start did you come from another town New [Music] Jersey uh this is a March 5 March 5th 2024 special meeting of the Fair Haven Zoning Board of adjustment adequate notice of this meeting special meeting has been given pursuant to the provisions of the open public meetings act notice of this meeting was transmitted to the Asbury Park Press and the two River times on February 20th 2024 notice was also posted on the bulle board in burrow Hall on said date and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute a copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file in the office of the burough cler the copy of the notice has also been sent to such members of the public as have requested such information in accordance with the statute adequate notes hav been given uh the board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minute of the meeting and Mr chairman not to interrupt you I just want to indicate for the record that this meeting is scheduled to commence at 7:15 p.m. it's also listed on the agenda at that time as well as in the notice that were sent out for the meeting we waited an extra 10 minutes and we commen at 7:25 when you began reading the open public meetings at announcement thank you okay uh R call please J uh Mr here Mr Richard Mr B here Mr for here here Mr here Mr here all right uh please join me in the s to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all Mr do we have the necessary number of board members uh to vote on this application Mr chairman we have a quarum uh and the record should also reflect that out of an abundance of caution to Whispering which hearing When Miss crimo puts a record on the puts her appearance on the record in few minutes a letter introduced the matter but out of an abundance of caution any of the board members that were not here at either the prior proceeding the initial application have reviewed the record and we have the certifications in the file I believe Mr canella Mr P and MRE is that correct chill yes we have those in the okay the other board members are present at the prior seeding so yes we have a forum uh this is just a bulk erance release so it's simple majority is required and if I may Mr chairman perfect timing asking okay Mr R garow has join board um we'll let misso put her appearance from the record and then we'll attend any housekeeping matters and then we'll get into the this is the Whispering Woods hearing Santos versus Fair Haven zoning board and p personette uh 78 Pine Cove Road Block 78 blot uh 13.07 Zone R30 good evening uh Mr chairman members of the board Jennifer kmco from anel and here on behalf of the uh applicant by way of very brief reminder because I know the new members have uh already been tortured Enough by having to listen to the tape or reviewing the transcript um this was an application that came before you we bifurcated it one was for additions to the house which was approved separately we came back for the pool uh the Santos is did appear as objectors at both meetings uh with uh Council Mr Gaz raski at the second meeting the board did Grant the pool uh in the location where it was proposed and the variances related to it uh the santoses appealed through their attorney to the superior court of New Jersey challenging uh both approvals and uh during the process of that litigation uh your attorney uh Mr gazari myself were able to work out a settlement uh amongst the parties uh which was a signed consent order which was submitted as part of the application and you do have it in your packet uh which uh basically essentially has us relocating the pool to the other side of the property which we'll get into in a little more detail and as you know anytime you set a litigation from a prerogative RIT you have to come back and have what what we're doing now we're sping Woods hearing where the board uh formally would vote on the settlement it's a it's basically a it's a pre-settlement until the board has a hearing on it so with that I have a few things to move in and then we'll jump right into and before we start marking exhibits uh let the record reflect that I've reviewed the notice materials it's a Whispering Woods hearing but again the applicant is required to present the matter at the public hearing which we're doing right now on notice since the parties which they have done and then the board will deliberate when the hearing's over and you'll vote you're not required to approve it if you approve it the litigation essentially goes away it's just becomes dismiss with prejudice If you deny that's before you now um the plaintiff in the litigation neighbor Mr Santos would have a right to reinstate the litigation okay but as I said it's a public hearing on notice the apkin has issued new statutory notice for tonight's meeting I reviewed it it appears to be in order do does anyone have any problems with the notice not the merits on the case any issue with regard to the notice let direct record reflect no response board has jurisdiction hearing C matter we're going to swear Mr Rizzle our professional engineer raise your hand you just swear the board truth told Tru truth I do thank you so much any other housekeeping matters M crico no just to move in some evidence okay and Mr gazari you're here on behalf of uh neighbor Mr Mrs Santos yes yes I am I was the attorney who began that perogative Bri okay I consulted with Miss crico she and her clients were extremely courteous toward me as well as my client I've looked at numerous uh documents that she's presented as well as the drawings by client in the court what is now being pros and we express our gratitudes to our name okay thank you for that and I assume you have no housekeeping matters that we need to address them we're good to go with the hearing thank you Mr gazari okay mrco would you like more just very briefly A1 is the original exhibit from the uh second hearing that was moved in as A6 on 9822 and it's just I'm going to hand them out I have copies on my it's a color rendering of the previously approved plan and I share this with you I apologize that my handwriting is on it but I took it from my actual file and made copies for you just so you could refresh up we had you had it I wasted all this Pap for you mind bigger but I can so that's exhibit a Das F from the September 8 202 now I'm moving it as A1 A1 A2 is the revised plot plan by Insight engineering uh revised through 21224 four sheets yes that's A2 that you have A3 is just a photo facing the subject property from the street which I downloaded from Google Earth today I don't know the date of it it may be before any construction has gone but it's really just to it's really just to remind the board how vegetated the front of his property is and then lastly as a four line here is a color rendered overlay of the proposed improvements which is just a colored version of what we moved in as the plot L and with all of that I'd like to have Jason pit oneor in he will planner and engineer at the original earring we'll try to keep this very brief and just speak to the changes that were made and a-4 is a color enhanced version of the plot plan a-3 today yeah correct M gazar you seen all those exhibits I yes I have okay you have no objection them being markting thank you sir would you give us your full name spell your last your address for the record please Jason Fitcher fi ctbr Insight engineering 1955 34 and W raise your right hand you do T to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do now Mr fiter has testified before this board testified as the real result of the prior proceedings also correct yes does the board wish to hear Mr F's credential in terms of are you testify professional engineer ofal plan or both do the board wish to hear his credentials either as a professional engineer or professional planner or both we accept them once again your licensees remain in effect Mr piter yes thank you so much Mr thank you so Jason if you could um take a moment and just walk the board through what was previously approved what we're proposing now and uh just offer some testimony as to whether or not the planning proofs that you gave for the variances in the first instance still apply in this revised location sure thing all right so the um you have all the exhibits in front of you I'll refer to the pre-existing pool which is what existed for many years the original approval uh which was appealed and then and what we're proposing tonight so the pre-existing pool was directly in front of the house and your ordinance specifically seeks to avoid that so with the original application what we did is we proposed a new pool at the southwestern corner of the property that location was approved but as you just heard the the neighbor then filed a lawsuit appealing that approval after negotiations the setle the lawsuit we agreed to relocate the proposed pool to the Eastern side property line that new location the pool is set back 32 feet from that side property line where your ordinance requires only 10 feet it's also set back further than the original plan which was 28 ft it's also in a location that's screened from the neighbor there's a mature solid Evergreen row along that side property line as a result of this plan change we also revised the driveway to straighten it out because today there's an unnecessary 90° turn in that drive driveway so we uh and it's in close proximity to the proposed pool so we realign that driveway and you can actually see that in under the green shading on 84 where the existing driveway is correct yep all right um the size of the pool was increased slightly it's it's now proposed at a standard 20x 40 and then we connected it to the house with a short walkway and we provided a seating area around the pool the lock cage as a result of all these changes remains well under what's permitted the ordinance permits 30% this new plan proposes 26.5 4% we also added a small I'm sorry to interrupt is what's the net difference between the approved plan and the proposed settlement plan on lot coverage sure so I understand you're under but I'm curious what's the net difference Le yeah yeah so I I'll run you through the the history of coverage I'll give you all that all those numbers right so again you your ordinance permits 30% the pre-existing condition before anything was done was 29.8 which conformed but just under the original approval had 26.6% coverage and we're now proposing 26.5 four so darn close to the same as it was on the original plan up a tick thank you sure uh we also added a small wall to provide a flat area for the AC units the generator and the pool equipment which is on the I'll call it the east side of the home I'm referring to let's say the river as North and the property line of the pool is near as the East and all of those fully conform with setx yes yep all right so um all of my planning proofs from the original application stand for this plan revision I believe that the proposed location the new proposed location for the pool Remains the better planning alternative versus having the pool located directly in front of the home the hardship condition which we discussed a lot here in the original hearing that continues to play a role in placement of the pool as well due to the location of the existing home being set far back from the road the New Jersey EP restrictions on the north side of the home and the topography as well on the north side of the property there's no visibility to pool from the street which happens to be about 126 ft away from the proposed pool location it's also screened from the street by existing vegetation which is pretty dense at the front of the driveway and just like our original application I don't anticipate any adverse impacts to the neighbor and I actually don't anticipate any visibility of this pool from anywhere outside of the property I think it'll only be visible from the interior property so that pretty much sums up everything is there are there any additional variances triggered by the changes no there's actually one less I've learned tonight that well you granted the riparian the variance for construction in the riparian zone under your ordinance that has been changed now so we no longer need that variance so it's really just the location of the pool in the front yard as well as I believe the same variances last time which was the fence height within the front yard as well as I think Pro the fence height in proximity to a water body no new variances Mr Rizo are there any drainage issues uh related to moving the pool uh there's no drainage issues the the natural Topography of the site is from the uh I call the South to the north towards the river um they're proposing series of inlets yard inlets near the pool to collect the water um they show some grades to tie or to drain towards the inlets um I have one open comment which I think we can address um at a later date um as a condition of an approval but it would just be to show where the inlets ultimately tie into just to clarify that um but the intent to drain and collect the water was was made so the the grading that's to I guess I'd say the north is already existing where it kind of drops off fairly steeply between the house and the property line uh they are tweaking it there I think that's just you I'll let you explain if you want but I'm assuming that's just can swell it and keep it further off before he does Mr R we were contact my client was contacted by The Neighbors on the North side and um then they had hired an attorney who contacted us we circulated the plans my neighbors had met with them and as you see they're in agreement which is why they didn't pay they're not here and they weren't for this litigation so they did see this plan I can stipulate it was shared with them originally and just I apologize part of the reason why we adjourned so many times is we had worked it out with the santoses and thought we were good to go and only then learned that the neighbor on the other side wasn't happy with it so we made a series of adjustments for that which is what Mr G he was talking about the numerous plans he reviewed because we we wanted to make sure that we weren't asking the board to trade one litigation for another we wanted to make sure we satisfied everybody so let's before we leave the issue to neighbor on on that side if I may Mr chairman is that I can't pronounce the name Mar well I don't I don't know is that lock lock 78 lock 13.08 yes okay the reason I ask is they're on the notice list is 72 Pine Co LLC I assume it's what's the name it's jointly owned by Scott marchus and Dil Scott Marius and dilia Hammer are the owners what what I'm saying is the tax was show 72 Pine code LLC so I don't know if they put it in LLC the reason I bring it up is notice issued by certified ma was received apparently somebody sign for it right and and I can also tell you that like the last time they complained tax assessor still had their mailing address wrong so in addition to that we actually emailed them a copy of the notice as well and it was at at that time I think the tax assessor had not updated the list from the prior owner correct and and now it was updated but the wrong mailing for them this one yep okay but again we gave them the notice well this appears to be the street address no okay in any event but you were live on the list that was given to of course we have to thank you okay is the neighbor on the opposite side of Mr Santos uh in agreement with the proposed that's why that's why they're not here and back to Mr Rizzo's comments is is there anything in his report of February 27 2024 that the afin cannot comply with seemed basically the same last no problem we'll comply with Mr and I think I misstated something I just want to correct for the record it wasn't that neighbor it was the Santos whose address wasn't correct from the um from the tax assessor the mailing address so we obviously I copied Mr gazari he had it and then I saw that my client also sent the copy directly to Mr Santos and advised that they should let the tax assessor know to update that so I just I didn't want to have a misstatement on the record Mr gazar rowski is your client in agreement with the proposal yes I spoke this morning he was in London England with eff made thank you anything more for Mr Fitcher you want to see if any board members have any questions from Mr pit Mr chair you believe from a planning perspective that this is a better option than the original approved I I think it's it's a wash you know this is a difficult situation because like I said the hardship the the location existed home your ordinance or anybody in their right mind I don't think wants pull in front of the house so you put it on the left to the right we put it on the left that didn't work we put it on the right everybody seems happy so I think it's a it's even and from an engineering perspective as far as where the disturbance is occurring even though there is a different repair and buffer ordinance in effect here now do you believe that putting this on that side of the property closer to the river is a better option than locating it where it was when it was approved again I think that's a was your ordinance may have changed but the D hasn't they still regulate that riparian zone which might be why you guys let it go because they're pretty unrelenting so that repairing Zone will be protected and the reason that this will be okay is because it's previously developed and previously Disturbed so that that's a wash as well and there's no concern with the shift in the green over on that corner of the property it's not so much a shift as it is just contouring the land gently there there's already a steep slope there we're just contouring it like Mr Rizzo said to swell the water get it down to the river without coming to the neighbor's property are there any other questions so that actually yes sorry um the water collection water collection is going to be collected and then sent into the river sent to the river that's correct could we put dry Wells somewhere on this property um what is your concern what would that accomplish conern run off any development on the river you know someone who's been in town for 10 years or so and adly boats on the river it silts up it's sting up incredibly fast so you know anything that we can do to offset that so the silting up is a soil conservation issue they're not going to allow to travel Downstream into the water uh and we have to get this plan certified by them so everything here is going to be stabilized there should be no silt going into the water if there is there's a problem needs to be faced but this plan there's no silt going out the volume of water runoff if that's a concern flooding the D has it right in their own RS that discharging to a tital water body is a non-issue for quantity the theory is you're not going to Flo line appr so that that's a benefit actually the to get the water out to the river yes we not flooded ocean but we're going to there's other things that happen in the river which are issues in terms of Sing Sing uh people matter there's a lot of issues that go on when it when it rains fertilizer when it rains in Fair Haven for about 48 hours is unusable basically from all of uh you know it's dogs it's everything Birds geese gets washed into the river sure so those my concerns um you know yes I understand that's right about D and other you think that there are you know ways that hopefully we can address that you know yeah I mean the the runoff from the from the land will flow through the grass and landscaped areas and that's effectively a best management practice that the D promotes that should clean the water before it gets discharged out to the river if we were to put drywalls in here I would grab the roof so that we could extend the light the dryw because roof runoff is considered clean and it won't soak up a drywall and we would continue to allow the Overland flow to go to the river I don't honestly don't think a dryw is going to really accomplish anything here in terms of volume or water quality or anything like that I mean could we put them in we'll find a home for them and put them there but I don't think it's going to accomplish anything if that's your objective no it just it's my concern any development by the river that is a big concern for me and you know just the rain that we just had you know you drive down any of these streets and the water running along the um you know the curves everywhere in town is round you get run off from everywhere so anything we can do col Conservation District they'll find the source of it and they'll put an end to it oh good because I know exactly where one is but no that's what they do no but but what I'm saying is I mean it is and it's an issue that is you know it seems like it's not getting any better so we have an opportunity to kind of you know maybe it's just putting our finger in the Dyke but at least we feel like we're doing something yep yep stabilizing this property with landscape and and grass and that kind of thing should prevent that silting issue okay that was actually my question doesn't look like any additional trees are are coming down due to this pool there was um I don't think there is there might be one or two kind of random shrub but I believe there's more being proposed as part of the larger project that's not on this plan so it that's going to be a watch there will be no noticeable difference there's already a tree line between the two properties like a wall agre yeah it's substantial yes is there any chlorinated water that's being discharged into the river I don't believe that's allowed no so the answer is no Mr La just uh building on Mr canel's concern can you describe some of the construction measures that you'll use to minimize any salt moving from the construction assume salt Vents and then yeah so in the plan set that that we submitted sheet 304 that's the soil ersion inment control plan right and that has all those measures on there and that's the one that has to be certified by The Soil conation District right and on that slope kind of steep on the north is there a ro that that gets installed oration starting to it's it's not that steep that it requires that doesn't have that amount of volume that requires it um it it's a mild enough slope that grass does the trick okay so the silk fence will go up during construction while the soil is exposed once the grass is established the silk fence can come out gotcha and just so the board is comfortable the the house construction has been ongoing and it that also required a a field s Conservation District certification and all of those measures have been in place throughout that construction I just as my clients about about 80% done so it sounds like a lot of the earth movement as it relates to the house part has been uh finished so this is really very small scale in the in the grand scheme of B thank you anyone else ready to open public I believe you are Mr chairman any interested parties have any questions for Mr fiter or we let him go the record reflect no response next witness M K I do not have next Witness M chairman you want to open up to any parties who may wish to make comments please are any parties who make wish to make comments with regard to this matter you come up we sway in Mr gazari has already made a statement on the record on behalf of his clients Mr Mrs Santos are there any yeah sit down just say thank you you can say thank you when it's all done last all any of parties who wish to ask make any comments with regard to the matter let the record reflect no response anything in closing Mr P no I think that uh the board asked some great questions I think that Jason adequately answered them and uh we would ask that you vote in favor so we can put this behind us and uh bring some peace to the neighborhood okay let's deliberate anyone want to start I just want to ask Mike so is the concern driving this to settlement that we were somehow arbitrary and capricious in our granting of the approval previously I I don't have that concern that was the claim raised by Mr gazar outski and his client that would a matter that that was a matter that would eventually be adjudicated by the court if the parties weren't able to resolve bring it back to the Mr sh if I could just answer to that Mr Irene was more of a passive uh participant in the settlement this was a decision by my client that it was worth saving the time and money and heartache and sleepless nights of undergoing a year worth of litigation if we could come up with a solution that could satisfy everybody so this is not in any way any kind of statement on the last approval no but that could satisfy everybody when you're talking about the applicant and the neighbor right and that's now you're here to see if it satisfies correct right so once we came to an agreement I reached out to Mr Irene which is why we are here but again this is this is in no way a statement on your last decision this was a rather than keeping the gloves on we've come up with a solution that we hope you agreed and it's was little bit different than most I won't say all most wood springwoods matters because in most cases it's a denial and then the appan who was denied ches the board and you Embark in litigation and then there's usually some discussion from applicant council with board counil is there anything that might make it more palatable and we come back and we move things around and obviously the ultimate decision remains with the board but in this case um the application is approved Miss crico then engaged with Mr gazari on behalf of the neighbor on that side and as you heard Miss Miss crio put on the record they also talked to the neighbor on the other side which made sense otherwise as she said you're just trading one piece of litigation for another and as a result of the discussion among the three attorneys out there they asked to bring it back for the board that's how we got here but Mr JY that's also why I brought Jason back to put the proofs on the record as to this location because I didn't want you to think that just because we settled that the board should accept it we wanted you to understand that from a professional standpoint from a planner and engineer it works in this location also it just wasn't the first choice of my client and one of the difficulties is you can't have a pool in the front yard in this case all the available properties in the front yard under the ordance the way they ordance to find there go the hardship of Mr pis with discussing both last time and this time anything else from the board deliberation I mean I think I I wasn't here last go around I spent a painstaking amount of time listening to the audio clips and I think you know we always advocate for a solution where the neighbors can come together obviously don't want it to see you know not great to see it go to the litigation but fact that it's amendable to all parties I think Mr Fitcher we appreciate you uh submitting the proofs and going through it I'm V medable to it as is so thank you for your time nothing really to add Mr chairman no my then you really concerned I just like to hear that there you know those things are being addressed and I think you did a great job of that um I'm very happy that this was worked out amongst the neighbors and I'm also very happy uh to put my support behind this and hopefully put this behind us and let everybody move forward Mr d'angela I agree I think it's great that resolution was reached and everyone is seemingly in in agreement I want to thank the parties for getting together and resolving this issue I think that that was uh an appropriate thing to do and as well as to engage the neighbor on the opposite side uh and uh if there's no other um people to be heard then let's put this up to a vote Yeah just they did the the approval was the better option and that to take second best to that to appease someone who just wants the pool farther from their than their pool is from the applicant's house uh you know is isn't the right reason to change that why do you feel that the first location better out just curious yeah I feel like it was a more appropriate site on the property um I thought that keeping it away [Music] from River despite the change in the repairing ordinance in town um um you know I I still would like to see less really immediately close to the river and um you know certainly near even just this five foot drop off um towards the river just because the the stability of these bags is I I've seen it go to hell in this area a number of times and uh and just I I thought that we went through a good process during the application and that it was well reasoned and um you know despite the fact that I had my issues with the repairing ordinance um thought that it was it was cited better in in the application than it was sitting where it was directly in front of the house or over here um more in the front yard um as as you see the property as opposed to the technical definition of the front yard of the house Mr chair can I I know it's out whatever can I just take a moment address a couple things that Mr shet said sure okay I I appreciate that my client thought that the other location was a better location also but that doesn't mean that what you're deeming second best is a bad location and that's why we came before you with an engineer and a planner to explain all the reasons why it's still a really good location and why it's Justified and and I know that you stand behind your last approval but you stand behind it at the expense of the taxpayers to challenge a litigation that all the parties agree on so I think that that's the balance you have to look at is I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with you but we don't pay for the B for Mike to continue the litigation so you'd be fighting a l the taxpayers would be would if you don't approve this the taxpayers would be paying to fight a litigation that the parties most impacted by it have resolved so I think that's really the big picture if we couldn't bring Jason before you to give you all the reasons why it's still okay here I understand the big picture I understand the negotiations that occurred just giving my opinion in this part of it and in my read of you know the discussion of the board that's not going to have an effect on and and that was the only Reon and that was the only reason I said it was just in case some of the board members were listening and saying yeah I was right I just want to remind everybody what the big picture is that's all I feel like um I do recall and I don't recall who said it because I was listening and I wasn't watching um but somebody was concerned that maybe the pool in the other location was a bit too far away from the house and there was no there was no connection so that down the road when um the payow sell the house and somebody else moves in they might not have you know they might have smaller kids and there might not be a different so this way now it's connected to the house and I think that's a bonus I also think it's great that the um driveway has been sort of fixed and taking up less of the um the lot coverage um stilling out higher lot coverage than the the approval right right but I I I do think those are two positive um aspects of of this of this plan and it was Mrs Quigley and I think she wanted to pull where they place the pool kind of on the other side so we had you could look out and see and that was one of my questions to Mr AR was do we have any jurisdiction as to where they can place the pool by sight lines or whatever we don't um is you know like with most things we deal with here is it is it 100% ideal no is this the best solution I think for everybody involved yes and I think it's you know this is long overdue to be put to move move forward let everyone get on with their lives and peace come back to Blossom Cove well and the concern the concern with the proximity to the river is certainly a legitimate concern but if you had a it's it's a odd piece of property if you had a functional rear yard could you put a pool even closer to the river yeah because it would be out of the front which what we discussed yeah you I me they're all legitimate concerns but it it is a rather unique situation when you have the house set that far back with those slopes but it's up for work situation um we ready to vote roll call sh someone has make a m oh somebody's got to make a motion one way or the other I make a motion to accept the uh uh proposal as submitted to move the pool to the new location as indicated on what is this plan the latest A2 A2 A2 uh and uh fence height and the fence height and the fence height I think the fence height is mandated by by by and that's subject to other ageny approvals including the D freeold soil if it's required beyond the house compliance with the CME report and any and all prior conditions that otherwise are no longer applicable from the prior resolution and doesn't it also have to be specifically to adopt the settlement granted well if we approve this if we Grant this application the settlement agreement was to bring it back okay right okay that's fine she stipulated as well the other neighbor had signed off on I don't know if that's something I'm I'm going to put that in the resolution okay that that my client represented that we spoke to them they had an attorney and then signed off second roll call Mrs D'Angelo yes Mr Ryan yes Mr Forte yes Dr loer yes Mr canel yes Mr no okay carries thank you tonight was GNA be my night I finally get out of vote in favor something thank you everybody thank you appreciate you taking the time meeting here thank you so much for the The Marked exhibits we've got them we've got everything thank you thank you everybody have a nice voting against you now building I know for you last which is ironic don't you think yeah it is but all right good job thank you for coming out everybody thank you Mr chair all