okay a big American thanks was fun okay uh it's six o'clock and I'm starting the L use boort meeting uh today which is U May the6 uh and we'll start with plag salute I saled States indice all pursu to the New Jersey open public meetings act adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting on the bulletin board in the entrance hall of the Beach Haven municipal building and mailing the same to the beach Haven times and Asbury Park Press this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision for each individual application decorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times roll call Mrs edles here Mrs Leonard Mr valo here Mr tinquist here Mr Stevens here Mr Jenna here mayor Davis here m Mr medal Mrs ball Miller here Mr [Music] lafredo Mr Wanger here miss King Mr Halprin here everybody uh do you have any announcements I I do um Bonnie lenhart's six so I'm anybody have any announcements okay so uh I guess we we'll start with the public hearing and um the first thing on our agenda is coal Holdings turn that over to our attorney Mr evening mayor members of the board um my name's Tom Coleman I'm appearing on behalf of mih Holdings you may all recall that I was here last March um and obtained a u preliminary and final site plan approval with one impious coverage variants that uh the the memorializing resolution there was an expectation that that would be adopted at the April meeting and that didn't happen at the May public meeting uh a resolution was adopted that added certain conditions that mih took uh exception with and that ultimately resulted in litigation and a year later I'm happy to report that through um your capable Council Mr Riso we've come to a settlement agreement and that's why we're here this evening to have the board adopt the original resolution prepared by our prior counil sesa thank Mr so members of the board um we've addressed this previously there was a conditional settlement and that conditional settlement um revolves around the resolution that's before you that should have been distributed right Gina um it is a resolution memorializing the approval of this application and so everyone is clear because I know that there was an issue with the deck whether we going call the second four deck the debt that may or may not expand and I actually I think it does expand beyond the building footprint that issue is still on the table but it is on the table for the DP through cap we don't have jurisdiction at this board that's an outside agency approval it is in this resolution in fact part of the S made it clear that not only does miia have get all Outside Agency approvals it specifically references the D and so they will go after this resolution is memorialized if that happens tonight they will go there they will do what the DP tells them they have to do if they have to make application and get a permit they'll do that and it'll be up to the d whether or not to issue that permit um Mr little has been in touch with the DP on that issue and I'd like him to just advise the board what he's learned through his contacts at the D so the original question was building within the footprint of marson's former restaurant and the applicant did get an exemption uh to build within the footprint and my correspondence with kaffer is that that's correct but if there's a deck expansion going beyond the footprint on a commercial structure it needs a cafer permit so I believe part of this resolution of Outside Agency approvals is if they want that deck they have to go to the appropriate cafer agency and make the formal cafer application for that additional deck extension uh beyond the footprint of the original building Mr ban you you and I discuss if you understand that that is my that's correct Mr re so that's my understanding Mr Little's representation yes okay so with that being said um we're not hearing the application and it we've already heard it the board already approved it what we need is a motion to approve the memorializing resolution the members eligible to vote on the resolution are as follows and this is because under the municipal land use law only those members of a land use board who vote in favor of an application can vote on the memorializing resolution I had the transcript from that hearing here's who can vote this evening mayor Davis board member Tom's not here either right no forgive me because I don't know everyone I don't want to offend anybody it's uh I'm going to say board member instead of Miz or misss member edles yes member steeve not yet there's no motion these are people okay that's correct member member Stevens member Jenna and board member Wanger those are the only people who are eligible to vote so if one of those members can make a motion to approve the resolution then we need a second and then we'll do a roll all of those members please motion to approve me motion and Ed second okay Mrs Davis yes Mrs edles yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr Wanger yes motion carries thank Mr re so thank you members of the board evening get a sign copy of the resolution through the board secretary Mr Coleman and then good luck to you and thank you you're welcome okay so we're moving on to application 20244 uh which is at 210 North Bay Avenue got good evening James Raven on behalf of the applicant Kamal Levy LLC so this is a preliminary and final major site plan application and this involves the silver Sun property that everybody's familiar with the applicant was previously before the board for preliminary and final major subdivision approval and that was approved to subdivide the property to create five Residential Building lots and one mixed use site which is the subject of the of tonight's application and that's new lot 5.06 and what the applicant is proposing at that property is a mixed use building with commercial on the first floor and two residential apartments above each residential apartment has two bedrooms and while the application calls for the commercial space to be one unit and that is the applicant's intention they would like to have the option of potentially having two units so I would just like to flex that out a little bit with the board if that's possible but again the intent is to have one but it doesn't affect the parking requirement whether or not there's one unit or two so the applicant would like to have that flexibility if the board were amenable to that so since we submitted the original application there was a revised plan that was sent in when the subdivision plan was submitted to the Ocean County planning board there was uh they required a site triangle a 10x10 corner of the property for a future traffic light project so we had to remove the corner of the building that you see now there's a a triangular corner of the building that's missing so that was a result of a county requirement so the plans were revised just to reflect the revised design of the building and uh Sarah from CWB architecture had to revise the building in accordance with that so it affected the square footage slightly of the building but I have Jim brazowski here to present testimony regarding the site plan we are requesting one variance for impervious coverage and then Sarah is going to discuss the design of the building and then I I don't see the applicant here yet but he's supposed to be here so hopefully we'll hear from the applicant as well at this time I'll call Mr brazowski you the testimony before the board this evening be the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth yes I do thank you for the record my name is James rsk lied professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at horn Tyson in Yoda since 1997 thank you Mr brazowski you've testified before this board numerous times yes the board accept Mr brasi's qualifications yes thank you uh Mr brazowski you prepared the site plan that we submitted with this application yes and if you would just give an overview for the board please as to what we're proposing cling I I know obviously as part of the subdivision application the existing building is going to be demolished and then if you could explain to the board what we're what we're proposing on this new lot 5.06 sure this is this property is to the [Music] there it is I might take [Music] do you guys have a blow up oruse I've come to rely on the TV fall I'm sorry go ahead all right so uh this property is located to the uh Southwest of the intersection of third stre Street in Bay Avenue um as Mr Raven indicated it's currently developed with the silver Mall uh the silver Sun Mall um this property has 87 foot of depth off of Long Beach Boulevard 93 foot of width along Long Beach Boulevard um and uh due to this uh the subdivision a 10x10 triangular uh portion at the northeast corner was dedicated to to ocean county for future traffic light uh improvements so the uh property now has an area of 8,041 square ft this is new lot 5.06 uh of the track um the the subdivision for that tra hasn't been perfected yet so this is it's still proposed lot 5.01 until we uh sign the map and get it filed which is we're getting close um and what we're proposing to do is construct a mixed use building on this site it's a two-story mixed use building with commercial on the first first floor uh and two two apartments on the second floor um uh the the building will be located on the Eastern portion of the property the Western portion of the property will have an eightc car parking um parking lot so we've got eight uh cars on the easterly side of the parking lot facing the building and a 24 foot wide Drive aisle on the western side of the the uh where the cars are parking and then to the west of that is a 10 foot wide uh vegetated buffer that we're proposing between this property and the new residential uses to the West uh there's a a dumpster proposed or a 10 x10 trash enclosure uh at the southern end of the drive aisle um we are seeking with the application uh a variance for impervious lot coverage where uh 60% is the maximum permitted we are seeking a variance to provide 83 . 5% impervious coverage of that 83.5% 41% of it is or 41% of the total lot area is porest pavers it's the parking lot um as you know in the burough of Beach Haven anywhere you drive a car park a car whe no matter what the surface is considered uh impervious so for to develop a commercial property with um with a building and parking uh and utilize only 60% of the lot is is kind of a a a tough um tough act tough to to come up with a plan to provide adequate parking on a on a property when you're only going to when we're only allowed 60% impervious so to to balance that we're providing the entire parking lot is porous papers so the the remaining portion of the property that will be non uh poorest pavers is 42.2% which is below the 60% but for the ordinance 83.5% impervious is what we're providing uh the only other um item is that we're not providing a 15x3 foot loading zone uh typically on uh these smaller uh commercial properties um the most of the deliveries are by UPS or FedEx and the the fex trucks they just kind of park in the street uh they could park in the in the driveway in the the drive a for the few minutes that they're at the property um but we're seeking a waiver or variance whichever the case may be for a uh a loading zone question for you Jim on this far away so when you do the calculation for the impervious coverage um that is strictly the owner's property and does not include include the County Utility sections of that property now that is just the 8,000 whatever I said and change area within the property lines okay is are the the bricks that are going to go on the front of that on Bay Avenue are those considered impervious coverage not not on this only if they cross over the the so there's basically 10 feet between the the face of the curb and the building those 10 feet would not impact our impervious coverage I'm suggesting it should maybe it's part of the you know your testimony so that's basically all I got pardon me yeah the the 10 feet to Will the landscape buffer is to the West Side I'm what Mr Jenna is talking about is to the east side the the sidewalk along Bay Avenue it just follows a master of the Town yeah which I mean it's currently a concrete sidewalk we're just changing it to the brick paper sidewalk for the uh streetcape ordinance and and I apologize I initially said it was just one variance there is also the one for the loading zone as Mr brazowski noted and Mr braasi if you would just address the the proofs relative to the two variances that we're requesting yes as I as I mentioned the um it's it would be tough to develop a property commercially with a building of usable size and parking without the impervious coverage variants um to offset the uh the variants that we're seeking we're constructing the parking lot with uh porest papers um so we're it's our belief that the benefits outweigh the detriment in that the entire property the entire 8,000 square feet just about is covered by a building today um so we're actually reducing the impervious in this on this 8,000 sqare foot lot and do you feel that the proposed development would negatively impact the public good or surrounding Property Owners no I do not I I think you know we're we're providing the parking that is required by the the burrow um this is a uh I feel like a modest Siz commercial developments two stories uh one story commercial one story of apartment above it um I feel like this is what Beach Haven wants on these commercial properties it's your understanding with respect to signage that any proposed signage will comply with the zoning ordinance uh yes obviously there won't be freestanding signs right I have a question about the trash enclosure sure trash enclosure meaning dumpster or trash enclosure meaning public borrow pickup I I would I don't know I would think that it's going to be private carrier just because it's a commercial yeah building it's just so set back in on the property when you're reversing in there you're going to hear the reverse Mr we to tesy answer yes they are here [Music] now I'll ask him okay and one just one comment about that trash enclosure uh Mr Little's letter pointed out um he had an a thought about backing out of that last southernmost spot um where where we have a a curve line that go the southern curve line in the parking area goes straight across and I think what he is uh implying is that if we could bump the curb two or three feet more south to allow a car to kind of back to the South before it heads north um it might be a little easier for a car to maneuver that way um because the the area to the west of the parking aisle is a landscape buffer it was my thought that that little area wouldn't be needed to to turn um if if the board thought that they would like two or three feet of uh a recession in that area we could provide that we may have to reduce the size of the trash enclosure to like 8 by1 that was my comments but I I think that the the drive a the ways to designed is adequate because we're not backing up into another row of cars we're backing up into a landscape buffer want don't we leave it the way it is based on your testimony right not backing up into another set of cars so they should be able to back up all the way make I agree okay I have a question regarding the loading if if we don't know whether it's going to be one commercial unit or two how do we know that uh a loading or unloading Zone in the future we don't know what the commercial property are going to look like will not be a requirement or you won't need need a loading or well the the loading zone is based on the area of the building I think it's one for every 4,000 square feet so the our build the commercial portion of the building is less than 4,000 square feet so one loading zone is required um and we're seeking a variance from providing that one loading zone um if it's if it's two buildings they're probably even going to be smaller buildings and less need for a larger type vehicle and as of right now if if there were two units as I stated it's likely going to be one but if there were two they would both be retail if it was another use you know they wouldn't be able to put a restaurant or something in there without coming back before the board so as of right now it's all retail we're proposing on the first floor it's just a question of whether it's going to be one retail unit or two so Mr re just for the rec of the board's clear if there's a second use it'll also be retail and as a condition of approval your client agrees that they will if there's any other use one or two they will come back to the board for approval yes so everyone understand only going retail even if there's a second it's future a second commercial space it be lied to ret right be in the resolution that's deliveries expected from the front or the back there way from the back yeah there there is a way in from the back yes how um have Robert answer that yeah I I mean I would at the whim of the UPS driver I mean there is sufficient room for a truck to pull in there we just can't strape it as a loading zone because it blocks the vehicle or access but I would assume that in the summer if they can't park anywhere they're going to pull in the driveby probably do the delivery and then leave and even though we can't designate it and stripe it more than likely that's a pretty sizable area that they can pull into regardless of the truck size so I think it's going to work in terms of of deliveries it's not a restaurant so we're not gonna have bread and right yeah and there yeah I have a question regarding the trash pickup Mr L's letter suggested that that you're going to discuss the carding and timing of the trash pickup Offa Bay you want to talk about that or yeah I think that sport for the applicant to weigh in on uh should I swear him in now to answer these questions or would you like me to hold off let's finish see if the board has any more questions Mr raski and then we go on to your your next Witness does anyone else have any questions I do I'll also add to just with respect to the parking there was a note in Mr Little's letter about designating residential spaces versus commercial we would like to designate three spaces as residential spaces um there are three spaces required for the residences and what we were thinking is designating that the southerly two spaces and then the the Northerly most space adjacent to the handicap space those three would be designated not necessarily specific to to each unit it'll just be for residential parking only and then the balance of the spaces would be for the commercial or if it was overflow on the residents that they could also Park in the remaining spots but three will be designated for the residences only and signage will be placed to that effect that was my one question Mr Bas you had the opportunity to review Mr Little's letters of April 25 and then the subsequent letter of April 29 yes um based on the revised plans that were submitted yes and you agree with all his comments yes and there a condition of approval you comply with mr's comments yes I have any other questions just one quick one lighting building lighting no no parking yeah we're not we're not yeah we're with a size parking lot like this I think building mounted canescent lights will get the job done Shields or something you have you're have a new residence next to yep okay um regarding Mr Little's letter there was also a the architectural advisory committee issu some recommendations do you concur with those recommendations or was there uh separate letter issued by the architectural committee yeah I don't think I received that actually you have M thank Mr little dat of January 5 or Mr Ren you have dat of January 5 yes that's the one that I was just provided I remember meeting with them I just don't believe I saw this letter I'm just going to provide this to the architect to have a quick look as well so maybe I'll just Reserve that question for the architect after she's had an opportunity to review the letter okay you good any other questions for Mr brazowski thank you and actually yeah why don't I call Sarah Jennings next we'll have her go through the design and then we'll bring up the applicant to ask any operational questions how are you ttim yeah thank you Miss Jennings you've testified before this board previously correct and all of your licenses are still current yes I'm a New Jersey registered architect um and owner of CWB architecture thank you uh if you could just provide the board with a general overview of the design of the building sure offer yes I'm sorry yes I I does the board accept Mrs Jennings qualifications yes okay thank you but could you pick up the hold it like better okay thank um so a as was previously mentioned uh this is a mixed use building the ground floor will be a retail space with access to a uh ramp to a loading zone if you will that has an elevator and access to a second floor storage space for the retail um there's also two entrances to two separate Apartments um on the west side of the building there's two different slightly different sized units based on the site triangle um that's cut off on the corner of third and Bay both apartments are two bedrooms one and a half bathroom about 1,50 Square fet um things I wanted to clarify from the engineers's letter um there was a mathematical error in the commercial space each floor um listed in the floor area chart where it says ground floor commercial and then um the first floor commercial storage and mechanical those numbers are correct but the they should add up to uh 2839 Square fet uh 39.8 Square fet um that area for the commercial space includes everything uh except for the sprinkler room and the entries and apartment storage uh for the second floor residential units um another thing I wanted to address from the engineers letter was about the ground floor retail space uh building elevation um that previously um approved applications were at elevation around 5.5 where we're proposing 4.67 for the ground floor commercial elevation um there's two reasons behind that one is the existing building is two steps above the ground and the owner can testify more to this um that was a level they were comfortable with based on previous floods that have happened in the building um secondly to provide the extra square footage for a ramp for another 12 in in height will be significant um we wanted to keep all the kind of back of house entrances um away from bav so that you could maximize the retail facade and windows so there just wasn't wasn't quite enough space to have the ramp come up another 12T in length 12 Ines in height um the exterior of the building is designed in a traditional style um we're proposing Cedar impression siding um one of the things the Review Committee had requested was if it was Cedar impression siding it was in a natural color which is fine with the owner um that's what we're planning on doing there's some metal roof accents and um brackets along the roof line that separates the commercial space from the residential on bav um on the Third Street elevation um behind the wall it's a little hard to see but you'll see like a dash line there is a staircase that leads to one of the apartments so that's the reason for um a lot of siding and fewer windows on that wall um but we do anticipate some signage to designate where the parking is in that blank space on the on the exterior elevation that's all I've got right now j a chance to look at the January 5o a yeser with the comments contain in yes so so um this went along with some of the things that we discussed um the sighting I mentioned um the owner was going to stick to the cedar Impressions but we'll certainly do a natural color um and then the mention of the oh I did want to talk about that the mention on the North Third Street side where you see the second floor residential is um kind of can levered or overhanging over the ramp and the walkway that lead to kind of the back of house apartment entrance and uh entry up to the second floor commercial uh storage space um one of the reasons for that was to maximize the site as um Jim brazowski testified earlier um we didn't want to go for a parking variance it was important to not need that so having the amount of parking that was required um really kind of defined how deep in the um East West direction that the building could be and for that reason we took advantage a little more of the space we could get an overhang on the second floor to make the apartment units reasonable size they're still modestly sized but in my opinion um without it they would be really um hard to rent or sell whatever the owner intends to do and the the comments on the rear or the the West Side elevation um we have a minimal roof overhangs over the entry to the apartment doors and entry to the um second exit of the retail space and door that leads up to the second floor commercial space um again because it's facing a parking lot and it's not as visible from the street we're keeping this side simple also with the large overhang on the second floor um um there's a I guess not not a like a lot more Dimension that you can create because of we're trying to use every square foot we can for those second floor apartment spaces so how big is the overhang just it's a I didn't think it was that big but yeah it changed with the site triangle too so it actually um it varies so um the overhangs in the rear corre it is in the rear yeah it is in the rear so the um apartment unit one is overhanging 2 feet from the first floor face of the building um an apartment unit um two is overhanging 3 feet and that was because of the site triangle when the county requested you know a angled cut out on the corner um we kind of absorbed some that space um on bav so we gave it back to the west side of the building so that that's not considered a substantial overhang right couple of feet no we have we have a pretty deep floor joy so we're anticipating question the elevator you spoke of is that strictly commercial only yes so there's no elevator service to the apartment no there's not I have a question regarding the materials the aac's letter for the uh the railing material encourag Intex railing materials can you address that um so the I'd have to um talk to the owner about that we only uh really have railing railings on the um back and then on the upper decks um and the residential unit so I'd have to um confer with him to see you know I don't see any reason why not but I'll have to ask him about that and ASAC for the fascia they recommend that so that's fine yeah any other questions yeah the covered decks on the first floor the entry deck and the retail speed that's an entry duck into the retail ret on the lower FL yes okay and there's no decks on the Upper Floor or there's two decks there're small um off of the kitchen okay on each unit on the front the back on the front on B so what type of railings would you be using for the what type of materials for the uh it'll be some kind of a vinyl or composite it will be the same for that and for the commercial space um but that's what I was talking about I'd have to check with Robert um if he's okay with using in text jamy doesn't the a recommend composite yeah we don't recommend [Music] vinyl are we talking about just the railings railing systems being used a lot okay and that's the composite the Intex okay composite so we'd ask that you use that right yeah I figure we'll wait for the applicants testimony to address that issue if that's okay Frank I have a question regarding the flooding is there any concern with the elevation well we mentioned it in our letter but she addressed it Sarah addressed it but they also have to flood proof the building up to the base flood plus one so the buildings be flood proof like any other commercial building um you know some people are raising their buildings a little bit higher but if you have enough room you can do that this case the applicants aware of the flooding and aware that the elevation they're proposing is what they've been accustomed to in the existing structure and they haven't had a problem so so there's no history of a problem no so and I don't have an issue based on the testimony we're hearing and the fact that it has to need the new flood code and be flood proof yeah any further questions for Mrs Jennings thank you at this time I'll call Robert Levy I do 24 Ridge Road 24 Ridge Road West Long Branch um Mr levia are you a member of the applicant LLC that's that filed this application here this evening yes okay and you're to speak on behalf of LLC yes okay there were a few questions that the board had relative to the operation of the site uh why don't we start first with the most recent the railings the the architectural advisory committee recommended Intex railing system are you okay with installing that throughout the building I really don't know the difference between vinyl and tex okay not familiar I'm sure there's a cost difference um had a feeling you don't have a lot of railing on this building believe so based on the cost of the rest of the building I don't know if that significant yeah okay but it definitely gives it nicer appearance right getting a sense at the board once right they want this application approve once ra so I don't know if you want to take a minute to talk to your representative how you this I think we need a def answer right for the question do you want to speak about it for a few minutes Robert or if you want we can the board will give us a few minutes we can talk to Sarah and Jim would you prefer that okay if the board wouldn't mind just giving us a few minutes okay thank you [Music] that was my concern they didn't have do you be more right Jamie I just I just think same I had it June and I had Monday PSS jur Jen was supposed to have been over the weekend in the needs a new fuel PP couldn't dump it in it's ready to go is it is it the same the future two different things [Music] be a nice Improvement in there's some Tru there sorry I two [Music] thank you for providing providing us with time to discuss these issues um so Mr Levy is willing to agree to the Intex railings throughout the entire building so that that can become a condition of the approval in the event the aboard were to to approve the application and one other thing we just wanted to discuss in the material section of this letter from the architectural advisory committee there's reference to the desire for certain te Cedar impressions of a natural color um Mr Levy said he would would like the ability to potentially have a light blue or some something like that I don't know exactly what the definition of a natural color is but he didn't want to necessarily be limited to a white or beige um I don't know if you want to elaborate were there any other colors you had mine other than potentially a light blue maybe light gray uh light blue nothing nothing outlandish and I had mentioned that when we had the conference schol with the with the committee okay and they were they seemed open to it okay also one of one of the U members of the committee mentioned that we don't want it to look exactly like the building across the street and it was a very good point right you know separate we're not looking for any kind of outlandish colors whatsoever so I guess we just wouldn't want it to be a condition of the approval that we had to use a natural color certainty Cedar impression would you be willing to meet with the architectural advisory committee before you yeah yeah we could do that yeah as long as I don't want it necessarily be conditioned on their approval necessarily you know it's there's a fine line um I just I would like to that to be more within the applicant's control as far as the color but the applicants testifying it would be if it's a color a light color but certainly we'd be open to discussing it with the architectural advisory committee so how about this Mr will a condition of approval the applicant will meet again with the AAC to try to reach an agreement with respect to the natural color that would be used for The certained Impressions uh assuming a light blue or something of that sort is considered a natural color yes the sky [Laughter] blue natural it's a natural color the color is to avoid uh you know hot pink right that's certainly not the intention right Mr Le something like that and something not to match every other building that's come up or is coming up in right in the future okay so yeah that's it unique in your own sure not Outlanders yes I agree yeah okay and then earlier Mr Levy there was a question about the trash enclosure can you comment on what you expect as far as the frequency of trash pickup and regular garbage versus recy the recycle cardboard and recycle together are picked up by the by the town all these years and then the as far as the trash we have it done only once a week pickup private private pickup and they're they're quite early in the morning uh definitely before 9:00 a.m they're picking up the trash so you expect contract that schedule to be able to continue with the new building absolutely okay so it would be a dumpster that's picked up privately and then the the recycle would be picked up by the municipality yes okay J how close is that to the residential property the building uh the how close is it to the adjacent lot 5.05 correct see well yeah Jim you can comment on that roughly 15 feet from the from the property line from the yeah from the the West edge of the the trash enclosure to the property line about 15 ft so I guessing your view wouldn't be cumbersome for the for the residential owners to hear hear the the trash being picked up whatever I don't think there's any way to avoid that right this this uh mix building is in the business district the you know anybody buying a property adjacent to a business district now there are certain things that you have to kind of deal with I mean personally my house is close to a restaurant we're not immediately adjacent to but close to it and at 5: in the morning sometimes you can hear the the garbage being picked up um it takes about 30 seconds and it's over Rec things roll ones or truck back I'm not sure about the recycle would the I was assuming that we're going to get a uh for the trash a basic dumpster to be picked up trash yeah how are the recycles picked up currently they right now we have we have a separate uh dumpster for the recyclables okay would you expect that to be what you would utilize this time around as opposed to because if you use the cans don't you have to roll those out to the curb okay well that could be done uh again it's this this uh commercial space now is about 10% of what we've been operating till now so I don't expect to be nearly as much trash we have to roll it out it's not a problem so I guess you'd like to have the flexibility of with respect to the recyclables the dumpster or the cans depending on what the volume of the recyclables is yeah okay and earlier there was a discussion about limiting the commercial use to just retail you're okay with that as opposed to food yes or or really any other commercial use so there's um you know there are potentially other permitted commercial uses that could be there instead of retail but we're stating that we're agreeing to limit it to retail even if there are two commercial units they could always come back before the board but I just wanted you to understand that okay yes it's fine okay [Music] retail right um business office is one thing real estate office a different story right somebody starts doing you know weekly rentals and people are looking for keys and it was a business office professional office I don't think it'd be an issue but if it goes beyond that you getting a lot of traffic right my understanding is is the one unit is going to be retail if it's two as a condition of approval I think the applicant was hard press not to agree right that the Second Use will also be retail again so you're clear you could always come back to the board Second Use is going to be something else that's fine as long as it's a permitted use with because it's work ask for Ence but right I don't think the board should be put in a position of having to agree that something other than down event that there's a second promotional I agree any other further questions of the applicant okay thank you Mr Levy thank you those are all of our Witnesses yeah Frank do you have any comments not at this point I think the applicant provideed the testimony necessary for the variances and what's hear from the public and then I just have one question um are there any pictures of the south side of the building because one of a couple of comments with the um from the architectural advisory committee was on the North elevation you kind of have like a a mushroom effect and we did ask if that was if that could be changed but like Mrs Jennings said they're really you know maximizing their space the apartments are moderately sized so there's there was really no work around with that but I was just want we also made a comment of what if it was possible to kind of uh transition a little bit better between the south side of the building and the property Direct adjacent to it right now those two properties connecting uh so yeah so from from the South Side um you're really only going to be able to see it over top of it's really faint but you can see on the bay out side the building next to it and the roof line coming into it so it's it's going to be a blank wall and it's going to have to be fire rated so there's not there's not going to be windows or anything ornamental on because it's right at the property line right but it's just kind of like completely flat so is there a space between those two is there a space right now it looks like they connect each other so Robert says that they're not touching but I haven't been able to get to it at a vantage point where I can see like if they're if they're right next to each other I mean I don't think I could put my hand not that's right up against right like this is just like it looks to me as if there might be a small gap between the two buildings and on the Bay Avenue side they somebody put like a flashing or something to cover the Gap so they're from when you're looking at the building from Bay Avenue you don't see a gap makes but it would be I mean besides having a roof line that slopes right now it's a a wall and a parit that you can see um like it's still G to be a blank like a blank face no yeah you can't have Windows or anything close get so it's just going to be up against the other building but it's all fireproofed and everything yeah it has it's just like the roof line just looks so it doesn't transition well with the adjacent building it just kind of stops it doesn't transition at all that also had to do with the space that we had um right again it goes back to the just I was just want to go on record saying that you know this was a over 25,000 square foot property that was subdivided into five 5,000 square foot single family home so the space could have had a lot a little bit more flexibility if you didn't maximize the space I don't have the exact figure in front of me but to clarify I think the biggest residence is 28 no I mean the S yeah but I mean the single family lots in the back space could be to space could have been taken from one of those lots and everything could have been kind of a little bit more working together with the site you could have had the loading zone you could have had a little bit more impervious it just could have all been a little bit easier and a little bit more architecturally pleasing but you're working with the space that you're given but I just wanted to there's also the the job on the south side where proposed lot 5.05 is so when we initially were talking about it all together it didn't seem um like it would become much more usable if we cut lot 5.05 and half you end up with a 20 foot wide sliver that jogs far back the the current South bot talk more about I guess it just would be nice to see an elevation of how it might look from Bay Aven I like a 3D yeah yeah yeah or just even you know if you had drawn a bit of the building on the south side next to the new building just to give an idea of how they it is it's just really light it is it is can you reference the page of the plan yeah bring on it's just really faint on [Music] the yeah but we're looking East like we can't seeing if we're coming if we're looking North we can't see what that we just kind of have a 2 version yeah I think they're saying they would have liked to have seen a South elevation I don't know how much of it would actually be visible from the south I got it see it well if you I guess if you look at the North Third Street side the [Music] portion that would be essentially what the face of it looks like from the street um beyond that it's going to be block yeah if there's no other questions I'm going to open the floor or motion okay so is there a motion to open the floor to the public move second a second okay the floor is open anybody on Zoom or anybody in the room that wants to come forward and make a comment uh yeah please come forward state your name and address and uh the list uh Chief eler under South bayf um just wanted to ask sorry that's okay do you swear airm that get before I do thank um did you guys I know that last time this came up uh I asked about uh some of the considerations with the battery substation that's uh next door um did you guys find out any information or any considerations been made for this particular thing one thing I can tell you it's not directly adjacent because we have a residential lot that comes all the way back to their to Atlant City Electric and we have joining building bers this is one away yeah absolutely Frank and I understand that and um you know Public Safety comes first I have to think about that you're adding two more residents they're going to be writing store to it and we don't know uh specifically what would be in the event of a catastrophic failure so I just had to ask the question if there was any consideration if you guys took that in however I will say this with the uh what was talked about last time um is exactly on the site plan where the loading Zone come straight back which is a consideration that I took in for uh you know fire suppression where we'd be able to back the ladder up and we have the other parking lot so we would be able to make a better stop on anything that would potentially happen so I do thank you guys for having that included and keeping it within the site plan so that we can uh you know have better suppression so thank you anybody else would like to speak uh anybody on is there anybody on Zoom no my name is William Baris and um I own 208 North Bay which is adjacent to this property we weren't noticed so not that I'm aware [Music] of I do I reside at 100 Northwest Avenue Beach Haven New Jersey just before you saying you own the property at 208 North Bay Avenue 208 North Bay Avenue yes and it's your position I taken that that property is within 200t of subject site touches it that's yes yes okay you're the owner yes me and my two partners yes Mr you have foot list I do 2008 north bay on it was sent to my house in moristown okay that's got to be the address on the tax record yeah we have to fix that that's not correct yeah okay so I can't blame Jim for this right just just so everyone's clear Mr bar your Point's very well taken because notice is jurisdictional but under the Min of the land you still the interpreting it the applicant has the right to rely on the 200 foot list so I can tell you and I've experienced this in person in court if the list doesn't include a property that's within 200 feet and therefore that property owner doesn't get noticed the applicant has the right to rely on the list so Mr Little's advices are correct you should go to the tax department and ask them to update the list to make sure that notices for 208 North Bay if that's where you want them to go go to 208 North Bay thank you and welcome to the board I appreciate you're here thank you anybody else like to come up and speak nobody nobody on Zoom nobody on Zoom let me double check if anybody wants to speak on Zoom uh raise your hand you raise your hand or wave on Zoom raise your electric fan no all right so I need a motion to close the discussion public discussion I make a motion to close the public discussion so second second okay to the board for any further questions or discussions for motion oneck question on the south the build almost join straight straight any other comments or thoughts uh from the board before we um ask for a motion I I I just want to make one comment I I I do think that um I know one of the variances is uh to have some relief from the um the uh imper the impervious versus perious and uh when you look at the whole property um and the fact that a huge percentage the larger percent restive property is going to be residential now that there's so much more perious now than there ever was in the past and I think that take that in mind we are greatly increasing the amount of pervious property anything we've had in the past um I agree Nancy and Nancy to follow up with that when they came before us with the subdivision we asked the question what is the amount of impervious coverage with the Residential Properties and it's 66% is what was what was represented at that time yeah which is great I I do think I think the plan looks good and and I think it is what be Haven's looking for this sort of a mixed use with just two condos above I I think it's a you know a great opportunity for somebody that wanted to have a business and live above their business um and uh or they can go the other way around but I I think it's U I think it looks very nice anybody want to make a motion so I I would like to make a motion to approve this based um my thinking is along your lines about the impervious coverage when we look at the total site and there being uh five houses now and the basically the impervious coverage increasing on that total area there so I would make a motion to approve this project yeah with with the conditions that we any motion is subject to the testimony and all the conditions of approval that we discussed be a motion to Grant the application for and final major site plan approval with um the variance forious coverage and the no load loading zone is there a second I second it [Music] Mrs Davis yes Mrs ball Miller yes Mrs edles yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinquist yes Mr Balo yes Mr Wanger yes and Miss King oh sorry sorry Mr h yes application approved thank you all right on to our next case um which is the one in Second Street right it's uh 425 second GRE Gundy 424 Center Street Beach Haven sorry Greg Gundy C 424 Center Street B2 I do what is your relationship to the advant please uh I am the contractor and she's my girlfriend going to testify I'm going to testify her beh it's your application sir so I she going to testify if she is I need to raise your right hand I need in sure can you raise your right hand name please Moren Kavanaugh 425 Second Street Beach Haven you swear the testimony give before this will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you uh we are here for your consideration to change the distance between our curb Cuts curb depressions from 22 feet to 18 foot2 we currently have one curve cut that's 14 foot6 on the existing existing property we've since raised the house and added a second um garage door and we need access to that garage door so we were approved for a to change the 14t six curb cut down to 8 foot on the right hand side and to add a 8 foot curb drop 22 feet between the two curb drops to allow for a parking spot we're here to ask you to change that 22 foot uh measurement to 18 foot2 between curve drops uh for a couple reasons uh aesthetically the house looks would look a lot better with two symmetrical curve drops and and the average car is between 16t and 15' 6 and 16 ft so that considered with the fact that there's a driveway on both sides of the parking spot it's not really parallel parking at that point it'll any car could negotiate with no problem in front of that to get into that spot uh we we previously had one on-site uh parking spot and one internal parking spot we now have the ability to have two on that same side and three on this side so we're adding an additional three parking spots on site um and all we're asking is to change the 18 foot 6 I'm sorry the 22t between the parking spots shrink it down to 18 ft2 we're going to close down the 10 open from 14 foot6 and add a new opening in front center line of the garage door on this side we have 50 foot Frontage right now and we' hope for your consideration I do who do I show um let's we'll mark then how many photos do you have you have copies or they I have a current survey what looking for you can look at the survey if you want you have actual photos at the front I do on my phone you want toos of the we have the survey secet the survey I have diagram if that helps I looked at it so I know what it oh I did the same so the record I'm GNA Mark the diagram A1C one yeah can share this with the board members so this is what you're requesting or this is that's what I'm requesting we were approved for uh to change the the right hand curve cut or the East Side curve cut from 146 down to 8 to allow for more room in the middle and we were approved for an 8 foot drop under behind the in front of the not not this is the problem it's not in front of the garage door the center line it's offset which doesn't look very aesthetically pleasing and it's also somewhat of a hazard backing out of the drive way uh cuz there would be a the front end of a parked car if you were to inadvertently back up into a park car coming out of your own drive so I think 18 foot6 is a big enough if if you're if you're parallel parking a car in there it's one thing you you're not going to have to parallel park because there's a full driveway that's not going to have a car in it over here and a full driveway over here so you can pretty much get any size car in there with no problem all right so the ordinance was set up with 22 ft between them par between them theability without I mean a normal parking space is 9 by 18 you pull in head on so the applicant suggesting that it drops down 18 feet and with the two driveway openings the car can certainly get into a parallel space because you got extra room on either side for the two driveway so it's up to the board whether they want to consider um allowing to reduce distance between the driveways or you leave it the way it is and they would have the the driveway on the east side when they drive in they would have to kind of maneuver make the cers wider R the sidewalk to get in front of the garage is this a new house no it's a raise with a uh addition alteration yeah I'm looking at it um it looks brand it looks like a brand new house that's why that's what we're looking for right well if you're designing a brand new house my feeling is you design it within the ordinances that we have if it's but it isn't in a brand new house it's not brand new renovation with a facelift on it and a raise did the original House have two garage openings it had one on the on the uh leftest side so it only had one garage opening okay so you designed another garage open opening so you knew what ordinances were in place yes we did um that's why I'm here then we realized it's not really a hardship because you designed you designed this this way actually it's a self created hardship it's a self created yes that's not good for you well I'm just I didn't realize how bad it was until I so the knows and so you understand and I know you chose to present this application of council bmer B's comments are one point self-created hardships are not a basis for a land use board to Grant a variance and so the board remembers this application is for what's called a C2 or bulk variance the standard is whether or not the purposes of the land you saw will be Advanced and can the variance can be granted without substantial detriment of the public good and the benefits of the variance outweigh the detriment and the variance will not substantially impair the intent for the purpose of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance no old brand should be branded when merely the purposes of the owner will be Advanced that's the standard against which this board has to decide whether or not to Grant this application self-created hardships don't qualify for purposes of granting the Fulk variants now that all being said you've heard the testimony um this evening about how this may be more Cally pleasing it's up to the board to make that decision but that's what we have in front of us there's no other witnesses that correct I have neighbors here that could Tes oh professional no okay what would be the advantages or disadvantage to us to the town of beaden by um by warding you the EXP there's no disadvantage because you're an 18 foot2 unless you tell me that an 18 foot2 parking spot is not a big enough spot for your average car and my understanding it's 15 fo6 to 16 feet as your average car now if you were to negotiate parallel parking in that middle space yeah that may be a little tight because you have the driveway on the right side and the driveway on the left side you could pull just you don't have to negotiate it at you're in regard it's like you could pull straight in not straight in but drive bur and aesthetically pleasing from the front we we spent the m a lot of money to make it aesthetically pleasing we wanted to keep it somewhat symmetrical so that this driveway doesn't wind up on the neighbor almost on the neighbor's property of the outlet into the street and if I back directly out of the driveway there's a chance that I'm going to hit the front quarter panel of a car in the in the the way it is right now it's potential it's it has the potential of hitting a car coming back into the street the way I'm proposing it is it's straight back and the car has 18 ft and they should shouldn't be in that in that zone and we didn't lose anything as far as parking and we gained by doing this addition we gained three on-site parking spots on this uh on-site parking spots on this side and we're keeping the two that we had already are we losing a parking spot for the public no none whatsoever you're just shrinking shrinking it down from the proposed the the 22 foot the approved 22t down to 18 foot2 Mr little can you comment on that excuse me can you comment on that yeah I mean again we did the ordinance based on 22 the only other thought I had is wasn't G to improve this you could always Slide the slide the one space over a little bit and still get closer to Center and still keep 22 the concern is with 22 foot I understand a car is shorter than 22 but when you're parking on some of these narrower streets and you know you're pulling in with that car right up against one driveway or the other gets hard to turn into your parking space back out so you said Town thought quite a bit about this originally they you know people came and asked about split driveways that wasn't in the ordinance till a few years more and more houses are having split drives and the option this I don't think they br any LA to reduce this 22 down 18 if this Branch were to be branded are they losing a parking spot on the street uh no but it's just making it a lot you know 18 instead of to you're not going to lose a space based on apartment but right maneuverability in and out of these driveways might be diff difficult well the maneuverability for them would be easier but for the public that wants to park between those two driveways would be more difficult correct this is a congested area does the realiz where this is the two driveways on either side there's nobody we're saying is this is a congested area and you things being this tyght becomes an issue so one of the options if if you didn't if the board didn't approve it you could always slide you know Slide the easterly one over two feet and that would pull the other one in and still keep the 22 would be offset slightly but you might have enough room to get could you get in the garages without what's that could you get in those garage you probably could I I have to tell you other towns have we allow a 24ot curve cut for a two car garage right shipon allows 20 well they get these split garages and the person puts the 20 foot depress curve in the middle and once you get beyond the sidewalk they flare the papers out and and they're building that way and they don't have a split driveway we created a split driveway what we thought to make things easier for people to split driveways and this is probably the first waiver we've ever seen for this most people are adjusting and and or you could do a 24 foot driveway opening in the middle and then as you get past the sidewalk widen out your pavers and you could pull in and you know drive to the right or left so either one of those options works or you slide the easly driveway over a couple feet and line them up better they won't be exactly lined up with the garage doors but get what you need would either of those two Alternatives require a variance no so but the point is I think the board were to deny this application it's not like they don't have the ability to to adjust and create something that's within the ordinance but again it's up to the board and by adjusting they can still get the two cars in the in the the two car garage right now the one driver is lined up perfectly the other ones all set so if you even them up a little bit yeah it might work I mean I would work it look kind of weird I mean yeah I mean the driveway on the west side there was it looked almost impossible to get into that but I I mean again I you know the place I I mean the curve Cut's already there if I well the one curve Cut's 146 but they don't have two yet okay so that's they have a garage I mean it's just like one garage has a curve cut and the other doesn't right now you can still have two curb Cuts you just have to have 22 feet in between you're allowed to have two eight foot curb Cuts right so you right they just don't have the 22 feet in between because they created a self they created their own ship may I speak so sure so uh yes yes sure um so the option of of putting a one one drop in the middle the front stairs are all there and the utilities are all in the front there so that kind of doesn't work in that instance and I I can understand where you're where you're coming from on the 22 foot ordinance if you didn't have a parking spot a uh driveway drop here and a driveway drop here so you have 50 foot of Frontage to negotiate your parking your your parking so it's really not I know it's congested believe me I know it's congested there there will be no congestion there because you can only get one car there anyway and you have 50 feet to nego you actually have more than that you have 50 plus 50 plus another n eight or nine with the with the neighbor so you have 59 ft to negotiate one single parking spot so the 22 ft was created with parallel I would think was created with parallel parking in mind on a congested Street I don't think it applies here whatsoever this is a only nearly a 60 foot run with to park a 18t car as long as you don't have a car sticking in out on the street from you dri I'll make sure that doesn't have we live there so we're not going to we have renters coming and going either a question I don't Jason properties were a little under the 22 just slightly under 21 20 20 20 21 and then there's a 30 foot run to the next to the right hand neigh so you can get two cars to the right and then there's 's close to 59 ft of of clear sailing in front of this house to park one car I don't see any pH personally as long as it's not we're not losing parot I don't know what it I you know does anybody else have any questions before we open the of the I know parot whatever do so two D there to give you plenty of room to pull out of drive a little more than just parall it's up to the I mean heard our comments and the board can do what they like any other questions shall we uh there a motion to open open it to the floor second I'll second it okay anybody uh on Zoom or in the audience would like to come forward speak good evening my name is Jim Chula I live at 422nd Street c i l l a Chula I do we live directly across the street um from reenie um we've watched Greg work work on this house for uh quite a bit of time they've done a beautiful job on it it's uh really aesthetically pleasing um they've worked hard um typically when you look at a house the driveway lines up with the garage and in this case if you don't grant them the variance the driveway on one side or both sides will not line up with the garage so for me who lives across the street I'd like to look aesthetically pleasing with the driveway straight aligned um but it's also difficult to back out of the driveway or a garage when you're not going straight and you have to go on an angle and back out into the street so from a safety perspective um I think the straight driveway um would be the best answer to that um they also like Greg had mentioned um they've added two or three off-site parking spaces um by doing this they added the second garage so there's space inside the garage and there's extra space in the second driveway that they made so unlike some of the other things that are asked for um what we're looking for is trying to get cars off the street and and they've done that so um I'm here to ask that you do grant them the variance thank you p o Donal 432 doc Road be Haven I'm here to ask for the same thing that I do all right I'm here to ask for the same thing as the gentleman before me that you grant him Grant these people their their variance um as far as parking a car there and with those spot if you have two driveways and then a parking area of 18 ft2 you should have no problem pulling a car in there I don't think that should be an issue um other than that I just think you they should get what they're asking for thank you thank you anybody else anybody on Zoom no the motion to close the floor I still move a second second okay questions or comments motion to approve well is anybody I I I don't see any disadvantages to the town to let them put a a curve cut in front of each garage I I personally uh having one eye I know how difficult it is um for me sometimes to back up and um to have to do on curve I I think I'd be a little nervous I I everybody just says one I but um uh basically I think I think I don't say anything with it like to know what the rest of you feel but what what is your reason reasoning for because it when you're when you're when you're not following the law there has totically attractive because it's safer for them and we're not losing any off Street per no we're not but that means that everyone should have that ability then if they built the housing correctly this is a self-built hardship so I mean we're just going to open the door I know every application you know holds its own but there's nothing in this application as far as a hardship that would we would be granting that waiver so true it's it's the law that's I mean again I I yeah I mean and I'm sure you're very nice people you have neighbors obviously you you know you get along in the community but that's not the way that that's not the way that ordinances and asking for variances that's not how it works there is no evidence to granal waiver for this I realize it well I mean that's it's it's difficult I I mean it's difficult and unfortunate but that's that's the way the law is every board member has the right to vote whichever way the member feels is appropriate appropriate way you vote though will depend on the motion so let's get a motion unless for the discussion depending on motion we'll go from that Mr Stevens Nancy uh I'd like to make a motion to approve the uh application as submitted I I think it's an improvement on the safe on a safety issue so i' like to make the motion to approve the application there a second I'll second so we have a motion and a second because this is a variance application only and not an application for site plan we sitting as a zoning board mayor and uh m b you can vote because it's not a d variant but because it's just a application for a b variant only the first only the seven members will vote so it's be okay you have it I got it Mrs Davis yes Mrs ball Miller no Mrs Ed yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinquist yes Mr Balo yes application approved thank you congratulations thanks all right okay now we're we move on to I I believe and I I need the agenda here ums uh uh we move on to um approval of the minutes um anybody would like to uh approve the Min assume everybody read them I know John did I always do I'd like to make a motion to approve the minutes is there a second I second all in favor I wasn't I wasn't at the last okay all right now we have the bills um I saw the bills did everybody see the bills is there a motion to approve the [Music] bills motion to approve the Bills second all in favor I I okay now we're on to new business and um this relates to the three person committee um and uh one one of the things I'd like to bring up and is that um I think the three person committe is wonderful because it saves all of us a lot of time uh but I do think that when you're voting on a change of use um that needs to be brought to the council um for example if you're going from a retail we talked about this before a retail to a food establishment it's a really a different situation where somebody might be cooking uh or it draws a different number of people it might bring more congestion to the area and and I I think in in the future uh we we really need to think about that um I think the three person committee should and I I used to be that way I I don't know what happened I I know because I've been on the uh the land use board since um 2010 and I know back then uh when there was a change of use it did come to the board then why would it be presented to the three person Committee just hold it for the bring let's we can have this discussion I session later if anybody has questions for for legal advice the threers committee ordinance is really it's an exception for site plan approval and the way the ordinance reads is that if an app believes the nature of the proposed use occupancy hours of operation number of employees honor offsite parking square footage of the commercial area loading signage Landscaping Andor buffering and compliance with zoning regulations are essentially the same for the existing use they can apply to the board for an exemption of the requirement to seek formal formal site plan approval that application is submitted to the threers subcommittee in the event the subcommittee find that the proposed application will not essentially modify the existing use from the proposed use the application for the exemption can be approved that was done by our subcommittee in connection with the five applications that are on our agenda that the decisions already been made the ordinance goes on to say what happens is the subcommittee's approval or disapproval is announced at the next public meeting and read into the record so I just read into the record G prob we usually do it all five of these have already been approved by our subcommittee if they were if any one of them were to have been denied then what that means is the applicant would have to make an application for formal site plan approval and would come before the entire board that hasn't happened here so in compliance with our existing ordinance and then like we've said before and as the board knows the ordinance can be changed that's something that this board doesn't do that's something burrow Council does if they so if they see it to be so appropriate but under the existing ordinance an applicant has the right to make an application for an except an exception from formal site plan approval that was done in connection with all five of the matters that are before us this evening and all five have been approved by your subcommittee so there's no further action for this board to take from me again we can have discussion as much as you want I I really I won't give legal advice and a public meeting I can do it in close session certainly if a board member wants to have a discussion with me after the meeting one onone we can do that but for purposes of this meeting and so we can bring this meeting to a close five applications have been made for a waiver of site plan approval they're on the agenda they are just for the record bikini headquarters P andc living green head salad company Sandwich Spot and pinks Teraria and Takia and the ches shop too and they've all been approved by the soci so that's been read into the record and that addresses that matter on the agenda but let me just ask you the um the rules and regulations relating to the three person this would they would all fit under that I mean it's up to it's up to the sub whether or not committee simply this whether or not the propos application for the exemption from Slate plan approval will or will not essentially modify the existing use from the proposed use in all five situations before us tonight the sub commmittee determined that they will not essentially modify the existing use from the proposed use and therefore granted the five applications okay so there's no there's nothing further for this just and it has to be on the agenda because our ordinance says we read the subcommittee's determination into the record and that's what we well that's good and I hope one are very so that's it so that's it just a motion to toour I'm not doing it again motion to that we is there a second I said at the same [Laughter] time all right