united States of America to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all good evening everyone welcome to the Township of Albridge zoning board of
adjustment April 3 2025 adequate notice of this meeting of the Albridgeidge Township Board of Adjustment has been app provided in accordance with the open public meetings act at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of this meeting by prominently posting in the municipal complex an announcement giving the time
the date the location and the agenda of this meeting also by mailing such announcement to the home news and tribune filing a copy of such announcement with the municipal clerk also posting the agenda on the municipal website may we have a roll call Vice Secretary absolutely mrs andrews present miss
Chevier here mr iso here mr scognagno absent mr stoner here miss Testie present mr singh absent miss Gomez here chairman Sullivan
here uh just a couple housekeeping items uh for those here uh that'll be speaking in front of the board this evening there's microphones on the table if the there's a public portion we'll usually have a hand mic uh please make sure that it's lit uh when it's red we can't hear
you when you push the button and it turns to green we're good to go uh this meeting is being televised on OBT OBTV channel 15 the cable channel here in the township simultaneously it's being broadcast on YouTube live if you ever
need to refer back to a meeting you can find them on the Oldbridge Township when searching Oldbridge Township zoning board if you have a cell phone finally uh please turn it off or mute it uh so we don't interfere with the uh testimony this evening having said that we're
going to move forward with the business uh I am uh as soon as we get through these resolutions going to announce that there's two adjournments this evening but we'll get through the resolutions first as uh we're going to take the agenda in order uh Mr d the first one is 43-2024Z clayton DeWolf there was a CND
variance sir thank you uh Clayton Dwolf was the applicant is in the the property is in the R20 oh I'm sorry excuse me thanks Joe the properties in the R20 zone the purpose of the application was to obtain um C variances and there there's I'm going to say half a dozen or
so seven listed on the resolution and also a D variance for the F for floor area ratio um the purpose of the application is to obtain approval to uh expand the laundry room by 157 square feet expand the bedroom and a full
bathroom the total was about total of all of those additions was 662 ft there was no there was no opposition to the public uh to the application thank you councelor uh board members someone move that for adoption please andrews move it is there a second is roll call please
mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso yes mr stoner yes mr testie yes miss Gomez yes chairman Sullivan yes uh item 60-2024Z christine Wagner Thybolt that's a seat variance counselor thank you this
property is in the R5 zone it's uh block 1062 lot 323 also known as 324 Raritan Boulevard the application was for um a use excuse me I'm sorry hardship C variance to remove the existing shed which is on the
property and replace it with a larger shed 16 by 20 you might recall that the purpose of the application was the that the wanted to move the shed like over to the corner to keep as much as the backyard uh open as possible the application was approved with the
understanding that the shed would not get built until the CO for the house would be issued board members someone moved that for adoption please testy is there a second andrews roll call please mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso
yes mr stoner yes miss Testie yes miss Gomez yes chairman Sullivan yes 64-2024z paul Mansfield C variance thank you this is block 18001 lot 18 they're at 19 Culver Street properties in the R
six medium high density uh residential zone uh the applicant wanted was asking for approval to to for a covered front porch which would measure 10 ft by 32 feet um 32 yeah 32 and four 32t 4 in and
will be about 15.4t 4 feet from the front property line where 25 ft is required um the application was straightforward there is no public opposition or comment with regard to the application thank you Mr dasty board members someone move for
adoption iso and uh Miss Testy was second roll call please mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso yes mr stoner yes miss Taverie yes miss Gomez yes chairman
Sullivan yes 02-205z Frank Zaro C variance mr dasty thank you this property is it uh block 15513 lot 602 also known as 23 Holly
Street in the R6 zone the purpose of the application is to obtain a uh arch of variance to allow for the construction of a new one-story attached garage with an unfinished attic space uh and it would measure 10 ft 3 in by 36 ft and it
would um would violate the the combined sideyard and the single sideyard setbacks again no public opposition thank you Mr dasty board members move second andrew second roll call please
mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso yes mr stoner yes miss Testie yes miss Gomez yes chairman Sullivan yes mr dasty at this time I'd ask you to swear in our professionals uh Miss Sant is here this evening as our planner do you swear or
affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth so yes thank you very much uh those here in the audience this evening I'm going to announce it uh uh there were four applications listed on the uh agenda for
this evening two of them have been postponed uh the first one is uh 22-2024Z that's 335 Green Street LLC physical location 335 Green Street that's a bifurcated uh application for um 76 dwelling units consisting of a mix
of market rate and affordable units application has been adjourned to a date to be determined with further notice i'm a little uncomfortable with the TBD don't we have to put something on Mr d do we have an expiration date if there's no date then I think that the applicant is going to have to renotice to let
everyone know when it's going to happen from what I understand they are contemplating changing the design and the style of the homes itself so anyways it's going to be a new site plan site layout they would have to notice and they would have to probably uh submit a new application i don't know if they're
going to withdraw this application and resubmit a new one so uh that is why I kept it as TBD okay so the expiration date will not apply then well they they haven't formally withdrawn the they have to formally withdraw uh but they have
not asked to withdraw yet they said the applicant is contemplating what need what they want to how they want to proceed so I would give them time until the expiration and then um ask them to submit a form for continuation or submit
a letter for withdrawal all right but presuming that they're going to stay with this application then they should have to renotice yes that is correct okay and the expiration on that the end of the month yes okay so you'll know okay good yep all right uh so that
matter will not be uh in short that's not that matter is not going to be heard this evening it will be uh listed for a further date uh the second matter that's adjourned is 17-2023Z uh that's Northwood Manor at Oldbridge LLC the physical location on
that is Jake Brown Road that's major preliminary and final site plan applicant proposes constructing two three-story multi-un multif family residential apartment buildings with a total of 30 units applicant has adjourned to a date uh with further
notice once again the expiration date is next week yeah next week so uh Marine did we receive a letter from them yeah I sent uh consent to continuations i have not gotten them back yet right i'll reach out tomorrow i did follow up with
Mr alfairy who is the attorney for uh this one so we should have a letter prior to next week but again uh with this application we had some serious engineering uh concerns and uh they were not ready to come in front of the board
so we did have a technical review meeting but what do you expect his letter to say excuse me i'm sorry does he asking to withdraw it or No no no they would just ask for a technical review meeting and ask for an adjournment uh they would extend the
time period so unless that happens I cannot even give a date okay because the expiration is next week so we have been following up with the attorney and he's aware so if it's going to be adjourned it's got to be with a renotice because we don't know yes yes and he's aware of
that all right thank you both uh for that information because I gave them time until this meeting to respond to fill out the form they haven't so they have to read notice all right so if you're here in the Northwood Manor uh that that will not be
heard this evening as well be uh scheduled for a further date pending I guess the uh attorney's uh notifying planning all right that leaves us with two this evening uh the we're going to call the first one in uh that is uh
34-2024Z it's CCP Outdoor LLC uh doing business as outdoor media this is uh a digital uh billboard and the physical locations of 7262 Texas Road it's block 210002 lot one major preliminary and
final site plan with C and D variance i see Mr clauser in front of me let me just say that it says the applicant proposes to modify uh an existing static billboard to allow for a digital display peter Clauser
representing the applicant sir mr clauser can we perhaps swear in any witnesses that you're going to have sure well we're going to have uh five witnesses do you want to swear them in all at once swear them in all at once and then they can identify themselves as they come up to testify if that's okay
so I see four standing five standing now okay do you each and all swear or affirm to tell the whole three so I hope you got all right and just when you do come up uh give us your full name spell your last thank you thank you again for the
record our firm Houser on behalf of the is an existing billboard that's constructed near the intersection it's really the jug handle of Texas Road and um Route 9 near Route 18 uh it's a billboard that was approved
by this board uh through a piece of litigation uh back in 2014 to 2016 um all of the variance relief that's identified in Miss Sant's report uh was previously approved by the board it's a conditionally as this board knows billboards are conditionally permitted
uses you have a series of conditions there's two that we don't comply with we didn't comply with them then we don't comply with them now because the billboard's constructed and and they all have to do with the location uh of the billboard um setbacks and Laurel and I will take you through that the only reason that we're here is because
whenever you have a Dvarian if you make a change to anything on the site with very limited exceptions you have to come back and explain yourself to a zoning board so LED signs are allowed um it's taken a long time for us to all get very comfortable with them and and where they
are and we've done lots of studies and there's been lots of testimony um and you might recall a few years ago I did one all the way on the north end of Route 9 the other end of uh Obridge so we're hopefully with the board's consent here going to bookend uh the township with those two ordinance uh with those
two signs um the LED signs I say are permitted because you actually specifically have an ordinance that says if you're going to have an LED sign it has to have a dwell uh time uh between messages of 30 seconds um so I bring that up for two reasons one to tell you the applicant agrees to that we're not
asking for any relief from that uh and then also uh you you like the this the lights on signs turned off at 11:00 at night and you've treated the LED signs in a similar fashion that they would be turned off at 11:00 at night and come
back on at 5:00 in the morning i know the last one I did that was the condition that we we reached um so although this is not a lighted sign because it's LED um we've agreed to the same condition that that would be turned off at 11:00 so other than that all of
the D3 standards that we missed the two of them we'll have Laura speak to are not affected by um the actual sign itself um so I do have five witnesses this evening and although that may sound like a lot they're each brief because everybody's got a specialty we have
Lauraai who's our professional engineer she'll talk to you about uh the site we have Chris Berley who is a representative of your applicant there's a couple of operation questions I want to make sure we get on the record um then we have John Tobias that's our lighting fellow he's a professional
engineer as well because we have to talk about ambient light um and then we have Mr shopire who's going to talk about traffic the traveling roadway we have to get that on the record um and then lastly we have Tiffany uh who's our professional planner to uh provide that
testimony for the board so if I could I'll start with Lauraai who's now been sworn just ask her to remind the board that she's a professional engineer her qualifications are still good and then Lauraai if you could just identify the property for the board and uh the existing sign that's out there uh yes
Lauraai Taten t is in Tom O Ten with Crest Engineering sorry give it to me spell your last name again lauren T as in Tom O Ten as in Nancy thank you with Crest we're located in Milstone Township New Jersey where I've been a principal
for way too many years but I've been there for 31 at least and um my engineering license uh is in good stand since 1983 mr totten has appeared before this board many times and I'm sure various board many various boards around the state i
thank you doing for doing that for newer member of the board that we have as well as those at home when they tune in and they say well why is who is this person what are they talking about so thank you you're a professional engineer we accept your expertise thank you very fact we we saw each other in Robinsville I think a
month or two ago right yes that's right we're following each other around the professionals I believe yeah I know right uh with regard to this project I know I don't look anything like Mr strong who signed the plans but I have reviewed the plans in detail with him he's in Florida right now isn't that
nice yes isn't that nice yes this is lot one in block 210002 uh as shown as sheet 21 of the township tax maps it's uh the billboard and lot the lot is 2.2 2 acres is located in the southeast corner of Route
9 and Texas Road uh and is on the Marboro Mammoth County border the uh all I really wanted to talk to you about this is in the general office general one zone there are two conditions of the
per con conditional permitted use for billboards with which this billboard does not comply and did not comply with previously to which you had previously granted the variance one is that the
billboard will it is 45 ft high does not exceed that however the distance from the sideyard must be the height plus two uh plus 2 ft for every 1 ft of excess height so it needs to be 55 ft off the
sideyard where it is only 10 ft and that 10 ft does comply with one of the other requirements in this uh in this uh conditional use list which says it must be no less than 10 ft and no more than
100 ft from the right ofway line and it is just exactly 10 ft from the right ofway line so it meets that condition the other condition it does not meet is that it is the billboard is supposed to be a minimum of 15 feet from a parking
lot and it's actually in the parking lot and the location has not changed the circumstances regarding the parking lot the parking around it the parking aisles has not changed and I think that's my part of the testimony and Lauraai just to state the obvious the sign is there
it's fully constructed and it's operational yes that is correct and it has been for a number of years yes yes there's not a lot of complicated engineering i Miss Laurelai is available if you have any questions otherwise I can move on to Chris mr sw
I don't have any questions just a thought uh this is an LED sign right do you have already u electricity to the pole um it's a good question so Lauraai you can advise the board that when they construct these signs now they make them so that they are ready uh to support LED
signs is that correct that the the LED signs need more structural support as well as electricity as you just noted but this billboard was built originally hoping that they could convert to digital someday okay that's all for the
flexibility thank you M tottenham for the record is the board get is this in any way changing in height in dimension in location no it is not so it's already built and it's there yes it is thank you
you're welcome they pull the faces off and put the LED faces on understand thank you Chris if you could i just Let me see is anybody else have a question on the board no i apologize my mistake i'm here if
something else comes up Chris have you rejoined oh there we go so would you give us give us your full name and spell your last please uh Chris Barolei b as in boy A R T as in Tom O L I
just share with the board you're you're not an expert witness you're a lay witness or fact witness if you could just share with the board what's your relationship to the applicant um I've been with Premiere for 11 years um various roles operations sales currently as the director of real estate and
development um yeah thank you so you're familiar with the operation of these signs and LED signs okay and you're familiar with the sale of of advertising time and and how they're uh projected onto these signs yes okay i made a couple of statements earlier on um but
we need you to affirm them that you're agreeable to utilizing the 302nd dwell time which is part of the township's ordinance yes and you're also agreeable that the sign would be turned off between 11 and 5:00 p.m yes okay and then there's often a a a question that
that comes from the board and I'll just preempt it should the town or the state um or even the federal government need to utilize a sign for an emergency statement or something like that you have no problem with that correct so then how do the messages get to the sign
um we have someone in the office internally who is in charge of the scheduling and nothing can get on the board without him approving it so it goes through our system and they're sent via cellular signal to the sign and is the sign monitored in any way to make
sure that it it um hasn't broken down or that there's no issues with Yes we have uh cameras that on are on each digital billboard that face back at the billboard so we can tap in and look at the what's actually on the billboard and then we would get notified also by our
manufacturer watchfire if anything should go out on the billboard okay and this is a V-shaped sign that has two faces and both of the faces are proposed to be LED yes okay and Laurel I made a statement earlier in in response to a question of mine um this sign is ready
to receive LED uh faces if the board should so approve correct now there's a state agency the DOT that controls uh the placement and location of billboard signs in addition to the placement and location of LED signs do you have a permit from the state for this sign to be in that location yes okay i have no
further questions for Cresy's available should the board have any questions mr i don't have any questions i'm sorry the board members on my left if they have any questions none on my right counselor I just want to make sure pete you said it will be off from 11:00
p.m to 5:00 a.m is that what you said yes okay fine would there be opportunity for emergencies uh that the township could uh ask for notifications to be put upon that yes said board yes and I expect
that both the time the dwell time and that will make its way into its resolution into the resolution i looked at the old one and saw that's what you wanted so I just brought it back thank you Mr clauser thank you sir thank you all right so if I could have Mr tobias uh join me we could talk a little bit about lighting
mr tobias you were previously sworn so if you could just share with the board a little bit about your credentials and your license sure good evening uh I'm uh a licensed professional engineer first name sir what's that your first name oh
John and that's Tobias t O B I A S thank you sir all right um I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey uh I have the uh doctoral degree in electrical engineering and my uh research work involved uh light and
electromagnetic radiation in general um and I've uh consulted as a engineer in a variety of fields for about 25 years now although worked as an engineer for I think 33 years dubai you've been accepted by other boards as an expert in your field i have here back in 14 last
time I testified among accept you again thank you i appreciate it so you know what the burning questions are with regard to ambient light and the lighting and and the billboards and how they work if you could just share that testimony with the board please sure by all means
um many times the concern of any one of these uh uh LED billboards is the contribution to uh the ambient lighting so and and uh generally categorized also glare right so the one thing I wanted to
make uh clear if it I'm not sure if it came up before that the billboard itself auto ranges to account for the uh conditions of darkness or brightness as a case may be so in in the evening hours uh the uh uh brightness if you will the
luminance of the board will scale down to a low to a low level um one of the questions I remember in the board correspondence was comparisons to other things right so uh in actuality it's
actual contribution to the ambient lighting in the surroundings is not any greater or and it it depends to some degree on the ad right so ads with more white composition tend to be a little
brighter ones with you know more dark composition will will be less bright of course but all things being equal the contribution between that and what I call an illuminated or static board where you have just a light pointing at
the board a reflective board if you will it's comparable at uh you know distances of a few hundred feet or even closer in so microphone on maybe pull a little closer to you so just like all of our cell phones that
have an auto dimming feature as it starts to get a little bit darker the light comes down a little bit and as it gets brighter during the day the light comes up a little bit that's precisely correct and it's all measured by uh sensors photo sensors and on the uh on the the LED signs well that's exactly
right so it auto ranges so during the day of course it'll be at its brightest otherwise that's like if you try to look at your phone in sunlight right if it's not very bright you won't see it and then I uh think the watch sign has a 100
steps there might be a little bit less but it basically auto ranges to account for periods of darkness or limited visibility thank you Mr tobias i don't have any further questions mr chair is available to the board would Mr tobias
uh address uh on on the review uh 2B on page five of six what did I miss Mr chair applicants should provide testimony about the digital lightboards ambient lighting and glare to nearby buildings and streets uh additionally applicants should compare lighting
intensity of the proposed billboard to that of the other billboards in the area that's what I attempted to do with that the auto uh you know it sort of matches the exterior light that was the testimony in response to that and the glare to the other buildings i' I' I'd be happy to address it so glare is
defined as a visual as a discomfort in the visual field so what I usually do is use a prop this is glare right that's very different than um if I
if I may I have a sample advertisement so what you would be viewing is something more like that as opposed to what Sorry about shining a light in your eyes but I'm just making a point um in fact at that site I I went by earlier in
the day today and uh the one uh light that's on the building that kind of shine that has far more glare than the sign ever will there there's a uh a security light or something like that so with the auto ranging certainly at night the glare
will be uh well there won't be any glare thank you Mr what i have no questions for this witness board members on my left no on my right thank you Mr debas thank you i have It wasn't a setup i I didn't know I didn't know you were going to do that you
didn't tell me that either we're going to talk about that all is someone talking is someone talking i I probably did it back in 14 so I believe you did this is a I was sitting here this is a standard prop of my You usually you used to be on the other end of that flashlight yes have a good
evening thank you thank you Mr device mr ch if you could join me [Music] same thing first and last name spell your last name dave Shropshshire s H R O P S H I R E and you were also a
professional engineer if you could talk to the board a little bit about that a professional engineer professional planner specializing in traffic engineering and transportation planning uh I've appeared before this board and over 200 throughout the state of New Jersey and been qualified thank you for putting your credentials on the record
for those at home and those in the room we certainly accept you as an expert this isn't your first billboard no okay so I wonder if you could just share with the board now obviously there's a sign there that's been approved in this location by the board um but if you could share with the board the traveling
public and and maybe there's there's one comment in the report about the variance where it's located within the parking area and how that would affect on-site circulation yeah uh the uh state of New Jersey uh was mandated by the Federal Highway Administration to come up with regulations with regard to how to uh
safely provide uh billboards along different types of highways uh this is a principal arterial uh route 9 and under those qualifications uh this uh board was granted an application originally for static and now has been granted an
application for a digital billboard and uh part of those uh regulations it's pretty in in detail gets a little bit more detailed with regard to uh changeable message signs uh from static signs uh but I think the one thing that
is relevant in the permitting process is that uh NJ dot would uh permit a billboard to be 300 ft a digital billboard to be 300 ft from another static billboard and we do have two billboards that are to the south one on the same side of the road one on the opposite side of the road and it's
spaced much further than 300 ft to both of those boards uh and one of them is a digital board on the opposite side of the road but those qualifications with regard to separation on digitals only apply to the same side of the road so with all of that said uh I know there's
regulations in the township with regard to spacing uh according to NJ dot and the purpose of the uh the regulation that they drew up this is a safe location for the proposed stat for the proposed digital as it was for the
static um with regard to the specific comment with regard to the location of the pole on the site and on-site circulation I think there was a concern with regard to is it interfering with parking the drive by sight distances uh I was out at the site today to take a
look exactly what the situation is the pole's located in a graveled area that looks like it's for overflow parking it's not on the main access uh circulation aisle for the commercial businesses that are on site it's also not impeding the sight distances it's
basically the sight distance on the ramp that's coming off of northbound Route 9 uh and it would be the sight distance as you're looking to your left it doesn't interfere with that site distance so I think even though it doesn't meet with the 15t requirement uh everything is
safe today with the existing static uh billboard it will not change with the digital billboard and you heard us mention that there's a 30se secondond dwell time are you familiar in the industry at all as to whether that's a longer dwell time or a shorter dwell time uh it's a much longer dwell time uh
NJ do came up with an 8-second regulation and uh based on some of the research that I've done uh there's some jurisdictions that would allow uh down to 6 seconds and still have a safe transition uh so certainly a 30-second uh you're you're basically you're
driving along Route 9 you'll get to see one message okay thank you i have no further questions for Mr shopire he's available to the board and your professionals mr one I don't have any questions word members to my left you'll have the
ability to to change that if you wanted the dwell time 30 yeah well your ordinance requires a minimum of 30 seconds and we will agree to that yeah yeah the the the client they've told me that really it's it's usually 8 seconds they actually change much more rapidly
but you your town this town has decided to have it at 30 seconds and we're not asking for any relief from that yeah DOT says it's safe to do it 8 seconds or more so this is obviously safe but that's not being asked for tonight nope on the record 30 seconds as the
ordinance seeks compliance right yes okay uh council you have anything for the witness thank you and our last witness is our professional planner Tiffany Morrisy i could ask her to join me i think we got it by the last one first
last name you've been sworn already and just share with the board your professional credentials yes tiffany Morrisy M O R R I S E Y i'm a licensed professional planner as well as a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners practicing for over 20 years
and have appeared before over 160 boards throughout New Jersey that's good by me well we're going to accept your Have you testified before this board i have not so this will add to my list thank you for appearing tonight thank you we accept your expertise miss Marcy
Robbinsville also right uh not recently no our path cross somewhere little egg maybe that's right little egg i think maybe maybe yeah so you heard me say earlier that um billboards are conditionally permitted use uh it's a D3
variance because we violate a couple of those and literally a couple two of those um uh standards and whenever you have a use variance if you make a change to the project you you need variance relief is that correct correct so if you could take us through the the standards
that are applicable to this project okay so what we're proposing is we have this existing billboard that was approved by this board um with the same standards that exist today um existed at that time the only change here is because we're adding the digital component so under
your ordinance you have standards for um billboards and they are permitted as a conditional use in the general office zones which this is located in the OG1 office general zone so this is a permitted conditional use um we are um changing the face of the sign um kind of
like you change the face of a static sign because static billboards their sign faces do change just not within minutes or seconds but you know several weeks um so we're changing the face of the sign to a digital face and there are three conditions of the conditional use
i I think it's three actually not two i think it's two i I just I went over that with the board's professional planner and item uh the first the first one with regard to the 10 foot we actually do comply
with that item B1 we do comply we comply with that one it's just a just a typo yes but we we don't meet the setback of the 55 ft um which is uh what the engineer testified to we have a 10-ft setback because we're at the height of 45 ft we would need that 55 foot to the
side and we have 10 ft and then um the other item that we have non-conformance to or discussion on I don't know that it's non-conformance based on Mr shropshshire's testimony is item four in the ordinance and that is being within that parking lot area but we're we're
technically outside of that parking lot area so that was just want to make sure we are clear that that is or is not a variance because it's on the gravel that's not in the drive aisle and there's ballards to protect that so I think as the board found it to be a variance last time and the condition remains the same that we'll still
consider it a deviation from the standard and then the last one that we don't conform to is condition nine which is where billboards shall not be located closer than 2,000 ft from another billboard um and as you heard from Mr truck fire within the adjoining
municipality on Route 9 there is another billboard um it is 600 approximately 680 ft 650 to 680 ft away from this sign um and as you heard from Mr shropshshire it meets the the state standard in terms of
what is safe for adequate separation um and that sign was in existence at the same when this sign was approved here so this is not a change this sign didn't come after so these conditions existed at that time so since we are asking for a D3 variance a D3 variance is not a use
variance in its pure right because the use is permitted the variance is related to the conditions that are not being satisfied there is a different standard for that under the positive and the negative criteria under that scenario we have to demonstrate that the site can
accommodate the use as it was otherwise intended despite the fact that we're not meeting those three conditions and focus on those the the difference in the potential impacts from not meeting those sorry two conditions in the ordinance um in terms of the application and the
positive criteria under the municipal land use law this site does have an approval from the state DOT for the digital um copy area so it is appropriately located based on state regulation and state policy um when you
promote a state policy and you promote a purpose of of um state regulations you can be found to promote the general welfare under the municipal land use law the promotion of the general welfare is a purpose of zoning and when the um purpose of the state policy advance that
is advanced through the fact that we have that operational license from the state we promote the general welfare additionally the municipal land use law includes a purpose to ensure that the development of individual municipalities does not conflict with the development and general welfare of neighboring
municipalities the county and the state as a whole again um because we're able to comport with the New Jersey Roadside Control Act and have that license issued and meet those conditions and all aspects of this sign as they are existing and proposed will meet those conditions we're not h creating a
conflict with re uh state regulation and we're not creating conflicts in the local area in terms of how this site will continue to operate with the existing sign and lastly this site continues to provide uh sufficient space in an appropriate location for a variety
of uses again um given the fact that there are standards that this sign has adhered to changing it from static to digital is not going to change the the impacts in terms of the separation um from the sideyard setback or the
separation from the additional sign that's existing in the adjoining municipality so when you look at the the those two conditions when we go from static to digital we're not going to create any conflict in the state regulations we have that permit to allow
for that uh approval for the digital so it's not conflicting with those state regulations we're still within an appropriate location we're not changing the height of the sign the setback of the sign or the size of the sign so none of that is impacted and therefore in my professional opinion when you look at
the positive criteria those purposes remain advanced under the municipal land use law and um as they relate to those specific conditions are appropriately um on this property in this location for this sign conversion in terms of the negative criteria uh if you grant this
variance will there be a substantial impairment to your zoning ordinance to your master plan or a substantial detriment to the public good um I did look at your master plan it was last re-examined in 2022 it's noted in your planner report and I verified there's nothing in the master plan that talks
about this property particularly and there's nothing that really talks about any need to readress your sign standards for billboards as a conditional use um so this site um continues to function as it was approved by this board and the changes that we're asking for are really
just a change to the copy of the sign the face of the sign and not the location and so um I believe that that that does not rise to the level of causing a substantial impairment of your zoning ordinance or your master plan the site has the sign has existed here for
nine years now without pro I think it was 2016 so approximately nine years without causing any problem any safety concerns any negative impact or detriment to the surrounding area um the use of the digital medium actually provides less glare and less impact and
provides an additional opportunity to the community by by having um not only space for the public to you the public the township to use or public agencies to use but it also provides more opportunity for small businesses and local businesses to advertise on a
corridor where traffic is located where your commercial corridor is where you expect to see signage and have advertisement um and with the testimony from Mr shropshshire and Mr tobias both regarding the traffic safety and the lighting I believe that the impacts from this change are not so substantial as to
cause a substantial detriment to the public good so in balance the positive criteria would substantially outweigh the detriment when you're focusing on those conditions specifically and um there will be no substantial detriment from this application thank you um I
have no further questions thank you Mr w i agree with the planner's testimony i really don't have any questions uh nothing is really changing on the site except for the face of this sign um it really does not exasperate any of the existing variances
or the variances that were granted in the past so I don't have any questions mr want do you feel as uh when you authored this and you you came to conclusion you have no objection for us to act upon it uh as long as they've satisfactorily addressed all the
comments in the memorandum do you think they've done so yes thank you i'm gonna Oh sure uh I'm going to see if there's any questions from the board on my left no no on my right once again this board isn't changing in any way except the way
it operates in its advertisement correct the base will come down a new one will go up it'll be the same size in the same location thank you thank you Mr testimony i have no further witnesses so I would ask if the board has any further questions of me but I would ask if you would open up to the public sure i'm
going to do that right now mr clauser this is matter 34-2024Z the physical location is u it's the corner of uh actually uh Texas Road in Route 9 on the northbound side it's for a billboard that's presently and has
been existing since 2014 moved in 2016 16 uh it's they want to change it from static to LED anyone here in the courtroom this evening wants to be heard please raise your hand or stand this will be the only opportunity for any public comment if you have any
please raise your hand now i see none i'm going to close the public portion final comment sir um thank you Mr chair uh it's an existing sign we're changing the face we've modernized our understanding of billboards i've been doing this for a long time i think we've gotten comfortable with the idea of
having these LED boards you all see them on Route 9 they work just fine so I would ask if the board would please grant uh the application sure i'm going to make sure that the board doesn't have any questions that are lingering from any of the witnesses and I'll start scas
any no mr stoner mr rizzo no vice Chair miss Testie no miss Andrew no okay we have none i have no no comments you're going to ask for a vote i would please ask for you to vote my board would be a D3 uh for it's permitted conditional use
uh for approval and then I think there are two bulks right I think there's a sideyard minimum sideyard and minimum front yard setbacks I believe Mr yard 10 ft and comes 10 ft proposed 55 ft required and 15 ft it's supposed to be
15 ft in the parking lot it's actually in the gravel if I could make a suggestion head it might just be best to reference we agree with the variance relief identified in Miss Saw's report i think um we can get that in the resolution just by taking it out of our report that's great so we'll talk to the
uh D3 first someone interested in moving this for approval mr verdie is there a second iso you lost this time good good andrew's got that yes roll call please that's the D3
mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso yes mr stoner yes miss Taverie yes miss Gomez yes chairman Sullivan yes and as to the bulks we're going to agree to agree right yes yeah everything that was
noted you agree with and councelor we agree with correct that's correct they were described to the board and then I think it'll just be easy for council to pull them right out of So as to the bulks I'm going to ask someone to move them please is there a second chevier
roll call please mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso yes mr stoner yes miss Tivery yes miss Gomez yes chairman Sullivan yes thank you Mr clauser and all your professionals for the presentation this evening thank you for your consideration
nice to see everybody again have a good night happy spring oh looking forward to it okay keep your jacket Andy okay Angelie are you staying on or you are uh do you need a quick break okay I'm going to
call the other matter as soon as they clear out then all right thank you all right final matter for the uh finer final matter for the evening 55-2023 Dave David Merwin this is block
52 lot 111 physical address is 111 Bay View Drive multif family dwelling applicant seeks to legitimize a pre-existing three family home in a single family home zone lawrence Saxs representing Mr saxs yes uh good evening uh Mr chairman members of the board
lawrence Saxs on behalf of the applicant David Merwin who I believe is here okay i think he went out went out for a second um this property is located at uh 111 Bay View Drive it's known as block 52 lot 111 uh what we're
seeking here this evening is to legitimize a pre-existing multif family dwelling at 111 Bay View Drive uh we will present proofs this evening uh through Mr merwin uh through our traffic engineer through our planner um that the
subject property has been a three family for decades uh probably is back as early we have proofs going back to 1964 maybe a few years even prior to that uh and as a result uh we're asking and the initial relief we're asking for is for a
certificate of nonconformity uh under section 68 of your uh of the municipal land use law alternatively we also have requested a devariance a use variance if in fact uh it's necessary um as I've
indicated I have three witnesses here mr dassi if you want want to swear them in why don't we swear them all in at one time and you can identify yourselves come to testify do you swear or affirm until the whole You have four do you swear or affirm until the whole No no uh she's a member of the public I think
okay thank you let me try one more time do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth here yes okay uh so Mr chairman my first witness is uh David Merwin who is the owner of the property um Mr murwin you've been sworn in and I guess speaking to that
microphone um and you are the owner of 111 Bay View Drive is that correct yes okay is this Yeah I think that's okay um now you're very familiar with this particular neighborhood is that correct yes sir how so i was born and raised in
the neighborhood okay and in fact and in what proximity to 111 Bay View Drive did you were you born in and raised two doors away okay all right 163 Bay View Drive which is on the other corner one away from the other corner okay um so
you were born 19 1954 okay all right and what's your earliest memory of this particular property at 111 Bay View did you know it always to be a three family house yes sir i
remember um like in 1962 the Corowski family moving in why do I remember the Kowski family because I played little league ball and their daughter was a cheerleader on the little league team and um their son pitched for the little
league team okay so it was nice because there was at the There was five boys in my family at that time and u and their family all right and it was a three family house occupied as a three three family house i you know I I recall um
several of the occupants that lived there okay one being Carl Hood and the other one being a Bill Canudson who when he came back from Vietnam in the early 60s resided there okay all right i'm going to uh Mr mr chairman I have a
number of documents which I I'll hand out um in fact I have more than sufficient copies thanks we'll pass them around counselor let me identify what that first document is that's that's A1 uh
which is a tax card uh from the um bridge tax assessor uh I'll wait till everyone passes it out we're going to call that A1 a1 Mr dasty thank you with today's date April 3rd 2025
i think everyone has one now okay so Mr mwin I we've passed out A1 which is and I'll identify it it's a tax card for 111 Bay View Drive it's indicated as block 52 lot 111 um there's a circle here where it says 3F um what is your
understanding as to that 3F three family okay so as far as the bridge tax assessor has determined this property is taxed as a three family it is taxed and it's paid as a three family okay all
right uh let me pass out A2 right while that's being passed out I'll indicate for the record that A2 uh is a card from the Obridge MUA uh and it's in the name of M charloo is that the is
that the uh prior owner of the property yes okay and on this uh particular OBMUA card uh it's got a number of dates here starting n uh September 24th 97 going up through June 14th of 01 um and it's got
some initials and some other indexes but I guess the significance of this particular document is again I've circled here uh what's the indication as to as far as the OBMUA is concerned what they've classified this property as they classify it as a three family and they
build me as a three family okay going to pass out now A3 and I'll indicate that A3 is another uh document from the Obridge MUA um and while that's being passed out um
again um Mr merwin we've circled uh the number of units that are listed on this OBMUA uh ledger card and again what's the number of units for sewer and water that are being serviced for this property by the OBMUA three
okay all right now you you did a little digging here in order to satisfy some of the proofs here so I'm going to pass out what I would consider a very interesting document and I'm amazed that you were able to get your hands on it but let me pass that
out this will be A4 all right so A4 and I'll indicate for the record is a three-page document and it lists uh the various JCPNL meters that are on this property uh I've circled just it's kind of difficult to
read it but uh the first page has meter 725 the second page has meter 726 and the third meter third page has meter 727 uh let's focus first on the first page uh for meter 725 um it
indicates here and this is from JCPNL's records um and we couldn't get anything earlier than uh than 1964 but it shows a movein date for service on that particular meter as July 14th 1964 is that correct Mr mwin yes sir okay and if
I go to page two um this is for meter 726 it shows a movein date of July 14th 1964 yes and if I go to page three for meter 727 it shows a movein date or the
earliest we could get for this was October 21st of 1976 yes sir all right so this in your opinion is this evidence that well it's it's factual as well that there are three separate meters on this property is that correct yes sir three
separate JCPNL meters 725 726 727 and we know that 725 has been sorry the last one October 76 or 76 76 yeah the first two were 64 the other one was 76 now there may be records that were earlier
but these are the earliest we could get for those particular meters um those three meters are still there is that correct yes sir all right um and you get three separate three separate bills three separate bills
okay all right um let me hand out A5 all right actually before we get to A5 Vina we have the architectural plans could you There we go okay thank you all right all right so uh um Mr merwin I'm showing you
the architectural plans that were submitted as part of the application uh by uh JDR consultants um and let's just quickly describe the layout of uh the first floor and the second floor so the the main level is actually the apartment
that you reside in is that correct yes all right and that has one bedroom that's okay i think we can everyone can yeah i mean I don't think it's nest thanks Vina but anyway so um the main floor level main level floor
plan has one bedroom one bath one kitchen living room dining room study all right uh second floor has two separate apartments and the apartment on apartment B on the left has one bedroom one bath one kitchen one living room yes
and the bedroom on the right uh apartment A has one bedroom one kitchen one bathroom a living room and a dining room okay now the reason I'm asking you to point out this particular exhibit is that there are three kitchens in this
house are there not this is A5 this is the architectural plan a5 i'm now going to point your attention to is the tax assessor's card um and I again I've circled uh a number three under plumbing um does that does that indicate
that there are three kitchens in this house three bathrooms and three kitchens and three all right and this document is from 1983 is that correct yes november 28th of 1983 okay all right let me pass out now
a six i'm sorry I have all these documents but it's a a paper intensive proof so I just make sure All right i believe this might be one of the more compelling documents uh that
you're going to see this evening um Mr mwin this is a certificate of inspection and registration that you've received from the state of New Jersey uh Department of Community Affairs yes all right and again I've circled a very
pertinent number on there uh which is three it says here total units three all right to your knowledge this is an inspection that is required by the state of New Jersey uh for any multi for any three family uh dwelling three and above three and above all right um and they
don't issue these uh documents lightly is that correct no okay so as far as the state of New Jersey is concerned uh they consider it to be a three family house uh presumably they've considered it to be a three family in the past uh based upon all the evidence that we've uh at
least provided all right um I just have a few more exhibits this would be A7 all right a7 is a photograph that I believe you took uh which shows three separate electric panels in the basement
yes sir all right and that is consistent with the JCPNL records of having three electric service meters in this house is that correct yes okay going to pass out A8 and I apologize for the clarity of that document the one I have is actually much
clearer but what it shows Mr mwin again I need you to identify this document this shows uh three um heating elements leading into these particular units is that correct three zone yeah three zone valves all right
okay three what sir I couldn't hear you zone valves three zone valves they open when the thermostat in each department for the Okay Mr chairman I just want to make sure I have no other exhibits i believe that's all that I have for Mr merwin in terms of
exhibits but let me just make sure Mr mwin uh the two units uh upstairs are not being occupied presently is that correct that's correct okay uh and you're seeking relief uh from this board this evening uh to uh recognize the pre-existing
uh nature of this three family house visa v the current zoning ordinance yes okay uh Mr chairman I don't have any further questions of Mr mwin certainly available for questioning i do have two other witnesses Mr liieber who is our professional engineer who's just going
to talk a little bit about parking and M mcgherk who's our professional planner sure Mr what so I don't have any questions um the only thing I want to ask is should the board act favorably on the application do you agree that uh none of these uh
apartments will be rented out as Airbnbs or transient um because that should be one of the conditions of approval should the board act favorably yes i'll go to my left uh for Mr merwin
none i have a question go ahead does this town have a co on this built these three apartments a certificate of occupancy once it was renovated i don't know it's not required for Yeah just just for the record I don't
know i'm saying does this supersede this do you know well that's the state approval for Yeah actually yeah the answer to that question Miss Chevelier the state on anything three family and above the state has the jurisdiction on that okay that's about and they call it
a uh some they'll call it a green card you've heard that not a green card that we normally know but and I would land use terms it's a green card i would agree with uh Larry because the state would supersede yeah that's I'm just curious that's why I asked if it's our town or this that supersedes everything
so they did all the electrical inspections and the plumbing inspections to get this excellent am I right oh hold on yes we're good miss Andrew something that
you could explain in reading um could you turn your mic on please oh it's on just lower it thank you i'm sorry uh the certificate um it said this application was born from this the contract purchase/code enforcement action exactly what is that which document you
referring to on the uh project history and the description the second paragraph which which exhibit I think she's talking about the the memorandum the memorandum review letter from Miss Sant uh hold on let me let me pull that out
which page miss Andrew uh project history page two I guess uh letter E probably paragraph two oh yes okay yeah let let me Yeah I can I can explain that um Mr merwin did not require any building
permits to do the renovations because all he did was replace a kitchen put in new fixtures new bathroom new new fixtures in the bathroom uh so he wasn't expanding anything that would have triggered any type of construction permit he did go to the construction
board of appeals Mr merwin and if you want to explain what what their decision was the uh I I was issued a uh notice of violation by the township for doing work without a permit it was just normal routine work did not require permit
there was no structural changes there were no piping changes and stuff so that um when they issued the notice of violation I appealed it went to the construction board of appeals in New Brunswick and they found in my favor that it was not needed and that was it
but I don't re I really don't think that that was I think my application was the first thing that was Yeah I think that's what happened the application because if you remember the application was filed almost two and a half three years ago
and um even this memo actually was written at that time because we were scheduled for a hearing and then Mr moin asked it to be carried over because he wanted to go through uh and do some more research because if you look at the memo
it says that we weren't able to find any records beyond 1983 but uh to Mr sachs credit he was able to get all the records and um I think that's why it took longer as well thank you y I'm sorry i have one more
question was this house ever vacant at all no no no you lived in it the whole time since you bought it well did you buy it during the construction um it was there was tenants in it when I bought it and I uh had them vacate okay so that I
during construction it was vacant what was that when you were renovating the inside it was vacant yes okay so at that point in time you could have converted it back into a single family home and made it compliant uh well it never was a single family home i mean it had to
start that way eventually before 1964 uh 1962 when was the house built house was built in 1930 okay all right uh I believe in 1930 it was even constructed as a three family home um I mean we don't have proof of that either no I
don't I don't think I'd ever find so that's my whole point but while it was vacant it could have been converted back into a single family home it could have been but the use wasn't abandoned because uh what Mr merwin was doing was renovating the property that doesn't constitute an abandonment i wasn't going that way but what I'm saying it was vacant and it could have
been changed back oh sure it could have been it also could have been demolished and utilized as open space if if anybody wanted to do that as well but uh in terms of an abandonment and that's a legal theory uh the use was never abandoned it has never been abandoned uh
and if you go back and my planner will talk about it because your or the the proofs that I've submitted uh and you'll obviously have to evaluate them predate your zoning ordinance uh so that's why we're seeking the certificate of nonconformity but yes to answer your question sure uh while it was being
renovated yes it could have been converted to any use right but but the use was not abandoned and that's a legal term i'm sure your attorney and and you know I'm well aware of what that means too that's why I was already asking my professional but my point being it then it would have been confirming we
wouldn't need any variances or to even be before this board correct we wouldn't be in I always knew it yeah exactly we we we we will provide testimony from other individuals other than Mr merwin as to their understanding as to this
three three family history okay thank you i'll wait can I uh ask sure go ahead on your document A1 yes you have it dated November 9th 2017 that's the soonest that you could
get for what this document shows uh the tax no I'm not sure what that date means this is just a This is just a tax bill showing taxes for 2021 2023 2022 all right yeah i don't know what that date
of November 9th 2017 on the on your document A2 where it has 2020 the very top one next to that is a column that says remarks do we have any idea what the remarks were
uh A2 is the bill from uh or is the ledger from uh the OBMUA is that what you're referring to is this OBM uh yes yes i don't see where where do you see remarks Mr rizo i don't all your
columns uh date index remarks i I have no idea what those mean yeah I don't know what that means yeah and on A3 document A3 we have in a drop-own list it says a
change on April 15 2016 do we know what was changed no uh not sure what was changed on where do you see that i'm sorry yeah yeah oh change 4156 yeah
on document A5 if I can yep the number of stories top left residential description number of stories it's it's xed out and there's a lot of of handwritten numbers instead of it being printed numbers why how come that doesn't say
number of stories uh that I can't answer for you that's a document that was prepared by your tax assessor uh I don't know what the handwritten notations are presumably um they may have been measurements i'm
not sure square footage measurements but number of stories was something there was no additional story added to the property uh if that's what you're alluding to it's saying residential description residence class number of stories and it's crossed out
I'm just wondering why it's crossed out i I can't answer that this is a document going back to 1983 it's 42 years old so I wish I could give you an answer Mr ozo but I don't all right that's terrible
yeah I am good now Mr chairman anybody else yeah Mr saxs okay thank you Mr chairman uh I'd like to call up Mr liieber mr lieber I think you've been previously sworn but why don't you give the board the benefit of your uh professional
qualifications and background give us your full name spell your last yeah it's Good evening mark MC Liieber L E B um over at East Point Engineering in Marboro all right Mr liber if you could give the board the benefit of your educational
background and uh professional qualifications and licensing sure um graduated with a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering from Drexler University i uh completed the part-time MBA program at Ruckers Graduate School and was licensed in 2003 as an engineer
um in 2005 I passed the New Jersey planning exam and in 2006 I was able to complete the uh New Jersey certified municipal engineering certificate program mr lever's appeared before this board many times uh and he is recognized as an expert in this field and we'll do
so again this evening thank you thank you Mr chairman uh so Mr liber I know that you're really testifying in a limited capacity this evening since we are not making any site changes but obviously uh you have been engaged to address uh the parking uh with respect
to this property so if you could give the board the benefit of your analysis I see you have some exhibits as well yeah I just have a one-page exhibit it's two color photos that were taken today of the property i'm just going to hand them
out okay and that would be A9 yes okay okay mr liber uh well while A9 is being passed uh if you can briefly describe what these two photographs depict uh when they were taken I think you said today thank you
so the house is on the corner of McKinley um McKinley Street although it is a two-way street it's a little narrow but it's typical of the streets in this neighborhood uh obviously the main road is Bayia which is shown in the bottom
photo so this building um has two frontages it's corner lot and you might have heard earlier the lot's about 80 ft in depth that 80 ft is along McKinley and the width of approximately 35 is along Bay View i had looked at the
documents that govern parking for different types of uses and I had written a letter to the board which was dated September 8th updated on September 20th of 2023 that based upon the IT parking generation manual for a lower
mid-rise apartment uh there was no other similar use it's not a single family dwelling and it's not a duplex dwelling so the next category would be an apartment building and a low-rise apartment building um is four stories or less and I found that for um the
generation of three units one bedroom each they calculate 1.4 parking spaces per unit which results in a total demand of 4.2 spaces for the property um 4.2 would just be rounded down to 4.0
and don't you have to round up um they usually don't round up if it's 0.2 or or less than 0.5 is rounded down does doesn't the manual say that you have to round up the IT manual um I know like in other governing documents for
example RSIS says any fraction.5 or less is disregarded but my opinion would be is four spaces i mean for for parking typically I round up even if it's like 0.1 or 0.5 because
you can't have like a 0.1 or 0.5 uh parking space so I would just say five parking spaces um for every other calculation we definitely if it's less than.5 I round it down whereas above.5 I
round it up however for parking typically um for all reviews we have uh taken the whole number okay um so it sounds like we're going to be needing five spaces then so to address the comment but what
I wanted to show you in the pictures is that something that's very common on McKinley is a lot of the houses have an area parallel to the street that has been notched out of the road to accommodate vehicles in this particular picture there are three cars shown in
that space along the front of this building physically we could probably fit four cars um practically I would say that's three spaces um but we also have the opportunity to fit another space in front on Bay which would get us four our
on street spaces now there is a sign that is uh posted on the corner that presents one parking restriction that says it's parking is permitted with a permit so I gather you go to the clerk and you apply for a permit you can park on the street there there are other cars parked on the streets and there are also
houses in the area that rely on on street parking the only thing I did want to add is the fact that given the history of this building and the three-bedroom use and the fact that on street parking is the only available parking there doesn't seem to be an
issue either presently or I imagine in the past as you're going to hear from uh there are some neighbors here tonight that whether or not there is on street or off streetet parking it didn't seem to be an issue so really nothing's changing um at some point someone had
created these spaces that are along the side of the road which is obviously a benefit and a convenience so that cars can be parked on the side but my opinion would be that with that configuration and the frontage on baby you can easily accommodate four cars
right mr lever let me just ask you a couple follow-up questions uh with respect to that we're not proposing any new construction here is that correct that is correct all right so basically we're asking for uh we're we're we're attempting to satisfy the parking but uh
in terms of the RSIS that really wouldn't apply because we're not doing any new construction if you were preparing a brand new plan for development for residential use our fallback is usually RSIS but I also rely on the IT parking
generation manual which is a governing document when it comes to calculating parking for different uses right and even if you're all right so I I know if you look at uh exhibit A9 and by the way uh exhibit A9 shows the
location of the three exterior uh gas and electric panels is that correct yeah they're happen to be there yeah all right they happen to be at the corner of the house there uh but looking on McKinley right now uh there are three cars parked
um there and there there appears to be room for a smaller car maybe a a compact car uh next to that minivan is that correct okay and if I go over to Bay View uh there's a fire hydrant on the corner obviously we've got to protect 10 feet
from that fire hydrant and then there's a sign uh which is not really that legible but I think you've indicated that that sign says resident permit parking only yes all right so another vehicle could be parked there for someone who resides in this house yeah
there are cars that do park on that side of Bay View presently okay and you're uh you had an opportunity to drive up and down McKinley uh did you see did you see cars parked on the street on McKinley on this side of the street on the right side of the street yeah okay all right
uh Mr chairman I don't have any further questions uh at this point of Mr lever m so Mr liieber uh I'm pretty certain that you have done uh you've walked around the neighborhood right mhm did
you see any other homes that do not have parking or did you come across any homes where you have just the one driveway space without a garage where there is parking yes i um I had other pictures which I
didn't print out hold on a second let me let me help you here uh because um I just you this had come up when the application was submitted as well and a
waiver was requested for uh traffic impact statement and I just want to probably help the board or just guide them in the past 7 8 years that I'm working here the zoning board has come across numerous
applications that were in the harbor area and majority of the parcels in the harbor area are 2,000 square ft or 2500 square ft and I say that because the
entire area is zoned for R5 which is a minimum of 5,000 square ft if it's a 5,000 square ft lot you can easily have a garage a space in the garage and a space in the driveway when you have lot
sizes or a land use pattern that is so compact and uh uh where the development is more bungalow style um there is limited room for parking and in the last 7 8 years that we have approved newer
construction we ensure that there is at least one parking space on the site within the driveway and I say that because those are single family homes it could be occupied by a couple with kids it could be just a couple it could be a
couple with two kids uh but the parking in that area has worked out on its own with with just one parking we have reviewed single family homes that RSIs would require 2.5 or
three parking spaces with just and allowed one parking space this home from the testimony that was provided and the proofs that were provided has been a three family home and um I want to know from you have you
ever um or Mr mvin have you ever received complaints that your that the tenants or there has been issues with parking in that on Mckenley or Bay View well Mr mr mwin doesn't have any tenants
at this point side um certainly he's lived in the neighborhood i don't think that there really have been any complaints about parking i'm sure Mr mwin would would indicate that and I know there are some residents here as well uh who will talk during the public portion who could probably echo the same thoughts i don't know if Mr lieber wants
to respond if he can you know when I originally looked at this application you know and I did put together the traffic assessment because originally we did ask for a waiver um and only because at the surface I figured well what's the point of the traffic assessment the building's there and then when I wrote
this report and then we're preparing for tonight's meeting it really occurred to me that like the most important thing about the application is that we're not here asking to construct a three family unit on the corner this has always been here and if you go back maybe 20 or 30
years in the record there weren't any parking spaces at all in front of this property someone had added these parking spaces similar to way that they were added along the other houses on the street that have the same exact issue so when I started to put together you know
the testimony for tonight it seemed obvious that nothing's really changing um you know what may have happened 30 or 40 years ago if it was three one-bedroom units is the way it is today and the way it hopefully will be tomorrow um and
whether or not we physically have four or five parking spaces in a parking lot that's off the street is really not an issue because as your own planner stated that in this area yes things are compact and I agree there's a lot of undersized lots but things have just kind of been worked out on their own and there's no
guarantee that this building will ever generate a need for five cars but you know even if it does and there has to be four cars parked on the street or one car parked in the front it's not unusual for this neighborhood that there are cars parked on the street okay thank you Mr liber mr chairman I
don't have any further questions so Mr labor you have nothing else yeah I do on my left starting at the end no I have a question on A9 which is A9 a is your is the home photo the top photo the three vehicles that
are parked yeah it appears that the three vehicles are parked on the grass and if there was parking on both sides of the street I don't think a vehicle's a truck a fire truck I think it's going to be a very tight squeeze you stated that you wanted to have room for another
car to go in front to negotiate a turn i I I don't believe it's you have adequate adequate spacing Mr i think the f the those cars are not parked on the street they're they're parked on that notched in area that is obviously the So now
you're parking on the grass well I don't know if it's grass or it's compact you're facing the wrong way i mean there's a couple things there's a couple of things that But I guess the point of that photograph is there is room to squeeze four cars there if necessary but now you're going up and down that block i don't if somebody went on the other
side of the street there's no way that two cars are going to be able to pass each other on that street with cars parked on both sides of the street in my opinion mr liber let me just as a followup to Mr rizo's question um there are cars do park on the street on
McKinley not these these parking spaces here are off- streetet parking spaces is that correct yeah i mean the situation that goes on on this street is that each homeowner has notched out of whatever their property along the road is to park so
the cars are not actually parked on the street now whether or not these cars were parked there or they were were whether or not these cars were or were not parked in that particular spot in this photo doesn't change the traffic pattern on the street because they're
not in the asphalt so it's not like they're parked on the edge of the asphalt and there's someone else on the other side of the asphalt and only one car can get through so they're making their own room well that's what everybody's been doing on the street but we're not here for everybody we're here for Mr merin yeah no we we understand that and Mr labor certainly if the board
puts a condition on that they wanted this to be asphalted we could we could do that certainly yeah and I mean I just wanted to be clear that these cars are not parked on the street these are on Mr murwin's property they won't be able to fit on the street right but but we're we're willing to certainly if it needs
to be paved we'll certainly pave it it's not not an issue also with that photo I see um some panel the solar panels on the roof yeah when he applies for the solar panels does he have to when the company
comes to install them do they write down if it's a one family house a two family house a three family house who gets charged for the electric yeah well we're getting charge we We're getting three bills from JCPNL so we have three meters so all righty and I'm
not sure Mr mwin maybe could answer that but yeah I'm not sure how the solar is working but All righty thank you and the driveway I'm sorry the bottom picture the driveway is Mr n's no no that's the name of property
okay thank you yep i have a question for Mr lieber yes um so how how wide is this front yard where you're saying another car can go you mean on Bay View yeah on Bay View there's about 35 ft of frontage there
this doesn't include the radius on the corner 35 ft just to the right of the stairs it's Well you could see where the building Okay so the building the neighbor's driveway the building's two
feet off that lot line mhm so you know imagine uh the edge of their driveway is on the line so you're saying he can park a car right there in the grass that you No no you could literally park on the asphalt bay View is is a is like a normal width
they use a oneway no but the width the width is normal in other words it's not a narrow road it's a normal road that's what was my next question because that's what I'm asking will he like because on the side parking you can clearly see they're not completely in the dirt the
wheels on the side in this picture are still touching the pavement that's why I was asking about the um width of the driveway if a car could get totally in yeah yeah do you understand what I'm saying like the the width of a car wouldn't be on the road on B on Bay View
no the car would be on the asphalt but I think you know if you look at a standard garage it's usually 20 ft in depth or a parking stall at you know the mall is 18 ft in depth the front of this property has 35 ft so there's ample length to accommodate you know a vehic
yeah there are other cars there okay thank you that's it anybody on my right miss Andrews yeah i'm sorry yes i was uh I drove by yesterday and quite a few times
around i'm sorry that's okay i thought I had was loud enough uh I drove by there and um I don't know when you took this picture but there were quite a few cars and as you know the street here is relatively narrow yeah if you have cars on both sides
really McKinley is a narrow street yeah well it's when and there are no sidewalks just the grass uh I I I see a big problem with the parking i'll be perfectly honest with you and I didn't just go by one time we were there from
about 4:30 till about quarter after 5 through the area to see what the traffic pattern was like and as you know this on the other side of this road here there is no parking they just have the guardrails because it's the one way and
um 30 40 years ago everyone didn't have two cars in a family most people didn't we can't go by what was 30 or 40 years ago and and put it to today where you have these are mostly single family homes i didn't see any that I would say were a multiple family home i saw
nothing today if you have a 16 17 18 year old they usually have their own car and that's another space and if you have more than one child that can sometimes be two cars because commuting is not the easiest in a in a one-bedroom apartment
though you're not going to have a teenager but a one-bedroom apartment can accommodate two people two times three apartments is six people and six people can be six cars i know you're saying 4.5 but in in the real world
um my daughter is in a very small home in Seattle much smaller than this there's four cars because there's a truck there are two cars and that's just two people that drive not counting a youngster so I I see a very serious
parking problem here i'm I'm looking at Google map and um the area is a unique area you know it's very condensed and small and um it's it's the whole area you know I have to admit that there's parking on the grass and what
have you you know I don't know how you do we go forward to correct this you know then we do uh otherwise then you got to correct everybody then you know everybody's parking and in little coes i mean at least that's what this is
showing me it's very narrow i mean should it be corrected it should be but it's everyone else is doing it too you know then we have to you know address that i mean I'm I'm looking at this could be I don't know when this was taken but they're on the grass and it
seems to be a pattern i don't know i'm just saying you know I don't want to cherrypick but I don't know i mean I agree with you Roseanne you know because you can't say you know four cars are going to accommodate you know a three apartment
dwelling you know it's just not going to happen you know my sister has a single family house with three uh rooms bedrooms and her son just is a car enthusiast you know and they're in her driveway and he's got three he's got three cars so he works on them he likes
it you know so you know it could it's a problem it's going to be a problem but again the whole area is like that so I don't know what to do that's just me i'm being very honest i you know what do you do you know and that's it
mr saxs have we determined whether we have a devariance here or not well I am I'm going to request my first vote is going to be for a certificate of non-conformity because I'm seeking the grandfathering and depending on the vote that you take on that then I would ask
for a vote on the D my planner is going to provide the proofs for both okay so my planner will provide the proofs for the D all right i just wanted to see which way we were going on that and and let me let me just respond to the concern about what's going on in this neighborhood um and I'll ask it as a
question to Mr liieber so again we're not doing any new construction here correct we're seeking to legitimize for lack of a better term a three bed a three family use that has been here for decades um so we don't have we don't
have a requirement to provide additional parking or any parking quite frankly however in your analysis because we are concerned about parking in this neighborhood under the IT standards you've indicated it's 4.2
i'll respectfully disagree that I think you round it up i think you round it down all right but in any event we have four parking spaces on McKinley which can be parked off off streetet parking entirely on Mr merwin's property and
then we can enable one parking space on Bay View because we know that the H the lot frontage is 35 ft and we know that looking at the survey the driveway for the adjacent house is about uh 2 feet off of the pro
off of uh right off of the building here so that and we know that if we look at the distance from uh the side of the house to McKinley at the rear it's 6.4 feet and at the front probably closer to maybe 8t all right so if I take 8t and 2
feet that is uh 10 ft that leaves me 25 ft of available space to park on Bay View your normal your normal shopping center parking space is 9 by 18 yeah I mean the spot fits and it's allowed
because the sign permits that parking all right so not to belabor the point but in your professional opinion based on the IT standards even if we go with the higher number of five we are satisfying that is that correct okay i have nothing further Mr chairman
all right go ahead i just have one more question what if in the front yard to the right of the porch instead of parking on Bay View he did notch out just like he did on the side of the house for a car we we could do that the only change that would be needed is that
the porch the stairs would have to go down parallel to the wall of the house in other words we'd have to rotate the stairway so that it doesn't conflict with the space is it a possibility i mean because then
you don't even have anyone on Bay View which is an issue because it is a narrow road even when you're going two cars past i've been there a hundred times so what you're suggesting is I'm looking at the survey towards the right yeah you have more than 8 and 1/2 ft and the neighbor's driveway we have that front
yard and you have the that little lawn that's kind of useless to me yeah i mean what would happen that was notched out he would never have to park on Bay View and Excuse me and you got the stairs with Google Maps that even a car has um has the tires on the the step so yeah
that could be that could be you know that could work if you eliminate those maybe those two steps and put a spot there i I don't disagree with that and I've spoken to Mr mwin and if that would be one of the conditions that the board would impose he would comply with that i think and you've got five spaces for
sure i think Mark what can be done is the steps right could be parallel to Bay View but entering from the McKenley side so that the direction you want your driveway is away from the intersection
and you get a parking spot right there to the right if you're looking at the picture to the right and that way your parking is not close to the intersection and you get an additional space i would tell you personally like the way these cars are parking on goo I would
never park my car like that you're halfway in the road yeah because actually if you look at if you walk through most of the people are parking half on the lawn and half on the roadway instead why not create at least a parking style
we can do that i mean at least the owner could have his own parking style right except can park in right what are you gonna do Mr chair mr chairman hold up mr dasty has something
i'm good Mr lever oh yeah um the on the top photo do you know where that white door goes to in the rear of the uh on the first floor and to the left of the building that's for the upstairs apartments
you have the plan that uh that's the upstairs stairs and they go left and right okay thanks the only thing I'm just looking at here is if we make the stairs go out toward McKinley there's a basement window there if the steps came down in this
direction do you need that window i think we can accommodate the front the way it is right now work all right go ahead Mr and uh Mr rizo was next and you'll be next on that
bottom where was I going with this now on the bottom photo talking about the parking in the front mhm you have this sign that says you need a permit is it going to be hard or easy for him for people to apply for a permit parking
Well actually if we put the space now on our property it's not permit doesn't even apply anymore right yeah you're going to fit the whole car in it for real I have them in my development and no doubts i think it's to deter Miss
Andrew go ahead you were next transit i just wanted to just say looking at this picture I don't know which car is Mr merwin's but uh there are no tenants there so none of these cars that are there yeah they're just they don't so I really don't I have three on his
property and then one in the front i don't see four cars sure don't get and we're not going for five just four um as I said I don't know which which car is Mr merwin's but the cars that are parked here behind there I don't see enough space for three cars here one two three
i don't Well I think it's you know what unfortunately it's kind of difficult to look at it from this perspective but there there is room for four parking spaces there certainly three but we could probably squeeze a compact car in there as well but I think if we go with the suggestion uh that Miss Chevier has
indicated we'll pick up an additional parking space you you know there's there's no one parking on the street and we'll be further enough far away enough from the hydra oh yeah 10 foot yeah yeah all we need uh again I'll I'll equip you know if the average parking space in a
shopping center is you know 9 by 20 we we've got enough room for that so I hope nobody has a graduation party i don't think so thank you the only thing I will say is that the the Lawrence Harbor is a unique area of the
township and people have existed there after its status probably left bungalows going back to I don't know when 1920s uh and they've survived living in undersized lots and undersized homes we've had many come before this board
for expansion of their homes uh and try to use every last inch of lot size uh because none of them are in compliance they're they're pre-existing nonconformities i know so I don't think that those uh people that live there I
should say I think that those people that live there have been dealing with this situation since their birth uh I didn't know but Mr marwin put on the record that he was born there so his family probably has existed there and probably people that he grew up with
still live there so I think in that area people get used to the parking they get used to whose whose spot is that and whose spot is mine and I'm sure it's while it's not delineated uh it's a courtesy and it's it's the right that
that belongs to this house and so it's not unusual that homes don't have parking spots and I think that's a that's a bulk that has really nothing to do with what you're asking for until we vote on the bulks so I would I would hope that we would move on and we see where we're going with this and I'm sure
I guess that some of the people in the audience are here for this matter so certainly we'd want to hear from them as well thank you Mr chairman okay so absent any other questions and of course we can recall Mr lieieber should we need him okay thank you thank you Mr lieber thank you Mr chairman i have one more
witness uh who is Colleen McGherk who is our professional planner miss Mcgherk if you could state your name for the record and spelling it colleen Mcgherk c O L L E N M C G- U R K
good evening board members good evening miss McG if you could give the board the benefit of your professional background and licensing i received a master's in urban planning from Boston University in 1996 uh most of my experience was from the municipal end as a planner for
municipalities i opened my company in uh 2019 Swick Stall and Mgherk i am a member of uh AICP and my license is current and I have tested before multiple boards including this one and I recognize you as testifying before this
board once again we'll accept your expertise thank you okay Miss McGgherk if you can give the board the benefit of your analysis uh for two issues one of them is our request for a certificate of nonconformity and secondly for use
variance if necessary yes I'll just provide both proofs i'll provide testimony for both of those um Colleen pull it closer thanks okay uh in preparation for this testimony I reviewed the land
development ordinance the application the survey and I uh did a site inspection i also reviewed multiple master plans the 2020 2013 2011 and several redevelopment plans so the pro the subject property is located at 111
Bayiew Drive known as block 52 lot 111 it is a corner lot located at the intersection of Bayiew Drive and McKinley Avenue it consists of 2522 square ft and contains a 2 and a half story dwelling with three units
each unit contains one bedroom the dwelling was built in 1930 and is located within the R5 residential zoning district it was previously zoned R seven in 1970 which is far back as any records was able to provide and the zoning
officer stated that nothing earlier was in the archives that was a response to my OPER request the R seven zone was changed uh to R5 in 1995 which reduced the minimum lot sizes thereby increasing the potential density and population the
surrounding lots contain single family dwellings and directly to the north is Raran Bay the surrounding area consists of residential the EDO1 zone and also Route 35 and Lawrence Parkway lawrence Harbor consists of compact development and neighborhood commercial there are
within this property area there are two separate residential dwellings on one lot located at 22 Birchwood Drive there is a one single family dwelling and one two family dwelling which received a D1 and D5 variance approval along with
multiple bulk variances that were subsumed under the D1 from the zoning board in 2016 there is also a two family located at 60 Wilson Avenue which is two blocks away we are requesting a certificate of non-conformance based upon statute
4055D-68 in the MLUL since we are beyond the one-year limitation we must apply to the zoning board and as determined in several court cases the zoning board may hear certificates of non-conformance and quote is particularly well equipped to address non-conforming disputes which
involve questions as to when a use commenced the interpretation of the zoning regulations then enforce and the interpretation of present regulations the question we need to answer is quote "What was the use which existed on the property in question at the time of
adoption of the zoning ordinance it is this use which the statute protects and such use must have been continuance continuous in determining the status of a purported non-conforming use or structure the board of adjustment must trace the non-conforming history of the property back to the zoning ordinance in
existence at the time the use in question commenced in order to establish that it was in fact conforming when commenced or existed prior to an amendment which made it non-conforming that's Ferraro versus Keeberg in Cox court case in Elram Yuva versus
Kingsburg the court found that applicants proof of use before the ordinance rendering it non-conforming consisted of municipal certificates of occupancy and tax certificates was deficient the three family located at 111 Bay View has been in existence since 1964
according to JCPNL records which clearly show that there were multiple units consisting consistently from 1964 to 2022 when the applicant purchased the property jcpnl records show a meter for 1 F and 2B with a move in date of
1964 and 1976 for 2A but logic would obviously indicate that 2A would have had to exist before 2B the MUA records show that this is an existing three family since 1997 and tax assessor records show that it was taxed
as a three family since 1983 the records prior to 1980 uh do not indicate the type of use the 1980 records show it as a one family but they also show it as a ranch with a ground and second floor and that
was corrected in 1983 to State Colonial so it seems like the 1980 records had some issues um can we do the exhibit i just have a few pictures of the dwelling to show the improvements that were made
miss Mer did you say that in 1980 it was a single family dwelling tax assessor the computer showed it as a single family dwelling in 1983 somebody went back and did a handwritten note that
said uh three family they also did a handwritten note to indicate that it's a colonial not a ranch which this house never was the square footage has never changed for this dwelling in tax records so that's the front of the house that
shows the new siding and new windows the next slide shows the side door entrance the next slide shows the new fence and two air conditioning units sorry the side door and then the next
slide would show the new fencing the the vinyl fencing and the two air conditioning units and then the last slide that I'm going to talk about right now is the three doorbells so I'll just continue with the testimony uh for the use
proofs um this site is particularly suited for the I'm I'm sorry uh I'm sorry to interrupt but can you go to the previous picture yeah stay there so is this the cleared path is
that Is that the uh parking where you see three cars okay yes all right so it's dirt it's not It's not even grass right okay i think there's still work being done yeah but I
mean presumably the condition that has been suggested is that I'm sorry yeah presumably the suggestion that we provide a parking space on Bay View you'd want that paved i'm assuming and I think I offered previously that this would be paved as well right but it's
already uh it's not grass so it's not right it's not grass yeah yeah thank you thank you sorry sure okay with respect to the use variance uh this site is particularly suited for the existing use because the historical use of this property has been a three family use and
over multiple decades this has not changed the area itself has some of the oldest housing stock in Oldbridge and there are multiple two and three family dwellings in the area so it fits in with the character of the neighborhood i could show some of the rest of the
slides uh this is an image that I did on near mapap that shows all of the two and three family dwellings within the area the majority of whom are in the Lawrence Harbor area the next is back to that one again
i'm sorry is the is the subject property in that in that photo it says property in question down towards the bottom towards Ren Bay so you'll see 238 Shoreland 275
Lawrence and above that is property in question yeah so just Yeah just so the record is clear Bay View is actually the last street it's just below 60 Wilson all right yes yes yeah but just so the record is clear
Miss McGherk Bay View runs parallel to Raritan Bay yes no street no nobody in front of them they have a nice view of the water thank you Mr it looks to be about 10 or 12 multifamily 17
17 how many How many dwelling units are there alto together well if we go to the next slide thank you uh that's my list that's all the addresses the block and lots and the use they're all within the R5 zone except one of them R seven um
and then the year built so the majority of them are two family there are a couple of three family um 360 Route 35 there's actually it said three houses so three separate structures and then 22 Birchwood was the
one I discussed that the um board approved there's two separate structures on that property and a total of three units the rest are two family or two houses two separate structures no what I what I meant to ask you is on the prior drone photo you showed 17 multifamily
units as opposed to how many single family units in that picture well that's how many I could find that were legal i don't know how many more that exist but yeah the rest we could presume are single family or illegal multif family i didn't investigate every
single dwelling could you estimate how many homes are there no because 17 out of that aerial view is a very small percentage okay thank you i felt that that was enough to indicate that this is clearly
not the only multif family that they do exist in the area they might not be predominantly the use but they exist and you you you claimed this that it was a historical house well most of these dwellings were built in the 30s and 40s
so historical houses siding on the house that wasn't No I'm I'm saying historically that's the type of uses not that it's a historic dwelling to our knowledge it's not a historic structure there's no historical significance to the dwelling
so the relief that is required for a D1 variance is to satisfy what is known as the Medici criteria there are three ways to do this the main point though is that the general welfare would be served because the existing site is particularly suited to the use the applicant still has some property rights
even as a non-conforming use this is a good location with no negative impact since it has been consistently used as a three family for 61 years or more with no complaints regarding the three family use the applicant has made multiple interior and exterior improvements
including new siding fencing windows and an eco-friendly tankless water heater thereby improving the exterior aesthetics and the interior livability of the dwelling the 2020 master plan and earlier master plan re-exams discuss the older housing stock the fact that
Lawrence Harbor is built out and must rely on redevelopment to increase population and employment and the two most recent redevelopment plans have serious concerns regarding substandard and dilapidated housing whereas this applicant has addressed those concerns by making various improvements and the
dwelling will be code compliant the 2020 master plan re-exam states that the majority of old bridge housing stock is single family dwellings 71.2% and only 8.2% is three or four units this indicates a lack of diversity in housing options this dwelling can
provide these things and also provide additional benefits considering the housing shortage it also supports the principles of smart growth by providing residential units within a walkable community with available goods services public transportation and amenities such
as recreation and beach access and is therefore aligned with the state development and redevelopment plan since this property is located within the planning area one the master plan recommends redevelopment and mixeduse zoning and overlay zoning in order to improve economic impacts to this area it
also discusses jobs to population ratio and that looking for ways to increase the overall population is needed prior to Old Bridge being fully built out also one of the stated goals of the 2011 master plan land use element is quote to provide a diverse supply of desirable housing stock that meets the needs of
households of various age groups income levels sizes and compositions the 2020 master plan also reiterates and reaffirms goals from the 2007 master plan including incorporating Middle Sex County's Arthur Kill Roward and planning
area report in which Lawrence Harbor is discussed in detail and includes establishing an overlay zone in accordance with the county plan and also updating the zoning map and incorporate development plans from the county's special uh special uh areas i have a couple of
quotes from the county report so the board can understand its recommendations and the reasons why it was included in Oldbridge master plan the county report describes the area as quote like most of Middle Sex County the group one region is experiencing rapid growth not only in
the construction of housing but in the price of housing the result is that construction of upper class housing is booming but the availability of housing for the middle and lower classes is substantially less these needs must be addressed if group one region is to have adequate housing supply for all of its
inhabitants end quote it also is vital that all types of jobs are filled and businesses have necessary staffing another quote "What will allow uh the area to absorb a significant proportion of expected future growth in population and employment changes to
zoning and allowed development types can greatly alter the carrying capacity of the land increasing in the efficiency of land use for example increased use of mass transit smaller residential lot sizes multi-unit housing and expanding height limitations on residential and
commercial structures also allow greater development in a given area another strategium is that rather than using traditional zones devoted exclusively to one type of development mixed use allows increases in development other zoning changes can increase employment and
population changing the amount of type of home occupations allowed in residential zones or reszoning residential land to denser residential zones all of this indicates a need to increase residential density in order to achieve a beneficial jobs to housing ratio and a more robust economy
therefore eliminating residential units no matter how small would be contrary to these recommendations which the township participated in and incorporated into their master plan recommendations there are also two recent redevelopment rehabilitation plans the tw the 200 Lawrence Parkway
which would allow 1,800 square foot lots and 16 dwelling units so clearly an increase in density since the R5 zone only permits 7,000 uh seven dwelling units which is located uh the redevelopment area uh 0.6 miles from 111
Bay View there was also an investigation of an area in need of redevelopment draft which studied a 50 parcel area adjacent to this property uh located at Route 35 and Lawrence Parkway with the goal of spurring economic growth and taking advantage of Matt's transit a
tenant of economic growth is an increase in population it also stated quote "This designation also permits municipalities to grant five-year tax abatements and exemptions that may encourage private property owners to rehabilitate and reinvest in this prop in their properties which this applicant has
already done uh the township planner me uh mentioned a D5 and a D4 variance i can address that if you feel that's necessary for the um D4 the floor area ratio the proofs are much less we need
to show that the problems associated with additional floor area ratio can be accommodated on the property what is allowed is 40 whereas 0.56 is existing but the planner's memo also stated 69
whereas I actually got 64 but either way this building has existed and was constructed in 1930 so it does predate the ordinance the tax assessor calculates the size as 1,622 ft and this has never
changed uh the bulks again they're all existing the house was constructed in 1930 it's an undersized lot no changes have been made and the undersized lot is considered a hardship with regard to the D5 density variance as I've shown there
are multiple structures within Lawrence Harbor that are um two and three family so this dwelling is not out of character with the neighborhood and the existing density has not had a negative impact on the area since the 1960s possibly longer and
should be allowed to continue this use application also advances several purposes of the MLUL goal A to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general
welfare sorry the units provide housing which will help meet the needs of Oldbridge residents goal G to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agriculture residential recreational commercial and industrial uses and open space both
public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens this existing three family dwelling encourages well-designed anti-spraw land development that is consistent with land use patterns and consistent with recommendations in the state redevelopment plan for
metropolitan planning area 1 in which this property and area is located a diversity of housing stock needs to be provided and multif family units are necessary to fulfill a housing need in Albridge the majority of residential is owned
69.4% and only 30.6% 6% is rented and as previously stated the majority of housing stock is single family dwellings there will be no negative impacts from this existing use and the benefits outweigh any detriments there is also walkability and access to amenities services and public transportation this
is an existing use similar to other uses in the area while the majority may be single family dwellings there are many other two in multif family within Lawrence Harbor many of which also predate zoning this is how the area naturally developed prior to zoning
regulations the D1 D4 and D5 variances are not inconsistent with the intent and purposes of the master plan and zone plan and carries out a general purpose of zoning due to the promotion of the general welfare as use is particularly suited for the proposed location and does not result in any detriment to the
public good it is my professional opinion that the MLUL would be advanced by the proposed deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and the benefits substantially outweigh any detriment the proposed use for most the purposes of the MLUL occurs on a site that is particularly suited for the use
accurs no significant detriment to the public good and does not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance that is all thank you i have nothing further Mr chairman miss
one Colleen do you Colleen do you agree that the D5 is assumed by the D1 yes so there is no need to actually go into detail with the proofs correct correct
uh the cut my testimony short sure um the D4 there are other homes because of you don't even need to analyze them because the lot sizes are uh so they're such undersized lot that any two fam two
twostory 2 and 1/2 story home would definitely exceed the floor area ratio therefore there will be numerous other homes in the neighborhood that would also trigger a D4 um correct that's the
other reason I didn't go into a deep analysis right so which means that the D4 and the D5 are not as significant as the D1 correct uh with the D1 and the site suitability would you agree that
because this has been an uh existing three family home the site is particularly suitable and there are no negative impacts it's not like you're putting a new home right the fact that it has historically existed there for so long makes it particularly suited
because there have been no issues that have occurred due to it do you see any negative impacts to the neighborhood i truly do not um I think one of the conditions I've already stated should the board uh act favorably we also talked about the
parking i don't have any other questions by the way we're going to add another condition as well that we can put in the leases that uh you have one car so these are one-bedroom apartments you have one car perfect so I think that
helps yeah yeah that would reduce it to three stalls which we clearly can provide [Music] i don't know i'm looking at three cars here that are parked on the side of the house that are not residents of the house now yeah well obviously once once
Mr if if the board acts favorably on this and we get a certificate of occupancy or actually we have the DCA approval but we get tenants in there we're going to police that there are people parking there now in the neighborhood we can't control that but uh you know
I think the way the neighborhood works is there are permits issued but there is no assigned parking stall so it's like almost first come first serve uh anybody could come and park anywhere as long as
you have a permit which means that the tenants could park anywhere in the neighborhood as long as they have a permit so the fights it has been that way in the harbor i
mean if it was some other area yes I agree um but in the harbor especially that has been how parking has worked and as I mentioned it's self-p policing by the residents once people move in
it's people will get the idea they probably live in the neighborhood already um you you have no further witnesses let me see uh questions of the uh planner on my left no no none
i would agree with most of what you said um the dates that we're looking at prezoning ordinance would have to be prior to 1970 1970 okay
all right that's the bulk of your testimony let's Why don't we get a public portion going if that's okay with you can I ask Oh sure go ahead wait hold on hold on no now for the planner Mr saxs yes yeah um for the zoning board's record I'd like the um documentation that Mr merwin got from the construction
board in Middle Sex County that it was approved i'd like to see that sure we can provide that for that would be a condition yep okay no problem then it covers us yes we'll provide that all right this is a matter
55-2023Z the low physical location here is 11 Bay View Avenue uh Bay View Drive I'm sorry is it Drive or Avenue mr marin is it Bay View Avenue or Drive drive drive right and it's South Amboy Mailing
address correct okay anyone here in the courtroom this evening Mr beard please come forward sir the board attorney will swear you in before you testify feel free to be seated those are directional mics so you have to speak right into it sir uh could you write Thank you uh do you swear or
affirm that until the whole truth is a help you got i do would you give us your full name spell your last dennis Kesler kes l i live at 40 at 36 Tania T- NIA Court
in Monroe Township i am the owner of 162 Bay View Drive which is directly across from the subject property i have owned that property for approximately 43 years it is a rental
unit um my tenant also we have a driveway to the left my tenant also parks directly in front of his house on the dirt in front of his front door they like that they don't mind it being on a main
street i will comment that for the past 43 years that I've owned the property I've always known this property to be a three family house okay um it has been deteriorating
considerably the last 20 years of the existence that it's been in and it looks a ton better than it ever has and it's been an improvement to the area um to comment on Mr sullivan's point one of the interesting things that I find and
just for background um I'm a real estate broker i own Century 21 Charles Smith real estate we're approximately a quarter of a mile from Lawrence Harbor we've sold numerous homes over the last 55
years that we've been located there in Lawrence Harbor most of the people in that area own their own homes there are not a lot of rentals and as a result the people seem to take very good
care of figuring out who's parking where because it's their neighbors it's not a transient neighborhood where people keep coming in and out tenants turn over i've had turnover on my property although one of my tenants Carol Rosselle resided
there for 25 years as a single woman with one car in the driveway so I certainly don't see anything that would be detrimental to the neighborhood it's just a positive everybody and anybody that's renovating
houses and that's all that's happening in Lawrence Harbor anything that's original is being bought up and totally renovated gut jobs down to the studs um as many as you can find and they're not
easy to find because we look for them um so it's just an area that's getting better and better and the more things that go on to improve it such as this I think just overall it makes it better bay View Drive is a tight street but as
you watch traffic coming from both directions you'll usually find somebody's coming towards you there's a spot you move over somebody passes you they wave vice versa people know how to navigate the roads it's really not a
problem so I would say that I think this is something positive thank you very much thank you Mr kesler before you leave Sure i I do recognize I've appeared before here as an applicant as an applicant and also as you said something interesting and I'd like you to reaffirm it if it in fact is true
okay at least the best of your knowledge you said you've owned a three family home a rental home around the corner it's directly across across the street right right absolutely to your knowledge you understand that that was a three family home at 111 Bay View for as far
as I know about 43 years that I've owned i thank you i appreciate the other problem and we do own one other multifamily uh the property at 60 Wilson the two family couple blocks away is something that I own but that's the best of your knowledge yes to the best of my knowledge it's always had the three
meters on the side of the house um Okay so you that's fine thank you very much sir you're very welcome any other uh uh yes public wish to be heard you come come forward ma'am once again you can take a seat the board
attorney will swear you in you ready i think I did swear you in but let's try it again to be sure do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth to help you God i do give us your full name spell your last please diane French f R E N C H
mrs french what is it you're here to tell us tonight or question i've lived next door at 109 Bay View Drive uh since 1978 and I was friends with the um the previous owner of um 111 Bay View Drive
and uh as as long as I've been there it was a three um three family and you said you've you've been there since 1978 that's correct and it's always been a three family to your knowledge to my knowledge well I was friends with the
owner and you know I know she did have tenants there all the time all right and the parking was never an issue you know everybody coexisted very well right thank you anything else you want to tell the board i think that's that's it unless you have any questions i I do
not any any board member have questions thank you very much anyone else wish to be heard on this matter i see no further hands i'm going to close the public portion uh we come to uh have to decide what we're going to call this mr saxs yes uh so Mr chairman
um you know my first uh request would be that the board consider uh the certificate of nonconformity under section 68 um I believe we've provided the the requisite proofs for that um I think the salient document by the way
other than Mr merwin's testimony who who uh can equate that to being a uh a three family back into the late 1950s when he was a child but and that may be self- serving because he's the applicant but uh I think the the important evidence of
everything we've shown here uh goes back to 1964 i have JCPNL notations showing it as a as three units with three separate meters um so I think we do we do predate the 1970 ordinance i think if
you take all of the testimony as a whole even the testimony from the witnesses from Mr kesler uh who stated that uh back he bought that property back in the 80s uh you know it's it was a three family and Miss French back in the 70s it was a three family i mean I don't
think anything changed between uh the time Mr mwin recognized it as being a three family and their observations so you know if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck so it's a three family um uh quite frankly it's an improvement
to the property so I'd request the first vote Mr chairman would be on that certificate of nonconformity under section 68 um depending on the outcome of that you may have to vote on the use variance i'm hoping not uh we'll agree to those conditions uh that have been
imposed which are uh that uh and I think Miss Savant wants us to uh uh provide some paving and we'll do that and I think Miss Chevier's request uh to put that parking space on Bay View is an excellent request and we'll do that as
well so this way we're providing probably more more off- streetet parking than anyone else would have in that neighborhood uh but we're willing to do that and certainly we'll provide the uh uh information from the construction board of appeals um you know these are always difficult cases because you got
to you got to provide proofs uh but I think we have provided that we've spent a good deal of time researching it we we hope uh that we've uh uh convinced you as to that and uh request that you act favorably on the certificate of nonconformity um if that is successful I don't think you don't need to address
the use and I don't think you need to address the bulks either so Mr sax can you just help me out on the on the parking there's going to be presumably one parking space I guess to the right of the steps yes and that'll be paved is that what you said yeah well I think we
have to yeah okay and you're going to pave the McKinley side correct all right thank you and you'll work that out in plans if it's a if it's a We'll have to probably provide a revised plan for your staff just to make sure it's in conformity
okay i'm sorry just one more thing too that in the lease you were going to say the upstairs apartments have one car only yes great all right uh go ahead now would be the time if anybody has issues let's talk
about them now i I think of things i just want to know with all of your research I'm sorry with all of your research did you ever think of going to the census and seeing the people who were supposed to have lived there as tenants because that would probably have
been saved you all of the other research that would have been the most you know what I I will tell you that and I've done this because I've done it within my own family back in the 1920s and 30s they were really accurate and and you'll
they'll give names occupations ages the most recent censuses forget it you wouldn't find that so yes if I guess if I went back to the 1930s I probably could have reliable information but I don't even know if it would have indicated the I would have thought the
1970s would be good enough than the 30s i could tell you I think uh back before World War II we did much better with recordkeeping i think what's happened is But anyway no we we didn't do that mr verie did you have something i didn't oh okay i thought you were raising your hand hey could I ask go
ahead yeah sure mr go ahead he uh Mr mer wants to legitimize this now that's why we're sitting here tonight why did he pick now like what happened why is it now well he's he only purchased the property a few years ago Mr iso so he he he bought it from the Charoo's who were
the owners for many many years so I guess what happened is when he went to do the renovations that's when they decided well the zoning ordinance in 1970 uh you know provides for only single family so when he when he bought it the deed wouldn't have said what it
was no no no obviously that's why we had to do the research to support the certificate of nonconformity thank you anybody else on my left no no all right uh I will say that the I think
that the exhibits one through eight that you presented um they speak for themselves for whatever value that may be i know there was a discrepancy Mr rizzo brought up earlier on on this but if you go down under
structure Mr rizzo you'll see ground floor upper floor half stories and then with the area attached so I think what that was up there where it has one and you pro and you see a
2.0 probably handwritten whoever the inspector was when they did that uh update uh I mean I'm satisfied from testimony i don't I know I know Mr kesler and I would doubt that he would
put on the record something and lie about that he has too big of a reputation mr w Mr i would take Mr merwin's word except he has more skin in the game uh and I was impressed by Miss uh Mrs i believe French uh who also
stated that her knowledge goes back to 1978 and that's pretty impressive to me so uh I I have to believe that yeah it was a three family uh I don't know it was ever built that way originally but maybe generations in the family started
moving in and put up walls and uh and provided uh a habitat for for grandma mom and maybe later the kids so I'm fairly satisfied that I think that this was what is it was being portrayed for
portrayed as however I don't have the legal knowledge to know whether we can do a certificate of non-conformity now I'm going to turn it over to Mr dasty well I you certainly can if you wish to uh the zoning ordinances were only adopted until created until 1970 uh the
testimony is that this building was built 40 years before that and the uncontroverted testimony from the neighbors who either live there or own the house right next to it says it's been Well I don't even know how many years now at least 43 years as a three
family so I think that you do have sufficient proofs to legitimate a pre-existing uh nonconformity um I haven't heard anything in contrary to Is that a plurality or is that is that a majority vote majority vote okay
uh board members have problem with with the vote if we take that so we would we wouldn't have to vote on the D if we give the uh certificate of nonconformity so it's still a vote it still has to be
five positive votes no four a plur that it's a plurality majority votes well it's four it's not a super majority it's not a super okay all right okay then it's then it's four um so it's not a D variance it's not a D is my point yeah okay so everybody understands that
anybody have a problem with it all right so would we just introduce it as such uh a vote for a certificate of nonconformity under section 68 at block 52 lot 111 physical location of 111 Bay
Drive anyone in support of moving this for approval test is there a second i'll second roll call as to certificate of nonconformity
mrs mrs andrews yes miss Chevier yes mr iso yes mr stoner yes miss Testie yes miss Gomez yes chairman Sullivan yes uh we do we have to address any the bulks
because they're non-conformities right no no the pre-existing non-conformities okay all right thank you for your uh lengthy presentation this evening thank you Mr chairman members of the board i apologize for the time we had to that's okay and your Thank you very much and we thank your professionals as well very
nice job man thank you very much board members that still mention uh Mr saxs just before we go off the record just you're going to have when are you going to the condition of the approval is the construction right do you know you know
before the resolution you'll have that yeah we not all right once again thank you Mr saxs uh general public comments i don't see anybody left in here in the public uh is there anything from the township that you would like to tell us Miss Sant no
mr dasty anything legal no we're fine sir anybody have anything that they need to bring up you know what I would like to say somebody was putting on social media that we cancelling meetings so I I've said I've spoken to that before many times this board has no
control over the scheduling of meetings no one on this board works for the township we're volunteers so any scheduling takes place between attorneys and the planning department not the zoning board of adjustment we have no control whatsoever we're civilians and
volunteers who uh uh who are appointed to this board but we we do not control any schedules thank you for bringing that up having said that someone move for an adjournment please mr verie all in favor i any opposed we stand adjourned