##VIDEO ID:rIKlSsjcqZE## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e here in compliance with the open public meetings Act of 1975 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided if any member has reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of this act they should state so at this time we'll have the pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all Mrs wner here Mr venudo here Mr ledwin here Mrs not here miss Shen Mr Walsh here Mr Zer here Mr Bodner here miss Stevenson here thank you okay we have the minutes of the September 26 2024 meeting would someone like to make a motion I'll make a motion second motion by Mr zeter seconded by motion Mr second I'm sorry Mr vudo okay I'm sorry did Mr reeno motion or second second okay and then Mr Zex are seconded and I second okay thank you Dan Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch abstain Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes thank you okay our first resolution is Timothy little 925 B Avenue could we have that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mr Bodner second seconded by Mr venudo Mr lwin yes Mrs not main Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you our next resolution is Michael Wood 413 Broadway can we have that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mr zet second seconded by Mrs Notch Mr Lewin yes Mrs not Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay our third re resolution is ocean front Properties LLC 1045 Beach Avenue have a motion so I'll make the motion second motion by Mr ledwin seconded by Mr zetzer Mr Lewin yes Mrs not D Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you okay our first application tonight is Franklin Perth LLC 22 Stockton please [Applause] when you get seated could you please all turn on your microphones uh good evening everyone my name is Kate monzo from the law firm monzo Kat delis I am here tonight on behalf of Franklin Perth LLC uh the property is 22 stocked in place uh tonight I have um a member of Franklin Perth LLC Andrew eisenstein and we also have um John Haler who is going to testify as our expert engineer tonight um this subject property is currently developed with a two-story multif family dwelling which is a permitted use in the RS Zone where the property is located uh the applicant is seeking approval for the Reconstruction of the existing front porch and the existing footprint and replacement of the fabric awning with a fixed permanent roof um there was a package of renderings that was submitted with the applications if you flip to the second page you'll see a photo in the top left corner of the existing fabric awning and porch and if you turn to page five you'll see a rendering of the proposed reconstructed front porch with the fixed permit uh for this application variance relief is requested for the front yard setback of 10.93 Ft where 20 ft is required and a sidey yard setback of 5.69 Ft where 10 ft is required both of these conditions are currently the same as what is existing on the property uh variance relief is also requested for existing non-conforming conditions which include lot size lot size per unit lot width and lot Frontage as well as minimum parking these conditions are proposed to remain exactly the same as they previously were and finally one thing uh this property is located in the historic district HPC approval was previously obtained in 2022 for the same design however at the time that the applicant did apply to the HBC they were not aware that they needed a variance uh however these HPC approvals have since expired so they are going to have to go back to the HPC with the same design uh for final approval one moment please can you just bring the microphone a little closer I'm having a hard time thank you very much um so I would like to uh swear in John Haler as our expert sure I'll I'll swear on your client as well at the same time and also the board engineer to each of you you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall be do I do uh John I know you've been before this board Mr Hower many times before uh does the board accept him as an expert yes we do thank you as an engineer and architect correct correct thank you all right okay so um as Miss monzo mentioned or appre statements we're dealing with the existing building uh was brid built cir in 1940 um it's a three-unit essentially a Triplex um with many non-conformities in terms of today's zoning requirements but none of which are being increased in any way by the application um the development that we're here for this evening is about as simple as you can get we have a front porch with a fabric awning with a metal frame we're looking to remove the metal frame fabric awning and construct a hip roof that's a permanent roof um the non-conformities that exist for the existing porch being the side yard setback and front yard setback are going to be matched by the roof so there is a technical exasperation of those non-conforming conditions by the addition of new element that element being the roof but the magnitude itself does not change in any way get a couple facts on the record um the lot size itself is it's regular shaped but about 53 ft wide and 88 ft deep totaling 4,712 12 square ft the um only building on it is in fact the twostory triplex and it is largely as I mentioned non-conforming with regards to many of the bulk requirements so we're here to Steph to try and have those exist non-conforming conditions memorialized for example the lot size where 12,500 Square ft would be required for multif family we only have 4,712 and I ought mention that uh like many of the zones in Cape May this particular one has a different bulk requirements based upon the use um the use that we're characterizing this is all multif family which has that 12,500 ft requirement similarly um there's a minimum lot size per dwelling unit of 2,500 square ft where we have 1,571 square feet per unit so it's a non-conforming condition with regards to that requirement the building setback line or as I like to call it the front yard setback line where 20 FTS required 10.9 93 fet exist remember that's the same we're looking to maintain that same setback interestingly enough remembering different Zone requirements for different uses a single family home in this Zone requires 10 fet so that front yard setback or that building line setback if it were a single which we're not would actually be compliant it's important to us all talk about how we're consistent with the streetcape in a few minutes we have a minimum 100 foot lot width requirement for multif family where 52.3 1 ft exist and we have a minimal hatable floor area per unit of 500 square ft we have three units two of those comply one is five square feet deficient at 4995 Square fet the side setback where 10 ft is required on the North side we have existing non-conforming conditions to steps of 2.96 feet and on the South Side 2.7 ft to the rear steps those will remain totally unchanged by this application notably on the South Side Porch where the 10 foots required we have Point 5.69 ft um and again that's the condition that we're going to be I'll use in quotes exasperating by constructing the roof above it much like my conversation on the front yard setback If This Were a single family home it would be subject subject to a 5 foot side yard setback it would in fact be compliant we're not we need 10 feet but again in terms of the character of the neighborhood I'll describe shortly that's important to note two other non-conforming conditions that are noteworthy um lot coverage where 70% is the maximum permitted we're presently at 80% and where six parking spaces be be required we're providing five so those are all non-conforming conditions none are being increased in their magnitude to the front yard set back and the side yard set back to the porch are being technically extended or aggravated by the construction of a new roof over top of porch within the same foot footprint of the existing porch for context uh surrounding properties are also in the RS Zone um and as the Zone would intend it's predominately residential um all around us as we get closer to Beach Avenue we do start the transition in the commercial Zone but that's a little closer to Beach Avenue I'd like to introduce the exhibit I guess call it A1 which is a photog phot can you make sure to bring the microphone with you as you describe the exhibit and uh are you passing out the exhibit or just going to leave me one no then I bring a hand out it's a pretty simple exhibit can not hear this can you just repeat that go ahead I we're not I do not have handouts no I'm sorry I still don't have it in answer to your question of do I have handouts so the answer is no okay can you leave one set with me absolutely AB thank you very much okay the background of this exhibit of A1 we have an aerial photograph you'll see a dash line that dash line line is equal to our front porch which is the property point you to here so you can see that the general alignment of the front yards for buildings up and down stocked in place is right along this front line so while we're seeking that front yard setback variance we are in fact very consistent with what happens up and down the entire side of stock in place something else I think is notable on the upper left hand corner is a screenshot of the existing building you can see the fabric awning structure and the rendering that's included in your set of their proposed condition two notable things with this first of all I think this is a significant aesthetic enhancement second of all by appearance to anyone from the street that building to me at least appears to be a single family home so in the context of we're seeking a front yard setback variants and side do setback variance because we're multif family If This Were a single that would be fully conforming and to the general public it looks like more like a single so it's a Sly mitigating factor in terms of us requiring this this variance relief I think there are several benefits that the uh granting of this relief offers to the Community First of all again I think the facade improvements are noticeable and I think it contributes better to the historic district that's evident by the original HBC approval that was granted um they likewise agreed and one of the bulk requirements I did not address because it is in fact conforming um where we would be allowed to have a 40 foot tall building where less than 19 ft so if you look at the trade-off of asking for a front yard stepb variance for a small porch roof that has far less implications to the streetcape than a conforming building at some 40 F feet tall so the benefit is by granting this relief first of all this board always has the condition that no other improvements in this property can take place without returning to this board and with this you'll have the control the comparison of a 40 foot tall building versus granting of the leaf for this front porch I think is a very good tradeoff that benefits the community with those benefits I think there are a couple purposes of the m land law that are being Advanced by the granting of this relief first of all to encourage Municipal action to promote the public health safety morals and general welfare we're doing that by promoting the streetcape and the historic district second of all to do promote a desire of a visual environment clearly again the street keep is is enhanced by the granting of this relief so I think those are all positive their purposes of Municipal law they're being Advanced um which touches is both or more on the C2 criteria for the variance relief and for that I'm speaking specifically with regard to the request relief of the front and side yard setback I might as well finish that thought before I jump over to the existing nonconforming conditions um and start talking about the negative criteria the relief we seeking front yard and sidee setback typically those controls are put in place by Boards and municipalities in order to maintain light air and open space control Street Scapes and the appearance of MKS to the public in this instance remember the building appears to be a single family home to anyone who's on the street you'd have to go inside the building to realize that it's not it would be fully conforming so in terms of having a significant adverse impact on the intent of the zone no this looks like a single family home and would comply as a single family zone so they cannot be a negative let alone a substantial negative impact by that condition so for those reasons I believe both the positive and Native criteria have been satisfied for the granting of the front yard and side yard setback variances now I went through quite a list of non-conforming conditions uh that are not touched in any way by this application those I think all very fall square squarely under the C1 criteria where there's a hardship that exists upon the applicant those conditions exist they can't change they predate the ordinances and there's nothing that they can do to change that it's a legally exist existing building so I think the granting of those existing non-conformity conditions by way of memorializing them as that and if necessary St variance be granted for them um the justification is there under the C1 criteria okay did I miss anything want me cover no I think you covered everything I have any questions from the board John could you just comment on availability is there any room to provide an additional parking space no um I'll refer to the site plan that was submitted as part of the application you don't need to point it out I just want to get on the record that they whenever we're granting variances we always look to have the applicant comply in this case there was no available space on the site so just want to make sure the board understood that I I agree with that assessment is that fence coming down I was going to ask the same thing from the top diagram it's already down okay yes is this a rental I I mean I guess it's zoned for that we have not rented it and don't really have the expectation to okay if there's no other questions from the board we'll have Craig's report I would like to summarize my August 29 2024 report uh once again this is an application at 22 stock in place which is in the RS residential seasonal District you have an existing 3unit multif family dwelling with proposed porch reconstruction that consists of a new roof in Li of the uh frame the metal framed roof that's there now uh awning um and they're looking to replace that and they seek variances that would allow that to happen with regards to the completeness review they've asked for one waiver from the checklist requirements from providing the first floor building elevations there's no change to those so therefore I don't believe that those are necessary to evaluate this project so therefore I recommended deeming the application complete with regards to um a summary of the variances uh Mr how Bruner indicated that this is an existing non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot so there's a bunch of non-conformities that exist before we even start and they relate to the lot size 12,500 ft where we have 4,712 exists the lot size per unit so there's three units um you divide the lot size by the three units you come up with 1571 Square ft where 2500 square F feet is the minimum requirement um so that doesn't conform the lot width and lot Frontage requirements are both 100 feet the lot width is 53405 and the lot Frontage is 52.3 1 ft and then we have the non-conforming parking situation uh where always the ordinance tells us to re-evaluate that whenever they ask for variances uh for the three units based on the residential site Improvement standards uh it comes out to a requirement of six spaces where five are existing on site and there's no additional room for those the improvements themselves create the variances of the building setback line from stock and place 20 foot is the requirement for multif family dwellings 16.42% I'm going to roll into my general review comments these should all be conditions of approval uh one item number one is compliance with chapter 258 and comply with the flood damage protection code item number two we've asked uh for the signature approval signature lines to be added to the plans three is our standard condition that we ask that the applicant revise his owning table to reflect the comments in the review memorandum I don't think that there's any discrepancies on this one but we that's a standard condition I always ask for in case something changes uh item number four is the applicant must comply with chapter 525 the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements and that remains in effect throughout construction and afterwards um so that runs with the site item number five is our standard condition that we request that the applicant replace the sidewalk adjacent to the subject site if there's any damaged sidewalk um and we evaluate that after construction um to make sure the construction activities didn't damage any sidewalk item number six is our standard condition that they have to provide the inspection escrow fee and that the certificate of occupancy is tied to an acceptance of those improvements that are required by the board item number seven is comply with the Cape May sha tree commission fire department and public works department and we did receive reports from them the fire department recommended approval with no comments dated 952 4 the public works department recommended approval with no comments 9424 the shade tree commission recommended approval dated uh September 10th 2024 with no comments and they did provide us with a copy of the expired HPC approval um dated September 19 2022 but as they indicated that is expired they will be required to uh refreshing that and get approval okay um back to number eight eight uh that any approval is condition on compliance with all other state county and local approvals um nine I just touched upon which is the HPC approval 10 uh they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval and finally item number 11 should the board Grant approval the required to submit the requisite number of plans revised plans to address any conditions that the board sets uh to the board engineer for review and approval happy to answer any questions the board has this stamp this D spout on the new plans it's come down from the roof now is there going to be more drainage is going to be there's no add there's no additional runoff because they're proposing impervious over impervious that's already there okay so there's no way the water is running into the ground so there's no change in lot coverage whatsoever um at this time we'll open it up to anyone within 200 ft of the property anyone Beyond 200 ft close to the public you have a question I have two questions for you okay number one uh you you said the property will not be rented is that true but it's not a relevant consideration to the application okay and number two and if you ask that question and he answers it and then you vote no they'll think you did that because he's renting so I just as well not hear it okay okay and the second question is is the property for sale no it's not okay because you're you're your uh photos show it for sale sign what is there's a on the on there's a for sale sign on the oh I think that's when we bought it pictures yeah that photo okay no other questions okay um the standard uh outlined by the board Engineers report is the appropriate standard for the C1 and C2 variances the lot size and lot width and lot Frontage and lot size per unit are appropriate under the C2 standard as those are kind of immutable characteristics of the lot that cannot be changed and the remaining three four five and six are appropriate under the C2 stand appropriate to be considered under the C2 standard which I adopt in accordance of the board Engineers letter so the motion I recommend being made is a and how you vote is up to you but we always make it in the affirmative it's a motion to Grant variances one and two under the c one standard and uh motion and variances 3 four five and six under the C2 standard subject to the weight with the waiver outlined by the board engineer recommended by him and the conditions 1 through 11 outlined in the engineers report page five that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you okay can we have that motion I'll make the motion motion by Mr venudo a second seconded by Mr zeter Mr Lewin yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr Zer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr vudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you thank you for your talking thank thank you here for the next one so our next application is William and Elizabeth Grace 1405 Harbor LAN or maybe I'll have L we don't have enough chairs okay okay Miss monzo if you'll introduce whoever is going to be giving testimony I have a couple exhibits should I just wait to hand them out hand them out now that's fine are they marked yes what what are we marking uh we have A1 can you just give me like the briefest description like one word or two uh zoning permit and previous approved plans and then uh A2 and A3 are um is an aerial and a streetcape photog thank he you thank um good evening again uh my name's Kate monzo from monzo catalis I am here on behalf of William and Elizabeth Grace uh the property address is 1405 Harbor Lane uh I have a few people with me tonight I have Bill Grace here who is the owner of the property I also have Lance Bowman who is the contractor on site and then I have our two uh professionals back here we have Terry Thomas who is our architect and engineer and we also have Paul Kates our engineer so I'm sorry Paul Kates k k yes my name with an S so uh this application is for the construction of a single family home in the R3 Zone uh which is a permitted use um there was a previously existing home on the property that had obtained permits for a renovation the exhibit that was just handed out that's marked A1 is a copy of the prior approved zoning permit and the approved plans uh however during the renovation process the home was inadvertently demolished in its entirety uh Lance Bowman will be able to elaborate on that in just a moment um what is proposed now is exactly the same as what was approved with the prior zoning permit uh however because the home that existed had non-conformities approval for reconstruction even in the same footprint required approval from this board uh the lot area building setback to Harbor Lane Lot width lot Frontage and sidey yard setbacks are all non-conforming conditions that existed with the prior home uh these are all proposed to remain exactly as they were uh the lot coverage floor area ratio and Building height are increasing slightly from what was previously constructed on the property but they will be not be exceeding what was what is approved in the zone and these are also the same um Ms that were contemplated during the prior renovation work that had previously obtained approval so I understand that there may have been some confusion in the application and you'll hear testimony confirming this but there is no increase in the building height floor area ratio or lot coverage has occurred from the prior uh renovation permits to now uh there have been some minor cosmetic changes to the plans that do not impact the bulk requirements of the Zone uh the only difference between the numbers are are slight the decrease in the proposed floor area ratio it was previously approved with the zoning permit at 39.7% we're now proposing 38.8% and the side guard setback uh which was previously approved at 5T on the east side of the property we're now proposing 5.08 so to begin I just wanted to invite um Mr Grace to say just a few words about his history with the property and what his vision is for the the proposed Renovations okay let me swear in the the whole gang every name that you said before I'm going to swear them all in our board attorney remains under Earth willb please raise your right hand to egb swear or affirm to tell the truth all truth and nothing but the truth so you got I do can I get the name of Mr Thomas there's a Mr Thomas yes Terry Thomas Terry Terren Jun I see so um architect engineer both architect engineer engineer thank you build thank you one of B you can go ahead go yeah hi my name is Bill Grace my wife lives there um just a short thing we built this house I think 23 years ago uh it was Liz and I and and our three children so now we have it's Liz and I and three children and 11 grandkids so we decided to pursue uh the building of a the renovation so that's kind of pretty much what I'm here to explain thank you Bill um so with me as well I also have um Lance Bowman who is the contractor and we um just wanted to have him you know provide an explanation for the board as to how we got to the point where the house was demolished which required us to come before the board today um so Lance you're the Mr Bowman you're the contractor that was doing work on the site correct correct okay and can you explain for the board how this property um was unique in its Demolition and how we got to the point of total demolition sure so the demolition uh in the plans was quite substantial um and it had to be done pretty method I Ally from the top down um all of the roof lots of bearing walls all of the decks um in general quite a bit of of demolition was required to get it to a stage where it could then be rebuilt uh so we did that over the course of a couple weeks in in stages uh we got down to the second floor and there was some some structural damage to some of the joist uh so we decided to remove those uh I got to a point where we had the foundation and the first floor um at which point in in looking at the plans we realized that the the existing Foundation was in fact supposed to be removed uh and replaced with a 2x4 foundation with uh with plywood walls and then a a stone facade um well in order to do that when you only have a first floor remaining um the only way to do that is to is to demo it so we made the decision at that point to have a demolition contractor take down the foundation um with the expectation of rebuilding the treated walls like it showed on the plans um he told us that it would be a couple of days in between that time um in considering what was being being done uh I spoke with the owner my partner um and uh we decided that that in fact a keeping the existing Foundation really made the most sense structurally uh so we proposed a way to keep that um demoing only parts of it uh so that we could keep the I think the issue was making sure that we had enough parking in the in the garage and the block walls weren't allowing us to do that so we made a slate modification and decided that we could in fact keep that Foundation uh in between doing that the uh demolition contractor came and took down the Walls uh at which point we had no Foundation walls left um so at that point I went back to the architect and we we revised the plans to show new block Foundation walls being built uh and uh once I had those plans we rebuilt the foundation as it was um and it was at that point where we received the the stop work order because the the foundation had been torn down and um at what point did did you become aware that a variance was needed to continue new construction well I got the stop work order and once that stop work order was issued work ceased immediately correct it did correct and you're going to be the contractor on the site moving forward yes okay thank you you're welcome can I ask can I ask a question what was the nature of the renovation to be done before it was demolished what was the nature of it yeah what was being done was it all interior uh no no it was quite substantial it was essentially rebuilding the property I understand that but what what I'm asking is was it getting any bigger no well that's not true I guess there there was an expansion off the off of the back of it that had been previously approved over where the decks were off the bat okay I I guess the part that I'm I'm struggling with and I'm not saying there's anything wrong I'm not speaking badly about the application I have no position on that I'm just trying to understand if each like The sidey Yards am I looking at the wrong one maybe was it being expanded up or back on any of the Sid side yards that are short it what was what was previously approved by the board is exactly what we were doing I I can't say because I wasn't involved in that application I can't tell you exactly I'm sure Terry when he speaks can uh but we weren't doing we're not proposing anything different than what was previously approved I understand that maybe you're not the one to answer this I don't I don't believe I am Terry can provide some Mr Thomas can provide some testimony okay yeah we'll do that that's okay from our end what I want to stress that there was nothing at all premeditated or nefarious about what we no I'm not applying that you're not afid if you needed a variance before I'm trying to figure out if the fact that you knocked it down is what's trigging the variance because I'm having trouble understanding how you didn't need a variance previously when you have um The sidey Yards are too small anyway so if you were doing anything to increase that non-conformity even before you knocked it down you needed a variance so then I'm trying to figure out if there's a really difference between this application and what you would have needed anyway so I believe that that's what I'm trying to figure out is how why you didn't need a variance before you had Dem maybe T can answer that the what we did we took the plan and put it before the zoning officer and he determined that we did not need a Vari I understand he made that determination but now I'm making a determination so I'm trying to figure out if if was it being was any part of the building being expanded in the sidey yard that is 5T and 7 8 ft verion yes so didn't that require a variance isn't that an expansion of a non-conforming structure that was not Mr Britain's conclusion I'm not asking Mr Britain thought I'm trying to I'm trying to help you okay I'm what I'm what I'm trying to what I'm trying to figure out is everyone's focused on the fact that you knocked down the building and now you need a variance what I'm saying is I think you may have needed a variance anyway so I'm not sure there's a difference between whether the building was knocked down or not I think you're right well then instead of trying to tell Mr Britain thought which is interesting and curious but not really what I'm asking I'm trying to ask if the original renovation expanded anything in the sidey yards that don't meet the requirements a continuation of the deficient side yards did occur okay that need then did it that's not your your sheet zb2 and i' I've been pulling my hair out because I there's so much information it doesn't think it's not consistent if you look at zb2 it's a proposed plot plan and on that plot plan it shows proposed addition above the rear portion of the structure right let me catch up to you okay go ahead I want to bring out the plan you're talking about I'm not sure we have what you're looking yeah the second page of that oh okay trying see like a four and a half so if you look at the proposed plot plan at the bottom of that page where proposed addition above on the back portion closest to Devil's Reef here proposed addition above it's stepped in I think that's true so on that plan you know I think the zoning officer issued a building permit based on complying with the the building setbacks are ordinance allow our ordinance allows that right and you're renovate So you you're renovating the front portion the structure internal Renovations there's nothing expanding into the setbacks and the rear addition was stepped in so that it met the setbacks it meets to a side yard and the rear yard setback therefore you could pull a permit and it was by right is that so they didn't need a variance they didn't need a variance okay great and I agree with Mr Britain for issuing the permit yep all good so they didn't expand the portion of the building that is within the setb corre all right thank you thank you that is Happ and that and that's what you're constructing now you're building exact same things on that plan you're stepping it in yeah the plan has not CH from the building thank you um Mr Tom that's not true one for a little bigger So the plan approved had an F of 39.1 and it actually now dropped to 38.9 but for all intents and purposes it's the same that's not in a setback anywhere though um Mr Thomas I know that you've already answered some questions but I just wanted to um qualify you as an expert um have has Mr Thomas been before this board not not these particular well can you give us a little background on uh your education please there we go um my given name is George Ray Thomas I've been in practice for five decades um I was educated at bunell University I'm licensed in several States as an architect an engineer and a professional planner and I have not had the pleasure of coming before you this particular group does the board accept Mr Thomas as an expert in engineering and architecture liced in New Jersey I am okay in all those disciplines okay yes thank you um I know that there has already been some discussion about the existing conditions on the site but could you just go through um you know the property location the zoning District surrounding properties and uses and you know what are what are the permitted uses yes the property location is 1405 Harbor Lane also known as lot 76 and 7601 and 77 of block 1160 here in Cape M the zoning district is R3 medium density and we are of course a permitted use in that zone and can you touch on the relief that is being sought tonight what variances do we need um in connection with this application uh on our chart which is on zb1 6,500 Square ft is required and we are 6,000 a 50t width is required and we are 40 ft um the front to the existing building the requirement is 20 and we have always been 10et 8 in or 10.66 the rear yard setback is required to be 25 and we are 104 and a quarter from the rear property line sidey yards are 8 feet we are two Ines deficient on the one side which is why I answered the question the way I did to Mr King um and we are three feet almost three feet deficient on the other side but not in the addition and are all of these conditions um were they pre-existing with the prior home before it was knocked down yes and what criteria are we requesting uh these variances under is it both C1 and C2 yes it is both C1 and C2 C1 um the hardship I think is self-evident is a lot is largely water relatively small lot um and yet we're on the one side there's a very large structure beside us and significant buildings continuing uh in a Northerly direction from our lot um we have some aerial photographs should I pass them out or sure these are A2 and A3 yes thank A2 is an aerial view um we are the house immediately to the left of the moldy family unit that's to our north um you can see the docks that extend out into the to the water from the property A3 is a street L view um which shows the size of the building that's immediately north of us and this is what existed in the dates in these drawings are are excuse me on these photographs are February of 2022 we are a three-story building over parking then and we would like to be a three-story parking over building now so um we touched on how we meet the the C1 criteria and uh what about the the C2 the balancing criteria can you go over the the standard the we must show special reasons that the use promotes one of the purposes of zoning we must satisfy the positive and negative criteria by demonstrating that no substantial detriment to the public good um there's an aesthetic benefit to what we're doing um we're building a fully compliant building from a fire and flood standpoint um it's a significant Improvement to the structure um both aesthetically and functionally and it serves the need of 11 grandchildren that's unquestionably was part of the program and what about the negative criteria is there any substantial detriment to the public good or substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan well looking at it micro neighborly um we are nothing but a positive impact we were in this exact same setback geometry um that we were uh in 2022 um and yet we build a newer and stronger building um that was part of why Lance took the building apart to make sure we ended up with something that was structurally viable and um we have the one photo that's an aerial here where you're looking at the other houses that are located uh next door what is proposed is not going to it's exactly within that same footprint there um would you say that you know this house with the setbacks is it consistent with the scheme of the neighborhood it shows the front yard of our building as it exists in 2022 and as we proposed to construct um is exactly in line with the buildings none of these buildings are set back 20 ft from the front property line and part of the reason for that is because the the Upland buildable portion is so much smaller than you know what would typically be contemplated with a lot in this zone is that correct yes and compared to our neighbors to the north ours is by far the smallest and when you balance the benefits against the negative impacts is there adequate support in your opinion for the grant of these variances I absolutely believe that's the case um the the variance requirement is really only necessitated by the fact that the building came all the way down and um I also have uh Paul Kates here who prepared a variance plan and also a grading plan uh I plan to have Terry or Mr Thomas address the comments in Mr heres's memo uh would you rather go through that now and then I'll have Mr Pates or do you want me to bring him back up I would like to ask uh the architect questions is that is that possible sure okay so should the board Grant approval ultimately I have to do liance reviews you indicated that this is the exact same building that was approved through the Construction office is what is you're proposing here tonight yes but there are some changes there are yet can you highlight those and explain exactly what those are because I I was never given the approved plan so I had no way of comparing that and I'm kind of doing that on the Fly tonight sure and um you you handed out an exhibit which I think is the existing plans tonight I didn't hand that out so I don't know exhibit A1 which is four pages is The zoning permit and Zing permit and these are the are the appr approve so I'm matching those up with your plans that you've submitted as part of this application I and I and I did notice um on the second floor and they're different scales so you can please correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the kitchen was expanded the inside was changed that's absolutely true but the the square footage of the spaces were changed only minimally um and I have a series of numbers here let me find the latest number which was on my phone can I just uh explain something that might help you understand why this is so critically important because Mr Thomas may not know my practice M monzo probably does is that when I do the resolution I take the chart from Craig's report and I insert it into the resolution and that's what gets built so if your math is different than Craig's chart it turns out to be a disaster so I've always just made it so that it's always Craig's chart so we have to change Craig's chart we change it tonight and then the resolution looks like what we changed but if you have plans to Craig and he has it that it's I don't know 2,300 square feet and then you want to build 2410 square feet it's 2300 square feet so you have we have to have Craig's chart the respon another reason and just for the board's pleasure another reason I'm asking this qu question is because the application said that they're building exactly the same structure as what was approved to the Construction office what I'm seeing here is I'm comparing these and I'm seeing differences I think it's important for you to explain those differences to me and the board so that they're aware what changed from the demolition the the approve the approved plans to what's proposed now in front of them and there are changes Mr harles if I I I briefly address this in my opening and I just want to make sure that you know that represent that everything was exactly the CH same came from our office the plans that um Mr Thomas submitted do have the correct numbers on them there were some minor changes uh initially what was Pro was approved was a higher floor area ratio and also um a setback of I think 5 feet um and then when we went back for this application the floor area ratio was reduced Mr Thomas is going to get the exact numbers and also the setback was increased so both of these are positive impacts when he gives those exact numbers I'd like to know where the reductions were made so that I just am aware sure I can ensure that the comp when we understood your questions we went back and got very precise by moving the cursor and the computer around inside the building okay okay the first floor there's no change it was approved at 839 Square ft and we sit before you with a plan that's 839 Square ft tonight the second floor got smaller because the decks got larger the number had been 832 the kitchen changed which you pointed out and now that's smaller it's 7885 Square ft 7885 yes sir okay explain to me so I'm looking at the approved plan there is a deck at the lower corner that's been added where the living room was so you lost floor area ratio of space there there's a screen deck looks like it got smaller where the kitchen was expanded to the rear and that looks like a significant increase over what the deck was when we ran the cursor excluding the deck areas we got 7885 Square ft okay I I I'm looking for a verbal explanation so your approve your your plan here tonight shows a new deck at the front corner where the living room is yes that's new yes okay that's new that's different got bigger but the decks got even bigger the approved plan from the Construction office shows the whole rear of the second floor having a large deck screen deck is that true yeah but it wasn't as deep as this one it wasn't as deep okay explain that this one six feet deep I think that was five I don't have that drawing in front of me so I I can't respond do you have that drawing I have what you gave so I have your application form and what you handed me tonight I'm just trying to figure I'm trying to make sense of this is this because of flirting with the flurry ratio and the and changes because it looks like the kitchen got bigger and the decks got significantly less which would increase the floor area ratio and he's showing a reduction on that floor where it looks like to me it's the floor area ratio has increased doesn't make sense have what he's wants me to comment on is what was before and I don't have that take so they can they can talk to each other without I don't want you to get Mr B while they're doing that can you tell me is the elevation of it of the home changing as a result of the renovation is it the flood elevation is it going to be higher uh I don't believe there was any change to the elevation now no because again the existing Foundation was supposed to stay is it I figured it out Mr King Mr King can you move your mic back Mr King I'm having a hard time hearing you back here again what we did I'm sure you're familiar would just take the cursor and run around the plan and I have absolute confence I think I can I I think I understand it now so using your Dimensions it looks to me like so the the the the deck was added into the living room space yes and then a screen deck was cut into the kitchen area yes it looked on this because this is a reduced plan it looked like the actual deck expanded out the back those are dimension lines okay it did so you've added two deck areas into that approved floor area that have reduced the floor area to 7885 correct okay all right I understand that floor take me to the third floor third floor went from 713 to 702 okay and what what changed there the deck was made bigger that that deck now matches the deck on the second floor okay and then there's also the deck over above the kitchen gotcha and again when we ran the cursor around that's the number that we got understood I'm just looking for the rationale why things are going being changed oh I I understand they're fair questions and then the top is a roof up a roof plan showing your roof improvements right so there's no floor area ratio up there okay thank you very much thank you did you say that there's a difference in the setback no the setbacks are identical well that's not true the one setback grew inch have we been supplied with a survey of the original all the surveys that I see here and I'm confused there's just so much paper um it says existing but I don't think I have anything of what it was previous before it was torn down where that Foundation was well looks like Mr this plan shows existing and proposed but exist existing is not what I want to really see I want to see what was there before you tore it down I think Mr Brittain has it he's holding it up in the audience if you the board wants to ask him for it what are we doing wait wait time out time out wait we new documents is that is that a document we don't have yet I think so okay let's mark it down yeah this we'll mark this as exhibit A4 uh this is the survey prepared by Capel surveying that was submitted and approved with the zoning permit application can I just make a copy of that maybe because that's part of his record I'll bring it back everybody the foundation that's there's a foundation that's staying can you just describe that found Foundation there is a foundation there now A New Foundation there oh it's all new correct we weren't stopped until the New Foundation went up that's really what caused the stop was me calling in a an inspection of the New Foundation we put the New Foundation exactly where the the one we tore down was same spot within an inch within an inch that's where we G the inch okay sorry the original survey was 5 when we surveyed turn on your mic sir turn M on the original survey was the 5 foot when we surveyed the existing Foundation that was newly constructed that's where we picked up that 0.08 on the 5 foot side so the the foundation I guess in in being cautious they aired on the inside of their layout most likely and that created that inch additional inch essentially which is the 08 that you're seeing in the existing conditions survey on our plan which is what is presently at the site Foundation maybe that helps it does I was just kind of hoping you're using the old foundation so it would be a hardship to do a new one but you kind of did a new one so it's okay try I think we were still going through Mr harles uh comments on his memo unless you're okay good it's your presentation I just had to ask I I needed that question answered before I we went for are you confident that you're building it at the same flood elevation that was built whatever the testimony was 13 years ago or is it increasing 23 years ago no because it's we're all over a garage we're we're above the required flood elevation okay so you're not you're not making it more flood you're not improving its flood we are with this application because of the concrete block so what we were going to do before let's talk about some positive criteria the soft um that that's part of the positive criteria we're making a more flood resistant building we're not making it taller but the part of the building building that is below base flood elevation will now be all masonry and was the plan that was approved all masonry or no no it was not that's one of the things that triggered the demolition we had used treated studs because of the parking requirement we couldn't have 8 in walls we had to have 4in walls now we will have 4-in walls using 4in block but again we were working with the existing walls which were wood stud okay so from flood prevention from for flood considerations and prevention and mitigation you believe that the building you're constructing now that it's been demolished is actually a better building that would have been constructed significantly better concrete block can get a bath and not know that it got a bath just clean it the wood studs you can damage significantly but they were existing so that's why we left them there and that concrete block um that's also one of of the purposes of zoning that would be Advanced by this application to secure from a flood is that correct yes absolutely so I would like to move on to Mr Kate's uh have him uh testify as to his plans he prepared a variance plan as well as a grading plan um I know that one of the issues was the inconsistencies with the numbers uh Paul has uh or Mr Kates has uh a one variant number than what was on um Mr Thomas's plans but those plans will be revised to be consistent with Mr Thomas's that's all we need to hear that Mr Thomas's PL govern yes okay so uh so you're going have a four ratio in your resolution of 397 you can't exceed that that's all that's from where I sit that's what I care most about I think it's 398 or 38 388 is what Mr Thomas's plans okay I'm going to revise the um con was 39.7 that was part of the change that we talked about earlier with the deck okay and that that that where does that deck land on this chart the the thing that changed an inch or two or whatever where is that on on Craig's chart are you still going to have a that's the setback line of 10 that's the setback of 5.08 ft what is is that going to be no it is that's that's correct out the yeah it was five and now it's 5.08 after the foundation was put in 0.08 in inside to the good side so from where you said Craig your chart with that change on FL ratio that chart is okay I believe that it's okay as long as you agree just I want to give you what you're asking for that's kind of the idea um there's one other that I'm not sure if we went over uh which was on Mr heres's chart the rear yard seac the proposed uh it is listed on here um as [Music] 11.35 feet uh both Mr Kate's and Mr Thomas's PL show a rear yard setback of I think 104 104.25 okay that's important unless you're building over the water you're not going to have a problem with the rear yard setback 104.25 yes it's in the chart now good catch Miss mono thank you so uh we'll move on to uh Mr Kates now um Mr Kates can you give the board um background on your education and um certifications yeah so I have a Bachelor of Science and mechanical engineer I've been practicing in civil engineering field for the last 22 years um I was licensed in 2011 as a professional engineer um in 2019 as a professional planner um I currently represent four boards in South Jersey and have testified before many others as an expert including this one on I think just one occasion uh does the board accept Mr Kates as an expert yes in um engineering and planning and planning thank you um so can you um Mr Kates just go through your plans briefly for the board uh just confirm um you know what the specifics are on your plan yeah so we provided the 24x36 plan which is the zoning plan which essentially mirrors the discussion that that Terry has provided it shows all the setbacks shows location of the structure as well as an updated survey showing the current Foundation where it sits on the property um in addition to that we provided the grading and drage plan um that plan went into significant more detail of the site um we are proposing um 34 linear feet of underground storage which is a 12-in porous pipe in a 3x4 stone trench um it will have yard drains on either side and the intent is to tie the down spouts directly to that system um in addition we're showing the grading to the of the lot which largely follows um the current grading uh the site as it sat is below the edge of of the road so moving water towards the road was was not feasible so we are showing the water flowing from the front of the property um down the side yards and towards the bay um there will be no impact from grading on either lot on on each side um in addition we do show uh lateral connections all the utility connections as well as profiles of the underground storage um that pretty much covers what we're providing and um we heard uh Mr Thomas's testimony as to the variance relief and why in this case uh it is appropriate and do you agree with that testimony yeah I think he covered it all and um you've reviewed Mr heres's memo and agree to make any of the requested revisions correct yes I think everything we can adhere to um most importantly being the numbers on the the variance chart but yes okay um so just the board have any questions for Mr Kates I do one of the existing plan it shows where the foundation is but then on another one that has behind it a proposed uh building overhang is that the the decks this one shows nothing and then on the the other ones that shows that's so this is the existing condition which currently does not have that building overhang and then here you'll see this is the proposed building overhang which is consistent um with what what is shown on the proposed gring plan and should be consistent with everything in Mr Thomas's plans so you didn't have an overhang area for the previous building well they it's just not shown on that one on the existing Foundation that's there on the site because that portion has not been constructed yet it was the stop work order was put in place before that was constructed so that's why that current um site plan does not show it it was there previous to the demolition it's just currently not there the blocks that are there now is that where the foundation is going to be yes there are BLS on that staying where it is that's 100% and how come the floor ratio can change so much I'm sorry what was the question how come the the floor ratio is more the square foot is was 1300 before and now it's 2300 that was the there was some misleading things on this plan okay so on Mr Thomas's plan on sheet zb1 there is a column that says existing conditions are previously approved that doesn't necessarily relate to the appr the approved plans I don't think um they're showing the habitable ground floor area at 22.9% um and they're increasing at 38.8% I don't I don't believe that's accurate okay you Mr Thomas but what the 20 2.9% what is that that's what you have a 2022 plan you have a 2023 plan and you have a 2024 plan and that's part of the thing that's confusing the 2022 plan was the 22 and I forget the number exactly okay 22.9 was approved by the code enforcement office was the 39.1 and the plan we have before you tonight is 38.8 so F increase from the 2022 plan because of the the addition on the third floor and the addition out the back po but as far as the 2023 plan which was approved by the code enforcement office and under which we we're doing a demition actually and I'm supposed to have this screen light on um we're we're doing essentially the same slightly less with what we have before you tonight than what was approved approved in the code enforcement office that Mak sense yeah kind of how many bedrooms did you have in the previous building that was torn down I don't know that there's a bedroom increase that I don't I don't I think there's a 2023 plan it's exactly the same from the 2022 I don't know you're the plan the permit and the plans that were attached to that showed three bedroom rooms you're now proposing four bedrooms I think really I I thought it was the same unless my count is wrong but this this is at such a small scale I'm having a hard time reading it so there are definitely four on this plan so if I look at existing I count two bedrooms on the second floor and I count one large bedroom on the third floor that correct 2022 plan there's three there's three bedrooms and then the proposed I count three bedrooms on the first floor I count a master bedroom on the third floor for a total of four so we're going from three bedrooms to four bedrooms it doesn't increase the parking okay the trigger is five so if they got to the fifth bedroom that would necessitate another parking space can can I ask a followup change the chart for the number of bedrooms C what's that should we change the chart to Number bed yeah I'll mend that when I go through my I already made that note Mr Thomas even though we do have the increase in the floor area ratio we're still below what is permitted for this Zone correct significantly yes do you believe there's any negative impact on the Zone plan Zing ordinance or the adjacent Properties or nearby properties I don't believe there is you know there's an enhancement to the structure which we talked about um and the building is no bigger than what it was permitted to be thank do you want to go through they are they down there make sure they're done their presentation are you finished with your presentation I'd like to say a couple words in closing but I can wait until you want to wait till we open to the public and that way you can incorporate their ideas so okay so we'll have Craig's report okay thank you um I'd like to summarize my October 16th 2024 review me excuse me review memorandum it's going to I didn't bring any water tonight um so this is a property of 1405 Harbor Lane which is in the R3 medium density residential district they're proposing a single family dwelling which is a permitted use um we've gone quite exhaustedly through the the criteria what we're doing here but um a total of four bedrooms and 23295 square foot of habitable area are proposed I think you've modified that tonight we've received that so we have that modification and we'll take that in effect so I'll put a question mark next to that uh with regards to completeness 2384 2384 that's more than what I had oh previously approved tonight it's 23 29.5 okay so I have the updated number all right what do we nothing I just want to make sure my number was correct we're good we are good okay comple this review they asked for waivers from two items uh the four photographs and I think they've provided additional photographs tonight so I don't have a problem with waving that and then from providing the plans and profiles of utility layouts they've given me the utility information that I ne that I needed um I don't think that the profiles are necessary um so therefore I did support the waiver request from that and did recommend deeming this application complete I'll summarize the variances so let me just talk about this globally from the ordinance standpoint so our ordinance permits you to put an addition on a structure that is existing non-conforming with regards to setbacks so long as is that addition meets all the additional setbacks and doesn't create any other non-conformities and I think the zoning officer was correct in issuing that permit because they stepped that addition in met all the setbacks didn't exceed the floor area ratio didn't trigger any variances therefore they could go pull a permit and not have to come to this board by demolishing the structure you lose that protection so now the variances kick back in right that so that that section of the ordinance no longer applies you now have to comply with our ordinances so anywhere where we're treating this you essentially treat this as a new structure okay so therefore we're putting a new structure on a lot that is under sized 6,000 sque 6,000 square foot exists six 6,250 ft is the minimum requirement the lot width and lot front are also non-conforming and existing non-conforming 40 foot exists 50t is the requirement for both of those items so that that's the lot we're dealing with a lot the structure itself has non-compliance and requires variances from the building setback line from Harbor Lane 20 foot is the requirement 10.66 feet is proposed the side yard setback for each side is 8 feet one side has a setback of 5.08 feet and one side has a setback of 7.8 feet you take a look at the building height that complies lot coverage does not exceed the 45% maximum and the floor area ratio is 388 where 0 40 is the maximum permitted um and I'd like to make one change in my zoning table so Mr King pay attention my big moment um the parking calculation indicated in my chart is for three bedrooms it's actually four bedrooms the requirements everything everything else stays the same they're required to they have are proposing to therefore it's a conforming situation there's no variances necessary from that okay so that's a summary of the variances okay um going through the general review comments and these all should be conditions of approval they have to comply with chapter 258 the flood damage protection code they are within the flood zone here so they have to comply um the plan notes on plan zb2 and I I sort of touched on this in some of my questioning um they referenced existing structure to be renovated and proposed addition above that's kind of old uh We've demolished the structure now so this is a new structure so those notes should be revised item number three I talked about and they answered my questions with regards to but that was dealt with the discrepancies and I'm not going to go back into that but we've figured that part out item number four this development is not considered major development um the applicant did provide a grading and drainage plan um that I believe meets the ordinance requirements of chapter 525 um and therefore we found that design acceptable um and item number five is uh piggybacks on to that um that chapter 525 the minimum grading and and stormw management requirements runs with the property and the construction so if there's ever any issues created they have to address those item number six seven and eight deal with the Landscaping plan that they provided all of that was satisfactory item number nine is our standard condition that we evaluate the sidewalk after construction and have the applicant replace that to the satisfaction of the board engineer item number 10 the retaining there's a retaining wall that was on the plan is that still on the plan Mr Kates I think I thought that was being reconstructed Terry is that stay it might could be reconstructed yes okay um so we just wanted we wanted the construction detail added to the plans to verify it's not greater than 2 feet otherwise a variance would be necessary item number 11 11 is our standard condition that they have to post the inspection ASC and the certificate of occupancy is tied to the satisfactory inspection of the improvements that are required 12 is is they have to comply with the requirements of the shade Trade Commission fire department and public works department and we received reports from the fire department dated 9524 recommending approval with no comments public works department recommended approval dated 9424 with no comments and the shade Street commission recommended approval with the following conditions um they ask you to preserve the two cypress trees on the west side of the property is there any issue with it cig they changed their report there is some typ written part did you see that oh I'm sorry or if not possible I have that I just I'm always looking for the the handri or if not possible find Space to add a shade tree on the property possibly any area of the north corner of the property labeled proposed grass landscape they've already added that a proposed Street tree to the plan so I believe they're satisfying but you don't have any issues with saving that tree if possible okay no issues um we like so what we like to do if if there's ever recommendations that are made by one of the commissions if you can't comply you got to let us know now um or you have to go back and talk to them do you know where that tree is was the date of that letter this is the shry commission is dated 91724 n117 because they um wanted you to review new plans oh okay so then you recommended they look at it got gotcha oh oh I see it okay there is a revision date on there it's a little new format for me sorry well I thought that was a good way to do it I wish they typed them all cuz some of these guys have chicken scratch handwriting the only way to fit all that information Craig in that small space I'm getting better at reading it we try but there's it because they had the second set of plans that's was the difference are you able to save them during construction probably we just have to I realize how they had a hard time with I I I can't let you unless you're out a microphone and I swear you in I can't I'm sorry if you want to speak You're alloud I just I can't I don't think so I do we have an answer no the answer have to be going to try but it shows we're going to try um it's an 8ot setback so it's I don't I think you can probably shm the three but we're not 100% we've been trying to study photographs so so what I recommend is the applicant should be required to comply with the tree requirements in the ordinance there is a removal there's removal requirements if it's with within a certain proximity to the foundation they can be removed if not they have to be preserved and protected if they're being removed there's a usually a two for one replacement okay so that's probably the easiest way to just address this okay yes we will comply all right all right item number 13 they have to comply with any and all other necessary state county and local approvals I don't know whether the the construction of a new dwelling triggers any kafer or New Jersey D they don't care New or Old okay um but you're required to comply with that just being advised uh 14 this project is not located within the historic district 15 they're required to comply with any and all affordable applicable affordable housing requirements and in item number 16 they have to revise the plans consistent with the board's approval and meet all the issues items of compliance um that the board sets that's a summary of my report and I'm happy to answer any questions any more questions from anyone you're waiting for the public portion and then you'll speak okay so just one thing about a caer permit you mentioned because this Foundation is gone will they look at it as like we're looking at this as new construction will they turn not that has anything my my experience is if you're in the same footprint you're fine okay but I'm not going to that's that's they have to do their due d due diligence and comply they're not receiv what okay we're going to open it up to anyone within 200 feet of the property that wishes to speak could you go to the microphone turn it on you'll be sworn in okay will you please state your name spell your last name and then I'm going to swear you in oh I'm sorry and then give your address and then I'm going to swear you d lelot l a n Za a l o t TI for Harbor Cove Kate M New Jersey okay do you swear Weir to tell the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth help be God so help me God I swear I I'll be real brief and real quick I've known Bill and Liz Grace for over 30 years and I live at for Harbor Cove and my living room looks directly out at their build well what was their building and when it was I was there when it was constructed it was a nice addition to the neighborhood it fits in and wellmaintained well taken care of and to see it rebuilt there would be wonderful so I just wanted to tell you how nicely they take care of it and it's an addition to our neighborhood and I get to look at it every day so thank you very much thank you anyone Beyond 200 feet that wishes to speak hi Bruce Britton I'm the zoning officer here um I just wanted to clear up a couple things so yep Mr Britain do you swear I'm to tell the truth old you nothing but the truth St you got yes okay so um Craig pretty much hit it on the head the um code allows the the addition to be done the non-conforming house that existed um just because it was non-conforming doesn't mean we can't add on to it the addition has to meet all the requir the area and bulk requirements the setbacks and everything I believe the initial application that came in I think it was the beginning of March actually got kicked back I kicked it back denied it because there were some elements that were in the setback they were they were kind of matching the five foot on the one side um so it got revised and everything and it it might have even been once or twice it got revised but eventually everything met so that's why the that's why the um the zoning permit was issued um based on our codes so other than that um if you guys have any questions you would like me to clear up anything all right yes thanks okay thank you okay yes thank you um I just want to thank the members of the board for your time and attention with this application tonight I know it was a little longer uh than anticipated but I think it's important that we get all numbers correct and everything's laid out so uh tonight you've heard uh testimony from the property owner Mr Grace our contractor Lance Bowman and our two experts Terry Thomas and Paul Kates uh you've heard expert you've heard testimony regarding the variances sought um the existing conditions on this lot create a clear hardship uh the existing lot is non-conforming with respect to both lot area withd and Frontage and due to the rear of the property being about 2/3 water uh the Upland buildable area of the lot is smaller than a typical lot in the R3 District which really inhibits the extent to which this lot can be used uh Mr Thomas also testified as to the purposes of zoning that will be Advanced by this application as well as the negative criteria uh he provided testimony that this would be um you know a visual Improvement as well as it would assist with um preserving the building from flood with this new concrete block Foundation um and the negative criteria as you can see from the two exhibits that we submitted tonight uh we have exhibit it's A2 and A3 this building uh what is proposed is not only consistent with what was there before and existed for 23 years um but also consistent with the remainder of the homes in the neighborhood uh the properties next door to them all have setbacks that are consistent with what is proposed and what was existing and the height as well um so most importantly um as Mr Bowman explained it was never the intent of the applicant to fully demolish the the structure they intended to proceed with the zoning permit as it was previously issued however um once we got to a point where it was unavoidable um they needed to uh you know rebuild the foundation which is what triggered the variance and that's why we're here today um the proposed conditions are almost identical to what was previously approved um with those few minor changes which are actually positive impacts uh under the zoning and construction permits issued so I I just want to thank everybody again for their time tonight thank you there doesn't seem to be much disagreement on the law uh once you demolish a non-conforming structure you kind of start from scratch uh and you have to comply with the ordinance you have to show why what you're building is a better zoning alternative than a compliant structure um they've discussed the challenges of this lot um it's one of those lots kind of like on Yacht Where a lot of the lot is on water so you end up having to try to squeeze a decent house in on a small bit of Upland and that's I think that's their primary thrust of their argument is that it'd be nice to comply with the side yards and all but it's not that big of a lot you have a tall skinny house and not a lot of living space on a really big Lodge has having to be smaller because the the ERS there so I that's the gist of their argument so they phrase it as a hardship argument and that's probably the correct analysis is a C1 analysis um I suppose you could do it you know a C2 as well you've heard the testimony you'll weigh both of those standards in applying it um I I always tell everyone we're not a board of equity right we're not we're not punishing people for doing it the wrong way or giving them a break because they did it the wrong way right so this is one of those ones where it's running the other way usually I'm telling you don't don't punish them because they built it already just pretend it's not there and do a zoning analysis well in this one I have to say probably shouldn't give him a break because there's a a foundation there okay that's we wouldn't punish him for that we going to help him for that but I do think they get some credit for the fact that it has existed in that condition for a long time without without incident okay so the reason non-conforming structures when you're expanding a non-conforming structure and you get a lower standard is because it has shown that it can handle that that condition it's been there for 23 years and there hasn't hasn't been a disaster so that gives you some idea that maybe this setback isn't you know is isn't horrible okay no none of the neighbors came out and said finally they got rid of the setback thank goodness make it go back to where it was so you're getting some indication that it's able to exist and it's the site can accommodate this size setback so I do think it's it's relevant that it was there before for that reason doesn't mean they get it know give do them a favor but stays out so those are the the thoughts you apply your c1c2 standards avoid comments about punishing them for knocking it down and um you know make your decision on that okay does anybody have any questions for me unless someone is adamant we'll vote on the C1 and C2 standards together so I want you to apply both of those standards in your mind and decide if they meet them if they meet one of them then approve it they don't meet either then reject it okay so the motion I recommend be made is a motion to Grant the application as presented with um variances 1 through five on page three with the table amended to be 104.25 on rear yard 388 on FL area with four bedrooms and the conditions one through 16 ex with the attempting to comply with the shade tree ordinance uh but if not possible to comply with the code requirements for replacing trees and there were two waivers number 16 and 27 on page two so that's the motion I recommend being made but how you vote is up to you okay would somebody like to make that motion make the motion okay motion by Mr Bodner second seconded by Mr Walsh Mr Lewin yes Mrs N no Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr Bono yes Mrs Werner yes thank you thank you very much thank you thank you we're going to take a five minute break before our next application microphone's off please secret one e e e e e e e e e okay e okay our next application is Cape Home Investments 401 Pittsburgh Avenue yes good evening Madam chair members of the board John amh Houser the DWI law firm I here this evening on behalf of the applicant cap home investment to LLC as indicated this is an application for variance relief at 401 Pittsburgh Avenue it's identified on the City's tax map is block 1165 lot 4.02 through this application uh what the applicant is seeking is to construct a 15x 28t swimming pool in the rear of the property at 401 Pittsburgh Avenue swimming pools as you know are permitted accessory use in the R3 zoning District uh but the reason that we're back before you this evening is based on the fact that this uh property received variance relief through a prior application in January of this year uh for the construction of the principal single family dwelling that now exists on the site um so given that we needed variance variance relief for that building uh any addition to the property required us to come back here based on city ordinance in addition to that uh there was also an additional variance that was highlighted and noted in Mr hur's report for which we're seeking relief and that's under uh section 62 a1b of the city zoning ordinance and it relates to this swimming pool being connected to an existing patio on the ground level of the property that uh runs the wi width of the rear of the dwelling and is within the front yard setback along Idaho Avenue um that'll be testified to in more detail by uh Mr Murphy this evening uh to that end here with me tonight is Brian Murphy Brian is a professional engineer and professional planner uh principal with the firm of mvy engineering Kem May Courthouse Brian was with me uh at the prior application for this property in January I know you've been before this board on other occasions in the past as well correct correct um with that Madam chair would uh be accepting of him as a professional as both an engineer and a planner and additionally I have Marcel mavo uh with me tonight Marcel is a member with the applicant entity cap home investment to LLC I don't intend to elicit any testimony from Mr mava but he's he's here should questions arise from any board members or if we need any assistance working anything out so if I can have them both sworn sure of you sar from yes sir so Brian as I as I just mentioned in in opening remarks we were previously before this board in January of this year related to this property is that right that's correct okay um since the date of our last approval the applicant has um intended created plans to uh construct an inground swimming pool in the rear of the property is that right that is correct okay now in order to do so we need to file this application and we have two variances that we're seeking tonight based on our application and Mr hur's review would you agree with that I I agree okay now the first variance as I mentioned is under section 73d of the zoning ordinance and essentially what it amounts to is we're required to come back here even if what we're proposing to do as the newest addition is fully compliant because of the fact that the prior application was uh it was necessary to obtain variance Rel from the prior application is that right that's my understanding correct okay and the second variance that we're seeking is related to the pool being connected to the ground level patio which as I mentioned runs the width of the rear of the house and encroaches into the front yard setback is that right that's correct okay now in regard to those two variances Brian is it your professional opinion uh that relief could be granted under either the C1 or the C2 criteria I I agree correct and and which of those two do you do you believe are appropriate here I believe the uh C1 variance is reasonable that's the hardship variance we have a copy of the plan behind me and I highlighted the pool in in blue part of the pool is and by definition is the uh is the deck as Mr amh Houser just stated we were here before um in January this year for the dwelling for the parking um and it's at the intersection of Pittsburgh and Idaho as we all know Idaho really it stops half the way before it even reaches the end of the property it by definition it is a corner lot it the this pool has to be set back the the uh uh uh the distance the if you've been by there you see the building's under construction is just about completed um it's by all if you look at it it looks like it is completed the deck is already there um but because we're adding a pool and this deck is connected to the pool by definition it requires a variance and that's the only that's the other than the fact that we're here um because we got a variance earlier that's the only variance and it's really a technical variance the deck is already there it was there as part of the application it was reviewed by this board it was approved we would have liked to have placed the pool in this in the middle of the lot but to make a conforming uh by setbacks we we we did move it so it's a little bit offset and you can see that it's very reasonable out there and I believe that it's reasonable to Grant the C1 variance because of the hardship that that deck currently exist exists if it was not for the pool it would be what you was approved by this board just a few months ago so Brian in terms of the pool itself we're compliant with all required setbacks correct that is correct with the exception of the deck that I just discussed now and you also indicated this lot fronts on two different streets it does it fronts on Pittsburgh Avenue which is the main street that runs to the ocean we all know that and then Idaho Avenue which is only partially improved and it's um it goes to uh the wetlands open space behind it so while we technically have two front yards this building fronts onto Pittsburgh so we've treated Idaho although it's a front as more of a traditional sidey yard correct that is correct now the sidey yard setback requirements in the zoning District are 8 ft is that right I believe so yes side yard setback are8 feet that's correct and we do have 8 ft between the edge of the patio and the rear or this the property line along Idaho Avenue is that right oh oh yeah very much so so we'd be compant if this were an interior lot based on the fact that it's on a corner is what's triggering the need for this relief right absolutely correct um so Brian you you've given testimony as to how you believe the C1 criteria is applicable do you also believe that variance relief could be granted under the C2 criteria I believe the C2 if you didn't recognize the C1 variance it could be granted under the C2 and that's where the benefits outweigh the detriments and um we believe that the benefits of um allowing the pool to be constructed with the variance for the uh uh deck that's really where the variance comes in uh could be granted for um there's I believe there's three special reasons that would apply to this and um by letters I would say g i in m g which is um an appropriate location for um a variety of things and I believe this is an appropriate location for the pool um I is to promote a desirable visual environment with the pool there's this there's a landscaping requirement that's required so there's additional Landscaping we believe the pool is an attractive feature to go with this house it's consistent with other homes in this immediate neighborhood and um m which is the uh efficient use of land and we believe creating this this pool at this location is efficient and because the variance that's that's being uh requested tonight is just that of a technical nature in my mind um because the deck is already there and was previously granted um that it can be granted and it this pool can go in very efficiently can can I pause you right there for a second I think we I may have missed a a variance in your review okay the covered patio with the permeable pavers that's attached to here MH that covered patio is that part of the roof structure from from the principal structure you're asking if it's under the roof or yeah is it under the roof that ground floor yes yes okay it's on the ground so there's another requirement it says you have to be 10 foot set back from the principal structure and that's for safety reasons um so I think you're not meeting that 10- foot setback from the principal structure so if you could I think that variance needs to be requested and I would just ask you to testify with regards to safety and what the board has typically heard in justification of that is whether a ladder can be put up to the rear of the structure um to access the upper floors I don't I don't have the architectural plans here so I can't yeah I think from the main structure yeah we should have to you have to be 10 so you're I think there's fairly simple way to to get rid of a couple variances um if the board's accepting and I've already talked to my client about this we looked at this while sitting waiting in the last application we can we can move the we would agree to move this edge of the pool back to 10 ft okay by doing so we'd be compliant with that zoning ordinance requirement we'd also disconnect the patio and the pool so I believe it would get rid of both of those VAR doing so we talked about this in a past application just because you physically disconnect by a foot or two doesn't disconnect that patio from really the pool use 10 feet is I mean I think seem so I mean that's so I I just wanted the board should discuss that yeah yeah and that's is very different than the last one it is and that's uh right the ordinance as I read it indicates that right the word connected is used and we did that was the planning board discussion I'm recalling it vividly the question was and at the time in a different application we had a strip of grass between the pavers and the pool and at the time it was planning board's opinion that they're connected regardless of whether that strip of grass is there they're connected so I guess the question becomes if that's connected what is the width and the distance between the the pavers and the pool that would satisfy the board to say they're no longer connected I guess if we know what that is we can then make a decision okay we we know what the dimensions of the pool would be in order to appease that ordinance requirement I don't think I could def an appeal when something is 10 foot away from the dep that existed independently of the pool and now it's 10t from it that's connected to the pool it's 10 it's 10t from the main dwelling only be a foot from the from the patio Edge patio okay why is it the Pao a part of the main dwelling maybe that's where a little confused isn't there a roof over it and stuff yes there's a a deck there's a deck there's a deck above it but is it covered isn't there something that says covered it says covered patio but I I don't have the architectural plan so they're telling is it's a covered deck yeah it's it's uh if we were to remove the the papers you would see it would just be 6x6 pots with a deck above we put the papers in it just gives a a base to there's not it's not screened in there's no walls right so the bottom of the deck above is what is it's the bottom of the deck above yeah okay I thought you were having a 10t away from the okay one right yeah that's that's you know that's a little yeah and I guess we're just looking for direction in that sense I I I don't vote no and that's it's more of a question for the board it's hard do you have a picture of the rear of the structure I'm going to here's the here's the difficulty okay I'm not sure the board I can't speak for the board but having this pool connected to this existing porch that just happens to be a porch That's 8T from the sidey that sounds more like happen stand zoning problem to me but I don't know the bigger problem at the moment is having to P against that patio with the roof that's connected the principal structure is less than 10 ft corre structure and then we get into this whole fire safety issue y um and the fact that it's a flat it's a flat patio with the pools so the idea of having to go around the pool is not a problem like that's not the it's just this fire issue um and is that roof the same so like can you put the ladder next to the pool and go up on the roof and you're in the same position on the roof as you would be yeah we have we provided photographs with the application packet so they are uh there's numerous photographs as exhibits um Focus the board on that and let's and have your engineer talk about whether he believes that this location of this pool inhibits the ability to get a ladder to the principal structure right that's what we so if you look at the third photograph provided I think that that's a PL sure I I would first want to qualify that I am not a fireman so um uh it's reasonable to assume the firefighter would come to the rear of the property as I stated the pool is offset it's only uh 15 ft wide so the firefighters would have well over um half of the building to to place a ladder to get up onto any roof that would be above there's also room on the um side to put a ladder on the side U to get up if they need to get on the side of the uh uh property so I believe having which would be um 17 ft from the edge of the pool to the edge of the building place to put a ladder that should be sufficient enough room to be able to place a ladder safely to fight any fire that would be uh within this dwelling if they had to get into a window over to the left hand side of the stru well then they would climb on the roof and they get in that way CU once you're on the deck then they they have they would have the ability to walk along the deck or to walk along the roof once they're up on the roof so they can get up on the roof over here on the east side and walk over to the west side if there if they had access to window from there engulfed in then they saved the foundation do that is that a is that a a Pao that let a home with the house cor the second flooor so once you're up there you're going you can move laterally anywhere you want yes and there's there's two forms of egress on that floor for that porch there's one a door in the master bedroom and there's also a door in the kitchen which both exit onto that rear porch right but I guess all that noted I guess I'm still curious um as to what distance between the patio the patio and the pool would disconnect them in the board's opinion because I don't think your zoning ordinance provides anything it just says connected and we'd like to know for I mean if you're asking me I can tell you this I don't view the connection to that patio as being significant understood for the issues why we care about it's connected the idea of connecting the pool and the patio my board engineer will correct me if I'm wrong because he knows a lot more about the stuff that I do but the idea of being concerned about the pool being connected to a walkway way around it has to do with setbacks that it allows the activity of the pool to get too close to a sidey guard for noise of the people next to noise activity Ando you're talking about is going towards your own home correct so to me the connection to that patio is not what that ordinance is directed to Craig am I saying that right does that make you're saying it right um so I believe the intent is the reason why we connect the patios is because the commotion the noise the activities that impact the neighbors so technically I think you're triggering that variance because that's the only patio that's out there correct ground level that's at the rear yard so people utilizing that pool that are hanging out there are going to be on that patio I think it's connected just based on that if there was multiple patios and you know and and that was just attached to the house and you could probably make the argument that well people enjoying the pool are going to be on this patio noise commotion is going to be over there this one's not going to be you you know mhm that's that's how I would look at it um you know but I thought they were concerned about patios connected to sidey well no this is a front yard so this is technically it but I mean there is justification for this like I I raised it and I I'm sorry to throw you the curveball but I just saw it well it it allowed us to bring up the yeah which honestly curious about for purposes Beyond this application even i' like to know what that the treatment Idaho Avenue is really going to be a dead end Street we didn't really talk about this the environmental constraints that are on the properties behind that are really not going to allow that road to ever be pushed through I'll be surprised if it ever happens um there's no didn't they get sold yeah I I think the D I think they're going to abandon the street I didn't do the study on like lot of ownership but I believe the controls that property in the back it's never it's so it really functions as a a side yard right that really can only impact someone across the street from you on the on Idaho Avenue um so I think there's justification for doing it but I think technically we're ticking off that it does create a variant and we have to address it and from going back to the fire we do have a letter from the fire uh Department stating that they've approved have reviewed and recommend approval right is there another um house to the left there is yes and how close will the pole be to that property um 10 ft from yeah it's it's 10 ft from uh the decking of the pool to the side yard and then they they have a pool as well so they're probably equid distance from from whatever the setbacks are required from their fence to their pool so they're if they meet the requirement of at least 8 ft you're talking about 18 ft between I also made a recommendation so the there are newer pool regulations have been on the books for over a year um the new requirements for pools are to buffer the side and rear line L lot lines with vegetation and there's a planting requir um they're meeting it for the side and rear but we're really treating we're really treating Idaho as like a side yard and that buffering I recommend it be extended along that line to further buffer that front yard where the impact is um is the applicant willing to do that sure and just make sure that so what you're stating Mr hurle is to extend this landscape buffer right exactly where my finger is showing along Idaho sure and I I will say on our plan you can see where Idaho is improved and what we're going to do is bring that buffer down to the area that almost matches the unimproved portion of Idaho Avenue yeah so there's another benefit that they're they're going to buffer that front yard it's it's really a front yard but we're we're kind of treating it like a side for the this discussion but excuse me Mr just for clarification when you say that would you mean it's required to have a fence obviously so would it be on the outside of the fence it would I would it would be on the inside of the inside of the fence okay yeah okay you can do it either or okay I just didn't know what the board would prefer okay I yeah yeah I'll look to the board just say whether they want it outside or inside but um so Brian just to just to finalize your your analysis under the C2 criteria you went over the positives that you believe would be Advanced or promoted If This Were to be approved do you see any detrimental impact to the public good or the own plan if the board would to approve the relief of requesting I don't for as this discussion has been going on over the last however many uh minutes um it looks acts and it appears like a side yard setback so with that in mind and with the uh um the positive statements that I made earlier I believe that this can be approved without any detriment to the Zone plan and zoning ordinance of the city of Kate May there's been no mention to uh it's going the lot coverage apply for lot coverage so we should I will jumping I I'll explain that yeah when I when I go through my review memoral I'll clear that up is your client the same person that was here in January yes you're the same owner then and you own both Lots yes ma'am and develop both lots and one has a pool and one does not not correct why did you not it was a function of when we got our approval for the D and trying to get the pilings in before the deadline for Memorial Day we didn't have time to get it on this the original to do but I needed to get the pilings in to perform Memorial Day so the plot plan wasn't uh developed with a pool so your intention was always to add a pool I would have always liked to have done one we just couldn't get it done it was it was more of a timing necessity I don't have anything further um at this time you know like to address any comments that may be raised but nothing further in our presentation okay anyone else on the board have any comments questions great okay summarizing my September 29th 2024 review uh this is a project at 401 Pittsburgh Avenue located in the R3 medium density residential district um I'm going to you've heard testimony that this is this is an application that's been here before you before um it was approved as part of resolution 222 2024 semicolon 3 um that was for the dwelling you're now dealing with the pool a proposed pool and the variances that are necessitated by the that proposal um on page two of six the second paragraph from the top top um it indicates at the bottom that there's a lot coverage variance that's requested um that was indicated on their plans that it was non-conforming but this is in the R3 District the plans incorrectly state that the maximum coverage permitted is 40% it's actually 45% and they're proposing 40.7 which complies so they're so strike that last sentence a lot coverage variance is requested that is incorrect it's not necessary completeness review uh there was one wa uh waiver from the checklist requirements for the C variances uh the survey that was provided was not sealed they requested a waiver from that this is the same exact survey that we used on the previous application I think it's fine um so uh I did support the waiver and recommended deeming this application complete um under uh on page three I highlight the variances the first set of variances are I just refreshed the board's memory and for new board members that weren't here um there were two variances that were granted the building setback um and that related to Idaho Avenue um and the parking in the site triangle um both of those were approved they're now um so the first item under the new variance is says F 525 73d zoning review I don't know that that's a variant but that's the mechanism that's requiring them to come here and get the variant um even if they didn't need any variances they would still have to come to you and get approved okay um so the item number two is the pool patio in the front yard setback and that's the attached patio because the setback requires 10-ft setback or 25 foot front yard setback to any pool or patio connected um they have a setback of 8ot proposed to the nearest face of that patio as measured from Idaho Avenue so there's a variance necessary from that um the other one that I kind of hit them with tonight was the setback from the principal structure once I realize that structure overhangs that patio we don't have the 10- foot that's required 10 foot setback from the principal structure to that the pool um so I I believe that distance is zero um but they have provided testimony indicating they can get a ladder up to the deck um and move laterally and access the upper story okay so those are the two [Music] variances on page five of six my general review comments um should be conditions of approval and the first one kind of is all-encompassing and it says all of the conditions set forth in resolution 222 2024 colon 3 should be um conditions unless otherwise Modified by this approval Mr H if I can on that uh one condition that was in the memorializing resolution it's on page four um and it's in regard to um installation of sidewalk along the sides of the property okay so if this were to be approved tonight one thing that we would ask if it's acceptable to the board is the sidewalk to be installed along Idaho Avenue be allowed to occur after installation of the pool as opposed to before one thing we do the house is pretty much done uh it's the intention of my client to obtain a CO for the property M so we what we don't want to do is put a sidewalk in as a condition of that prior resolution and then be driving over it and otherwise possibly damage it if we to be putting a pool in so if we could have that added to this these will be two separate seos understood okay but I'm the concern is are we going to if we don't meet all the requirements of the prior resolution no I'm not going to I'm the one that inspects I will not make you put the sidewalk in and then drive equipment over and break it thank you I just wanted to clear it up that's I'm kind of practical that way it was in the resolution I'm just clear okay um okay so item number two we've asked the zoning table should be revised and Mr Murphy just revise your table so that they indicate that 45% uh maximum coverage um that'll get rid of that discrepancy item three I asked them to re revise their landscape schedule there is a um a landscaping schedule in the ordinance that has minimum size requirements for the plantings they have to meet those so therefore that needs to be addressed on the plans and then four I already talked about and they've agreed to is they will extend that Landscaping buffer along the frontage of Idaho Avenue in the rear yard portion of that where the pool is item number five uh is just our review of the gr drainage improvements they have provided an updated uh design based on the pool and coverage that design is acceptable item number six they have to comply with the minimum storm water management and Grading requirements during and after construction seven their pool safety fencing is required in accordance with Section 52561 A3 they've proposed a 4 foot high vinyl fence um eight is addressing the lighting um they they proposed one pool light within the pool that's within this at the bottom the pool rate on the side wall of the pool okay so there's no overhead lighting for the pool nine is our sidewalk condition that I just talked about 10 is a standard condition for the inspection escrow and the certificate of occupancy inspection 11 is comply with the requirements of the shade tree commission fire department and public works department we received memos from shade tree with comments they recommended approval uh so long as you preserve large existing tree to the right of the proposed pool must be protected during construction and they recommend that the approval the the the protection type you have any issue that's already in place okay so long as that's been preserved uh fire department recommended approval dated 10117 24 no comments Public Works recommended approval dated 10154 and they recommended with the following condition it approved if the county approves your curve cut the applicant has provided me with a copy of the curve cut approval from the county so I know that that's been addressed um so I don't think there's any issues with regards to those okay um 12 standard compliance with all other state County local approvals 13 is just informational it is not located in the historic district so there's no approval there necessary 14 is our standard condition that they have to comply with any and all applicable affordable housing requirements and finally item 15 should the board Grant approval they're required to revise the plans to address all conditions of that the board sets any questions one uh just speaking with my client um given the discussion I know that we've had I think it it's practical my client thinks it's practical to just eliminate the need for those two variances that we talked about and I think by doing so so and know we talked about it earlier but what he's agreed to do that pool right now is proposed is 28 ft long from front to back and 15 ft wide in order to ensure that it's 10 ft from the proper or from the dwelling he's willing to take that 10 foot back it'll shrink it to a to an 18t long by 15t wide pool and it would otherwise then be 10 foot and would no longer be connected to the patio pavers as well I think by doing so we eliminate those two and he's willing to do it as a condition of approval I would agree the variances are it was still required us to come here based on Section 73d but but I just think it it makes sense and makes this more time with that sorry make I'm making a pool smaller smaller and moving it away from the dwell so that you'll have that 10 ft between it and the house and the and the pavers yes the pavers and the papers aren't connected move 10 from the overhead it's not going to be moved it's going to be size is going to be smaller correct yes you're right it's not yes it's not getting pushing right no we're taking away 10 feet on the front right you're cutting 10 feet off the front of the pool yes MH we always like to see more compliant and less compliant so so I don't even so I think you just have to endorse this new proposal under Section 525 73d yeah's yeah right the amendment to the original right yeah otherwise there's no B this time we're open to the public within 200 feet with Beyond 200 ft close to the public okay the motion I recommend recommend being made is a motion to Grant the application to allow a pool that conforms with the zoning ordinance despite the property having previously set back subject to the conditions and waivers that remain applicable given the alteration of the anyone I'll make the motion motion by Mr zetzer and seconded by Mrs Notch thank you Mr Lewin no Mrs Notch no Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs Werner yes okay thank you very much nice night thank you something I'd like to say just among the board members there's a concern that no one ever really talks about is pool safety when there's a deck up against the pool like that people will jump off the deck into the pools I know that there's hotels in town that actually put their pool furniture in the pool at night to keep people from jumping off balconies and stuff and there's a just my own there's a house down the street people in there all time there's a deck right there second floor they jumping off into the pool a matter of time where someone's going to wind up getting hurt I mentioned that here did you that one I think that should be as much of a concern as fire I mean yeah one of my best friends on a kid BR his neck just jumping into yeah just his feet hit and left the bills before we close we we need to do the payment of bills need a motion I'll make the motion okay I'll second it motion by Mr venudo seconded by Mrs Notch thank you Mr levn yes Mrs Notch yes Mr Walsh yes Mr zexer yes Mr Bodner yes Mr venudo yes Mrs wner yes thank you and motion to adjourn I thank yes yes all in favor everyone all right thank you and good night that second five five people all in and they didn't have together as far what they needed to