Okay. The Red Bank's own zoning board of adjustment will come to order this fifth day of March, 2026. The time is 6:30. Roll call, please. >> Anor >> here. Ray Mas
>> here. Greg Fitzgerald absent. Jonathan Gilde >> here. >> Anna Cruz here. Vincent Light >> here. >> Paul Kagno absent. Eugene Horowitz >> here. >> Chris Havens >> here. >> Dorothy Cerillo
absent. And Rebecca Glenn hasn't been sworn in yet. Go ahead. >> Okay. In accordance with New Jersey law, this meeting notice has been published in the Ansbury Park Press and the Two River Times and is available on the weekend website on the municipal website
and the New Jersey Secretary of State's website. It is also posted on the municipal built bulletin board. This meeting complies with the open public meetings act and will be tape recorded if the applicant chooses to use the court reporter to transcribe the
recordings. The board requires a copy of the transcript. A break will occur around 8:00 p.m. in the conference room and the first floor. The public is welcome to attend, but discussions with board members will not be allowed. No new cases will be heard after 900 p.m.
and the cut off time is 9:30 p.m. Any applicants not heard will be rescheduled for the next meeting. Uh pledge of allegiance to the United States of America to the standice for all.
Okay, we have a couple administrative matters. We have a meeting minutes from executive session minutes from February 5th. Somebody make a motion to approve. >> I'll move to uh accept those.
>> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I I And we have the regular meeting minutes from February 5th. I'll make a motion to approve. Second. All >> in favor? I
>> I >> Okay, we have a couple resolutions. We have a resolution of approval for 191 Bridge Avenue. Mr. Kennedy. >> Uh, good evening, sir. This was an approval to uh uh convert an existing single family home to a two family home.
uh the resolution was distributed and I think one of the conditions had indicated that per the testimony this is not demolition and uh the rear of the home is going to be demolished but it's not a total demolition and if it is a total demolition they need to come back and I think at the request of our um
friend Shauna if you all are agreeable to this we're going to clarify that uh demolition means any uh change uh to the foundation Shauna is what we'll do so if that's acceptable we can adopt that as modified Okay. Somebody like to make a motion to approve?
>> I'll make >> second. >> I'll second. >> Anti. >> Yes. >> Ray Mask. >> Yes. >> Jonathan Gil. >> Yes. >> Anna Cruz. >> Yes. >> Vincent Light. >> Yes. >> I was there. I think.
>> Were. No. You weren't at last week's meeting. That's >> no. >> Oh, I listened online. That's why I thought I was >> um Eugene Horowitz. >> Yes. >> And Chris Havens. >> Okay.
>> Okay. We have a resolution of approval for 232 South Pearl Street. Mr. Kennedy. >> Mr. Chairman, this was an approval uh authorizing the construction of a single family home on an undersized lot. And that was an actual two for one uh vote.
Uh we said one the uh doctrine of rescue dakata does not apply because this was substantially different and then we did say that they uh uh clarified and satisfied all the uh legal uh criteria for the construction of a single family home on an undersized lot. There are a
couple conditions which we talked about and the notable condition is that the applicant per the testimony presented the applicant at the applicant's expense is going to rearrange the neighbor's deck um steps so that the neighbor's steps don't make the the neighbor lead
onto the property. Um I did review this with Kevin Assadi the applicant's attorney. He had no objection. So if it's acceptable to the board we can uh adopt that as as accepted as presented. >> Okay. Um, I'll make a motion to approve. You second.
>> I'll second. >> An Tory. >> Yes. >> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Jonathan Gilder, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> yes. >> Eugene Horowitz, >> yes. >> And Chris Havens, >> yes. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Okay. New business. We have one 194 East in place. All right. And as the applicant uh team comes forward, just a couple of preliminary procedural things. Uh anyone here have any questions, comments, or concerns regarding the sufficiency of
the notice? Don't see any. The notice was reviewed and found acceptable. So, it' be our opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed. Um we're going to swear in Shauna Ebanks, uh a planner who's also the director of the bureau's um economic community development.
Shauna, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth to best your knowledge to help you God? >> Yes. >> Thank you. And for the record, we're going to mark into the record what we as a board have before us. So A1 is the denial of application dated September
19th, 2025. A2 is the intent to proceed, and that's uh dated January 16th, 2026. A3 is the disclosure of ownership, and I'm going to get to that in a minute. A4
is the property owner certification. Uh A5 is a survey prepared by um Russell Kaufman and it's last revised um October 27th, 2025.
And that was A5. And then A6 is construction uh details prepared by Daniel Kaufman. And that's dated August 27th, 2025. And I think that's it. And then this is Mike Convary. Good evening, Mr. Convary.
And just for the record, Mike, after you introduce or make your uh appearance, uh just we're going to do a little bit of a conflict check. So the disclosure of ownership here says that the applicant is HFA Properties LLC. uh with the
members being Robert Allison, Craig Johnson, Matthew Holman, Lauren Holman, and Jerry Conny. And uh Mike, afterwards, if you can just say, I know we have an owner's letter of consent. Just identify who the owner is and if we know who the um just so we can do an
internal conflict check or you could use the handheld, whichever one, but switch it on. Make sure that the green button is >> there's just >> no just press the >> make sure the green There we go. There you go.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Michael Convy. Law offices of Michael Convy in Shrewsbury, New Jersey. Uh seated to my right is Mr. Craig Johnson. He is one of the five or six own uh one two three four five five
owners of FHFA Properties LLC. Uh again, Mr. Kennedy, uh the names are Robert Allison, Lauren Holman, Jerry uh Connity, Matthew Holman. They're the other owners and they uh have uh Mr. Johnson's the managing member. So, he's
here tonight to testify. >> And is HFA the owner of the property? >> HFA is the owner of the property. >> Perfect. which is a limited liability company. Got it. Okay. So, with me this evening also is John Tina, who's the principal owner of
All Things Planning and Development from South Brunswick, New Jersey. He's going to testify to the zoning and planning implications. And we do have a very short uh presentation this evening. I'm I'm a remiss to say that my office marked the four documents that I want to put into evidence tonight, and they
started with A1. Mr. Kennedy, >> we'll we'll we'll we'll adapt >> for the for the ease of the board. What I did was I put everything into a nice pack that I'll have as well, but they're they're mismarked. I apologize. They're at 81 through four. So, I guess this
>> I didn't properly coordinate with you >> through uh I guess a 11. >> Got it. Right. So if you can mark the first 187 follow um for allowing us to appear this evening. I do represent HFA Properties
LLC, which is a limited liability company and the owner of 194 East Bergen Place Redbank, more particularly lot 101, I'm sorry, block 101 and lot 28. The applicant, as you're aware this
evening, is proposing to demolish an existing handicapped ramp and deck and install a new one in accordance with the construction drawings that we have submitted. Um, the ramp's going to remain in the same location. Um, there
is a modification to the to the length of the deck. Um, but basically it's the same deck that's going to be replaced. Um, that's the only variance that we're seeking tonight because this condition, the deck that exists there today is a
pre-existing non-conforming condition and it exists 2 feet from the easterly uh neighbors lot line. And that uh two feet is a um violation of section 490147E5A1
of the burough ordinance where the minimum sideyard setback is uh supposed to be 10 ft. So we're proposing 2 feet which is existing which is what exists there now when the uh ordinance requires the 10-ft sideyard setback. Uh Mr. Tina
is going to be testifying to a C1 variance for the bulk requirement because of the hardship and of the location of of the existing deck and the placement of the new one. So, if I could this evening, I'd like to call Mr. Johnson to testify as the owner of the
property. >> Sure. Good evening. If you could just state your name for the record, please. Oh, sure. Craig Johnson. >> All right. And address? >> Home address 106 Montlair Road North,
Barnagate, New Jersey 0805. >> All right. If you could just raise your right hand. 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, God? >> I do. >> And just for the record, you are, as uh uh your attorney indicated, you're a member of HFA Properties LLC.
>> That's correct. And HFA is the owner of the property. >> HFA properties owns the property. Yes. >> And how long have you owned it? Roughly. >> Uh June of 21, I believe. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Convary. >> Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. So, uh, Mr.
Johnson, do you hold uh a equal percentage interest with the other four members? Are all of you 20% members of the the LLC? >> No, I hold a 25.9% interest. >> Okay. And the the other members are interest holders that we mentioned. Uh they permitted you to testify this
evening on on in support of this application. >> Yes. >> Okay. And are you the managing member of the LLC? >> I am. >> Okay. And um HFA owns this property since 2021. >> Correct. >> And when you purchased the property, was the handicap ramp of issue that we're
here before the board on tonight. Was that existing at the time of the purchase? >> It was. Is there a release that HFA Properties has um with your uh accounting firm, the accounting firm, HFA Certified Public Accountants and Adviserss?
>> Yes. >> And does the lease require HFA Properties LLC to maintain the location at 194? >> Yep. All repairs are responsibility of the tenant. >> Okay. >> And the building right now is your accounting firm. >> Yes. >> And how many accountants are in the
firm? Uh total there are 90 employees uh about 45 uh professionals. >> And is is your you have other firms uh in in in Mammoth County or in the surrounding counties? >> We have two offices. This this existing property we're talking about and uh
headquarters is in Lakewood. >> Okay. >> Ocean County. >> And your accounting firm has uh frequent visitors to the location. There's always uh clients coming in and out. >> Yes. And uh are you familiar with the existing conditions of 195 East in place? >> Very.
>> And do you you work out of that building? >> I I work out of both buildings, but yes, I was there actually today. >> And are you familiar with the existing handicap ramp deck at the property? >> Yes. >> Can I ask you if I want to mark this for
A7 I first? >> Yeah. So in your pack, this is a survey done by Russell Calfman and this survey is dated 10221.
I'd like to put the survey in front of you, Mr. Johnson, and tell me, was this the survey that you obtained when you purchased the property? >> Yes, it is. >> And on the easterly side, it shows the handicapped ramp. >> Correct. And that's what presently exists there today. >> That's correct.
>> And it's approximately, I guess, 2 feet from the sideyard of the adjacent easterly neighbor. Correct. >> Yes. >> I want to show you uh some pictures. We have marked for A2. There's seven pictures that are numbered. Pictures number one through seven
in your packets. members. >> Can you tell me um is this the handicap deck, the existing handicap deck at the location in picture one? >> Picture one is the steps coming up from the sidewalk that approaches from East Bergen Place.
>> And what's picture two? >> Picture two is the same steps that the top of those steps showing where the the boards are actually dipping down. >> And the same with picture three. >> Same with three. Yes. And is that a cone that's on the steps there?
>> Yes. >> And this picture four is what is that picture of? >> That's on the top step looking towards the back of the property looking towards the parking lot. You can see it's it's roped off because it's not in use.
>> And that deck is is actually re it's a it's actually uh caving in, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then what's picture five? >> Picture five is the same from the from the front. See the roped off deck that goes out to the back parking lot >> and six.
>> And picture five and six. That's if you're standing on Eastburg in place looking to the rear parking lot of the building. Correct. >> Correct. Yep. >> And picture seven. Picture seven is the other side from the parking lot looking up the ramp that would that would uh clients would go up
and enter the building from there. >> Okay. And is this the only ramp at the premises? >> Yes. >> And if we go back to what's been marked as A7, is that the parking lot at the top of the survey? >> Yes. >> And how many parking spaces do you have
at the location? >> 14. >> And the closest spot to the building is the handicap spot that's designated for handicap use. >> That's correct. And the ramp is right the starting of the ramp is right next to >> Yeah, the sidewalk is just next to that
that parking spot and you know the indent in the sidewalk and then the ramp is right around the corner. >> Now this handicap ramp naturally it serves any disabled people. Do all the people that come to visit the building go use this ramp now?
>> Most do. Most use the back parking lot and come up the ramp. Uh some people do park on East Bergen and come in the front, but neither side is is usable at this point. >> So what's the current condition of the handicap ramp right now? >> It's it's totally dilapidated and it's
um totally roped off. We have people coming in the opposite side side door. >> Okay. And if you look at the picture, the first picture number one on A7, you have a sign there that says please use side entrance to the driveway. That's
that's there to inform any uh potential clients that they can't come up that way. >> Correct. >> And the cone's there for the same purpose. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> How how long has this handicapped uh ramp been restricted uh use that you haven't used it? >> Uh totally restricted. Probably 3 months
now. 90 days. >> And at some point 3 months ago, you just decided to discontinue the use out of safety concerns. >> We Yes. Yes. How do you currently uh have occupants entered the building? >> We have we have back steps that open
into an existing partner's office actually which is very awkward uh or on the opposite side of where the ramp is. There's a side door that just comes in but there's three steps once you walk in that door that certain people can't go
up for physical reasons. Were you able to make any repairs to this rather than replace the existing ramp? Did you ever talk to anybody about repairing it rather than replacing it? >> No, cuz even the top materials are are deteriorating.
>> So, at some point you and the members decided that you had to build a new deck. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Did you hire someone at that point in time to uh to construct the deck? >> Yes. >> And who did you hire? a deck guardian. They're a
tri-state uh company. So, members, in your packet, which would be the third exhibit, is the construction drawings, I believe. We would mark these A9. >> Sure. >> So, Mr. Johnson, if you could review
these. Are these the drawings that were prepared by somebody on behalf of the contractor deck guardian? >> Yes. >> And that depicts the new deck to be constructed, correct? >> Yes. >> And that deck is is um Can you explain
what it is that the uh drawings show? So the the first portion is on page three. Uh you'll see on the right side of that that picture you'll see deck to resurface. That is the back steps that I discussed that go right into one of the partners' offices. The ramp as you can
see to the bottom of the picture is the new ramp uh same width and actually the the new ramp is actually a longer ramp to conform with ADA. um to be ADA
compliant. And then the front deck area is same size as it was just just new materials members. Our last exhibit is a at this point 10. And that is
another survey. It's the actual existing survey, but there's been markings showing where the new deck is proposed. Can you see that, Mr. Johnson? A uh 10. Yes. Or 11. >> And is that uh it's 7 8 9 10? That's
810. Do is that where the deck is going to be placed? The new deck? >> Uh yes. >> And it's over the same exact area where where the other deck is located, right? >> That's correct. Do you know if there's any differences between the current deck that exists
there and the proposed handicap deck? >> Um, differences would include better materials and the new ramp is less of a pitch. Proposed ramp is less of a pitch than the existing ramp.
So, is it your understanding that the ramp right now currently meets the pitch requirements under the ADA? >> It's my understanding that it doesn't. >> And that the proposed deck that you want to install in the same location, have you addressed meeting the ADA
requirements? >> Yes. >> And do you understand what uh the proposed drawings do to meet that requirement? >> Uh it's just an extension. It's no wider. It's just an extension of the ramp um back towards the back parking lot more.
As far as uh 194 Bergen is concerned, is there any other location where you could move the existing handicap deck and put it anywhere else on the property? >> No. >> No further questions for uh Mr. Johnson. Hey, any questions from the board for
this witness? >> Sorry, in the denial, I think um it said that the ramp is being considered part of the principal structure and that's what makes it a 10-ft setback instead of a 5-ft setback. Is that right? >> Yes. So, the ramp is attached to the
building. So, it's not >> the principal. Okay. I just look for that clarification. Thank you. Okay, on to your next witness. >> Okay, we'll have uh Mr. Tina, please. >> All right, good evening. Uh Mr. Kina
Tina, if you could just state your name and business address. >> Uh it's John Tyena. Uh spelled T is in Thomas. A I K is in Kelly. I N is in Nicholas A. Business address 30 Newman Road, Kendall Park, New Jersey, South Brunswick.
Um, good evening and welcome back to the Redbank zoning board. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the best your knowledge to help you God? >> I do. >> And you're testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed professional planner. >> That is correct. I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey. Happened
since I completed my studies at Ruckers University in 1992. Had the pleasure of testifying before more than 200 boards throughout the state and around the country on behalf applicants just like Craig. Um, I was last in Redbank before he was on board in 2004.
Sorry it's taken me so long to get back. >> Okay, we'll accept it. >> My license is current and and in good standing. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Ask the board to accept Mr. Tina's qualification. >> Mr. Ta, are you familiar with the
current application uh of the applicant for 195 East in place? >> I am. And uh you're familiar that he intends to demolish the existing decking and install a brand new deck in the same place. >> I am >> correct. >> And you've reviewed all the documentation that we just marked uh the
surveys and the construction drawings and uh also the um the pictures that I presented. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you have reviewed the zoning implications and the planning implications of the bureau of Redbank with respect to this application?
>> Yes, I have. And would you please uh explain to the board your finding? >> Certainly. I've also uh I've been there as well, went and looked at the site. Uh so I'm here to talk about the application from a planning standpoint. We do we do require uh one uh bulk
variance uh to put a slightly longer uh handicap ramp on the east side of the building at 194 uh Eastburg in place. Um it is block 101, lot 28. It's in your professional office zone. Uh and um as
everybody pointed out, it is a uh 10- foot requirement for the sideyard setback because we are attaching the uh ramp to the building. Uh that is why we have to meet the 10 ft not the 5T. So that was that was correct. Um we are so
we're seeking a variance uh was requested at two feet in looking at um a A9. What was the last one? A9 which was the proposed survey. I see that uh when comparing uh A9 to the uh dimensions of
the proposed uh ramp um we will come down to one uh 1T3 in at our closest point because the building isn't uh square to the property line. So there's a little pinch point. So it'll come down
to 1 ft 3 in at its closest. I would expect that's what it is today as well. Um because again the deck that's there what's there today is also 4 feet six inches. Um that's what's necessary to have railings and to get you the clear
widths that you need for ADA. Um so again I we are matching it in terms of its width. It just gets longer uh to make sure that we meet the one on 12 requirement of ADA. Um, so this is a a
Cvariance uh under the law and I'd uh submit to you this is a C1 variance uh where this is uh related to a relief that's because of the a reason of exceptional narrowness of the lot um or an extraordinary exceptional feature of
a specific structure uh that lawfully exists thereon. So, uh, we have a narrow lot at at 50 ft wide. Um, and we have a structure that has been there for some time. Um, has, uh, 9 foot on one side,
has 5 foot n on the other side. Um, so we have existing non-conformities and, um, as Mr. Johnson testified there's no other place to put an accessible uh ramp on the property to be able to be
simultaneously get to an entrance and have the bottom of the ramp be closest to your accessible parking space. So there's a couple of different requirements that are uh that need to be there. Um and when you put them all together, all those existing conditions
limit us to this location. Um so that would allow the board to make the finding uh that this is a uh a hardship for the applicant according that that would satisfy the positive criteria uh for the grant of a C1 variance under the
statute. Um and then the uh our remaining requirements would be as for all of your variances the negative criteria. So it has two different types. Uh the first uh criteria is um are you having a substantial detriment to the
public good? So are we doing something that's so egregious that it's going to offend the sensibility of the public? It's going to cause a negative impact on our neighbors or the the neighborhood in general, etc. And we're not doing that. We're just replacing an existing ramp. So uh no real impact there. And as you can see from the big crowd, um our
neighbors are are not too worried. Um so that's that's the first prong, and I think you'll be able to find that. The second prong is are we having a substantial impairment to your zone plan or your master plan. So in terms of your zone plan or your zoning ordinance, professional office district provides for professional offices. It actually
specifically provides professional offices in residential type structures that were converted that retain that look that you want in your professional office or your residential office district. So I submit to you we're kind of we're kind of advancing that purpose. we're certainly not going to have any uh
impairment on it on your zone ordinance um and having a professional office that has a good handicap access. Uh and then finally um in terms of uh being consistent with your burough goals and objectives in your master plan from 2023
um actually reading your master plan was like a dream for this application because your goals and objectives there. It was kind of neat how they did them. um was uh that you want to be connected and enhance mobility for all users. So, we're able to do that by providing for
uh mobility and accessibility for our disabled um visitors to our site balanced with business and residents with small businesses supported. Uh so again, this business owner trying to make an investment in their property and how do we do it? uh equitable, embracing diversity, including the disabled,
ensure all residents can access burough parks and services uh throughout the burrow and prepared to ensure cost cost-effective strategies to upgrade facilities within the burrow. Uh so all those things we're advancing all those things with the application. Um your burough master plan also actually
encourages strategies where property maintenance and reinvestment uh may be done um by uh small property owners in a way that wouldn't require relief. Now, uh that is typically uh oriented towards your single family homeowners and two
family homeowners. Uh and that is how your current um ordinance is structured. Uh where for a single family house or two family house, this might not have needed relief, but because we're a commercial property, we have to come in even though we're making a little
longer. Um so, uh and then as I said, the zoning orders provides professional offices and structures uh that preserve the existing character. So, uh, check. Um, so again, we're not having a substantial impairment on your master plan or your zoning ordinance by doing
that. So, that gives you the, uh, ability to make all the findings. The site is narrow and constrained by the existing structures and access. There's no negative impact. It just replaces what's there next to the existing fence and there's no impairment to the zone plan or the master plan. It actually advances some of the purposes. So, that
gives you the ability to grant the requisite relief. I'm available for your questions. Okay. >> Any questions from the board? one. You kind of covered it, but have you heard from any of your neighbors? Is anybody unhappy? >> Thanks.
I don't really know what to do looking at our building. I'm not sure on the left side. >> Okay, that's fine. Questions. >> Another one on the right. >> Okay, I I think that would would conclude and we just respectfully request that the
relief be granted. Thank you. >> Okay. Any comments from the board on this application? >> Well, they're obviously not making the current situation worse. In fact, they're making it better by conforming to new and improved ADA
uh requirements. So, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't support this. >> Okay. Anyone else? >> Okay. Uh do I have a motion to >> Kennedy? >> Sure. I would um if the application's
approved, some of the conditional uh things that we would talk about would be compliance with the promise commitments and representations that the team made, compliance with any affordable housing regulations, obligations if there are, compliance with review memos. Sea, we don't have any review memos, right? Okay.
um compliance with the ADA regulations, get uh any permits, and uh uh typically get your demolition permits if you need them, and ultimately uh need a just one of your professionals to sign a certification confirming that uh the improvements were installed in
accordance with the approved plans, in accordance with the testimony, in accordance with the resolution. And we're going to clarify that the resolution or that the variance is for 2T, but uh John, 1.3 foot at its closest point. 1 foot 3 in
>> 1 1T 3 in and that the railings and width will all comply with the ADA uh standards and um we usually have a 24-month time frame with when you need to do it but I think it's uh going to be requested that you do it ASAP but no less than 24 months.
>> Sure thing. >> So Mr. Chairman if those are acceptable to uh the board we can have a motion. >> Okay. Somebody like to make a motion to approve or deny. >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second.
>> Anor, >> yes. >> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Jonathan Gilde, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> yes. >> Vincent Light, >> yes. >> Eugene Horowitz, >> yes. >> And Chris Havens, >> yes.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Chairman, if I may, I I received a phone call from one of the applicants team today and uh said given the uh special circumstances, could I have a resolution of approval prepared just in case it got approved
and if you were willing to do that? Um I have one prepared. It It's a little unusual we do this. Uh but we do it have done it before uh when there's good reasons. I think we did it last year when the lighthouse was opening up and it was March and we all wanted our
Italian ice in in April. Um, so if it's the pleasure of the board, I can speedread a resolution in and uh just get them a 30-day head start on on their improvements. >> Go ahead. Okay. >> So, the we would recite all the things
that were uh read into the record and we'd say currently the site has no ADA compliant ramp. Uh the lack of an ADA compliant ramp at the site is neither safe nor functional nor practical nor desired and probably not necessarily legal. The lack of the ADA compliant uh
ramp at the site compromises the ability and desire of handicap individuals and I think what the applicants test fed to other individuals whose mobility is challenged to comfortably access and utilize the site facility. the lack of the ADA ramp at the site and the lack uh
from a development standpoint is unacceptable in today's modern society and approval of this application as as Vince indicated will allow the uh ramp to become ADA compliant and the installation of this ADA ramp will render the property more inviting, more accessible and more open to accommodate
handicapped individuals and other individuals whose mobility is challenged. Obviously, increased handicap accessibility at the site is a laudable goal and uh this uh subject to the conditions that we talked about, the new ramp is not going to detrimentally
interfere with any adjacent uh uses and the new um handicap. See, I then have to So, we're going to say the status quo, which is right now no handicap or no functioning handicap ramp, um is unacceptable. It constitutes
a nuisance. It violates the spirit and intent and presumably the language of the ADA. It frustrates the spirit and intent of uh the laws and of the ADA and regulations. Um it prevents handicapped individuals and other individuals whose mobility is challenged from appropriately entering exiting the site.
And the status quo prevents handicapped individuals from obtaining um accounting services at the site. um which is particularly sensitive right now since it's tax time. Uh the status quo is problematic and the status quo does not
uh promote the interests of the Burough of Redbank or the residents thereof and Mr. Convary as I understand it or Mr. Johnson as I understand it uh right now uh what I was told was that um if handicapped people need to your services
people from your office are actually going out to their cars in the parking lot to meet with them. All right. So, we're going to say that that's sort of uh not the best situation and the status quo um compromises the accessible rights of the handicapped individuals and it
just this status quo does not represent a better overall zoning alternative and there is a need for this improvement. And notwithstanding this very legitimate need, uh the applicant does need a variance and there's strict legal standards for the bulk C variances and it's either going to be a hardship or
it's going to be proof that the benefits outweigh the detriments and again it is notwithstanding the very legitimate need. There is a need for the applicants to satisfy the variance standards and the board finds that the rigorous variance standards have been satisfied. Clearly
there is a need. Uh currently uh there's no um uh functional handicap access at the ramp and uh the need uh currently per the testimony and evidence presented and information known to date um the uh
ramp at the site uh is or given that it's its condition and it's roped off and the deteriorating condition and the sinking floorboards and the uneven floorboards. It serves as an obstacle preventing handicapped individuals from accessing the site. And uh again, as we
just heard, it requires handicapped individuals to uh meet the accountants in the parking lot. And that situation is respectfully unacceptable in 2026. and the um blocked uh office, I'm sorry, the the uh
blocked handicap rent uh ramp at the site uh could potentially compromise the ability of employees to timely or sufficient safely vacate in the event of emergency and that situation could potentially compromise the ability of first responders um in the event that
there is any type of emergency at the situation. So that the building the existing building at the site has a pre-existing non-conforming side setback of uh 2 feet and then we're going to say 1.3 in at its closest point whereas 10 ft is otherwise required. Uh that is an
existing condition and let's see the current um uh situation um I'm sorry the current ramp has a non-compliant setback of the 2T/ 1.3 ft at its closest point and the new
replacement ramp will have the same setback of two feet and 1.3 feet at its closest ramp. And given that the existing building and the existing handicap ramp have a non-compliant side setback of that 2 feet 1.3 ft uh the
placement of a new handicap ramp at any other location besides what is proposed uh could compromise the overall functionality and usefulness of the same could potentially violate ADA regulations could compromise uh the grading and the pitch all those things
which have to be compliant and as uh was indicated a different pitch in a different grade uh would not necessarily satisfy the ADA regulations and it would not allow them to have the ADA parking spot closest to uh the ramp as is
required. So, um if the application is approved, uh the handicap ramp is going to be no the new handicap ramp is not going to be any closer to the side property line than currently exists and it's not going to be material wider than
what currently exists. And the um let's see uh the existence of this blocked off orange traffic cone. Write that down. And uh disturbed floorboards uh don't represent an don't uh basically project
an a positive aesthetic appeal. And approval of this application will definitely improve the overall aesthetic appeal. It's definitely going to improve it's the desirable improve the desirable visual environment which is a purpose. It's going to improve health and safety. Uh it's going to be compliance as Vince
indicated with the prevailing regulations and it's going to promote public health and safety and it's the right thing to do. It's necessary. It's appropriate. It's going to promote the interests of the public and it is going to um let's see uh given that the
existing building is already there um it would be impractical and not uh real functional or practical to try to relocate or retrofit that existing building. And in a nutshell, the failure um I'm sorry, the um uh the failure to
correct this situation could result in um violations being issued for the site. And importantly, approval of this application is not going to increase the size of the building. It's not going to increase the number of employees. It's not going to increase the parking demand. It's not going to change the lighting scheme. It's not going to change the garbage demand. It's not
going to change ingress or egress. It's not going to uh change the operational intensity of level at the site. It's not going to change the landscaping. It's not going uh to change the historic location of that handicap ramp. Um nor the historic location of the parking
spaces. And I think that is we just had a couple more. Uh no other pract these are stiff I wrote down today just tonight. No other practical locations to employ uh that uh would um be a compliance spot but would also comply
with ADA regulations and be close to the parking spot. Um again we talked about the master plan uh looking to enhance mobility for all users. approval of this will absolutely do that and um uh represents an appropriate
reinvestment in the community for the site for all the good reasons. I don't need to recite the conditions again, but I know I just sort of sped sped speed read that if that's acceptable, we can adopt that resolution uh subject to Shauna's uh review and technical
expertise. >> Thank God we didn't have to read that ourselves. Kevin Kennedy. >> Anybody like to make make a motion to approve that resolution. >> I'll second.
>> And Tory, >> yes. >> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Jonathan Gilde, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> yes. Vincent Light, >> yes. >> Eugene Horowitz, >> yes. >> And Chris Havens, >> yes. >> Thank you, Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. Good luck. Thank you very much everybody. Thank you.
>> Motion to adjourn >> and a second. Anna Cruz. Okay. All in favor? I >> thank you.