##VIDEO ID:e2F6_979QxU## how are you do you want a paper copy I never added the three person I did find out that it was approved so if we want to like quick add I wasn't here okay I was picking up my daughter welcome to the land use board meeting of September the 4th 202 four we will Begin by saluting our flag I pledge aliance to the flag of the unit States America [Music] pursuant to the New Jersey open public meetings act adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting on the bulletin board in the entrance hall of the Beach Haven municipal building and mailing the same to the beach Haven times and the Asbury Park Press this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision for each individual application the Quorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times Mrs edles here Mrs Leonard here Mr Balo here Mr tinquist here Mr Stevens here Mr Jenna here mayor Davis not here Mr meal here Mrs Bal Miller here Mr lafredo here Mr Wanger Miss King here Mr hail for here first thing on the agenda tonight the board will riew zoning ordinance 2024 d27 C I assume you all have a chance to read this and go over it um you have any comments any discussion or FR you want to explain well we we had to review this for consistency with the master plan so we we didn't find anything specific in the master plan so to speak that where we were looking to pass an ordinance specifically mentioned but one of the other options is to determine whether it's not inconsistent so we couldn't find anything in the master plan it would say that this ordinance isn't consistent um you know I as much as I wrote this I still had some concerns about a couple of things one we're going to 10,000 square foot for duplexes the concern is what happens to the duplexes that are on 6,000 square F feet do they become grandfathered or they if somebody wants an addition they become totally non-conforming we're gonna have a lot coming before the board no they're not as long as they're in a zone that allows duplexes they're not a non-conforming structure if they're not on a 10,000 foot loot they're non-conforming in terms of a bulk requirement so if they add an addition or anything like that to the building thats not unless then have to come before the board that was one question no and this was um we discussed this and wrote this with Phil the zoning officer okay and V his assistant so they're they'll still they will not be the current duplexes as long as they're in a zone that allows duplexes they will still be conforming they will not become a non-conform somebody comes in for an addition they'll give them a and and meets the setback cor they'll beine correct it's moving forward well that's their opinion but I want to hear the attorney opinion legally May somebody disagrees I don't necessarily disagree um with Miss Bal Miller but an argument can certainly be made that if an existing after this ordinance if it's adopted and the change is made if a duplex an existing duplex which certainly existing duplexes are Grandpa they're not goingon to have to anyone that's existing isn't goingon to have to come before us right but if somebody wants to bned after this ordinance is adopted an argument can be made that they would have to come before the board because there's a new ordinance requirements place it will depend on the nature of the application so let's just I I hear what Miss Bor is saying I don't necessarily disagree it will be very it will be case and fact sensitive as to whether or not an expansion of existing duplex will or will not need a variance from the land but is there anything we could do today to address that I I had the same question with if it burns down they want to rebuild it but is there something that we have to address today or just say left for a future for future let me let me remind everybody what our role is as the landage SCH I've said this before we don't adopt ordinances Council does we are tasked under the municipal land law and it's in Mr Little's review letter and he says it very well but under Section 26 of the ML and I'm going to read it verbatim prior to the adoption of the development regulation revision or Amendment there too which is what we have before us the the burough Council seeking to amend the zoning code and the chapter of the code that deals with site plan and a couple other sections the planning board shall make and transmit to the governing body within 35 days after the referral a report including identification of any provisions in the proposed regulation revision or Amendment which are inconsistent with the master plan your board Engineers just told you in his opinion he doesn't think there's any incons consistency with the master and recommendations concerning inconsistencies and any other matters the board deems appropriate that's what this board does you may or may not like the changes that's not for us to decide Council makes those policy decisions this is before us on what's called a section 26 referral for the purpos of doing what I just read and what's in Mr Little's review we so and again no there's nothing we can do with respect to what might happen if some duplex we'll see because it will depend on what they want to do to replace a duplex that burns down I will tell you if it burns completely down they're going to have to meet the new ordinance requirement I just think I personally feel that this is being rushed the section what is it section two first of all I don't see the need for it um if I was a duplex owner and didn't know about this which I'm quite sure quite a few duplex owners there in town don't know about this I think they all should be notified that this is happening I mean a lot of people I mean what if Sandy came through here again place is destroyed under this they'd have to build theyd need 10,000 square feet to build a duplex again and maybe they use that rent from the second unit to pay for the whole duplex I personally don't see the need for this I I say leave it alone leave it at 60 by 100 it's worked so far I don't think the subdivisions and all the issues that Council has are really that dire the master plan when it discusses duplex Lots it's very specific on the size so yeah I don't would the master plan have to be amended to conform with this change I think the master plan on lot on the duplex Lots I just identified what the zoning is it doesn't recommend they remain it doesn't recommend they increase it just was a review of the zoning in the town and what Provisions there are for duplex a single family and so forth so it's written in there but it it didn't technically mean it always remains that way the master PL specific on the lot size it's 60 ft no they reviewed existing zoning so it reviewed existing zoning so it just mentions in there that a duplex needs to be on a 60x 100 lot in other words what Mr little was saying is the master plan doesn't recommend one way or the other right whether or not the existing zoning requirement should go up or down it's silent as right just identify what currently exists in the code correct so I know we're on that thing but I had one other question the the definition of building is any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter housing or enclosure of any individual animal Process Equipment Goods or material of any kind then the definition of floor are ratio is representing the gross floor are of all buildings or structures on a lot divided by the total area so if you have a garage a shed or even a garage under two floors above I think that's means that all of that gets counted into the 4 a ratio so you can't if you had a garage underneath a raised Ranch you would be counting both floors of that previously we mentioned that it was habitable area but both these definitions don't reference back the habitable area so technically if you have a unheated garage unheated shed for all those buildings in your floration so 50% you could have 2500 square feet that would include your lower garage which is below base flood your shed your garage any building according to the definitions I was a little concerned with that um I read it after I legally I will tell the board I agree with Mr Little's interpretation because flura ratio refers to Flur of all buildings or structures in go to the definition of buildings right and it doesn't make any reference to have a little area right let me check structure yeah and structures I think I me structure anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground again no reference to habitable areas so whether or not again the governing bodies made a policy decision to go this way they have but I agree with Mr Middle's interpretation there's nothing tied for FL ratio now to habitable area so a garage would be included right and a shed and a shed and yeah and even the space below your upper two floors the lower garage area under a house would be counted according so one of my suggestions would be that not sure how we want to handle this but many boards will send a letter back to the governing body saying they reviewed the ordinance and here are our concerns right was that their intention was that a conscious change they made it may not have been I don't know no I mean these just dealt with duplexes no this is more this is all the definitions everything's in here yeah the governing body and the zoning department have been working through these definitions for almost a year now updating them going through them so if you have a specific concern Frank you know you you can discuss with Phil and you you have this in an ordinance now that went through first reading right so the board's option is to write a letter to the governing body that we review this and we have a concern about these two definitions now including all the space in a building which technically means you're going to build a a garage with a raised Ranch to meet the Flor ratio because you're lower floor is going to count because it doesn't reference habitable area which is heated space okay so I think that's a big concern and I don't know if they caught that that's all I don't right because I don't think that much have been one of the definitions that we actually we didn't change every single definition yeah I I'm just looking at the ordinance as a whole because the whole ordinance is going so the other thing that I mean when reading these definitions that bothered me is the 18 foot garage and the shed I don't see the point in allowing somebody to have a detached 18t garage and the shed why not just put a second story on the shed I mean on the garage and ban all sheds you're taking up more land putting the shed and if somebody cannot afford a garage then they're allowed to have a shed for storage but once they decide to put a garage in the shed's got to go I just don't see the point of having a shed and a garage on the same lot that doesn't make any sense to me and I mean you can control the height and take it up to 22 or 24 or whatever it takes for a second story to use for storage but I just I I personally think that's a better idea so any other discussion I'd like to make Mr oh wants to speak okay John go ahead yeah um I agree with Bonnie I my problem with all this and and I understand we're looking at this through Through The Eyes of consistency with the master plan my problem with all this since this is first reading this impacts taxpayers residents business owners um people who own that want to rent and may not be able to uh now afford to rent offset expenses um I I I think this is we're rushing through this in terms of our comments without knowing what the what the public especially the the real estate industry feels about this um hold on hold on hold on hold on I don't mean to interrupt Mr Alber as I explained to the board that's not our role this in this ordinance has been properly introduced by Baro Council the next part of the process is the consistency review which is all this board does we don't introduce the ordinance we don't adopt the ordinance we don't have a public hearing on the ordinance all we do is review for consistency there are council members who are elected officials unlike these board members who are appointed granted we have the mayor and Miss B Miller the class one and class three for the ml but that's not what this board does we didn't introduce this your concerns are understood of course but we need to stay focused on what this land use board's role is in terms of the recommendation we make back to the governing body as Mr little indicated we can certainly write a letter I can turn that into the resolution that I do and point out what the board's concerns are that I've been testified to here tonight but concerns about impacts on taxpayers and that's for Council to do and at the time of the second reading it will be open to the public and anybody and everybody can be heard with respect to the those concerns if they have such concerns and then Council can decide whe they're going to adopt whether they're going to table whether they're going to change it I they'll make those decisions at the time of the second reading of the ordinance but it's been introduced and it's been properly referred to us and we're here to do what we're passed to do as I read earlier and as spelled out in Mr Little's La so right can recommendations on what is Grant fathered or not no grandfathered or what isn't is it's a matter of law okay okay my other comment Frank if I could say I have a question for Frank little uh the definition of impervious coverage uh includes parking lots regardless of whether they're using pervious papers or not is that something we can look at well you can look at it but you know that's the definition that's always been the definition and I believe is is that is that something the lands board could could make a recommendation to the governing body what do you want to rec that the parking lot if they're using perious pages should not be considered impervious yeah you could recommend that certainly okay the other part of my question and Frank L says to maintain the use of planning techniques and zoning regulations that preserve the Integrity of an existing residential districts well if you take in those um duplex districts and make it 100 feet there is no duplex District because you're going to build single family home well You' change it but it would be in the RB Zone if you change but you eliminate you're basically eliminating technically if you had a duplex and you had I mean if you had 100 by 100 a lot Chances Are youd Go 250 foot single family homes that's what I'm saying yeah so you eliminated you you eliminated any future duplexes yeah I I don't know truthfully I I can't recall any new duplexes have been built off the top of my head none that came before the board most of it's going the other way the single family I don't know how many we side by side duplexes yeah there might be a couple of them quite a few yeah well nothing came before so probably conformed and went to the building department so you're you're eliminating a type of housing out of the master well I'm not eliminating out of the master plan it's still a permitted use it's just now you need 10,000 square feet which is not gonna happen which more than likely would mean you know you won't have any more duplexes being built just with all the respect to the board this is already like the first reading went through Council and there was extensive discussion and none of you were there to and we went through like how every single municipality has a very very similar ordinance the purpose of it so it's kind of unfair that you're going back and forth on this when you didn't even listen to the initial first reading at the council meeting Amy that is incorrect I I was there and and since it was first reading the Public Public could not see what the ordinance said they didn't need to we clearly discussed it well I think the public without disclosure well I'm sure I'm sure I can't imagine that the burrow didn't advertise the ordinance post introduction as required under the law so it's available for anybody to see anybody can come to burrow Hall and get a copy of it if they'd like and it will be subject to a public comment on second reading um again we're not personal opinions are not what we're tested to do here it's whether or not this ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan we can make recommendations back now we act as a board the the vote the motion and the vote is going to be H is going to have to be very detailed because a majority of nine of you there remember we don't count past nine we're going to have to vote in favor of the recommendation with respect to different issues I kept copious notes I hope I have them all but if the majority of you don't think a recommendation with respect to a certain section should be made then I can't make it the board acts as a board through its resolution not through individual members now I could crack a resolution in such a way that certain members have certain recommendations but that's a recommendation from a member is not a recommendation from the board which may have been in birth they might have changed one definition and not look at how it affected another definition we can point that out no doubt about it absolutely well how about this I'm going to make a motion okay I make a motion that we pass ordinance 2024 what's the number we recommend it for about okay what's the number 2024 that's 27 C with exceptions and the exceptions will be the floor are ratio and section two about the the U duplexes well would be the it would be the definition of a building all right definition of FL ratio compared to one right right that deals with the floor area ratio um and John had something that he wanted something about perious favers and parking you know there is a definition now of perious Hardscape in here but the impervious coverage definition doesn't say anything about it so it does say any papers are considered impervious so are you amending the motion Madam chair to include recommendations with the exceptions for the FL ratio as compared to definition of building section two regarding duplexes and the impervious lot coverage definition right there's a motion is there a second we just is there a second second Mr medle yes Mrs ball Miller yes Mrs Leonard yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinquist yes Mr Balo yes Mr lafredo yes Miss King yes Mr Halper no only the nine so the motion carries I will prepare the resolution with the recommendations exceptions as articulated in the motion the motion passes unanimously 9 to zero Now understand Council can still adopt the ordinance okay there's a there's a procedure in the ml we not need not worry about that but even if a land use board even if we were to determine it was inconsistent which we haven't the governing body can still adopt it but they have to spell out the reasons why and explain why they don't agree with the land use board's recommendation so I just want everybody to be clear so it's possible that ordinance 2024 d27 c will be adopted as written not withstanding our recommendations but they will be included in the resolution which I will send to Gina after the meeting and I will reflect what happened here this evening okay thank you all right moving right along to our first application tonight is ready uh 2024-the a c variance relief for side yard setback and building coverage to increase the size of an existing deck by approximately 63 sare fet to allow for reconfiguration of the stairs so as to encroach upon the adjacent property so not not here not not encroaching the adjacent property ready for me is it work it's not I don't know turn it on let's make sure it is a the side ones work better I okay do seem Mr if that doesn't work please make sure that you your Witnesses all speak into the mic Mr Bas I know you know the see you again all right that's working oh good evening everyone my name is Nick represent um Brian and Melissa singer the owners of the subject property we are here seeking variance relief and um Mr singer he's gonna provide testimony we also have as speak y all right we're also going to have as our planning and Engineering expert Jim brazowski I'll swear and qualify him later so I first want to say um a couple of things one I became aware recently in the last couple of days that in um I was not as clear as I could have been in the application did not mean to imply that the deck expansion was not there uh because on the plan it doesn't say propose it shows as an existing condition uh we we need to get it approved it's never been approved so that's what I was trying to convey we needed approval for that 63 square feet um I thought um and there was a pending but notice of violation for get building it without a permit we're going to talk a all about that um tonight tonight by Mr BR singer's uh testimony so I just wanted to clear up that there was no intent to mislead anybody that the conditions there plan is clear but my language should have said something to the effect to legalize the existing condition so I personally apologize for that and that was my fault so having said that um I want to just go through a little bit of background there was an existing set of steps in order for Mr and Mrs singer to access rear of their property the steps the old steps were so close to the property of our neighbor that um effectively for Mr singer to walk to the rear rear of their property they had to walk onto the property of the neighbor there just wasn't enough room and if you look at the survey you really can't go around the other way either because there's only a little more than a foot setback on the back of the property um so to access the back side of his property and we'll show that graphically um he needed to walk around the steps so Mr singer uh and Mrs singer did not want to do that um the expansion of the deck 63 feet allowed them to reorient the stairs so that it it went from being the southernly property line to the Westerly Westerly side and that then allows him to walk or them to walk under the deck to get to the rear he then enclosed it because the the neighbor tenants Mr singer would store kayaks bikes whatever uh surfboards on the side there they would kind of borrow it the neighbors um they didn't steal it but they borrowed it thinking that it was part of the rental of the neighbor so he enclosed it now was should have got permits for that yes and we'll talk about that so what we're here today for is to request that the current condition remain except for the fact that we we understand we believe there's a small encroachment of our existing structure on their property although the surveys are somewhat inconsistent but we are proposing to pull back the porch and the enclosure so we're off the property um we're not going to come obviously close to the 5 foot setback but we the upstair Studio only has one really way to get in and that's the way it's been it's been configured there's no internal staircase it's a separate unit you can't enter from another location because their way to buildings designed without a major expansion of the building so the approach that Mr and Mrs singer are proposing we think is the best solution given the current and long-standing conditions of the property it's non-conforming there's a lot of non-conforming properties in terms of setbacks it allows for safe access to the second floor not only by whoever's occupying the second floor the studio but in the event God forbid of an emergency the First Responders have to go up the stairs you have to have sufficient width um and and Mr singer will talk about that he is a retired New York City firefighter with 30 years experience he's going to be able to talk about those kind of need for Access and so we think our design accomplishes a lot now I know there's an obor our Neighbor Next Door she doesn't like the fact that we enclosed it but we think there's good reason for that and and by we could put a 5-ft fence with 1ot lattice 50% open 50% closed 6 foot that open area is only 8et so we're talking really about two feet and Mr singer puts storage in there bikes surfboards we think our solution is the better solution in terms of keeping it kind of that dist storage away from the visual impact to the neighbors but we'll talk about that so enough for me I'd like to have Mr singer uh talk about this and how he got to the place where he is today if I may Mr Senor could you raise your right hand please do you swear from testimony give before this board would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Brian for the record I'm just G to let you because you've G through this and I know we have to share exhibits with the uh opposition here um so and then I want you to walk the board through what you've done wait wait Mr s you're going to have to talk into the mic this whole thing is being recorded and especially because there's an objector here so there's going to be a transcript in case there's some subsequent proceeding deping what the board does yes I'm just going to hand out the pictures um for the record you you took these photos yes my wife took the photos we did not go on to the southern end of property there's been an ongoing issue with going on to each other's property since this occurred so I'll give you the history uh 2013 um came down to look at buying a property in Beach Haven um went and found a few properties this one was of Interest we're looking for a small place my wife and I could live in and use the other place for family and friends so we found a bunch of them long story short 2013 we were able to uh go to contract on this property um Billy Greer was the building inspector um he is became a very good friend because I worked with his nephew Bobby G on the fire department for 30 years so he uh able to help me out with this property to make sure we get it and uh move forward short contract 2013 did not close until 2018 two weeks before closing the party uh that was buying it from passed away took him five years to probate and uh fight each other in court 20 2018 summer of 2018 we bought the property um in not in very good shape all overgrown literally the table the plates and everything inside the houses were sitting on a table s Sandy sand on the floor nothing was touched send that point so totally overgrown so in Billy Greer's uh comments about the property it said that I need to repair the deck in the rear because of uh the decking was bad and the handrails were bad that uh need to be repaired discussed with him at that point that um what my plans were because as you see there was trees I had to go around those trees to gain access to my property to move the stairs to the other side um I was under misunderstanding I thought what I then built was what I could do as a repair because the whole framework from the old deck is there I didn't touch a post uh the joist uh are all there the only thing I did is took down those stairs and extended it and moved the stairs so now I no longer have to go on my neighbor's property 2019 um had some issues with um the neighbors rear tenants uh she rents the place uh which every right to front and rear housee that was my storage area during the summer so so three or four times that summer I had couple surfboards chairs we are so close back there and where my seating area is those tenants would use my stuff they weren't stealing it two times I had to go down that beach and get my surfboards and bring them back so finally start a construction around 20 2021 May of 2021 like I said I thought it was repair did all the work myself you see everything in there from cutting those trees down those trees were required to have I had to remove them because the insurance they started on my property and went across the sly neighbor's house insurance that I had to remove them to keep my insurance so the trees came and I built what was there in terms of the Brian those trees are your property right trees are on my property the only vegetation you can see was there the only I Disturbed I took down those three trees um changed the angle of the stairs so now I can go underneath and Clos in my belongings at that point in 2021 it stopped uh got a violation which understood I needed to get a permit for it Subic with that permit uh they said that that two- family structure they had an issue they thought that it was not a two- family structure since 1950 that was built I live in a 20 1925 Bungalow 1950 was there has always been a two family two bedrooms Studio Plus the single family in front the single family in front nothing's changed on it uh hire Nick and some quite some money went before yeah some some of you may remember that we came before the board it was a zoom meeting during Co Jamie you were there at the time I remember and the board voted unanimously to determine that the three uh dwelling units the duplex and a single were a pre-existing non-conforming so I did that in 21 I guess right and and then 22 was it 20 okay 22 Yeah so we appealed the zonings officers determination and the board reversed that's what's attached to this submission I made that resolution so take it from there let me Mr that's a good point just so the board understands that prior resolution is included in the application correct yes photos there are there are seven photos there new marketing yeah we'd like to there photos of um and and Brian can walk you through each of them if you'd like I mean they may be S res1 yeah Brian we can call them uh Brian Singer photos so going me to walk through the photos briefly just first one is you'll see the three trees all starting on my property underneath the steps uh took them down removed them um then you number two you'll see the location the steps going up you'll see the post in the back there's 6x6 posts that deck was built in 1982 let me stop you when you're looking at that's photo two correct yes to the right side or the steps as they were located the the neighbor's property is immediately to the right of that yes for you to get be behind the stairs to get the access the rear of your property you would have to walk in the neighbor's property yes okay so um number two shows where there and those existing posts are still there uh kept that exact framework that went around uh put plywood on it and fiberglass over top of that I did change the area where the steps are straight above to make it so I can go north to south instead of east to west so essentially by relocating the stairs and extending the deck you can now walk under the deck to get to the rear your property you don't need to go in the neighbor's property anymore so number three is uh similar number four is just showing down from the top of the old deck you'll see the railing and the condition of it was not you know not quality at that point after being there for 40 years so number five uh this is when I built the area at this point this was done in uh June of 2021 I have not touched anything since that's where it stayed uh this Endeavors cost me all roughly 30,000 cost me 40 $4,700 to build this stuff 30,000 for the engineers lawyers surveyors over the past three years so delay is purely Financial six is the steps that I built going up from that side and number seven is the top uh railing and you'll see about halfway down that's the entrance to that studio on the uh two family and and and Brian you've also renovated the units the interior you've cleaned up you've just cleaned up the inside and uh me know nice old beach bungalows and uh Old Pine siding and kept it that way and and you've clean up all the landscaping and the overgrown and since 21 I haven't done anything since but at that point with the stop I haven't touched another part of the property until I get this matter resolved so so Brian um obviously to the extent and the Sur the survey shows that deck is over the property line you're willing to relocate that right well yeah I am but her survey shows that it's uh not over the property line mine shows a little bit over the property line so to not argue it I'm willing to move it back a little bit to keep it off the property and and we back here just if I may so as a condition of approval if the board were to Grant this application your client will agree if it turns out that it's over the property line take it back yeah we yeah we showed on our plan plan to take it back uh Le 6 in 6 in actually I think we showed 2 in in our PL in our well it was 6 in total because it says three inches over so I propose to go six inches back so we're off the property line obviously the board can't R absolutely absolutely as a condition of approval if granted the deck will be taken back six inches correct and and I just want to point out uh we were provided a 2013 survey that shows It's Not Over um I understand they got a new survey that shows it's over and I believe our survey shows it's over by a couple of inches so to the extent that there's a and I'm sure the the surveyors can come to some agreement but we would be fine if Mr little were the Arbiter of where the property line is I'm I'm willing to agree to that my client is because somebody's going to make a decision what survey is correct we're only talking inches here literally a few inches but some point some say this is what's correct and I don't know that the board wants to get into that kind of decision making the board doesn't have that Authority okay but we we would for purposes of abiding by that condition of the board approves this have Mr little say this is the line this is where you have to be but it's probably about six inches so six in is the reason for that is there's a five and a half inch post there and I can take it and what's called marry that post next to it right behind it to support it and then remove that one so I can take out that post by putting another post right behind it remove that post so I can still keep the structural Integrity of the deck above that's why I was said move it back six inches then uh the neighbor will show you I didn't go on in there take pictures she'll have pictures of it I'm willing to do whatever's along that wall there's one window I could add other windows uh it's not a structural uh it's meant for storage can paint it you know that I needed to finish trimming it make panels have it look nice but that's been stopped it's just painted white and it's been that way for three and half years you you agreeable to aesthetic treatment of that wall the board will approve it including adding Windows to kind of give it an open look I'll put plantings in front of it I'll do whatever she wants to you won't have to see it if that's what she wants so from great you have a question just for clarification purposes can you show on that PLP plan where it's over the property line I'm not sure Jim if you want want Jim yeah let's that's G qualify ask before this be the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth yes I do you're prior you're your New Jersey licensed engineer Planner yeah for the record my name is James fras I'm a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at ortic in yod since 1997 you've been qualified by this you've been qualified by this board in the past as an expert in those uh professions correct yes Mr chairman I offer Mr braasi as an expert sorry I say mad chair you're supposed to Madam chair um yes we've seen it many times yes thank you um Mr brazas thank you I didn't know that I just um the area that we're talking about is in the Southeast corner of the uh of our subject property we've got a A twostory or one and a half story duplex located on the east side of the property uh to the south of the duplex is a uh roughly five foot wide deck that provides access to the duplex to the the second floor unit the second floor unit is accessed by a door uh that faces South so to get into the the unit you come up the steps turn left go about to the middle of the of the building and then open the door and go to the north property and Jim this is the variance plan Rec sated that's being displayed yes okay to the upper right is the original condition can you show where to start for before when my uh office surveyed the property in 2016 the steps the the deck extended to just a little bit to the west of the midpoint of the structure and the stairs started from that point heading west and and Jim would it be possible to get to the rear of the property and that the original condition without going on to the neighbor's property now these steps prevent you from getting underneath the deck in this configuration uh the east side of the building is also about a foot off the property line it it jogs though so under and underneath it's set back under the deck and then it jogs as you go but you can't get to the jog right from the other direction because that portion the northern portion of the building is enclosed all the way has always been enclosed all the way the ground the one unit exists on that right and so you can't access it from the other direction it's right you have to access it from where the stairs are so the idea of relocating the stairs is to allow access under the deck and and to avoid the U the neighbor's property with this configuration you just walk do East along the southern property line and get underne the deck area okay and Coach is like just the full length of the deck is about based on our survey two10 of an two10 of a fo south of the what two10 and inches is approximately two and a half inches about two in yeah two inches and so just show again where this the photos the the what we'll call the the storage area under the deck that's just show the line of that the enclosed area is just the Shaded area under the deck that's the the area that's enclosed under the deck one the uh the existing surve so from the underside of the deck to grade how many feet is that from the underside of the deck to grade is a little over 8 feet just a little shorter N9 feet okay so the code would allow the installation of a 5 foot fence with a one foot lattice half open half half uh open and closed right foot 5 foot solid fence with one foot of 50% open fence above it six foot so the difference between what we have and what's permitted is two feet correct two feet correct okay any questions on Mr brazas if not I'll go back to Mr singer I only have one question do we know how far the neighbor thinks you're over versus how you far you think you're over well depending on what survey they had their old survey shows that were not over from 2013 when The Neighbor bought the property apparently they got a new survey done that shows were over I I don't know uh exactly but I think we're within inches either way but does the neighbor then have another survey that shows you might be over further yes they just got a new one done we hear I assume we'll hear from them as to have yeah she's gonna come up they think you are yeah okay yeah so you're saying we have two surveys three three our our our survey shows were over they have a survey from 2013 the shows were not over although it's a third of an inch and then what's the third one they had a new one done they got a new surveyor that shows it we're over so you show you're over and one that doesn't one is ours and one is theirs and and one is theirs that shows we not over that's why I suggest that Mr little be the Arbiter of what's in fact over I'm gonna split half yeah I'll have to see how much they think they're I have questions in their presentations I just want to mention just one other thing the in order to get the steps to obviously go along the west wall of the building the deck had to be extended to the West in order to to get the step to come along the west wall the with the reduction of the half a foot along the entire length of deck we're going to increase building coverage by 49 square feet which increases the non- Conformity from 36.2% to 37.2% reduce building coverage I mean we're increasing building coverage by by pulling it back we're not between 2016 and today is I got you but but per Mr singer's discussion years ago if he removed 84 square feet concrete Nick let me yeah go ahead so in my uh sitting down with Billy Greer the there was a front porch on the 1925 Bungalow there's a concrete 1T High actually 18 in high slab that was there that had the blue green purple flagstone that they used to use so I expressed that I'm going to remove that 84 square fet and then our discussions about the back deck me increasing it you felt the impervious that long as I stayed below the impervious amount that I was doing so Tak an 84 square feet off adding 62 at the time now we're proposing to take another 4 14 Square ft off the side if I take 6 in off the 32 ft so now we're down to roughly 43 Square ft that I added but in this whole process I removed impervious the front patio which you'll see on the first survey and it's mentioned in the plan that Jim put together Ryan do you have anything further you want to add at this point no um like I said on that wall she'll show you the pictures I'm willing to put Windows it out like I said it stopped at that point 3 years ago put plantings anything to be able to keep my space and secure my space that uh she rents her place front and rear year round I'm a now a permanent resident in the bungalo and since I put this wall up nothing's been borrowed from my space uh thank you obviously Mr Sing will be available for any questions I'd like to have Mr brazowski go through the planning testimony at this point Jim so Jim um this is a classic hardship variance I would argue yeah we have a a legally existing structure uh that has some uh existing nonconformities and and and you could not gain access to the rear of property with the old configuration is that accurate that is accurate so from a um just a St standard planning pers perspective boards can't Grant approval and we can't access a joining property without permission correct yes so does the revised design moving the steps allow for access to the rear of the property without the need to encroach upon um the neighbor's property it does yes and is that a benefit in terms of good design yeah it allows uh the maintenance of the of the building and the upstairs is a Studio it's it does there's no internal access right with that's right and you looked at because I asked you to can you put the steps like on the front of the unit like facing toward Bay and and you said well if you look at the design the studios to the rear of the current structure you'd have to do a major redesign really an expansion it's not economically feasible not practical did is that accurate from your yes yes it in order to um come come up with an alternate access you may need to remove the roof of the the one story apartment because the uh the second floor apartment only extends for the the southern half of that building the the northern half of the building is just a one-story building so in order to provide steps somewhere else you may have to alter roof lines um build a new deck above you know above the the existing one-story building um it just it starts getting into a lot of uh work okay so and and there's three approved living dwelling units there um based upon your observations is storage necessary for such things as surfboards and other kinds of um beach activities and summer activities yes is that um area under the porch a good location for terms of the overal design it is yes so if if the board chooses not to approve the setback for the enclosure because that's a setback issue you're allowed to enclose a storage area but we obviously don't need to setback the alternative is to kind of put a fence to secure it which you said would be 8 foot with the the 50% open and 50% close is that correct the total yeah the total height of the fence 5 foot solids uh plus one foot of 50% open so so what would be the difference between the fence height and the bottom of the deck roughly two feet and that's it so is there a benefit to that versus what is there today uh no I I would think that it's the opposite I would think that uh um from an aesthetic stand point this the solid wall is is going to have better Aesthetics than um a fence leaving a two- foot Gap that you're able to see whatever is being stored under the the deck through that I can't see that I can't imagine that being a better plan than providing a solid wall and with that two foot Gap improve air light in open space which is a purpose of zoning no why because the well first of all the the deck is as we mentioned is about nine feet above the ground the bottom the bottom of the deck yeah and it's a and that's it for the structure adjacent to that property line it's just a one story deck that's enclosed below so the wall we're looking at is is 8 foot plus the the the one foot of uh of decking so that the wall we're looking at is about 9 foot uh right now um the the the light that we're getting during the daytime is coming around the southern side of the building not from the northern side so the the sunlight is is coming from the south this building doesn't block any sunlight um so and leaving a two- foot Gap above a fence isn't going to increase any light air and open space to for anybody okay so you think atically it's better for storage area to be enclosed as as the current condition is I think so yes and uh it's also provides security for personal property yes and Mr singer you heard him testify he's he couldn't finish the exterior but he's willing to paint it'll do any color actually that the neighbor would like he'll finish the trim work he can even add additional windows that kind of give it a more residential feel to it but easy to do uh by the way he is a uh former cabinet maker in addition to being a firefighter he's very good at his um I walk through the house he's very good at trim work and that kind of stuff um and of course if the board were to approve this we'd have to go get a building permit the building department would be satisfied that the work being done is in compliance with all codes it's not a board issue but obviously that would have to be done correct yes and um I I know the client is offered if the neighbor were willing he'd even put a row of landscaping it has to be of course on a neighbor's property but adjacent to the storage area to kind of soften it if that's but we couldn't there's no room in our property to do but we would pay for it adjacent at an area again to mitigate what the neighbor perceives as an issue um but the the reality is there's going to be some kind of barrier to protect the um the personal property of our client because of his experiences with the tenants kind of again not trying to steal but helping themselves to those uh surfboards and whatever else he stores out there so he's going to secure it one way or the other the question is what's the better design and um so that that is that all accurate yeah absolutely um and then there's a number of code issues which I don't want to get into in terms of uh proximity property line and and fire codes and all that it's not really a board issue but I can have Mr singer who is 30 years experienc as a New York City firefighter talk about whether he thinks that the enclosed in fact I will bring him up the enclosed storage is better from a fire safety standpoint than having a fence in an open area so I I want you to stand by for a second Mr singer I'd like you to talk about that again for the record you recently retired on disability after 30 years as a firefighter correct broke my neck out of fire so what we discussed if you close it yeah and close this space below uh the neighbor had an issue saying that uh fire is going to come out if I uh left it open there' be a fire I mean if I close it there's a fire isue with extension uh over to her property this was a comment that I heard uh it's the exact opposite if it's enclosed it's getting no air anything's burning in there it needs oxygen so if it's enclosed there is no uh you have a much more quicker time uh I mean it will not burn in a quick amount of time if it's enclosed if it's open air and just getting oxygen fire needs oxygen and so you have a much greater chance of it coming out of that area if it's not enclosed so there was a comment that uh there's could be a fire issue with uh be enclosing that and I think it's the exact opposite thank thank you so Mr brazowski based upon that testimony is another purpose of zoning so you talked about light air in open space is another purpose of zoning is to provide for the public safety to make sure we have good design yes to provide safety from fire and flood yes so is the proposed enclosed storage area a better planning alternative in your opinion under the C2 criteria than the open area with a fence next to it yes okay um so you talked about the justification this is hardship it's hardship because there's is there There's no practical way to get upstairs unless you without encroaching unless you have this reconfiguration is that accurate yes and that's a condition unique to this property it it is yes because the pre-existing condition of the building which has been there for decades at least 40 years from what we can tell um that's been there and that that the board did determine that that upstairs unit is a standalone unit there's no internal connection correct between the units that's correct yes so no practical way to access it other than the design that we came with is that accurate yes in your opinion does that create a a hardship under the municipal anage law of a unique conditional property yes it does okay then there's Aesthetics talked about how you believe that one there's no in well that's the next part that the wall which any decorative treatment that the board wishes whether it's paint additional Windows trim would be better than a fence with a two foot Gap above it yes from an aesthetic standpoint yes I believe so yes better planning alternative than what's permitted yes and um having said those things do you think so to justify any variance you have to show that there's no substantial detriment to the Zone plan or public good this obviously doesn't comply with the Zone plan but it really can't given that it's grandfather and it's so so you know it's it's a non PRI nonconforming structure correct yes but in the context of what is feasible does this um achieve the goals of the n landus orance in terms of providing safe access to the second floor or the studio unit I should say it does and it's safer for God forbid there's an emergency First Responders somebody needs medical help and they have to be evacuated out come up and down the steps yeah even with the removal of the six inches of deck that we're proposing there'll be 48 inches clear from the uh the exterior wall of the building to the inside of the railing um so is that adequate space for First Responders it is yes and then there's also the Practical which is just you want to move a refrigerator into that unit you want to move furniture into that unit there has to be a way of getting that into the unit correct yes so to make it functional you need stairs you need a walkway you need porch okay so the other part is whether or not there's a substantial detriment uh to the public good do you see a substantial detriment to the public good under the circumstances uh no I don't see any detriment to the public good the uh the building is in the Southeast corner of a of a property that fronts on Long Beach Boulevard um the the general public can't even see back there that's right and um again You' you've testified that the proposed plan to enclose the storage is actually a better design alternative aesthetically than a fence with a two- foot Gap yes okay anything further no so as a planner do you believe the board has the legal authority to Grant the variance relief requested today yes I do in your professional opinion yes all right um if I may You' had the opportunity review Mr little you August 28 2024 yes I have if the board were to Grant this application uh as a condition of approval your client will comply with all the comments and recommendations contain report yes okay is can I ask a question fire away I'm just I don't know if I misheard you did you say that you believe that there's more air light and open space with the enclosed versus just the fence no I just I simply said the uh keeping an enclosed isn't going to enclosing it uh isn't going to uh negatively affect the light air in open space because of of the width of the enclosure where the enclosure is that it's on the south side of a building um that it's only four five foot enclosed area um so and the way of Sun rises sense right and the only space that would remain open after a fence was put in is two feet between the top of the fence and the bottom of the decking so I I don't see that as um significantly increasing light air or decreasing whichever way you want to look at it um putting up a solid wall doesn't significantly decrease the light air in open space right but if you I mean you're showing sometimes when you use the airl and open space it just doesn't kind of doesn't really makes sense to me because if I look at this picture that's completely closed if I look at this picture record just put a record so picture five it's closed that's as it exists and then when I look at picture three I can look straight through that that's um uh that's the same that that is from our side that's not from the neighbor's side that is from looking from our single family toward the back in other words your back is toward Bay Avenue there you're you're that's our view the the photo that shows the prior condition the open condition Pho photo 3 open which doesn't show a fence so once you put a solid five foot solid fence with a one foot um lat you know 50% open lattice on top that's going to you know make that a different view you're going to look at something different with that there's no fence there currently no fence there no fence at all they're saying that's but also that's that's an option okay I have a question on Photo one this window here what's behind here what what room Brian that's the kitchen area just questioning that um I guess I have a lot of I guess a lot of questions um what's actually stored in the shed right now uh microphone show my phone the surfboards beach chairs uh the remaining construction materials that I would use to finish what I started are sitting there I don't know if you can put that in well I don't know that we can show you I don't know how we put that into the record for the record you can testify you could see inside that the existing deck you can't show that Brian okay sorry just testify okay good because one of one of the other things I noticed looking at the property there's three parking spaces in the rear access yes coming down that side right there seems to be bike wrecks that they're in the parking areas yes so so they're not parking which is required on which side you're talking on the east side so as we had East yes I put them but I move to the back you'll see a bike rack on the there but those bike racks I take them and uh put them inside throughout the winter I do store two cars up to that you're supposed to have three I think there according when we looked at the approval I guess back in 21 or 22 yes I bring two cars in up to that point all I'm saying is the bike racks are in your parking okay areas as a we we can remove that agree that it's a condition of approval yes they're not permanent bike rack they're just uh you know a metal piece they're not into the ground I can move them anywhere no no issue with moving if this this drawing shows three three cars and then some bacon space you can move the bike racks up closer to are or now you have a little table there I think as you come up into that area um the three cars would then give me8 feet so not technically room for another car so it was stopped at that point because the as you come off iroy and come in the uh Town knows so much of it and then the three cars after gives me about 8 feet so was able to get the four cars so I can put stuff in that other area up front there bike including a bike rack and the yeah and I guess the part I didn't understand you're saying by enclosing the space you have access to the rear no no the enclosing by moving the stairs and putting the stairs in the configuration then allows you to walk under the deck to the rear that's a different issue than the enclosure so what's the so but when you put the enclosure on the property line how do you maintain this the sighting or the outside of that structure that you just put in there when the steps were in there you could maintain your structure now you can't it's it's always an issue when the properties are very close for example the neighbors is about a foot away her entry from our property what neighbors generally do is they ask permission to maintain and and that's have an easement maintain do you have an easement to maintain your that's sighting so I don't see how you can put a solid structure on the property line or over the property line wherever it may be we're not it won't be over the property line will be pulled back um it's it's it's challenge but it's um it's it's not doable without an e well we we've asked them we offered by do by doing right now before you did it you could now you can can I put a fence there pardon can I put a fence where that wall is yes you the property l l yeah and so you can build a fence from your side of the property line but but you can't and you can maintain a fence from your side of the property line but not a not a structural not a wall well let me ask you Brian you're a carpenter could you maintain that somehow from the interior or would you need exterior access no you cannot maintain it from the interior it's a like any uh there's you cannot maintain it from the interior so the and I'll go I'm getting to my basic issue and that's that's the expansion of a non-conforming use but by en closing this thing it looked like we made a substantial Improvement to a deck area uh that's an expansion of the nonconforming use and I I don't think that should be done I think we should look at how we how or you should look at how you correct your situation and we can help with that but it's an expansion of the of the building if I period if I put a fence there the fence is fine you can fence there that or this allows you to do that how do I then maintain how do I maintain my property with the exist where where the stairs existed how do I get there to maintain how you going to maintain it with with a solid wall on the property line how you going to maintain that sighting you can't without an easement without an easement and that's the same thing as if you have your stairs there I'm still going to need e or you have to dismil your stairs to maintain it to maintain the property if if I have if I go back to where the stairs were I'm still going to need an easement to go around those stairs two different issu necessarily one at a time we got we have to make a clean record yeah Mr Stevens I think there's two different issues one is the expansion of the deck and the relocation of stairs the second issue is whether that space is enclosed I I think that's what we're saying there's there from my perspective there's that's two they're unrelated well they're not unrelated but they're two different issues well by enclosing it you're expanding space I hear that and okay but but if if we don't relocate the stairs with the deck expansion of 63 fet we cannot access the rear of our property without going on the neighbor's property it's impossible I don't quite I still don't follow that okay can we go then you need to reconfigure your stairs in such a way that you can well that's what we did that's what I did I don't I don't agree with that you enclosed the space I'm willing to take down that wall that's not something that I just I just want Jim could you pull this board I'm going to show something I'm willing to remove that wall it stopped at that I don't need the wall I put a fence there this is you and your slow down this is the original configuration here's the stairs that used to exist here's the property line of the neighbor the stairs prevented access to the rear of the property under the deck so he had he had to walk onto the neighbor's property to get to the rear the new configuration by extending the deck 63 feet and putting the stairs in front of our structure you can walk under now enclosing it is a different issue that we it could be left open and Brian just said he would leave it open but this is the reconfiguration we propose to avoid having to go on the neighbor's property so you can walk under this so could he remove the siding sure the board doesn't approve that it gets Pro so you would see under to the wall of the house but this is the only reconfiguration this is the entrance to the second floor it's the only entrance the units built back There's no practical way to get there there's no internal connection so we think that the stair reconfiguration works it avoids us encroaching on the neighbor's property Mr T I'm going to ask you if it's okay with the board chair um we're going to take a break I want you to speak to your client because Mr Stevens raises a good point if in fact that enclosure makes us an expansion the non-conforming use that's not been applied for we don't have jurisdiction um you would have to Ren notice and it presents a different situation because as you know this board would have to reconstitute as a zoning board right an expansion of non-conforming uses a d variance yeah okay which means that the class one although the mayor is not here and Miss biller my class three member wouldn't be hearing this application now I understand your client has indicated that he might be willing to take down the enclosure and put up a fence I'm GNA ask that we take a break you speak to your we need to know which way you're going pause and he needs to make a decision because it's not up to the board to tell your client which way to go right but if he decides to to try go with the enclosure I think I have no choice but to recommend that um they perhaps and it's up to you that this application be withdrawn and you submit a new application for a d variance and then we'll hear that as a Zone reconstitute a zoning he doesn't have to it's entirely up to Mr singer all right but he can't leave it up to the board we don't tell applicants which way to go understood he has to make that decision we'll talk we'll take a break okay thank you [Music] okay to open to the public discussion of ordinance 2024 d27 C yes so for the motion to open to public thank you Mr Jen second second all in favor I for the record board as you know we discussed the section 26 referral of the ordinance there was a motion it was seconded it was approved 90 um you do Under the municipal land you still have to open that matter to the public so that's what we're doing right now while the sener applications being discussed um so the matter has been open to the public is there any go so is anyone would like to come up and speak to ordinates 24-27 C you have any any ideas about duplexes garages floor area ratio none of the above is there anybody on Zoom nope okay can I have a motion to close to the public motion to close Tom second second Cher thank you all in favor okay so that matter is taken care of Mr T you ready come on guys oh no 130 thank you for your patience my thank you for your patience appreciate it so um I've been talking to the neighbors's attorney so we um we want to amend the application to completely remove the enclosure completely and we would agree to pull the post back one foot off the property line their their new survey shows us about six inches at one part overhang our shows it at like two and a half three inches so we have very slight disagreement in the two surveys um which I think our orbitor could resolve um but the point is we're going to we're going to what we're proposing is be based upon wherever the property line ends up being we would pull the deck itself back 4 in off the property line to post below one foot one foot um that would give adequate room for the steps to go up to access to get in and out for for safety moving appliances and as I said safety um would avoid us having to go on her property we could access our rear and um we can remove some of the concrete under the deck um I'll let them speak for themselves I think they want it all removed I I think that's too much we do plan to get a permit to build a fence at a later date um they're not going to see the concrete with the fence that's under the deck area so that's where we are Dedra I don't know if you have anything to add at this point Mr Tac could you just bring your client to testify and affirm that everything that you just said was accurate and agreed to by Mr singer you excuse me you heard what I said yes 4 in off the property line for the deck itself post back um one foot off the property line yes and can you remove some of the concrete under the um I'll remove the concrete along where those posts are C it there there was a a blue stone the old Shale purple blue green that went around that back that's sitting right underneath that concrete okay right over top of it and do we have an approximation of what that impervious coverage reduction would be Mr brazowski if he removes that concrete it's 30 going to be 32 feet It's all under the existing structure but'll affect it'll affect drainage and those kind of things right help yeah okay so and most importantly Mr sen you will remove the entire enclosure yes yeah making sure and we're and the concrete I'm sorry and the concrete well not all of it but 32 ft of it I'm confus on where that is it there's concrete underneath the uh there was a uh underneath that structure from used to be the walkway around they used to go around the steps enclosed structure the enclosed structure was a blue stone slate concrete patio there that concrete's right over top of it so there's no difference in what was there I'm proposing if I move those post back one feet one foot that I cut that concrete instead of it you know have a foot back post back of foot then you're seeing concrete from there I remove that concrete that runs uh east to west along that I take that concrete out that's the 32 foot that's 32 the the the deck is 32 feet long and one foot is concrete were old concrete that's new below it's old it's poured right on top so all of it's coming in to do any no no for one foot one fo one foot it's about eight inches thick right now okay that will come out one foot back 32 feet long and that's the edge of where adjacent to the the um neighbor's property that's that one foot so what's the need of the concrete she said she wants the concrete out okay yeah we're proposing so we've removed 84 square feet from the front 32 now we're proposing additional 32 square ft as mitigation for the VAR request and and the coms or the post whatever you call them yeah we're going to move them one foot back but what about the actual deck itself is that's going to come back four inches off the property line so it'll have a slight um over overhang what what is the property line what survey are we us determine that so I want to be the arbitr why can't we just get the objector will agree what survey we're going to use yeah I mean it's G to be hard for me be surveying it myself to decide well wrong why don't we have Mr brazowski talk about need to hear from the objectives too yeah that's fine the upper deck is coming whatever property line we agree the de is coming into that property line right yeah the 2013 survey shows we're not over but the two more recent surveys show that we are over our recent survey from Mr braasi but he shows at a smaller amount he shows3 okay feet3 feet their survey shows at one part 0. five and then it it goes down to 3 there's no reason why you that small would difference just the GRE there's not an argument it's inches it's inches if you're gonna have to cut the new line yeah he's gonna agre to a lot already that's why I agreed to move it back a foot if it's sitting right now I move it back a foot then I'm out of any of her and you're going you're going to correct the deck the deck is going to be cut back 4 in off the property line to her Brian are you agreeable to just use the um neighbor survey yes all right that sounds my arbitration you're out of work D do we have a deal so are you saying that the fence then go in the one foot that you're cutting back once I cut back that foot I'm going to put a fence inside that one foot area fo area close to the property line that I'm allowed to by code you'll comply with the code requirements for the fence yes yes so that's why the foot that's out of my area so I can put a fence there so now I'm protected that my stuff I do not have to go on her property ever again right you sure Mr T hold on a minute let's have some more are you you need to rest before we hear from M we we rest our testimony and uh but available to respond to questions or issu the amendment has agreed to and testified to by Mr sh yes yes okay thank you Mr s thank you yeah I just don't want okay good evening ladies can you guys hear me yeah hold hold it sorry good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board attorney DJ Martin I am representing uh Lisa veio um I'll try to keep this really brief so my client is directly south of the applicant which I think everybody knows at this point so my client is Lot 2 and block 61 and her address is 16 uh 15 South Bay Avenue Beach New Jersey 08008 um my client's property is the property in which uh the applicants deck encroaches upon um what I do want to get into evidence is my client's uh survey that was recently done by Frank DeSantis and we have him on Zoom this evening um so if I could have Frank D santis sworn in as a let me ask you this m Martin you just heard the applicant testify under oath and agree as a condition of approval to use your survey so if you I think it's a great idea to Mark it into evidence yeah it will be attached to the resolution there a condition of approval that will be the survey that shows the property line from which all the ship acts will flow okay okay yes so what will we mark this in as so let's mark that a137 how about um how about o for objector 01 okay sure yeah I have multiple the applicat agreed this is the survey as a condition of approval this is the survey that's going to be used to determine where the setbacks are this1 right or wrong okay so we can all agree I don't need Frank to S [Music] thanks yeah um okay so I want to make sure that just get on the record what the agreement is and just want to make sure I understand so the deck that is enclosed that is depicted on horn Tyson yod's variance plan that was submitted by the applicant will now be unenclosed correct and all of the concrete that is underneath that will be removed no no no how much one foot along the edge closest to your client's property one foot for the whole 32t so 32 of concrete that's what we're proposing so my client is asking that all of the concrete be removed that would be up to the board that that's fine that's understood thank you and then we are okay if the um what do I want to call them the 6x6 posts that are there are moov back a foot from my client's property line so that they're on the applicant's property that was already agreed to by the applicant thank you and there will be an overhang of the deck that currently exists it will be brought back 4 inches off of my client's property correct based on the survey marked as01 okay that's good now because this structure that exists illegally which is on my client's property it's been there for quite some time I would ask that the board as a condition to the approval put a timeline on when this encroachment has to be modified to get it off of my client's property in conformance to what we have agreed to this evening so that 3 years later we are not in the same position and I would ask as a condition of this that the removal of the encroachment is done in a good workmanlike professional manner and that my client's property is returned to the condition it was in prior to this encroachment so so with respect to the first request Mr tvia is your client agreeable to a timeline within which yes we we would say within 3 months after the expiration the appeal period you have to get building permits and all of that um we we don't agree to remove all the concrete that our proposals Miss Martin understand this the work the work has to be done according to code it will be inspected by the appropriate PR officials that's always condition that's good okay that that's fine that's always in every tenders okay any issue as between whether or not your client agrees that it was or wasn't that's a neighbor dispute this board doesn't get into that so restoring up her property that's not for this board they don't make those determinations if she thinks her property's not been restored I'm not inviting litigation by all means I have neighbors but she'll have to take that up with her neighbor that's the board can't do that the board's not going to come back or take a look at this that's going to be for her and Mr singer to figure out and possibly litigate if they have to this doesn't do that I have seen other land use boards do it okay this board will not do that because I'm going to instruct them that's beyond their jurisdiction but your request is understood and as I said all the work will have to be done in accordance with FOH code and be inspected and approved by the appropriate bar officials that's that's good because we are concerned about the structural Integrity of the structure understand and fully appreciate and I'm sure Mr singer understands too as a retired fire thank [Music] you okay we're good we can rest okay thank you well all right can I have a motion to open this application to the public I motion to open it to the public second second thought is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this application anybody on Zoom no hands up okay I have a motion CL I second it thank you jie all right we have a list of things here um I guess you all have written them down go into this and I have a a motion to approve or deny this application there's some farther discussion of the concrete I think that was not it well I thought I thought they had said that that's all she wanted was a foot well doesn't matter okay she the objector has said what she wants the applicant has said what he's agreed to the board will make the decision to Grant or not gr what the applicants agree to is remove one foot of concrete along the 32t with the distance of the deck the deck underneath the deck and and once we put a fence in you're not going to see whether it's concrete or not and we do plan to use that for storage so concrete will work better um for that purpose it's has no impact on a neighbor visually or otherwise and the one foot we are removing is where defense would go so what she's going to see under defense is um dirt not concrete so I think you know all all in I think we've more than met the neighbors request um that's the only disagreement four inches off the property line for the deck we're using their survey one foot up for the posts get rid of the enclosure I I think my client has um you know reasonably worked with the neighbor to um address their concerns I mean we just have a pre-existing condition we don't want to be on their property that's why we re reconfigured the stairs so just the concrete under the deck is not increasing impervious coverage because the deck above it is already impervious coverage correct I mean I tend to agree that the concrete isn't going to be an issue and it's a better idea to have the concrete there if you're going to store stuff on it right if you put the fence up you're not going to see it anyway so I would recommend you go with the applicant's suggestion I think the objectors have gotten quite a bit in my opinion so is there a motion to approve the application as amended and if I need to go through what that means I certainly will do that motion to approve Tom as amended as amend second Jamie Jamie second Mr medal yes Mrs ball Miller yes Mrs Leonard yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinis yes Mr Balo yes Mr lafredo yes Miss King yes car thank you very much and it was a long night thank you don't ask all right yes let go okay yes application is 20241 applicant is seeking gr Rel part sh substantial benefit for a sidey set 11 combin where the existing side [Music] com hi good evening James Raven on behalf of the applicant Mary Joe altum so this property is located 324 iroy Avenue it's currently developed with a single family dwelling and what the applicant is proposing is to construct an elev Ator Edition on the easterly side of the existing house so it would be within the sidey yard setback uh currently the existing sidey yard setback is 11 ft on that side and with the proposed elevator Edition the sidey guard setback would be 6 feet 3 in in the area of the proposed elevator Edition so the elevator Tower is 26 Square ft so that's the extent of the expansion of the property and we are still within the permitted building coverage the proposed building coverage is 32. 54% where the maximum permitted is 35% so we're seeking relief with regard to the side yard setback and also in the notice as noted Mr Little's letter um to the extent of parking variant is required we would request that as well nothing's changing with respect to the parking however with this is a five-bedroom house which would require three parking spaces the architectural drawings show how three cars could fit on the property but um in reality there's a driveway in the front and this house was just built I believe in 2019 or 2020 and this is how it was approved nothing's changed with respect to the parking so is just so unclear the board's clear Mr Raven is the variance to allow for Just Two instead of where three are required or is it one or three what are you asking the board to approve uh I get yes I I guess it would be technically it appears that only one space would fit within the property line in the driveway even though the applicant can testify that multiple cars park there but they hang out into the right of way beyond the property line so just one it looks it appears to me and I can have Mr Lord clarify but one space is really I I believe all all we're providing you could angle and maybe get two uh I guess it's a better question for Mr Lord but uh so John Lord is going to testify regarding the variance plan uh will Esser from handline architecture is going to testify regarding the Elevator Shaft and Mr 's going to testify to the location there are other options explored and there was really this was the best location even though it's in a non-conforming location and then I have Mary Joe altum who's been um waiting patiently on Zoom who will provide some testimony as well and first I'll call Mr Lord Mr Lord do you sure affirm the testimony I give before this court will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you Mr Raven thank you uh Mr Lord if you could briefly recite your qualifications for the board your licenses okay uh I'm a licensed professional engineer professional and surveyor professional planner in state of New Jersey uh I think I've testified here probably 20 years ago or so um but not recently uh testified all over the state um various in those various uh positions uh your licenses are still in good standing sir yes they are thank you very much thank you and Mr Lord you prepared the VAR plan that we submitted with this application uh yes we did okay and if you could just give an overview for the board of what we're proposing and what variances were requesting what we're uh proposing is the variance we're requesting is for the 6.2 feet um side offset to the elevator to the elevator enclosure um the rest of the all of the other zoning criteria are um within the allowable Zone uh the zoning requirements um we're just requesting this minor uh variance side variance for the uh elevator itself the uh [Music] um location of the elevator is the basically about the only spot you can put it that provides access to all the floors of the house which uh the architect speak of um the uh as I said all the other criteria are zoning criteria matched um it's not it does not impact the the uh neighbor the house um that's the offset of the neighbor's house to the uh side that the elevator on is excuse me I had to put my glasses back is uh 12.9 feet their houses so there's plenty of room between the the two houses uh so that the this uh minor variance to the elevator Chef uh would not affect uh the neighboring house um that's basically it as far as the parking goes the original plot plan for the house showed three parking spaces in the front one in front of the garage uh one parallel to the uh right away but still with on the property and one on the other side of on the um what would be the left side of the house uh that was what was originally proved on the original plot plan with the three spaces um can you do that yes is it part is it convenient to do no but you can fit three spaces on there but the the one two the one in front of the one garage and the one in front of the house are easily easily done so you're asking for a variance I I I believe it it should be for two parking spaces uh we're proposing two where three are required yeah there there is a third space that can be parked along that east side but currently it's all grass right now and it's not part of the driveway sure you could park a car up on the grass there I suppose but how do we get a five-bedroom house without having three parking spaces I guess as Mr Lord saying the way the plot plan was originally configured was showing one on the on the east side which it fits as I stated but it's a it's a grassy area currently oh so they took one of the parking spaces and made it a yard is that what you're saying I believe I no I believe this is how it's always been we can ask Mrs altum but we have made no changes this is how we purchased it yeah do you want to do that now okay we lost her stoping Jim when was this house built I believe 2019 yes Mrs Al can you raise your right hand please can you hear me yes you swear orir the testimony you get before this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you Mr thank you Mrs altum you're the current owner of the property correct that is correct and when did you purchase the property uh 2019 we took possession on Labor Day weekend okay and and you were the first owner to occupy the property after it was constructed correct it was new construction okay and the configuration of the front yard has not changed since the time you purchased the property y that's how it was when we first saw it and still when we bought it okay how do you typically Park cars in the front of the in the driveway area one car fits easily in front of each garage door and another car can fit behind it probably encroaches on sidewalk a little and in when necessary we've pulled cars over onto the grass okay so you can fit three cars in practice I don't know if all three cars fit completely within the property line so so Mr R just it's been a long night already are you or are you not asking for a variance from the required three off Street to the extent the board thinks thinks one's required yes it's it's hard for me because you can park it on the grass I don't know I I'm I'm confused about why this is a problem we haven't made a change because the well Mr Raven can explain it to you man but simply put because in Beach Haven if you have a five bedroom home you have to provide for three off street parking spaces right and and when I originally submitted the application I did not include this issue Mr Little's office in upon reviewing it noted that they weren't certain that three cars really could be parked within the front a question sure who built your house do you know who the Builder was um my son's there John do you remember the name wait if he's gonna test else we're heading too right sorry that's okay that's okay and if you don't know ma'am that's okay it'll come to me but I I don't know right now I know believe it was trade WIS trade WIS yes yes that's right okay you got Travis left you got lucky Mr little let's hear from you on the parking issue so we can figure out whether or not a variance is or isn't well they're going to need a variance because there not enough pavers in the front unless you're going to count the lawn as a parking space and we don't count Lawns as parking spaces so minimum you need one a variance for one okay or if the board doesn't grant that part of the variance then they have to to create that third space understood with papers on site understood so the board understands so the application is in addition to the C setb grants also requesting a variance for parking to Pro to allow for two parking all site parking spaces where three are required correct yes then how how does the impervious coverage tie into all this now well with three um I believe Mr Lord if correct me if I'm wrong in your impervious coverage calculation in Beach Haven all parking spaces count toward impervious coverage regardless of the surface and I believe Mr Lord correct me if I'm wrong you counted three parking spaces within that your impervious coverage calculation yes okay did you count the whole front yard since well now the plan shows 75% permitted and even with the um with the elevator you're only at 50% so you could easily well I understand that if they counted the front yard you have to get to those parking spaces so you need drives to all so there's all that area included that's what I'm asking well I'm just saying that they can meet they're not asking for a variance for impervious if they add a third parking space they're going to be under the 75% you have to be under 60% 60% under 60 I'm sorry you're right what I'm saying yeah you'll still be under 60 because you got another 10% to go you can definitely neighbors and get another one in but that's a nonissue if we Grant the par correct right I I think miss altum you probably if the board were inclined to Grant the variants would prefer to keep the the lawn area the way it's currently configured and the way it's always been um we we did want grass but I we're willing to do whatever the board thinks we need to do okay we purchased the house believing we met code I I'm not trying to not meet code sure I understand that's whoever did the Landscaping didn't need code somebody took that third parking space landscape it can't be used we you know that was all before we saw the house for the first time so I don't I can't answer to that and Mr Lord with respect to the variance proof um this is a C2 variance um what purpose of the municipal land use law would be would be be be advancing with this application um well we would certainly not be detrimental to any of the zoning or anything like that and does the elevator addition constitute a safety Improvement for the house as a whole yes it does okay and and enhances the general welfare within the home yes and as you stated there's no substantial detriment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance in your opinion as a result of this addition that is correct okay are there questions for Mr Lord Mr Lord before Mr gu to his next witness I assume youve reviewed Mr Little's letter review letter dat August 23rd 2024 yes and if the bo Grant this application uh your client would agree as a condition of approval Supply all the comments suggestions contain yes witness yes thank you Mr Lord uh this time I'll call Will es can I ask a question sure I'm trying to see where the where does the elevator exit out to the front back side that's be okay you swear the testim before this Bo will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth um if you could state your name for the record my name is will I'm the principal of handline architect speaking that one's not working I got you trying not to yell too my name is will estri I'm the principal of handline architect licensed in New Jersey and you're so registered AR architect in the state of New Jersey okay and you've testified before this board previously yes does the board accept Mr est's qualifications yes thank you um Mr estri if you could just give an overview of the how you came to that design for the elevator so in playing with the design for the the house that existed um we always try to avoid lwh hanging fruit at first and look for something that fits within the plan and messing around with this plan as it exists putting an elevator that accesses all floors without changing the way the house is used uh without creating new hallways and ripping out bathrooms and rebuilding at Great expense this is the easiest the most economical and makes the most sense to put the elevator in a spot by the entry not creating a detriment to entering in through the living room space um the Nooks or through the kitchen and the only place that would come up on the second floor to make it fit would either be through the master bathroom or through a bedroom in which I would need to create a hallway and lose an actual usable bedroom and space so it it it makes sense that we stay within the lot coverage um issues and just ask for a small variance for the sidey yard um knowing that the neighbor next to us is also in favor I'm speaking for somebody who's not here sorry about that um but it it seems to work best in the design the layout the movement through the building and we're only going to access the garage the first floor and the second floor there is no access to the roof deck that question I saw and Mr EST the area of the elevator Tower is 26 square feet yes yep so it's 26 square feet and we're we're staying below um you know the building coverage is 32.5 four with the elevator we're not asking for anything outside of just the side yard setback that's the goal I don't have any further questions anybody have question for this stay in here Peak Building height it's 33 feet I does that include the railing that I do not know if it includes the railing we took that number from an existing survey space um let me see if it's on the actual because railings are part of the height yes requirement but you're not proposing railings right you're just no I'm not changing we our our roof Peak is below our our roof Peak everything we're proposing is below whatever is there we're not touching anything to do with the existing roof um or the railing my my my new roof for the elevator Tower doesn't even reach the main roof of the existing structure then the other thing um on the square footage of the house how was that calculated uh using the drawings from the previous Builder and and and taking the floor area based on the survey and our our drawings and that was the floor area on the other drawings I would believe so I honestly I would have to go back and look Zill has it in there at 2680 square feet that's why I was wondering why now they usually they get the pl they're real estate though anything I don't I don't want to speak for somebody else and I would want to real accurate yeah um John halin has a a question on Zoom John yeah um did I hear correctly that that what was testified that the that the neighbor is in support of this application yes I don't know if Mr Askin is still on I I saw him earlier is there still Bill Bill Askin yeah I'm still here we'll get to the public Mr Askin as you well know hi it's a pleasure to see you virtually we met a couple months ago John's question is that he thought he heard testimony that the neighbors in favor of the neighbors Mr Askin who's on Zoom who we'll get to corre he can confirm or deny any more questions for this no okay can I have a motion to open it to the public you done Mr um I do just have a couple of follow-up questions for Mrs altum um Mrs altum the if you could just explain to the board the what what brought this application um what was the reason for wanting the elevator um about six months after we purchased the home my husband was diag was diagnosed with a progressive neurological disorder and it became apparent that he was not going to be able to enjoy the house so we started this application unfortunately he passed away in March um but we've realized now how fast everything can change and uh we think the house would benefit from you know people being able to use it later in life so it would allow everybody that that utilizes the house to use it in a more safe manner correct okay all right thank you Mrs altum I don't have any further Witnesses thank you Jim thank you all right can I have a motion to open it to the public I'll make a motion to open it to the public second second thank you is there anybody in the public like to comment on this application anybody on Zoom yeah hi it's William Asin ask K N I live at 320 iroy Avenue right hold on Mr Askin um Gina if you would can you put Mr askin's video up please Mr Askin can you turn your video on let's see if I can figure out how to do that um oh yeah here it is here we go we figure there you go is it coming up on the screen yes we don't have you here yet Bill bear with us there he is there we go we got him we got you Mr asking if you raise your right hand please you swear affirm the testimony give before this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth now he's mov now we lost your volume try again I do thank you okay go ahead Mr Askin yeah yeah good evening everyone William Asin 320 iroy Avenue I am the owner of the property directly to the east of the applicant's property um I'm I'm here this evening just to uh confirm my support for the application um uh the neighbors are very good friends of ours they were very polite and considerate when they started even thinking about um Coming forward with this application and they come uh and we talked about it they approached us and asked us if we would have any issues at all and I can confirm that we did not then and we do not this evening we fully support what they're trying to do with their house thank you very much thank you Mr as thanks everyone thank you anybody else no and I have a motion to close to the public second Jamie okay you guys can you can sit down thank uh can I have a motion to approve or deny this application that's with the parking variants yes with the parking variant IE I have a question what is the hardship that we have to consider this wasn't a hardship application this was a C2 application correct Mr Raven That's Right Rel okay we have me I'm sorry I can't hear you it's here on what on our on the agenda I think that Mr Raven I don't know maybe that's because it was in the application initially but this is not a hardship correct that's correct in the application I may have checked both um yeah yeah hardship and substantial benefit were both checked but it's really it's a C2 substantial benefit testimony that you put on the even corre that's correct yes good good point Mr tin but um it's a c a substantial B okay I have a motion on the floor to approve or deny so the two variances would be that are part of the motion you're approving the sidey stepback variance and a variance for parking to permit two a street parking SPAC where three are required that's the motion that's on the table can we separate those you mean separate there's no second yet so there's no second other motion to be made you can't separate them you can vote yes that's the motion that's on the table it includes both you can vote Yes or No as can any members is there motion table there is there's a motion on the table second thank you so motion by BVO second by B Miller yes no I'm am I right no who who made the motion who made the motion I didn't hear a mo I didn't hear i s somebody okay I Leonard I'll make a motion okay I interrupted that's what oh that's right thanks pH Jamie you still second I still second I still second okay okay now we got it sorry Mr medal yes Mrs B Miller yes Mrs Leonard yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinquist yes Mr BVO no because I don't think we should um lose out on the parking space if there's a place put the parking if it's a piece of grass or something and I'm not sure I help someone we approve a property and then it gets built not to have three parking PES I'm not I'm not blaming the owner because just you get built that way she bought it that way there's something missing and I'm not comfortable with yeah okay but that's he's that's that's that's my no and why I'm moving understood Mr lafredo no I approve the elevator but not that parking space then I'll see why we can't they can't just add pavers to make that parking space fair enough Miss King no motion carries 63 see what oh yeah uh next on the agenda is the approval of the AUST meeting minut all in favor hi minutes are approved uh next are approval of bills for September 20 is the approval of LBI Collectibles that was one of by May right so that was one of our last three person subcommittee matters for the waiver request a waiver of formal site plan because if the new ordinance is adopted it will be handled differently but we have confirmation that the three members I Know M Ed is not here but all three members have voted yes to approve so in accordance with ordinance 1679 simply stating that for the record so that that application has been approved and Gina if you would let Miss Martin know she's the lawyer I'll try to give you that letter I know try to email it there some problems but we'll just let motion to adjourn motion Tom second thank you reading is a Jour I was able to get something the bur but not it might attach outside the I got nor and I I was doing requests and it was working change every single she probably could The Bu different we just took out tents lunch wagons trailers --------- ##VIDEO ID:XiZKraoe9-Q## how are you do you want a paper copy I never added the three person I did find out that it was approved so if we want to like quick add I wasn't here okay I was picking up my daughter welcome to the land use board meeting of September the 4th 202 four we will Begin by saluting our flag I pledge aliance to the flag of the unit States America [Music] pursuant to the New Jersey open public meetings act adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by posting on the bulletin board in the entrance hall of the Beach Haven municipal building and mailing the same to the beach Haven times and the Asbury Park Press this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision for each individual application the Quorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times Mrs edles here Mrs Leonard here Mr Balo here Mr tinquist here Mr Stevens here Mr Jenna here mayor Davis not here Mr meal here Mrs Bal Miller here Mr lafredo here Mr Wanger Miss King here Mr hail for here first thing on the agenda tonight the board will riew zoning ordinance 2024 d27 C I assume you all have a chance to read this and go over it um you have any comments any discussion or FR you want to explain well we we had to review this for consistency with the master plan so we we didn't find anything specific in the master plan so to speak that where we were looking to pass an ordinance specifically mentioned but one of the other options is to determine whether it's not inconsistent so we couldn't find anything in the master plan it would say that this ordinance isn't consistent um you know I as much as I wrote this I still had some concerns about a couple of things one we're going to 10,000 square foot for duplexes the concern is what happens to the duplexes that are on 6,000 square F feet do they become grandfathered or they if somebody wants an addition they become totally non-conforming we're gonna have a lot coming before the board no they're not as long as they're in a zone that allows duplexes they're not a non-conforming structure if they're not on a 10,000 foot loot they're non-conforming in terms of a bulk requirement so if they add an addition or anything like that to the building thats not unless then have to come before the board that was one question no and this was um we discussed this and wrote this with Phil the zoning officer okay and V his assistant so they're they'll still they will not be the current duplexes as long as they're in a zone that allows duplexes they will still be conforming they will not become a non-conform somebody comes in for an addition they'll give them a and and meets the setback cor they'll beine correct it's moving forward well that's their opinion but I want to hear the attorney opinion legally May somebody disagrees I don't necessarily disagree um with Miss Bal Miller but an argument can certainly be made that if an existing after this ordinance if it's adopted and the change is made if a duplex an existing duplex which certainly existing duplexes are Grandpa they're not goingon to have to anyone that's existing isn't goingon to have to come before us right but if somebody wants to bned after this ordinance is adopted an argument can be made that they would have to come before the board because there's a new ordinance requirements place it will depend on the nature of the application so let's just I I hear what Miss Bor is saying I don't necessarily disagree it will be very it will be case and fact sensitive as to whether or not an expansion of existing duplex will or will not need a variance from the land but is there anything we could do today to address that I I had the same question with if it burns down they want to rebuild it but is there something that we have to address today or just say left for a future for future let me let me remind everybody what our role is as the landage SCH I've said this before we don't adopt ordinances Council does we are tasked under the municipal land law and it's in Mr Little's review letter and he says it very well but under Section 26 of the ML and I'm going to read it verbatim prior to the adoption of the development regulation revision or Amendment there too which is what we have before us the the burough Council seeking to amend the zoning code and the chapter of the code that deals with site plan and a couple other sections the planning board shall make and transmit to the governing body within 35 days after the referral a report including identification of any provisions in the proposed regulation revision or Amendment which are inconsistent with the master plan your board Engineers just told you in his opinion he doesn't think there's any incons consistency with the master and recommendations concerning inconsistencies and any other matters the board deems appropriate that's what this board does you may or may not like the changes that's not for us to decide Council makes those policy decisions this is before us on what's called a section 26 referral for the purpos of doing what I just read and what's in Mr Little's review we so and again no there's nothing we can do with respect to what might happen if some duplex we'll see because it will depend on what they want to do to replace a duplex that burns down I will tell you if it burns completely down they're going to have to meet the new ordinance requirement I just think I personally feel that this is being rushed the section what is it section two first of all I don't see the need for it um if I was a duplex owner and didn't know about this which I'm quite sure quite a few duplex owners there in town don't know about this I think they all should be notified that this is happening I mean a lot of people I mean what if Sandy came through here again place is destroyed under this they'd have to build theyd need 10,000 square feet to build a duplex again and maybe they use that rent from the second unit to pay for the whole duplex I personally don't see the need for this I I say leave it alone leave it at 60 by 100 it's worked so far I don't think the subdivisions and all the issues that Council has are really that dire the master plan when it discusses duplex Lots it's very specific on the size so yeah I don't would the master plan have to be amended to conform with this change I think the master plan on lot on the duplex Lots I just identified what the zoning is it doesn't recommend they remain it doesn't recommend they increase it just was a review of the zoning in the town and what Provisions there are for duplex a single family and so forth so it's written in there but it it didn't technically mean it always remains that way the master PL specific on the lot size it's 60 ft no they reviewed existing zoning so it reviewed existing zoning so it just mentions in there that a duplex needs to be on a 60x 100 lot in other words what Mr little was saying is the master plan doesn't recommend one way or the other right whether or not the existing zoning requirement should go up or down it's silent as right just identify what currently exists in the code correct so I know we're on that thing but I had one other question the the definition of building is any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls and intended for the shelter housing or enclosure of any individual animal Process Equipment Goods or material of any kind then the definition of floor are ratio is representing the gross floor are of all buildings or structures on a lot divided by the total area so if you have a garage a shed or even a garage under two floors above I think that's means that all of that gets counted into the 4 a ratio so you can't if you had a garage underneath a raised Ranch you would be counting both floors of that previously we mentioned that it was habitable area but both these definitions don't reference back the habitable area so technically if you have a unheated garage unheated shed for all those buildings in your floration so 50% you could have 2500 square feet that would include your lower garage which is below base flood your shed your garage any building according to the definitions I was a little concerned with that um I read it after I legally I will tell the board I agree with Mr Little's interpretation because flura ratio refers to Flur of all buildings or structures in go to the definition of buildings right and it doesn't make any reference to have a little area right let me check structure yeah and structures I think I me structure anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground again no reference to habitable areas so whether or not again the governing bodies made a policy decision to go this way they have but I agree with Mr Middle's interpretation there's nothing tied for FL ratio now to habitable area so a garage would be included right and a shed and a shed and yeah and even the space below your upper two floors the lower garage area under a house would be counted according so one of my suggestions would be that not sure how we want to handle this but many boards will send a letter back to the governing body saying they reviewed the ordinance and here are our concerns right was that their intention was that a conscious change they made it may not have been I don't know no I mean these just dealt with duplexes no this is more this is all the definitions everything's in here yeah the governing body and the zoning department have been working through these definitions for almost a year now updating them going through them so if you have a specific concern Frank you know you you can discuss with Phil and you you have this in an ordinance now that went through first reading right so the board's option is to write a letter to the governing body that we review this and we have a concern about these two definitions now including all the space in a building which technically means you're going to build a a garage with a raised Ranch to meet the Flor ratio because you're lower floor is going to count because it doesn't reference habitable area which is heated space okay so I think that's a big concern and I don't know if they caught that that's all I don't right because I don't think that much have been one of the definitions that we actually we didn't change every single definition yeah I I'm just looking at the ordinance as a whole because the whole ordinance is going so the other thing that I mean when reading these definitions that bothered me is the 18 foot garage and the shed I don't see the point in allowing somebody to have a detached 18t garage and the shed why not just put a second story on the shed I mean on the garage and ban all sheds you're taking up more land putting the shed and if somebody cannot afford a garage then they're allowed to have a shed for storage but once they decide to put a garage in the shed's got to go I just don't see the point of having a shed and a garage on the same lot that doesn't make any sense to me and I mean you can control the height and take it up to 22 or 24 or whatever it takes for a second story to use for storage but I just I I personally think that's a better idea so any other discussion I'd like to make Mr oh wants to speak okay John go ahead yeah um I agree with Bonnie I my problem with all this and and I understand we're looking at this through Through The Eyes of consistency with the master plan my problem with all this since this is first reading this impacts taxpayers residents business owners um people who own that want to rent and may not be able to uh now afford to rent offset expenses um I I I think this is we're rushing through this in terms of our comments without knowing what the what the public especially the the real estate industry feels about this um hold on hold on hold on hold on I don't mean to interrupt Mr Alber as I explained to the board that's not our role this in this ordinance has been properly introduced by Baro Council the next part of the process is the consistency review which is all this board does we don't introduce the ordinance we don't adopt the ordinance we don't have a public hearing on the ordinance all we do is review for consistency there are council members who are elected officials unlike these board members who are appointed granted we have the mayor and Miss B Miller the class one and class three for the ml but that's not what this board does we didn't introduce this your concerns are understood of course but we need to stay focused on what this land use board's role is in terms of the recommendation we make back to the governing body as Mr little indicated we can certainly write a letter I can turn that into the resolution that I do and point out what the board's concerns are that I've been testified to here tonight but concerns about impacts on taxpayers and that's for Council to do and at the time of the second reading it will be open to the public and anybody and everybody can be heard with respect to the those concerns if they have such concerns and then Council can decide whe they're going to adopt whether they're going to table whether they're going to change it I they'll make those decisions at the time of the second reading of the ordinance but it's been introduced and it's been properly referred to us and we're here to do what we're passed to do as I read earlier and as spelled out in Mr Little's La so right can recommendations on what is Grant fathered or not no grandfathered or what isn't is it's a matter of law okay okay my other comment Frank if I could say I have a question for Frank little uh the definition of impervious coverage uh includes parking lots regardless of whether they're using pervious papers or not is that something we can look at well you can look at it but you know that's the definition that's always been the definition and I believe is is that is that something the lands board could could make a recommendation to the governing body what do you want to rec that the parking lot if they're using perious pages should not be considered impervious yeah you could recommend that certainly okay the other part of my question and Frank L says to maintain the use of planning techniques and zoning regulations that preserve the Integrity of an existing residential districts well if you take in those um duplex districts and make it 100 feet there is no duplex District because you're going to build single family home well You' change it but it would be in the RB Zone if you change but you eliminate you're basically eliminating technically if you had a duplex and you had I mean if you had 100 by 100 a lot Chances Are youd Go 250 foot single family homes that's what I'm saying yeah so you eliminated you you eliminated any future duplexes yeah I I don't know truthfully I I can't recall any new duplexes have been built off the top of my head none that came before the board most of it's going the other way the single family I don't know how many we side by side duplexes yeah there might be a couple of them quite a few yeah well nothing came before so probably conformed and went to the building department so you're you're eliminating a type of housing out of the master well I'm not eliminating out of the master plan it's still a permitted use it's just now you need 10,000 square feet which is not gonna happen which more than likely would mean you know you won't have any more duplexes being built just with all the respect to the board this is already like the first reading went through Council and there was extensive discussion and none of you were there to and we went through like how every single municipality has a very very similar ordinance the purpose of it so it's kind of unfair that you're going back and forth on this when you didn't even listen to the initial first reading at the council meeting Amy that is incorrect I I was there and and since it was first reading the Public Public could not see what the ordinance said they didn't need to we clearly discussed it well I think the public without disclosure well I'm sure I'm sure I can't imagine that the burrow didn't advertise the ordinance post introduction as required under the law so it's available for anybody to see anybody can come to burrow Hall and get a copy of it if they'd like and it will be subject to a public comment on second reading um again we're not personal opinions are not what we're tested to do here it's whether or not this ordinance is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan we can make recommendations back now we act as a board the the vote the motion and the vote is going to be H is going to have to be very detailed because a majority of nine of you there remember we don't count past nine we're going to have to vote in favor of the recommendation with respect to different issues I kept copious notes I hope I have them all but if the majority of you don't think a recommendation with respect to a certain section should be made then I can't make it the board acts as a board through its resolution not through individual members now I could crack a resolution in such a way that certain members have certain recommendations but that's a recommendation from a member is not a recommendation from the board which may have been in birth they might have changed one definition and not look at how it affected another definition we can point that out no doubt about it absolutely well how about this I'm going to make a motion okay I make a motion that we pass ordinance 2024 what's the number we recommend it for about okay what's the number 2024 that's 27 C with exceptions and the exceptions will be the floor are ratio and section two about the the U duplexes well would be the it would be the definition of a building all right definition of FL ratio compared to one right right that deals with the floor area ratio um and John had something that he wanted something about perious favers and parking you know there is a definition now of perious Hardscape in here but the impervious coverage definition doesn't say anything about it so it does say any papers are considered impervious so are you amending the motion Madam chair to include recommendations with the exceptions for the FL ratio as compared to definition of building section two regarding duplexes and the impervious lot coverage definition right there's a motion is there a second we just is there a second second Mr medle yes Mrs ball Miller yes Mrs Leonard yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinquist yes Mr Balo yes Mr lafredo yes Miss King yes Mr Halper no only the nine so the motion carries I will prepare the resolution with the recommendations exceptions as articulated in the motion the motion passes unanimously 9 to zero Now understand Council can still adopt the ordinance okay there's a there's a procedure in the ml we not need not worry about that but even if a land use board even if we were to determine it was inconsistent which we haven't the governing body can still adopt it but they have to spell out the reasons why and explain why they don't agree with the land use board's recommendation so I just want everybody to be clear so it's possible that ordinance 2024 d27 c will be adopted as written not withstanding our recommendations but they will be included in the resolution which I will send to Gina after the meeting and I will reflect what happened here this evening okay thank you all right moving right along to our first application tonight is ready uh 2024-the a c variance relief for side yard setback and building coverage to increase the size of an existing deck by approximately 63 sare fet to allow for reconfiguration of the stairs so as to encroach upon the adjacent property so not not here not not encroaching the adjacent property ready for me is it work it's not I don't know turn it on let's make sure it is a the side ones work better I okay do seem Mr if that doesn't work please make sure that you your Witnesses all speak into the mic Mr Bas I know you know the see you again all right that's working oh good evening everyone my name is Nick represent um Brian and Melissa singer the owners of the subject property we are here seeking variance relief and um Mr singer he's gonna provide testimony we also have as speak y all right we're also going to have as our planning and Engineering expert Jim brazowski I'll swear and qualify him later so I first want to say um a couple of things one I became aware recently in the last couple of days that in um I was not as clear as I could have been in the application did not mean to imply that the deck expansion was not there uh because on the plan it doesn't say propose it shows as an existing condition uh we we need to get it approved it's never been approved so that's what I was trying to convey we needed approval for that 63 square feet um I thought um and there was a pending but notice of violation for get building it without a permit we're going to talk a all about that um tonight tonight by Mr BR singer's uh testimony so I just wanted to clear up that there was no intent to mislead anybody that the conditions there plan is clear but my language should have said something to the effect to legalize the existing condition so I personally apologize for that and that was my fault so having said that um I want to just go through a little bit of background there was an existing set of steps in order for Mr and Mrs singer to access rear of their property the steps the old steps were so close to the property of our neighbor that um effectively for Mr singer to walk to the rear rear of their property they had to walk onto the property of the neighbor there just wasn't enough room and if you look at the survey you really can't go around the other way either because there's only a little more than a foot setback on the back of the property um so to access the back side of his property and we'll show that graphically um he needed to walk around the steps so Mr singer uh and Mrs singer did not want to do that um the expansion of the deck 63 feet allowed them to reorient the stairs so that it it went from being the southernly property line to the Westerly Westerly side and that then allows him to walk or them to walk under the deck to get to the rear he then enclosed it because the the neighbor tenants Mr singer would store kayaks bikes whatever uh surfboards on the side there they would kind of borrow it the neighbors um they didn't steal it but they borrowed it thinking that it was part of the rental of the neighbor so he enclosed it now was should have got permits for that yes and we'll talk about that so what we're here today for is to request that the current condition remain except for the fact that we we understand we believe there's a small encroachment of our existing structure on their property although the surveys are somewhat inconsistent but we are proposing to pull back the porch and the enclosure so we're off the property um we're not going to come obviously close to the 5 foot setback but we the upstair Studio only has one really way to get in and that's the way it's been it's been configured there's no internal staircase it's a separate unit you can't enter from another location because their way to buildings designed without a major expansion of the building so the approach that Mr and Mrs singer are proposing we think is the best solution given the current and long-standing conditions of the property it's non-conforming there's a lot of non-conforming properties in terms of setbacks it allows for safe access to the second floor not only by whoever's occupying the second floor the studio but in the event God forbid of an emergency the First Responders have to go up the stairs you have to have sufficient width um and and Mr singer will talk about that he is a retired New York City firefighter with 30 years experience he's going to be able to talk about those kind of need for Access and so we think our design accomplishes a lot now I know there's an obor our Neighbor Next Door she doesn't like the fact that we enclosed it but we think there's good reason for that and and by we could put a 5-ft fence with 1ot lattice 50% open 50% closed 6 foot that open area is only 8et so we're talking really about two feet and Mr singer puts storage in there bikes surfboards we think our solution is the better solution in terms of keeping it kind of that dist storage away from the visual impact to the neighbors but we'll talk about that so enough for me I'd like to have Mr singer uh talk about this and how he got to the place where he is today if I may Mr Senor could you raise your right hand please do you swear from testimony give before this board would be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you Brian for the record I'm just G to let you because you've G through this and I know we have to share exhibits with the uh opposition here um so and then I want you to walk the board through what you've done wait wait Mr s you're going to have to talk into the mic this whole thing is being recorded and especially because there's an objector here so there's going to be a transcript in case there's some subsequent proceeding deping what the board does yes I'm just going to hand out the pictures um for the record you you took these photos yes my wife took the photos we did not go on to the southern end of property there's been an ongoing issue with going on to each other's property since this occurred so I'll give you the history uh 2013 um came down to look at buying a property in Beach Haven um went and found a few properties this one was of Interest we're looking for a small place my wife and I could live in and use the other place for family and friends so we found a bunch of them long story short 2013 we were able to uh go to contract on this property um Billy Greer was the building inspector um he is became a very good friend because I worked with his nephew Bobby G on the fire department for 30 years so he uh able to help me out with this property to make sure we get it and uh move forward short contract 2013 did not close until 2018 two weeks before closing the party uh that was buying it from passed away took him five years to probate and uh fight each other in court 20 2018 summer of 2018 we bought the property um in not in very good shape all overgrown literally the table the plates and everything inside the houses were sitting on a table s Sandy sand on the floor nothing was touched send that point so totally overgrown so in Billy Greer's uh comments about the property it said that I need to repair the deck in the rear because of uh the decking was bad and the handrails were bad that uh need to be repaired discussed with him at that point that um what my plans were because as you see there was trees I had to go around those trees to gain access to my property to move the stairs to the other side um I was under misunderstanding I thought what I then built was what I could do as a repair because the whole framework from the old deck is there I didn't touch a post uh the joist uh are all there the only thing I did is took down those stairs and extended it and moved the stairs so now I no longer have to go on my neighbor's property 2019 um had some issues with um the neighbors rear tenants uh she rents the place uh which every right to front and rear housee that was my storage area during the summer so so three or four times that summer I had couple surfboards chairs we are so close back there and where my seating area is those tenants would use my stuff they weren't stealing it two times I had to go down that beach and get my surfboards and bring them back so finally start a construction around 20 2021 May of 2021 like I said I thought it was repair did all the work myself you see everything in there from cutting those trees down those trees were required to have I had to remove them because the insurance they started on my property and went across the sly neighbor's house insurance that I had to remove them to keep my insurance so the trees came and I built what was there in terms of the Brian those trees are your property right trees are on my property the only vegetation you can see was there the only I Disturbed I took down those three trees um changed the angle of the stairs so now I can go underneath and Clos in my belongings at that point in 2021 it stopped uh got a violation which understood I needed to get a permit for it Subic with that permit uh they said that that two- family structure they had an issue they thought that it was not a two- family structure since 1950 that was built I live in a 20 1925 Bungalow 1950 was there has always been a two family two bedrooms Studio Plus the single family in front the single family in front nothing's changed on it uh hire Nick and some quite some money went before yeah some some of you may remember that we came before the board it was a zoom meeting during Co Jamie you were there at the time I remember and the board voted unanimously to determine that the three uh dwelling units the duplex and a single were a pre-existing non-conforming so I did that in 21 I guess right and and then 22 was it 20 okay 22 Yeah so we appealed the zonings officers determination and the board reversed that's what's attached to this submission I made that resolution so take it from there let me Mr that's a good point just so the board understands that prior resolution is included in the application correct yes photos there are there are seven photos there new marketing yeah we'd like to there photos of um and and Brian can walk you through each of them if you'd like I mean they may be S res1 yeah Brian we can call them uh Brian Singer photos so going me to walk through the photos briefly just first one is you'll see the three trees all starting on my property underneath the steps uh took them down removed them um then you number two you'll see the location the steps going up you'll see the post in the back there's 6x6 posts that deck was built in 1982 let me stop you when you're looking at that's photo two correct yes to the right side or the steps as they were located the the neighbor's property is immediately to the right of that yes for you to get be behind the stairs to get the access the rear of your property you would have to walk in the neighbor's property yes okay so um number two shows where there and those existing posts are still there uh kept that exact framework that went around uh put plywood on it and fiberglass over top of that I did change the area where the steps are straight above to make it so I can go north to south instead of east to west so essentially by relocating the stairs and extending the deck you can now walk under the deck to get to the rear your property you don't need to go in the neighbor's property anymore so number three is uh similar number four is just showing down from the top of the old deck you'll see the railing and the condition of it was not you know not quality at that point after being there for 40 years so number five uh this is when I built the area at this point this was done in uh June of 2021 I have not touched anything since that's where it stayed uh this Endeavors cost me all roughly 30,000 cost me 40 $4,700 to build this stuff 30,000 for the engineers lawyers surveyors over the past three years so delay is purely Financial six is the steps that I built going up from that side and number seven is the top uh railing and you'll see about halfway down that's the entrance to that studio on the uh two family and and and Brian you've also renovated the units the interior you've cleaned up you've just cleaned up the inside and uh me know nice old beach bungalows and uh Old Pine siding and kept it that way and and you've clean up all the landscaping and the overgrown and since 21 I haven't done anything since but at that point with the stop I haven't touched another part of the property until I get this matter resolved so so Brian um obviously to the extent and the Sur the survey shows that deck is over the property line you're willing to relocate that right well yeah I am but her survey shows that it's uh not over the property line mine shows a little bit over the property line so to not argue it I'm willing to move it back a little bit to keep it off the property and and we back here just if I may so as a condition of approval if the board were to Grant this application your client will agree if it turns out that it's over the property line take it back yeah we yeah we showed on our plan plan to take it back uh Le 6 in 6 in actually I think we showed 2 in in our PL in our well it was 6 in total because it says three inches over so I propose to go six inches back so we're off the property line obviously the board can't R absolutely absolutely as a condition of approval if granted the deck will be taken back six inches correct and and I just want to point out uh we were provided a 2013 survey that shows It's Not Over um I understand they got a new survey that shows it's over and I believe our survey shows it's over by a couple of inches so to the extent that there's a and I'm sure the the surveyors can come to some agreement but we would be fine if Mr little were the Arbiter of where the property line is I'm I'm willing to agree to that my client is because somebody's going to make a decision what survey is correct we're only talking inches here literally a few inches but some point some say this is what's correct and I don't know that the board wants to get into that kind of decision making the board doesn't have that Authority okay but we we would for purposes of abiding by that condition of the board approves this have Mr little say this is the line this is where you have to be but it's probably about six inches so six in is the reason for that is there's a five and a half inch post there and I can take it and what's called marry that post next to it right behind it to support it and then remove that one so I can take out that post by putting another post right behind it remove that post so I can still keep the structural Integrity of the deck above that's why I was said move it back six inches then uh the neighbor will show you I didn't go on in there take pictures she'll have pictures of it I'm willing to do whatever's along that wall there's one window I could add other windows uh it's not a structural uh it's meant for storage can paint it you know that I needed to finish trimming it make panels have it look nice but that's been stopped it's just painted white and it's been that way for three and half years you you agreeable to aesthetic treatment of that wall the board will approve it including adding Windows to kind of give it an open look I'll put plantings in front of it I'll do whatever she wants to you won't have to see it if that's what she wants so from great you have a question just for clarification purposes can you show on that PLP plan where it's over the property line I'm not sure Jim if you want want Jim yeah let's that's G qualify ask before this be the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth yes I do you're prior you're your New Jersey licensed engineer Planner yeah for the record my name is James fras I'm a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New Jersey and an employee at ortic in yod since 1997 you've been qualified by this you've been qualified by this board in the past as an expert in those uh professions correct yes Mr chairman I offer Mr braasi as an expert sorry I say mad chair you're supposed to Madam chair um yes we've seen it many times yes thank you um Mr brazas thank you I didn't know that I just um the area that we're talking about is in the Southeast corner of the uh of our subject property we've got a A twostory or one and a half story duplex located on the east side of the property uh to the south of the duplex is a uh roughly five foot wide deck that provides access to the duplex to the the second floor unit the second floor unit is accessed by a door uh that faces South so to get into the the unit you come up the steps turn left go about to the middle of the of the building and then open the door and go to the north property and Jim this is the variance plan Rec sated that's being displayed yes okay to the upper right is the original condition can you show where to start for before when my uh office surveyed the property in 2016 the steps the the deck extended to just a little bit to the west of the midpoint of the structure and the stairs started from that point heading west and and Jim would it be possible to get to the rear of the property and that the original condition without going on to the neighbor's property now these steps prevent you from getting underneath the deck in this configuration uh the east side of the building is also about a foot off the property line it it jogs though so under and underneath it's set back under the deck and then it jogs as you go but you can't get to the jog right from the other direction because that portion the northern portion of the building is enclosed all the way has always been enclosed all the way the ground the one unit exists on that right and so you can't access it from the other direction it's right you have to access it from where the stairs are so the idea of relocating the stairs is to allow access under the deck and and to avoid the U the neighbor's property with this configuration you just walk do East along the southern property line and get underne the deck area okay and Coach is like just the full length of the deck is about based on our survey two10 of an two10 of a fo south of the what two10 and inches is approximately two and a half inches about two in yeah two inches and so just show again where this the photos the the what we'll call the the storage area under the deck that's just show the line of that the enclosed area is just the Shaded area under the deck that's the the area that's enclosed under the deck one the uh the existing surve so from the underside of the deck to grade how many feet is that from the underside of the deck to grade is a little over 8 feet just a little shorter N9 feet okay so the code would allow the installation of a 5 foot fence with a one foot lattice half open half half uh open and closed right foot 5 foot solid fence with one foot of 50% open fence above it six foot so the difference between what we have and what's permitted is two feet correct two feet correct okay any questions on Mr brazas if not I'll go back to Mr singer I only have one question do we know how far the neighbor thinks you're over versus how you far you think you're over well depending on what survey they had their old survey shows that were not over from 2013 when The Neighbor bought the property apparently they got a new survey done that shows were over I I don't know uh exactly but I think we're within inches either way but does the neighbor then have another survey that shows you might be over further yes they just got a new one done we hear I assume we'll hear from them as to have yeah she's gonna come up they think you are yeah okay yeah so you're saying we have two surveys three three our our our survey shows were over they have a survey from 2013 the shows were not over although it's a third of an inch and then what's the third one they had a new one done they got a new surveyor that shows it we're over so you show you're over and one that doesn't one is ours and one is theirs and and one is theirs that shows we not over that's why I suggest that Mr little be the Arbiter of what's in fact over I'm gonna split half yeah I'll have to see how much they think they're I have questions in their presentations I just want to mention just one other thing the in order to get the steps to obviously go along the west wall of the building the deck had to be extended to the West in order to to get the step to come along the west wall the with the reduction of the half a foot along the entire length of deck we're going to increase building coverage by 49 square feet which increases the non- Conformity from 36.2% to 37.2% reduce building coverage I mean we're increasing building coverage by by pulling it back we're not between 2016 and today is I got you but but per Mr singer's discussion years ago if he removed 84 square feet concrete Nick let me yeah go ahead so in my uh sitting down with Billy Greer the there was a front porch on the 1925 Bungalow there's a concrete 1T High actually 18 in high slab that was there that had the blue green purple flagstone that they used to use so I expressed that I'm going to remove that 84 square fet and then our discussions about the back deck me increasing it you felt the impervious that long as I stayed below the impervious amount that I was doing so Tak an 84 square feet off adding 62 at the time now we're proposing to take another 4 14 Square ft off the side if I take 6 in off the 32 ft so now we're down to roughly 43 Square ft that I added but in this whole process I removed impervious the front patio which you'll see on the first survey and it's mentioned in the plan that Jim put together Ryan do you have anything further you want to add at this point no um like I said on that wall she'll show you the pictures I'm willing to put Windows it out like I said it stopped at that point 3 years ago put plantings anything to be able to keep my space and secure my space that uh she rents her place front and rear year round I'm a now a permanent resident in the bungalo and since I put this wall up nothing's been borrowed from my space uh thank you obviously Mr Sing will be available for any questions I'd like to have Mr brazowski go through the planning testimony at this point Jim so Jim um this is a classic hardship variance I would argue yeah we have a a legally existing structure uh that has some uh existing nonconformities and and and you could not gain access to the rear of property with the old configuration is that accurate that is accurate so from a um just a St standard planning pers perspective boards can't Grant approval and we can't access a joining property without permission correct yes so does the revised design moving the steps allow for access to the rear of the property without the need to encroach upon um the neighbor's property it does yes and is that a benefit in terms of good design yeah it allows uh the maintenance of the of the building and the upstairs is a Studio it's it does there's no internal access right with that's right and you looked at because I asked you to can you put the steps like on the front of the unit like facing toward Bay and and you said well if you look at the design the studios to the rear of the current structure you'd have to do a major redesign really an expansion it's not economically feasible not practical did is that accurate from your yes yes it in order to um come come up with an alternate access you may need to remove the roof of the the one story apartment because the uh the second floor apartment only extends for the the southern half of that building the the northern half of the building is just a one-story building so in order to provide steps somewhere else you may have to alter roof lines um build a new deck above you know above the the existing one-story building um it just it starts getting into a lot of uh work okay so and and there's three approved living dwelling units there um based upon your observations is storage necessary for such things as surfboards and other kinds of um beach activities and summer activities yes is that um area under the porch a good location for terms of the overal design it is yes so if if the board chooses not to approve the setback for the enclosure because that's a setback issue you're allowed to enclose a storage area but we obviously don't need to setback the alternative is to kind of put a fence to secure it which you said would be 8 foot with the the 50% open and 50% close is that correct the total yeah the total height of the fence 5 foot solids uh plus one foot of 50% open so so what would be the difference between the fence height and the bottom of the deck roughly two feet and that's it so is there a benefit to that versus what is there today uh no I I would think that it's the opposite I would think that uh um from an aesthetic stand point this the solid wall is is going to have better Aesthetics than um a fence leaving a two- foot Gap that you're able to see whatever is being stored under the the deck through that I can't see that I can't imagine that being a better plan than providing a solid wall and with that two foot Gap improve air light in open space which is a purpose of zoning no why because the well first of all the the deck is as we mentioned is about nine feet above the ground the bottom the bottom of the deck yeah and it's a and that's it for the structure adjacent to that property line it's just a one story deck that's enclosed below so the wall we're looking at is is 8 foot plus the the the one foot of uh of decking so that the wall we're looking at is about 9 foot uh right now um the the the light that we're getting during the daytime is coming around the southern side of the building not from the northern side so the the sunlight is is coming from the south this building doesn't block any sunlight um so and leaving a two- foot Gap above a fence isn't going to increase any light air and open space to for anybody okay so you think atically it's better for storage area to be enclosed as as the current condition is I think so yes and uh it's also provides security for personal property yes and Mr singer you heard him testify he's he couldn't finish the exterior but he's willing to paint it'll do any color actually that the neighbor would like he'll finish the trim work he can even add additional windows that kind of give it a more residential feel to it but easy to do uh by the way he is a uh former cabinet maker in addition to being a firefighter he's very good at his um I walk through the house he's very good at trim work and that kind of stuff um and of course if the board were to approve this we'd have to go get a building permit the building department would be satisfied that the work being done is in compliance with all codes it's not a board issue but obviously that would have to be done correct yes and um I I know the client is offered if the neighbor were willing he'd even put a row of landscaping it has to be of course on a neighbor's property but adjacent to the storage area to kind of soften it if that's but we couldn't there's no room in our property to do but we would pay for it adjacent at an area again to mitigate what the neighbor perceives as an issue um but the the reality is there's going to be some kind of barrier to protect the um the personal property of our client because of his experiences with the tenants kind of again not trying to steal but helping themselves to those uh surfboards and whatever else he stores out there so he's going to secure it one way or the other the question is what's the better design and um so that that is that all accurate yeah absolutely um and then there's a number of code issues which I don't want to get into in terms of uh proximity property line and and fire codes and all that it's not really a board issue but I can have Mr singer who is 30 years experienc as a New York City firefighter talk about whether he thinks that the enclosed in fact I will bring him up the enclosed storage is better from a fire safety standpoint than having a fence in an open area so I I want you to stand by for a second Mr singer I'd like you to talk about that again for the record you recently retired on disability after 30 years as a firefighter correct broke my neck out of fire so what we discussed if you close it yeah and close this space below uh the neighbor had an issue saying that uh fire is going to come out if I uh left it open there' be a fire I mean if I close it there's a fire isue with extension uh over to her property this was a comment that I heard uh it's the exact opposite if it's enclosed it's getting no air anything's burning in there it needs oxygen so if it's enclosed there is no uh you have a much more quicker time uh I mean it will not burn in a quick amount of time if it's enclosed if it's open air and just getting oxygen fire needs oxygen and so you have a much greater chance of it coming out of that area if it's not enclosed so there was a comment that uh there's could be a fire issue with uh be enclosing that and I think it's the exact opposite thank thank you so Mr brazowski based upon that testimony is another purpose of zoning so you talked about light air in open space is another purpose of zoning is to provide for the public safety to make sure we have good design yes to provide safety from fire and flood yes so is the proposed enclosed storage area a better planning alternative in your opinion under the C2 criteria than the open area with a fence next to it yes okay um so you talked about the justification this is hardship it's hardship because there's is there There's no practical way to get upstairs unless you without encroaching unless you have this reconfiguration is that accurate yes and that's a condition unique to this property it it is yes because the pre-existing condition of the building which has been there for decades at least 40 years from what we can tell um that's been there and that that the board did determine that that upstairs unit is a standalone unit there's no internal connection correct between the units that's correct yes so no practical way to access it other than the design that we came with is that accurate yes in your opinion does that create a a hardship under the municipal anage law of a unique conditional property yes it does okay then there's Aesthetics talked about how you believe that one there's no in well that's the next part that the wall which any decorative treatment that the board wishes whether it's paint additional Windows trim would be better than a fence with a two foot Gap above it yes from an aesthetic standpoint yes I believe so yes better planning alternative than what's permitted yes and um having said those things do you think so to justify any variance you have to show that there's no substantial detriment to the Zone plan or public good this obviously doesn't comply with the Zone plan but it really can't given that it's grandfather and it's so so you know it's it's a non PRI nonconforming structure correct yes but in the context of what is feasible does this um achieve the goals of the n landus orance in terms of providing safe access to the second floor or the studio unit I should say it does and it's safer for God forbid there's an emergency First Responders somebody needs medical help and they have to be evacuated out come up and down the steps yeah even with the removal of the six inches of deck that we're proposing there'll be 48 inches clear from the uh the exterior wall of the building to the inside of the railing um so is that adequate space for First Responders it is yes and then there's also the Practical which is just you want to move a refrigerator into that unit you want to move furniture into that unit there has to be a way of getting that into the unit correct yes so to make it functional you need stairs you need a walkway you need porch okay so the other part is whether or not there's a substantial detriment uh to the public good do you see a substantial detriment to the public good under the circumstances uh no I don't see any detriment to the public good the uh the building is in the Southeast corner of a of a property that fronts on Long Beach Boulevard um the the general public can't even see back there that's right and um again You' you've testified that the proposed plan to enclose the storage is actually a better design alternative aesthetically than a fence with a two- foot Gap yes okay anything further no so as a planner do you believe the board has the legal authority to Grant the variance relief requested today yes I do in your professional opinion yes all right um if I may You' had the opportunity review Mr little you August 28 2024 yes I have if the board were to Grant this application uh as a condition of approval your client will comply with all the comments and recommendations contain report yes okay is can I ask a question fire away I'm just I don't know if I misheard you did you say that you believe that there's more air light and open space with the enclosed versus just the fence no I just I simply said the uh keeping an enclosed isn't going to enclosing it uh isn't going to uh negatively affect the light air in open space because of of the width of the enclosure where the enclosure is that it's on the south side of a building um that it's only four five foot enclosed area um so and the way of Sun rises sense right and the only space that would remain open after a fence was put in is two feet between the top of the fence and the bottom of the decking so I I don't see that as um significantly increasing light air or decreasing whichever way you want to look at it um putting up a solid wall doesn't significantly decrease the light air in open space right but if you I mean you're showing sometimes when you use the airl and open space it just doesn't kind of doesn't really makes sense to me because if I look at this picture that's completely closed if I look at this picture record just put a record so picture five it's closed that's as it exists and then when I look at picture three I can look straight through that that's um uh that's the same that that is from our side that's not from the neighbor's side that is from looking from our single family toward the back in other words your back is toward Bay Avenue there you're you're that's our view the the photo that shows the prior condition the open condition Pho photo 3 open which doesn't show a fence so once you put a solid five foot solid fence with a one foot um lat you know 50% open lattice on top that's going to you know make that a different view you're going to look at something different with that there's no fence there currently no fence there no fence at all they're saying that's but also that's that's an option okay I have a question on Photo one this window here what's behind here what what room Brian that's the kitchen area just questioning that um I guess I have a lot of I guess a lot of questions um what's actually stored in the shed right now uh microphone show my phone the surfboards beach chairs uh the remaining construction materials that I would use to finish what I started are sitting there I don't know if you can put that in well I don't know that we can show you I don't know how we put that into the record for the record you can testify you could see inside that the existing deck you can't show that Brian okay sorry just testify okay good because one of one of the other things I noticed looking at the property there's three parking spaces in the rear access yes coming down that side right there seems to be bike wrecks that they're in the parking areas yes so so they're not parking which is required on which side you're talking on the east side so as we had East yes I put them but I move to the back you'll see a bike rack on the there but those bike racks I take them and uh put them inside throughout the winter I do store two cars up to that you're supposed to have three I think there according when we looked at the approval I guess back in 21 or 22 yes I bring two cars in up to that point all I'm saying is the bike racks are in your parking okay areas as a we we can remove that agree that it's a condition of approval yes they're not permanent bike rack they're just uh you know a metal piece they're not into the ground I can move them anywhere no no issue with moving if this this drawing shows three three cars and then some bacon space you can move the bike racks up closer to are or now you have a little table there I think as you come up into that area um the three cars would then give me8 feet so not technically room for another car so it was stopped at that point because the as you come off iroy and come in the uh Town knows so much of it and then the three cars after gives me about 8 feet so was able to get the four cars so I can put stuff in that other area up front there bike including a bike rack and the yeah and I guess the part I didn't understand you're saying by enclosing the space you have access to the rear no no the enclosing by moving the stairs and putting the stairs in the configuration then allows you to walk under the deck to the rear that's a different issue than the enclosure so what's the so but when you put the enclosure on the property line how do you maintain this the sighting or the outside of that structure that you just put in there when the steps were in there you could maintain your structure now you can't it's it's always an issue when the properties are very close for example the neighbors is about a foot away her entry from our property what neighbors generally do is they ask permission to maintain and and that's have an easement maintain do you have an easement to maintain your that's sighting so I don't see how you can put a solid structure on the property line or over the property line wherever it may be we're not it won't be over the property line will be pulled back um it's it's it's challenge but it's um it's it's not doable without an e well we we've asked them we offered by do by doing right now before you did it you could now you can can I put a fence there pardon can I put a fence where that wall is yes you the property l l yeah and so you can build a fence from your side of the property line but but you can't and you can maintain a fence from your side of the property line but not a not a structural not a wall well let me ask you Brian you're a carpenter could you maintain that somehow from the interior or would you need exterior access no you cannot maintain it from the interior it's a like any uh there's you cannot maintain it from the interior so the and I'll go I'm getting to my basic issue and that's that's the expansion of a non-conforming use but by en closing this thing it looked like we made a substantial Improvement to a deck area uh that's an expansion of the nonconforming use and I I don't think that should be done I think we should look at how we how or you should look at how you correct your situation and we can help with that but it's an expansion of the of the building if I period if I put a fence there the fence is fine you can fence there that or this allows you to do that how do I then maintain how do I maintain my property with the exist where where the stairs existed how do I get there to maintain how you going to maintain it with with a solid wall on the property line how you going to maintain that sighting you can't without an easement without an easement and that's the same thing as if you have your stairs there I'm still going to need e or you have to dismil your stairs to maintain it to maintain the property if if I have if I go back to where the stairs were I'm still going to need an easement to go around those stairs two different issu necessarily one at a time we got we have to make a clean record yeah Mr Stevens I think there's two different issues one is the expansion of the deck and the relocation of stairs the second issue is whether that space is enclosed I I think that's what we're saying there's there from my perspective there's that's two they're unrelated well they're not unrelated but they're two different issues well by enclosing it you're expanding space I hear that and okay but but if if we don't relocate the stairs with the deck expansion of 63 fet we cannot access the rear of our property without going on the neighbor's property it's impossible I don't quite I still don't follow that okay can we go then you need to reconfigure your stairs in such a way that you can well that's what we did that's what I did I don't I don't agree with that you enclosed the space I'm willing to take down that wall that's not something that I just I just want Jim could you pull this board I'm going to show something I'm willing to remove that wall it stopped at that I don't need the wall I put a fence there this is you and your slow down this is the original configuration here's the stairs that used to exist here's the property line of the neighbor the stairs prevented access to the rear of the property under the deck so he had he had to walk onto the neighbor's property to get to the rear the new configuration by extending the deck 63 feet and putting the stairs in front of our structure you can walk under now enclosing it is a different issue that we it could be left open and Brian just said he would leave it open but this is the reconfiguration we propose to avoid having to go on the neighbor's property so you can walk under this so could he remove the siding sure the board doesn't approve that it gets Pro so you would see under to the wall of the house but this is the only reconfiguration this is the entrance to the second floor it's the only entrance the units built back There's no practical way to get there there's no internal connection so we think that the stair reconfiguration works it avoids us encroaching on the neighbor's property Mr T I'm going to ask you if it's okay with the board chair um we're going to take a break I want you to speak to your client because Mr Stevens raises a good point if in fact that enclosure makes us an expansion the non-conforming use that's not been applied for we don't have jurisdiction um you would have to Ren notice and it presents a different situation because as you know this board would have to reconstitute as a zoning board right an expansion of non-conforming uses a d variance yeah okay which means that the class one although the mayor is not here and Miss biller my class three member wouldn't be hearing this application now I understand your client has indicated that he might be willing to take down the enclosure and put up a fence I'm GNA ask that we take a break you speak to your we need to know which way you're going pause and he needs to make a decision because it's not up to the board to tell your client which way to go right but if he decides to to try go with the enclosure I think I have no choice but to recommend that um they perhaps and it's up to you that this application be withdrawn and you submit a new application for a d variance and then we'll hear that as a Zone reconstitute a zoning he doesn't have to it's entirely up to Mr singer all right but he can't leave it up to the board we don't tell applicants which way to go understood he has to make that decision we'll talk we'll take a break okay thank you [Music] okay to open to the public discussion of ordinance 2024 d27 C yes so for the motion to open to public thank you Mr Jen second second all in favor I for the record board as you know we discussed the section 26 referral of the ordinance there was a motion it was seconded it was approved 90 um you do Under the municipal land you still have to open that matter to the public so that's what we're doing right now while the sener applications being discussed um so the matter has been open to the public is there any go so is anyone would like to come up and speak to ordinates 24-27 C you have any any ideas about duplexes garages floor area ratio none of the above is there anybody on Zoom nope okay can I have a motion to close to the public motion to close Tom second second Cher thank you all in favor okay so that matter is taken care of Mr T you ready come on guys oh no 130 thank you for your patience my thank you for your patience appreciate it so um I've been talking to the neighbors's attorney so we um we want to amend the application to completely remove the enclosure completely and we would agree to pull the post back one foot off the property line their their new survey shows us about six inches at one part overhang our shows it at like two and a half three inches so we have very slight disagreement in the two surveys um which I think our orbitor could resolve um but the point is we're going to we're going to what we're proposing is be based upon wherever the property line ends up being we would pull the deck itself back 4 in off the property line to post below one foot one foot um that would give adequate room for the steps to go up to access to get in and out for for safety moving appliances and as I said safety um would avoid us having to go on her property we could access our rear and um we can remove some of the concrete under the deck um I'll let them speak for themselves I think they want it all removed I I think that's too much we do plan to get a permit to build a fence at a later date um they're not going to see the concrete with the fence that's under the deck area so that's where we are Dedra I don't know if you have anything to add at this point Mr Tac could you just bring your client to testify and affirm that everything that you just said was accurate and agreed to by Mr singer you excuse me you heard what I said yes 4 in off the property line for the deck itself post back um one foot off the property line yes and can you remove some of the concrete under the um I'll remove the concrete along where those posts are C it there there was a a blue stone the old Shale purple blue green that went around that back that's sitting right underneath that concrete okay right over top of it and do we have an approximation of what that impervious coverage reduction would be Mr brazowski if he removes that concrete it's 30 going to be 32 feet It's all under the existing structure but'll affect it'll affect drainage and those kind of things right help yeah okay so and most importantly Mr sen you will remove the entire enclosure yes yeah making sure and we're and the concrete I'm sorry and the concrete well not all of it but 32 ft of it I'm confus on where that is it there's concrete underneath the uh there was a uh underneath that structure from used to be the walkway around they used to go around the steps enclosed structure the enclosed structure was a blue stone slate concrete patio there that concrete's right over top of it so there's no difference in what was there I'm proposing if I move those post back one feet one foot that I cut that concrete instead of it you know have a foot back post back of foot then you're seeing concrete from there I remove that concrete that runs uh east to west along that I take that concrete out that's the 32 foot that's 32 the the the deck is 32 feet long and one foot is concrete were old concrete that's new below it's old it's poured right on top so all of it's coming in to do any no no for one foot one fo one foot it's about eight inches thick right now okay that will come out one foot back 32 feet long and that's the edge of where adjacent to the the um neighbor's property that's that one foot so what's the need of the concrete she said she wants the concrete out okay yeah we're proposing so we've removed 84 square feet from the front 32 now we're proposing additional 32 square ft as mitigation for the VAR request and and the coms or the post whatever you call them yeah we're going to move them one foot back but what about the actual deck itself is that's going to come back four inches off the property line so it'll have a slight um over overhang what what is the property line what survey are we us determine that so I want to be the arbitr why can't we just get the objector will agree what survey we're going to use yeah I mean it's G to be hard for me be surveying it myself to decide well wrong why don't we have Mr brazowski talk about need to hear from the objectives too yeah that's fine the upper deck is coming whatever property line we agree the de is coming into that property line right yeah the 2013 survey shows we're not over but the two more recent surveys show that we are over our recent survey from Mr braasi but he shows at a smaller amount he shows3 okay feet3 feet their survey shows at one part 0. five and then it it goes down to 3 there's no reason why you that small would difference just the GRE there's not an argument it's inches it's inches if you're gonna have to cut the new line yeah he's gonna agre to a lot already that's why I agreed to move it back a foot if it's sitting right now I move it back a foot then I'm out of any of her and you're going you're going to correct the deck the deck is going to be cut back 4 in off the property line to her Brian are you agreeable to just use the um neighbor survey yes all right that sounds my arbitration you're out of work D do we have a deal so are you saying that the fence then go in the one foot that you're cutting back once I cut back that foot I'm going to put a fence inside that one foot area fo area close to the property line that I'm allowed to by code you'll comply with the code requirements for the fence yes yes so that's why the foot that's out of my area so I can put a fence there so now I'm protected that my stuff I do not have to go on her property ever again right you sure Mr T hold on a minute let's have some more are you you need to rest before we hear from M we we rest our testimony and uh but available to respond to questions or issu the amendment has agreed to and testified to by Mr sh yes yes okay thank you Mr s thank you yeah I just don't want okay good evening ladies can you guys hear me yeah hold hold it sorry good evening ladies and gentlemen of the board attorney DJ Martin I am representing uh Lisa veio um I'll try to keep this really brief so my client is directly south of the applicant which I think everybody knows at this point so my client is Lot 2 and block 61 and her address is 16 uh 15 South Bay Avenue Beach New Jersey 08008 um my client's property is the property in which uh the applicants deck encroaches upon um what I do want to get into evidence is my client's uh survey that was recently done by Frank DeSantis and we have him on Zoom this evening um so if I could have Frank D santis sworn in as a let me ask you this m Martin you just heard the applicant testify under oath and agree as a condition of approval to use your survey so if you I think it's a great idea to Mark it into evidence yeah it will be attached to the resolution there a condition of approval that will be the survey that shows the property line from which all the ship acts will flow okay okay yes so what will we mark this in as so let's mark that a137 how about um how about o for objector 01 okay sure yeah I have multiple the applicat agreed this is the survey as a condition of approval this is the survey that's going to be used to determine where the setbacks are this1 right or wrong okay so we can all agree I don't need Frank to S [Music] thanks yeah um okay so I want to make sure that just get on the record what the agreement is and just want to make sure I understand so the deck that is enclosed that is depicted on horn Tyson yod's variance plan that was submitted by the applicant will now be unenclosed correct and all of the concrete that is underneath that will be removed no no no how much one foot along the edge closest to your client's property one foot for the whole 32t so 32 of concrete that's what we're proposing so my client is asking that all of the concrete be removed that would be up to the board that that's fine that's understood thank you and then we are okay if the um what do I want to call them the 6x6 posts that are there are moov back a foot from my client's property line so that they're on the applicant's property that was already agreed to by the applicant thank you and there will be an overhang of the deck that currently exists it will be brought back 4 inches off of my client's property correct based on the survey marked as01 okay that's good now because this structure that exists illegally which is on my client's property it's been there for quite some time I would ask that the board as a condition to the approval put a timeline on when this encroachment has to be modified to get it off of my client's property in conformance to what we have agreed to this evening so that 3 years later we are not in the same position and I would ask as a condition of this that the removal of the encroachment is done in a good workmanlike professional manner and that my client's property is returned to the condition it was in prior to this encroachment so so with respect to the first request Mr tvia is your client agreeable to a timeline within which yes we we would say within 3 months after the expiration the appeal period you have to get building permits and all of that um we we don't agree to remove all the concrete that our proposals Miss Martin understand this the work the work has to be done according to code it will be inspected by the appropriate PR officials that's always condition that's good okay that that's fine that's always in every tenders okay any issue as between whether or not your client agrees that it was or wasn't that's a neighbor dispute this board doesn't get into that so restoring up her property that's not for this board they don't make those determinations if she thinks her property's not been restored I'm not inviting litigation by all means I have neighbors but she'll have to take that up with her neighbor that's the board can't do that the board's not going to come back or take a look at this that's going to be for her and Mr singer to figure out and possibly litigate if they have to this doesn't do that I have seen other land use boards do it okay this board will not do that because I'm going to instruct them that's beyond their jurisdiction but your request is understood and as I said all the work will have to be done in accordance with FOH code and be inspected and approved by the appropriate bar officials that's that's good because we are concerned about the structural Integrity of the structure understand and fully appreciate and I'm sure Mr singer understands too as a retired fire thank [Music] you okay we're good we can rest okay thank you well all right can I have a motion to open this application to the public I motion to open it to the public second second thought is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak to this application anybody on Zoom no hands up okay I have a motion CL I second it thank you jie all right we have a list of things here um I guess you all have written them down go into this and I have a a motion to approve or deny this application there's some farther discussion of the concrete I think that was not it well I thought I thought they had said that that's all she wanted was a foot well doesn't matter okay she the objector has said what she wants the applicant has said what he's agreed to the board will make the decision to Grant or not gr what the applicants agree to is remove one foot of concrete along the 32t with the distance of the deck the deck underneath the deck and and once we put a fence in you're not going to see whether it's concrete or not and we do plan to use that for storage so concrete will work better um for that purpose it's has no impact on a neighbor visually or otherwise and the one foot we are removing is where defense would go so what she's going to see under defense is um dirt not concrete so I think you know all all in I think we've more than met the neighbors request um that's the only disagreement four inches off the property line for the deck we're using their survey one foot up for the posts get rid of the enclosure I I think my client has um you know reasonably worked with the neighbor to um address their concerns I mean we just have a pre-existing condition we don't want to be on their property that's why we re reconfigured the stairs so just the concrete under the deck is not increasing impervious coverage because the deck above it is already impervious coverage correct I mean I tend to agree that the concrete isn't going to be an issue and it's a better idea to have the concrete there if you're going to store stuff on it right if you put the fence up you're not going to see it anyway so I would recommend you go with the applicant's suggestion I think the objectors have gotten quite a bit in my opinion so is there a motion to approve the application as amended and if I need to go through what that means I certainly will do that motion to approve Tom as amended as amend second Jamie Jamie second Mr medal yes Mrs ball Miller yes Mrs Leonard yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinis yes Mr Balo yes Mr lafredo yes Miss King yes car thank you very much and it was a long night thank you don't ask all right yes let go okay yes application is 20241 applicant is seeking gr Rel part sh substantial benefit for a sidey set 11 combin where the existing side [Music] com hi good evening James Raven on behalf of the applicant Mary Joe altum so this property is located 324 iroy Avenue it's currently developed with a single family dwelling and what the applicant is proposing is to construct an elev Ator Edition on the easterly side of the existing house so it would be within the sidey yard setback uh currently the existing sidey yard setback is 11 ft on that side and with the proposed elevator Edition the sidey guard setback would be 6 feet 3 in in the area of the proposed elevator Edition so the elevator Tower is 26 Square ft so that's the extent of the expansion of the property and we are still within the permitted building coverage the proposed building coverage is 32. 54% where the maximum permitted is 35% so we're seeking relief with regard to the side yard setback and also in the notice as noted Mr Little's letter um to the extent of parking variant is required we would request that as well nothing's changing with respect to the parking however with this is a five-bedroom house which would require three parking spaces the architectural drawings show how three cars could fit on the property but um in reality there's a driveway in the front and this house was just built I believe in 2019 or 2020 and this is how it was approved nothing's changed with respect to the parking so is just so unclear the board's clear Mr Raven is the variance to allow for Just Two instead of where three are required or is it one or three what are you asking the board to approve uh I get yes I I guess it would be technically it appears that only one space would fit within the property line in the driveway even though the applicant can testify that multiple cars park there but they hang out into the right of way beyond the property line so just one it looks it appears to me and I can have Mr Lord clarify but one space is really I I believe all all we're providing you could angle and maybe get two uh I guess it's a better question for Mr Lord but uh so John Lord is going to testify regarding the variance plan uh will Esser from handline architecture is going to testify regarding the Elevator Shaft and Mr 's going to testify to the location there are other options explored and there was really this was the best location even though it's in a non-conforming location and then I have Mary Joe altum who's been um waiting patiently on Zoom who will provide some testimony as well and first I'll call Mr Lord Mr Lord do you sure affirm the testimony I give before this court will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do thank you Mr Raven thank you uh Mr Lord if you could briefly recite your qualifications for the board your licenses okay uh I'm a licensed professional engineer professional and surveyor professional planner in state of New Jersey uh I think I've testified here probably 20 years ago or so um but not recently uh testified all over the state um various in those various uh positions uh your licenses are still in good standing sir yes they are thank you very much thank you and Mr Lord you prepared the VAR plan that we submitted with this application uh yes we did okay and if you could just give an overview for the board of what we're proposing and what variances were requesting what we're uh proposing is the variance we're requesting is for the 6.2 feet um side offset to the elevator to the elevator enclosure um the rest of the all of the other zoning criteria are um within the allowable Zone uh the zoning requirements um we're just requesting this minor uh variance side variance for the uh elevator itself the uh [Music] um location of the elevator is the basically about the only spot you can put it that provides access to all the floors of the house which uh the architect speak of um the uh as I said all the other criteria are zoning criteria matched um it's not it does not impact the the uh neighbor the house um that's the offset of the neighbor's house to the uh side that the elevator on is excuse me I had to put my glasses back is uh 12.9 feet their houses so there's plenty of room between the the two houses uh so that the this uh minor variance to the elevator Chef uh would not affect uh the neighboring house um that's basically it as far as the parking goes the original plot plan for the house showed three parking spaces in the front one in front of the garage uh one parallel to the uh right away but still with on the property and one on the other side of on the um what would be the left side of the house uh that was what was originally proved on the original plot plan with the three spaces um can you do that yes is it part is it convenient to do no but you can fit three spaces on there but the the one two the one in front of the one garage and the one in front of the house are easily easily done so you're asking for a variance I I I believe it it should be for two parking spaces uh we're proposing two where three are required yeah there there is a third space that can be parked along that east side but currently it's all grass right now and it's not part of the driveway sure you could park a car up on the grass there I suppose but how do we get a five-bedroom house without having three parking spaces I guess as Mr Lord saying the way the plot plan was originally configured was showing one on the on the east side which it fits as I stated but it's a it's a grassy area currently oh so they took one of the parking spaces and made it a yard is that what you're saying I believe I no I believe this is how it's always been we can ask Mrs altum but we have made no changes this is how we purchased it yeah do you want to do that now okay we lost her stoping Jim when was this house built I believe 2019 yes Mrs Al can you raise your right hand please can you hear me yes you swear orir the testimony you get before this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you Mr thank you Mrs altum you're the current owner of the property correct that is correct and when did you purchase the property uh 2019 we took possession on Labor Day weekend okay and and you were the first owner to occupy the property after it was constructed correct it was new construction okay and the configuration of the front yard has not changed since the time you purchased the property y that's how it was when we first saw it and still when we bought it okay how do you typically Park cars in the front of the in the driveway area one car fits easily in front of each garage door and another car can fit behind it probably encroaches on sidewalk a little and in when necessary we've pulled cars over onto the grass okay so you can fit three cars in practice I don't know if all three cars fit completely within the property line so so Mr R just it's been a long night already are you or are you not asking for a variance from the required three off Street to the extent the board thinks thinks one's required yes it's it's hard for me because you can park it on the grass I don't know I I'm I'm confused about why this is a problem we haven't made a change because the well Mr Raven can explain it to you man but simply put because in Beach Haven if you have a five bedroom home you have to provide for three off street parking spaces right and and when I originally submitted the application I did not include this issue Mr Little's office in upon reviewing it noted that they weren't certain that three cars really could be parked within the front a question sure who built your house do you know who the Builder was um my son's there John do you remember the name wait if he's gonna test else we're heading too right sorry that's okay that's okay and if you don't know ma'am that's okay it'll come to me but I I don't know right now I know believe it was trade WIS trade WIS yes yes that's right okay you got Travis left you got lucky Mr little let's hear from you on the parking issue so we can figure out whether or not a variance is or isn't well they're going to need a variance because there not enough pavers in the front unless you're going to count the lawn as a parking space and we don't count Lawns as parking spaces so minimum you need one a variance for one okay or if the board doesn't grant that part of the variance then they have to to create that third space understood with papers on site understood so the board understands so the application is in addition to the C setb grants also requesting a variance for parking to Pro to allow for two parking all site parking spaces where three are required correct yes then how how does the impervious coverage tie into all this now well with three um I believe Mr Lord if correct me if I'm wrong in your impervious coverage calculation in Beach Haven all parking spaces count toward impervious coverage regardless of the surface and I believe Mr Lord correct me if I'm wrong you counted three parking spaces within that your impervious coverage calculation yes okay did you count the whole front yard since well now the plan shows 75% permitted and even with the um with the elevator you're only at 50% so you could easily well I understand that if they counted the front yard you have to get to those parking spaces so you need drives to all so there's all that area included that's what I'm asking well I'm just saying that they can meet they're not asking for a variance for impervious if they add a third parking space they're going to be under the 75% you have to be under 60% 60% under 60 I'm sorry you're right what I'm saying yeah you'll still be under 60 because you got another 10% to go you can definitely neighbors and get another one in but that's a nonissue if we Grant the par correct right I I think miss altum you probably if the board were inclined to Grant the variants would prefer to keep the the lawn area the way it's currently configured and the way it's always been um we we did want grass but I we're willing to do whatever the board thinks we need to do okay we purchased the house believing we met code I I'm not trying to not meet code sure I understand that's whoever did the Landscaping didn't need code somebody took that third parking space landscape it can't be used we you know that was all before we saw the house for the first time so I don't I can't answer to that and Mr Lord with respect to the variance proof um this is a C2 variance um what purpose of the municipal land use law would be would be be be advancing with this application um well we would certainly not be detrimental to any of the zoning or anything like that and does the elevator addition constitute a safety Improvement for the house as a whole yes it does okay and and enhances the general welfare within the home yes and as you stated there's no substantial detriment to the Zone plan or zoning ordinance in your opinion as a result of this addition that is correct okay are there questions for Mr Lord Mr Lord before Mr gu to his next witness I assume youve reviewed Mr Little's letter review letter dat August 23rd 2024 yes and if the bo Grant this application uh your client would agree as a condition of approval Supply all the comments suggestions contain yes witness yes thank you Mr Lord uh this time I'll call Will es can I ask a question sure I'm trying to see where the where does the elevator exit out to the front back side that's be okay you swear the testim before this Bo will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth um if you could state your name for the record my name is will I'm the principal of handline architect speaking that one's not working I got you trying not to yell too my name is will estri I'm the principal of handline architect licensed in New Jersey and you're so registered AR architect in the state of New Jersey okay and you've testified before this board previously yes does the board accept Mr est's qualifications yes thank you um Mr estri if you could just give an overview of the how you came to that design for the elevator so in playing with the design for the the house that existed um we always try to avoid lwh hanging fruit at first and look for something that fits within the plan and messing around with this plan as it exists putting an elevator that accesses all floors without changing the way the house is used uh without creating new hallways and ripping out bathrooms and rebuilding at Great expense this is the easiest the most economical and makes the most sense to put the elevator in a spot by the entry not creating a detriment to entering in through the living room space um the Nooks or through the kitchen and the only place that would come up on the second floor to make it fit would either be through the master bathroom or through a bedroom in which I would need to create a hallway and lose an actual usable bedroom and space so it it it makes sense that we stay within the lot coverage um issues and just ask for a small variance for the sidey yard um knowing that the neighbor next to us is also in favor I'm speaking for somebody who's not here sorry about that um but it it seems to work best in the design the layout the movement through the building and we're only going to access the garage the first floor and the second floor there is no access to the roof deck that question I saw and Mr EST the area of the elevator Tower is 26 square feet yes yep so it's 26 square feet and we're we're staying below um you know the building coverage is 32.5 four with the elevator we're not asking for anything outside of just the side yard setback that's the goal I don't have any further questions anybody have question for this stay in here Peak Building height it's 33 feet I does that include the railing that I do not know if it includes the railing we took that number from an existing survey space um let me see if it's on the actual because railings are part of the height yes requirement but you're not proposing railings right you're just no I'm not changing we our our roof Peak is below our our roof Peak everything we're proposing is below whatever is there we're not touching anything to do with the existing roof um or the railing my my my new roof for the elevator Tower doesn't even reach the main roof of the existing structure then the other thing um on the square footage of the house how was that calculated uh using the drawings from the previous Builder and and and taking the floor area based on the survey and our our drawings and that was the floor area on the other drawings I would believe so I honestly I would have to go back and look Zill has it in there at 2680 square feet that's why I was wondering why now they usually they get the pl they're real estate though anything I don't I don't want to speak for somebody else and I would want to real accurate yeah um John halin has a a question on Zoom John yeah um did I hear correctly that that what was testified that the that the neighbor is in support of this application yes I don't know if Mr Askin is still on I I saw him earlier is there still Bill Bill Askin yeah I'm still here we'll get to the public Mr Askin as you well know hi it's a pleasure to see you virtually we met a couple months ago John's question is that he thought he heard testimony that the neighbors in favor of the neighbors Mr Askin who's on Zoom who we'll get to corre he can confirm or deny any more questions for this no okay can I have a motion to open it to the public you done Mr um I do just have a couple of follow-up questions for Mrs altum um Mrs altum the if you could just explain to the board the what what brought this application um what was the reason for wanting the elevator um about six months after we purchased the home my husband was diag was diagnosed with a progressive neurological disorder and it became apparent that he was not going to be able to enjoy the house so we started this application unfortunately he passed away in March um but we've realized now how fast everything can change and uh we think the house would benefit from you know people being able to use it later in life so it would allow everybody that that utilizes the house to use it in a more safe manner correct okay all right thank you Mrs altum I don't have any further Witnesses thank you Jim thank you all right can I have a motion to open it to the public I'll make a motion to open it to the public second second thank you is there anybody in the public like to comment on this application anybody on Zoom yeah hi it's William Asin ask K N I live at 320 iroy Avenue right hold on Mr Askin um Gina if you would can you put Mr askin's video up please Mr Askin can you turn your video on let's see if I can figure out how to do that um oh yeah here it is here we go we figure there you go is it coming up on the screen yes we don't have you here yet Bill bear with us there he is there we go we got him we got you Mr asking if you raise your right hand please you swear affirm the testimony give before this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth now he's mov now we lost your volume try again I do thank you okay go ahead Mr Askin yeah yeah good evening everyone William Asin 320 iroy Avenue I am the owner of the property directly to the east of the applicant's property um I'm I'm here this evening just to uh confirm my support for the application um uh the neighbors are very good friends of ours they were very polite and considerate when they started even thinking about um Coming forward with this application and they come uh and we talked about it they approached us and asked us if we would have any issues at all and I can confirm that we did not then and we do not this evening we fully support what they're trying to do with their house thank you very much thank you Mr as thanks everyone thank you anybody else no and I have a motion to close to the public second Jamie okay you guys can you can sit down thank uh can I have a motion to approve or deny this application that's with the parking variants yes with the parking variant IE I have a question what is the hardship that we have to consider this wasn't a hardship application this was a C2 application correct Mr Raven That's Right Rel okay we have me I'm sorry I can't hear you it's here on what on our on the agenda I think that Mr Raven I don't know maybe that's because it was in the application initially but this is not a hardship correct that's correct in the application I may have checked both um yeah yeah hardship and substantial benefit were both checked but it's really it's a C2 substantial benefit testimony that you put on the even corre that's correct yes good good point Mr tin but um it's a c a substantial B okay I have a motion on the floor to approve or deny so the two variances would be that are part of the motion you're approving the sidey stepback variance and a variance for parking to permit two a street parking SPAC where three are required that's the motion that's on the table can we separate those you mean separate there's no second yet so there's no second other motion to be made you can't separate them you can vote yes that's the motion that's on the table it includes both you can vote Yes or No as can any members is there motion table there is there's a motion on the table second thank you so motion by BVO second by B Miller yes no I'm am I right no who who made the motion who made the motion I didn't hear a mo I didn't hear i s somebody okay I Leonard I'll make a motion okay I interrupted that's what oh that's right thanks pH Jamie you still second I still second I still second okay okay now we got it sorry Mr medal yes Mrs B Miller yes Mrs Leonard yes Mr Stevens yes Mr Jenna yes Mr tinquist yes Mr BVO no because I don't think we should um lose out on the parking space if there's a place put the parking if it's a piece of grass or something and I'm not sure I help someone we approve a property and then it gets built not to have three parking PES I'm not I'm not blaming the owner because just you get built that way she bought it that way there's something missing and I'm not comfortable with yeah okay but that's he's that's that's that's my no and why I'm moving understood Mr lafredo no I approve the elevator but not that parking space then I'll see why we can't they can't just add pavers to make that parking space fair enough Miss King no motion carries 63 see what oh yeah uh next on the agenda is the approval of the AUST meeting minut all in favor hi minutes are approved uh next are approval of bills for September 20 is the approval of LBI Collectibles that was one of by May right so that was one of our last three person subcommittee matters for the waiver request a waiver of formal site plan because if the new ordinance is adopted it will be handled differently but we have confirmation that the three members I Know M Ed is not here but all three members have voted yes to approve so in accordance with ordinance 1679 simply stating that for the record so that that application has been approved and Gina if you would let Miss Martin know she's the lawyer I'll try to give you that letter I know try to email it there some problems but we'll just let motion to adjourn motion Tom second thank you reading is a Jour I was able to get something the bur but not it might attach outside the I got nor and I I was doing requests and it was working change every single she probably could the build different we just took out tents lunch wagons trailers