you. Welcome to the public meeting of December 16, 2025 of the Township of Washington Zoning Board. Adequate notices of the meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on December 27th, 2024.
And this meeting has been posted on the township bulletin board, electronic message board, WCTV, and on the township website. Salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Dagustinino is absent. Mrs. Formaldi >> here. Miss Hannah is absent. Mr. Labrada
>> here. >> Mr. Zitkco >> present. >> Mr. Rivera >> here. >> Mrs. Osman >> here. >> Chairman guest is absent. Record. Let the record reflect. Also in attendance are attorney Gary Gantonio, board engineer John Kimmick and board
secretary Grace Kush. >> Public portion. To participate in the general public portion of the meeting. Please click the link on the website and listed on the agenda to join the webinar. You will be asked to state your name for the record. We ask that only one person speak at a time. This public
comment portion is for only for non-aggenda items. Time is set aside later in the meeting to address questions or comments about current agenda items. If you are participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star six to unmute. At the end
of the general public portion, no further questions or comments will be accepted. Motion to open public portion. >> Motion second. >> All in favor? I. >> Anybody in the audience would like to
come up and state anything that's non-aggenda items? Anybody at Zoomland? >> No. >> No. Motion to close public portion. >> Motion. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. approval of the minutes of the November
18, 2025. Did everybody get a chance to take a look at it, make comments? >> I think the only thing I saw in the roll call it said that John was here and Fred was here. >> I don't know if you put absent or
somewhere else, but I just noticed. >> Well, I put um Jeff Morris. You're talking about John Kim >> just in a roll call. Yeah. I don't know if that's if you put somewhere else who's in attendance or not. >> So I put Jeff Morris was here for John Yimik. >> Okay. It says let the record reflect. In
attendance is board engineer John Kim. >> Where do you see that? >> In the in the >> in the minutes. >> Isn't this the Oh, that's agenda. Okay. And then I'm wrong. >> Okay. >> Was there I'm just >> Oh, and I have Fred is
>> You got Fred down? Yeah. I have to get Fred out. >> Fred has to be out. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Because he was absent, >> right? Okay. >> The other the other question I have um in the November minutes because there was a lot of um especially with the applications are all
the numbers accurate. Is there any that I did not have to look at? >> So these are the numbers that were spoken in the hearing. >> Okay. So if they were misspoken, >> then they were misinterpreted.
>> Then I mean I just put what was spoken. >> I don't >> Right. Gary, do you know if like say for example on page two of the new business for the minutes uh all the numbers like the square footages and all that.
Correct. in the minutes >> in in page two of the new business right >> on all >> because that's one thing I wasn't able to check >> when I got >> as far as I know I mean I usually try to check with >> right >> the plans and things you know for actual
numbers or I have my notes what was approved >> okay >> you know but we send it to the engineer and then he looks you know we all try to look and see if we catch something >> yeah I read it and I do recall some of these uh some of these numbers from the
uh from the hearing from last month. >> As far as you know, they're correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then I make a motion to approve it. >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Lrada?
>> Yes. >> Mr. Zitka? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Osman? >> Yes. So the next thing is uh the update information on 891 Manhattan Avenue
and before comment is stated there's a uh in the package there was an email that was addressed from Joe to Mrs. Kish in reference to the 891 Manhattan. So I have a question. Is it
Joe working on this or is it Joe and John working on this or because the last well last meeting it was you were going to follow up in reference to this. So I did >> what's this like who's going to follow up to make sure this is going through
properly? >> Yeah. So on um October 22nd, I sent an email to the zoning officer alerting him to the two accessory structures on the site and uh for him to take appropriate
action with regard to that. Uh that was on the as bill. >> Okay. >> Um I have not since today I've not received a response to that. Uh before this meeting, I sent Joe an email and copied my October 22nd email and said,
"Have you heard anything on this?" Joe responded. He's playing phone tag with the resident, >> right? >> And um you know, he'll keep trying. >> Can I ask a question? How long does it allow something like this to go on? I
mean, does it just continue? I mean, does the board have any say? Does the engineered. Who has any say in it? >> Well, um I'll let Gary refresh. What we're talking about 891 with that's man. Um >> that was one that was approved.
>> We we got the asill, >> right? >> And we found some inconsistencies with the code, >> right? >> The impervious area was grandfathered because they started it >> before they passed it. But we noticed
the two accessory structures. So, uh, I sent that email on October 20th. So, >> the the good news is the zoning officer feels they should return to the board. Uh, that's the impression I'm getting. Uh, but
>> this started because of the driveway. >> This all started because of the driveway, >> right? This is the driveway. And >> he's had he started this three or four years ago, this whole project >> he did. And um, you know, I'll let Grace comment, but you know um, quite frankly,
he's He he just tries to avoid things in that court. But I would counter that by saying we're we're just more tenacious than he is in making sure that this gets resolved. Um, you know, I can't speak
for the zoning officers's tactics or methods to make him comply, but I do know that say in Westwood um they would probably be a bit more um um >> forceful
>> forceful is the good word and basically uh threaten fines >> building department official >> but he's normally >> I'm sorry. So John, let me ask you a question. would in a situation like this require a visit to the to the
applicant's home if if they we're not able to get any any any uh answer from them. >> Um you know that's up to the zoning officer. Um I think the best way to do that is through like a certified mail correspondence and say you know if you
don't act in a certain number of days um you know you'll they'll start instituting fines. I'm sure there's uh fines for zoning violations in our code. Uh if not, they could go to the general fine section of the code. And I know
from experience that uh an applicant in Westwood was doing this for years and they were threatening thousands of dollars and only until they threatened $10 million in fines did the person actually come before the board. And it
quite frankly it all only resulted in uh for that particular case some additional landscaping you know so we we never know what the board is going to want as a result of this. So I you know this person is obviously avoiding
the you know his own fate and you know it would be up to the zoning officer to determine you know the proper way to get him to comply. So I don't know if we have any power over the zoning officer on >> I mean it's an enforcement issue. it is
>> which we don't enforce it but and there's also a question of this whether they need is it about the impervious coverage because it might have been grandfathered and we kind of left it to their determination because they have the factual >> information we we did um but I took it
that the the two sheds are were >> the sheds were different >> yeah and more and and what you can't have two sheds >> you can't have two sheds >> they put a new one on at the time >> they have two accessory structures. They have a >> um I think a per a cabana.
>> Yeah, I think it was a pool house, right? And the shed, >> right? >> And they questioned it and said and asked the zoning officials, >> right? And I got a response this evening and the zoning officer was frustrated because he's trying to contact the
resident and has been unsuccessful. >> So, so let me ask you a question. When we started this process about two months ago, um we the zoning board approved the driveway when everything came up to that as built
and we noticed there was other things going on. The question was that whether it was you or Joe that you were going to go back to the records to see um if it was grandfathered, not grandfathered, if it was approved, not approved.
>> I did. >> So you went that far back. >> Gracious help. Okay. So, it was grandfathered. >> So, the so the sheds were grandfathered. >> No. >> No. What was I I was like the impervious coverage was grandfathered. >> That was a new law that was instituted
in September of 2020. >> So, the impervious coverage was grandfathered from that moment uh from that point on then it became a problem with the two structures. I think prior to that it was a problem with the two
>> and there was no change in the law. >> Okay. So how did how did things get approved back then if the structures were okay. So the only way we found out is with the asbuilt report and that's what started that particular problem.
>> Right. >> Okay. So now according to the email that we received from Joe is that he's been trying to reach the applicant but they haven't gotten together. So um those two structures are still a major still a
problem and you're getting the impression that might be that he may want the applicant to come to this board for an approval. That's possibility. >> Yeah. Um or >> may I ask Grace, are they up to date with their amount of money that they
have an escrow? >> They have a small amount that we are holding. >> The bulk of it was returned. >> Oh, it was. See, now you have a problem as the engineer was held for the driveway. So, and when that was determined, they didn't know about these
other things. >> Right. Hi, Grace. >> 320 38325 is what they currently own. >> Okay. Yeah. >> So, they owe a balance to this. >> Is that in this?
>> Is that That's not passive. >> Um, >> you're saying they >> I I just checked my ARS today. They just came out from the accounting department and it showed three. It's fresh as of today. 38325. There might be something in there. >> I think there's some Yeah, there must be
something new because I didn't think they had anything outstanding, but I'll review it. >> Okay. And then uh concurrently I also reached out to Glenn Beckmire who's township engineer u because the other issue is to make sure that the curve was
constructed correctly. And so I asked Glenn to call me because I want to resolve any confusion who's responsible to make sure that the curb was constructed correctly. I I suspect it was not.
Um Glenn went out there to inspect, but I he only inspected the um the width and I believe my conversations with him maybe six, seven months ago was he led me to believe that it was not
constructed correctly. So that could be another another issue with this resident that it would have to be ripped up and constructive. >> So >> yeah, so John question. So, so the curb for the driveway, there should be an
apron there, right? >> No, it doesn't. It It doesn't need to be an apron if there's no sidewalk. There's no sidewalk at that location. >> Okay. >> Why? We suspect it wasn't constructed. Um, you're supposed to go down 18 in in depth
>> with the curb. Otherwise, it's just going to flake off and crumble in in a couple of years. So, >> we have specific requirements for the depth of the concrete. >> Yeah. And again, I don't know how how
dated these photos are, but you could tell that the in these photos that the driveway was done not too long ago, but you could already see that part of the concrete towards the end is already starting to chip away. >> Yes. Yes. So,
why wasn't the why wasn't the curb brought up two months ago when we had the applicant here? Like, why it's it it was I thought it was brought up that it was he's aware of it.
>> The applicant's aware of it, >> I believe. So, yes. >> Does the applicant here? >> Yes. >> Yes. Well, this is the I'll be honest. This is the first time I'm hearing about the curb may not be properly done. So, I'm a little
a little shocked, I guess. I'm not >> I don't recall that conversation. >> No, knowing this applicant. I'm not No, but I'm just saying we could have done something different on the night that he was here and maybe not approve it to subject to getting it
fixed, >> right? without us because we didn't I did not hear anything about this is the first time I'm hearing about that the curb wasn't done properly. >> Okay. >> If it wasn't done properly, I would have told the applicant, I'm sorry, we're not approving it until this thing has been taken care of >> and that would have been the end of it.
>> Okay. >> Were you talking about the curb cut in the driveway itself? >> Yeah, that it was cracking. It was brought up to him, >> right? But I never heard anything about that current went out to insp. >> Yes, I think you're correct.
So now we need to now we need to fix this problem. Okay. So I guess >> well the good thing is that we can address it now cuz if if if he hasn't been he's been unresponsive to the zoning to the zoning uh director.
You know we could we could actually call him up to come in and then we could address it then. Well, I think I think we need to give Joe a little bit of time to >> right >> see if he can follow up and see get this thing rectified. I think we need to
table it and put this on to January's meeting and then we need to follow >> is going to get hard with winter being here. >> You're right. >> He would not be allowed to do it now. Correct. >> And he would have to do it after say
>> March. April 15th is the date for road opening permits are only allowed after April 15th. That's by that's by code. >> But at least we can get the applicant and get this thing resolved so the project can start if it's
taken care of. >> Yeah. And and like I said, I I have that request into Glenn Beckmeire. So, um you know, I'll talk to him about the condition of the curb. He actually alerted it to me and then I I agreed
with him that that the curb was suspect. You know, they poured it in the middle of the night. They didn't they're supposed to call the town engineer to have it inspected while it's being poured. They didn't do that. So, um
there's, you know, it it's just it's just a neverending problem with this site. >> Okay. So, I think we need to table this till next month's meeting. Um, I think we need to follow up in the meantime with
Joe to see what's the status of this. Um, we also need to get additional monies from the applicant, >> right? >> Um, based on what John has said about the bill >> and also about the internet engineer also, he's going to be looking for some
additional funds. Yep. Yeah. >> Anybody have additional questions, comments on this one? >> Okay. >> Yeah. I don't know. You know, just
comply. >> Okay. >> A motion to table it. >> We'll table a motion to make a table to table this applicant. >> Motion >> 891 Manhattan Avenue to next month's meeting. >> Second. You need to do a roll call or just all
in favor? >> That's a question for Gary. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I always ask roll call. Yeah, >> let's do a roll call. >> Ms. Grimmaldi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lrada. >> Yes. >> Mr. Zitkco. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes.
>> Mrs. Osman. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Next is the uh discussion reference to the 2025 ZBA annual report. Now can you explain a little bit of this? >> Yeah. Okay. So this report has two
components. The first page is like a summary page of the variances that were requested that was approved. A couple were eliminated in the process and a couple were denied. And um the last two
pages is a breakdown of um each each one of these variances. by applications. >> So if I look at this, we did 28 applications this year or was it 22 applications? >> You did uh 28 >> 28
>> 28 variances were requested. >> 22 were approved, three were eliminated, >> and three were denied. >> Three were denied. This is just for you to think about if you want to make any recommendations to the council for changes to the code
and stuff like that. So, this is kind of the draft report and then I thought maybe January if you all comments that might be time to >> bring it up again >> talk about see if you want to recommend any changes to the
>> Does everybody anybody have any comments questions? I think this is more we have to absorb some of what this is and discuss it. >> Yeah. >> And then try to make you know if we need anything that we could >> send to the council. >> So it's a summary of what's been coming
in front of the board type of case >> case out >> and this is how we changed the the garages right the >> Yeah. from the year before >> basically. Yeah. Okay. I realized you had a lot of garages coming up and you
made that recommendation and >> based on this report >> well at the time we weren't I don't think we were doing this the second year that I did this weren't doing the report but now >> we were doing more on specific >> issues in the middle of the year end of the year but this is this is good to
have a summary each year organization >> yeah no it's a lot of work to prepare >> I was just going to say it was a very nice job after doing it for many It's a very nice job. Really? It's very, very nice. >> Is this something that we need to forward over? >> Yes, it does month.
>> Yeah, it does ultimately get forwarded to the council. >> No, but it's something that we should bring up again in January. >> Yes, we should be discussing something. >> Okay. >> It's it's just like a draft kind of at this point and then >> so we'll table this >> discussions and then you all kind of
vote. So we'll table this to next month and anybody comes up with some ideas presented at that meeting and we can go forward. >> Right. >> So I have motion to table it to January. >> Motion. >> Second. >> Roll call. >> Oh, sorry.
>> Roll call or roll call. >> Mr. Mrs. Galdi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Labrada. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ziko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Oza. >> Yes. The next is a discussion in reference to
YouTube viewings. I got this report. I looked at it. I was kind of impressed and saying >> yeah saying that people are actually going on to YouTube to look at listen to us >> just that night though. This is accumulation of that.
>> But it's not that night. Okay. >> That makes sense. I don't think we have >> it doesn't tell me right >> when it just total at the time when did you check that >> when it went live >> last few days before the packet went out which
>> right so as of that date this is what yeah the history of each >> but it tells me that people are actually going onto it and looking >> they're looking at it >> right so couple of questions I wrote down is um and I probably don't know what's the planning board doing because
they're in the situation I looked was less. They were they were less. >> But are they looking to >> I think they're just going to they're not going to change. They're going to stick on stay on. >> They're going to stay. Okay. Yeah. Is there do we have a pricing? >> It doesn't cost us.
>> We we pay for um >> I mean we we pay for uh the time of the technician now. >> We don't pay to put it on YouTube. >> You're doing it anyway for Zoom, right? Yes. >> So, so it's the same thing. What he told
us was it is a monthly course for our meetings, but there's no additional cost to put it onto YouTube and that's going to continue for next year >> if you guys decide that I continue it next year because we were ending it. >> Yeah. Seeing these numbers, I've changed my mind.
>> Okay. >> How long does it stay on YouTube? >> Forever. Take it down. >> Do we want it to stay on forever? >> That's if it's a decision of the board. I don't see it's a matter of public record. >> Yeah.
>> Right. Right. That that was my that was my question is >> more transparent. >> It just makes it easier for a person to look up a meeting that they might have missed and they said, "Oh, somebody said look at this meeting. It's easy to go to YouTube than it is look on the website,
I guess." >> Yeah. They're not. >> Every application is supposed to be judged on its own. It's not right. It's supposed to be because you did this for this one that you have to do this for this one, >> but it's not costing us additional dollars.
>> But it's it's public record, >> right? >> Save Oprah fees somewhere down the road, somebody to something, they can look at it. >> If I may, if somebody has wants to do an application in town, they can get a flavor for how the board acts on certain
things and >> they can get an inference from it. But to your point, it's not it's not a basis for for their own decision. >> So people do believe that it is. >> Yeah. >> Can they take this and put this on Facebook? Do they have access to just
like any other YouTube thing? I mean, >> there's nothing to stop them from doing >> putting it on Facebook or putting up >> right. I mean, it's it's out. >> I mean, realistically, they could take their phone and live and record the meeting and post that, too.
>> I don't know. Just from their phone on on YouTube or Zoom. It doesn't matter. There's nothing to stop them from doing that. I don't really I mean, look, I think every board should desire to be as transparent as possible anyway. So, I don't I personally don't see an issue with it as long as it's not costing
extra money. That would be the only concern I would have >> and and it's not. >> No, there's no extra cost to put them. >> Yeah. Then I'm going to make a motion that we continue it. >> Make that motion. Good. Second.
>> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mrs. Grimmaldi. >> Oh, wait. Excuse me. I'm sorry. For the roll call, do we have to say an expiration date on this till like December? >> What if stay unless we decide we can bring it up as a motion and change it?
>> That's fine. So, it's unlimited. >> Okay. And I can do this next year. >> Okay. >> You know, or maybe at the six month mark and then like every six month, >> right? >> Yeah. We'll bring it up twice a year as far. Yeah, >> you'd want it to continue until the board decides otherwise. Yeah,
basically. >> Okay. Um, Mrs. Grimmaldi, >> yes. Mr. Lrada, >> yes. >> Mr. Ziko, >> yes. >> Mr. Rivera, >> yes. >> Mrs. Osman, >> yes. >> You good? Okay. Mr. Dimick, you're up next.
>> Yes, sir. >> What's the update of the Apple Montasauri? So, um, they're they received their CO. >> They did. >> Uh, we are holding a small bond. I checked with Grace. I believe it's
$5,000. >> Yeah, about that. >> About that for some very minor punch list items uh that remain. Uh, one of them is an ADA certification uh that the township engineer has to
sign to. Um, we we recommend that he sign off on it. Uh, and there were some, you know, very small items um that um were some site items, some changes to
the AS bill. Um they haven't they haven't asked for their bond to be released yet. So we have that money to you know if they don't do it you know we could use that money to take care of these items. >> Performance bond.
>> It it's it's um you know the the law allows to get a co to put up a bond for any items that you're you're missing. Okay. And you know it it's it's extremely few. Um my understanding is
that you wanted to talk about the chain. Well, it's I noticed it's gone. The yellow ribbon or whatever you want to call it, it's gone. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, the question becomes, was there a resolution to that? >> No. >> Was there is there a reason why it's
gone? >> Uh don't know. Um, is it going to go back up? Um, >> is it part of the checklist? It's not. So, so the I'm the site plan is silent on whether it's required or not. There's
no physical barrier required across that emergency access on Lynwood Avenue. >> Should there be? >> Uh, let me try to answer your question. when they installed it. Um, I thought it was a good idea quite
frankly because I had mistakenly tried to pull into that entrance and then when I saw the chain, it stopped me and I said, "Oh, that's right. There's a" and then I pulled out pulled out and I went in the correct entrance.
So, I allowed it. My recommendation to the construction official was to allow it to remain because I thought it was a good idea from personal experience even though the site plan didn't specifically show it. I then got um some concerns
about it from um Mark D. Carlo, the township administrator, and I asked him, you know, is it the fire department? Is it some other some other entity that's concerned about it? >> And I told him what I'm telling the
board right now. I could either take it or leave it. I thought it was a good idea. It's a breakaway chain. It's made out of plastic. And he responded at the fire department had no issues with it. So he was >> has no issues with not being there or be or >> being there
>> with being there. >> Okay. So I'm on the same page. Okay. >> All right. So it ca came as a surprise to me yesterday when Grace reported to me that the chain is now missing. >> I saw it was it was gone over the weekend. I passed it on the weekend. It was gone. >> So uh I would offer to the board that I
investigate the reasons why it's missing have the same conversation with Mr. D Carlo and the fire department because I got the impression that if if they had to choose between the two they they would have wanted it there. >> Especially if there's a plastic chain. I
don't see why it would affect >> anything >> because it's a breakaway chain. Anything anything that goes through a car, whatever, it's going to break away, right? It's almost like plastic. >> Yeah. It's just there as a visual deterrent, >> right? And you're right. It's very important to be there. >> I I think so.
>> So, no issue for emergency vehicles or anything because it's a breakaway, right? >> Because it's a breakaway. Yes. Okay. >> So, um I will I will investigate that further. I will reach out to um Apple Montasauri themselves and you know just
ask a question. >> Is it possible that they removed it for snow removal that not be a place that would be addressed the way it is? >> It's possible for ease of >> that's the only thing I could think of might be but
>> they changed ownership that there was an article. >> No, I think they changed the way that it was owned in terms of a a lease type arrangement for I forget the >> it's complicated. Yeah,
>> it was complicated. >> That's what I was wondering if with >> you know you or >> it was like three entities. >> Yeah, it was it was definitely complicated but I don't think it's actually officially changed ownership. I think it's just structure change. So, it
wouldn't have been somebody decided not to keep the chains and >> Right. I don't I don't think so. >> But the chains were gone before the weekend, before the snow. >> Oh, yeah. >> You would normally do that if it were on a Friday when you have your maintenance staff there. >> I would keep it on the agenda and allow
me to investigate and find out the background why it was revoked. >> So, we'll follow we'll put this on for next month's meeting as a followup. And I you know I I took the impression you were you were questioning why it was there and I said I gave this answer like
two months ago and and now I was surprised to learn that it's now removed. So because I pass it all the time that's that's the problem. >> It's not a problem. I mean that's >> that would be my is they did it just to make it easier for snow removal.
>> But we'll find out, >> right? But if that was the case then they would should have put it back after the snow was gone. Like they could have put it back by now. Maybe a plow did break it or a salter did break it and they never put it back. >> Yeah, it's only possible too. >> It's only a business two business days
since. >> Could leaf could one of the leaf trucks hit it by accident? >> Probably not. >> More likely more likely some property maintenance there where they chose to take it down for the winter. Who knows? That's what we'll have to find out. >> Yeah. Let let Mr. Simick find out and
we'll follow us up again next month >> sooner. I'll I'll send as soon as I find out I'll I'll send it to the board so we don't have to wait a whole month. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Okay. Nothing.
>> Okay. Next one. Uh discussions are regarding the escros and fees. Did everybody get a chance to take a look at this spreadsheet? Y who made the spreadsheet >> Gracie did a great job. Gave yourself a plus. >> Yeah.
>> Plus, we can't give you money. We'll give you pluses. >> Yeah, that's all we can give. Pluses. >> Um, does every anybody have any questions, concerns, comments? Does anybody think we should raise our fees to compensate what needs to be done?
>> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> You want me to go by line item and we can talk about each line? You want to do it that way? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, >> ju just so you're aware, the council did request that the zoning board make specific recommendation, right?
>> So, this is part of our reviewing neighboring towns to get an idea. >> Yeah. They wanted to look at neighboring towns and ask >> so on the zoning board where it says application fee residential unspecified. >> Yes. >> My recommendation is 250 per variance
instead of a flat >> per variance. Right. No. All right. So, how does that work with an existing variance? That's >> it's a non-conforming, you know. >> So, if it's one variance, it's $250. If it's >> But if it kind of exists preconforming,
>> I would I would assume that it would be for whatever variances they are specifically applying for right now. >> Correct. >> New new variants. >> New variant. >> New. All right. Let's say I think that's why the word new should be in there. So 250 per >> but new per new.
>> Okay. >> So what's the base application because we have here 100 to 200. What does that mean? So >> so now what? >> 250 per new variance. So >> so minimum of 250 >> minimum 250. So if applicant comes in and needs two variances, it's going to
be a $500 application fee >> per variance. new not nonconform not pre-existing >> not pre-existing because pre-existing is pre-existing >> okay >> so >> and just a question on that >> what happens with that money for the
application fee >> it's just a fee to the test >> right to the >> I'm just clarifying that for the for my actual question would be that so now we have a meeting where >> we have three variances and through the course of our discussion question. One
of those variances gets eliminated. Is that then refunded for that variance or do we just keep it because that was the basis of the application? >> That's my Mike's statement. >> The latter. >> It goes to the basis of the application. >> Okay. What they're be clarified. That's all.
>> That's what I was think. >> So if they apply for three variants, it's 750. >> They end up only needing two. So they eliminate they still paying 7. They're still paying. >> They're getting an approval for eliminating that variant. >> Right. No, I again I just wanted to
really look into what's being done then. >> I like that answer. I mean >> well let the profession get they're not getting their money back. >> Right. Right. Right. >> But they're not getting the money back if we go from three to two or three to one. >> Right. Both those questions were just to clarify. >> No, no, no. That's good on the application. >> It's a valid question.
>> There's no question down the road. >> Correct. >> That's a good question. >> So under the non-residential/commercial used D variance, I believe it should be $1,000. So yeah, other towns 1100 >> residential commercial news D.
>> Is that enough? >> Is that a Is this in addition to any application fee or >> what what were the other towns for that? Were they all in the same ballpark or >> you want I have a Hocus is a thousand. Oriel is
500. Primus is nothing. Emerson's anywhere from 4 to a,000. Westwood's 500. Richwoods five to a thousand each. >> What is yes commercial >> devar >> devarian? >> So I know that but but it says it's commercial non-residential
>> I mean >> to keep it to one page I kind of had to ask. So some towns differentiate between residential commercial. We don't. But that's why the whole class. >> Okay. >> That's why it's like that because some of those towns do differentiate between
residential. >> So in theory on this line, a a residential could fall under it for certain >> if it's a D. Yeah. >> Like a high varian >> multif family. >> Okay. >> Yeah. And you you also got to take into
consideration just looking at the and again this is my my observation from between the towns of Ho Hocus, Emerson and Ridgewood there. Those towns are are are heavier
in commercial use space than Township is. >> Right. >> Orange. >> I mean I'm almost thinking a thousand isn't enough. >> You think it should be higher? >> I think it should be 1500 quite honestly. >> I agree. I agree. I agree. It should be 1500.
>> What does everybody else say? >> The council object because when they first came with all of the applications and that was a lot higher when the council actually talked about it, they said, "Well, they have to be similar to what our neighbors are, you know, >> and that still keeps,
>> you know, and again, I think because we don't see a ton of those >> is the main reason. I think it should be a little bit higher. really again make people consider especially non-resident or especially residential height variances and stuff we really try to avoid.
Um, so I think that's a big, you know, again, 1,500 for for a product, >> but considering we've never charged for it, >> right? >> That's true. >> It would be less of an argument that people could make if we kept it within what our neighboring towns say a,000,
>> right? >> The high end of what other people charge, >> right? >> So what do you think 1,000 or,500? >> Well, you know what? to that point that we can't we can't get argument if we keep it at a thousand because we we could just simply say that's what everybody else charged
>> you know >> right yeah >> so you know so you know what you do you try for a thousand see what happens and next year we go and review it again we see what we took in the applications and we find out if we're right or wrong >> yeah and and that's another thing it's based on the volume right you know that's why those other towns have more
right >> so we go off our far range in the future if we see a lot more of those coming in >> if you're if you're asking for a dev variance you're asking asking for a big gift, you know, you're asking for all, >> right? It's >> that's not a typical, you know, 2in side
diminish that, you know, it's a change of use that's not permitted in the zone >> or anyway >> or it's variance, which we really want to avoid. >> Either did two or three. >> One second.
So I mean a thousand seems in line with >> others. >> If you also look at you look at the hybrid here there's the hybrid town here which is pramis knowing that pramis is had a commercial booster there. >> All they did they looks like they just
bundled it all all up into one from 250 all the way to 550 to 5500. >> Yeah. >> Right. Her application goes up to 5500. They're addressing a lot >> in that. I mean I had a commercial one application in parameters not that long ago and yeah they're they're hitting you
with everything. They have a signed committee you're spend I mean it's very that John you know they are very um detailed orient in terms of requirements just to get in front of the board a lot of >> it takes months and months from what I
>> so if you look at the report that Grace did the 2025 annual zoning report we actually did three this year and we turned them down so we don't get that many >> so I'm thinking >> application >> right So, I'm thinking, you know, maybe
the $1,000 is a good way to start. >> Yeah. >> And then, like I said, we we look at it down the road and if it needs to be adjusted, we adjust it next year. >> Yes. >> I agree. >> Everybody okay with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. And the price per variance, I said
yes. So, that's how Right. Okay. >> I think we all kind of just agreed to that is a,000 per var. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Tell me when you're ready. You good? >> I'm good. >> Okay. So, on the escro deposit
residential/unspecified, I said 2,000. That's my opinion. Two grand. >> Yeah. And I I mean, we're already in line with most of them. So, I wouldn't disagree with with that given the increase in costs >> because I escrow for engineering
separate from this >> or is it all included? >> I think it's >> because to me it doesn't seem enough. No, it doesn't either. >> Doesn't seem enough. No, I would because if he had his own because I know don't they did they tell me your mechanics? Don't they pay something directly into an escrow specifically for engineering?
I thought there was something with with that that I saw. >> Not unless un not unless there's language to that effect say like in a developer agreement, >> right? Okay. >> Where where it specifically does >> this is basically for your planner, right? Your engineer.
>> Yeah. Yeah, this is not >> your attorney and your notices. >> But but planners always only involved with the Dvar, >> right? So there's >> But these notices are paid by the applicant, not us. >> No, the town. Oh, the town notices and not a lot,
>> right? So like 17. >> Wait, wait. So So wait a second. The planned, the engineer, the town notices, and who else? Oh, the attorney. Well, here on a typical >> residential, do we typically exceed the escrow and require them to up it?
>> Yes. >> And how how much do we usually end up? >> We usually end up around 3500 >> of what they owe at the end of that's what I'm saying. Like >> so does it make sense then to just increase that to three so we're covered?
If we're going to spend it anyway, might as well collect it up front >> and they get it back whatever they >> and it is refundable. >> Yeah. And not only that, but when whoever goes in front of talks to the council about it, they have to be told just like what you said. That's how much money is. You have to show them we're not chasing them.
>> I mean, and this is on average it's about 35. >> And again, they're only responsible for the cost incurred. Everything else gets refunded. So, it's really that's what it is. It's a >> it's not a specific fee. And like you're seeing John reaching out to these different people. Sometimes I have to do
things. >> Who are you billing? John >> and keep it close without going over that really >> because we don't want to have to refund money because that's a pain on the accounting side. >> Yes. >> But we want to get it close. So if we're spending 3500 most of the time if we
make it 2750 or three it'll eliminate most of the refunds but we're not chasing them for thousands of dollars. We're chasing them for 500 or 600. >> Yes. I mean, >> yes. Well, so for someone who took two years to get paid on an application, I always say it's never enough,
>> right? >> But the the finance part of it, it is a pain to do refunds, too, because then it's got to go to the council, get approved there. So, we want to come close, but not go over wherever. >> So, how about 3250?
>> Well, I was thinking round it at three and $500. Almost anybody can come up with $500. >> Yeah. Keep it at 3,000. Does the board want to do 3,000? >> Yeah, I think is fine. >> Is everybody okay with three or 30? 30 3,000. >> Okay.
>> Like to add that people really appreciate the transparency early on knowing >> I agree. >> It's going to be 3,000. Collecting a thousand and then I got ask for another, you know. >> So, hold on a second. So, let me ask you this question. Do you feel um
if we do if we did collect 3,000 and down the road you got to call them up and say you know what now you got to pay another five or 750. Would you feel would you feel >> uncomfortable doing that or do you think we should collect let them refund? >> I do it all the time. Um um
>> I'm trying to take some of the >> some of that away from me. So I would ra I understand what Kevin's saying about you have to go to the council get approval send out the refunds but I would rather have more than less >> because again
>> what if we have to collect more the only way we can hold >> the only only thing I can think of that we have in our ammunition is if we need to give them let's say a co or permit or whatever that's the only thing that's going to say pay us and then we give you
what you need. But >> on every application, >> right? But I'm just saying if we if they have everything, what's our what's our ammunition to get it? >> Do what you're supposed to do to get your money back. Like maybe there's conditions that you haven't, you know, it gives them some chasing,
>> right? So what would you rather, what would the board rather do? >> I would go to 35. >> What's everybody consensus? What about doing, you know, some kind of um do some kind of formula where there's a low and a you
know, high like the per variance 250 per variance. Is there a way? >> Well, I think the work's still the same for the most part. >> It works the same because if you look at Ridgewood, they do a they do their escrow is four times the application fee
>> and we do it already per variant. So, it pretty much equates to that. The only thing I can think of, Diane, is because what happens if Gary and the engineers involved and their bill rents are going up or whatever and their bills are much higher than we
anticipated when the application was taken in, we're going to be it's going to be short no matter what. >> Yeah. >> To be very honest with you, if the engineer decides to go up in the new year or the year after or whatever% >> that's for right there, you just said it
right. Even the simplest application could be something like Manhattan National 3500. >> We haven't changed it in a while and you're probably not going to change it for a while. >> People
and I think Grace could u agree with me on this. People are more giving at the beginning of a project than at the end >> rather than at the end. >> They don't have a choice >> because because at the end >> the money's gone. >> The the money's gone. a contractor
promised him it would cost this much in the beginning >> when 10% overcome this much >> and he would most be done this time and it's two months later and he's still not done >> and and it's like pulling teeth unfortunately was president >> yeah and all that and and you know what
I I agree I've especially it myself so time any of these fees were changed you happen to know >> oh my I you know I did know at one point it was like >> at least 10 years ago >> oh my god it was in the 90s in the 90s. It's never been
>> I remember 90s I think when that thousand happened >> and and you know there there might be a part of you that feels guilty about charging this month to these residents. But I would counter that by saying you
should be able to do your improvements within within of zoning. It should not have to be >> once you deviate from that then you have to pay the price to do that >> change you're asking to change our >> right
money so I don't have to keep chasing them >> right I'm just I'm just going to try to avoid the the extra work on the other end too so it's a balancing act but if everybody's rates are going to likely go up this year then >> they they do >> it's worth it to go up
>> they have a right to go up >> yeah yeah >> engineers and >> and now that we're on that topic, we right away just looking at this one, you know, for the commercial part, I would just put it at 5,000 myself, you know. >> Well, yeah, that's easily that's the next one, right? So, the commercial use,
I recommend 5,000. >> Again, it's escrow. It's not a fee. >> No, it's all money involved. There's more work on the engineer. >> What do you have fees? And again, we don't have many, so there's not too much to compare
it to. But do we know what the fees were for, say, the Montasauri that came out of escrow? Did we have to get extra from them? >> Yes. >> Yes. And how much extra? I mean, is 5,000 enough or is 7500 a better number for that?
>> Well, if you look at rehearsals are usually going to be more expensive. There's a lot more involved. >> More than 20 20k for Apple. Is it that? >> So, there's a ton. So, >> but but if you look at but if you look at the report, look at Pamas, they do 11,000 and up and we're only asking for
five >> say 7500 or even 10 is worth it for a commercial because there's going to be >> Can I go ahead? >> No, go ahead. >> So, um you're you're categorizing this as commercial >> and you right >> and and you according to this
>> Okay, I don't have this in front of me. So, for multifamily, >> uh this would be included. I believe the municipal land use law states that for these types of applications uh before the application comes in, the
clerk is supposed to ask each professional based on plans how much of an initial >> right >> that they require rather than a flat fee. So if I have a Dvariance in say five units,
that doesn't cost as much as a Dvariance and 20 units, >> right? >> Uh and depending on where it is, if it's near a signal, we have to do more traffic. If there's flooding issues, we have to do more engineering. So the municipal land use law for those types
of uses commercial and and multifamily or D in this particular case for Washington Township. They give us all the planner, myself and Gary an opportunity to opine how much uh
we need for them to post. So but at the end of the day it could be 10,000, it could be 12,000. That's what commercial and devariances we're being talking about >> right to say uh bring up a bad subject but the season I mean it's a lot of you
know there's multiple meetings definitely with a devariance right almost all the time there's more than one meeting and the bigger it is the project >> can we do a minimum of 7500 and a maximum of 20
>> based off of the engineers >> I I wouldn't put a maximum because we don't know tax. >> Exactly. >> Well, nobody else. Yeah. Right. So, >> it the way the ordinance I don't know >> or say an additional is as determined prior to by the engineers. Look what
Emerson does. >> You can't be >> Emerson. We could we could copy Emerson. >> Emerson does by estimate to 5K minimum. >> Minimum. I think that's the way that we should word it. It'll be 5K minimum and it'll be by estimate >> 7500 minimum. >> Yeah. But the but the problem Yeah.
Whatever. Hold on a second. You John, >> I understand what you're saying about you'll be looking at the plan to see what it you think it might cost. But if the applicant, let's say, wants to get on to the January schedule, right?
And they give the information to Grace in December, 10 days before the due date, right? 10 days. >> You say give the information. Well, the application they're not deemed complete until they post the escro.
>> So, that means they would have to hold up until it was reviewed by both you and Gary in order to get on. >> Grace gets the application in. As soon as she gets the application in, she sends an email. >> Okay. The
>> planner Gary and I and say, I want your I need your response in in two three days. How much do you need for this application? We tell her the amount. She tells the applicant, "You have to post whatever that amount has to be in order to be deemed complete. You're not
complete until till you post it." >> And that would be the Emerson. >> How do we word it? Start at a minimum and go >> to the professional by estimate. >> By estimate. >> So minimum of 7500 >> by estimate. >> No, by estimate. >> No, I would just
>> just by estimate. I would leave out the dollar amount and just put down by estimate and then it would be reviewed by the various people to come back to Grace and say we need X dollars and that's what we need in order to complete the applicant >> by estimate and have a minimum.
>> No, because I'd rather do I'd rather not do a minimum because if it if the estimates No, because what happens if if they give Grace a check for five grand and all of a sudden it gets reviewed and now you need 20,000 that means she has to go back to the
check until they know. >> If the engineers say it's going to be 5,000, the minimum still 7500. If the engineer says it's going to be 10,000, they got to do 10,000. >> Oh, you're saying you're saying if it's below what it is, >> you're putting up a minimum amount regardless whether
>> and I see many commercial projects that are going to be less than 7500. >> That's that's a lot of most of most of the commercial projects are a lot of work. >> All right. So, I like the idea with the 7500 minimum and then by estimate.
>> Yeah. And again, it's escrow. They'll >> buy estimate and then >> So, does it So, is it okay? Does everybody agree like $7,500 minimum and then put hyphen by estimate? >> Yeah, I think by estimate first. >> Yeah. Like Emerson.
>> Just like by Okay, so by estimate 7500 >> minimum minimum >> minimum. Everybody okay with that? >> Yeah, I'll go with that. >> Okay, you're okay. >> That's for commercial multif family and D. >> Is is that okay with you guys? >> Yeah, definitely. >> I mean, we have very little everything.
Yeah. I mean, we have nothing, right? Yeah. >> Right. This town has always So, what is the what is the what is the practice or turnaround time? Is it is it are you governed by two to three days once you get the email from
Grace or what is your commitment back to us to make this happen? >> Well, not commitment. What's the requirement? >> Okay. What's the requirement then? Requirement. >> Is there a requirement? Is there a law? You know what I mean? Is can you take a week? Can you take a month or you have to do it within 48 hours?
>> I I think I think it's it's silent. I from what I remember all I know is that um it's just in terms of when you get the application like I go to fair one I give them application they get back to me a month later with how much
>> No how much the professionals have timewise to get the information back if we could charge the proper amount >> right >> well that's what I'm talking about that's what I'm talking about like I applied to bear lawn zone board they don't give me any I had to wait a
month before they told me how much the fees are and how much >> the escro was >> because it's a busy board and they were talking as an applicant >> as an as I didn't get to I guess somebody had to tell them in
40 48 hours >> so you said the magic word they're a busy board so look at paramis they have a flat fee because they're a busy board and you might be waiting a month for the engineer to get back to on how much you know by the time he looks at it. This is
not a busy board when it comes to commercial variance application. >> It's a different town, different >> and and Oakland where I am uh it's not busy with commercial but we're very vigilant. We get back to the escrow clerk and I've been doing this for seven
years within a day or two. Okay. >> And everybody gets back, the planner, uh the the attorney and I and it it works. I I would say if we were getting 15 applications, I would say that's a little bit different, but we're not, >> right? >> So, I would think that the
>> the time getting back to us be much better than let's say the paramas. >> Yeah. >> So, I like the idea >> purpose is to keep us from chasing them for money. >> Right. And Right. Because it's a pain. >> Yes, it is. And I mean, granted, a commercial is going to have more
incentive to pay that because they can't do anything with that property until they get their CO out. >> That's right. >> But at the same time, it's it takes time to to call someone and say, "Hey, you're you're out of escrow. We need another deposit." >> With with Apple Monostory, um towards
the end there, poor Grace was like emailing them for like six weeks. >> Yeah. >> And I I kept shaking my head, these people are not going to get their CEO. And and sure enough, at the at the 11th hour, the check showed up like about two weeks before in a in in August to show
>> because because we had something to hold our gloves on. >> No, because they couldn't open, >> right? That's what I'm saying. >> And they needed to open in September for >> September when they were opening. >> Waited until some of the the pre-eposits came in. >> But that's the reason why I want to make
sure we collect enough in advance because we may have a problem with Manhattan, let's say. >> Yeah. Well, residential, they don't necessarily have as much of an incentive. A business can't open until they get their CL. So, they have more incentive there, >> but you're not supposed to be able to
live in your house if you >> Well, if you make an addition modification, they're already there. >> You're still living there during the project. >> I've seen cos rescended for lack of escro >> and they should be. Well, I mean, it's in our resolution. >> Every resolution. No, I've seen it in
Oakland. >> Yeah. If they don't, the resolution says if they're not, >> if they're not following the conditions of it, they're >> there could be grounds for the resolvo revocable revoking the CL. >> Okay. >> And permits that were granted.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's in the resolution. >> So, we okay with the commercial use? 7500. >> Very hard for that. >> Minimum. >> Yeah. >> By estimate. >> By estimate, 7500 minimum. >> Everybody's okay with that? >> Yes. >> Okay. And just to clarify, the residential unspecified escrow is 3500.
>> 3500, >> right? Okay. >> And then Grace, tell me tell explain what this enforcement's all about. >> So, so the enforcement is what happens if they don't pay? What some towns will we'll put a lean on the property? Some towns put the application on hold first
and then dismiss it. You know, we don't have, you know, I mean, we'll put it on hold, but we don't have it in our code. Some towns actually say this in their code. >> So Gary, what's what can we do as a board if they don't pay? >> Well, we can't do anything. >> Okay. What the town,
>> right? What can we boards put on hold? Some put leans. Some >> I'm guessing all of these are possible. >> I mean, what does it mean by put on hold? >> Yeah. >> The applications on Yeah. >> anything, right? Yeah. And that's and that's usually a bigger like the smaller
ones not so much. The bigger ones though that's you know it's on grace to be okay vigilant and we have enough escro. Oh we don't have enough escrow. They're not coming off. >> They're not coming up. We're going to carry it to the next. Okay. So >> I think that's what hold.
>> Okay. So we're going to Okay. So >> but sometimes have a formal where >> I think dismiss the put it on hold and then dismiss the application. My suggestion for this >> shared go. >> My suggestion for this would be to
recommend to the council that we come with some enforcement mechanism, but I would leave it up to the council to decide what that may be. >> I don't know if they >> No, I I to us. No, I like I my opinion is that >> as these applicants are coming to us and
we find out from Grace that there's not enough money because it's been used, I believe that the until the applicant gives us more monies, their application stays in limbo. >> But by the time if we're if we're making these other changes, >> go ahead.
>> They will have paid the escro deposit that we just specified based off of whatever, >> right? They're going to have started the project before they run out of escrow and need to do anything at that point and it's already out of our hands at that point. Then it's in the building department's hands.
We're not going to >> It's only really an issue when an application is denied here because then there there will be bills coming in and they've already been denied. So they don't have any or desire >> right >> to keep up with their esco at that point. So that's really the situation
when that's >> or ones that go multiple meetings and again meetings >> and and state law says when that happens the municipality is is responsible to pay the professional >> right if they can't collect it
>> right and which then becomes a a budgetary thing for the town and the council which is why my leaning was towards saying let the council decide how they want to enforce it because in the end it's going to be their responsibility for the finances if the engineer don't get paid. >> I have a question when it comes to this.
Now, do they have to have the money in a specific time period to Grace if she says there's not enough money before they can come to this meeting? >> So, in Oakland, they've instituted within the past year, the clerk does an
escro review a week before the meeting. >> I was going to say, okay. and it's an agenda item that specifically says escrow report and when she puts it out if there's a deficiency it's flagged and the chairman says you
know you need to contact this person and they need to be current within the next week before the meeting otherwise they will not be heard >> and this is >> so so that's the control that the board has >> being current for every meeting
you have to current for every meeting. >> I review them >> like two weeks before the meeting or or or soon, you know, farther out and I'll ask to have the check a week before the meeting because I want to be make sure it's >> clear and and all that. >> The applicant doesn't send you the check
then they don't go on >> and they don't come for us. to see applicants bring the checks to the meeting and see that's not good either because if they don't bring the check you're sitting at a meeting that >> and the boards that I've ever seen here bad and then they hear them anyway which
>> right right the problem matters is it hasn't gone through the banking system in order to determine if that going to get paid >> that can be put on hold until the next >> but I mean the only time >> to have their money within a week before the before the meeting that they're going to beard.
>> Yes. >> Yes. That's what Grace does. >> Yeah. My hand a week out. >> Grace often. >> That way you can check with the professionals right closer to the meeting in terms of what are the what bills do you anticipate or you know maybe John didn't submit a bill yet?
maybe you know >> we I go I go on um after the meeting for resolution compliance and that's probably the toughest part because um you know the only controls we have at
that point is basically the CO you know and and it's you know we basically making recommendation to the building department you can't make you can't issue a CO until I get paid >> so I mean we're looking to have sufficient minimum escros goes
>> in addition to that it's >> post approval whatever and then talking with John as to what is typ you know to make sure that by the time we get to where we're going to vote on it we're not we're up to date and also knowing what is going to be required post
compliance right post resolution so what is the recommendation >> so that we're not so you're not asking for more money down the So it's a minimum amount that you have but it's also as it's ongoing >> it is right I mean it's not perfect but
having higher minimums that will be less chasing I think so maybe that might resolve >> that should >> yeah with 3500 um esco deposit >> um it's much less of an you know if that
comes into being it's the enforcement I think would be much less of an issue because you think it's it's more than enough on an average basis. >> We made the minimum where it should be adequate. >> Okay. >> Should be in most cases. >> And if we find that routinely it's not, then we'll have to have the council
address it, revisit to increase it, right? >> We'll leave it alone. >> And I mean, if you're coming up, it's usually when there's multiple meetings, but if we're coming up or we're going to vote on this, you're checking >> what's there and then it's not just checking what that there's something there, but anticipating and that might
be a question. So that's yeah >> to you know >> I have a question. We have an area in the back of our books and it tells >> Grace you know what they have to actually send in what they're uh the
checklist. I think maybe if we get a chance we should look at the checklist because I think she needs to really update that. I mean for your purposes so you're not because it says 10. You need more than 10. Correct. And there are certain things I have looked at it and I think that this board really needs to
look at this checklist and update it >> and it has been we're talking about should probably be on there. >> Yep. >> You will not be heard if escrow is not >> Yeah. Some of these things in here have to be updated. They're not updated where it could be incorporated in here. And this would be helpful to Grace so that
she's not having to, you know, they see it. If they have not checked it off or she has not checked it off, guess what? It's over. you know, I mean, if it's not there, it's not there. And people have a better understanding than if they for some reason they're not bringing in. I mean, I see all these applications and
they're not bringing in all this paperwork. And then I was looking at this and there is some that I think this is an old one that when I was still I mean, it has it has been around a while. >> I can't imagine there's many applications where they exhaust the
escrow before the the application has even been approved. >> Right. So holding the application really doesn't do much in 99% of the cases. Maybe an application like 660 Pascat might because that was a long drawn out application, but we're not going to see
a lot of them. >> No, you're not going to see a lot. >> Okay. So we'll leave it alone. >> The higher escrow. Yeah. >> So I would just say council decide if they want to do anything or not. That just say, hey, look, this is something that's out there. If you want to take action on it, feel free, but the board's not recommending that we do anything specific.
>> So what is the We won't even put it on hold. I I would I would leave it alone. I just >> We Well, we have it on hold. That's right. Leave it the way it is. >> Leave it the way it is. >> But again, it's not going to happen unless it's a huge application where but the board has the option to put an
application on hold if there's, you know, escrow is correct and that's how it is now. So, so no change unless the council decides they want to do something different. >> And here's what other >> So, Grace, what's the process to present this to the council? This has to be revised with a letter sent to the
council. Play around with it. >> Write this up in a schedule. >> Okay. >> And I'll bring it to the January meeting. >> All right. So, you want to Did we hit every >> We did. >> So, maybe just recap it. >> Vote on it. >> So, you want me to go over again? >> Send it in.
>> Just just recap what we So, basic. So, so let me just go over the numbers so everybody is on the same page. Under the zoning board for the application fee for residential unspecified, we're going to go $250 per new variance. On the non-residentidential/commercial
use D, it's going to be $1,000. And the price per variance is going to be a yes. >> Well, do we have to put that on top then? 250 per if you're going to put yes for >> Well, you say where it says the column says Washington Township and it says 100
to 200. >> Yeah. So, we're going to put $200 $250 per per new. And then a price per variance is going to be yes. >> Okay. >> Right. >> And then under the escrow deposit for residential unspecified, it's now going
to be $3500. And the commercial use is going to be by estimate $7,500 minimum. >> Right. >> And then the enforcement is going to be put on hold or left alone. >> Right. Okay,
>> that's good. >> Everybody's okay with that? >> Good. >> Good. Okay. >> Now, let me ask the attorney. The board make up this checklist. It do we have the power? I mean, I did with
the last attorney that I had. We sat down and we did the checklist. So, they have the this board has the authority. Correct. I mean, >> or our checklist. >> Yeah. It's your checklist. Okay. That's because I really do think that maybe we help update. I think that'll help Grace a lot. >> Do you have that checklisted?
>> It's we have it in the back of the way there, but it is quite old. >> Yeah. Well, she can make copies of it and then we can go over >> send out copies. >> Yeah. I mean, it's >> email them to us. >> We spoke about things in the past, but maybe we can go over that in January.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. That's a 2026 y >> new item. Right. >> And I think we can use the recommendation of the, you know, the engineer and the attorney and I think it'll help. >> Okay. We're good. Everybody's good on that so far.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Good. Okay. Old business. Resolution ZB25-9 through approval of the application of Jessica Leveski- Rex for an addition and authoration to
637 Valley Court block 3201 lot 14. So again I'll go back to Gary and John. Are all the numbers and are they all accurate? I have a lot of questions.
>> Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh the soil movement calculations and storm water management calculations were they submitted? >> No. No. Nothing yet. >> Nothing. Okay. All right. Uh >> oh, wait. Um this is
>> 637. >> No, they have not. I I got one today, but it was uh an old but goody by you by Jefferson. Um, it was also Mr. uh Gorenstein testified that he did not have a
topographical survey at this point. Do we have a topographical survey at this point? >> I I have not received any new documents for this application. >> Okay. >> And I saw in Jeff Morris's notes something to the effect that um the
board wanted revised drawings for this. >> Correct. >> Right. Well, that's what I'm saying. You have a resolution and >> No, I have >> I don't have any stuff. >> So, do we hold the res? >> This is McAfee represented this applicant, right? Grace, you didn't receive anything.
>> I have not received anything. >> Okay. >> So, let's look at any corrections on this, but then we'd be within our right to table this until the D points are received. >> That's correct. Yeah. Yeah. >> But let's make sure there's no corrections in the meantime and get that out of the way.
Unless you just want to wait until everything >> I I checked the conditions of approval against Jeff Morris's notes and the only comment I had was it said that we needed revised plans. So, and we haven't received them. But I checked all of
these. I checked the numbers and they >> I would just say >> they agree with what Jeff's notes said from the meetings. >> Just a spelling error. In the of the conditions, it says the board instead of the board. Yeah, I just see that now. >> Yeah. >> Um,
>> which the >> I mean it says the best >> I haven't seen accurate. >> Yes. >> Yeah, I checked the plan and um I checked his notes and I checked yours and they all they all
>> Is there a grading and drainage plan? Did you see >> has not been submitted? >> And I'll make the motion we table this until all the requested documents. so many things that I >> Okay. >> All right. I also have a question before you even do that.
>> There is hypothetically there's two variances and then there were two pre-existing. So that's like four four variances on this property. I'm just wondering how many variances
does this a board actually give someone for a you know a house? So, >> I mean, if you know, you bought your house and now they're just getting I don't know how many variances back and forth. I mean, is there a maximum or there is there a minimum or none of the above?
>> And if it's none of the above, that's >> I think we're question that into consideration. >> As a as a as a board, we're our applications are based on each person. If we're when the people come to us,
they're basing on the current variances what they need to get the project going. If they have an existing variance, that's that's in the past. We're only looking at current. >> Well, no, we see the existing, >> right? But we see it. But
>> and then we have we've done where we've requested somebody to correct one variance. The the guy whose wall went onto the neighboring property was another one. Uh you try >> so you balance it out by saying okay >> but you try to correct you try to
correct what was >> wrong >> previously wrong that can be correct >> right but the main what what I think you're saying is that >> we're only looking at the current application for the current variances that they need today if we can fix
something of the prior we can but we can't hold up an application because of a prior >> no Okay. So then we could do >> we base our approval of these new variances off of give and take >> and correcting if there's something that can be corrected. That's right. And if
it can't be corrected, then it's their their professional's responsibility to say why it can't be corrected. >> Yeah. Because this one says here there there's a non-conforming minimum rear yard setback of 26.3 feet where 30 feet is required. So that's >> pre-existing. It's pre-existing.
pre-existing and it's not going to house >> like the house on the um the corner of with the fence that they just fixed. You know, if that house back then was built 5t >> all that fixed. >> Not the point though. Uh but just to describe which house I'm talking about.
Um if that house had been built like you go to Tapan, New York, some of those houses that were built in colonial times are two feet from the front street. >> They're not going to fix that. You can't make them lift up their house and move their whole house in order to give them an extra patio on the back >> there prior to the ordinance change.
>> If it's something that's correctable like a fence or a retaining wall that that could be fixed, those are the kind of things we ask for. Yeah. >> I was just bringing up the fact of of you know how many variances that people
come >> and nowadays it's not quite the same. They used to come from one variance and be afraid that the board wouldn't give it to them. But it's >> now they come with two, three, four variants and they go, you have to give it to me. >> Well, we don't have to give anything to anybody. >> And that's take it on a case by case
basis. And it's really, I mean, look, there's a lot of houses that were built differently than they are now with regards to where they sit on the property and what's usable and what's not. And the real goal behind all of it was really just to prevent somebody from taking a house, filling their entire property with the house, and have no
yard. >> Well, there's quite a few town houses in this town just like that. Yes. >> And that's why most of this was really addressed in that respect uh with setbacks and everything to prevent that from happening. >> But you can't control what was done 20,
50, 80 years ago, that is what it is. No, but what I'm saying is if somebody's given the variance already, if they've had a variance and they've been given that variance and now a new homeowner buys the house and doesn't bother, you know, nobody tells anybody. >> Seriously,
it's not a house built in 1930 or 40. >> It was modification for the ordinance >> 10 years ago. If you're talking about application where 10 years ago they were granted a use variance or some type of variance and now someone else or maybe it's coming again, you could take that
into consideration, you know, I've seen other towns do that. They say, "Look, >> yeah, that's what I'm this property has been granted all this before and now you're coming at >> the one house that was approved by or the garages in the back and now this house at the monster, you know, that's you know,
>> so I got yesterday into account as you as you review the case, >> which bam, it's it's all it's got finished. It's it's it's like, wow, I didn't catch it the first time when I passed it.
>> And you got to look at what is the reasonable square footage when you're dealing with >> But it was that 40 years ago. >> What's a reasonable square footage for a house? You know that those are all the things we got to take into account as we review these. >> What are we doing with this resolution?
>> Well, my motion was to table it. I need a second still, but table it until they provide the proper documents. >> So, which are you looking to do? everything that was well the documents that were required and the conditions the the >> I I'm not looking at it now but the the
>> the soil movement permit the topographical survey and I think there was one other >> soil movement uh so movement is building height I think >> storm water management management >> that that is in the checklist and no one seems to >> I mean every application I've seen so
far here has not given us a storm water management every application >> so I I have a I have a question. I have a question. >> In in the past meetings, I've always had a a problem or an issue where approving resolutions where we don't always have
dot the eyes and cross the tees. And for the most part, I've been outweighed in votes. That's everybody's opinion. All of a sudden, now we're changing it to we need to have all the information be all the eyes and te's dotted before we approve a resol. So, we're kind of we're
kind of changing our our our thinking process. But then I have a question is are we going to continue that process going forward or are we going to do it on a or or are we are we able to do it on a case-byase basis? And if that's so, is that legal?
>> Well, what's practical? Like some of these things maybe it takes several months to get it and now we're holding up everything. we've approved it and we're holding up every you know >> everything in because that's why a lot of times it's words don't want to hold up the applicant so maybe it's a
specific >> storm water management help >> what's very >> well let me ask let me let me ask Gary this question >> I was told in the past that approving a resolution just makes the makes it go forward before they can get their permits they still have to send all the
information required by the resolution to whether it's the engineer the attorney attorney the the uh >> they have to comply with the conditions right when it is it could be >> whether it's 6 months from now 3 months from now a year from now they still have
to comply the only thing we're doing is approving the resolution says that it can it can go forward proving that this is what was approved at the >> right it doesn't mean that it's here today it means that they need to submit this information in order to start to get the permits correct
>> it's very difficult to >> but but hold but am I correct what I'm saying >> they need they they can't get permanent they need they need they need the res they >> apply at their own risk >> right they need the they need the resolution but they need the resolution
to be approved by the board in order to go forward in order for them to get all the information that's required to submit >> you don't need approval by the board for them to >> well hold the condition >> so hold on a second so the resolution
that let's say the board approves tonight is to go what to go forward is it not >> well it starts the time frame for appeals when you publish it you know it starts that going and >> right that's what I'm saying if we don't approve it this thing sits here they're
not going to grant anything without a resolution >> right that's what I'm saying >> they don't know what was approved >> right this thing if we don't if if it wasn't approved by the board because it's missing all these parts the problem is this will just sit here until >> yeah I somebody knows what to do.
>> So, if this were not approved by the board, I would call the applicant tomorrow >> and I'd review this with them and I'd say, >> "You have to be you have to do this and this and this and this and this." >> Well, the conditions >> it kind of keeps >> I think that >> at the meeting they should have been told they had it to have everything for
the next >> they have to do it to get their building permits. >> It's a matter of where the control goes, >> right? That's the difficult part >> and that's what I said in the past and that's what I was
it was against. So I've been told that a resolution for the approval is not to say um it's not to it's it's to keep the process going. It's to for the applicant to say if you got your resolution make
sure you follow all the all the conditions all the requirements. make sure you submit it and then once everything's been approved by the engineer then they can go and get their permits. >> See I look at it differently in the conditions of requiring documents that
we requested and required if they don't provide them that's then not complying with our requests >> well then this is the re first of >> I'll try to help you guys out.
>> Yeah. So, um, the board has every right to withhold the resolution until they get, >> okay, >> what they want >> or or withhold voting on it or even right as >> in in Westwood. Um, and I use them as an
example because I I'm also the board zoning board engineer there. And if they feel that there are numerous changes required, as in this case, they will hold up the resolution. If it's a slight tweak,
>> right? >> They will let it go. >> So, it it's on a casebycase basis. If if the board feels that there are way too many things that that needs to get done, they they want to have that control.
They don't and and rightfully so because if you have too many things that have to happen um and I don't take any offense to this, they don't want to leave it just up to the engineer. They they want it's easy for it to get missed,
>> right? It's easy for it to get missed and it's easy to, >> you know, >> and then we're doing a disservice if it comes along later and it got missed and it was something that was needed or something that didn't agree now it's either going to get kicked back again or
it's going to be well it's too late now. But if people realize that we're not approving it, you know, until it's everything is done and we make it very stern and say that's it. you're just, you know, they'll have to go back another month. >> To combat that,
>> you can be extremely strict during during your completeness review. >> Yes. >> Saying that you must have all these things. >> And most boards that I represent are not stringent on completeness reviews
because they want the process to move along >> and a lot of these things engineer calculate. That's not cheap, does it? >> It's not cheap. So >> to remake it I mean maybe if it's a bigger application where you really need to see this if it's a small you know
putting in a seepage pit or whatever kind of the applicant is not going to spend the money on that until they have a vote >> until until the specifically tells them we want to see storm water management. So that's what I'm saying >> updated survey showing the current you may I'm not going to vote but we've had
a vote already and approved this >> correct. So now it's just approving the resolution, but it's already approved provided you give us XYZ. So the happened, we said we need the calculations, we need this, we need it reviewed. >> So this document should be provided to us because >> everything's going forward. We've
approved it, >> right? But they need the resolution in order to >> saying, well, I want the storm order calculations a month before we're approving it because that wouldn't make sense. Why are you going to pay for something you don't know it's going to get approved? So I mean you you could hold it back and depending on a case by
case basis and maybe give some tomorrow. >> You know I think the fact that there's multiple documents not provided that were requested shows different than if somebody didn't have storm water calculation but they gave us six other things that we had asked for. >> Right?
>> You know it's a difference of them working with us or not working with us caring what we put in place versus not caring. Hey, maybe I need to save another month or two to pay for those things to eventually get approved. Like, you know, if they're if they're generally following along what's
required, you know, how otherwise you're going to have all these resolutions. I mean, that's the idea of >> Michael, I hope I answer your every right to hold it as a >> another level of enforcement, if you will. But
but I think since we approved the application in the first round, I think holding up the resolution is not fair. >> That's my opinion. >> It's not always fair. >> It's it's not it's my opinion. It's it's my opinion. >> No, but the reason >> it's not fair is it keeps the control
within us to make sure that it gets done as required versus allowing somebody else to maybe not see it or forget it or overlook it. >> I look at it this way. The board found the board was sympathetic to the applicant. However, they found the plans
deficient. That's the way I look at it, you know. >> Yeah. I mean I mean to in my opinion, >> right? So So it was no harm, no foul. >> Well, we we approve we approve these applications with conditions. >> Correct.
>> So if we do if those conditions are met, then we're okay with moving forward to resolution. I I don't see how how we're going to be, you know, negotiating, >> right? But >> but but I understand what you're saying, but but not to approve the res. See, normally I would say
>> we're not saying not to hold it. >> That's the same thing. >> It's the same thing. >> It's the same thing. You're holding up. You're holding up >> Westwood does it works very well. So >> yeah, >> I've always been >> They're holding it.
>> They'll hold it frequently. They do it frequently. >> Frequently, yes. If they feel that the plans were deficient and they would want homeowners to to move along, but they want them to follow the rules. >> If they move along, it's going to give them the incentive to then produce what
was being asked. And we had a case the the property across the street from me. We had said, "Okay, this this and this needs to be done." And it took a long time. I still don't know if you've got everything. >> You just got stuff today. And how long has that been?
>> Yeah. So, this gives incentive. Hey, you can't do anything until we approve this resolution and until you give us and again if if it's one thing that was overlooked and okay, meet with the engineer and say that you know the soil movement or not soil movement but to review the storm water management plans
>> is different than having three or four different documents. >> Everybody lies to me. I wish I had a dime for >> they do. >> Oh, it's like, oh, we only have to do this. No, you you got to do these five other things, you know. >> I honestly think it streamlines the process for the applicant
>> by holding it up. >> Hold it. Yes. By holding it up because they'll get because they want them to good that they are going to get it done. >> See, in the past I agree because I've always said dot eyes and cross your teeth before we approve these resolutions. I've been told the
resolution is just to make sure that the words that we have, the numbers we have is accurate so it can continue. That's what I was told from day one when I first started here on the board. >> Okay. >> So, you're not changing you're not voting to change anything.
>> It's not changing yet. >> No. To make sure that the not that everything on these resolutions is correct >> and we'reing based right and we're approving it based on what this says. Then it goes forward. Then the people whatever they need to submit is
submitted to the to the let's say to the engineer before any permits are issued. So he dots the eyes and cross the tees until the permits have been issued. Then it's on the engineer to make sure that it's done right. That's all that was what I was told back from day one. Then
as I go further into the res into the years I'm saying well there's a lot of people that owe us this that this. How do we know that we're getting this that this if we're proving this? And I'm being told, well, that's the building department. >> It's the building department or it's the engineers department to make sure it's
they have that dot the eyes and cross the tees. We're only proving the resolution so we can just keep on going forward. Now, we're saying tonight, which is a little bit different, is that we now maybe we want to hold these resolutions and make sure that we get
Dr. Isaac before we can go. I don't know how long you want to hold it and that's a >> right >> an applicant decide I'm not going to do this project anymore you know like they can change their mind and not do it but they should still get a resolution I would think you know there may be a time frame or what's practical with that
because the applicant say I'm not >> the applicants know that they have to do it and and you know that we could hold >> they have to do it to get permits and to do what they want to do but they may decide not to do it at all >> people who do that also >> but they should still get a resolution in my I should get a resolution what was
approved and if they don't act in the time frame that's why you have a year you come back in a year does your resolution say that they have >> no that they have to have plans in hand before the does it specifically say that
in your >> it's a it doesn't say to memorialize the resolution >> it's just a condition of a resolution right yeah let me ask you that also at one point this board >> signed I can say that >> on on all the plans, the actual chairman
signed off on the plans that were approved so that when they took those plans and went down to the building department, those were the approved plans that were done here because we've had applicants who did not take approved plans and went down to the building
department. And there were a few houses that were done like that and there was big problems with that. And that's why they would the chairman would always sign off on the actual plans that were approved by the engineer and and everyone else. >> Well, the process has changed. >> Okay.
>> I mean, you should all know that >> has to, >> you know, the process has changed. So, things that, you know, it's just changed. So, >> that's all I'm going to say. >> That's all you're going to say. >> Well, I want the engineer. Shouldn't that be like a part of of the zoning where the zoning chairman actually signs
off on >> It's it's up to the board. quite frankly how paranoid the board is about about things. >> Well, I think they should. >> I I I say I agree what you're saying, Mary, but I think >> I think as long as the engineer has looked at it, dot the eyes, cross the
tees, and approves it, I'm okay with that. >> And frankly, it's a two-way street. The building department has to respect, >> right, >> the engineer and and >> Okay, that's a whole different subject. >> Yeah. Well, I I will say this with Grace
being down there now. It I I think we're back on track. I I would think >> I hope it's a little better. I hope it's a lot better. May not be a lot better, but I hope it's a little better. >> All right, so let's What What are we doing with this resolution? >> Well, I'm hearing two different theories.
>> I think we hold it. >> I think she calls them up tomorrow and says everything has to be in. Well, the the other thing to think about is theund time for decision, >> right? >> Because that's that's part >> that's what I'm saying like it's not a great practice to keep holding
resolutions every meeting. I don't think that's really practical. But, you know, you you may have for a meeting. Hey, get us some of these things or what's most important to the board if that if there's something, you know, >> but suppose the applicant says I can't
do it. It's the holidays. You'll have to wait until January. That's why a lot of times you approve these things and they either do it or they don't do it and it's making more and more >> complicated for the board when it's really does this is this what they was is this what the board approved? Yes.
>> Out of >> I think you hit the nail on the head. Um even though they do this practice in Westwood, it just becomes a >> nightmare. Nightmare. Yeah, now we have things and and they have things they
have 15 items on their agenda easily >> and and where they are in the various stages it's it's extremely it becomes extremely complex. So although you know so I I hope I didn't give the impression that I was for
something like that. I just want I just wanted to say that your neighboring town does practice it, but it does become an administrative. >> Yeah. I I mean I I never had it happen to me where resol on the applicant side where resolution was I had it one time where they were
actually talking about changing some of the conditions because the neighbor who was at the prior meeting came and said that's not what I thought was approved. And you know the board attorneys like well if we don't if this is not what we agreed upon then you need to tell me
what we did agree upon because otherwise if we don't this applicant's going to sue the board and we're going to be paying their legal fees they're going to win you know it's a different >> Yeah. Right. So >> you know so the idea is to keep it is to keep it moving but there might be once in a while an egregious you know
application but again a lot of that is prior to approval. You could ask for certain things and that but I think you have to be practical especially on a small residential application. Are we gonna make this applicant spend a lot of money
on all these calculations if we're not you know if it doesn't get approved >> right >> and they're not going to spend the money until they get approved. I mean I have one you know they they approved it but the calculation same thing in fair lawn same thing you know. Okay. But this and
just to make heads and tails of it a little bit though, this application is approved. >> Yes. Right. >> As far as them spending money on these calculations, that was a condition of the approval. So they it is >> right. But we're holding it up. >> We're holding up the resolution because
they didn't mean >> they can't do anything. They can't do any or they can't do anything or apply like apply for any permits. They shouldn't be able to apply for permits without providing these documents. >> Well, no, they can apply as a condition of the approval.
>> But we're now getting into where to me it's like a slipper. >> Let me tell you some things. Let me tell you some things that I do that you might not be aware of. So to keep residents moving, I sometimes don't require the storm
water calculations. So to get a building foundation started because they have to get a backhoe out there to get to do the percolation test. They won't get a backhoe until they're digging the foundation. So I basic my
letters get very detailed and say okay you have the absolute minimum to um the house is in the right location where you're putting the addition is in the right location. We can work about storm water later, but that'll be a
condition of the CO. So, so that extends things out for that perspective. >> So, that gives it more conditions getting that's what the the resolution says, >> right? So, we may not get a CO or may be revoked, you know.
>> Right. So, to to do all these things ahead of the it kind of handcuffs them a little bit. But I I can understand your point that you're you you get frustrated because things are things are falling between the cracks. But
>> but the problem is the problem is we don't we don't see it until something is visible. >> Yes. And and >> so that's that's what I'm saying. >> It's my responsibility clearly and I take that responsibility. It it's just that it's got to be a
two-way street. The building department >> flexible time, >> right? And so I I give I I'm able to give this flexible timeline >> and if they don't do these things and or commence they haven't commenced construction or anything in a year if it comes up again you could revisit it and
say all right for you to get this extension and we have delayed giving extensions for them to you know clean up the property whatever it may be we have done that so you do >> have some mechanisms down the road. So on Jefferson, you know, we've approved
that what, two years ago or or a year ago? >> Well, then there was a new owner >> and I'm still waiting for those new plans with the with the house turned around. I haven't gotten a >> and he hasn't gotten a building permit yet. >> What's been leaning towards >> and the board in that case could have
made those plans for that resolution, but they did it and that was a major change. >> Right. So, >> and that's where that's where that's leading me now to maybe the the thought process I've been going through with maybe holding this one because of the
same reason because now that's somebody that didn't get us and still hasn't gotten. >> So, so in essence when if it comes run running out of time and he has to come back for the extension again, right?
then we can be a little bit forceful and say look until we get this this and this we're not going to extend the project. That's it. That's where that's where we can get back if if it's not being done properly. But to hold up a resolution, I
I don't think it's fair cuz we approve the application when the applicant was here. >> Given what he said about the calculations and stuff, fine. But revised plans, it's almost it's almost an insult and it's not fair that we didn't get that. >> I get it. But but if the revised plans
do come in and John says this is not the way it's supposed to be, then the application's going to stop and then they have to come back to the board and start all over again. Just show they're >> I understand what you're saying, Kev. I understand. >> I see both sides and certain things.
That's why >> case by case. you changed your mind now to do this. So if it's a new application and they don't have all their paperwork, then you won't agree to the vote for that application. If they don't have all paper, >> I'm No, I'm saying there's a two-step
process. A new application comes in, they present their >> ideas what they want to do. I vote either yes or no if I like it or don't like it. That's it. Second. Second is there's a new resolution next month. Let's say it's been approved by the majority of the board. I'm going to look
at make sure it has everything what was required and I'm going to probably most likely say yes even though I voted no on the original plans I'm still going to say okay this is the address this is the square footage blah blah blah they need to send us all this information yes the
doc >> you're voting on a resolution that was accurate to what we voted on the end of the meeting >> that's all I'm doing it then after that if I understand is this correct it goes now to let's say the engineer which happens to be you and then they
send all the information to the engineer at that time and they review it. >> That's called resolution compliance, >> right? >> And they make sure that everything's docked the eyes, cross the tees before anything is issued with permits and everything. If it's not done, then the board engineer comes back to us and
says, "Hey, this is on hold." Because it can't be it can't be processed. It's done. And if they run out of time, they're going to have to come back to the board and say, "We ran out of time because of what?" and they're have to explain to us and then we the board's got to make another decision whether we extend it or don't extend it and that's
how it should work. >> Now that you put it that way it it makes sense because at the end of the day it it really falls on the eyes of the engineer to make sure that the resolution meets the conditions that we approved in the first place that if it doesn't meet that then at that point we
could be stringent enough to say well we gave you conditions we you know we give you enough time >> and that's how every And I keep I keep giving the same important caveat which is I need the cooperation of the building department. >> Correct. Right. >> Because people will circumvent me and go
directly to the building department and act act totally dumb that they have no conditions and they could get a building permit. >> And that's reason why you have Mrs. Kaisha >> and that's why she's there to make sure >> he's keeping her eyes open wide open. >> You're the sheriff.
>> You're the sheriff. >> Matt currently does six shooters. two of them. >> That's how I >> No, no. And and I'm with you. I think I think that's right because now since we have the second layer there of the engineer making sure everything is right
at that point, we could then we could start flexing our muscles and saying, "Hey, listen. We gave you we gave you a pass. You didn't meet that pass. Now you have to do what you have to do." >> So then I'll withdraw my motion on that. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> make the motion to approve it with the
few minor corrections that we stated, the spelling error. >> The other thing to just think about is as a board, we don't want to keep the time open for appeals, >> right? >> Too long and it doesn't start until a resolution one memorialized and then published. That's when the appeal period
starts when it's published. So, >> not always I don't know in the best interest to keep that window open. >> Okay. So yeah, I I withdrew my motion and made the new motion to approve the resolution as amended, as corrected, I should say. >> Okay.
>> So I have a I have one motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Lrada? >> Yes. >> Mr. Zitka? >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera? >> Yes. >> M O. >> Yes.
>> So that was EB219. >> That was EB219. Got one more. >> You got one more resolution ZB. I hope so. ZB25-20. Uh Christopher Bendic and Kimbley
Bendic. Um or an addition alteration to 754 Cotch Peak Avenue, block 4103, lot 24. So the only thing I would like everybody to look at is to make sure that all the various numbers
>> and conditions >> and conditions are correct. I I did and I compared them against Jeff's notes and I have no comment. >> Yeah, I have notes. I had the minutes. >> I I have a this it was subject to
providing the height calculation and update revised plan with all the changes for the engineer to review soil moving and storm water calculation and it's showing a revised impervious coverage of 35%. I mean this there were quite a few things that >> right that was on page seven correct
>> I don't know it's number 14 mrustinino >> right the board grants variance a permit to one car garage parking space with a minimum of two the applicant will reducing pvious coverage to 35% or less uh the cap the applicant must use the required formula show the height
calculation on the architectural plans so that's on page seven 8 through >> these are all the conditions >> five right >> and I'm sorry complete your question. >> Well, the qu I guess what you're saying is >> what I'm saying is there were a lot of things that again they didn't
>> seem to do and >> without you I'm sorry I have to say this without you I don't feel that >> well I I will say this the applicant has been in conversation with myself and Grace
>> asking what to do next and I I very um succinctly told him wait till the resolution is passed. Yes. Okay. Um because it's not it's not over until it's over. You know, it's your bare. So, don't do
anything. >> They've been communicating with you, which makes it easy. >> Right. And so, so I I I said them, let the resolution get get passed and then we'll I'll work with you to to for compliance on these things. >> Okay. Is it right? Okay.
>> And Yeah. And Mr. Bendic is constantly confused. >> Okay. So, >> but that instantly makes me more confident that they're going to follow it because they are talking with you and I just not flat out >> nothing. >> Okay. So, I make a motion to approve EB2520.
>> So, I'll make the motion. >> I'd like to approve the resolution. >> Okay. Anybody will make a motion. Anybody want you making a motion? >> Yes. Second. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. Right. Who's Mr. River? You second then. Who second? >> Yes. Mr. Rivera. Mr. River.
Mr. Lrada, >> yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera, >> yes. >> Mrs. Osman, >> no. >> Did not like the application. >> Okay. >> Under no circumstances.
>> Okay. Next one. Um, resolution ZB25-21. There was a there was an email sent from Grace to the zoning board members. Uh in reference to adjustment to suggested opposition to New Jersey 4736
uh did the Senate bill S4736 and assembly bill A4471 proposed sweeping changes to the municipal land use law and whereas the bills require municipalities to permit four residential units on every lot
statewide. Did everybody get a chance to read this? >> Wow. Yes. It did it when I read I'll tell you >> I'm sorry what >> I bother having boards >> I I read this and I thought it was due to
um that they want to >> eliminate certain certain >> projects where schools or or churches can do whatever they want to do above and beyond the height
>> entities He's >> right. Um >> that kind of >> to bypass the boys >> that's it zoning. >> My my opinion is >> well my s my well they're asking for us
to give their blessing >> give permission to do anything they want >> and I'm saying no. >> No I feel the same. >> I said no. Um >> now let me ask you this. Is this being sent to like the clerks? I mean,
>> go to the to the clerk and the council. So, it is it's them, >> but they're asking our opinion to say whether or not we agree with this or not agree with this. >> No, they're asking us to actually approve this just like they >> and I'm saying I don't like it. >> That's my opinion.
>> Nobody likes it. >> That's unanimous. >> Okay. >> He's here. So, if we don't like it, we don't sign. you don't like it, you sign because you're to them and tell them sign it and we send it to the council and tell them to pass that on.
>> Yeah. And she will then she will take the resolution and pass it on. >> Yeah. >> They do what they want, but you're telling them that you want what you want to see them do. >> Okay. So, in the package that you received, the this go of a couple of
things. The annual reorganization meeting will be held on January 13, 2026. Um, also as a >> Are you moving on from this? Because this has to be >> Oh, it has to be voted. I'm sorry. Let's go back. I apologize.
>> We got apologize. Okay. >> So, motion to approve resolution ZB 2521. Motion. Second. >> Okay. Roll call. Mr. Lana,
>> what's the proper answer? I I don't want to. >> Yes, I'm opposing. >> I'm opposing. >> Yes, I'm opposing. >> No. >> What? You're opposing? >> No. >> If you say >> you don't want to send it to >> You want to send this to council? Yes or no? >> Right. You're saying yes. >> You don't want to send this to >> No. Okay.
>> Okay. >> But we do. You don't want to You don't >> Well, let me ask you a question. If Am I Am I reading this wrong? Is this saying that I read this twice? Is it saying that we we accept we like this or we don't like this? Oh,
>> okay. I'm sorry. Then I read it wrong. Then I'm saying yes. >> Not here. Sorry. We're telling them to oppose it. I'm opposing it. Yeah. >> Your yes is to them opposed. Got >> I'm a full Yes. >> You sure now? >> Yes. >> Then your final answer. >> That's my final answer. I want to call for
be Christmas before >> Mr. Ziko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Rivera. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Dearo. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mayor. >> Mrs. Osman. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> This I look forward. >> Hey, I'm sorry. I read it twice. I
>> It's Sorry. >> Yeah. at least you're expressing your opposition for filling up this >> right >> that's how I read that's how I was doing okay >> that's ridiculous when I read >> as as a as I was saying before
>> churches >> the annual reorganization meeting will be held on January 13 2026 mark your calendar also if anybody knows anybody who wants to be a board member make sure you send in your resume by December 29th
if you're looking to become an alternate to a permanent make sure you send your resume in before that day because that is the cuto off date. Um >> who is up who is from the current board? Uh so we the one was the one
>> let let Grace handle that one >> was officially removed. >> So one he was removed uh Montana is expiring >> and I believe um Mr. Aber you're expiring right? >> Yes. Yeah. >> So, so Les is a member, right?
>> She Yeah. Yeah. Her she expires the end of this year, >> right? And then Jeff is >> Roberto is gone, >> right? But he was a member. >> He's a regular member. >> And when was his term up? >> Uh the end of this year won't change anything, right? >> Okay. And then
>> Mr. Rivera's term ends. >> Okay. >> And he's an alternate. >> He's currently an alterate. Okay. >> So there's two members and one alternate. Okay. Okay. As a reminder. Okay. Um,
any board has any questions, concerns? We went over a lot tonight. So, >> we got a lot of housekeeping done, but yeah, I found it with no applications. >> Is there any applications grace? >> Uh, I think I I just got one in for maybe February. Won't be for
January, but none for January. I don't know. Yeah. Anybody else have any questions, concerns? Okay, so one last thing I was I want to wish everybody a happy and healthy safe holiday. >> Be careful. There's a lot of nuts out driving already. >> I almost got hit twice tonight coming
home. >> Um but enjoy your holidays. >> So to motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> All right, folks.
Merry Christmas.