##VIDEO ID:h9ayENDT5Kc## all right this is a regular meeting of the faan zoning Board of adjustment adequate notice this meeting has been given pursu to the pro visions of the open public meetings act at the time of the board board reorganization in January of this year the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year notice of the schedule was sent to and published in the anbury Park Press on January 26 2024 and the two River times on February 1 2024 that notice is also posted on the bulletin board in Bur Hall and has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute copy of the notice is and has been available to the public and is on file with the office of the BR cler copy the notice also been sent to such members the public as a requested such information according to the statute adequate notes hav't been given the board secretary is directed to include the statement in the minut comme before proceeding with a formal meeting tonight I'd like to say a few words the applicants or experts the audience about the role and authority of the fairen Zoning Board of adjustment board is a separate and independent Municipal legal entity and its limited Authority is specifically set forth and bur ordinances and the New Jersey municipal anuse law this clide additional in nature and the members of the board are unpaid volunteers appointed by the mayor and Council the zoning board does not enact the bough land use laws and regulations the B Council does that the zoning board does not enforce the land use laws the B Haven this is the responsibility of the B quote enforcement officer this board deals with appeals for Relief and requirements the B's Lage laws board denials by the zoning officer an applicant is never entitled to a variance also known as an exception to the zoning regulations but must meet specific criteria required by the New Jersey municipal lus law VAR ordinances by satisfying certain requir standards approv board has no authority to wave these requirements bur approve is always upon the applicant show that he or she is entitled to specifically requested the applicant must prove that a deviation from the regulations will advance the purposes of the ordinance in that the deviation would substantially at weigh any detriment of his own plan variances related to the feature uses land are not intended or authorized to remedy temporary unique personal situations roll call please here here here here PL Allegiance United States of America to the rep stand one nation matter record question Mr leer will be refusing first matter is continuation oh and Mr sh will be refusing as well or do you want to grab a seat thank first matter continuation of K 11th M Terrace um where we left off last month was that we had a brief board discussion uh Mr Brodsky I don't know if you had included your testimony but for the benefit of the new board members who are here who listen to oh we need to do that yes if if I can just I'm have one additional exhibit that marked as even to Mr R the commission and that is the certification of Don Ridgeway confirming that he has had an opportunity to review uh the ow system Andor materials and materials and is prepared to vote on this application so we Mark that as zb2 got uh Mr R been benit the public and for the board a brief summation yeah that's what I intended we had we had completed our direct testimony uh you the board had heard from our um our engineer our architect and our planner um and uh we had just held off on the boote and as the board will recall we had completed Our Testimony at the last hearing back in August due to a couple of refusals and absences um there's not a full compliment of the board members to vote and since we have a d variance for f we need five affirmative votes for an approval uh the applicant elected to hold off on the vote until the season um until have Mr richway to uh the tape thank you very much no pressure um and uh uh so just as a reminder by by way of a little background or or a recap the conhagen longterm Fair hidden residents um purchased raised their family here um purchased this home they plan to live in it uh uh for the next 1 years um and uh um to say that the uh con agents have not taken uh the design of this uh home lightly would be would be the ultimate under understatement um did a very thoughtful and I think board members heard very thoughtful uh conservative deliberate approach with respect to the design um on an exceedingly challenging lot right there are a number of hurdles associated with the lot significantly undersized primarily both with respect to lot size remember the lot is less 12,4 15 sare ft where in the R30 30,000 is required um and similarly with respect to lot width 65 L 65 foot wide lot you know 125 uh foot Goods you Zone um so clearly existing zoning requirements don't work for this property because we they would put anything um and so what the conhagen with the professionals set out to do with all of these experts and dealing with the very honorous and uh burdensome D restrictions that pertain to water front Lots such as this came up with what we hope the board sees is a very reasonable Proposal with respect to a a relatively modest home um in in a on a waterfront piece of property that's going to be an improvement to the neighborhood and not going to be any detriment to to to to any neighbors in fact it would be an improvement as I said the end of the day when you compare what's proposed the home that's proposed to that which exists today um talking about a 637 square foot addition that is the existing home is 2,953 square fet what the conens are proposing is 3590 Square ft on let's face it waterfront property um again modest sized home relatively in a zone that warrants significantly larger homes um uh not withstanding the undersiz nature of the L um The Proposal not only not only deals with all of the D restrictions which we which we spoke spoke about at length especially with respect to the the rear of the property in particular um the uh but actually there are improvements that are associated with a number of existing non-conformities side setbacks even on the 65 ft wide lot are improved lot coverage um ton of lot coverage in the rear that we talked about at length um uh of impervious material was removed from the backyard which is not only not not only environmentally uh um inconsistent with the D regs but also aesthetically undesired um the proposed design also maintains the front setback from from uh with respect to the existing home the height um is only about 3 feet taller than uh the existing structure but still 9 feet less than what's permitted in the zone um uh well below the proposed home is well below on the permitted floor area um uh the massing if you will and me when I say massing I mean the additional square footage this 600 change square feet has been designed to be located in the rear of the property right so as to not to have a minimal change on the street Gap so that the additional 600 some OD square square feet not going to be noticeable to anyone on the screen that was a big part of the design that the architect uh uh uh struggled with um I mentioned I mentioned and and with respect to that addition really what what it results in is going two bedrooms to a four bedroom home up with four bedrooms upstairs with bedrooms consisting of approximately 13 feet by 13 feet the master is about 14 by 14 so not oversiz at all they very you know uh in keeping with um the intention to to build a moderately sized home for this Waterfront lot but not to be imposed and while it and to that end I know it's not the board's concern but you know we're talking about a very expensive property about expensive you know expensive fix for what was going on in the rear yard of this property uh now um to one improve the Aesthetics and two uh comply with d regulations plus the cost of the build we're talking at the end of the day about a very very um uh costly Endeavor um so the several hundred square fet that is beyond the r and even the r10 standards you know for this particular property for this particular unique development is really necessary to make it work for the family make it work for modern day utilization and to build something reasonable um not oversized not a mcmansion not an open hild and so that the the development's been designed in such a way that it's not going to appear any larger than the home that exists today because of that because of a flat rout which which was intentionally done to keep that to keep that height um as low as possible you know so the house is bigger in terms of square footage but it's not taller re still well below the maximum the the the maximum height permitted in the zone um yeah it's got It's got some some additional Square footage but it's actually narrower than the existing home which I mentioned earlier in in increasing those setbacks and the distance therefore to to the properties on on on either side so in some um you know both I and the applicant and we stated it when we were here very well aware of the board's preference all things being equal equal for reuse and readaptation renovating existing structures and maybe even if this house were to be renovated the existing home proba probably would be some less V less variances associated with it but you heard from the architect and the planner that it just didn't work here and it couldn't be accomplished and the and the benefits from the respect the DP and Aesthetics and the functionality couldn't work with any sort of renovation to the existing home and we heard a lot of testimony about that so we'd like we ask the board to take into consideration you know the significant work that the that the homeowner is doing to that rear right we talked about that at at at length because um it's a significant Improvement uh over that which exists today um a significant amount of impervious was pulled uh or would will be pulled uh in exchange for a lot of green area um the applicant's going to uh do all of that flip the garage uh applicant is is you know removing what's there going to replace it with uh high quality uh in the rear high quality pervious uh materials you also heard about some of the sort of compromises that the applicant U has made with respect to the design now the basement is only said and2 ft tall again that's to that's to one keep the height down two comply with the the r um so no windows and a portion of it the utilization of it is limited but low ceilings the applicant has done that to respect D respect respect um your ordinance and respect uh uh the neighbors they have can kind of squeeze seller no attic being composed because of the flat roof so no additional space there so that 3590 square feet is really like I said modest four bedroom home so I think the board heard and from the comments we heard that that there was a you know there was a thoughtful difficult process here with a with a challenging lot and there it was the you know the the the exercise of a bunch of experts spending a year you know and spending a lot a lot of the colan money trying to walk that tight Road come up with a strike a balance between what zoning requires what fits in the neighborhood and what the property deserves and and and what is reasonable and so for all of the and you heard a lot of testimony you heard planning testimony and support of the variances and we discussed you know we looked for lots of lots of Direction looked at other zones looked at um other houses in the area and all of those things and you know this end product is not you know not a proposal where someone came in and you know threw something out hoped for the best and you know was ready to give on some some aspects of the development as a give and take this came in as a final product which was minimally um acceptable and usable for the client while at the same time respecting all of the relevant the zoning the the requirements and and neighbors as I said for all of those reasons um I thank the board for um taking the time to um PR last year Bo spent a lot of time made a lot of good comments made a lot of good observations and uh um and we hope that the board appreciates um uh what has been done the thought processes that has been put into this develop proposed development and hopefully uh can see fit to approve the retirement home for the non haens and they great thank you Mr B Mr would you review the uh what's being done to prevent runoff into the river um Jordan do you want to so they agreed to provide Sid as part of a compliance submiss um to show the product they want to use but essentially they want to stabilize the slope um it's going to be steep as you know but they also need to be approved by a DP but in this case the Cal Conservation District who doesn't necessarily see all the residential inations but given the the disturbance here um they're going to look at it and their Prime Focus is erosion so let me to clear that hurdle well yeah I think you know pesticides on lawns and things like that that run into the river uh really turn out to be a big factor and uh is is there a significant amount of runoff from this property into the um basically everything from the the middle of the house on each side back drains to the river the middle of the house front drains to the front gets anyway but I mean I don't want to speak for the applean but I know they have a lot of vegetation so that's that's going to help yeah one of the things that was done as you saw I mean like I said they're moov they're removing over, 1600 square ft of impervious from the rear and replacing it with vegetation impervious so that I think is going to improve uh the runoff to the river dramatically right with the existing condition that that's and that's you know they're spending you know hundreds of thousands of dollars hundreds of dri going to collect the yeah where's that dryw front yard yeah um again that was part of the thought process uh Dr ler was to remove all of that impervious in the Mir and in fact DP was all over them on that issue and as you saw like I said to the tune of an excess of $300,000 pulling up a lot of that stuff and keeping it primarily green uh so that there will be uh so that it would limit the runoff significantly and improve it over that which exists thank you okay so what I'd like to do now then is um we're going to deliberate and then we will I'll give you the opportunity to you know kind of say yes I'm good to go get a feel on the board and then um we'll move forward okay great um discussion uh I will start I guess um I'm G to reiterate the comments I made last month that I think the excessive square footage accessive f is acceptable in this case I think a lot is very difficult we know that if you're going to go by book F get tear down construction can build under 2,000 F which and I know we don't supposed to uh take into account economics and that sort of thing but it's a riverfront property and you're not going to build 2y on the riverfront the zone is in R30 I don't think any lot on that side of the street is 30 is fits in the nor3 so we've run into this problem with other other half on that street um the improvements to the rear are extremely important over what's there now what's there now is Terrace brickscape it's Pro Hardscape and I think this is a great a great design um whether I like the the modern architecture or not really is is neither here nor there it's about the numbers and from the street very low impact this the garage side entry garage is even lower impact so you don't have that Florida big facing garaging we face um I'm a fan of it I think they did a fantastic job with it I think 3600 square feet in that zone is not egregiously big and it's not going to present as 3600 square feet the 320 foot has next to me looks a hell a lot bigger than this does that's kind of the opinion I have yeah I'll weigh in it's a tough lot uh and uh that goes about saying uh I think that the design is a big improvement over what's there now uh I'm a big fan of what they did with the backyard I was initially troubled by the setbacks uh as they but they seem to be buffered by by walls and vegetation so I I think that answers that problem um I'm not a big fan of flat roofs but again I'm not I'm not an architect I do you know had difficulty with flat flat roots with almost every flat rout that I've encountered over the years uh but again I think it's a big Improvement of over what is there now it's a very difficult lot and uh I'm in favor of the application um just go the line I guess uh I agree um with everything that was said U and my my opinion hasn't changed since last month I think uh you know to what Dr wford just said some of the improvements On The Backs side of the house uh the mitigation of some of the Hardscape uh doing some more natural plannings as opposed to lawn that is going to contain runoff much better the dryw um you know I understand the floor area is kind of a question but it is a very challenging lot and you know I think this this Danel said this last week last month um you know we we look for tradeoffs and yes we are exacerbating one thing but we are making a vast Improvement I think something that is very important um that probably needs to be addressed more in the town and that is run off into the river the health of the river the condition of the river condition of the short on I think this is a vast Improvement and aesthetically I'm I like this design uh I a fan of modern architecture uh but that is here to um I do think that is an improvement um you know it's going to be visually feeling from the street which is not a very well-traveled street but more importantly it's going to look great from the river um and as I said last month the river is the jordal to town and uh you know I think this a greatti I agree with everything that the three of you said um I especially like the impious coverage of the backyard rather the than the impervious um the only thing I would add that I also appreciate is that they're keeping the height down um from the street skate and so for the neighbors across the street you know it could be 9 higher um they're keeping it down I I I'm slightly concerned I know that there was a a discussion about um it Blends nicely with the neighborhood because of the house next door I feel like that house probably isn't very long to stay maybe they'll take inspiration maybe they we had a good AR um so I don't know that that necessarily is going to be consistent for very long but um but I really appreciate um all the other improvements um and keeping the height down for the Neighbors yeah inside of the stream as well than um I don't have a lot to add I think my colleagues the other side of table said all very well uh usually when I look at a tear down my first reaction is why can't you comply and I really think the applicant answered that question adequately to my satisfaction you look at the lot if you were building with conforming setbacks I think it would be a 25 foot wide house that would look really awkward and as everyone said the river is the crown R of town it's an important uh neighborhood it's an important uh street that really needs to be taken care of and I think the conhagen did a very nice job and trying to on balance put in very nice application on in favor of yeah thank you Peter yeah based on the um the video from the last meeting um summation from this evening and my col um discussion points um I think it I would agree it's a good plan nothing really much to add I think the benefits outweigh the detriments improvements as we've said um setbacks I particularly uh appreciate the removal of The Hardscape and a replacement with a vegetation which I think um is more in keeping with the river clearly um will help and be in advantage to the runoff and I'm not a gardener or vegetation person but I would assume there's not a lot of herbicides that are going to be used in that backyard it looks all pretty from the photograph I'm looking at on the easel here it all looks like natural vegetation yeah red natural rugged natural sort of in keeping with the landscape of a of the as as it's been said you know the river Frontage of um our lovely T so I would I think it's a good plan yeah no nothing outside of what's been said already and uh you know even know the design is not my taste uh I uh I'm in favor of the application I think you guys did a nice job okay um I think we're okay to go ahead with vote then so then I will make a motion to approve the con application as submitted uh conditional on the Capper approvals and based on the accuracy of the numbers I'll second yes yes yes yes yes and yes thank you Mr chair con the record Mr leader will be returning uh Mr Forte and Mr Ryan will be refusing on the next application I'm not I know we're are you refusing from here on yeah I ask chairman administr so Marty why don't you why don't we do this why don't we address the question on Mad 550 um I think that's all yet probably could benefit from your comments um actually I think I have your recuse on that as well well you know what that's really not very helpful if you havec from that then I guess we'll see you next next mon thanks for your help lucky thank you thank you right then we then we'll defer that and we're ready for the good one don't know if Mr aens appeared yet did receive a telephone call from Mr aens who is traveling the opposite direction Mr BR who leing here and going to Atlantic Island make advis leaving to come here and we try to keep appr was not receiv so he has the next two well let's then not some administrative go slow go slow we took a break super close let's do this I I can go either way okay uh minut from the a first meeting uh I make some small typographical changes but other than that I will make a motion to approve the minutes from the first of [Music] yes okay certified oh well it's only the one only one application yes yes yeah resolution for do 109 Harrison Avenue motion to approve the resolution as submitted yes [Music] yes um so we've got a request from extension uh 15 William Street I don't recall application are the Smiths here come on uh yeah you want name and address for the record in the sure sure for the testimony before the board the truth the vote TR nothing but the truth I do me give you a little background if I can and and then I'll have Mr Smith fill on the this was a resolution approval from the Zell board adjustment pack um well it was memorialized January 12 2023 uh the public hearings were held on September 8th 2022 and December 1st 2022 this was for Relief to permit an expansion of the existing single family dwelling at the subject property uh this was in the R5 Zone street address is 13-15 glum streets um variance Le was granted to permit the existing lock depth of 50 ft as depicted on the plan whereas 100 ft was required VAR weit the existing deficient left parent North Side uh setback of 6.9 ft and the lateral extension of the same to the rear by the new single story rear Edition as depicted in the plan whereas the side setback should be 7 ft variance relief permit the existing deficient total combined side yard setback to 21.9 um wein 25 ft required um on the other VAR Rel to front yard set back uh where the new front Court stairs 2.5 ft depicted on the plan and 25 ft required variance Rel can permit the proposed efficient re yard setback of the on story Edition to be constructed at the front left North Northwest cor dwelling 7 ft as dep picted on the plan we 30 ft fires and variance to permit this time to turn was habitable floor area of 2696 square ft as depicted on the plan whereas 2200 sare ft is otherwise the maximum we had to say usual General conditions uh with regard to this matter specific conditions were that the applicant would comply with the requirements and recommendation set forth from the board Engineers theie of October 5th 22 um subject to the condition that all will leave granted uh especially subject to the applicant preserving the existing dwelling as referenced in the resolution rather than demolishing the dwelling uh subject to the dwelling additions being cited to match the remainder of the house I guess that's the exterior facade and subject to a deed consolidation I guess there was some issues as to whether or not there were two separate Lots um I do not know what the status was I've have not seen a resolution of compliance as to whether or not Mr Smith is re the extension of theori of the approvals that were remoral as said January 12 2023 Smith you're looking for another year that is that essentially what what's being requested yeah that would be more than sufficient we're we're hoping to to break ground you know in the next few months so the the the process just for the benefit of the board is to there's a limited amount of time to move public what what I think that is consistent with land use law generally which is when there's there's a period where things expire you want to evaluate whether or not things have change and whether or not we have new rules and in fact as because I heard habitable although I thought this would have been under the new rules this must have been under the old ones when evaluating whether or not it would be unjust or unreasonable to extend it um you know my thinking is whether or not there would be any reason for us to feel differently about the application today than we felt about it a year and a half AG um and so to me this isn't particularly complicated but I think that that's what essentially you need to be asking yourself Doug I don't is there anything else the board memb should think about um we' had more of these in the last uh three or four months than I remember a long time yeah the difficulty that you have is that in essence the variance for Grant now you had some pre-existing conditions it's not clear to me what was being exacerbated in this instance um but they disappear if you haven't really prosecuted them or you know I think the language is diligently prosecuted uh within 12 months and so folks if they for a variety of reasons thisth is going to address that as to why things didn't get done as to what outstanding conditions are still there has he complied with or some has he not complied with anything but basically I agree with what the chair has said you're really not a court of but what I usually do is Council board as Tod said what's changed now that would be significantly different that might impact the overall development of other properties in the area overall uh changes that you have if this area is relatively the same as it was before and you don't think it's going to really impact any of the development in the area want to find out what your thoughts are on that and if you if you don't think there's been any change we have granted them in the past for SLE reasons anybody have any concerns about granting the extension just had a question in 2020 2021 weren't there automatic extensions that the the state granted just so you had to make application for them when do they stop doing yeah I do not have that date at my fingertip right with regard to those things and generally with regard to where you make your request you do it before your your relief has elapsed okay um there did not appear to me to be a specific I mean other than specific variant you believe that can be extinguished in 12 months I would count that time from December of 23 know technically those variants you know without further action board would disappear um without a request on the permanent extension act I don't know you about it automatically you have no way to really track unless you made those request just curious remember that being can you provide a little color as to what happened since January 12 2023 yeah absolutely uh first of all I want to thank sha um for uh when I found out that this expired I you know kind of started bombarding her with calls and emails and she was gracious and and patient with me and thank the chairman and and the whole board for getting me on uh you know on short notice um be mindful of your time I I'll just kind of Jump Right In so we got the uh the variance uh resolution I believe it was January of 2023 um pretty much immediately after getting that we started going out to bids uh we had some difficulty not difficulty just took some time finding the right contractor get the prices were we found a little higher than we had thought it would be uh perhaps due to due to co and kind of the supply chain things that were going on in 2022 2023 we did find a contractor uh I think about a year ago you know before the the resolution expired um and then it was a matter of uh there were a few logistical issues scheduling with our contractor and his Subs they were very tied up in other projects um with the increasing interest rates we had some issues with securing financing um but we got all that done um we uh we had to coordinate with New Jersey G um because we are adding the extension on the front and they have to move a gas line and they have to access the street to do that um so I was working out scheduling with them and found out that we have to schedule two separate um Street excavations probably not the right word but they have to access the street two separate times one time just to disconnect the gas before we start um and then another time to come and actually move it after I guess some of the foundation work stuff so um I have no excuse uh for the fact that it did lapse I did not know that it expired um and but I should have that's on me um but as soon as I found out that it was expired our our contractor was uh we have a uh we got the the architectural plans we're going to submit it to the town um for the for compliance the certificate of compliance we did um sorry bounce it around a bit we did get the Lots Consolidated within the year which I think was the main give me that date that that's that's a great yeah that was um October of I think it was finalized in October of 2023 I have a few copies if the board would like a copy I just want to point out all we can say is yes and I you give us overwhelming reasons to say yes we can okay so I very much appreciate you going through it I think everybody that's up here has either been through it or watched Friends go through it and we know that it isn't it isn't easy for sure um does anybody really have any concerns or Mr chair can I make one comment Yeah question um Mr Smith said that one year would be sufficient however I just want to make sure the resolution would be clear is it um retroactive from it would be the way we have done them in the past is a year from all moralization so it's actually going to be from next month okay thank you okay so it'll be a year from next month so have a full 12 13 months from today yeah good we good yeah thank you everybody else good yeah yeah make a motion approve uh the extension of the Smith resolution of approval second Mr yes yes Mr Richard yes drer yes yes yes thank you Mr thank you very much thank you have a great SMI I ask to provide a copy of the filing of the deed consolidation to Sheila does have to be done right now but earli absolutely and she has she has a copy Wonder would the board still like a copy or if you got them okay all right great thank you everybody have a great day thanks very much okay the only remaining administrative items the 550 River Road my duppies we want to tackle that now so did Mr Akens want to present on that or I know Mr Akens wrote a letter he wrote a letter he did not indicate to me that he wanted to present on that my conversation with him was originally there were there were some issues as to resolution compliance again we're dealing with resolution compliance conditions in the resolution that the applicant has to demonstrate they've completed in order to begin their permitting process um the letter that was and he did not indicate he was going to present I did ask him very clear provider writing to to us to go through that so we can determine what the issues were number one I do know that uh our engineer in has some degree familiarity with it as I review the letter there appear to be two two issues of resolution compliance where the applicant has requested certain consideration one waiver of the need to provide a shade tree easement along River Road may recall that in our review of this matter our plan had suggested that that there be a shade tree easement along River Road Mr aens writes the applicant is providing shade trees into to the extent the property will likely be rezoned in the future to a permitted commercial use IR from presidential from present residential Zone CL par this would appear to be unnecessary the applicant commits to maintain these shade trees consistent with the ver shade tree ordinance I have no information to provide you with regard to reson is it residential yeah it is this is still technical technically residential that's why it came before us for the D variant because even though it is a commercial property the underlying use is underlying permitted use is the residential which is why they needed the D variant to you to continue as a non-conformal commercial us so the easement was purpose yes sorry sorry she said for what purpose for what purpose oh I the the planner had made recommendation that with regard to that property is her understanding her opinion that that easement should be provided so is there an ordinance that requires that these easement be put in place so the the sole origin of this is the planner's review letter okay so then the question is being presented back to us as to whether or not the board intended to impose that condition in the and so that's really the question that's being asked and so I think that what we can do is provide clarification um to the extent that the board members feel as though that easement was something that we wanted to require and did in fact conditional condition approval on get I I will tell you that the final resolution here's again this was fairly tortured procedural history the D variance was granted you may recall we bated this application rather than deal with all the planning issues and in that D variant the granting of the D variant we specifically held in abeyance all those things and listed all those things that were what I would characterize as the bulk or site design elements that the planner dealt with and that we were going to deal with the those in the second round if you will there was not a specific condition to provide the easement there there was discussion as to where trees would be located this issue came up because in general I have language in the resolution that says you know if we mark this into evidence and you advise that you're going to comply with those things I don't reiterate the entire planner's report in the resolution and did not do that in this instance um now that they're now we're here honestly I don't recall it so so here's the so so not only do I do I think that we didn't spend any time on it if any very little I don't know what the dimensions would be um the idea generally is that the easement allows the municipality to come in and maintain those trees maybe even replant those trees this is a really tight lot and so those those parking spaces are nose in um and to the extent that we would want to say that there was that condition I think we'd have to assess how much of this site are you going to restrict through that easement and without having had that discussion at least not that I recall um I think it's just a loose end that um the applicant having raised it I I don't see any reason to push on it so is it that the easen is required if it's residential but that's what it sounded like his letter said if it's residential it sounds like I I think what he was trying to get at in his letter is that the the the site is odd and irregular and if in fact it becomes Zone commercial that may change things in the future in ways that may affect this easement yeah if we were to Grant an easement and then it change to commercial that might change the easement we just don't need a needs men I I disregard that comment because I don't think it's relevant the only thing that I think about is whether or not we intended to expressly condition it on compliance with a series of things that we didn't talk about I I I don't think we did and and again can see where the easement would impact this site negatively to the extent that we don't know how big it is whether it would affect the parking or the ability to redo the parking L the future there was another I mean they're not redoing it now there's like at least four trees on the half the lot where the parking is currently right between the sidewalk and the curb of the parking lot so there's probably like a 6 to8 foot at least squat of green there I think they dord pairs sticking in my I don't remember that just some D if they flower what say you my opinion is the trees are on the approved plan so something happens to the trees they're responsible for maintain them and replace them um and the aist said they're going to maintain so there was another portion of that letter too besides the EAS I'm dealing with one so if something happens to these trees down the road is going to be beholden I to repl far because the our farest is going to be like up with the tree you know we hope so we hope so yeah look so what we typically do if trees were super important to the board at the time is the board would actually have that discussion and the resolution we even include a condition that said that hey this buffering is particularly important um I don't remember any of those discussions they they put them on because they were asked to put them on and I think they all just became part of the plan I I don't remember of the the the area being six or eight feet I I don't I don't know um but it does seem to me being a real estate lawyer that if you're going to put an easement in place you're going to restrict the ability to use a piece of that soil in perpetuity and if you're doing it you really should be sure why you're doing it and make sure that it's the right soil um and that you really can't imagine ever needing to do something different and and and I think that's what what the applicant is is sort of struggling with is the idea that forever U whatever that strip is is going to be trees and only trees and double trees you want these I'm I'm not against it I know we didn't discuss it I know there's a lot of discussion about you know storm water management for that if there were to be uh you know Reign the parking for sure um I would prefer not to see those go and that strip go if they do that redesign and and reconstruction of the parking lot that they sort of seem to think was somewhere in the future if they didn't they wouldn't have been as adamant about talking about it I don't think so Doug it seems to me that if they wanted to redo the parking lot as it is that they would be obligated to um if they're tearing it up that's an Express condition if they were going to change the parking lot striping or configuration of the amount of asphalt that they would need to come back here and they would need to as long as it's still res itial they would would they still if it was rezoned commercial I I I don't know why he put that issue on the table it's no I'm just saying if they would have to come back if they were going to reconstruct that parking lot as long as it's still zoned residential as of the use of it no right I think even if if it's on commercial it's a change from the existing condition I'm asking no I my understanding of the way in which we constructed the resolution was that if it were something like restriping not changing the number of parking spaces they would not necessarily come back for us but if they were going to do some significant improvements like that would trigger because what we looking for there was to improve site drainage if in the future we found out that there was still drainage issues going on to the street I agree with that but if they have let's call it it's called a six to eight foot strip of of area that's landscaped with four trees if they wanted to remove that and change their parking lot it seems to me they'd have to come back they to back and if they had to come back to the board then that would be your opportunity to say no that's not what we want to see you do and so it seems to me that they're constrained to keep that as grass area the resolution requires they plant the trees I'm going to be honest about what happens if the trees die because I don't know if we're making calls on those we're behind um but okay we move to the other I yes the other issue you recall and I try to shorthand this was reading to was was boring for me some sure is for you listen to it at the end of the day they were deficient with regard to their party we have an ordinance that basically says where you're deficient and this was highlighted uh in in several occasions where you're deficient you're going to make a contribution to the municipality of I think it's 2500 2500 per spot per location that your deficient that money is going to be collected by the municipality not necessarily to build something on your particular lot but something in the future remember again this had a couple of moving Parts where in the original resolution there was going to be so much offsite parking we call the old read so much offsite parking to accommodate uh and I think I don't think it was really the site of the of the commercial people coming in but offsite parking for the folks who were going to be working there that that was going to be taken care of um I will leave it to you as to whether or not you felt that that continued to be needed or addressed but one of the things that we did task Mr Akens to come back and say look we want you to come back and give us clean slate did you comply with all of your underlying and then we'll work from there okay what they did was they gave you a site that was conforming I believe with current use they could have done some stacking I think the board expressed concerns they didn't necessarily want stacking but at the end of the day the site even under its present configuration I would say take away the off-site requirement was deficient by and I don't know how many spaces three Spaces by three space so this is over approximately $7,500 again this is resolution compliance I did have an opportunity to speak with uh with Mr Rizzo my take on it was that's you don't have jurisdiction over that issue to the extent that we oblige you to do that you can make some arranges with the nopity with regard to that ordinance if the municipality decides it's not necessarily required or they don't want you to do that then fine but Mr Rizzo is charged with resolution compliance he's got something that says well you need to take care of that they're essentially saying we really don't want to have to make that contribution my my concern is we may have been able to have done something in L in our resolution to ameliorate the impact of those spaces I think that I think it still come up with short space but we could put line do we have the jurisdiction to wave that I don't think you do so my letter and the planner's letter both through the use variance phase and the sight pun phase included a comment that they should comply with this order section which is the fee we didn't calculate the fee to some degree that parner basers maybe a moving process um fast forward to compliance I I completed one one review so far and I noted that it wouldn't hold up my engineering compliance it's just a comment that that they need to work it out with the buau engineer office zoning office um I ultimately defer to them to calculate it well first determine if it's applicable then calculate and collected so there's nothing being held up on my end to issue my letter that they can proceed um it's really something that they need to work out with the zoning and engineering and to the extent that they say it's applicable and it's required if the applicant wishes to seek a waiver from it it's clear that in the ordinance that they need to go to the governing body to get that so our resolution says you need to be CL compliant with the Burrow's ordinance regarding parking and doesn't necessarily reference it but it's in my letter and it's in your's letter and my my general is that you will comply with all applicable ordinances regulations our our resolution grants them variances on the application with the number of parking spaces that they showed on the plan yeah I think that's as far as we go in the number of spes that's what this ordinance is for it's the town issue yeah I don't imagine that's for us the decide so I I I generally agree that this issue should be moved to the burrow um but what I think is notable for the board um and and I'll speak from the way that I perceived the application I didn't buy into the spaces as they were drawn I continue to believe that that the spaces that are painted along the fence are going to to the extent that they're used they're going to infringe upon the drive AIS and nobody's going to want to park there unless they have to there are also useless driveways on this property and there's opportunities for them to have shown spaces there not for their customers they would have explained to us that nobody would actually use them but for employees and they might have been able to technically achieve 20 if that's actually what was required by ordinance what what got swept up here was the idea that the deficiency would trigger a cost and at the same time I don't think that we spent a lot of time focusing on the deficiency because it was adaptive reuse and so I I struggle with the idea that there would be a fee because a number isn't where it should be when I can see on that plan a place that you could have satisfied that requirement but I nevertheless think that we should defer it um to the council if the applicant said we'd like to show you a different plan we'd like to show you three stack spaces in the driveway in order to achieve this it's it's the same same business same use are you agreeable to that I I think it wouldn't have made a difference to me either way I wouldn't want to see them just throw money down the toilet or throw money to the council for the sake of collecting money um and in fact as I've read the ordinance just to be mindful of it I think the ordinance is is written poorly um many of them are but what I think that what I think the intent should be is if you're going to use a site again then you should be you should be dealing with the parking the best you can but people can't put parking spaces at a thin air and so if we want the the the smaller commercial properties in town to be able to be reused I think we need to be mindful of what our expectations are what the ordinances require and if we're taxing them at the rate of 10,000 20, ,000 per project I think we're we're creating an impediment to people being able to figure out economical ways uh to make these these projects viable I see that in this project I think very fortunate to have somebody that was willing to come at this and figure out how to reuse it rather than trying to do a small residential development or build something new that was taller and bigger and felt like something different than what we have so I'm sensitive to it but I I acknowledge that I think the best way deal with it as fond but but but the last thing I'll say is I think it's important that we highlight it so that we're not missing it um there's never been an applicant here that we haven't tried to help get where they need to go um and we do that Myriad ways but here to the extent that it was missed by the applicants professionals which I think it was because I think they could have dealt with it I think we should have spent time on it don't know if this board would have been the appropriate authorities would dealt with it um I think off the record I spoke to the engineer several times and told them that this an issue that they need to work out with the burough office to this day I'm not aware if they had those conversations um my read through this I think you can definitely find an Avenue where it's it's not applicable or he might not be required but again until I'm asked to make that determination I I leave it to the Bal office would they say okay we're going to here a plan and you know the driveway that goes around and I know when the bank was there they used to put three four cars in that driveway could they come back to us and say okay you should they saying they want to do however I don't know if I've ever seen a plan that showed that I don't think they I don't they started they have one and I don't want to also just assume that them doing that would be a fully compliant plan I I I want I want to clarify first of all I think the ordinance can be read to not require them to pay the fee because because I think that that is clearly um one way to read it you can also read it to suggest that if there's a change in UC do but then the whole thing doesn't make any sense because it doesn't provide an exception for reuse what they could have done is they could have explained more more extensively how the second floor is actually used because 50% of it is Mechanicals and because I've been in the building I know the Mechanicals are installed in such a way that you can't use it for anything other than that and so but I don't think that we calculated parking with an acknowledgement that 50% of that second floor was not going to be used for not supposed to be calculated so they definitely made that point several times tesy about the the second so so the board might have concluded in its resolution that we acknowledge that 17 spaces are less than 20 but that in light of the way that the second floor is used that we think that a proper adjustment could be made I don't think that we would have FAL say but we could have done that the other thing is and it's true at the sooco site stack parking is entirely permitted they're double stacking under that building so the idea that you couldn't stack here seems inconsistent with what we permitted there I don't know whether or not that was given that was the planning board at the time you were on it you remember whether or not that was a a variance or a deviation or whether they just comp I I think they I I think they were able to do it so so anyway so from that perspective I think if they showed us the strip lines and said hey what we'd like to do is technically compline so that we don't actually have to have this battle with with the town I know I for one wouldn't have had an objective um and and again it's not on us but if we're going above and beyond trying to do everything we can and trying to kill time until Mr aens gets here you know it just seems to me that we should be mindful yeah I'm out of stuff here so let what direction do we give back Mr I think I'm fairly clear that that right go back in saying we don't necessar we don't require you we can do a minor Amendment to the resolution on yeah I I'd like the board just to tell me whether they disagree but I think that the the issue of the easement is a nonissue that the board didn't intend to expressly condition it and we don't require that it be put in place and that with regard to the parking uh uh with empathy the board um defers the issue to councel and and and at the end of the day he knows that if he wants to submit an amended site plan and try and show it so that he can show it to the council and have a stronger argument he can do that I I don't want to give him opportunities to let me just sure what you need from the board to get it out of resolution compliance if we we say we will accept that you will resolve this with on your conf it comes off your desk I don't need anything from the board because I word in my letter that this issue isn't isn't part of me addressing resolution point then not wanting to address my letter is another topic of course but uh as far as that specific item um I don't need anything else I also think when you go back to uh Mr aens I hope that they first had a conversation with the barel office and they have made a determination and we're not just jumping ahead that they need a way from Council no I I I think I think the way the direction I've been given from board is this is an issue that you have to resolve in Bur not necessarily Council yet I mean there might be a St before that that they're they're jumping over CL admins okay well B not charging fee but but but the zoning board has always just identified the fact that it's there for them to be aware of we've done that it's not going to hold up compliance it goes on to somebody else's y okay I've got the direction Mr koras we're looking to kill time you want to talk to us sure you're going Step Up you gotta hold on hold on one second Mr we're GNA try and chase Mr aens down the Comfort break yes oh please a 3 minute Comfort break I'm sorry thanks for being here a quick roll please he's having a drink across the way here here okay um Mr kandor yes so there has been some discussion at the construction Department with regard to one of year clients in relation to 9917 River Road yes um there was some confusion on my end about where 917 River Road comes from but we actually have granted approval to 9917 River Road via resolution January of 2024 yes yep the meeting was in December yes right yeah it wasn't even that long ago but yeah so um why don't you um just give the board just a quick synopsis of the situation you find yourselves in yeah and and what we're doing now is we're just presenting it because we're trying to figure out if we can help um and then we'll talk about okay sure so the the intent from the beginning of the project at least the one that got approved was to have it be a renovation not not a brand new house uh we actually felt that was a better project by keeping what was there because of the streetcape and various other things so we really the intent was to keep the house but at the time the house was somebody was still living there so we couldn't see what was going on under the sheetrock and plaster and everything so building permits were issued um and then um shortly after that the Builder called me up and he said hey you got to come and see this and the framing is just a it's a disaster uh there's overs spanned joists there's big Naches cut out of it it's it's actually dangerous and Nick Fabiano the building Spector also came to the site and he his opinion was that the house has to go and I I agree it's it's going to be impossible to to repair it in peace meal it's just uh it doesn't make sense I think it's going to be a benefit to everybody if we could just take it down and build the exact same thing that was approved down to the inch uh but just use all the materials and insulation and have a be of cod and safe and structurally sound so that's where we are right now and obviously it got approved at one point so it's a little different story when you take a house down right so I guess that's what that's why we're we're here and so you've been told by the zoning office that you can't proceed um until such time as there's clarity as to whether or not you have the authority right yes that's correct and so um in in looking at this earlier today we have an ordinance which requires that if greater than 50% of a pre-existing non-conforming structure um is replaced uh then you have to stop you can't go any further than that the intent the ordinance I would guess is that we're not looking to exacerbate or or um or continue in perpetuity preexisting non-conformities we eventually want things to come back into compliance I first thought that this was a project that we hadn't seen and it was merely a matter of interpreting that particular ordinance and the situation that the resident found themselves in but since I've learned that we actually had reviewed and approved an application there's a slightly different twist to this now there have been times where we have evaluated an application and made it very very clear that we were only permitting something because of the existing structure um and specifically conditioned in the resolution that certain things not change and remain the way they are I even remember a time where we said and if that's not the case then you have to come back um that was like the first floor deck he on yeah I remember that specifically the the one you'll remember well is mandia um in the historic district um and that was a really difficult situation top to bottom this isn't that situation um what I think that we are presented with is a question and and Tony didn't say it exactly but I think that the question you have to ask yourself is was the assessment of the proposal to modify that structure So based in the pre-existing um nonconformities and the hardship associated with renovating versus starting new that we think that we would feel differently about this application if it came before us as a fresh application starting from scratch and to the extent that we're not quite sure I think that the proper path would be to evaluate the plan as it sits have everybody get a chance to look at it again and just at that point make an interpretation as to whether or not the resolution of approval from January of 2024 necessarily requires that the entirety of the structure be reused or whether replacement would end up in the bring us back to the same place that we originally would have been um I I sort of Bounce Around in a few different ways today but uh it seems to me that it would be prudent given that this is a specific and unique application we have you know multiples that we see every night for year over year we don't want to set precedent with the idea that you can just all of a sudden remove it um and I don't think anybody's challenging by the way the condition I spoke to Nick today um and and very straight shooter and and and that's what our guys in town say as well it's a mess no one's questioning that the question is whether or not being presented with it to be reconstructed exactly as we approved in January is reasonable in light of the fact that they're not going to be started constr but that's what they want to do the the request is that the zoning board provide any support that they can to permit this to move through the process and in order for that to occur I'm suggesting that what we can do is we can clarify our resolution U as to whether or not the pre-existing structure um needs to be maintained in its existing condition or whether or not the replacement of that structure uh will leave us in the same place to do work they are offering to rebuild exactly exactly what's there now right Tony exactly what was approved yes so so you would effectively rebuild the entire project exactly the way it showed on the pl you reconstruct the old house exactly as it is the final project is exactly what we would right it it would match exactly what was approved and what was there Tony which variances were approved uh well it's a grossly undersized lot because it's in the R15 zone so we had a FLIR ratio variance um there were some setbacks front setback the setbacks are pre-existing right they were yeah yeah yeah we were bu everything we were building was actually happening in the back the only thing was the floor a ratio right that needed that was the big yeah yeah was the one that wasn't pre-existing it was I I had the resolution and it was a d right d the yeah because of the I I personally I think it's a bad precedent to uh to just uniformally approve well that's why we want to have that's why we recommend having a discussion about yeah I mean not what you're saying is is is very valid all right but uh I I think it's such a horrible precedent for us well I think we need to re the need to re rather than just make a blanket administra what we're suggesting is notice and show us the plan and then we'll make a decision on whether it makes sense to do exactly I I think there's a difference between having this situation and wanting to keep the variances that you were granted as opposed to having this situation and saying that you're going to rebuild exactly what was on the plans that were submitted right if it's exactly like it was going to be that's right that's one situation I in my mind if it's we want to keep the setbacks that we got want to keep the floor area that we got but since we're rebuilding it let's stuff's going to change you know I don't but it's worth having a yeah you know and and you don't have to care but the truth is that before they get here they do a lot right and there's not always a single person or part of the process that causes it to get delayed and cost money but the truth is that the applicant has communicated that he's been involved in this for three years and so the idea that we would want to look at it again I think is entirely valid but I think that in context I think that we need to be mindful of the fact that um within the boundaries of what we can and should do that we should be mindful of the context I'd like to read for you the the variance relief that was requested and granted um just so that you have a sense of it the pre-existing non-conforming conditions minimum rot area 20,000 ft are required 5132 existed minimum lot Frontage 100 feet required 61.1 for existed minimum lot width 100 feet are required and 62.9 exists minimum lot depth 150 ft or 104.5 exists minimum side yard setback 14 ft required and 5.6 ft exist minimum sidey yard setback 10 ft are required and plus or minus 7.5 ft exists given the AC unit maximum flua ratio wherein .18 shall not be exceeded and 66 exist though as testified by the applicant neither the attic nor the garage will be living aing and the last pre-existing non-conformity minimum set back from the river shall be greater than 50 ft or the average of the existing setback of structures on the abing river front property and the proposed dwelling is setback approximately 7.5 ft from the face of the bulkhead along the NN River very very difficult lot to work with um that doesn't even account for any of the things that they proposed to do the relief that was granted minimum front yard setback wherein 50 fet are required the applicant proposes 14.1 resulting from the front porch overhead minimum combine yard setback were 35 fet required and 21 ft are proposed maximum lot coverage where 35% should not be exceeded and 70% 70.7% are proposed minimum required principal sidey yard setback is 14 feet proposed side yard setback is 9.6 maximum required building coverage is 25% proposed coverage is 27.5 maximum required Building height is 2 and a half stories consisting of a basement first floor second floor in an attic the finished floor elevation should not exceed 30 in 2.5 ft where the existing grade the finished floor elevation exceeds the average existing grade by 4.75 ft and then there were a couple of designers a I'm just thinking though if they're gonna build exactly what they suggested they were going to build but now they're going to tear it down first seems like that might also um affect some of the other impervious coverage around it I imagine there's driveway and Patio and any of that maybe might be able to be lessened or changed or something I my fault is they're going to tear it down maybe kind of twe TW a couple of things move it a little bit one way Marty said earlier he going to do a new construction let try to get rid of some of these things and I don't want to open this can of worms that's that's reasonable I we could we would well well so that's it either you're going to either you're going to open the can or you're not so with regard to the site it's going to be put exactly in the condition that they proposed to be if there's a fresh opportunity to create less variances or minimize variances that were received you wouldn't know until you looked at it the answer is of course there's going to be of course there's going to yeah but what that means is that you're redesigning and whatever comes with that yeah and then you'd have I mean just you just speaking off top of my head then you'd have to go through the entire submission review more expense it's it's already been through a three-year process and now the first one I remember tear down then it got canned and then it came back and and I just personally I'd like to put less hardship on the guy than more and you know that's for marginal Improvement I listen I that's just a thought that pop up not yeah I know did you have a basement or a seller uh it's a basement because the house is on a hill so it's different definitions then but I me the other improve the design if the applicant wanted to improve the design the applicant wouldn't be asking us to let them EXA it is the fastest and most econom P forward just to allow public is to do that now I know you're already going now you're going through major he's got demo and construction of a whole house and everything and the in the brand scheme of things you know the additional Pro but it's still a process yeah I look at this similar to to to Smith and the extension because the board found it suitable that night and this is not this is not an easy board so the board thought that it was a reasonable compromise in total the fact that we could get to something better is is fair given the situations that have played out and it's certainly not our fault that this was discovered this late in the process but uh I am certainly focused on the idea that in January of 2024 we thought the as proposed plan were now what would be the process then if we wanted to do it in the most uh Speedy for lack of a better word fashion we don't do anything so if we Grant variances they run with the land if they built this as they said they were going to as a renovation and next year burnt to the ground they could build what they wanted within the parameters that we gave them in the no I think from what from what Todd had said before depends on how much Bur firms greater than 50% of the firms you're you're at step one well it's not nonconforming at that point because the zoning board has given variances for the house as it was finally designed I think that would be a a different question and I actually think that if an insurance company said in order to Ure we need confirmation from the building department that this could be replaced in kind the zoning board approval I think would provide the legal Authority for the for the zoning office to lean on and say you've got vested variances you can build it and rebuild it as it sits um I guess there's a rug because we didn't really approve the entirety we only approved the additions and then the final plan but it would seem to me that what it should be is that once you get an approval from this board to build a house if it burns down you can build it back again just the way it was but I don't know the answer so and I think the answer to your question I propose to run by Doug is that we ask the applicant to appear next month that we put the plans back on the table let the board see what it is and then you can assess whether or not the opening of the can of worms is warranted or whether or not we're comfortable then it would be a clarification that the resolution that we approved did not specifically necessitate um keeping the existing structure and under the circumstances we would we would be okay with the idea that it would be replaced then I think we should communicate to the applicant that they should request waivers of their submission which we would consider except for what what you're proposing so that we're not going to be increasing expenses and come in as a quote unquote amended site plan okay they have to notice I I I think they're going to have I think they should notice I think they should notice I think they're going notice yeah sure yeah I mean for the cost of notice andal no doubt um I think you do that and request waivers of there's going to be some there's probably going to be some minimal minimal review I mean it doesn't require any I don't think I don't think we should require the app to have to come in for the full panl those things that they give us current cycling and if you're going to build exactly what you had I don't know how much more you're going to be changing other than you know revised and perhaps as per Code Enforcement Officers comment that you can't do what you wanted to do I think the difference is we'd have the plans in front of us and we can look at it and we can evaluate what it would really mean and we would provide the neighbors would notice and it would be on the agenda and so it would be all happening in a hearing and anybody that doesn't agree with it can be here to tell us why they don't agree with it and then we can make a final decision at that point and the amendment would be the resolution you're proposing well because I'm sure I have to go back and look at the resolution I'm concerned that the relief you're granting at this point in time you know if this whole thing was you know this is completely contingent on the fact that that you know pre-existing non-conforming structures I I I want to see the wording of that resolution because if we complet if we're going to completely deviate from that then I think we're get back and John were you noticed on that one I think you wereused or are you out of it's right by the it's like right next to the Oppo well I would be Rec yeah I think you did recue though now so the sense that I had first of all when you read off when I read off all the pre-existing non conformities very very challenging lot doesn't meet any of the conditions that it's supposed to have so you're going to have problems no matter what that's number one number two what I remember is the applicant did what I thought was a spectacular job I I actually remember closing that one out and feeling like they had really done a good job trying to figure it out yeah and actually that house the way it was you know renovated renovated and then this house that hadn't been touched in years sitting there so this new design yes side of it yeah yeah and I've seen the Demolition and and I yeah I walked by sh like oh okay and yeah explains why it's you don't know how it's put together no it's it's one of those like River Shacks that probably probably was a river Shack just from that time too I mean my house is probably about as old when I opened it up I had to reframe every opening in the house CU they were all two on flat above you know so that's happen I think what's different here is when you open it up all at once and the and the building department comes in and says you really can't work with this you really miss your opportunity to kind of replace it a little bit as you go um probably more along the lines of what you did and what is typically done in a renovation you know if you got a bad header you're going to take it out um if your support isn't there you're going to add a lollip palm and that kind of stuff happens all the time um I I think the only really two questions first of all does anybody object to the idea of having applicant here next month and then the second question is does anybody feel strongly now that come next month they already have decided that that probably won't be enough because we'll burn a month for them to the extent that we don't think that it's possible that next month we're going to be okay with it then coming here is the only I that's the only real okay everybody give with this yeah what is what is October can we accommodate next mon I think we need to accommodate one I think we have two 182 prom promise that could be first in October already how many times can I promise that well um good point I mean we gotta come to a decision point at some point and what's going to happen to October if these don't get heard tonight so uh look if we have to put a special on we're gon to put a special on guys I mean I I just I can't I can't have somebody in this position and not have the board move fast enough to try and help them out in the middle of construction can't see them 90 days from now uh we just got to figure it out we got to shove a meeting and we'll shove a meeting yeah so schedule oober figure out put them on put them on for October and this is not a d or a c variant it's a it's an amendment is that what you're saying you're coming in for for amendment to plan Council yeah yeah yeah I I I think it's along the lines of a clarification but but Doug L it out and we do want notice and ideally it won't be a huge no it's G to be it's going to be apparent on its base I'm expecting this going to take a half okay just just for the record I do know I've spoken to a couple of the neighbors and I know the owners have been very gracious and in sharing the plans and very sensitive to the site so it's it's a good project yeah great well thanks for being accommodating apprciate let the home owner and Mr all right take care you're up um I asking for Trac Co person there's a few things I wanted to just check in with you on and maybe time off in the future I think I'll send out an email summer with really fun I hope you guys had a good summer um I didn't want to let these things linger if you had five minutes for us tonight come on we absolutely do would you like to set thank you um the council is going to be entertaining a piece of work that I know this board and perhaps the planning board uh col elaborated on having to do with some um DIY green infrastructure R Gardens basically when an addition is proposed right now nothing in our storm water regulations require any kind of onsite retention because it's minor it's not part of major development um so there's a small piece of language that I believe that wasn't part of it so correct me if I'm wrong this board and planning board collaborated on to come up with some suggestions about how we can introduce um some language to amend that that ordinance so that um additions or smaller improvements can trigger um dry Wells rain Gardens and other sort of simple green infrastructure all which is consistent with the best management practices or part of our ongoing storm water management improvements or which where there will be another wave apparently from D over the next couple of years so it's been getting better and better but um at the moment there isn't anything on the books but we will be looking at it I've seen in draft and um it'll come to Workshop sequentially it should go Workshop introduction uh hearing how is that different from the ordinance that was just passed the some that was just which is a good question because there's a lot in it um but I'm going to speak very generally but um it the ordinance that was just adopted addresses major development it doesn't address minor development nor does it address Redevelopment so for example AR disturbance of over an acre so very few projects would see that right and that's not an acre property that's something wasn't there's something about a quarter of an acre I sworn I read a quarter of an acre increase in impervious coverage is applicable to commercial okay thank I I read something I wasn't quite sure also not easy to we we have a lot of conditions in our be one that don't even meet that threshold so we're we're um looking to eventually the D is GNA going to send us that information that our files anyway but um what you worked on and what has been is going to be considered is um having to do with triggering and requiring rain burdens and nice simple not a burden to to applicants and Property Owners but a simple way to help retain storm water onsite um to that end I I just emailed Sheila and I wanted you to be aware of this that Ruckers who credit the fell a Rucker storm waterer group water quality I don't have it name but it's an email just sent she developed a um a workshop a digital Workshop that anyone can download participate in either live or I wanted you to have it because you're interacting with a lot of applicants and whether it's formally required or suggested or it's just mixes good sense um it might be easy to share something like that with the applicants we watched that don't we there we watch we watched something about a year ago periodically but this sounds like this is something new yeah it's new um and maybe you could circulate it's a simple sort of a resident video you probably reviewed what the state required us to look at yeah much more technical there was a series of professionals that I watched it too this is more a friendly user friendly Workshop thing um so what I want you to know number one is that the board has become increasingly aware of and sensitive to runoff issues and we regularly speak to to every applicant about what they plan to do with the additional runoff created through additions and wherever possible we have conditioned our approvals on them installing dry Wells and we find that applicants are generally agreeable because they want to get approved but but we but we believe that um regulating it and formalizing it would be helpful and what we explored was the potential to Simply require that any additional runoff created through an addition uh it' be mandated that it go into a dryw what happened was there was an ordinance that was kind of roughed up and we discovered that things were more complicated than we thought in terms of what the final cost was going to be to the residents and the homeowners rain Gardens are I think not as costly as doing underground detention um but short the overall expense that it would add to a project I think this board really understands and agrees that it's important and that we should do something to have each individual homeowner try to partip ipate in improving the situation is it correct that you collaborated with the planning board on some of this or that your liaison did that for you yeah true yeah yeah we did it this is a continuation of that work which is the main thing I'm reporting to you tonight y um so that's ongoing and we'll take action and the workshop is sort of a way for you to connect that understanding with your applicants um there's one other thing I wanted to touch on if I have another 30 seconds you're probably aware that the planning board is undertaking or beginning conversations around the master plan um this is a this will go on I'm sure Mr kobat and is is your planner from CCH yes so hopefully that's going to facilitate things what I wanted to suggest at this time so you have the luxury of time it's a very busy board um it's hard to get through all of your applications and other administrative matters but um I'd like to to suggest that you consider um compiling the last 10 years of your annual reports and attaching an executive summary maybe that summary is you know upage but it it basically reviews the findings of the annual reports for the last 10 years this will be part of ultimately a regulatory review will be necessary um even if it's something that you pick at over the next six months it won't be immediate re relevant in this process but ultimately in the long term it will be instrumental and critical to making the changes that we know we want to see happen get some of these applicants at the planning board or even as a right uh instead of bogging down our zoning boort so this is some of my wishes but if you could consider that as a housekeeping item to um inform the process down the road I just wanted to that out there for you to think about I one other item to follow up with you Mr CH I'll do that over email okay all right thank you for your time do you have anything for me oh I on the the parking in L up um and other things like that that come up do they get captured in in report or is that of a granular level that sometimes um it depends on who's writing it and how fresh it is when it's written um I will tell you that I'm pleased to you know confirm that many of the things that we talked about year-over-year were swept up and resolved in the ordinance changes that we implemented in 2023 um although I think that stuff that we didn't address three season rooms um grading up um I had a list too you've got a list did there other things that setbacks issue with setbacks that could be solved having a definition I I I think we've got we've got some other ideas I think it's we've got new lwh hanging proof great um so I I think we can certainly collaborate with the planning board on getting all that information together um so that they're aware of it um I'll tell you that last time the um uh uh the reexamination was done the zoning board was not involved and I found it uh remarkable given how many of the issues are really our issues it's the way the mlul set up but that's just the way it went down there are a few things I think that should have been handled differently well changing them to to the point that we I recall appearing before Council to suggest some things that were missed W Mr Ral has already reached out to us and we are that will not happen again I'm happy to hear he reached out you know you're you're it's expected that those in reports regularly should be of the planing board and the council with a memo and you know I really has an a my part to facilitate that thank you very much okay what do you got Mr kov I had a message from Mr aens that he's just leaving Atlantic Islands now do we want to ask if they want to start they want to what start do we have anyone here in the Nelson application neighbors neighb no so the problem is the problem is your attorney's not here and and and and the problem is that you're second uh behind the Goodwins who are represented by the same attorney and so given that he is in Atlantic Highlands at present and if he drives a speed limit he's going to be here no sooner than 20 25 minutes from now I I can't see how we're going to get to the Nelson applications f um does the board want to wait I I can't remember thisth half [Music] hour reality what time did we finish the last application the last application well yeah we've been killing time for about an hour now and if we need we're going to have an additional meeting well that's basically going to matur so that's what I was about to say if you want to go home now I you got to be ready to come back extra night well I think we're going to need a October we just it so look what your suggestion on forward well just just stay here for the moment and and we're going to try and figure out what we want to do the the issue is that we've already got two matters scheduled for October along with what we just said that we have to hear in October do we have anything scheduled for November and of course we waited three months to get on this meeting so Mr Akin is going to have to talk to us yes In fairness Mr aens it's a tough job um and and you can't always predict these things um and certainly certainly we understand um what's happened and it doesn't happen a lot which is certainly itive of of how unusual tonight is um and and I have to say you guys have done a great job I mean really seriously I I can tell you've been stalling a little bit and we thank you so much trying really seriously but we appreciate this so if it's November November so so my suggestion guys is that we um is that we go ahead and wrap up for tonight and that we schedule um a special that we can pick up the Goodwin and the Nelson application in in October after our regular meeting and before November yeah and we would make sure Mark was here well we would only schedule it on the day that Mark could be here because I'm gonna represent you both um do do you have anything you have any comments you think speci meeting is be I some sometime in in mid October so you know maybe we would we would aim for between the the the October meeting and the November meeting so mid octob and listen I could not be more sympathetic to you been April I it's why they say happen you the October meeting is the third I believe it's the 10th oh it's the 10th oh I'm gonna have to look do something in September it's up it's up to you guys want to do something in September well you need a certain amount of time notice publish we have listen we've got a couple of weeks in October these two on the agenda today and we move them St forward two weeks they didn't be r no October then make the announc then that prevent them to noed everybody's here this evening under that assumption we could to I'd rather have Council wav those not requir and we don't have a date we don't have a date that's my difficulty am I my problem with saying is we can't do them both anyway there's no way we can we can hear you both tonight um is that can we meet in September Fuster some more probably be aank I don't get cranky until 105 I mean we'll wait I mean we're Matt Matt Happ this big Henry's G to sleep inclined to at this point no [Music] no what do you want to do the rest of the board what do you want to do it means we're doing a special I don't think we're going to set that special tonight because we need Mr A's help with special special special special I would say I feel okay all right so then um so then for the Goodwins and the Nelsons we're going to we're going to close our meeting out we're going to schedule a special we're going to schedule a special just for you on a night that works for Mr Akens if that can be done in September it's fine Mr Mr kovat is going to work through the notice issues and whatever can be done um but as soon as we can coordinate a date that we can all be here we will be here and and we'll hear both of those applications that evening um considering Mark's going to be here in 10 minutes should we just wait and try to set a date then or you want to do it at another no no you should okay um motion to adjourn second all in favor thank you no come