e for for for e e e for for for e e for e e [Music] does the board have any questions for this Witness do we have any questions from the public for this witness is this your only witness tonight okay um from our board professionals you want to just any concerns highlights from your reports no just basically it's a permitted use they're reducing the size of the building and the capacity is going to remain the same so there's no intensity of increase of the use they're making it I think more attractive and the parking is being reduced too parking requirements being reduced so I I don't have any concerns at all with it Bennett um I don't really have any concerns with it uh I will say for the the board's uh education I'm sure you're aware of this just by looking at it but they have no parking on site all of their parking is off is is um on the street uh offsite parking um there there is a parking lot that has like 26 spaces in it that you're correct uh but the site is operated like that for a number of years uh and and it is there's no change as was testified there's no change in the maximum o occupancy the number of people expected to be there so I don't have any uh issue with it any questions from the board for our professionals hearing none any any questions from the public for our professionals okay all right do I have a motion to close the public hearing on this case I make a motion to close I'll second second Mr Beal V call please you can do an all in favor to close the public all in favor I all right uh then someone want to make a motion to make a positive for a negative resolution on this I'll move for a positive resolution oh second all right roll call yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes okay great well thank you very much thank you very much appreciate it all right our next case of the evening Miss Diane grone 608 Wildwood Road West Allen Hurst block 61.0 7 Lot 4 Zone R4 hello Miss kmco how are you are you good to go before the judge and the judge is blind so they can't can't use any of the pictures I was just sticking things out is good evening members of the board Jennifer kmco from anman Aaron here on behalf of the applicant what we have before you tonight is a significantly oversized lot in the R4 Zone unfortunately it's not exactly two times the lot size which is why we're coming in uh for variance relief related to uh creating two lots there is an existing house on the lot obviously as any condition of a subdivision should the board approve it we would have to remove that house in order to make way we are not proposing any construction right now with exception to that construction that's necessary as part of your subdivision ordinance what I mean by that is is that sidewalks are required Street trees are required uh and general uh infrastructure improvements like that but no uh homes are being proposed we're merely looking to build create two building Lots as you're going to see through the testimony from our engineer and planner uh we're going to be introducing an exhibit that shows how two conforming homes can easily fit on this lot and be well under the uh required coverages and the like uh additionally we will show you the makeup of the uh character of that portion of the R4 Zone which immediately abuts the R5 Zone in which this lot would be completely compliant that's the overview okay if I can just uh for the record Mr chairman going to Mark in the following exhibits exhibit A1 will be the application exhibit A2 will be the boundary and topographic survey exhibit A3 will be the minor subdivision plan those are all the exhibits I have at the moment then I have for the board exhibits exhibit B1 will be the board planner report exhibit B2 will be the board engineer report exhibit B3 will be the crime prevention report exhibit B4 will be the traffic safety report exhibit B5 will be the code enforcement report exhibit B6 will be the environmental commission report exhibit B7 will be the fire marshal report and exhibit B8 will be the Department of Public Works report and I'm sorry Mark I missed B4 B4 is the traffic safety report thank you you want to have your first witness go and then we'll go to our professionals I would and I and I actually have two more exhibits if I could just move them in really quickly uh A4 is a neighborhood aerial exhibit prepared by Insight engineering dated June 24th [Applause] 2024 here and then I don't [Applause] know okay and then A5 is as promised it's entitled potential conform development exhibit that's also by insight and that's dated 620 excuse me 62024 and as you're going to see it very carefully notes on these potential conforming structure potential conforming driveway because again we're not proposing any of this construction we just want to let you know that should the board vote favorably on this what size homes and other improvements would fit without variance Rel we will I will see once we hand it out to the board you'll hear through the testimony [Applause] what so with that I'd like to introduce Patrick Ward who's running away he's not running away he's just getting more copies for the [Applause] public have him sworn and qualified as a professional engineer and planner Mr W do you swear any testimony about the will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I'll be got I do and just state your name and spell your last name for the record sure Patrick Ward Ward and you are a licensed uh are you testifying in both capacities or only as an engineer tonight uh engineer and planner all right so you're you are both a licensed planner and engineer this evening that's correct thank you very much we'll accept you thank you all right please Patrick as the expert here and the prepar of the plans why don't you take it away talk about what's existing on the site and what we're proposing first from an engineering perspective and then we'll get into the planning support for the variance relief required sure what I'll do is I'm going to start with A2 which I believe is the survey Miss crico um and I want to turn it so the public can see as well in case so the subject property is 608 Wildwood Road Block 61.0 7 law 4 and we're in the R4 Zone as Miss kmco stated so the applicant's here tonight to subdivide the subject property into two New Lots proposed lot 4.01 4.02 and as you'll see and as you'll hear the proposed lots are slightly under the minimum lot area and withd requirement for the R4 Zone necessitating variance relief before this board so today this is the survey that was marked and submitted as part of the package there's a a single family dwelling on the property roughly centrally located not much else going on some open SP around the perimeter and driveway and walkway to the front so what we're proposing to do is subdivide this property in half so the property today is 150 ft wide and 125 ft deep we're looking to split it in half to have two 75 ft wide Lots the existing dwelling and the other site improvements the driveway walkways and Patio at the rear would be removed as part of this application the proposed lot areas are each 9,375 ft where 10,000 ft is the minimum requirement and the proposed lot widths are 75 ft wide where 90 ft is required notably the lot depth here is 25 ft in excess of what's required in the R4 zone I'll get to into this in a little more detail in a moment but we are immediately adjacent to the R5 Zone um right next door to us on our one uh property boundary why put up a just public visual sure so this is a for our neighborhood exhibit and what you could see here subject property is in blue and our proposed two lots and the Orange Line represents the boundary between R4 and R5 and what you could see which is not uncommon but not the norm is that the Zone boundary Cuts mid block so we're actually we're not we're in the not at the end of the block we're in the middle of the block and our East property line is actually the Zone boundary to the R4 to the R5 I should say and additionally as this exhibit shows there are R4 Zone Lots in our vicinity that actually don't meet the R4 requirements and we have those highlighted in yellow um and you could see those and and some of them are actually smaller than what we are proposing tonight and again Patrick we're going to get into it and when we get to the planning testimony that's not to justify the variance that's to show towards what the character of the neighborhood is correct because that's part of the proofs we have to demonstrate the goal here is to show that we're not disrupting neighborhood character and we're more in fitting with the neighborhood character which we'll get into more in a moment Miss kmco stated that no construction is proposed at this time as in no new homes are being proposed at this moment what we are proposing and it's on our subdivision plan set is that we're proposing new curb along the frontage and new sidewalk where it doesn't exist today um and we're also proposing three Street trees which is required by Township ordinates no trees uh on the site are to be removed at this moment at this time now we did prepare and this is a this future a future improvements exhibit and I'll move my areial back so you can see what I'm put to and so we prepared this and we studied the the proposed lots to see what could be developed uh on the property and how would it compare to the zoning requirements of the R4 zone so we studied each lot and what you see here are potential conforming developments proposed future houses future driveways potentially and we show that we can offer or we can demonstrate conforming improvements um and we could show that each property could be developed with a new home about 1,950 Square fet in footprint uh a driveway uh or gar and garage for off street parking and potential rear amenity space these Footprints and these potential future homes will be comparable to other houses in the neighborhood in terms of size and scale um in contrast if we kept the lot today as it is which is oversized by nearly twice a full buildout development of the subject property today up to the maximum uh ordinance requirements would be out of character with the neighborhood you're looking at a much larger house than what's in the immediate vicinity and a lot more uh in terms of amenity space improvements driveways Etc this exhibit just for point of reference shows a proposed lot coverage of about 30% for each lot and as we know the R4 Zone permits 65% so this is just you know the the start of it um there's more that could be added in the rear yards for example we want to demonstrate to the board that homes of in character with the neighborhood could be built and there's room in the backyard for your typical amenda so importantly it's just to show that at the building coverage you're going to have about a 2,000t first floor which would translate into rough a 4,000 ft house as opposed to one big mcmansion at 8,000 s ft on the right bigger lot it's the easiest way to say it is to it could potentially be double the size of these yes um this exhibit shows that future development of the parcels will comply with all the bulk workk standards of the R4 Zone and um Just for future development purposes we do have letters of future service from all the utility purveyors that says that they can serve two homes on this property without issue and did you look at we whether or not this lot the top the topography that some future development could actually be accommodated here without any negative drainage impact on any of the surrounding neighborhoods we did and this this exhibit does show proposed grading in a conceptual form and we we can indicate that um the the new roof runoff could be directed towards Wildwood uh the right of way rather than neighbors or to the rear and by developing it as two separate homes as opposed to one large home with many amenities we're not getting the benefit of any more coverage it would still be compliant it's no more impervious than we would be allowed if we kept it as one loot that is correct okay we're just giving more light air in open space by having two structures instead of one large one correct okay and so that's just an overview of the site and the subdivision what I'd like to get into is again reiteration of the variances and and the support for the positive and negative criteria for those variance request just you're going to move on to the the planning portion of your testimony before we do that can we hear from our board engineer any concerns on the engineering half first sure uh my only comment is uh that wasn't touched on was um the demolition of the existing structure the proposed subdivision line goes right through the uh existing building so the demolition would have to take place before the subdivision is um perfected that's understood Mr chair okay if you want to continue your testimony then sure so as I mentioned at the beginning we have lot area variances a lot of area variance for each lot and we have a lot with variance for each lot and in my opinion these can be analyzed as flexible C2 variances so in my review of this application from a planning perspective I reviewed two cases whose decisions support this application so we have the Kaufman case which is a a pretty famous case for the C2 criteria and then there's another one Green Meadows via the Mountville planning board so first the Kaufman the Court ruled that the creation of two comparable homes were a better zoning alternative than one large dwelling on an oversized lot the ruling focused on quote more harmonious lot sizes end quote outweighing any detriment created which furthers a purpose of planning which I'll I'll summarize in a moment in the Green Meadows case there were similar findings and again they said the same the notion of quote more harmonious lot sizes end quote was seen as substantially outweighing any detriments of the case a neighborhood context here is critical and we look at A4 the exhibit as I said before our property is on the border of the R4 R5 zoning districts our lot widths of 75 ft and our lot area of 9,375 square ft would exceed the R5 zoning requirements just next store what is that requirement excuse me what is that requirement in R5 what's the minimum R5 is um we have it's 75 ft wide and it's 7500 foot Lots so as you look to in the immediate neighborhood too there are several lots that are similar size to our proposed Lots just to the west of us there are two lots that are very similarly sized and then across the street there's actually a really really small lot and then a little bit to the north at the corner of Woodland deal Parkway there are two lots that are a hair smaller than what we're proposing this section of our neighborhood appears to serve as a transition from the R5 Zone to the R4 Zone um keep in mind that in actuality zoning District boundaries are not visible in real life so even though the zoning District split is midblock as you could see the neighborhood Harmony continues as you go you cross steal Parkway or head north and south all said this application furthers the following purposes of planning a this is an appropriate uh development which would promote the general welfare in my opinion this is a better utilization of land here that protects the general welfare lot area Dev deviation is imperceptible um it's small this applica uh C purpose C excuse me this application provides adequate light air and open space and this is really why we prepared this potential conforming development plan is that light air and open space will be protected in the future because no bulk variance relief would be necessary for full development here with the r R4 District standards purpose e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and preservation of the environment this application is considered to have an appropriate density since it more closely con conforms to the Zone plan which is the intended density of the R4 Zone we're closer to that than having a single oversized Loot and this is essentially an infill development which is a good strategy for providing housing while preserving the environment purpose I this application promotes a desirable visual environment and purpose n leads to a more efficient use of land I think those are tied together in that again more infill development and efficient use of land not spraw purpose G this application provides sufficient space and appropriate locations for residential uses in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens again infill development is a good strategy to provide housing for New Jersey citizens and this application will conserve property values in the neighborhood in my opinion this development will blend nicely with the neighborhood as noted in the two cases I started with we will have lot we have more harmonious lot sizes and future dwellings which is a basis for a granting of the C variants in this case so and just to interrupt you for one second P the in the C2 you have to demonstrate that you're furthering the purposes of the municipal anus law and essentially show that what we're proposing is a better zoning alternative than Conformity so are you saying that more harmonious size home in the surrounding neighborhood is a better zoning alternative than a large home that would stick out more that's exactly right and when I close on this with the negative criteria I'll reiterate that in another way that yes what we're proposing here is a better zoning alternative for this lot than a single lot and a single home just to summarize purposes a d g i and m are promoted here now for the negative criteria single family residential is a permitted use as we know in the R4 Zone and as I mentioned earlier this proposed subdivision improves the neighborhood Harmony and is more fitting with the intended density of the R4 Zone and the R5 Zone immediately next door the subdivision prevents an presents an opportunity to improve the utilization of the property without sacrificing the neighborhood character or creating a potential bulk variance condition in the future to follow the logic of the cases I mentioned earlier this application is a better planning alternative for the property visually the future dwellings will be on scale with the homes in the vicinity the new lots more closely follow the density intended for the R4 Zone and the lot area variances will not be visible to anyone future development will fit right in with the existing neighborhood and and Pat just to clarify when you say that the density is more appropriate we're closer to the R4 lot area requirement in the proposed condition than we are in the existing condition yes this solution or this proposal is closer to the R4 intended density than the single lot which is nearly and I just wanted to clarify for the you're talking about the intended density you mean the lot area correct that's that's what I mean by right okay it's what's it's what's contemplated when they create the lot areas for each Zone again we look at the neighborhood exhibit the existing homes the lot sizes and the proximity to the R4 Zone these lot these Lots would comply in the R5 Zone remember the neighborhood is a that the neighborhood is a neighborhood no one can physically see the Zone boundary lines in real life our goal here is to not disrupt the harmony of the neighborhood and I feel this application improves that Harmony to summarize the proposed development would not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan as I said earlier there's case law that essentially supports this application and on balance it's my opinion that the benefits of the application substantially outweigh its detriments giving the board the ability to approve this application with confidence and that will close my direct all right so we'll hear from Mr Higgins then we'll take questions from the board they'll take questions from the public so Mr Higgins basically I agree with the testimony throw a few more things in so the board can put it in perspective you have a lot that's 18,750 square feet if somebody wanted to max out the building coverage on that lot which is happening more and more people want to build bigger bigger homes that home could stretch across the lot 125 ft from one end of the home to the other with 12 and 1 12 ft on each side of the home you'd have 25 25 ft combined side yard setback requirement in the R4 Zone as proposed here you would have two lots with smaller homes and each of those lots would have to have the combined 25 foot sidey yard setbacks so in terms of light air and open space you'd have twice the open space to look through the Lots as you would if somebody were to build a maximum lot house on the larger lot and it would be completely out of character with the area so basically I agree with the planner's testimony and in fact I have made that same argument in other communities for similar applications and when you look at the fact that there the two lots on one side of this site are 7500 foot lots and on the other side are uh the same size as what's being proposed it's it just makes sense it's it's a transitional area I don't have a big problem along with this and and anything else no no all right members of the board do we have questions for our our witness here how are you good um I see you have a soil Bing location on both Lots did you not want to disclose the results of them or did you they're not in evidence so I didn't know if you recalled what the water table was on um Wildwood yeah sure happy to share um groundwater was relatively shallow so these will likely be crawl spaces um just to comply with the ordinance requirements for story above grade and all that and M surm just to address said it was not for a lack of disclosure why we didn't share it originally when this application started we were actually constructing two single family homes So the plan was prepared that way and the soil boring was done to make sure that it could support it it was only once we made the application that we realized that my client didn't want to construct the homes would have preferred to just create the building Lots we had the information we left that on but should this be approved uh and should someone construct homes on it they'd be required to submit the soil borings and a grading and drainage review that would be reviewed by the township engineer a good catch if the minimum amount or if it's supposed to be 10,000 square feet is that the intended amount on R4 why was this one created do we know why a 19,000 squ foot plot was created we can't answer that it pre-existed the zoning I think when you look at the character of the area and that's the other thing it is it's probably the largest lot in this this part of the township within at least within three or four blocks can I go of course you kept referring to you're not going to build houses on it so the plan is you're looking for approval you want to tear down the home subdivide it is that when you're going to build the trees in or plant the trees and put new sidewalks in or no I you kept I you're all over the place but it's I can I can answer that so down in order order to subdivide the property before we get our performance bond released we would have to put in the sidewalks put in the trees that's something that would be done on the vacant Lots what we're saying by way of construction is we're not proposing to construct homes so we would sell the lots to someone who would want to live there and build a home and they would already have the sidewalks curving and trees installed should they then want to remove any trees as part of any construction they'd be subject to your tree removal ordinance the same way every homeowner is and that would go towards towards F so when I said I had indicated that we're not proposing any construction of homes or improvements with the exception of that which is required by your subdivision ordinance which is the infrastructure improvements the street trees the curb and the sidewalk that would all be constructed before my client would be released from the because there's no curbing now there's no sidewalks there's no driveway cut outs right we would have to put all of that in and I would recommend that a condition of approval be that they cannot get a building permit until they have complied with the tree replacement requirements of the ordinance that's in place at the time so the the homes that you have you know I think you gave us a copy of it two I can't read it or they 4,000 square foot homes that are on those drawings there the ground floor is just over n 19,000 with there's a garage 1900 sorry um those are generic rectangles there's no no plans this was just to show the board what the size of home that could be built here would look like but that's just so that's you're only saying it's going to be like a ranch or something for that picture right there no he had indicated that that's so it could be a 2 and 1 half story home okay a 1900 square foot we didn't design the home it could be a ranch it could be a 2 and 1 half story it could be a smaller footprint it probably can't be a bigger footprint and still meet the require so that is for one level 1900 ft correct and the current home is, 1900 square feet now I don't have that information but if that's tax record says that is and the lots that you're referencing I think lot six and seven I'm sorry five and six they're 1821 Square ft so what you know potentially 4,000 foot home be out of character then no I mean you kept saying it I'm asking because you could add a sec you could add a second story actually a two and a half stor so as you know and I know you've been a long time Ocean Township resident um each of these older neighborhoods that were all created before the uh ordinance was adopted are essentially turning over by way of improvements where the homes are starting to be fixed up and you see a lot of the ranches are becoming two story two and a half now two and a half story now that the allow so the fact that there is an 18800 squ foot or a 1900 foot footprint on there today is not legally what the board is to look at the board is he he opened the door he kept ask he kept saying it I I understand that if I if I may so it's not legally what the board is supposed to consider what the board is supposed to consider is the types of homes that chair he he opened it up I'm just trying to ask him if it's you know picture was a 2,000 square foot just asking I I I think that the witnesses represented that they are are looking to this and correct me if I'm wrong what they've shown is what the setbacks would look like not necessarily the square footage of the home to be constructed is that correct it's the setbacks in a representative building coverage right and and they would have to conform I mean a a future Builder could come back and ask for a variance but they would have to conform to the existing standards which we modified last year to be two and a half stories so they under our ordinance they could build a two and a half story home but they're not representing building not deting that at all just asking yeah yeah they could come in right now tomorrow demolish that house build a house that had a footprint of 4600 square feet and could be two and a half stories high which would be very much out of character with the area and Miss Crim's right when when planners look at the character of the area you don't just look at what's there you look at what the zoning could permit in the future because that's really what establishes the character of the area but the question is to split it up and the question isn't to put a mcmansion or anything on it yeah yeah exactly correct yeah may I ask a follow-up question of my planner I it'll help uh clarify yes clarify is a good word Patrick when you said that the house that the house we're proposing would be more in Conformity that is based on what could be built on a 10,000 ft lot in this District correct yes within the R4 zone so you're not saying that it's consistent in size with all of the houses in the neighborhood what you're saying is is that if this if this lot remains almost double the size then this property could have a home almost double the size of any of other homes and that would be out assuming everybody built out to their Max Capacity which unfortunately likely may happen at sometime between now and the next hundred years the home that could be built on here would be extremely out of character correct yeah we're talking about neighborhood Harmony and and Rhythm and Mr Higgins said a really good point about the spacing of the homes and what your setbacks look like in light air and open space and a ma one large home eats up light air and open space that you would have with something like this and and when you talk about the harmony of the neighborhood you mean as is contemplated by your your ordinance based on the full buildup potential development of not necessarily the homes that are there and then just to follow up on what Jim had indicated um well we're not proposing to build a 9,000 or 9500t home on the lot if this subdivision were not approved someone could purchase this lot and max out the building coverage I think that's the point you're trying to make correct that's correct and in your opinion if we have two 4,000 ft homes on these two lots is that more in keeping with what the zoning contemplates than a 9 or 10,000 foot home in this neighborhood that is correct is more in keeping Mr plutus does that answer your question it it helps would you like to refine the question I'm fine for right now I'll reserve my time for later all right any other questions from the board at this time seeing none scco you don't have any other Witnesses this evening all right we will open it up to the public for questions you can come up please state your name and your address and ask any questions that you may have and our board attorney will be swearing you in okay do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth only above the truth he you God I do and just state your name for the record Patricia Petco Weaver could you spell the last name please w a v r and could would you please take a half step closer to the microphone sure thank you and your address please um I have two addresses um one I'm living with my mom um occasionally and she is at 617 Palmer Avenue which is directly behind 608 and I also have a home in Pittsburgh 111 Riding Trail Lane Pittsburgh we we don't need that one okay but six I'm speaking on behalf of my family which has owned the House for um 65 years all right so so so just so you know and and you can't represent your family you only can represent yourself okay I'll represent myself um our families well I am requesting specific performance that no exception be granted to the grones to split Lot 4 block 61.0 7 located at 608 Wildwood Road in 1959 my parents purchased the property directly behind the before mentioned property at 617 Palmer so so miss Weaver and miss gmco you have no other Witnesses just just just let her give her uh statement that's I just want to clarify that the public is now open for comment instead of just yes my my apologies for not making that clear please continue okay and that residence has been my parents primary residence for years I grow up there went to Ocean Township um the reasons they purchased in addition to the excellent School District for their many children the Privacy afforded by a larger lot which was sandwiched between two very similarly size Lots the cinos which well 608 behind it and the property right in front of it and I believe our property at 617 is about the same size at least the same width as 608 uh they built out their house it it is a a larger house which um is probably in width uh comes within maybe 20 ft on either side of the other side so when you discuss have the neighborhood we have a my parents have a very large house to accommodate five kids um they enjoyed the park like field uh field surrounding the lot and the properties were quiet with mature Trees Gardens and an abundant of wildlife um in particularly the many species of birds that my mom likes to listen to that inhabit the property that awaken her in the morning and um my parents have relied on the Integrity of the township that is a community of gracious living um and keeping the existing Zoning for the property because they think gracious living is nice Lots with lots of play room um 617 is my mom's greatest joy and her and greatest asset on warm days you'll find her outside sitting on the patio that my father built under the comfortable shade of the large oak trees and the peace and quiet of her Oasis reading watching Wildlife listening to birds or talking on the phones uh while there may be smaller Lots near by they were zoned that way when my parents purchased 617 and 6 um if 608 were two lots what would happen um they probably would have looked elsewhere be um and not moved there um we asked you to reject it um for the reasons um the following reasons I think there are flood issues in Hurst and there is an issue with the deal Lake Watershed that's also stressed and it could worsen it by having more people there it'll upset the wildlife ecosystem my family home it'll lessen the value of our family home smaller Lots um meaning that you can build more affordable housing thus diminishing the value of adjacent homes um the older smaller homes in our neighborhood were grandfathered into the development and the zoning laws were established to provide stability to the neighborhood and Insurance to the residents that they could rely upon those zones staying that way and while the gones may desire to split their property that decision shouldn't be granted at the expense of uh my mother's specific enjoyment and our family home um the grones knew the zoning laws when they purchased their property and um I'm surprised to see that they would even be interested in splitting it at this time um if I were to ask all of you here are given the choice if you were to answer me honestly would you prefer a nice in your backyard two houses squeezed together and encroaching or upsetting your o Oasis or one house comfortably situated on a lot that's a nice siiz lot it's not a significantly oversized lot I think that's an exaggeration for the the size of my mother's and Mr n608 um and while I think the common man would say keep it as it is we don't need two houses behind us the gr Jones are welcome to develop real estate but elsewhere not in our backyard we really are upset about it and if you look at New Jersey case law in medich versus BPR company um in 19887 it's 101 nj1 1987 the court reaffirmed the Holdings of Cole versus mayor of Veron which was 50 NJ 265 1967 that if the use for which a variance objection on the record the medich case is a use variance case it's not a bulk variance case it's wholly inapplicable here I believe that Jim and I I would agree I would agree with that medich is not relevant to this convers because it does say that it must find Mrs we this isn't a use case okay all right so we can't I don't want to mislead the board into arguing hold on hold on hold on okay I don't want to mislead the board into thinking that this is a use argument it's not a use argument the house is permitted mhm so that's why medich is not not relevant and we all know Med believe me we know medich I live medich this is not medich okay all right it's not relevant well maybe um a closer look at the master plan for Ocean Township written in 2023 and I'm sure you've read it cover to cover multiple times and are very familiar with it um the master plan um say states that Master plans must be designed to allow for reasonable modification in land use this is doubling the O the the number of houses the density to that to me is not a reasonable modification I'm thinking you're you're talking about modifications like the previous case where they wanted to update their space so it looked nice and the master plan also says the most future development in the township will involv infill development and this request is not infill development but it's about res removing an existing house and splitting the lot down the middle to double the number of houses in a neighborhood that has large Lots like that the one across the street is at least my the size of ours um and then the purpose of your master plan from two 2023 Point number one is to Pro promote the conservation of historic sites and districts and that would be West Allenhurst most of the houses in West Allenhurst are over 65 years old and um the general term for historic houses is 50 years um the objective in your master plan says point one is to recognize existing development patterns in the township are largely established and ensure the future development does not conflict with those existing development so M Weber again I just have to again interject the board cannot deny the application based upon a perceived preserving a historic nature of a house that exists on the site they're not legally allowed to do that it's not it's not it's not a historically designated house so so they can't conceive of that and if the board was to deny the application based upon we want to preserve the historic house that's there this would be this would be reversed in half a second in free holdt okay but there are other points too and I don't mind you objecting to one or two points I'm not I'm not objecting I'm just what I'm what I'm what what I'm trying to do is preserve the record okay and so if you say something that is completely contrary to the law I have to advise the board that they cannot do what you're asking them to do because it's contrary to the law it is the the all the houses are would be historic but not historically sign again what I'm trying to say is you're arguing they should preserve this house because it's historical what I'm telling you is legally if this board was to deny this application and they said we want to preserve that house we agree with Miss Weaver the judges in Freehold would overturn that decision and half a heartbeat because it's not it would be illegal for the board to do that they do not have that right okay well I um I appreciate your comment but the objective of the man master plan is to recognize existing development patterns in the township are largely established and ensure that future developments do not conflict with those existing development patterns and the smaller house were pre-existing and grandfather and uh the division at 608 conflicts um to divide it would conflict with our property and the property right behind it so I do see that there is a pattern there um so in comp um you know just in reference to the master plan which um well your master plan and and the implicit Covenant to um peal enjoyment granted to my parents when they bought a house with existing zoning on the p in 1959 I respectfully request that the township of ocean adhere to existing Zoning for Lot 4 block 6107 that we have relied on since 1959 and there has been tremendous disharmony created by the gones raising the issue of further dividing our peaceful neighborhood with lots of green space I can I ask you Mr which lot are you are you are you lot are you lot 11 yes okay that's what I see I have some questions for this witness you're entitled go thank you uh you indicated that your parents lot was the same size I'm looking at the tax map and it's showing that lot 11 and block 6107 is actually only 100 ft in width are you suggesting that the lot is larger than I haven't gone out and measured it it's they pretty much they've been adjoining I have you can I have you look at this then sure what what we're doing then I have a quick question for Mr Higgins Mr Higgins can you please remind me what year we established our zoning code in Ocean the original zoning code under the the the R4 I think it was in the 1950s okay thank you that but that I'm guessing at that I don't know for sure I'm I'm referencing Mr chair the tax map dated February 21 1st 2003 our lot is on Wildwood and it's lot four you indicated your parents lot is immediately behind us so that would be lot 11 um wait a second that's our lot sure okay so miss grimo can you work off the aerial perhaps because that might be easier for Miss Weaver sure this is we why' you come around and take a look that's your lot lot 11 I'd just like to put on the record to take notice lot 11 is 100 ft wide uh where our prop our lot is 150 ft lot wide so this isn't this is just questions for additions and I guess one of the things microphone this is not a conversation between us I'm allowed to ask her questions and just have her answer the questions it's it's it's a neighborhood where the there just question she miss crico is asking a question if you could respond to her question so just just so you understand this is like this is a court I mean think of this as a court where you're now on the stand you you gave your statement so now it's her opportunity to cross- examine you okay so so you can't just interject you have to let her do that I'm sorry I'm not an I I know you're not so so that's why I'm that's why I'm explaining it to you how it works okay so just for the record lot 11 is not the same size as our lot lot 11 is 100 ft by 125 and Miss Weaver you had indic ated that this subdivision will disrupt the park like setting that your parents have enjoyed behind you were you here for the testimony offered by uh Mr Higgins that a 125t wide house could be built here with only 25 feet on each side creating essentially a solid wall did you hear that yes and I guess I'm I haven't really visualized that okay so if you can if you can allow me what we're proposing on exhibit that was moved in are two separate houses which provides setbacks on both sides 10 25 ft of setback on both sides 10 ft and 15 10 ft and 15 what was being proposed is that if the lot is not subdivided that's not a guarantee that the single family home that's been there stays someone could come purchase it and fill all of that in have one giant home across it so in your opinion does that and while I hear from your friend in the audience that that's not guaranteed either that is what the zoning allows so in your opinion which is less Park like in your opinion a lot that's filled entirely with building or one that has the voids and allows the light air in open space that's a loaded question um in that there there two there are two factors here number one Park light it would probably be it would probably be the same because there's also noise coming from two houses versus from one house second thing is it what you're proposing with two houses depreciates the value of my mother's house if it was a large um Mansion there it would improve the value of her house are you a realtor Mrs Weaver not a realtor but I studied realy at Harvard Business School so again you're not testify as expert in the field of real estate are you no because it varries from Market to Market but I I can tell you I have studied it okay understood and I think that members of the board are also familiar with real estate and respectfully I would just say that that's a personal opinion it's not an expert testimony with regard to the value uh so do you have any additional questions Miss grimco oh uh you indicated that this is not infill development uh could you explain then what would be infill development infill de development in my opinion and once again I'm not an attorney would be you leave the house there if it has a big you know lot next to it that's an extra lot you just put another house on the other lot this is tearing down an existing home um and making two distinct um pieces of property out of but it's it's more aggressive than just plain old infill there's a bacon lot let's put a house on it U Mr Higgins as our our board planner can you please share the definition of infill development for us since there seems to be disagreement development is a little bit more than just finding a single lot and filling it in Infield development is when you try and create Lots within an established area that are consistent with the character of that area so it could involve a subdivision that's the only questions I have Mr chair abely okay do you have other members from the public who want to come up and ask questions or make a statement can we ask questions can I ask her a question um are we yeah you can ask her you can ask Miss Weaver a question oh sure I'm sorry I'm sorry Miss Weaver we're going to call you back I apologize sorry you made reference to some ecological reasons that we should refuse it something about water uh I understand that de and there's an issue with deal Lake um and just the water table there so um and it I just don't want there to be more ecological problems I know the lake is changing a little bit since I was there used to be a lot higher you used to go ice skating on it um but you know I think it's I think there's some issues with water absorption um in that area where I know where in um where we live in Pittsburgh they are very limited to where you um the the housing density is really important because they want the the to be able to absorb it and whatever the water is absorbed by the land I think it goes into deal Lake and can we get our experts here to talk about whether a two smaller structures or one larger structure would be more of a strain on the water table or what well you're you're talking about the difference in impervious surface um and because impervious surface on is is just based on the area whether it's two lots or one lot you're you're the ordinance allows the same amount of area of impervious surface um any grading or plot plan that is submitted um after the fact would be subject to the review of the township engineer and the township engineer might require um you know some storm water management on the property to uh um alleviate any increase in in storm water runoff um but that would be subject to you know his his R review and approval so just a follow up so what you're saying is that there's no greater impact on ecologic or water table or deal lake with one house or two houses because the ordinance treats the land the same whether it's one or two houses right thank you and I think too another issue is if you have the one larger lot with the larger home on it the impervious might not be any difference except for the fact that you could have a 60 foot rear yard and amenities such as a tennis court or a basketball court could be constructed on that larger lot whereas on these smaller Lots it would be very difficult to do that so I think that not only would that affect in terms of the amount of impervious coverage on the sites but I think it would also affect the have an impact on the adjacent properties to the rear any other questions for Miss Weaver thank you thank you thank you name address and then Mr Lex will SAR you in sure Christina stummer 533 Mammoth Road yes uh can you just uh spell your last name please s isn't Sam T isn't Tom u m is a Mary M is a Mary e r and I'm sorry your address again 533 Mammoth Road 533 Mammoth Road say to the West okay I'm sorry let me swear you in you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth salty God yes and just I'm sorry I missed your first name Christina c r i s t i n a no h thank you very much go ahead so uh authorize to ask questions you can ask questions or give and or give a statement uh can you please uh tell me again what is the exhibit for the environmental impact assessment that was conducted I believe that was sworn in as a or read in into evidence as an exhibit no we didn't no I don't think there was uh there was a environmental commission report okay so with regard that's from the town okay so with Ard the environmental commission report um what soil borings were done for the site they don't the environment this is these are comments from the townships environmental commission okay so they so they wouldn't have done soil borings for the town okay I didn't know whether or not the app no it's a legitimate question oh great so uh what was the final recommendation with regards to the environmental commission um associated with this [Applause] subdivision environment I can I'll read it it's not that long this is a site tour and plan review for residential property that seeks approval to subdivide the lot at 608 Wildwood Road into two lots and demolish the existing home the lot has a reasonable number of trees along the side lot lines and the back each new lot would still maintain those trees what no I'm I'm talking to that's okay I can listen it's really not that long in addition the applicant plans on installing three red oak trees along the street one tree will be the will be exactly on the new property line between the New Lots and the others appear to be AC aquid distant acist equidistant from the borderline a possible concern related to the location of the two outer trees of the three is that care must be exercised to locate them such that they will not make it difficult to lay out the new residences and driveways that will be constructed they can still be installed to beautify the properties and street without being symmetrically installed care will have to be taken to to be taken to protect these new trees and all the existing on the two new properties doing the future construction that's the entire so um there's a an assumption in that report that existing trees on the property will remain even through proposed development plans no the is that the they're proposing they're proposing to add trees is what they said what about the existing trees the there's no just so you know the existing trees on the site would have to remain if they're going to propose a development on the site which they will they would have to comply with the Township's tree removal ordinance what's the townships tree REM removal ordinance per lot what per lot it's not per lot it's per tree okay so if they remove a tree they have to replace it how many trees can you take down per lot per year for for a subdivision they can take down a number of trees but they have to replace them I think the answer to M I think what you're asking is the the tree removal ordinance allows single family homeowners to take down a certain number of trees per year with without getting any kind of tree replacement however when it's in the context of construction as many trees as would be in the footprint of construction can be removed as long as they are replaced right so I'm just wondering with regards to two houses versus one house we're talking about just Dynamics if it's two versus one what are we talking about from a removal perspective IR irregardless of the dimensions but just have do we understand what that is we're talking about preservation of the environment the impact tree removal obviously impacts flooding we're at 533 Mammoth Road we get flooded all the time in our backyard because we get all the downhill runoff which would include this property um for purposes of of our flood control and quite frankly I think the property was probably Wetlands before it was constructed before the law came into place so I'm asking the question with regards to tree removal we we're talking about this one house versus two houses what what are we talking about footprint removal for purposes of trees did the envir Al commission point that out at all in their the entire letter yeah and you can't tell yeah without having a plan in front of you to see what's going to be built what the difference would be sure but we're talking about you know let's just let's just hypothetically play this out so we have a hypothetical which is already admitted to not maximizing the full 65% okay so this is actually uh I know it dep but not actually how big foot builds be I'm sorry do we have to not to interrupt but there's there's a rendering do you have the a blown up version of this one that shows the existing trees that would help show and just to to clarify the 65% is the impervious coverage not the building coverage so does the C take into consideration the impervious cover partially but the 65% includes everything like Mr Higgin said like tennis courts swimming pools pool houses uh basketball courts subject to setback requirements and the like okay all right yes but but if I may just because you said that the the setback requirements for a tennis court or swimming pool is 10 feet or the home is significantly more sure so with larger backyards or a larger lot area you can fit much larger accessory structures in there which are allowed much closer setbacks sure so I and I I'm assuming um for purposes of variance for requirements I just want to get back to the the depictions um this is a general depiction C can you take the mic with you it no I'm just pointing out this is a general depiction this is actual not a development plan but when we're talking about the the community I guess you could say for purposes of our neighborhood that this these homes can actually be much bigger than what's depicted here they could be but they're much smaller than what could be there if it was kept as one lot how many times has the township granted a variance on a building permit in the last two years for purposes of cutting back onto the setback requirements we're not asking for cutting back on I'm talking about this goes into what might be constructed there because you've made a big case trying to talk about the harmony of the community the answer your question boards Grant variances aren't setbacks all the time right so like so I would say like every single meeting so this could actually be worse no no it couldn't I'm sorry no there there are guidelines this actually can be worse for the commity explain to you because you're wrong I'm asking a question you're asking a question I'm trying to answer you go ahead okay there are laws that govern when setback requirements can be granted one of those that would apply in a situation such as this is is there a hardship the hardship has to deal with the property not with the person not with the person's financial situation has to do with the shape of the propert the Topography of the property and if there's something about the property that would justify the granting of a variance right they could do it however since they're getting a variance for the size of the lot they can't go for a hardship because they're creating the smaller lot than the ordinance would permit it's called the self-created hardship y they can not get that type of variance so what's the so from a for purposes of even if for hardship since they're they're they're creating this already what's the time period you need to wait in order for that pre-approval or that hardship Vari end to that time period so from a so from an expiration standpoint there's no twoe threee waiting period once they create those non-conforming lots in perpetuity they cannot get a hardship variance and have a small have a larger house so what would be a situation where you would be able to Grant a variance then if the lot was created before a subdivision so let's say for example a lot of lots were created before the map filing law before the municipal anuse law maybe many of these lots and towns would lay out the plats and just record them right not go to a planning board not get any I'm just talking about these Lots now like if a new Builder were to come I'm trying to I'm trying to to answer it so in those situations you have lots that were created by a municipality that are smaller than what they have rezoned the property so you have a hardship because you have a lot that you can't fit what someone typically would be able to fit it wasn't you or your predecessor and title who created that so what Jim is explaining is is that if you have an undersized lot that was created that way by the town and then the town upzoned around you then you have a hardship because you're pre-existing non-conforming lot and but and I just want to correct Jim on one thing just because you have a hardship doesn't mean you're entitled to a variant that's right because there's casla that says some lots are so small or that the setbacks are are so great that they're asking for that you can't develop it without a negative impact so having a hardship is only step one you also still have to prove the negative criteria so if if you had a lot here that was 10 feet wide and you came in and you wanted to build a house that was 10t wide on it and you said but board I have a hardship you have to let me board doesn't have to let you because you have to also be able to demonstrate that it's not a negative impact so great it I just wanted to say thank you for that but when the new people come because you're I know what's going to happen here and they want to build this please remember this testimony because then what we're anticipating is is it just going to be just as worse as a a Hu one huge property you're going to have two and a half you're going first off you're going to have two and half St able to do that well they're not going to be able to do that there's going to be a condition in this approval that they have to conform to the to the to the setbacks to build the new houses so they will never be able to come and ask for a variance with regard to in this approval if the board grants the approval that they that they have to conform this house to the setbacks that exist on the property okay so with regards to the the tree planting situation and the amount of trees that could be removed associated with the subdivision what can we what can we put into the approval that's something separate there's nothing that's like a Heritage tree or anything along those lines that's been identified on this property ordinance governs that's so no I know what the ordinance does but I'm asking as conditions with regards to subdivision you have the wherewithal to be able to put in reasonable conditions associated with this so is that not what our ordinance says with regards to granting these types of subdivisions you can put you have the power The Authority Tree on the I don't know I I'm asking for the environmental commission report you read it ma'am I read you the entire report there is no mention I didn't I didn't pre I didn't skip a paragraph no I understand that so there's nothing in the environmental commission sometimes they have like tables or charts or things like that I swear to you on my life yeah I read you every single word of the environmental Commission report there is no mention of a Heritage tree there's no there's no charts there is when chainsaw come and I call you and the police I hope you all show up to make sure whoever is going to construct on here is actually complying with the permit conditions for takedown that's all I have to say because whenever we call you guys with regards to violations people don't show up and we have to call the police and what the worst thing is that's changing the the condition of this community is the 2 and 1/2 acre um the 2 and A2 the two and a half story uh VAR you guys are authorizing first of all you've never called this board because this board doesn't have any enforcement no I call I call the I call the town all the time okay I call you I'm just saying I'll you know what Mark I'll call you because you know what I'm an attorney as well just like you are but I'm just going to say he asking some questions I'll call you next time and let's see if they're coming into your neighborhood with regards to what they're doing here can can can my testimonies concluded hold on hold on you can't just make comments and say I'm going to all these board members need to come out and hang out and stop them because one this board doesn't have that type of power to do that type of thing which if you're an attorney you know that so please do not make those type of accusations against the board ACC you know I'm not you know I'm I'm I'm not being serious I know you don't have the power essentially to enforce the requirements I know excuse me excuse me I I'm we are Way Beyond asking questions about this application do you have other questions testimon is completed thank thank you very much that's what you want to do that's fine is there anyone else from the public who would like to make a comment or ask questions seeing no one do I have a motion to close the public hearing I make a motion to close the hearing I'll second all in favor I I okay board members do we have any questions do we have any conversation we want to have about this before we move along have Mr P did you get all your questions answered now we're getting there well speak now right well we could just confirm all trees on the diagram are 12 in or larger 12 Ines so a couple things if I could if I may because I believe I'm entitled to a quick closing statement sure before you deliberate so I apologize I don't I don't want to jump in I never saw you get that heated Mr theia so I just I got a little scared I wanted to sit back here um couple of things the the trees that are shown on this drawing to confirm with Pat are 6 in or greater which is what's required by the ordinance not 12 in or greater correct secondly to address the comment that [Music] um Miss stummer had um the tree removal ordinance actually protects Heritage trees So based on the size of the tree being removed indicates when how much you have to replant in order to address it and if a tree is greater than a certain amount I believe that there's language in the tree ordinance that has you work to go around it as opposed to uh take it down but again putting all of that aside in this particular instance I understand that the neighborhood has enjoyed a smaller house on a much larger lot for dating back into the 50s but we have to look at what the zoning ordinance contemplates for here and currently what the lot that is there is almost two SI two times the size of the lot that this uh District contemplates whereas the Lots we're proposing are less than a th000 square ft each under what the ordinance contemplates so what we're proposing while it may not be what the two neighbors who spoke necessarily want in their backyard or in their neighborhood it is much more appropriate or a much better zoning alternative because it actually comes much closer to meeting your ordinance requirements uh you heard the testimony from our professional planner and our engineer but more importantly because I know that the board really relies on Jim and Ben heard the testimony offered by your engineer and planner while Ben didn't offer any opinion with regard to uh the subdivision itself he did indicate that the amount of impervious coverage and the amount of impact from stormw a runoff is the same whether it's one lot or two lots and most importantly your professional planner offered you testimony that supported and substantiated everything that our planner said and even went a step further as to why this is a better zoning alternative So based on all of that I believe that we've squarely met the proofs of the ordinance uh I'm sorry the squarely met the proofs of the statute and that we are proposing a plan that is more in keeping with the R4 contemplated development than leaving the 18,750 foot lot to be developed to its Max Capacity under the zoning and just to point the board in the right direction here and I'm not telling you to approve the application or don't approve the application but this application is not about preserving a house it cannot be about preserving a house it cannot be about preserving a lot because that's the way people have gone accustomed to it that's not the way the law works there are two variances here they you have a minimum lot area variance which is the ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square ft they're proposing two lots they're going to be 9,375 square ft and the other uh variance is minimum lot width which is that the ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 90 90 ft the proposed lot width of both lots of 75 so the Board needs to take those two variances and only those two variances into consideration and make a determination as to whether the positive and negative criteria have been met for those two issues um it's not about trees it's not about anything else it's about those two variances whether they whether they're presenting a better zoning alternative or whether they're not it is definitely not a hardship variance so we're not going in the hardship Direction and they're not asking for hardship variance and it's not about one larger house versus two smaller houses correct it isn't no okay because it's not it's not about the house Mr Higgins because it's something that rarely comes up but I just want to make sure that we are addressing Our Heritage trees in our ordinance Heritage trees are receive special protections because they are cor extremely rare but there were none identified on this lot there were none and I know that the environmental commission whoever at the environmental commission does the site inspections looks for those types of things if there was one it would be pointed out in fact you'll be getting an application next month or the month after where I I saw a Heritage Tree on the lot and I'm having the the applicant redesign the application because of that but that's not this application that's not this appliation I notice Mr pus let me just correct myself and so that I'm not coming off incorrect you can consider as the applicants asking you to whether the much larger house which could be built on this property would be better for for the for the neighborhood than two two smaller houses would that you can consider I didn't want you to I don't want you to think that's what I was saying that you can't consider that but it's not an either or it's not in either or it is in a in a way yes but but my my point about the bigger house was that it's not about preserving the house that's there that can't be how you're deciding no it's about keeping the lot together or subdividing the line it's about what's better for zoning purposes you have to take the but we're being asked you have to take the positive and negative criteria correct and decide and decide whether if this plot is the variances that are going to be granted here serve the interest that the community is going to be better served by granting the variances than to allow the plot to stay as it is and potentially have a house going as long as it as they could do by R without having to come here and Mr plutus just to address when when you said it isn't about it um by subdividing this you're guaranteeing smaller houses so that's really what it is so no it's possible that someone builds a cottage or it's possible that someone builds a 10,000 foot house but by leaving it one lot there's the risk of the 10,000 SQ foot house in this neighborhood with the with the basketball court and the Tennis Court by subdividing it you're ensuring that the houses will be appropriately sized for what the zoning can contemplates that's really all that we've trying to State Mr Amy yeah um we had testimony from one of the witnesses that this may have been Wetlands at one point can we confirm that this had never been uh designated Wetlands it whether it has or hasn't in the past it is currently not designated Wetlands or regulated okay I just wanted to make that clear Wetlands assment that so again in this particular neighborhood when you look at the gis it's not designated as Wetlands is that correct correct never been profession all right so ma'am we cannot have people speaking from the audience the d g does not designate this as Wetlands other questions comments thoughts someone want to make a motion for a resolution I'll make the motion make a positive motion to approve this do I have a second second all right so we have a positive resolution we have a motion we have a second Mr lexine can you remind us everything that is in this or just what the applicant is requesting and there were some car bouts they had to do also well that there it's going to be conditioned on the demolition having to take place it's going to be uh conditioned on that no building permit may be issued unless the curb the sidewalks and the trees the new trees are going to be in place um I believe those are the only special condition that any future homeowner could not has to right it has to be conforming with with what is being proposed they can't see a hardship Varian any future development has to comply with the township shade treat Township free replacement ordinance protection ordinance demolition of the current struct yes yes yep and okay all right Claire can we have a roll call please a motion yes Miss Kap cilia yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes thank you very much thank you all right do we do we need a break or we going to move right along good okay all right hold on all right our last application of the evening 1414 woodlock LLC 1414 woodlock AV Ocean 07712 Block 120 lot 7 Zone R six [Applause] one [Applause] second always watch just give him a second [Applause] to all right CL we ready all right chairman Paul ficol on behalf of the applicant 1414 woodlock LLC we have two witnesses tonight the applicant is proposing to subdivide existing lot 7 into two lots 7.01 which would be the interior lot 7.02 which would be the corner lot on North w m uh drive and going through the review letters we would uh stipulate that should the application be approved tonight that a condition of the approval would be one the removal on the shed what is proposed for lot uh 701 which would eliminate the one variance for that lot and that lot would be a fully conforming lot and then the second condition that we would stipulate to is that the demolition of the structures would take place prior to perfecting the sub division uh should it should it be granted so with that we would like to call our first witness let me actually Paul let me please mark in the exhibits that I have exhibit A1 will be the application itself exhibit A2 will be the boundary and topographic survey exhibit A3 will be the minor subdivision plan exhibit A4 will be the soil L then we have the following that's all I have from the applicant at this time there may be more exhib uh on behalf of the board we have uh B1 which is board one will be the board planner report exhibit B2 will be the board engineer report exhibit B3 will be the traffic safety report exhibit B4 will be the code enforcement report exhibit B5 will be the environmental commission report exhibit B6 will be the fire marshal report and exhibit B7 will be the Department of Public Works report that's all we have and for do you swear any testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth on but the truth s you got yes sir and just state your name spelling your last name for the record uh John beleta B L T za okay and you are a licensed engineer state of New Jersey correct yes okay great thank you are you just testifying as an engineer are you also a planner yes also a planner but just testifying as the engineer course sorry about that go ahead you're employed by Nelson engineer yes you previously testified as an expert for various planning and zoning boards that's all we need we look something as an expert he's been here before I think so have you inspected the subject property John yes and uh did you prepare the minor subdivision plan of the subject property yes and which is uh A3 did your office also prepare the survey of the property A2 yes did you also prepare the soil lot uh that's been marked as 84 yes is the applicant proposing to subdivide lot 7 into two 5,000 foot Lots propos lot 7.01 and lot 7.02 yes and 70 7.02 would be the corner lot fronting North W Massa drive and proposed lot 701 would be the interior lot correct now uh directing your attention to the survey would you identify the existing dimensions in the lot area of the property uh the lot area is 10,000 square ft it's uh uh 50 ft wide and an L-shaped and 150 ft long along U wood Block Avenue are there existing improvements located on the subject property yeah on the what's to be the U lot 7.02 there's a twostory frame dwelling that has a one-story section that's at the Northern end of the lot and there's also a one and a half story Cottage uh near the center of the existing uh entire lot near the southern end of lot proposed lot 7.02 as well as an existing shed on what would be the interior lot 7.01 yes the interior lot 7.01 has a shed that's to be removed to make it a fully conforming lot and then based upon your proposed subdivision plan 83 would you identify the dimensions of the proposed corner lot uh 7.02 7.02 uh is 50 ft by 100 ft as well as 7.01 both of them are the same size with regard to the proposed corner lot 7.02 will the existing two-story dwelling fronting North wanasa Drive remain yes and is your understanding that applicant is proposing to remove the existing non-conforming Cottage or bungle and in addition the applicant is proposing to remove the shed located on proposed lot 7.01 correct and does the proposed lot 7.01 the interior lot it fully does it fully comply with the r six po requirement yes the r six Zone the interior lot fully complies as subdivided and with regard to the proposed corner lot 7.02 our variance variances required for minimum lot area and minimum lot width and Frontage yep uh minimum lot width on a corner lot in R six is required to be 100 feet wide and the new lot 7.02 is 50 ft wide and the lot area on lot 7.02 the corner lot uh minimum lot air is 10,000 ft and the uh new lot as subdivided is proposed to be 5,000 square feet in addition lot 7.02 the corner lot has one existing variance condition that's the front yard setback from the existing structure uh and that is 14.1 ft where 30 ft is required and that variant exists and there is no change proposed to that now in your subdivision plan the tax map is in the upper left corner yes did you review the dimensions of other Corner Lots specifically whether other Corner Lots in the subject property's neighborhood were also 50 by 100 ft yes okay and did you propose an exhibit for tonight's hearing entitled Underside Corner a lot Matt I have extra copies to the this will be exhibit A5 yes thank thank you it looks like you have some color coding in in red can you first of all identify what you put up on the board as 85 so this is an exhibit that shows the existing undersized Corner lots that just happen to show up on our key map and all the Lots in red they are are corner lot correct and how many uh Corner Lots did you identify that were less than 100 by 100 and a minimum of 10,000 ft there's 20 of them identified and I believe I missed one which would make a total of 21 and how many total Corner lots are in the uh the neighborhood depicted in A5 maybe 25 so four are conforming and 21 are so approximately 21 out of 25 Corner lots are not conforming to the uh 100 by 100 uh required Dimension and 10,000 square foot minimum lot size yes are most of them uh 50 by by 100 as proposed for lot 7.02 yes from your review of the tax map you are under siiz corner lot map A5 and your familiarity with the neighborhood is a 50 by 100 foot corner lot in keeping with the nature of the neighborhood yes my opinion it's a keeping character with the neighborhood is it consistent with the character of the neighborhood yes I have no further questions for the for the engineer all right right so we'll have our engineer give his report and then board questions uh my only comment in my report was about demolition of the the buildings and that was already uh discussed uh so I don't have any other questions members of the board questions for this witness I'm sorry so there there will be two lots both 50 by 100 correct and wh why is it that I mean I'm not maybe it was the intention of of whoever made the zoning but why are Corner Lots supposed to be larger than all the other Lots uh by by by twice the the cor yeah I can explain that one um this Zone was zoned R4 for many years and I fought with the planning board and the governing body for years to try and get them to rezone the area because the vast majority of lots in the area were 5,000 ft lots and the zoning board kept getting applications that required variances because they were undiz lots which required which were entitled to hardship variances which we discussed with the previous application and there's actually one member of the public here today that remembers the arguments that we used to have about the R4 versus changing the zoning to be more comping with the character of the area and basically the the compromise that was reached is that was that there were a lot of the quter lots that were 10,000 square ft 100 by 100 so that the zoning would be changed to recognize the fact that the interior Lots were 50 by 100 but that many of the corner Lots were 100 by 100 so that those 100 by 100 Quant Lots would remain in be changed so the character of the area will remain the same but there were a number of L-shaped Corner Lots in the area that were 10,000 square ft but had a 5,000 foot quter lot and then the l-shape another 5,000 squ foot quter F I was just looking at my uh prior reports in 2002 there was an application on Sunset and Edge Meir which is actually Edge Edge Edwood rather which is shown on Mr belet's map at the bottom where you see the south side of Edgewood of Sunset and the corner of edgew it is lot three that was actually subdivided by the planning board it was an L-shaped lot that was subdivided very similar to this situation so basically the intent was to maintain the existing 10,000 foot corner lots and not allow them to be subdivided but to recognize that the vast majority of lots in that own were 5,000 square ft that answer your question yeah so have there been variances granted through the years for these corter Lots there haven't been that many of them that are L-shaped that c came in but the one that I do know of the various was granted I think 85 really you know they pictures worth a thousand words I think you know the highlighting in red the cor L 21 out of 25 speaks volumes M yeah now the question is whether any of those 5,000 foot corner lots are actually attached to a 5,000 foot interior lot and form the l-shape and I don't know that for a fact I'm I'm pretty sure that most of them are just Standalone lots that they're not attached thank you other questions from the board great do any members of the public have questions for this witness statements will be at the end of the hearing hearing none you want to bring up your your next witness thank you you ready do you I am do you swearing testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth self to God I do you just state your name for the record my name is John tyina T is in Thomas a i k is in Kelly i n is in Nicholas a I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey thank you Mr and and and i' I've seen him a million times in different places so please begin thank you it's uh nice to be back in Ocean T so have you inspected the subject prop yes have you review this uh prop survey as well as the proposed subdivision yes to describe the application briefly to the board certainly so we are seeking a minor subdivision of uh lot seven in um block 120 uh as Mr Higgin said it is an L-shaped lot uh that would provide for two uh 5,000 ft Lots one facing on woodlock Avenue one facing on North wanasa Drive uh we would have we would retain the existing home that would be fa facing north wanasa and we're proposing uh a new lot on woodlock Avenue that would uh provide for a conforming uh building lot there did you have an opportunity to review the uh planning board's uh review letter review report Mr hi's report yes I did and I can I Ur with Mr Higgins um relief that was identified there's a new variance for minimum lot area for the corner lot lot 7.01 is proposed at 5,000 square ft where uh 10,000 squ ft is required in the r six District uh we would also require minimum lot Frontage uh for that lot 7.01 that is an existing condition uh and then finally we have a minimum front yard setback for lot 7.01 that again is an existing condition that the applicant is not proposing to change and do you agree with Mr Higgins at the removal of the shed on the proposed lot 7.02 the interior lot would make that lot fully conforming yes that is correct did you have an opportunity to review what's been marked tonight A5 the uh undersized corner lot map prepared by Nelson engineer yes I have and and I uh prepared a similar uh analysis and my analysis was uh was similar to um what the engineer came up with uh you know including uh the subdivided lot the Mr Higgins uh mentioned uh lot three at the corner Edgewood and sunset based upon your review of A5 as well as uh the tax map you agree that there are a significant number of non-conforming corner line lots and the subject properties uh neighborhood the r six Zone yes uh at 21 out of 25 um non-conforming lots that is certainly uh a large number of non-conformities from your review of the various maps and survey and your familiarity with the neighborhood is a 50 by 100 corner lot keeping with uh the nature and characteristic of the neighborhood it is precisely what is provided for in the neighborhood um the 50ft Lots provide a nice Rhythm along the street uh they do tend to um result in somewhat more modest homes uh and that is certainly in keeping uh with the neighborhood your professional opinion does the application satisfy the criteria under the municipal land use law for the issuance of the variances required for the proposed subdivision yes it does and would you please describe for the board the basis of your opinion that it meets the criteria for the issuance of the variance approval tonight great I finally get to run um so as the board knows there's five uh findings you need to you need to make uh one it relates to a specific piece of property two it advances some of the purposes of zoning uh three that in a C1 variance like the existing conditions that it does present a hardship uh to provide compliance or a C2 variant situation uh which would be the 5,000 ft lot area that the benefits outweigh the detriments uh and then fin the negative criteria you know with all your variances there's no substantial detriment to the public good and there's no impairment uh to the Zone plan or the master plan uh so as I said the existing conditions are all C1 variances there are existing conditions that are not proposed to change uh changing them would indeed be a hardship uh for any applicant um and they exist largely on the existing uh lot no matter what whether it's 5,000 square feet or 10,000 sare F feet those non-conformities remain in terms of the um in terms of the uh benefits outweighing the detriments for the 5,000 foot lot uh in this instance the operative case is Poland V South planfield uh when considering the balancing test the board should consider uh the overall benefit of The Proposal not just the benefit of the 5,000 foot lot the individual relief it it really talks about what is the overall Improvement that is proposed uh in terms of the positive criteria uh I'd submit to you that there are uh there are a few uh purpose e to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities um and the preservation of the environment G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses in accordance where their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens and M to to encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activity shaping Land Development with a view towards lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of the land in terms of the project as a whole of it advances some of these purposes as of zoning as as we set forth this proposal most importantly will eliminate a prior non-conforming use on lot seven having two principal residences the proposed subdivision creating two separate Lots with one being fully conforming and one containing exist home represents a better planning alternative retention of the existing residents on North wanasa Drive uh certainly maintains the streetscape character in the rhythm of the street along North Juan Masa uh with deal Lake being on the opposite side of the street and the proposal is an efficient use of the land as the new home will share the infrastructure on the existing Street uh on woodlock in terms of the negative criteria um first that there's no substantial detriment to the public good um again the proposed use is is compatible with the uses in the immediate vicinity in the surrounding area this is a loow impact single family home it is not a noxious use with significant exterior impacts it will be a a fairly modest home on a uh 50 foot wide lot um the nice thing about uh small smaller houses as opposed to bigger houses uh bigger houses tend to come with more stuff and uh stuff out you know stuff makes noise stuff is is impact and the smaller houses just have have a little less of an impact in the neighborhood and will be much more like uh its surrounding neighbors uh the proposed infill an the existing Street will be consistent with the general aesthetic of the area and will not imp uh overcrowded and then finally the proposed development is not anticipate to generate any substantial traffic uh one additional house uh as as one additional house it's actually one house replacing one house so uh it's it's literally two houses to two houses uh no impact at all there in terms of uh the the final prong for the um impairment of the Zone plan or the master plan uh the proposed development will not cause substantial impairment uh to the intent and purpose of the Zoning ordance for the r six which is to provide for smaller lot sizes and conformance with existing conditions in specific areas of the town and then finally it promotes the master plan objectives for future development number one recognize existing development patterns in the township are largely established and ensure that future development M does not conflict with those existing development patterns so as we showed on A5 um this uh proposed development pattern is exactly consistent uh with what exists in the blocks that that surround us um it is certainly uh in consideration of in reasonable character for the built environment that's there and then finally your your 2023 master plan and this was uh talk about pulling pulling out an Easter egg for a planner uh the 2023 master plan recognized is the established development and in addition providing to providing some sensible recommendations for accommodating modern living on all residential districts make specific recommendations for this area east of Wood east of woodlock Avenue in recommending an r6a zone for this unique area the area is unique in lot sizes that are smaller than the balance of the r six Zone most of them are 40 ft wide and this portion of of that they're they are 50 ft wide and any proposed development on these Lots requires bulk variances from the zoning board end quote so I'd note the text uh States Camp Avenue as the boundary uh fortunately the map has woodlock Avenue as the boundary for the proposed r6a District um so I think that uh looking at particularly on uh on A5 um the number of non-conforming lots uh that are both east and west of woodlock Avenue uh that boundary is certainly consistent and it and if the governing body and the planning board when you put it together when you put that ordinance together if you chose to shift that r6a uh another block or to West uh you would be uh doing a good service uh for what is predominantly 5,000 uh foot Lots uh in and throughout that area so in this instance we are uh implementing uh one of the recommendations to the master plan and we are in no way uh impairing the intent of that plan um so I um I'm not going to talk about whether it's Street lines or lot or lot lines um so for those reasons I think the board has the ability to Grant the relief requested and make the requisite findings and I'm available for your questions Mr Higgins no I basically for first of all I want to clarify one thing in my report which Mark was nice enough to point out is I transposed lot 701 and 702 in my report just that's just for the record it doesn't really make that much difference um yeah I I agree I think the uh as far for planning reasons I think that the application is eliminating a use non-conforming use where you have two residences on one lot and they're actually squeezed pretty close together uh Ben and I had met with the applicants Representatives quite a while ago and went over the situation and we suggested that they remove that Bungalow and do do a lot that was a little made a little bit more sense in terms of the configuration of the Lots but they're they're so they're eliminating a non-conforming use which is the two lots two houses on one lot and creating two separate Lots each with a single family residence on it so I think that's that's something important to consider but I basically agree with the testimony can I ask can ask question um lot 30 what's happening with lot 30 is that staying with with uh with lot 7 .02 it stay with 7.01 actually with the corner lot yeah 7.01 you because I transposed them okay I'm sorry so no the existing residence is on 7.02 yeah the existing home is on 7.02 right can I ask a clarification is that the one on facing north wanasa Drive yes yeah that is the what we're referring to as the 7.02 I just want to make sure for the record that that that lot is not going to be associated with with the new lot is going to be associated with the existing residents yes 7.02 okay any other questions from the board I'm sorry there are both houses occupied now or ones a smaller Cottage is not occupied I don't I'm not 100% sure but I don't think that it is occupied right now but I'm not 100% sure Mr adus but even if it's not occupied it's still exists as a residence the basically been Mark can jump in any time on this but the law is in order to abandon a use you have to both have an intent to do it and an action to do it both of those so even if it's not occupied it doesn't necessarily mean it's abandoned not use isn't an abandon yeah other questions do we have questions for the witness from the public seeing none that includes the testimony okay do do you have a closing yeah I think you have to open to the public oh sorry questions opening the public for any statements that you'd like to make yeah please come to the microphone um state your name address Mr lexin will'll SAR you in thank you I'm Deborah Hunter all right and I'm at just let's just swear I'll swear you in first do you swear any testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth self God I do okay and Deborah if you just spell your first name because I know there are multiple ways to spell Deborah d e b o r a h Hunter h u n t e r thank you what's your address 1402 North monasa Drive North monasa Drive all right go ahead I live in one of those little Lots um I just wanted to bring up a couple of things you asked is it Liv is it anybody in it right now I know no one is in it it is not safe and you keep calling it a cottage it is an overgrown garage so my concern would be that I'm first of all let me just say I'm for it I I've been living there for 13 years at this point and um I always thought there was a house on that lot and that somebody was living in it um but as of about I know a few years ago um I was able to walk through it it's not safe I want it to come down I'm excited that this is going to be broken into little lot for another house to come in that's all I just really wanted to say after what you listened to the last time I'm easy thank you anyone else from the public all right hearing none do I have a motion to close public hearing I'll move second all in favor I I I did second yeah yeah second I second yeah all right any any discussion any questions I I just have a question maybe for our engineer when you went out there um to the site the other home next to it um I think 1410 is is that you're talking about the The Bungalow or the no no no the the home next to it with the blue door when I was by there earlier today is [Applause] it I I guess how close is that to the property line and I know it has nothing to do I'm just out of curiosity like is that I I don't know how close it is to the property line okay I just thought it was but I just wanted to it's pered to be 5et 5et is permitted to be but I don't know what it is okay all right that's a when I was by there it just looked a little close but I just wasn't I didn't measure I wasn't looking at it and I just was walking by but that's all I had I have no concerns with it um quick question are we looking at the um property across the street I yes I can answer that that's a across the street this across the street so I can't see it sorry so it's opposite side so just what's the point of showing us this that was from the environmental commission report Mr Monty and I I don't want to speak for Mr Colton but I believe it was to show that there are other similar Lots in the area of the equal size okay thank you I made that statement in the in the report that um in driving around it's obvious the statement is true the prior statement the applicant claims 50 by 100 lot is keeping with the nature of the neighborhood thank you yeah anything else all right someone want to make a a resolution I'll make a resolution a positive or negative positive resolution do we have a second I'll second o we got a sorry I heard Eric first all right roll call please cilia yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes all right thank you all right motion to uh ajour before you ajour I want to embarrass Mr Means I know how many of you know Tom Tom was the chairman of this board for what 40 Years Tom 30 30 30 years up until about five years ago he graced us with his presence he was one of the guys I argued with about [Laughter] changing all right a motion to return Mr plut is second second second for Mr Adis all in favor I thank you