I'd like to start the meeting with everyone. Please rise. Pledge >> allegiance to the flag. >> Please be seated. Welcome everyone. Township of Albridgeidge zoning board of adjustment meeting May 7, 2026.
Adequate notice of this meeting, 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 the meeting by prominently posting in the municipal complex an announcement giving the time to date the location of the agenda this meeting. also by mailing such
announcement to the home news and tribune, filing a copy of such announcement with the municipal clerk and posting the agenda in the municipal website. Mr. Holidayan, could we have a roll call, please? >> Miss Andrews >> present. >> Miss Gomez >> here. >> Mr. Rizzo
>> here. >> Mr. Scogn >> here. >> Miss Spanelli >> here. >> Mr. Singh is absent. Miss Fernbach >> here. >> And Chairman Sullivan >> here. Uh this meeting is being televised on OBTV channel 15 here within the
township simultaneously. It's also being uh sent out over YouTube live. You can always refer back to those meetings on YouTube. Uh this evening of council is Mr. Joe Mlin. He's seated to my right, your left from the Dasty firm. Uh Dan
Hollahan filling in for our normal secretary this evening. Would you please swear in our professionals for the evening? Mr. Meline, please rise. >> Please state your names. >> Daniel.
>> Thank you both. Mr. Holland is the zoning officer for the township. Miss and for those that may not know, Miss San is the planning uh professional for the township. Okay, gone to that. We have a couple quick c variances and then we're going
to have one major application. If anyone is here on any of the last three on the agenda, they're not going to be heard. And I'll read them into the record quickly. Uh 20 uh 23-2025Z, that's BJ's Wholesale Club located on uh
US9. Uh they're seeking major preliminary and final site plan with CND variances. Uh they're looking to put in, I believe, additional uh gas dispensers on the property. Not going to be heard this evening. That matter has been was postponed. It'll be on the agenda July
16, 2026. Once again, will not be heard this evening. 32-2025Z Hazabel NE I'm assuming that stands for Northeast LLC uh zone 83 uh EDO3 physical locations 1300 uh US Highway 9.
They're seeking major preliminary and final site plan with CD variance. Uh applicants proposing a drive-through fast food restaurant. That application has been adjourned to the public uh for a hearing on August 6th, 2026 without further notice. You're here on
that matter will not be heard this evening. Finally, 63-2025Z Sophie's Takaria. That's block 15506 lot 7.1 on US9. Uh they're seeking C variance for paint uh painted signage.
Applicants seeking rem uh the approval for existing painted signs located on the restaurant. That application has been adjourned to the public hearing on August 20th, 2026 without further notice. Once again, not to be heard this evening. That would move us on to we
have two C variances and there'll be one uh other application beyond that. I'll call them in order. It's uh 03-2026Z. Joseph Sabatino, Josephine Sabatino, I'm sorry.
That's uh block 503 lot 91 19 Brewster Circle and all bridges for concrete patio or there's some multiple C variances. This is a continuation of a matter applicant seeking to legitimize a concrete patio in the rear of the yard. Sabatino
>> attorney will swear you in. >> Thank you. Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth again >> and uh state your full name and spell your last please. Spell your last, please. >> Thank you. It's green. It's on. >> Okay, it's good. Now,
>> uh just say your name for the record. >> Josephine Sabatino. >> Thank you. Just so they can hear that and it's picked up. >> We This the last time we met, we uh had heard testimony from you about a concrete patio that runs behind your home. >> Yes. >> Uh that is HOA controlled. However, the
HOA isn't has uh they're indifferent to what you've done. Uh they're not they have no oppo uh no opposition. >> The problem was that there was a concrete patio. It went to the far end of the lot line and I believe it went to the sideyard uh set back as well. Mhm.
>> Um there I think there's been a discussion or a suggestion of u of how this can be handled because right now you're you're seeking variances because of the you're controlling all the uh all the top of the property there.
>> Right. So right now there's the deck and um to legalize the concrete that's already there and then put concrete where the deck currently is. That's what I'm trying to do. >> All right, Mr. want but you originally started to handle this on Danny's >> right I mean Danny can talk too but I
did get a chance to speak to the engineering office and um the site is fully the whole site is impervious coverage so it is the recommendation of the township
engineer that to the rear side she's okay with a zero ft setback because uh that abuts the HOA property and there shouldn't be any um drainage issues. However, she recommends that the
sideyard to the uh that's the north north >> sideyard uh we have a minimum of 3 ft because otherwise the whole site is going to be paved and that was the recommendation. >> Okay. Mr. Holland, do you have anything to add?
>> No, I don't have any objections to that. Was this an understanding that that you were going to have this performed? >> Um, so what what is the north part of it? I'm sorry. >> Your sideyard. >> So, um, Daniel, >> so where the driveway is, is that
>> as you look at that picture, it's to the right. You see the arrow on the top. It would be >> So, the the to the right. >> Okay. So, the the north is this side property on. >> Okay. So, what the engineering department's recommendation is from this
section here where the fence is >> over to the street, the three feet essentially be cut back from this right hand side to allow for drainage between the two properties >> towards the back too. Straight to the back. >> It's through the whole back.
>> So, there there is a patch of grass between me and that neighbor. There's a p like between my driveway and the neighbor's driveway. There is a patch of grass in the middle. >> Correct. And that is what they're saying to the back. However, there is no >> so
>> up against the fence other words. So that so that um >> that I could talk to the contractor about because that that means he would have to cut what was already there. >> Now what about where the deck is? Is that okay? >> That is concreted.
>> That is okay. And that's what that's what they were saying. You can concrete the deck because the deck is already there and you have stones there. But however, on the sideyard there are cutting that then. >> Yes.
>> So essentially you would cut where the driveway ends >> and then go straight back. >> Straight back three. >> So three feet. Yes. >> Okay. And then but just to be clear again where the deck is I can concrete. >> Yes. >> The zero. Yes. Okay. All right.
>> It's only the sideyard set. Got it. >> And the reason we're doing that is so that because on the left side you have a neighbor who is encroaching. Correct. But he has a small strip of land. >> Okay. >> Uh that takes in the water.
>> Since your site is fully paved, there's no way for the water to go. So it'll go to your neighbor's uh property. So to have that drainage there, we want a landscape strip. >> Got it. >> Okay. All right. >> Would you be in agreement with that?
Yes. If the board were to act favorably. >> Yes. >> Let me see if there's any questions for the board. I'm going start down my left. >> I'm good. Thank you. >> All right. Uh I'm going to go to a public portion then. Okay. >> Okay. I'll come back and then you'll you
can uh ask me if you wanted to ask me for a vote or if you want to think about it. >> Okay. >> Okay. This is again matter 3-2026 Z physical locations at 19 Brewster Circle. Anyone here in the courtroom this evening have any concern or
comments? Now would be the time. Please raise your hand or stand. Once again, this will be the only time for public comment. Council, I'm going to close the public portion. Seeing no hands. Okay, back to you. If you'd like us to take a vote,
you need plurality. This is only a C variance of of the voting members of seven. >> Okay. So, yes, I would like you to take a vote. >> So, you would agree as part of it that you will cut that back three three feet on the sideyard side? >> Yes. >> The end that goes to the property line
in the back, >> it actually abuts the HOA's property. So, >> okay. >> And the deck is okay. >> Okay. >> The concrete >> where the deck is now would be fine. >> Okay. All right. >> Yes. >> That's an understanding by the board. Someone interested in moving it has spoken. >> Is
>> there a second? >> Andrew second. >> Roll call, please. >> Miss Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Oo, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogno? >> Yes. >> Miss Finnelli? >> Yes. >> Miss Fernbach? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Sullivan?
>> One second. >> My vote is yes. >> This is another matter, right? >> Yeah. Okay. Uh the motion has has passed. >> Okay. Thank you everyone. I appreciate it. >> Just make sure if there is there building permits involved. >> No building permits, but there are
zoning permits. So once you get the resolution from Moren, give me a call or come see me. We'll take care of the rest. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you for coming. >> Thank you everyone. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right, the next matter is uh 05 2026Z uh John Rodriguez. This is block 18044
lot 14 21 Stony Brook Drive is a physical location. This is for uh proposing to expand the current driveway to the property line. Mr. Rod Rodriguez, council will put you under oath again. >> Your right hand. >> Do you swear affirm to tell the whole
truth and nothing but the truth? Drop the gun. >> I do. >> And uh state your full name and spell your last. >> Um John Rodriguez. R O D R I G U E S. >> Yeah, this is a continuation, Mr. Rodriguez. And I know that there was some conversation that you had, I
believe, with zoning officer. >> Correct. I also had one with Vina. >> With Mr. Swan as well. Okay. Uh in your words uh let me go to them and then you can either agree or not who's gonna miss San
>> so I did have uh a conversation with the engineering office and uh they have made some recommendations uh one of them was um they don't encourage a zero feed setback uh from the property line because often um later
on the neighbors start complaining about drainage issues so The engineer has recommended three feet from the fence which would be two feet from the property line. Um she has also recommended that uh the um oh my god I
don't have the um storm water drain to be relocated um to have a Belgium block for the curb and then at the um at the entrance of
the driveway that driveway be uh widen am I right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So those were the three conditions that uh she has approved. She she also said that um the if if the applicant may
wish they could actually pave a bit of or one ft onto the lawn side the other side of the driveway because her comment was anyways the utilities are for any roadway there are utilities underneath.
So uh and probably even right now the utilities may very well be under the existing driveway. So if they wish to have a wider driveway, he could expand it on the other side. She wouldn't have an objection to that. However, she does
require want a 2T uh set back from the property line and 3 ft from the fence. >> And what was what was it about the the gutter or the lead uh the leader >> to relocate it? And the curb cut on the front has to be widened or lessened.
>> Widened, I believe. >> Widened. Mr. >> Yes, it would be widened. >> Yep. >> Mr. Rodriguez, I guess you've had you've already had this conversation with >> Yeah, I actually had a discussion with him this morning. >> Okay. Uh do you do you agree with uh the
conditions that they're looking to impose? >> Yes. >> And you would agree to them all? >> Mhm. Okay, I'm gonna go on my left. Questions starting down. >> Do you know where your sewer was? >> Your sewer line trap is normally like in
the driveway towards the end to by the street is >> it's actually if you're looking at the picture to the left of the driveway, it's it it's in the landscape. >> It's in the landscape there. It won't be covered. >> Nope. >> Thank you, Mr. No sir,
>> council. >> Okay, I have none. Uh, if you don't mind that, I'm going to go to a public portion. Once again, 03- uh, I'm sorry, 05-2026. This is 21 Stony Brook Drive for an expansion of driveway. Anyone here in
the courtroom wish to be heard? Please raise your hand or stand. Once again, this will be the only opportunity for public comment. Council, seeing none, I'm going to close the public portion. >> Final comments any
>> want me to take a ask for a vote? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Would be is there multiple or is it just the one C? Because >> it's actually a design waiver. That's it. >> Okay. So, this is only for the design
waiver for two foot off of the sideyard >> along with the relocating the uh >> pipe and the and the Driveway cut. >> Correct. >> Someone move that for approval. Is it >> second?
>> Moved in second. Roll call, please. >> Miss Andrews, >> yes. >> Miss Gomez, >> yes. >> Mr. Rizo, >> yes. >> Mr. Scott, >> yes. >> Miss Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Fernbach, >> yes. >> And Chairman Sullivan, >> yes. Thank you very much for coming back again. Uh, permits or
>> Yeah, we'll talk tomorrow. >> Okay. Just check check with Mr. Holl. >> Sounds good. Thank you again. >> Good luck on your project. >> Thank you. >> All right, this will bring us to our only application this evening. 15-2025Z GHS uh properties management LLC.
This is a 801 zone block 12 lot 34 physical location 34 state route uh 35 single family home major preliminary and final site plan with CND variances. applicant proposes to convert the
existing office to a single family residence with an addition. Jared Pap on behalf of the applicant. Sir, >> good evening, Mr. Chair, members of the board, board professionals. My name is Jared Pape with the law firm of Hybrurn Papilling in tonight from my colleague
Peter Clauser. Our office has the privilege of representing the applicant GHS Properties Management LLC. Um, first just want to respectfully request that the board can confirm our notices were adequate so that we may proceed this evening.
That's correct. Thank you. Uh, with me this evening are John Dupont, our licensed engineer, and Allison Coffin, uh, professional planner, both of whom will be offering testimony. Also present and available if needed, um, are
Christopher Malloy, the project architect, and representatives of the applicant as well. Uh just as a synopsis, the applicant is seeking use and bulk variance relief together with site plan approval to permit the use of
an existing structure uh on the property to be used as a single family residence. Uh the property is located at block 12, lot 34, which is also known as 34 State Route 35 in Oldbridge, and it's located
in the EDO1 zone. As you'll hear in testimony, single family residential uses are not permitted in the EDO1 zone. Accordingly, we're seeking use variance relief. Um, however, the existing structure that's on the site has the
look and feel of a single family residence rather than a commercial property and it's surrounded by other single family residences. Um, it's also noteworthy that the property is significantly undersized at about 1
acre. Uh, it's about onetenth of the size of what's required as a minimum lot area in the ED1 zone, which is 1 acre. uh and that'll be further addressed by the professionals. But just as a practical matter, that greatly limits
the ability of the site to accommodate both the commercial and retail uses that are contemplated in the EDL1 zone. So, uh with that as a preview, Mr. Chair, we are prepared to proceed unless there's any comments or questions. And I'd ask
that we begin with a testimony of our engineer, John Dupont. >> By all means. >> Thanks. And I see I have to say Dupant board attorney will swear you in. >> Thank you. Would you raise your hand? Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth throughout the gun?
>> I do. >> Thank you. And uh state your full name and spell your last please. >> John Dupont. Du capital P O N T. >> All yours, Mr. uh >> I guess I suppose begin by providing your credentials uh for the board this evening. >> Certainly. I am a licensed professional
engineer in state New Jersey. have been so for over 30 years. For the past 28 years, I've served as the Bur Carter engineer and planner for the township and the planning and zoning boards. I've been boards throughout the state, including this board before >> and I've seen you be for this board as
well, and we certainly recognize his expertise and his credentials. Makes sense. >> Thank you very much. >> You Well, I'll I'll pass it to you, Mr. Japan. I know there's limited elements of from a site plan perspective. So, if you could walk the board through the where the propertyy's located and kind
of the simple elements of the of the plan. I >> certainly will. So, as you've heard, this is 34 State Route 35, block 12, lot 34. The existing property is 50 by 100. It's only 0.11 acres. Um, the property
currently contains a single building with three parking spaces in the rear of the property. The applicant is currently using it as an office for themselves. The current state of the property has several non-conformities which I'll run through just for the record. The minimum
lot area in this zone, it's by the way, it's EDO zone. Minimum lot area is 1 acre. We have 0.11 acres. The lot width requirement is 125 ft. We have 50 ft. The minimum front yard setback is 30
feet. Existing is 24.88 ft. The minimum sideyard setback is 25. We have 7.7 on one side. We have a 13.4 on the other. Minimum total sides combined 50 ft. We have 31.1 ft.
Minimum rear yard setback is 50. We have 46.35. The minimum landscape area ratio is 0.4. We currently have 0.34 which was not shown on that cover sheet submitted. So
I just want to bring it to attention. We do in fact have an existing non-conformity for L in that zone and buffer requirements 125 ft. We have 24.88. So all that is existing today. Now under proposed conditions the applicants
proposing to convert this into a 2 and 1/2 story single family dwelling. The footprint will not change, but there's a second story addition going on which will impact setbacks and I'll go through that in detail. The single family dwelling will have five bedrooms.
And from an engineering standpoint, the project is very straightforward. We're not increasing the impervious. We're not changing the drain the drainage. We're not changing setbacks. We're not modifying the parking areas. Um, we're not impacting adjacent
properties with any flow, drainage, or any other adverse impacts because there's no construction outside the second story edition. Now, we have an aerial. I think it's the second one. Just just to get you should be exhibit. Yeah, there you go. So, we just put
together the exhibit. We showed your zone map on the bottom of the screen that shows the EDO. We have the property in question there shown. And then on the top of the sheet, it's an aerial and we've outlan the zone. Again, the property right now, and our planner will
get into more deal detail of this, is surrounded by single family homes. Now, there are a couple businesses in this zone, but there's significant amount of residential development all surrounding our property. So, this isn't going to stick out as an oddball. This is going
to fit the community. So, under the proposed conditions, a couple things do happen. We do we are now required to get a D1 use variance because a residential use is not permitted in this zone. We're also going to need a D4 variance because under
proposed conditions we exceed your F. Your maximum allowable is 0.3 and we are proposing 0.32. In addition, there'll be a couple bulk variances required. The front yard setback currently is in violation. It's 24.88.
With the new second story overhang, it's going to go to 20.88. Again, the foundation doesn't change, but the second story overhang will come forward more. And the maximum building height in this zone, you allow two stories, 30 ft. We're proposing 2 and
1/2 stories, 28.7 ft, but still 2 and 1/2 stories. So, that's the additional relief needed. Um, our planner will go into detail on those variances, but from an engineering standpoint, that's truly it. Oh, do you want me to I'll touch on the the L? >> Yes, please.
>> So, when we rememeasured and did the uh limited area ratio, the landscaping area ratio, our attorney asked us what would it be to be conforming? How could we do it? If we remove 300 square ft of the asphalt in the rear, which we can do and still meet all the parking requirements
and have no issue, we can then make that conforming if the board wishes. And that's the extent of the engineering testimony. And just to emphasize that last point. Um, so yeah, as shown on the submitted plans, the landscape area ratio was was shown as conforming, but
after further review, it was determined that it it's not conforming in its current condition, but um, as Mr. Dupont stated, it it can be made conforming by actually reducing some of the impervious in the back. So, >> and we'd still meet the parking requirements without any problem. So
just wanted to stress that that one point but I have nothing further unless there's any questions or comments from the board. >> Mr. Mr. Dupon just a quick question with the current use what was the parking
that is available on the site >> there's three parking spaces in a rear >> and for the single family home based on the requirements what would be the parking >> we'd still have three parking spaces in the rear plus a long extended driveway
>> right right so if if the board was to require you to remove some of theh behaving and add landscaping. Would you lose any parking? >> I think we'd lose one space. >> Right. And I think that would be a
bigger issue because there is no on street parking here on the highway. >> That is correct. >> Right. So something for the board to consider. Uh I have no further question. >> Mr. Helen, you have anything? >> I don't know. Yep.
when you spoke about perhaps uh mitigating that by I guess putting some more green space or or getting rid of that uh pavement, how much would it take and why would you think you'd lose one? >> It takes 300 square feet. >> Yeah.
>> So, if I cut off there's three spaces in the back that kind of reach the landscaped area now. So, any reduction in asphalt >> would I think lose one space. And I will say the way it is now and I just pulled into the site today. Obviously highway route 35 is very busy. Today you can
park three cars in the back. You can turn around nicely and come out forward. It's actually works very well for the dwelling. It will work very well. But if if you it's it's okay if you wanted to increase the buffer in the back or maybe perhaps maybe the buffer against the
building in the rear. Um we could lose 300 ft. I'd be down in two spaces and a driveway. A as we were preparing for this meeting, this issue came up. So, we wanted to be prepared with a a way to make the variance go away. Obviously, that's
always preferable, but in this case, it might make sense to keep the parking and we're open. We'll defer to the board on that point. >> Chairman, if I may, can I add something else? Um if you look at the area surrounding it right and the board has
heard numerous applications for uh single family homes for D4s within the harbor area. Those lot sizes are quite tight. So it is not unusual for an undersized lot to have the landscape
area ratio. If you look at the entire area and the homes in the neighborhood, you will find many such homes that have lesser landscape area ratio than what is required and especially when we are looking at this property as a single family home. Something for you to keep
in mind. >> Yeah, it's it's even odd when you have in that area that extra parking particularly uh coming on to Route 35 of of all roads. uh that would be you don't
want people backing out onto that roadway and I would agree that the back where where turnaround was is certainly an aid in particular that's going to if if there's an approval for a single single family home so I think that's the lesser of the issues anyway the L so
>> um I don't have anything start down on my left for this witness >> no coming right up miss Gomez >> Melli >> I just have one question is five bedrooms. >> It is. >> So, how many parking spots would be required for five bedrooms? Is that the three?
>> It's three, but we'd meet it with the driveway, too. But yes, three spaces are required in this. >> Okay, >> Mr. Scott. >> Yes. Thank you. I know that you say you're surrounded by other residential homes. When were they established?
>> In the ED1. >> I don't know exactly when. It's an older older >> neighborhood. Okay. So the EDO aspects indicates that you should boost the local tax base and the job market. So now you taken away your commercial and you're going to
residential. How are you satisfying that? >> Well, I think our planner will probably address that um with with the planning proofs. >> Okay. So we haven't passed this part of it to even speak about your what you plan to build
>> and if well plan to build I'm sorry repeat that >> in other words we haven't passed you on going from the commercial to residential and you're presenting what you are going to build and change. So I think we
should address that first. Well, I think you're going to have a professional planner give you the planning proofs to that and and discuss the area and discuss his own. >> Well, I'm not I'm talking about I'm not considering your construction, how you're going to change the building and
the size is less than what you should have. We haven't approved you for going from the EDO commercial to residential. >> That's that's correct. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. No sir. Mrs.
Andrew, >> was this a residence before it became a commercial? >> I'm not aware of that. Maybe perhaps the applicant would know that. >> We don't know the full history of the property. The um the applicant has owned the property for a few years. It
certainly has always had the the look and feel of a single family residence, at least since since he purchased it. But we don't know the full history um and origin of of the the structure. Sorry. How many rooms are on the main floor
>> as proposed? >> Yes. As of now, >> um that be have our architect answer that question. He would, if I can make a note of it and have him come up. >> I was just wondering if you have some bedrooms or is the upstairs going to be all bedrooms?
>> When we when we have when the architect comes up, uh we could just swear him in. We'll get those questions in. >> Thank you. >> Uh most of those homes down there along that strip, uh
there's such a mix of commercial and residential. I don't know where it's defined. Do you know when the ED1 was assigned to that? >> So, this was originally, if I'm not mistaken, in the CN zone. It was the
neighborhood commercial zone which has existed for the longest time. It changed to EDO1 just recently like maybe three or four years ago when uh because as you all know we have almost 43 zones in
Oldbridge and I'm trying to um evaluate them to see if we can merge. So CN and ED1 have the same purposes. So we um with the help of the council decided to replace the CN zone with the ED1 zone
but that was only recently. It has always been a commercial uh zone there. But again the challenge with that area is that some of the lots are quite tight. So it is difficult to accommodate
even a commercial use in certain instances. So that's something the board has to evaluate while granting the use variance. >> Just to elaborate on that point, um, as we had indicated, this is a greatly undersized lot. It's about a tenth of
the size that's required. One acres is required. We're about 0.11. So the EDO zone, the permitted uses, there's a variety of commercial and retail type uses, all of which obviously would have parking requirements, which would be a real challenge um on this on this lot.
So, uh, a lot of these variances, certainly the bulk variances are largely driven by the fact that this lot is is significantly undized. >> Is there any past history that we could rely on prior to the ownership of
present ownership? >> I mean, it looks to me like it was a house. It doesn't doesn't look commercial to me at all. >> It certainly it has the feel. So, as I said, I we >> don't I don't know that that's in fact I don't know that it was built like that for commercial. >> Yeah, we we don't know the full the full
history. >> Okay. And and planner is not going to be able to speak to that either soon. >> I don't believe she has the full >> but but there was a business there. You were running it as a business LLC, right? So, our our client purchased the property a few years ago and um their
for their personal uh construction business, they've used it for, you know, an office space casually there, but that's that's really been the extent >> with employees. >> I I have to have the applicants speak to that.
>> Chairman, >> yes, go ahead. Having living in the harbor myself, that was a residential long ago >> before it became commercial. >> All right. Thank you. Uh I have nothing else. Councelor, did you have some? >> I did. I thought so.
>> Thank you, chairman. >> Well, you were kicking me. That's right. >> Um, so you testified that if um the board required you to remove some of the asphalt to meet the minimum landscape area ratio, you could do that. Correct.
>> Correct. >> And what is your current uh landscape ratio? >> It's 0.34. >> Thank you. in the US council. >> That's all. >> We have nothing else. Obviously, if you have witness
>> Sure. We weren't planning on calling the architect, but perhaps just to answer >> just for those that would be helpful. >> Yeah, sure. >> Soon as Mr. M is ready. >> Thank you, Chairman. Would you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth of gun? >> I do. >> Can you state your full name and spell
your last? >> Christopher Malloy. M A L L O Y. >> Could you just provide your credentials for the board as well, please? >> Yeah, I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I've had my license
for about five and a half years. I've testified in front of other boards, not this one. This is my first time here. >> We'll accept his credentials as an architect. >> Thank you. So there was a question I believe it was asking about the number of bedrooms on each floor. Is that
correct? As as proposed, correct? Yeah. Could you speak to that? >> Yep. So currently we're proposing one bedroom on the first floor and four bedrooms on the second floor. Um we're not necessarily adding any rooms right right now. Um, there's a
large open office area that we're going to reimagine as a living dining room, a conference room that we're going to convert into the bedroom, and there's a staff lounge area that we're going to reimagine as a kitchen area. >> Thank you.
>> Anything else, Manders? Well, I don't I don't know that that might not be flexible depending on whether they get approval or not. I >> No, I wanted to know because I was wondering how they were going to have the five bedrooms from converting it from an office into a residence where where everything was going to be
located. >> If I may ask, how many bathrooms will there be in the house? >> Yes. So, there's one and a half bathrooms downstairs and two full bathrooms upstairs. >> Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? >> Chairman,
>> I'm going to go down this this end for this witness. The architect. >> Okay, Miss Gomez, >> I have a question. There's no basement, correct? >> There's a crawl space. >> Okay, >> no, sir. >> M anything? the the proposed square
footage. What is it? >> Um, give me one second here. >> Would it be 1598? >> Yes, that's it. >> That is it. >> Matt, did you have any questions? is the architect, >> Mr. H.
>> Thank you. We appreciate your appearance. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Have Allison Coffin as our next and final witness. >> Thank you, Chairman. Thank you. Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth if you can? >> Yes, I do.
>> Thank you very much. Spell your full name or sorry, state your full name. Spell your last name. >> Allison Coffin, CO FF I N. >> Would you share with the board your credentials? >> I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I'm certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm employed by James Wh.
Higgins Associates. We're out of Ocean Township. I have appeared here a few times over the last >> is a frequent flyer here and we we recognize her uh gold memberships uh in the club. Uh, we will accept her credentials.
>> Thank you. So, Miss Coffin, we're here seeking use and bulk variance relief. If you could provide the board with your justifications for that variance. >> Sure. Uh, the site that we're looking at is a 5,000 square foot rectangular lot. It's got frontage on southbound Route
35. The site contains an existing one and a half story uh commercial office building which was originally constructed as a residence and was at some point converted uh for commercial use. The applicant proposes to convert the structure uh to residential use and with the addition of a new floor for a
total of two and a half floors and reconstruction of the front front porch and steps. The site is located in the ED1 zone. Uh the proposed single family dwelling is not a permitted use in this zone, so a D1 use variance is requested. There's also some other variances
needed. Uh the lot area and width are currently non-conforming where an acre is required and we're just a little over a tenth of an acre. uh lot width is 125 feet is required and the site is 50 feet. Uh there's front yard setback where 30 feet is required and with the
addition it's 20.88. There's sideyard setback uh where 25 on one side is required and a combined of 50 feet. Um and 7.7 feet exists on one side and 13.4t on the other and 31.1 ft
combined. And we're putting addition at that same setback. So the existing conditions are non-conforming and the proposed uh are also non-conforming. There's a rear yard setback of 50 ft required and 46.35 ft proposed. Uh the
height in feet is conforming but the zone permits two stories and two and a half stories is proposed. And we have F which is Dvariance 0.30 is permitted and 0.32 is proposed. Um then we have landscape area ratio that
is an existing non-conforming condition and there is a buffer required along the state highway of 125 ft and we've got let's say probably 20.88 ft the new setback proposed but again the lot is only 100 ft deep. So again to sum up the
variances we've got a D1 for use a D4 for floor area ratio a new variance for the number of stories. We have existing variances that are being expanded by way of that addition for front yard, sideyard, combined sideyard, and rear yard. And the existing unchanged
variances are lot area, lot width, uh landscape area ratio unless we eliminate some of the parking and the buffer. But it's my opinion that special reasons do exist for the granting of these variances and that they can be granted without detriment to the health, safety,
and general welfare of the public. looking first at that D1 use variance. The special reasons for that exist in the granting of that variance and that the site is particularly suited to the proposed residential use. This subject site is significantly undersized for the
EDO1 zone. It has an area of 5,000 square feet which an a where an acre which is 43,560 square feet is the minimum required. It has a width of 50 feet or 125 ft is required. It has a depth of 100 ft where
a buffer of 125 ft is required. The combined sideyard setback is 50 feet where the lot is only 50 ft wide. Uh the subject site is also adjacent to other single family dwellings on both sides both in the ED1 zone and to the rear
where it abuts the R5 zone. the site is consistent with the size of other residential lots in the area, but more specifically, it is consistent with what's anticipated in that adjacent R5 zone. So, if we look at the property through the R5 zoning criteria, it has a
lot area of 5,000 square feet, which the site is, has a lot width of 50 ft, which the site is, has a front yard requirement of 20 ft, which the site would meet. A sideyard setback of 9 ft. The existing house is at 7.7 feet on one
side. So, this would be an existing uh nonconformity. a combined sideyard of 50 feet or 15 feet which the site meets a rear yard setback of 25 feet which the proposed conditions meet a height of 35 ft and 2 and a half stories which the
proposal meets a floor area ratio of 0.4 and where which the site meets and we wouldn't meet the L of 0.45 45. That's an existing non-conforming condition. So given that this lot is not appropriately sized for the types of commercial uses
that are anticipated in the ED1 zone, it's located in a residential neighborhood and it's comparable with the requirements of the adjacent residential R5 zone. It's my opinion that the site is particularly well suited to the residence that's proposed.
These remaining variances uh should be considered as subsumed within that D1 variance for the dwelling. While the site fully accommodates the proposed F, it should be considered a de dimminimous deviation from the ED1 standard. It's
0.3 required where it's 0.32. Uh but in this case, it's also appropriate for the use as the proposed F would be permitted in the adjacent R5 zone. The majority of the bulk variance conditions, both existing and proposed, again, conform to the adjacent zone. So, they're appropriate for a residential lot on
this size uh property. Uh the only exception again is that sideyard setback and the L. And there would be hardship here. The existing structures at 7.7 ft and the proposed vertical addition matches the current setback and the existing L would be unchanged unless we
eliminate a parking space. There is, in my opinion, no detriment to these proposed variances. The proposed use is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The F and bulk relief requests are appropriate for this use on a lot of this size. Uh the last test for
a variance is whether or not it would substantially impair the intent and purpose of your master plan and zoning ordinance. Now the EDO1 zone is oriented towards economic development, but it permits mostly commercial and mini warehouse uses on 1acre lots. This lot is so small that it cannot reasonably
support uses that are in anticipated within the ED1 zone at the scale that they're anticipated with the required amount of parking. Granting a residential use variance for this small residentially scaled lot in a residential area is unlikely to
undermine the larger zone's overall economic development objectives which are more appropriately advanced on larger and more commercially suitable parcels. So this is a unique situation where the lot is significantly unders sized for the zone. It's surrounding by residences that are built to that R5
standard and the lot itself supports that. Under these unique circumstances, the use of this site as proposed is appropriate despite its current zoning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have nothing nothing further. Miss Coffin's available for questions.
>> Thank you, Mr. One. >> Don't I don't have any questions. Just the one uh question uh miss kafon and coffin we have already talked about this in the past too when you are defending a use variance you would agree that uh in
addition to site suitability there's some something that you look for is if this site can be developed with the permitted uses in this zone and I think your analysis is that this 5,000 square
ft lot cannot accommodate any of the permitted uses in the ED1 zone as is that right? >> That's correct. >> Um I have no other questions. So one second. So just to make it uh just to
simplify it right um if it was a retail use on an existing building do you still think you would need a number of bulk variances based on the E01 site and more importantly would you
also trigger a parking variance because that is critical to the location uh because it being on the state highway. Yes, I don't want to bore the board with going through all of the parking requirements for the zone, but I did look into all of the uses. Retail, for
example, is one space for 150 square feet. It would need more than the three spaces that are frankly the office that's there now should have four spaces. >> And then you wouldn't have that circulation space at the back of if you have to add more parking. >> You would you would lose what little bit
of greenery you have back there if you added another parking space. >> Correct. And even a tandem parking wouldn't work there because the site is too tight. >> Yes, that is correct. I don't have any further questions in the >> sense it would be zoned into in utility in a sense.
>> Yes. >> Let's see if the board has questions. Start down with Miss Fernbeck. >> M Gomez >> just have a question. The neighbor next door, what do they think about it? >> I didn't ask them. >> Okay.
We'll get to a public portion. I think there is someone here. >> I just have a quick question. Um I know you're going up a half a story. What is in that half a story that you're going up? Like why is it two and a half and not two? >> I don't know if that's for you or the
art. I'm sorry. I probably should have asked that before. Um but that's my one question. And my second question, which again, I'm sorry. I probably should have asked it before, but I just thought about it. Um, are you changing the footprint of the building? Meaning, I know you're you're changing the inside. You're reconfiguring it, but are you
adding are you expanding outwards and not just upwards? >> I can have the architect address it, but I the foot the footprint is not changing. >> Okay. You're just going up, >> correct? >> Okay. >> And we can have the architect either now or later. >> Later's fine. It was just I meant to ask
it before and I forgot. >> We'll have him wrap that up, but >> that's fine. Thank you. a number of comments that right now it looks like a home and you have a business there and now you're going to you're going to
take that and make it a uh another home. >> Yes. >> So why not put the business in there also? >> Well, the business is not adequately supported by parking. the applicant is currently using it and they have been trying to sell the property commercially
and been unsuccessful based on my my discussions with them. Um, three parking spaces isn't really enough to support a viable commercial use in a building of this size. >> Well, it's an LLC. I mean, how much parking do you need? >> Well, it depends tremendously on what the LLC does.
>> And so, it wasn't profitable. It wasn't say Oh, you said they're looking to sell it. >> Yes. >> So, they're going to close the business. I don't know that. You don't know that? >> May relocate. >> Okay. So, they're going to take it and make it a home, a residence. That's what they want to do. And end the business.
That's what it sounds like. >> I don't know. I don't know that they're >> Why doesn't the business follow the home when they build a new home, turn it into a a home, put the business back, that's where it is now, >> and keep it commercial.
>> Keep the site commercial. That's not the proposal from this applicant. Are are you suggesting a like a combination residence and business use? >> Well, what is it now? >> It's it's a >> Does the resident live there? >> No, it's a it's a commercial property.
>> Commercial property and and the business is run from that property now. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And now you're going to turn it into a resident home. >> And and then why not keep the commercial part of it in the home then? and keep it
in the ED1. >> We can have the applicant speak to it, but I do not believe it's the applicant's intent to for the applicant to remain at the property. This would be a residence for for someone else. So, as to your point about them wrapping up
or closing the business, again, we can have them speak about it, but it's my understanding that they would simply relocate and a new resident would a new party would come in for the residential purpose. Yeah, I just don't want to get away from this ED1 that you know now we're going
to allow this and make it a resident and uh what's the sense of having ED1 ED1 ED3? >> Well, this is a very very small part of >> that doesn't matter. It's in the zone. Thank you,
>> Mr. Rizzo. Is the applicant is the applicant going to live in that home or is he going to sell it his own? We can have the applicant come and address these questions. >> Mrs. Andrew, counselor,
>> um your engineer uh testified that uh the applicant would be amunable to um removing one of the spaces to meet the L. Uh, could the the site handle um the reduction in parking spaces and is it
would it be your testimony that it would still meet the parking requirement if that parking space was removed? >> I think I don't want to step on our engineers toes, but I think it may be possible to remove some of the asphalt without reducing the number of parking spaces. Looking at the site plan, there
is an area that is striped for a handicapped uh stall. That would not be necessary for a single family home. So that area of striping could be eliminated. We could still have three parking spaces. >> That's all.
>> I'm good. You have another witness you want to bring the architect back up to fill in. >> Sure. Let's have the architect address the halfstory question and then we can have the applicant address the other questions if that's accepted. >> By all means, >> Mr. Malloy back.
>> Mr. Mallaloy is already under oath. >> So there was a question as to um what would be in the the half of the two and a half stories. >> Yeah. So the half story is the unfinished attic space over the second floor. Um and then in regards to the footprint, we're not changing the
footprint on the first floor. Um we're overhanging in the second floor on the front and the back by four feet on on the front and the back. That's it. >> Anybody else for the architect? Thank you.
>> Have a representative of the applicant. >> Jud, Mr. P, what what is he going to speak to? >> So, there was questions as to um >> you said it's not the it's not the applicant. >> You said a representative of the >> Well, the applicant's an LLC.
>> Okay, I got you. Go ahead. >> So, >> thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, um perhaps you could introduce yourself and your your title or be sworn first. >> Raise your right hand. Thank you. Um do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth? So, hope you can. >> I do. >> And would you state your full name and spell your last name?
>> Aras. S P A L L. A R A I Z. We'll begin. Could you just identify your relationship to the to the applicant to the LLC? So my father is Sigir Ahmed. Um he's the owner of the
LLC, president of the LLC, and I'm also part >> Would it be accurate to describe you as a a project manager for this for this endeavor? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Um could you identify when the property was purchased by the LLC?
>> So towards the end of 2021. >> And at the time of the purchase, was there were there any occupants? Um, was it a vacant property when you purchased it? It >> was mostly vacant. They had like a small boutique shop or something of the sort. Um, it didn't look like they're
occupying it, but they did have some stuff in there, so I can't really speak to if they were occupying it, but yeah, it was most it looked like abandoned. >> And more recently, it's is it correct? It's been occupied by your LLC. >> Yes. So, we occupy as our office for our
realy um brokerage and our construction business. Um and the initial plan was to only occupy a part of it and rent out a portion of it um to subsidize the you know the mortgage and all that stuff. But uh when we started to market it um people used to come in um you know
potential tenants and they would say you know this lot is not suitable for our business whether it be retail or office space or anything like that. So we actually couldn't rent it out. So um in 2020 uh 20 2023 we attempted to sell it. So we put it on listing as a commercial
property. Um and again the same thing happened. People would come and um they would say um you know we need a space for our office or our commercial business but this lot is very undersized. Three parking spaces. You know we could hardly fit fit the owners in who's going to come here come in here and you know uh you know there's no foot
traffic obviously it's on Route 35. So it's very it was very very limited and we I actually if I recall correctly we didn't even get a single offer on the property as a commercial use. So would it to summarize then it would be accurate to say that over the past several years since you've owned the
property there's been consistent marketing efforts both to find a tenant or to sell the property for a commercial use or retail use that would be consistent with the zone and yeah >> been unsuccessful and as a result we're here tonight requesting
relief to use it as residence. >> Yes. So for the first two three years yes that's exactly what we did. We tried to first get tenants. We saw, okay, nobody wants to rent this space out. Um, we would try to sell it and we couldn't sell it either. And then that's when we started, you know, exploring our options of what we could do with this space. And obviously after talking with attorneys
and professionals, they said that, you know, this this is, you know, so right to our our right side there's a house, to our left side there's a house, to the back there's a house. Um, you know, we're basically in a neighborhood. So yes, so we tried very hard to make this a commercial space. We also occupied it
ourself after it wouldn't sell. But uh to answer uh uh one of the board members questions is that you know whether the business shut down or anything, no our construction business, we're just going to shift it to our uh we have a space in Edison. So no employees or anybody uh like that would be losing their jobs or
anything. Um we are just going to shift that office to a different space that's more suitable for our for our business. So because even let me just add one more thing that even for our business, we've outgrown this property. There's three parking spaces in the back. So, if me and my dad go in separate cars and two more employees show up, it's a
nightmare. So, it's we can't even get in and out of there because because of that. So, >> all right. Well, thank you for the history. I I hope that addresses the questions and concerns. Obviously, it remains available if there's any followup, but um that's all. >> Let me see. We'll start down. Mbach, any
anything for the uh witness? Now, if you said that you and your dad parked there, it was crowded. So, if you have a five- bedroomedroom house, is it safe to assume there's going to be at least two cars?
I'm I'm concerned about the safety of the people in the house and the cars. >> So, the on a busy highway, >> right? I mean, the project would comply from a parking perspective as was addressed in in testimony and there was the discussion about the the L variance
and perhaps in this case maybe it makes more sense to request that variance to maintain that extra parking space. So, from a the testimony tonight was that it would be compliant from a parking perspective as a five-bedroom house.
Also, um I said, so I said when me and my dad show up there in different cars and we have two more employees with different cars, if there's four cars and one has to park in the back, that's when it becomes an issue. So, if there are four cars, it becomes sort of a problem. And in a business, obviously, you have people coming in and out and things of that nature. But for a five-bedroom
house, I believe even if you have three cars, um you know, they fit perfectly fine. It's when you start adding cars to that and backing out and stuff like that becomes an issue for a commercial uh use. And you don't think that would be an
issue? I I I realize three parking spaces are required for a five- bedroomedroom house. I think five bedroomedroom I think at least two adults and children or teenagers.
And I just don't know if that would be adequate space for that big of a house. I think is what I'm saying. Well, I think we're here tonight because there were efforts to to use this property in a in a use that is compliant
with the EDO zone, most of which would likely require more parking than what's there today. Um, so, uh, again, not to be repetitive, it is compliant. I understand your concerns, but it is it does meet the RSIS standards.
Gomez Spino compliant. It's not compliant with the ED1 zone. It's residential and it's that's not in compliance. I >> I was referring to the parking for residents. >> Thank you, Mr. Riza.
>> No, I'm I'm good. Sounds great. Mrs. Sanders. >> Yeah. Um you were talking about the house on the sides of you and behind. Are those all residential? >> Yes. Yes. >> So, you're surrounded by >> residential. >> Right, left, back, and >> are they all about the same size as your
house? >> I would say so. I don't want to say for a fact, but I test. Yes. And I I would know this was mentioned in testimony before, but just to emphasize this point, the the um property abuts the R5 zone, which is a residential
zone. So the houses on either side are also in the EDO zone, but the house to the rear is in the R5 zone. And the testimony was that uh this proposed house would largely be compliant with the standards of the R5, uh which is
again right there. >> Okay. Also, um I I'm assuming that you are not going to be living there, that the house will be renovated and then you will be selling it. >> Um so it's not entirely out of the picture. I could personally probably occupy that. There's still discussions going on, but it's a 50-50. Either I
could occupy it or we could sell it. >> So, it's a it's a 5050 proposition if you're going to occupy it yourself or if it is going to be going up for sale. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you, >> counselor. I ask you. >> Thank you, chairman. No questions for
me. >> I don't have anything. Mr. P, you uh not going to present any other witnesses, correct? >> Correct. Why don't I get the public portion out of the way? >> Sure. >> That's okay with you. >> Yes. >> This is uh 15-2025 is the physical
location here is 34 Route 35. This is changing a uh ED1 zone into a residential uh usage. Anyone here in the courtroom wish to be heard on this matter? Come on up, ma'am. Yes, you can. You can
come on up. Mr. Pap, is that that's on, right? >> This one's on. Yeah. >> Hold on. You can come. You can come through. Before you testify to anything, the board attorney is going to swear you in. >> Okay. Because this is a quad judicial body. That's why we need to
>> raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the whole truth? >> Yes. >> And would you state your full name and spell your last? >> Uh, and Sher O Seagle. >> And spell your last. O S E G H A L E
I N S H I R A. >> All right, ma'am. You have some comments or questions or >> I just have a question. I am a neighbor. I just want to know will it be a residential area where tenants will be there or like a a rental?
>> So, what's being proposed is a a single family residence. Um, but it's not uh it wouldn't be part of this approval as to whether it would be renter occupied or owner occupied. And I I also don't believe that's been determined at that
at this point. In any event, >> thank you very much for appearing. >> Anybody else wish to be heard on this matter? The last call for the evening? I see none. and I'm going to close the public portion. Back to you, Mr. P.
>> Sure. So, just some closing comments. Um, what's being proposed we we believe as identified in testimony is a single family residence that's consistent with the neighborhood. There's single family residences on all sides. Um, we
recognize that the the zone which uh as of a few years ago has switched to the EDO zone does not permit single family residences. But you also heard from the applicant that there's been made there's been an effort made to um search for a compliant use for years at this point
and they've been unsuccessful in those efforts. So they're here tonight seeking uh variance relief from this board to put this property to good use as Mr. Chair you noted as to really not so as to not see this property go into inutility. Um so we would request the
board act favorably on this application. >> Thank you Mr. P. Before I'm assuming you're going to call for a vote this evening. >> Uh yes. I just want to make sure that the board doesn't have any further questions before we go for that vote. Yes. Anybody have any issues that you want to bring
up before we call for a vote? Coming right down. >> Okay, Mr. Scogno. Nothing. >> Good. Mrs. Andrew, >> that's okay. My my concern is uh if it's possible to put in the resolution that
it cannot be used as a BNB. >> I don't know if that's possibility. >> I I don't know that we can do that. >> Um >> chairman, I can answer that. The local zoning ordinance doesn't permit Airbnbs, so they would have to come back for use
variance to do that. >> Thank you. Anything else, Miss Andrew? >> Everybody else is okay. Um, you know, there's a mixed bag. I hate to use that term, but on on that highway,
uh, I can remember as a young driver traversing that in the early 70s and you couldn't really decide where it began and where it ended and was this was biz here. But then there's what were really little bungalows back in back going back
prior to that that people went that was the shore destination and it's come a long way. Uh it's been gentrified going out on the bay shore and uh I think people are trying to make best of their homes. Many of them passed through uh
bequath through family and people that were born there lived there died there and the rest of the family took over. I don't think this is detrimental to the zone plan. I don't see it as such. I don't doubt that there was a residence. One of our own board members says that
it's our recollection there was a residence in that original building. Uh it looks a little bit newer than most, but I don't know that could go back as far as the 60s as well. I I don't I don't really have a problem with this.
It's kind of on the tip of the zone over there. We're not quite sure. I know that the EDO Z zone went probably I think as as Miss uh Santan said it was about two years ago when it when it was changed and even as a CN there was still a lot
of a lot of residential use because uh nobody can really do business there. We've had a few people that have come before this board for commercial use. They opened a business and they closed it within a year because they can't do business there. So, I don't I certainly
don't want to see that happen. I'd rather see a usage that uh that is not only appropriate, but that is kind of goes blends with the neighborhood. So, I don't have any particular problem with it. I don't hear anyone else that wanted
to say anything. Having said that, I guess you're going to call for a vote. >> Uh yes, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. >> Uh can we do the whole thing at once? Right. Uh so, it is A major preliminary final site plan with
C and D variance is inclusive. Correct. >> Anyone wish to move this for approval? >> Is it? >> Okay. In a second. Was I who did I get Miss Spinelli or was that Miss Gomez? >> I Well, I don't know if I was first or second. >> I think you were second. >> Okay, that's fine. >> Roll call, please.
>> Miss Andrews. >> Uh, yes. And I hope a nice young family moves in. >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes. and welcome to the neighborhood. >> Mr. Rizo, >> yes. >> Mr. Scogn, >> no. >> Mr. Spanelli, >> yes. >> Miss Fernbach
and Chairman Sullivan. >> Yeah, I think uh for all the aforementioned that I put on the record, my my vote is yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Pipe. Thank you. You're professionals. >> We appreciate it. Thank you all. >> Board members, that does come to the
bring the meeting almost to a close. We have uh couple things left. We have some resolutions that we're going to read into the record. Correct, Mr. >> Okay. Sure. Okay. I'll tell you what. We're going to take a quick recess, less than five minutes, but we're going to go off the
other council has to have conference. Okay. Thank you. All right, we have returned from recess after a brief moment. Uh, may we have a roll call. Mr. uh, Pulahan. >> Miss Andrews >> present.
>> Miss Gomez >> here. >> Mr. Rizo >> here. >> Mr. Scogn >> here. >> Miss Benelli >> here. Miss Furbach >> here >> and chairman Sullivan. >> I am here. Uh we have just a couple of resolutions to get through board and then we'll look for an adjournment. Uh
first resolution is 03 2026Z. Uh Josephine Sabatino C variance. Mr. Mlin. >> Thank you chairman. This is granting application for bulk variance um for property 19 um Rooster Circle uh block
503 lot 9. This is for a three-foot yard setback. Three-foot yard setback is required where sorry I am mistaken um toyard >> the applicant will comply with the setback of three feet for the sideyard.
The applicant is required uh requiring a zero foot rear yard setback where three is required um which the board has granted in addition to a landscape area ratio of 17.38 where 50 is required.
>> The sideyard setback on the other side would still be zero. So the variance is still there but the condition would be that the north side has a 3 ft setback. >> Okay. So the correction is the north
side um will have the setback and the south side will have a zero foot setback which required a variance with the board approved. >> Board members you heard the resolution. So we want to move it. >> Gomez. >> Is there a second? >> Andrews. Miss Andrews. This is Mrs.
Andrew. Roll call. >> Miss Andrew. >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rizzo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scognstein. >> Miss Spanelli. >> Yes. >> Miss Fernbach. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Sullivan. >> Yes. Uh '05-2026
C. John Rodriguez design waiver. >> I will attempt to get this one correct the first time. This is granting a design waiver for a sideyard setback. uh 2 ft where five is required. This is 21 Stonybrook Drive, block 18044,
lot 14. Uh the applicant has also agreed to uh the following conditions. The installment of a Belgian block curb relocating the roof leader and extending the curb apron and depressed curb. Uh it's not a sideyard setback. It's a
design waiver from uh a five feet requirement to a two feet with that was approved. >> My apologies. >> He was tested. >> It's okay. >> Resolution. So move for adoption. >> Iso >> Gomez. >> Roll call, please. >> Miss Andrews.
>> Yes. >> Miss Gomez. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rizo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scognner. >> Yes. >> Miss Spanelli. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fernbach. >> Yes. >> Sullivan. Yes, the final resolution 35 2025Z that's not going to be handled tonight. Uh we're going to have to check on some of the verbiage in that.
>> Yes, that's great. >> That's to the next meeting. >> Having said that, all the resolutions are handled. We have no public here for public comments. I'd ask someone for to move for an adjournment. >> Move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Miss Andrew? >> Yes. >> Miss Gomez? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rizo?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Scogno? >> Yes. >> Miss Penelli? >> Yes. >> Miss Ferbach? >> Yes. >> Chairman Sullivan? >> Yes. We stand adjourn.