridge and hopes that this board will see fit to Grant the variants with whatever restrictions they deem appropriate bear in mind whatever happens here he still has the approval for the dealer's license he doesn't have the right to
sell cars on the property or buy cars on the property can I address that Mr sure go ahead he has the use variant you gave him last time which DMV has said is insufficient to obtain a dealer license
and I attached the regs that the investigator cited to me a number of times to the application they have just flatly said you can't get a dealer license because you're not allowed to have anybody on site you don't have two spots that you can use to show cars for
sale I wasn't referring to the literally the paper referring to the approval okay understood I uh anybody else you looking take a vote tonight sir um a I guess we are going to ask for a vote
because unfortunately although the board was quite kind last time what it gave just doesn't achieve what what he would need to do what he needs to do so I don't know if that was well phrased
but you you said we have the approval but but those are your words okay um I I the man is operating a business this board hasn't declined him operating his business how he operates his business is something totally different I understand what my point was the board gave him the
last approval hoping to assist him to operate the business he way he was looking to unfortunately DMV has said no that doesn't do it so okay so the board did offer the board did Grant yes you're here to amend that that that uh
application I'm not suggesting it any way that the board has done anything on tow word we appreciate everything the board's done we are asking for a little more so this is mend it only this is not yes that's right because we didn't Grant a D2 granted a D1 so it's yes yes all
right uh we're going to uh take a poll of the board okay thank you all right someone interested in either moving this for approval or against this is interbel Automotive it's requiring a uh Amendment of the D1 variance testver against is
there a second for against chalier against against okay board uh that's moved in second if you want to vote against you vote by saying yes if you want you don't agree you
would say no in this case you would say yes to deny no to not deny right pull the board please yes I'm sorry M Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes in
regards to motor vehicle is in control so I vote Yes Mr scagno yes to deny Mr Stoner yes Mr Ester yes chairman Sullivan for
all the aforementioned reasons that I put on the record yeah I would say yes to deny it it has been the amendment has been denied understood thank you we thank the board for its time and consideration thank Mr vasr for being here the SE thank you do you need a minute or no you're
done right yeah that's right you don't have any that's right good night all right we're not going to go into a recess we just be a minute we'll let the stenographer break down and
she probably wants to go home so M you using a stenographer tonight excuse me you using a stenographer tonight no not okay if we need to well let's go on the record first we'll let her [Music]
mics careful green and red one sft touch softer touch there you go you got green there you go that takes an engineer to do that you're on red
okay thank you mrck good night all right this is matter 24- 2024 Z uh theater cot Zone R5 medium high density block 10 lot 300 physical
locations 300 Shoreland Circle Lawrence Harbor three story residential home Robert mcau Esquires representing the applicant is requiring a seat in the variant and the reason I said that to you the on the onset is you'll have there's no written there's not going to be any written transcript of this and by
by rule the board asks for stenographer but you could refer you can obviously wave that and there's still the use of uh YouTube and if you could get a copy from uh channel 15 should you need the cop uh well the this proceeding is being recorded correctly so if I need it to it
is but uh if you're not going to get everything on the microphones that's one of the problems I think so but you're going to wave that anyway right for I am waving that and and the reason for that is it's this is a single family home on a lot in Lawrence Harbor um hopefully
we'll be able to conclude our uh presentation this evening and the board will be able to make a decision as to whether it's satisfied or not my name is Robert McGowen I am here representing Theodore cot on the application for this property in
Lawrence Harbor with me is Patrick Ward uh Mr Ward is both a professional engineer and a professional planner and he will be providing the testimony with respect to uh both the planning and Engineering issues uh if
the board has accepted our notice uh then we're prepared to proceed yes when you're ready when you're ready we'll swear in Mr Ward Mr Ward ready Mr Ward do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth so hope you God I do would you
give us your full name by your last sure Patrick Ward WD and I I personally enough be with your expertise at the board knows of you that's fine we'll ask him to put it on the record for those watching at home for the proceedings yeah sure no problem
um I was here within the last two years in both capacities but a little bit of background I have a bachelor's in science and civil engineering from drexle University I've been with the firm Insight engineering for 15 years as of this January which is a little bit of an accomplishment for me um I'm licensed professional engineer for 11 years and a
planner for over nine and both licenses are uh current and valid and I've testified in both capacities throughout Mammoth middle sex and ocean counties yeah thank you Mr Ward and it really that's more important we recognize but those are watching at home who watch this proceeding sometimes they know who
is that who is that guy what does he do that's not a problem it's kind of nice to inform them okay you're professional engineer and you're gonna you're going to speak to that absolutely God only wishes there were more people here so that the advertisement could count I see I see go ahead
sir okay so what I'll do is I'll walk the board through the property today what it looks like um current improvements and then we'll get into what we're proposing so we're at 300 storland Circle it's block 10 lot 300 property is 2268 Square ft we're in the
R5 Zone which requires 5,000 ft Lots so you could see we're um under sized by about half so what the applicant seeking to do is to construct a new single family dwelling at the property while improving the off street parking condition at the same time and variance relief which I'll get into um each V
point of variance relief requested is required for the improvements so maren if you would be so kind to open up the first PDF on that list this is is the survey and I'll just describe where we are so we're we're this rolling circle is is a circle um which is appropriate
name but we are just north of Route 35 so um we're just north of a small retail strip that has Frontage on Route 35 so what you could see on this survey and it's a little busy because the property is so small but on the lower side is a concrete walkway and that's actually
behind the building uh really it's a service entrance for the the uh retail strip and all the individual units um today there's a one-story frame dwelling you could see on the survey there's a rear patio there's a shed that's just about on that rear property line uh and
the stone surface treatment of the backyard starting at the uh the side uh exit stair there is no off street parking or a driveway today right now the property is completely fenced in so what the applicant is seeking is to remove all of the site improvements and
propose a new structure so uh Moren if you could open up another PDF please and it I don't know what it's labeled it would be the last one plann BD the cot residence and this is from the architect and I'll just kind of walk the board through what we're proposing and there's
there's reasons why so I want to get into that so we're proposing a three-story dwelling and I'll explain what what that means and why um it's going to be centrally located on the property which I'll show in a moment it's important to note though we're calling it a three-story dwelling from a zoning standpoint but it actually this
house will have two living floors and how and why the ground floor um and Moren if you can go to the next page actually maybe two pages from that I want to see the front elevation you can kind of see it best we're proposing a garage uh at the front um that'll
house one off street parking space at the back of the ground floor is a storage space and then of course you see the front entry door why are we proposing a ground floor design one in this area basements are not feasible so the storage area that we're proposed on the ground floor will be used similar to
anyd basement but just at grade for household storage today there is no off street parking so we're proposing the single garage and the driveway in front to provide the required and appropriately sized two off street parking spaces so that's an
improvement the first floor will have a living room powder room dining room and kitchen there's a 10x13 deck proposed off the kitchen uh sure yeah we're back to the first page if you don't mind point out to the storage so this is the front of the dwelling
here's your garage and here's the storage area unfinished storage first floor plan living room dining room kitchen area there's a single powder room there and then there's a rear deck and then on the second living floor there's a master suite Hall bathroom and
two other um modestly sized bedrooms and then a 10x10 deck off the master bedroom the home is proposed to be 1,950 square ft and it's three bedro rooms as I described across the two living floors the total physical height of the home
meets the 35t requirement in fact it's 2 feet about 2 feet lower the roof leaders for the home and actually Mor if you can go to a our plot plan um which is on that list and it's the that's right I don't want to rush you uh it's
the second PDF down yep so the the home is Central located and this allows us to collect the roof leaders where they're not collected today and discharge them where we propose there was a note in um ven's
review letter about where we should discharge the roof leaders we're going to correct that slightly we're going to pitch them towards the north which is Shoreland Circle um all of them so we have that ability it actually what that does is reduce impacts from a drange
standpoint on the neighbors right now the roof leaders discharge on the side of the house and go left and right we're going to send everything to the street so that's slight Improvement uh existing utilities are to remain and be utilized for the new home since the property is developed now so that's the overall
existing and proposed and we have um a list of variances that we' like to discuss with the board and and the the justification for same so first and foremost we have a D4 variance for floor area ratio um we require the D4 variance
because we exceed the FL area ratio that's permitted for the R5 Zone The Zone uh permits a flary ratio of 0.4 where the application Pro proposes a flary ratio of 086 so looking at this site it's a small
site it's half the lot area it's half the lot width it's 25 ft long or 25 ft wide excuse me and 90 ft deep for context when you apply the floor area ratio of 04 to this small lot it would result in a compliant house size of 97
square feet which is relatively small the existing FL area ratio for the single family dwelling the single story is 800 is35 or 89 square ft so when we look at the D4 variance for the Flor area ratio we have to look at how the site can accommodate a higher Flor area
ratio than what's permitted by ordinance but as I'll I hope to int and intend to demonstrate to the board since this lot is less than half of the required lot area and WID for the Zone the other requested bulk variances that come with this application
in my opinion would be required to some degree for even a floor area ratio compliant home like we have today on the property so for context I'll describe what's existing non-conforming with the home and the property today so or a lot of areas under sized it's 2268 Square ft
or 5,000 ft is required in my opinion that's a C1 hardship because there's no reasonable opportunity to cure the lot width as well is a C1 we have 25 ft wide we're 50 ft is required and really this width is the driver of the undersized lock because we're 90 ft
deep as I said there's no reasonable opportunity to cure either of these uh undersized parameters so the hardship conditions um we are surrounded on all sides by developed properties with improvements that are pretty close to the property
line so based now we'll get into the setback So based on the required setback for this property and Moran if you could pull up I have a rendered exhibit on that list and this will be a little bit clearer than the black and white for the board yeah rendering exhibit the fourth
one this shows what we're proposing kind of overlaid on an aerial and there's a line on here you can just scroll down a little bit just to show the house so there's a dash line in the middle of the house there two dash lines and that represents the required setbacks or what we call the required
building envelope and as you could see our house exceeds that but when we apply those required setbacks to a property like this of this size a compliant building envelope would be 7 ft wide and only about 326
ft um it's about 46 and2 ft in length so as you can tell uh it's it is limiting um so we could analyze all these setback variances as see1 hardships but because the lot size and the width limit the extent to which we can develop this property but out of an abundance of
caution I think this will help support the D4 we're going to analyze the variances as as flexible C2 variances for this application so I'll go kind of Step by Step through the variances and I want to try to describe to the board how we're we are improving certain aspects of this application from existing let me just
interr second I think you said that the existing structure that's going to be removed is currently compliant it's it's not and that's what I'm going to get into yeah so first with the front yard setback this Zone requires 20 feet today the house is 6.9 feet from the right of
way we're proposing um 17 ft to a caner levered overhang which is really just to kind of give an architectural touch at the front of the home the house the front facade of the home is at 20 feet so this is an improvement over what's what's there today the sidey yard setback is required to be 9 fet on one
side today we have 1.5 ft to the left property line um we're proposing four feet so we are improving that we're actually proposing fourt on both sides to keep this centrally located the house is 17 ft wide the combined side y setback is required to be 15 ft today
it's 6 feet and then we're proposing a combined sidey yard of 8 ft so again we're improving that by a couple of feet the rear yard setback is 25 ft required today it's 27.3 feet and we're proposing 13.2 feet maximum Stories the Zone requires
two and a half stories we have one today and we're proposing three and again I want to recall for the board that our ground floor is going to be used for parking and storage only and we have the two living floors above let's go back to the backyard setback sure the reason that we're going to be closer to the
back than the existing structure is because we're moving this house back I'm sorry uh we're talking about the rear yard setback and the reason that that that we're proposing to move this structure closer to the rear yard is
because the current structure is closer to the front yard and there's no parking by moving it back we're now gaining a a outside parking space and we're gaining an inside parking space in the garage is that correct correct so it gets the house off the street um so it doesn't
crowd the street as much we get to provide our off street parking and by sliding that footprint back we're pushing into the rear yard but we get the benefit of we and and in my opinion the municipality gets the benefit of us providing the off street parking which
is an improvement for and and how by by moving the structure back how will that affect the house behind us there is a commercial strip mall behind us um right Froning on Route 35 so there Lu you know and again that's one of the reasons why we're seeking that relief is because of
we don't have a sensitive receptor behind us so our rear of the of the proposed house would be to the rear of the commercial building in uh on the other side correct okay the uh R5 Zone has a standard for minimum landscaped area
ratio the requirement is 045 today it's 31 and we're proposing a 38 U minimum landscaped area ratio that is also an improvement so we're providing a little more green space on site we have decks in the rear as I mentioned so I'll go through the minimum
required rear and side yards for both so generally a deck would be uh have a 7 foot setback requirement but there is a an enhanced setback based on the height so for the first floor deck the technical setback requirement is 21 ft
um we're proposing now to this the rear staircase that you see on that plan 045 ft but 3.2 ft to the deck limits and then the side yard is four feet on each side which lines up with the limits of the the dwelling the second floor deck um again
the general requirement is 7 feet but it's increased to 41 ft based on its height we're proposing 3.2 feet to the rear and 4 feet to the side note um for the board in one of the existing conditions as I said earlier there is an existing accessory shed on
the property which based on its size of about 180 Square ft the sidey yard setback of 5.1 ft and the rear yard setback of point4 feet do not comply with what's required to be 10t for both so this non-conformity is being eliminated and in effect being replaced with these decks which obviously is a
different type of structure open Without Walls as opposed to the shed um again I want to note for the board that we are improving the off street parking condition where nothing exists today providing two compliant off street parking spaces which is which meets the
requirement um for this house so to pull this back and tie these bulk variances in with the D4 flary ratio variance I mentioned a compliant flary ratio for this lot would be a 97 squ foot home the compliance setbacks for
this property would require a footprint of 7 ft wide and 326 area footprint these limitations are Troublesome when attempting to provide a new home that meets meet the needs of a modern single family living which is adequate restrooms internal living space
Etc um when I get into the negative criteria explain that the design of this home is not unlike some of the other newer dwellings in the immediate vicinity which we'll get to um based on all this information in my opinion we could draw a couple of conclusions a home that even meets the floor area
ratio um requirement would still require setback relief on the sides and the rear or the front similar to what we're seeking today similar also to what exists today so in my opinion the proposed FL area ratio does not disrupt the intent purpose of the Zone plan when
applied to this specific property in my opinion bulk relief will be required either way whether it's compliant or not we can also ask the question well what if our lot did meet the required width and area of the R5 Zone if you would apply this home to a compliant lot it
would actually comply with the flo area ratio if it was a 5 ,000 foot lot and our landscape area ratio would also comply and be much improved so in effect this home was designed by the arch to fit within the R5 it was designed for an R5 lot but the lot size conditions that
we have result in the relief we're seeking today this application furthers the following purposes of the ml a this is an appropriate use in development that promotes the general welfare as the R5 permits single family residential dwellings and we're
improving parking on our street by now providing adequate off Street spaces where nothing exists today purpose B this application secures safety from fire flood panic and other natural and man-made disasters this is new construction to be built in accordance with the latest building codes which is
a safer condition than what exists today purpose I this application promotes a desirable visual environment we're proposing a new home which we feel is an aesthetic improvement over the existing conditions we're also proposing to move that home back away from the street so that the residential street side of this
uh hasn't improve it opens up the streetscape that's correct and also this we feel this application will conserve property values in the neighborhood which remains a purpose of land use regulation so in effect new construction generally conserves if not improves property values in the immediate
vicinity and the term a rising tide lifts all boats would apply here when we analyze a negative criteria we must assess the impacts to our neighbors and the general public so the home by ordinance is three stories but again we have proposing that for a reason we're
improving the situation and eliminating parking impacts to the neighborhood by providing offre street parking where it doesn't exist today and how are we doing this we're setting the house back and we're providing the garage on the ground floor we can't provide for a conventional subgrade basement so in in
in lie of that we're proposing the rear half of the ground floor to be used for household storage in effect providing a basement at grade um and then one more Morin there's a the last PDF on my list is a is a neighborhood exhibit just kind of identifying where we are where we sit
in relation to that would be the third one down aerial exhibit yep and what it'll do is place the property for the board you can see our proximity to Route 35 if you could just scroll down and I'll explain those pictures in a moment um but we did look at the
neighborhood and and not the entire neighborhood north of 35 here just our our really our our couple of blocks here um we found four properties around us that are have homes that are more than two stories right um some of which have ground floor
garages and if you could just scroll up to those photographs we have our uh at the top of this yeah so we have our front elevation and then we have the other four homes that we we thought were uh important for the board to see you could see that they're not dissimilar to
what we're proposing starting out at the left 256 um Shoreland Circle there it's a three-story home the garage is actually it's a corner lot the garage is behind that the on the back side of that um 258 Shoreland Circle ground floor garage
three floors of living space 264 Shoreland Circle probably the most similar to what we're proposing all be at a much wider home ground floor garage nice staircase up to the first living floor and then a second living floor above and then 275 Lawrence Parkway
which has what what appears to me to be maybe prior previously a ground floor garage but now there's a solid wall there but ground floor entrance and then two floor living floors at least above that ground floor the point here is that as this prop the point here is that the
proposal fits within the neighborhood trend of newer construction or improvements to existing homes this is how we're able to provide an acceptable sized home an adequately sized home that meets the needs of modern res idential living we feel that this home fits
within the current and future development pattern of the neighborhood again I do want to point out that our total structure height is almost 2 feet below the maximum height of 35 ft so while we do have the three stories here we meet that physical
height we have three stories but the again the off street parking and providing that and having the ability to for a location inside the home for household storage was in the app an's opinion very important to provide not only for the when compared to the
ordinance but for the actual use of the home in terms of setbacks in my opinion the impacts from the new proposed setbacks are not substantially increased when compared to the existing setback conditions we're improving our sidey yard setbacks and the front setback
while the decks require setback relief they're in effect replacing an existing shed which is situated more or less right on the rear property line in a non-conforming matter as well well the decks are elevated but they're open walled as compared to a shed which is solid structure we are increasing the
landscaped area on site as well and we're providing an improved drainage situation from what exists today runoff from the existing roof goes to the neighbors while we're taking all the new roof run off and we're going to discharge it towards the right of way which is an
improvement the proposed development would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and as you consider the negative criteria I always like to highlight the word substantial you're not looking to see if approving this application would cause a
detriment to the public or an impairment to the Zone plan you're looking to see if it would cause a substantial detriment or a substantial impairment I do not believe this application Rises to the level of substantial in either case so on balance it's my opinion that the benefits of this application
substantially outweigh its detriments giving the board the ability to approve this application with confidence that's all I have for direct Mr mcowan happy to answer questions Mr one so uh I know the board is quite
familiar with uh other applications that have been in front uh of the board especially in Lawrence Harbor area and um the lot sizes that have been a challenge so um most of the properties
that are being redeveloped in the harbor do require uh a D4 or a floor area ratio variance because of the size of the lot so I'm sure the board gets it I I understand it my only concern is the
deck being so close to the rear yard and um I I have seen um other homes that are designed with a deck but none of them that the board have approved have had like half a
feet of um setback and that really concerns me although the um the adjacent property to the rear is a commercial property in fact that gives me even more reasons why would you want the text so
close right in terms of safety security um I would I I would really recommend that that deck be redesigned or at least push back you compromise on the depth of it because it seems to be
an Overkill I do understand the building having the front set back because a in um in the harbor area most of the properties struggle with lack of parking spaces and we have discussed at length
uh applications that have come in and have no working and um so I think it's it's a plus point with this project that you're providing onsite parking so I I understand the constraints I do agree
with you that it's it's it's a hardship because of the size of the lot but it's it's really difficult for me to Fathom the thought that your rear yard you actually don't have a rear yard um and that concerns me because there is a
reason why Municipal land use Law requires you to have those yard spaces right for proper light and ventilation but when you're when your deck although it's open you're extending it and it's not just one level deck it goes up you
have a balcony like uh extension on the top floor as well that that is something that concerns me significantly and you know I would ask the board how they feel about it but I've worked with the board
enough to know their concerns with homes we have been lenient with um homes that that get redeveloped in the harbor area it is one of the things on um my to-do list that I have to uh change the
ordinance or change the bulk requirements for r five Zone within the harbor area because the land use pattern is such that most of those homes H are 2500 square ft less than the 5,000 so um
having said that I think the deck is more of a concern to me than the house the size of the house thank you so what what's the width of the deck the well yeah so the proposed the
we'll call it the master deck all the way at the top is 10 x 10 10 wide Mr chair and then the deck on coming off the first living floor is 13t 2 in wide and then there's four another 4T for the landing for the top of the stairs so it it's the ground floor or not the the
first floor deck is the width of the home 17 feet it's 13 by 17 132 by 17 uh 10 by 17 well four feet of it is to accommodate the stairs yeah you said the upper is 10 by 10 right yes and then you said the lower is it's 10 x13 with the 4
foot Landing so that gets you to 17 the Box area of the deck is 10 by 13 right yeah yes and then you have a 4ot extension which is where the landing for the stairs is that's that's the pad can
we can you shorten the can can you shorten the the the 13 to 10 so it would be 10 by 10 by 10 even though you you have the as I understand V pull the deck away from the rear yard so it's the 10 foot
measurement the issue 13t is the width of the usable area of the deck then there's 4 foot of a landing Goa so it already is at 10 so it's already at 10 yes that's correct you can see that line right there is the the limit the line that kind of splits
it in half is the upper deck over we put the floor do you have a spiral staircase as as currently proposed it's your conventional you know Tim timber frame stair um you know I would defer to
Mr McAn and the applicant if as spal would certainly be more yeah it would be economical in space correct um efficient is that an ADA issue uh no no because it's just stairs the stairs already present yeah okay and
I don't think it would be an issue from many I I specula Froman I'm just thinking in terms of saving the rear reard a spiral staircase would take lesser space than and a traditional uh
staircase it was just a t i just asked the owner of the applicant uh that'd be fine with a ster a spiral staircase that would save what so what that would look like is on this plan the middle the middle level here you see how this stair
comes off right we could put the spiral right against that back corner of the house so it would it would now truly bring it to 10 x 13 of deck it limits the the bulk so what board members we understand that okay so
would you if you were to have a spiral spare staircase are you moving back effectively the deck from the rear rear line no the footprint of the deck would remain the same what changes is actually technically the the deck setback which
we have 045 ft which was to the staircase would now be 3.2 to now to the to the deck itself have you have you actually um looked at the area to see uh other homes that were
built with a front parking space and how have the rear yard setbacks being because I remember on um Shoreland Circle towards the beach side there was a home and I'm sure the board remembers
because there was a lot of back and forth at the meeting uh I I think uh it was called Lou gr gross winner or something like that that was the name of the application but they two had proposed a deck at on the RAR side
however I believe there was more distance between the deck and the uh rare property line similar lot sizes so have you done any um study to see if there are other homes in the
neighborhood that have um setbacks like just just for consistency we we looked at this whole neck of the woods north of 35 and we we identified the four properties we which we showed you as you go further west there is one that faces the water right across the street from
the water that actually is a it's on a 25 foot wide lot and it's very similar in terms of scaling right it's very looks narrow and it goes up three floors um I think it's like a it's a stucco facade um it they have a garage at the
front um and they have actually their decks are in the front so because of course they're right across from the water it makes more sense um one of the other ones on that aerial image that we showed was um right around the corner from us a true three-story home it's a
has the benefit of a corner lot so the garage and the parking is actually on what I would call the side street uh and again they also have the the decks on the front facing the water which is makes the most sense so to answer that we did look at it any of the other homes that have rear Decks that are kind of as
similar to this they're on different Siz Lots so like that what this law forces us to have is a 17 foot like we're pushing ourselves further to the rear no what I meant is not other homes that have deck in the rear yard just a study
of what is the rear yard setback pattern within that block or within that area have you noticed buildings that are closer to to the rear yard than this house so that you could get an idea as
to where your deck should be Liv no we you know again it's it's a very a wide variety of homes there as you probably know no there's nothing that um we found any sort of trend or whether this would be the worst case the not worst case or anything like that we didn't we were
more quite frankly we were looking at really the the shape and size of the house in terms of the stories to see if this won't stick out that way um well one of the other limitations that this lot suffers from is it's only 90 feet deep so it's not only only 25 ft
wide it's also 10 feet shorter than probably most of the Lots in the area so that's another problem right right um yeah and again like you know that I think the this particular lot with our
neighbor behind us being the the backside of the commercial strip um we have approximately 10 ft to the building that's behind us there's an Alleyway back there it's it's clear there's a fence across the back property
line that's six feet tall um so you know I don't think we're necessarily crowding our neighbor to the rear and again that's just because this particular lot if we were internal and had a residence behind us I think we'd be a little more offensive with you know potentially a sensitive re is there a drive aisle
behind the concrete building that the uh no it's it's just right up to the fence it's just a walkway and there's this drainage pipe back there I mean I would be more comfortable to have at least a 5 ft um setback from the rare property
line um and uh which means your deck would be then reduced to 10 ft by 8 ft the depth would be 8 and you still get the 5 ft [Music] and eight width 10
length how doeses that I'm sorry Mr uh opined maybe that it would be 8 by 10 eight does eight give enough eight draw the deck back which which dimension comes off the back the you move the deck further away from the back property you
get 5et yes uh the uh applicant owner indicates they would certain if you want a minute to you know I know he's paying no I understand uh if you want want a minute to confer with him before you put something on the record I I'm good if you just want to step away
but okay I'm satisfied that he's indicated that he's Mr MC I take your word okay y anything further I'm Mr chair unless there's any more questions all right let's see if the board has any questions okay I'll start on my left of the engineer please any
questions no coming up the line no no go ahead Mr Rizo if it's 10 by eight on the bottom what what are we going to make the top I think you make them both the same same all right so now she lost on the top
because they would both affect setback 8 by10 you could still have a couple chairs and a table um dying out there I think I think that's it's still acceptable I think when you go below eight feet you lose that functionality so good chair my question is why do you
need the third story balcony at all that leads out of the bedroom you're looking over the neighbor's property you're giving them no privacy you're at 33 ft these other houses that are like right next to them are all low flat they have no prop privacy into their backyard If
you eliminate the second balcony or deck whatever you want to call it and just use the one that's real you're calling the first level which is really the second level I think it'd be more reasonable for the Neighbors m
chevier if we were to put a s a a you know fencing along the two sides of the third floor deck would that satisfy your concerns about neighborhood privacy no because now they can only see the the strip mall behind them they really
unless they reach out they can't see their neighbor that but you have two houses on either side that are are much lower right and you're so you're just going to put that these sides up it's going to look ridiculous I don't think it's really necessary to the second
deck I will say we've had a previous uh application and another one you're talking was out on a corner on a corner lot and we asked for that for that a privacy fence yes do that Overlook the windows of the house across the street sure that's the one I'm speaking of
right we're both there were there were there was another application to a couple of years ago Crosser was more uh recent but there was another application we did on bore and that we had put in privacy uh fence too on the
sides I personally I think they they're nice for everybody it's nice for the people sitting there and it's nice for the people who don't want to see so but that's that's just a suggestion that you might want to but I understand the privacy concerns and that's why I suggest that maybe if we put up a privacy fence on each side of the deck
uh that should certainly go a long way to addressing it we'll see any other questions on my right now no I have okay Mr Dy anything you have another witness that's it he's my my planner okay
um I saw some things in here about on the plans was not there was a discrepancy could we just I think he has testified and we can go with the testimony so that it clears the discrepancies we do that yes I'm short
uh page four of five if we start on the planning comments could we yeah get in absolutely so there was a discrepancy with existing and proposed floor area ratios so just to be very clear the existing FL are ratio we
calculated as. 35 and the proposed FL are ratio is 86 and a couple of these comments a b and c really keep going back to the discrepancy and just making sure the record is straight so I think that that
covers it Mr what yes okay d you said the is6 86 yes um D is similar it's again it's uh just tying back to what exactly numbers went into so so the calculated um excuse me
calculated floor area 1950. 48 is correct so that would apply to that would get you to the 86 FL ratio so D is really more informative um we agree with that um um and we note that the FL area ratio
that's greater than most in the surrounding areas because it's a 25 foot lot and that's that's a comment e uh Mr mwan yes so we there is a h commentary about the neighborhood from Miss San and we also provideed our own neighborhood
assessment um slightly different and then I think the only other was engineering comments we're happy to show the utilities uh they are going to be existing and then the collection system system I mentioned we're going to adjust to make sure everything goes to the right of way and
um no other issues with dimensioning and Coes and all that stuff good yes that you satisfied then so am I satisfied thank you all right uh you're
not going to have any more witnesses right you can look for a vote yep go to public okay sure matter uh 24-20 24z this is theor cot the block 10 lot
300 this physical location is 300 Shoreland Circle Lawrence Harbor for three-story residents there anyone wishes to be heard on this matter please raise your hand or stand this will be the last opportunity if you want to have any comment on this particular
application seeing n I'll close the public portion final comment sir I I think the U Mr ward has made the presentation to justify the variances that we're seeking he noted that um
while we we continue to have variances the size that a lot forces variances if you're going to have a livable residence on the site but in doing so we have now provided two parking spaces where none existed before we've improved the uh
streetcape uh we're going to redirect drainage out to the street instead of to the neighboring properties uh we're going to in increase the green space and Landscaping uh and we're going to hopefully build a very attractive home
based on the architectural renderings so we would appreciate it if the board would consider that and give us a favorable approval Miss Andrews wanted to make a comment I'm going to let her that comment oh go ahead I I heard about the privacy fence but I didn't hear if it's
going to be a privacy we aged to include privacy fencing on be 8 by 10 and the two balconies will be 8 by10 in usable space and then we're going to have a spiral staircase uh coming up to that first balcony
okay okay anybody on my left side okay um this is a classic example of how a a small little area with bungos back in thebly 50s and 60s that people have turned them over and gentrified that that area and it really has come along
certainly I've seen you here before and you've seen me and a lot of these have come forward and they're really really impressive homes I understand the the problem you know and we all do those lots weren't carved for for this type of living but they really weren't carved
for living full-time they were weekend Retreats or maybe a week at a time uh so that area has come a long way and I think that's uh kudos to those who have taking this I know it's a costly Venture and those that have tried to do this to
their homes or or create homes for other people it's it's a it's a blessing to the township it it really improves the the whole look of of the Bas so I I think your plan sounds good I'm glad you agreed to shorten the deck uh the town's
issues have been apparently satisfied I don't know about the board sir you know that I can only vote for myself and not for the board uh I believe you have met the bir of proof I think that I'm going to need the attorney to make sure we clarify the c1s and c2s because did you
were you saying all the c1s you originally spoke about are going to we're going to house it as a flex C2 yeah I would say I'll see if Mr Des agrees but fine yeah the lot area and width would be c1s and the remainder would be c2s that's okay sir yes it all
right so we we we have to get by a d D4 and then the uh we'll see if that survives and we we'll move on to the the yes all right so you will call for a vote correct sir please all right board uh absent any last comments I'm going to
ask someone to either move for a D4 uh for a denial or an approval and we'll move on from there should that survive none all right um oh I'm sorry oh yes yes I I yes on D4 you would say yes to approve a D4 is there a second to
that second second Mr Rizzo roll call please to D4 Mrs and Mrs Andrews yes M chalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes Mr Stoner yes Mr testy yes chairman Sullivan for all
the reasons I said absolutely and it's a it's a great thing that they're doing so it's yes to that let's go to the bulks uh it's all going to be C2 could we put them all together Mr Dy as one you agree yes that's a lot easier okay well all all the SE
together as a C2 someone move them I'll move it Stoner is there a second Andre second roll call please as to the Seas buls I should say Mrs Andrews yes Miss Chevalier yes Mr ISO yes Mr scagno yes
Mr Stoner yes Mr TTI yes chairman Sullivan this is one more good zoning and and good planning issues that it's it looks like a beautiful building those I was very impressed with the houses that you you uh showed on the slides uh
and I hope yours comes out just the same obviously my vote is yes thank you you know we'll be a there'll be a resolution at the next meeting sure I just want to make one other comment I I haven't been here in a little while but when I sat down on that side of the room this evening I noticed that there's a chair
dedicated to an Miller yeah I thought that was pretty good and I know you've been you've spent a lot of time reading in this room Mr MC remember her dearly thank you for your presentation Mr Ward thank you as well good luck to the uh owner good see you thank you good seeing
you Bob take care take care J good to see all right board we anybody want to take a quick break just a couple minutes yeah okay tell you what we're going to recess no more than five minutes voted yes
e e e e e e e e e e
e e all right we've returned from Recess we're back on the record uh we have one final matter to handle this evening before I call that in please M pelli could we have a roll call certainly Mrs Andrews present Miss Chevalier here Mr
ISO here Mr scagno here Mr Stoner yeah Miss tester yeah CH Sullivan I'm here as well counselor's here 43224 Clayton to Wolf this is Zone R20 low medium density residentials block 25
10 lot 17 the physical location here's 28 Eisenhower Drive in Oldbridge for a home addition it's going to require C andd variants applicant proposes in addition to an existing single family home sir you are two things I want to I want to
advise you of one you are uh by the regulations of the board required when you're seeking a deu variance which is a d variance to have a a transcription of the record you can
wave that as you probably heard me say to the attorney before because if you need to go elsewhere with this matter you'd have to have a transcript so you could Pro possibly get that from YouTube or perhaps some channel 15 I don't know
that but you wouldn't have a stenographer with a record so that's up to you second of all I'll advise you sir that this is a d variance now there's certain proofs that have to be put on the record you're without counsel I assume and you're going to have probably no other Witnesses correct okay so I
would warn you that when you have a d variance and you present it to the board the board does not approve it you cannot bring back the same application understood you understand that all right did uh is anything else I need to advise got right all right board attorney will
swear you in raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth I do your full name SP your Clayton Thomas d e w o LF capital W yes you can move that'll slide it a little bit towards you sir
that's perfect all right we the board has the basic application that you you want to exam add an addition to your home what I'm going to ask you to do is to tell us what you're going to do how you're going to do it why you're going to do it and we'll move on from there you may have some questions from us we
probably have questions of you the uh professional from the town might speak on this matter obviously and then I have to open up a public portion hopefully the woman you were sitting next to wouldn't be speaking opposed to it now because she's the only one in the courtroom this this evening for the
public so uh but we'll still call one you can proceed at your own uh Pace okay uh like I said my name's Clayton De Wolf uh I'm a lifelong resident of Oldbridge along with my wife uh I have a local business in Oldbridge trademark Plumbing um just looking to add a fourth bedroom
to our house uh it's little undersized for you know what we need um it's a three-bedroom house now we looking to add a fourth bedroom a little bit larger laundry room and a bathroom fourth in a laundry room you said yes mud room like
yes other than the exhibits you've sent do you have any anything that you want to show the board in the way of pictures uh sketches no none okay uh there's certain proofs that you're going to have to put on on the record here why do you think this is appropriate uh is it does
it fit in with the Zone plan um I can ask Mr uh dasty to try and elicit some of the those questions but you have to put them on the record because the board can't vote on no record so that's why I say sometimes it's better to have advice
on on these matters but uh what I I would like you to tell me a lot more than than that obviously there's a reason you're it's probably the floor area ratio I'm assuming yeah so uh you know the the setbacks on the house we're original owners of the house uh we
bought it new uh 25 years ago the setbacks were changed um you know a number of years ago uh three or four years ago uh the the floor area uh the footprint of the house is basically uh only going to be increased by about uh
170 uh 170 square ft uh the rest is going to be up over the existing structure that's there I noticed on the sketch you actually go outside the where of the home we're slightly outside the building envelope yes correct what does that
accomplish uh it just allows us to have larger space up above in order to put the fourth bedroom we need uh to step outside the building envelope a couple of feet okay and just tell the board what's behind your house it's uh all Woods it's owned by
Oldbridge water department it's about 300 acres no homes no homes we have one neighbor to the right uh there's a drainage detention Basin uh to the left with no neighbor um let me see I'll give you time to breathe we're going to go to
missan do you know how many bedrooms does majority of the homes in the neighborhood have all the houses in the neighborhood have uh four bedrooms because what I'm noticing is uh when I did an analysis of the sizes of the
homes and the fs that they have your house is one of the larger homes to begin with the there is another house that is across the street from you that has the same f as yours but uh the most
of the houses are much smaller in F Well that's incorrect because um I have the original uh brochure from when my house was built it was 2300 square ft we have a kitchen addition that is 170 square ft and our proposed is
656 when things were submitted uh to the township what they did was they doubled the number of the proposed and when we presented that to them they said it was too late to change it so what is the F that you're asking for um we're looking
to add uh 456 square feet to the existing 2345 and 170 which gives you 3171 2345 2345 is the original structure we have a kitchen Edition that's
170 onto the original and we're proposing the 656 when they added everything up they D someone made a mistake and doubled the number of the wait a minute wait a minute 2,345 was the original you did a kitchen
Edition for 170 square ft correct and now now you're asking for another addition of 456 656 656 656 on on the proposed it it states that the house would be 3,800 Square ft and
it would not it would be 3171 Square ft which is yes larger than some of the other houses in the area but only by about maybe 200 200 square ft I have the copy of the original square footage of all the houses that
are in the community the large the largest house uh stock from the Builder was uh 2924 Square ft so this is uh only about 1 15200 ft larger than the the original structur so so board members with
the 2,345 original 170 for the kitchen and 600 56 that brings you to 3,171 the lot is 14,26 which translates
into 22 so the floor area they're asking for is. 22 and not 27 that's what uh the applicant is saying right and which means means and it's
what now yeah that's what I'm calculating minus out the 2 3 4 5 + 170 divided by 14 216 that
is 177 if the proposed f is 22 then if you look at the exhibit on page 4 there are other
homes that are around that range so I see that lot six across the street is 22 the one on Regan there's one all four
Lots on re uh Regan that's 26 23.25 5.28 is the F rean sorry just to put it in a perspective the other ones on his street on his side were all all smaller they
are all smaller the only one that is uh uh the same size as this one is lot six which is across the street th that's incorrect because lot lot five is a is a 2924 foot house
existing I have it as 0.8 from the tax records no hold on hold on oh I'm sorry EXC me thank you the F now for Mr theol house is 0.11 177 proposal is to
0.222 right and there's only lot six which would be of somewhat similar F yes yes if the numbers that uh are being provided by the applicant are accurate um then uh yes the proposed f
is 22 the existing is. 177 yeah do we have actual measurements and did you submit that other than the survey everything was
submitted do you have architecturals do you have architecturals yeah architect plans yep you're not you haven't been sworn so I can't I can't let you speak if you'd like to be sworn we'll let you sit down and hold on Mrs wolf raise your right
hand are you swear or affirms to tell the whole three shall help be got yes your full name please ready it's good oh Denise DeWolf thank you okay um I sent in the big copies eight of them certified and sealed of the architectural drawings you should all
have them we don't have them I don't know why I can subit you right now if you would like this is surveys well I have small copies I don't have the large ones anything that comes through has to be already approved right
everything was everything I we don't have them is what I'm saying the our my office doesn't have it too s when you sent absolutely I gave it to Emily in the office morning Marine Emily I've been working with them day in and day
out I submitted them a week before the 10 days everybody had them do we know who Emily is um chairman I have a recommendation because I've not seen it either is there uh signatures on them you just you have no I didn't sign any PL
so can secretary I haven't seen way I have a copy of the completeness review here the email that they sent and telling us I have small copies I don't have the large
ones I understand that but they have to go through through the planner has never seen these so what have for whatever reason I don't know so the only thing we can do is we can ask we can put you right back on the next meeting meeting I want you to contact Miss Swant
personally in her office the board will get copies of that and we'll be able to see it and she'll be able to see it because she has to see it before we see it I understand we don't have those so we can't you know that's why we asking when I ask you do you have anything other than what was
submitted all that ago I'm like eight sign here's what I'm looking at your survey and that's all I have so and and it's on the website I know it's on your I've seen it there on your I've seen it we our next meeting is in two weeks it's
only in two weeks you don't have to send a notice out because we'll announce it at this meeting that it's carried to the next meeting and uh that gives me chance to review it and we can conclude at that
meeting okay okay how about um everything else I don't want to Maren doesn't matter I have not seen it no are you missing anything else like the 200 foot list like everything no you don't need to everything else is fine I
just need to look at the architectural to confirm that the testimony your husband has provided is accurate for numbers because the board wants to ensure that your proposed home is not going to be out of character or larger
than other homes so it's important for me to look at the architecturals and what the board can do is just carry it to the next meeting so that that the next meeting is in two weeks you go first you don't have to send notices you
don't have to do anything just come to my office with the architectural so that I have a c that's fine okay they're not on on the website because I have that in front of me as well so I don't know why and I'm not pointing fingers at anybody but if the you want the board to make a
we have to see that sure all right so uh if there's really no need to for any testimony tonight um okay I'm sorry that if fine that mixed up I don't know but this board certainly didn't receive it that's fine we have it
all right well I thank you both for coming in this matter will be heard at the very next meeting which is the March 20th March 20th okay I'm going to try and get you on right away all right thank you very much okay okay thank you both for coming two
weeks all right matter uh 43-22 24 for those uh may be watching at home is 28 ice hour drive that matter is going to be continued at our very next meeting March 20th there'll be no further notification board that brings us to our uh the end of our meeting there is no
one here in the public to speak tonight so I will skip the general public comments Miss San anything you want to advise the board on um no not not that I can think of uh you should be receiving the annual zoning report
shortly um and uh we'll have it for the next meeting it's ready but I didn't get a chance to review it still so you Mr D do you have anything for us at this point all right thank you board members anything you want to bring up I'll call for an adjournment someone
want to move it it will be St Patrick's Day yes on the 17th be behave uh someone I'm moving for an adment someone someone make the motion please move it all right all in favor
from ajour say I I we stand adjourned e