ready the bradle be his board for February flag United States of America and to the rep for it stands Nation God indivisible withy and Justice thank the 48 hour notice required under the public meetings act have been met as noticed this meeting was emailed on January 23rd 2024 published in the sry park PR the postar and the poster a copy has been placed on the bulletin board in the Bal office and a copy has been filed with the B CL mayor Fox here M Hernandez here Council Mahoney here chair mayor here Mr Mayor here Mr Murphy is absent uh Mr shook here miss Riley iori here um Miss sarine is excused this evening Miss Bernell here miss boo here Mr seith yes and Miss re here and also present this evening mark p our board attorney Anda our board engineer and we also have Don bar our zoning officer and Christine Bell will be absent this evening and Mark you have sworn in miss boo Mr seith and Miss R I have there is no correspondence this evening um next the adoption of the meeting minutes for the reorganization meeting and the regular meetings which were held on January 18th 2024 a motion mayor fo yes Council mom yes Mr Mayor yes M Riley iori yes uh Mell yes Mr sh yes and chair mayor yes thank you I don't know if you want to make a motion as a group this is just like our meeting dates resolution we should just just just come on like a consent yes okay just just spell it what they okay so we have resolution 202 24-1 that's the approval of our officers uh resolution 20 24-2 approval of our professionals resolution 20243 approval of the newspapers for 2024 and resolution 2024 for approval of our meeting 2024 Mr Mayor Miss Riley yes coun Mahoney yes mayor Fox yes M reell yes Mr shook yes and Mr Mayor yes thank you before we get started just a couple go procedures for the sign out procedes how the meeting is conducted Please be aware the meeting is trans is recorded for transcription public has asked not to interrupt comment in any way disrup the presentation of the meeting in general once L board opens an application the applicant attorney will make their presentation with Witnesses and R professionals members of the board will ask questions and cross-examine each each witness of the applicate as needed members of the audience will be able to ask questions of the applicant and Witnesses based only on the testimony given at the at the end of each witness's presentation at this time no comments testimony of evidence from the public will be accepted the board may call its own Witnesses and present its own evidence with respect the application once the applicants concluded their presentation the board opens the public comment portion of the application the public is welcome to comment present evidence and testimony regarding application each person must be sworn in on the oath and 5 minutes if desired the applicant may cross-examine you based upon your comments or testimony if more than one hearing is needed to complete an application be Carri a future date no new application will St at 9:30 unless the board and the applicant can agree included in a timely manner otherwise it will be carried the board reserves final decision the board will adjourn at a reasonable hour and R will what this be called after the 10 p.m. thank you Mark do we want talk you want to talk about the so get anybody here for that um we'll wait until that's time got okay so our first matter under consideration is Luv 2316 this is for both Baran single family dwelling on an undersized lot 116 flip Avenue LLC block 11 lot 7 116 flip Avenue um this application is under consideration for a revote this evening due to the ineligibility of a member that had voted at the November 16th 2023 hearing no new testimony nor evidence will be presented regarding this application all members voting must been present the November 16 2023 hearing or those that were not present provide a signed certification form that they have listened to the recording from the November 16th 2023 meeting in order to be eligible to vote uh Mr Mayor remains recused from this application this evening um and I believe mrman representing the applicant wanted to put something on evening Jeffrey bman the bman law firm LLC I represent applicant as you all probably recall who were there and listen to the tapes I just wanted to get on the record so um this procedure uh was recommended by your attorney at the last uh meeting because of um we found out after the November meeting that uh councilwoman Mahoney was actually not properly appointed at the time by the council to uh participate in that hearing so to As a matter of due process we requested um a um uh action on the matter to address that deficiency your Council uh offered to the board that the appropriate measure is um the and I forget the name of the the case because I can't pronounce it uh but schmidler is is the name of the case is the case that uh he utilized to recommend to the board to go through this process for a revote uh which required anyone who uh is going to vote tonight who was not present at the November meeting to listen to the tapes and it's just my understanding and I just wanted to place on the record who has certified that they have listened to the tapes if we could just do that um scker for for the record so um the members that were not present at the November 16th hearing were uh miss boo who is listened and signed certification form mayor Fox who has listened and signed certification form um Mr seith uh chair Mayer and U Miss Mahoney even though she was present she did listen to the um the reporting once again and she has signed a certification okay so just for clarification um m board member Hernandez board member shook board member Riley ardi and board member Brunell were all present uh at the hearing correct and they're obviously here this evening correct board members who were board members in November uh chair mayor uh board member FCO and mayor Fox are all present and um are available and eligible to vote this evening and and listen to this listen to the T yes yes yes and listen and certified that they listen to the DAT uh board member of councilwoman Mahoney um has listened to the tape and she is now considered a new member since the the November hearing um having been appointed I believe in December I'm not sure I don't recall the date but December from the council and then uh board member seith I presume was appointed this year as of the January 1 reorg reorganization by Council correct or or by the mayor perhaps um okay so there are nine members eligible to vote this evening for this revote okay so um the case that I think is pertinent to this matter is Sher as you mentioned vers the planning board of lakeo um which um addresses this issue when there is a this was a mistake we just need to proct it um and um it's not that the um in this case is pretty thorough in its reasoning I believe um it would be un to uh the applicant have to repeat the application in other words throwing out the other decision I'm going through the expense of uh the new application that really is addressed by cour and also um you don't um you don't remove the vote of an in ineligible member and then have the decision altered that way so the case clearly uh discusses um the fact that um there's a revote so any disagreement from the applicant and his attorney as to the procedure we taken tonight and Reliance on that than so I appreciate that um I without committing to the position position that my client may take um I think your council's reading of that case in particular is accurate however the facts are not exactly the same so I I obviously have to reserve for my clients's um rights what they may or may not do uh but from the from the standpoint of of the case that your Council um is indicating is the proper method of correcting the deficiency I would agree I just place on the record that that obviously on behalf of my client we do Reserve All rights because is a due process issue so um I I my reading of the case and I want to hear if you disagree is that if a person was not on the board at that time but is on the board now as long as they listen to the tape they're eligible I believe that U I don't recall if it's specifically that case but there is a case in line might the Beach Haven case that specifically I for my recollection of of whatever do specifically refers to that and allows a member who was not a member at the time of the hearing to actually listen to the tapes and be part of that revote and I think the reason for that is you have members sometimes who are uh don't get reappointed or decide to step down which I think in this case you had because I think Mr avento was not reappointed um so no I do not disagree that that's what that case what the case is and and in fact Council woman Mahoney was not a member back then that's correct and is now a member now just like Mr seith is not a member now was not a member then and is a is a member now so I think that's the Court's reasoning and also I think the Court's reasoning is you if you really take a deep dive and I know I took a deep dive in my research that these case is going to be pelet division so the cast the people who are on the board is naturally not going to be the same when the when the matter comes back to the board so from a practical perspective that's how it has and I would agree that that's what those those line of cases do say anything else nothing Mr beakman is it yesman um since I had listened to the testimony and you had stated tonight that you thought I would be ineligible to to vote this evening because I had listened to the testimony before I was sworn in was a member um but thankfully I had listened to the recording um do you think perhaps Mr seith should not vote tonight because he did not listen to the testimony before he was swor in this evening it would be the same situation I did not aware I was not aware that he was not sworn in um wasn't he just sworn in this evening he was just sworn in this evening so you listen to the testimony before you were sworn in which would be the same situation that I was in testimony so he was appointed in January he was appointed in January I think the difference is so you were appointed in December no I was appointed in December no from the council you were appointed in December I was appointed by the mayor you can't by the mayor you have I not I was well I so so the date that matters is December December 6th date resolution so it has nothing to do with being sworn in it has do with being Appo appointed yeah I that's the critical date because because you can't be sworn in before you're appointed and the appointment has to be according to the law and the law says for your class uh appointment that it comes from councel as opposed to coming from the mayor do class four members get appointed by the mayor the class member who believe class three member gets appointed by Council so that's the trigger date Sim similar to Mr seith was appointed January 1st I guess was was the date so he was he was Point pointed he may not have taken his actual oath but the oath is for deliberating so that I think is is a a big difference in the situation okay and incidentally I don't Happ to agree with that I list a good thing I the reporting yeah I but and I'm not I'm not disagreeing that you didn't actually participate in the hearing as well whereas you know if a member of the public was sitting out there and then subsequently came beyond the board I would have that same objection although maybe maybe the argument is you actually participated in the hearing rightfully or wrongfully but but I think the trigger date really is the date of appointment and the and the hearing of the tapes should be after that so I guess open up sorry there's there's no new testimony no I know just but there were a couple of caveats that were added to that motion as to made the resolution and uh the motion regarding certain things that changed from the application I think it should be just reviewed put back into the records and I don't have that with such as U uh half story for being pulled back correct things like that and correct and I and I some of the conditions some the conditions need to be probably re put to the record since this is a new this is a new motion otherwise we just go ahead and vote do you have access to the tape I don't have on my phone I can't this is recording right so I can't um somebody has awit memory on this I was going to say do somebody have access to thees onl up now all my laptops so what we wrote um how we meant we approving the application with changes discussed removal of the third upper balcony in the front moved and then John Eric approved that that was the only condition we had that was the only thing you had yeah based upon the application submitted that's my recollection too actually there wasn't much in the way of changes no but since we're it's a whole new it's a new motion cover all basis so so if I that's the motion if I could two additional conditions as I wrote them down utility moving the SE right and and and they're supposed to provide an engineering plan based on the SL water okay so those three conditions were were on there that's why I have my notes okay so and I'll even add to that I believe you had a review letter that had conditions on it as well that aced there's no discussion right just motion stands motion is being put out with three conditions make a motion approv second it so that's approval with the conditions as conditions okay um Miss Riley yes Miss Fernandez yes uh I'm still a no on this I think that the the story I think it's just too big of building um C Mahone no and I'd like for the record um to say one of the main goals of the Bradley Beach master plan is to preserve the single family character of the Town land land members are Ed while protecting neighboring properties ensuring new construction allows for Ade adequate sunlight air and open space baranes are not to be Grant are to be granted for unusual properties where there's a true hardship not being able to build extra bedrooms and baths on a smaller lot thereby increasing density and reducing parking only causes a hardship for neighbors and benefits applicants I hope we as a board continue to establish and push for appropriate density restrictions and adherence to ordinances which will benefit the burrow and encourage a variety of single family homes different sizes so Bradley be can continue to wel up hoverers in various stages of their Liv I hope mayor fo I vote Yes um I think it's an enhancement I think Itor and not too intrusive I think it's re I vote Yes as I did before I think it's an asset to the town and I think if you look at the density we are actually going down um so I would like a pass too good luck Miss um having reviewed the tape I think this is a very tricky um case I appreciate all of the um all of the um uh the give and take thank you the give and take but also the plan it was a very good plan however for myself I can't get over for the um half I think it's it's a president I agree with Council Hy and um and as president so I'm Mr SE I'm going to vote Yes I think the uh the architect and the team made every effort to minimize all the impacts that uh were discussed thank you um Mr sh um as I previous stated okay and chair may this is I agree this is a tricky case considering the changes that have been enacted in town I believe that this home this home could have been 30 ft no matter what it's a 2 and a half story or a two story and we begin playing games of what happens on the third on so space at least we know what we're getting here two two and a half story with a small bedroom very small lot even if the I didn't hear any the one test thing I didn't hear was testimony about anybody trying to purchase another lot next door or anything else would spam a lot but even still it still be an not complying lot with with the properties that are there that section of town is a Legacy Legacy zoning issue and you have n that probably 21 22 ft wide in that area this home it is small a third a third a bedroom on the up in that half story I don't see as increasing density or anything parking spaces would not change the applicant gave back by moving the balcony on the M story also address coverage issues setback issues and drainage issues or easement issues I didn't think it was a big ask unfortunately I am going to vote yes and unfortunately this type of project will not go forward anymore in that area as we're limited to 25 ft from now long so that's something be basic be basic but I think the approval was warranted thank you congratulations I think we have to go right thank you appreciate your time congratulations thank you okay just for the the record before we get started since the next two matters involve appeals of the zoning officer uh councilwoman Mahoney and mayor Fox cannot participate in these applications um and Mr Mayor has rejoined us and he is eligible to so um so um we're going to just change the order sure and understand why explain that okay so um the next application is going to be um for the Fourth Avenue yes okay so our next application under consideration is Luv 241 appeal of zoning officers issuance of a permit to 613 4th Avenue Jay and Grace tro of 611 4th Avenue uh they're appealing block 60 lot 6 613 4th Avenue's uh permit um that had been issued to Patrick Clancy Jr and Carol Parks for the work being performed at 6144 the appellant recently discovered evidence that the scope of the zoning permit and work being performed May violate the Bor or regarding a second floor upper porch which is being installed on the sidey portion of the structure located at 613 4th Avenue the app is represented by tenant McGee s s good evening tenant McGee on behalf of the appellant J and Grace trupo unfortunately my clients cannot be present tonight uh J trupo is dealing with some significant medical issues and they're both actually in Florida we're not able to make it Mr M apologize for interrup is want to swearing Don you swear tell the truth Tru truth so the appellants are appealing the zoning permit Za 20237 that was issued to Patrick Clancy and Carol Parks for their property located at 6113 4th Avenue my clients own and resign at 611 4th Avenue which is the neighboring property uh specifically the appeal is limited to the side yard Upper Floor second floor porch area the deck the/ patio burrow code 45013 B5 expressly sets forth that upper porches are permitted in the front yard of the dwelling only above the footprint of the lower porch uh it was the appellant's position that in fact the zoning approval violated that ordinance provision uh that being said and without waiver and full reservation of my client's rights the appellant's rights uh the neighboring property owner is represented by Edmund fiter and we've had the opportunity to discuss this matter uh I've discuss it also with your attorney and the zoning officer earlier this evening I believe that we do have a compromise that would in fact comply with the code Provisions it wouldn't require and does not require any action by the board tonight other than the granting of a temporary adjournment so the zoning permit can be amended specifically the compromise that the two attorneys and the two parties have worked out is that the side yard second floor porch area will be decorative aesthetic architectural whatever word you want to use only and will not be accessible to be used it will be cordoned off by the same or similar type railing that is used for the exterior of the second porch and the front porch and not have a gate and not be accessible for use uh I believe and I submit I think both parties believe that the zoning officer has a discretion as a quasi judicial officer to make that interpretation under the code and to amend the zoning permit to limit the grant to it being aesthetic and Architectural own point being it really does under the definition under the code cease to be a porch if in fact if it's just a decorative architectural design feature so the appellants are requesting a brief adjournment will helpfully happen if the zoning officers an agreement an amended zoning will be issued that will authorize that section of the Upper Floor second floor side yard porch to be continue to exist and be constructed but once again not be used as an actual second floor balcony porch SL deck my clients have also requested uh that I read a letter that they sent to Mayor fox in December uh into the record um so sorry your your clients couldn't be here tonight but um that letter is here so that here so I understand my ruling is that that can't be presented I certainly understand that position so that is the appeal at this point which is essentially just a request for a brief adjournment so that this matter can be settled in accordance with the bur Mr chairman um sounds like it's a attorneys worked on this to get it resolved appr we always appreciate that um I just if we could just get confirmation from offic accept we all have to deal with so that being said um we'll just do how much time when's your next meeting next month next month and next meeting I I don't anticipate that you'll see unless it's on a different matter next okay so am I right so thank you very much can you make a motion someone make a motion um this should be to March 21 yep I make a motion to carry to the next meeting March 21st 2024 second all in favor thank I'm sorry Ed F on behalf of the CL just for period of just clarification the stop work order that's currently in effect is that going to have to stay in effect until the next meeting no I don't think so I don't want to speak for you but the position I would have is once the amended zoning permit is is is issued stop work right the stop work order be lifted correct thank and then this matter would not continue at our next heing I will submit a letter withdrawing the appeal thank you all right thank you thank Youk you thank you guys and our last matter under consideration this evening is Luv 2331 um this is appealing the zoning officers determination um Peter Boi block 56 6 503 5th Avenue applicant appealing the zoning officer's denial of a permit for the proposed construction of a second floor Dormer the zoning offic determination indicated the existing dwelling is non-conforming due to existing front and side Ro setbacks and that the proposed D constitutes an expansion of the non-conforming structure Mr want come up here you'll have to be sworn in so who this is my witness k b structural LLC raise your right hand please also Mr fr you s from tell Tru so uh my name is Peter DOI I purchased this property uh in July of last year as our forever home uh upon uh going to the purchasing process and and having structural uh inspection it was uh clear that the roof uh structure uh trusses Etc were either failing or about to fail and we uh is need to remove the backside of the roof order to correct it uh in discussions with the uh Builder it was decided that this would be a great opportunity to also uh put a dormer on and expand uh the second stor uh to add a additional living space and storage space to the house uh this permit was denied because of setbacks we're not expanding the footprint of this property at all we're just repairing the roof and we're adding a suing space upstairs to make it more suitable for our family needs I don't know if you want to talk about it may you can see in one of the pictures the actual curvature of the roof at the top uh that see that yeah I printed my version of it too you can see where it kind if you could just advise the board what is your background first time sorry thank you um I'm structal engineer um with a PE in New Jersey New York in Delaware I own my own firm out of Middletown I do home inspections design Consulting that's exactly um so I did the preliminary inspection of the house prior to their purchase and I found this obvious sag in the roof as well as this is one of the joists uh I'm sorry not the joist the Raptors in the Attic um if I remember correctly there's two to three that are similar to this other ones are undersized looks like they were replaced um so in order to do the work obviously youd have to replace those and in the um Peter talking to the Builder it seemed to add more living space to the structure that um it would be easier to go up the um renovations to it or the addition I guess would be it's adding a little bit of elevation it does not change the square footage or I'm sorry the footprint of the structure at all all it does is it brings that second floor it changes the slope slightly to give more living space on the second floor only Foundation is touched torch any of the setbacks are being changed you don't have a drawing showing the front of the house View and such I don't have a drawing in the front I have all three sides um all we have is East Elevation oh there's a west elevation I'm sorry the East and West elevations are all that I have recognize us because it used to be 20 spruce trees in so I guess I I can show you East elevation here the way it it looks right now is that it comes to a pitch right here and comes down to roughly about probably where my finger is so all we're doing is we're adding roughly four feet four feet of height here we change the pitch so that you could have a full living space through the whole back portion of the house before it was just the Raptors are there Windows going to be on across the front that 4ot elevation yes there will front let's see kind of just so have yeah so it's the front if you go back to the front picture that you have because mine had trees you can't see see it how the trees are gone um it'll actually almost mirror what there so it's keeping with the aesthetic it's keeping with even the decals on the side are being added back in to keep with the the theme and the architectural attributes of the house so there's a whole another set of Windows on top of those windows then yeah but they're little ones they're not going to be full height yeah typical Craftsman yeah or yes I just commented grab the beach basically anything you do run baring you got lot it's it has nothing I know it's your comment is it's not about to be fair or anything else it's just it is and and this is my first time obviously uh in this situation I just personally don't understand the fact that this building has been around for 100 years so it it was probably conforming and then legally trust me it's never been conforming so I just want us to be all on the same page um I think it would be important to hear from a zoning officer um the applicant has appealed the zoning officer's decision deny the applicant is not seeking bearings relief today interpretation he appealing the zoning officer's decision it's not an interpretation he appealing the zoning officer decision so and every application stands on their own at times we have seen applicants who appeal the zoning officers decision and then also notice for variance relief if they do not Prevail in the appeal zoning officer decision this is not this is not that tonight this is strictly the appeal so then what are we voting on to uphold the zoning officers argument or side with the zoning officer saying that he needed to come to us for variance he disagrees with that kind of do just just Pap work should have barings for it's EAS way to do I do jry and this bar my point was in my appeal was that the zoning officer specifically talked about expansion we not touching the footprint of this house increasing the volume expansion that has nothing to do with the set it's a vertical expansion veral has nothing to do with the set and as it stands the setep backs are the front and the front we're not touching not being touched at all side neither's the side it's really just it's the back theight yeah it's going up 25 25 2 13 2550 is it significant as it is the fact that the Wall's being raised if that wall is in the set should consistent before for any questions of the applic if you look at the setback the violative part of the setback is to bump out on the side so the wall is actually behind that is the wall can ask a question is the wall itself within meet the setb I believe it is so the addition that you're proposing the wall that's going up does not need I mean that's important if it's well we we never on this we never got anything we never a letter you at the yeah the surve shows it has a bump out on either side there only one the bump the other bump okay but the wall itself now forget the bump out the bump out wasn't there is the wall in the set that's in the set you need [Music] a it's a 5 foot set it's kind of hard for me to give you anything more than that because we really don't have anything to review I understand but your point is I just can't tell even from the survey what the distance is from the corner of the house looks like 3.6 ft and 3.8t all right so it's a 50t the property is conforming right this it's 50t wide and it is 150t deep so it's a conforming wi just that the structure was built 3.6 or 3.8 ft from the property line which puts it in the side SE for a conforming lot right if you do anything if you took your addition and moved it in so it was 5T off the property line then you wouldn't need a VAR I do that I'm just saying it's as silly as that sounds unfortunately I'll be very it's very frustrating that uh we're we're being held to a standard that was at unable so it's regardless but that's how it that's what happen this in my old County it was grandfather so I'm not sure what county you in well I've worked in Union County and I know at boards there and I've done the same thing I've just spoken that it's across the state it's state wall sorry I know it's insignificant but if you were to come I'm sure it's it's a variance that is probably more than likely approved but it's going to set you back on time because you should come in for Vance in my opinion any other a testony open this portion up to the application to the public question Thomas J 612 Aven can we go back to the uh the rear picture of the housee m b if you if you brought this in symmetrically one and2 ft on each side would that be considered a a cottage style look the the addition expansion the expansion started here and symmetrically on this side one and A2 ft in on it that would bring I mean yeah ctage style that would be possible and you fix the Raptors at the same time yeah you could but it's going to change some of the layout it's going to change if you're bringing it in and you're going straight up then you've got two different pitches of the roofs and the Raptors are need to be replaced the ridge Board needs to be replac the whole way across bring it in okay I just established thank you point question back to you well if I could that was my point if you take the side additions and you move it in a foot and a half on each side now you're not in the setb right so you're not Al line right the same point that I Wasing just clear more and you don't have to come for variance because the new part of it that's changed is now within your SE it's in your building and I know it sounds Petty maybe but it is the so if they made the proposed addition three in three feet narrower yeah whatever you needed to get that absolutely but from from a aesthetic look you might want I mean even it out but I guess my question back to you then is if you did that would you still need the VAR to fix those do not I if you just repairing a roof as is you wouldn't need but the fact that you're raising it and you're increasing the volume of the space and again I know it's negligable but it is have the has been built centered right on the property there know what you and it's not this young SW you bought a house that exists no of course not it's an existing number I would have to say 90% of the applications that come in yeah it's not un usual we say 74% of the town is not conforming and then after last month we're now at 86% yeah so we either have to change the plans we have to come back VAR timing on the Varian is the earli would be next meeing yeah and then but if I modify the plans then it's just a matter of submission we avoid that that variance requirement it's a building yeah you're only talking one two we process if you can revise the plan and get it to zoning off please com I know you want to say something you agree with your your reason for the reason for the denial was the 2.1 cyg setback and that it was into the five foot required setback and you were going up so this not even issue no no not even issue open portion application of a public comment Thomas J 612 Avenue I do agree with the zoning officer determination to tell the truth the whole truth truth tonight proceeding I do thank you Thomas the uh I do this officer determination on this and there have been many people who have done this same work around by creating a hip and bringing it into so it's a design Choice by the uh applicant and um think it's very well I can sleep well then thanks TJ um continue right is all doing make a motion so is appeal it's an appeal of the zoning officers decision so um if you to the board but what I'm hearing is May going in the direction of holding only so they're repealing it so um his application the application would be to deny deny deny so make motion to deny this application and if you agree with the motion then you vote Yes wheel are have to close it out make a motion to Bic hold this bar and deny the application as sorry you're denying the appeal the application theal you do have an application okay theing off I'm sorry Mr Mayor you're my second yes okay Mr Mayor yes M Riley yes M Hernandez yes Miss reell yes M yes um Mr sh yes and chair mayor yes thank you very good thank you hopefully um I think that's it but our next meeting is going to take place here complex meeting room um March 21st 2024 at 6:30 p.m. with no further business motion to all favor than have a lotch already I already have three and I'm hoping the other's