welcome everyone today is Monday January 22nd 2024 and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park planning board as well as the yearly reorganization chairwoman KAC will you please call the meeting to order yes this meeting is being held in compliance with the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the coaster Asbury Park Press for by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal Bolton board and Municipal website all notices are on file with the board secretary official action may be taken at the following matters before the board fire exits are located on East and West sides of the council chambers as well as the back of the building I will ask everyone with a cell phone or other device to kindly silence your device for the duration of this meeting this meeting is being recorded recorded by APV please join me for a Pledge of Allegiance Pledge of aliance the United States of America and to the Republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible Justice for All I will now take roll call James Bano councilwoman Clayton yes here Eric Alo here Jim Henry here Mayor John Moore is absent Daniel shano is absent Jennifer saer here Pedro travella is absent Vice chair Mike gonan here and chairwoman Barbara KAC here okay we're going to go into the reorganization part of the meeting and you know this is always a Little Rock a little bit of a rocky road so bear with me because we do it once a year all right um can I get a nomination for a temporary chairperson I nominate Barbara second second all right uh temporary board attorney I nominate Jack second uh temporary board secretary Marie SEC okay now now we can continue all in favor I I okay now we can continue on um just so that you're aware that there was a appointment and SL reappointment of planning board members this afternoon by Mayor John Moore um councilwoman Ivon Clayton James Bano uh Michael goonan has been moved from alternate one to class 4 uh class four member Pedro was uh ad as was brought in as alternate two officially so that uh so what that really essentially means is that if we vote on anything today these people are all eligible to vote because it all happened today question Barbara uh with Pedro He's listed here as alternate to yes if Michael moved up and there's no alternate one doesn't he automatically move to alternate one it it wouldn't be a bad idea but we have there's more to the story okay let's just say that okay we'll we'll let you know a little little further down the line on that okay um here we go let's go for the annual board reorganization the nominations and appointment for 2024 offices can I get a a nomination for chairperson Barb second um how did you you can do it by voice if you like okay do you want to go one by one then every single one we do it that's why we do it by voice it be rather quick okay one second okay um James Bano yes don't have to do that no just do all in favor oh all in favor oppos I all right Works nomination for for vice chairperson I nominate Michael goonan second um all in favor I anyone oppose uh nomination for board secretary um Marie Rodriguez second um all in favor I I any uh opposed okay uh nomination for board attorney Jack Serpico second all in favor I I opposed none thank you nomination for conflict attorney the beakman brothers second so Barbara and then Jim No actually they're not Brothers they're not they're not Brothers they're cousins I'm sorry my fault thefe f the beakman family all in favor for the beacon family I None opposed no okay all right nomination for board planner CCH second all in favor I I None opposed next nomination for conflict board planner tnm second Barber are you nominated yes I am nominated okay second all in favor none opposed um board nomination for board engineer uh I nominate Insight on the in the interim at this point um they have requested to um to leave the city and so right now we're going to go with them for interim and they're going to stay until well the RFP actually has already gone out to for other firms to come in we will interview them as we normally do and um see who will take their place have conflict engineer we do tnm TN so we have an ins so Insight had said had said that they were going to stay until you know they we finish up until we get someone in here so I nominate insight as an interim board engineer all in favor I I and I nominate U uh tnm as conflict board engineer second all in favor and for board Rec oppos okay good and for board recording Services we have APV I nominate second oh all in favor hi hi any opposed okay great all right our favorite part the Committees all right we have three committees uh the design Review Committee uh does anybody would like to uh in the past we've had Eric Michael and myself anyone would like to volunteer to be on the re design Review Committee we've had I don't know if we had any this year we might have had one meeting we had two just a couple for do design review all right any volunteers you mean other than the existing I will volunteer all right Eric I will volunteer again Eric's in Michael's in anyone else is barber in if if if we're missing anyone then I will be in Barbara was the alternate last year I was the alternate last year I can I can be in if we want if if nobody wants to I'd like to give other people opportunities if they choose not to grasp at those opportunities I will will step in okay I'm in was the third and then you the alter yes yes okay bylaw policy committee my favorite Ivon how about it oh yes ivonne's in okay we need uh uh we had James and Jim in it last year any any other anybody else want to come in here and we didn't meet never meet at all so it's a great committee did such a good job that's right anyone want to uh join into Ivon just in case we have to change the bylaws I'll stay in there all right Jim's in I mean James is in J I'll stay in also all right Jim and James all right excellent all right we have a master plan committee um last year was Ivon Jen Rick and myself as an alternate like theun yes I'd like I stay okay all right oh everybody's jumping on this one all right we have Von who else Eric yeah but you only have to add an e to Rick's name so it's easier all right for master plan we've got von Eric Jen Jen okay um I can throw myself in as an alternate just in case we ever need some if whever we need a fourth I mean if someone can't attend if we have a meeting I will put myself as an alternate does that go for every one of them or just master plan no that's for master plan got it okay I I will not be an alternate for bylaws because I know that Devon has that well in control and I will be an alternate for the design review as well no actually I can't be an alternate because we don't have three so I have to be you're third okay if you need an alternate I could be an alternate for the design for design review okay Jen is an alternate for design review terrific okay if you need it you can put me as an alternate for master plan as well okay I mean I'll put we'll put you in okay you want to be an ultimate a bylaws committee I think I on enough committee all right I can move from the master plan committee and move myself to the bylaws as an alternate okay I'll do that because Michael just stepped in to the master plan committee okay the heavy lifting just so that you guys know heavy lifting is going to start probably in 2025 to 26 something in that area we're going to be some heavy lifting in the master plan area Okay um I have nomination for the uh planning board official newspapers we excuse me is everyone in favor of those appointments to the Committees yes we just need to hear yes yes any opposed okay we're good now sorry no problem um 2024 uh planning board official newspapers Asbury Park Press and the coaster I second that motion yes all in favor none opposed all right the next one we have is the adoption of the 2024 planning board meeting schedule can I get a uh a motion to approve or to agree to so move second um all in favor none opposed okay this one's this one's going to be tricky so now we have the the minutes for approval um the first one we have was September 12th 192 I mean 2022 I have a listed everyone they're old yeah they're all we're catching up for the webs okay these are all catch UPS mayor Moore is absent councilwoman Clayton so yvon can vote councilwoman clayt okay the people who can vote for the 91222 regular meeting minutes are Mayor John Moore yvon Clayton Eric galipo Jim Henry Jennifer saer Daniel shano and Barbara KAC okay let's go do we do we have to do each one well of everyone who's eligible of the eligible okay yes vote yes obviously any opposed it's adopted okay for the January 9th 2023 regular uh reor regular meeting the people who are eligible to vote are James bonano yvon Clayton Jim Henry Jennifer Mike gunan and Barbara KAC clve to approve second all those eligible in favor good um the next set is the May 1st 2023 eligible members are John Moore James Bano Jim Henry Jennifer saer Eric ELO Michael goonan and Barbara kurac move to approve second anyone second everyone is eligible approve those minutes yesos approve 1218 2023 eligible members James Bano yvon Clayton Eric galipo Jim Henry Daniel shano Jennifer saer Michael goonan Barbara KAC move to approve second all those eligible approve yes any you oppos I next is the okay next is uh the the resolution for uh 700 mon row is off the table today all right that's off moving to February 5th February 5th we're going to move that to February 5 uh the resolution for approval of 527 bangs Avenue I know that there was some late breaking change no so 527 bangs there was the edits that went back and comments went back Andrew agreed and that was the end of it so we have a final final version so what time was get the give the time the final version was emailed so everyone knows which version it was emailed at 4:32 p.m. this evening um and it was a Blackline copy and there was also a draft copy attached res resolution of the amendment of approval and the members that are eligible to vote on this one are James Bano councilwoman Clayton Eric gallipo Jim Henry mayor Moore Jennifer saer and Barbara KAC all right motion to approve uh I have a couple of comments on on page three uh the third we sorry there are three wees at the bottom of the page U the middle whereas last line reads and will be in compliance with the Waterfront re development plan I think that needs to come out uh this is at this is on bang so this is not where front Redevelopment plan it should be so it's for Jeffrey so what I'll do is I'll take notes send an email and then we'll we will fix it yeah should we should we be putting in the uh the central business District yes development plan CB yes any other comments anybody else also on page two there's a typo uh the second whereas from the uh bottom uh I think it should read make comments at the hearing rather than make comments that the hearing at the hearing just m okay got that with those uh changes I move to approve I second that got that um James bonano yes Council M Clayton yes Eric gipo yes Jim Henry yes Jennifer saer yes Car Act [Music] yes okay next item uh on the agenda is the proposed uh accessory dwelling unit ordinance presentation by Michelle Alonzo hello Michelle hello hello and evening and happy New Year would you like to swear me in yes please ttim the truth I doe state your name for the record spell it and give us your affiliation with the city Michelle Alonso Al NSO I'm the director of planning Redevelopment and I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey Michelle would you use the mic yes so Maria is bringing my presentation up and can you just before before we get started what are we what are you looking for from the board well this is so this was referred to the planning board as a resolution by the M Municipal Council that to uh looking for the board to conclude whether this amendment to chapter 30 for accessory dwelling units complies with the master plan okay all all development ordinances and Redevelopment ordinances and like before they're adopted by the mayor and Council legislative branch they have to be referred to the planning board especially in this context planning board gives it within a 35-day review for such time is extended their comments regarding the consistency or inconsistency with the master plan with the propos development ordinances and such other items and we just do a quick resolution you comments a referral it's comments and review not mandatory on May C so so once whatever whatever comes out of what the the uh resolution that comes from here then goes back to the coun council for them to take a look you think you have to take a look at this versus that uh we've done it times and then the council takes the information and does whates okay so it gets presented once or they review it and they might need Michelle to come back or something Poss perhaps they don't usually send they don't usually send if they wanted to they could I'm just saying that's that's that's a discretionary usually we do it we send it over and that's it okay right and there suggestions and maybe if they want to take on to those suggestions then that's fine if they don't then they just go thank you that guy like a there you go so for the record why don't we make the referral resolution 20 2023 445 refer over referred it over as C1 that's the resolution for mayor and Council authorizing the board tot take the review and then the actual Asbury far proposed Abu Grant accessory dwelling unit ordinance January 22 2024 C2 but these the one that we're looking at is from April 26th is that different from January 22nd which we have that's the wrong one up on the screen okay but you have the correct one in your packet right yeah must just been to save to no it's not good that me I have maybe they're here that's no that that one that was as a PDF that's okay we'll scroll through that if you hit contr L on your keyboard okay okay okay so again once again good evening thank you Commissioners for entertaining this ordinance proposal tonight this is going to be a change to the land of elment ordinance to chapter 32 to permit what is called an accessory dwelling unit Adu for short and I have on the first screen basically what is an Adu um that it's a residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a standalone single family home Although our ordinance we've extended to two families but many places in the country uh adus have been used to supplement one family housing um it can be a converted part of a main structure or what's commonly known as it is an out building and most commonly the conversion of a garage to living space we already have quite a few of these in Asbury Park some of them were Carriage Houses before some of them were actually developed as living space others were converted but currently our zoning ordinance does not permit the conversion of a secondary building and accessory building to habitable living space so this ordinance is proposing to change that and one of the reasons we're doing so is we're trying to create more varied housing types here in the city to be more affordable now we use the term for accessory dwelling units as affordable with a little little a not a big a the majority of these in the city will not be co- compliant indeed restricted well when I go through the presentation I'll talk about we will have like a financial incentive if someone chooses to do it but it's more to increase the different types of housing stock in the city that could be more affordable we term this in the planning World a lot of times a soft density because it's designed or the or to so that it doesn't so it doesn't feel as though it has an impact on neighborhoods that it's not going to be discernable of changing a one family District to what would essentially be a two family District also as I go through this presentation the accompaning regulations to the to the Adu as far as design parking standards and and other standards are also to not have a visual impact impact or again this feeling of increased density in low density neighborhoods Michelle excuse me we would you like questions as we uh on each page of your presentation or should I hold my questions to the end um whatever everyone else wants I'm open to either I think probably the flow is fine I me to if it doesn't disturb you that we could just ask okay as long as we're asking whatever's on the page yeah not everywhere um on on the page that you just previously had up there uh you indicated that the uh adus may be attached to the principal residential uh building correct yes in your uh text it seems that that is not what you say corre so that's got to be reconciled no no so this is my what is an you so one of the things that the meaning this is the broad brush because what the with discussion with with Municipal Council and Municipal Council we had basically I had presentation of public hearing session it it is the um desire of the council for the Adu not to be in the principal building that's only going to be in the secondary building but other communities throughout the US permit it in the main structure but I mean some part of the rationale is well if you permit in the main structure you're really then a two family home again the part of the idea of the out the out building is the soft density so that's just part of my my introduction because I also saying it one family but we again when I presented this to council it was a decision that was made that it would be applicable to one and two family homes as long as you you could park it because that was another thing that we had discussed whether we have a parking requirement we don't have a parking requirement but we concluded that if you can again fit it on your property um and that you're not having an impact on the characteristic of the neighborhood then we would be permitted the second that the successory building for one and two families yeah I just explained that the proposed Asbury Park Adu ordinance will permit adus and detached structures either conversion of an existing garage additions to garages or new Cottages one thing we are keeping in place is the current building coverage standards and the current um impervious surface covered standards so you if you have a conforming um lot for coverage and you if you can you can expand your garage structure to accommodate an Adu if you don't exceed the already permitted building coverage and lot uh lock coverage what is the current residential oh current residential lock coverage is it depends on the zone for R I have R1 memorized R1 and we're currently at building coverage for 30 30% and impervious 65 oh so most yeah seems like would be fine well that's the thing if it's most yeah most but again if you have a very built out lot already maybe not you might have to change some stuff you may have to change some stuff if this is what you desire um all right next slide thank you Marie so this is just a visual of different examples and these are not all New Jersey specific although my top one is more New Jersey specific that is where you have the um the ad sometimes they're called granny Flats may say gr granny flat above the actual garage structure the next one is a structure that was built exclusively as Adu was not a garage before my third one is a garage conversion into an Adu and then my fourth photo is again a garage structure with a unit above the parking okay next slide so does this comply with the master plan I I believe it does comply with the master plan our master plan calls for balanced housing options in the city including affordable housing for low moderate income households encourage the continued development of a variety of housing ranging from affordable midle income and market rate units fully integrate affordable housing throughout the city both within projects and geographically throughout asay park by adopting the Adu ordinance and its placement in the R1 that def that definitely integrates affordable housing throughout the and it also in general encourages affordability again when we say about this primarily affordability not with the big a it's the little a again ENC these are going to be smaller units and it's the creation of more smaller units in the city that would be more affordable to some groups next so the regulations that you have before you for for concerning Chapter 30 again as I said we permit the units in detached garages above garages and Standalone structures in backyards so that Standalone structure may be in lie of a garage if a property doesn't have a garage or if the lot coverage permits it for your lot it could be next to your garage only one accessory dwelling unit per property would be permitted only permitted for one and two families in the R1 the R2 the R3 and B districts and for B districts it's for those few lots of record that have single family or two family homes there's a few of those AB budding Main Street can be built in the location of a detached garage cannot be more than 20 ft in height cannot exceed the coverage requirements for the property and must must be of the same residential standards as a house and I say that because besides having to meet the zoning code these structures have to meet the uniform construction code in terms of habit habit habitability meaning that it's just not it's not as easy as just like moving furniture into your garage or getting fluming it's got to have a foundation it's it's has to pass the same type of building code as your own as the main house right so they need a a certificate of occupancy for it to yes be real so if there is a existing two family house on a parcel they would be permitted to build a third unit as an Adu right provided provided they can meet all the others because we did keep we did as I stated um H have the parking requirement for the unit so right now in the one family District it's 1.5 parking spaces per unit so if you have a two family and you do an Adu you're 4.5 which bumps you up to five you have to be able to park five cars comply with the design standards in the zoning ordinance and not exceed your lock coverage with your Paving to accomodate so so that's if you have if it's a two family and and you put an ad use that that requires five cars yeah you can park them on the driveway yes okay and again when I say you not exceed the coverage has to abide by our laws with no front yard parking is a standalone in other words it aesthetically like you can't make like pave your whole yard still coverage to accom accommodate you have to continue that look of a low density neighborhood ask for questions sure so it says it's R1 R2 and R3 districts but then in in the proposed legislation it says only can only be complement to a one or two family house so there right so so on an in the R3 district there is a multif family building you can't have correct um the next question are there any requirements for the ad to match the Aesthetics of the primary house yes I think that's on my next slide okay I think and then my last question wait dereck's like pointing his finger before we before we move from this slide I just yeah I was so in that 20 foot height limit what counts do rooftop solar panels count no it's the it's our definition currently that we have whether it's the it's the ridg line of a peak roof and or if it's a flat roof it's top of the flat you haven't covered design standards so I'll keep my question about flat roofs until then I have one more question here though so you know the legislation says it's subordinate to the primary house I want to ask what that what yeah what does that mean what prevents the one if you have a big lot from just building two houses because you have well because the part about the Adu which is on my next slide is that it so it has to be owner occupied now when I say this the zoning code itself does not talk about owner occupancy because the zoning code cannot this will have paired with it a um different part of the municipal codee that requires a annual certification where if you are the property owner the homeowner that you have to register your Adu every year but what St for just building two houses I can own both my parents live in one I live one well that you can do but your the H the your second house your accessory dwelling unit and it is also meant for people to be able to move parents in that you have to meet the minimum loot coverage with the building coverage the height can't be more than 20 so you can build two homes but one is going to be smaller than the other so there's no requirement for the square footage of the Adu to be some percentage of the primary dwelling no um there's something just said about so what so what does incidental and subordinate mean go back to the first SL yes yes sorry it's not on here but we covered it what so what does incidental and subordinate actually translate to to ex accessory okay so it is secondary to the primary unit so again the primary unit is the is supposed to be the owner occupied unit would a owner not be able to occupy the Adu well I did put that provision in I did put that no you could swap outan because the owner has to be on the prop yes the owner must that makes sense you could an owner one an owner could move from their larger unit into the smaller unit and rent out the other one yes I don't see that that would be I mean it's actually I think I see that as a benefit because it pro because all of the adus are going to be small yeah and the front units might be larger so it gives us this opportunity to see a broader profile of unit types I think I think that that makes sense yeah I mean it did come up originally we were only going to have that the smaller unit be the accessory but we did have comments at the municipal Council by older PE like the you know you're talking about one scenario the more traditional scenario is that an older couple move owns the home moves to the accessory and their children move to the main that's like the the pro the the typical doesn't mean it is every scenario but that is the usually The Envision scenario makes sense so in that scenario the the primary home becomes the Adu yes so the Adu can be bigger than the primary but your Adu can't have more than one unit right so the primary home cannot be a like if you have a two family primary home and build an Adu I'm sorry to say that wait so you have a two family primary home and you are permitted to build an Adu but the intent is not for a two family to be rented out as a two family then meaning that the intent is not for the main for the two Family itself to be the rental unit that both both of the two family like let's say if it's a two floor if it's a two family you're saying that are you saying that the the prim the person that owns the lot can move into the Adu let's say the smaller unit and then they can rent the two or no well you're bringing up that was not the intent but you're bringing up a very good point because that was not the intent right it may not be the intent but I don't see that that's I don't think un prevented from you should if you are the property owner you should occupy one of the units one of the units on the property and you should be able to rent the remaining two right but but the Adu Still Remains as the smaller unit the one you built the one you built yes the Adu so the primary owner can theoretically move into the Adu you and rent whatever else the two the two units or a bigger house or whatever I was that I I know I understand that wasn't the intent but I I feel like that makes a lot of sense because it provide so so the investment that's required to build these adus will not be insignificant right it will be right and so I think a lot of people are going to be looking at that equation and saying okay once I build this Adu how do I maximize my income from my rentals I don't I hope that people will do this in an affordable manner I would also hope that one could consider well we haven't talked about bonuses yet but this does relate to the bonuses offered well let's yeah before before we talk about that let's get there so so are we I'm sorry are we I understand that wasn't the intent but that is AOW no but here's listen go ahead conforming and non-conforming two family uses where both units are in the principal building or permit to have an Adu in a separate structure they can meet the requirements of an Adu M nonconforming conforming non-conforming two family uses yes so if you've got a non-conforming two family in an R1 Zone you're going to allow them to build without a isn't that an extension of a non-conforming use by putting a third unit on it well but this permits it as the accessory it's a pered use but what I'm saying think that through yeah I did think that through but here's the issue more that I bring up now about this states that if you have a two two family that your Adu has to be in the separate structure understood I just want to make sure that you aren't you aren't restricted from well an owner is not restricted from which unit they can live in apples and peaches you're saying the Adu has to be a separate structure yes that does not define that's not defined occupancy right defines the unit itself which is an accessory unit but you're you're you go to the next step is you're not saying by making it an accessory unit that who can live there right an owner must occupy one no except where they get incentives then they're restrict let's let's find out we haven't gotten there yet but to no to me conforming and non-conforming two family uses where both humans are in the principal structure are permitted of an Adu in a separate structure understood that all sense doesn't Define who's living inside just the structure itself yes so I think the way you written it's fine this structure the primary owner of the property lives in right that's the question is the requirement just that the owner of the structures resides in any one of the units on the property whether it's a primary primary structure or the this was intended that if you have a two family your Adu has to be the smaller structure owner that's a separate issue from I think the definition of AD maybe might be the way to fix that like Adu means that the accessory OCC has to live in okay yeah you you may need go a step further but I but I I feel like we had consensus up here in providing a recommendation to the council to say that we shouldn't limit which unit the in in a three unit situation one Adu and two that the owner can live in any one of those three unit they have to be on the lot yes the structure is an accessory the structure is an accessory they could live in in unit one two or accessory I disagree uh with the two family one just because as a person who can't afford their own home and saying what I think my experience would be people who already own a home build a small one they can afford and move into that one they there too large out for more profit there's nothing in here controlling the prices of these units and I feel like even though we're making new we're more by allowing that every scenario we everyone make a lot more money than we are for reasonable housing but I understand Point that's actually that's a really good point James because the point of this is for it to be the lower price right however to provide in most in cases where the two family already exists those I'll use my home as an example my unit is a four bedroom house and we have a small one-bedroom unit upstairs I it's too small for us I would love to move into an Adu we still rent out the small one and the big one would also be rented and you know that's the situation that would work best for us right but the but the net gain to the community is a higher priced unit that but the but the Net game to the Community is a four bedroom that is not necessarily like that if the adus are all one and two bedrooms this allows a four bedroom to come onto the and there's no affordability control on that Adu no there there isn't but a four bedroom is going to cost a lot more than a one understand why we wouldn't allow it in a two bedroom in a two family scenario would allow it in a one family scenario M I agree I mean I understand I think it should be the same no I understand I understand I understand I that's interesting sorry world you're going to allow an expansion of a non-conforming use by putting in accessory structure so we're now giving them a pass under the zoning ordinance in terms of non-conforming you're expanding a non-conforming use which the law dis favors what's to say okay I own a two family in Asbury I have the square footage I want to come in I don't want to put an accessory unit there I want a variance to put a I want to extend I put the addition onto my house to put a third unit in you're allow you're you're giving them a back door to do expand the nonperforming use without getting use if you want why again the idea was to create try to create more housing types of housing but so you would be permitted to do it as the detached but you would not be permitted to do it as part of your main structure so when I have my application before the zoning board and I'm arguing I'm being discriminated against I I have I form I have the basis for extension of a nonperforming use because I'm not giving I'm not intensifying the use of the land anymore than the person who puts an accessory structure I'm not against the two family that's permitted expanding and putting the third unit in I'm I'm I'm questioning the wisdom of allowing giving someone a pass who's already got a non-conforming use allowing them to expand the non use without without the necessity for a use variance you have to get right you're you're simply saying that conforming family yes I certainly am right so your suggestion is that the legal way to do it is a conforming use in the single family Zone would be permitted a Adu but a non-conforming use a two family in a conforming two family Zone yeah for the third unit but not to give somebody an opportunity to expand a nonconforming use which the law disfavors you're still put you're still intensifying that use of that that property over and above was permitted now you've gone from it was one now you had two which wasn't permitted now you got three right I understand yeah so I'm just saying that the wisdom just just think about it because you could be opening Pandora's Box sorry I'll come back I'll let you finish and then from a perspective from a philosophical perspective or a legislative perspective the philosophy or the policy behind the city's encouraging this that's a distinct item um but the the person that's got the two for the nonconforming two family already has pass yes and we originally wrote this as for one families and then we had quite a bit of public comment from multif family property owners and then it was like well what prevents you know a multif family from adding the extra unit if it's supposed to be like soft density and and again it goes back to that wouldn't be soft density because you've already got a non-conformity now you're intensifying the non-conformity that's that's a that's a Major Impact well I was going to say like some of the thresholds of the non-conforming Conformity and the impact is can you have a multi family on the property yet it remains has keeps all the character istics of a one family and that not only includes the parking includes uh storing the garbage and includes the how the whole property looks as a whole what do I well as a planner or or as a as want you want a visual to look a certain way you want it to look as if it's a single family if the what will happen you mean to for it to look like a single family is you're intended you want you don't you want it to be a soft increase right that does not from a curb give you an urban an urban feeli all a sudden Tak R1 area and converted it into multif family right so what that means is that again you have to make make sure you are at 30% lock coverage and and that you are at 65% impervious and that you're parking that you can park all these cars and still remain have the again the look o of a driveway that belongs to a single family you have to make sure all your G your garbage is stored out of sight you probably have a pretty good chance in the size loss that we have in town that if there's already two families you put the third family on the third unit on there you may very well exceed uh one of the bul corns re VAR but there may be a few that I'm just suggesting that you got to think that one through about giving somebody pass expansion of but when we're talking about that I mean are we I mean are we talking about a lot of these are in town these not performing are there a lot of these well there's a ton yeah I just on my block there's 10 on these runs all of a sudden everybody comes in they've got units that nobody knew existed wait a minute actually I want to amend my statement very few of the non-conforming buildings in the single family zone are less like they're more than like my block which is except for my lot my block is Zone single family there is one single family home on our block all the rest are three four 5 7 12 and 13 and those none of those would qualify for an Adu okay can you make it uh by adding the word conforming in other words conforming to Family House limited limited the a limit the Adu to those conforming uh two family units all right so then that would eliminate the two families in the R1 it would then just be two families in the R2 and the R3 which is which is a very large potential pot of lots that might be able to build the Adu are these non-conforming two families in a single family zone so do I mean if that's a recommendation of the board to the municipal Council we you know that we can say that but do so is I don't think that we should I don't think that we should take away the two family option I'm in this Camp I think I agree that makes I think it makes well I mean one a lot of public made that comment and two that it's a lot of existing I mean I think it serves what we're trying to it chees what we're trying to do to be able to add one Adu to a two family but you're you're opening up the city to quite a bit of potential litigation I think you're there's a chance you'll have some applicants that push the envelope in this scenario I think the vast majority of them wouldn't be an issue I think making a blanket No statement to all two family nonperforming homes is less advantageous than dealing with a few problem scenarios yeah I feel like the exact same way I feel like bulk is more important so if this fits the ad fits on the lot you know standards and setbacks and everything what does it matter if one family or two families live in the house with coverage yeah I know I know something earlier too is like was asking what are the size requirements for these use I think a lot of those size requirements other than height which is 20 ft are controlled by those coverage yes so that's the idea it's not necess square footage it's height you can't go high 20 ft you also can't cover this much space right so mean if you have a large lot that has two home on it can fit it what's the harm if you have a lot that's you know crowded with this two family home that an a is going to make it look like an urban area it's probably not going to meet the lot cages I don't think it's going to be that common a scenario cause problem well just is an example James uh when the uh developer comes in with a uh uh subdivision plan for uh the Holy Spirit Church we're not getting six units we're getting 12 because he can add adus under this that entirely depends on the lock coverages right it depends on lock coverage and the length of the driveway and impervious and it depends on all that and if they can get a single family and a Adu in the back that's better than a single family exactly no you're you're right it is possible yeah it is possible as long as it aderes to the rules and there's and there's plenty of vacant well not there are some vacant developable Lots in the city within residential zones that may qualify for three units based on this two and an Adu that's fine I think that's great it's better than just two families to me I think it's better this also this does take me back to my comment about size the size of the primary versus the size of the accessory if you think about these these six units where Holy Spirit Church is now what stops them from just building 12 houses that are all the same size that's we have a minimum size they're Big Lots so I personally think the accessory unit should be you know X percentage of the square footage of the primary unit like there should be a maximum however there are examples of small existing homes on large lots and what you would be saying is if you have a small cottage small structure on a large lot the new thing that you build must be some percentage of something that's already small making it you could have like something unbuildable so what you're right yeah but I don't think it's understand what Michael is saying is that maybe well but it has to be behind right it's new construction you don't want that to happen doesn't have to be behind the Adu no it doesn't say it has to be behind just can't be in the FR well I mean that's what it would be if it wasn't behind well it could be side by side I guess well it's not intended to be side by side well there well that's no must be two principal structures on one line go side by side but that's my point in here says that it has to be in the back yes it feels like a du principal structures but does does the legisl accessory by its nature is subservient to the main there may be a there may be a basket of situations which you want to create an administrative review of that so it's like if you have a vacant lot and you want to do an Adu it needs to be approved by it has to be approved by Z no I mean like the get yes it has to be approved by the construction department and zoning and zoning and so zoning so for new construction you would say you know it has to be approved by the zoning officer and and that's where you would get somebody saying this doesn't really meet the spirit of this legislation no Spirit no understand okay so so I'm I'm curious like are there is there a basket of conditions or like special reviews so I'm say enough for new construction can we say you know if a primary residence is built after this legislation goes into effect there can be a square footage limitation on Adu because I can see on an empty lot someone really taking advantage just building two structures well I I think what what's coming out of this is that you have to think big picture and all the potential scenarios of course every in law you close one door you open too but you you got to try and come up with some mechanism that's going to give it give make sure you're the thought is BR that you're you're realizing the potential where the pitfalls are you obviously it was never your intent to have two primary structures facing Fourth Avenue between uh B and right okay you want you want one in the back you want this you want the accessory in the back the way they traditionally were your old Cottage houses your old garage apartment within the city so you just have to make sure that whatever the mechanics are and the and the guidelines the written the written both requirements Etc they're in there that's that's all I'm not saying anything should be it defines the Adu it as incidental and subordinate yeah so doesn't subordinate say smaller in the rear you know that kind of gives you all of these and it can only be 20 ft high and it can't and and there are limits to how close it can be to the neighbors and it can't be overlooking you can't have a terrorist on it so you're looking into somebody else's house legally subordinate have a meeting could I come to say that's that was my question by using that that shows intent subordinate right but if you have the appropriate guidelines you knowon saying everybody saying just make sure that you have enough checklist to say that they can't slip through somehow and turn and reverse it them turn it into a nonex structure closer to the street that you want it to be so now all of a sudden it appears like you have two principal structures on one lot without a subdivision that's and that's not what you want so whatever you you just need to make sure you have the right guidelines in there that that'll work for the zoning officer and the code and the construction official when they see a plan come through that they can check off to Michael's Point Jack uh could the uh wording be such that it's a percentage Adu would be the percentage of the main house except if the main structure is of a certain size that gets yeah like what's the right but but I think I think that that whaton said makes total sense it's like you know it's a subordinate structure it can't be higher than this it can't look like this it can't can't be this it can't be that there are so many restrictions buil in there you're not going to get boxed out or boxed right I totally get that I just think maybe we need to some definition of what subordinate means so people can't take advantage the spirit of this is so good right before I am going to ask that we add because we do say an Adu shall not be built between the principal building and a street or the front property line of the lock which is situated I do want to add language that it has to be behind the principle that's right that will take care of that but that it can't be next to it it's essentially it's got to be the back I would argue that it shouldn't like there may be special situations where just the configuration or shape of the lot and so maybe it's like must be at least 2third back so that you still the but that's a variance right that's right because because I understand that I mean we have a lot of good intentions but some of these things when it goes to the zoning board it can be a variance right and say okay I don't I don't I don't shape size topography Etc class right it might it might might pass we should only be two of the way back instead back in the corner right and that's I think we have to leave ourselves open for variances so I come before the more you strict you make it you lose more than you gain you instead of fighting a few problem cases you lose a bunch of good potential subjects it's better to have to deal with the bad situations come in out AG I agree agree absolutely can we go back though I don't think we ever really developed consensus around the ability of the owner to occupy any of the units can I ask if we continue through here because we don't I mean you know something about bonuses I don't know anything about any bonuses any money anything that's going on here so can we go through that and then yes we have to go back to it yes absolutely next slide here we are we've been trying to get to this slide go ahead so as I said I feel like we went through a bunch of this one parking space per Adu is required I actually so I misspoke it's 1.5 for the principal house then it's one for the one for the Adu so that's four spaces total okay so Sor I misspoke you have a one family you got 1.5 and then one space for the Adu so you're bumped up to two for one family well it's 1.5 three and one and then for a two family family right sorry so it's four but the uh but also it doesn't matter how many bedrooms we're talking about we're just talking about that's the general concept right okay oh as in the number of spaces changes based on bedrooms I I asked that and it sounds as though that doesn't matter it's like 1.5 for the main if there's a second story it's a one there and the Adu gets one so that's right I mean that's four our current zoning doesn't differentiate right not counting Redevelopment areas because that's where you see that bedroom count based on spaces for multif family but the one family zones is not per bedroom okay all right let's go okay cannot be a short-term rental either either unit cannot be subdivided from the principal structure um will require a zoning permit review but this will not be coming they will not be coming to this board they will be treated like we do one and two families unless it's triggering a variance if you want to build one you have a zoning permit review with the zoning officer if all is good then it goes on to the building department has its own design standards which we talked about a little bit today about placement of balconies and it must have its own entrance and and must comply with the community design standards that are already in the zoning ordinance we'll require an annual certificate with occupancy requirements that is the owner occupancy part that I was discussing which I Pro is not going to be part of the zoning ordinance but that that is something that the municipality desires with the adus okay the incentives so out of the a the incentives would come out of the affordable housing trust fund that we have and this is if someone is open to having a 10-year affordability deed restriction on the property so just like you you just you all just reviewed 700 Monroe where there's going to be 20% affordable um requirement but that affordable requirement means that it has to go through a very rigorous procedure where it has to follow the county affordability guidelines has to be registered with our affordable housing administrative agent they have to do a yearly report and that there's a very a specific procedure of how tendency is selected and that the um the property that the owner just can't turn anyone away from rental and the owner has to take from a list of people who have put themselves on list Desiring for to live in an affordable unit here in Asbury Park so if someone's willing to do all that they can get construction bonuses from the municipality paid out of the affordable housing trust fund so 20,000 per moderate unit 30,000 per low income 35 per very low income I have a quick question on that um is the money uh was that money um decision- making around those amounts did that come out of how did those numbers come about took them from another municipality that's how it came about I just wasn't sure if it was some kind of like analysis of you know rent projections or something or I like if it was a comparison of okay if I rented at market rate it would be this this it make it worthwhile to do this or if it was just from I you answer the question from let me spell I just didn't know initially if uh where the numbers meaning to make it like worthwhile or however you want to say it that someone said okay I'm going to do okay in the end because I have to rent it for this amount I get this money it helps to freay that cost helps by construction costs to build the unit and then if I just leave it um for 10 years then I can go to market rate so right so no we didn't do an in-depth analysis we took it from another municipality and I feel like it's a weight and see the other part about it is our affordable housing trust fund is is infantile at the moment meaning we don't have a lot of money in it so there's that aspect as well so this issue of affordability too I'm curious if the municipality would be open if a if somebody said owner said I want to build an Adu and I want to occupy that Adu would you accept a deed restriction on one of the other units as affordability like and to be honest the goals are to provide a range of housing choice and increase affordability both for owners and for occupants so downsizing is one of the big benefits of this and if you're if you build a unit and you're not able to downsize there's no incentive to build the unit so it you know like we have to make sure that the equation is attractive enough to owners to do it and the fact that it's not a short-term rental is great these should definitely not be short-term rentals but as long as a rental is 29 days or longer it's not short term so you can rent it for a month at a time in the summer for $110,000 a month and not rent it at all not the Adu because it has to be registered we have to know who you're renting it to there are a number of restrictions going along with this so that this unit does not become nor do I think it should doesn't become a Summer Rental 100% we are on we are violently agreed yes um none of those things should be the case but but you you are restricting only shortterm rentals anything that's 30 days or longer isn't a short-term rental so under what definition that's that's not a short-term rental you can rent anything for a month at a time and it's not a short-term rental that's our own regulations again that's not the goal of an Abu correct it's not the goal but this is but it would allow this so that if the if the registration requirements are going to be that it must be that the leases must be of a specific length that's not what this is I it's not saying it can't be short-term rental therefore it must be annual I was going to say I would need to check with the municipal attorney if I can restrict other terms of rental other than short-term rental because short-term rental allows continuous rental without inspection between tenants and I'm unsure if what the laws say about Municipal Powers over rental tencies if I can put a provision in that se that ordinance that doesn't come to you guys to say you for Nadu you must have a lease with a tenant that's a year no no I don't want that I want to be clear but what I'm saying is that shortterm saying that's what you're running the risk of shortterm rentals are anything less than 30 days right what our own or says so a a there is nothing stopping an owner for renting an Adu for 30 days thus not being a a short-term rental for just the four months of the summer to four different tenants right but you need an a certificate every time that person leaves a certificate of occupancy every time that person leaves the Adu okay but there's nothing preventing somebody from essentially turning it into a monthly rental and that's what I'm saying I need that's what Michelle will have to I need to check if we can put that restriction because we have a whole section of code B based on on rental and inspection and I look into I me it's a very very good point and again that's a question for Fred retto mhm the uh the Condominium Act permits uh leases to be of a certain length uh off the top of my head I don't remember exactly but I think you can have a0 day lease with no problems and that's I don't know if it uh rolls over to uh normal rentals but in a condo uh setting that that can be restricted to a certain length you know well it'll be up to up to Fred to help figure out what the right wording for this is because we know we understand what the intent is but we don't want this to be a Summer Rental either because that doesn't make any sense that's not what point of this is yeah seasonal seasonal any seasonal right yeah agreed I just have to make sure we can do that because currently we don't have a restriction on seasonal rental and that's how many people get around the Airbnb regulations understood but I think there's a reason for that but I'm going to check with Fred right so obviously we want to do what's right for the city and what what makes sense here but you understand what the yes and most why we said no shortterm because we we because again back to the intent of the system is affordability for right right owners and occupants so what are we recommending if legal the minimum term foral well whatever whatever it's got here's the thing this is a part you can't make a a formal Rec recommendation or resolution because what the part we're talking about is not the zoning part but I'm taking this in serious consideration even though it's not part of this sure we we have the right to look at it in terms of it's here we're giving you we came up with a good a good idea maybe somebody wasn't thinking about this no no but it's not in this chapter 30 well because it we can we're just or the board has the right to say we suggest that you look at the term of the rental so that you don't get involved in shortterm rentals and it becomes a revolving door for summertime rentals year other than that right we can s we can that's okay but we can still make the recommendation that when doing all this make sure you look at that well as long as we phrase it saying making explicit not part chapter so because cuz here was what this took so long is said well it's been you're not allowed as you know in the land USS to dictate tenancy and we had to put like I spent a lot of time researching how to achieve this tency without talking about in Chapter 30 okay so you you you come up with it's up to the the other brands City to figure out where yes we want too might have to be a separate no it is it is so well you don't have before you there is a separate certificate certificate ordinance that is going in the rental code about this but the reason you don't have it before you so other municipalities have been challenged with talking about tenancy and occupancy in their zoning ordinances and had them overturned so that's why we got we're getting creative in Asbury Park and we I've had various legal reviews about this in the creation of the separate ordinance with the certificate program but my what I'm saying is when you do your resolution to council for Jack to word it very carefully so it does not look like the planning board is dictating tenancy we have a proor resolution we put in recommendations one of the recommendations could be B recommends the follow that five so here's number six uh the the term of of what your rentals are going to be look at it we're not telling you what to do we're just telling you to look at it when the council considers the tency ordinance consider this yeah that's all we're not we're not saying it should be less than a year more than a year we're not telling you what to do but we're telling you that you better look at it because if you don't you could wind up having a resol right or something that's only rented four months a year and just sits empty until they can make all their money all summer really up to which is terrible nobody should do that nobody should do that what people do now people have they live in their ad for the sub of their house which doesn't accomplish what we want to happen but at the same time these are houses that people own and they're free to do what they want with them as long as it's legal and so we can't minimize the ability of people to make money on their property is isar the only person who's allowed to make money in town you know like that's the the reality is that you know we we are all land owners and if James if a large if a large house has is expens a large old house is expensive to maintain the equation might be much better for the owner to move into the back house with a greater Revenue coming in in order to maintain the assets and there you know those are you know it increases affordability for people who already live in their homes to to build these Abus it is a huge investment we're talking $200,000 for a very basic Adu that's a huge investment for people this isn't like a $660,000 thing you're popping down you have new utilities you have a new sewer line you've got to redo your driveway you've got Paving you've got site work you've got foundations and the actual thing that you have to build so if you are saying well you can only build it if you if if but you can't maximize The Profit you make from it why is that fair to the owner is the intention but you're creating units based on the but are you you are yes but you're creating larger units larger units that's what we're looking for we do we do need larger units actually hold on hold on we actually do need we actually do need ler units we need units in a range of profiles and we we tackle that issue specifically every time we talk about applications for large multif family house multif family buildings where we say the the the legislation says we want some ones some twos some threes and some fours there shouldn't be a negative connotation to say that this is creating a new three-bedroom unit in the large house along with a one-bedroom and a one-bedroom those things do put a broader range of units on the market and it also increases affordability for the person who owns it or choice for the person who owns it so today with what's written right now is there a restriction as to where the principal where the owner has to live is there anything in this that says where does the no but going back to if you're have the two family you have to live in the main structure but if you have the one family then you can live in either one where does it say that and to the incentiv hang on let let her finish [Applause] oh I already have in here the floor area and buildings coverage of shall not exceed that the principal use and structure we already have that it also says the shall the bulk requirements that control the location of a garage structure of the zoning District so it also puts it where the garage should be show what what that's on page five page on no it's okay because I I have um but now I have to find about the other cuz that came up during yvon remembers that came up during our sessions you sounded like from your description that you intended to be that way creating a small Adu in the back does not guarantee affordability what's to stop somebody from reaching it at twice the market rate nothing hold on we're we're still looking at this one statement let's stick to the topic before we get to another issue but I think she said there it's not in there's nothing there's nothing what there's nothing in here that says the Adu can the Adu of a three family two family have to be in the main that's we found that before but was that the intention of the council the intention of the council was that if if it's the two family because we talked about this at length MH if it's if you have a multif family structure the intent is for the Adu to be in the rear structure if you have a one family structure and you again this whole AG in place idea is that you could exchange the two I have to I'm sorry I apologize I can't find the language off the top of my head but that is the intent yes but I have to make sure it's in here as we had discussed at Council um well I can understand that if it was missing but if ion also says that that was the intent they want it in there then so I will play the counter to this which is to say that if you allow an Adu in the back for a two family unit and a person is going to have to take on the cost of building that ad all you are doing is inflating the cost of the Adu so there's no regul anybody with a two family unit can build a third Adu provided they can meet all of the bulk standards and residential requirements right the cost that whatever it costs them is what that Adu is going to cost to rent and they have no they have no requirement to be affordable at all and so why are you why are you restricting people who H who would have that ability from move from downsizing into a smaller unit if that's what works for their life situation and allows them to remain because that's the issue is it may be that people can't remain because their houses are too large is it is it that or are we saying that if an Adu cost $200,000 let's say what would the rent have to be is that considered affordable housing for lower moderate income households no no we're not this is just a somebody who decides not to take the bonuses somebody who just say over here it says that that for from the master plan it says that that the point of this is that we have to do the balance the housing options in the city including affordable housing for low and moderate income households encourage the continued development of variety of housing ranging from affordable to Middle income and market rate units so so so so that would support everything all all of what we're saying is yes we adus would create small a a greater number of smaller units but allowing a owner in the larger unit to move into the smaller unit and rent the larger unit also creates that diversity of housing types at market rate if an owner decides to build the Adu without any incentives from the city any they can charge market rate and they will they can charge market rate but in fact you would end you might end up with a better mix of units if you allowed the owner to move into the smaller units and rent out maybe the units aren't even larger we don't know in some cases they probably are in some cases they're not maybe you have a two unit that's two two bedrooms and you have an Adu that's a two-bedroom it sounds like low of trust in that homeowner to say oh I mean I don't I don't need this much money because I'm doing it this way so I'll just I'll be more fair and I know this must be more money no we're not we're not putting any trust we're saying that either scenario it's going to be a market rate everyone's going to try and get as much money as they can so then why so then why penalize the existing owners who would say oh I'm gonna I'm going to go market rate on the Adu or or not even market rate maybe they now have to charge more than market rate because of what they had to invest to get that to happen they're probably not going to get it rented they would get it rented that's not great and the other goal was to increase the numbers of units available in the city correct not NE not all we understand that everything is not going to be affordable no no I'm not I'm not I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying is you would still get a unit it would just be well potentially a bigger unit which goes which maybe a bigger unit which goes to what you just read which says increasing the range and choice so if you don't allow owners to move into the Adu they might not build it well so Eric your house is a really good example you have a really big unit you have a very small unit let's say you built an ad it be medium size the ordinance says you can live in the big one or the small one but not the medium one yeah that doesn't make sense that does not make sense isn't the overall picture here we're looking at Asberry Park as it exists today and that in the R1 R2 Zone there are several uh dwelling units that have a an accessory building on that lot and we're we're saying basically we can take that access unit and make that a dwelling unit and that is a homeowner decision let's forget about uh the um afford affordability of the rental units but aren't we here looking at a situation where we're contemplating converting uh existing structures to Adu and and uh if they fall into the uh affordable category gr if they don't that's the homeowners decision or the uh property owner's decision but what we're really trying to do here is maximize the use of those buildings as dwelling to create more housing options to create more housing options create build it sounds like we're all saying something similar which is I know the ordinance says that you know one of the units has to be own occupied um which I like I don't understand why it matters if the primary residence is single family or two family why why why the if the owner is living in the primary residence or than you I don't get why it matters if it's R1 if it's one family or two family I don't understand that either well why if I own a single family home can I build an Adu and move into the Adu but if I own a two family home I can't I think er's right that it brings in more different types of housing I think when it comes to rental like that I think you find more people looking for a smaller rental than a bigger rental you find less three and four better than yes so so then to that point why are we allowing people who own a single family home to move into their Adu and rent their primary house yeah which is larger than the Adu but not a two family person allowing in one situation I feel like we should allow that's fine my point really was that I feel like it's going to end up with being a lot of these larger rentals that are worth a lot of money and you AR get that same housing benit you're getting and I we have to operate in Subs scenarios but you do every scenario it just and I I think that we would be surprised actually because when we have rented it's been a long time since our one-bedroom apartment has come up for rent because I am one of those homeowners who rents it well below market and I hope she never moves out we love you Leilani can you hear me um uh we get inquiries from so many people looking for two and three bedrooms because they are younger families to be honest and they'll have a the parents and one or two kids and that is the type the housing type they need is three bedrooms and they're not available they're very they're very rare I'm sure you I'm sure you know as a you as a renter yeah it's and you're right it does depend on you know but but you can't on one side say oh we're going to let them move out of the big one into the small one but not these people out of the big one into the small one all right so here we are so now so is that the only outstanding item that we have I think that's the outstanding one I think we should continue presentation anything else I do have one sorry other question completely unrelated so I'm happy to move on um so what about the non-conforming use or the I'm sorry the uh business Zone what bulk standards comply to Adu apply to adus in business zones that's a very good question because it is completely non-conforming structure I need to it is a conforming one and two families are conforming in The Bu that's right so do you apply the business Zone bulk standards no we're going to at the line that you have the R1 I want to make sure that we buttoned this up the standards for the Adu that's what applies we're going to apply the R1 standards yeah for the B District great no good I'm I'm want to make sure that these things are Stu out because that's what seems appropriate clity something I want to make sure clarify for the affordable housing bonuses and everything else they're only applicable when the Au unit the small unit is the one that's going to be de restricted to beable hous right as if an owner can't get the bonus moving the smaller one and then use restriction of the larger Stu see I'm going to say I yeah I believe you're correct because it's a it's a incentive for construction so that you're it's that it's the smaller unit typically getting constru it's getting constructed that would be the one that's getting constructed yes that's the point of this yep that has to that Z just to make sure that it's in there I mean you you can it wouldn't have to be now but we could just make sure that when we're making our recommendation that's what we say so we for anyone getting any of these bonuses it has to be for the Adu and the owner is not living in the ad no they can't that stat they have to meet the um the eligibility income absolutely they could never if they took the bonus the owner could never move into well maybe not actually that's why we just want to make sure it's there if it's not in there right now we just make sure that it is and they're on the list that's no question we're g to make sure they can't if you take the money you shouldn't be able to live in the unit okay about affordability I don't think there's anything here about counting affordable units towards the city fair share plan but they will be no everything will be logged so at some point in the future the city only if they accept the bonuses right no but that that is the case of they um I thought there is something in here again not worded that way but it would count because of the because of the Restriction like the question I just want to make sure the city would somewhere the applicant is required right the applicant is required a contra the municipalities affordable housing ad Ministry of agent okay so they they'll be keeping track yes okay just want to make sure keep before we leave this page one of the items on this page here is uh has no parking requirement and I think that that is something that needs to be reconsidered uh in my experience in Asbury Park uh with property owners who have uh buildings with accessory buildings U there was always two or three cars attached to the accessory building and if you have you remove the parking requirement uh you're just going to flood the streets with more uh cars to be parked I I don't I think that requirement um should not be in here that's only if you if you de restrict it I understand that but even at that it should not be in because people who live in the rear dwellings uh in Asbury Park it's been my experience they always have at least one car and sometimes more than one you're usually a uh a couple of business people who live in those units they're not uh typical family units both of the people work they have each has his own car or each has her own car and uh or a truck or a van or yes or something it's got a vehicle there's a vehicle and you're just creating a you're moving the problem from from the lot to the street is there any concern by is there any concern if we say as a recommendation Council can choose to do whatever they like part of the reason for that is especially on the west side there are a number of homes that just don't have driveways um the only parking available is on the street so that's why that was put in that that's one of the reasons why we we wanted to make it possible for that single family homeowner who does not have a driveway but does have the space to put in an Adu to be able to do it this also seems consistent with what we do for the big developers correct it is so why would give that bonus to developers and not to correct I would not want to take that personally I would not want to take that feature I I and I think it's also typical with affordable housing generally throughout the state that the parking requirement for affordable housing is generally waved we also are a community with many transportation choices that other communities don't have and so and frequently um lowincome residents don't have access to a vehicle and they have to use public transportation so that's the reason that's not been my experience but so be it but Jim this would only be for the de restricted affordable unit correct not for all correct and we also want to encourage people to put in income put in income restricted units this does bring up a good question though with these so if there's a 10e deed restriction once what 10 years is up is there a parking requirement there re act Development building it and then you would add on later right so so 10 years from now once you're rening this for Market you still right so I want to say you know originally if in 10 years you have't you want to do an Adu then you have to find place to park that car no that's what they're saying is you don't so this is part of like the incentive with getting someone to do an affordable that in 10 years you don't have to have a parking space you don't have to have the parking space and yeah it's there's more yeah it's kind of again with the incentive because as you pointed out Eric the financial incentive itself is not that strong so that we had to put in some other incentives as well all right all right do we have any more that you're oh I was going to say I think that this is really my last slide okay and then the um but James had a question he was reserving all right Oh I thought you had one you have more I have more questions sorry did you want to keep going James no um so in terms of um the community design standards are flat roofs permitted on adus flat flat or sloped roofs well here I'm going to tell you how we've been interpreting it with garages but can I go ahead can I just say something that question though I know might be relevant to you probably is not relevant to it is because it says it the design standards it refers to the design standards but the reason I want to ask is because I hope that as we think about adus we're looking for how the impact of that development can be minimized through sustainable strategies and flat roofs double the amount of available area for roof solar it's true all right well it depends on what what what's the design standards what are the design standards in general for and R1 that's really what this is that that's right so but so the way this is written and I referred I I read the design standards okay it does not appear that one would be able to build a flat roof structure and which would accommodate flat roof solar and other system aable strategies um under our current right but that the design I don't believe that the design Rec the design requirements have anything to do with this meaning that if you want to change the design requirements no in here it could it could provide an exception it could say you may do a flat Ro then perhaps that should be with vars right I was going to say we again we we take into the context when someone comes to modify a structure so the design of the structure itself should not have a visual impact on the R1 neighborhood and be something at of character to at most be able to accommodate maybe one more solar panel we have solar applications on sloped roofs of garages and we have pulled it off here and I mean there's more to you also don't forget about the tree canopy that a lot of times the barrier to doing the solar in the rear is the tree canopy I I think we should look at incentivizing sustainable strategies as part of the adus which would include things like storm water um low albo materials on roof um maximizing the available area for low uh for rooftop solar and then also I agree no balconies but access stairs that are attached to the outsides of buildings should be okay because it means less area that's enclosed that has to be constructed and th cooled and heated these are all part of a sustainable like there's but you're asking for design standards no but to change and and that's not the intent here if you want something different than what the current design standards are I would think that you go for a VAR I'm suggesting that there may be another paragraph in here that looks more holistically at a range of Energy Efficiency thing incentives that might be offered and maybe the incentive is is just a slight relaxation of the lot coverage just like there is one there is one for what the the re the lock coverage is relaxed for affordability no there's another I'm sorry um in the um I think what you're saying is anything that can be done through this mechanism yeah yeah there is and there was another um bonus the accessibility bonus you get a 5% bump in coverage for accessible designs this is modifying design standards and so I think that there should be a way that we look for opportunities to make sure that the environmental impact of these buildings is minimized to the greatest extent as well and that I I understand but all we're here for is to say okay here's a recommendation Council can say yes or no yeah that's my recommendation is that we say that you want green standard how does the board feel about incentives about saying like let's consider green incentives for what's the consensus of the board about what Eric is saying let's see I can talk to that because I mean I feel like in a lot of instances in my professional side of life that that it is an opportunity there's not that many opportunities that we have to emphasize green standards right now and adus is one that municipalities have used around the country as an opportunity to say when you do this this is an opportunity to bring in these strategies two members what about the rest I've got a I got a problem with the flat roof concept it's been my experience in 70 years of construction that flat roofs tend to leak and you get you you yes you can get them such that they don't leak and you can maintain them but if you're uh champing the cause of flat roofs no I'm not champing the cause of flat roof I'm champing the cause of environmental sustainability nor are they flat they are act there's actually a slope requirement actually yes almost all flat roofs have slopes and they all almost always leak and I think you you're you're creating a problem where none exists and if somebody wants to change the design of a building let them come in and argue with the construction uh office when they apply for a building permit no but it's the opposite of trying try to interrupt but it's the opposite of making people want to do that instead of having to fight for it I have a question before you finish polling when you say incentives what type of incentives do you mean well you just like the example of that where said 5% who's going to supply this incentiv not money but no no it's not it's not money it says the property May exceed permitted building coverage by 5% if you design the Adu in an accessible manner I think this is a Wonder but that's to accommodate wheelchair radius and our master plan goals point to environmental sustainability in many ways and so if you can have an Adu that is essentially Off the Grid could you give somebody 5% more lot coverage well the thing is I'm not to interrupt your ping but here's the thing how many people are am I going to get who are going to go off the grid for because or or reduce the storm water or please I I think my Approach go ahead is The Logical way to approach it we've got two members who have put characterize it before you finish you you've made your point if you want to recharacterize this entirely up to you but we have a position taken by two members on a perspective issue in the case all I'm trying to find out is who agrees disagrees because ultimately it's going to be whether or not that is addressed is a vote of the members to say yes it should be in or no it shouldn't and the majority will rule so I'm just trying to get clarity on that and if your point wins the day it wins the day I don't care which way it goes I'm just trying to get you to where I'm not advocating for a specific design or approach but some some at some point I I think there should be a consideration within this order ordance that encourages Green Design that's my point no it's not a flat roof it's not a solar it's not storm water it's none of those things but where is there this is an opportunity and I hope that we can add that opportunity in I just want to say one piece that I know I'm you already got my vote but it's nothing about mandating it's not saying you have to do this but it's the same thing as when you're saying um the master plan is a document on the Shelf anyway when it's the idea of what what in what how is a city saying that it's important to take these strategies and a lot of people say well it's written in a line in the master plan but there's nothing that says to do it this is this is not even this is encouraging it's not even so if the city is ever going to take a leadership role of saying we want to do these things there's and I'm just say there's often that argument this is nothing about trying to deter affordability the idea of affordability and sustainability people often say that's not go hand in hand it's that if you have an interest in doing this you shouldn't have to fight to do it it should be a positive thing to add to say okay there's these four strategies that I want to do so if I can make this building have less of an impact on the city in terms of water management and energy which we're all going to be facing we're already facing right now shouldn't we encourage people to do that we have so so few mechanisms to do it right now in the city and this is one to just say the city thinks this is important not that you have to do it but if you do here's a benefit that's all so anyone else have an opinion I think that that um a recommendation that people should do it I I get it that that that should happen um I I question the the increase that you get what's the percentage or whatever what's what's the incentive to do that but yes I mean we all have to consider sustainability we all have to consider consider green infrastructure we all have to consider that but I'm also torn about the fact that how long has it taken us to get here to even to get here how many how long have you been working on this three years three years to even to get to hear we can we can choose as an organ as a group to either say you know what a recommendation to say we want to push green and green infrastructure and sustainability into recommendation council could say sure yeah whatever they should say that they could say that or not but um I'm I'm as a member of the Green Team I'm saying yes great anyone else I support the idea of of it in in theory in in yeah Theory I don't know that this ordinance is the right place to make those recommendations because I feel like the purpose of this was we not changing the design standards of the neighbor Hood but now we're saying no we want to change the design standards for these units that's there's no changing design standard can't see any change in certain structures if you're making environmentally energy efficient you cannot see you might see a flat roof that's we're not saying necessarily a flat roof to say that you're going to meet a certain Energy Efficiency you don't see one different thing from your eye from the eye looking at it in terms of a recommendation would it be fair let me throw something out there would it be fair to say that your the board the board agrees of course the board recommends that the mayor and Council consider incentivizing green infrastructure incentivizing green infrastructure and sustainability is part of the project that's that's that's all we it depends on what theard iort I'm confused but James has a question are there any current incentives in building zoning for recreation is is there any home I want to do something to my house is there any incentive now no so so this would be we're recommending to add these to the adus but not to the normal structures which I find odd and I like the idea I can never say no to infrastructure I'm not going to say no infrastructure I think it's a better way to do it to do overall instead of like have the Adu have something and not have the house on something and then if you take the regulations and say let's just say for the house it's 15% and then for the is five no based on the structure I don't know if this is the place to do it although I do want to do it so I yes and no moment but to say that the one argument I have with that is as the point was just made it took three years to do this we have so few opportunities to make the change if we're waiting we will have anyway I don't want to be dramatic but we are not making the changes we need to make within the ordinances within the city we know because it takes time so we have an opportunity right now and it is kind of a backwards approach but it's the only opportunity we have at this moment we can't overhaul I mean that would be ideal but it's not going to happen anytime soon and you can do a change to an Adu and not have it in the main house that's fine it's better than not having it in the Adu but it's not the same as a full new construction in most cases one of the things I'm grappling with is the Nexis between increasing lock coverage we don't even know what the right incentive is right we're not recomending we're not recomending that's part of the thing it could be exped permitting it could be wait but here's the thing about expedite permitting in the state of New Jersey there are certain things we could do to but on the zoning end we cannot legally expedite right but but Michelle what what we're saying is that we're not we're not providing any kind of incentive we don't we're we don't know what it should be right we're saying to consider it the council counc mayor and Council consider it if they consider it what would they would decide what it is it's not us deciding no well because it's open-ended like this without regulation in form here if you make this recommendation to council without any language and you you you make this recommendation to councel that you want to link incentives with sustainability if Council takes you up on your recommendation comes back to you and it stalls out so but why would it stall out if we have the discussion because we need to put actual regs that's why I asked what is our incentive what is the incentive that we're giving for for and then about which sustainable practices is the desired is it solar is it passive house is it is it the form of heating is it tree coverage is it um is it native vegetation it's sustainability as you know is a very broad umbrella and what is it that we here in this municipality prior like what would the incent are the incentives we most want and we incentivize it but I so that's why it is a it's a a broad brush stroke that we can make the recommendation make recommendation of course that we want more sustainability ele but again back to the incentive I keep going back what do we have to give that there's a Nexus with sustainability so there's two nexus's NEX nexi like that I can think of of that like what if somebody decided to use impervious per pervious Paving could you give them 5% more coverage if it helped them get everything in there's a Nexus that's a that's the relationship between lot coverage and storm water efficiency you're building a new unit and you're taxing the you're putting a new unit on the grid if that unit has solar generation as part of it you're reducing the offsite impact of that house but what's the incentive may I don't I don't know what the incentive that Cas is but that's why I but I'm not you're you're but I'm not here to be quizzed I tell you there are the there are plenty but to be fair I think that we have to come up with some suggestions for the council to be able to use we can't just say oh well it has to be but we don't have to have that answer tonight that's what we're supposed to we would say here's our recommendation can we like can we consider what that would be do some research figure out some options before you before you write the resolution no you have 35 days within which to act all right so the pragmatist didn't me think all this is such a good idea but I I just question whether this is the right ordinance for it to come up with all these ideas solve the whole process and have it only apply to Abus versus do we make a recommendation that the council considers updating separately updating design standards to incentivize green initiatives which would then apply to adus and apply to everything yeah which is so the the upside is that it applies to everything that the city has time to think about it the downside is are we missing an opportunity right now and will we wait 3 years for that work and um that is that puts it very succinctly but the other thing is that if the planning board or those who feel that way on the planning board that these things aren't moving forward fast enough don't make these comments then it just it never moves forward so no we should make the comment so this is the place where the planning board make the comment think city council can do what they but if these what we do and yes I think we should make comment understanding it most likely won't make it into this ordinance so we can say we we recommend this but if not in this ordinance we recommend a future update to the design standards to incentivize green initiatives across all residential structures you know what I mean but if we miss our shot recommend here's another opportunity because that's that's that's an initiative of the green the green team as well to be able to do that for for the city so take that on and and move that forward because right now where's it going I was to say between the master plan committee is there another Avenue we take knowing that we want to do this that something we care about don't we have an Avenue to start this conversation and start an actual us actually working on something to change those design standards agreed but we've been voicing that and so like there's another reason to voice but yes should definitely voice it I agree I totally with that but when we but again so I'm I'm very unclear about the planning board has been voicing it I mean fear I think the fear among some of our members is that if we don't say it it's not being heard by city council we have ion here she's hearing say it now right we want putting in writing putting in resolution putting it somewhere so the city council has to read it has to see it on record um is a better it's like it's like you know say putting it right saving in your email like so you have to go back and say we said it we said it we said it we said it this how important is one of the other options James is I I I believe is another option that we have is that yes we put it in as a recommendation another option we have is that there's a formal request from the planning board there's a there's a memo that goes out to the mayor council city manager to Michelle that says we strongly request that the city take on the project of changing the design standards for all all residences I want to say what we're talking about is not changing the community design standards it's because I do not believe our community design standards impede green development not impede but encourage provide incentives right provide incentives or flexibility like it's not even it's like a a a sloped a a a pitch sloped roof of twice the size gives you twice as much solar area than a peak Troth just the way it is and we may using language say design code I'm not sure maybe that's where I think you understand how we feel about the importance of having incentives towards it it's int but yeah that's the thing the keyword is not changing our community design standards per se it is talking about the linkage of incent of incentives for Green Design that's fine that I mean whatever the wording is it is in your recommendation it's there need barriers that's fine we want to remove the barriers removing barri we want to remove the barriers incentivizing yes but but the thing is you you all at the planning board don't get to see what goes to the zoning board correct in terms of the violation of those design standards and I have to say I'm very happy that this that we have those strong design standards because if we're talking about loosening what you consider an impediment with the design standards for green that's one thing it's another to loosen those design standards because if this planning board and this Council made a commitment that we want to keep the look of Asbury Park we we use those design standards to keep the look of as Park I like Barber's idea of a letter to the city council uh is we make sure we word it correctly as not to well we we would certainly work with with Michelle and if we have to with Chris from the zoning board to make sure that we we do it we use the right words because we don't want to step on either and make sure that we're working as a group that it might even be a memo that that comes from both of us as a zoning board and a plan to go to there to make it a more formal a more formal ask as opposed to who just were concerned were concerned were concerned I make it a yes and again I think I do think we should recommend it in our yes and our comments about understanding the city council wants to get this over the finish line and may or may not act on that and then I think the memo is is a great we'll just get a couple of people together to kind of put it together review a couple of times and figure out what the right words are and make it a more formal request cuz we don't make that many formal requests of the count mayor and Council that are directly from us that say hey we need to or we would like you to um so if that's if that's agreeable with people and we will actually put it in as a request if that's okay if everybody agrees with that we put that in a request uh for a recommendation anyway and then on top of that we take it as a separate as a separate to-do for the greater for the greater good is anyone opposed to that okay what would you like terms of the recommendation that that the recommendation specific to what we're doing here the other is a separate issue that's a whole separate issue that does not go on for the purposes of this review correct and the recommendation of this review I Eric characterized it nicely but I don't remember because I've heard so many other comments I lost and I I wasn't writing when you were speaking I was listening I wrote down I wrote down you recommended removing barriers and providing zoning incentives for green infrastructure initiatives in terms of the in terms of these accessory TR units do you want it to be that that specific or do you want something more of a policy you tell me I'm I'm I'm I'm GNA write what you want me to write you said it before I can't even I can't remember what I said which I think was to the effect of we recommend considering the inclusion of language that removes barriers to and incentivizes green strategy or in green infrastructure and strategies for adus that's all and I don't want to be specific about what they are no well that that specificity will come more in the memos yeah so removing barriers of INF length in green and and incentivizing incentivizing green strategy infrastructure green infrastructure strategies okay are we in a in a position to um make any other statements that we would like to include oh I have to I have to more formally say things but go ahead if all right does anybody else have anything else that they would like to question while we're talking about design the only thing brought it before and I don't know if we ever actually discussed it was are there I know the Adu has to follow the design standards but are there any require for the Adu and the primary house to have any I don't know how to say ter aesthetic consistency NEX wait you mean with the m with the two the two units yes yeah the primary house and AD my primary house be postmodern and my ad victoriia per our current design standards no okay well there you go no no have they have to be consistent they have to be consistent because they have but I mean you here I'm going to say it again you're SC you're that we you in our office or we make regulations for the the regular not for the exception if there is an exception and there is a good reason for that exception there is a process for variance and it's called a variance again we fight daily in our office to make sure the housing stock for Asbury Park stays we don't lose more than that what we've lost and you our community design standards which this board has adopted as design standards help us do that so I just want to say that again because there's a a lot of types of applications we get in our office whether it's for the zoning permit process or the zoning board that this board doesn't see but the you know getting this goes back to the costs associated with developing an Adu no but this is one of the most direct ways of building an Adu is buying and I you're probably got to fre how I say word something that's pre-fabricated or a kind of um a floor plan that's been developed and you can buy the components and they'll build it for you and it would comply with all of the bulk standards and requirements Peak droops whatever but if you're driving up the cost that it has to match the house in detailing I don't think that's to my with the the different no you we don't have to put gingerbread trim on your garage but you're you have to have good design context and I think except maybe that one in all these adus here have good design contact clearly that green one is a prefab structure does that fit in with most of the homes in Asbury Park yes just put the the coloring and right but what I'm saying is if someone decides to again to do something that does not is not compatible with a neighborhood that we want to the the ability to and this is again something this planning board wants as well to include to be able to regulate Aesthetics to a certain degree no so we don't dictate currently your garage has to look like this and this and this but if we see something that's way out of context invisible from the street and from others like the same way we we regulate some of the appendages on buildings so that's aesthetically pleasing that we continue to do okay else all right anything else that anyone has okay uh open to the public Tada motion to close I I um all right any other comments from our um or actually we have to get all of our uh requests down before we uh ask for any comments from uh the board okay uh since I wrote this comment down there we found some some further bulk requirements and so on so I had put in here a comment is to make sure bulk requirements are restricted they're already there pointed them out they're already there take them out one one point that was brought up that the bonuses are to be used towards the construction of the Adu versus using bonuses moving into the ad do the owner cannot not the property owners cannot accept the bonus because then they would have to meet the income standards and the most recent one is recommend considering removing barriers and implementing green infrastructure strategies uh we want to gingely approach the term of rentals but not be too specific so that we don't is that correct well that was the that was the whole thing about it not being a month monthly rental we don't want to turn this into a monthly rental seasonal rentals uh and I know Michael brought out a point about uh it's inconsistent to say Eric was ading his point that if you doesn't matter you have a big house here where you know the logic wasn't there to say why why can't you move into the uh exess drawing unit whether it's one unit or two units in the main house it's still the same thing because you're not you're not accomplishing anything by doing that by distinguishing between the two so just on that so we're recommending that one unit on the property must be owner occupied but it doesn't matter if it's primary or Adu whether it's single family or single family or is that that's our recommendation that do that that is I'm not thrilled with it I'm not thrilled with it but yes yes because there's only so much you can control there's only so much you can control that makes sense because you're trying to do we are trying to provide a variety of different types of dwelling units so is the chains are recommending taking out that two family piece there isn't I don't think there is there is no no current language it's wrapped up in that two family piece but so state it as you that that's that's the that's the request one un must be occupied by uh doesn't matter whether it's within one or primary structure ACU 0 it's like the American colle that Michelle said she was anyway just to specify that the Adu needs to be behind the primary unit behind is the right word right I will tweak that to a better word yeah just to make sure that it is that is the back like we say it back Lop but it's not on the side and the only time that that would really be an issue is more new construction that you don't want it to be side by side it can't be in the front those garages on the side or if it's a double lot some some places some people their backyard is really the side yard but this was a good point and we'll find a better word besides behind right yeah right is there anything else that yeah we within the rear yard might be the way to within the rear yard or if it's a side yard the rear yard because the rear yard is always behind the building line all i' say that um I we're going tell me when you're ready Jack got it we're going to apply the R1 standards to the B district one one and two families okay would you not I would you not apply the R2 standards because that's closer to the B zones natural standards no because I don't believe so the Beast the be standards you're allowed um 90% coverage right but I but applying the bulk standards of R1 if it if if we're thinking about it as a graving R1 R2 R3 B I mean I need to pull up now the B2 standards to to take a look cuz I have to be I'm not the B2 the R2 because I'll be honest I don't have them per memory like I do the R1 because our B2 um District we are so small they and I actually didn't I I just wanted to know which standards applied but and the point being that we should specify which standards we were looking at R1 was stand but I think is applying the R1 standard to the B zone is equivalent to it down zoning where R2 or R three which is closer to the bulk standards of the no they're conforming one and two families in the business zone are conforming they are conforming because the so I I don't know if I have time to give like the reason why you have they're basically above the B Zone if the B Zone was going to expand or we even have case where some businesses have like out buildings and that's it's it's a story that um about our past history why you have one families in the bee if two family homes are permitted in the B Zone already then it should be whichever is more generous right yeah but I want to look before we I because we need to be specific and decide now rather than leave it that loose so I need the chart yeah and and you know the thing is the B Zone all right let let let Melle look without cuz it's easier for me to do it on the computer screen where's your for the R2 it's um hang on Michelle's looking at it 30% and 65% the same as the R1 the same as the R1 for the R3 it's 30 and 65 for the business it's 80% so we can say R1 or R2 I would put R2 why because it allows a smaller lot size the minimum lot size in R2 is 2500 square feet the minimum lot size in R1 is 5,000 I think it should be the R1 all right R1 it is R1 let me just make sure we hid all my notes that I took down for this that's my own note okay okay we got everything I mind motion okay uh got a motion to approve comments sorry we just do your comments from the board I just want comments from the board my only comment is I think this ordinance is fantastic I just wanted to thank the council Michelle for working so hard to put this together because I think it's actually going to make a a substantial impact community so thank you I second that thank you Michelle for all of the hard work I know that you know we break you we we drag you through it when you're here but we do appreciate the work it hasn't it hasn't been an easy Road these last three years I'm glad that it finally made it to this point thank thank you thank you everyone for your very insightful comments too okay I get a motion to uh to approve with based on everything with consistency with the master plan other and these are our recommendations I approve motion to approve I'm motioning second okay call wait for Marie when we've had that presentation of Marie lost her abilly use her computer so I'm just GNA do a quick uh James Bano yes hold on a second apologies apologies I on the on the wrong page so hold on a second okay James Bano is a yes councilwoman Clayton yes Eric alipo yes Jim Henry yes Jen saer yes Vice chair gonan yes chairwoman KAC yes okay all right thank you motion to adjourn so second okay papor thank you everybody for all your input