adjustment will meeting will please come to order. Adquate notice of this meeting is provided in the following ways. Notice published in the Courier News. Notice posted on the Bolton boards of the municipal building. Notice made available to the township clerk. Notice sent to the Courier News in the Star
Ledger. Will the clerk please call the role? I think you're muted. >> Are you muted? >> I'm wondering why Steve ain't answering me. I'm muted. Mr. Weissman >> here. >> It's been a day. Mr. Tillery >> here. >> Mr. Patel.
Mr. Reio >> here. >> Mr. Blount. Mr. Minando >> here. and chairman Cahill >> here. Will everyone please stand for a salute to the flag? >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, >> indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Mr. Connealy, are there any adjustments to the agenda tonight? >> Yes, we have a number of adjustments. Jose Castro
37 Orus Avenue is postponed until March 12th 2026. He must publish in the newspaper only. Tilicage Sony Hamilton Boulevard is adjourned until May 14th, 2026 with no further notice. On Switch,
Inc. New England Avenue is adjourned until March 26th. They must notice. MSN pharmaceuticals Duke Road is adjourned until March 26th with no further notice. NDK Realy South Washington Avenue is adjourned until
March 26th with no further notice. Those are all the changes I have this evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Conal. Let's move on to item. >> Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Um, just a record show Calish Patel is on the meeting. >> Okay. Thank welcome Calish. >> Thank you. Item number 726-ZB-03V
Jorge Mina and LSEago. The applicants present. >> Yes. >> Okay. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? >> Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. >> Okay. One at a time. Could I have your name and address, please?
Jorge Enriqueina 24 Road is New Jersey. >> My name is Lena Delgado. I am the realtor and I live at 58 Harrison Drive, Berkeley Heights, New Jersey.
>> You can put your hand down. Could you spell your last name, ma'am? >> My name? >> You spell your last name, please? >> Yeah. Degato. That's D E L G A D O. >> Thank you. Could someone explain to the board why you're here?
>> We are here because Jorge Hemina present, the seller of the property located in 24 or New Brunswick Road applied for a certificate of occupancy. The certificate of occupancy was not given to him because he has a room which
was um is is a plex room. It's not a bedroom, but it's an storage room. And it used to be a garage at some point, but Mr. Mina uh bought the house in 2003 like this. And the inspector uh notified
us that because this was done previously uh without any permits by the previous landlords, uh we have to apply for a variance if we want to keep it like that. Okay. Yeah, Jonathan. >> Uh, yeah. So, I I'll just reiterate that
this uh modification to the floor plan was done without permits. Um, the garage panel door is still present on the outside. So, it it appears from the street that there is a garage, but none is actually present. Um,
I don't believe this meets the the requirements for the zone with respect to off- streetet parking and um garages for single family homes. >> Okay. So, your recommendation is to >> convert the space back to a garage
>> to the original. Okay. >> Any other members of the um you okay with that, Miss Delgato? No. Well, the property has been like that for over 30 years. They have they have a space in the driveway to park
about like three cars. They don't use I mean they haven't used the garage for for as a garage for many years. >> What the previous owner did was illegal. Unfortunately, when your friend bought the property or or your client bought
the property, um I an inspector should have probably saw that and pointed it out before he purchased the home. Um I unfortunately we we just can't turn a black a blind side to um to this type of situation. So, uh I'm going to put it to
a vote. I'm going to let hear from the public first, but any other members of the board have any questions or comments for this hearing? None. I'm going to open it to the public. Laura, anyone in the public have any questions? Are their hands raised? >> No. One, chairman. >> Okay. I'm going to make a recommendation
that the uh it be converted back to a garage um the way it previously was. Unfortunately, again, your client uh was deceived when he purchased the property, but that's not unfortunately something that we can tolerate. So, we we let this
go out of hand. gets rampant and then it becomes the new norm for the uh the township and we can't do that. So, I'll make a recommendation to convert it back. Steve? >> Yeah, I second it, sir. >> Thank you. Please call the role order. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Tiller, >> yes.
>> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Oreio, >> yes. >> And Mr. Blanc, show up? >> Nope. Mr. Mando? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Cahill? >> Yes. >> Your application has been denied for the variance. Uh, you'll have to convert it
back to a garage. >> Thank you. >> Let's move on to item number 8. 26-ZB-01V. Daniel Chin. >> Yes, >> you're muted. Mr. Mr. Morse present. >> Yep, he is.
>> Right there. >> Good. Good evening, uh, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Kevin Morris, attorney for Mr. Daniel Chin, who you just heard from. Subject property is uh 18 20 West 7th Street, block 603, lot 46.01,
located within the municipality. It's in an R 7.5 zone. And we're kind of the exact opposite of the application that was just before you. Uh this is a house that contains a an existing single family dwelling and an existing detached
garage that go back to 1921. and we're before you seeking to do renovations to turn the garage really back into a functioning garage for vehicle parking. So before we proceed, I would just ask Mr. Connealy or or the board secretary to confirm. I had
previously submitted our applications of publication and mailing. I wanted to make sure that they were in fact received in order so that the board has jurisdiction to proceed. >> Notices were received and they are in proper order. The board has jurisdiction to go forward. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would first call my only witness, Daniel Chin, who is present. If he could be sworn, please. >> Could you raise your right hand? >> Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead, Mr. Morris.
>> All right. Now, Daniel, you are the owner of the subject property. Is that correct? >> That is correct. >> Right. And you purchased this property back on June 17th of 2008. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And when you purchased the property, you obtained a survey in connection with
your purchase and that survey was submitted uh to the board as part of your application package. Is that also correct? >> That is correct. >> Right. Now, the survey shows that there's an existing single family dwelling and existing detached residence. >> They still exist in that configuration
today. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. Okay. >> Now, uh the garage when you purchased this property back in 2008, uh it did have a bathroom in the back of it. Correct. >> That is correct.
>> Okay. It also had a column on the inside that really prohibited a vehicle from being parked inside because the ve the column blocked space for which a vehicle could fit. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Okay. And there were also, at the time you bought it, an actual stairwell
that went from the garage floor up to the second floor, uh, which was another room, an attic room, if you will. Correct. >> Yes. >> Now, we are before the board actually seeking to renovate this garage, uh, to bring it back to a configuration where
it can be used as a as a usable a usable garage for parking because you can't fit a car in there right now. Is that correct? >> Yes, sir. >> Right. So part of the proposed renovations are that uh you're going to remove the attic stairwell. There will be no full set of stairs and instead
have a typical pull down stair only to get access to the attic for storage. Correct. >> Correct. >> You're going to remove the column inside and put a new uh structural main beam inside the garage that will not require a column for support. That will then
free up the garage space so that you can fit a car in there. Is that correct? >> That is correct. And now there is an existing bathroom in the back that was there when you bought it. Correct. >> That is correct. >> The genesis of that bathroom is I understand from from you that there was
an above ground pool in the back of that property next to the garage for many years and some prior owner was really using the garage for lack of a better word sort of a pool cabana. So it had a a shower and a bathroom um for use for the pool people so they didn't have to
come back into the house because it's a small house. Is that correct? >> Yes. Okay. Now, and you propose that to remain because I understand it's your intention to to put another new above ground pool with proper permits of course in the backyard and that would be a nice amenity for use of the pool given
the small size of the house and the distance from the house. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Right. Now I also understand that the plans that are before the board you had gone down to the building department and from the terms of construction or building they seem to be okay with the
plans but you couldn't get a building permit because you first needed to get a zoning permit. Correct. >> Yes. And when the zoning permit was sought to be obtained, it was determined and this is really the bulk variance before the board that uh dimensionally we're off by about a foot on the depth
of the garage based upon the municipal ordinance requirements for the size of the inside area to park a car. Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because now the and the board should be aware the ordinance for the garage requires a 12t wide by 20 foot depth of a garage. Um,
right now with the column, uh, it's 18.17 ft wide, but you still can't fit a car because the column blocks it inside. And the inner interior parking depth is 18.92 ft when it should be 20. So, we're off by a 1.08 ft. And that's really the
the the real bulk variance we're here for. Now, there are other pre-existing bulk variances. the location of the garage which is in a back corner typically as they were uh the dwelling and so forth but those are all pre-existing nothing uh that we're proposing here with these renovation is
going to exacerbate any of the um any of the pre-existing conditions and uh with regard to the survey itself the back of the garage have been squared off but but not past what you see on that survey to make it a a square dwelling and um so I
just wanted to bring that to the board's attention Now, now, Mr. Chin, we took a look at a memo that was generated by the staff dated February 9th of 2026. Uh, there's a plan review comment number one that indicates at the time of future county road improvements, the applicant
shall relocate the wall and steps outside of the rightway. That that is the wall and steps at the very front of the property that apparently encroach a little bit into West 7th Street. Correct. >> Yes. And you are prepared of course to comply with that condition or have that to be a condition of of of disapproval
for any future owners. Those would have to be removed if so requested by the county for future road widening. And you understand and agree with that. Correct. >> Yes. >> And factually just item two uh it is correct uh this overall renovation is
not uh adding any additional height to the existing structure what we see today. Correct. >> Correct. Not at all. >> All right. So, uh, that is really Mr. Chin's testimony. Now, uh, of course, we're requesting a bulk variance, uh, Mr. Chairman, and I don't have a prof
professional planner available this evening, uh, and I don't test intend on testifying as a planner, but I I believe I can offer for the board's consideration what we call a legal profer because the board has its own expertise in evaluating whether or not to grant or not grant bulk variance
relief. In this case, I think the board could find that there's a hardship on this applicant and that would justify the granting of the leaf we uh relief. We've got a an old lot contains an existing single family dwelling and detached garage and I attached the tax
records to this application. They were built in 1921. They're both there for for over a century, 105 years. And it would certainly uh be a hardship on this applicant if he was disallowed to renovate this 100-year-old garage back to what it's really supposed to be, that
of a functioning garage to park cars in. Uh, alternatively, I think the board could also find that under the C2 flexible sea analysis, uh, this application could meet that criteria as well. You've got again a unique piece of property as I've just detailed and uh
certainly there are purposes three of them of the municipal land use law that are advanced namely uh uh the board can find uh this would encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state in a manner to
provoke public health, safety and welfare. Provide adequate air, light and open space. And the third one to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial, industrial uses. And those are enumerated under the municipal land use
laws as um items or purposes A, C, and V for the record. And I would submit respectfully to the board that you consider these purposes would be advanced because uh what we're trying to do here is to make a garage again function as a garage for vehicular parking. And we know that this m
municipality favors garages for off- streetet parking. In fact, the zoning ordinance requires that single family residents have at least a single uh car garage for vehicle off- streetet parking. So, I believe the proposal meets those purposes and again brings a
garage back uh into conformity for its intended purpose to be used as a garage. And so with either one of those, either a hardship or or a flexible C analysis, uh I respectfully submit this board can find the variances we're asking for can
be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zone or ordinance. Again, that is my profer for you to consider the basis for our requested relief. And that would conclude our presentation. Mr. Chairman,
if you have >> Thank you, Mr. Morris. Thank you. Jonathan, do you have anything to add at this point? >> No, thank you. >> Okay. Uh, anyone any other members of the board have any questions or comments? >> Hearing none, I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public portion
have any comments or questions? >> If you're on the phone, you hit star six. If not, you could raise your hand. >> No inter. >> Okay. Close the public portion. I'd make a motion to approve this application as is. >> I'll second. >> Call the roll. >> Mr. Weissman. Yes,
>> Mr. Tiller. >> Yes, >> Mr. Patel. >> Yes, >> Mr. Oreio. >> Yes, >> Mr. Minorando. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Cahill. >> Yes. >> Will memorialize this at our next meeting. >> Right. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. Have a pleasant rest of your evening. >> Have a good night, sir.
>> Thank you. Thank you. >> Good night, Mr. Chin. >> Let's move on to item number 925-ZB-90V Sigma Construction. >> Good evening. I'm James Mitchell on behalf of the applicant Sigma Construction. Uh if I
may, I have a brief introduction. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh as a reminder, this is application. We were here in uh February uh January rather January 12th.
>> And uh the applicant's a builder that will be constructing a new home for a family that owns the existing home on the property. The applicant plans to redevelop the existing 9,375 square foot lot at 49 Charles Terrace in
the R19 zone. Tonight, we're seeking approval of bulk variances for a variety of existing conditions, uh, which include the lot area, as I said, 9375 where 10,000 is permitted required, lot width 75 where 100 is required, and lot
frontage 75 where 100 is required, and any other necessary relief permit the construction of a proposed single family dwelling. I will note that since we were last with you, we believe we have removed all of the uh variances. Well, actually after we reviewed your
professional's most recent letter, we have no new variances, only existing conditions with respect to the application. Uh when we reviewed your professional's recent letter uh the regarding the updated architectural plans, we uh then examined them in light
of those that review letter. And as you'll hear, our architect will testify tonight that we would agree to modify the plans to clarify that the front yard setback as constructed will be no less than 35 ft and that the rear overhang on the house will be no more than 18 in and that the garage will be at least 20 ft
deep. In addition, we will add a detail showing the installation of the fiber conduit on the revised plans. With those clarifications, this application should need no new variance relief. Tonight, I plan to represent the applicant's architect, William Con, and our professional planner, uh, Brian Cidell.
Uh, the architect will explain the revisions to the details of our proposal, and Mr. Sidell will address the revised impacts of proposal. Both witnesses were previously sworn and qualified. Do you wish to re-swear or re-qualify them? >> Not necessarily. They remain sorted. >> Okay. All right. Then I would begin with
our architect William Colum to review. >> Please proceed. >> Details. Okay. Billy, you are previously sworn and previously qualified in this. >> Very good. Good evening. Can everybody hear me? >> Yes, sir. >> Yes. >> Ah, very good. Thank you very much for
rehearing our uh submission. Um, as explained just a few moments ago, we have made revisions to the plans in order to accommodate the comments that were given to us at the last hearing last month. Um, most notably, I wanted
to let everybody know per the plans that we have reduced the overall footprint and square footage of the home. So, we're that we are at 19.9% now on the um gross area of the lot, just shy of the
20% threshold. Uh for the review letter that we did get the other day, uh two points were brought about that were just discussed a few moments ago. Uh one of them is that the uh garage needs to have an interior dimension of of 20 foot
clear and we are shy by an inch and 3/4 which we can easily adjust with negligible impact anything as previously presented and we can discuss that further. Uh the second item um that I mentioned that uh we're we're
below the 20% threshold. However, was brought to our attention in the review letter from a few days ago that if there is a canal levered second floor that extends more than 18 in um that square footage of that candle
lever is considered. So, I want to let everybody know that that candle lever on the second floor in the rear of the house is actually designed at 1T 11 in. That being said, the additional 5 in equate to roughly 20 square ft, which will put us just over that 20%
threshold, but I will let the board know that we'd be happy to make that adjustment that the second floor would be 5 in less in the rear and we could easily achieve that so that that rear cant on the back of this house would not
be considered in the 20% uh calculation for uh ground floor area or I should say the uh site area. Um, in addition, there was in the review letter, as previously discussed, the um the required setback
is 35 ft. Uh, the original home, I believe it was set at 32.8 or 32.9 ft. And originally, we did place the new home at that exact same location. I will um let you know that there was a note in
the review letter stating that when the drawing was scaled, not that it should be scaled, but when it was scaled, it appeared to be slightly off. I will testify today that the numbers that we are showing has a front setback of 35 ft and the rear of 51.65 are accurate and
if there is a slight deviation pictorially or visually, we were happy to make that quick adjustment. But the calculations are in fact correct based on our current design. Um, as I pointed out a few minutes ago, uh, the review letter does state that the
garage needs to be an inch or so bigger. So, we will shift the house back one and 3/4 in, I think, is the exact number, uh, to offset that, uh, additional square footage that's needed per that letter. Um, aside from that, we took
great uh, efforts to modify this house that our homeowner was very uh, eager to start construction on and we're very excited about. Um, we had to make a number of very very careful um, adjustments in order to make the the
design intent of the house still work and we feel we've accomplished that. Um, once again, we will we have no problem making that little adjustment to the garage and the adjustment to the candle lever to make sure that we are in fact within that 20% lot coverage requirement. Um, and then also as
previously tested a few minutes ago, we will add the fiber optic uh conduit that we've previously agreed to. That'll certainly show up on our plans in the future. >> Okay. And and to summarize, will there be any new variance relief or deviations with respect to our proposal? Not at
this time. >> Okay. Uh I would also note that we would agree to provide the season high groundwater table information and the calculation regarding the roof runoff and sump pump discharge. We would request that be a condition of approval ideally due at the time of permitting. Uh
>> correct. >> Any other questions for our architect about the design or design changes? Uh we could either open to the public, members of the board, professionals or >> I'm going to wait till the end to be honest with you. I just wanted to ask John, do you have any concerns at this
point or do you want to uh address everything at the end? >> Let's address everything at the end. >> Okay, you can move on, Mr. Mitchell. >> Okay, then we'll move to our planner, Brian. Uh call. You have previously been sworn and qualified in this matter. >> I have. >> Okay. And you want to give us the
benefit of uh your insight on the planning impact and proofs related to the application? >> Sure. Uh I believe I provided the proofs and overall description of the property, the project and the variances that were requested at the last hearing. In summary, uh when the application was
filed, there were a number of variances that were requested for both existing and proposed conditions. What we're looking at now through a series of revisions is essentially just the request for variances associated with the existing conditions. uh the lot
area, the lot width, the lot frontage, and the rear yard setback for the existing accessory structure uh is what the relief is being requested here. >> Uh no, Brian, actually, I believe the shed is gone as part of the revisions. So, that's rear yard. >> It's no longer included in this
application. >> Sorry about that. My apologies. >> Um what was also requested was a front yard setback as the architect indicated. However, we are removing that variance now as well and complying with that
regulation. Um, so essentially the the variances that we need uh insufficient lot area and lot width and the lot frontage we really can't change. We can't improve as part of the application. So I believe the variances
that we are requesting are u or can be approved under the C1 criteria as a hardship here. Um again this is a residential zoning district permits residential uses and the master plan contemplates this as a residential area.
Uh the application as it's proposed complies with all other uh relevant criteria according to the zoning code. Uh variance will advance purpose of zoning particularly purposes a to guide the appropriate use of land. I to
provide a desirable visual environment through quality design. J to prevent urban sprawl through the redevelopment of an existing lot. No detriment to the zoning good uh zoning plan zoning ordinance. Uh this is again consistent
with the ordinance and I believe the approval of the variances related to the existing conditions are appropriate to warrant the improvements to the existing residential lot. >> Thank you.
I don't have any other questions at this time for this witness. >> Okay. Um Jonathan, I think we've heard most of the test Well, the testimony were about to we already heard, I should say. Um why don't you jump in and see what your concerns are.
>> Thank you. Uh just two quick comments uh for Mr. Cohen. Um just to be clear, if the overhanging is over 18 in, that's okay, provided that we're underneath the coverage and the setback. So, if just I'm just putting that out there.
>> Um, as long as it's being considered with the calculations. And then the other comment I'll make is just echoing um other comments before seasonal high groundwater table and the design and calculations for the seepage pit. I'm comfortable picking those up in a
compliance review prior to permitting. And that's all my comments. >> Okay. Mr. Cohen, did you have a comment on what I said or? No, I agree. >> Okay, fantastic. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments?
None. You want to make your summation, Mr. Mitchell? >> I would be very brief. Uh, as you've heard, the application would enhance the public good and can be approved without any substantial detriments. We think that this is a uh very reasonable and a uh appropriate relief given the fact
that it's a residential loted by other residential lots. There's no ability to enhance the size of the lot. taking away from other lots similarly with the lot width. Uh and we would request the board approve the application. >> Thank you, Mr. Mitchell. Any other members of the board have any questions
or comments? Hearing none, I'm going to open it to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions about this application? >> First one is a John. Let me give him >> John. Can we have your full name, please? >> He's muted right now.
>> You need you need to unmute. I gave you all permission. >> John, can you unmute? >> I should be. >> Yep. You're good to go. We hear you. >> Hey, John, can I have your full name, please? >> Yeah. John Watkins. >> Okay. I need to swear you in. Could you
raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Your address, please. >> Uh 51, Charles Terrace. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. Three concerns that I have are all the
houses, even the ones that were uh redone and gone up, they all maintain a 30 foot distance between the houses, uh 20 on one side, 10 on the other side.
And from what I seen on the previous uh drawings, it's being bumped out to the side. So it appears that the 20 foot on the 49 Charles Terrace side is no longer
going to be 20 foot reducing the spaces between the houses. Now that's a concern, you know, for fire issues because the houses are now closer together. So that's one of my concerns is the encroachment to closer of the houses. Um
on the previous I don't know if there's a new drawing or not, but they had I think air conditioning units uh within the 10 foot of the property line. Now those condition units I would imagine are going to be large units since it's a
much larger house uh is going to be essentially right outside my bedroom. So I will be hearing their noise. So I'm concerned about that. And the third item is the house having a
much larger roof structure uh is going to have a lot more water coming off of it in a rain. Now the topography of the land is sloped. So water is going to run downhill. So I am
concerned that all that extra water and being closer to my property that it is would essentially turn my property into their uh water retention pond. So those are just my three concerns.
>> Thank you, John. Appreciate your testimony. Laura, anyone else? Uh, anyone want to raise their hand or if you're on the phone, it's star six. >> There's Sam. >> Sam. >> Sam, could I have your full name, please?
>> Uh, Samantha Pangorn. >> And your address? >> 43 Charles Terrace. >> Thank you. I need to >> I'm also >> I'm also >> Oh, sorry. I'm also on here for my parents that live at 45 Charles Terrace. >> Okay. I need you to be sworn in. Could
you raise your right hand? testimony you're about to give should be the truth. >> Uh, yes it is. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, I'm concerned um and I I about the basement situation that they're building and I'm just worried because
none of these houses that I believe have a basement. Um, I have to call and get several permissions to put a fence post up in my yard and I'm concerned if they're going to start digging into the shale and disrupting everything. We
already have tons of pipes even this past week that have, you know, gotten damaged and stuff. And I'm just worried that, you know, this basement situation is going to disrupt the the pipes and everything in the
area. And also, I don't know why they would want a basement because that is going to flood like crazy. So, that was my concern. Um, so, >> thank you, Samantha. Appreciate the testimony. Miss Buckley, anyone else?
>> Stephanie Pon. >> Stephanie, can you hear us? >> You need to unmute. There she can. >> Can you raise Can you hear me now? >> Yes, we can. I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? >> You swear that the testimony you're about to give shall be the truth.
>> Yes. >> Your name and address, please. >> My name is Elder Stephanie. Address 47 Charles Terrace. >> Thank you. Go ahead. >> So, uh I am totally agree with them
here. Uh so, I'm my side of the house is on the right hand of the this new proposal. So I'm quite concerned about the same um things that he mentioned. So we um few months
ago we had a problem with our pipes and then we realized that in our backyard we have old pipes that are still connected with the new system in the house. I'm worried that when they're like working on the backyard, removing all that, at
some point there's going to be some effect done into um the landscape of the houses that are near the property. >> Thank you, Stephanie. Appreciate the testimony. >> Thank you.
>> Anyone else have any questions or comments? raise your hand or hit star six to unmute. >> I don't believe so, chairman. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, if I could just uh since
uh the neighbors have some concerns, it would be appropriate to include uh if you want to vote in favor of this a condition of approval that if any of the construction or runoff from this property uh comes on to neighboring properties, uh that the applicant be
held accountable and remediate that. >> I agree. Absolutely. That would be made part of the uh the application approval. Um any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Laura, close the public. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to make a
motion to approve this application with the comments that Mr. Connealy just made. Can I get a second? >> Yes, I'll second it. Please call the role. >> Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Tillery, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. Mr. Reio,
>> I lost >> Mr. Morando. >> Yes, >> you got it. And Chairman Cahill, >> yes. >> We'll memorialize this and send the copy to you after the next meeting. >> Thank you very much and thank you all for your time. Have a good night. >> Good night, gentlemen.
>> Have a good night. >> Good night. Thank you very much. >> Let's move on to item number 11, I believe. 26-ZV-05V VFV Properties. >> Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Steve Melanic from the law firm of Greenbound, Rose Smith, and
Davis here on behalf of the applicant, VFV Properties LLC, uh who is here. What's listed on your uh your agenda here as three variances, but we did resolve one of those variances. So, the two that are remaining, and we'll get into it, are existing uh conditions. Uh
they're they're nothing that we can hand uh deal with. We do have one witness that I think we're going to set a record on the brevity of his testimony, but we have Mr. >> uh from Styers Associate Associates PE that's ready to be sworn in.
>> Styers, could you raise your right hand? You swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth. >> Yes, I do. >> I believe Mr. Styers has been accepted as an expert before this board on prior occasions. >> I agree. Please proceed, Mr. >> All right, Mr. Styers, you were retained by the applicant here to prepare plans
in connection post application. Can you give a brief brief overview of why it is we're here today before the board? >> Uh the uh applicant is looking to demolish an existing house and construct a new dwelling on a lot that has a lot
width that does not meet the requirements of the uh zone. Uh it's required to be 100 ft and the lot is 79.24. 24. And I guess that would go along with the frontage. Um the lot is
essentially sandwiched between two former subdivisions um that are have been um approved and houses constructed. So there's no way to get additional um space from either either of those lots. So we're kind of stuck with what we have. And as Steve
said, it's an existing condition. Everything else meets the uh conditions uh or the requirements of the zone. and the planning review letter and the agenda identified variance for ordinance section 21-614 which is the installation of fiber optic conduit along the property frontage but
we've amended that uh and are going to comply with that ordinance. Is that correct? >> Yeah, that was actually on the plans. We uh like Don said she just liked to have it labeled. So um it's actually there but um so that's why it's been removed as one of the variances. >> Very good. Thank you Mr. Styrus. Mr.
Chairman, we are here for a single family home which complies with the zone and two variances for a lot that as Mr. Styer says was sandwiched in between two subdivisions and and the lot width and lot frontage are both existing conditions. Uh so your prototypical C1 hardship uh variance request. We have no
further testimony uh tonight. >> Uh at this point I'd like to get some uh comments from our expert Jonathan, please. >> Yeah, thanks for the testimony. Um, we just want to make sure for our board file we do get a copy with that uh note added to it. Otherwise, I don't have any
comments on this. >> No problem. >> Okay, sounds great. Any other member of the board have any questions or comments? >> Hearing none, I'm going to go to the public. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions for this application? >> You could unmute or hit star six if
you're on a phone. >> No one chairman. >> Okay. Close the public portion. Can I make a motion to approve this application? >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Call roll. >> Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tillery? >> Yes. >> Mr. Patel? >> Yes. >> Mr. Origio?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Morando? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Cjo? >> Yes. >> Your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it at our next meeting and send a copy to you. >> Thank you, Mr. Kenny. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Have a good evening. >> Have a good evening, Governor. Moving on
to item number 12 26-ZB-06V Serinda S Jasal and Lupinda Jasal. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jordan Freriedman of Eastol and Sullivan. I'm here on behalf of the
Jassels. Um >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry, Mr. K. >> I I pronounced your name wrong. I apologize. Um, tonight we're here to uh request issuance of the certificate of
nonconformity. Um, the subject site is uh 350 Rock Avenue. That's block 210, lot 126.01. The site is improved with two separate single family dwellings. Uh, the property is situated in the R7.5 zone
which permits single family dwellings. Um uh in connection with our application, we submitted a uh host of documents. Uh they include a survey from September of
2002. Municipal tax records um and tax property record cards um from 1974 and uh since 2000. uh each indicating that the property is improved with two separate single family dwellings.
Certainly as per the 1974 cards and confirmed by the more recent cards. Um in fact the cards reflect the construction of the structures uh way back into the early 1920s and and uh in
fact 1919. Um, we've included the deed. We've included photographs, the flood hazard determination, construction permits, um, dated between 1998 and 2021, a title insurance policy
showing no easements or restrictions, uh, the landlord's rental registration statements, uh, the letter of Mr. Pabiki dated August 13, 2025.
um Sandborn maps from 1927, 1947, 1959 showing two dwellings uh that are single family on the property. Uh we have an expert um Mark Bunting who will testify
about uh the Sandborn maps as well as aerial photographs um which are between 1931 and 2023. Those photographs also show uh two dwellings that are single family on the
property. And lastly, we also submitted uh certificates of occupancy for both of the uh single family dwellings on the property. Uh tonight, you'll hear them referenced as either, you know, the
front or the rear dwelling. Um, as a first witness, uh, Rupender, uh, Jassel is here with me. Um, if, uh, Mr. Chairman, I could proceed with this testimony, I will. >> Yes, be sworn in.
>> Mr. Jassel, please raise your right hand. Do you swear that testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes. Pender. >> Thank you. >> Property address 50 Rock Avenue Skyway.
Perfect. Please proceed. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Jassel, uh, are you one of the owners of the property? >> Yes. >> Um, and have you owned the property since September 2002? >> Yes. >> And before you purchased the property,
did you visit the site? >> Yes. >> And at the time that you visited the site, did the property have two separate single family dwellings on it as it does now? Yes. >> Okay. And are you familiar with the uh
survey from September 2002? >> Yes. >> Mr. Chairman, do you need me to share my screen so that the survey is visible or does everybody have >> attach all of your attachments were provided uh with the application to all of the members? So, they have
>> we all got it in our packet. So, we're good. You don't have to share the screen. >> Okay. Thank you. Um All right. So based upon your familiarity with the survey, uh could you confirm whether it shows two separate single family dwellings? >> Yes.
>> And are those uh two dwellings still on the property? >> Yes. And uh the survey the layout on the survey, has it changed since you purchased the property? >> No. >> Okay. And you heard me uh say before
that there uh the dwellings will be referred to as the front dwelling and the rear dwelling. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. Could you describe for the board um the front dwelling? So the front dwelling dwelling is a three bedroomedroom house with one and a half
bath with kitchen, living room and a dining room and unfinished basement and also has the two parking spots in the back. Okay. And far as the rear house goes, uh the rear house is a two
bedroomedroom um two bedrooms, one bath living room, um kitchen and unfinished basement and has a two parking spots in in in the side of the house which is the front door.
>> Okay. Um and do both of the dwellings have separate utilities and mailboxes? >> Yes, do they have separate water and electric and mailboxes? Yes. Okay. Um and in so far as the tax records that uh
were procured um in order to present the application, did you have a chance to review the tax records? >> Uh yes. >> Okay. And did those tax record did I accurately uh express what the tax
record show that there are uh two single family dwellings on the property? Okay. Um, and regarding the certificates of uh occupancy, did you hear me uh
mention those in my introduction? >> Yes. >> Okay. And there's a certificate of occupancy for the front. >> Yes. So, for each department has their own separate um license or seal. Okay.
Um, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions for Mr. Jassel. >> Okay, we'll take it from here. Uh, any other members of the board have any questions or comments? Oh, Jonathan, I want to ask you if you could jump in with any concern. >> Thank you. I just want to make sure the jassels understand the limitations of a
certificate of non-conforming use that if the property is expanded, uh, one of the buildings, uh, is removed, etc., that the certificate is, um, aband considered abandoned. >> Yes. Okay. Uh that that's the only comment I had.
>> Thank you, Jonathan. Appreciate it. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments? >> Okay. Um is that your final summation, sir? >> Well, I was going to present Mr. Bunting briefly regarding
>> Sure. >> I ju just so we have it on the record because >> are you? >> Uh yes. >> I need to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? >> Sure. >> Do you swear the testimony you're about to give should be the truth? >> Yes.
>> Your name and address, please? >> Uh, my name is Mark Bunting. My address is 206th Avenue, Asbury, uh, apartment 20, Asbury Park, New Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> Uh, Mark, could you give the board uh
the benefit of your educational and professional background? >> Sure. I'm a a environmental scientist. Uh got my degree from West Virginia University. I've been an environmental professional for 27 years. Uh I've been
doing phase one environmental site assessments, preliminary assessments for uh 24 of those years. Those are historical records reviews. >> I think we can move forward. Your your credentials are good. >> Okay. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mark, in
connection with this application, can you explain to the board what it is that uh you did uh so that we could provide all the information that will be useful? >> Um I mean do you guys since you have these records um you know the first
thing I I essentially did because I was asked to evaluate aerial photographs. Um so we purchased commercially available photographs from company called EDR environmental data resources. Uh I evaluated those photographs. Um
within that purchase we also purchased the sandborn and fire insurance maps uh since there was coverage available. Uh and then I'm just basically looking for was asked to look for structures. Um I also evaluated u tax records uh to note
and noted that the structure at least one structure was constructed in 1921 and then I evaluated the sandborns probably provided the the best information because of clarity. Uh but
essentially there's a uh a 1927 uh Sanborn fire insurance map to pick two structures uh and those structures remain um they're the same exact structures that remain on the property. Now um
footprints remain the same. So that's basically what I summised. Uh I confirmed it additionally with aerial photographs that go through from uh 1931 uh through I think it was 2025.
>> Okay. Um I don't have any further questions for uh Mr. Bunting, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Jonathan, any questions for this gentleman? >> No. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. Any other members of the board have any questions or comments?
>> Okay. Um think we could take a vote on this if you're all gay okay with it. public. >> Oh no, you forgot. So sorry. Anyone in the public have any comments or questions? I apologize. >> Yes. Hold. We have uh Dance Lampin. Lamin, >> you could hit unmute.
>> Can you hear me? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Name. I hate to swear you in. Could you raise your right hand? >> Yes. >> I swear that the testimony you're about to give should be the truth. >> Yes. >> Your name and address, please. >> Denise Lamin, seven Richard Terrace. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead.
>> Proceed. I'm not very versed in zoning. Um, and I would just like to clarify some things. Is this the residence that's right next to the bar on the corner that has two buildings? There's a resident in the front and a
resident in the back. Is this the location, >> Mr. Freeman? >> Yes. assuming that's >> we the address is 350 provided that she's referring to 350
Rock Avenue. Uh sure. >> So this is the location next to the bar that's on Fourth and Rock. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. In previous years, that house in the back was used to storage supplies for
the liquor store on the corner. Is that still being done? >> The liquor store has nothing to do with that house. That's a you talk that's separate property. >> Okay. >> They have their own three garage.
>> Okay. No, >> we're not talking about the same property. So you're saying >> you said it's not it's not the same. >> So you're not the second house from the corner.
>> Uh >> the light is a light on West Fourth and Rock. >> There there are certificates of occupancy for these uh dwellings to be used for residential purposes. So I'm not really certain where the the
questioning is supposed to be going. Um if if it were used for any other purpose, the certificates of occupancy would not have been issued. That's our position, Mr. Chair. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, this request, this application
is to continue residency for those have residency for those two uh dwellings. Is that correct? >> Yes, that's correct, ma'am. >> Okay. Okay, I am in objection because the the second house in the back has
extra company and the music and the type of visitors there um cause a lot of noise and I've gone around the corner to re to complain if we're talking about the same residents. >> Okay, ma'am. This is the zoning board
that we can't consider that sort of thing. If you have a problem with uh neighbors making too much noise, you could contact code enforcement. Understood. >> Thank you, ma'am, for your testimony.
Anyone else? Anyone else out there? >> No one chairman. >> Okay. Close the public portion and I'd make a motion to approve this application. >> I have a second. >> Please call the role. >> Mr. Weissman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tiller. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Origio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Morando? >> Yes. >> And Chairman Cahill? Yes, >> your application's been approved. We'll memorialize it at our next meeting and send a copy to you. >> Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
>> Have a good night. >> You, too. Laura, I think we're up to 16. >> Uh, yes. Resolutions. >> Adoption of resolutions from the regular meeting of February 12, 2026. >> Uh, first resolution is Alvin Rue. Uh, which you voted to approve. Mr.
Weissman. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tiller. >> Yes. >> Mr. Patel. >> Yes. >> Mr. Origio. Yes, >> Mr. Mando. >> Yes, >> Chairman Ko. >> Yes. >> Next is Tobias,
which you voted to approve. Mr. Weissman, >> yes. >> Mr. Tiller, >> yes. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes. >> Mr. Origio, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Chairman Kill. >> Yes. >> Those are all the resolutions for this evening. >> Item number 17, adoption of minutes from the regular meeting, February 12th,
2026. All in favor say I. >> I. Item number 18, a German. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> Thanks, guys. Have a great night. >> Thank you. >> Happy St. Patty's Day. If I don't see you. >> All right. Same.