e e e e e testing e e now know it's going to be a longer than that it's be a lot longer than that oh yeah it's going to be a long one tonight I think in compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided if any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act they should state so at this time we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance United States of America theice okay Mrs wner here Mr venudo here Mr Edwin Mrs not miss Shen here Mr Walsh here M Mr zexer here Mr catalo Mr Bodner here thank you okay the first order of business is a are the minutes I need um a motion I'll make the motion second motion by Mrs Notch seconded by Mr ledwin Mr Lewin yes Mrs not yes Miss Shayan abstained Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay right so we have need a motion for resolution Dev jackan at Columbia Avenue I'll make the motion motion by Mr Veno second seconded by Mr zeter Mr Lewin yes Mrs N Miss Shen abstain Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you and now we need one for JTG group resolution for 1382 Lafayette Street I'll make the motion motion by Mrs Notch second seconded by Mr Mr zeter Mr Lewin yes Mrs not yes Miss shayen abstain Mr Walsh no Mr zexer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you okay we now have a resolution to appoint the services of heris planning and Engineering as a zoning board engineer can I have that motion I'll make the motion I'll second okay motion by Mr vudo and seconded by Miss Shen Mr Lewin yes Mrs not yes Miss Shen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr vudo yes Mrs wner yes and congratulations thanks so congratulations appreciate your support all right we have one more resolution for Fern and Kevin Waters 1218 New York Avenue I'll make a motion motion by Mr zeter I'll second seconded by Mr Walsh Mr levn Mrs not yes Miss Shen abstain Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you our first application was to be Yacht Harbor Marine this application has been adjourned to the July 25th 2024 meeting there will be no further notice for that application if you want to be heard on that application you should appear at the meeting date that was announced as there'll be no further publication or letter notice thank you okay so our next application is Stephen and Katherine Clemens 504 Jefferson Street Street only swimming pool that's in the rear yard of the property theol somewh smaller but will still deviate from the rear yard setback requirements that's an existing noning condition and also ofp is also exing requesting from the board this evening um I have with me to provide some testimony and then our Pro AR will provide testimony as layout of the pool your permission we will also swear on our board engineer do Raise Your Right hands do each of you just testifying there you go uh do each of you uh swear or affirm to tell the truth all truth and nothing but the TRU yourself you got I do thank you all three of you need to turn your mics on thank you green light mine's on green no green light oh there we go go um Mr Clemens I'll start with you how long have you and Kathy owned uh this home approximately approximately two years now okay and how long you've been spending time uh coming to Kate May we've been coming to Kate May off and on for at least 20 years okay and um you're currently in the process of renovating the home yes it's a fairly significant renovation yeah I know you're raising it in order to meet the flood control requirements that's correct um and you went to the historic preservation commission and received preliminary approvals for all that work that is correct all right so the reason that that we're here uh before the board relates only to the pool correct that's right um can you tell the board briefly what the condition is of the existing pool and why you're seeking to renovate it certainly the existing pool first of all the liner is leaking and bowed in the middle so it needs to be fixed in any event uh second the exterior patio work around the pool is a mish mash of three different there's poured concrete there's tiling there's like Belgium Block in another place it was just like was put together at different times with different materials and third and I would say most important the pool is just too big for the setting it it needs to come down a few feet to uh allow for more exterior space and ease of use so you have some more functionality with more patio space around the pool with the renovation that we you're proposing that's correct that's all I have for Mr Clemens any questions for him about the nature of the project I couldn't find what the dimension of the pool will be how much it's coming down so miss L white will provide testimony on the dimensions I'll have I'll have her address that if that's okay Mr Clon isn't going anywhere so we can have more questions for him later but maybe if I could turn to miss lone white and we can go over the planet development and the dimensions so I'll bring her forward you've been sworn in and I know um why don't I give you this deorah come closer okay um so I know you have have had the opportunity to provide testimony in Kate city um as an expert in the field of Architecture is that correct correct can you please use the mic yes correct no can you're going to have to take it with you you might have to take it with me okay yeah only because we're live stream and they can't hear you unless you have the mic fair enough um and you've been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture correct um and you're still in uh have a good license in architecture here in the state of New Jersey absolutely familiar with the Kate May City zoning ordinance and its master plan very much so uh any questions for this witness and her qualific in architecture no um so you heard Mr Clemens he obviously described the nature of the development you're the architect of record I know you're fully familiar with the renovation project that is underway correct yes all right can you describe to the board what the existing conditions uh consist of I know you brought a photo board which I'm going to Mark as exhibit A1 it was actually part of our variance application so you should all have it in your package as um sheet V3 so we'll keep it as V3 V3 which is part of the plan set and what is that show so this is as you stated a a variety of photos of the existing home um when the Clemens purchased the home it was in somewhat a level of disrepair it had been renovated at some point to include an air conditioning system and the duct work had been placed on the outside of the house and then covered with basically drain pipes um it was clad in a vinyl sighting there was significant rot in the window the sun porch overall just kind of a level of disrepair there was this broad iron balcony off the back of a stair Landing that was essentially falling off the building um so the intention of our client is to renovate and restore this home to its historic character can you just note which photographs show the existing swimming pool sure the existing swimming pool is shown open in its glory and number 10 photo 10 um other photos taken in the backyard include photos 5 6 7 8 and nine and that pool in its current uh configuration is nonconforming as for the zoning is that correct that is correct okay maybe we can go to your variance plan and note for the record what those nonconformities consist of of course so variance plan is Page V1 um the existing pool does not conform to the setback required off of the adjacent building or the primary structure in this case um and it also does not conform with a distance offset to the property line um obviously off of Sewell Avenue it is fine and off of the existing garage it is fine but as it abuts the adjacent property it is too close to the property line and just could we recite those dimensions for the board what are they of course so the required setback off of the primary home home is the requirement is 10 ft we are closer to 3' 8 and a/4 to Water's Edge um and then the setback to the the side Lot line is required again at 10t and we are at 6'9 so with the what are we proposing to do with the pool our proposal is to actually leave um the the perimeter of the pool in place but to make it significantly shorter so if we look at your uh another page in your variance application page V2 the area here highlighted in yellow is the area we're planning to remove so it's basically 8 ft plus this little kind of Step walk-in um to take the pool length down to a proposed pool length of 32 ft and that reduces the extent of the non-conformity as to the setbacks it does and do you agree with Mr Clemens in that it will provide additional patio space to improve functionality and efficiency in the rear yard it will and in fact we're actually proposing as Mr Clemens noted the pool patio as it currently exists is actually three different types of Paving rather uneven tripping Hazard um the areas shown in red are the areas we're proposing actually to remove um this area here again at the adjacent property line is completely non-conforming we are planning to remove that um so yes we the intention is to create more outdoor usable area that's not water um are we proposing a fence uh to provide security around the pool absolutely the pool perimeter will be fenced um we've taken our drawings to the HPC and gained their approval so we will have a pool safety fence at the perimeter of the property um coming across and back and all the way around um the property itself will also be fenced but with a different type of fencing Mr hurles raised a comment about the fencing with respect to providing a Clear Sight triangle can we accommodate that yes it does not impact the pool safety fencing at all it only impacts the aesthetic fence at the perimeter um and we're also going to be providing improvements to the uh detach garage uh as well yes there is a non-conforming existing onecar garage um we are simply planning to update the exterior finishes to match the new home um replace the garage door the building itself will not change in size shape location volume it will still house one vehicle um one of the purposes of zoning is to provide adequate light air and open space even with these improvements that you just described um is the project Less in terms of coverage It is Well the overall project actually increases coverage on the lot by roughly 1% but it's still less than what's it is still less than what's required by The Zone and obviously as an architect you have an eye for the visual uh one of the purposes of zoning is to provide a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques good Civic design and arrangement with respect to the pool do you believe this is a better Civic arrangement with a smaller pool relative to the backyard in terms of scale than what's currently existing on the property I do I do it's also um currently the steps that you walk out from the mudroom you fall right into the pool so this is going to give us the opportunity to have a safer egress and again a better visual environment and do you think there would be any negative impact to um any the neighboring uh Property Owners or to the Zone plan if the variance was granted no um and for those reasons you believe the variances are warranted I do you've read Mr heres's memorandum I have do we take issue with any of the other comments he raised no we can agree to all as a condition of approval yes that's all I have for Miss SL white any questions as to architecture layout of the pool Dimensions I just have a couple questions um so there there's one fence that's around the house and what height is that going to so confused about the difference in Heights and where changing so the pool fence and the fence around the house most likely will be the same height but the um fence around the pool will have a different opacity than the fence at the front yard in other words we want the front yard fence to be more aesthetic and just to keep people from walking on the property the pool fence has to meet all the regulations I'm just asking what the height is on the fence they're 40 48 in 48 in okay I thought there was some at 72 some along we were hoping along the back property line to have it be taller okay so just the back is at 72 yes because this is of we can't have it 72 along the the street yes U my other question was uh from what I was seeing here that you're proposing to put in another door and a window on the garage we are um I didn't see the HPC approval for garage improvements we had them on the drawing when we went before the HPC and we will obviously return to the HPC after this hearing um they they may not have specifically outlined it in their approval but that they've been on our drawings since the beginning I see it in the approval I just that the house got approved I see approval for HPC for the garage will be any heating or AC going inar no and where would the pool filter be located is that set so the current pool filter is non-conforming we had hoped to leave it in place just to replace it with newer quieter equipment um as Mr hurles noted in his memorandum if we need to move it to satisfy the zoning code we certainly can if we do move it it will be right here where we're currently showing trash can enclosure um we would move it there it is really the only place on the site I can conform with all the required setbacks and where would you provide the trash enclosures if you did that most likely under the pool equipment the pool equipment does have to be raised to a certain flood elevation so put the pool equipment high and put the trash low but our preference is to keep it where it's currently located that was our PR preference that is what is shown on our drawings is there is an existing pool plat or the pool equipment was existing we were hoping just to replace it well why do you think the place that you want to keep it is better than the place than the other place like give a reason so we have me I want you to get a fair shot of getting what you want but tell me tell me why the area that you think it's better is better well the installations there and it's also kind of out of the way um the functionality of having the the trash here and not elevating the pool equipment would be preferable um this is you know there are Windows on this side of the home which will navigate area has less impact on the neighbors moving it would have less impact on the neighbors have you had an opportunity to talk to the neighbor to the rear I did speak with the neighbor to the rear um she contacted us with uh questions regarding the application um we walked through it she has absolutely no concerns she is very thankful that the Clemens are being such good stewards of the property it had again fallen into disrepair I asked her about the pool equipment she did not raise any objections to it remaining where it is um but we'll we'll figure it out whatever the board would like us to do but our preference is to keep it where it is does the pool equipment have to be raised like the AC equipment has to be raised so that so it'll be raised where it is okay yes by code it does need to be back to the fence ing pool safety fence that will surround just the perimeter of the pool and that will keep somebody from stepping out the door and going into the pool you from the home you will be able to access the pool but from the perimeter no one from walking by would be able to get in without going through a gate and the gate does have the Safety Lock that's on the inside and I just concerns is no matter what this is much improved over your situation now that th just you walk out and like she said you're falling yes but still a child or a younger person could walk out and just go into the pool you are correct if there is a child within the home they can exit the door and access the pool which does meet current building codes there is no code restricting access from inside a home out to a pool what's code and what's safe is true um a lot of times we put the alarms on the doors so if it exterior door is open the alarm will notify the the residents the Clemens don't currently have any small children I don't think we're expecting any small children to visit anytime soon but 20 23 and 19 so you can debate whether they're small you'll have small children soon and Mrs Clem just reminded me there's going to be a a retractable pool cover that is going to be used when the pool's not in use which would be another level of safety yes and the current pool you actually can't do that because of the shape of it but the new pool pool will be a a clean rectangle so we will absolutely be able to put a cover on it is the current full filter raised no it's not it would have to be raised regardless regardless you're going to have to do some kind of work with that system correct and that's a code requirement I know they raised the house the raised at all or anything around raised no noar the patio will be flush with the pool is it will be left where it is if no further questions I have a question you do yeah I see you have approval from the fire department was that specifically um for you know fire ladders that could reach the second or third floor windows and the reason I asked CU I walked by your property yesterday and notice that you had a plywood covering over the pool and there's a ladder right on top of the plywood cover coverings going up to the third floor so I just wondering if that was you know a specific concern or a question that the fire department was addressing so it was noted in Mr heres's report the idea of fire safety um we are improving upon the existing circumstance because there will be more patio to put a ladder on but I well it depends on where the windows are I'm sorry it depends on which Windows they might have to get into so so thankfully the sleeping chamber on the third floor is where the new patio would be the other end of the home is actually not a bedroom it is a family room and there are all egress windows that are up there but yes the sleeping area is closer to where a fladder would fit does that answer your question partly okay yeah but still you have you know I'm just you know trying to understand whether that the fire department answered that um question specifically just looking at the situation where the ladder is right now gone to the third floor so the only communication we've had with the fire department is the same piece of paper that yeah and it doesn't relate to the pool that concerns the renovation of the home so if there's a Code requirement that we have to adhere to with the Fire official we'll have to address that but I don't think that condition Rel leads to the variance for the pool which brings us before this owning board unfortunately it kind of does you may not know this but we've had testimony a bunch of hearings that this rule about the distance of the pool from the house was designed to because there was a Fire official actually on the board at the time and they did that so they could put ladders against the house without it going in the pool so there that's why there's a 10- foot that's why that requirement is there in theory but we are improving that because there's more room than there was before definitely thanks for that clarification okay the fired setback is also so that First Responders can circulate around the home and this pathway is wide enough for someone the existing distance from the home to the pool does meet the idea that someone could walk through there it does not address your concern about ladders okay let's go ahead and let Craig do his report and then we can have any other questions yep thank you very much I would like to summarize the review dated February 27th 20124 this is a project located in the RS residential seasonal District um you've heard testimony from the applicants indicating exactly what they're doing the relief salt tonight is strictly for the pool um so I'm going to roll right into the completeness items they asked for a couple of waivers item four we supported item 17 we supported um the design calculations uh showing the proposed drainage facilities so the new uh grading drainage and storm water uh ordinance that was put into effect is triggered whenever you put a new pool in or make pool Improvement so therefore they are subject to that so as a condition to any approval they should be required to comply with that ordinance and provide the required storm water uh calculations uh the proposed sight easement so uh during during their testimony they kind of touched upon this but they didn't exactly draw the site triangle that's located at the intersection of Jefferson and Su Avenue correctly that 20 by 20 sight triangle is measured 20 foot down each side uh each front yard and then this the triangle is struck so where they're proposing the fence on the plans needs to be pushed back on that angle um so that it complies with our code so that should be a condition of approval um and that should be added to the plan as any condition of approval uh the Landscaping plan so um there are some Landscaping requirements with regards to pools we would ask that that um some of the additional information be supplemented per the uh recommendations in our report u based on that those recommendations and those uh supporting those condition uh those being waved as a condition of approval I did recommend deeming this application complete okay um so if you take a look on page three at the the bottom table has everything else uh conforms or some existing non-conformities with regards to the house they are not being impacted by the uh improvements the pool variances are there is a setback that includes the pool and patios connected uh that it requirement is 10 ft it's existing at 6.77 and it's proposed at 6.77 I don't exactly believe that that is um comprehensive uh if you notice on that color drawing there is a red portion um directly between the pool and the rear lot line that is a lot closer than 6.77 but they're removing it so this is that's they're bettering the situation um so um they're prop it's really worse of a existing condition and they're making it better um and they're also reducing the extent of that non-conformity so um it's right now it's longer and they're shortening it up so that's a benefit to um the zoning code they're more in compliance uh the setback from the principal structure we we talked about um it's a safety issue um their origin is based on getting a ladder to the rear of that right now based on the survey the extent of the pool runs almost the entire length of the rear of the house that is being reduced so this is a better situation it's not it's not getting any further away but the length of it is so there's more opportunity for a firefighter to get a ladder to the to the whatever window that they can access so that's that's better too now we touched on the pool equipment so I made a recommendation the pool equipment is considered part of the pool pool it's integral um the pool setbacks are made to buffer the neighbors from the noise and activities from pools if you're going to raise that pool equipment it's going to get louder for your neighbor so my recommendation is all right we're making these Renovations you're going to have to raise that let's let's make that conforming relocate it make sure it meets that 10ft setback so um that was my recommendation um if the can I ask you a question about that yes where where you're relocating if there's a house next to that or is that be up against the house if we moved it but there's no house it's on the street I'm trying to see if that's on the there's house there's a house to the right a house over here but we are well beyond the 10 required okay I me my only thought is that neighbor where it's at now hasn't come out and complained and then you're going to put it somewhere else and they could annoy that neighbor I mean I know we think 10 feet is like this Talisman where you don't hear it but but you can always sell the house they can the house could be sold other people could be complaining about it okay yeah my my idea was just setting that pool equipment just stepping it back so that it meets the 10- foot setback it would be right up against the garage so it's buffered by the from the neighbor on that side as well as stepping it back from the neighbor Oh I thought you putting on the side of the house that's what that was their that was their recommendation oh I see when I initially made my recomendation and was looked at the plan I just figure if you set this pool equipment back it's going to be alongside of the garage that's and then it's going to be buffered okay so that's where I envisioned it um but I just want to put it next to New neighbor's yard that's yeah why do that but if they're going to leave the pool equipment there they need a setback variance from that so that's that's the recommendation we'll move it okay you want to address we can certainly move it to be further forward and adjacent to the garage is there any room for consideration to leave it against the house instead only because now we're if we're going to move it let's get it out of their noise range and move it forward but whatever the board prefers we can move at either location you can move it to either location it's compliant you don't need a variance right right but it just needs to comply understood so our preference is to install it adjacent to the house compliant with the 10ft setback what I'm going write is it'll be moved to a compliant location perfect okay with everyone and then you just pick where you want to put it that's legal great okay that makes that that's easy to type perfect okay so those are the two variances that are necessary um that the board should consider tonight I'm going to roll into the general review comments um the whenever there's a garage up against the pool patio I always asked this question is it going to become a pool house is it going to be habitable area is there going to be you know any utilities run to it or is that going to remain parking or storage for your single family dwelling it will remain parking or storage okay so that takes care of that issue that should go in the resolution as a condition of approval number two um in my general comments I talk about the pool location equipment we just talked about that three is our standard condition that we just asked you to revise the zoning table per the board's approval uh four is the site triangle issue that we just talked about so that information should be updated on the plans five and six deal with the grading information around the pool we've asked for some of that that that's the information that the new storm waterer ordinance requires whenever there's a new pool install so your grading and drainage plan should add address that as well as address the requirements of the ordinance number 485 2022 pool safety fencing is required that's a standard condition um is there any lighting for the pool no okay no flood lighting you can lights in the pool are fine flood lighting okay so the ordinance requires if there is any you have to submit that design for a review if there's none just add a note to the plan saying there's none okay okay um so there's a landscaping and vegetation plan has been provided it has to be redesigned to comply with the code understood so we just ask for that to be upgraded um there is a street tree that's proposed along Jefferson Street on your plans that is shown in conflict with the survey utilities that are shown so we would ask you to relocate that and just make sure that's not in a slight triangle uh 11 is our standard condition that we ask the applicants to um fix their sidewalk um a lot of times when these pool installs or your contractors are running over the sidewalk um they break it up before we accept your improvements we do an inspection and verify that it's not broken up if it is broken we ask you to fix it all right um 12 is our standard condition that the CEO or acceptance of improvements is tied to a um the in satisfactory inspection and you have to post an inspection esro we ask you excuse me it's allergy season um uh we ask you to comply with the Kate May sh Tre commission fire department and public works department we have a app uh we have those reviews fire department review dated 31824 they recommended approval with no conditions Public Works recommended approval dated 3:14 2024 with no conditions and the shade tree commission uh recommended approval with the following conditions um they esed that the project should not impact the five existing trees on the property they recommend construction barriers be placed around the two trees facing Jefferson and the one tree on Su is that acceptable it okay so they're going to comply with that and that memo is dated 41224 okay and they have to comply with any and all other state County local approvals the project is located within historic district so you need HPC approval uh I believe one of the members indicated that just verify that your improvements to that garage are included in that as well and you should also make sure the fencing is approved by them too the fencing was included in our presentation okay uh 16 the pool get HPC approval the whole project we took before the board so yes the pool improvements were indicated on all the presentation material given to the HPC okay I guess what I was reading what it just said the house I think that was their focus yeah typically they don't comment on backyard improvements it's more Street skate right but yeah that's a structure so structure and streetcape improvements are kind of what their focus is okay um HPC okay they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and finally if if should the board Grant approval they have to revise the sets uh revise the plans and submit the requisite number of sets for review and approval by the board engineer that is a summary of my report I'm happy to answer any questions the board has and all those comments are acceptable as conditions from the perspective okay any I just have one quick question what is a material defense I'm just material defense defense is wood okay and the the it was included in the HPC sub middle as far as the size the spacing the height it is a natural wood fence okay okay we're going to open it up to the public within 200 feet any comments Beyond 200 ft and close to the public any other comments um the motion I'd recommend being made but how you vote is up to you and we always make our motions in the affirmative is a motion to Grant the variances one and two on page four of the engineer report dated February 27th 20124 subject to the conditions outlined uh in the engineers report and discussed on record included with that limited to the garage not being used as a pool house uh the pool equipment being relocated to a conf pering location and compliance with the shade tree commission's letter data 4224 I make a motion okay motion by Miss Sheen I'll second seconded by Mrs Notch Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Miss Shan yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you thank you very much while they're switching over anybody who wants to leave the application from uh that was adjourn to July if you want to leave it with me I'll be happy to keep it safe until July okay thank you then we our next application will be WCA preservation Holdings LLC 1408 and 1410 Texas Avenue um so good evening again uh Madam chair members of the board Keith Davis nead Davis and Goldstein on behalf of WCA preservation Holdings LLC um this application concerns property located at 1408 and 1410 uh Texas Avenue it has um formerly a variety of lots that were designated on your tax map as block 1160 Lots 59 60 60.0 60.02 61 and 62 um there is an existing residential structure on the property known as the mine sweeper it's a ship shaped structure uh that is residential in use um there there was a single family home uh toward the rear of a tract on a separate uh tax series of tax lots that was lawfully existing albeit non-conforming with the ordinance um over time the structural Integrity of that home uh fell into disrepair and eventually the home in question was uh demolished when that happened at some point the tax assessor for the municipality since there was only one single family home on the property of the M sweeper and the Lots in question did not comply with the minimum requirements under the zoning ordinance uh the tax ad uh assessor administratively Consolidated all of the Lots into one tract of Real Estate another unique aspect of this application is that the property in question is located in two zoning districts and the mind sweeper itself is a non-conforming use it's in a business zoning district and it's not conforming because it doesn't allow for residential uses in that zone however the formerly existing single family home is in that portion of the property is in a residentially zoned area and was lawfully existing um as to the use uh Warren clay sitting to my left and he is the authorized member of WCA preservation Holdings LLC his company came into ownership of this and after closing occurred he learned that the Lots in question uh were Consolidated he expected to and anticipated reconstructing the single family home that fell into a dilapidated State and had to be removed um he secured D Council Department of Environmental Protection Council in order to allow him to reconstruct that home on the property which um his Council advises him he can do as a matter of right but because these lots have been Consolidated into one tract of real estate the only way in which that home can be reconstructed to what was there before um is by way of a minor subdivision uh to create recreate the lot that was existing so that a home can be constructed along the bay toward the rear of the tract when that happens the lot upon which the M sweeper is located is going to get smaller and because it's a non-conforming use under a case called raspberries the intensification of that deviation in terms of use is uh is is heightened and that that triggers the need for a use variance so we are seeking minor subdivision approval for a two lot subdivision one of which will be suitable for the Mind sweeper structure the second of which will be suitable for a new single family home um that new single family home will be permitted in terms of the use but it will raise um a series of C variances all of which existed on the property when the two structures were there uh before this home fell into a state of disrepair so the C variances we're requesting are for minimum lot size building setback line lot width lot Frontage rear yard sidey yard setbacks and from the minimum number of onsite uh parking spaces again exactly what was existing on the property uh previously that we're looking to reestablish the home lot where we're going to we're seeking to reconstruct the home will not be located on a public Street it will be set back from Texas Avenue so we have proposed an access easement for vehicular pedestrian and utility improvements in order to allow for access from Texas to the new home again this was a condition that was previously existing although we're frankly cleaning it up by establishing an actual legal easement in order to cross over the front lot we're seeking to establish to allow uh for that access but that raises another variance which is from section 3536 it's actually a planning exception uh which arises when one seeks to create a lot that's not located along a street which is the case here um and we need to demonstrate that it's uh remain safe from a fire and emergency response standpoint um and in addition to the other witnesses that we have here tonight I have Dan Spiegel here Dan is the Fire official and construction code official from North Wildwood um and I asked him to come tonight to provide testimony as to whether that access easement that we're offering is adequate in terms of fire and emergency uh responses um so that is the sum and substance of the application I know it sounds like a lot but at the end of the day we are merely seeking to reestablish what was lawfully existing on the property before unfortunately the home that existed um fell apart and had to be demolished um so we've provided public notice we've submitted proof of that uh to Karen I have four Witnesses tonight um in addition to Mr Claytor who is also a licensed architect and prepared the architecture ual plans that we're going to present to the board this evening for the new home we are seeking to reestablish John Hal Brunner is here he's also an architect he also a licensed engineer his firm prepared the variance and subdivision plan that we presented with this application Mr Spiegel who I mentioned and then Tiffany morrisy is here she's a licensed professional planner she's going to provide testimony to all the variances that I described in my opening and uh with your permission Madam chair I'd like to have all four of those Witnesses War in um I don't know if you have to swear Mr hurles again maybe your Tiffany can tell me that if you're really allowed to administratively consolidate lots that are in different zones I never never heard of that but that's what happened I guess you can I guess they did it so I guess you can do it I just know if you should do it yeah all right uh do each of you uh who am I swearing in for the record uh John Mr how Bruner Mr is it Clayton is Clay touray tour um and miss morsy and her engineer remain oath each of you swear affirm that tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth s guide I also swear in your expert excellent thank you so Mr clor I'm going to start with you um have a couple questions for you are you the principal of WCA preservation Holdings LLC which is the applicant yes I am and that's also the owner of the property yes that's correct and um when approximately did uh WCA come into ownership of the property October of 2021 okay and then also you're a licensed architect in New Jersey yes I am and how long have you been so licensed approximately uh many years uh about 20 20 and you've actually been an expert before this board on another application have you not yes I have were you accepted as an expert in the field of architecture for that hearing yes I was and you're familiar with K May zoning ordinance and its master plan yes I am all right any questions about his qualifications as an architect um let's go over some of the factual background um when you purchased the property WCA uh was there only one residential structure on the property yes that's correct and that's what I've described as the Mind sweeper yes that's correct um can you just generally tell the board what the Mind sweeper is it's the Pilot House of a World War II mind sweeper um that has had an interesting uh life but at one point in time many decades ago someone built a er uh CMU foundation and located that where it sits today you've probably all seen it behind Bob Mass dry do and it's um suitable for and has been utilized for residential occupancy yes and uh the zoning officer issued a letter to that effect um there's there was a second home on the property correct yes and what happened to that um as I uh was told I was recall that the um pilings had I guess withered away and the owner didn't realize it and then one day it just had collapsed into the water and and then I understand that the city issued a uh requirement to have it formally demolished and removed and that that happened yes that that happened and all that happened before your period of ownership that's correct yes um and at some point the Lots were apparently Consolidated administratively by the tax assessor correct yeah yes that's correct you know when approximately that occurred relative to your period of ownership uh I believe it was about six plus months after settlement um is when I learned of it so okay and was that um a surprise to you yeah very much so yes sorry uh Mr Davis I I may have misunderstood the question I get my notes right sure did you asking when it was Consolidated did you asking when he learned it was Consolidated I think he answered when he learned it was Consolidated but not so much when it was Consolidated question so do you know when was actually Consolidated by the assessor I don't know okay um but you learned about it after your closing yes okay thank you um and there's other permitting that's required for the reestablishment of the single family home through the Department of Environmental Protection correct yes that's correct and you have other legal council that you're working with to secure whatever necessary permits or exceptions are needed to reestablish the home correct that's correct yes um and you're advised that you you believe the reestablishment of the home is entitled to what's called a Zan exemption in order to allow you to reestablish that structure yes that's correct all right so we're proposing a two lot residential subdivision that would allow you to preserve the M sweeper and then construct a new home correct yes that's correct how do you uh what's your intentions for the new home how do you intend to use it it will be for my family and my te on a seasonal basis yes that's correct all right and and um you're also an architect and you prepared the plans for your new home correct yes I did and I know you brought some boards with you I'd like you to review those plans and describe the design uh that you have prepared sure absolutely I just wanted to add um that my children have been their boy their great great grandparents uh started coming to Kate May and in uh the late 1800s and so the generations have consistently come and I was introduced to Kate May about 40 years ago and I've truly fallen in love with it and so what I've created here was inspired by uh what I've been seeing over the last 40 years so yeah and before we talk about inspiration this site is not located in the historic district correct that's correct it is it is not but I know you've striven to incorporate some of cap May's traditional designs and what you're proposing all right so what plan sheet is this one so in your packet you have the architectural plans A1 and this is the first floor level which provides uh this garage space uh that will be used um in addition for additional bicycle storage and kayak storage and um being an architect I'm a bit meticulous and neat and tidy so I like everything to have a spot to be put away and uh so then there's U an entrance up the staircase here into the entry hall and then uh up the staircase uh off on the side uh this is the handicap accessible ramp that comes over um we've received confirmation that the closet size um will allow for a um stilts uh residential lift that just goes between the first floor and the second floor um for my mother to join us and she's 83 uh and then up at the second floor we have um bedroom here and a bedroom here um bathroom on that side which is the west side and then a bathroom here with some laundry on on that side that's sheet A3 and I'm sorry yeah that's sheet A3 and then on um sorry I skipped over A2 my apologies um so you come upstairs to then the second floor in sheet A2 uh and there's uh a little breakfast table here a little strip kitchen with uh an island um and then a sitting area here and there's a bedroom here at this end um and then a powder room at this end and again the staircase and then I have uh again I've showed you A3 and then the elevations if you look at drawing A4 um you'll see this is the elevation that faces the WWA parking lot where they have their dumpsters uh this is the primary man door entrance with the garage doors um and then this is the side that faces um my neighbor at 1412 uh Tom Cutler and then this is the elevation that then faces down uh Devil's reach towards the lobster house and then this is the Eastern facing elevation uh that faces my neighbors uh over in the condo uh complex and the new home will comply with the city's uh requirements as to minimum flood elevation that's indicated on on your drawings and and it does comply um it's it fair to say even though we're not in the historic district you've attempted to incorporate um predominant uh architectural designs throughout the city into this plan of development I did and um it's kind of a neat Story one of my cousins was involved in the class from Penn in the 70s that came down and helped draw uh all of these amazing uh homes that that have been protected by that uh incredible um uh it seems overwhelming to to to have achieved that but I was talking with him the other day and he he wish wish me luck but uh I I saw his name on some of the drawings and it was just really neat to sort of hopefully Bring It full circle but yes this this was inspired by a lot of what hangs around us here in this room so as you know one of the purposes of zoning is to provide a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement do you believe the plan of development you just provideed testimony to advances that purpose I do yes that's all I have for Mr Claytor any questions for him I do um as as you indicated in your in your introduction I view this there's a lot of technical variances but at the end of the day it's very much like what was there before there are some slight additions to that structure that extend a little bit can you just highlight and show that's because that's in my opinion that's really the only new thing that's being done to this lot can you just highlight that for the board can you do that or you want John to do that sure well it doesn't matter I just wanted to if you're comfortable doing it you can describe what the deviation is I know there's some additional setback relief out it's all in accordance with uh the requirements with njde so um so it it meets their regulations but architecturally um so the limitations of the lot we maintained this facade because we couldn't go in that direction and the only direction that we could could go with regard to the N njd regulations was this direction so that's the direction that we went and you can see that in the plan so you made those alterations from the previously existing footprint yes as a result of your permitting process through D correct yes so how much the footprint how much bigger is it than the original footprint so it's 400 square F feet footprint larger okay 400 is the difference between what was there and what's being proposed for the the the bottom square footage right so that actually goes all the way up that's correct right so it's just the bottom is 400 and then it goes up to three floor that's correct yes correct I just have a question sure um I see it has a garage is there a reason why there's no parking in there well you can park a garage again I'm I'm my children and I we like to do a lot of sailing so they wanted me to show the sailboats only because parking's a requirement and you're and you're needing a variance for not having parking so that was my question for why going to address this but I think the reason why is you actually have to cross a boardwalk in order to access that garage space which was again a condition that was previously existing and as a result of that it becomes very difficult for a motor vehicle to actually access that garage space so I think your intention is maybe to have like a a lowspeed vehicle utilize that uh garage um so that you have a secondary means of getting around town yeah so everything will be designed structurally to accommodate uh the weight of a vehicle this is going to be built over the water correct yes yeah Anders did I could be wrong did you say you don't have permission yet from the D to build this you have somebody that says you were going to get it so um we are in that process with the attorney and so um the the process involves us coming here and then going back to them they want you here first before so it's it's just part of the process because of their timing but yes we have we have an agreement that we're we're working on the details and I guess the m peoplewe is going to become a rental property um no it's still going to be our personal use so both houses will be your personal use yes there'll be separate separate personal uses I have a large family and there's just not enough space to fit all the bedrooms here so there'll still be two two residences working for the first for the first house that's already is existing is there parking there or is it they park at the dry dock oh no we have our own parking we have we have there's a whole gravel large parking area and John will speak to to all that we should probably let the engineer talk for a bit and sure yeah we have a variance plan which shows where the parking is located so we can review that I I just have one last question to um expand on um the question that was asked you about when that subdivision or the when it was consolid when you bought it it was already Consolidated but know about it I was not aware that it was but it was we don't know the timing to when the assessor actually effectuated the the administrative consolidation would you know that by the tax records I don't know the timing of it I know right now it's lot 59 that's what we know so when I did my due diligence when I was researching it to to put in an offer for an agreement of sale it was two separate Parcels sometime after that closing 6 months later I was then told that it was now one parcel so I don't know when that occurred okay if that helps clear up the did you ever inquire why they did this why they I I think the reason was because there was this understanding that with only one single family home on the property and not meeting the minimum lot area requirements under um a case called lochner um tax assessors have the ability to administratively consolidate in order to bring Parcels into closer Conformity with a lot area requirement um I tend to agree with what Mr King said at the outset when you have a track that's in two separate zoning districts I'm not sure the lochner decision applies but it happened so in order there was a use on the lot too that may or may not have been abandoned it's a kind of an odd situation it's I honestly don't know if it could I don't know if it could be Consolidated or not we really smart tax assessor so I assume if they did it then they had a reason it just seems odd I've never seen two different districts with a use that hasn't been abandoned get Consolidated into another into another lot that is a actually creates a larger non-conforming lot that creates a it's a nonc confirm of use gaining more property I don't know it's an interesting it it's been a very expensive uh Endeavor to undo what happened administratively and I guess that tax assessor is no longer here so we can't ask him but well he's here he's on the planning board oh not on the zoning board Don't Panic he's not re yeah no I just it was it was it was I thought Mike might have done it I don't know how long ago oh maybe this was three years ago I think it was I think it was one in between them during his term yeah you put that you going to put this new house in the same area where the house yes and what was the cause of that house to go into this repair was that from the Sandy storm no as I understand it it was just uh the withering away of the pilings over time high tide low tide and the wood just eroded over time and their application mentions super storm standy I don't know whether that was the final nail on the so did the opening my notes have it in it we did and then I wrote a subsequent letter clarifying that um it wasn't as a result of that storm event certainly could have contributed to the deterioration of the home um I don't know if you know any other circumstances around it but the the pilings failed right the pilings failed I'm going to change my notes on your opening though even though it's not testimony I did write down standy you said some of a super standy so at beginning it's okay I'm not being critical I just want to get it out of there good I'm glad thank you okay my memo reflects it too so we should strike it from there any other questions fact basis for why we're here or architecture for before I go to my next witness okay thank you Warren Mr halbruner uh John I know you have um been accepted as an expert in the field of architecture and engineering before this board in the past and you're still in good standing in both of those disciplines yes um you're probably going to have to grab one of those mics when you have a chance any questions about Mr how Brunner's qualifications no okay he's both an architect and an Eng ER correct that is correct correct and probably a planner but asse so you heard um Mr Clay's testimony you were here for all that I was yes um and he um discussed the existing conditions on the property did he do so in an accurate manner yes all right and I know you have brought with you and I'm going to mark this as A1 I don't think this is part of our plan submission an aerial photograph uh can you just note on A1 where the property question is located and what the existing conditions are absolutely it's located right in the center of the exhibit you see a t-shaped dock that dock extended is where the original house that has now been demolished existed and I'm pointing now immediately south and west of that is what everyone's referring to as a m sweeper more recognizable I think to most would be just the south of that is the dryck and to the west of that is um Exit Zero laundry and Wawa so it's at the Terminus of Devil's reach we have yacht Avenue to our North we have the Harbor Lane to our west and south um and the um I know we have this exhibit um which I'll mark is A2 which shows the two zoning districts where the property is located correct correct um there's actually a Confluence with three different Zone districts that come together we lie in two of them and a third is immed to our North so the long skinny parcel in the orange colored Zone this is where the so-called minder building is dried off is lot 57 M south of that that's in the neighborhood commercial the NC zoning District the more irregular shaped parcel in the yellow colored mustard color um that's where the former building was located that happens to lie in the R3 zoning District the bound between the two is the original lot division line between lot 51 s 59 and and what we're proposing that to be lot 59.2 the recreation of the original parcel that zone boundary is or was the common property line immediately north of us going across Devil's reach we have the Zone R5 rather unique condition to have a attractive real estate of this small size located in two zoning districts very it is yes um are you familiar with the home that previously existed on the property you've seen aerial photography of it you know generally where it was located I actually walk the property at bre collapsed as part of an assessment for the prior owner so I'm very familiar with it and that home had a series of non-conforming conditions surrounding it correct it did yes can you just note what those non-conformities were for the record yeah the former home um probably first and foremost is it like we're proposing now to not front on an improved Road it was well removed from Texas Avenue which is the only improved Road for either the current lot with the m paper on and the lot we proposing to reconstruct the the house on uh so that's probably first and foremost um the lot size for that get to my notes for [Music] that is actually conforming the R 3 Z District requires 6,250 ft this lot is almost 7,000 squ ft the building setback line were clly known as a front yard setback was non-conform foring where 20 ft was required 19.81% one ft lot Frontage again where 50 FTS required be have zero the habitable floor area of that building was non-conforming your ordinance actually has a minimum habital floor area requirement uh of 840 sare ft that original foot spr was approximately 725 squ ft it had a non-conforming rear yard setback where 25 ft was required that building was 9.01 ft it had a non-conforming sidey yard setback for 8 ft was required the R3 Zone um I'm sorry I strike that we had conforming side yard originally Building height uh was conforming we 35 ft permitted we don't know the original height but it was well below 35 ft and lot coverage were 45% would be the maximum pered in that zone the original building was about 20% that was conforming and uh parking spaces for that there were no dedicated parking spaces for that original building uh there were none whatsoever and the proposed condition as we'll get into we are proposing to increase that by one let's turn to that now I know we have brought your plan I think this is part of the plan set but you've colored it it's sheet c101 sheet c101 exactly the same what was submitted only I've added some color for clarity what is that show shows our property and the surrounding property showing a lot of what it's important here the fact we're underwater under for most of it um the darkest color rectangle in the center that is the proposed reconstruction of the house that is was was demolished uh there was a question earlier about where is the additional area coming from you might notice that there's slightly darker brown color on the south side of that building that's the additional 400 square ft that was added from the original footprint now immediately to our uh West and a little bit south of us this building here is what we keep referring to as a m sleeper the building just south of that that's the dryck and then two single family residences um over in this area two different color blues are shown darker color blue is areas that are below the mean high water line meaning it's always flowed water letter color blue it's area between the mean high and mean low line so water comes goes with a tide you'll notice that the entire footprint of the proposed building is over the lighter blue area so this is entirely over uh regulated DP areas of below or below the mean high water line our only Upland area is sharing of the neighbor with the mice be to the rear um there was a question asked about the difference in footprint between the formerly existing home and what what we're proposing it is slightly different can can you just note on C 101 what that difference is again there's uh two primary elements on either either side on the south side of the building in total the square they total 400 square ft and uh there's also a slightly wider U you'll see the orange colored walkway deck um here that's slightly water than the original footprint and that triggers a the need for a sidey guard setback variance correct correct um where we had a conforming 8T in chain setback along the subway property line as is now proposed we're seeking a side yard setback variance of 4.77 Ft on to the souly property line now it's notable while that is a side property line look it's immediately adjacent to US Open Water land it's not as though we are really encroaching upon or infringing upon light air and open space of immediate neighbor our immediate neighbor is some 60 feet further to the South so even though it is a technically a setback variance practically uh there's ample open space between that encroachment and the next nearest single family home absolutely given the space that's between there I would challenge anyone to compare the building that was there to the building that we're proposing to reconstruct there to even know that there's that there's a difference but technically there is I I wrote down my notes from the app testified the summary the I summarized what he said was the only changes from the prior footprint was to accommodate the EP requirements and it is 400 sare feet I'm not sure in what way was the D's decision making Drive the location of the bar which that's DP has a as a permit that allows for expansion of a footprint on the non-water side of of a building up their 400 square fet and the applicant I think is trying to take advantage of that allowance within their General permit structure to increase the footprint size Beyond was there originally so it's not a requirement it's something that the applicant has availed itself of by right under the D rules correct okay and is is that providing for additional U egress uh pedestrian movement into the home in question it absolutely does and so does the expanded um walkway or Pier that's south of that allows for first of all greater handicap accessibility U but the applicant didn't mention in his earlier statement is he has um relatives who require uh handicap accessibility and this expanded walkway facilitates that okay uh Mr I admit I was correcting the last thing uh so can you just tell me what are the reasons what are the advantages of the 400 feet I know you just went through a couple I just want to get that in your in the I'm sorry advantages of what you said there were some advantages of the area wherever the expansion is you were saying some advantages of having that there and I'll make sure I get that in my note can you just do that for me it helps with the circulation both around the building and within the building circulation circulation walking getting around no no no pedestrian movement yes to get in and out of the building and and then you also mentioned and I think Mr Claytor indicated his mother intends to come here she's 83 years old and requires uh handicap accessibility does that additional 400 ft of area facilitate that correct in fact part of the addition uh houses an elevator that's outside the original footprint of the building within that 4 square feet that's accurate isn't it thank you thank you so the subdivision if you could just outline it with your finger what what the new lot well two new will consist of what what the configuration is so actually I'll trace it here where you can see our existing building with a large Open Water Area bre to our North this a regular shaped lot is proposed lot 53.0 two you can see here perhaps a little clear in terms of of its configuration proposed lot 59.0 one is the original lot 59 which was a standalone lot on which the M sweeper was oriented and it's the long Thunder property I'm tracing here again perhaps a little more clear in terms of it shape and footprint here and um the new Lot 59.0 2 is that the home yep 59.0 will only be accessible by way of an easement correct correct there's a first of all to two even what we call them the Mind sers lot there's two access evenements that this property benefits from the first comes from what is currently the Exit Zero laundromat property building um there's a 10 foot wide which runs along its Westerly part of it its parking lot which affords access to the western side of that lot dryck on its eastern um side of the parking lot also has a 10ft wide easement that affords this access to the m super lot so once we're on this lot we're doing an internal easement amongst ourselves to allow vehicles to get to or ban people to get to the proposed lot 59.0 two which has no other access but for that easay and with the new lot 591 I know you reviewed all the bulk standards for the new construction there's no new construction associated with the m sweeper correct there was absolutely no construction whatsoever proposed um proposed lot 591 um that will stay exactly as it is today and your plans and Mr heres's report accurately sets forth the bulk standards that will be associated with that new lot 591 that's correct um there is a need for a parking variance there is can you describe to the board on the plan c101 where the parking we are proposing is going to be located yes and it's going to be located all entirely on lock 59.0 one here's the moner building there is a drive a easement across from that and then there are three parking spaces oriented due north south across the back of that at the limit of the improved gravel driveway I'm sorry here two of those spaces um are remain dedicated for the M sweeper building leaving us a third space that we're proposing to be used for the reconstructed building on lot 59.0 to so we're taking what was zero parking available to that building and we're adding one while not conforming there certainly is an enhancement and one so one of those three parking spaces will be dedicated to the home on lot 59.0 I'm sorry what's the question one of the three yes parking spaces on 5901 will be dedicated to the home on 592 correct and we can specify that in the easement agreement absolutely okay that's correct correct but the previous existing condition for the home on what was 59 what we're now showing as 592 had no parking associated with it so we're actually providing one additional parking space where none previously existed I understand yep I'm not sure where where was that statement made that there was a lot of parking on the Mind sweeper your client H you said we have lots of parking over on the M sweeper lock oh there's an open gravel area behind the building that uh left open could result in parking did we mark this no yeah the these are series of photographs that were submitted as part of your application packet these are actually in in your packet they've been Consolidated onto one board which is there existing easement through this parking lot or are we creating one we're creating One internal to ourselves there are two easements that I described um that get access to proposed lot 59.0 one to what create like a flag lot across the one proper thiser to get thater I understand that I think it's because it would reduce the it would make that lot 591 narrower but I will let you answer that question well you would then be creating law 5901 would then have no access because it would all be belong out to 592 if we took the only access to 5902 and made a part of their lot now 5901 has has no access I'm talking 591 well the parking is on proposed on 591 yeah all the existing driveways and parking are on lot 59.0 one when I when I say 5901 uhhuh that's okay2 that's right the reconstructed house yes from an application perspective what we're proposing is much simpler first of all what you're suggesting would mean creating a lot that is going to be split zoned MH and it's not going to be recreating the original configuration which we saw benefit to advancing no the remember the zoning boundary line is not necessarily co-terminus with a reconfigured lot right it is but with the subdivision I think you're describing what Mr halbruner just said is you would have the 591 all of that is in a residential Zone that lot would then extend into what is a commercial Zone if you redrew the lot line the way you describe it it would take that lot and extend it into a commercial zone is that what you were saying yes exactly and in the end so with this configuration it we think it's the best planning alternative because it retains each lot within its own zoning District it doesn't have it doesn't in introduce another non-conformity in terms of use by taking 5901 and and creating a second use variance essentially if we were to draw the lot line in the way you described it I I guess isn't this the way it was before yeah didn't our forefathers draw that way yes yes but there was a suggestion made to redraw it outside of this I understand yeah I'm just addressing that drive that point home the subdivision that's proposed is reestablishing the lot lines that were that by consolidation they're not altering that they're putting it back so I I I want to make sure that the there's a lot of talk and there's a lot of easements that that access this but they are reestablishing how it was before was Consolidated correct then why if it was a residential house why was it not it was an existing non-conforming use in the okay it dated back to 1910 right these buildings were not created recently they were created long before the ordinances that were now rare true pre-existing non-conforming use which everybody says they have and no one really has them this one actually is before you go any further the picture on the top left side hand corner that manhole that's sitting there on the drawings that's looks to me is that going to be like about where the entrance to the new home will be the old home new home that manhole shows on your sheet c101 it's about 6 or 7 ft beyond the gravel paved limits behind the uh but to get into the new structure I'm looking at the one drawing here it has this crosshatches on well yes need what is going to be around that you're going to have to fill in around that this gang way you're looking at right now that's going to be the entrance this gang way leads to the pier that ends at t-shape today that gang way was a way that you got onto the period on which the original House was built so that's the path you'll continue to use to go to the reconstructed house yes and just for the record I put a sticker on A3 for these photographs just so the record's clear let's talk about storm water management is is there a reason why you're not giving that house another parking spot there there's no room there's space within this gravel area for three parking spaces and circulation necessary so we're maximizing the spaces that's available for the parking use now I know there's some area on the property that is technically Wetlands but practically could be used for parking but we can't show it as parking because it's below the mean high water line right well it's in an area that I don't know that we can aggressively pave right we can't pave it we can't proove it where the gang way is where the Ed of gravel is our proposed parking space is right where my finger is pointing the one dedicated for the reconstructive building there is within the eement we're creating enough space to double stack a car and get two parking spaces but doing so be parking in this area which I don't have confidence to represent to you the DP can give us the authority to do so do that yeah you can't fill the property no we can't so we're limited with what the property consists of okay now I have a question we're talking about you know lot coverage and everything and but a lot of this lot is underwater like how does that play into um lock coverage with the high water mark and everything else and is it just because you can build above the water we don't have to worry about the lock coverage or can you can you well we have to worry about lock coverage I mean I was going to ask Mr halber her questions about stormm Water Management because Mr hles brought that up in his uh report and we do want to address that but coverage is a standard in your ordinance which is intended to be able to control uh storm water management here we have a very unique feature in that a lot of a large portion of the lot in question is in the water or is below um the mean high water line um so you know we've requested the variances this is obviously unique application and the variances that we're requesting again we're reestablishing what was there but they all relate to Unique existing conditions of the property that can't be changed we can't fill the property you know we can't make it any larger than what it is we have to work with what's there um but I can ask did you want to add something else well yeah so far as coveres are concerned K doesn't differentiate between Upland and water it's a lot area D to lot area whether it's over water or over land the coverages represent are actual true coverages the percentage of land we covering or water compared to the lot size so there are other municipalities in our area that consider only Upland area when you do these calculations K me is not one of them you treat the entire lot area regardiz whether it's flowed by water or not so the coverages that we present are are true and accurate and in terms of the coverage we're well within the ordinance requirements well well below right on yacht Avenue the houses over the water they're 100% cover right yeah now in terms of storm water yes um one of Mr H's comments was conformance with the storm water management regulation provision of the ordinance we're actually going to seek a waiver from that and I'll explain why first of all the intent of that ordinance is to first of all make sure that the city's infrastructure for storm water management is not overloaded to promote recharge um to improve water quality um those are all the the purposes that you would have for the storm water management ordinance the ultimate destination of all the water in the city all the storm water that's originated in the city the ultimate destination is the bay the Bay of the ocean first of all we don't have the opportunity because we are already entirely overwater to do the traditional means of storm water volume management which would be holding it on site or underground and then releasing it slowly we're over the water we are already at the ultimate destination of what your storm water management ordinance is supposed to create in control we're already there there's no point in trying to control it because again water that rain water that hits this piece of ground right here with a house or not it's going to go in the water whether it hits a house first and goes in the water or not it's going in the water we have no adverse impact whatsoever to any Downstream elements we have no adverse impact upon neighboring properties all the things you have the controls for storm water management in place for we are at the destination so it doesn't make sense to take to to reconfigure the site change the grading or install other storm water measures to take storm water from this track to Texas Avenue correct um but that is the literal requirement the ordinance and we're therefore requesting a waiver in order to discharge storm water into the adjacent Bay because it's the most direct route for that storm water to be discharged to correct this by the way from an environmental perspective this is all entirely clean water water that's runs over Lawns that runs over pavement areas that's where you pick up pollutants that have the adverse effect to the environment rooftop runoff run off the heads directly in the water it's clean water and that's exactly what we're doing so we're doing nothing to harm the environment and we're doing nothing to have an adverse impact on neighboring Properties or the city's storm water infrastructure so I think it variance and I don't take this light the storm water variant is I the was impossible but in this case I think it's entirely practical and reasonable it's a waiver though right yes okay um you did you read Mr heres's report I did any other issues that we take with the commy raised perh you comply with each of his other recommendations and suggestions that's all I have from Mr how Bruner any questions for him from an engineering standpoint if not I will bring up Mr Spiegel uh Mr Spiegel you been sworn in what do you do for a living sir currently I'm the construction Fire official and Zoning official for the city of North Wildwood and in that role do you um review uh Lane use and development applications to ensure consistency with the construction code I do and the fire code yes um any questions about Mr Spiegel's qualifications in that discipline no okay I just want to uh also note that I was in the fire department for 28 years in the city of Wood I retired in 2020 and I held every rank up until I retired as chief of the department so fire service access is certainly one of my forte excellent I'm glad you added that thank you so you recognize that um one of the variances we require uh concerns the fact that this lot that we are recreating is not going to be 5902 is not located on uh a street with improved Frontage correct correct and the municipal land use law provides that uh this board board can grant an exception from that requirement where it would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship or where the circumstances of the case do not require the building or structure to be related to a street um and the permit can be uh issued uh so long as it will provide adequate access for firefighting equipment ambulances and other emergency vehicles necessary for the protection of health and safety um and that it will protect any future Street layout on the official map or on a general circulation plan element of the master plan so let me first ask you do you believe that enforcement of the requirement that lot 592 be located on an improved public Street do you think that would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship it would it will because you can't do it it's it's the orientation of the lot correct that's correct um and the home can function uh without having that improved the street Frontage pursuant to the easement we've proposed is that fair to say Yes um all right so what i' really like you to focus on is from a safety standpoint in terms of fighting a fire at the home on lot 5902 emergency response Etc do you believe the configuration of the plan of development that's been described by Mr Claytor and Mr Hal Brunner is safe uh from an emergency response standpoint I do and tell me why what how would you fight a fire here so I visited the site and on the east side of the M sweeper structure there's one easement I would call that the East easement it's 10 foot wide from the street itself the improved Street of Texas Avenue to the front of the property in question is about 175 ft there's also a hydrant located 200 ft away at the corner of Texas and Pittsburgh MH in layman's terms under the National Fire um Protection Association there's a fire flow with every re hydrant in municipalities this is considered a green hydrant which flows between 1,00 and 1500 gallon a minute the proposed structure that's being um described here even if it was fully involved in fire that hydrant would certainly meet the expectations of the gowns perm minuted to fight the fire on the west side of the mine sweeper there was another easement of 10t wide and and the easement was actually between the mine sweeper parking lot and a laundry mat that's currently housed in the neighboring property even though it's a 10 foot wide easement from the overhang of the lundry mat to the bards is actually 16 foot wide so fire department access for an apparatus would be no uh problem at all once you get behind the mine sweeper in that parking lot it has direct access right to the property in question and although we only focus used on the two easements there's actually also a third access roadway that comes behind the Wawa I believe it's yata Avenue I measured that out that's 16t wide and again brings you right into the front of that property so from a firefighting standpoint um there's absolutely no detriment or limited access for firefighting purposes and when you visited the property was there an official from Cap May City also present with you I did call um a colleague of mine who's that the Fire official Mark Barham and he did he take any issue in your discussions with him with respect to this layout from a fire safety standpoint none whatsoever that's all I have from Mr Spiegel any questions um but he didn't sign off on the paperwork with Alex Colter right Chief Alex cter yeah another very good colleague of mine we did receive a fire review though I believe I also looked at his review and he signed off that he recommends approval and I worked with Alex many a time I came to City to fight fire as many a time with him and um I'm sure that he also looked at the fire department access and we did receive a favorable review from the fire department it's part of what I think the board has in your packet I just have a question because you said you know it's a 10- foot easement and he oh well with the overhang from the laundry M but that laundry M could change correct and you're only allowed to have that 10-ft easement could the fire truck get down with just a 10ft easement yes so a fire department apparatus on average is about 8T wide it can't be more than 8 half ft wide without a permit from dot to travel across the roadways so fire department access or fire department apparatus would certainly so it could get through there with even if that that changed from 16 to 10 yeah correct okay and I see on the other EAS minute it's 10 and then it goes to 15 but back there it's like the high water mark so would there be issues with the fire truck getting back there with the fact sinking or anything no I actually went through the roadway and it it's it's a solid roadway as far as flooding that's a concern that every Island community has issues with um but as far as the surface on which an apparatus would travel no problems it whatsoever could we have Mr Hower weigh in on that from an engineering standpoint typically when you have a road not a lot not AB budding a street the the reason why the deviation is and they ask the standard to be met is that you have to demonstrate that adequate you know access can be provided for emergency person Personnel is because you no longer have access on an improved accepted street so now we have the first part of this easement that they're providing is asphalt there's no really worry there the stone portion of the access easement should be discussed and and I think Mr how Bruner should just weigh in from an engineering standpoint to say whether he thinks that that could support emergency Personnel Vehicles yeah I'll be happy to answer there there's no doubt whatsoever that the gravel in Stone driveway that's on proposed lot 59.0 one has all the um density and um structural strength to accommodate a fire apparatus traffic across it there's no doubt whatsoever thank you Dan did you want to add something to that I I would the the one reason I measured from Texas Avenue into the property was 175 ft normal fire department preconnected hose lines are anywhere from 250 to 300 ft um and I will say a lot of Fire Chiefs throughout the the the country and especially onshore communities they plan for what we call Long stretches where you might not have direct access in front of a building but you have the ability to stretch hoses off of the apparatus to get to the structure that's involved in fire any other questions for Mr Spiegel I just I just wanted to also comment and add that it was nice to hear someone from the board ask about ladders and fire department placement that was my one of my questions to you will there be able to put ladders on this building in the back in the back up probably not with the Waterway and that's that's just a a nature of the Beast living on an island Community okay so they won't be able to put the ladders around that house at all not in the water now okay thank you Dan thank you all right i' like the next call Tiffany morisy uh Tiffany you've been sworn in and I think you've been accepted as an expert in planning before this board in the past have you not yes but it was always so dark in here so I I love the new light you're probably here in the winter well I don't know we got new lights and I can barely read my review was horrible it's much better uh but you are a licensed planner in New Jersey I am member of the American Institute certified planners yes I am and I know you represent uh several other municipalities and Boards in planning correct yes I do and you've been accepted as an expert in the field of planning before other L use boards in the state yes I have you familiar with the K City zoning ordinance and its master plan I am any questions about Miss morsey's qualifications no okay great so Mrs morsy I know you have been here for the entirety of the presentation and the previous three Witnesses before you um and uh what I'd like you to do is summarize for the board the variances that are being requested and offer an opinion uh as a planner as to whether you believe those variances are warranted here yes so um as Craig indicated and even Mr King indicated this is a very unique application I don't know that you'll ever see something like this come before you again where you have uh this lot consolidation that occurred that probably shouldn't have occurred that created this conflict and conv and creation of a new lot now Within zoning districts um we have several variances the first one is a D1 use variant well D2 variance not a D1 use variant there is the existing house the M sweeper which is in a neighborhood commercial Zone that property is now by virtue of that lot consolidation a much larger property because we are looking to reestablish those um boundary lines and that through a minor subdivision recreate the original Lots we are reducing the size of the lot that is in the neighborhood commercial District that has a non-conforming use and therefore we are technically increasing the intensity of the development on that property under a strict reading of the minus pan use law standards and case law um on this issue however technically nothing's really changing physically as part of this application in terms of what existed on this property and what would be recreated on this property um in addition to the D2 variance and that D2 variance really is a focus on whether or not the lot as we are reestablishing it can accommodate the development that has existed there since I think we said it was 1910 or earlier in that time frame we also require SE variances we require SE variances for the Mind sweeper lot because the existing lot now will be um undersized for the neighborhood commercial Zone however it will actually be oversized if it were with within the adjacent residential Zone the lot in the um for the mine sweeper property will be 7,634 square ft where 12,500 ft is required that 7,634 square ft is greater than the lot size that is required in the ab buding R3 Zone which the new development or reconstructed development would occur that lot size requirement is 6,250 sare Ft we also need a variance because of the setbacks of this uh existing structure those setbacks are to the um South and West property lines you have a 0.91 setback to the side yard setback and 8.73 setback to the front yard setback those are existing conditions the new sub recreating that subdivision line doesn't change those setbacks there's no improvements proposed that would impact those setbacks but they're required as part of this application because of the total uh resubdivision the other variants that that's required is for the setback related to the reconstructed home we will have 4.76 ft to the front property line uh which is on Open Water Area we will have and it's not really a front property line it's because it's behind and not really on a street but it's the front of the lot to the or the south of the lot to the east we'll have a 9.01 setback and to the West we'll have 14.13 ft for a setback the other variance that we require is because we have no lot Frontage um that is an existing condition that would not change that has existed um and we are improving by virtue of creating these new easements that provide clear access to all of the development in the area on these two proposed development parcels and we just heard testimony as to um the fire safety aspects of that which I don't need to reissue or re regurgitate for you so although we are asking for all these variances they're all technical in terms of recreating what existed on the property when we have a d variance and C variances we have to address the purposes of zoning that would be Advanced that the development plan creates a better zoning plan and provides um advancement of the municipal land use law purposes um here in terms of the D variance again the focus is on how that lot will function which it currently functions as is and the C variances the focus is on that changed setback for the reconstructed um home I in my opinion that's really the only new variance because everything else was what it was before in terms of the municial land use law I believe there's several purposes of zoning which are Advanced through this application um that includes providing adequate light air in open space um although we have these setback variances requested we are surrounded by water and open space and it's not really impacting and being close to another actually developed property in terms of those setbacks that are proposed in terms of the um D2 component and the improvements to the property uh we're not making any changes to the property in the NC zone so those conditions remain as they are with the existing home that's existing on the property we also therefore in my opinion promote another purpose of zoning which is a one that we talked about architecturally in terms of Mr cler's um design and how he's tried to incorporate much of the historic feel of Kate May into the design of the residential property even though it's not required because we're not in the historic district and that purpose of zoning is to create a desired visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and arrangement in addition to the reasons that we have in terms of the architectural design if you go out to this property and you go down Harbor uh Road or the street to the side here and you look out from the street towards the devil's reach Bay into the inlet area when you look across and you're living on that side you go out on your deck and you look across because this house was not reconstructed you have a clear view of the back of the commercial buildings where the lrat is and Wawa is the construction of this house will actually help create a better View for the people that all have their their docks and their views and their porches on the Water by not having to look into the backup house operations of a commercial District so it actually adds an additional benefit in terms of recreating this slot configuration and reconstructing that house it also in my professional opinion for both the D2 and the C variances we would create an appropriate population density that contributes to the well-being of persons and people in New Jersey and to the community and the reason for that is first we're not creating anything that wasn't here and historically here for many years but when you look at the design and the and the total floor area ratio and lot coverages as they're proposed they advance and show that we're not overbuilding the property so the floor area ratio on the reconstituted Mind sweeper for property um is 0.15 as proposed and for the newly really new reconstructed home the floor area ratio even with the additional 400 squ ft is 32 your ordinance would allow 04 and so even if we combine them we're not substantially over the floor area ratio if if if uh all of that floor area is one on one of the smaller Lots so we're not creating a in expanded density of development and we're promoting that appropriate population density that contributes to the neighborhood and the community in this area when I started looking at this um I wanted to know H how how did we have and why would the Mind sweeper property be in a neighborhood commercial District outside of the how and the why of the lot consolidation I'll leave that to the attorneys but the only way to re Rectify that is through a subdivision or some other action and this is the best way to deal with it um but I went back into the master plan because when we're dealing with variances we have to look at what the impairment is to the zoning ordinance into the master plan by creating this um situation that now requires a variance and I went back to my 200 and3 master plan that's the oldest one I have um but it's interesting because this area was changed to create this R3 Zone specifically back in 2003 it was recommended in your master plan it was was talked about in your 2009 and 2019 reexamination report as well as to how this area was changed they drew the line for the NC and the the residential Zone based on these existing homes that were here not sure why we the the drafters at that time in 2003 it wasn't Craig um it was before Craig didn't include the Mind sweeper property except that this created a straight clear line instead of a jagged line and it was behind a commercial property so they left it in that configuration but it's interesting because here there's a clear understanding that this is intended to have this residential development it's intended to have um a separation between that district line it was done intentionally it was also done with the area on yacht was created to include that R5 District which wasn't this was all some over commercial area and it had developed as residential and so they created the R3 and the R5 Zone to match the existing development patterns when you look at that and you look at the purposes of the zoning in the ordinance in the master plan uh for residential land use to preserve existing or established residential districts and to provide a wide range of housing types to meet the varied income and age levels of residents and vacationers um maintaining this property and reconfiguring it back with the allowing for the Reconstruction of that residential unit would in fact advance that purpose of your master plan and would be as was intended based on the zoning line that was drawn I'll also note that um if this lot was not Consolidated it would be permitted even under your zoning code to allow for the Reconstruction of this home for a non-conforming lot which didn't have Frontage or a non-conforming lot size uh as long as it was substantially similar to what was there so the intent of your ordinance um and the intent of your master plan recognizes the residential nature of the uh reconstructed lot and also understands the existing mind sweeper property now when I went and looked at the property and I've done it several times but I stopped again today and it was a beautiful day out so the kids were running around with their ice cream and they were so enthralled with this boat that was a house it is a really neat piece of the community that creates conversation and creates an attraction for for people to learn the history of how it became here and really create this this atmosphere for these kids who are having ice cream that are peeking around wondering what it's like to sleep in a boat it was kind of neat um and I was in I was glad I got to witness that because it gave you a different perspective on how this property um relates to the surrounding area and the benefit it provides to the people that visit the community and the interest it creates uh as people see it um so lastly then in my last part of this is I don't believe there is a substantial detriment to the public good by reconfiguring the subdivision lines and allowing for the Reconstruction of this lot regardless of the variances that we are creating those variances are substantially similar to what was existing uh before it the house was um removed because of its condition and we're not making anything worse than it was in fact we're making it better by providing these additional easements that didn't exist before and in providing on-site parking that didn't exist before labeling that on the plan so it's an improved condition from what was actually here before everything changed I think that covers everything thank you Tiffany any questions as to planning justification for the variances that we're seeking tonight if not uh that concludes our presentation and we look forward to hearing from Mr hurles and answering any other questions you may have have your riew all right let's get into my review dated February 20th 2024 this is this subdivision is split zone so you've heard one lot is in the neighborhood commercial that's lot 59 the R3 medium density residential district contains Lots 60 60.1 60 02 61 and 62 um this is a two lot minor subdivision D variances as well as C variances um we've heard what they're proposing um this is a very quirky application I don't know that the board will ever see one quite similar to this um you have a nine page review in front of you when I got done I was like that's a lot of work for very limited improvements the only thing that's really changing and and Tiffany I um your presentation was great I just think there is a little bit of difference the the construction of the new dwelling to replace the one that was demolished did expand somewhat expanded and I and to be honest with you this was very difficult I couldn't even tell what was the side yard what was the front yard what was the rear yard I mean you could just guess roll of dice um I just went with Mr how Bruner's um plans um because there was some rational thought into it it made sense so I just went and used your table um and went with that the expansion on the front what I call the front but I actually called it a side in my review the the side closest to Texas Avenue has a slight expansion and it runs pretty much the length of the building and it's a very narrow slice but and they explained what it was and what it's for but that is really the only difference between what previously exists and what they're proposing um the subdivision line reestablishes exactly where the old subdivision line was um so there's no real changes there um I do believe it's poor planning for them to consolidate a lot that is both zoned neighborhood commercial and residential um so this is undoing that and I think that's a good thing from a planning standpoint so that being said let's get into this and and um there's a lot of technical variances that are involved but and I'll highlight the ones I think that are really being changed here so all right for the completeness review um we always ask for a copy of resolutions from any prior planning or zoning board applications historically there have been none in recent history this predates probably all of the zoning that we know um in the town um with regards to details required for both C and D variances from that checklist um they asked for a waiver from item number 19 we supported item number 22 uh which is providing the the first floor building elevations on there that should be provided we are in a flood zone here a flood Hazard area so that information should be provided on the plans um as a condition of approval item number 25 uh we ask for them to provide the information with regards to the areas to serve by grading and construction you've heard testimony tonight that they indicated that they were requesting a waiver from the storm water requirements they they're triggered whenever we have have a new construction of a single family dwelling I'm not really worried that that's going to create any adverse impacts to the neighbors it's pretty much over tidily flowed lands whatever water lands on that lot is going to be Shed off and go into Devil's reach so there so I did support that waiver um I just wanted to see there is some where the reestablishment of the parking area is and stuff like that I just want to see a little bit of grading in that area so if we can just add that as a condition of approval um I think the plan should be updated with that information item 27 um plans and profiles of the proposed utility layouts um there are existing utilities that service this area but it's unclear to me so I was just hoping that you could clear that up by providing that information on your plans and ultimately I always ask that that the sewer and water department approves what whenever there's a new single family dwelling approves the services to that dwelling so that's the inform that's why I was asking for that information location and description of monuments whether they be set or not that should that's provided on the um the subdivision plan we do a map filing review at the whenever the board grants approvals so that should be provided as a condition of approval uh Landscaping uh plan uh we support the waiver that was requested um once again this This Land Is frequent to flooding and the the viability of providing Landscaping there it's not going to last and then finally um for map details uh the subdivision has to be provided in digital format as a condition of approval we provide the tax assessor with that information so they can update the tax maps so that should be provided um and based on that recommendation we did support deeming this application complete the zoning review starts on page four of nine so the first table is for the Mind sweeper lot which is known as proposed new lot 591 so the use is a single family dwelling in the NC District it's not a permitted use um and they're not expanding it they're not touching it the reason why and and Mr Davis touched upon this on his in his opening statement the fact that this lot was consult idated now the lot is approximately 14,000 ft and now it's being res subdivided back to how it was so we're reducing the size of a lot on for a non-conforming use and it triggers that use variance necessity so that's all we're doing they're not expanding it they're not touching it it's going to remain as is the fact that the Lots were Consolidated now they're being broken apart triggers that I don't have an issue with that lot size requirement 12,5 500 ft in that neighborhood commercial District which is a commercial District um they're proposing 7,634 Square ft the ab budding R3 District requires 6,250 Square ft so is that is that an appropriate lot size for a residential dwelling abing that I'll let the board decide that uh the building setback line for that uh 20 foot is required 8.73 is proposed now these things are triggered when you do a subdivision so it's good practice whenever the subdivision happens we Grant the variances for the existing non-conforming situation all of these things are existing non-conformities the building setback line requirement is 20 fet 8.3 8.73 foot exists where 8.73 is proposed lot width and lot Frontage requirements are 100 fet 43.6 feet exists for lot width there is no lot Frontage and that is not changing sidey yard setback requirement uh one side does not conform at 0.91 and that's going to remain as an existing non-conforming uh and there's a variance necessary to be granted to to uh effectuate that okay so that was the Mind sweeper lot now we're going to move to where the new single family dwelling is proposed and this is the in the R3 District it's proposed lot 59.0 two the lot size conforms so it meets the minimum lot size the building stepb back line and once again these you can guess which one's a a front yard which is the which is the side yard and which is the rear yard um so the building setback line of 20 ft 19.81% three that's a little that's a little change so this is that's something new that we're considering the lot width requirements in that District are 50 F feet and lot Frontage requirement is 50 ft the lot width of that lot is 46.01 so it's slightly UND sized um and there is no lot rage the rear yard setback requirement is 25 ft and this is taken towards the side that uh orients towards Devil's reach 9.01 ft exists 9.01 ft is proposed um there is a portion of that front the the building expansion that encroaches into that setback so it's slightly different but they're not encroaching any further towards that rear yard setback the side yard setback requirement is 8 ft um 13.47% on the other side they're now proposing 4.77 on that one side so and that's the side that in the building expansions done being done towards Texas Avenue so that setback is getting a little bit smaller and they and Mr how Bruner testified that that side is flowed with water and no house can be built there no house can be built there thank you yeah okay and the last uh variance uh relates to parking for that lot uh there is a three-bedroom house there's two parking spaces that are required and accordance with the residential site Improvement standards they're proposing one now it's not on that site it's going to be created in an easement on the ab buding site on the M sweeper lot so the M sweeper has a conforming parking situation the two spaces that are provided for that they're providing one extra one for this new structure where none existed well it sure there's one existing before is one um I don't think that there's any existing parking on that lot I'm just saying on your CH yeah did did a space exist was there a third space on the Mind sweeper lot and you're just there's no formal okay so okay so that clarifies that they're they're creating a formal parking space one additional formal parking space so maybe I would uh say existing is zero and there's one proposed it's offsite in an easement okay so I in my opinion they're bettering the parking situation okay and then we talk about the planning variants so when you have lots that don't front on an improved Street there's a what we call planning variance and they Justified it with the the fire comment as well as demonst rating that the proposed uh access easement has suitable material that covers that that can support emergency firefighting business so I believe they've addressed that variance so at the end of the day there's 11 variances that are listed in my report but you're really only dealing as far as changing from the prec Consolidated condition you're only really dealing with the expansion on the new structure that deviates from what the footprint was of the building that fell into the water okay does that make sense I'm trying to simplify this it's a little it's very quirky but at the end of the day when I got done the review I'm like that's really the only change that's happening here okay so those are the variances I'll move on to my general review comments they start on page seven of nine so we asked for the first floor elevation because we are in a flood Hazard area and they also the new construction has to comply with chapter 258 which is our requirements for any construction within a flood Hazard area two is our standard condition just to update the zoning table if there's any changes that the board requires and I know if they are then that should be a condition um item three is my uh review of the storm water requirements for this project this is not considered major development so there's no um you know overall storm water requirements for this item number four is a standard condition that I typically just apply to any construction that that triggers this um a new house triggers this new storm water requirements of chapter 525 which is our minimum storm water management and Grading requirements they've asked for a waiver from that because this is tidy flowed and sits over top of water I have no problem with grining that waiver item number five is uh the requirement that the city sewer and water department approval is required for the connections to the new dwellings I don't know what those are um it's very hard to decipher there is a utility easement there I don't know what's in it but we should find out and make sure that the city is okay with that before um we we get a construction permit item number six and seven deal with the subdivision um so after the board grants approval I do uh what is a called a title recordation act and I make sure the plan complies with that act um before the plan is filed so that should be a condition of approval item number eight is our standard condition that the CEO for the certificate of occupancy for that dwelling is tied to a satisfactory inspection of that um item number nine is our standard condition that they comply with the requirements of the shat Tre commission report dated 31224 uh the fire department review dated 22924 public works department review dated 38 8 24 which all recommended approvals and with no comments um we did not receive an environmental commission report on this one um so that one was admitted item number 10 is they have to comply with all other necessary state county and local approvals uh this is an environmentally sensitive area uh so they have to provide evidence of the New Jersey D approvals item number 11 uh Texas Avenue is a county right away um even though they don't on it I did recommend so if if they wave that requirement I'm satisfied with that but if not then we should just provide evidence of the County Planning Department review and approval of this item number 12 this project is not located in the historic district so they do not need that approval uh item 13 is our standard um requirement that they comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements item number 14 is the other standard uh re requirement that should the board Grant approval they have to revise the plans consistent with any conditions that the board sets and submit those hasn't been there for four or five years at what point does the board take into consideration a house that used to exist because on other property we don't say oh well at one time there was a house here and it was here it was conforming it seems like I mean it wasn't like it was just 6 months ago it's been four to five years that there hasn't been a house here yet we're saying the other existing house I mean I don't have a problem with the separation of the of the lines going back to it but to me I don't know how we can keep referring to a house that hasn't existed for four to five years you want to away on on that from a legal standpoint it it doesn't matter that it was I mean truthfully I mean in a technical sense it doesn't matter that it was there before it doesn't impact whether you should greater variance or not other than it doesn't even do that that's not the t2 variance I was going to say accommodate if it wasn't there I mean the fact it was there before I personally don't in a most technical sense I don't know that it's terrifically relevant I wouldn't punish him for it or help him with it there was a house there before but that's what they want to build I I mean you can Mr Davis you can explain why you think it's relevant that there was a house there before I think if there was something horrible there before that wouldn't matter either just but but I mean I mean as a board how much are we going to keep going back back to the fact that when we see other permits come up they can say well you know 10 years ago there was a place there which we always take into consideration once they knock it down then there is no pre well foundation look look it's a permitted use okay so they're not they're not it's a house on a lot that's allowed to have a house so if it nonconforming use then we'd be trying to decide if they abandon it or not but that's not it's not relevant it's not a use issue all you're deciding is whether you want to allow aob you're deciding if you're going to if you're going to subdivide it I mean you'll exercise your discretion on that but once you subdivide it now you have you know a lot that in a lot of ways conforms it just needs a little sidey yard variants has 60 feet of open space next to it it's not well I don't know I thought there was like six variances it's going to need well we'll need it for dimensions for lot area but usually in terms of how far back you go you have to demonstrate that there's been a clear intent to abandon the previously existing non-conforming structure obviously the prior owner did demolish but there was always an intention to rebuild and that's what Mr Clay tor's testimony went to that there was always that intention when he purchased this property that he was going to reconstruct a single family home on the property in question so is 10 years too long probably but over the course of the last four years I can can assure you and I can supply you with the the legal invoices that Mr Claytor has unfortunately had to pay to get to this point there's been a lot of work that has gone into not just this application but also as njde applications in order to lawfully reestablish that home on the property in question so it's our position that there's never been an intention to abandon the ability to reconstruct that home um and we do think that there are equities involved uh with respect to this case because as a matter of fairness a home was there through events that were beyond control structural Integrity of a home pilings had failed and the city said you've got a dilapidated structure there it poses a a health safety welfare issue you've got to remove it from the property and that was done but there was always the intention to be able to rebuild it and we think it would be unfair in order to not allow that reconstruction to take place in the same general footprint of what existed previously I mean but when we have we look at other Lots we open it's a vacant lot we said well then you should be conforming to our regulations when a house is there then we give some lency because they can't move the house but if it's a vacant lot then we say okay you have to have the setbacks you have to have this and you know and conform and I understand that and and and I think that's a good uh course of conduct for a board when you have somebody who takes a a home and just tears it down and then it's vacant for a period of time um but in this circumstance you had a home that posed a public safety issue you had a home that was dilapidated where the pilings had failed and there was no choice but to it wasn't as if this was demolished in order to create a blank canvas for some new home to be constructed it was done because the city Direct Ed that the home be demolished in that circumstance so I think it is somewhat different from the circumstance that you're describing where you might have an investor come in if there's a small home there they decide to demolish the home for whatever reason and then later on after an extended period of time to try try to reestablish something I don't think this is that case can I say one thing for you I would be concerned if you didn't res subdivide the lot I mean I'm not saying you I'm not saying it would be arbitrary ious someone else decides that what I'm telling you is the the I mean not to make their case for them but the lot where the Mind sweeper is that's being used as a residence and has been for a very long time okay and their square footage of that lot when they create it is going to be 7600 Square F feet the required square feet for the adjacent residential Zone and this really is being used as part of that zone in effect I mean it's a residence adjacent to a residential zone is only 6250 so that let me just finish my thought so that lot is actually oversized if it were in a residential Zone as it's being used the new lot it meets the lot area okay it's so now that to me you're going back to where it was I mean am I wrong about that isn't everyone's looking at it but I mean the new lot meets the lot area of the residents and the mind sweeper lot if it were a residence would be 1 th000 ft over right so to me the subdivision is kind of easy now the question is this structure what structure should go on there well there's also parking right I mean we always talk about you know how many bedrooms they could they could build it but it could have been smaller where the parking would fit with one car parking you know they have they have three next door has excess parking right doesn't have three is it no we're providing three two for the M sweeper you have to remember that the D is driving the location of this structure so they're saying you're able to put a house there with doesn't give them an opportunity to move it somewhere where it's going to comply with setback you know the only real distraction I mean is the addition that they're taking advantage of because the D allows a 400 foot expansion and they're taking advantage of it that's really the only thing that's really being pushed differently yeah but I don't but should we be talking about the other house because that's that has been there for four to five years he bought it three years after the house was demolished it wasn't like he bought it and then deage I'm going sticking with my opinion the other house is distraction how it was there before to me it's a distraction yeah you have an odd shaped lot the other is the other side yard really 58 ft so you have a 4 foot side yard and a 58 foot side yard and they can't so they're 62 feet of yard the the lot is odd shaped I think that's the reason why it's pushed against the one side I mean it it's shaped like a like a peak inverted P and it's less impactful to the environmental conditions and I think the testimony is that where the 4ot side yard is there's another is there 60 feet to the next structure correct so forget the old house that doesn't mean to me that doesn't mean anything it's they're building a a house the size that the EP permits on an odd-shaped lot that has a 29 29% lot coverage where 45 is permitted so I think I think it's a D um one I think it's an OD shaped lot that has unique characteristics C1 C1 I apologize that's why I could of look for D1 doesn't a C1 hard VAR it's just an odd shape lot uniquely affecting this this project I means that's how the old house to me means nothing I think it's just a regular variance for a 29% lot coverage a fla ratio of 32 on an IT shaped lot Mr HS has point to the extent we could move it to conform or more nearly conform we for me we always talk about parking right so that's where you only have one parking for this entire house that's to me the issue we have and it's not like oh he can park on the street because you can't park on the street what would the plan Bas exercise your discretion I mean they have they have one parking space the other house has two and and I mean we have a number of houses that have zero and I think the testim I just like but where are they where's the parking going to go that's you know what I'm saying like are are you going into the neighborhoods now like probably well they also have a garage Mr they can't park in you do have a garage we do of some kind it will be it will be of a size that a motor that a traditional motor vehicle can be accommodated within that garage in the new home it can it will be large enough for a car to fit can it structur accommodate a vehicle well that's our concern we we you have to answer that but unlike most people they're admitting that they're not using the garage for parking most of the time have a garage and a space like this one do and then they never use the garage they don't need a variance at all they're admitting they're not going to park the thing is usually there's street parking and this thing there there is no other parking can they Park in the East can they Park in the Eastman that one Eastman's like a snake that goes around like a driveway can they Park I thought the testimony was there's about access 300 ft of just space that you could park in so there is space available for parking but we can't show it as parking because we can't improve it we can't put gravel there it's a so there's room I I understand that so practically there there will be space okay that cuz you have to understand like I'm thinking I get it may I understand it I I appreciate the comment um and there is space available we just can't represent to you that there's going to be two dedicated parking spaces they cannot put on a plan yeah okay would be honest if we okay said that hey we don't usually have that and I think Mr clor also said he intends to have a low powerered vehicle that he will park inside the garage so have one car coming for the home and then they'll have the low power vehicle to be able to get around town yeah what we usually see is people not just bringing one car it's two or three you know and that's right I understand that and and look it's his representation and you can't this is right now and obviously these homes could be sold off to separate owners down the road and you I'm sure your Council will advise you on that but this is intended to be a family compound with two homes and three parking spaces dedicated and available and then that additional space that's unimproved that can also be available for parking I'm good one last question the consolidation of these Lots the fact that the tax department did this whatever we decide here tonight is could could that possibly jam up there doing this can the tax department come up and say this was done for specific you subdivided the tax they they follow you you don't follow them okay as long as we meet the requirements of the map filing law which we will it's in Mr hur's report I did that review at the end and the tax assessor signs it we have the right to recreate the lot good okay open to the public within 200 200 fet open beyond 200 feet closed fish come up this is a hodge podge of variances that require different votes but my general policy is the applications presented as a whole they offer the benefits therefore we vote as a whole so it requires five out of seven to be approved um so the motion that I recommend being made um is a motion to Grant variances 1 through 11 on page five of the engineer report that includes a use variance um which is the only one on the list that requires five out of seven so I want to remind you that it's not I don't want to say it's not a real use variance but it's it's one of those lesser use variances it's not a use variance that is a use that's not permitted in the zone that's being created newly it's an existing use that they are arguably expanding because they're making a lot smaller that contains a a pre-existing non so um it's it's a bizarre uh use variant I think it's a use variance uh but it was a pre-existing nonconforming use on the size lot they're requesting and then it got bigger and now it's going back to the use that was a pre-existing non forming use on I'm not entirely sure that's a use VAR but I I think it's might be it's a D2 no but it existed this way before yeah there's a case called status was a use on this size lot and it's going back to that so I'm but I get it so it's a D2 variance I guess at most but it's it's the smallest of the of the D Varian it has to be able to accommodate um this proposed use and it listed with that existed with that use for about 108 years uninterrupted and then it changed and now it's going back to the way it was so that's the use variant so that one requires five out of seven so the whole application requires five out of seven there are there is a waiver relating to storm water storm water and that is because it's already already has the bay under it so there's no point in directing water away from it it's all goes there anyway and the conditions are conditions one [Music] through actually no hold on this is a uh 19 22 27 29 33 and one through 14 14 with number two deleted um in the engineers report on pages seven and eight that's the motion that I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you and although I did kind of articulate some justifications for the variance it doesn't mean there aren't reasons to say no um you can consider the parking you can consider the fact that it's bigger than it was before there's there's negatives in there that you could draw from for the record if you were inclined to vote no and I would be comfortable advocating that it's not arbitrary and capricious but I just want to make sure that everyone had in their mind some of the more um I wasn't sure the D the C1 variance came as clearly as I see it on this application because of the shape of the lot so I do think you should consider the D1 standard as well as some of the other C1 standard as well as some of the other standards that were articulated in terms of the purposes of zoning because I I I do see that this house is oriented and located where it is with a 4 foot side yard and a 50-ft side yard partly because of the unique shape and other um Dynamics impacting it due to a tot of front location okay so I just want that to be on your mind as you vote that's all all right so that's the motion I recommend being made how you vote is up to you okay can we have that motion I'll make a motion okay motion made by Mr zetzer second seconded by Mr venudo Mr Lewin yes Mrs not yes that was yes thank you Miss Sheen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr vudo yes Mr Mrs wner yes thank you thank you very much appreciate everybody's time tonight and your patience I'm really patient oh we have um there's going to be a motion for the bills and I um we received Mr King's bills later so I added it to your pile today so I just want to make a mention of that so he gets it paid later just say the bus I'll make a motion oldy I don't get okay Mrs not makes the motion second seconded by Mr Lewin thank you Mr ledwin yes Mrs not yes Miss Sheen yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you and we need a motion to adjourn I all in favor I thank you everyone and good night no oh my God that's what I they're right you read it thank you guys have a good Memorial Care you boil it down to what it is it's not that big a deal