yes but you know I do appreciate that head open the regular meeting for the adust for June 20th 2024 get a reading of the open meetings k k by sec call 1 as3 and then I have Ser ofcell correspond the this house so here's the house on the corner of Trent St Louis it's an interesting house that there are there's a main house and then there's another house that's on Liberty Lane that has two UNS so it'ss there it is I mean it's a nice and tidy house from the street been there for a long time and what's very interesting in this circumstance in 1978 when Mrs gford and her husband bought thist 198 they wrote knows theun 1979 not I could not get Aion it says estate AG assment having one family onon and two family on St Louis is loated attorney build Department thetion considered an existing nonconforming use so um my clients did everything they were supposed to they wrote to the Bur the bur wrote a letter um there was a response and uh the realtor told them you know it's an existing family and un so what we have we have also a survey from 1930 showing the same layout they now to be TW that obviously changed my has survey from 1978 when they showing a TW and then know the other two so Carol and her husband since 1978 have gotten rental Co they've gotten done everything they're supposed to so this year code enforcement said well I believe it's Mr Lo wasn't you right well someone said you know our record show that family and they required her to come in and get the certific which is what we're here for so we know that the all the structures have been there since the 30s and then I have the the property tax record um which shows that the house was built in 1920 um and it's it shows it as as a three family I have the ordinances which the board has seen existing nonconforming uses and um you know at various times when the B since 1930 updated its ordinance it said nonconforming uses may be continued unless and that's that's basically it I can have Miss gford um you want to come up or you want to testify from there yes you all right can tesy Mr Hill back in7 is explanatory AFF open correct correct it's evidence towards their proofs it's not definitive on the issue that we have to resolve under the only two ways you can get confirming onein the first year afterin changes that made it nonconforming allow multi family on one not allowing it if you Goin one year you can get a certificate from the administrative officer that gives you grandfather rights if you don't do that within that first year doesn't mean you lost your grandfather's rights it means you have to come here which is so that and then standard appr exactly they legally existed you know when it was allowed and has been continued ever since thank you and I I point out that would oh yeah it'sing but the Miss gford um can you please tell the board your history with this property and when you first purchased it Pur you went through to buy it what you checked out what you were told Etc and what you've done since and I'll ask questions along the way because I know that's a big question um my husband and I got married in 1978 um we both came from previous marriages so we wanted to have some kind of a second income which was why we primarily were looking to buy income property we had previously purchased two properties brick that were also nonconforming use and this was our third property um there was nothing said to us that this was not that we could not rent it out the the property had a tenant on the downstairs um apartment when we moved in and we've had it rented since 1978 uh We've complied with all of the C when we had to get them the inspections when we had to get them we were never told in any way shape reform um that we were not in compliance with any of the regulations of the Town um around 1990 we had a fire in the downstairs apartment um we had to we re renovated that apartment the came in did all their inspections we got all our permits for that never once was anything said to us that this was not a legal to family and so we have continued until um 2022 when I got a letter from the town stating that um this was non you were not in compliance I'd like to show you just quickly through I just want you to authenticate don't have that I just want to say one other thing whenever I've come to the town to apply when I was able when you still were able to walk in and make your application here there was always some confusion because this property actually has two addresses 319 Trenton Avenue which is a single family house 602 St Louis Avenue which is the two family unit um when we purchased the property that 602 was St Louis so there's been through the years some you know confusion um even when the inspectors would come out to inspect so let me just put before before you look through those and I'll put them onard first image that shows view of your home correct and next page that's a street view and of course after that that's the single thing I and have you had it rented since 1978 uh no we lived in it um for the first eight years we lived in 319 TR and then we moved to Brick and had that rented out so we' had all three units rented out um after and when you lived in the main house you rented out the other two absolutely so there was always three families there right so used since 1978 you have firstand knowledge of that correct during all those times have you complied with all burrow regulations yes have have you been taxed as as three separate yes have you paid the taxes as separ and you have to get insurance as three separ absolutely and you know I see on the house in the back we can see there's two electric meters right and of course the front house has its own electric meter correct so everything has its own utilities house I get a separate water bill on that and um the main house I get a separate water bill on so these letters that you received in 1978 did you understand that this said that was shown to the tax office and it was said there were houses there with three separate addresses and the records in the assessment offices show that they listed as three a three family one family dwell so that's when you understood the's record absolutely and then of course as Mr strun is poting out the realtor might have taken a little bit of Liberty maybe not he said that that this showed that you were nonperforming that you okay right but you know my understanding is my attorney went over those papers and you know um it was approved shank became a judge right and then these are your surveys you have a survey from 1930 correct how did you get that um we must have gotten that at um I don't know how we got that I can't tell you got it with the papers when you bought the house correct so the 1978 survey that's a survey that you commissioned when you bought it yes so uh you thought you were doing everything the right way got a survey you got an attorney you wrote to the B got all your permits tell tell I won get into that so the bur said that you had to come here and do this so we we have uh you know different documents that I put up there um consisting of 44 pages that I've marked just different records from theic Chim rep that you've received over the years well I'm a person that keeps their paperwork but when I when my husband passed away and I moved to the house that I'm in now I downsized and I shredded everything all of my past cosos um but I'm sure that the town has them so I can't bring them in but from the time that we first needed to get them we got them so obvious tax assessment Etc these are all the records you have your let's go back to theage is there to units describe the the brooms and and the layout and everything how Okay the main house um the main house has main house is where I have the C right it has a k a living room two bedrooms on the first floor a bathroom it has bathroom upstairs and then it has two rooms upstairs which cannot be ped and then the other the other house the downstairs apartment has um there a one-bedroom unit with a kitchen um living room bath the upstairs is a two bedroom unit with a living room kitchen and bathroom so let's take a look at the overhead in your experience from living there and as a landlord is there enough room for everybody to live there and get in absolutely because first of all there's only you can only allow certain number of people to live there so we've always pep that we've never had it's always been either single family that have lived in the two family house and what I have in the main house now is a family with two children so there's there's plenty of room that the um main house has a driveway with a concrete patio between the two buildings and then the two family house has also a driveway with on street parking all right those are all the questions I have of Mrs anybody on you voted you inherited one of the directors no no she was yes she was there when I there yeah she was there and she didn't stay long we had we had young children she didn't like kids the two family part that was yes pardon me it looks exactly like you did when you it didn't add anything to it no we just resided it put new group on and even inside we kept the same layout when we had to anyone else I have a question I I see on page nine the different ordinances what is the date that the ordinance made multiun on one lot illegal I I don't have that handy I'd have to look I have it in my files it I was going to go 74 so I would like to comment Mr just question uh Mr Jackson asked me earlier if I had written I was a Bo of I was on the board of the Town board code enforcement officer here and in December of 2022 all the certificates of occupany beach ex so when I was an employee I was a part-time employee I was Ted to go around and an inv any properties that had multiple units on it and I found this property and I didn't issue a summon I issued a notice of violation and I think that's how this whole thing started right so um you know so at that time basically I found there's another case tonight very similar um you know we went around and did an inventory in the town and found these properties that were nonconforming based on the current regation I just want to address mr's inqu and that straight everybody question well the to your to your question Mr Kell what I was working from was a list and we were able to use this a software package your account called G pilot so we were given a list of any property in town that had had had a c and then on December 31st they all ended 20 23 the beginning of 2023 first quarter you know we were out checking to see if properties had renewed because you any property that had a prior was notified by a mail that they needed to come into the office and re and they had to do it online and it was a little challenging back then so that's how I came find this property so when I went down there I saw the the two electrical meters and then I talked to the gentleman living in the house so's living in the home I never met any of the the folks living in the apartments but that's how I Came Upon nothing more than going through the town and checking addresses and we found many many apartments that didn't have C many ins move forward Where We Are was a there was at at some point there was a crossover because I had moved and the information that was sent to me the notification went to my old house and I didn't get it I totally agree with the confusion address I remember you know 602 St Louis and 319 Trenton and 600 you're exactly corrected your testimony regarding those facts couple questions miss giber when you were investigating this I know you purchased in 1978 did anyone from the township or the seller uh provide information to you at that point that what you were buying in terms of the three different units had been in existence going back into the 1960s or that type of thing um I don't I honestly don't remember that U because we didn't actually deal with you know person on from the other side it was a Mr Clayton lived on the corner and Clayton's used to Clayton's used to own the house 319 Tron the father mother used to own a house but the son lived the next house over um but we never saw him in so no we didn't get anything it went everything went between so there you currently have a CEO for all three units oh well yes I do okay and I've had it but I I haven't had it inspected because I haven't been able to get so you you app Theos they were gred you're lacking an inspection to get a totally valid foration of yourdon me to allow people to live there issue not reive inspection all three yes yeah the two family was U I think that was due in 2022 and then 319 Tron is due now well every every Co in town ended on the 31st of 2022 every so even if you bought a CO in November of 2022 December 31st and ended the reason that the town did that was to go back and take an accurate inventory of all the rental properties in town that was passed by the governing body we executed that plan to do that so beginning on January 1st of 2023 everybody every Co had to be renewed no matter what status they suil anyone else on the board have any questions anybody thank you know we have a survey from the 30s that shows at least one unit there um in 1978 when there was an inquiry the bur said that their tax record showed that there were three units there my client has abided by all the rules since then she did the right thing she got a survey she got the to um it would seem you know just adjus revoke that at this point and I did notice for a variance I I would submit that um the fact that it's existed there a good looking house there aren't any issues none The Neighbors haveed not inclined to believe that this has been there since the 70s then I'd ask for the varant to allow this to continue as three obviously this is an older style don't I agree what Mr say I think know we have I would say that I think Bas years of OCC comp with the I appreciate ctif not granting a use variance on one these are Tor down Z that's allow would be a single that would be allow toilt could not separes not pro vs Vari you are not granting use varely acknowleding I've already said everything I need to say wasman looking to vote in support yeah I appreciate the testimony you ice set pieces you testimony of being someone who been a part of this since 1978 and then as24 somewhere there we're trying to that that that this could have been happening right before that before said when we m in were people that so don't think and pro SRE you been gettinger paperwork and doing everything right for that long of aiod of a certificate of nonconforming use for the threee units that are on site as they EX we get that yes yes thank you very much gentl heste good evening Mr chairman support direct John on of also at uh 23 Homestead right by Chicago and uh here it is on page it's got a nice uh view from the street the corons bought this house in 1978 and they lived there for a number of years they raised their children there and um then then the property had some flood damage and it really hasn't been used since Sandy so while it looks nice from the outside on the inside uh it really has not been repaired uh this flood is this house is below the and what to build the house sh so we are seeking uh several variances and based upon our our our preting uh we were able to eliminate some of them and uh reduce some of the other on Mr kba will about that so um what our clients tried very hard to do through their architect is to create an elevated house that has the look not entry stairs that mrsk is going to testify that way they the house have it you know the 8020 Ru Etc and we don't have stairs to project out so the things that we we have been able to do there's a couple adjustments and Mr kba will uh identify these first of all um our driveway consists of impervious pavers that is not I'm sorry per pervious p and that reduces our our lot coverage a little bit Mr K will testify that that so in this circumstance we are below the required L coverage we also require a setback variance for the chimney we've made some adjustments to the chimney so that we do not require that sidey variance I think there's an allowance of 5 foot wide chimney and it was 7et reduced it to or numbers something like that Prov we are seeking a variance it's mainly driven by by the forck in the the reason for that is that the house is now elevated and if um you know you want to have the ability to go out on the living level without going downstairs we have to have a deck in our preting I I spoke to my clients about this and we are willing to eliminate with some of the elements that are shown in this rendering hadon Flor we will agree to eliminate that so I know a lot of times the board has concerns about people up on that higher level being able to look into other people's backyards Etc um the activity and noise that might come from that although that's off their main bedroom I told them that you know the board might have an issue with that and our case would be stronger if we AG to eliminate that the de has a a little roof enclosure above that uh we'd like to keep that but if that had to go we could as well that so those are some of the things that we would agree to do that I come up and provide testimony about the overall plan VAR that we need re for VAR Joseph kba kba new JY I do an overview of the application The Zone the size of the lot where we're at Etc certainly faces West toward Chicago Chicago which is to thiser specifically Esser and also en can location we did a z9 z sure aware has released draes known as the adding antip so we anticipate elevations homes Rising further than they have are proposing that twell my incorrectly identifies two and two rules being published in New Jersy register the next month there's comment period no problem not everybody's aware of it it's significant change so we'll have to have our floors at elevation 15 correct so the minimum would be at elevation 14 plus one freeboard which means everything from 15 on this particular property in this Zone 15 below has to be comp material put a fin FL about 17 Jo above and the proposed finish Flor here is is at can you go over the board now this is as much architect as engineering so just explain we do have the architectural as far as the elev shows we do have a Flor below consist ACC andk as Z stair up living area living floors are the first floor and the second floor height and elev so that the first Flor allows Park underne also comp not only with the current flood requirements but as well as anticip so with that said our roof height it's shown on there we still comply with theight correct compes build and our first finish floor is at what first finish floor Elation at the roof does not comp uh yes and the architect will will speak to that so with the first finished floor at um what did you say it 17 17 that's be comp so then and that enables us to have an entry for correct which is not out of character with you know most of the construction say a lot of the construction in lately utilizing that lower are even when you have a permissible lower under the current rules is please think a lot of times when we see this bottom floor in storage right that the layout isn't so particular strling walls a lot of well so certainly it's a question for the architect if you walk in the garage and you want to stay in the house walk through a door walk through another c number we have the layout right up there I'm sure you saw I don't if you want to address this now with engineer but I I believe in in a flood zone standpoint you're prohibited uh from having that certain types of materials that are susceptible to flood and if this board were to put a condition on that these storage rooms must be as a storage It's Not Unusual for example it's it's routine when um you get a a flood Hazard permit for there to be a restriction in the approval that says that cannot be used as habitable space so have no intention of using that as habitable Mr Sav could probably confirm that the building materials when it's below a flood elevation have to meet certain requirements our architect can certainly cover that with your permission certainly so we uh proposal for home have office on the ground FL that mayed as total of four potential bedrooms which under the RS standards requires two parking two and half down two layout allows for two parking stalls one in theage one in the driveway parking the layout is the first floor area is 1461 second2 comp % Ru as second FL concerned the proposed layout fully comp the FR front setback uh the side setback on the Eastern side Building height as we identified impervious coverage Mr had indicated identifying aully imp driveway and Mr Sav indicates our calculations go up by about 1% we are not asking for an impervious coverage variant uh the driveway can be constructed of a c driveway we already doing for rear Pao walkway so by doing so we coverage here by% sorry half% the cover proposed would be about 47.7% so we' be 3% under on and a and again that's we're fully compant not asking for any VAR just want to that I just want to point out a couple not on the driveway you have back you have so we make the driveway and will be updated to show that that will be are Reed for the side set rear yard set and the building cover the AR will will addresss at 24 is measur to the rear the is proposing rear deck which we will consist of one one levelar de eliminating second over the deck so the intent there to provide some usable outdoor space at the ground at the first floor level um specifically on these homes that are elevated as much as this is at elevation 17 about 10 above it's a substantial amount of stairs to get down to your patio in the yard so we are seeking to have reasonable area for outdoor enjoyment the deck proposed at 12 by it has that area of stairs that access it the the building coverage permitted is 31% that's 30 plus the extra in a Zone to be clear the qu of steps to get to the deck here those steps are 1.36% so 1% bonus do even provide enough for the steps let alone any kind of Landing or or access point um to deck Grill and steps account for 6.16% of of coverage the home inclusive of the covered porch and that accounts for 29. and again the intemp here is to provide a compliant deck along the rear here would be 67 doesn't really for more than a simple access and maybe a grillt here to have a table and chairs enjoy family and when speaking of coverages especially with these elevated home there's a number of concerns elevators BEC very prominent in these homes especially when 10t from ground floor up to the first floor 7 by7 elevator accounts for 1% so the the 30% allow when elevations were lower or homes were built flood elevation when a lot of these areas were not governed by flood Z you could have all the amenities in the home and have more space by elevating you're losing some percentage by the steps by the elevator and you don't have quick access to a patio at gr you got to go all the way downstairs patio go all the way downstairs back uping up your kitchen living space cannot be on the ground floor so for all those reasons you know we believe that the 30% limitation or I should say 30% plus the 1% of additional space is not really appropriate when you uh combine that with the master plan objectives of foster diversity that supports a stable population base El proper the Bas FL elevation and protect life and property from present and foreseeable flood risks all of those seek to elevate the home while also providing a stable year round population base and have a contemporary home for for year around living you would anticipate having you know reason amount of space for three bedroom home you anticipate having some space for an outdoor de that can have a table and chairs and meals outside and all those are tough to square with within the 30% limitation the proposed home here is 2,600 it's not substantially large in my opinion 80% reduction of the second floor is really the limiting factor that's where all your bedrooms tend to be in a compliant home if have the same size deck and steps and reduce the home toly you be less than in 900 foot range to F you know Master Suite couple of bedrooms a laundry area it gets rather I didn't design the first first 2600 is what's proposed 2200 is what doesn't have to be but it is to allow a fe compant house believe that's a so we're just building a% home and then putting the on it all that5 and I understand and that's part of the balancing and part of the question that the board with is the balance between um the permissible building coverage plus the 1% we understand there's some some benefit there and the master plan statements of uh you know trying to support a stable year round population which comes comes up several times in the latest master plan reexamination report so that that is the question for the board is you know a little bit of extra coverage here especially coverage that doesn't the open homeid set varant that's being requested for the chimney mechanical deck the chimney 7 wide allow to be in the side set as designed this is just over we can the eliminate the make comp not asking that asking the mechat locf I neighbor elatan home planning to do it to place it where we did um we can comply we're not saying that we can't we think this is better planning to place it where it should statement that more compant on side I'm not saying more compant a better oh did I sorry I didn't mean more compli it's a better location from a planning stand something we could move if we have to corre for that testimony I believe the the benefits here of the application outweigh the detriment specifically they Advance the purposes of Planning by promotion of General by promoting Master goals and obes Ando of safety fromal the de provides a safe nonerosive surface void outside the finish four level which is commerate with contemporary living especially year round living a deck at Living Space level promotes that outdoor enjoyment and mechanical location I believe is in the best plac from a planning standpoint andant in my view also there's no detriment to the public good as a result of the application as identified before looking at a open space the deck has little imp on a space compared to Interior habitable portions of the home so we're not asking for building coverage varant for interior space the excess here is the deck and the decks in rear yard are typical and elevated decks are becoming more typical especially giv the flance requirements uh there's no change in intensity here incre cover Jo result no addal boms home first first four a first four office identified as office but it could be AED being there could be AED um parking is fully compliant and in my opinion it not substantially imp the intend purpose of Zone Z the coverage should of that elev construction hope the we're flipping the driveway to the other side of the proper does that take away from off street parking and please explain uh it does not so the uh the space actually where the yellow car is I measured that that's sign sign Chicago your opinion there won't be any off Street parkings lawon we'll obviously get approval from councel now in terms of the V looking forward do you believe in our engineering World planning world that this 15ot FL requirment is coming yes they've been saying it for a couple of years now they Tred to it emergency action a few years ago so if we're in a circumstance where everyone's going to have to have their first finish at 15t at least does it become more important to be able to have some latitude to have a deck up that high I believe it does and and obviously the current zoning regulations that don't latitude for decks Etc haven't taken into account this 15 elev kit going to be correct the the ordinance as cently indicated is not distinct between provide the distinction between the home and the de it's all one in your view as an engineer um is there a betterment to the community to eliminate a non-a compliant house does that AFF that benefit everybody's flood regulations flood so so that's a better that better Community to give an in an added incentive to take care of a a house get rid of a house now in terms of the impervious coverage being under in your view as an engineer planner does that mitigate being a little over on the building it certainly mitigates the total coverage on the lot and in my opinion do provide some mitigation for that and in addition typically uncover deck is going to be constructed of a decking type material that is also typically storm openes that of on open space absolutely as designed on screen there it certainly has more impact on volume whereas elimination that just having a deck open air Deck with no covering that correct I think that that type of structure has a lot less impact to air like open designed screen or obviously two this house does not propose a third story and of course with the 17 foot high floor we actually had to work with the roof pitch a little to make it all work if if the building coverage is a intensity govern say just build a smaller house by by not having a house with three stories and that extra square footage is is that a mitigating Factor as well two story so two stories would typically have less volume than a two and a half stor all right thank you um and and did you give testimony right off to in your application it says the unique charistics of property to the what are the unique charistics that make it my testimony was not that this is not a hardship this is well that's for the legal and the engineering TOS in our view from the legal standpoint the hardship has to do we have to comply regulations rule that we've been talking about is not a rule yet correct I mean Bound by something that doesn't exist no you're not appreciate Mr stat cly I don't believe you can argue Mr did not foring aot cly there apparently you don't either anyone else no I I know but that's what we submit on the applic you got to conform live there's no that's what I want like they are elev AR which are you talking the mechan or correct so the Mechanicals there are we're in a flood zone n they have to be at elevation minimum of 10 they have to be at 12 so oh I that's right sorry you have grade there is about elevation so would be to the B which is about Comm the neighbor elev mechano photos taken by my by myself earlier today was your testimony that the neighbors tack off the prop L uh the house is 9t off the property line so I would estimate Mechanicals are about six I should say that portion of the house the house has jogs in and out that portion of the house is approxim 9 that deck is probably under the to be at elevation 12 you wouldn't have enough air flow above them to operate because deck is at 16 Bottom's at we we a location could we' have to window location the architect will address that anyone in the audience any questions than home comp not the house just the platform just the just theat the one yeah the home compes the set on both sides 52 on the right side the other side has no mechanical platform that 5.2 on the east side yeah so that's not so the only portion that's only home so that's five there that's five more than five it's just the the platform for the air conditioner so it's correct di already raised concern that he doesn't like it does anyone else on the board have any questions yes I do Brian binus B r z Ms k couple support so I am a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey I am the owner of grass grou I have testified of the elements course right now what we're looking at rendering that we did of the arital drawings for this project from the GE when we started this design one of the intents of theer really come up with a design wased first living floor via staircase as well as anev us window only FL FL a Flor and the first floor are at a plane is slightly [Music] asight so with that being said again on that first FL we put together a floor plan that's 1460 on the first floor living areal like I said earlier that's mainly living with K living dining room as well as flings that share bom and possible us to get aood elevation Dimension going up to the roof at 32 we ultimately end upch of roof mainly talking this m roof Ro that shows up as a peak on the side elevation that's the lower roof everything we on the facade was in an effort to maintain the Steep roof pitch that the looks it's just that because of size of the structure and height injunction elevation thatch again mention comp that angre increas the of OT ceiling on the first floor 8ot ceiling on the second Flor were FL if we were to go 8 on the second floor on the on the first living floor up here that would change the pitch but it would not change it to a point where and just to be clear with to height in the zone you can meas curve right and if I'm not mistaken I'd have to look back at the topographical survey I think those numbers put us in a very simaran height from to around what materials are going into the construction right so again I'm looking at the exterior of the structure you know obviously we do a lot of single family homes in not only this area but in a lot of other around our intent always when we home is totically marries into the neighborhood I mean when we're talking about we're going as far as the variances are concerned aesthetically we felt that it was more important to try to meet the roof height and try to attain visual elements of higher roof pitches on the exterior look with a couple ofing levels of effort to kind of separate lels to not astical as well as set elements further and further back so they step away Street you know one of the big intentions with this is you know when we're looking at a and design for talking de and coverage you know the Aesthetics from what somebody would see when going up and down street or while living in neighborhood that is the street doesn't necessarily yeah I mean I I would say Obviously today's standards with what we're designing in most of our homes it is very surprising to have a house that has not a 9 FL anot ceing on the first floor um anything's always possible but traditionally almost every house that we're designing in all heard a lot regulations but so you're still a foot above that's it's actually the first floor is higher than even the potential regulations required well I think that I do believe Joe trying system that we want to try to keep above these numbers for is so is that foror on the first Flor there's aot foot between Flor yeah I I think just toot that obvious nobodys level is still in below still we yeah I heard that upli yeah when you have a ground FL level obviously no [Music] use and the rest is just storage and I mean have to necessarily be divided up in any particular way no but there's really no regulations as far as how or what to do it be more open deepar of course but the reality is is that this is just storage is allow I really what we're trying to do is limit the size of Entry space so that we have a nicer looking is on with the two guys just said um I get the idea of how three separate rooms like that perfect for making living you have two French in the back I don't understand have a here you make a two you have a separate I don't know houses I've seen open indidual WS poal living to me it looks like it's just be a problem down the road put a bed couch pull out couch down that's the human nature is I'm put a couple PES put as yeah we understand that a lot of WEP rules don't knows so for example again we're talking about a situation one of the Varan being deck just keep my clients indicated to me thec comfor El not eliminate the segregation so just be an open space like Mr yeah and a lot of people you know you go to houses inad and man that are elevated they they put couches down there and they use it as indoor outdo space I this thinks that's a problem if it runs itself toed cents have indicated they leave it open I would submit that you know you go down you look you see people have paddle fans down there and they have couches and it's actually outside they have pil it's nice space sayse I don't think it's at 32.5 I think the indication is that less2 because because the house is being potentially the house could be torn down there was no reason to survey what the so our overall height should be around4 and that's why we were saying it's coming from street it's coming from the curve is around something to that if it looks like that's what they going to do we don't this is going to be 17 it's suppos to be what well so 12 is the minimum first floor and then typically you would build your box out of the flood typically you see at least we've we've already lived through that we've seen variations in so the fact that you're building you would be grandfathered in if you build it at the BFB today come yeah but whenever you do anything whenever you do anything you have to fill out that flood form and you have to comply with the % rule not EXA easy ites the new number and you know we're not seeking a height variance but we rely a lot of these designs that have third FL where we're getting to we're asking for two or three and the bo very often grants those so it's not like it's come and to reason but Mr B gave testimony that's just in one area the roof satisfies I also so I'm curious about process so when your client comes to you and asks you to design a home do you design a home within the variance within our current variances and then go back to change TOs we see so many I'm sorry we see so many you have a good foring lot 50 by 100 lot right respectfully letting you build a house yeah so I think a lot of times when it comes to process lening to what the cents wants ands are you know obviously from the have talked about this style of facade we talked about parking on the ground floor level and then we also talked about things like coverage size of the house sets so that's why when you look at aesthetically from the street everything that we were trying to do order to perform we had conversations as to okay if you went with a compant roof as an example you would be getting a variance for height which is not something that I typically like to go in to ask for I would prefer to do the Aesthetics of pitch and then have this disappearing oring roof pitch that's actually on side the reason we having first it's it's about it's about taste it's about what know see puts us it puts the town in a challenging place to continue improve proper I just ask that the board consider most of the Lots in this town are conforming at least in terms of 50 by 100 they have the uh we come in lots of cases where we're seeking height where we're seeking setbacks Etc based on the design and in order to get parking to get parking under the house to be a little higher Etc so it's not unusual for this to ENT for height on that have the area that's re almost DET bricks so it's it's not your typical design so Ty [Music] bricks James thank you uh Mr CR you've heard the board's comments and I just want to bit background how long have you and your wife on this property since January of9 and what's your relationship with children there two children and what's okay and I understand you had some family behind you your mother Liv behind that's no now um what is uh yours as buiness plans to do with this house correct so I mean that's yeah I know ter move it you rent itell it you do lots of things have and respectfully one of that Mr read from the master was to encourage a stable full-time population and so when he says he's moving back into the house and they've lived there since 1979 I know that's why I put that testimony so Mr CR now you heard in terms of the design of the house how did you so we want to get home we realiz basically walk off toon to build we on the our goal was was just to build on the and the house that's there now the picture that's up there is that the condition it's in from the street view anyway and uh that that house iside the first FL is that's all I have for Mr anybody have any questions anybody in the audience have any questions audience comments anybody in the audience you're good sir thank anybody in the audience have any comments on this case at they want to say anything about yes thank you you know Cas you know I hear the feedback and the comments of the board um we're seeking variances and I respectfully submit that we made an appropriate case under C2 advances purpose of the municipal Landings law of providing a home that is flood resilient it's not only flood resilient by the standards that exist now but certainly in connection with the direction that it looks like they're going proposed from the that will raise the flood elevation and'll be compant with that in a lot of ways on the front edge with that the home that's there has been damaged and that if it were be rehabilitated below the flood elev could be as it would not be you know consistent with the home that as a design so we think that this is a substantial aesthetic upgrade it will contribute to the health and wellbeing of the neighborhood when you drive around this section of town these are the style houses that people are building now this is not a particularly large house or overbearing house is 2600 sare fet of living space i i respectfully submit that that's somewhat mod we not seeking a height variance we've eliminated of the side we can put the Mechanicals in the back that will eliminate that variant as well what we are seeking is a deck in the back and preparation and understanding the's concerns are with that we've agreed to eliminate our original proposal was which was to have a three story deck and you know I know we're over on the building coverage by having this deck in the back it's only one level one dimension light open space and you know one of the comments was about the impervious pavers and you know why why do they count as perious versus impervious well there's two objectives with P I would submit um for for an impervious coverage one of them is that you just don't want all the ground covered with something but what the governing body did impervious papers versus perious papers also give people an encouragement to put papers in I would submit that there's an aesthetic that you get a little of a uh encouragement and reward I would submit that having ters is a little bit of a richer look it's a little bit of an upscale look and by allowing people a a better building coverage by putting in papers it encourages them to do that so in addition to uh being designed in a way where where there is greater ground absorption it it also is something that has a nicer aesthetic um so we're under on the impervious coverage um and we're over on the uh the building coverage building covers that we're seeking is just the one dimension in the back now as far as saying you know can you build a house to conform it would be substantially smaller if you took this of a b foot out of that house it would be a much smaller house do we want to tell people that you know when when you're building a house in Point Pleasant Beach it has to be smaller than 2 know the cover deck in the back isn't even the entire L of only wide 12T deep go back to the what we're doing eliminating cover cover and doing substantial aesthetic upgrade finally there is um some creativity here I ask whether this type of AE when you have States other problem the design of this house looks like conval that's not elev so you go the it's just a good creative way to make a house in the flood zone um and if this is elevated to allow room for good then we get another parking space in area that certainly needs parking thank you very much thank you that they were going to rise plans to eliminate the interor partion walls on the ground Flor going rise the chimney bring that into conformance set change rear deck a one L open a deck the FL level no second no cover roof no roof cover and condition that with the change of the driveway opening a motion to close forber OB we C think have a problem with that attack I don't have a problem with that you should have some type of being put in the back I think that's could Chang didn't know make attempt to open than you just one question real quick did you say one of the conditions was being tucked back in into the yeah it'll meet the exception criteria of less than six square feet can't encroach got it okay thank um first off I'd like to compliment the architect I think your testimony was very helpful in understanding designes all that together to very creative and very interesting so there's something about this house though and I think to your frustration Mr you kind of got a sense of it wasn't quite the wasn't quite justs off the back and I I think thing everybody got a sense of is this is a house that design a lot of that got a little B we had a lot lot of discussion with about percentages percentages are a function of area and so question is Rel to the size ofer com the application there's nothing exceptional about this particular it's exactly like every other th there's no hardship as was testified I think the house is simply too large as proposed I want to listen to what everybody else has to say but I think that's the bottom it's just mention is required exra it's to be very to up with I do apprciate m thank you Mr chairman so we have a we have a property with conforming 50 by 100 wide it's in the 89 flood zone and Mr Jackson's correct by approving the home you are making with with FEA beautiful home sa home but my my issue has been on our board here we continue to issue variances and a variance of equ as a beach as it relates to FEA is a powerful thing FEA could come into our burrow Hall they can look at variances that we're issuing and that can be held detrimental to the town CRS rating commity flood rating essential so you know we've had some discussions tonight like you know we're letting people right so I mean I have a little bit of and it's a beautiful project but I as you know I asked the architect would you ever design a home within the structure our ordin you said no okay so okay so what does that say about the town right so I think a lot of Architects a lot of planners a lot of owners come in here Beach I got a lot I want to build this thing sometimes we do we do issue variances that are reasonable variances in my opinion I think some of that has to stop because the issue that all towns along the shore you know mquan from North Jersey to Kate May we're all dealing with these feema issues flood insurance rates the future cost to homeowners so I I just think that this this where this redoing this home is a benefit the detriment is is we continue to issue varant is in a flood zone forh is detrimental to the community CRS not in favor of this application um the height house and the the flood part of it uh in terms of how it's raised and things hasn't really bothered I know there were some questions that came down from that end I mean I grew up on 219 Parkway right around the corner my mother was there during Sandy and you know we had four and A2 ft of water so P Chicago I can certainly understand the safety issue the lake is right down the street that Lake floods the comes in that way you know all those things are making it raised in the way it is knowing that there is Ray even acknowledged a new standard that seems to be coming none of that really bothered me but when I hear you know a house and we need to put a deck on it because we need to have outdoor living on the first floor I think that's very true for people who were forced to raise a house right so someone takes their house they raise it up they're already at the perimeter of their house now their house is up in the air and they want to add a deck and they come before us and they say hey we want to get a deck put on our house because we had to bring our house up 12 feet in the air and we say yeah and that's going to add building coverage and we're going to Grant you 33% because you have to have that because your house just got put up in the air that's not the case here here we're building from stretch I know everyone says it's a beautiful design and whatever and I'm not disagreeing the gam here and front elevation of this house is very nice AR rest the house to move a box it it has two seven foot setbacks on either side of this foer other than that it goes all the way back the same the first two floors are the same back of it the same it's pushing the LI of what they could do to Maxime the building coverage of house theot to% and then all to5 we're so restrictive on building coverage as much we try to be except in those situations where we're working with someone who's either raising a house or you know into low at sense to me so my issue which I think Mr Davis raed Mr Kelly raed is just the size of owner on this lot started off too large and then we add aot things that us rather could at I'm gonna ask for a motion to deny the application based on what I heard from get up I was able to text I don't think get on what was the new date secetary carry app oober okay Mr Kelly so we're carrying 20248 yes um's gonna the time one thing Ben on that with what that what I'm seeing what it is so obviously looking for a pre-existing nonconformity for garage and he didn't show so there has to be some limitation right of like if he doesn't show again Department Hees like what's the is yeah there's there's a ten in there and we may be amending that application to I'm just ask I'm one place but I don't want it to go on and on that's that's always our discretion if I mean a reasonable request for an adjournment is always in the discretion of the board if the board ever felt that something was being delayed unre unreasonably make a note that's all effectively you can take a motion to to deny you know the request for the adjournment and deny the appli and I think this one was reasonable whatever I just wanted to make sure my all right got your meeting see you thank you October 17 you do it in 20 minutes app the application is essentially to put a cab in the back of the house the new house the reason here are not Jason Marciano m r c i n o your qualific yeah I'm with the firm of East Coast Engineering in Tom D I've been with that firm for over 25 years liced as a professional over 20 years liced professional planner almost 16 years I've been here several times nothing Rec been here in those all my thank you very much the VAR plot plan that was submitted I've added some highlighter just there's a lot going on on the plan but really all we're here for is the yellow that's on this variant plan dated January 15 2024 that was submitted with the application yellow square is what we're adding everything else on this plan is is currently existing um the house received building permits has been built has been coed the pool is in the papers are in um the Cabana was was was left um come for this variant so that's what we're proposing tonight the cabana it's 15 by 15 to the rear of the house directly adjacent to the pool again we're at 115 Atlantic so we're just Northeast of here it's the sf5 Zone the lot's a large lot it's 75 by 125 um what there are no other secondary structures we have the house the pool and that will be it stairs in the FR stairs on the side's an attach deck on the um the everything meets all setbacks are me even by the proposed set at 5 house new construction on the left side 81 on the right side 19. so we have yard all the way around the principal structure plenty of room left for the Cabana coverages the Cabana does add coverage to the lot but even with the Cabana we're 25.9% well under the Li the cab add impervious coverage with the Cabana we 49.9% coverage that's counting all the pavers on site at full 100% coverage there no reduction for full coverage we're at 49.9% Building height comp height is comp OB points that we need to address sure sure um the Cabana structure itself Pera whatever you want to refer to it as it's essentially supported by four columns it has a roof and a floor and it it has essentially no walls other than you may consider the west side or left side of the plan a wall there's there's a a fireplace chimney coming up on that wall and then some slats for for shade um you get that you know you're sitting outside having dinner and the Sun is setting on the west and you get that blinding Sun so it was was intended for a little privacy um but it's not a very tall structure so primarily for shade as you're sitting underneath and the architect his plans we can describe it further but the north east and south wall three wall there are no wall or sides there's no walls it's an open structure so um as far as it becoming habitable or being turned into a rent or any sort of other use than a cabana it's not possible as it doesn't have walls on those three sides um in terms neighor we EST not aight problem all corre it's not going to obstruct anybody's view of waterlight neighbor like that neighor corre that's corre we don't we won't like for a cabana we're not going to say it's 10 o' stop so we're GNA finish I don't want you to not get on record what you need to get on you haved you haven't used the 10 o' stop talking number Z ear Z correct yeah we're in the sf5 zon sing primarily referred to as a single family Zone this is a structure that's used by single family structure um you know it is accessory or incidental to the to the principal structure which is a single family home which is which is a permitted use and so that's going to that's the overall primary use of the site single family home and again is inal access and you know allows expion that outdo that was number five number six number again technically with this the side of the house you could have a driveway theen could be allowed to be this size so but a garage could be a garage could be that size so three walls and an overhead door and it's a garage um but you know the architectural plans that were submitted clearly it's it's used you know for adjacent to the cabana it's an expansion of some outdoor you get a quick passing shower you have a a roof structure that you canay outside shelter CH so one of the issues is that to is that there no guidance on access structures except sheds be G 16 only used autom IND cond so then it's like what is theer for structure so we typically clas ASP structures deping on their makeup in this case that it has one wall open walls possibility ofation is not exist Cy I don't know there's really no requirement for accessory structure height except when it yes but on a house and there C controls that yes that whatever thef protocol for a chimney and that was a thought instead of you know you see a lot of people with an open fire pit that has no control get a windy dayl become a problem this is is a proper fireplace with the chimney gets smoke above everybody and whatever chimney cab top of at the top of the flu definitely be agreed Plumbing or utilities going to the Cabana uh there is electric proposed lighting but there's there's no water sewer or gas to iter you can see this shape's access's a principal structure that atan access that they have the back of the property that comes out baltim so that's that's the distance it is it's not labed but it's dou set back so structure to structure about 15 it was in the draft that is one over elev it's got come out top of the chimney so you gets picked up and mayow above the trees hopefully not your windows that that was kind of part of the thought of doing this type of fire feature versus others no no discussion that I've had with the on El I mean again it's only a short structure so it's not as high as maybe chy coming off house but it does improve smoke ground um I don't know when you're Outdoors you know having a fire is kind of you know that's a draw to this structure it's having a real fire there I would say but U so this other question just continuing on the letter I think we were up to six there will be no living space and again for obvious points that have been discussed it's really an open structure um six seven special reasons I'll Circle back on that that's a little more involved talked about it was if it was to have a kitchen pluming they be FL compant nothing's proposed in that that regard at this point you're on special re nothing else all the rest is Administrative so the rest is Administrative so um looking at the special reasons you know doing an analysis positive criteria versus negative criteria um again the use of the structure is is incidental and directly associated with the permitted use of the single family dwelling again you want to be outside you want some shade while you're um you know eating or entertaining you need some shade or or passing storm comes by so you have that with this structure that's Prim the primary purpose is to provide shade um but at the same time you know you see a lot of people put up some umbrellas or collapsible tents and then a wind comes by and they wind up in the neighbor's yard so in in in my take as a planner as an engineer having a a as presented on the architect plan is definitely a more durable and stable structure so um in that regard building a structure versus putting up a tent um is definitely promotes public health and safety purposes of Municipal land use law so we we have a a safer structure proposed to provide the shade in the backyard um safety from from um safety from flood structur built to be open so there's no detriment flooding provides adequate air light and open space again its footprint its location provides all the proper setbacks it's the size of a small garage so it does provide adequate air open space around the property doesn't block views cash Shadows appropriate densities when you're looking at M land juuse lawn planning what's the density of the site we're still one single family home this is this is an accessory structure so it doesn't principal structure so it doesn't add to the density of the site there's no additional people residing because of the um desirable visual environment again as shown on the architecturals there's brick veneer white vinyl so it's definitely you know this is a brand new home so you know obviously the homeowners wanted something that that was nice in the backyard would add to the attractiveness of the property so it does enhance the desirable visual environment again another purp of M so those are several purposes of Municipal land use law that are Advanced by this application looking at the negative criteria could this variance be granted without substantial detriment to the public good again I feel there's no detriment to the public good um because of the size the location meeting all the setbacks not exceeding coverage directly adjacent to the pool where it's going to be used so I feel there's no detriment to the public and gran granted without impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and um you know my review of the master plan reviewing different parts of the ordinance definition of accessory structures just trying to see if there is any wording in the ordinance against Cabanas or or conditions Onin and it doesn't come up in the ordinance and then the master plan talks about wanting fulltime residences set of rentals and here you have a homeowner wanting to just improve their backyard you know use it at that fulltime residence So based on all those points that I've researched I feel it would not impair the intent purpose of own to allow this type of accessory use in this resal backyard kind of covers most of the planning testimony I know the Architects here descri the building fur um just curious so two different use the master plan in living which in all my lessons of my 20 something years up here that doesn't really factor into anything yet it's in the plan in some way I guess it can be balanced in some way absolutely it's a goal and objective to consider as a portion of the evidence that you hear right rendering the ultimate opinion on the negative criteria but I wouldn't wouldn't thing one way or the other that's going to make or break any negative criteria determination I mean just to elaborate discussing is a section Foster diversity of housing that lowers the proportion of renter occupied housing and then this next adjacent paragraph talks about U housing that support stable year round population weights plan and we gave that lady all houses is this the is this the permanent residence of the applicants no it has been this residence has been in the in the family for just shy of 75 right around 75 years they weathered Sandy repaired after Sandy kept that house another 10 years since Sandy now was just time to build a new house prior to this Construction there was three structures on on the LA I live I live down the street so um so again it's staying within the family and you know they were improving it and and you know using it as their res hopefully we're doing they're arriving tomorrow good answer um anyone on the board any questions enging planning anyone disagree that they need any kind of architectural sorry um did you have anything that you wanted to ask or say they don't know I'm your neighbor I just came and you sat here for all this time and got to hear your case so congratulations you knew we were why don't you your name and your address now forever in the record good work good job uh anything that you would like to close no unless you obviously you don't need to hear from the homeowners only conditions we had were be a Chimney Cap per code and ened can never be enclosed or converted to habitable space Weber will the amount of smoke and chimney Welles here it's are people nothing to add Mr chairs good I mean there's no there's no sh this is the access structure it's am I yes