Would everybody please rise? I'd like to start the meeting. I'd ask you to join me in the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America to the Republic. >> Please be seated. Welcome everyone.
Township of Zoning Board of Adjustment, November 20, 2025. Adequate notice of this meeting of the Oldbridge Township Zoning Board of Adjustment has been provided in accordance with the open public meetings act at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of this meeting [snorts] 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 and also posting on the municipal website.
Secretary Bchelli, could we have a roll call, please? >> Certainly. Mrs. Andrews >> present. Miss Chevier absent. Mr. Iso >> here. >> Mr. Scogno >> here. >> Miss Spanelli >> here. >> Miss Testie
absent. Mr. Sing >> absent. Miss Gomez >> here. >> Chairman Sullivan >> here. >> Mr. Varga, I'm sorry, Marty. I don't know your last name. >> Mr. Buckley. >> Buckley. >> Mr. Buckley. >> Miss Savant. >> Yeah. >> Uh Mr. Holahan >> here.
>> Thank you very much. Just some housekeeping issues. First of all, this uh meeting is being televised locally here in the township on the cable channel 15. uh simultaneously. It's also available on YouTube live. You could always refer back to that if you want to
see the meeting again. Uh the rules of the uh board are the meeting starts at 7:30, ends at 10:30. Testimony stops at 10, so we have time for public portion uh thereafter. I don't envision that we're going to be here that late this
evening, but we'll see. Having said that, we'll move board uh board members. Uh I would note for the uh Mr. Saxs and Mr. Brodzky, there's six members sitting se seated tonight. One, two, three, four, five, six of seven. [clears throat]
Um we'll go to the minutes. That's the first one we have is October 16th board [clears throat] members. Hope you've had a chance to uh check them out. Make sure you agree with them or disagree. Having said that, I'll ask somebody to move for memorialization. >> Move it, Leon Scott. No, >> is there a second? Is it
>> second? >> Moved in second. Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Chev, sorry. Mr. Iso, >> yes. [clears throat] >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh, the same thing applies to the
minutes of October 30th, 2025. Board members, someone moved that for adoption. >> Andrew, >> second moved in second. Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, [clears throat] >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. Chairman Sullivan.
>> Yes. As you face the deis and you're looking to your left. It's to my right. Martin Bratzky of council to the board. >> Buckley. >> Brodky. [laughter] >> Brodzky is over there. Mr. Buckley is up here. >> Yes. [clears throat] >> Uh thank you. Uh resolution.
>> Yeah, I'm going to start. I'll read him in 17-2025Z Anthony Frankenro design waiver and C variance. Mr. Buckley. Uh, this is a resolution approving a bulk variance approval for property known and designated [clears throat] as block 26035,
lot 117, also known as 492nd Street in Old Bridge, New Jersey, specifically as follows. Uh, the lot is an undersized lot where 7,500 square ft is required for the zone, but less exists. Therefore, the resolution grants bulk
variance approval to remove an existing deck along the installation along with the installation of a rear yard patio as well as connection along the right side of the property from the driveway to the uh to the ed to the garage. Actually, the
imposed improvements will bring a total minimum landscape area ratio to 40.02% 02% where a minimum of 45% is required. And finally, this resolution grants a design waiver for a driveway setback of
0 feet where 5T minimum is required. >> Board members, uh, you've heard the resolution read. Someone want to move it, please, for >> move it. Was Mr. Iso followed by Miss Andrews. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno. >> Yes. >> Miss Spanelli. Yes, >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes, >> Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. 19-2025Z Nathaniel Cruz design waiver. Mr. Buckley, >> this is a resolution approving a design waiver relief for property known and
designated as block 11250, lot 14, aka 259 Amboy Road in Madawan. specifically as follows. The applicant sought relief to permit the new proposed driveway onto Doyle Road at 39.5 ft from
the intersection of Doyle and Anthony roads where 50 ft is required. Design waiver relief is required and the applicant believes it is appropriate because the proposed location of the driveway is a better design alternative as it f allows for easier
maneuverability for entering and exiting the proper property onto Doyle Road. As a condition of the approval, the applicant stipulated that the driveway and property would not be used for commercial purposes. >> Board members, you've heard the
resolution. I'm going to ask someone to move it. Miss Andrews was opposed. So she would not vote on that. >> Someone want to move it? >> Is there a second? >> Second. Scognum. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno,
>> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. [snorts] >> 14- 2025Z. Richard Torado. That's a C and a D variance. Councelor. >> Uh, this is a resolution approving use
density and use uh, variance approval for property known and designated as block 400.13, lot six, also known as 29 Athens Avenue and South Amboy, specifically as follows. The applicant is proposing a second story addition to increase floor
area ratio to 46% where 35% is permitted. Uh it was the applicant's opinion that the variance relief could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good because he is essentially just adding on to his home to allow his family to continue to grow.
>> Thank you, Mr. uh Buckley. Someone want to move this for adoption, please? Is >> Gomez second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Benelli, [snorts] >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. Chairman Sullivan.
>> Yes. 25-25Z. It's Muhammad Sarhan. It's a C variance. Councelor, >> this is a resolution approving bulk variance relief for property known and designated as block 1065, lot 277.11,
also known as 277 Greenwood Drive in Keyport. Specifically as follows. The applicant is proposing to to legitimize the location of a shed, gazebo, and above ground swimming pool that were installed by the previous owner. When uh
the current owner purchased the property, he did not know the work was done without permits and now seeks to rectify that. In order to do so, he requires the following variances with respect to the 10 by 8 ft shed. Uh a
twoft rear yard setback where 3 ft is required. He also needs variance relief to permit the 10 by 12 ft gazebo and above ground pool to be located in the designated front yard of the property where said accessory structures are not permitted. Additionally, he requires
variance relief for the gazebo where two footy yard rear setback is proposed but 3 ft is required. He also needs variance relief for the existing patio which goes to the rear property line and a zero ft setback exists where 3 foot is required.
Finally, he requires variance relief from the permitted landscape area where 45% exists and 42.03% is permitted. >> Thank you, councelor. Board members, you heard the the resolution. Want to move it? >> Izzo, is there a second?
>> Gomez. >> Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. [snorts] Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. 30-2025Z Richard Luparillo C variance councelor.
>> This is a resolution appro approving bulk variance relief for property known and designated as block 15513 lot 569 also known as 28 Buttonwood Drive in Oldbridge specifically as follows. The applicant proposed to replace an
existing deck and landing. The new deck is proposed to be 1/5 of foot from the sideyard property line uh where 7 foot minimum is required and 1.5 ft from the re rear property line where 7 ft minimum is
required. Furthermore, improvements bring the total minimum [snorts] landscape area to 38.69% where a minimum of 55% is required. It's the applicant's belief that the request could be granted pursuant to C2 criteria
in so far as the benefits associated with the variance relief substantially outweigh the detriments. >> Once again, board members, you've heard the resolution. Someone want to move it, please. >> Is there a second? >> Andrews, Miss Andrews seconds. Roll call, please.
>> Miss Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. Uh 34-2025Z. It's Nicole Canisio C variance. >> Mr. Buckley.
>> This is a resolution approving bulk variance relief for property known and designated [clears throat] as block 15550 lot 173 also known as two Lewis Street and Old Bridge specifically as follows. The applicant is proposing to legitimize
a shed installed by the previous owner. The variance relief that she requires is to permit the accessor permit the accessory structure specifically the shed to be located in the front yard where accessory structures are not permitted. [snorts] It was her opinion that the variance relief could be
granted pursuant to C2 criteria in so far as the benefits associated with the relief requested substantially outweigh any detriment detrimental impacts to the town's master plan zoning ordinances or the neighborhood scheme. Board members heard the resolution. Move it for
adoption. Please >> move it. Scogn. >> Is there a second? >> ISO. Roll call, please. >> Miss Andrews. >> Yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogna, >> yes. >> M. Finelli? [snorts] >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan? >> Yes. And finally, under resolutions
37-2025Z. Uh, Nicholas Francisco. It's a C variance. >> This is a resolution approving bulk variance approval for property known and designated as block 3230, lot one. Lot 12.14, also known as 291 Gordon Road in Old
Bridge, New Jersey. Specifically as follows. rear yard setback of 16 foot where 25 foot is the required and to exceed the accessory building size of 600 feet where 1,24 square ft is permitted and to exceed the
maximum permitted building height of the accessory structure where 15 ft is permitted but 19 1/2 ft is proposed. >> Thank you. Uh board members someone move that for adoption please. ISO
>> second. Scogno >> moved in and second roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. >> Mr. Buckley, if you've had a chance to catch your breath, I'm going to ask you
to swear in the professionals for the evening. >> If all the professionals could please stand and raise your right hand, >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Thank you.
Uh we're going to take the two homeowner uh applications first. They're uh the last two on the agenda. Uh and I'm taking them in order. That's uh 39-2025Z. It's Charles Hagerty and Brook Weber. It's R30 low density zone. It's block
13003 lot one. Uh I'm sorry, lot 11. The physical location is 472 Tytown Road requiring a C variance. Applicant seeks to build an addition onto an existing home and rebuild the attached garage. before you go any further, sir, I'm going to ask the board attorney to put
you under oath. Okay. >> Okay. Can you raise your right hand for me? Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Thank you. Can you state your name and spell your last? >> Russell Weber. We der. >> Okay. Go ahead. You can be seated, sir.
Um, this is new to me. I don't I don't recall this ever happening before. So, I'm going to ask councel if if Mr. Weber represents himself as the uh father of one of the owners of of the home, would he be able to do this? >> Father-in-law of the other.
>> Did you enter a notice of appearance on this? >> Um, are you you're an attorney? >> I am in a building business. I I'm I'm the house is currently being um renovated. >> Okay. >> I am doing the work. >> Okay. Okay. And what what are your
professional qualifications? >> I'm a builder. I've been in in the building business here. Built at least 100 houses in Oldbridge alone. >> Okay. >> Over the last 47 years. >> This is uh 472 Ty Town. Do you live there? >> No. My my daughter and son-in-law.
>> Okay. Are you familiar? >> Are you familiar? How familiar are you with the property? >> I built the h I'm building the addition. I'm very familiar with the property. Yes. >> Okay. I'm the one that's been handling everything since >> since they uh acquired the house. >> Okay. So, you can testify as to the
appropriate building specs and and those things. >> Yes. >> But anything beyond that, >> correct? >> I don't think you'd be able to testify to. >> Well, um I just want >> planning and zoning. >> I want to explain the case and why we're here. >> Okay. >> And hopefully you guys agree with it.
>> Okay. If it's okay with the board, it's okay with me. >> Okay. If it's legally okay, I have no problem with it. board members. Anybody on my left have a problem with Mr. Weber representing his daughter and his son-in-law? >> All right. >> Okay, sir. The only thing we would be proofs you have to put on the record,
obviously. Uh what we normally say when a homeowner comes up, they're not usually represented by council or professionals. I just ask them to tell us the who, what, why, where, and when of the situation so the board can understand what you're doing, why you're doing it. Mr. Hollahan's a zoning officer here. I'm going to ask him why
you're here for a [snorts] variance. He'll explain that. Okay, >> we may have some questions of you. You may have some questions of the board. >> After you finish your testimony, I'm going to open a public portion, which I'm required to do. We'll see if anybody stands uh for or against >> or no one comes at all. I'll ask you
finally if you're going to ask me to take a v if you would ask you're going to ask me for a vote this evening. If for some reason you feel you haven't done sufficient and you have feel that there's you may lose the vote, uh you could probably ask the board for a continuence. Normally the board would be
uh uh in favor of allowing you to do so. So you can go go along at your own pace and we'll see what happens from there. Okay. Thank you for being here. >> Thank you. Um as I currently stated, the house now is um uh being renovated.
Addition is being put on the back of it. Originally when we put in for about a year ago, we had a onecar attached garage looking at the house on the lefth hand side. And because um of the combined sideyard setbacks, we didn't
meet the 40T even though we are within we are uh well within the left side 20 foot setback. Um long long time ago the house was subdivided even prior before the zoning
board was even was even in the works. Um I don't know if you guys have you do have the plane. On the right side of the house, we have 18'9 in the front and 9 foot3 in the back.
On the left hand side, we have 36.3 where the sideyard setback is supposed to be 20 foot. The right side, unfortunately, we can't do anything about it. That was done way before we were were even around. Um, but the left
side, we're still going to hold. So, we're going to continue the the left side 20 foot setback. We're not going to encroach on that at all. We're only going to put a 17 what we're proposing is a 17 foot singlecar garage
on the left side. But because of the combined 40 foot yard setback, that's why we're here in front of you now is for a for a variance for that, for a waiver for that. Um, do you want to do We're also in for a for a pole barn in the back. You want
to do one that the whole thing all together? Okay. [clears throat] >> All right. Um, the house as you can see in the plane there, there's an existing pole barn which is roughly 32 by 30 foot or or I should say a frame building uh which was
a garage, shed, whichever from previous owners. uh that is uh 32 by 35. Um we want to remove that and put a new one up that's safer. This one is is
demolished. It's it's was dangerous. It's caving in. It's unusable and unsafe. We want to put a new one in. Um what I what the the building department has now I believe it's 24 25 foot by 30 foot pole barn
which they have all the paperwork for and that's what we're that's what we're proposing uh now to to um uh take the place of the old existing dilopolated dangerous
that is there now. um that I I think the sideyard setbacks need to be 20, but the the the original one is 13 foot off the back right corner and 20 ft off the front right corner. We
would like to either put it on in the same pad, a new barn, old barn, or if we can move it back another 40T, we would like to do that also. Anything else for now, sir?
>> Um, no. >> Okay. >> So, the 32x35 is going to be demoed, right? Removed. >> Correct. >> You're going to replace it with 24 by 30. >> Correct. >> 720 foot.
>> Mr. Holland, >> Mr. Weber, just to confirm what Chairman Sullivan just said, I know there's an existing 32 by35. Your application was for a 24 by35. >> Okay. So I don't if that's what the application Yeah. I don't have that with
me. >> Is your intention to replace it with what you applied for the 20 the 24 by35 >> at this point? Yes. >> Okay. >> That's what we would like to do. >> Okay. So you're proposing a 24 by35 detached garage. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right.
>> And that's where the building department has the specs on that already. >> Okay. Y um chairman, I'll start with the addition. Um as Mr. Weber said, um I really don't have much to add, but it's a two-story addition. Um attached garage
on the first floor. It's 1,236 square ft. Um the only thing he doesn't meet is the combined sideyard setback. Um the proposes 30.3 feet where 40 minimum is required. Um he does meet the one sideyard setback at 20 ft, but
because of that existing non-conforming um 8 foot 9 foot setback on the right hand side, um he's unable to meet that combined sideyard. So it's that single C variance for the combined sideyard for the addition. Um as far as the proposed
detached structure or bullbar, we'll call it in the back. Um it is I believe you said 720 square ft where >> it's going to be 840, right? because it's 24 by 35. >> 24 by35 is 840. So the building is
proposed at 840 square ft where a maximum of 600 square f feet is required. So it's a bulk variance for building size. Um and Mr. Weber just to confirm the existing setback right now is 13 ft off the sideyard where 20 ft is required. You're proposing to keep that
existing sideyard >> if we could. Yes. >> Okay. >> The front the front right corner will be 20. So that will comply. Okay. Okay. >> But the back right corner is only 13 ft. Okay. >> So, if we could just take that and slide it back another 40 ft. >> Okay. So, I think chairman just kind of and Mr. Buckley just for the record. So,
the frame building in the back will be demolished. It will be replaced with a 24x32 uh by 12t high detached structure uh with a 13 ft sideyard where 20 ft is required and 840 ft where 600 square ft
is required. But one one thing if I could, we'd like to try to put a 14 by4 door in there because they have a camper >> and uh the maximum height for campers are 13 foot six. >> Okay. >> So, we'd like to be able to back the camper in there winter time if we had to
do repairs or something on it. So, we'd like to try to see if we can do a 14 by 14 door, which means we would have to go to maybe 19 20 foot high because with the pitch, >> okay,
>> it'll be roughly 4 foot of attic space, 16t ceiling height, which would give you roughly a 4 foot of attic space. >> Do you by any chance have plans available for that >> to have a to have a three a minimum of a three on [snorts] 12 pitch? No, I do not.
>> No. Okay. The board wouldn't consider the garage door itself. They would have to consider the variance for the height of the structure because 15 is the maximum and if at most he's proposing 20. Uh I will defer to Mr. Buckley if at this point we can just add on that variance request.
>> Uh at this point we could again we're just looking at the total height of the building the the garage door. I don't >> and now Miss Weber just to confirm the height by our definitions is from grade to the top of the ridge. >> Correct. Okay. And that >> just like with a regular house.
>> And that height we're saying is 24 is what he's asking for. >> 20. >> You're asking for 20. >> Yes. >> Not 21. >> No. If it winds up being 21, you got to come back. >> No. Well, you'd have you'd have a 14t high for it
to be 16t to the ceiling. I would need at least 20 feet to have a minimum of a three on 12 pitch. Okay. >> So 20 foot we can make it work. >> Okay. So, chairman, Mr. Buck, just for the record, for the detached structure in
the back, um, it would be three separate variance requests. The building size 840 ft, sideyard setback at 13 ft, and then the building height at 20 ft. >> And isn't there a combined? Uh, there's
no combined. The combined uh is okay. >> The combined is okay. the combined requirements just for the principal building. >> Okay. And so it's the right side, >> correct? >> Okay. >> 13. We're 20. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Let's see if the board has some questions for you. Okay. I'll start on
my left. >> We'll go right down. >> No. [clears throat] >> Microphone. >> Any electric going to be in the full bond? You will have like like to run a sub panel back there for you know garage door opener, lights, >> plumbing, >> plugs. No plumbing.
>> No plumbing. Thank you. >> Sir is up. You were looking [clears throat] to park an RV. >> No. Well, the RV will be mainly parked outside, but you know, if you wanted to pull it in to do work on it, the RV, you need at least uh 136 for for the highest
RV. So, that's why we're trying to stay with a 14 foot high garage. Well, if I'm I'm looking at that picture, how do you drive the RV back to the barn? >> Oh, there is there is an existing on the lefth hand side of the house. There's an existing driveway that goes back which
services the existing the old uh barn. There is a driveway down the left gravel driveway down the left hand side. >> So, it's not it's >> it's not depicted depicted on the plan. >> Not illustrated, right? And that's I'm not missing it. Right. No, [snorts]
>> but there is a there is a gravel driveway that's been >> And you have the room. >> Oh, yes. [snorts] >> Um, >> I'm good for now. >> All right. We know you're stuck with the one uh was a pre-existing uh setback,
right? Pre-existing. Okay. It was non-conforming. >> It's not being exacerbated and the building's actually being made smaller, >> but but taller. It's coming down in size, but u you having a second floor on it, >> did you say? >> Sec on on the new on the garage. >> Yeah.
>> Um Yes, there'll be in in the back. >> You can see where where the shape where like the the the lined area is >> on the back. That's like roughly 10 by 18 foot, which would be like an office for upstairs. >> Okay. An office. >> Mr. Weber, I think they're talking about
the pole bar. >> Yeah. Or the pole bar. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh, no. That's That's all just going to be just open. Yeah, >> just open. >> Yeah. >> Okay. No plumbing. You said just >> No plumbing, but we do want to put electric back there with a you know, a sub panel would have electric for outlets and lights. >> Very good. Mrs. Andrew,
>> no. [snorts] >> Council, you have anything for >> I don't have anything. >> And nothing else from you, Mr. Hollahan. Right. >> I just wanted to make a note to Mr. Weber. I know he did put on the record that he'd be storing the RV outside. >> Yes. I just want to make you aware that
we do have an ordinance section that limits outdoor storage of vehicles, specifically campers, to 5,000 lbs. I would assume that this vehicle is larger than 5,000 lb. So, if you want to store it on the residential property, you would have to keep it inside that pole
barn at all times. Just >> I didn't know that. >> For the record, [clears throat] >> that would take up the whole pole bar. [snorts] Can I make the pole barn bigger? [laughter] >> Uh, really? So, so when you drive down,
anybody that has RVs, they're they're not in compliance. >> If they're overd Yeah, I'm just telling you what the ordinance is. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. No, we'll we'll leave it as is. >> You noticed for the uh 24 by 35. So,
>> okay. Let's leave it. Right now it's at my they're keeping it at my house. >> Okay. >> I'm just want to get it out and get it back to their house. [laughter] >> Don't tell us where you live. >> Okay. I do live here in town. I live near my town all my life. >> Okay. Uh anything else you want to tell us right now?
>> I No. >> Let me go to a public portion now. >> More question. >> This is uh 39-2025 the physical location on this is 472 Tytown Road. It's a uh an addition existing
home and rebuilding uh the attached garage which is going to be demoed. Anyone here in the courtroom this evening wish to be heard? Please raise your hand. Come forward, sir. Going to need a microphone for >> you can take this one.
>> Do it right from there. We have a setup. [clears throat] >> Sure. Sir, this is a quasi judicial under undergoing. So, the board attorney has to swear you in because your testimony will be under oath. >> Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth
and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And can you state your name and spell your last? >> Jeffrey Panka. Pen ksa. >> Pen ksa. And your address? >> 498 Tytown.
498 Tytown. Okay. >> Mr. Penska, what you want to tell the board? >> Um, I'm the neighbor on the left side that's below their property. [clears throat] >> Mhm. >> Um, I've talked [snorts] to Mr. Weber a few times because we're neighbors
basically. And, uh, they did a great job read all the work they did to the house and the yard work. And I'm not too concerned what they want to do with their pole barn and this new addition. I just have a small concern to bring it up to the board now. It's right now if you
look at the driveway, it's it's going across the corner of my property. I just want to make sure that's it's will be on his property. That's all I need to know. I've talked to him about it. He's agreed. It's just that he says it's not on this print right now. >> Does that show on the survey?
>> No. >> Yes. Let me >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> So, this is >> Tytown Road here, which actually cuts through Mr. Weber's property um and the
neighbor's property here. I believe what he's talking about is this section of driveway here that is used to access this property but encroaches slightly onto his Is that correct? >> Correct.
>> Okay. And then Mr. Weber, are you okay? >> Yes. >> With realigning that driveway. >> Okay. >> We can make that. >> So, yes, it will be it will be realigned and that will not touch on to uh your neighbor's property. The driveway is going to be repaid, but it's not going
to be unfortunately it's not going to be repaid probably till spring. And it it's it'll it's going to be moved over finally when it's paid. And as of now, uh even though it's depicted on on the survey here, I don't believe we're using
it now. I think we're we're pretty much >> correct. It's just that it's drawn. >> So, you're agreeing to to to accomplish that? >> I am agreeing to accomplish that. >> Is that satisfactory to you? >> That's fine. We've discussed it before, but I just wanted to bring it up so it's finalized and we don't come back next year and say you didn't do it. You know, that's all. >> If the board acts in favor, that'll
become part of the resolution. >> Okay. >> I appreciate it. Thank you. >> Be a condition. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Anyone else here in the courtroom this evening wish to be heard on this matter. >> This is the last call for that. Public portion is now closed. It's back to you.
Final comments. >> I have no more comments unless anybody has any more questions. The board doesn't seem to have any. Um, I'll go around against again again if anybody wants to before uh I'm assuming you're going to call for a vote. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, if anybody has any questions,
now would be the time. [snorts] Nothing on my left. Nothing on my right. Counselor. >> Chairman, if I can just um if Mr. Weber agrees that there will be no commercial activity outside of that bullbar. >> No commercial activity. We agree to it. >> Thank you. It would only be used
personally if you're >> It's only going to be used personally >> washing it or whatever you need to do inside. Right. >> Correct. >> It's not going to be a mechanical shop. >> No. >> All right. >> Satisfactory. >> Yes. >> Council, we have two C variances, right? I'm sorry. Three. >> Three.
>> One. One for the pole the size of the pole barn where it's at 840 square where 600 is allowed. Uh one for the height for I believe it's going to be 20 where 15 is allowed. >> Mhm. And then the sideyard which is
13 with 20 required. >> Correct. >> All right. Everybody understand that? >> Can we take them as a bulk or do you want to do them separately? >> Yeah, we can take it. >> We'll do them do them as a bulk for three. Someone interested in moving them
for approval. >> Gomez, I move it for approval. >> Is there a second to Miss Gomez? >> Is there a second? Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes.
>> Miss Panelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> I'm in favor. Just make sure you take care of your neighbor. Okay. Make sure that gets straight. >> Okay. >> They're good people. >> You've re received an approval. There'll be a resolution available by the next meeting. >> Chairman,
>> I believe that's okay. >> I believe there was no vote on the combined sideyard for the addition. >> I thought you said three. Did I miss one? >> Four. Yeah. Four, >> three for the three for the pole bar and one for the house. >> Okay, >> we'll take that separate. >> Combined, what's the size, please?
>> So, the proposed is a combined of 29.39 ft. I'm sorry, I'm reading the wrong one. >> It's a proposed of 30.3 ft where 40 ft minimum is required for the combined sideyard for the addition. >> 40 point
>> for the addition of the pole bar. >> The addition. >> The addition. >> Yep. 30.3 where 40 is required, right? >> 40 required. >> All right. Board's combined side, right? Someone want to move that? >> I'll move it. Go. >> Is there a second? >> Is there move in a second? Roll call,
please. As to the combined, >> Mrs. Andrews. I'm good. Yes. Thank you. >> All right. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez,
>> yes. Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. Now you're good. Resolution by the next meeting. Okay, sir. Thank you. >> Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. >> Thank you for being here. >> Okay. The uh second one we have is 41-205Z uh Nancy Low. This is zone R12, medium
density. Uh block 17011, lot 4, physical location 16 Schindler Drive North. This applicant is proposing to replace an existing deck and construct a sun room. Requires C variance.
Who's ever going to be testifying? Okay, you can come forward. Could we have the second microphone placed over there? Okay, you're Nancy Low. >> Hello. Hello. >> And this gentleman is >> my husband. >> Is my >> Okay. My wife.
>> All right. The board attorney will swear you in. Are you both going to be testifying? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> One at a time, can you state your name and spell your last? >> My name is Eddie Cho. Spell your last
name. >> C H E U N G. >> All right. And >> I'm Nancy Low. My last name is Low L O. >> Common spelling on Nancy. N A C Y. >> Uh >> N A N C Y. >> Nancy Y. Yes. N. [snorts]
>> You can both be seated. >> I would ask you talk directly into the microphones like I am. Um Okay. So that the TV can pick you up and we're properly recorded. As I told the applicant before you, what the board needs to hear is the who,
what, the why, the where uh of what you're doing, why you're doing it, and how you're accomplishing that. >> If you have any exhibits, and I see [snorts] you do, I'm going to ask you to give them to Miss Porchelli. >> Yes. >> Who will wind up letting the board when it's appropriate time, the board will
board attorney will look at them and to see and then the board may accept that as evidence. Uh, I'll go to uh Mr. Halahan. He's going to tell us why you're here for a variance. Once again, you may have questions. We may have questions. I
still have to open up a public portion after your testimony. You can decide whether or not you want to ask me for a vote tonight and the panel will uh take a vote or if you wish for a continuence, we'll seek a continuence from the board. Okay. So, you can start right ahead.
So, um, the reason why we want to apply for the variance is because we just moved into this house a year ago. And when we bought the house, we know the deck was in bad shape. Um, but we couldn't do it. We couldn't do anything
until after we moved in. And so, after we moved in, we actually have someone looked at the deck and it was built by, I think, the previous owner about 30 years ago. He he lived there for for uh about 40 years. So the deck definitely
need to be replaced. It was in a very bad condition, very unsafe. Um but since we moved in, we feel like like since last summer, we feel like we were able to use it in the summer, but not during the winter and kind of a waste because
it has a lot of sun in that spot and and also there's a lot of bees and mosquitoes. So we decided we instead of just replace with a deck, we want to replace with a partial sun room like covered it so we can use it all year
long and then also a small deck. And we didn't really know that um there's so many rules and regulations. But then now we need to apply for the variance in order to go ahead. Okay. >> Um, another reason why we wanted to have
a sunroof instead of rebuilding the deck is uh it's more more to do with health and safety reasons. Um, I'm not sure if you guys are aware that um we live in Foxboro Village and our neighborhood our
neighborhood has a has a cat problems. Um, there are a lot of straight cats here and um I I' I've seen pictures of of take I've taken pictures of cats, you know, sleeping on my lawn chairs and and I have to scoop away cat poop
[clears throat] on the deck and so that that makes it a little bit of a of an issue because, you know, having I love animals, but just not in not not on the deck. I mean having to scoop up poop and and and throw ups is it's not my idea of
you know you know they can roam outside all they want but uh just down the deck. So that's one of the one of the other reason why we want to have a sun instead of rebuilding demolish the current deck [snorts] and re building an existing deck. So >> understood. What's the size of the deck?
Is it going to be the same size of the one that's there or are you using part of the sun room that would cover some of that area? This part of the deck will be covered as a sun room and the other part will be the deck. So, it's basically the same >> area the location. I think it might be
like one foot or two foot little bit out, but it's basically the same uh area. >> You had some pictures you wanted to show the board. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Can you get them? >> Yeah, sure. >> Thank will give them to the board attorney. He'll he'll view them to see.
You don't have to say anything yet. He's going to wind up asking about I mean if in addition to the pictures we have do we have the inspection report? >> We can also furnish you guys inspection report. >> Just by looking at the picture they can see
>> that will give you an >> if you guys need it we can we can furnish that. I see six pictures here. Did you guys take these pictures? >> And when did you take the pictures? >> Just recently. >> And it was you >> this summer. >> Nancy. Was it you who took the pictures?
Uh, no. My contractor, he helped to take some pictures, but I also have the inspection also have pictures if you want to see it. >> Okay. And these the pictures depict how the >> the deck looks today. >> Yes. Okay. And it was uh this summer we
took it. >> Okay. >> Like recent come down. >> Basically the beam is is in is in bad shape. >> See that? Yeah. Uh, >> so either way, we need to have the deck replaced. >> I understand your concerns. Yeah.
>> While we have while we have those, >> uh, I'm going to ask Mr. Hollah, let him take a look and then [snorts] I'm going to ask him why you need a variance. >> Ready, >> Mr. Holland? Thank you. Um yes, so the app is here tonight seeking a C variance
for the rear yard setback for the proposed sun room. Um so there's an existing deck there. Um I believe you guys are demolishing the deck, rebuilding a portion of it with a sun room and then the other portion as depictked on the plans with a deck. Um so the overall size of the structure
that's currently there is not changing. Um but that rear yard setback that is proposed at 29.39 feet uh to the sun room um is deficient where 45 ft minimum is required. >> That's rear yard. >> Rear yard. Yes.
>> And the uh sun room uh I see it's got an A-frame roof on it, >> right? It's going to have a >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. Yes. I I do want to note just for the board, I'll point you guys over to the left.
This dotted line here is the setback require. It's it's the rear setback line. The existing building encroaches into the rear yard setback because this is a roofed structure. It has to comply with the setback of the
principal building. So that is why they need this variant. So the deck exists here, but it's uncovered. So it has different setbacks and it meets the requirement. Once they cover this portion, it has to meet the 45 from the rear yard property line.
>> So that gray portion you're you're pointing to, that's the sun. >> Yes. So this portion here is the sun room. This portion here is the going to be the newly constructed deck. >> Oh, that this structure as a whole
exists currently as a deck. I have nothing further. >> Thank you. Um, what's going on inside the sun room? What are you going to do? Put electric? >> Yeah, there'll be electric. No plumbing. >> Lighting. You want >> lighting? >> Lighting. Yes. >> Fan plumbing. >> No plumbing.
>> No plumbing. It's just Yeah, just for family to use. >> Why did you do an A-frame? Just out of curiosity. >> Um, it's just we >> just want a little bit higher to have more sun coming in. So, >> uh, I'm going to go to my left and see if anybody here in the board has
questions about this application. >> I believe you live in an HOA community. Is that correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> Do you have a letter of intent from the HOA? >> Yes, I do. >> Do we have that on file? >> Did you submit that? >> Yes, >> we have that. >> Has it? Yes. >> I didn't see it. Yep. >> Did you see it?
>> There's no uh >> look at it. Yeah, I didn't I didn't see the pack. just if they're in agreement. >> Uh I'll read into the records from uh it's to the Elich Township Planning Zoning Board reference 16 Shindler Drive North Lo Chung uh to whom it may
concern. This letter will address the variance application for the structure at 16 Schindler Drive North. The association has article 10 of the restrictive covenants which indicates a unit owner must conform to any setback lines established by the original subdivision. The covenant does not does
give the unit owner the discretion to seek a variance. So the association would defer to the township on any variance application. There are no prohibitions in the governing documents as to placing a structure in the backyard of a single family home as long as it conforms to the township board in
in construction code that's signed by the uh HOA board of trustees uh Jennifer Dolan it looks like for Carolyn Holligan or something uh the property manager. >> Yes. Yes.
>> This is the property manager and this was given to you. >> Yeah. She said she can sign for the board president. That's what she told >> Keep those part of the documents, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, what's other? >> I guess they're in agreement. >> Yeah. >> Anything else, Mr. Scott? Mr. Good. No.
>> Uh, I have nothing. Mrs. Andrews. >> And Mr. Holland, did we cover everything? And I'm going ask counselor if he has any questions. >> I have nothing further. >> Is the total square foot the same? The applicants didn't seem to be sure. the footprint,
you know, the total square foot of the deck with the sun room on it. >> So the outline, so the existing deck footprint is going to be rebuilt to its footprint. This portion is going to be with a sun room. This portion will be
built with a new deck. Is that correct, Mrs. Love? >> Yeah, it's just to replace. >> So the act the footprint of the deck now is going to be rebuilt. Just part part of it's going to be a sun room. Okay. Thank you. Does that sound correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> And Mr. Buckley, anything else?
>> Uh, no. >> You have anything else you want to tell us right now? >> Because I'm I have to go to a public portion. >> Oh, no. That's all. Thank you. >> Okay, then. This is 41-2025Z. The physical location here is 16 Schindler Drive North. This is for a deck and a sun room. Uh, they're going
to replace an existing deck. They're going to take that down and construct a sun room and and deck. Do I have that correct? >> Correct. Anyone here in the courtroom please wants to speak on this matter. Please raise your hand or stand. >> This will be the only public portion for this matter. Seeing none and close the public
portion. >> Anything else you want to tell us? No. >> No. >> Uh would you like me to ask the board for a vote? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Uh once again, councelor, this is just for the rear yard setback. Uh 29. It's going to be a 29.39
where 45 is required. >> That's what I have. >> Just want to check with Mr. >> Is that one more? >> It's just for the rear yard setback. >> That's correct. Yes. >> And it's uh 29.39 where 45 is required.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Board members, someone in favor of uh moving this application. >> Andrew, >> this is Andrews moves for approval. Is there a second? ISO. >> Mr. Rizzo seconds. Roll call, please. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes.
>> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> yes. >> M. Spinelli. >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. >> You'll get a resolution at our next meeting, which is December 8th, I think, or >> December 4th. >> Fourth. December 4th. >> You don't have to come, though.
>> You don't have to come. >> I'll send it to you. Okay. Thank you so much. >> And you have to if there's any permits permitting required, you have to do that through the through the township. Okay. >> Okay. Somebody have the pictures and here's the uh here's the letter of intent too
>> which I actually do have a Thank you very much for appearing. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Enjoy the holiday. >> You too. Enjoy the holiday. >> Once they clear the next one up, we're going to take the uh 41-2024Z. That's here.
That's block 24204 lot 36. The physical location is 127 Courtridge twotory edition in deck. Larry Saxs representing the applicant. This is a CND variance. This is a continuation. Uh applicant proposes twotory edition the rear of the existing home and a deck over an
existing patio. Mr. Saxs. >> Yes. Uh good evening Mr. Chairman. Uh members of the board professionals. Lawrence Saxs on behalf of the applicant Zahire Hussein. Uh we were back here I believe in September. Uh and at that time we had uh provided testimony from
[clears throat] our professional planner uh Colleen McGherk. And uh at the conclusion of that hearing some questions came up about uh first of all some discrepancy between the survey and the architectural plans. And secondly uh
I think it was an issue raised by uh vice chairperson Chevier who's not here this evening but she came up with a good point. Is there any way that we could increase the distance from the proposed addition to where the conservation easement is located and also if we could
consider reducing the footprint of the house. So, uh we went back to the drawing board. Uh first of all, we did reconcile the issues uh between the survey and the architectural plans. Uh we reduced uh the footprint of the
house. Um and as a result we also reduced the F. Uh the F I think being requested was almost 22 and we reduced it down to.19. Uh 0.17 is the uh zone requirement. Uh
we also increased the landscape area ratio uh by reducing the footprint of the house. Uh and we also uh reduce the impervious coverage even though we didn't need a variance for imperous coverage. Uh so essentially uh the plan that you have on the screen uh shows a
reduction in the uh in the depth of the uh proposed addition uh from 16 ft uh to 14 1/2 ft on one side and 13 ft on the other. Um the discrepancy regarding the survey and the architectural plans dealt
with I think a mistake made by the surveyor where he showed steps and a patio being within the conservation easement and that was not the case. There's actually a recessed staircase here. So uh you know with that said we we obviously the recommendations made by
uh Miss Chevier and also by Miss Sant uh to at least provide a little bit more of a buffer between the conservation easement and the end of the house I believe have been accomplished. Um >> do you know what the number came down in the L?
>> I know the L the existing L uh is.80 80. Uh the L requirement in the zone is 085. So actually when the house was built, it didn't it didn't uh comply with the L. Uh it's a slight increase in L because
we're picking up some green space. >> Metropanics estates didn't didn't comply. >> Didn't comply. Uh I would it's probably a 1% increase I would think. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> In the right direction. >> In the right direction. Correct. >> Anything else, sir, Mr. Saxs? No, that's
that's it. Mr. Chairman, >> let me see. Uh, Miss Sant. >> So, uh, thank you board. Thank you, chairman. Um, the applicant after one of my concern was that, uh, the steps had their landing within the conservation
easement. So, uh, and plus the F seemed to be significantly higher than, uh, some of the homes in the neighborhood. Uh, Mr. Sachs met with us um with Danny and myself. Uh [snorts]
there has been revisions to the floor plan. Um the building footprint was reduced such that there is like a three-foot buffer which I had requested from the conservation easement. the uh
stairs have been redesigned to move them away from the conservation easement and as a result um so the existing home is 3,662 square ft. The proposed addition uh now
is 1,356 square ft. So the total uh square footage of the uh house with the addition is 5,18 square ft which translates into
98 as the F. So the previously proposed F was 0.22. So there's a significant change there. uh with the landscape area ratio the landscape area ratio has uh gone down to
0.79 instead of8 so that that is the one uh% but uh overall um I think uh they've made a lot of attempt to revise the
floor plans um Danny and I had no further questions I didn't think it was necessary to update the review memo because I to personally be there for the hearing. So, I think I'm good. >> All right. Thank you, M. [snorts] And
thank you, councelor, and and your team for uh for bringing the matters uh back to the board uh in in a favorable position. And I think Miss Chevier, who couldn't be here tonight, uh you've [snorts] I think settled what uh she had
in mind and what the board was questioning, uh particularly the way that it was situated. So everything went in the right direction. Let's see if there's any questions. I'm going to start on my left miss. >> No, I'm good. >> Spinelli. No, >> sax. Uh, did we clear up the
conservation area? They can use it. They can't you Yeah. So they they can use it, but they can't obviously build any structure within that conservation. >> Use it like what? >> Uh, they could use it for passive recreation. They could sit there if they want. They could hike there. Um, you
know, the the property is a fairly large lot. It goes back quite a distance, but you just can't >> set up a gazebo. >> Uh, well, that would be a structure. No, we can't put a structure, >> but they're not permanent structures. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But you could put a certainly you could put a lawn chair there if you want to in that area. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah, >> Mr. Rizzo. >> No, sir. >> Okay. I have nothing. I've already made my comments. Mrs. Andrew, >> there was some there was some question with regarding um if there is no HOA and are there any detention basins and if
they are there who's taking care of them >> that I can't answer. >> I don't think can I can I interrupt? I don't think it is related to this particular lot as such. >> Brought that up. So, I I did do some
research after the last meeting. The resolution when the subdivision was done said that there was supposed to be an HOA established. There never was. The homeowners have kind of created their own HOA, but there is no official HOA for this development. So,
I'll defer to Mr. Buckley, but I'm I would be okay with I think the board proceeding without an HOA letter because there is there is no official HA. If there's nothing on paper then there wouldn't be anybody to issued a letter. So I'd be okay with that. >> Yeah. And I believe even this has come up in the past when it comes to uh
management of basins and sidewalks and stuff like that and there is no HOA. That is my recollection. >> That is your recollection? >> Yes. >> There was also a question of where was the water going to flow? Uh well actually I think if you look at the uh
topography of the property uh it actually pitches away from the house and into the conservation easement and that's how it was designed. So yeah if you look at the uh if you look at the elevations uh you go from 62 in the front to 58 in the back and I'm sure it even goes lower
than that. >> Okay. Also was mentioned u the basement wasn't included in the square footage. It was supposed to be used only for storage. There could be nothing else used. >> Yeah. And there's no walk out basement that is not included in the square footage. That's correct. >> So could that be part of the resolution
that the basement can only be used for for storage? >> Well, the basement is not being finished. Um certainly if they decide to finish it, they could certainly apply for a permit, but uh >> but I believe we changed the definition of the floor area where basements are
exempt from the floor area. So I think it's not fair to restrict a res homeowner from using his own basement especially there used to be a time uh when our floor area ratio uh definition
was um used to require basement if it's finished then it has to be included in floor area ratio but couple of years ago I believe it was like almost seven or eight years ago the because there were so many homeowners coming back to the
zoning board. The council made that uh that change and I was the one who authored the definition. But now a finished basement is also excluded from the floor area ratio. So whether they finish it or not, how they use it is
completely up to the home owner. >> So if you put another kitchen and another bathroom in, that's okay. >> No. So yeah, >> that's a finished basement. So the definition of my home >> the definition of a dwelling unit includes living facility sorry bathroom
facilities and cooking facilities a combination of both. If they wanted to finish the basement with one or the other they could um they wouldn't require an additional devariance from the board because like Vina said the finished area of a basement doesn't count towards the floor area of the
existing dwelling. So they could finish the basement. They could technically put a kitchen down there as long as they don't have bathroom facilities. Vice versa, they can put bathroom facilities as long as they don't have a kitchen. >> Okay. So, but then would it be considered a part of a living space? Would it then count the amount? If they
put in it's a completely different ballgame then because if you have a kitchen and a bathroom then it is technically a new dwelling and then they would have to come back to the zoning board because then it becomes uh a
accessory dwelling unit or a two family home. So uh they would have to come back to the board. However, they could choose to put just a bathroom in the basement or they could choose to put in an additional kitchen uh island but not a
bathroom. They cannot have both. If they put in [snorts] both then it's a dwelling unit >> and that's a standard for all the homes in Oldbridge. Now if somebody has done that illegally um then it's a different
story but otherwise the board or the zoning office does not allow uh any home to have a kitchen and a bathroom. >> Sorry I didn't live in the time [laughter] a finished basement >> and with that explanation I don't think
it would be appropriate that a condition. >> All right. Uh, anything else, Mr. Saxs? >> No, that's it, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. I'm going to go to the public on this >> 41.
>> Yeah. 41- 2024Z. Uh, physical location here is 1270 Court. Anyone want to be heard on this matter, please raise your hand or stand. Once again, this will be the only public portion. If you have something to say, please do it now. I see none. I'll close
the public portion. Final comments, Mr. Saxs. Henny. >> No, I think uh Mr. Chairman, I think you hit the nail on the head. We you know, we obviously listened to the comments from the last hearing and and did our best to >> We did it a few times, but we got it we got it right. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Well, thank you for your cooperation. Uh board members, there's
two votes here, council, right? An F and then a C variance for the land landscape barrier ratio. >> Correct. The the F is at is at one.1 198 where 17 is max right I have that correct
>> 17 is required the existing is.155 and the proposed is.198 >> if uh the F passes uh then we'll move on to the bulk you Why don't you sit moving the D4 for the floor area ratio? >> ISO.
>> Is there a second? >> Roll call, please. As the D4, >> Mrs. Andrews, >> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> yes. >> M Spinelli, I'm sorry. Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan,
>> yes. Now, as to the uh landscape area ratio, someone want to move that for a cence. >> Is there a second to Mr. Oo, >> second. >> I have a second. >> Roll call, please. >> I'm sorry. Who is the second? >> Oh, sorry. >> Miss Andrews,
>> yes. >> Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Saxs. And and the applicants. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. Seeing you. >> Enjoy the upcoming holiday, sir.
>> You, too. Same time. [clears throat] All right, final application for the evening. Go ahead. You want a break? Sure. Get set up. Uh just a quick bathroom trip and uh we'll go in recess less than
just say five minutes, but we're going to I'd ask everybody to come back as soon as possible. We've returned. >> We've returned from uh a short recess. Uh Miss Pchelli, could you call the role, please? >> Mrs. Andrews, >> present.
>> Mr. Iso, >> here. >> Mr. Scogno, >> here. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Chairman Sullivan, >> here. >> Mr. Buckley, >> here. >> Mr. Halahan here. >> All right, we have our final application
for this evening. This is 63-2024Z 1103 Route 35 LLC. This is R5 uh zone medium highdensity residential. It's block 24, lot 0. Physical location is 113,
I'm sorry, 1103 Highway 35 uh here in the township. The uh applicant is seeking to appeal the zoning officer's denial uh dated 10724 of a zoning zoning permit to establish a gentleman's club.
>> Rick Broad uh Broaddsky is representing. Sir, this is a continuation. Correct. >> Yes. Uh thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Rick Broaddsky on behalf of the applicant 11:03 Route 35. as [clears throat] excuse me as the chair indicated um this is a continue hearing
going back from June uh wherein uh I I believe both most of the board members were here that evening um and uh you uh heard a good deal of testimony uh with regard to the utilization of the
existing site um as the adult entertainment uh facility going back to you know decades than to the early 90s. Um but um and uh I don't want to repeat everything of
course and in fact we did get a transcript uh of the last hearing um which Moren was kind enough to distribute to everyone so [snorts] that uh if any were not here you could hear it and those who were here could
refresh. for the record counts. I believe uh Mrs. Spanelli did sign a statement that >> Oh, right. Miss Spinelli. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. Great. And so um but I think um so and as the chair indicated, we're here
for um an appeal of the zoning officer's determination denying the continued uh certificate of occupancy, the continued operation of this uh [snorts] um uh uh business, this adult entertainment
business that has been ongoing, like I said, since uh early 90s. Um I do think that it's probably helpful due to the passage of time uh that I do just sort of you know reiterate and maybe summarize what was uh presented
last time what was by by by virtue of the facts and also the applicable law because I think it's important and frankly when I started preparing for this I didn't remember what happened last time. So I I I'm sure it's [snorts] a it's a tough recall going back six
months ago. In any event, so so just to clarify, I think we're we're here on a on a fairly limited issue. Um and so we're we're we're usually uh or often times uh an appeal is based on a of a
zoning officer's determination is based on an interpretation. For example, a zoning officer says, "Hey, your proposed use is not permitted in the zone." And the applicant says, "Oh, I think we are permitted." And then
that goes to the board here. It's uh it's there's no question that the that the use that has existed since 1990 is not a is not permitted. It's not permitted in the R5 zone. It's residential zone. However, it is a uh
the applicant's position is that it is a pre-existing non-conforming use that has operated and existed from that time. Um and as such um there uh you heard
testimony last time um as set forth uh as you saw in in the transcript when you reread it. Um the the testimony was given by the prior owner of uh of the business uh Mr. Spolero, the principal
of which was Mr. Sperero. And Miss Mr. Spero Spolero went into great detail uh with regard to the operation of the business leading up to the change of uh ownership to the existing owner. and he
went through in in in great detail um uh about all of the uh about the operation when he first took over in 2022 when he acquired the bis the ongoing business from uh family members. um bring it all
bringing it all the way up through uh the fall of 2024 uh when the applicant 11:03 Route 35 the principal of whom of which is Jonathan Olen who's here with us this evening as well uh uh closed on and acquired both
the business and the property. Um uh and what you heard last time from Mr. Spolero as the owner from 2022 until the sale in 2024 were the details of the ongoing nature
of the business. Um, and that is um when he first took it over and I'm summarizing here, it was all testified to last time. I don't want to waste the board's time in in in repeating, but it was all testified to about those details. When he first took over in
20122, he operated it exactly the same as it had been uh operated for since 1990, those three and a half decades. At some point in 2023, you heard that uh Mr.
Spolero's testimony was that he made a business decision to um scale back the operation and change it a bit to go [snorts] to rather than being open daily uh to be open only for appointment only for private parties. Same use, same
adult entertainment use, same building, um same food, same alcohol. Um, and he went into uh a lot of detail about all of that. And then he went into a lot of detail about um
uh all of the things that he did in continuing the operation of the business, ordering liquor, paying utility bills, paying uh for his and keeping and maintaining his food license, uh paying for and maintaining
his liquor license. um uh advertising the business as as as an ex as as as an existing ongoing uh adult entertainment business uh as Jersey Girls um uh on the
website. Uh signage at the site saying private parties um and and all of those things. maintaining a fully stocked bar, uh maintaining the property. And if the
board will recall, we had submitted and I it was marked as A1 uh and attached to uh our letter brief uh setting forth the law was a series of exhibits which set forth documentation
about all of those all of those items. Um we we attached the liquor license. We attached um uh the contracts for the private parties going through 2024 when uh uh uh when he had made the
decision to change uh uh the intensity of the operation, the maintenance work that I I referenced, the fire inspections and utility payments. Uh and we we attached all of those as exhibits. It's on the record. You guys, you guys
have that. So, I'm not going to [snorts] go into that any further unless, of course, the board has has any questions. Um, and so that was kind of the factual testimony that took up the, you know, the majority of the hearing last time.
But I also want to real brief sort of recap the applicable law. that is what is the law that should be applied by you as board members um you know uh in analyzing whether or not this this
pre-existing non-conforming use had been abandoned, right? Because that's what it comes down to. We have the zoning officer who issued u um uh a determination that the use had been abandoned. Now, under the law in New
Jersey, um it's it's pretty clear and it's outlined, I think, pretty well as clearly as we could in the brief. Uh so, we looked to two we looked to three places, right? We looked to the municipal land use law. We looked to the case law that interprets the mun
municipal land use law, and we looked to your local zoning ordinance here in Albridge, which all of which we cited. And what the law says um is, as I said, very clear. The law in New Jersey is very protective of a pre-existing
nonconforming use, right? It's a valuable right that is not uh uh uh abandoned lightly because if it's abandoned, can't use it for that use anymore without coming back to this
board for and starting over for a D1 variance. So in order uh for a pre-existing non-conforming use such as this which existed going back to the early 90s, the law says what has to be
established, what has to be proven, what has to be indicated is a two factor uh a two factor. two factors that are components of what must be established to take away that valuable right of a
pre-existing non-conforming use. One is an intention to abandon, right? An intention to abandon, meaning, and you see from the case law that's in the brief, um it's not equivocal, it's not
vague. There has to be a demonstrable intent to from by the owner of that pre-existing nonconforming property right use to [snorts] say I'm no longer going to ever use it for that use again.
I'm going to use it for something else. I'm going to change it to a restaurant. I'm going to change it to a a clothing store. I'm going to change it to a gym. Um and so uh unless there is a showing of an of a clear and unequivocal intent
to abandon that right remains. That right remains. Now we had a continued use here. Right? We had the use continued right up until it was conveyed till 24 in the form of
uh at the end the private parties for the adult entertainment. But um the way the law is and the case law interpreting it is um even if there had been no activity um as long as there wasn't an
an intent to abandon that use the use remains in place the use remains uh unabandoned if you will. So, for example, someone could decide, I want to go on vacation for a week, a month, a
year, six months. Um, and I'm closing the business. Uh, I'm not abandoning it. I'm not giving it up forever. Um, or I want to close the business because, um, I'm sick, I'm retiring, I'm doing
other things, whatever that may be. I'm going to market it for sale. But the closing of the business uh is not the end or all is not the determination of an intent to abandon. It has to be
much more significant than that. This so we need the intent to abandon the second prong and it's an and not an or. So you have to show an intent to abandon and you have to be able to show
an overt act or failure to act which carries a sufficient implication that the owner neither claims nor retains any interest in the subject matter of the abandonment. Again similar concept. You got to not only
show that they uh did something to not not only that they had an intent to abandon and never use it for that use again. You had to you'd have to show some overt act that demonstrates that. Um [snorts] here we submit and as as as
the board heard uh uh from Mr. Spolero's testimony, there was never any intent, much less any overt act showing that he never wanted to use this as a as an u um adult entertainment use. In fact, and one of the things I haven't mentioned
yet is that at some point in uh during his ownership 23 2023 2024, he marketed the property and the business for sale as an ongoing um uh adult entertainment business. He
hired a broker to do that who was who advertised the property as an ongoing business, an ongoing uh adult entertainment business. And so all of that in Disha was all testified to last
time. Uh and um I do also we did also hit as while we're on the law and I'll finish up in a minute. Um we also as I said from the outset we looked we look to the zoning ordinance here in
Oldbridge as well. Um and you know lo and behold what we find is that which is should be the case is that uh uh the or the the language in the old bridge
ordinance mimics that of the state law and it says that um uh a non-conforming use shall be deemed to be abandoned where there is an intention to abandon and an external act or omission to act
by which such it intention is carried into effect. Now there is language also in the uh ordinance here in Oldbridge which adds to the state law I would say. It says it
shall be primmaaccia evidence that a non-conforming use has been abandoned when there occurs a total sensation total sessation of such use for a continued period of at least one year.
And as you heard last time and as we set forth in the brief, uh a there was never a total sessation of the use. Um there was never an intention to abandon
uh this use forever. There was never a total cessation of it. It changed in in changed in intensity. It changed in frequency, but it continued as the adult adult uh entertainment use that it has
been going back the the the the decades back to u Jersey girls back in 1990. So, and what's interesting and what I think I I if maybe some of you have and I had I looked it up myself. I didn't
quite remember from my law school days in that language which says primmaaccia evidence that a nonconforming use has been abandoned is where there's total cessation. Primmaaccia evidence means
that that is enough evidence uh uh um that there is some enough indication to assert the claim. That is okay. It looks as though I have primapaccia evidence that it seems like the use was uh there
was a total cessation of the use. It's not dispositive. It just simply means that is absolutely rebuttable can be disproved by the actual facts. And that's by definition is is is primopacia. So I would submit to you
that not applicable here because we had the continuation of use. But even if this business had been closed uh during the entire time complete there was a total cessation of the business during
the entire time uh whether it be for 6 months, 8 months, a year or more. It still would not indicate an intention to abandon and it would not uh satisfy an
overt act uh signifying or demonstrating the the uh uh intent to abandon. All of the evidence that you heard and all of the testimony is completely inconsistent with an intent to abandon. If you
abandon a business and you want to walk away and never operate that business again, uh you don't maintain your liquor license, you necessarily you don't uh you know continue to have uh adult entertainment parties. You don't
continue to have your food license renewed every year. You don't continue to have your fire inspections paid for uh inspected and approved. All of those things are absolute completely inconsistent with either an intent to
abandon or an avote an overt act pursuant to that intention to abandon. So, uh, sorry I took up a little time in just recapping, but I thought it might be useful, um, so we all understand, um, you know, um, what, uh, the board's
mission here is and what the law is that the that the board members should be applying, uh, when they, um, uh, view and analyze the zoning officer's determination, um, that the use had been abandoned. Um,
and then just to finish off, in fall of 2024, the applicant before you this evening purchases the business from Mr. Spero's entity. He purchases the business. He purchas He purchases the real estate, purchases the business, he
purchases the goodwill, he purchases the liquor license. All as it had been marketed and all as set forth in the contract that you have before you as an ongoing business, not a vacant building that had ceased to operate. On the
contrary, continued to be ongoing, continued to be uh um uh the same use, albeit um less frequent than the uh pre-existing non-conforming use of the
adult uh entertainment business. Um after closing uh uh the applicant received uh a notice from the zoning officer indicating that you this use had been abandoned and therefore is it after closing had been
abandoned and therefore uh you you you have to close and you can't operate this business that you paid for. Um and that brings us here. So that brings us here requesting that the board um apply apply
the applicable law and um um your attorney can correct if if he dis disagrees with any of my um uh uh explanations and description of the applicable law. Um so what I intended to
do tonight was so Mr. Spolero on behalf of the prior owner who I think it was we thought it was mostly his his testimony was the most important because the indication was from the zoning officer that the use had been abandoned during
uh Mr. Spero's entity's uh ownership of the uh of the business prior to it being sold uh to the current owner. So um we went through all that testimony. I have with me Mr. scalero back because the
board had requested one one item. We requested pretty much all of the documentation that we had that we thought was relevant as I mentioned in my opening remarks. Um uh um but um one
thing that was mentioned was uh the liquor license uh I'm sorry the liquor bills that were incurred uh to uh um get the liquor that was used for um during during the ownership of Mr. Spolero uh
including when it went to the private parties. And we have those. And I'm gonna ask uh I'm gonna ask if we could just have those marked. I think we only had one exhibit marked, Mr. Buckley, last time as A1.
Uh and that was the brief uh that we had prepared which had a number of subexhibits, if you will, to it. >> Yeah, that's the June 4th >> June 4th, 2025. That's the June 4th,
2025 uh letter brief. Um and then when uh we submitted that as A1 and then that had attached to it uh exhibits A through N and we we marked it that's it and we marked it as uh subexhibits
>> uh to A1. So um what I'd like to do is um you have A2 in front of you. What I'd like to do is have um uh we can get Mr. Spero up here and just to complete his testimony for purposes of entering
>> has a sticky. >> Oh yeah, let me see that. >> We marked them as all as A2. >> And just so the record's clear, A2 is not included in A1. That's correct. These are separate exhibits. >> That's correct. That was a request that was made I think by the chairman at the
last at the last hearing. Um after that, Mr. Chair, I have with me uh I had mentioned in my remarks earlier that um it was the the broker who who marketed and end up being the procuring
cores of the sale. um uh just to give the board his perspective uh in terms of what was happening at the property, how it was being marketed, and how it was ultimately uh sold, Mr. Gillith. And
then um lastly, I have uh uh the current owner, Mr. Olan, here just for some brief testimony on about his acquisition uh of the property. So, unless the board has any questions, um, what I'd like to do is have Mr. Spolero, I guess, Reese
Warren. >> It's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> And can you state your name and spell your last? >> First name is Anthony. Last name Spolero. S P A L L I E R O. >> Okay. Uh, thanks. >> Uh, let me just identify myself.
>> Oh, sure. Sorry. >> My name is attorney John Hogan. uh will offer from Mens and Spitzer Woodbridge, New Jersey on behalf of 1103 Lawrence Harbor Corporation, which was the property owner under Mr. Spolero. He owns he owns 113 Lawrence Harbor Corporation. Route 35 Associates LLC was
the business that he operated. He was also the sole owner of that business. I represent both of those corporations. I'm here on behalf of him as the prior owner. Thank you. [snorts] >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. >> Thanks. So, Mr. Chair, what I'd like to do is uh or Mr. Spolero. Um, first of
all, my recap, was everything accurate in terms of your prior testimony that you gave when we were here back in June? >> Absolutely. Yes, that was correct. >> Okay. And then what um what we had handed up to the board to be
uh uh to be entered as A2, if you could just describe for the record what exactly that exhibit is and consists of. Um and just so so the the record is clear as to what it what it contains. >> Yeah. So I think the last hearing we
were at uh Mr. Chairman mentioned about bringing some invoices for you know beer and liquor uh for when I own the establishment which you guys are seeing right in front of you. So you'll see uh there's a bunch of different vendors that I use whether it's Highgrade, Shorepoint, Fedway. Um and then this
list and I know uh Mr. chairman wanted to make sure and see um the license number which you see and it also states where it's Route 35 Associates LLC which is Jersey Girls that's me and that's all the inventory that I that I purchased.
>> Okay. Um uh Mr. Chair, I don't know if the if the board would have any or you or the board would have any questions with regard to Mr. Spolero. I mean, we we went through all of his testimony last time pretty much. Um, I recapped it
here and uh unless there's questions about A2. >> Couple questions on A2. Um, are these invoices total all of your invoices for that time period? >> Yes, that's correct. >> That's it. Yeah. Okay. And uh it looks
like high-grade Fedway Manifest or Meritage. >> Oh yeah, it's going to be Meritage. >> Meritage and they are all alcohol companies. >> And yes, and you should have Shoreoint I believe as well too. That's going to sell like Corona, Coors Light, things like that.
>> Shoreoint. I do see Shepoint. >> So what time period does this uh cover? Uh so that's going to cover basically. So I ordered all liquor and inventory um when I was operational in 2022 like I testified to open every day basically um
at the end of January of 2023. That's when I testified I mentioned to you about the ABC um and that's when I scaled back a lot of my operation where I didn't want to have a lot of risk. So, um I scaled back just for private parties and have done private parties
since in 2023 2024. Uh my accountants have uh have have filed uh tax returns uh New Jersey sales tax returns on the monies that I've received that coincide with the bank statements of the deposit money as well. I believe um that's in the brief as well. I I would I would
assume um as well. Are you able to estimate the total amount of liquor purchased during that time period? >> Uh I would say ballpark uh by not adding it up with a calculator maybe anywhere
between 18 to 20,000. >> And do you recall how much say 18 to 20,000? You recall how much alcohol you consumed in a month? >> When I was open regularly or when I did private parties?
>> Regularly. Well, it would vary who drinks a beer, who drinks uh liquor, who comes in and doesn't drink at all and drinks just bottles of water. So, I you know, it really just depends on the day and the customer. >> Okay. And how much did that change when you changed the scope of the business? >> When I went to private parties, correct?
Oh, yeah. Drastically. Cuz when I did private parties, they would only maybe two bottles. So, let's say somebody wants a bottle of Titos or a bottle of Jack Daniels or Johnny Walker Black. It wasn't like we were having um you know 10 you know 12 bottles sold at a party. No. >> And they obviously wouldn't be able to
bring their own alcohol. >> They cannot. Yeah. It's a big ABC violation. >> Anything else? >> Where's anything you bought in 23 or 24? >> Uh so the way that I do the liquor and the way that I do the beer. So toward the end of 2022 when you order beer and
liquor and you order by the case that's going to that brings your your basically your cost your case price down. So what I do is I'll order bulk toward the end of the year to make sure I have enough liquor and beer. Make sure I take the savings on that for bottles or whatever it's going to be. Um so you're not going
to see 23 or 24 because the amount of liquor and rip checks that I got from all the ordering that was stocked into the inventory itself. So you'll probably see some pictures in the brief as well where it shows on the speed racks all of the liquor that was there stacked fully
um as well too. So when I went to private parties I had s sufficient uh liquor that I had for to do those private parties. >> All from 2022. >> Yep. >> Just what you bought here you carried for two years. >> Yes. >> Yeah. It was because the end of the year
of 22 >> right I see that. >> And then it's like four weeks you pay in 2000. gave like a four week. >> But you had parties in 24, two years later. >> Yeah. And 23. >> Okay. You still sold the same beer that you bought in 22? >> Uh more liquor, but you know, my my walk-in boxes that I have always have
the the beer pretty cool, but for the most part, all the people would buy was be liquor, like you know, bottles of liquor. >> Do you have the sales tax receipts for the parties that you held then? >> I do. You sent the state of New Jersey. >> I do. >> Can we see those? >> Sure. Because
>> you have to pay a monthly sales tax. >> Yes, you do. I had I had submitted, Mr. Chair, the actual uh um contracts for the parties. >> That was merely for the fact that he didn't lease out his property to anybody. So those if that's what you're
talking about, exhibit uh >> exhibit >> from the auditor. >> Exhibit J. >> Exhibit J. >> Yeah, >> I have that. >> Okay. Yeah. So those were the contracts for the private parties that were >> right. And then then obviously there's $1,000
>> 24 >> there's $1,000 the taxes the state gets tax on that for >> January of 24 >> Febru March of 24 there's $1,000 so the sales tax was due on that. >> Yeah. >> And then of course on 93 24 $1,200 so
there'd have to be a sales tax paid on that. >> Okay. >> And I guess the rest of the tax would indicate zero because you you weren't open I guess. Um, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna I'm gonna set up send up to you I guess what we'll
mark as a three. >> M. You see that first, please? Looks like a four-page document from New Jersey Division of Taxation. Just need somebody to testify instead of
contents. Yeah. Mr. Spero, for the record, if you could just describe what what uh has been marked as A3. >> Yeah. So this is New New Jersey division of taxation. So for monies received from the party and then deposited into my checking account. Um and then we pay
based on the money received from the parties to New Jersey sales tax which will show you like total gross receipts and what the taxes do. [snorts] >> Oh, and then we had A4 describe what is >> uh so this is going to be my 2023 uh the
federal tax return that uh would be uh that my accountants uh uh did too as well that shows like my gross uh receipts for private parties >> the the company >> yes correct for this is for Route 35 Associates >> which is the operator of the uh >> of the gentleman's club
>> gentleman's And what do they show for sales? >> Numbers that are in there. >> Uh A4 um US income tax total gross sales $8,327. Federal income tax. Just talking about state sales tax.
>> Oh, A3. Uh, >> first quarter. >> Yeah. First quarter. Oh, no. It says uh Yeah. year. Okay. Yeah. So, first quarter uh gross sales 2050. >> What year? >> Uh 2024. >> And were there any sales after the first
quarter? So, quarter 3 1,200 and and I already said quarter one. Yeah. So, quarter three. >> You you you can let me just ask you. You have you have other documents that you could provide provide showing the rest of the year? >> Uh yeah, from the account with you.
>> Correct. Yeah. >> But answer the question. Did you have sales in all four quarters of 2024? >> I had uh sales in I can't answer that because I don't know if it's first quarter or third quarter and fourth quarter. Yes. Correct. >> Sold in October of 24.
>> Correct. Yes. >> So that indicates records of the first quarter and the third quarter. >> Correct. >> [snorts] >> first and third. Mr. Chair, we could get you the second second quarter >> of 24. >> Yeah.
>> 23. >> Well, you have uh you have the tax return. >> No, the state sales tax. >> Uh yeah, I'm sure my accountant could pull that. Yes, >> that's >> I know we asked for the >> liquor inventory >> liquor in the liquor invoices. Uh I
thought through council we also asked for the state sales tax or >> uh No, I don't believe we ever had that conversation. >> Well, I see you brought one, so I'd assume we must have. >> No, it wasn't a request. >> Oh, okay. Do you happen to have Do you happen to have the other ones? Yeah.
Yeah. The 2023 does have the, you know, gross receipt for sales of 8,327 for the year. So there were sales of $8,327 which would have been reported as >> in >> that's for 2023 according to the US tax return.
>> And that's A4. >> That's A4. >> So that's your 2023 would show the year's sales. >> So that's specifically for this particular business. >> This is for Route. >> Yes. for Route 35 Associates LLC >> doesn't Route 35 Associates doesn't own
any other liquor license. >> Route 35 does not own any other liquor license. >> We see those. >> Oh, >> yeah. I was the only one who saw it. >> Yeah, we he didn't show. [laughter] No, he wanted you. >> He wanted you to explain them. >> He wanted you to explain them. probably
if there's a copy machine, we happy to make as many copies as everybody needs. We can do that. [snorts] >> I thought we didn't know you wanted those, so we would have copies >> if and if that didn't get through, I'm sorry. You know, I I know on the on the transcript it was not there. I know that
the uh invoices were there. Okay. Okay. [snorts] Have all four quarters here. We don't have anything for >> Mr. Hollahan. What what's can we narrow down the date here that we're talking
about on on this abandonment issue because that's really I would agree with council that's really all it comes down to. >> Yeah. And and when I had reviewed the application back in October of 2024 um it wasn't so much of an abandonment
when Mr. Spero had owned the property between 2022 and 2024. The question was before Mr. Polero, what was going on there? Cuz um I know Mr. Spero just you had owned it between 2022 and 2024, correct?
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Um and you when you had purchased the property in 2022, did you obtain a permit from the zoning officer at that time to continue that use as a gentleman's club?
>> No. at the time when I when I recall after going in front of the uh township um not the planning is it the planning uh council yeah township council tank I'm sorry and yes uh the uh the secretary or whoever at the time I submitted all my paperwork did my
investigation did the ABC stuff wasn't required >> okay >> I would let the board know that it is a requirement when you change ownership or change use of a property under 25083 to obtain a zoning permit Um, I know you did testify that you had signage at the
site uh with private parties. I don't have record of a permit for those. Did you ever obtain a permit for those signage that you had posted? >> That's on my on our main sign. >> Okay. >> So, like our standalone sign, it has like a like a white box and then you put like the black letters in and it just
says like what upcoming events you have or things in that essence. >> Yeah. for chairman and the and the board. So the annual statements of income and expenses that were filed in the tax office that were made part of the
discovery from my office 2016 2018 2021 all which were filed pre Mr. Bolero's ownership of that property >> um indicated to me that at least during those periods of time there was an abandonment of the use. The right income
comes Mr. Spolero in 2022. I don't get a permit application to review the change in ownership or change in use. So I don't get to question whether or not there's been an abandonment prior. Right. It didn't come until an
application was filed on October 2nd. um which I know um there was some testimony that I had decided on the application postc closing. Um I I don't believe that is true. It looks like the property was
sold on September 5th. Um there was a deed executed on September 5th. There was an application submitted on October 2nd. Um, and then it was a denial on October 7th and then October 9th was the
closing date. So, my denial came before they had closed on the property. But, um, yeah, the real question was kind of pre Mr. Spolero whether or not there was a >> abandonment or not of the use. um the prongs
um that were discussed earlier. I agree with the synopsis of kind of what the definition of abandonment is. And then although there is a lot of case law dealing with abandonment and it's relatively a slippery slope, um my understanding and my research showed
that, you know, not necessarily Mr. Splurero, but potentially a previous property owner had abandoned the use as a gentleman's club um from the tax um income and expense reports that were filed between 2016 and 2022.
Um along with the overt action of a zoning board application being filed in 2017 to demolish the existing building and construct residential apartments. the combination of those two. My position
was that that use as a gentleman's club um was most likely abandoned during that time period. >> I'm assuming that was I I sat on the board. Um the previous owner uh I don't know what
the corporation name was, so I'm not going to use personal names. if you have that >> where they applied for. Uh >> I can tell you what the project name was. >> Yeah. >> Um it was the overlook at Raridan Bay.
It was filed um around November of 2017. And then >> that's obviously prior to Mr. Spolero being anything business. >> Correct. >> So basing the abandonment on that and then was never followup. Is that basically what happened?
Correct. Yes. >> What was the result of the overlook at Ritton Bay application? I guess it was denied or >> It was denied by the board. Yes. By way of resolution dated. Bear with me one sec.
It was denied by the zoning board though. Let me see if any board members have any questions. C >> could I ask question? Oh, go >> sure. Go right ahead. >> Yeah. Um Okay. So, Mr. Holan, a couple of things. One is um so was it your conclusion that be did
you say that because there was an application for a residential use that that sat that established an intent to abandon the prior use even though it was denied? Well, that to me fits one of the prongs
of an overt action to abandon that use by filing a use variance application to demolish the building and build residential apartments. I I think that that's a very clear overt action to abandon the use. Yes. >> Um I disagree and I think the case law
would would establish that. I mean I have seen uh uh properties get two and three and four approvals for two and three four different uses but unless and until the change is made and the the uh
existing use is abandoned and a new use is one approved and two put into play. Um that does not designate an intent to abandon the use. it indicates an intent to create alternatives uh that could be
approved especially when there's a situation where the application gets denied. So I don't um to the extent that that um Mr. Holahan relied on that um I think that reliance is is misplaced.
Number one. Number two, um uh we did have photos in with regard in in the packet that we submitted of the uh private party's signage on the existing sign which existed when presumably Mr.
Holahan visited the site and um he he anyone would have seen that as would uh um anyone who went into the site during the the parties. Um just hard for me to speak as to the use going back to prior
to Mr. Spolero's um ownership of the property um other than to say um uh there was never any uh anything issued by your office or any other
office uh um as to uh an improper use at or illegal use at the site. The site was obviously purchased uh by Mr. Spolerio, Mr. Spolero as a as an ongoing business uh and continued that way by him until
the time he was sold to the extent you're suggesting that you um noted that only at the time of the sale by Mr. Spolero uh as the use having been abandoned I don't know how many years prior to that
um um I I would take issue with that and the applicant would take issue that. Um, the other thing I wanted to uh just address and um um we had some testified testimony to that effect was that uh
notwithstanding the date that you issued your um uh violation or your denial um it was and I think you had acknowledged this it was sent to the wrong address and therefore it was never received by
um Mr. Olan, the current owner, until after he had closed, I think all of that uh while interesting and uh really doesn't go to the issue before us, which is was the use abandoned and was there
an intent, you know, was there an intention to abandon the use? I haven't heard anything from Mr. whole hand that indicates that other than from what I see uh going for an approval for an alternative use uh that was ultimately
denied. I would submit to you that the case law uh uh and more importantly the applicable statutory law does not would not uh support the conclusion that that in and
of itself um indicates a denial to abandon the use especially before you ever even got the approval. But really, the applicable determination is even if an approval was obtained, you'd still have to change the use to that approved
use. And that's clear under the law. >> Was at the property when the I I saw that in in the exhibits that it was mailed I think eight months or six months or something difference. Uh because he never got it on time. I
may be wrong on the amount. >> Emile Yeah, it was emailed to the wrong place. original denial. >> Yeah, >> there was some issue with the denial and it being non-deliverable. Now, keep in mind when I issue permits, denials, they both get mailed and emailed. So, although the Mr. Olen
did claim that he received it or didn't receive it, then I resent it. I had honored the 20-day appeal period from when I resent it. Nonetheless, it I mean, it should have been Mr. 's responsibility to check with my office to see the status on that permit prior
to starting his operation, but my decision was rendered prior to the closing date of the property. >> But ultimately, there was notification. >> Yes. >> Present owner was aware of >> correct. Yes. >> We wouldn't be sitting here >> after we closed. Yeah. Yeah. But I
think, Mr. chair, respectfully. Um, it doesn't take it doesn't change regardless of that determination. Uh, it doesn't change the board's mission here. >> No, you brought it up. That's why I wanted to correct it. >> Well, or get to the bottom of it. I want to get >> No, no. I wanted to make sure that, uh,
you know, uh, poor poor Mr. Olan here didn't get the notice and say, "Well, I'm closing." >> And I want everybody to know he did get it eventually, even though there was after he closed. I'm sorry. After he closed, purchased the business. Right. [snorts] >> And that's what led us here.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That I understand. >> Okay. >> Let's let's see if the board has any questions. The witness starting now in the end. >> I do have a question. Um in 2023, you said it was a business decision to go to private parties.
>> Uh that's correct. >> What month? >> I'm going to say I probably made that decision early or midFebruary. >> Okay. So early in the year. Oh, definitely. Yes. Yeah. Because I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. Uh because police department came in and
ABC during that time and let me know about this fingerprint. Yes. No, about uh an incident that occurred with an underage person and then a fight or whatnot. And then that's when I was like, I'm going to scale down and take less risk off of me is what I >> because I did a quick calculation and
you purchased at the end of 2022 142 cases of beer. Does that sound about right? Uh, I I I if it's on that invoice, then yes. >> Okay. So, you're saying that the 142 cases was going to last you two years. >> Uh, I mean, beer in the in our walk-in
boxes cuz they're so cold, but again, not a lot of people came to there and drank beer when they were doing the private events. It was more bottles. So, we would they would do >> sale. >> Uh, I believe in sometime in 2023.
Uh, >> so the same year you went to parties, you marketed it for sale. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Scott know anything? Mr. >> Mrs. Andrews, >> you purchased the property. I was under the impression that you inherited the property.
>> Uh, yeah. So, the property uh was left to me uh through my grandmother when she passed away through the estate. So before >> and then I purchased the uh liquor license um from a family member and then had to go through that whole procedure with the board and the township council
and the detectives and all of that. >> So then before you inherited the property, you were aware that they had wanted you to build residential um buildings there? >> I was aware. >> You were aware? >> I was aware. >> So were you aware then that that the building wasn't being used at
>> It was being used. How was it being used >> at the same well they were operational as a gentleman's club you know I think they were open a little bit more I think they they were like six days um but they were also did private parties as well too and if I recall correctly uh during
that time um when they came to the township council their lawyers at that time would uh uh came up in front of council and told them that they were for private parties too it was Rnikio I think it was that group >> so then even even after um it was denied
tried to have residences. You went back to the same to the same business. >> Not me. Not me. >> No, >> they Yeah, they they never stopped that when they were going through that application. They were always open and then the you know got denied. The residents rather had the bar than what
what this beautiful structure looked like. [snorts] >> Anything else? Council, you have >> I just have a couple questions for Mr. Um, so I'm going to use council's uh
analysis, abandonment analysis. If you turn to page uh page three of his letter brief, um, right in the center, there's an underlined bold portion. A non-conforming use shall be deemed to be abandoned where there is an intention to
abandon and an external act or a mission to act by which such intention is carried into effect. I would agree with that analysis. I think that's well found in case law. Um there was some discussion uh about what you would consider the
uh external act um which we would clarify as the second prong. Um so my question for our professionals is um what would satisfy the first prong um which is a non-conforming use shall be deemed be
abandoned where there is an intention to abandon? At what point did you decide there was an intent to abandon? when the use variance application was filed and heard by the zoning board to demolish the existing gentleman's club and
construct residential units and then the external act the second prong was that application I would say either the application itself um or the failure to obtain a certificate of nonconformity, right? Is
in order to obtain a certificate of nonconformity after a year of a zone change, you have to visit the zoning board of adjustment to obtain that. Um, to my knowledge, there's been no applications made to the zoning board of adjustment to obtain that certificate. Um, so I I think that could fit the
definition of a a failure to act. I have no further. Do you have anything based on that? >> Um uh I I don't have another question, Mr. Chair. I I I just want to just add just reiterate that the use continued
uh the pre-existing non-conforming use continued before the application for the use variance for uh for for the variance to for the housing continued during the pendency of that application and then um
continued after uh that application was denied. Clearly, no one would apply for a different use if it meant that that would establishment that that in and of itself would constitute an abandonment
of a pre-existing non-conforming use. That's just inconsistent with the law. [snorts] >> Anything else, Mr. Howland? >> I have nothing further. >> You're not going to bring anybody else up as a witness, correct?
Um I uh I don't know that I need anyone else. Uh Mr. Chair, I think we covered everything. Um I was just going to have Mr. I just want the board to know Mr. Olan is here, the current operator. he has actually um uh continued uh kind of
uh went back to the uh more intense use of being open every day, not just and not just for private parties, although he does do private parties. Um and uh we already established that and he was
going to testify that um when he did acquire the business, he acquired the ongoing business and the real estate um and never never um thought that there was any reason or necessity of having to
take any actions to continue a pre-existing non non-conforming use that had been in play and and utilization at the property since going back to 1990. That was his testimony. >> Wow.
>> Well, I understand uh that obviously he's been operating since he signed the D and signed the title title over. So, I don't doubt that he's in in operation. I whether he's in operation one day or five, it's relevant. >> I agree. >> Uh >> I agree. As far as the lapse in the in
the you know I I I find it odd that [snorts] that it was abandoned. I mean I find it odd that it was an operation and nobody bought liquor for a year. So uh I find that not that that in so well that there were sales.
>> That's right. I said no but no that there was no invoices purchased. >> Yeah. Right. Right. Right. >> There was no purchasing. Right. There was definitely liquor. >> I [clears throat] find that extremely odd. >> There was definitely liquor purchased uh during that time frame, but at a much
reduced rate obviously. >> Well, no rate. Absolutely no. It doesn't seem as any rate. >> Purchased by customers at a much >> I'm talking about the from a distributor. >> Okay. One quick witness. >> All right. >> Let's just make this
Yes. >> Okay. If Mr. Chair uh uh if we could have >> Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> Can you state your name and spell your last? Gillis G I L L I S.
>> Okay. Mr. Gillis, if you would for describe for the board your background and experience as a as a realtor uh broker here in New Jersey. >> I'm a licensed New Jersey real estate agent uh with a company Bead Santorin
Company in uh in Alenhurst. We specialize in uh hospitality related businesses and real estate. I for the most part almost do nothing but bars and restaurants. >> And uh when were you contacted regarding
the sale of this property by Mr. Spero? >> I have an ongoing relationship with the Spalero family. So we we're in constant I had just closed on a on an additional property of theirs. We decided to uh to list the Jersey girls location in April
of of 2023. >> And um how was the property marketed? >> Our property was marketed as an ongoing concern, a a gentleman's club with a long history that was currently only open for private parties.
>> And did uh and you advised all potential purchasers of the nature of the ongoing business? >> Yes, for the most part, the people that were interested were in that business. And that was the reason they were >> Okay. >> And how many showings would you estimate you had? >> I'd say I'd showed the property six or seven times.
>> Okay. And like I said, you advise all of the potential purchasers what the pre-existing non-conforming use was. >> That was the only reason they were interested. >> Okay. Um and did you u over ever talk to anyone from Oldbridge regarding the the
operational status of the property? >> No. >> Okay. Um, and uh, can you just describe when you were at the property for those six or seven showings, those at various times and
probably some more uh, as well, what you observed at the property. >> My observation, and it comes from years of experience in the bar business as well, it was fully stocked uh, ready for any party that could have been scheduled the next day. The beer coolers were
full. The speed racks were full of liquor. Uh, as a matter of fact, at least three of the times when I showed the property, the cleaning crew was there having just cleaned the the bar, made sure every all the whatever garbage was there was emptied. The place was
immaculate. And uh, only one of the times that I showed were they preparing for a party that night. >> Okay. And did you also notice uh as there were some bills that we had submitted with regard to ongoing maintenance that was being done at the property jipper reserve?
>> Well, like I said, it was a it was always maintained very very very well. Uh twice when I was there. Once they were doing they were replacing a rear door. >> Okay. >> And another time they were uh making some repairs to the parking lot. >> Okay. So liquor. So so fully stocked
with liquor. Never any question in your mind that and nor was any uh concern raised by any of your prospective purchasers in that to that effect. >> That's correct. >> Questions for um Mr. Gillis. >> I don't have anybody. If anybody else does, please feel free.
>> I don't doubt whatsoever that that it was in operation. Uh >> my point is I don't know what happened in 2023, but apparently that's not the time frame we're looking at. So it was it was a lapse between 17 and another
[clears throat] uh a later date that we're relying on. Uh it doesn't seem that that would be the responsibility of the present owner. At least the way I see it. >> I would agree with you on that. >> Correct. >> Unless I'm looking at this. >> No, you're correct. Chairman,
>> um I know it's limited operation and I don't doubt that that Mr. Spolero was I know he was there uh in business. and what happened in 23 isn't really on the table here. Um, if it ran some [clears throat] parties in 24, obviously
you did that prior to the sale and uh I think the new owner uh bought that believing in good faith that all those things were correct. Uh it says that in the deed and he took and signed that
deed as well as president or whatever his title is. corporation selling it. Correct. >> So I think all that was in good faith. Uh I would assume something happened in in in going back and I don't think we can blame that on Mr. Spero and I don't
think we can blame that on Mr. Olen in my opinion. The board may see differently. I that's the way I see it. Uh I was under the impression that this was a different period of time and unless council feels differently I think
I'm basing >> I was under the position that we were talking about a different period in time. So >> uh I'm going to ask the board if they have any final comments and I know then I'm assume you're going to ask to vote on this of course letter of denial. Of
course. Anybody confused about anything? Have a question? Now would be the time to bring it up. Uh based Mr. Skaggno, Mr. Mrs. Sanchez, uh the board [snorts] doesn't um I have to open a public portion. I think
everybody is here has to do with this matter. So, nonetheless, >> draw on the groom side. >> Okay. [laughter] Well, I uh Okay, I'll leave that alone. Uh this is I have to open up to a public
portion 63-2024Z 1103 Route 35 LLC. Uh physical location is 1103 Highway 35 here for an appeal on a uh denial uh by this owning officer. Anyone here wish to be heard on this
matter? Even if you're with them, you're entitled to speak. So uh don't feel that you don't you have to or don't have to. Please raise your hand or stand if you're interested in speaking on it. I see not I'm closing the public
portion. Um it comes down to board uh absent any questions uh I think in good faith and I think through due diligence that the zoning officer did what uh was he's paid to do and he what he saw
obviously is what different than what I'm seeing tonight. Uh I didn't have the uh benefit of seeing these invoices which I asked for. I'm glad that they were brought. I didn't I didn't see have the uh knowledge of seeing the tax taxes and
certainly this was this was rather interesting. Quite a bit of a long read but nonetheless it was quite interesting. So >> that's okay. Uh so I'm going to ask the board uh for their own opinions in a moment. So, we'll take
a vote. You would vote yes if we're going to overturn the [snorts] decision of Mr. Halahan uh based on his findings or you're going to vote no that you agree with him. So, it's yes, we're going to approve it or no, you agree
with Mr. Hollahan. Please call the role or do we have a >> Mrs. Andrews? What's it? >> Do we have a first? >> Do we have a first or a second? That's we did not. Okay, I'll I'll make the motion to move it. Is there a second for a vote? >> Gomez. >> Okay. and second for a vote. So it's if a vote a yes would be we're going to
overturn. A no would be we are not going to overturn. >> Ready? >> Go ahead. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> If you say yes, we're going to overturn the the the decision of the uh the zoning officer.
>> There's just one decision. Are we going to overturn? There's only one thing to think about. Are we are we going to agree that it was abandoned or not? Okay. >> So, if you say yes, we're agreeing that it was not by by law and by what we've
seen tonight. Anybody else confused or have any questions? It is a little confusing. I get that. We have a first and a second. >> We'll call the ro slowly. >> Okay. Mrs. Andrews, >> yes.
>> Uh, Mr. Iso, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno, >> yes. >> Miss Spinelli, >> yes. Miss Gomez. >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan. >> Yeah. In fairness to the to the applicant here, I have to say yes. But uh based on the the new facts that we've
had and I still support the uh findings, however, of Mr. Halahan in in his efforts to to protect the township and to protect his uh job that he's sworn to do as well. So the matter has there will
be a certificate. You'll be open for you will be able to have apply again, right, for certificate of occupancy or is it simply overturned? >> With the resolution, I can amend the denial that was issued. Yeah. >> Okay, >> that's fine. >> Okay, counselor. >> Yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Members of the board. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you everybody here. >> And uh have a have a great holiday season. Okay. Thanks for coming in. >> Uh any further business to bring before the board? Next meeting is >> general public. >> Yeah, there is no one here. So, uh
>> December 4th. >> December 4th. Uh council, you have anything you want to tell us? >> None. >> Not for me. >> December 4th at 7:30. >> Mhm. >> Dan, anything? >> I have nothing further. >> All right. Thank I just I want to wish everybody a healthy happy Thanksgiving coming up next week. >> Happy Thanksgiving.
>> Enjoy your families. >> Uh someone move for an adjournment. >> Gomez. >> All in favor? I >> I any opposed? >> We stand adjourned.