come to order this fifth day of February 2026. The time is 6:35. Roll call. >> Anor here. >> Yeah, you just have to press it once and it's on. Yeah.
Um, Ray Mass >> here. >> Greg Fitzgerald >> here. >> Jonathan Gilde >> here. >> Anna Cruz >> here. >> Vincent Light absent. Paul Kagno >> here.
>> Eugene Horowitz >> here. >> Chris Havens >> here. >> Dorothy Corillo. >> Cerillo. Serillo. I'm sorry. >> Okay. and Rebecca Finn is not here.
>> Okay. >> Okay. In accordance with New Jersey law, notice of the written meeting has been published in the Asbury Park Press and the two river times. Notice of this meeting has also been placed on the island version of the Asbury Park Press.
The said notices advised as to the 2026 meeting dates, meeting locations, and meeting times. Additionally, in accordance with New Jersey law, notice of the meeting will also be published on the municipal website. The notice of
this meeting has also placed on the New Jersey Secretary of State website once the same has officially been established. The notice was also placed on the municipal bulletin board and filed with the burough clerk. As a
result, the within meeting complies with the prevailing requirements of the open public meetings act sunshine statement as amended. >> And Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reduce uh that length of that. >> Please. Thank you. This meeting is being tape recorded and in the event the applicant use the service of a court
reporter a transcript of the tapes and the board requires a copy of the transcript. We'll break it about 8:00 p.m. for deliberation testimony heard this far in the conference room on the first floor. the board or the public is invited to attend. However, discussion
between board members and the public is not permitted at that time. No new cases will be heard after 9:00. Red Bank Zoning Board of Adjustment has maintained a policy cutoff hour of 9:30 for its hearings. Any applicants not heard this evening will be carried over
to next scheduled meeting. Uh pledge of allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America to the republic which stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all.
Okay. Okay. We have some administrative matters to take care of. Uh meeting minutes for January 15th. Somebody make a motion to approve. >> I'll move to approve those. >> I'll second.
I >> Okay, we have >> Ray. I'm sorry. I did have for the We're talking about the regular meeting from last time. >> I did the regular meeting. >> Yeah, I I'm sorry. There was one um correction under
>> Oh, there was the executive. Oh, good. >> Oh, >> okay. So, you were okay with her executive. Okay. Okay. regular meeting minutes January 15 206 >> under the um yeah my name was omitted
from people who were sworn in new term that's okay motion to approve >> to accept them without change >> a second >> favor >> I
okay we have a few resolutions re first is a resolution of appointment for the board attorney. Mr. Kenny, you want to >> Yes. Uh you'll recall at the last uh time we were here at our reorganization meeting, the board voted in those
motions and technically the law says we have to have a resolution and an actually contract. So this just remememorializes what was done uh the four appointments that were made. So just administratively if the board is so inclined and that'll authorize uh you to sign the various contracts.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> We Yeah, we have the board attorney, board engineer, conflict attorney, and the conflict engineer. We make a motion. I'll second.
An Tory >> Ray Mass. >> Yes. >> Greg Pitro, >> yes. >> Jonathan Gilde, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> yes. >> Here, um Paul Kagna, >> Eugene Horowitz, >> yes.
>> Okay, we have a resolution of extension for 196 Broad Street. >> Uh just ladies and gentlemen of the board, particularly the newer members. So, we had previously approved a subdivision and uh in New Jersey a
subdivision has to be perfected. >> You have to turn on your mic. These mics are really good now. So, >> if you turn on your mic, they can't hear. >> Oh, okay. Uh so, we previously approved a subdivision. Uh now, we don't have too many subdivisions in Redbank given the
developed nature of our town. Uh but we approved a subdivision and under New Jersey law, a subdivision has to be perfected uh within 190 days of when the resolution gets adopted. So uh it's not uncommon to get an extension. They previously obtained an extension um
because they were having trouble getting uh outside approvals. And then Sean, I believe they requested another extension because I think they specifically referenced uh issues they were having with the Mammoth County Planning Board. And so if you adopt this resolution, we
just extend the time frame within which they have to perfect. I just they didn't request a time frame and Shauna and I just picked that that time frame. I think we put in six months, Shauna. Um and and but that's that's not what they requested. So I
mean you could go longer if you want. You could go shorter if you want, but that's that's the gist of of what that's about. and everyone would be eligible to vote even if you weren't here on the underlying uh approval. >> Can can we make this the last extension we give them?
>> Yeah, I mean we don't have to say that but we can we can tell the person that and there's nothing that requires us to obligate uh to grant any further extensions. >> Yeah. >> So, we'll make sure Sea lets them know that. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> I'll make a motion to approve that resolution. I'll second >> an >> Tory. >> Yes. >> Ray Mask. >> Yes. >> Greg Fitzgerald. >> Yes. >> Jonathan Gil. >> Yes. >> Anna Cruz.
>> Yes. >> Sorry. >> Paul Ko. >> Eugene Horitz. >> Yes. >> Okay. Next up we have 191 Bridge Avenue. >> Okay. as the applicants team comes forward just a couple of preliminary procedural things. Uh this is Dan
O'Harn, the applicants attorney. And Dan, momentarily, I'm going to ask you if you could just for the record um identify who the principles of your company are so we can just do an internal conflict check. But uh Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that we previously accepted notice on this uh uh
file at a prior uh application. So, what we'll do is we're going to swear in uh Jackie Dur, our board engineer, and Shauna uh Ebanks, our planner and director of community development. Jackie and 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 the best of your knowledge to help you God? >> All right. Let the record reflect that both witnesses have been sworn. And we will mark into the record what we as a board have before us. A1 is the application package. A2 is the uh
proposed additional alterations prepared by Joseph Donado. A3 is a zoning permit denial letter dated August 19th, 2025. A4 is the zoning application. Well, I already marked that as A1, I'm sorry. A4 will be the TNM Associates review
memorandum dated February 5th, 2026. Okay. Uh is that about the garage? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> February 5th. Yeah. So this this is resolution number uh the second review memorandum.
>> Okay. And um and then the other thing is uh Dan, just for the record, um I know with the first review letter, there was a reference to some architectural plans by Paul Renode and then they're crossed off in the second review letter. So it's my
understanding that is not part of this application. So I'm not going to mark that into the record. Correct. >> Okay. And so we have a brand new system here. I've >> you can use the ones >> there just talk into it.
>> That is correct that those uh the the plans that are crossed off they will not be part of this application this year. >> Very good. And then uh if you could just for the record after you enter your appearance we have uh four new board members but if you could just identify
who the principles are. So, if we hear the name 191 Bridge RB LLC, that might not mean anything to us. But if you hear the actual names of the people, you might think, "Hey, that's my cousin, that's my friend, that's my client." So, we'll just do an internal conflict. So, against that backdrop, we turn it over
uh to Mr. O'Harn. Good evening. >> Uh good evening. Uh thank you, Mr. Kennedy, and good evening board members and other board professionals. Uh Daniel O'Harn with the firm of Burns, O'Harn, and Yugal. uh on behalf of the applicant which is 191 Bridge RB LLC uh as Mr.
Kennedy requested um uh Paul Renault is the uh you're the sole member of that LLC. Is that correct? Yes. There's so it's a single member LLC. He's the sole member and he will be testifying this evening on be behalf of the applicant. >> Okay. So now now we've heard that name.
Does that uh disclosure create any conflicts or questions about conflicts or anything like that? Seeing none, we're good to go. >> Okay. Thank you. Um ju just briefly uh just to to preview the application. Um
uh Mr. Renault um uh LLC has purchased the property at 191 Bridge Avenue. It's currently uh a a single family home, 2 and a half uh story structure. It does have a detached garage. Um what the applicant, Mr. Renault is proposing to
do this evening is to make improvements to the property and obtain approval to allow the property to be used as a two family home uh which is not a permitted use in this particular zone. Therefore, we're required to get a uh a D use variance. Um and I do want to just
address one issue. Um the plans as submitted included uh some improvements to the detached garage. um after having an opportunity to review the engineer's second review letter um my client um in consultation with his professionals has
made the decision to withdraw that part of the application. So there will be no improvements made no approval sought tonight this evening with respect to the garage. It will remain as is uh except for perhaps cosmetic improvements um but
but not nothing. Um, so that aspect. So really what's before the board this evening is the uh the the the you know D1 use variance to allow for a two family home uh at this location and the associated improvements. So we we will
have three witnesses this evening. Uh Mr. Renault who will testify as the applicant. Um the applicant's uh architect is Joseph Donado who is here. And then finally, we have Kristen Shepard with the Conf Kafone uh uh
planning consulting firm who will testify, provide the testimony in support of the uh um the Dvarian. Um so with that, if I'd like to call Mr. Renault, Mr. Kenny, if you need swear him in. >> You know what? Why don't we uh all
witnesses all at once. So if you would all stand up and uh raise your right hands, and why don't you come up to to the microphones. All right. So uh All right. So, Mr. Renault, we'll start with you. You could just state your name and address, please. Uh, Paul Renault,
presently at 24 Sunset Terrace, Tennifly, New Jersey. >> That's re n A U D. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you are the principal of the of 191 Bridge RB LC. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And sir,
>> take your name, please. >> Yeah. Joseph D O N AT I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. I'm located at 14 group for West River, New Jersey. >> Okay. And ma'am, >> hi, Kristen Shepard. C R I S Ten S. >> I'm sorry. Uh C
>> C R I S T N S H E P T A R D. Hard to spell. >> Okay. >> I'm a professional planner licensed in the state of New Jersey. Uh my license is in good standing and I'm with Pone Consulting Group in Redbank. >> Thank you. So, if you could all raise your right hands, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about
to provide will be the truth to best your knowledge to help you guide? >> All right. And just for the record, uh Mr. D, your uh Miss Shepard indicate uh that license and certification is current and up to date. Same thing with you. Your license and everything up to date in good standing. >> My own practice
in good stand. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And um Dan, could I just ask your client just three quick questions that I'll need for the resolution, then I'll turn it over to you. >> Yes, you sure can, Mr. So, the LLC is the owner of the property. >> Yes. >> And how long has the LLC owned the property roughly? >> 3 months.
>> Okay. And uh Dan indicated there's a single family home there. >> Yes. >> And is it is it occupied? >> No. >> Okay. So, it's vacant. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Mr. Kennedy did some of my work for me. Um Mr. Renault. Um, and just for
the record, because I I put it on on the record as your attorney, but uh can you confirm for the board that you are withdrawing uh that part of your application regarding the improvements to the uh the detached garage?
>> Uh yes, I am withdrawing that part of the application. >> Okay. Thank you. Um if you could uh Mr. Renault, you you you uh just testified that you've owned the property for 3 months. if you can just explain to the board why you want to convert this from
a single family home to a two family home. >> Um well, basically we're looking to move down here on a permanent basis. Um, and
as my wife and myself are over the age of 65, it would be nice to have uh either my kids uh we have kids out in California that may want to move back uh or um if that doesn't happen, then
possibly a uh uh an individual to rent the upstairs so that it gives us a little um little help. That's really the situation. And um and and so just to to clarify, you you would if if these were approvals
were granted, you would make this location your permanent residence. >> That's correct. >> Okay. And in the one of the units, you would live there and who else would be living there? >> My wife. >> Okay. And and nobody else? >> No.
>> Okay. And h how many vehicles would you have then for you and your wife? You'd have two vehicles. Two vehicles. Okay. Um, and if you could just explain to the board, obviously we'll have Mr. Donado who will put a little more meat on the bones, but just the nature of the improvements that you want
to make to the home and again why you want to make make those improvements to the home. >> Well, I bought the house from a realtor or a real estate developer who uh I guess they they had gutted the interior. So,
right now the interior is gutted and I um I actually bought it for the garage. So, uh but at any rate, um why do we want to we want to move into the town? Because we're up in Bergen
County. It's getting a little congested, a little confused. Um we're right over the uh inbound for uh Teterboro. So, you know, we're getting, you know, your private jets are coming over our house all the time and it's just um this is a
nice area. Love the fact that we're close to the um the water and my uh wife is a she loves the beach and she's 15 minutes from the beach here. So, that's the reason why we want to move down permanently. >> And just generally, what are the the
improvements you'd like to make to the home that your your architect will testify more detail to? Right. Well, uh, when I saw the survey and I realized that we were, um, we had a a variance for the sideyard and for the both yards
and the back end of that house is not in in good shape. So, I thought, well, here I can remove that variance, get rid of that bad end of the house and um put a little addition on there that would um
not have a variance. We'll be 10 ft from the sideyard and we'll have a nice, you know, back end of that house. It's only one story. >> And so, the there were some questions and comments, I think, uh in the review letters by the engineer. The proposal is
to not demolish the entire structure, just to basically I guess remove part of the re rear part of the house and then make some improvements in that area. >> That's correct. >> Just the rear part. >> Um just a couple I'd like to just have
you put some testimony um on some of the uh uh review letter comments. They uh they asked if there's any uh uh proposed expansion of the driveway. No, the driveway is
existing uh from the from the street back down to the garage. It's a little it's been damaged from when they removed the uh underground storage tank and the rest of it is not in good shape. So, I would have to probably replace the whole thing,
but it would not in I wouldn't change the size or shape or anything like that. I think that's all I have for um for the applicant and obviously we turn it over to the board now for any questions. >> Any any questions from the board for the
applicant or Mr. O'Harn? Any questions from the public for the applicant or Mr. O'Harn? Okay, go on with your next witness. >> That concludes the next witness is Mr.
Donado. Thank you, Mr. Reno. Bill, I'll just turn it over to you. You want >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, board members. >> Speak into the mic, please. >> Absolutely. >> There you go. >> Thank you. Uh so, yes, I'm uh the the applicant. I've known the applicant for
almost 30 years. I did a uh work with the applicant previously throughout our relationship, but uh this uh site was uh a property that him and his wife had uh chose to move down to Redbank. And uh currently what's unique about this
property, it's in a diverse neighborhood, different uses. Our planner will get into this more specific of what's surrounding, but uh the property uh at 191 uh Bridge Avenue is 50 foot wide,
150 foot deep, conforming as far as size and lot area. Uh the current topography starts from the curve and actually continues downward uh toward the rear about 4T. the the main so these are the
plans that were submitted to the board uh which I have on my easel sheet A1 shows the existing conditions of the property so currently there's two uh non-conforming setbacks to the property
we have a where 30 I'm sorry let me just get my glasses on uh where 30 ft uh front yard is required the current structure is 18.4. It's a 2 and 1/2 story structure. The uh idea is to keep
this structure alone, update it to a newer look. We want to keep that shape of the traditional uh colonial house. But the main idea is to keep that front as is. We're not expanding the front. We're not making it any higher with volume. We're not projecting it. It's
still at 19.4 uh ft. Then the building uh as we go back further there is this uh one-story structure which it's also non-conforming where 10 ft is required for a sideyard. The current structure is
5.4 ft. That rear structure as Mr. Renault spoke it's in bad shape. The the our proposal is to remove that entirely and build the new portion in conforming with the side setback. Uh then as we go
toward the back, an existing garage uh will remain. It's a twocar garage. We're going to keep that to be one story. We're not expanding it. Uh so it would only be aesthetically upgraded to match the house. Uh
so I have the site plan to the uh right. This shows the uh proposals. Again, we're going to keep the front yard at 19.4. the back portion of the house. We're going to set that in at 10.08 where 10 feet is required and we're going to
rebuild that whole structure with a a twotory structure. Again, it's only two and a half structure, two and a half story structure. We're not expanding the height. Sheet A2 is the existing conditions of
the property. It it is a building that really needs uh repair. uh especially the back portion again we're removing that but as we measured the existing structure he uh Mr. knows that he purchased it a few
months ago. Ironically, it's laid out as a two family currently, even though legally illegally it is. There's an existing the part of the structure that is non-conforming. There's a set of stairs to the right side and there's an
existing kitchen, bathroom, bedroom, no access to the main house. The main house has a porch, living room, one bedroom, a set of stairs, the two bedroom. So currently this this structure is total
of three bedrooms uh and it is separated probably illegal but uh that's what we're dealt with. These are the existing conditions. Our proposal this is sheet A3. So the front portion of the house where
I said we're going to keep that that's the front portion which is 19.4 that stays that nonconformity will will remain in effect. This right side edition. This is where we're going to cut this back. So, this conforms to the
sideyard. So, the first floor level will still have a front entrance uh uh from the front from uh Bridge Avenue. We'll have an office in the front, an open area, kitchen, living, dining, and one bedroom with a bathroom. So, on this
main floor, the purpose is to have a bedroom, an office, and living area. This is where uh Mr. Renault being in the uh uh occupied owner occupied for the two family. This would be his floor with a set of stairs that go upstairs.
I'm sorry, a set of stairs that go to a basement that also has one bedroom. So, his unit will basically be two bedrooms and an office. The separate the separate apartment that we're proposing would be on the upper
portion of the existing house. We have a little vestiel here stairs to the proposed second apartment. That apartment will only be one bedroom. So in total we are proposing apartment number two to have one bedroom.
Apartment number one which is the owner occupied uh unit to be two bedrooms. So in total we still have three bedrooms. This now a twotory two family structure. Uh we will have a deck in the back. Our proposal was really to strip the uh new
siding, new roofing, new windows. Uh but the aesthetics, the third sheet, I mean I'm sorry, the fourth sheet is just like it is a perspective of the home uh with the garage. Again, this whole entire garage structure is not included with
this application to be expanded. It will be aesthetically improved to match the house. But this is the garage that we are not proposing to uh to expand. But you could see you can see the uh proposed uh the existing structure, the
shape of the structure, the colonial style. We really want to keep that uh as is just updated basically because the neighborhood really has these type of homes that we don't want to change. Um, I'll touch on some of the outside work as far as uh uh the site. Mr. Renault
talked about the driveways currently starts at the curb. It does go toward the back. It's in very fair shape. We'll rip it up. We we plan to keep it roughly the same size. We just as long as we're under the we're not asking for a lot coverage variance. We're going to uh
we'll have AC units, sidewalks, decks, all within cover the existing coverage. Uh we will also have a besides the twocar garage that will be in the existing garage, we want to have a three stall parking area which would be
gravel. Uh so in total it's five stalls. We are only required to have three based on the code but we want to have five when his children when they visit there's parking parking. If I can, I'll just touch on the zoning
schedule, what variances we're asking for. We are in the RV zone, which is a one family zone. The lot area required for this zone, this zone is 3500 square ft. We're 7,500 ft. So, we're a larger lot. And that's
why we felt this this site with this size can handle this type of two family. the the not the the connotation of a two family typically people think of when in the rent it's a rental units but this in this case it's an owner occupied unit
it's that second unit primarily is for when kids visit but to have that extra income it's only a onebedroom favors the uh the the owner uh the left frontage uh that's required in this zone is 50 ft we
do meet that 50 ft the we're 150 ft deep so the the lot depth and area are met. The first variance that we're asking for is that front yard variance that I spoke earlier about where where 30 ft is required. We're 19.4 existing but again
we're not expanding that any further. Uh one side yard required is 10 ft. Currently it's 5.4. That's where we're going to cut the the remove the existing structure. We're going to bring that in to 10.08. So we'll we'll conform to the
sideyard. The next item is total sideyards for this zone is 20 ft. Uh we'll be in total will be 23.9. So will be even more than is required for total side yards. The rear yard is 25 ft for
principal structure will be 81.4 uh 81.43 ft uh with plenty of room. There's there's town houses to the rear of us. We're we're beyond the 25 ft setback. The total height, we're at 2
and 1/2 stories uh is permitted at 35 ft. Again, we're at 2 and a half stories, 32 feet. We're not adding height to the structure, so we're going to keep the the roof structure as is. And uh I'll touch on one other thing. There is an existing attic. Uh
if you look at this window in the front, that's an existing attic. We are going to keep the attic. It will it will have access from that second apartment strictly storage. It's uh no bathrooms, no living space. It's strictly uh will
be storage. Uh as far as I left off with height block coverage is the next where 40% is required. With all these improvements, the the walkways, the the addition, the deck, we're at 39.61%.
So, we're not we don't want to we're not asking for a variance for coverage. Then there's some other uh items. Minimum floor area is 1,000 square feet. We're 167. So, we're above the minimum. Uh there's a minimum first floor area of
700 square ft. That first floor is 1,85. So, we meet those criteria. Uh then they we have an AC unit setback where 3 ft is required. We're putting them on the side of the house. We're about 12 feet away from the property line. So, they meet
the uh the setback for utilities. And then the last item is the parking where three stalls are required. We're proposing two inside, three outside on the gravel path for a total of five. Uh so that covers the improvements. Uh Mr.
know really will as far as windows, siding, roofing will bring this up to uh current standards of exterior aesthetics and also uh fire ratings, smoke detectors, any any code items will all
be up to current date should this be approved. I think that in my in my opinion it's uh it's bringing this older structure, keeping the shape and and of that traditional look and we uh we feel
positive about this uh application. >> I I got a question about the garage. You said you weren't going to >> you you took that off of the plan, but you said you're going to do some work on the garage. What What's the plan? What kind of work are you going to do in the garage? So, aesthetically, the siding,
roofing, uh the the roof is in bad shape. Probably going to replace the roof, but we're not asking for a height variance. We're not asking for a second story. The application part of that uh item was a bathroom, a work room for him.
>> That's not going to happen. There's no plumbing, no water, no uh >> Okay. >> Strictly a twocar garage and in the height. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? Can you talk about the dormer? The reason for the dormer on the um in the
attic, the extra dormer. Well, the added dormer based on your rendering >> so we could take it out. It was >> Well, no. I just wanted to know whether or not. So, um in the ordinance, it says that it's a two and a half story building and that's what's permitted.
So, I want to make sure that the attic space is a third of the second floor. That's so correct. Any clear height is under seven feet. So any it's not going to be finished for living space. So that one/3 will not be triggered for two storage. >> Okay.
>> And we could have collage at six feet. >> The dormer is fine. I just wanted to know whether what the square footage was for the second floor and for that attic space. >> Sure. >> I'd like to ask you a clarification about the um expansion of the driveway. You said we won't be expanding the
driveway much. And then um Right. So, >> am I getting >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. And uh the gravel lot to provide the uh total of five stalls for I'm think there was an extra three stalls in the gravel lot. Is that right? Okay. Are is that gravel lot with the
three stalls existing or uh is that gravel lot um being >> No, it's not existing. >> Okay. >> It's proposed to house three cars. And are there plans to uh maintain like the current drainage patterns?
>> So currently there's the leaders just go to the ground. So um as far as engineering we don't we haven't proposed any tanks or anything like that. I guess if uh engineering uh has any idea if we should we would
>> I I meant to specifically to mitigate the um storm water runoff of the uh new gravel lot. >> Right. >> Yeah. Well, the gravel would probably seep into the ground, right? Because it's not paid. >> I mean, it's my understanding that under New Jersey um D, but it's for a motor
vehicle surface. It's it's um subject to runoff. >> Okay. >> If we had to, we could provide uh drainage tanks and sight. >> All right. Thank you. Hi, I have I have a couple questions.
Um, can we just talk about the basement? You said there's a bedroom down there. What's the size of it? And then, um, you know, what's the egress? You know, how would someone get out of there? Is there a window down there? But tell me about the basement. >> Absolutely. So, so if you look at this front, uh, and I apologize, I didn't
really I kind of ran through that one. So, the original part of the house, which there's an existing basement, it's 6'4 in high. That's storage and utilities. This back area, which is currently there, but we're demolishing that part.
We're building it. There's access from from the kitchen of the first floor has access to the basement. Then there's a window well for egress for fire on the right side. So that total that total
addition is in the back is 19 16t 9 in by 26 ft. Nest the total uh bedroom closet the stairs an open area. The bedroom area is 14 by 11. >> Right. And there's an egress from the bedroom meaning there's a staircase that
goes from the basement to the exterior of the house or you have to go upstairs from the interior into the kitchen and then exit. >> No. So, if I'm on the first floor, there's a set of stairs. You go down to a landing that will go up and then continue down to the basement.
>> No, I'm confused. Is there And I'm not I guess I'm just hearing it wrong. All I want to know is >> if I'm in the basement, >> is there a designated set of stairs to get me to the exterior directly from the basement or is there not? >> You'd have to go up. So, there is. Yeah,
you have to go up to a landing. >> Okay. >> Seven or eight steps to a landing. I can go to the kitchen. >> Okay. >> On the first floor or out. >> Okay. So, not a separate exterior. No, there's not a separate separate. >> You would have to come into the house. >> Okay. >> Which I would see the kitchen uh on the
first floor and then go down. >> Yeah. And there's windows down in the basement also. >> There's one egress window well. >> Okay. >> And then a closet. And that's how we're calling it a bedroom, right? >> How it's legally a bedroom. Okay. And then um so um how many other two
families are there in the vicinity of this house? Are the neighbors also two families or are they single family? >> Our planner will get into that and you'll see that it it's really is a diverse one twos and multifamilies. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um so you don't have any testimony
with respect to um the character of the neighborhood or anything like that? That's for the planner. >> Yes. As far as the character, we want to keep our aesthetics of this traditional uh colonial looking house, which is predominant in the neighborhood. Yeah. So, we're not looking to make this a
contemporary. We want to keep that traditional look as far as aesthetics. >> As far as aesthetics, okay. And the contemporary look though that in the drawing seem to be a more modern look, right, with the black windows and the things like that. So, is that >> just a uh is that an actual rendering or are those the materials that you're
planning on using? Well, I'd have to ask Mr. Renault as far as I believe windows as far as color of windows and side maybe you could touch on that but uh to address um Mr. Uh, Kaggno's
question. There is a way to get out of the basement directly. Next page. Yeah. No, we have a set of stairs that will take us out to the to the parking area. >> Oh, you do? Okay. Was that like next to the deck or something or >> Right against the deck. Here's a deck
here. There's the stairs going up to the parking area. Okay. So, you can There is two means of egress. Yeah. to get out of that place. >> Okay, that's what I was wondering. >> We want to make sure that if there is any right >> any fire, whatever, they can go out that way or they can come out the window
well. >> Correct. Window. >> Or they can go up the other set of staircase, right? And get to the kitchen. So, is that >> What's that? >> And they can also get to the kitchen too or No, >> they can Yeah, they can go up to the Here's the steps to come up into the kitchen. >> Yep. Okay. >> All righty. And your other question was
>> well he uh your witness had testified about it keeping in character with the neighborhood. So I was curious about the materials because the rendering show more of a modernization of a colonial house right that shows black windows uh darker features. So I'm just cur I mean I'm just curious is that your um
understanding of what is this isn't colorized so it doesn't really represent this is supposed to be more of a uh a gray with white windows. I don't know how. I mean, the computer did that. I didn't. Okay. So,
>> uh, no, we're going to have, uh, regular replacement windows, nice replacement windows. It'll probably have the dividers and, um, thermal argon. We want to, it's cold out here. We want to make sure that this house is nice and tight.
>> But it is more colonial than than contemporary. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Done. Paul. >> Yes. I'm done with this one. >> Any other questions? >> Yeah. Um just about the um >> mic just got into it.
>> Yeah. Um about the bedroom in the basement. Uh when you say egress, you have a egress window well. Um like how how big is that window? I mean, is it a regular
uh 3T foot window or is it the small >> No, three foot wide by 4 foot high so that you can climb out this. >> Okay. >> This little window well and that's within the setbacks of the property set.
>> Gotcha. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else on the board? Jackie have some >> Hello. Hello. Okay. Um just uh some questions in my for my review letter.
Let me see page four, please. Um if you are approved, we just need to see that the the you don't have you don't show a proposed building height on your plans. >> Okay. Can you confirm what that
building height is? >> Your proposed building. >> I could >> you plans meet the height of the >> show. Okay. >> I'm sorry. It's 32 ft. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Um
uh 1.7 page 4 we talk about the attic floor plan. We would just need to see that on a revised set of plans to confirm that a third will not, you know, third will not be, it's not more than a third of 7 foot high. >> We could do that. And I had those plans
on a previous uh submitt, but we can't put them back and I'll put a note. It's not one/3. I think it's seven foot. >> Yep. You can't go. >> It won't be It won't even be seven. >> Okay. Um,
can you just go back to the uh we're trying to clarify what is being repaired in terms of the driveway and walkway. I don't think it was really clear on the plans. >> So, currently, if I'm if I'm on Bridge Avenue, there's
a walkway that goes to the front stairs. Then there's a walkway on the entire front and then it continues all the way back to that existing one story on the right side. That was the entrance to that
illegal apartment. Our proposal is to remove that entire walkway on the right side. Remove the walkway along the front. We will still have a walkway from Bridge Avenue to the front steps.
And >> okay, >> so that's that's the front and side portion of the the property. We are proposing a deck on the back and another walkway from the deck to the driveway.
>> Gotcha. Okay. So, um All right. We just maybe just cleaned that up in the in the resubmission because it wasn't really that clear. So, it looks like you have two existing driveways. Is that right?
>> There's one driveway in the front that continues up along. >> Okay. >> And connects to the twocar garage. >> Yeah. >> We're going to It's in bad shape. We're going to replace it in its current. It It may get a little bit wider as we get
toward the back, but we want to be within the coverage and in that within that driveway. As I get to the back, I'll have a walkway to the deck, >> but all the other walkways on the right side front will be removed. And I I could I could label what's being
removed. >> Yes, please. Yeah. And um are you replacing it with concrete or pavers or you know >> say concrete at this point the walkway the new walkway >> but we have a new walkway by the in the back. Uh
oh, sorry. Uh the walkway from the parking area to the garage would be the same material as the parking area, just gravel u pvious coverage.
>> What about in the front? >> That's existing. >> You're not replacing that or changing You're not >> You're not going to replace that? That's not Okay. Okay. No, but we're just taking out all the others. >> Okay. All right. So, you're just taking it out. You're not replacing
>> correct >> what's there. >> You're just removing more clear that we're cutting from the existing sidewalk >> to the right. I'll make it removing. Okay. >> We are proposing a walkway. >> Gravel. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. >> A gravel walkway from the deck to the driveway. >> Right. same material as a driveway. >> Okay, thank you. Um, screening of the HVAC units. Uh, item
2.5, >> you have an ordinance to >> comply with screening whether it's landscaping or however. >> Okay. So, you'll comply with that. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so in terms of utility
upgrades, are you proposing any utility upgrades or changes to underground utilities? Well, I think the electric >> Okay, we are on the list for replacement of the water service because right now
we've got galvanized coming in >> and um other than that uh yes, we are going to up upgrade our we've only got like a 60 amp service there, so we want to go to uh at least 100 amp service. And are you um
installing a second service for the second unit in terms of water or sewer? >> A second service? >> A a second a water service? No. >> No. No. One water service, >> one furnace. >> Okay.
>> That's it. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, are there any trees that are proposed to be removed? >> That huge oak. >> We have a huge oak. I mean, it's
massive. And we're just going to hopefully maintain that that tree and keep it well fed. >> Can you point on the plant to where that is, please? >> It's going to be uh right in the front right in the front corner. >> Okay. So shouldn't shouldn't be
>> there's no construction other than removal of the of the walkway. So I can't see the roof being damaged. >> And to answer your question, the area that we're proposing the addition at the moment is all concrete. It's a big
concrete patio that's all cracked and broken and uh we're going to remove that and that's where the new addition will go. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. You know, I'm sorry, Ray. I just have a couple more questions. I'm unless someone else had a go. Did I Did I cut somebody off? Um yeah. So, um I just
want to further um what she was saying with respect to the two family. You're putting an apartment upstairs, but you're not going to It seems now would be the time to split the utilities, right? To get a separate electric, perhaps separate gas, right? Because uh water sewer, I understand, because it's from the town, right? And it's going to
be in the owner's name. How do you really accomplish a legitimate two family um by having one electric bill and one gas bill? What is the plan for that? >> Well, that's an interesting thought and
uh I have been working on so many other things. I haven't actually thought about that, but you may be right. >> Uh it might be easier just to bring in a second gas service and a second electric service. Um, no. I don't think the I
think I don't think we'll go with a second electric service, but I think maybe water. >> I have seen where owner will the rent is included with utilities. >> Yeah. >> So, and in this case, I I really believe
that part of this two family at most times or certain times will be for his family. >> Sure. >> So, >> yeah. But also though, if if it does it was to get approved, the true, you know, if you're going to increase the value, right, it seems to make sense for the next buyer >> um to have that handled now.
>> Um that was just a thought that I was thinking. Um I don't think I had anything else. Did you have something? >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public for Mr. Denile? Okay. Close that. your next your
next uh witness. >> Our next and final witness is Kristen Shepard, the uh professional planner. Not at all. Shauna, what are we up to? A5. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, A5. And what is A5?
Got it. Thank you. And just for the record, these pictures were taken by your office. All right. So, they're accurate depictions. >> Yeah. testing. Okay.
Uh so hi everybody. Uh as you know we're here to talk about the D1 use variance which is to convert the existing single family home into a two family home since the uh this is not a permitted use in this zone. So given that my testimony is going to address the positive and
negative criteria, the Medici reconciliation and the consistent consistency with the bros master plan. So I'll start with the special reasons the positive criteria which is a particular site suitability. So in my professional opinion, this is particularly suited use for this site
given that the existing structure already exhibits scale massing and vertical configuration typical of the multifamily residences along this portion of Bridge Avenue. I will get into that into more detail uh down the line of my testimony. And as testified uh by our um previous um professional,
this site is larger than some of the surrounding sites in this area. So we believe that this this is a particularly suited use for the site. It also can uh adequately support off- streetet parking with this use. So moving into the um positive criteria for advancement of the
zoning purposes. Statutoily, we're only required to advance one purpose, but I do believe in this case, multiple purposes are advanced. I believe purpose A of the municipal land use law is advanced or I'm sorry, excuse me, purpose E. Uh, and that generally is speaking to the appropriate population
density in the area. So, in this case, this adds one modest residential unit within an existing home. It is consistent with surrounding two and three family dwellings on Bridge Avenue. It represents gentle infill rather than overdevelopment. and it also maintains neighborhood scale
and character. I also believe that purpose G is advanced in this case and that is uh speaking to providing sufficient space for residential use. So it's kind of similar to purpose E but in this case it adds housing within an already developed residential corridor. It makes efficient use of existing
infrastructure without expending uh development foot expanding the development footprint excuse me. And then finally I believe purpose J is advanced in this case and that is conservation of resources and prevention of urban sprawl. So this is promoting an adaptive reuse of an existing housing
stock. It supports sustainable land use by reinvesting in developed areas and reducing pressure for outward development. So I believe that those municipal land use uh uh purposes are advanced in this case. So I will now move into the negative criteria which is a two-prong test, a two-prong analysis
and that first analysis is to determine that there's no substantial detriment to public good. So in this case the building remains residential in nature. No commercial activity is introduced. The neighborhood character is maintained, adequate parking is provided on site, and the proposal, as discussed
previously, includes some exterior upgrades to the primary home, which will significantly increase curb appeal over the existing structure. And the proposed renovation will eliminate the existing non-conforming sideyard setback that was referenced in the board engineer uh letter dated January 12th. And then that
second prong is that to ensure that there's no substantial impairment to the zone plan. So in this case, Bridge Avenue contains numerous homes that were originally built as single family homes and are now legally operating as multifamily 2 to three uh homes. So I will now draw your attention to the
exhibit that I brought. So in this exhibit uh this is looking at the um property of in question which is highlighted in a red dotted line and filled in with yellow. going north up on that uh along that street here just 0.1
miles you're encountering a number of uh single family converted homes into legal two and three family residences and in fact this is just a small depiction of those homes there are actually 67% of those homes within that 0.1 miles are
actually north on Bridge Avenue are legal multif family homes and that uh information was pulled from the o open public record search system for tax property info So in my professional opinion, this exhibit demonstrates that multif family residential use is an established
development pattern in this area, making this proposal compatibly compatible and contextually appropriate. Uh therefore, I believe that the variance can be granted without undermining the intent of the RB zone or creating an adverse precedent. So with the D1 variance, we
talk about Medici uh reconciliation of omission or essentially why uh this type of use hasn't been listed as a permitted use in the zone. So I believe that this is not necessarily inconsistent with the intent or purpose of the RB zone, residential zone in the master plan. I
believe that bridge avenue already contains a concentration of two to three family homes which reflects a mixed density residential character that has evolved over time. So, I believe where the omission can be granted is that this is a permitted use that has been given um and it does not reflect current
neighborhood conditions. I'm excuse me, it reflects current neighborhood conditions and it represents a zoning framework that hasn't fully adapted to existing development patterns or adaptive reuse of housing stock. Furthermore, I believe that this proposal is consistent with the uh 2023
master plan. So, there are a couple of elements in the master plan that I'll reference. Um, one of them is on page 22. It's emphasizing balance balancing reinvestment with preservation of neighborhood character and recognizes that smart redevelopment can revitalize existing properties. And that's in the
vision section. And then in the land use strategy section on page 95, it's mentioned that Redbank is trying to encourage housing diversity and reinvestment in already developed areas rather than outward expansion of uh other areas that have not been developed. So with all that being said,
it is my professional opinion that the application statutoily meets its full burden of proof required for the requested variance relief, satisfies both the negative and positive criteria, and can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good or to the zone and master plan. Thank you.
>> Okay, any questions for this witness? you know, um, is there a hardship if if it's not granted? >> Would you're asking if the board does not grant this variance, is that a hardship on the >> hardship on the owner of the property,
is it a hardship on him if it's it's not granted? >> No. Under the municipal land use law, I would say no. It's not not a hardship. the um the homes that are the that are outlined um by the blue dots
or blue that are outlined in blue. >> Mhm. >> Those are all in the same zone as the subject property. >> They're all in the RB zone >> and they're all legal two families or just being used as two families. >> They're all legal two family homes. If you go into the website that I referenced, um they're all listed on
their tax report as multif family. Red Bank views multif family whether it's two or three or single family as as two. That's how you designate it. So you have to go into the tax record further and that's where you can see all of these are listed as multi family. >> Multi family.
>> And was this property um is there any um uh were you able to find if whether or not this was in fact used as a two family in the past? You know, like when was the last time someone lived there and what was the situation going on there? property records that I was able to obtain from this home. Um, I couldn't go as far back as to find anything that
signify that this was multif family um, legally at least, but I don't know if my my client or the attorney has. >> I don't have any Mr. Mr. Kagan information on that. I don't know if Mr. Renault has any information on the prior use whether it was ever used as a two
family. I assume it was plenty of >> Yeah, >> I can only assume it was because I'm still getting mail from numerous numbers of people. I mean, uh, it's it's that's all I can say. And when I came to the
property, I thought it was a two family and that's why I I purchased it. Then I realized that we're in a single family zone. That's why I'm here. It sure was. You know, Bridge Avenue has been cut up into pieces for decades. From when it was a great single family
house street was really the worst part of the west side in some ways, people told me for occupancy uses and overuse. And it's starting to come back. There have been a few got rehabs of single families that you've noticed, right? Yeah. >> And there've been the two family changes. Um, and there's more owner
occupancy now on bridge than there has been for 10 years ago. And I would submit this is a creative and um owner occupied uh improvement to the street and to the immediate area where we live, where I live nearby. So I would say this
is a positive step forward for sure. um >> even if he rents the second unit to someone else and not his family, >> he's going to live there and and u it's a good thing for the west side and a good thing for Bridge Avenue. >> And I just wanted to add to that and to
circle back about the hardship question. This is not a D um a D1 regarding hardship based on the size or shape of the land. Um which is why my testimony was in fact regarding Medici and the proofs that I put on the record. So I believe I did make it a pretty clear
that I believe that this is promoting the good of the public and also as well as the master plan and the intention of Redbank to ensure that it it provides opportunities for other types of residential um with with time. So just
to add to that. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? >> Any questions from the public for this witness? I don't see any. We'll close that. >> Thank you. Um, Mr. Hearn, you want to
>> I don't I I'm not going to bore the board with any kind of closing statement. That concludes I think our professionals did an excellent job and uh and the board asked some very good questions. So, that concludes our presentation. >> Okay, Mr. Kennedy, you'd like to
>> Sure. >> summarize couple real quick things. uh in a use variance situation. Remember for our our new friends uh a use variance is a unique type of application and under New Jersey law only seven people vote and you need five affirmative yes votes. In other
situations majority would win. Uh but with a use variance you need five affirmative uh yes votes and I've taken liberty of writing down some potential conditions if the application is approved. Do you want me to read them or do you want me Okay. So, we would talk
about our standard conditions, compliance with um all the uh promises and representations and commitments that that the team made and and as you will all know, that's sort of my get out of jail free card. So, if I forget to say it now, if they said it, it counts. We
also have compliance with affordable housing rules and regulations and contributions if any. There's a generally a 24 month uh shelf life within which to get the building permits. Um and then any outside approvals with the caveat that if the outside approvals materially change the
nature of the application or the nature of the requested relief, you you need to come back for amended relief. We have a professional certification complying confirming that uh once the improvements are installed, they've been installed in accordance with the approved plans, in accordance with the testimony, in accordance with the resolution. Um and
now uh we have the uh ADA regulations compliance with the board engineer review memorandum. uh compliance with the two and a half story requirement. Um let's see. Um we're just going to
confirm that uh we're not uh using the architectural plans uh prepared by Mr. Renault. That that's not part of the application. And we're confirming that the garage there's no improvements in terms except cosmetic improvements, but not adding an addition and not uh
changing the size. And I guess we should just have the plans revised just so 10 years from now if it's approved no one gets confused. >> Yes, that's fine. It sounds like there's some might be some other revisions to be made to the points anyway. So yes, as part of that we'll remove the gu uh the garage uh >> and we're just clarifying
>> the the prior proposed improvements that that are withdrawn. >> Okay. Uh we're complying that it's not an entire uh demolition. Um Jackie, we normally have grading and drainage details to be reviewed and approved by your office if necessary.
or do we not need that? Okay, got it. And we usually have no adverse light spillover. Um we have um the aesthetic upgrades to the garage are going to match the uh the revised uh improved home. Two and a half story
only. Um again, the garage plans withdrawn. And then um Jackie, just so we uh uh are clear, they're saying that there's three parking spaces required. Is it three or
four? And they have five. I just want to make it clear in the resolution. Is it is it definitely three is what they said. Okay. Three is required. Okay. And then um compliance with um
uh the fire rating and building and construction code regulations. And then the uh attic is uh just the storage as Mr. Renault testified. No bathroom, no living space up there. Correct. And then um uh let's see uh all those
improvements that you talked about. And then Jackie, you and Shauna, you would just wanted confirmation on the plans that the attic space meets that one-third rule of the floor beneath. Is that how I say it? Okay. And uh
uh let's see. Um now, uh I think the architect specified some drain tanks on site. Is that a condition, Jackie? And that you'll review the details. Yeah. I I don't know. I just Yeah, I just my client I don't know. I think he
said that we would consider it, but I don't know that that was um agreed to. You want you want to just speak to that? >> Yeah. >> Due to the lay of the land, uh everything is sloping back down towards the back end of the property. Uh and it's all sands and even I've been there
with the heaviest rainstorms and there is no puddling of anything. It just goes right right on down. And even the parking area will be somewhat slanted. So that that would be and it's pvious, so it's going to hit and go right through.
>> And Jackie, when they submit their building permits, if there's an issue, you'll see that. Okay, got it. And then uh the window well egress obviously in the basement complying with building and construction code regulations. The 32 height confirmation. Um, and Jackie, you
wanted the attic uh floor plans uh detailed. I think that was that 1/3 rule. And uh you wanted driveway and walkway repair details on the plans confirming that there's only one driveway. And you want it labeled what is being removed. The walkway will be uh
gravel from the parking area to the garage and then um uh gravel walkway for the deck to the driveway. Screening of the air conditioning. Um uh I guess we're just saying replacement
of the water line. Uh water um >> service line. Uh and then one water well I guess are we saying um splitting the utilities? Are we just sort of saying that's up to the applicant and we reserve he reserves his rights to do
that? I think um the a lot of the positive criteria we heard was towards uh making this a furthering diverse housing options in Redbank and I do think the splitting the utilities would go a long way to making this an honest two family unit
>> as opposed to um a apartment for family. >> So that appears to be a request for a condition that split the utilities. Is that something? >> Okay, got it. Thank you. And then um
uh Shauna from the category of uh knowing a little about a lot. I remember I just don't want if if the application gets approved, I don't want to uh jam these guys up, but wasn't there something last year when someone was replacing an existing driveway and for
some reason that triggered a variance? Oh, that like I said has nothing to do. Okay. And then um let's see. Um Kristen, I thought your outline was excellent. And if it's okay with you and Christine Caffone and and Dan O'Harn,
you can maybe send me your um copy of that outline. And we had uh I think that was the gist of of the >> Yes, we will uh she will provide the copy of the outline, Mr. Kennedy. >> Thank you. >> Christine said you'd be looking for
that, so she already gave me your email address. >> Very good. Very good. So, um, Dan, are those conditions okay to you and your client? >> They are, Mr. Kennedy. Thank you. >> All right. And I guess more importantly, Mr. Chairman, are those conditions acceptable to the board members? >> Well,
I think if somebody makes a motion and we vote on it, we'll find out. >> Good enough. >> Somebody like to make a motion to approve or deny. >> I'll motion to approve. >> To approve.
Second, >> yes. >> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes. >> John Gilde, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> no. >> Paul Kakno,
>> and Eugene Horowitz. >> Yes. >> Thank >> Okay. Thank you. Good luck. >> Thank you to everybody. Have a good evening. Appreciate your time. >> Yeah. >> Thanks, Phil. It's got to be. I like her better. Could
she Is that Is that composed? Okay. >> Okay. Next up, we have 232 Pearl Street. >> Okay. And Mr. Chairman, as the applicant team comes forward, uh couple of preliminary uh procedural things. Uh uh
number one, we're going to swear in uh again Shauna uh Ebangs, professional planner and director of uh community development and um and Jacqueline Dur, our board engineer. Uh ladies, do you swear that the information and testimony you're about
to provide to the extent you provide it will be the truth the best of your knowledge to help you guide? >> Yep. Okay, let the record reflect both have been sworn and what we're going to do is we'll mark into the record what we as a board have before us. A1 is the
application package and A2 are the uh plans for the new single family residence prepared by Edward O'Neal and that's dated October 28th, 2025 consisting of three sheets. And A3 is a survey prepared by Morgan Engineering
and Surveying dated May 30th, 2024. A4 is going to be the TNM Associates review memorandum dated January 2nd, 2026. And A5 is going to be uh the resolution that this board adopted with regard to this. It was a denial with
regard to this application and that was uh a vote was from April 17, 2025 and uh it was adopted June 19th, 2025. Kevin, not with regard to this application, but with regard to a prior application.
>> I'm sorry, with regard to the prior the site. Yes. And um uh ladies and gentlemen, this is Kevin Assadi. He's the applicant's attorney. And Mr. Chairman, I I spoke with uh Mr. Assad today, and I just wanted to go over, if I could, at the risk of overstepping my
bounds, just go over a couple of unique procedural things. uh just because this was a prior a previously approved I'm sorry previously denied application right >> so just for the record um uh this uh A5
resolution of denial I just want to read from the resolution on page 36 this was an application back then it was in 2025 to construct a single family home at the site and after a long uh discussion it
was ultimately uh denied but I just want to read one page to to set the flow. And again, I'm not trying to set it up for you to approve this or set it up for you to deny it, but I just want to sort of make the um uh picture complete because there's going to be one other procedural
thing we're going to have to do momentarily. But reading from this A5 resolution, it says, as referenced, in the midst of the April 17th, 2025 public hearing, most board members publicly and wholeheartedly expressed support for the concept of a single family residential devel development at the site. However,
most board members, including some members who ultimately voted to approve the application, expressed some reservations about the overall mass and scope of the proposed home, particularly in comparison to the significantly undersized 2686qt lot. The board members expressed a request for further plan modifications
to make the home less obtrusive and more in keeping with the character of development in the neighborhood, particularly on similarly undersized lots. Some of the suggestions and concerns expressed included, but were not necessarily limited to, potential reduction in the overall scale and mass of the proposed home, potential
reduction in the overall number of bedrooms in the proposed home from 3 to two, potential increase in the sideyard setbacks that would be greater than 3.25 ft, potential increase in the overall parking situation from 0 to one or even two, and potential reduction in the overall size square footage of the
proposed home. All of those items represented fair, legitimate, and good faith concerns raised throughout the public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the board attorney publicly asked the applicant's representatives as to whether they wanted to adjourn the public hearing so as to uh consider further plan modifications or call for a vote. The
applicants representatives uh asked whether or not we could take a straw poll and uh the applicants team was advised that technically straw polls really not permitted but that board members could if they so chose issue statements as to the overall general feelings about the application, the presentation, the requested relief,
potential conditions and the vote. Many of the board members publicly expressed their opinions and their quote struggle with the application with their simultaneous acknowledgement of many of the positive and negative features associated with the proposal and the said comments echoed the substance of comments which were made throughout the public hearing process. Again, the
applicants team was asked if they wanted to adjourn to consider plan revisions and or they wanted to vote and they requested a vote and respectfully some of the the applicant expressed some frustration at that time. They were concerned that the plans had already been effectuated, that the height of the
home had already been reduced. Um, despite uh multiple prompings, the board members uh would not provide any maximum size square footage of the home that the board would prefer or allow to be built. There was a concern the applicant expressed frustration that um uh they
didn't necessarily think that further um uh items would assuage uh the board members. There was a concern that uh the board members seemed to have various different uh objections not singularly
focused and there was a concern that some board members seem to express certain preferences which were not necessarily the same preferences expressed by other board members and there was a belief that outright denial could be tanamount to potential inverse condemnation. And anyway, so that was
it. All board members unequivocally expressed belief that single family use was a preferred and beneficial use for the subject property, but that the overall proposal could use some refinement so as to make the home more compatible with the neighborhood and more appropriate for the significantly undersized nature of this particular
2,686 square foot lot. So anyway, that's the uh the gist and I just wanted to say that because one, it it's may be relevant to you and number two, this is a totally new application. So, because you weren't here um at the last
application when the last hearing when this was on, that's okay. If you voted no on the first one, that's okay. If you voted uh yes on the first one, that's okay. And the reason that that becomes important, Mr. Chairman, is because there's a thing in the law called the uh
doctrine of rest Judicata. And for all you Latin friends, uh that's uh has it already been adjudicated. and the law is is sort of clear that they don't want people to have the right and the ability to come back with the same cases. Now, I'm going to do a a crazy example. Um,
and then a real simple example. Suppose Shauna and I got in a car accident and Shauna sued me. Um, and saying because of my negligence, she hurt her back and her leg and she went to court and won. She can't then come back later on and say, "Oh, by the way, I also hurt my back and I hurt my eye and you know, my
hearing has been damaged." because the law says you had to have everything in one lawsuit. Makes sense. Likewise, Mr. Chairman, if you and Shauna and myself got in a three-way car car accident, Shauna couldn't sue me, win, and then say, "Oh, I'm going to sue Ry, you know, because it all has to be brought in the
same context, in the same litigation." Now, in the context of zoning, the theory is that you're not allowed to have uh you know uh an application again unless it's substantially different. And the law doesn't tell you what substantially different is. It's
something that you all have to determine. Now, imagine if someone came for approval for a, you know, a 30 foot or a 30story hotel and then they said, we said no. And then they came back and they said, well, we're going to make it 29 ft. I mean, 29 stories, I would say. Well, that's really not different. But
let's say they came back for they a 30s story hotel and then they came back and they said, "We're going to make it five stories and we're going to change the parking. We're going to provide more parking. We're going to change the access and all those things." So that might be substantially different. Likewise, if the denial was 50 years ago
when Route 35 was not widely traveled, that might be a difference, too. So, one of the things that you're going to have to be um addressing is whether or not you feel that this is a substantially different application. And I would just
suggest that because the lot is so small, um that there's not a lot of uh leeway in terms of the the uh changes that that could be made. And also uh uh I did read that part about the
resolution about how the board at least at at the last time this was heard um wanted some was basically asking for more revisions. And then the last thing I'm going to say is the applicants team is going to give you some information about the DMER case. And the Dolmire
case is just sort of a unique situation when you're dealing with undersized lot that is vacant and has no improvements on it. And basically the law sort of says that they're going to establish certain standards and if they do uh the
encouragement is that you know the board should maybe approve it. Now, maybe you don't have to prove it as wide or as big or as tall as they want, but the theory is that if it's a residential only zone, and this isn't, that's a little bit unique about that. But the theory is if
it's a residential zone and you deny them the ability uh to uh create some type of single family home, the theory is there's a fear that you could be setting up the town for inverse condemnation. Condemnation is when the
town takes your property. Inverse condemnation is when you quote unquote zone it into inutility. So that's just something that we're going to hear about. And that Dalmire case says what the law has to what the applicant has has to address. But anyway, that's a very long uh introduction, but I just
sort of wanted to give everyone sort of a feeling and just a a general flow of it and I'm sure uh Mr. Assad and his team are going to address that. So against that backdrop, good evening Mr. Saudian team and welcome back. >> Thank you. Um well I think what you
raised were were two what I would think are threshold issues and we'd like to address them uh one at a time. Uh first on rest Judicata you'll see and and if you looked at your board engineers review memo um the
changes in the plans are substantial even when you when you especially when you consider the width of this lot. It's a 27 foot wide lot. It was not created by the applicant or his predecessors.
It's just a 27 foot wide lot. So, something needs to go on there. And as Mr. Kennedy said earlier, the board the last time expressed um a strong feeling that something should go there. A house should go there. A single family home should go there. So what we did was
after the application was denied went back to the drawing board and given the hardship that this lot does present which you'll hear about later. Um we did expand the setbacks uh
it originally was three feet on each side and now it's three feet on the side. It's three and change uh feet on the side where there's a lot of excess land on one side of us. On the other side of us, there's a neighbor. We were
able to enlarge that setback from 3 feet to 5T. That doesn't sound like a huge amount, but when you're talking about a 27 foot wide lot, that is substantial. Um, additionally, the size of the home, uh, the square
footage of the home was substantially reduced. Our original application or our first application I should say last year uh proposed a house uh with about 2100 square feet. During the course of the application it was modified to about
1,800 square ft. And we believed when we did that modification that that was going to please the board but it didn't please the board enough. Um today we're here with a house having less than 1500 square feet. And for context,
and I'd like to introduce as an exhibit um a return of uh public record search for the Burrow of Redbank. And what this search was was for all new constructions of single family homes in the Burrow of
Redbank since 2010 having less equal to or less than 1600 square ft. There was a total of four homes that were built that met that criteria. And I'd like to introduce >> We'll mark that as a A6.
>> A6. >> The four homes that were returned as a result of that search were 77 Westside, 87 Washington, >> I'm sorry, 77 West >> West Side. >> Got it. 87 Washington,
32 Earl Street, and 41 Bank Street. 77 Westside is a home built on a larger lot, 50 by 100. It's 1500 square ft containing four bedrooms, four bathrooms. According to the property
record card which is attached to the exhibit, 87 Washington Street is on a 27 by 80 lot which is smaller than the subject property. Subject property is 27 by 100.
87 Washington 87 Washington Street has a house 1544 square ft contains three bedrooms and three bathrooms. 32 Earl Street is I'm sorry Earl or Pearl. >> Earl got it.
>> Earl. And by the way, Westside was built in 2020. 87 Washington was built in 2021. 32 Earl is on a 32 foot wide lot.
Has a house of 1558 square ft and contains three bedrooms and three bathrooms. Finally, 41 Bank Street has a home that was built in 2017 having 1,600 square feet and containing
three bedrooms and three bathrooms. The subject the the the proposed house tonight is under 1500 square ft and that would be the smallest single family new construction built in the burrow since
at least 2010. We only searched back to 2010. Yeah, if you can just pass that to Jack Angel. These are only new constructions that I'm talking about. So based on that information and based
on this excerpt which I'm about to read from uh the William Cox book on land use section 19-3.2 two where the coxbook discusses rest judicata and application uh of rest
judicata in situations just like this and I'll read verbatim if an applicant files an application seeking to erect a building within 5 ft of a property line and the variance is denied neither the applicant nor succeeding a succeeding owner may file
an application seeking exactly the same kind of relief. On the other hand, if the second application seeks to erect a building 10 feet from the property line, then the same relief is not being sought and the matter would not be presata.
So I think that's clear that when you're enlarging and it says it the example he chose to talk about is right on point with our example tonight where we're not coming back with a three-foot
setback on that more offending side. We're coming back with a 5-ft setback. Um I think you'll hear that the house is is it um 19 feet wide as proposed. You'll hear about the width of the house during our architect's testimony, but
the house now is 19t wide. It's one room wide and it's not possible to go any narrower. So, we're giving the most setback that we possibly can to be able
to build a house that's functional. Um that coupled with the fact that we brought to you tonight a proposal for a house that would be not only smaller but the smallest we think constitutes enough
justification to find that there's no rest judicata here. I'll go on uh to the Dalmire elements. So, the Dalmire case talks about isolated undersized lots and while um
property owners are allowed and should be allowed to use their property, um there's a requirement that comes out of the Dalmire case which requires the property owner seeking to develop an isolated undersized lot such as this to
send notices out to the adjacent property owners. And the purpose of those notices is to either offer to sell their property to one of those adjacent owners or purchase excess land from those owners which would bring the lot
more into conformity. We've sent those letters. >> Kevin just so if if you asked to buy the other properties or them to sell your the point would your undersized lot would be conforming or at least more conforming. >> Correct. >> Got it.
And we've done that um for a second time because we also did it the first time when we applied last year. Um and nobody responded. It turns out it's all the same people this time around and we sent the letter again this time around. Um I
know uh that they've been received because uh I received the phone call this afternoon from Pat Ma who previously represented our closest neighbor. Um, she appeared at the very first hearing of her first
application to object, but Pat called me to tell me that she looked at these plans and no longer objects and is happy with what we've done. Um, but she did not offer to buy our land or sell us any excess land. In fact, there is no excess
land. So, um, >> did you submit a copy of those letters? >> I did. All right. I submitted them to you, but I have another set that >> mark just mark that as A7. And how many letters were sent? >> Four. >> Four. >> I don't think so because I was on the
phone with Kevin the other day and he asked me to email them to him. >> Okay. >> I could have and I apologize. >> I can do that tomorrow though. >> That's fine. So, we'll mark them as uh collectively as A7 A, B, and C and D.
And you said you did not receive any any response. >> Correct. Only other than only from the one neighbor to tell me she was not interested in buying and she's not objecting. >> So those are my submissions with regard to the issues of breast judicata and the
Dalmire prerequisites. And uh since they're threshold issues, maybe uh do you want the board to decide those threshold issues at this time? >> So Mr. chairman, we can do it a couple ways. Sometimes uh we can make it right off. The law says if we don't address
it, that means it's not sub I mean it is substantially different. So we can either address it right now uh and find it is or it is not uh substantially different or if you want to hear the testimony and do it at the end. Whatever your pleasure is, either is fine. >> Well, why don't we just go through the
testimony and make a decision at the end. >> Very well. Then my first witness is Jacob Morales. >> All right. Good evening, Miss Morales. Uh, good evening. And if you could just uh state your name and address, please. >> When the green button on
>> just just touch it. >> Jacob Morales, 289 South Bridge Avenue. >> Okay. I'm sorry. What was your address? >> Uh, South uh 289 South Bridge Avenue. >> Okay. Red Bank. >> Correct. >> All right. 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? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And Kevin, if I could just ask real from the last time you were here, you had testified that you're the owner of the subject property. That's still the case, right? >> Yes. >> And last time you had testified that you've owned it since about 2024. Is that still the case? >> Correct. >> And the subject property is currently
vacant. >> Correct. >> And it's an undersized lot. >> Correct. >> Okay, Kevin, you can go on there. >> Jacob, um, tell us about what your plans are for the property. So, the plans for the property is to um introduce Redbank to my mom basically. And uh she's
originally from Jersey City, born and raised. I'm originally from Jersey City and um decided to come down here because Jersey City is not the safest place over there right now. And um I would love for my mom just to experience Redbank and how safe it is and how beautiful
honestly uh New Jersey is because growing up it was pretty rough and that was the only New Jersey we knew until I came over here and then seen this and was excited to come to Redbank and then just thought of my mom right away because she's been struggling over there in uh Jersey City. So it' be better for
her. I'm I can't wait to get her down here. I'm excited to if everything goes well to um bring her down here and just have her experience Redbank and how beautiful it is. Honestly, >> I don't think I have any other questions for Mr. Morales. >> Any any questions from the board for Mr.
Morales before we proceed? Okay. >> She has no idea I'm doing this, by the way. This is going to be a surprise to Yeah. Please don't Yeah. Please don't tell her. Yeah. >> Okay. >> I have one. >> Oh, >> just just to to reconfirm last last time
you were here, you said it would the house would be she would be the only one. That's correct. Correct. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. You want to proceed with the rest of your testimony? Another witness. >> We have one more witness. Ed O'Neal.
>> All right. Good evening, Mr. O'Neal. If you could just state your name and business address, please. Edward W. O'Neal Jr. 65 Mammoth Street, Red Bank. >> And do you swear that the information and testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the best your knowledge to help you, God? >> I do.
>> And just for the record, you're testifying in your capacity as a licensed >> architect and planner. >> Okay. And why don't just because we have new four new board members. You've been qualified, why don't you real briefly just set forth your qualifications? And your licenses and certifications are current and up to date and in good standing. Correct.
>> Yes, they all are all in uh they're all current and good standing. And just for the record, you also testified at at the last year's hearing, correct? >> Yes, at both of them. There were there were two. >> Um, want me to qualify myself? >> Yeah, real briefly. >> Okay. U let's see. Uh, as as an
architect, I I hold a bachelor's and master's degrees in architecture. Um, I'm also the head of the architecture program at Brookdale Community College and have been for the last 37 years. Um, I've been in practice since 1986. I've done numerous projects throughout
the county. I've been through before this board dozens of times. Um, yeah, and as a planner, I also have a master's degree in planning uh for University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Uh, I've again appeared before this board numerous times and other boards
throughout the county. >> That's good. Neil, you've you've been in front of I've been here over 18 years and I don't know how many times you've been in front. So, >> so again, >> we'll accept it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Uh
everything is actually compared to use my pointer. Last time I was here before the um the planning board, the TV was there and uh Shauna was the
>> Yes. Shauna was the um uh the person controlling the show and she agreed to do that again because I was unaware that the new screens have been installed. So, and I guess you're looking at a screen that's above there. So, okay. So, we're going to proceed, but um I don't have an
easel because it didn't seem to make any sense to me. >> So, why don't you start with just describing the house that's being proposed tonight? Okay. So, the house being proposed
tonight has been reduced in size. Uh, sure. I'm just going to make sure I get the numbers straight. From it was the last time we we came it was 1875 1,875 square ft and we've reduced it to 1,498
square ft. Uh, it still contains three bedrooms and it has two and a half bathrooms. Um, we have, sorry again, we increased the northern setback from 3.3 feet to 5.1
ft. Um, we reduced the building height from 26 ft to 25 1/2 ft. >> I'm sorry, 26 ft to >> 25 1/2 ft. Um, lot coverage has been reduced from 32% to 28.7%. The rear yard setback has increased from
35 1/2 ft to 37 feet. Um the basement and attic are unfinished. Although um as per Jackie's letter, I've you know I've put together a drawing that shows that that the basement and attic which weren't in the original proposal. So I'm not sure
whether you have that >> and the basement is going to stay unfinished. >> Yeah. So if we um look at this site plan, you can see this is the building in red.
Um it does not have any off- streetet parking. And the reason it doesn't was that in prior applications, the board didn't want us to put a curb cut here and two parking spaces in the front
yard. So, I realize it's a new application, but we took that as being kind of a standing decision that the board had made, even though I know there's new members. Uh, by taking out the curb cut that's here, we have
increased on street parking. And if you look when we look at a few photographs, you'll notice that there's a very large parking lot here. And the lot to the south, we're actually on its back. This is the back of the lot. The house is on
Doctor's Parker Boulevard. House sits about here. This is a house that was converted to an office building. So, it's its parking lot. So, there's constant free parking spaces on street here. And that was determined at the last hearing. So that it seemed to be
the board's pleasure to have this area as green and landscaping as opposed to as parking lot. So that's what we're still proposing. And it was also proposed that the house we had the house set back further so that we could have the parking lot and it would meet the
front setback. The board in the discussions discussed the fact that these houses and most of the houses on the block are closer to the front. So they suggested that we eliminate the parking which we did and we push the house forward even though the house would not
meet the front yard setback. So that's why we need that variance. The other two variances are >> Can I can I interject with a question? So >> based on all of that, do you believe that it's a better zoning alternative to have the house closer to the street and
request the variance for those reasons? Yes, I think it blends lets the house blend in more with the other houses on South Bridge. Um, and I think the elimination South Pearl, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, South Pearl. You live on South,
sorry about that. Um, and the um, uh, I think the additional green space will enhance the streetscape and because of the unique location of the lot, I think that the on street parking spaces, which are always there, will satisfy the needs of the
single family home. And it's it's too narrow a lot to have a driveway go through to the back. That's just not going to happen. It's only 27 feet wide. Um, let's see. Oh, the uh there's a small deck in the
back and these two kind of grayish dot squares would be where the uh condensing units for the air conditioning system would be located. This again, the house that's here is well over 100 ft away from the property line.
>> And was that location chosen with the interests of the nearest neighbor in mind? >> Yes. And and the idea would be that we would provide screening around it. That's why the deck doesn't go all the way across. It stops about 5 ft short and that's more than enough room to put
the two condensing units. We feel it's going to be two condensing units because typically even though the house is relatively small, they typically would put a furnace in the attic and the furnace in the basement to reduce duct work and um it's a more efficient way to
heat and cool a house. So really there are four variances. Two we can't do anything about which is the frontage and the lot size as Mr. Assad's explained. And then there's the 3.1 on this side
here but that faces a yard that's 100 ft deep. And then the other one which we really can't avoid either. We've increased from 3.1 ft to 5 3.3 ft, I'm sorry, to 5.1 ft here.
And so that that gives us the the house. And again, this is a I'll I'll call it a negotiated variance. We we were trying to do what the board was suggesting and after a lot of discussion. So the only one really is are the sides. Now, now I
slip into my planning hat quickly. If we were to do a house that met the sideyard setbacks, the buildable area would be 7 ft wide, which means you can't build on it. And that's where the discussion that Mr. Kennedy just had about reverse
condemnation comes in because you're restricting the use of the lot because nothing can be built there. That's basically that argument. If I go to the
we go to the next page, please these are the floor plans. So you can see that this is the first floor. Uh South Pearl is here. We come up, we have a recessed entrance. So rather than having something overhang,
which increased also lot area, we we recessed it in. And uh now it's done working. Nice. Well, isn't that interesting? So, I'll have to just kind of wing it. Um, if you look at the bottom plan, you
enter into the front door. The living room is to the left. There's a laundry on the first floor. Thank you, Shauna. There's a halfb closet and then there's a pantry because the reality of pantries these days and
Costco and BJs and all that is everybody's got a pantry to put all that stuff in. And then there's a open kitchen dining area and then the deck upstairs. You go up the stairs and there's a master bedroom in the front with two closets and its own bathroom.
two other ba bedrooms and then a bathroom in the hallway in the corner. The logic of the three bedrooms is quite simple if you think about it. If you're moving into a house and let's just say it's a young couple. In this case, it's not, but if you have
a young couple, they move into the house, they settle into the neighborhood, they have a child. Ah, everything's wonderful. They have a little girl, life is great. Then they decide maybe we should have a second. As my father used
to say, an only child is a lonely child. And they have a second. It's a boy. Now eventually that's going to be problem having them in one bedroom. And that's where the three-bedroom typical house comes from. That's where
that program comes from. Nobody builds two-bedroom houses. It just doesn't happen. Those are res those are apartments which are not considered to be things that are long-term. And if you go to the master plan and you look at some of the things in the master plan, one of the things it talks about is
solidifying neighborhoods, meaning having people move into the neighborhoods, stay in the neighborhood, become part of the community, and that's what communities and neighborhoods are all about. So, three bedrooms allows that to happen. And that's why we have three bedrooms, even though Jacob's
mother is not necessarily having a lot of kids there because she's older and all that sort of stuff. The next sheet is the basement plan, which is unfinished. Now, there's a room in the front that's a mechanical room. There's a funny thing
in the building code about this, which is that if you use engineered lumber to for the floor, which we will because it's a better product, you have to fire rate everything in the ceiling of the basement unless you have the mechanical equipment in a dedicated room that has fire
ratings all around it. So, that's what we've done. It's an economy thing. Um the attic you'll see the orange area are areas over 7 foot and it's 184 square feet which comes to
23% of the second floor. So it meets the 1/3 threshold and then the elevations. Thank you. So this would be the front which would face South Pearl. So you can see it's narrow. Um, and then the side, this
that's the side that faces the neighbor with the really long yard, for lack of a better term, the south side. We also tried to fenestrate it as much as we could because that's where the sun is. Sun comes from the south. We have a large distance. There's no shadows. This way, we can bring a lot of natural light
into the house. If you want to think about natural light in ways other than what it does for you physically, it is an energy saving device because if the light comes in, you don't use electricity as much. And if you provide the windows in the winter
like we have it, the house will warm. And if you have windows on the other side, which we do, that'll provide through ventilation in the spring when hopefully this cold staff eventually ends. So if you go to the other two elevations,
so the one with the four windows around the staircase would face the neighbor. So you can see there's relatively minimal fenestration to the neighbor that's 5t away. And again, it's not 5t, it's 5t plus 5t, which is their setback.
And then the back elevation has there's a covering over the door to go onto the deck. And there's window for the bedrooms and in the kitchen. And then the next picture is this was taken in 2023.
So next to the blue house to the left of it, that's the lot right there. Yep. And then you can see to the left, the the other house to the south isn't even in the picture. And I'm standing in the big parking lot taking the picture. The blinds to the north,
those two lots are really the same size as our lot. So we have an undersized lot. At some point, somebody created three of them and built three houses. The house on our lot is long gone.
And then the next photo is just the site plan which you can see we are there we are. And you can see the distance to the south which is the left of the size of the yard. And I think the next one that's just a
photograph showing a little more of the yard. And then if you go to these, these are maps. So our property is the one in red. The green properties are the ones that have frontage even less than ours. So
it's not the only one. The yellow properties are non-s single family uses. So they are multif family uses. So as single families you can see most of them don't comply. The next photo has to do with lot
frontage and nobody meets the lot frontage. That's just not the way it was done at that time. And then the last one has to do with um area.
So this has to do with setbacks. Everything in yellow has a setback variance side. Again, they all do. So we would not be out of character as an approved building
within the neighborhood. We would be in character. And again, we've reduced it down to 14 98 square ft. Um, I know in other towns, not that that has anything to do here, they've attempted to create maximum size
standards, and one of them would be Fair Haven, and they say, well, if you have a four-bedroom house, it the max is 2100 square ft. So, a 300 foot house at 1500 is tight. Workable, but tight.
>> Okay. I don't know whether you want to ask anything else. I think you covered everything. I don't have any other questions. >> Okay. Any questions from the board for Mr. O'Neal? >> Any questions from the public for Mr. O'Neal? I don't see any. So,
>> ghost of planning for its past. >> Thank you. Um, you want to any other additional things you want to say before we look to take a vote? Well, I uh only planned to talk about the uh issues that
we talked about in the beginning. If the board has any questions about that for me, I could field those questions. Otherwise, I'll follow my predecessor and not bore you with
>> Can I just ask one one question? Just um at the last time, was there some again, not that it means, but was there some testimony about Pat Menace's client and you were going to take the stairs off of her property or >> Yeah. And was this exhibit marked that you testified off of or is this part of
what was originally submitted? >> No, that that's what I submitted. >> Okay. It's a new exhibit. Let's mark. >> Yes. New new to this, right? >> All right. >> So, we're up to A8, correct? >> A8. And what is A8?
>> Uh, we'll call it a testimony packet prepared by Ed O'Neal. >> Okay. And on A8 to answer your question on the first page there where it shows the subject property with uh a portion of the neighboring
property that you asked about. There's a note that points to those steps and it'll be page one of that. >> And my pointer now works. I don't know why. >> Oh, well there you go. And the note,
which I can't read from the screen, but I can read it from my page, says, "Existing neighbors stoop to be reconstructed by applicant to be reoriented to South Pearl Street." >> All right. So, right now, the stoop is on whose property? The stoop is fully on
the neighbor's property, but the problem with her stoop is that it protrudes towards the subject property such that when you step off the bottom step, you're now >> no longer on your own property. >> So when your neighbor steps off the bottom stoop, she's on your property.
>> Correct. >> All right. And so you are going to do what? So in a in a agreement with the neighbor, the applicant has agreed to reconstruct and reorient the steps on
her that that serve her house so that a person uh would be walking straight up from South Pearl Street up those steps rather than having to go around. >> And so when the neighbor gets off her stairs, she will be on her property.
>> Correct. and facing South Pearl. >> And what's that other property address? >> Let's get you that. Hold on. >> Yeah, it's Pearl Street, right? >> South Pearl. Or you could say the neighbor adjacent to the north. >> Be a lot.
>> All right. And so you're the if this application were approved, that's one of your conditions. Correct. Correct. >> Yeah. >> Actually, block 76 lot. >> You know what? >> 2.01. >> I can look at my uh can look at my letters. >> Got it. Right. >> Her name is
>> Did we need to address the >> Her name is u Anna George. >> Anna George. >> And the address is 232 South Pearl. >> Okay. So, Mr. Chairman, we have um uh a couple of conditions if the board is inclined. And I guess the first
discussion is is do you all as board members feel this is substantially different based upon all the things that uh Kevin and Mr. Morales and um Ed O'Neal spoke about. >> I'll I'll speak first. Uh yes, I think
you know they made it substantial from the original 2100 down to the 1,800 square feet down to under,500. I think it's basically I think what we even recommended
uh when we denied this that if they came back with something that was smaller that substantially smaller that you know we would look to approve it. So >> on that there, you know, depending on what everyone else feels, there could be
a motion to find that this application that we just discussed tonight is substantially different from the application which was denied in April of 2025. You want that? >> My personal Somebody else wants to speak up
>> from Yeah, it is. Uh just from a number standpoint, it's 20% less than last time which had already been reduced by 200 and something square feet. So to me 20% is substantial.
>> Okay. So So >> So Shauna, can you just do a roll call on whether this is substantially different from the last application? Yeah, I Ray made the motion, I'm assuming. And >> I did make the motion. >> Jean seconded it. Sure.
>> Yes. >> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes. >> Jonathan Gilde, >> yes. >> Hannah Cruz, Paul Kagnel, >> and uh Eugene Horwitz. >> Yes. All right. So, Mr. Mr. Chairman,
now that that hurdle has been cleared, um it's a question of whether or not the board wants to approve uh or deny the application and if it's going to be approved. I have conditions. Uh but I defer to you. >> I would if you would go ahead and read
those conditions before we make a motion. >> Typical conditions would include promises, commitments, and represent compliance with all those promises, commitments, and representations that the team made tonight. Compliance with the housing affordable housing rules, regulations, contributions, and payments if any. Compliance with the uh board
engineer review memorandum, compliance with uh or that deck stair relocation and re uh connection that we just talked about, Jackie, grading and drain details. Is that something now or at building permit? At permit, uh we usually say no light
spillover, compliance with all the building and construction regulations. There's a 24-month shelf life if the application's approved within which you need to get your permits or any extension. Um, uh, let's see. the ba the basement and the attic. Uh you'll see I
can't read my own writing here, but uh the basement and the attic are going to remain unfinished and not utilized as bedroom or >> living, >> second apartment or living space.
And then we talked about um uh with just with the air conditioning, it's going to be new noise efficient and all that good stuff. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. And then screening around the air conditioning. Okay.
Got it. As per ordinance and the testimony and uh we usually say no further expansion or intensification absent further approval, compliance with the building. Uh, no increase in number of bedrooms at absent further approval
from the board. Um, I wrote a joke here, no one's allowed to reach out to Mrs. Morales and and spoil the surprise. Uh, fire rating per code, the two and a half story compliance uh, and uh, the the deck reconstruction and relocation and
that's at your client's expense. They're going to do that. >> Thanks. >> All right. And I think that was the gist of it, Mr. Chairman. Uh Kevin Assadi, are those conditions acceptable to you? >> Okay, acceptable. >> And more importantly, Mr. Chairman, uh are those conditions acceptable to you
and the board members? >> Somebody like to make a motion to approve or deny based on Mr. Kennedy's >> I would like to make a motion to approve it to approve the application. And I'm uh little colloquy here, but I'm very
glad you came back. I had approved I had voted to approve this last time. Mr. Morales, you've taken a somewhat useless piece of property that was sitting there providing no utility whatsoever to the burrow and now creating a house, single family house, which I'd love to see and
wish I saw more of quite frankly. So, I would urge everyone to vote for it. Um, and again, I'd like to make the motion to approve it subject to the conditions that Kevin just outlined. And >> I'll second >> and Tori. >> Yes. got this stuff.
>> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes. >> Jonathan Gil, >> yes. >> Anna Cruz, >> Paul Kagna, >> yes. >> And Eugene Horowitz. >> Yes. And if I could if I could just echo what Paul said and I Mr. Morales, I
admire your perseverance that I love what you're doing for your mom and I hope she is has the best best experience in in Redbank. We put you through a lot. >> I learned a lot. >> Yeah. >> One of these days you guys
bring it to the next. >> Yeah. This hasn't been easy for us either. These are real tough decisions to make and you know we're trying to do the best thing we can for the town of Redbank and and for the resident. So good luck. Thank thank you for coming
back. Thank you. >> Yes, the food is a condition of the approval. >> Okay, motion to adjourn. >> Sorry, we have to do the litigation uh discussion if we could just very briefly. Um Mr. Chairman, we have
discussed extensively in the um uh executive session over the last uh several months about the potential condition u potential uh settlement agreement uh for Whispering Woods with the Outfront Media Billboard application. You all have a resolution
um and that if uh you adopt this resolution, it'll be a resolution conditionally authorizing settlement of the outfront media versus zoning board of adjustment red bank uh litigation case and um uh it would be subject to some of the discussions that we talked
earlier and again subject to with or without the requirement of the four new board members. I'm going to try to say that that's not a requirement and subject to, you know, the the testimony being sufficient at the Whispering Woods hearing and to address all these new technological concerns that that that we
have. Um, but that would be um if that's acceptable to the board, I will report this uh to the uh judge tomorrow during the case management conference. But if it's the pleasure of the board, we could have a resolution to um authorize the execution of this settlement agreement
or the alternative not exe execute the settlement agreement. >> The one thing is can't can't we just tell them no, we're not going to require people to listen 12 hours of tapes. I I I will argue that and and I I I do think
we can prevail and I think also if the judge can sign a consent order legitimizing it because I just think it's just such a different >> Yeah. >> application. Absolutely. >> So if there's everyone can discuss it but as we talked about only the the
first seven board members will uh uh >> right >> actually vote. You know, Kevin, I I had a question, maybe you can clarify it, and it was something that um one of the new board members had brought up um with regard to this data collection and things like that. So, we're not going to hear about that though until the
application for the new sign comes up, right? And then we do still have the right to uh reject that, right? >> Yeah. And I will I will do additional research. I uh just I don't know and certainly the new board members have some information, anything that you
have. I I don't know if that is that technological issue in and of itself >> even exists. >> It even exists or if it's been the subject of litigation and I'm assuming it has not if it's that new. >> Um yes, this is future
>> potential capability for the most part. Right now the um capabilities that I talked about don't really exist. They're not selling it, >> but it it's electronic, right? So, that's all they need to be able to have that capability later for data monitoring,
video, all that. >> Excellent. And and thank you for your expertise. I will definitely uh do some additional research. What I'm thinking is that there probably hasn't been that litigation case that I'm going to find. Uh but if it does exist, we'll we'll find it. And I guess we'll get we'll
learn more about it. I just it's a it's a very good question and it's stuff that no one really I'm assuming not a whole lot of people know about at least you know non >> I >> exactly it's I work in tech that's the only reason
>> so yeah that's why I appreciate that you you're giving us that information and I know Mr. Gild also wants a lot more information about the the targeting and and what they have. So again, all that's up for grabs to get more information on.
>> One question of the 12 hours. >> Yep. >> They they would prefer us to do that because we watch it more likely. I I think they want you to watch it because they feel if you don't watch it,
it would be uh they would be exposed if there was litigation on it. Um I don't feel that way and I will I will check that out. But like I said, I just think because there are so many different factors that I just I don't think it's
relevant and I think it might be a big ass because there's so many different things. But again, if if that has to be, it's not the end of the world. But I just I don't think it's and again, nothing would prevent you all from from doing it. But I just I don't think we
should. So I'll try to push that one. >> Okay. So what do we >> So if if there's no other questions, there would be if someone would make a motion to authorize the adopt the resolution to authorize the settlement
if that's the pleasure of the board. Well, I'll make a motion to authorize the settlement agreement. >> Anor, >> yes. >> Ray Mass, >> yes. >> Greg Fitzgerald, >> yes.
>> Jonathan Gilde, >> no. >> Anna Cruz, >> Paul Kagno, >> Eugene Horowitz, >> yes. Okay. >> All right. And thank you. I know this has been very very intense and uh very
important and I appreciate and I I thank the board members, the new board members particularly for getting on board so quickly and for bringing many new things to the table which is going to make us a better board. >> Before we motion to adjourn, >> may I make a comment on one of the uh
I'm sorry was Bridge Avenue. So, um, in in the Bridge Avenue, uh, hearing, there was, uh, testimony about the gravel lot and, um, the pvious nature of it, impervious nature of it. And, um,
the in Redbank, there's an exception made for, and, Shauna, thank you for pointing this out to me, there's an exception made for uh, one and two family homes that gravel lots are not considered pvious for the purpose of lot coverage.
But um Redbank is kind of an outlier in this case. of the surrounding towns, Little Silver, Shrewberry, Fair Haven, they all do consider gravel to be a per um imperous surface because I mean if you the facts is it is when once it's
compacted um I was learning a bit about how we measure pvious surfaces and not when I was looking into this and um asphalt has measurement of 98 on a T-55 curve and compacted gravel has a 96 to 98. So they're they're almost the same
as as pavement. And um of course this you know for that testimony uh the coverage was not not relevant because as I said there's an exception but um I understand that annually the board recommends uh ordinance changes to the
governing body. And so I just wanted to to note that we should consider u being more in line with the the towns around us and how we consider per uh gravel lots and that they should be considered impervious. >> Perfect.
Right. In this case, it was for parking vehicles. So I imagine it Yeah. end up. Yes. Uh this application was close on lot coverage though and so from that perspective like if um it was considered a impervious service I think there might
have been another variance needed for lot coverage. But to your point, we are going to have at some point an annual review which different towns do it differently. Sometimes we say hey we had you know 25 applications or we met x number of times
and we can at that time and actually our relationship with the burough council is wonderful. So we can do anytime we can say hey burough council you know should you consider this or should you examine this and the other good thing about this we don't have to have the answer you
know uh we can sort of say hey this is something that we think is this something that you all think should be considered good bad or indifferent other towns do it and we don't have to give all the wise we can just say do you want to think about it now whether or not they do that or not but that that's we'll put that on the list I mean unless
and the chairman and the board feel otherwise I We we need things to top the topics to discuss and we should also put on um the future billboard regulations about you know what what the future holds and and does that um need to be
addressed you know >> I agree. >> So Thank you. >> That was a productive