let's go go around all right let's stand up we're going to salute the flank um I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all okay welcome everybody um first of all this is our first uh session of the new year was kind of kind of brought to my attention so happy New Year everybody a little belated um so uh the notice requirements of the open public meeting law of this of of this meeting has been satisfied a copy of notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press news2 and the coaster and filed in the office of the Township Clerk on July 26 2023 emergency notices um this is an emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room there's no smoking policy no new cases will be started after 10:30 p.m. and no new testimony taken after 11:00 p.m. um all meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the township of ocean Community cable channel channel 22 on Verizon phos and channel 77 on cable vision all cell phones must be turned off or if you need to make a call please make your call outside the meeting room I just want to make uh just one comment that U Melle close who uh has a board member here I think for maybe 18 years or something number like that um has left the board so I just want to ply just kind of thank her for all the services she's been and the hundreds of cases that she's been involved in an applicants and and her um steadfast um work that she did as a volunteer to this board so I just want to thank Estelle for all that so we have a new case um 4C 402 Sherman Avenue LLC block 24 Lots four and five 401 Grand Avenue 402 Sherman Avenue the applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment between Lots four and five in the favor of lot five acquiring more land from lot four the applicant is proposing a lot line adjustment to conveying a 4,455 ft portion of property from lot four to lot 5 Mr chairman before you get to that you you ski the minutes adoption I just don't want you to what was the minutes adoption oh sorry sorry that um can I get an approval for uh can um looking for the minutes approval for September 18 2023 I'll make that motion I get a second I'll second great are there any questions about the any questions or comments about the meeting minutes no I think we could do an all in favor you can all in favor I I any opposed great okay um so I think counselor um why don't you tell us so so Mr CH before we get to that we just have a couple things to put on the record uh Mr Mr I'm going to mispronounce the name now Manel yes okay Mr manell has indicated to us uh Mr confrey that he his grandmother used to own this house we do not think he has no Financial tide no other relationship to this house whatsoever his grandmother does not own this house at this point of in time I do not think that he he currently has a conflict but I just wanted to clear it with you that you don't agree that you also agreed that he does not have a conflict thank you Mr leine we we would agree to go forward we don't feel that there is a conflict with Mr manell and we're happy to proceed and thank you for that uh advice thank you all right and Mr chairman if I may if I can just uh list the app the exhibits that I have for the record exhibit A1 will be the application itself exhibit A2 will be the topographic survey exhibit a A3 will be the minor subdivision from East Point engineering exhibit A4 will be the storm water management report exhibit A5 will be the soil bearing boring log A6 will be the memo dated December 1st 2023 from these Point engineering exhibit A7 will be the tree report from Green touch dated November 15 2023 and exhibit A8 will be the photo packet of seven picks uh pictures which were just given to us and then beyond that we have the following board exhibits exhibit B1 as in board one will be the board planners report dated February 20th 2024 exhibit B2 will be the board engineer report dated February 15 2024 ex zibit B3 will be the Fire Marshals report dated February 2nd 2024 exhibit B4 will be the Public Works report dated January 19th 2024 and exhibit B5 will be the environmental commission report dated February 21st 2024 and Mr conre if you can just confirm that you do have all those exhibits that I mentioned we do have all of them okay so now with that said Mr chairman I'll turn it over to Mr conre to give his introduction and to put his representation on the record great good evening Mr chairman and members of the board my name is Michael conver I'm an attorney in Shrewsberry New Jersey and I represent Fort uh C 402 Sherman Avenue LLC as the chairman indicated this application concerns two properties within the township uh specifically 401 Grant Avenue and 402 Sherman Avenue in the township both located at block 24 Lots four and five uh tonight as a part of this application we have one witness Mark s Leber who's sitting to my left he is a professional engineer and professional planner with East Point Engineering in marbor New Jersey uh he's here tonight to testify to the planning design the planning uh I'm sorry the engineering design the planning implications and any of the variance relief that's being sought um he's here to testify and we are going to mark for tonight's hearing two exhibits and if you're uh Mr chairman you'd allow me the first exhibit that we would Mark and I think Mr lexin said this would be A9 A8 so A8 would be a five page actually four page photograph that I presented to the board it's seven photographs for all okay so yeah to be clear the first page is one two photographs on page two two on page three and two on page four which uh Mr Liber will testify to and as well we're marking for the board a um site plan a layout grading and utility plan that's now going to be marked as A9 and what's the date on that grading plan this grading plan is dated if my eyes were better I could see it more 22823 22823 okay and East Point did that I assume yes it's uh it's done by East Point and it's signed by Mark s Liber who's to my left thank you so other than that I'd like to ask Mr Liber Mr Liber if you're ready to to proceed Mr chairman um yeah I think what we might want to do since you kind of give us an overview what's going on I think we might want to hear from our professionals first just see what the issues they may have and then that might help um your person who's who's testifying okay focus on that sure I'll summarize basically the thrust of the application is they're just relocating a lot line uh with regard to variances the only variance that's necessary is the existing setback on new lot 4.01 which is the house that is not being changed and there's no development proposed on that lot otherwise there's no there are no variances associated with the application there are some issues with trees that really I I need to discuss with the board um and it's probably good that I discuss it even before the applicant presents his case um Mr leers had had had uh presented a letter to me on Friday and the applicant had hired a tree expert to go out and look at the site and do a report unfortunately there are problems with both of those items that I'll discuss with the board the first is with regard to I think it's green leaf is uh the a green touch is that they list 13 trees but basically they tend to disregard the ordinance and the number of the trees that they're listing don't list the diameter base height where the ordinance says if the diameter base height is 6 in or greater and they take the tree down they have to replace it with a 4 in caliper tree or two 2 and 1/2 in caliper trees or a donation of $350 to the shade tree fund and so it's not possible to tell from this list actually how many qualifying trees they're taking down so I I can't determine anything from that list Mr Lio Liber presented a letter to me on Friday and I think that's in the file right or not I don't believe it is because it was less than 10 days maybe it isn't And he as with many many people got confused because there are two tree removal ordinances in town There's the one that's in the zoning that applies to site plans and subdivisions which would apply to this and then there's another one that applies when they don't have a site plan and subdivision and his letter to me quoted the other one which happens frequently that's not it's not a criticism of him it's it's a criticism of the fact that we have two separate tree ordinances that conflict with each other um so when I look at those two things first of all I think that we have to clarify you know what the obligation is and I don't think we can do that tonight but I I also think that could be a condition of approval the other thing is and I'll take responsibility because in my letter to the board and for the applicant to consider I left out the fact that street trees are required whenever you have a subdivision the ordinance requires Street trees every 40 feet or the equivalent of every 40 feet on on the lot if there's a subdivision so when I calculated that today it requires 13 Street trees when you consider both 4.01 and 5.01 and 5.01 is the lot where the new house is being built that's being expanded in area and when I looked at this there the first of all two things concerned first is there is a contract I'm sure between the owners of lot five and lot four to give a certain number of square feet to lot five create lot 5.01 and then lot 4.01 stands separate there are no Street trees on lot 4.01 and I don't know how if we were to require Street trees to be put on lot 4.01 where there's no development being proposed other than the fact that a subdivision line is being moved I don't know how that affects their contract and whether it would kill the deal or not and that's something that needs to to be discussed and then the other issue is it's not certain as to how many existing trees are going to qualify of Street Tre trees there there are some so I think the obligation is going to be around five Street trees if you just look at 5.01 if you add 4.01 it's going to be about 11 Street trees and that whatever that number is it will probably negate the need for any contribution to the shade tree fund but without having having everything really nailed down I can't tell for sure well is that is that because there was no inventory done before all this happen there was inventory done but it was the inventory done by Green touch was was really in inaccurate because it didn't for example uh he lists 13 trees and tree number seven is a black gum tree it's diameter base height is not applicable so I don't know what that means mhm tree number eight same thing it's not applicable and then there are some Holly trees that are shown here that again it says the D diameter of Base height is not applicable so I I don't know what that means okay so it may or may not let's just you let's take a time out for a second so let's put the tree let's put the tree thing yeah on let's put let's just put a pin in that for a second you know it can be a condition of approval that would have to be submitted before the resolution is approved so let's just put the tree thing here for a second so what else did you have that you wanted to disc otherwise that's it I mean it's essentially a fully conforming subdivision except for the fact that the house on new lot 4.01 has an existing front yard setback on Sheridan it's it's non-conforming and it's not being changed or anything it's it exists now and it's not being affected by the subdivision okay so I really I don't have any problem with the subdivision at all okay I uh putting a tree aside anybody have anything left for for Jim before we go to Bennett no okay Bennett did you have anything that you wanted to add on your yes uh thank you Mr chairman um just a couple minor things so the there's a note on the plans that indicates that the plot plan is provided for informational purposes only um however there's a a drainage report um and the building is is not just a a a box it just as a placeholder it's you know a unique shape it looks like it's it's been carefully designed and the house is under construction so I I just want some clarification uh on exactly what that means and how that uh affects this application and whether or not a grading plan should is required to be submitted or was already submitted uh to the township um and then there was uh minor uh discrepancy between the storm water management report and the plan with regards to the amount of impervious surface that's just an inconsistency that needs to be resolved and uh property markers should be shown on the subdivision plan and that can uh be a condition of approval okay anybody have anything that want to ask did you want to spend anything I talk about trees so you tell me when we talk about trees Mr chairman well we can talk about trees but I guess I I guess Jim has kind of brought up the challenges with the trees the tree report the tree analysis the tree inventory so maybe you can Mr chairman if I if I just can very quickly yeah Jim do you just want to clarify that because it's in your letter so you might want to get that onto the record what is that the that that's not a variance that's not a variance that's not a variance because it's they they don't know what we're talking about oh okay oh okay okay this it's in Ben's letter it's your letter it's my letter yes oh okay okay I apologize see yeah I looked at that that shouldn't be there that is M of variance because it's the open it's the front porch steps so so they don't know what we're talking about so so Jim's letter indicates that lot 5 will be increased in area from 25 from 27,600 4 ft it will be fully conforming with the minor exception of the open front porch steps which are set back approximately 48 ft where 50 is required so he called it out as a variance in his SPL and Jim is now saying that it's not a variance let me clarify that I call I don't think it's a variance I believe the zoning officer called it out as a variance which is why it's in my letter and my report so I think it should be treated as a variance to be conservative all right why why don't we just deal with it as a variance just the conservative I agree with Jim if if the zoning officer called it out was just so so is the difference between 40 and 50 feet on the on the S okay we'll provide testimony with respect to that tonight Mr chairman okay if I could have one second to talk to Mr K sure chairman I just spoke to my client about the second lot issue because I'm not sure right now we have a contract with the other individual can't the applicant just pay rather than put the trees on the second lot it's the issue is technically it's Street trees right and the payment doesn't apply to Street trees it applies so that option is not available yeah yeah that option is not available um but just just so the board put it context to the board there is precedent in the township where homeowners do not want Street trees the township is gone to the homeowner so give us a letter saying you don't want the street trees these are on larger subdivisions that were approved by the planning board and then they have not put the street trees in I'm not so sure the legality of that but i' be concerned making it a condition of approval if we can't satisfy the requirement um so I I want to hopefully see if we could work this issue out tonight rather than uh you can always ask for a variance it's it's a waiver it's a w it's a waiver then ask ask for the waiver why don't we just ask for the waiver if we can I mean at this point I wanted to bring it out so that the board could consider it because I'm uncomfortable making that decision so we're trying so the thing that you're asking for is a waiver so that you do not have to put Street trees in is that on on the the existing on which lot would that be is it 40 um 401 401 is where the older building is you're right so basically basically what the applicant's saying is look we don't own that property right we have no control over that property the only we we're just here to do a lot line adjustment so we don't have the authority to say what's going to happen on that second lot so they can ask for that waiver if the board feel so inclined to Grant it I would say wait hold on question yeah we could Grant a waiver with a stipulation that they ask the other homeowner if they wanted trees and if that homeowner decided that they did want trees then they would provide them and if they provided a letter to us saying that they did not want them then they would not be required could we do that as a waiver that's that's exactly what I was going to say when you started Sol okay that that that would be perfect okay okay thank you okay okay um so I think we can kind of yeah whatever whatever Mr Higgins has raised as far as the trees are concerned we're going to as a condition of approval we'll do whatever is required with that one carve out so that we're not bound as the condition of approval on 401 we'll ask and if they objected to it then we would request Mark when we have a motion for this we we'll put that as part of the motion later on yeah you can just that will be a condition of approval if the board approves the application and you can you don't have to recite over again granted with all the conditions previously before we before we uh pseudo memorialize this does anybody have a problem with um anybody have not a problem would anybody like to make a statement or a comment about what we were kind of suggesting you okay with it seems reason seems okay you guys okay all right good okay what else do we have to talk about the trees about I think that's it wait really so I I just want to say that the packet that I have up here only has it has the the cover letter in the first two pages of the three reports it goes through tree eight so I don't have the full copy of the report up here so Mr Higgins concerns about the all the trees not being identified at the diameter breast height stands as well but I want to go to something that's in the environmental commission's report that states that seven trees have already been removed that were originally shown on plans that are currently not there and what happened to the trees and how does that intersect with this application they were I'm not even sure so to to read it was tree report includes a plan showing only the existing lot line and the location of 13 trees 12 on Sherman Avenue lot and one on the Grant Avenue Lot the report addresses the type size and condition of each tree on the Sherman Avenue site the report identifies Seven Trees close to the West property line three trees in the Southeast corner of the property and two trees in the township right away close to Sheridan Avenue there's one tree on Grant Avenue site located exactly on the east property line the Seven Trees along the west property line appear to have been removed there may not have been a true removal permit associated with the removals okay and I don't see those the Seven Trees on the on the western property line I believe are still there when I looked at the site it looked like they were still there but I think those are some of the trees that Mr lever indicated to me were going to be removed do you guys know what happened we we I I could we could speak to the issue I don't think we removed the Seven Trees right there's they're still existing let me swear Mark in okay Mr Liber do you swear any testimony you're about to give this evening will be the truth the whole truth about the truth I'll be got yes I did and just state your name spelling your last name for the record the city last name is lber l thank you and you are licensed planner and engineer in the state of New Georgia correct I am thank you sir go ahead hi good evening uh the property that we're talking about which is lot 5.01 which is at the corner of Sherman in Sheridan a permit application was actually submitted to zoning and construction to build this house uh the house is under construction right now and during that construction whatever trees were on the west side that conflicted with the foundation were removed um and those are the same trees that were um noted in the letter I had sent out on Friday as to be removed so there's a little bit of overlap here because when the application was filed to move the lot line we concurrently filed another application to construct the house within the parameters of the existing lot so that's why there's a uh question so the trees were removed yeah there were trees in that precise location on the west of that Foundation some of those trees were actually in the foundation of the house okay so the Mason had to remove them to form that uh that part of the house I think he referring to a tree line that is that the trees you're speaking about I don't know that's I'm not sure that's what I think there are trees that are still there on the west side of the house and I thought those are the ones that you were referring to Mark in your letter that are that are on the uh green touch report that's correct it's the same trees but some of those trees had been removed but it's the same trees that were're saying to be removed so what's the you know um you know our plot plan was approved um let me take a quick look was approved around September okay and then you know work start the house was demolished so what's the problem the problem is all this went to the zoning board first and then oh no it was there was no board variances right so you just took you just took them down and well no there was a a review done upstairs through uh engineering mhu where they submitted a building permit to construct a new dwelling and as part of that we submitted a plot plan a grading plan a drainage report um there were architectural drawings for the house and um whatever was shown on that plan was permitted through the town and the house is currently into construction I have pictures from today I can show you yeah okay so but now now we're talking about moving the lot line and we're including these I'm a little confused on on this timing as well when Jim when you were talking earlier you were talking about the trees coming out under the two ordinances um just trying to figure out under which ordinance these Seven Trees were removed and how they were remediated I'm not sure it's the same Seven Trees because the green touch report is dated 11:15 23 and if the construction have been started before then there may have been other trees on the site that were removed under that permit without seeing that permit I don't know the the plan on the green touch report shows existing trees as of 11523 and there's one two three four five six there's six six seven of six of them seven of them on the west side of the house when I rode by the house and looked at the site it looked to me like they're still there I mean so I'm a little bit confused too well the survey of the property was from February of 23 the land survey and on the land survey he depicts those trees which are shown on sheet two of our drawing so you think the trees are still there I don't know I think so but I'm not sure sure what are we trying to accomplish right now my goal Mr chairman is to figure out to make sure that whatever amount of replacement trees need to be planted need to be planted right I understand that's what I'm trying to get so that's our right so that's our that's our problem right now which could be a condition of approval right yeah and I mean what we need is for Mr lever to go out and locate the trees which they apparently are located on the survey to determine their their diameter one foot above the root ground yeah and if they qualify and if they're going to be removed then we will know how many and then to submit a plan showing that and showing the add the required number of Street trees and it may be it's going to be a wash okay H was a foundation tree the arrested mer is that true Jim I'm just sorry did you say at the root Crown I thought our ordinance was diameter or breast height that's a good question I think it's two different standards and I will tell you in a second did you have some clarification that you wanted to offer right now from what you just conferred with or I I spoke to um my client and he said that the only tree that was removed due to the foundation installation was a Holly and that the other trees remain I think there's some confusion over what Jim saw versus what was uh on the first plot plan to be removed but I think if if uh Mr chairman if you're inclined to put a condition in that it's subject to approval that we satisfy whatever the planting situation is then we could yeah I think as long as as long as we're able to document as long as we able to document and get to the truth that's all that's all the problem is is is is that with that existing application there were certain things done to advance the I don't think we need to make this any more complicated think getting it's very simple there will be if the board approves the application they'll have to comply with the tree ordinances as it works out to be worked out with the board engineer and planner with the exception of the law 4.01 issue that where we're going to get a letter from the owner whether or not he wants toen trees or not I think that great that's great and just to clarify so there is no confusion the qualif the trees that qualify have to be 6 in or greater one foot above the root Crown okay and the replacement trees have to be if you want qualification of one two trees for one tree being taken down they have to be a minimum of two 2 and2 in breast height so this the qualifying tree is one foot above yeah I think F first first let first first let everybody first let me go see what the trees are there let's see what we got all right and we'll make it a condition that if there are trees that are missing they have to replace per the ordinance okay that's all we need right Mark I I agree I I I think we're talking about stuff that we don't need to talk about I guess it's the confusing part was more that your report said something and they very it will all be worked out in the long r yes okay okay is there anything else that you would all like to share with us about this application before we ask you any questions I mean Mark I don't think you have to we don't we don't you don't have to you don't have to you don't have to I mean no I just wanted to know if you want to see the the pictures shall we just to tell you how you guys you guys feel like you want to get a walk through the pictures I mean it's to the board I think I think I think I think we're good they're self-explanatory I'm not going anywhere if you have questions they're good photographies nice nice job with the pictures good good good pictures okay does anybody um does anybody here have any um well first does anybody have any questions or any comments that they want to ask the um the applicants C can I just get uh some clarification on um my report about the I guess maybe it's a sequence of events uh there there was a An approved grading plan by the township engineer and then and and then we're here is that correct yes and that actually goes right to your lot coverage question which was the approved grading plan showed uh 12,865 Square ft of impervious coverage it had a slightly different driveway on Sherman Avenue due to the zoning requirements but it did not include the sports court because the Sports Court wasn't on that plan because the Sports courts proposed within the area of augmentation of the property and the pool water surface wasn't included so when you take those three items together that was a discrepancy between the uh 12,000 um 865 ft versus the 14251 why wasn't the pool surface area included uh there was something in the zoning code that said when you calculate percent a build of a lot area that the water surface of a pool is not incorporated into that am out I thought that wasn't true under the ms4 permit that it was considered impervious cover I I think it in the eyes of the D it is but in the eyes of the zoning ordinance it's not considered impervious because rainwater that falls into your pool doesn't run off into the the street but it doesn't infiltrate either that's correct but that's I mean that's typically how zoning ordinances are okay okay so that answers I think two questions yeah that satisfies um that satisfies you my questions okay you sure yes okay okay anything else you want to talk through no um anybody from the public like to make any comment about the applicant or have any questions for the um applicant going once going twice okay um great so I think we I think we have everything here um can I get a motion on this applicant I'll second you're I assume you're moving to approve it to approve right and with all the stipulations that we have right okay I'll second okay we have a second by um Jamal yep AIA yes yes yes yes yes yes okay great okay I think that's it okay thank you thanks thank you okay again Sam really stumbled through that one huh okay Happ I think the whole problem didn't didn't match what happen they got a tree removal permit a construction permit which is one ordinance and it sounds like nobody yeah okay um uh we're going to review are we reviewing and voting right on the um ordinances on the ordinances so so basically the board's role is to review the ordinances and see if they are compliance with the m Cons with the master plan or not which I guess Jim will take you through um from a legal perspective I don't have an issue with it yeah the um with regard to the impervious coverage ordinance the master plan specifically says that the township should revise the ordinances to reduce impervious coverage for the larger lot zones which that ordinance does so it's consistent okay um with regard to the Cannabis ordinance the master plan says that the Cannabis should be uh uses should be considered for inclusion in all non-residential zones subject to the determination that they're appropriate by the governing body so again it's the governing body issued this ordinance decide where it should be so I'd say that's consistent with the master plan also Mr chairman I have no objection to the board making a single motion to uh and a second on both ordinances at once to report back to the governing body that you find them to be be consistent without any comments okay does anybody have any questions for Jim on these before we do this good okay so we're basically taking a vote on these two ordinances right okay so we're going to vote on um we we're going to vote to approve the ordinances of uh two ordinance number 2454 and number 2455 Mr chairman to be clear we're we're voting to find them in compliance with the master plan voting to right we're voting to confirm that they're in compliance with the master plan correct can I get a second second okay that should be a roll call yes yes yes yes yes okay um anybody have anything they want to say for tonight okay can I get a uh a motion to adjourn so moved okay I'll second great