WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=oBldQXaNJbg

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: oBldQXaNJbg):
- 00:00:05: Meeting Called to Order: Roll Call and Notices
- 00:01:46: Pledge of Allegiance & Broad Street Case Postponement
- 00:03:28: Approval of April Meeting Minutes & 40 Riverside Resolution
- 00:09:09: Thrive Resolution Carried Over, 195 Bridge Ave Introduction
- 00:12:11: 195 Bridge Ave: Attorney Introduction and Applicant Testimony
- 00:18:36: Board Questions for Applicant, Architect Introduction
- 00:19:31: Architect Sworn In: Detailed Explanation of the Project
- 00:25:50: Architect Explains Structure Preservation and Variance Requests
- 00:30:12: Parking Concerns and Potential Occupancy Numbers
- 00:34:00: Architectural Details: Ingress/Egress, Technical Review Compliance
- 00:37:14: Fire Escape Requirements Discussion and Parking Concerns Revisited
- 00:42:21: Minimum Habitable Floor Space and Garage Details Discussed
- 00:47:26: Utility Hookups Clarified, Further Explanation of Lot Parking
- 00:49:25: Affordable Housing Fee Questioned, Kristen Shepard Planner Testimony
- 00:51:23: Planning Perspective: Municipal Land Use Law and Purpose Advancements
- 00:57:01: Debating Master Plan Compliance & Reinvestment Encouragement
- 01:03:30: Medici Reconciliation Discussion and Plan Omission
- 01:04:39: Public Commentary Closed and Attorney Summary
- 01:06:00: Board Member Questions Neighbors Approval of Renovations
- 01:07:43: Affordable Housing Fee Follow Up and Property Characteristics Discussed
- 01:12:07: Master Plan Violation Concerns, Caucus Request Approved
- 01:13:06: Attorney Conclusion and Misspoken Fees Explained
- 01:14:28: Proposed Parking Clarification, Motion to Deny, Master Plan Concerns
- 01:17:05: Parking Details Discussed and Proposed Revised Plans
- 01:18:14: Updated Plans, Drawing, and Engineer Feedback Discussed
- 01:22:43: Motion to Carry to June 4th Meeting Approved


Part: 1

1
00:00:05.040 --> 00:00:21.119
Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment will come to order this 21st day of May, 2026. The time is 6:30. Roll call. >> And Tori >> here. >> Raymond Mass

2
00:00:21.119 --> 00:00:36.320
>> here. >> Brett Fitzgerald absent. John Gild >> here. Anna Cruz, Vincent Light >> here, >> Paul Kagno >> here. >> Eugene Harowitz >> here.

3
00:00:36.320 --> 00:00:51.360
>> Chris Havens >> here. >> Darthy Cerulo >> here. >> Rebecca Flynn absent. That's it. >> Okay. In accordance with New Jersey law, this meeting notice has been published in the Asbury Park Press and the Two

4
00:00:51.360 --> 00:01:08.799
River Times and is available on the 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

5
00:01:08.799 --> 00:01:24.400
use the court reporter to transcribe the recordings, the board requires a copy of the transcript. A break will occur 8:00 PM in the conference room on the first floor. The public is welcome to attend, but discussion discussions with board members will not be allowed. No new

6
00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:46.560
cases will be heard after 900 p.m. and a cut off time is 9:30. Any applicants not heard will be rescheduled for the next meeting. Uh pledge of allegiance. United States of America to the stands

7
00:01:46.560 --> 00:02:07.520
one nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. Uh first thing if if anybody's here for um 199 and 205 Broad Street, uh that's being carried to June 18th.

8
00:02:07.520 --> 00:02:22.959
So we will not be hearing that tonight. Mr. Chairman, can I just say one thing on that application uh Z16087199 and 205 Broad Street? Is there anyone here who had any questions or comments or concerns regarding the sufficiency of

9
00:02:22.959 --> 00:02:37.840
the notice they received? All right. I don't see any. The board secretary and I reviewed the notice and found everything to be in order. So, it would be my humble opinion that we have jurisdiction or we have lawful authority to take jurisdiction tonight and carry this. So,

10
00:02:37.840 --> 00:02:55.440
uh just so you know, uh Mr. Brozky is uh coming off of a surgery. Um and that's why the uh uh delay the request for the delay and just for the record he did ask to carry this without the need for any further notice and he did consent to

11
00:02:55.440 --> 00:03:11.440
extend the time frame within which the board has to act. So Mr. Chairman if it's the pleasure of the board we could have a motion to carry this application to Shauna June 18th 2026 uh 6:30 p.m. without the need for any further public notice.

12
00:03:11.440 --> 00:03:28.959
>> Okay. I'll make a motion to carry it. >> I'll second. >> You can do an all in favor on that one if you want. >> Yeah, just all in favor. >> All in favor? >> And just any opposed? >> None.

13
00:03:28.959 --> 00:03:46.080
>> Okay. We have some administrative uh matters take care of. We have uh meeting minutes, approval of meeting minutes for April 16, 2026. Uh, anybody make a motion to approve that? I will

14
00:03:46.080 --> 00:04:06.959
>> make >> Tori. >> Yes. >> Raymond Mass. >> Yes. >> John Gilde. >> Yes. >> Anna Cruz. >> Yes. >> Vincent Light. >> Yes. >> Paul Kagno. >> Eugene Harowitz.

15
00:04:06.959 --> 00:04:22.800
>> Yes. >> Chris Havens. Yes. >> Darthy Ceruo. >> Yes. >> Okay. We have a resolution of approval for 40 Riverside Avenue. >> Okay. Mr. Chairman, that was a uh preliminary and final major site plan

16
00:04:22.800 --> 00:04:38.639
approval, use variance approval, and uh bulk variance approval uh associated with the request to effectuate a number of improvements to an existing senior living facility. Uh this resolution has been uh distributed uh a bit ago and it

17
00:04:38.639 --> 00:04:55.759
was at request of the applicant's attorney uh delayed uh for the adoption and the um applicant's attorney made some uh changes uh which I'll highlight for you but mostly uh they dealt with the uh fact that there was some

18
00:04:55.759 --> 00:05:13.280
confusion um definitely on my part um about whether it was the initial proposal was four um uh boat slips plus 20 for a total of 24 or uh a total of 20. And it turns out uh that the

19
00:05:13.280 --> 00:05:28.080
resolution is wrong and needs to be corrected. Uh the initial proposal Sean and I went through it yesterday was for a total of 20 boat slips. So the conditions of approval include and there's a bunch of them, but I'm only going to hit hit the highlights. Um

20
00:05:28.080 --> 00:05:44.560
obviously uh well and we start with the premise that we have to be a little careful because if you just call it a marina Shauna under under our ordinance marina can invoke a couple of of things that we want to be sensitive about. So anyway what we had is no adverse lights

21
00:05:44.560 --> 00:06:01.280
spillover no boat repairs no boat storage on site. Um uh the boat slips are only used for residents only. They're not to be opened up to or otherwise used by the public. And this is consistent with the the testimony that they presented. And we have um uh

22
00:06:01.280 --> 00:06:17.440
absence of any renting of boats at the site. Um absence of public boat launching. Uh no fuel station. Um subject to all the D. And again, it was um let's see uh the length of the dock

23
00:06:17.440 --> 00:06:35.199
is not going to exceed 190 ft. And uh what John Junko wanted to clarify as measured from the farthest west I'm sorry farthest waterward face of the bulkhead because you remember they had a much longer dock initially proposed with much longer boat slips and um so it's

24
00:06:35.199 --> 00:06:52.240
going to be 19 no longer than 190 ft right now until further approved and also um they are going to comply with any affordable housing rules and regulations and contributions and um I One of the other requirements was that

25
00:06:52.240 --> 00:07:07.039
the uh the parcel, the main parcel and the uh the parking lot across the street remain in common ownership because we did not want that uh separated. And basically uh we had we're reducing it

26
00:07:07.039 --> 00:07:24.400
from the uh 20 boat slips down to eight. And the other unique thing about this is we've not uh per our um discussion at the hearing where we did not substantively rule on the uh 20 boat

27
00:07:24.400 --> 00:07:40.400
slip uh process because um if we ruled on it they could not bring it back again unless it was a substantially different application. So we basically put that on the side with the understanding that the doctrine of rescue dicata will not prevent them from bringing that up but

28
00:07:40.400 --> 00:07:57.280
we said they have to bring it back to us with a parking uh calculation or parking utilization study and things like that. So those were the gist of the um uh uh the conditions and there was a lot of

29
00:07:57.280 --> 00:08:12.479
them again with regard to um the landscaping the marina and coming back but if that is and again one other important thing was Ja as I recall when they went down I think this was one of Paul's points when they went down from

30
00:08:12.479 --> 00:08:30.360
the 20 vote slips to the eight that eliminated the parking variance. So anyway, if that's acceptable, we can adopt this as as amended if it's acceptable to the board. >> Okay. Someone like to make a motion to approve. >> I'll make

31
00:08:35.360 --> 00:08:51.360
Tori >> I wasn't here. >> Interesting. Raymond Mass. >> Yes. >> John Gild. >> Yes. Anna Cruz, Vincent Light, >> yes. >> Paul Kagno,

32
00:08:51.360 --> 00:09:09.600
>> Eugene Harowitz, >> yes. >> Chris Havens, Darthothy Cerulo, >> yes. >> Okay. I guess we have another resolution that we're going to carry. >> Yes. Uh we have a resolution for Thrive and uh the applicant's attorney called

33
00:09:09.600 --> 00:09:25.519
and asked if we could put that on the next agenda for the board uh uh meeting which I have no objection to. >> Okay. We need to >> uh well we'll just uh Shauna if you could just put that um on the agenda for the next uh board meeting.

34
00:09:25.519 --> 00:09:42.720
>> Okay. Next up we have 195 Bridge Avenue. >> Okay. And as the applicant's team comes forward, we'll just do a couple of preliminary procedural things. Is there anyone here tonight who had any questions or comments or concerns regarding the sufficiency of the notice

35
00:09:42.720 --> 00:09:58.959
they received? All right, we don't see any. The board secretary and I reviewed the notice and found everything to be in order. So, it be uh my opinion that we have jurisdiction to proceed tonight. And um what we'll do is uh let's swear in Jackie Dur, our board engineer, and

36
00:09:58.959 --> 00:10:14.959
Shauna Ebanks, our director, I'm sorry, our director of community development, who's also a planner. Jackie and Shauna, if you wouldn't mind, if you could raise your right hands, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide to the extent you provide any will be the truth to the best of your

37
00:10:14.959 --> 00:10:29.440
knowledge to help you God? >> All right. Let the record reflect that both uh witnesses have been sworn. And what we'll do is we will mark into the record what we as a board have uh before us in our package. So the application

38
00:10:29.440 --> 00:10:45.680
package we're going to mark as A1. Uh A2 will be the architectural plot plan prepared by Joseph Donado dated March 30th 2026 consisting of four sheets. A3 is the intent to proceed. Um let's see

39
00:10:45.680 --> 00:11:02.000
A4 is the uh disclosure of ownership. A5 is the uh single family homeowner communication uh prepared by the applicant and it's dated April 3rd and A6 is Shauna I saw an environmental

40
00:11:02.000 --> 00:11:18.560
commission memorandum dated March 2nd 2026 and A7 is going to be the uh memo from the Shade Tree Commission dated February 9th 2026 and uh out.

41
00:11:18.560 --> 00:11:37.920
Sorry. Did I make that up? Oh, maybe was that for a different application? I throw it in there. Okay. So, let's talk. All right. So, then the the single family communication is the memo

42
00:11:37.920 --> 00:11:52.800
prepared by the applicant. That's A5 dated April 3rd. And then, sorry about that. A6 will be the TNM Associates review memorandum dated May 7th, 2026. Uh this is Sal Alfuri Jr. the

43
00:11:52.800 --> 00:12:11.040
applicant's attorney and um we'll turn application over to him. >> Thank you, councelor, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Salvatore Alfury of Clear Gobi Alfian Jacobs. We're here tonight to present an application uh that we're pretty excited about. This is a we're we're actually seeking a use variance to

44
00:12:11.040 --> 00:12:27.440
convert an existing single family house into a two family dwelling. Um just for the board's benefit, the plan tonight was to start off with some architectural testimony. Our architect has indicated he's a little behind schedule. He's caught in some traffic. He's coming up from uh North Jersey. So uh what we've

45
00:12:27.440 --> 00:12:42.880
decided to do is we have the applicant here. She's going to provide some testimony to give an overview of of her vision for the project, what it what if the board is so inclined to grant the relief, what it might look like. Uh, and then we have some planning testimony that we'll get into uh that will actually address the merits of the

46
00:12:42.880 --> 00:12:59.680
arguments and and why we believe we should be granted granted the relief tonight. And then uh if needed and hopefully if if time will uh allow, we'll have the architect here and he can kind of put a bow on this for you and maybe answer any questions that we don't address. Um, so with that being said,

47
00:12:59.680 --> 00:13:15.600
unless the board has any initial questions for me, uh, I I'd like to move to bring into the applicant and and have her explain the project. >> All right. If you could just, uh, state your name and address, please. >> Um, Robin Renault, 195 Avenue in Redbank.

48
00:13:15.600 --> 00:13:32.399
>> And Robin is R O B >> Y N >> Y N and R E N A U D. >> Correct. >> All right. Uh, 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 best of your knowledge to help you, God? >> I swear. >> Okay. And, uh, S, would you mind if I

49
00:13:32.399 --> 00:13:47.760
just ask a couple real quick questions to get them out of the way? >> Of course. >> Just so we can do our resolution. Uh, uh, so this is information that we'll need. So, um, Miss Renault, we're talking about 195 Bridge Avenue. Correct. >> Correct. >> And are you the owner? >> Yes. >> And how long have you owned that roughly?

50
00:13:47.760 --> 00:14:03.440
>> Since November >> of 2025. >> 25. Yeah. Okay. And there's an existing single family home at the site. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh how how many stories is it? >> It is two stories in an attic.

51
00:14:03.440 --> 00:14:19.519
>> And is it occupied? >> Not currently. No. >> Okay. And uh just so we know what what's the number of bedrooms in it right now. >> Um there's about four bedrooms, 1920s bedrooms. So couldn't even fit a regular

52
00:14:19.519 --> 00:14:34.639
>> Okay. >> bed of today. And how many uh bathrooms? >> Um it was one and a half bathrooms. >> Okay. Thank you, S. >> Thank you. So, uh Robin, if you could could you just please explain to the board um just in a little bit more detail what the

53
00:14:34.639 --> 00:14:51.680
current condition of the house is and then ultimately what you're proposing uh as far as the conversion from a single family to a two family dwelling. >> Sure. Um I bought the house. It was uh abandoned for about two years after um the former order o owner was a hoarder.

54
00:14:51.680 --> 00:15:07.760
Um there was some people kind of squatting in the house in and out. So it was in really poor condition. Um I am looking to keep the existing footprint of the house, turn it into two units. The first floor would be

55
00:15:07.760 --> 00:15:22.959
the first unit. Um they would have access to a back deck um that I'm just going to upgrade in place. the same footprint. And then the second floor would be the second unit with a bedroom in the attic space. Um,

56
00:15:22.959 --> 00:15:40.560
and then I would do exterior upgrades, just paint the siding, fix the porch, fix the deck, landscaping down the line. Um, keep the same width for the most of the driveway, expand it in a little bit in the back to have uh the proper parking.

57
00:15:40.560 --> 00:15:56.560
And um, yeah, that's pretty much it. And just if I could just one more just uh to cut to the end if you got the approval. So there'd be an upstairs unit and a downstairs unit. Yeah, >> that's what you're and uh upstairs unit would have how many bedrooms? >> Two bedrooms. >> And how many bathrooms?

58
00:15:56.560 --> 00:16:11.920
>> One and a half. >> And um uh would there be any dedicated parking spaces for that unit or? >> Um yeah, I mean I haven't decided. I just want just making the space the spaces for it. But >> All right. And then the downstairs unit

59
00:16:11.920 --> 00:16:28.399
would be how many bedrooms? >> One bedroom. >> And how many bathrooms? >> Um, one or one and a half. I'm >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And there's a uh there's there's an existing garage on site right at the lapid garage. Can you explain uh explain to the board what the plan is with that?

60
00:16:28.399 --> 00:16:44.720
>> Yeah, there's a large tree kind of >> going through it right now, but I will be um upgrading it in place. And so basically you would be demolishing and and rebuilding and within the existing footprint of the detached garage. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you.

61
00:16:44.720 --> 00:17:01.040
>> Uh so a couple of things I just wanted to to get into to address some of the comments in the review letter. Uh and I believe you alluded to it, but I just want to confirm for the board as far as the deck that you had mentioned that's going to stay within the existing footprint. You're not looking to expand that. >> Correct. >> Okay. And uh can you also confirm that

62
00:17:01.040 --> 00:17:17.360
the attict itself and the bedroom there will will not be a separate dwelling. It'll be a two. So, it'll be part of the second floor. >> No, it'll just be a bedroom um and a half bath or full bath um and an eress window from the bedroom, but not a not a full unit.

63
00:17:17.360 --> 00:17:32.960
>> Okay. And there's >> Sorry. So, the attic is part of the upstairs unit. >> It's part of the upstairs unit. Correct. >> Thank you. >> Which I will be living in. >> And how many square feet for each of the apartments? Um I would I'll

64
00:17:32.960 --> 00:17:48.640
>> So we our architect actually just walked in. So um I'll tell you what I I have just one or two more questions for her and then we'll go right to the architect and we can address some of the more technical uh uh questions you may have if that's if that pleases the board. >> Um so as far as the property, there is a basement on site. Correct.

65
00:17:48.640 --> 00:18:03.600
>> There is. Yeah. >> And can you just explain to the board what the what the plan is if they were to uh approve tonight? >> Yeah. I would remove the access from the downstairs unit and I would just do exterior access and it would not be um for the tenants's use. It would be I I will be living in the upstairs unit and

66
00:18:03.600 --> 00:18:19.919
it'll just be um landlord access only. >> And the idea would be is storage only for the >> storage only and mechanical equipment. Um it's unfinished. It has a very short ceiling. I'm not doing much there. >> And I'm sorry. So storage only for the >> the landlord. >> No, for the basement.

67
00:18:19.919 --> 00:18:36.080
>> For the basement. Got it. And uh as far as the two units, the plan is to uh to have separate meters servicing both units. >> Yes, for all utilities. >> Okay. >> All right. I that's all I have for you and we'll move on to the architect. >> Okay. >> Unless the board has any questions uh for the applicant.

68
00:18:36.080 --> 00:18:53.200
>> Any questions from board? >> Are you pl you're planning to live in one of the units? Is that correct? >> The two-bedroom. Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Any other question? >> Yes. I'm sorry. So, you're saying there's a bathroom on the in the attic? Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do a bathroom in

69
00:18:53.200 --> 00:19:10.440
the attic >> and then another bathroom on the second floor of the house. Yeah. >> Because it'll be a twobedroom. I'd like to have uh like a bathroom access to the bedroom in the attic. >> Okay. Okay. >> All right. Thank you.

70
00:19:15.440 --> 00:19:31.039
>> We uh if you could just please introduce yourself and and put your credentials on for the board. Sure. My name is Joseph Donado D. >> No, sorry about that. Uh, Joseph Donado, Dark State,

71
00:19:31.039 --> 00:19:47.440
>> you know, we'll just swear you in if you could just give your business address, please. >> Absolutely. Uh, 14 Route 4 West, River, New Jersey. >> Okay. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the best of your knowledge to help you God? >> Yes, I do. >> And you're testifying tonight in your capacity as a licensed architect.

72
00:19:47.440 --> 00:20:04.400
>> Correct. and uh qualifications uh up to date in good standing. >> Good standings. Uh yes, I've been in front of the board two months ago. >> Very good. >> And throughout New Jersey every month. >> Okay. >> Okay. Mr. Donado, uh you caught the the

73
00:20:04.400 --> 00:20:21.120
tail end of the testimony of the applicant. She gave a brief uh overview of what the project is. If if you could just get into some of the the meat and potatoes uh of of the architecture and what's planned here. >> Sure. Uh so the plan that I have on the easel are all the plans that were submitted. I have A1 which is the zoning

74
00:20:21.120 --> 00:20:38.640
site plan. Uh I'll start too also with A2 which is the existing structure and since we've uh purchased the property we found that some of the existing structures are terrible shape. Actually they fell apart. uh any repair or

75
00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:54.240
replacement that we're we're we're going to do due to the uh rotted structure will match the uh dimensions of what we're proposing. But we have the existing structure is a a two two and a half story farm style traditional

76
00:20:54.240 --> 00:21:11.760
building. There is an existing basement uh which has access currently from the outside and the first floor apartment. The first floor apartment has a covered porch, a living room, dining room, kitchen, and a laundry room and then has access to the basement. The top floor

77
00:21:11.760 --> 00:21:30.480
has four bedrooms and one bath. Uh so basically the the envelope of the structure, the look of it, we want to keep just bring it up to date to today's standards. Uh that was sheet A2 with the existing conditions. Then I have A3 which is the proposed uh

78
00:21:30.480 --> 00:21:47.360
uh uh conditions that we want to do. So I know uh we were talking about the existing basement. The existing basement will stay as is. We're not enlarging the basement. There the access from the first floor will be removed. There's a door on the side currently that has

79
00:21:47.360 --> 00:22:04.480
access to the basement. Uh that will be only for the owner who >> I'm sorry. So say it again. The access which access is going to be removed. So inside within within the unit on the first floor, there's a set of stairs that go to the basement that will be closed off because the first floor will

80
00:22:04.480 --> 00:22:19.919
be rented to a tenant. The following uh the second floor and the attic where the owner uh intends to uh live will have access to the basement from an existing door uh on the on the

81
00:22:19.919 --> 00:22:36.960
left side of the uh building on the driveway side. That's the only access to the basement where it will be strictly storage and utilities for for both apartments. But again, only access for uh the owner who has the second floor.

82
00:22:36.960 --> 00:22:53.919
So the proposal is so I just want to touch really quick. The existing structure is a four bedroomedroom uh unit, two floors, one family uh existing four bedrooms. What we're proposing is the first floor will be the rental unit,

83
00:22:53.919 --> 00:23:09.520
the tenant that will be a one-bedroom. It will have access door uh from the porch. There'll be a little vestibule and they have their own entrance to a living room, bedroom, one bathroom, and a kitchen dining off the back. And there

84
00:23:09.520 --> 00:23:27.200
will be a deck. Uh currently the deck that was there again was in bad shape. They just took it down. We will rebuild the deck at 8 by 11 feet 9 in as noted on the plan. So that's the first floor. There will be entire structure will be

85
00:23:27.200 --> 00:23:43.520
rehabbed as far as uh fire ratings between the two units, smoke detectors, upgraded electric. Uh I think we touched on separate utilities for each uh for each unit also. So that's the the first floor and we go to the second floor.

86
00:23:43.520 --> 00:24:00.480
That >> I'm sorry. What was the square footage of the first floor? I'm sorry. So, the first floor is 807 square ft and that includes that doesn't include the covered deck in the front and it doesn't include the deck in the back.

87
00:24:00.480 --> 00:24:17.440
That's just livable space for the rental unit. So, as we go to the second floor, it's the exact same footprint that we follow up. This is where the owner intends to occupy and live. Uh so the second floor

88
00:24:17.440 --> 00:24:32.400
when you come on the first floor there's again there's a little vestibule they'll have a set of stairs that go up and we enter the unit. It will be a living room, kitchen, dining, a bathroom and one bedroom on the second floor.

89
00:24:32.400 --> 00:24:46.880
Then we'll have access to an attic which will be a habitable attic. However, we we will follow the the rule of the one-third the floor below. So it's uh it's not a story. uh and in the attic.

90
00:24:46.880 --> 00:25:02.320
So the second floor is an additional 807 square feet. The attic will only the use onethird the floor below. So it doesn't become a threetory. We're not asking for three stories. We want to keep that two and a half story look traditional

91
00:25:02.320 --> 00:25:18.080
farmstyle look. So the habitable space will permitted is 268 square ft and we're at roughly 265. So, we're just below that threshold of the 1/3. But what we're proposing on the in the attic

92
00:25:18.080 --> 00:25:34.480
is just one additional bedroom and a bathroom. So, in total, the tenant apartment is one bedroom. The owner's apartment will be two bedrooms. So, from the existing structure that was four bedrooms, we're proposing uh we're

93
00:25:34.480 --> 00:25:50.720
proposing three. Even though it's a two family, two separate units, it's three bedrooms total. This is just the look of the outside. Our intentions is to really keep the shape of it. We're not expanding, you know, additions to the to the front,

94
00:25:50.720 --> 00:26:05.520
rear or sides. We want to keep the structure the way it is. Uh I I believe there's a lot of work already been done cutting the trees down, just trying to expose the structure, which we did, and we found out that there's it needs a lot of work. U so the the look would be all

95
00:26:05.520 --> 00:26:22.240
new siding, new roofing, new windows. Uh, and so I had the front elevation and I have a side elevation. You the side elevation, you could see the door that's that's there now that has access to the basement. We we're going to keep that for the owner that access to the

96
00:26:22.240 --> 00:26:38.240
basement. I can touch on the site plan just to go over as far as what variances we're asking for. Obviously, the the use is the the major uh portion here. We want to take that one family and turn it into a two family. Uh the existing lot

97
00:26:38.240 --> 00:26:55.919
which is 50 by 150 uh remains. There's an existing garage in the back that's just uh already fallen down and we want to rebuild that to a uh uh 484 square ft garage, one story. Um the existing

98
00:26:55.919 --> 00:27:13.039
structure the way it's located on the property is uh I got the so it's where 30 ft is required for a front yard. We're at 19 ft to the porch that's going to remain uh existing again the structure stays

99
00:27:13.039 --> 00:27:28.799
we're not expanding the structure itself. Uh there is a ver uh an existing non-conforming on the right side where 10 feet is required. That little uh on the floor plan is 6 and 1/2 ft

100
00:27:28.799 --> 00:27:45.039
away from the property line. Again, we were trying to we want to keep that uh but it's an existing non-conforming uh structure and it will just maintain that way. The left side where 10 ft is required that's the driveway side. We have 17.1

101
00:27:45.039 --> 00:28:00.559
again that stays uh so as as the building is perceived walking and driving along the street we're not changing the width of it uh or the depth of the structure. Uh the rear yard where 25 ft is required we have 88.5. So

102
00:28:00.559 --> 00:28:16.080
there's a a large uh portion of the yard will stay as is. Uh the height of the building is not going to change where 2 and 1/2 ft 35 ft is required. We're going to stay at two and a half stories existing at 29T 4 in. So we're not

103
00:28:16.080 --> 00:28:32.880
enlarging the width. We're not enlarging the depth or the height. Uh then we have lot coverage where 40% is required. We're at 29.04 04 existing and that's the the building, the garage that

104
00:28:32.880 --> 00:28:50.240
collapsed, the deck and with the upgrades of the newer deck, the rehabing the existing uh single family and proposing a larger garage, we're at 33.04%. So, we're still well below the 40%

105
00:28:50.240 --> 00:29:07.200
coverage. Um uh basically the intentions is to keep the building uh looking upgraded with the with this with the shape the traditional farmstyle look that fits within the the neighborhood. >> Mr. Na you can you also uh just confirm

106
00:29:07.200 --> 00:29:24.159
that with regard to the AC units uh where they'll be on the plan and and that they'll comply with the uh the ordinance requirements. >> Uh sure. Yeah. Uh we have to be 10 feet away. So we could place them uh in the back of the uh of the property so they're they're not projecting into the

107
00:29:24.159 --> 00:29:40.559
sideyard >> and we'll comply with the ordinance requirements. >> Absolutely correct. >> And then uh the other thing is is that there's a existing fence that in areas is is coming down. Can you confirm that that's just going to be replaced in kind in in compliance with the ordinance as well? >> Absolutely. Whatever is uh in need of

108
00:29:40.559 --> 00:29:55.919
replacement, we'll replace it uh in accordance to the town requirement. And then uh uh a final question for you from from my perspective is uh the parking. How many on-site parking uh is is contemplated with this project?

109
00:29:55.919 --> 00:30:12.240
>> So we're proposing a total of two inside because we're we rebuilding the onecar garage that's that's really basically fallen. A twocar garage and we have two spots uh a gravel driveway in the back

110
00:30:12.240 --> 00:30:30.880
of the building. So, a total of four. Excuse me. H how many people um would be able to live if this was approved? Would it be two or three up in the second and two or three down below? So, six people, four people, two people, or >> I really The intentions is really is to have that one bedroom. So, it's a one

111
00:30:30.880 --> 00:30:46.799
person. So, you don't have a family of kids and then the owner herself. >> Well, I mean, it could be a couple, right? >> Could be a couple. Yes, it could be a couple. >> Could be a couple. >> Yeah. So, two downstairs and then what? Four upstairs. Potential six adults.

112
00:30:46.799 --> 00:31:02.320
>> Well, there's two bedrooms. Uh, three. Three to four potentially. >> So, potentially five or six people with vehicles. >> Yes. If so, >> well, for the time being, right? So, if you sell it, if you renovate it, make it

113
00:31:02.320 --> 00:31:18.559
two family, sell it, right? And then someone buys it, right? There could be six adults that potentially live there that require parking. Is that not an issue or no? >> So if I >> adults >> I I think it would be four adults because I I hear what you're saying on the first floor you can have two adults

114
00:31:18.559 --> 00:31:34.399
because it's the one bedroom. So there would be the two cars there and then on the the top floor although although there's two bedrooms the idea would be is at a maximum the idea would you have two two to four I mean two to three adults on the second floor. So you'd have a maximum of five parking uh on

115
00:31:34.399 --> 00:31:50.720
site. And if if I'm not mistaken, I believe that the and you could confirm this that the the applicant intends to uh redo the parking area with uh in the gravel area and that would allow for five parking spaces. >> We can fit we could fit more. We could

116
00:31:50.720 --> 00:32:06.480
fit five six if we had to. >> So the space is available to accommodate the parking uh that that the the board member is questioning in terms of the adults that that could live there and have have cars. >> Yes. Correct. Well, it's a single lane road uh driveway that leads to the backyard, right? So,

117
00:32:06.480 --> 00:32:21.279
>> yes. >> Are you saying you're going to squeeze five cars back there? Talk to me about the turning of five vehicles if they were to be parked back there. >> So, yeah, the existing driveway will stay its location on the left side of the property. As you come down, we could

118
00:32:21.279 --> 00:32:38.640
take this garage, move it further down, and have we're currently parking. You come in and you park uh 90 degrees uh to the property. So, I proposed two here with the two-car garage. We could make that three. And so, as you park and make

119
00:32:38.640 --> 00:32:55.279
the turn, if you back out, you back out and you come uh up the driveway, >> right? So, that's three. So, the other two would they park in the street? >> No. Two inside the garage. >> Oh, so the tenants are going to park in the garage. >> That's the owner. I would >> Yeah, the the the intention is is that the garage itself would be utilized by

120
00:32:55.279 --> 00:33:10.960
the owner, >> right? But I mean, practically speaking, so the owner is going to come down. She's going to go to work every day, do what she does. She's going to come every day and she's gonna go down the driveway. There's going to be the tenants parking there, right? And then she's gonna open the garage and pull her car into the garage each time she parks

121
00:33:10.960 --> 00:33:26.159
for those. Is that is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> And she's able to get in and out of the garage when the other vehicles are parked in that area. >> So, we have a 50 foot wide uh property and the cars take 18 to 20 ft. those 25

122
00:33:26.159 --> 00:33:42.399
feet left to pack out K turn and >> up. >> So, not ideal, but you're able to do it, >> correct? >> Yeah. In a worst case scenario that's being contemplated with the number of adults, it does have the space to accommodate the the parking. >> Practically speaking, I imagine there'll be parking in the street. Is that fair

123
00:33:42.399 --> 00:33:59.640
comment or no? >> That that's not the intention. The intention is to keep the parking on site. Uh obviously, and I understand the comment is is you know, how do you police that? But ultimately what the applicant's intention is is to keep all parking on site, not to utilize the street parking.

124
00:34:00.559 --> 00:34:17.200
Um Mr. Mr. Donado, um as far as architecturals, uh could you just explain the ingress egress for the two units uh how how the uh the residents would get in and out of the the house? >> Sure. So, uh, under the

125
00:34:17.200 --> 00:34:33.440
existing covered porch, uh, that faces the, uh, the street, there's a door that comes into a common vestibule, and then from there, one, one person goes into the unit and the other one goes upstairs to the unit. So, it's it's a common vestibule in the front with two separate entrances.

126
00:34:33.440 --> 00:34:50.960
>> And there'll be a path pathways uh, gravel pathways for the, uh, walking to the back. >> Uh, yes. So, you have the driveway, then you have a walkway in the front of the building to the to the uh front porch where there's a set of stairs. So, while they have a a common door,

127
00:34:50.960 --> 00:35:06.320
again, fire ratings will come to play with should this get approved with the building department. There's fire ratings, fire uh smoke detectors that will uh separate the units. >> And uh you're you're prepared to address all the technical comments in terms of

128
00:35:06.320 --> 00:35:22.480
the plans that are raised in the review letter? >> Sure. Yes. Uh question. You have a a rendering of the garage. What it looks like? >> I do. We do not. No, it'll be a one-story garage. No room above it. No.

129
00:35:22.480 --> 00:35:39.839
And uh meeting the height requirement of the town. No variances >> and it it will not be a dwelling unit. >> It will not be any dwelling, no habitable space, just a twocar garage. >> Okay. Any questions for board further? Um, yes. You had u mentioned that you

130
00:35:39.839 --> 00:35:55.599
might move the garage back. Is that >> if it's if if the board feels that we need additional spots. Uh the idea really is a one-bedroom apartment as a tenant and two bedrooms for the owner. Uh

131
00:35:55.599 --> 00:36:10.880
>> if we if the intention is to try to get more parking, yes, we can move that back. in whether we do two for now and see how it works. But at least we have the space to turn around uh uh a better access and if if it winds up being that

132
00:36:10.880 --> 00:36:25.440
we do need that space maybe we can at least have so we can push that further back. >> Um I had another question going back. Um, Robin had mentioned that each apartment was going to have one uh one

133
00:36:25.440 --> 00:36:43.359
and a half baths. Uh, and you refer to the two floors as having uh two bedroom uh two baths. Are they full baths or are they half bath? >> One and a half. >> Okay. Uh the first floor tenant will

134
00:36:43.359 --> 00:36:59.359
have one full bath. >> No, I'm sorry. one one full bath for the her for the bedroom and a half bath for so one and a half for the tenant. >> Okay. >> And then the second floor will have two uh full baths. A full bath for the first

135
00:36:59.359 --> 00:37:14.880
floor and the full bath for the room in the attic. So >> okay >> be three and a half >> two full baths. >> Okay. >> Does the u using the attic as living space does it trigger and I don't know the answer to this. Does it trigger the

136
00:37:14.880 --> 00:37:34.560
requirement of a fire escape? >> Yeah, because I know there is a on Wallace Street there is an attic apartment that has been there for a while that's close to the commercial area. Um, and she has a fire escape that has steps in order for the person to get to the

137
00:37:34.560 --> 00:37:49.200
attic apartment. It's actually a three family. So, is that do you know if that's required here and could that fit somewhere? So, I know the code permits a three-story building as long as it has access and exit from within the unit.

138
00:37:49.200 --> 00:38:05.359
You don't need the fire escape. Uh I don't know. Maybe the fire escape was previously existing in there. >> I'm not sure. >> I don't because I honestly I don't think you're permitted to have new fire escapes as a means of egress. Uh but but we are at we're less than three stories.

139
00:38:05.359 --> 00:38:21.920
We're two and a half. Although it is the third level, you're permitted to egress within your unit. And by the time you get that one story, you're in you are in a enclosed fire rated uh uh exit to the first floor and we will have smoke

140
00:38:21.920 --> 00:38:37.680
detectors, alarms that are interconnected. Only comment was I agree with Ray. I kind of wish I had a drawing to see the garage and the parking and I could visualize these turning movements and these in and outs with tenants leaving and moving and

141
00:38:37.680 --> 00:38:53.200
>> so I kind of wish I could see that personally >> and actually where you're going to put it not well we could put it here we could put it there like to see where you're putting it >> right I do have it located on the site plan but I I understand there's no drawing of what it looks like

142
00:38:53.200 --> 00:39:09.040
>> well but you have it on the site plan based on before We talked about the number of parking spaces you might >> need. So >> would like to know where exactly where you put it. >> If you could just at least for now, can you just explain in terms of where it is

143
00:39:09.040 --> 00:39:24.640
set back into the property and uh just to give it the the technical specifications of that. Um and we do hear the board's comments with regard to a rendering. Uh and obviously unfortunately we don't have that for you tonight. Um but for purposes of the application tonight, what we can do is

144
00:39:24.640 --> 00:39:40.240
he as I said I'd ask Mr. Donado just explain to the specifications and then if you have any other questions for the architect we could put on the planning testimony and uh if if at any point you need some further information we can we can get that for you. >> Sure. So the building the the garage

145
00:39:40.240 --> 00:39:58.560
that's proposed is 14t high where 16 is permitted. It's 484 square ft. There'll be two doors uh in front exit and again it's only a twocar garage. No room above it. no uh stairs to above. It's

146
00:39:58.560 --> 00:40:14.000
currently located 6 feet from the side property line and 38 ft from the rear property line. Currently that at that location, it permits us to have two parking spots uh against the uh property

147
00:40:14.000 --> 00:40:30.160
line. if if the if I guess if we end up coming back or or providing plans, we can have an option to push it further back still still in accordance with the with the setbacks. Uh and then again that will

148
00:40:30.160 --> 00:40:46.480
give us an an extra parking stall. >> And as far as the existing site now there's it's a it's a four bedroomedroom house correct as it is as it currently constructed. >> Two and a half story fourbedroom uh structure. Yes. And so to uh mi uh Mr.

149
00:40:46.480 --> 00:41:01.040
Kagno your comment earlier with regard to that the existing site itself you know with the four bedrooms in the worst case scenario we were talking about in terms of adults you know in in that instance you could have four parking spots currently on the site and and what we're proposing now with the two family I guess in the worst case scenario would

150
00:41:01.040 --> 00:41:17.839
be five cars and the idea is is that the application itself actually proposes to extend the driveway the gravel part of the driveway back further which makes it more accessible for the parking. Uh so in this instance we actually think that what what we're proposing works for the for the two family. Obviously I'm saying

151
00:41:17.839 --> 00:41:33.359
that because we're here to present the application but the idea is it was thought out to say let's expand this and provide the parking necessary. Uh but we do we do hear your comments worst case. >> Yeah. I mean I do think there is a difference between a single family a four-bedroom single family with with

152
00:41:33.359 --> 00:41:49.280
three or four cars. >> Sure. than two different groups of people who have four separate cars because I do think that uh there is a there is an issue there with uh when you're not dealing with your brother or your mother or your father and you're dealing with people maybe you don't know

153
00:41:49.280 --> 00:42:04.800
who are who are in and out of the driveway and you're parked here and know you're in my spot and things like that and I think at the end of the day they wind up parking in the street personally >> I think we can uh kind of if we do push the garage back either if it an

154
00:42:04.800 --> 00:42:21.760
additional spot or better turning radius for both so they don't bother each other. I think would be a good concept to have. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> I have a question for Shauna maybe. Um

155
00:42:21.760 --> 00:42:47.119
Shauna, in this residential zone, do we have a minimum standard for habitable floor space for a one-bedroom, excuse me, apartment? That's why it's not permitted because it's for it's a single family zone. So

156
00:42:47.119 --> 00:43:02.960
there isn't um a requirement because it only permits single family. That's why they're here because it's a two family. So the the zone it's silent on the unit size. >> Okay. in in the areas that we permit um

157
00:43:02.960 --> 00:43:19.839
like two family houses, do we have a minimum for habitable floor space? >> I can check. >> Thank you. >> Did did did your letter say that it was required at least 700 feet or am I taking something else? The ordinance says that there's a

158
00:43:19.839 --> 00:43:36.640
minimum for that zone. There's a minimum gross habitable floor area depending on whether it's a one or twostory, not whether it's a one or two unit. That's that's so if it's twotory, it's 1,000 square ft with at least 700 square ft of

159
00:43:36.640 --> 00:44:08.480
ground floor area. But it it it's not dependent on the unit, depending on number of stories. Yeah. >> That's a little different from what you're asking. Shauna is correct. >> Uh 900 square feet. So for um for example the uh what zone

160
00:44:08.480 --> 00:44:24.720
is this? The RB2 um the single uh sorry two two family dwelling is 13 one story is 1300 square ft and a twotory is 1,400 square ft with

161
00:44:24.720 --> 00:44:40.839
at least 800 square f feet of ground floor area. So that's for a two two family >> 800 >> 800 on the ground floor. Yeah. So they're about close to that. Well, they're over it.

162
00:44:44.560 --> 00:45:00.640
>> Go. Just just clarification on the size of the garage. You mentioned 484 square foot, >> correct? >> Is that the same footprint as the current garage? >> No, the current garage is a one car. And >> so it's larger. >> It's larger. Yes. But we're still under

163
00:45:00.640 --> 00:45:17.440
the permitted uh coverage, block coverage. >> Okay. And I apologize, Mr. Horowitz. Think I misspoke earlier. I said that it was in the same footprint. I I I apologize. >> It's okay. I wasn't sure. I understand the house is the same footprint, but the garage you're proposing is larger.

164
00:45:17.440 --> 00:45:34.319
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> What is the What is behind uh the house? Is this the a cedar >> cedar crossing? The cedar crossing behind it. >> Yeah. The land drops as you go. Uh

165
00:45:34.319 --> 00:45:50.079
>> what's the requirement for the garage distance from there and 8 ft and what is it going >> we have proposed 38 ft >> 38 ft from the >> that's why if uh >> so if you have to push it back >> we do have room correct

166
00:45:50.079 --> 00:46:06.079
>> if you have push it back yes got >> I would just um caution that you still have lot you know you have to balance that with lot coverage right >> correct to drive more dry as we push it uh even if it's 10 ft additional coverage, >> right? >> Yeah.

167
00:46:06.079 --> 00:46:22.640
>> And you should it might I mean it might be substantial enough where you might need a seepage bid or something for the additional if that's the case. We're currently as far as lock coverage we're at 40% is required. Even with the garage as is, we're at 33%. So 10 more feet I

168
00:46:22.640 --> 00:46:37.440
still believe would be under. >> On the lot coverage, does that include the expansion of the driveway? >> Uh yes. I it's not really relevant to the decision what the condition of the house was in but I was in the house when the

169
00:46:37.440 --> 00:46:52.800
shell was for sale and it's the second worst house on the west side after the poku 90 bank street house that was really something and uh though it is a beautiful blue and it's now under de under demolition but it was really

170
00:46:52.800 --> 00:47:09.280
arguably the worst full-sized house on Bridge Avenue you know which had fallen a long way from its magnificent in the path. Okay. >> Yeah, that's it's uh it says the

171
00:47:09.280 --> 00:47:26.480
Any other questions for this witness? >> One more clarification. You said that the garage will not have um water >> or gas. >> Water. No, >> but it will have electricity for >> for a garage door opener. Yes. >> Tied into the second floor service

172
00:47:26.480 --> 00:47:42.079
>> meter. Yes. cuz there'll be two separate uh meters. So, yes, that will be tied into the owner. >> Okay, thank you. >> Okay, any more questions for this witness? Any questions from the public? Was that

173
00:47:42.079 --> 00:47:59.200
>> um >> uh so Mr. Chair, the the applicant just wants to get up and explain a little bit more detail about the lot size, although I believe the architect addressed it in some point. She's just going to talk about the parking for you. Uh and then from there, we would move into planning testimony. >> Okay. Yeah. Um, it's it might be hard to

174
00:47:59.200 --> 00:48:14.640
see here, but it is a a very large lot. There's a lot of room in the back. Um, I'm really confident that we can accommodate whatever we need and we can make adjustments. And, um, my first when I first moved to Redbank, I I lived in a

175
00:48:14.640 --> 00:48:31.680
duplex, similar situation, much smaller lot, no garage, um, four cars in the garage, kind of five, but didn't really work. But, um, I feel like we can do better than that. Um, and I'm I'm happy to accommodate whatever is needed. I I

176
00:48:31.680 --> 00:48:48.480
don't want people parking in the street. I do think it is two-hour parking only over there anyways. Um, but regardless, I I wouldn't want that. >> If unless anybody has any questions for the applicant, we'll we'll move into planning testimony. >> Any questions? Okay.

177
00:48:48.480 --> 00:49:04.480
>> A question. Um, if this application is approved, when do you expect to start the renovations? >> I have my drawings ready. Um, I as soon as I get permits, I would like to get started. Yeah, I am uh bunking with my

178
00:49:04.480 --> 00:49:25.760
parents for the meantime. So, I'm in a rush, too. >> Uh, other, you know, I just had a question for Kevin real quick. Kevin, is there an affordable housing fee? Uh right. Is there you convert a single family to a uh two family? No.

179
00:49:25.760 --> 00:49:56.040
No. Okay. >> Next we have uh Kristen Shepard who's going to provide some planning testimony in support of this application. Kevin, if we could mark this A7 planner exhibit >> and uh what is this Kristen?

180
00:49:59.359 --> 00:50:23.680
>> No problem. >> You know what? Why don't we just swear you in first? Uh, no problem. So, you're Kristen Shepard and Kristen is CR, correct? R. >> Okay. And your business address?

181
00:50:23.680 --> 00:50:46.760
And I think you were here previously, correct? >> Yes. >> And she's from Christine Cafone's office. And you're testifying in your capacity as a licensed professional planner. >> Perfect. >> Thank you.

182
00:50:47.280 --> 00:51:06.000
Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, Kristen, without >> You know what? I'm sorry. I I think Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth to best of your knowledge to help you God? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Kristen, if you could just uh you

183
00:51:06.000 --> 00:51:23.520
uh give us uh your uh your take on the project and and the testimony and support from a planning perspective. >> Of course. Yes. As I was saying before, I was sworn in. Mr. Havens made um a comment about the condition of the house. I actually believe from a planning perspective um the condition of the home being upgraded is absolutely

184
00:51:23.520 --> 00:51:39.440
imperative in in considering the municipal land use law purposes that are being advanced here in particular purpose I visual appearance. So I will get to that in a moment. Um, so as you all know, the applicant is here with a D1 use variance relief request because

185
00:51:39.440 --> 00:51:56.079
uh multifamily two family home that's being proposed tonight is not a permitted use in the RB zone. So uh there are a couple uh as the um as was already put on the record, there are a couple pre-existing nonconformities that are not being exacerbated by this

186
00:51:56.079 --> 00:52:11.920
application. So really what we're looking at from a planning perspective is just the D1 use variance relief. So when we look at the D1 from a planning point of view, we we have to look at the special reasons. Um and in this case for D1 that is the particular site

187
00:52:11.920 --> 00:52:28.000
suitability of the home to accommodate the proposed use. Uh so the home is on a larger lot. It already exhibits the scale, size, massing, visual appearance of a single family home and that will remain. So, I believe that by adding a

188
00:52:28.000 --> 00:52:43.839
modest additional dwelling unit in here is not going to change the overall aesthetic of the house and how the home operates. And we're really looking at an adaptive reuse of an existing structure. And that is contemplated in the master plan. I will get to that a little bit later, but

189
00:52:43.839 --> 00:52:58.960
we're not over looking at any overdevelopment here. This is really adaptive reuse at its best here. Um, and in this current zone, in this actual location from the site, there are a number of different multi- uh family units as well as some of the

190
00:52:58.960 --> 00:53:15.680
condominiums, the River Street uh condos and the Brownstones at Redbank are within walking distance and right behind the site. So, it's my >> Those are in different zones though, right? >> I I apologize. They are uh adjacent zones, transition zones. I I apologize. Uh I misspoke, but they are within the

191
00:53:15.680 --> 00:53:31.200
walking distance of the site. So the site really surrounding um is surrounded by a number of type of uses. Um so I believe that the site's suitability is adequate for this proposed use. So moving into the positive criteria for uh

192
00:53:31.200 --> 00:53:47.200
the municipal land use law. So mult we have to look at advancing some purposes of the municipal land use law and I mentioned purpose I. So I will draw your attention to the exhibit. As I mentioned, this is existing conditions exhibit that just depicts the state of

193
00:53:47.200 --> 00:54:02.960
the home uh as it was. You'll you'll see from the photos, it really is in disrepair. Um it is definitely in need of rehabilitation and as was put on the record by the architect and the uh owner. There's there are some plans to

194
00:54:02.960 --> 00:54:19.040
rehabilitate the home and bring it up to a more um aesthetic um you know co code compliant in particular of importance to really match the aesthetic of the of the street and to have some um consistency of character with the surrounding homes

195
00:54:19.040 --> 00:54:34.480
in the area. Um I also believe that purpose J from the land use law is promoted as well with this application. So that's looking at conservation of resources and preventing urban sprawl. So in here we're here with this application we are encouraging

196
00:54:34.480 --> 00:54:50.800
reinvestment in the aging housing stock and that is consistent with the master plan goals as well and we're supporting sustainable land use by reinvesting in that developed area already as opposed to going outward with expansion of additional homes. So I believe the positive criteria in that case has been

197
00:54:50.800 --> 00:55:07.040
satisfied. So moving to the negative criteria um we start with a two-prong analysis. The first prong being substantial detriment to public good. So the building is remaining residential in use. It is a maintaining its appearance and scale. It includes substantial

198
00:55:07.040 --> 00:55:24.240
renovations to the exterior and site improvements which I think are going to bring it up to um the aesthetic uh matching of the corridor around it. And then there are no existing conformities uh non-conformities that are being intensified as I already mentioned. And the site parking is going to be adequate

199
00:55:24.240 --> 00:55:39.359
as based on the discussions previously. the applicant is willing to work with the board to ensure that the parking is is you know deemed um is you know deemed appropriate for the type of proposed use we're we're proposing here and the garage again is not going to be an

200
00:55:39.359 --> 00:55:55.599
additional living space. And then the last the second prong of the negative criteria is no impairment to the zone plan. So Bridge Avenue does contain a number of homes that were originally built as single family that are now legal multifamily homes. It's actually

201
00:55:55.599 --> 00:56:12.400
within 0.1 uh miles north there are 67% of the homes are two family three family homes that legally um >> I'm sorry just say that again uh within one or >> with within 0.1 miles north uh it's 67%

202
00:56:12.400 --> 00:56:28.480
according to the open public record search >> and so 67% of >> of the homes are two three family homes legal and they maintain their uh single family homes home character, >> right? But when were they designated two

203
00:56:28.480 --> 00:56:45.520
families? Was that pre2023 master plan or post? >> Um the dates are all over the place. Um some are pre and some are post. >> Most are pre. >> Yeah, I I don't have any dates in particular for the search, but um it

204
00:56:45.520 --> 00:57:01.760
went far as far back as you know seven years that I could find up to last year. >> Right. The the master plan was 2023. Right. >> Correct. And in my opinion, it was the deliberate plan. And I want to read this to you, page 133.

205
00:57:01.760 --> 00:57:17.040
And it's in regard to what you want to do here with the two family, converting a single family. The primary objective of this land use category is to preserve and retain the detached single family residential context of these areas. Right? I mean, that's what the master plan says, correct?

206
00:57:17.040 --> 00:57:33.280
>> A deliberate statement from 2023, right? So, how exactly uh what's so unique about this property? To me, it looks like every other single family property. So, what's so unique that we should uh somewhat degrade the purpose of the master plan that was just

207
00:57:33.280 --> 00:57:48.400
enacted a couple years ago? >> So, if you read further into that section in on page 133, >> I can read it actually. >> Yeah, >> it says how however it is noted that within these zoning districts, there are existing buildings with up to four units. These units, which are generally

208
00:57:48.400 --> 00:58:04.559
within structures that resemble single family homes, provide a unique and relatively affordable housing type within predominantly single family neighborhoods and should be preserved. It is recommended that the bureau consider adding residential uses of up to four units as conditional units

209
00:58:04.559 --> 00:58:21.200
within the RB and R-B1 and R-B2 districts subject to maintaining a single family scale and providing the sufficient off- streetet parking and other infrastructure needs. Now to me that says that the burrow it's saying the master plan is telling the burrow

210
00:58:21.200 --> 00:58:37.040
you have these in there if you need to amend the zoning ordinance if you want to do this. They haven't done that. So what you're basically asking us to do is to spot zone right and when you spot zone we are degrading the master plan. We are

211
00:58:37.040 --> 00:58:54.880
we are eroding single family area. I mean that's that's deliberately put into our master plan. So I'm not to to me it's a degregation. We shouldn't be spot zoning. The dangers of that when we did the master plan the whole town was involved. People were involved. It was a

212
00:58:54.880 --> 00:59:09.760
lengthy process when the master plan was passed in 2023. There was input from the town, input from the residents. That's not what's happening here. You're asking us to spot zone here, right? And the master plan was not only deliberate with respect to this single family area, but

213
00:59:09.760 --> 00:59:25.839
also the peripheral of Redm. the density according to the master plan and the intent of the master plan was to have this density in the commercial districts. That's why we're doing this whole big train development and we're trying to revitalize these industrial zones. The single family area, the

214
00:59:25.839 --> 00:59:40.480
peripheral, the master plan says we need to preserve these things. So to me, we're spot zoning here if it gets passed. If I may, just in terms of the master plan, it also encourages reinvestment in older

215
00:59:40.480 --> 01:00:01.040
housing. And here's a situation where I mean, look at the pictures. >> Well, is I mean, you can make a single family house, you still got to do the same work. >> You interrupted. Let me finish, please. Here's

216
01:00:01.040 --> 01:00:17.359
a situation where uh it we use the word hoarding. It's a mess in terms of please we're looking at improving. I'm looking focused on the word approving which exactly aligns with what

217
01:00:17.359 --> 01:00:35.200
the master plan says. It's just different perspectives both valid. I just want to point that out. I I'd like to also add that, you know, I I understand what Paul's saying and if the purpose of the master plan is to make people convert these houses on Bridge

218
01:00:35.200 --> 01:00:51.599
Avenue strictly to single family homes, then maybe that is an issue. If that's the intent to do that. But the problem is on Bridge Avenue, these were virtually rooming houses. some of the houses. This was the best street, one of the best streets on the west side that

219
01:00:51.599 --> 01:01:06.559
became the most dense and the most divided uh and the most dilapidated of larger houses. And the problem with it is these are big houses on big lots. So the economics of turning uh wrecks I think

220
01:01:06.559 --> 01:01:22.960
this shell went for 400 500,000. The top shell prices on the west side have been on Bridge Avenue. 500 for a shell. 500 for a shelf, which is an average sale price just several years ago of a finished house. The the economics of it,

221
01:01:22.960 --> 01:01:39.040
this makes the economics work for her because you can rent this unit and the area is already substantially two family. But I understand what you're saying, Paul. You wouldn't want to make people do one families if you could. But the trouble is with big houses like

222
01:01:39.040 --> 01:01:55.119
Maple and Broad where we let them all turn into offices because otherwise they'd be torn down. The big houses would have been all torn down. This is a way to preserve the big houses. >> Yeah. But you know, I I understand what you're saying, but the master plan was a deliberate plan. So your your issue

223
01:01:55.119 --> 01:02:11.680
shouldn't be with the zoning board or the plan. the issue. You go to council and tell them you need to amend this because you want that you think that this area deserves to be more dense and these single families should be pushed out and the neighborhood should be degraded and turned into two family homes. But the master plan in 2003 was

224
01:02:11.680 --> 01:02:27.920
quite deliberate. Uh we're supposed to be preserving these single family houses. That's that's just a fact. >> Yeah, it's true. I just think it was a mistake for to say that in the master plan for Bridge Avenue. was just not existing and the this town is full of two family houses.

225
01:02:27.920 --> 01:02:42.880
>> Yeah. I mean, they specifically say it on page 133, you know, they that we should consider that, but the burrow hasn't. The council has not council hasn't moved on that. >> No, no, no. The reasoning has been budgeted, but u it's an enormous thing

226
01:02:42.880 --> 01:02:59.280
to do. Enormous. It's going to take a couple years. >> Yeah. And if I may, I know as I read the master plan, I of course all applications rise and fall on their own merits. We're looking at this application tonight. I think the

227
01:02:59.280 --> 01:03:14.559
reinvestment into this property, as was mentioned on page 95, uh of the master plan to look at reinvestment in older buildings um for unnecessary demolition. That coupled with the fact that the master plan does contemplate this area as look as having additional um units

228
01:03:14.559 --> 01:03:30.960
within it, maintaining the residential scale with those conditions. I believe we're looking at that exact type of contextsensitive residential redevelopment from a planning perspective. And uh if you if I may, I I can just continue on with the finishing my proofs here. It actually flows right into the

229
01:03:30.960 --> 01:03:47.440
the Medici reconciliation um of omission which is part of the D1 use variance. So Medici requires us to look at why was this use emitted from permitted uses in the zone. And as we've mentioned and we've had conversations about before, I

230
01:03:47.440 --> 01:04:02.160
don't really look at it as a an intentional omission. It's just that the Bridge Avenue already maintains this kind of mixed density residential character and it's just not currently fully reflected um in the zone plans or the ordinance or anything like that.

231
01:04:02.160 --> 01:04:17.440
It's just it just needs to kind of take its time to be adopted into it. Uh so it's not an intentional omission. It's just that the plan hasn't hasn't matched that what what is existing today. So, uh in my professional opinion, I believe that the variance relief can be granted

232
01:04:17.440 --> 01:04:39.200
without substantial detriment to public good or adverse impact to the zone plan or the master plan. >> And that concludes my direct testimony. >> Any questions from the board for this witness? Okay.

233
01:04:39.200 --> 01:04:54.640
Any questions from the public for this witness? I don't see any. So, close that. Um, you have want to wrap up with any testimony or >> No. So, any comments? >> Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, uh,

234
01:04:54.640 --> 01:05:10.480
obviously we hear the board's comments tonight and we understand that, uh, you're looking for at least at at a minimum a little bit more clarification on the parking, but as testified, the site itself is a rather large lot, and we have the ability to, uh, to adjust the parking in a way that could address

235
01:05:10.480 --> 01:05:26.640
it. And I um, you know, as addressed in the review letter, as it stands now, we're in compliance with the the parking requirements in in the ordinance. Uh that being said, we are ready, willing, and able to address any concerns that may be raised by the board as far as, you know, this fifth parking uh fifth

236
01:05:26.640 --> 01:05:42.880
off- streetet parking spot. But as of now, you know, we're comfortable in terms of what's been presented as being a a sufficient um plan to address that parking with the ability to push it back if needed. Um so with that being said, you know, uh obviously tonight we we

237
01:05:42.880 --> 01:06:00.880
we're looking for we hear the comments if uh we will uh an idea and a second with my client to discuss before this uh before we decide if we were to turn this to a vote. Um that would be greatly appreciated.

238
01:06:00.880 --> 01:06:19.599
>> Okay. Any comments from the board on this application? >> Uh kind of a bit of a question I guess for Miss Reno. Uh no one is here tonight from the community or maybe there is. I don't know. The gentleman in black, I don't know. Uh, oh,

239
01:06:19.599 --> 01:06:36.799
>> I thought that was the first >> uh uh Have you heard anything from your neighbors on on the project? >> You know, mind you speaking to the mind? >> I have heard a lot from my neighbors. Um, they're very happy to see it get me

240
01:06:36.799 --> 01:06:53.920
there. Um, I'm there every weekend. I'm working there myself. I'm I've got a lot of commentary. I mean, even my neighbor next door is lovely. She is an elderly woman and the invasive species that's all in the backyard that I am ripping up, she's fighting it off

241
01:06:53.920 --> 01:07:10.000
every day. Um, people come by, they say they walk on the other side of the street when they pass this house. There has definitely been people who were accustomed to the the former owner would have a lot of the town's homeless come

242
01:07:10.000 --> 01:07:27.200
by and stay and they want to continue to do that. People are unhappy with the state of it. There was a dilapidated Jeep in the street for at least two years since he passed. Um, another truck in the driveway. Um, I I I want to and

243
01:07:27.200 --> 01:07:43.920
I've spoke I've met someone from the Historical Preservation Society out out front, a bunch of people. I I we have spoke about how I want to keep it keep its history, keep it 1920s, keep the front porch. Um, I mean, it's a great lot. a developer could do a lot with it,

244
01:07:43.920 --> 01:08:02.079
but I I want to keep it as is and just upgrade it and and make it work. And um yeah, so I've only heard good things about me being there so far. That's all I have to say. >> I had a question for for Jackie, just to

245
01:08:02.079 --> 01:08:17.679
follow up on something Paul said. I had the same reading about the um what was it? The Thank you. affordable housing fee. I thought it was in your comments and I'm trying to find it now. And so my question was just for my own edification. Why does this uh

246
01:08:17.679 --> 01:08:33.679
application not subject to that fee? There's something about if you're creating new units then it would apply. I thought does a D1 variance trigger a 6% development fee on additional unit under section 205-9. >> I don't think it was a 6%. I think for

247
01:08:33.679 --> 01:08:52.080
D1 it's 1.5. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> And if I could just jump in, regardless of the answer that we get tonight on that issue, if the application is approved, we typically impose the condition that the applicant

248
01:08:52.080 --> 01:09:08.400
has to comply with the prevailing affordable housing rules, regulations, contributions, and directives. So, whatever it is, it is. But that's, you know, that's not the answer, but that I don't know what the answer is, but they will have to comply with whatever the requirement is. Well, regardless of the answer, that satisfies me. I was just

249
01:09:08.400 --> 01:09:23.839
that's what I was looking for is kind of confirmation of that. Thank you. >> And we would stipulate to to to paying any fee that's necessary uh and required by law. >> Yeah. The only other thing I would like to say is that I understand the the condition of the property is terrible. Obviously, I

250
01:09:23.839 --> 01:09:39.520
appreciate that. Um so whether it but if you maintained it as a single family, you'd have to do this. You'd have to do work to fix it just like you're doing as a two family. And I'd also like to direct your attention to the homes on Elm Street that have notoriously long large lots like they are in Bridge Avenue. They're some of the most

251
01:09:39.520 --> 01:09:56.480
valuable properties in Redbank quite frankly. Um so in terms of a unique characteristic of this lot to convert for a D1 variance, there is no special characteristic that this lot there. This is a single family lot that we see all around Redbank and some of the most

252
01:09:56.480 --> 01:10:13.360
valuable streets in Redbank, i.e. Elm, have this lot. So there is no hardship, detriment, or anything for us not to approve this because it's an incredibly valuable lot single family. Um whether or not you recognize that, I'm sure you

253
01:10:13.360 --> 01:10:29.600
do. Um because you're looking to uh convert to a two family, but um the condition of the properties should not move us terribly because it has to be fixed. Whoever buys this house has to be fixed. That's why the price was what it was. Um so that's all I wanted to

254
01:10:29.600 --> 01:10:47.679
comment about that. And uh congratulations on the purchase of the house whether it gets uh approved or not, but uh it's a great lot and a great single family in my opinion. >> You know, just speak into the mic, please. >> Um I intend to fix it up. If it were to

255
01:10:47.679 --> 01:11:03.679
be sold to a single family home developer, I would they would they keep it? Would they demolish it and make something modern? That's not my intention. That's all I could have to say on that. >> Yeah. and and the just just because it's fun talking about this stuff. Paul and I

256
01:11:03.679 --> 01:11:19.199
talk about stuff like this offline, not about the business of the zoning, but these these very issues. But my answer really is that yes, if the lot's on Elm Place or on another place or have a superde lot surrounded by million-dollar

257
01:11:19.199 --> 01:11:33.280
houses, you're going to build a single family house on a street like Bridge with the history of Bridge and even the current condition of Bridge, which has a lot of very small houses south of this and a lot of and substantial divided houses and multiple dwellings and a 20

258
01:11:33.280 --> 01:11:51.040
unit condo coming. the economics of of spending over a million dollars on a property on this street uh has led this applicant to a two family and I think that's pretty reasonable conclusion and we need the units as well since the

259
01:11:51.040 --> 01:12:07.120
last three years has been the tightest department supply in the history of Mammoth County. >> You know Chris, can I can I I I I just can't get past this that >> does violate the >> the master plan was deliberate in this though. This is a single family area. So we should not be spot zoning parcel by

260
01:12:07.120 --> 01:12:23.120
parcel by parcel. The town should be inputed. The residents should be inputed not on 200 ft notices >> on input. And that's what the two that's what the master plan was. This is a single family area. >> Yeah. I think they made a mistake designating such but

261
01:12:23.120 --> 01:12:40.640
your point is still correct. Your point is still correct. So, as as far as our presentation goes, that that is our conclusion for the presentation tonight. Before the board uh were to take any action or not, I just request just two minutes to caucus with my clients and then uh if if that would be okay with the chair and board.

262
01:12:40.640 --> 01:13:06.400
Thank you. >> Fine. >> Take a little recess. So, I had a chance for >> everyone is still here. No one left. No one literally left today. We're all still there. >> Thank you, counselor. Um, so I had a chance to caucus with my client. Um, we

263
01:13:06.400 --> 01:13:21.920
we believe what we're presenting to you tonight uh is is a great product for the town. We're really proud of of what we're proposing. So, um, at this point, you know, we we are we are completed with our presentation, and we we asked the board, uh, to vote favorably for this application in light of both the

264
01:13:21.920 --> 01:13:38.239
planning testimony, the architectural testimony, and the testimony from the applicant and what we perceive as a real benefit and an upgrade uh for the existing lot. So, thank you again for your time and and you know, we'll we'll defer to the board's decision. I just want to clarify um yes there was

265
01:13:38.239 --> 01:13:54.960
a misspoke um I did misspeak on the fee and that's because the ordinance actually recently changed to um cause for there to be when it's a dev variance um there to be a fee that's a

266
01:13:54.960 --> 01:14:11.600
developer fee that's associated with that and that's because of the um fair housing act that just recently passed um with the mandatory ordinance. Um, so that's where this came in. >> So it's a one and a half% of what? >> No, it's 6%.

267
01:14:11.600 --> 01:14:28.360
>> Oh, 6% >> 6% of assessed value. So on something like this, if it's assessed at 500, it could be another 25,000. >> So that will be also calculated at the um when they go for construction permits. That's at the time when this is calculated.

268
01:14:28.880 --> 01:15:06.480
>> And the applicant is prepared to pay the either 20 if it is 25 to $30,000. the applicants prepared to do that? >> Yeah, we have to we we will comply with any requirements. Does anybody like to >> I just clarify the parking because you're voting on something that

269
01:15:06.480 --> 01:15:22.960
they're going to revise. So in case you vote yes to it, I need to enforce what I think you guys want to see. Correct. So I just want to clarify. Are we saying that there should be five parking spaces, two

270
01:15:22.960 --> 01:15:41.920
in the garage and three? Is that what you're asking for? >> In my opinion, I don't know. Sean, should I No, you know, Ray and I and I think the whole board wanted to see a drawing of the back. So, I don't know if we should

271
01:15:41.920 --> 01:15:58.000
vote quite frankly or you want to do another submission. If you're if you're resting and you want us to vote on what you have submitted, I would make a motion to deny the application for that. Number one, well, number one for me, well, as a side point would be because

272
01:15:58.000 --> 01:16:15.280
we don't have the drawings, but as the main point would be is that it's just it's it's the master plan for me. It's a single family area for all the reasons I discussed. I don't have to pound my fist on it on the table about it, but it's just void of the master plan that was very deliberate in 2023. Very

273
01:16:15.280 --> 01:16:32.080
deliberate. Um, so I would make a motion to deny it. If he wants to show come back and do that, but that's not going to sway me. This is a single family area designated three years ago in the master plan. Um, and us going parcel by parcel

274
01:16:32.080 --> 01:16:47.440
by parcel and saying, "Hey, there's so many of these around." But that was that was way back when. We shouldn't be spot zoning. There's we are taking the community out of the decision of what Redbank is going to look like by spotzoning single family areas. That's

275
01:16:47.440 --> 01:17:05.600
what we're doing. Uh we're we're removing the public. So to me, that's not right. And I think it the application should be uh not approved. >> Concerning the parking specifically that you asked about, Jackie. Um I

276
01:17:05.600 --> 01:17:22.239
do could we clarify how many there was a there were two concerns right there was that I heard one was is there sufficient number of spaces off street and the other one was is there sufficient um space for the cars to move maneuver around such that the two units wouldn't

277
01:17:22.239 --> 01:17:40.719
block each other in um my concern was specifically with the ladder the having space to maneuver around and so Um, but I was a bit confused on is does does the applicant think that there's enough room for uh two or three cars to move around

278
01:17:40.719 --> 01:17:58.159
and and the concern was that there's not enough room for five or was it that there's just not enough room to do the K turn today? I >> think all those questions can be answered by revised plans and turning templates. >> I think so too. can't really figure that

279
01:17:58.159 --> 01:18:14.320
out now and you can't um determine whether it triggers a variance for your lot coverage. >> Yes. >> So, you would have to revise the plans to comply with what you guys are asking

280
01:18:14.320 --> 01:18:30.560
unless they're saying we're not going to provide that information. Yeah, I think an ideal revised plan that I would like to see is one that shows the um space to maneuver the cars from the two units around so that there's not negative

281
01:18:30.560 --> 01:18:46.960
consequence on street parking in the area um but not one that accommodates so many vehicles that we now have a lot coverage problem. Right. >> So, uh we we're hearing your uh your comments loud and clear and I did speak with my client. So, if it would please

282
01:18:46.960 --> 01:19:03.360
the board, what we could do is is revise the plans to be a more detailed as far as the parking area more specifically, addressing any turning radius and in in light of the fact of talking about this worst case scenario of five cars if there would be five adults with these

283
01:19:03.360 --> 01:19:18.400
two dwelling units. So, if it would please the board, um, we would come back with a revised plan and, uh, you know, be able to address any questions related to the parking specifically. And I think, you know, as far as the other testimony, we would rest on that. But it would be at least to come in and give the board a better idea of what the

284
01:19:18.400 --> 01:19:34.400
parking would look like. Um, you know, both as we contemplate it as to be used and then in the worst case scenario as well. >> And and also include a drawing of the garage. I mean, we're sitting here trying to picture what it's going to look like and it could be a square box.

285
01:19:34.400 --> 01:19:53.840
We have no idea what kind of garage what garage >> for future any of your people that you deal with they should always provide pictures of what building looks. >> Thank you for your comments, Mr. Chair.

286
01:19:53.840 --> 01:20:09.760
>> Family for the day. >> Mr. Kennedy, >> could I also ask if you are revising the plans that your engineer take a look at our comments and update the plans? um to try to comply with the comments. So, for example, we questioned, well, what's the

287
01:20:09.760 --> 01:20:25.600
are you going to replace the sidewalk? What material is it? Um what material is the driveway? Um there's certain questions that we asked. Um and I know you're going to comply with it, but if you're already revising the plans, maybe you could just try to address some of the comments.

288
01:20:25.600 --> 01:20:46.480
>> Understood. >> Thank you. >> All right. No, I know. >> I know there was a motion and it wasn't seconded yet and there's sort of now >> but it wasn't seconded and then we had

289
01:20:46.480 --> 01:21:05.679
the the uh request for an adjournment. So Shauna just if there was going to be an adjournment, what would the hearing date be? Because but actually before you do that we want to be realistic because uh how long it'll take to revise the plans and

290
01:21:05.679 --> 01:21:26.480
it has to be in 10 days in advance. So it might not be the next meeting. >> We have the June 4th meeting which is open. Um there are no application schedule and then the 18th which we have the larger application but again we can

291
01:21:26.480 --> 01:21:43.920
I don't think this would take longer so we can tack it on to the 18th >> you know I I really don't want to agree to that I am not here on the 18th as I previously told everybody >> the 18th doesn't work for me >> we

292
01:21:43.920 --> 01:22:02.920
anybody else have a comment there instead instead of a go back and revise the plan if we're not going to approve this. >> Uh, you know, it doesn't make a lot of sense. >> Um, yes, I would like to see a revised plan. Definitely.

293
01:22:05.679 --> 01:22:21.520
>> What? >> For the for the board's benefit, I I did speak with my team back here and they believe the plans could be updated and and get and be submitted so that they could be within the 10 days to to get to the fourth meetings uh meeting so Mr. Kagno could be present. Um, so that that's our intention to get the plan

294
01:22:21.520 --> 01:22:43.040
ready to go and and submitted back to you with within the time parameters uh required by the MLU. >> All right. So then we will need, excuse me, a motion to carry this application to June 4th, 2026, 6:30 p.m. I'm

295
01:22:43.040 --> 01:22:59.199
assuming uh you're asking without any further public notice required. >> Yes, counselor. >> And just for the record, do you on behalf of your client consent to extend the time frame within which the board has to act on the matter? >> Yes. >> All right. So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if that's the pleasure of the board, we can

296
01:22:59.199 --> 01:23:18.159
have a motion to carry to June 4th, 2026. >> I'll make that motion to carry. >> I'll second. >> And Tori, >> yes. >> Raymond M. >> Yes. >> John Gild.

297
01:23:18.159 --> 01:23:34.239
>> Yes. >> Anna Cruz. >> Yes. >> Vincent Light. >> Yes. >> Paul Kagno. Eugene Harowitz. >> Yes. Chris Havens, >> yes. >> Darthothy Ceruo, >> yes. >> Okay.

298
01:23:34.239 --> 01:23:55.080
Thank you. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Make that a motion, please. Oh.