##VIDEO ID:AAkSp6Uh1gU## okay we're going to call call to order um why don't we do a roll call here here here here here okay let's all stand up and we'll do a uh salute to the flag 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 uh uh thanks everybody for being here by the way um before I I read this I just want to wish everybody a happy and healthy holiday season and I just want to also thank everybody uh that supports kind of the board all you Colleen and and Ben and uh Jim's not here but I just want to thank all of you and obviously CLA okay when we have an adjournment everybody flies out quick so uh just want to make sure I had said that up front Okay um the notice requirements of the open public meeting meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied a copy of the notice having been been sent to the Asbury Park Press in the coaster and filed in the office of the Township Clerk there's an emergency exit through the courtroom doors and two exits at the rear of the room no smoking no new cases will be started after 10:30 p.m. and no new testimony taken after 11:00 p.m. all meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the township of ocean Community cable channel channel 22 on Verizon files and channel 77 on cable vision all cell phones must be turned off or if you need to take a call please make please make your call out inside the meeting room sorry I have a little cold here um we have a minutes for approval uh from November 25th 2024 uh I'd like to make a motion to have those approved I second yes yes good thing uh didn't have a have a split vote there it would have been a little bit a problem um we did receive a correspondence from uh 1012 Norwood Avenue block 11 Lot 10 application for freshwater wet Falls Wetlands uh Loi and transition area waiver uh we have one new case tonight I have a long thing to read here so be patient um 1600 Holbrook LLC block 3339 lot um lot one 1641 Holbrook Street oakers New Jersey 07755 Zone R4 the attorney is Christopher bman did I say that right great um the applicant is uh proposing a minor subdivision and to subdivide lot one into two lots being lot 1.01 and lot. 102 currently lot one is a corner lot that has 100 60 ft of Frontage along Hull Brook Street and 100 100 ft of Frontage along Tage Avenue lot one minimum size lot is 10,000 ft required 16,000 Square ft existing 9,000 ft proposed minimum FR Frontage setback 30 ft required 24 24.2 ft um existing 242 ft2 ft is proposed as a minimum size y y setback 10 ft required 80 ft existing 7.4 ft proposed minimum accessory reel uh rear yard setback 5 ft required 4.5 ft existing and proposed lot two minimum lot 10,000 ft² required um 16,000 Square existing 7,000 ft² proposed minimum lot withd 30 ft required 70 ft proposed minimum size yard yard setback 10 ft required 80 ft existing 7.4 ft proposed minimum accessory um rear yard setback 5T required 4.5 ft three exist um three existing and proposed so okay so why don't we start with maybe uh you kind of U before we go to the professionals maybe you tell us a little bit about what we're trying to accomplish here sure and good evening everyone thanks for the introduction appreciate that and thanks for having us tonight I know it's a light agenda so um Christopher bman of the beakman law fir on behalf of the applicant um 1601 H Brook LLC I do have uh Mr surmont with me this this evening as well um to testify as it relates to the plans that were provided um as indicated we're seeking U minor subdivision approval with uh some bulk variance relief as well um so I'll have uh Mr surmon SW sworn in I'll take him through some testimony that's all right with everyone yep sure would you like to um would you like to swear him in Kevin ra your right hand do you swear affirm testimony you're about to give should the truth hold truth nothing but the truth yes I do please state your name Charles surmont okay Mr surmont thank you and then just uh briefly can you just give the board some of your um your legal background and experience as it relates to testifying before SAR um I think we we know we Mr SCH we're going to accept him as a expert witness sounds good all right I figured as much yeah no problem unless of course by the way unless of course you want to boast a little bit and tell us some things that's cool too I mean it's up to you no you want don't you go ahead all right so uh good evening Mr shont I don't like the post can you um take us through uh the plans as relates to the application that we have this evening you did a pretty good job of introducing it I I'll try to get a little more uh detailed um as you had indicated the property has 160 ft of Frontage on Holbrook 100 ft of depth if you will fronting on Talmage um the existing house it's a single story house um favors the uh corner of talage uh we're proposing to maintain that house in its current condition with the exception of the introduction of a covered porch onto that house which is indicated on my plan and for which we are um seeking a uh I believe we'll be seeking setback relief of 24.2 feet for that porch the existing house sits back at 30.2 feet so we're looking to propose a 6ot wide porch U at the front that house is currently serving by a gravel driveway that sits on the left side of proposed lot 1.02 so we're proposing to remove that driveway and relocate it onto the south side of proposed lot 1.01 and then modify the walkway a bit to serve both the front porch and uh the rear entrance that runs down the right side um there is a shed on that property is was indicated uh that shed slightly non-conforming as to location I think um uh we're proposing to relocate that shed so that it would uh meet the uh applicable setbacks and and and keep it on lot 1.01 uh so by introducing the lot line at 90 ft and 70 ft the existing house will require a sidey yard setback variance of 7.4 ft where 10 ft is required um the uh the VAC lot lot 1.02 7,000 squ ft 70 ft wide um with the exception of the deficiency in lot area and lot width we're proposing to maintain the required setbacks and and and uh and propose a dwelling and coverage on the lot that would be compliant with the uh the 25% building coverage and the 65% lot coverage that the R4 Zone um permits um this lot I did I I examined the tax maps and the Aerials and and the assessments and this lot at 16,000 squ fet is the uh the largest residential lot between the highway and deal test site Dow Avenue and poer Brook um there's one other 14,000 ft lot and there are a couple 12,000 ft Lots but uh none as large as this um I also inventor the area to take note of the Lots in in the general vicinity within say 500 500 ft of the subject property and um identify those lots that are deficient as to lot area and lot width and um I did bring a a a marked up tax map if uh I could just share that maybe just identify those lots okay um the record will Mark that as exhibit n as in Mary Mr surmont um can you just describe what this exhibit is that just smart this exhibit and yeah that's that's a marriage of of a portion of tax map sheets 28 and 29 with the subject lot identifi with a blue star and those lots within 500 ft of the subject lot that are um undersized those undersized lots are the ones that are highlighted they're highlighted in in yellow how many how many are undersized similar to the um to the applicant well um there are varying sizes there are um I'll just real briefly go through them um right around the corner at the corner of talage in Westfield um 710 talage 712 talage those lots are both 50 by 100 uh just to the uh south of those two lots is a 40 by 100 lot at um oh I'm sorry no that that's a 60 by 100 lot those two lots are three and four merged as a 60ft lot that's 1639 Westfield and then just a little bit further south of that property it's 1627 Westfield is a 8,000 square foot lot with 80 square feet of 80 ft of Frontage um uh north of north of talage on the west side of uh of Westfield are are four undersized Lots um 280 by 100 280 by 100 mean two that are 80 by 100 80 by 100 yeah and and then um on H Brook Street a little bit north of o Avenue is another 80 by 100 uh foot lot mhm total how many uh undersized LS did you find within this 500t radius um probably within about a 700t radius there's 1 two 3 4 five six 7 eight there are there are eight lots that are under sized within about 700 ft of the subject property MH okay did you have more than you wanted to kind of go over with us um no unless I miss something that uh okay you discuss well before we ask um yourself some questions I think we're probably going to ask some of the professionals to kind of weigh in on on this if that's okay sure okay um it it for me it's very simple uh from an engineering standpoint there are really no issues uh the only comments in my review letter were uh regarding uh just a little bit more detail um the limits of curve and driveway construction to be uh shown and then details for that as well as uh roadway restoration and that that's my only uh comments for this one we of course would provide that okay I I think from a planning perspective it's pretty simple also I call this a box approval and I think you probably heard that before there's no plans for a a home at the time but I think if you approve this application uh basically you've got a building envelope showing on your plans correct and then to comply with any approvals they would have to build within that within that envelope if they don't they're going to have to come back before the board for uh for variance relief so basically that yes they are creating undersized loss but by doing this they're not bifurcating you know they're not doing the subdivision then they got to come back and get approvals uh so I think that that is self-regulatory in the sense that they have to stay within that within a building envelope they entitled to come back later on but I think for Simplicity um that's what they're here for in my letter I do point out um I just want to ask one thing about the accessory uh because we call out the accessory re rear yard setback are you going to be moving that shed going to relocate it so they're not going to need if they relocate it they're not going to need a variance for that right you're going to move it a half a foot yeah um so I decided that but got you know it was a note in the plan so if that's a condition of approval that they'll just move the shed to half a foot then that's one less fa you know that's reducing a basically a non-conforming condition um other than that I just would ask most of my comments were technical I'm sure you can comply with them it's just making a two and two add up to four um and that's all I have for you I think um if you want to ask questions about how it benefits the the uh the area whatever can chime in but you know I don't think you have a planner here tonight right y so in essence this is within your within your map there it's it's you're showing is basically the subdivision is an older sub I mean it's reflective in an older area it kind of has you do have ex existing Lots in that size um so you know so why why don't we take a second here and just kind of open it up to um thought that would be good yeah uh why don't we open up to some um qu questions by us first or the community I think you should go first I think we'll do us first right so any questions that we want to have for the um um for Charles here Charleson anybody well have a question for our professionals or professionals great yeah I don't want to go first you do you go first all right uh Bennett so in your report you said that there was no concern about Wetlands but on in the Township's era by that section and it's not down to the lot granular detail but that particular section specifically on fer is listed as manage Wetland and maintain lawn Green Space yeah so the this is um just on the other side of play aart uh you know is is the the largea map um to the to the so if you look on the njv goeb website you'll see like a shaded area that shows Wetlands um within this this neighborhood um but these are all this is a developed neighborhood these are all houses that exist uh kind of within the the wetlands so I really don't have an issue with you know um this subdivision with you know with respect to the Wetland with with what they're they're calling out on the the the Gob which is not an official like Wetlands um line it's just kind of an area that probably 50 years ago was more Wetlands before the uh Wetlands regulations were put into effect and it was developed and the wetlands were essentially removed which is not uncommon it happens you know we see this all the time throughout the state um so there's there's no Wetlands on this site um so I'm I'm not concerned and they didn't need to get an Loi for it I could give you a little more on the wetlands in the area if I could sure I I just realized it now that my key map I took it from the County GIS they hav quite caught up with uh current construction but those four Lots behind the subject property on uh on fer they've all been developed in the last 10 years the nearest bit of wetlands there's a you can see some vacant property just above the word fern on uh it backs up to the deal test site that property did have some njd verified Wetlands on it and that lot when they wanted to seek a building permit they had to jump through the uh freshwater wetlands Hoops in order to get a general permit in order to develop that lot but that's the only lot in the area that's been documented as having Wetlands on it presently okay so we're all confident that there is no Wetlands here yes we sit up a good 10 feet from that from that lot okay and I'll I'll give you one step further um there was a soil boring done on the uh yeah proposed vacant lot and seasonal high water table is 10 Deep typically in a wetland area we see it much higher than that so you know that's further kind of evidence that there is no weapons here okay good anybody else have any questions for the professionals or or so the one the so just just just to just put a finer point on this so one of the things that I think we're always concerned about when we give variances out and is um how well how well does this um these structures these houses actually fit into the sanctity of the community right um and so I guess I would like your opinion about how well they do fit in I mean i' I've been I've I think we've all kind of spent some time in that area and looked around so I think we know it is but I like to have your your opinion on how it is or if you feel like you want to make the case for it first you can do that well I mean I'll try to put an approximate number on it probably 80 80 to 85% of the lot well probably 80% of the lots are 100 by 100 there's a couple that are a little larger couple 120s maybe one 140 and as I've noted there are some 80s and some 60s and even some 50s so it it does honestly generally is is 100 by 100 neighborhood but there is there is that that little bit of diversity in size both a little bit larger and a little bit smaller so that um you know this wouldn't be deemed totally out of character with the properties in the surrounding area Okay has has Chad I think the question is more along the lines of um has any thought been given to the architectural style of a proposed new building that would go there there was early on we were we did uh look at some typical homes that were about you know that would fit into here we me a home that's only 44 ft wide to fit onto that lot and the applicant has looked at some homes that you know beats that size that he's thinking about putting on that property MH if he decides to go forward and build it on the property should you guys approve it right um but he's quite comfortable with being able to put a home on that lot that that meets uh that meets the setbacks and meets the typical house size of of the homes in that area Okay um Ron did you have any did you have a comment about this well I I I think when you're looking at it and looking at context um one um with the current Helm the current home is is not that large correct So in theory you got a larger lot if if someone came in and bought that house and if they bought it they could put up a pretty darn big house which is like I I you know going to mention I I kind of put footnotes in there Jim has a little bit different style at the on the bottom of page eight when they first put into C2 variant because this really is not a hardship because this is there so what what is the purposes of zoning and basically the Calin Court said that uh held in part that the focus of a C2 case should be on the characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improve zoning and planning that will benefit the community so if you're dividing and creating a subdivided lot well okay you're creating lots that a little smaller but you may have an opportunity here to guarantee that the any development on this new lot will be in context yeah within this block and within the particular house that's there it's just not overwhelming you don't hear the term mcmansion anymore too much uh but I mean that's always a concern if you can come in and just blow something out and build something that just is out of context you know this may afford you you know an opportunity for for this particular lot this particular location and I think that's important when it comes to variances that they are tied to the land land itself what's the characteristics of the land so they have an oversized lot maybe they have an opportunity to uh you know and also to provide additional housing at a scale that is permitted in the zone which is single family homes yeah no thank you for that that is one of the things we're always kind of weighing here what the what the choices are that happens if granting a variance and not granting a variance so and in just just for the case you know where we always talk about the positive and negative criteria the negative criteria is always talks about substantial does it have substantial detriment uh to the uh does it substantially impair his own plan and that's your threshold and substantially substantial impact upon the public good okay s uh just before just before uh we go to the public comment is there any is there any um things that you need stipulated for um for them to provide Ben or uh well they they agreed to address the the um technical comments in my review letter um I don't have a problem as being a condition okay okay same here mine is just you know make the make the numbers add up okay great just have one other question for our attorney can because I'm I think I'm misremembering if we approve a subdivision then in the future they would not be able to claim a hardship variance for an undersized lot is that cor no they wouldn't because that would be that would be in the category of a self-created hardship okay and hardship wouldn't apply um but I would point out and I'm kind of getting the flavor of the comments I'm hearing from your planner and Mr chairman um that you would like some ability to control the style of construction so that it fits in with the context of the neighborhood I mean I'm not sure if that's in our I'm not sure if that's in our purview to to do that right we don't have design we don't have a design standard yeah I look at the Box they stay within the box and good and if they don't stay within the Box they have to yeah um actually uh but we we are assuming that this will have the certain flavor that this current Community has I know you can't be bound by that but the applicant is well enough to build it then yes I can guarantee that yes okay okay I'm not sure what we do about that we do best efforts do we say best efforts or reasonably reasonably best efforts yeah if you don't have any we don't any standards can we say reasoning best efforts that conform sure okay you got are you okay with uh you okay with that okay okay great um anybody else anybody have any questions for for anybody of the professionals no anybody from the public like to make a comment come up yeah right there y I think we uh want to have you state your name and raise your right hand both at the same time I think yeah both at the same time yeah Denis howlet 1638 H Brook Street okay and uh do you swear affirm the testimony you're going to give shall be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do indeed and uh please repeat your name Dennis how H WL TT and where do you reside 1638 H Brook Street okay go ahead okay uh I obviously live in the neighborhood and uh I'll start with one comment if the Builder is who I think the Builder is the he's an experienced Builder builds a nice house I've been in many of his houses and I'd be shocked if it didn't conform to some sort of standard that that would meet the approval of most of the neighborhood so that's that's a good thing okay one of the reasons I'm here today is because I got the letter uh because I live within 200 feet right actually I'm right across the street and I was trying to match this letter to what it says in the key case thing and there's a couple things I'm I'm sure they're just typos or small errors but I don't understand and I like to understand what I'm read sure uh in the new cases it talks about the minimum lot size 10,000 ft required 16,000 ft existing which means both of the Lots together not not lot two and it says 7 comma which I think it should be 7,000 not 700 and that would make more sense and going along farther in that sentence about minimum side yard setback 10 ft required 80 ft existing 7.4 ft proposed and I'm hoping that this 7.4 ft is from the existing house which I will call elan's house from that house uh and not from the the house on the other side which is Mr rikard's House Mr how the the 7.4 ft refers to the distance from the existing house to the proposed new property line that's what I thought and I want to make sure that's official yeah that's offal okay great uh because I I wouldn't like to see him lose any of his uh space between his house and the new house and in the rest of that sentence it says minimum accessory rear yard setback 5T required 4.5 ft three existing the just seemed to drop yeah what is that I'm I'm not when I read it I wasn't well so accessory structures the shed in the back yeah there it's and 4.5t thepo from the rear property line the applicant on their plan says that and this was discussed the shed is going to be relocated toing mhm right I understand that so the three was probably a typ one yeah okay but that shed is going to stay on lot one this makes it sound like it's on lot two here on this side now the The Proposal is to for the shed to continue to serve the existing house I realize that but it's under the it's under the description for lot two in this piece what we read out loud what we read in the uh my description that's what he's referring to right correct yeah right but just so the board members and the members of the public are clear um what was printed on the agenda is is not controlling here it's what's in the application and in the public notice so your understanding of it coming in is correct okay okay that's what I like great is anything else just that I will miss the trees oh okay it was a wet heavily treed lot thank you okay thank you happy holidays um okay uh does anybody have anything they want to make a comment about say talk through anything okay so at this point if somebody could uh do we want to make a motion to close public because there's another gentleman sitting there and I don't know if oh I'm sorry I would assume that did you want to make a comment honestly I didn't have any questions or OB I just my support my neighbor oh come on make a comment no I'm joking I'm joking I'm kidding I'm kidding I'm kidding okay so yeah come come up to the mic come to the mic yep come up to the mic it it is clear now I hope that the the side yard set back the backyard set back and the front yard set back those three are going to remain they're going to be conforming there's just one side that's not going to be conforming um actually front yard said front yard is not yeah the front yeah he can explain only you have to talk into the microphone yeah you have to we have we have to I understand that but I'm talking about the new house oh new house totally conform except for the all the setbacks except for the side except for the side no the existing house needs that setback relief because of where we're placing the new lot the new lot lot to give the right lot 70 ft yeah the existing house will only be 7.4 ft off that oh I understand so there'd be another 10 there after after the 7. four go south 10 ft that's where the build South lot will comply with all the set back great thank you yep okay thanks okay um so now I'd like to close the public comments section can I get a second or do I need a second second okay um so um now uh I think we're at the spot where can somebody make a motion that we can kind of vote on here I'll make a motion yeah make a motion POS motion okay so you want to State we want to make a POS posi motion to approve the applicant make a positive motion to approve the applicant okay I got a second great thanks Jack and the the motion you're voting on also I don't want to make your motion for you but it's also including the conditions that all the standard conditions that are always applying plus uh compliance with the technical engineering memoranda and relocation of the shed uh so that's conforming on proposed lot 1.01 and I think that was it right so inent on all these things being included correct um CLA could we do a a call a roll call on this yes yes yes yes okay thank you thank you thank you everyone appreciate your time again and have a great holiday everyone yeah you too uh congratulations um so can I get motion to uh adjourn so moved I'll second okay all in favor I any oppos okay have a nice holiday everybody all right okay