Uh, the Red Bank Sony Board of Adjustment come to order the 16th day of June, 2026. Time is 6:30. Roll call, please. >> An Tory >> here. >> Raymond Mass >> here. >> Greg Fitzgerald
>> here. John Gild >> here. >> Anna Cruz absent. Vincent Light >> here. >> Paul Kagno. Eugene Harowitz >> here. >> Chris Havens. >> Darthothy Ceruo. >> Okay. She's running late.
>> She uh she's here. I think she has on the phone. >> Okay. Here. And that's it. Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey law, this meeting notice has been published in the Asbury Park Press and the Two River Times and is available on municipal
website and the New Jersey Secretary of State's website. It is also posted on the municipal bulletin board. This meeting complies with the Open Public Meetings Act and will be tape recorded. If the applicant chooses to use a court reporter to transcribe the recordings,
board requires a copy of the transcript. A break will occur around 800 PM in the conference room on the first floor. Public is welcome to attend, but discussions with board members will not be allowed. No new cases will be heard after 9:00 p.m. and the cuto off time is
9:30 p.m. Any applicants not heard will be rescheduled for the next meeting. Uh pledge of allegiance. Okay, we have a administrative matter. We have approval of the meeting minutes from June 18th. Anybody make a motion to approve those?
>> I'll approve. >> I'll second if I was looking at the right minutes. uh for the application for 273 uh Shrewberry, it said that there were no nays. Is that on the minutes? I don't have the minutes in front of me, but that was not correct cuz I I was a nay
vote on that. >> That'd be fry, right? >> Yeah. >> 273 Shberry. Oh, that was just a carry. That wasn't for the ordinance approval. >> Remember they came back, >> but that that was not in the minutes
from 618. >> It was what? >> April 16th. >> Oh, that was on 416th. >> Yeah, that was April 16th that we could thrive. >> Okay. I wasn't sure if that was in That's what I was saying. I I read it somewhere on here. I wasn't sure if we were adopting those minutes, but it said
>> we might have approved the resolution. Maybe >> June 18. >> And just for the record, we'll note that board member Darth Sculo is present. I didn't get to that carefully myself. >> So Paul would not have been able to
>> on a resolution. Yes, if that's what that is not available. Correct. So, you're saying you voted no for the 27? >> When Thrive came back, they wanted to >> The minutes reflect that. >> So, we The minutes reflect that.
>> They do. >> The April minutes that we approved in May. Well, I I think >> he was right. Yeah, >> because he voted no resolution on the resolution. >> Yeah, >> you can make comments but not vote. >> Oh, I said okay.
>> All right. And then I wasn't here on the 18th, so I don't vote. I don't approve the 18 minutes, >> right? >> Thank you. >> I think you're just okay with that. >> Yes. and
>> I any opposed. >> Okay. Oh, we have new business. 195 Bridge Avenue. >> Okay, Mr. Chairman, couple of preliminary procedural things. You'll recall this is a continuation
uh from May 21st, 2026. Uh so we have a couple of new things uh to well to add in, but first we're going to swear in uh Jacqueline Dur, our board engineer, and Shauna Ebanks uh planner, who's our director of community
development. Uh Jackie and Sean, if you could just raise your right hand. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth the best your knowledge to help you guide? >> All right. Thank you. And we're also um
uh board member Greg Fitzgerald, I think you were good enough to review the transcript or the tapes of the May 21st, 2026 meeting. So, we're going to give you a certification to sign. Uh but we'll mark that as B1. And uh on behalf of the board, I thank you for doing that
because that's very important particularly in continued hearings. Uh Sean, is everyone else here eligible to vote? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And then as terms in terms of new information, I'm going to mark as uh A8
is the proposed site plan provided by Robin Renode dated June 29th, 2026. Uh one sheet not signed or sealed. And then uh A9 is going to be uh the revised uh
TNM Associates review memorandum dated July 16, 2026. So I think Shauna, that's everything. We're up to date, correct? >> Okay. And you'll remember this is Dante Alfiri. Good evening and welcome back. >> Good evening, chairman, members of the
board. Dante Aliri on behalf of the applicant. >> Is the mic on? >> Yes. You hear me? >> Just got to speak in. >> You hear me now? >> There you go. >> All right. At the last meeting, actually, my brother was here. So, the older, better looking person. [clears throat] >> So, um, where we left off, there were
some comments and questions from the board with regards to the parking arrangement, um, and the garage in the rear. I do have the same individuals to provide testimony tonight. We do have our architect who will just touch on the changes from the plans and we do have our planner as well to touch on the
planning testimony. I do have one additional exhibit that we're going to hand out. We have a um a large scale version of it which we can mark as A10. This shows the um turning radius for the vehicles on the in the car uh for the
cars. >> All right. So turning radius for vehicles uh prepared by >> Yeah, it's prepar prepared by the applicant. >> Okay. Is there a date on it? If not, we'll put >> No, D. We can date for today.
>> Great. 7:16 26. So, without further ado, I'll call up our first witness, Mr. Donado. All right. If you could just state your name again for the record. Sure. >> Joseph O.
>> Wait, wait. >> I'm sorry. >> Again, Joseph Donado D at locate located at 14 Route 4 West River, New Jersey. >> Want to hold that mic up? There you go. >> Sure. Is that okay? >> There you go. >> Okay. And uh for the record, you're
testifying in your capacity as a licensed architect and you were uh your credentials were vetted and accepted at the May meeting and you recognize you're still under oath. Correct. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Correct. >> Uh so Mr. Dano, if you could please run through the modifications from the
previous night to tonight, what changes occurred? >> Sure. Basically, the main uh changes were the parking area toward the back of the building. Uh the exist the proposed building that we uh uh proposed as a two family that remains the same. All
setbacks uh coverages. It was the rear area when we left that uh we wanted to show where we had additional parking uh a twocar garage uh that would fit two cars. So it's of 484 square ft. We also
have elevations of those of the garage uh that were submitted. So basically what we did was we the driveway stays exactly where it is on the left side of the building runs down toward the back. We have a gravel parking area that has
that uh will house two parking areas. As you turn to the garage to the site in toward the rear, you turn right and you have two parking spots. They have enough room. We set the garage back 23 feet from the rear property line. 6.6 six or
six and a half feet six feet six inches from the left side. And that allows us, the reason we pushed it further back is that we have a turnaround radius for these two cars to turn around, come back out and plus the two cars on the inside. So, we have a total of four off-site
parking stalls. >> And those four off-site parking stalls meet the RSIS standard. Correct. >> Correct. Yes. And what we're showing on this plan here, which is also on A10, which was handed out, shows that there are four designated spaces. Two in the
garage and then two towards the side. If you look at A10, you'll also see a fifth car showed to the side. And that's just to illustrate that there's sufficient space for guest parking. It's not a designated space. The whole purpose of
that is just to show that there is the ability to house additional vehicles on site, >> right? Just for reference, but we're not counting it as a stall, but there is it's a graveled area that has sufficient space. >> And then, um, with regards to
landscaping, um, we're going to work with the board's professional as a condition of the approval, um, to supplement any type of landscaping that would be needed. Um, and we just want to confirm with your board professional as a condition uh as to the types of species that would be uh necessary.
And also if I could just touch on some numbers. Uh I said the proposed garage which is 22x 22. It is 23 feet back from the rear property line and 6' 6 in from the right. But the some of the
reductions in square footage because of uh we had a driveway that continued toward the toward the uh garage, but we had this uh what we're proposing is the an entire graveled area. We have a reduction in square footage of 259.56
square ft. So that brings down our coverage to 278.44 44 square f feet which is a coverage of 36.12%. >> I'm sorry that's lot coverage. >> Uh yes
>> that's correct and that complies correct? >> Correct. Yes. But there was a reduction based on the previous uh proposal. >> And uh Joe, you've reviewed the July 16th memo from TNM. >> Yes. >> Were there any comments or conditions in
there that we cannot meet? No, we will definitely any conditions that we agree to uh to meet >> and if there's any comments in here with regards to revisions to the plan, we can provide those as well as a condition of the approval. >> Right. Based on any conditions, we can
update our our plans with uh incorporating Miss Renault's plans that were submitted tonight. >> I open it up to the board. Okay. Any board member have any questions? this witness.
Okay. Any members of the public have any questions for this witness? >> Okay. On to your next one. >> Thank you, chairman. And with that, uh, and our second, uh, individual is going to be Miss Shepard, our planner.
>> All right. Uh, Kristen, good evening and welcome. Just state your name and address, business address for the record. >> Yes. uh Kristen Shepard and 52 Reckless Place Red Bank. >> And you're testifying in your capacity as a licensed professional planner. Your credentials were vetted and accepted at
the last meeting and uh you recognize you are still under oath. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Hey, great. Well, hi everybody. Um so last time we were before the board, there were concerns that were raised by the board regarding the parking. So, our applicant went back, worked with the
engineer, and provided the plans that were submitted and spoken to tonight. So, based on the testimony provided, I believe that we have met the uh requirements of the parking, and I believe we've satisfied the board's concerns regarding the number of parking spaces as well as the site circulation
and maneuverability. It's my professional opinion that the site can accommodate this additional use with the amount of parking and that site circulation that exists. Uh, also just to note, there's nothing changing with the application. The proposed use that's before you this
evening is a modest one-unit additional dwelling incorporated into a single family existing residential home. That residential home is not changing. It's not expanding. It's not increasing in height. It it remains as a single family home in its app in its appearance. Uh
what is also proposed with the application was spoken to more in more detail at the last meeting is there's s significant upgrades that and uh changes to the home that are going to be made with the application. The exhibit that I put on uh display last time showed the
existing conditions of the home in its dilapidated state and there are significant proposed changes to enhance the curb appeal and to really bring that home back up into a much better condition than it is now. So, it's my opinion that the site remains suitable for the proposed use. And of course, the
2023 master plan has some great information in there that I believe aligns directly with our proposal and the application before you this evening. I spoke a little bit about it last time, but I'd like to just put back on the record because I believe the application in its revised state even more so meets
the goals of the master plan. So the 2023 master plan page 95 states a goal of focusing on reinvestment in older homes as opposed to demolishing them. And then the 133 page number for the master plan suggests the board considering allowing up to four
additional units in this zone as a conditional use. And those conditions in that master plan state that the home remain residential from its appearance and provide adequate off-site parking. All of those are being met by this application. And then also recently the
bureau has adopted an ordinance, ordinance number 202618 that permits additional dwelling units in this zone as a conditional use. And while we're not before the board this evening with an application for an ADU or an additional dwelling unit, uh the fact that the board adopted this shows
that the board is contemplating the um support for modest residential opportunities while staying in context with the neighborhood and pres preserving that neighborhood character. So rather than proposing an isolated departure from the burough's planning initiatives, I believe that the the
proposed use is consistent with the context of the neighborhood particularly on Bridge Avenue. It reaches the goals and provides ample support from the master plan as well as recently adopt planning initiatives within some of the ordinances. So I believe that the application can be deemed approved that
there is no substantial detriment to public good or adverse impact to the zone plan and the master plan. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Shepard. >> Any questions from the board? >> I have some questions. Um,
so um, what specific characteristics make this site particularly suited for two family use given the burough's ADU uh, ordinance that they signed 5 weeks ago, which specifically addressed this lot, this neighborhood, this property
size, this house. Um, and now the applicant has an ADU ordinance already provides a legislative sanctioned path to a second unit. What's happening in this application? In in my opinion, you've
kind of cherrypicked the ADU ordinance, right? The board went back uh the zoning uh the council went back and said, "Hey, let's amend this neighborhood." And your applicant wants to be an owner occupied. She submitted a letter saying she wants this to be her permanent home. Well,
that's in the ordinance. You have to be owner occupied. But the ordinance is also very specific. It says no attic and you're instead of converting the garage to an accessory dwelling, you've decided to cram a a two units into a single
family using the attic. Well, the ordinance specifically says don't they don't want to do that. That's not >> You're speaking about the conditional use for the ADU. Correct. I'm I'm talking about the ordinance that was signed 5 weeks ago that says no addict for for >> for an ADU though I'm saying
>> you just said that it's consistent with the master plan. How is it consistent with the master plan when the council just signed an ordinance five weeks ago specifically addressing this neighborhood specifically addressing adding a second unit to a single family house? I it's the exact opposite of what
the council just just did five weeks ago. I don't respectfully I don't believe that the ordinance that was signed should completely take away the master plan's goals that exist today. That master plan is active and I think every opportunity, every site, every application has its own different
criteria that needs to be looked at. And we are here from a previous case that was uh started before that ADU ordinance has been signed. And I do believe that with the information in front of the board tonight, a decision could be made to allow this two family home to exist
because of the reasons that I put on the record regarding the planning testimony. Um, regarding the ADU ordinance, that's a separate ordinance. I only referenced that to show that the that the uh bureau has considered looking at alternate opportunities for residential to exist
in not just this neighborhood, but other neighborhoods. Well, it's not a separate it's it covers [clears throat] the applicant's property. I mean, so it's it's an ordinance that controls the application's property, which specifically says if you want to add a unit, this is what we want you to do. We
want you to do an ADU. And what you've done, you've cherrypicked, and you can very easily take this property, convert the garage to an ADU, very easily, and you wouldn't need any variances. Instead, we're asked for a a Dvariance here, um, and all these other things. We're going to put something in the
attic. We're going to put a uh we're going to put a uh a bathroom in the attic. We're going to do something in the basement. The council's considerate. The master plan was adopted in 2023. We spent a lot of money doing it. It was an intentional document. And now the council is going back and they're reviewing it and this is what they
decided to do 5 weeks ago uh with this neighborhood. So is to to me to grant this after the council just reviewed this had public comment and did all these things is inappropriate. Uh
you have a pathway to get two units on this lot and I think you should follow it. It was just decided 5 weeks ago. So um I don't think there's a hardship. I don't think there's any special reason. And I don't think this site is particularly situated to convert this to a two fan when you have the opportunity and the legislative intent of our
council to do an ADU. This is exactly what they were talking about. Exactly. The lot size is right. There's already a structure back there. You have a single family. She wants to live there. She submitted a letter saying she wants this to be her permanent house. All the criteria is there. So for me,
uh I'm not convinced that we should grant the grant a D1 here. I I would like to just note that I don't want any confusion to be uh placed here. We are here seeking the board's approval for a two family. It is modest in nature. I understand that the council had has
elected to uh adopt an ordinance for proposed ADUs not only in this zone but in other zones within the burrow. Um but part of an application process is when you are deemed complete, you are deemed protected from changes in zones in
ordinance. >> Yeah. I mean, you can still make the application for a variance. I'm not saying you can't. I'm just saying that it's not consistent with the master plan. Um, and the only other thing is we're also by denying the application, we're preserving a single family house, right? We're deserve we're preserving a
three-bedroom single family house, which is paramount in the master plan. We want to preserve single family homes. What you're what you're what the proposal is is to get rid of a single family house and make a two family house and with a garage. the ADU and this is why the
council is doing this, right? The ADU is saying, "Let's preserve the single family house and let's do an ADU in the back." This is exactly what they were talking about. So, I'm I'm perplexed quite frankly. Um, and I understand you have every right to come and seek a variance, but it sounds to me like it's like a spot. It's almost like a spot
zoning here. only you could have gone to the council meeting last month and and talked to them about it or proposed or made other changes and asked told them what you wanted to to do but instead you've come to us and seeking a D1 5 weeks after they've already talked about
this issue for me it's uh it's it's I'm not seeing enough reason to actually do it >> talk about the um spot zoning notice >> the last point I want to make is you know we just renovated and did after all these years the marine park right a beautiful park. It came out spectacular.
We had a ceremony promoting families, promoting kids coming down and using the park. How does this application encourage families to move on to Bridge Avenue? We're removing a single family home. How does it So, it's like we're we're inconsistent. You have the council adopting
ADU to preserve a single family. We create this beautiful park to attract families and kids. simultaneously five weeks later we have an application say let's remove this single family make it a two despite having this ordinance that just says hey let's do the adus so for
for me it's inconsistent um and that's my position >> and I I understand that well I'll have Miss Shepard talk to about your comment with regard to spot zoning but to be clear again this application was filed well before there was an ordinance approving or contemplating an ADU so I
understand what you're saying but I don't want there to be any confusion that we are here after the fact. >> No, I I understand you still have an opportunity to withdraw the application and build an ADM. >> Understandable, but we are here presenting the application that we have
before you tonight. So, Miss Shepard, if you could just touch on that spot zoning. >> Yeah, I just wanted to address for the record, you mentioned spot zoning at the last meeting. I just want to make it clear the definition of spot zoning is introducing an incompatible use into an area. I fully believe that the use that's being presented into this area is
extremely compatible for all the reasons I put on the record. And spot zoning is a very particular definition and I just want to make sure for the record that's clear that I I do not believe this is spot zoning. >> Just I want to uh go back to testimony from prior and just reconfirm um the
conversation took place about Sir. Yeah. I I I just wanted to reconfirm there was conversation about speaking with neighbors and neighbors that were um that discussed this were all like all in favor of it. Has there been any more
input from neighbors pro or con >> and was I right that as of last time the neighbors were pretty much positive? >> I have my applicant here. She can she can come up and and testify to that. Um if you have any questions for Miss Shepard, I'd like to finish her first.
>> Thank you. Any other questions from the board? >> I have a comment. Um, I have to agree with uh Paul here. You in your testimony, you actually quoted page 133 of the bureau's master plan. >> It is recommended that the bureau
consider adding residential uses of up to four units, etc. Um, and like Paul stated, you know, the burough council thought about this issue and they came and they put together the ADU
plan for Redbank. So, I would have to agree with Paul. I think this application fits under the ADU part much cleaner than it does the current um,
restrictions. Yes, I I understand where you're both coming from that. The way I read it is that the ordinance that was just adopted is in in lie of the other considerations that are in that master plan. In that case, in the master plan, it mentions it adds a conditional use with a couple of the conditions. I
didn't read anywhere in the ordinance that, you know, that would be really reflecting that exact part in the master plan. So, in my professional opinion, I still believe that that exists as something to compare alternate opportunities for residential to.
So what you're saying is that that ADU ordinance is just supplementing what the master plan has already put. >> It's an example of one of the guidelines or guidance that was given in the master plan. >> That would be the question I would have Vince is is that putting in place this
uh ADU option which I think is a terrific idea prescriptive? Is it what you should do or is it an option? You still have the option to do what they're doing which was done in fact next door
uh just recently uh given it to family. Uh so I think you have to really make a case that the ADU thing is prescriptive. I I didn't I don't I don't see why. Maybe it is but I don't know about legislative intent. I
don't know if that's what they intended. And there are a lot of family living. There's probably hundreds of families on the west side living in two and three family buildings. There's plenty. Okay. Any any further questions for this person? Not comments, but questions.
>> Ray and maybe it's a question for our attorney. Again, I'm confused about the ADU conversation uh because it sounds as if
since this application preeded predated that ordinance approval essentially it doesn't apply here. So if this were a new application tonight it were would apply but it doesn't excuse me it
doesn't here. So, is there a reason this has bearing on this application? >> Well, excuse [clears throat] me. Let me just uh give a little bit of a a brief uh history of of uh the law in this regard and we can hear from
[clears throat] Mr. Alfiri momentarily. So, back in the day, I'm going to say maybe 15, 20 years ago, we in the state of New Jersey had a time of the application rule. And that basically said, I'm sorry, a time of the decision
rule. That was the old one, the time of the decision rule. And that basically said, let's just say someone came into town and wanted to open up a fast food restaurant. And the town got wind of it, didn't like it, and adopted right after that application was submitted, adopted
an ordinance. And by the time that fast food applicant came to the board if the uh time of the decision, if the rule in effect was fast foods are restaurants are not permitted, that was the rule that governed. And then it changed
several years ago, I think it was under Governor Christie, and he changed it to uh the time of the application rule. So what that means is uh under this scenario when the application was submitted uh by the uh the applicant's
team, the ordinance that was in effect controls. So um so Shauna, this application is clearly not governed by the ADU ordinance. It's interesting what the ADU ordinance says and it there might be some positive reasons why
people like it. There might be some negative reasons why we think it's not advancing their case, but and so and and just so you know, I had some conversations yesterday uh with uh Mr. Alfury because there was a discussion to
your point uh Gan if this application were withdrawn and I'm not saying it is or should be but if it were withdrawn and resubmitted um it could likely be processed under the ADU ordinance if it met all the and and just just so you
know our ordinance ADU is a uh ordinance says that an accessory dwelling unit is a conditionally permitted use um as long as you meet five or six conditions. Sean can talk about those conditions later. And the way New Jersey
law works is if it's a conditionally permitted use and an applicant meets all the conditions, they would go to the planning board. If it's a conditionally permitted use and the applicant does not satisfy all the conditions, then they come here for a different type of D or use variance. Dante, you
>> I think you hit it hit hit on the head. other thing worth mentioning since we're on the record and we're in front of people that are in business here for the board that I think you could say notwithstanding what I said before about prescriptive you certainly could make
the case that for the west side of Redbank it's better to have an owner occupied unit with a rental than having a two family where both units could someday become rentals even though that's not the current intent. So, it's I think it's that's where we're
going. I think even though this application is legitimate, the uh the other things the ADU is better for the town in my opinion. Okay, moving along. Any more questions
for Christine the board? Any questions from the public for this witness? Thank you. >> If you could just state your name again for the record. >> Robin Renault. >> And you were sworn at the uh last
meeting. Correct. >> Correct. >> And you recognize you're still under oath? >> Yes. >> Thank you. I just wanted to um clarify a couple points that were brought up and also kind of just give my opinion on this
ADU to family thing >> and just speak into the mic. Hold hold that microphone. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Um just to clarify there is nothing proposed and no living space proposed in the basement. Just want to clarify that because that was mentioned. Um it was also mentioned that um we want to
preserve these multiplebedroom single family homes which I totally understand but um I think this property is well suited for two family versus ADU because it's was built in 1920 so there's four
bedrooms but you can't fit a moderniz bed in any of them. So at most it would be a twobedroom on the second floor and living space on the first floor. Um that's why I kind of put my own bedroom in the attic that way. Um doing that was
a way of preserving the envelope of the home, the structure of the home and and keeping it as as is. So I think there's, you know, a discussion of, you know, is preserving old homes and finding a way to get more population into them
of higher value. I that's not for me to decide, but that's kind of looking specifically at this property. It's not it's not your multif family home for the amount of money you spend in Redbank. It's not the multi uh sorry it's not the single family home that you would expect
to to buy. It's very old, very outdated. Um the layout doesn't suit modern families as is. >> Any questions note the board? >> Any questions from the public? >> I'm sorry. I wanted to answer Eugene's
question as well. that no cons, continuous support from my neighbors. They're very nice. Um, my family will be moving next door as well, so they like me. [laughter] >> Great. Thank you. >> Next, >> chairman, we have nothing further.
>> Is that it? >> It is. So, we have before us an application. Does anybody want to make a motion? >> Mr. Chairman, if I could just say one thing procedurally. um if they're uh um
Charlene. So this is a use fair variance application. So only seven members will vote. Every board member can comment and express their opinions and state reasons uh good and bad and pro and con but only the first seven vote. And then Mr.
Chairman, I have written down a list of potential conditions. I don't know if I if if it's going to be a no vote. I don't need to read them. But if you want, I can read them. Why why don't you go ahead and read them before we take a vote and then okay everybody can make their decision. >> Uh some of the conditions would be if
this application were approved um compliance with all the promises and commitments and representations the team made throughout the public hearing process. Um I guess we would make sure that you we're approving uh the revised
plans not not the earlier plans and compliance with affordable housing rules and regulations and contributions and directive compliance with the TNM associates review memorandum both of them come obtaining any outside approvals uh there's usually a 24month time shelf life on the approval within
which to get building permits uh and as submission of asbuilt survey uh Dante if the application is approved. Ultimately, the design uh representative will need to submit some type of professional certification confirming that uh the
improvements have been uh installed and effectuated in accordance with the approved plans and in accordance with the testimony and the resolution. Um Sean, I have a note here. Was there a Shade Tree Commission memo? >> No.
>> No. Okay. Um and let's see. Um, no adverse light spillover. And let's see, we had a couple other things. Uh, no further expansion of the uh, uh, number of bedrooms absent further approval of the board. Uh, I think
Dante, the testimony was you're keeping the same footprint. Um and uh the I think we talked about basically it's dedicated parking those four spaces for the the two tenants correct or two occupants. Um, and let's see. Um, I have
a note here, Sean. I don't know. Did I Um, I don't Maybe it was a question mark. Separate utilities or or no. So, we'll come back to it. Yes. Okay. And, um, there was um
I wrote compliance with the half story ordinance that this is not three stories, Jackie. And I guess um it was four bedrooms and if you get the approval you're reducing the unit to three bedrooms. Did I write that
correctly? >> I'm sorry. Three. Yes. Um again this is not demol demolition. I think we talked about air conditioning uh in the rear in a compliant location. Uh the existing fence to be replaced in
kind. Um, and we talked about relocating the garage. That's already been done. Um, and uh I have a note here about um the vestibial in front uh with two separate
entrances. Is that okay? Um compliance with the fire rating regulations and building and construction code. Uh garage not to be used as habitable space. Um, fire regulations comply. Um,
Paul, you had indicated among other among other people that wanted to see garage drawings, submit the rendering. Um, utilities in the garage. Is it just electric? >> Just say yes for the Okay. And
we had talked about um Jackie, I wrote something about seepage pit. I can cross that off my list. Okay. Um and then um again, garage, no utilities except electric and tied into the
uh upper unit. Let's see. Um, we're getting there, Mr. Chairman. Garage not utilized as living space. Uh, we wanted turning radi which have been submitted. We'll just have Jackie um approve that if she needs uh the
turning plan. Um, John, I think you wanted to see show space to uh maneuver so that we're not hampering on street parking spaces. Um, let's see. And just a couple of things that came up
tonight. No. Perfect. So we'll make sure any affordable housing fees that are due and knowing excellent point and we talked about uh work with the board engineer uh to supplement landscaping details and uh
we will obviously if it's approved uh advise the assessor as as to any approval that is granted. So I think that's the gist and again that's just through my notes. anything else they said during the hearing or
that's in Jackie's memo. If they said it, it counts. So, just so I know, uh, Dante, are you okay with those conditions? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, now, Mr. Chairman, I turn it back to you. >> Kevin, can I clarify one of those conditions? I thought I heard you say the footprint wouldn't change. Is that a
condition? >> I I think that was there is no footprint. >> We're not proposing to expand the footprint at all. >> Yeah, I understand. What the one of the things I'm driving at why I'm asking is because um some of the criteria given the testimony is that the uh by by
making this transformation the applicant just told us that we can keep the home the way it is has you know consistent with single family stock in the area just the um you know the envelope of the home. That was the word I was looking for. And so uh but when we when we grant
if we were to grant um the the D variance then that carries with the property. And so I guess my question is if someone were to demolish and um rebuild a two family home with a larger footprint that wouldn't meet the condition. They would have to come
before the board again. I >> sorry Tony >> in our ordinance it says that if um an existing structure that is a permitted use in the zone is demolished it has to be built compliant with the um bulk requirements.
>> Okay. Unless they to come back here for relief. >> Yeah. So they have to rebuild in order to not come back here. they have to rebuild a a use that is permitted in the zone and fits the um
building envelope laid out in the bulk standards. >> Right. So that by building within the standard they avoid the C varian. Right. But but to that first point of um the a permitted use like avoiding the D. >> Yeah. So, if this structure is um
demolished um and it's an I don't know if the setbacks are non-conforming, sorry. Um then they can't build back in the same building envelope. And and to your
point, I think, and we can ask the applicant if we'll agree to this, but I think the implication was and is, and I should have been uh clearer, that we're approving the renovation that they've talked about. If this building is demolished, all bets are off and and you
need to come back to the appropriate board. >> That that is correct. What we are presenting tonight is the application. We're not presenting a different um structure or a different use. This is the application. >> So, excellent point. and and if it's approved, that will be a condition. Good, good, good, good point.
>> I just want to be a tiny bit picky because I think I read something, but I may have read it wrong. Um, you aren't changing the footprint or the envelope of the house. Agreed. But is the uh deck changing a bit or being larger or something? And just to make sure we don't hang you up with something like
that, do you know what I'm >> just speaking to the microphone? There's a a deck in the back. It was about 8 by seven. It's now 8 by 11. So, it's slightly larger, but it's accounted for in the coverage. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, I'll clarify that if the application
is approved that no change to the footprint with that exception. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any comments before we make a vote on this from the board? Any
comments from >> comment? Although I'm also happy to make a motion. Um I I I want to uh recognize the comments of my colleagues Mr. Cano and Mr. Light. I think they're very interesting, but I think we have to stay focused on the the fact the application
in front of us. Well, these are interesting theoreticals. uh you know we need to f there's a request for the Dvariance and so and other related variances that we have to approve or deny. Um I personally would approve
them. I think the testimony has been compelling. Um the the bringing this house back from a a state of extreme disrepair maintaining the the envelope I love that word uh Miss Renault. Uh you
know is is very consistent with with the master plan and and the direction that we want to go in Redbank. Um so I I just wanted to say that and I'm ready to make a motion if any if there are no other comments. >> I I could make a comment um to add to
what you said an um putting on my glasses for an application for a two family home. Um there are many two family homes on the block as it is. So it does fit within the character of the block. Um, so it's not detrimental to
the neighborhood in my perspective. Um, also, um, because it maintains the look of the single family home. Um, and there will be, um, neither the basement or the garage will host living space. That's
also important. Um, also important to me that you're going to have separate gas, water, and electric meters for the two units is important. Um, and probably most important of all of these is that you're providing plenty of parking on
the site so that you won't bleed off into the neighborhood. So, like Ann, I would also support this. >> Okay. So, Okay. So, would somebody like to either
make a motion to approve Orton? >> Oh, >> oh, you did. You did make a motion. >> I'll make the motion to approve the application. Well, then I'll second. >> Thank you. >> Anor, >> yes. >> Raymond Mass, >> yes.
>> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes. >> John Gilde, >> yes. >> Vincent Light, >> yes. >> Paul Kagno, >> no. >> Eugene Harowitz, >> yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, chair, members of the board.
We do appreciate your time tonight. Thank you. Have a good evening and stay out of the stay out stay from outside stay inside. I just hope Keep that blue color. I should I said, you know, I'll approve it as long as you change the color.
Okay. CL I learned about it two days ago when Dante called, >> right? All right. >> Okay. Next up, we have 240 Shoesbury Avenue. >> Okay. Sorry.
>> Go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. As the applicants team get situated, let's do a couple of things here. Um, first up, we're going to swear in uh Jacqueline Dur, our board engineer, and Shauna Ebanks, professional planner and our director of
community development. Uh Jackie and Shauna, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge to help you guide? Let the record reflect. Uh both these fine individuals have been sworn. And we're
going to say up front, is there anyone here who has any questions or comments or concerns regarding the sufficiency of the notice they received? All right. Don't see any. uh Shauna and Charlene and I reviewed the notice and found everything to be in order. So it
would be my humble opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed tonight. And uh Mr. Chairman, just for the record, I think Vince, it might have been you. We had carried this a while ago and I think because it was carried I think you specifically asked that we we re we
require renotice. So we did. Mr. McKenna did that and we appreciate that because um transparency is better, always better. And what we're going to do is just mark into the record what we um as a board have before us. And Ed, uh Mr.
McKenna, while I'm doing this, I'm going to ultimately come uh to you and I'm going to ask to announce who the representatives are of the company and owner, contract, purchaser, all that thing. So, we can just do our internal conflict check. but we're going to mark
as A1 is the application package and A2 is the disclosure of ownership and we're going to get back to that in a minute. A3 is the environmental commission report dated April 18th, 2025, I think, Shauna and that was at 7:19
p.m. A4 is the shade tree commission memo and that was dated July 16th, 2026. and A5, the uh preliminary major site plan prepared by Two River Engineering, dated
August 1st, 2024, last revised April 15, 2025, consisting of 13 sheets. A6 boundary and topographic survey prepared by Morgan Engineering, dated September 12th, 2023. A7 is the architectural plans prepared
by Edward O'Neal, and that's dated August 29th, 2024, consisting of seven sheets. A8 is the affordable housing plan prepared by Edward O'Neal and that's dated August 29th, 2024. Three sheets. A nine is the stormwater management report
prepared by Two River Engineering dated August 1st, 2024. A10 is the traffic impact analysis prepared by Two River Engineering dated October 1st, 2024. A1 is the letter of denial prepared by uh Shauna Ebanks
dated September 11th, 2024. A12 is the intent to proceed dated October 24th, 2024. A13 is the project narrative. A14 is uh Mr. Gerrio's uh tour engineering
response uh to the TNM review letter dated July 25th, 2025. And Jackie, I'm going to mark as A15 the TNM Associates review memorandum. Is the right one September 26, 2025? Okay.
Yep. Shade tree comment. Thank you. Oh, you know what? I marked that as A4, I think. So, we got that. And so, we got them both, I think. All right. And then,
um, Mr. McKenna, if after you introduce your uh make your um appearance, my disclosure of ownership as Incredible Oz LLC, Mary Ellen Santo Padre and Ernest
de Santoadre, if you could just after you enter your appearance identify those so we can just do an internal conflict. And Mr. chairman. So, as you all know, but members of the public, we want to know that we just want to further ensure transparency and make sure if we hear the name Incredible Oz uh LLC, that
might not ring a bell as to any conflict or a question about conflict, but if we hear Joe Smith, Joanne Smith, we might uh disclose. So, uh good evening, Mr. McKenna, and welcome. [clears throat] >> Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. >> Microphone.
>> You think I know by now? Um So, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, um, Mr. identified correctly, the city, they're here this evening.
It's Mary Ellen and, uh, Ernesto is also known as Gil uh, because it's much easier name to pronounce. Um, they're the two owners of the LLC. >> And is the applicant the owner of the property or is there >> Yes. Okay. >> So, Mr. Chairman, hearing those names,
any uh questions, comments, concerns, or thoughts about conflicts, potential conflicts? Don't see any. Oh, say the name again. >> Yes. >> Santa Padre. >> Santa Padre. Correct. >> Okay, very good. I think we're good to
go. >> Okay. Um, [clears throat] good evening. I think the board is is somewhat familiar with the application, but it's for uh 14 apartments on property on Shrewsbury Avenue. Um I've
asked Mr. O'Neal to give a very indepth description of not only the project but in addition to that to testify as to the variances that are deemed necessary. And uh at the conclusion, we would also like
to discuss with the board in the event that the board may be inclined to grant the application, there's two things you should know. Number one, this property is actually located in an opportunity zone, uh which is a zone that's not is created nationally and for the purpose
of encouraging investment in particular areas. And this uh property happens to be located in an opportunity zone. Um in addition to that um I think uh there was
one other thing I wanted oh um we did make an attempt to acquire additional property uh next door. Unfortunately, the owner of the property sold it um for
his own reasons to someone that he he knew and uh we were unable to acquire the additional property. Um but in addition to that, um I know the board in several instances has asked us to reduce
the number of parking spaces and add more green space to an application. uh we've had several uh like that at the at the planning board also. So, if if that is an issue that the board would like to bring up uh later on during our
testimony, please let us know and we'd be happy to engage in that conversation because we we meet the parking requirement. But in many instances and including uh statewide in New Jersey, there's a significant movement to
reducing the number of parking spaces based upon the assumption that we need fewer cars nowadays than we did in the past. And the proximity for this particular property to mass transit is
also a consideration. So, if if the board is interested at some point in discussing that issue and asking us to reduce the number of parking spaces um in exchange for um granting more open space, we would be happy to engage in
that conversation. And on that note, I'd like to call Mr. O'Neal as our first witness. >> All right. Good evening, Mr. O'Neal. If you could just state your name and business address for the record. >> Edward William O'Neal Jr., 65 Mammoth Street, Red Bank.
>> And do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to the best of your knowledge to help you guide God? >> I do. >> And just for the record, your testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed >> architect and a licensed planner. >> Thank you. And for the record, your certifications, qualifications, and
licenses are current, up to- date, and in good standing. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> And you've been before us a number of times, so we'll accept it. >> Yes. Thank you. Shauna, could I bother you to put sheet
100 up on the screen? >> And just so I know, is this something that's already been submitted to the board or I need to mark it? >> Yes. No, it's it's already been submitted. >> Got it. Terrific. Thank you. Okay. So, so we're going to bounce
around a bit here, but um what you're looking at is a schematic site plan of the project. So, as Mr. McKenna said there are the proposal is for 14 two-bedroom unit uh multif family units apartment units they're grouped in five
structures but the structures are linked. So it is one building uh based on the building code so that you know there is what's kind of unique about it is it's based on being located around a central courtyard. So
>> I'm sorry say that again. It's based on being located around a central courtyard which is this here. So this is outdoor space. So the five units well there's five units on the ground and then four units
up up up um surround this space and that is the space for the tenants. The uh the idea of the courtyard is to create um an environmentally sensitive apartment building, if you will. Uh
because we're taking various aspects of pass passive solar and environmental um theory into consideration here. So for instance, each unit has at least three walls with an exterior face, which
means you can glaze window three walls, which means you can do cross ventilation throughout the entire unit, which would reduce the amount of air conditioning required in the unit. Obviously, day like today is rather extreme, but in
most instances, that won't be necessary. The same thing goes for natural lighting in this in the building which will reduce the cost of electricity for lighting because again there'll be so much natural light. So that that's the theory upon which the architecture is
based. Um the roof of all the of the units would be flat with a parapit and the reason for that would be to mount solar collectors on the roof. So, it's not a green roof,
but it is a, you know, a green roof in the ordinance is something that's grass to reduce runoff. It's a green roof because it will produce enough solar power, we think, to um cover the common areas of the complex. So, again, we're reducing the amount of electricity
pulled in from the site. Uh let's see. We have 28 parking spaces, surface parking spaces, which is the ordinances requirement and the Reese's maximum requirement. Um as uh Jackie pointed out
in an earlier meeting, the Reese's standard is now the number of spaces maximum as opposed to minimum. and maximum allows us some I I'll call it argument as to why the number of parking spaces should or could be reduced. We
are not showing that here. We wanted to show that yes we can accommodate all the 28 parking spaces with the 14 units. Uh the parking lot is accessed from Shrewsbury Avenue which is a county road. Now, currently there are two curb
cuts on Shrewsbury Avenue. So, by sealing one, we also produce two more on street parking spaces for the neighborhood and the areas around it. Now, if we go to
Oh, well, well, let's can we go to uh sheet C 209? Keep going. >> Well, before you go off that page, >> there you go. That one. Yeah. >> Um, it looks like there were two ADA spaces. >> Yes. >> Are there any EV spaces there?
>> Yes, there will be. Although that my that plan doesn't show it. Okay. >> Because it was a later. There will be four EV spaces. One of them will be one of the barrier free spaces. >> Thank you. But we did not at this point take advantage of the credits allowed by
providing the EV spaces. Those are other things to discuss about reducing the amount of parking in trading off to open space. So these are conceptual sketches. So the the image on the left is an analysis of the
site from an architectural standpoint. When you look at the site now, again, there was a single building which was the coat's funeral home and that was there as long as I can remember. I'm looking at you. Yeah. I mean, 40, 50
years. Um, and that building which is here is one that's there now abandoned. Um, next to it to the south is an existing two family house. The wall of that building is right on the property line and I know because I did a
structural renovation of that building uh a lifetime ago and there are no windows on it. So it is a twotory blank wall that's about 90 ft long here. This is the rear of that property. These
two residences are on the neighboring street. There's a single family residence here. What is not shown is right here is a very large looks almost like a threecar garage. This building is a commercial building
which is on River Street. And then this is the property my client attempted to purchase. It's been purchased by somebody else and I believe they're doing work to maintain it as a residence, but I don't have any it just
turned over, so I'm not sure. I believe it's still going to be residential from what Mr. from mechanic. So that leaves us with the idea of having a building access and parking and that's the kind of this the
conceptually the way it was done. Can you go to the next board Shauna please? [clears throat] So that's where we get this general layout. Um, we looked at these adjacencies, which we could talk about more in a bit.
Um, we I kind of modeled this after the River Street Commons. So, I looked at the landscaping there, how they did it. I thought they did a wonderful job when they did it. Uh, building was there, and we thought to do a similar thing here.
And I'll we I'll show you a photo of the River Street Commons sometime some point later. Um, we would add fencing in these locations where the parking lot gets close to the the property line. And then if you slide over, Sean, to my right,
you can see the idea is that this is the courtyard and in section you have units units and the air pours out through the units through the courtyard and the sun drops in. And you know, Shrewsbury Avenue is considered to be one of the
busiest roads in the county by lane of traffic. And so by having this courtyard, you've actually create a protected outdoor space for the residences. And that was the theory. That's the theory of why it's open. I mean, it could be we could
obviously close it up, do all sorts of things, but I don't think it would really serve the residents uh in the best light. So, so if you um again if we look at the the accommodations, we have the parking, we
have the courtyard, um we have access, we also have each unit is about 952 square ft, which is slightly smaller than the minimum, but we think that they are nicer units and they're welld designed. I think they're just by taking
the circulation out of the building because with the circulation's on the outside in outside walkways, we can make the buildings more efficient. >> So if you go to >> Was it 950 or I thought I read 872? >> Maybe you're right. 83 >> and required at 1,000, but you're
proposing 872 feet. Is that right? >> I'm just trying to get to the uh ask Shauna to go to the right sheet. Too many sheet. Ah, there it is. C104. There they are. One more back. That's it. Great. So, there are two units. So,
you can see there's two bedrooms, living room, kitchen, dining area, uh bathrooms, and utilities. So if you look at these, the reason why they're efficient is there's very very little circulation, which you know, I can have my professor
from architectural school screaming at my, you know, my ear about circulation, wasted space. Um, these I think are really efficient. We've done one of them, one unit has the small protrusion in the middle, the other has it on the
end, and the selection of which unit goes where is based on the site. Some units have more of a corner orientation. Some have more of a straightforward orientation. And it also allows us to break the building up and the mass up in the manner in which we have. So Sean, if
you go to I believe it's not quite the last, it's the second to last image. Yeah. Which is going to be the same as the U. What we have poster there. So, so what we've tried, I'm sorry. What
we've tried to do here is break the mass of the building down into components that kind of blend in with it's not really the reality of Shrewsbury Avenue, but I think the the idea of the brick creates a solid mass to the building, a
sense of permanence. And then this is a fiber cement siding which are used to break things up. So when something can't levers out it changes. And then this is the entry to the courtyard which is the private entry to their private space within the building. Um
and then this would be the landscaping similar to River Street Commons. So that's architecturally um a description of the the development. >> I'm sorry Mr. O'Neal. Um,
why did you say you decided on 872 versus 1,000 square foot habitable? >> Well, because we could make the building smaller >> in footprint. >> You'd have less units if you made them a thousand square feet.
>> Well, I I think if you add the difference up to all the units, it wouldn't add to another unit. So we tried to be as as economical as possible both for the clients in from a budgeting standpoint and also
you know from an efficiency standpoint. We just didn't feel the thousand ft was really necessary. We probably could by can delivering more things make it a thousand but didn't seem to really >> I mean other than the ordinance [laughter] you think it was necessary other than the ordinance. Well, yeah,
but but in some respects as as um if you know about the history of development, you know, these ordinances were all standardized in the 50s and an apartment in the 50s when the ordinances were written is not reflective of what's what
the market is 75 years later. I mean, if you look at the footprints of units that are new in the town and they're two bedrooms, a lot of them aren't thousand square feet. So, that that was the rationale.
Rationale was again trying to be economical about it. >> Mr. O'Neal, you also testifying as a planner or just the architect? >> Yes, but I haven't talked about that yet. But >> so, if if you wouldn't mind holding that till I appreciate it. Thank you very much. >> Ju just to clarify. So all the units are
exactly the same size including the affordable housing ones. >> Yes, except for the only thing different is the the layout. >> Okay. >> Of whether the living room is in the middle or on one end and some of them flip. >> Just to add to about the site I live on
the block outside the 200 ft uh next to the proposed building. the when they talked about the lot they wanted to acquire um that people have tried to do that that project with both lots was turned down here some time ago. Um
>> yeah, >> that building is looks like it's undergone rehab to make it a rental again. It used two families and and the son living in the basement and um they're gone and but they're boarded it up and they brought it looks like
they're staging for a renovation of the neighboring. It's a good size house for the west side. It's on the southwest corner of Shrewsbury and River. Look at T. >> Yeah. In this in this rendering it would be on the right of it. >> Yeah. And next to it was commercial was Arty's office for many years.
>> Yes. And it's now being used resi I think a two f is a two family or that's the intent of the use. Is that is that true? Is it being resi now? I know they were excuse me. Uh it was purchased by a
professional musician and um he has established a sound studio or is in the process of creating a sound studio there. He travels quite extensively. He's uh he's been with
major bands to include Springsteen's band, Bojov's band, etc. He also has a podcast and he travels quite extensively. Allows the heous studio. Yeah. >> Yeah. You won't see him there that often.
>> He's he's a great guy, but >> he's a musician. He fits right into Mammoth County. >> Yeah. Mr. O'Neal, >> this picture up here just doesn't look like five separate buildings. >> Well, they're not separate. That That's the trick. The trick is this is a
separate apartment. That's a separate apartment. This is a separate apartment. That's a separate apartment. That's a separate apartment. And this is a stair tower. That's a stair tower. >> If you go to the other side of the building, there's the elevator tower.
And then there's two um gaps that are um tenant decks in between. So they are all open on three sides. >> So the from the white car that's the entrance to the courtyard. >> Yes. Right. >> And there's apartments above it. >> Yes.
>> But in the schematic it looked like there was nothing there. >> Well, that's cuz it was the first floor plan. So you wouldn't show the bottom. >> Oh, the first floor plan. Right. >> Right. The >> if I showed you the second floor plan, which is in the package would >> Yeah. That's very creative. >> It's going to be this. They'll you'll you'd see the fifth unit.
>> It's very creative. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's why if it's 14, it's 5554. >> Yeah. >> And what are the dimensions of the courtyard? >> They are. It is approximately 50 by 26 27.
>> Thank you. >> And it's a currently it it's a non-conforming use now. It's a pre-existing non-conforming use. Is that what the property is now? >> Has a funeral home? Yes. >> No. right now is I I thought this was currently a you're I'm talking about the subject property.
>> Oh. Oh, yes. Well, we conforming to fam. >> No, that's what >> No, that's property next door. >> I'm sorry. That was the property next door. That is >> Yeah. And then and I know that's uh what what it was before.
>> Mhm. it. I I can't tell you for sure, but I think it's being developed uh as a residential property. >> In your testimony, you said there's a flat roof and there were uh two parapits. And what in this rendering, are we looking at the parapits or the uh
the elevator tower? >> The power pits would be above this right here. >> Okay. >> And behind that would be the solar collectors. This doesn't have a power pit and neither does the um the elevator tower. Elevators have to have an overrun. So they're always taller than
the building they serve. >> And for the purposes of this variance, what are we considering to be the height of the building? >> We know we fit within the height. I believe >> I saw I think the site plan shows 35 ft
and three stories but some of the architectural elevations were saying it's 33 feet and a 2 and 1/2t parapit and there's a 9 foot elevator tower so I was just trying to get a >> on which one of those >> drawing I have so can you go to um sheet
C200 I think the other one had a story. Desire was not All right. 42 which are allowed. >> I'm sorry. Thank you. Um it's 35 to the roof. then the stair towers and the
elevator can exceed the height because that's how you get onto the roof. >> So Sean, under our ordinance, the height is 35 ft >> or Jackie come back to it. >> Yeah. >> Yes, it is 35. >> And I am just confirming um we've talked
about this before, but um the impertinances above the roof don't you don't count that as part of the structure when you're measuring the height, but I'm just double-checking all of that. You give me a second. So, so it should be 30 35 ft to the roof
surface, which is conforming to the zone. So, the building's height is similar to many of the three-story buildings on uh Shrewsbury Avenue, which I'll show you photos of in a bit. >> So, the elevator tower can be 15 ft
above the the building up to 15 ft, >> which it won't be. It won't be that much higher. >> I know has her opinions on that now, but that's the elevator. I >> And I'm sorry if you can just clarify
that for me. I thought I read in the TMZ in the TM letter that 2.5 was permitted stories and but you're proposing three stories. Is that not >> Well, there's a contradiction that has been battled back before this board numerous times. In the old section, it
says two and a half stories. Then in a later amendment to this zone, it said that you could have a commercial unit and two stories of apartments, which would be a three-story building. This goes all the way back to the Asha Pharmacy building across from Parker
House, which is on the next block north. And this board ruled at that time that it was a three-story. Three stories were allowed. And so if you if you want me to go to jump to that image, I can show you how
many of the projects have been approved as three story without varian. >> Well, I I I guess I just want clarity that he's seeking a variance because two point two and a half stories permitted and three he's proposing three stories. >> Correct. >> That's on page three of our letter.
>> Right. And then I guess the distinction from what you're talking about, Mr. O'Neal would be that there was commercial space on the other unit and you have no you're in this zone although commercial is favored on the first floor right that's why uh the ordinance says
no residential apartments on the first floor right only from second floor and up >> right >> that's typically for allowing a commercial space right which would allow then for maybe perhaps the three stories that you're referring to >> no I don't agree okay
>> I don't agree Again, precedent has been set numerous times in properties within the same zone >> um >> to have three-story buildings with residences on the second and third floor.
>> Mr. O'Neal, I just have a question about um the facade facing uh Shrewbury Avenue, the ground floor. >> Yes. >> Um what does that look like? because that's the one that's more facing the pedestrian level.
>> Um, >> how is that going to be treated? >> If you could go to let's see it >> and then also for the um elevator tower
as Jackie was alluding to. I know we did this for um at the planning board. There was another application, I believe, Jackie, where the um we had asked that the elevator tower be painted a color or
well, I guess it's kind of hard to do that because the elevator towers out more than in, but to kind of be able to mask um itself with the um >> with the sky with the I guess the sky so
that it doesn't look so atrocious. Well, if you go back to C200. >> 200. >> Oh, yeah. I think there was another one. >> Uh, no. Two more back. >> There you go. 200.
>> That's uh >> 200. >> Yeah, that's 200. So, that is the um the north elevation. So on the north elevation on the north elevation this is the elevator. So the elevator is treated in the same
siding as the stairs. So there's three, if you want to call them towers that are above the the roof line of the units. So that and you're looking at this straight on which you'd never see given its orientation on site. This would
never be seen like this, but it is an elevation. Is there a way to not make it looks I guess [sighs] to not have it so
maybe it's the the the siding material um that just makes it look very flat and blank. Um >> okay. what we what we >> we can add some type of like a a cornice
or um something at the top to just make it >> sure >> not look like that being that it is on Shrewsbury Avenue >> and >> well I just want >> more to thought to >> sure it is it is indented
>> so this is indented 3 to four feet >> yeah I get that but it doesn't that align well >> it wouldn't really reflect Well, though with just this the look of it, um being that the the
board sighting is it's smaller. Um maybe if it was a >> bigger um >> sighting material. Yeah, we could definitely look have more identity to it than >> um these smaller um panels maybe. Sure, we could take that into
>> But just also the to add some type of an architectural feature to like a cornice or >> I don't know some type of a design to the top to make it >> Yeah, we had it as as brick at one point. We thought that that stood out. >> Why did you change it like two different
tone brick? We we yeah we thought we we just thought this was going to be less visually prominent, but we could go back and show the board the brick and you know that's not an issue. >> Yeah, >> we certainly could address that.
>> I I had a question actually >> just noticing this. So it looks like there's three elevators but there isn't. There's only one >> this these are the stairs. >> These are the staircases >> which are on the other side of the building. Which one is the elevator?
>> This one. >> Does that have parking or the street right up to it? >> Um I'm Which like on the plat can someone drive up a car up to it to get to the elevator entrance easily or is it on the part of the building that has No,
>> no, it's it's in based on where you would walk into the courtyard. >> It's in the back. >> So you have to go through the courtyard to get to the elevator. Yes, >> that's not ideal. >> Well, there's a theory about that. >> Oh, >> and the theory is that honestly is that
the sustainable design theory is that people should walk more >> and so a lot of apartment buildings now have the elevator as far away as possible from the front door. No, no, I I I agree in in that in but that it was somewhat conscious.
>> Um, could you go to the next slide? Um, >> m before you move to the next slide, >> talk about the Shrewsbury Avenue. >> I just wanted to ask, can you just address like the ne the need what is causing the variance for a 30% increase in lot coverage >> the parking parking?
>> Mhm. No question. >> So, if you were to have pursuant to our zoning um where there's no apartments on their first floor, could you not create the the parking underneath? Um, if you started the apartments on the second floor, had apartments on second and third, and had the parking
underneath the building, would you not need such a large parking area and uh the 30% uh increase in lot coverage variance? Basically, my feeling is it's a little too dense. Um, and I think that, you
know, you're asking for a lot of variances person, you know, u lot coverage at 30%. The units are on the first, second, and third floor. You got 14 units when only four are allowed, right? And the master plan says they want the density by the train station, not really on, you know,
encroaching into a single family area on Shrewsbury Avenue. Well, I think I think I think if you allow me to present my planning testimony, okay, I think uh some of those questions >> and ration will be explained. >> Okay. I don't I'd rather not peacemail
it if you don't mind. >> So So there was a question about the elevation on Shrewsbury Avenue. So if we could go Nope, the other direction. to yeah 202.
So that that's the this is the Shrewsbury Avenue elevation. So, we turned the side of the building so we could have more landscaping here and in front of these areas, which is what the River Street School does so well, well, the old River Street School,
River Street Commons, is that the um the density of the foliage is regulated by the windows. >> No, because it's an elevation and that's three-dimensional. That's the problem with going back and forth to threedimensional
and two dimensional. >> So [clears throat] in other words, that's what it's going to look like. >> This is this is a diagram which is what it's an architectural diagram which is what elevations are and they're required in the presentation. So we have it.
>> Yeah. You don't see the open. >> Well, because it's >> See, this right here is a gap. That's where the terraces are that are in the courtyard. So, this is air, air, air. >> Those connectors are some kind of
terrace. >> They're walkways with with railings, >> but that's open. >> Yeah. So, you could throw a baseball through there, >> right? Okay. >> Question of symmetry. I notice on the first floor on the right side there's
one window instead of two >> and on the floor plan it looks like you moved the bathrooms so you didn't want the window into the shower. Is there a design reason why you did that? >> Yeah, because what you're trying to do is rotate the building so it mo it moves
visually. So architectural the theory is that the building doesn't look static. it that makes your eye revolve around it and that breaks down the scale of the building which is why if when you see a number of buildings in a row your eye
keeps moving along them and that's what breaks down the scale. >> Okay. >> Are the windows on the ground floor operable? >> They would be. Yes. >> Sean, are they what? >> Operable. >> Yeah. All the windows would be operable because of the passive solar orientation
of the courtyard allows all the cross ventilation to happen. If you choose not to open it, that's your business, but you would have the option. So, if we um if we go down now to the planning testimony,
>> may ask a question about the architectural testimony before we move on. >> Yeah. I I'd asked them earlier about the building height um because you had testified that the courtyard was 50 feet by 27 feet. Is that right? >> I believe so. Yes. >> Okay. And then I think this is more of a
um question for the board's engineer, Jackie, but we have an ordinance on in the that specifically speaks to courtyards and multif family uses and it says that there's a minimum
width for the courtyard. And so my reading of it uh and my my amateur reading of it says that we were missing a variance for the courtyard being unders sized. And so the um
yes, it's uh 490-96D. And it says I can read it because I've got it up here in my notes. Uh, courtyards bounded on three or more sides by wings of the same building or by walls of separate buildings shall have a minimum court width of 2 feet for
each one foot in height of the tallest building or building wing. And hence why the height and the courtyard being related D. Yeah. 490-96D multif family dwellings and uh D is specifically about courtyards.
So it should be 70 then, right? We're at 27 I believe proposed. >> I'm sorry. What was that variance? Uh Sean, I mean uh Jackie I'm sorry. And the number is what's required. The width
>> the 70. >> Shauna, could you go to the next? >> Got it. >> Image. >> And what? And what are they proposing? 27. Got it. Uh, >> no. One more. There you go. This one. We designed the courtyard based on sun
angles. >> Based on what? >> Sun angles, not upon the u the ordinance. That the sun angles would create shade in the summer and sunny areas in the winter and
that the breezes would blow through. So the the courtyard is designed around the passive solar idea, not around something in the ordinance which was instituted before the idea of energy saving, climate change or anything else
was part of the vocabulary. That's to the face I believe of the uh walkways, right? And then you'd have another six feet on either side rail to rail,
right? But building to building would be I'm sorry, you said 46 would be uh 58. Right. Then you add 5T for each walkway. >> But it is part of the courtyard because it's all open. It should be 70 feet wide instead of 46.
>> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Could that be achieved by reducing the parking and spreading the building out? >> Can be achieved by lowering the building height. >> Yeah. Or or enlarging the courtyard and reducing the parking.
>> Sure. Do we really want that? [laughter] >> Well, it's been my observation in the new apartment buildings in Redbank that the old parking is never utilized even at Station Place, which is a flat wall building, which is what Ed's trying to
avoid with this. That's why everybody's articulating these buildings because of the of of the deep love for the state station place facade. But the um the parking there isn't fully used. The parking at the rail isn't fully used. You're finding this all over in the city
of New York. This is happening a lot. But I think that's way too much parking and that's a way to make the courtyard bigger. But but Ed's argument for the um the sun also is obviously very important, too. >> But I don't think that goes away if the
courtyard were bigger. I mean, I'm looking at this picture here and it it looks like it's mostly parking and then there's >> some living space in a courtyard. >> But you explain why that was done. You want to show you could achieve the right if you have >> Exactly. I could achieve the right >> environmental issues without building if
it was >> the ordinance which was never about environmental issues. >> It' be much nicer with benches or something for the owners or whatever. >> So if I may move on to the planning >> move on. >> Is that all right? >> Okay. So we obviously require a
>> Dvarian questions on the AR. Okay. >> Questions on the architect from the public. >> Okay. None from the board. All right. Go on. So you're >> something windows. Um
>> yes. >> Can we have the window divides instead of the the look of how it looks now where it's just one single pane? Can we change it to the window divides just because if you're trying to make it look more residential
um and fit in with somewhat of the houses that are on along Shbury Avenue, they do have the window divides like um so is it possible to have that >> of course >> not make it look so hard? >> Of course it's possible. No question.
>> Um it's just it's a choice of a window. >> Um I understand your point. The other point is that if you're looking to create large views, you know, you put something in front of it. >> That's that's the other side of the coin, >> right? >> So, no, we could definitely entertain
that. That's not an issue. >> So, before we leave, >> excuse before we leave, that is um I thought you brought up a good point before about the different colored brick. >> Um >> Yes. [clears throat] Can we can we can
discuss that also? >> Absolutely. And just some for those towers just to add some type of a architectural feature with it instead of leaving it so blank. >> Yeah, we got that. Yeah, I was actually trying to do the opposite so you know
trying to make it as nondescript as possible so so it didn't stand out. But I understand your point. We can definitely examine that. Um so the Dvariance okay so
no I'm sorry no no I know that but I I I wanted to go forward it was a matter of proceeding um so the devarian is required due to the proposed increase in density of the residential units and the proposed elimination of the ground floor
commercial use um however the pro prop I just want to point out that The proposed F is less than half of what's allowed. So we keep talking about how big things are, but it could be much bigger.
Much bigger. Um we I think that the site to prove my my case about the Dvarian is that the site is particularly suited to the use. Um we're large enough to accommodate the project. The we meet the parking requirements. We add two on
street parking spaces in conjun in in addition to that. We haven't asked for any of the bonuses that are allowed based on the EV spaces. We haven't um tried to um apply other parking
regulations that the state stands by when you're within a half inch of a transit center, which we are. um >> part about the transit center >> half mile >> there's a half a mile distance between us and the train and that means that in
certain standard engineering standards instead of having two spaces per unit you do it by the number of bedrooms >> right >> if we did that we would reduce the number of spaces required from 28 to 21 but we're not asking for that we're just
laying it out there because as we comply. So, um let's see. We meet the setbacks of the building on the south and west ends. Um the north setback is short, but again, it's to a blank wall.
Uh the north boundary contains both an office building and a two family residence, and we're trying to provide as much screening and fencing as possible. Um the building height meets the ordinance requirement and we talked about the contradiction in the uh in the
ordinance. Um there are numerous multif family housing developments within close proximity to the project. The largest being the 62 unit um River Street Commons building to the northeast which is literally in sight of this this
property. It's one property caddy corner away. Um there are numerous neighborhood commercial and service buildings within short walking distance which is all part of that NB neighborhood business zone. Like if you're going to have neighborhood businesses, you need to
have a neighborhood. >> Yeah, but neighborhood the the NB zone is specifically designed for apartments above the commercial. You you haven't done that here. >> Yes, you're absolutely right. However, if again, you allow me to look at the
land uses around it, you'll notice that there are no commercial uses of that type when you get past River Street. So, I'll continue. Um, we're replacing a non-residential use
with residential uses, uh, which is specifically allowed in the zone. Um the lot coverage is exceeded, but the courtyard amenities provide private areas shielded from busy Shrewsbury Avenue. Um uh and Sh we talked about
Shrewsbury a intensity. Um I want to also then point to something that's the last slide. Can you go to the last very last slide? It's a lot of yellow. You'll see
I think there's one more. Well, two more. Okay. So, this is something that I I I looked at and I was pretty pretty amazed by that the property is technically three
lots. And if you look at each of those lots individually, they could be developed with a commercial use and four units of housing with no variance. Now, >> they could be developed as what? They
could be developed as a commercial building with four units of housing above them without a variance. That would be an allowed use in the NB zone. So you could have 12 units on the site
side by side with commercial underneath and you'd be in compliance as a use as a density and as a use. So what we are propo we're proposing is 14 units of housing without the commercial component
which reduces the amount of parking necessary and I think creates a better streetscape and a better connection to the neighborhood. But we could do that because there are three lots
and there is no minimum lot size in the NB zone. >> And if I could just ask a legal question, I'm not trying to get you or anything like that, but are they definitely three lots or have they functionally merged or anything like that? They've not.
>> No. And I checked with Mr. McKenna on this. We >> checked. separately >> which act there are three separately identified lots that get three tax bills um they are considered to be separate lots
now if you could go up one slide Sea okay this is a a small area analysis around the site. So, our site is in green and um you can see that there's an X through a building. There used to be a
um an accessory building here that's gone since we started the project. Um the elements that are yellow are single family houses. The elements that are brown are
multifamily developments. And as you can see, there's multif family all around it down River Street. And then the red are commercial uses, some with residential above them, some not. So to say that we
would be the only one to have a residence on the first floor of a multif family unit is just not true. >> Are you able to identify which of those multif family units has a um first floor commercial use? >> The ones that are red. So if you go toward the top,
those three. Okay. But the one below it doesn't. The four that are to the left of it, my left, don't. The River Street school doesn't. The property that's next to us doesn't. The two properties to the south of the site don't. And the one
across the street from that last one doesn't either. So, you know, it's a funny thing. I mean, when you're on Shrewsbury Avenue, it does change significantly at River Street. The pattern of development
changes. Well, are those all non-conforming uses then? >> I Yeah, but they've been there for a long long time, right? They are not recent developments. So then if So if you talk about appropriateness to site, that's
what I would am suggesting that this is appropriate. And >> I guess I'm just not following how it's appropriate to compare the site to a non-conforming site. It's >> No, that's I I disagree. In planning theory, the idea is to find out whether
the standards set by the bureau reflect the reality of the living situation. And I my it's my contention that the ordinance hasn't changed significantly in 75 years. You know, if I could just ask, is this in the our package or do we need to mark this?
>> I'm sorry. >> It's not. >> I'm sorry. >> Oh, it's not. >> I I thought it was. I I apologize. I thought it was. >> All right. So, what are we up to? Uh >> um
you know what? So, this will be A16. And if you could just later on distribute 15 copies to So what is A16? >> A16 is a a land use >> four copies. Four copies. Um
>> I was going to make it. All right. So right A16 is what is this? >> Land use analysis. >> Land use analysis prepared by >> um my office. >> Okay. And is there a date on it? And if not, we can just make it today's
date. >> There is, but I I [laughter] right >> 3 425. Got it. And then if you if you reduce it and scroll up.
>> Uh well, I wanted to go to to some photographs that I think are report. No, other direction. Keep going. There we go. One. Keep going, please. Yeah. I think there's There you go.
Okay. I I I thought these were in the package, too. Are >> so you'll give >> these are these are part of the land use analysis. These are images. >> So, we're going to mark this A17. This is uh uh ill uh photographs of
>> neighboring land uses and and there's three of them. So, if you want it at 171 1819 >> and uh taken by >> myself. >> All right. roughly when >> it has it on the I think the same date as the land use diagram. >> All right. March 4th, 2025.
So you can say that they are accurate depictions of what existed back in March of 2025? >> Yes. >> Got it. >> Yes. So what you're looking at at the top is River Street, the old River Street school building. And you can see it's threetory stall goes all the way to
the ground. It's the entire block. Um, I might point out that that is a building that radically changed the neighborhood. And I would say as a planner, it saved the neighborhood when that thing was approved, having lived there before it was done.
Uh, I lived three blocks away. So, uh, that that renovation was critical in the development of the west side of Redbank. >> Over the school, you mean for the over 55? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's very peaceful place. >> Yeah. the U lower right hand corner drawing that house is the one that's now
boarded up and was vacated and and hopefully is going to go uh become multif family again. >> Right. And then the subject property is in the middle. >> Yeah. >> And then to the left is the two family house next to the property with the
solid >> I'd like to make a comment about the use of retail on the ground floor. Uh if you look at the lower left photograph, the the red brick, next to it is a building where the gentleman came in to ask to convert a an office space some attorneys vacated when they moved to Broad Street
and had it converted to an apartment. And the board let we let him, you can just see the yellow there, we let him make a commercial space into an apartment, which has been done. And given the fact that it's very hard to find tenants for Shrewberry of any
quality, it's one reason we vary against the uh liquor store, let them in. Uh the expansion across street, uh there's a lot of vacant space. Um the retail doesn't support new construction in that location as witnessed from two buildings
up the road that people have tried to renovate with ground flooror retail. It's very difficult. And I would say that residential on the ground floor is much preferred because we need it badly and we don't need the retail right now.
>> I think that's in contrast to what the master plan is telling us about this zone though. It's uh it calls out this zone specifically as saying we should and I take your point the ordinances are very old but the master plan is is very new and it guides new ordinances and it says that those new ordinance should I'm
going to quote it now um maintain the mixeduse nature of this zone um parenthetically ground floor commercial with upper story apartments and so yeah I think you position the the lack of commercial as um a benefit to this plan on the basis that it would have less
parking requires ments, but it does seem counter to what the master plan is saying for this zone. >> Well, if we look at the the next slide down, are you >> Well, I was going to speak to that. Um, I I personally had an application before this board before and the gentleman that
owned the property had an office space that he had on the market for I think it was seven or eight years that he could not rent it. So, we made an application to the board here to convert the first
floor um commercial space to residential space. and he had a lease signed before he even started work on the uh renovation from commercial to residential. I'm I'm just I'm not trying to be
argumentative or anything such as that. What what the only reason I bring it up is what this gentleman just said is true. There are certain parts of Shrewsbury Avenue that you just can't
you can't get retail to go there. And this this other gentleman after waiting all those years um he actually retained us and asked us to make an application on his behalf and he testified that he had it on the
market for all that time and could not get a commercial tenant. store building the liquor store building. >> Wait, which one was that, Mr. Mc? Which what are you talking about? >> The old gas station that became the liquor stores moving across >> talking about Greens. >> No, no, this was a this was um it was a
>> another one like that. >> It was an office. It was an office and um >> might have been a law some reason. >> Barbie, >> it's shown it's shown in those It's shown in the photos. It was shown in the photos. Just the edge of that building. Yeah. It's right next to the brick
building in the photos. Yeah. Yeah, it's the master plan is is is a good wish and a dream, but it's completely unfeasible right now on Shbury Avenue retail environment. That's which is too bad. >> That space was also 370 square ft. So,
it was a very small >> smaller the better for offices. The the thing that's happening in Redbank is small is shared office space, small office space is what's happening today in America and it's certainly happening in Redbank all over. witness Regis going into the EBS building on Broad Street.
Small is better than large. An office >> maybe for an office, but not necessarily for commercial. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I was going to say, you know, the master plan is three years old. And for whatever reason, I don't know why we would give up on it. But it was a deliberate document, right? And it says
that this is the zone that they're trying to we can tell war stories about a a 400 square foot uh space, office space that didn't rent and we converted it. But I mean, we just did this master plan and I I don't see the reason why we wanted a dense structure like this. No commercial. It's only going to make the
area quite frankly uh less uh attractive to people to come to Shbury Avenue if they want to shop or they want to do something. If we're going to develop it, why don't we develop it according to what the master plan says? I I mean we just did this >> but you talked about density. It's not
it's half the density allowed. >> You're based on and you could put 12, right? >> No, no, no. Based on F. Density is F. >> Well, you you made a comment of density. I want to be on the record by saying it's far less dense than permitted. then
perhaps density wasn't the right word, but you're seeking a variance because only you're missing the commercial. You want to develop this law. You're missing the commercial and you're putting more residential. You're putting all residential units and no commercial where Right. I mean,
>> right. But here's the conundrum. As soon as you put the commercial in, the parking requirement skyrockets. >> Okay, that's a conundrum for you. I mean, plan around it. That's what you all do. Uh but but again remember that it's a neighborhood commercial zone and
one of the requirements in the neighborhood commercial zone is a maximum commercial space because they don't want large parking lots and large big box type stores. So you you have a conundrum, yes, but you also have the
idea that it's a neighborhood business district. It's not general commercial district. It's specifically neighborhood and to in order to populate those commercial facilities, you need more neighborhood.
And so we're arguing that when you go down Shrewsbury Avenue and you cross south of River of the River Street School that the commercial stops. And there's a reason for that. It's stretched too thin. So my position as a
planner is that allowing this many units, which is far less than the F allows, is an appropriate use for this property. And I'm not arguing anything about the appropriateness of the property.
And if I might refresh the recollection of some people that were here before, there was another applicant that came with a project for this property with commercial on the first floor and three floors of residential.
He withdrew his application. >> There was also an application that was approved on the corner of uh James Parker Boulevard and Shrewsbury Avenue. Right. that in my opinion would have been lovely that had commercial space and had I think four units. I don't know if you represented the applicant prior to Thrive
>> that got approved. >> You you remember that? >> It can be done. >> I don't know which property you're speaking of, but >> uh where Thrive is on James Park, right? There was an approval there. There were apartments and there was a commercial space and there was this could have put a market there. That was approved. It
got abandoned and now we've got 30 or 40 or so units going there with eight parking spots. But it can be done, right? It's just >> Yeah. No, let me remind you that was never built. >> It was never built. And the gentleman who owned the property, who I
subsequently had some business with, said he could never make a dime there. It was never built. With all due respect, I hear what you're saying. But he ended up selling the property to the people that are building Thrive. and he
told I I I I know the gentleman. I spoke to him and I represented him on an application for commercial and residential at the train station that we got approved. When he got the approval
for the corner of James Parker Boulevard and Shrewsbury Avenue, he couldn't get any commercial tenant to occupy it. He ended up cutting the deal with Thrive and then sold the property to Thrive. Fact.
>> Yeah. Fact. It was built. I imagine it's hard to get a tenant on a project that hasn't broken ground yet. So, I'm not terribly surprised. >> So, I'm not sure how much weight that necessarily carries. He was going to build a couple commercial spots with some apartments above it. The fact that he decided to sell it to Thrive,
I I I guess I'm not following you. How is that persuaded? Maybe maybe you're not following me because what I'm saying is and please understand I know the gentleman. I represented him on another project before this board that was approved.
He told me I can't get a commercial tenant. Period. >> Let me just add I think the what what what what's very important in these decisions is reality and feasibility >> and economics. Right. >> There's an enormous amount of money
trying to come into Mammoth County and develop property. And it's very, very hard to find deals, very hard to find anything for sale, and everything's very expensive and very valuable today. And it just doesn't make sense to build
the kind of buildings that will have that uh use. And this is a much better building than three inline apartment buildings with stores on the ground floor. much better and and whatever the master plan says is great, but
just spend a little time on Shbury Avenue. We don't need any more retail space, which is the same argument that the downtown landlords made about Station Place, asking Station Place to reduce the retail, which I didn't agree with, but they were saying there's plenty of retail space in Red Bank.
Don't make people add more retail space when the market's like this, but Shrewsbury is the worst. And this is a I think the building could be different better, but it there's it's a much better building the as of right use my
opinion >> and I live on the block. >> Let's get back to your test finish up your testimony as a planner. >> Yes. Thank you. Um if if we look at the images above, we can see the buildings that are adjacent to the site. So the up the building to
on the lower left is the office building. >> And I'm sorry, is it is this been marked or no? Is this new? >> You just did. >> Okay. That's the same one. >> Yeah, it's just been up there for a while. Um I because you marked three in a row, Kevin.
17, 18, 19, >> I think. >> Yeah. I thought is this the I thought there were three in pictures. >> This is one of the three. Oh, >> okay. Got it. Uh so the image on the left is the office building that's adjacent to the
um northwest corner. Uh the site looking across the site which you can see is flat and featureless. Um to the upper part is another multif family building that's across River Street on the corner. Um there are more of them in the
back. There's like kind of a dark gray building. That's the um the pharmacy which has two stories of units over it. Um if you go to the next one, the next image and then these are the the pharmacy
building, the building that uh is next to Wanito's Grocery, two buildings on Herbert Street are all three stories with apartments above and then Parker Family Health Center. Um, that's a three-story building. Also, it had a two
three-story addition put on the the side to better serve the the community and neighborhood. So all these buildings are there and some of them new, but it's creating a kind of an interesting cohesive neighborhood business district, but again, I think it needs people
because the street is just too intense to have what would considered be drop off people and that sort of thing, which is why the county is going through this extensive study to hopefully sometimes build the traffic calming along the street. And by eliminating the one curb
cut, we are positively contributing to that because there'll be less interruptions. >> The the great neighborhood amenity, Tino's grocery there. Um >> yeah. >> Um cheaper chicken coal cuts than the supermarket fresher. [laughter] Um next
door is an apartment building that um gentleman built. Um the owner of Wanito's Empire and this is the third restaurant in that space. The first one failed, the second one failed, and now Mupa relocated there from the condo site
on Bridge. And they seem to be doing well, I hope. >> Right. And and I think it's because of their reputation. They moved. They carried customers with them. But >> yeah, but it's been a struggle that site. It's a big restaurant site. It's got a backyard that's been a back covered uh a patio in the back. That's
very interesting. It's never used. Uh he's Christian says he's going to use it, but it isn't used. But um yeah, Grocery is really the only popping real there along with B2 the bar, you know, >> right? And and again, once you get past
River, it all goes away. >> And what you do when you have problems with retail is you put more people in the neighborhood, >> which is I think what what we're kind of saying. And again in the master plan in the you know the the things they call they call a connected balanced um and
connected you try you're attempting to establish a strong cohesive downtown area that preserves the distinct character of the individual buildings and districts which I think we're doing that by creating another building that would stand alone on its own and be part of the community. uh we enhance modality
of the users for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars because we have all those facilities proposed on site. I think it is smart growth because it is infill. It's infill from the the building that's gone. That's the funeral home that's no
longer there. Um the equitable is it preserves and creates affordable housing opportunities. There's three affordable units here. So it's it does contribute to that that need and again we as we all know we're in a housing crisis.
So um and prepared to take steps to mitigate the impacts of climate change which is the whole building is about that the whole building is designed around passive um climate change building techniques.
So given the above, I don't think that the negative criteria outstrips the positive advances of the building. So I I got a question on the variances that you need. You said you you meet all
of the setbacks except one um of the building setbacks. No, we we meet two. We meet two and we don't meet the build the set back to the building to the north and the street.
The street it it gets into the this has always been a quandry of there's there's always a front yard setback and a front yard setback from the center line of the road. And if you take the front yard setback to the center line of the road, I think we're pretty close.
and and I I modeled it on that and based on what was done at the River Street School to mitigate the distance to the road. >> You're pretty close. Does that mean you need a variance or you don't? >> Uh, we do need a variance if you interpret it as a setback as opposed to
the center line of the road dimension. Jacqueline >> um the set aside from the use variance he needs um the following C variances buffers um ordinance requires 15 ft wide buffer
area with screening. Uh they don't have that. Um they need a front yard setback. They need a sideyard setback. They need a height uh variance because they're at um
>> three stories and they have a lot coverage >> variance >> and the habital floor right a th00and down to 872 >> that's a design waiver >> per Mr. The courtyard is also a design
waiver like a lot they're in the multif family section for design standards. So they're design wa there's there those are the variances and then there's a lot of other design waivers >> but one of the arguments we haven't made
is about the parking. So, if you take the state standard about the half mile to the transit area and reduce the parking lot by that and then you take the state's EV credit for the four units
and you do the lot coverage, we're going to be close to 60%. If you do that, I don't suggest doing that. But there's an argument to be made since the Reese's standard is a maximum, not a minimum, a maximum that if we apply
those two other standards, we would have a significantly reduced parking area and we would meet I believe we could meet all of the buffer zone requirements simply by reconfiguring the parking lot.
it always people I always hear people complaining about parking both in downtown and over on the west side. So, you know, I don't want to build the mic's not on. Sorry.
>> No, and I understand where you're coming from. >> So, to repeat for the record, um I always hear problems about parking both on the east side and the west side of Redbank. So, if we have a design that meets the standards, I'm perfectly fine
with it. Um, and I think that's better than a design that has fewer spaces. >> Well, and the argument is the standard because the standard is a maximum. >> I'm not talking about standards. I'm talking about people's perception for
parking in Redbank. And everybody says there's not enough parking. It's too difficult to find parking spaces. So by designing to the standards, we provide more parking for Redbank.
>> That's I'm just saying I understand my perspective and saying that oh you know we're not going to have enough we're not we're not going to have cars and you know people are going to do ride shares and use bicycles but from the perspective of the residents there's not enough parking on
Shbury and there's not enough parking in downtown. That's my feedback. the um >> Mr. Lake, can I bring up an example though? If you don't mind, I just want to bring this up. Um when we were before this board before um about the liquor
store um we were uh requested to eliminate a number of parking spaces to the point where we have six parking spaces for a 3,000 square foot retail facility. So
we we we're >> are you saying you want to reduce the parking spaces for this application? >> No. What we are saying is that if if logic prevails, do we do we really need all 28 spaces when the trend
everywhere including >> That's not a question for this board. That's a question for the council or for the next revision of the master plan. >> I don't believe that's true, Mr. Le. I because again the Reese's standard is a maximum which gives the applicant the
ability to argue well whatever term you wanted to use I don't mean that adversarily adversarially but that the number of spaces in the ordinance is overzealous >> if you look at my track record voting many times I vote for applications that
do not have adequate parking but in a case that we do have adequate parking I say don't mess with it that's my perspective. There might be other issues with this application, but from a parking perspective, it meets the standards.
>> I I would submit that if everyone should go look at the new apartment buildings in Redbank and see if the parking is fully used and I believe it is not station place and the rail is just not used and it this is too much parking. It's the direction the world's going in. Also, there are just like with the
liquor store application, there are tons of parking spaces on Shrewsbury. And while it reduce sight lines, it's very hard to get out of river onto Shrewsbury. I'm very good at it, but it's very hard. Would reduce the sight lines, it would also slow down. If you
had densely parked Shrewsbury with cars up and down the whole thing, it would slow the street down. And so, I don't I think it's too much parking for the site and it's not needed. Redbank's parking problem is perception and it's by people who park easily in other communities
like Lcraftoft or Shrewsbury and it's based on a few hours a week. If you really add up the hours when parking is a challenge in Redbank, you're talking two or three nights a week and for two or three hours, four hours. Well, also Saturdays and Sundays have been great lately at the White Street
lot, but people just have to try a little harder to park. But this is I think it's you really need to go look at the apartment buildings, the new apartment buildings and see if they're using that parking and I would say they are not. >> I guess that I would push back on that. I mean I live on Wallace Street and
parking is the outright disaster. Um so it depends on where you live. Um but it's I'm I'm certain I'm a little flabbergasted to for us to say that there's plenty of parking in Redbank. I mean it's not my experience. Um but um certainly at certain times. Yes. And
certain areas. Yeah, I was going to say we're not saying that about all of Redbank by any stretch of the imagination. I would never say that about all of Redbank, but I think we and and by the way, if you don't mind me saying this, this is part of an argument that goes to the master plan. I've spent
the over half my life in dealing with planning and zoning and and municipal government and everything else. You have to look at the individual property. The master plan is a map for that is an attempt to cover the entire burrow. It
doesn't work that way. It in smart planning requires you to look at the actual location of the property that's involved. That that's I'm I'm not a professional planner, but I was on a planning board for 19 years. So I can
tell you that when when you're looking at a master plan, sure it's a statement of what the overall picture, the ideal picture would be if everything in life was perfect. That's not the case. You really need to look at
the location of the individual property, the surrounding properties when you take that into consideration. So when I hear testimony about the consistency with the master plan or or the inconsistency,
in my mind, I I always think you really have to look at the individual property. You can't use the the the master plan as a weapon or as a or as your argument for you have to grant this because it's
consistent with the master plan. Um, I'm I guess I'm a little confused while we're talking about parking when you have plenty. That's not that's obviously not an issue with this this application. There's issues with
setbacks. There's issues with other stuffs that has nothing to do with parking. So, I'm not sure why we're continuing to go on with parking. Well, because because in the ordinance, the way the ordinance works, the parking is the tail that wags the dog. So, if you
look at the piece of property and you say, "Well, how many parking spaces can I fit on this?" You start to work backward to then how big a building can you do to be supported by the parking. >> Well, if parking if if you don't think you need as much parking and you can get
rid of all the other variances, well, you ought to go back and redo your plan. Well, I >> I guess I'm a little confused that why we're talking about parking when that's not an issue with this application the way you're presenting it. >> Unless you're talking about the buffers being
>> Well, buffers are are part of the problem, >> right? And they're part of the parking. >> Okay. So, >> so if you had less less parking, more buffers, >> then maybe you need to go back and redo your plan and reduce the parking and see if that passes because I'm not sure that's going to pass with the current
issues that you have. I mean, we can sit here all all night and talk about parking here or there or everywhere else. Parking is not an issue. It's the other things with this application that are an issue.
The the parking seems to be the at the root of not just the bulk variances, but also the use, right? Because we we're we're looking for use variance because we're not doing commercial mixed use. And I think um you had testified before that commercial mixeduse doesn't work because the parking requirement goes up.
And so a lot of the testimony has positioned um the argument as we need to accept either adding new um residents to this neighborhood or adding commercial. But you also testified that you can put in commercial and a number
of units above that. So I don't know why we're framing it as mutually exclusive. We can have both, right? But if we do have both, I think what gets sacrificed is is parking. Yeah. And >> if you sacrifice parking, you could make the apartments 1,000 ft each and make
the courtyard 70 ft wide. >> So where would you like to go from here? >> Should we motion for a five minute break? [clears throat] >> Slowly I turn. Yeah. No braids. >> Sure.
>> Yes. >> I'm sorry. And Tori, >> yes, here. >> Raymond Mack >> here. >> Greg Fitzgerald. >> John Gild >> here. >> Vincent Light >> here. Paul Kagno
>> here. >> Eugene Harowitz >> here. >> Chris Haven. >> Darthy Ceruo >> here. >> Okay. Mr. McAda. >> Okay. So, excuse me. I'm sorry. I have a little bit uh
little bit of horarsseness this evening. Um we have uh had a discussion outside. Um, and I'd like to say on behalf of the applicant and all the professionals that we um
greatly appreciate and um really thank the board for your lively discussion and the arguments made by everybody in the room, our side board
members uh differing on positions. Um, but we would like to, and Kevin, I'll send you a letter on this. I think what we're going to do is withdraw this application, not adjourn it, withdraw it, and come back with uh another plan
um that we think the board would be more receptive to and we think we can come up with a better product if we work hard at it. And so you if you're really lucky,
we'll be back. Um but back with something different um that we hope the board would have perhaps be more receptive to. Um we took into consideration the
comments that everybody made. I jotted down notes and I I thank you all for your participation, your questions, your comments. Um but um we think there may be a better alternative. So we're hoping
that we can create one for you and come back and give the board something that you would um think would be very fitting for this location. Great. All right. So, Mr. McKenna, what
I would respectfully suggest is uh pursuant to your request, we should have a motion to dismiss the application without prejudice. >> That's fine. >> All right. Um, can I have that motion? >> I'll make that motion. >> Uh, I I just wanted to add um you you may
have heard a lot of negative things about the application, but maybe you didn't hear enough of the positives. We love the idea that you're developing this property. We love the con I love the concept of the building, the openness, the courtyard, all those
elements are wonderful. And you know, I think Shauna also mentioned some possible changes to the outdoor or outside materials, but there's a lot of positives to this um application as well. So, don't lose all of those. >> Yeah. And and Vince, I I really
appreciate that because um I I acknowledge what you're saying and appreciate it. And um always at least the with the people here and uh and us as professionals,
we try very hard. I mean, I probably get I probably jack reject 70% of the people that call me with the dumbest ideas I've ever heard in my life sometimes. Um but uh you know we you know being professionals we live in
this town. There's nothing we want to do to hurt this town ever. And so when we um have um good comments and smart comments, we appreciate them. And when
we have critical comments, we understand and appreciate everybody's opinion. Um but we have other ideas that we have already started coming up with in five minutes. Um so uh you won't see the last
of us on for this property. So I can assure you of that. All right. And um I welcome the motion to dismiss the application. >> Okay. So we had a motion to >> dismiss without prejudice. So and we had
a second. Need a vote. Antih. >> Yes. >> Raymond Mass, >> yes. >> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes. >> John Gild, >> yes. >> Vincent Light, >> yes. >> Paul Kagno, >> yes. >> Eugene Harowitz, >> yes. >> Chris Haven,
>> Darthy Ceruo, >> yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> Motion. Motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second it. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose?