welcome everyone today is Tuesday February 13th 2024 and this is a regular meeting of the city of Asbury Park Zoning Board of adjustment chairman avalone will you please call this meeting to order I'd be happy to 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 and Asbury Park Press 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 on the following matters before this board fire exits are located on the east and west sides of the council chambers as well as the back of the building I ask everyone with a cell phone to please mute it for the duration of this meeting and this meeting is being recorded by APV roll CL Marie Wendy Glassman here Daniel Harris here Russell Lewis Here Jill Potter here Tim slick here Vice chair John Scully here chairman avalone here okay so I I feel like I'd be der without mentioning first it's Russell Lewis's birthday happy birthday Russell thank you very much how many St we do 58 ma'am so uh um I don't have the resolution but first up is an executive session I'll read the resolution into the minutes uh whereas njs 2 4-12 the open public meetings act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting of the board in certain circumstances and whereas the board hereby moves to close the public hearing and convene and closed executive session in order to discuss the appeal of 5038 Avenue LLC currently pending in the superior court of New Jersey pursuant to njs 24-12 B7 which is permitted by the provisions of the open public meetings act and whereas it is anticipated at this time that the above matter will be made public at the conclusion of the litigation including any appeals now therefore be it resolved by the city of Asbury Park Zoning Board of adjustment that it hereby close the public portion of this meeting in order to convene in private executive session for the reason set forth above I make a motion to adopt the resolution to go into executive session I'll second um I do have to go through the roll call Yeah Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes Russell Lewis yes Jill Potter yes Tim slick yes Vice chair John Scully yes chairman Christopher avalone yes so executive session Mr beakman would you please join us I would I'll make a motion to go back into regular session after the executive session second um all in favor oppos all righty we just have some housekeeping issues oh please sorry for the interruption no no worries Wendy Glassman here Daniel Harris here Russell Lewis Here Jill Potter here Tim slick here Vice chair John Scully here chman Christopher here all right we just have some housekeeping issues before we get to the application um how do we do this do we do this one at a time yeah but you can do voice all in favor because this is just a memorialization of what you did formally at that meeting that's what I thought okay so can go through them real quick okay so I make a a motion to adopt the resolution for the zoning board attorney for 2024 second any discussion I'm not in favor all in favor any opposed thank you I make a motion to adopt the resolution for the zoning board planner CCH 2024 second second discussion hearing none all in favor none none opposed I make a motion to adopt the resolution for the zoning board secretary for 2024 Maria Marie Rodriguez second second discussion hearing none all in favor none opposed I make a motion for to adopt the resolution for the zoning board recording entity for 2024 APV seconded discussion hearing none all in favor I None opposed I make a motion to adopt the resolution for the zoning board conflict attorney for 2024 the beakman attorney firm second discussion hearing none all in favor I I make a motion to adopt the resolution for the zoning board inter board engineer for 2024 Insight I'll second discussion hearing none all in favor I opposed I I make a motion to adopt the resolution for the zoning board conflict of planners tnm for 2024 second discussion hearing none all in favor I opposed hearing none matter carries so I think that concludes our housekeeping issues so we're ready for 211 dit Avenue Mammoth Investment Partners welcome back it's been a long time the last time you asked me to give you a summary would you like me to do that again I would appreciate that Mr chromer okay this is an application to build a home on an undersized lot the last times we were here I think the board was concerned about the size of the home so we went back to the drawing board and made the home smaller we reduced the footprint we reduced the number of bedrooms and we enlarged the backyard so this smaller house fits this property and we ask at the end of the application that the board approve it we are going to begin our presentation with the architect who is setting up right now and Mr Feldman would you come forward swear please read your right hand the swear affirm the testimony about G this truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do okay man can you state your name for the record and spell it David Feldman eison Frank M and you appeared already on this application at the very beginning back in August correct I have so you're already pre-qualified your credentials are in so there be no need to re-qualify you your the license is still current in the state of New Jersey okay thank you please proceed Mr Feldman okay so uh the first meeting that we appear here before you we um had a home that was that consisted of four bedrooms and a we setback that was approximately 6 feet from the uh rear property line uh after that meeting and hearing the board's comments what we did was we reduced the depth of the house from roughly 52 ft down to 40 8 I believe so we picked up an additional uh 4T to the rear which and uh in on the left side of the property and we picked up an additional six feet on the right side of the property when I go through the plan you'll see there's a jog um in the back of the building where previously it was it was flush uh in addition to that we reduced the number of bedrooms um previously we had three bed uh four bedrooms and now was proposing a home that has uh three bedrooms so in terms of the uh Aesthetics and the look of the home uh similar to what we previously um represented initially um feeling that it still fits the character of the neighborhood just a quick question uh could you swear in yes professionals about to give in this matter we the whole truth and nothing but the truth please State your names for the record and your affiliation with the board Donna Miller board planer board engineer thank you Donna did did with the reduction in size of of the house um did this eliminate any of the variances that were required um I okay I'm just question I believe they're all the same um just the uh degree to which has changed so like the building coverage got reduced but they still need building coverage right um they still need the side yards they still need the front yard um so there was no elimination of any of the variances uh and they're still uh yeah and then with the exceptions they still have um the garage offset and the um the width of the building is still deficient so again it's just you know to what extent so it's it's just a degree percentage less okay thank you please proceed Mr Feldman so on the on the first floor where the original home went straight across giving us um roughly a 6ot offset to the rear property we now Incorporated a job to the rear the overall home length is 46 ft which is now giving us roughly 10 ft to the property line on the left and would be offset into the area enough about 12 ft on the right side um the second floor what we did was we rued the previously St four bedrooms one down to one two three bedrooms um and because this is a slab on grve we created a habitable AOC excuse me Mr F that's going to be a four or five we're going to find out right I need to know what we can identify oh sorry uh we would be at A5 okay and tell us what it is before is that a plan you prepared so a A5 is a plan that we prepared consisting of two sheets top A1 is the elevation sheet A2 is the represents the Flor plan what's the date on that the date on the is 9224 theion yeah the Revis date that's a 92823 is what we have on our plan okay and has that been submitted to the board and board PL as far as I know it have okay good okay okay no that's fine I just have to identify and that was prepared by by you or your office my office okay yeah okay sorry for the interruption it's okay uh as I was saying the um loft area or habitable adct uh to give the uh the home in area for uh entertainment uh play area for for some uh for some children was there a a closet in the previous plan has that changed uh I don't remember to be honest with you uh if board so wishes us to moove the closet well that's the original one this is from 19 or8 I can't see thing the original one and are these are these um short walls around the staircase in in this Loft area or around the staircase or are they all the way no the the the intent was that using full walls however there's no door or anything at the top of the stair but you they are full walls or at the bottom of the stair separating it again if the board chooses or or wishes us to put half walls or railing to open it up more and potentially eliminate the potential use of this as being a bedroom we would certainly abide to that as well are there erass windows up there uh there are there are windows up there yes EG yes okay it's regardless or not someone will probably use it as a vro what un I mean I I I don't have an issue with it being used as a bedroom or this being a four bedroom house so it's I don't think it's really an issue I'm just trying to get clarity on it it's not the intent person to use this from my understanding a great Su thank you I'm sorry the uh first Flo plan identifies the house as uh Foundation plan says 182 in I'm only asking because of impact on it looks like the plan make [Music] sure yeah we go down that 18 we would go to the 18 for L okay as opposed to City 182 that's the foundation is that's yeah so that that's so the the whole the whole third floor is new it wasn't there was the original it wasn't part of the original this was a two-story house now it's a three two and a half two and a half two and a half as as calculated which is in Conformity to the neighborhood as well majority of those homes are two and a half to three stories as in the report but that attic doesn't have to be a bedroom it can be anything it can be I'm sorry the attic doesn't necessarily have to be a bedroom it can be anything correct can be a sewing room can be a recreation area for kids whatever right which is what the int it could even be you know for for storage of because again there's no basement okay um one question I had I don't know if this is for you but with the heat is going to be escaping upstairs because now it's partially open um or you going to have fans up there or returns in reference to the um air flow uh I would leave that up to the P fall contractor but I would assume there will be okay you know there'll be heat and air conditioning up there yes Heat going to rise okay going to Ser the cost to the to the tenant or the owner has to keeping the downstairs warm enough because you're going to lose because that area is open now he going to go up there right okay so the location of the vents is important also the fans okay so I mean that's just my concern how to keep cost down for whoever the potential buyer is or the potential tener is you know not have all e downstairs yeah understood than what's the size of the driveway uh the engineer could testify to that on his site okay any further questions regarding the the house itself Don in your in your report you said that the first floor was narrowed but the second floor wasn't yes was so did you just clarify the the difference in the width with the areas of first Flor second floor yeah so so the first floor um is 18 ft the second floor was 1810 that was actually a miscommunication between ourselves and the engineer which the your experts brought up so we are going to reduce the second floor to not exceed 8 850 Square ft which again the engineer could testify to that as to to that so it'll be it'll be the same width as the first correct okay what will be the ultimate width of the second floor uh the 18 18 ft that's going to match the first floor yes okay so the the sketch you have here of rear elevation is not correct correct got it okay so where where you taking that out of on the second floor uh it'll probably reduce the bedroom with or although on take a look and see if we can redevelop the bathroom area to put maybe perhaps over here to widen the wi and just make a closet for long drive will that also reduce the width of the third floor yes so everything is going to be 18 ft yes oh thank you what does that do the overall square footage reduce it it's going to reduce the overall square footage and it's also going to reduce the setback on the right side of the property as well you're going to increase your set it's going to increase it so thereby lessening VAR severity of the variance that's correct building coverage yeah correct much helps on these small it's going to have a domino effect to the positive you gotta you need to get this on the record so the board understands that okay okay so it's first and second and the engineer going to the engineer going to go dep yeah but he's verifying that yes the whole building will only be 18 ft in width right all three FL okay I got it that's fair enough so we're not sure how it's going to affect the second floor whether it comes out of some combination of the hallway or one of the one of the rooms yes and what is it 10 in correct well plan says 181 1810 and it works 182 right but he's specifying that the whole building will only be 181 not 182 well if it works at 182 and the board's I don't know what works I know the plot plan currently has it at 182 all right so what we would do then is we would adhere to the 18 put two Dimension as the foundation is indicated okay we will widen the first lower to 18t two and we will carry that Dimension all the way up through the second and third floor [Music] okay all right I I think I like to know exactly what the setbacks are now are going to be which is still going to have a positive effect on the setbacks on the lock coverage and everything else that we previously were talking about the 182 okay so what are we talking 8 in now 8 in on the second floor yes 8 in yes on the first floor currently represent okay okay okay any further questions for the architect for Mr Feldon board professionals um right so uh we're the me uh is there anything in the space yes Mechanicals are depicted here and here but you're going to have a hbac condenser on the yes which I believe is shown on the engineering the location of any further questions from Mr Felman all right I'll open it up to the public anyone in the public for Mr Feldman regarding his testimony seeing no one thank you Mr feldin thank you all right chck please raise your right hand sarir Tes Tru the truth or nothing but the truth yes I do please state your name for the record and spell it for us Charles surmont s r m o n te you have been previously qualified as a professional engineer correct before the board you test I have yes are you still licensed I am and in good standing I am go right ahead thank you thank you Mr sount so [Music] um if you want me to start I'll start with the first question um the size of the driveway how big is it okay yeah um the drive you one curve cut right I'm sorry there's got to be a curb cut the curb cut is 12 ft wide okay the driveway itself is um you get the exact [Applause] Dimension it's a little less than 8 ft wide it consists of it consists of 230 in wide strips with a 33in island in between it's about it's about 7' n in Al together out to out um if I can just back up a little bit and just tell you what our thought process was when we redeveloped this plan [Music] okay you might recall that I testified that due to the the narrowness of the site and the unsuitability of the soil that it would be difficult if not impossible for us to strictly comply with the enhanced storm waterer management requirements that come with a development that introduces over Square fet yes when we realized we were reducing the building down I strongly suggested that we develop the site in such a manner that we try to stay just below that th000 square ft now uh the driveway affords us two things it affords us the opportunity to stay below 1,000 square ft and it provides a location central to this more Central to the site than the two property lines to capture store and to the degree that we can't infiltrate some storm water before it's released out to the road um because because we do intend on collecting the roof drainage piping it underground bringing it to the front of the property and the most appropriate location to store and dispose would be a more central location so as to ensure that we don't have any negative impacts on the cross spaces of the neighboring homes we appreciate that so those so we so we were able to do that um but I do I take responsibility for this snafu with the building coverage I I Bas my calculations on the first floor area of 845 ft as opposed to the I didn't catch the second floor overhang they introduce an additional 20 ft of square footage so um holding the 18 foot2 width we are able to stay below 1,000 square fet but again we you know we're doing what we can do to uh minimize the impacts of stormway so this becomes a minor development is is that what you're is that yes we'd like to we'd like it to be reviewed as a minor development rather than a major development or whatever the terminology is maybe don't can explain yeah so uh the threshold so there's two we'll call them three branches of storm water management there's major development which is the one acre of disturbance quarter acre of new impervious um we're not there minor development in Asbury it's specific to Asbury Park um is th000 foot of new impious Surface or 5,000 square ft of land disturbance what Chet is testifying is that they are under those thresholds so it wouldn't be a a minor development either um so the final Branch would just be to ensure that post-development runoff rates don't exceed pre-development runoff rates to adjacent properties of record which would the implementing of a roof leader collection system which chat has already shared with me the plan I took a look at it before the meeting um that would satisfy that that portion of this man requir great sounds good and um I mean that's the main that that it's the main revision to my site plan would be the driveway the size of the house and the implementation of the drainage is do anyone else have any questions for Mr surmont so what are the side setbacks now that we're we're using 182 well it'll still be 3 foot 2 in on the left three okay 3' 1 in on the left about 3 fo 9 in on the right okay and building coverage building coverage building coverage will will not ex to stay under the thousand square ft I have a I have about 848 right now the footprint is 845 Square ft and that just works with a few square feet of breathing room I don't want to cut it right to the number so 845 squ ft will be the building coverage which will be the 182 wide version of Mr Feldman's house that he spoke to earlier okay a lesson dealing with the architect well again that'll affect the setbacks if you want to you know we couldn't decide if we were going to take a foot out of the back of the house take away the overhang on the right or do a little combination of the two but we'll uh what are you well we need to know you're being a little ambiguous he's already testified that there's no he's already testified that there's no overhang the make the house the dimensions that the architect spoke about how that will relate to and now we can 18t to if you'd like we can move the building over 3 or 4 in and get and get 3' 4 in on each side instead of being tight to the left side if that's more pleasing no we're presenting it at 18.2 and it's under 1,000 square that's correct but just as far as the setbacks go we can go 3' 4 in on each side rather than 3 fo1 3 fo9 Donna do you I want to get back to the building coverage sure so I'm sorry what did you say is the footprint square footage 845 Square ft 845 yes okay so that's going to be a 45% building coverage yes okay okay just to clarify that that's what I was trying to get at yes thank you whether we want to Shi so that it's centered on the lot or more to one side or or the other up to you guys any further questions for Mr seront do you are you recommending any kind of uh so for the ribbon driveway yeah um the Grass Island piece is there is just going to be long or are you recommending like a grass creat just just in case we get a little off the pads consider permeable I was just going to propose to leave it at lawn just so that just so that it as much as much Greenery in the front yard as possible rather than having a 8ot wide uh what appears to be an 8ot wide driveway I just thought it would might look better if we put lawn end and 30 in is you know an adequate width for the ribbon strips [Applause] surface with the driveway B what are you Us in concrete concrete conrete yes and your grainers pipe will go underneath the front of the house out to the sidewalk you're on the curve right you say you want to pipe the water just a little louder hear shot roof leaders under the front the front roof leader is going to come down the side of the house come across the front of the house and discharge into a stone trench underneath the grass strip between the between the driveway strips okay good enough thank you is there a path from the front door to the uh Drive I don't know that there a sidewalk is there yes yeah we have a we have a we have one step down to a uh 3ft walkway to the driveway okay which is basically where the car is there's no you know that's where the tires are there's no little right yeah where you can actually walk next to the car without being in the breath for the storm water do we need to make that part of the resolution or are you okay with with the testimony was should be yes should any further questions for Mr surmont all right I'll open it up to the public seeing none thank you Mr surmont thank you we have one more professional but before he comes I want to admit into evidence the third notice that I gave to the neighboring property owner to fulfill the requirement of offering the property to okay uh neighboring properties this is this is the rear this is the rear and you've already given us the two sides and we've I've already given you left and right side that's fine okay okay so I think we're on exhibit six yes so exhibit 6 is a letter from me to the the property in the rear that's 208 Elizabeth Avenue and it's a addressed to SNS Properties LLC dated August 18th 2023 what does it say it's an offer to sell this property or purchase the neighboring lot you want me to read the whole letter no I just need to know that you covered the basis okay um it's an offer to sell our lot of fair market value see if the neighbor is interested in doing that or selling their property to us and we're indicating that we intend on using this in order to establish our hardship okay fair enough and what if any response did you receive for that letter none okay did you receive any responses from any of the neighbors Mr Cromer or no yes we received a response 7 months ago but haven't heard anything since so we look at it as abandoned and we don't believe anybody is here you don't have to get into too much of it but what was the summon substance resp buy yours or sell theirs they were showing some interest in buying um but it didn't go anywhere okay and then they they offered you a price they offered a price less than the assessed value okay okay which side of that which was that to the right or the left facing the property one minute please it was to the right okay um and also I overheard the board attorney speaking also attached as exhibit six are the certified mail receipt and the return receipt indicating that the letter was received okay just a curiosity nothing to do with not a problem okay fair enough all right thank you Mr Cromer yeah we give that to Marie Jim please raise your right hand swear firm testimony about Tru the TRU I do and please state your name for the record spell James W Higgins hi g g i ns and for the excuse me for the record I am a licensed planner in the state I've been licensed for approximately 45 years my license is current and I have testified before this board on a number of occasions as well as numerous boards throughout the state we accept your credential Mr welcome back thank you thank you I don't know why I'm still doing this either the same reason I am okay your okay could you did you review this application yes I did I reviewed the application I reviewed the reports from the board's professionals I visited the site on a number of occasions I'm very familiar with the area of the site have you considered the planning uh perspectives of this application yes I have it's in as I say this is a classic hardship case where due to the size of the site the width of the site the area of the site and actually the depth of the site it's impossible for anybody to construct a residence on this site without variances um when I say that the variances that are necessary are first of all the minimum sidey yard setback for one side and a minimum sidey yard setback for both sides six fets required for one side 12 ft combination for both sides in addition the ordinance requires that the minimum width of the building be 20 ft when you have a 20 2T wide lot and you require 12T combined sidey yard setbacks clearly you can't put a 20ft wide building on it so there's no way a building could be constructed on this lot without some sort of variance the area within which the site's located there are a lot of 25ft wide Lots the two properties to the north of the subject site are identical in width and area and depth to the subject site the property to the S immediate south of the site is 25 ft wide also it's deeper though I think it's a through lot so what's being what is the site is consistent with the character of the area there's other Lots there are some other Lots also that are similar in area to this site um the applicants proposing a building that my opinion fits in with the character of the area fits in with the scale of the site the 18t Wide building with either it's 18t or 182 whether you have 3.4 ft on each either side or 3.5 ft on either side it's it's the best you can do on this site anything narrower than that is a very difficult house to to live in if you conformed to the sidey setbacks you'd have an 11t Wide building and that that would be quite frankly look like a railroad car on the site I and it would be probably nonfunctional so what's being proposed here is the best that I can see for the site um when you look at The Zone The Zone requires 5,000 ft Lots if you have the minimum 50t lot width the minimum depth you can have to have a conforming lot is 100 ft and while your ordinance doesn't have a minimum depth requirement in the zone it stands for reason that the ordinance would anticipate at least a 100 foot deep lot so you've got a 75 ft deep blot at 75% of what you would expect in the zone you've got a 25 foot wide lot which is 50% of what the ordinance permits and the area of the lot at 18,75 Square ft is 37.5% of what is in the zone so clearly it's a substantially undersized lot 1800 versus 18 1,875 said 18,000 oh I'm sorry make sure for the record yeah absolutely absolutely that's good so there's a minimum front yard setback variance 18 ft is is proposed and the ordinance requires uh 25 ft so there's a 7t difference and it's important the 18 ft is important because you have a three-bedroom house the residential site Improvement standards require two parking spaces for a three-bedroom house and allows that two parking spaces to be included in a garage as well as a driveway that is at least 18 18 ft deep so the 18t setback in the front yard I think is is appropriate for the for the for the site and is necessary in order to have the adequate parking on the site to meet the residential site Improvement standards the lot coverage that's being requested is 45% and that gives you a building of a footprint of 845 ft if you had a conforming lot the footprint could be 1,500 ft Square fet so again what's being proposed here is a little bit more than half what could be put on a conforming lot and the reason I'm bringing that up is one of the uh standards as far as a hardship variance is whether or not the site the site can be utilized as it would otherwise be utilized as it were a conforming lot and clearly here a 1500t building wouldn't be appropriate even though on a conforming lot you could put that but an 845 ft building which has a lot coverage of 45% is appropriate in my opinion so when I look at the variances that are required uh I think that because of the significantly undersized nature of the lot the character of the area within which the site is located and the the fact that the the building is consistent with is in scale with a lot and consistent with the scale of the surrounding neighborhood I think that the application can be approved I think there's a substantial hardship and I don't see a substantial negative impact does that complete your testimony Mr Higgins thank you any questions for Mr Higgins board professionals any questions anyone in the public for Mr Higgins testimony seeing none thank you okay thank you thank you so Mr Cromer back to you I don't have any ending comments I think he did a great job of summarizing why the house fits this particular property and we ask that the board approve the application so before we get there I'm going to open it up for comment by the general public anyone in the public who would like to make a comment in favor e either in favor or against this application seeing none then we move on to deliberation and voting so anyone on the board want to have any comments themselves I I appreciate you listening to the board last time you were here and making changes and I appreciate all your professionals coming here tonight and explaining those changes to us and I think at the end it's a better application than it was I also took note of what you said uh if the board would approve it one of the conditions of approv will be the uh insertion of the storm water restriction scheme down spouts underground out to the street also that the entire building structure will be 18 ft 2 in as opposed to revised plans right and the centering of it will be left to the applicant or do we have a opinion I have no opinion in regards to that yeah they they how don't just leave it to them if it's in the plan as such whatever distance and you don't ask to change it then that's what it should be so it's consistent with the plans okay were there any other conditions that were listed Jack no that I excuse me for one second no not that I have those are the two primary there's the usual you got to publish you got to do all that there's some boilet plate conditions that are in so I'll make a comment and say Mr Higgins we understand that this is a hardship situation that in order to build at all on this property it would require variances yeah so we well understand that yeah the only other thing I would add I'll point to you from a legal perspective uh applicant did what it's expected to do Under the land law to either offer it to somebody else try and make their property more conforming or try and get other property to make theirs more conforming no it didn't really go any place they they fulfilled their uh case law obligations so that this is what we're left for thank you Jack Okay so so I'll make a motion to adopt 211 dwit Avenue with the conditions stated I'll second it that was um Daniel Harris yes yes okay perfect okay Wendy Glassman yes Daniel Harris yes Russell Lewis yes Jill Potter yes Tim slick yes Vice chair Scully yes chairman avalone yes great thank you Mr Cromer thank you thank you out of here I'll make a motion to adjourn the meeting I'll happy birthday Russell yeah happy birthday