[0:00] The meeting of the Manalapan Board of Adjustment

[0:03] zoning Board of Adjustment. Notice of this meeting was given as required

[0:06] by the Open Public Meetings Act and a copy was posted on the second floor

[0:09] bulletin board in town hall and the township's website. Be advised

[0:13] no new item of business will be started after 10:30 p.m. And the meeting shall

[0:17] terminate no later later than 11:00 p.m. Please note audio and video of this

[0:21] meeting is being recorded in accordance with uh 56-2024.

[0:27] The meeting is being broadcast live on the township YouTube channel and will

[0:30] The view of this is posted by the township website for the public to view

[0:34] at their convenience. The exterior doors of the municipal building will

[0:37] automatically lock at 7:45 p.m. If you leave the meeting uh the building during

[0:42] the meeting, you'll be locked out. Please have somebody accompany you to

[0:46] allow re-entry. Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge salute

[0:52] » [clears throat] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[0:55] United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation

[1:00] under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:03] for all. >> Call the secretary to roll call, please.

[1:08] » [clears throat] >> Mr. Crinno is excused tonight.

[1:12] Mr. Colavita? >> Here.

[1:14] » Mr. Kaminsky? Is excused tonight. Mr. Deery?

[1:17] » Here. >> Mr. Hefner is excused tonight. Mr.

[1:20] Kozak? >> Here.

[1:21] » Mr. McGann is excused tonight. Mr. Mulvihill?

[1:24] » Here. >> Mr. Rice?

[1:25] » Here. >> Mr. Haverly?

[1:27] » Here. >> Mr. Fury?

[1:28] » Here. >> And Mr. Pellegrini and Mr. Warburg are

[1:32] excused tonight.

[1:37] » Make an announcement on common land. >> Yeah, I'll I'll do that for sure.

[1:41] » All right, guys. Just a couple

[1:44] items on the agenda tonight. It's uh 25-31

[1:48] uh and 56- uh

[1:51] 56 is site plan number 56-SP. It's common

[1:57] family uh

[1:59] the use variance in preliminary and final major site plan.

[2:03] This is not being heard tonight. It will be a special meeting

[2:07] in the future and you will be re-noticed for that if you're here and you have

[2:11] received a notice. >> Second meeting in a row you did this to

[2:15] us. >> We didn't do it to you.

[2:17] » I know. >> All right, thank you.

[2:19] There's also another item on the agenda tonight 25-21 John Tullio and Jennifer

[2:25] for Bruno. It's a use variance and front yard variance. That will be heard on

[2:29] June 8th. You will not be re-noticed for that if you're here for that this

[2:33] evening.

[2:40] » [clears throat] >> All right, first

[2:42] application 26-08 David Robertson

[2:50] » This is who is representing my council. I'll let him do the speaking.

[2:52] » Okay, all right. Go ahead, sir.

[2:54] » Thank you. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

[2:57] » Swear to affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.

[3:00] » Yes, sir. >> Your name for the record.

[3:01] » Joseph Macey structural engineer >> He's been here before so the board

[3:04] accepts him. >> Yes.

[3:05] » Okay, great. Are we going for the record, Chuck? Are we going for the

[3:08] record? >> No, I'm I'm enjoying being here with all

[3:10] these wonderful people. >> No, of course. A good evening, ladies

[3:12] and gentlemen. My name is Kevin Diduch. I'm the owner and principal attorney of

[3:15] KD Law in Turnersville, New Jersey. For purposes of your record my last name

[3:19] is spelled d i d u c h. I pronounce it Diduch but please just call me Kevin.

[3:23] It's easier. It is my privilege this evening to

[3:26] present an application on behalf of my client David Robertson

[3:29] on behalf of his company Robertson Developers LLC for a property at 120

[3:34] Harrow Avenue here in the Township of Monroe.

[3:37] The property is situated on your tax map as block 1201 lot 14 and it's currently

[3:43] situated in your residential two or your R2 zone.

[3:47] The applicant this evening is seeking three bulk variances for their

[3:52] The purpose of constructing one single family residential home on the lot.

[3:56] Uh the three items specifically under your

[3:59] code that we're seeking relief from are section 175-162

[4:03] minimum lot area. Your standard requires 1 acre and the property offers 0.826

[4:08] acres. Minimum lot frontage, your standard

[4:11] requires 120 ft in front of frontage. Whereas the property only offers 100 ft.

[4:18] And minimum lot width, where in your ordinance requires 150 ft. And the

[4:23] property only offers 100 ft. So, we do have Mr. Mancini here who will be

[4:26] presenting um a couple of exhibits. I have one

[4:29] exhibit as well that I'd like to log in, but we'll go in order as they're

[4:33] presented to the board. So, All right. If I can call Mr. Mancini up

[4:36] first. >> Yeah, I'll run on the outside.

[4:38] » Let it sneak on me. >> Okay.

[4:41] Keep me on your toes. Good evening, board. Uh Kevin did a

[4:44] great job summarizing the variances. Um I'll just remind the board that those

[4:48] are all existing conditions. Um Uh

[4:53] that that are part of I I believe it's block

[4:55] 1202 lot 14, just to correct the record on that. Uh the property is located in

[5:00] the R2 district as you heard, and it has those three existing non-conforming

[5:03] conditions. Uh the plan proposes a single-family home, which is a permitted

[5:07] use in the R2 zone. Um approximately 100 uh 1,500 sq ft. Um

[5:13] the proposed home will comply with all the other bulk standards. So, all the

[5:17] setbacks and coverage requirements will be met.

[5:20] for the proposed home. So, the variances um if the board sees those as variances,

[5:25] I mean a lot of boards uh perceive these as existing non-conforming conditions,

[5:29] but out of caution, I think the board and we uh would treat them as variances,

[5:33] but they really fall under the C1 criteria or hardship criteria. Um and

[5:37] I'll read that right from municipal land use law.

[5:41] Uh by reason of the exceptional narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a

[5:44] specific piece of property, the strict application of any regulations would

[5:48] result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional

[5:53] and undue hardship upon the developer of such a property.

[5:56] Um that is there's practical difficulties to resolving the

[5:59] non-conforming conditions of the lot shape and size.

[6:03] Um there's no land to be acquired to bring

[6:05] this into conformance. And in fact, it is uh substantially consistent with all

[6:11] the other lots on this side of Harrow Ave. Um

[6:15] So You want to mark this A1? I'm just going

[6:18] to reference the the township tax map. Um the subject property is located there

[6:23] in blue. Um and you can see that

[6:28] uh along this south side of Harrow Ave, um all of the lots are 100 ft by 260 ft.

[6:37] Also, if you want to mark >> Yeah, we can mark these as A2. Um these

[6:41] are aerial photographs that show how this property situated on this side

[6:45] compared to other

[6:48] » So not only are are all the adjacent lots consistent in size and shape, but

[6:52] you'll see that all the all the existing lots around us also have homes on those

[6:56] lots. So we don't have any double lots where

[6:58] the house is in the middle. Generally, these are developed in a consistent

[7:01] manner. Um

[7:04] so that's the so-called positive criteria.

[7:06] The board obviously has also considered the negative criteria, whether the the

[7:10] variances can be granted without uh substantial impairment of the intent and

[7:14] purpose of your uh zone plan or substantial impact on the public. Again,

[7:19] the use is permitted. Uh the home's consistent as as you can see with other

[7:23] homes in the neighborhood. Um the proposed home will comply with all those

[7:27] other bulk regulations as I mentioned. There's still ample open space on the

[7:31] lot. Uh and there are a handful of the the other lots that are uh similar

[7:36] shape, uh lots 20 through 21 on the tax map.

[7:40] Um therefore, we find that the po- positive and negative criteria would be

[7:43] met. There's no substantial detriment to the public. As you're driving down

[7:46] Harrow Ave, you wouldn't perceive this is a non-conforming condition. In fact,

[7:50] you'd perceive this as being exactly conforming with the character of the

[7:53] neighborhood. >> [snorts]

[7:55] » And likewise, I don't see any impact on the intended purpose of the zone plan.

[7:58] So I think it'd be appropriate for the board to grant variance variances.

[8:04] That's all I have. Unless the board has any questions, of course.

[8:07] » We can certainly open it up to the board. We didn't receive any review

[8:10] letters from your professionals, nor do we really expect to receive one

[8:14] per se, but to that end, if the board has any

[8:17] questions, we have Mr. here to answer them. We also have a representative and

[8:22] the applicant here as well if you have questions for him.

[8:25] » And of course, the development of the home will be subject to you know, the

[8:28] plot grading plan requirements, utility connection requirements, anything else

[8:31] that would be associated with the construction phase.

[8:33] » And all the other existing standards for development within the zone.

[8:37] » Correct. >> Just maybe one of just have the

[8:39] applicant swear in and put on the record his attempts to his attempts to

[8:43] acquire any land. Obviously, you can't from the tax map, but just that's part

[8:47] of the criteria, the hardship criteria. So just state your name and address for

[8:51] the record. >> Uh David Robertson.

[8:53] » Okay, do you swear to affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth this

[8:56] evening? >> I do.

[8:57] » Thank you.

[9:00] » David Robertson, and yes, I do. >> Okay, just

[9:05] » Yeah, and Mr. Robertson, in the course of developing this property, you did in

[9:09] fact try to seek additional land adjacent to your property to continue

[9:14] the development and otherwise comply with the current zoning code. Correct?

[9:18] » Yes, correct. >> Okay.

[9:23] Anybody else from the board have any questions for the applicant?

[9:31] Seeing none, hearing none, can we open up to the public?

[9:35] So moved. >> Second.

[9:39] » Anybody from the public wishing to address the board

[9:42] » Yes. >> on behalf of this application, please

[9:44] come to the microphone, state your name and your address, and then the uh

[9:48] solicitor will swear you in. >> All right. My name's Molly Chase. I live

[9:52] at 122 Hare Lab. >> Do you swear to tell the truth and

[9:56] nothing but the truth? >> I swear to tell the truth and nothing

[9:58] but the truth.

[10:01] Okay. Can I go ahead?

[10:03] » Go ahead. You're on. >> Hi, my name is Molly and I live at 122

[10:07] Hare Lab with my husband Jake and directly next to this lot. I have been a

[10:11] night shift ER nurse for the last 7 years. My job is chaotic and stressful

[10:15] to say the least. I see people during their most vulnerable and heartbreaking

[10:19] moments of their lives. Most people do not come home from work carrying

[10:22] memories of blood-curdling screams from a parent losing their child

[10:27] or the pain of telling a family member there is nothing more that can be done,

[10:30] but I do. Our home is my sanctuary away from that

[10:33] chaos. My husband and I purchased our home in

[10:36] 2022 because of how peaceful and special this neighborhood is.

[10:40] The homes are not built right on top of each other and the mature trees between

[10:44] the properties provide beauty, privacy, and a sense of calm.

[10:48] Our bedroom faces this lot and every morning and night we look out at the

[10:51] trees and watch deer pass through. That tranquility is one of the reasons

[10:55] we chose to build our lives here. I'm here today to respectfully ask the

[10:59] board not to destroy the character and peacefulness of this lot by approving

[11:03] construction that does not meet the zoning standards already established for

[11:07] this neighborhood. I also ask that the safety of the

[11:10] surrounding neighbors I also ask that the safety of the surrounding neighbors

[11:14] be carefully considered. Less than 2 weeks ago I received a phone

[11:17] call from our neighbor Lori screaming for us to get out of the house

[11:21] immediately because the home across the street had caught on fire.

[11:24] Thankfully, due to the quick response of our brave police officers and

[11:28] firefighters, no one was hurt. But situations like that are a reminder

[11:32] of why spacing, frontage, and lot size requirements exist.

[11:36] Homes built too closely together can increase safety risks and make dangerous

[11:40] situations even worse. These regulations and standards were

[11:43] created for a reason. When exceptions are repeatedly made to allow significant

[11:48] deviations from those standards, it creates a precedent that the rules meant

[11:52] to protect our neighborhoods can simply be bent.

[11:55] There are many other properties in Williamstown with some with sufficient

[11:59] acreage to build a home without compromising the integrity, safety, and

[12:02] character of this block. I truly hope the applicant is able to

[12:06] build the home of their dreams, just not in a way that comes at the expense of

[12:10] ours. Thank you all for your time and

[12:13] consideration. >> I have a question for you.

[12:17] Yeah, you don't mind? >> No, yeah.

[12:19] » If you're standing in the street looking at the lot,

[12:21] » Yes. >> are you on the right or the left?

[12:24] » I am on the left. >> You're on the left. What is the lot size

[12:29] of your property? >> Uh it's around the same.

[12:32] » 100? >> Uh it's the 0.82

[12:35] » No, the width. >> Oh, the width? Uh I believe it's around

[12:39] the same. >> Same?

[12:40] » But it again, ours was built in the 1950s.

[12:43] » Yeah, if yours is the same width >> Yeah, I think so.

[12:45] » and you're maybe to the left of the new >> Uh about, yeah.

[12:50] » Okay. >> You're welcome.

[12:55] » Anybody else wishing to address the board on this application?

[12:57] » I would. >> [clears throat]

[12:59] » Same thing, your name, your address, and also swear you'll swear you.

[13:03] » My name is Jacob Rednour. I live at 122 Harrow Avenue.

[13:07] » Okay, do you swear to tell the truth and

[13:09] nothing but the truth? >> I do.

[13:11] » Thank you. And that was what How do you spell your

[13:13] last name? R A N >> That's R E D A N A U E R.

[13:20] » Thank you. Okay. >> I respectfully object to the requested

[13:23] variances because the property fails to meet three major R-2 zoning requirements

[13:27] for minimum lot area, frontage, and lot width.

[13:31] These are not minor deviations. Particularly, the proposed 100-ft lot

[13:35] width where 150 ft is required. The zoning standards exist to preserve

[13:39] neighborhood character, maintain appropriate spacing between homes,

[13:43] protect drainage and safety, and prevent overdevelopment of undersized lots.

[13:47] Additionally, given the recent house fire in the neighborhood just 2 weeks

[13:50] ago, I believe safety concerns should be carefully considered when evaluating

[13:54] reduced lot dimensions and spacing requirements.

[13:57] Adequate frontage what width and separation between structures

[14:01] are important for emergency access, public safety, and protection of the

[14:05] surrounding homes. Approving multiple substantial variances

[14:09] for new construction could undermine the intent and purpose of the township

[14:12] zoning ordinance and create an undesirable precedent for future

[14:15] development on similarly non-conforming lots.

[14:19] The applicant should be required to demonstrate with clear evidence that the

[14:22] proposed home will not negatively impact surrounding property owners through

[14:26] increased runoff drainage problems, overcrowding, reduced privacy, traffic,

[14:30] parking, safety concerns, or the long-term value and desirability of

[14:33] neighborhood properties. As a nearby property owner, I'm also

[14:37] concerned that granting multiple significant variances on an undesir-

[14:41] undersized lot could negatively affect surrounding property values by altering

[14:45] the established character and standards of the neighborhood.

[14:49] I understand the desire to develop the property,

[14:51] but I believe there are alternative uses for this lot that would be better to to

[14:55] preserve the character, safety, spacing, and environmental integrity of the

[14:58] neighborhood with without requiring substantial deviations from the township

[15:02] zoning standards. I fully respect the board's role and

[15:05] appreciate the time and consideration given to this matter. I simply ask that

[15:09] the existing standards be help upheld and that the long-term interest, safety,

[15:14] and character of the surrounding neighborhood be carefully protected in

[15:17] making this decision. I would also respectfully request to be

[15:21] kept informed regarding any future hearings, revisions, approvals,

[15:25] conditions, or significant developments related to this application as this

[15:28] project directly impacts my home and surrounding neighborhood. Thank you for

[15:32] your time and consideration. >> I'm just going to ask you just like uh

[15:35] you know, uh you were asked earlier, I believe your

[15:38] wife, girlfriend. Uh so, your lot is the same size?

[15:41] » I believe it is a little bit over 100 ft wide.

[15:44] » Okay. And how about the other uh lots in the neighborhood? They're pretty much

[15:48] the same size as what the applicant's trying to build on?

[15:51] » I believe maybe a little bit bigger or maybe around the same size.

[15:54] » Maybe? >> Yeah, I'm not too sure.

[15:57] » Okay. >> All right, thank you.

[15:58] » All right, good. >> I have a question for you. You

[16:02] you made a statement that you think there's a better

[16:07] source for this or better use of this lot. What would you like to be there?

[16:13] » Well, you could use it as a buffer but for like privacy between the fact the

[16:16] house that's there and the house that's on the other side of the woods. You

[16:18] could do a community garden. You could do some kind of park, memorial, anything

[16:22] like that.

[16:26] » Yeah, thank you. Wait, wait, Mason.

[16:28] » Yes. >> What's the size of your home square

[16:30] footage?

[16:34] » I believe it's 50 around 1,500 sq ft.

[16:38] » Morning, Marjorie Swan. >> Okay.

[16:41] Maybe a little bigger give or take. Thank you.

[16:47] » Anybody else wishing to address the board?

[16:50] Same [snorts] sir, your name, your address, and then have have you sworn in

[16:53] by the solicitor. >> Dan Saxsteder.

[16:57] 134 Harold Avenue, I'm to the left of Jacob.

[17:01] » Uh if you could just if you could just spell your name for the record if you

[17:04] don't mind. >> S I C K

[17:06] S T E D E R.

[17:09] » Okay, could you raise your right hand? You swear from to tell the truth and

[17:12] nothing but the truth? >> I do.

[17:14] » Thank you, sir. >> I just want to bring it up to you guys'

[17:17] attention that that lot appears to be a rectangle. It is not a rectangle. When

[17:23] that property was split up from the main portion of the lot, which was

[17:28] 122, there was a small

[17:33] I'm going to say call it a cabin on the property line and over onto that

[17:38] other lot. So, when the property line goes back, it actually cuts into 120

[17:45] back out toward the back and then back over.

[17:48] I don't know if it will show up on your uh drawings that you have,

[17:52] but that was called the love shack. That

[17:55] house was built to live in while they constructed the

[18:00] main house. And it was left up instead of tearing it

[18:04] down because the kids needed someplace to stay.

[18:07] So, it's not a complete rectangle.

[18:13] It's going to narrow toward the back.

[18:19] » We'll have the We'll have them address that for you.

[18:21] » All right. >> Good, sir.

[18:23] » So, there was a house on this lot? And and I know you said

[18:26] shack in the back, the cabin, but there was a house on this lot?

[18:31] » No. >> Oh, I thought you said by the way.

[18:32] » Part of the they called it the love shack.

[18:36] » Okay. >> Was The majority of it was on

[18:41] uh 122, but part of it stuck out on 120. That was all one parcel of land when Mr.

[18:49] Lee bought all the properties on the street. He bought eight lots.

[18:54] And he kept his lot to be the biggest one.

[18:58] And so, he didn't want any neighbor on that side, and he had his garden and

[19:02] everything over there. >> And then he subdivided it into these

[19:05] lots. >> Yes, when he passed, the stepdaughter

[19:08] wanted a piece of it and blah blah blah and never did nothing with it, never

[19:12] paid no taxes, and here we are.

[19:14] » Okay. Thank you. >> Mhm.

[19:29] » Madam, your name and your address, please.

[19:30] » Good evening. Marie Sackstedter. My husband Dan was up before me. S A C K S

[19:36] T E D E R. 134 Harold Avenue. >> Did you swear from the tell the truth

[19:41] and nothing but the truth? >> I do.

[19:44] Um I just wanted to start off with my

[19:47] husband and I have been residents of this uh home for 30 uh excuse me, for 41

[19:53] years. We know quite well how the street is and

[19:56] what's going on and pretty much every single neighbor.

[20:00] When the original owners, my husband mentioned Lawrence Lee,

[20:04] originally owned eight parcels of land here. Little by little over the years he

[20:09] had to sell parcels off to pay for his uh property taxes.

[20:14] Their property, my neighbors that we're talking about, their property is

[20:18] actually bigger than my property cuz this is the largest parcel.

[20:23] Originally he never wanted anyone to be any anyone building on that property,

[20:29] the empty lot that we're referring to about here at 120

[20:34] Harold Avenue at uh block 1202 lot 14.

[20:39] He never wanted anyone to be on there, so he put his addition completely up to

[20:45] the edge of his property, which is her bedroom, which is their bedroom.

[20:50] I can understand why she doesn't want anyone over there and I would agree. The

[20:54] property needs to have something else done to it other than allowing the

[20:59] variances to change, which you've already made

[21:03] uh variances of why it needed to be what

[21:07] like ours is only 100, it's now 150 ft wide.

[21:11] When was that variance put into effect? Does anyone know?

[21:15] When was it changed from 100 ft to 150 ft?

[21:21] Some I mean, it was changed after we moved to our property 41 years ago.

[21:25] » Let me ask you a question. How wide was your property when you bought your

[21:27] property? >> 100, it's still the same.

[21:29] » Okay, so it was 100 at the time. So, they changed it at some point in time.

[21:32] » 250. >> I'm assuming that for the other

[21:35] developments, the larger developments, so that way the developments weren't

[21:38] close together. I can only assume. It's an R2 zone.

[21:41] I don't know the last time it was it was reviewed by the master plan. So, it has

[21:44] to have been in the last probably 30 years.

[21:47] » Okay, so the same thing goes for the the width, how far back it has to go and so

[21:52] forth. What is the If if you have a neighbor next door to

[21:56] you and they want to build something Well, nobody's there. What is the width

[22:00] that has to be from your home to your property line?

[22:03] » Generally 25 25 ft. They indicated that they comply with all the If they build

[22:08] the home where they like to build it, they comply with all the other bulk

[22:11] variances as far as >> But they're old variances. They're not

[22:14] the new variances. >> No, there's I believe they said they're

[22:17] going to build in the winding window envelope and it's going to comply with

[22:20] all of the bulk variances. Bulk variances are how far the house is from

[22:24] the side, >> Not according to this letter that I'm

[22:26] reading. >> You're not letting me finish.

[22:28] It complies with the bulk variances. That's all That's all I wanted to say.

[22:33] » I know, but according to this letter for these different sections, they want to

[22:36] change all of them from 120 to 100 ft. They want to require 150 to only down to

[22:43] 100. So, they're they're They're trying to change things.

[22:48] » Where the house is located. [laughter] That's what I'm trying to say.

[22:53] Okay, bulk variances. What they're What they are requesting is the lot area. And

[22:58] the lot area is the total square feet of the lot.

[23:01] » Mhm. It says 1 acre, but they're asking for less than 1 acre.

[23:05] » Correct, cuz we only have 0.82 acres. >> And that's what that lot is, but let me

[23:08] finish. Maybe hopefully you understand what I'm saying.

[23:11] The lot frontage 150 and they want 100.

[23:15] Lot width variance, okay, is the width of the lot Same thing, the width of the

[23:19] lot. >> Right.

[23:20] » 150 by 100. Where the house is going to be located, okay,

[23:25] it's going to satisfy and I refer to as bulk variance. It's going to be the the

[23:28] required distance from the one side on the right and I'm pointing to the

[23:32] right. Required distance from the left, the required distance from the roadway,

[23:36] and the right required distance for what the backyard is supposed to be. So,

[23:39] they're >> But, why should they be allowed a

[23:40] variance if this is the minimum requirement by this township? Probably

[23:45] the same reason >> when the gentleman before subdivided it,

[23:47] Mr. Lee, he subdivided it into 100-ft lots.

[23:50] Probably the same reason when the board considered it way back when.

[23:53] » But, that was Our house was built in 1957. So, he originally was the original

[23:59] owner. So, this is prior to 1957 is when they did it to the 100. So, we're

[24:04] talking about old variances and now we're talking about new variances. So,

[24:08] why should they be able to have something different?

[24:12] » Cuz that's what they're asking for. The municipal land use law, let me just

[24:14] finish what I'm saying. >> I understand what you're saying.

[24:17] » The municipal land use law allows them to apply for variances.

[24:21] Okay, and that's what they're applying for.

[24:23] And it's their obligation to satisfy the burden of proof before the board that a

[24:27] hardship does exist, that the conditions do exist, and they can't do anything to

[24:32] correct the conditions. Now, one of the criteria is you can

[24:36] build or can't build, that's that's up to the board. But, that's what the

[24:39] obligation of the applicant is. >> It certainly wouldn't be fair to anyone

[24:44] to have a neighbor I mean, only because their property ends

[24:48] their their her bedroom window ends at the property line, okay? For you to then

[24:54] now have somebody that's What did you say? 25 ft you can be from

[24:58] the >> Side yard is 25 ft.

[25:00] » That's I mean that's a lot. That's pretty close. I mean you might as well

[25:05] just reach out and touch the neighbor. >> That's the unfortunate of urban living.

[25:10] It really truly is.

[25:13] Go ahead, please. Please.

[25:20] » That was in 1940 something 1945. Correct.

[25:30] » Because it was he owned he owned both lots. It was a combined lot.

[25:35] I understand it. >> And he didn't have to get anyone's

[25:37] permit I mean he went through the the zoning everything cuz we were a resident

[25:41] when he put the addition on. And they didn't even have to get our

[25:45] Well, they did have to get our permission and we said yes because he

[25:49] didn't have anybody to worry about cuz it was an empty lot that he knew he

[25:52] already owned. That was there that he didn't want

[25:56] anyone building there. And now all of a sudden the lot was sold and somebody

[26:01] wants to build a house there. Unless they're going to plan on turning their

[26:04] house sideways I don't see how

[26:08] what type of a home that you could build there that it would be adequate enough

[26:12] to be okay for everyone else. I just And at what point do you make a

[26:18] decision if that is if the variances go through?

[26:23] Is it at the end of tonight's meeting? >> At the end of the testimony and when you

[26:27] » For tonight? Okay, just wanted to know. >> I'm just wondering last question is did

[26:31] anybody in the neighborhood if that lot was you know,

[26:35] let's say special to the area. Did anybody in the neighborhood try to buy

[26:39] that lot to keep it empty? >> Well, yes.

[26:43] » It was bought up right away. >> Yeah.

[26:45] We we did not even know that the young lady who lived in Pennsylvania who owned

[26:51] the lot, We didn't know she didn't pay the taxes because we I we had no contact

[26:57] with them. But, we just knew that when the lot was purchased, that's when

[27:02] we realized the lot was even up for sale. But, if we did know, they would

[27:06] have purchased that lot. It would have been cuz they wanted they don't want

[27:10] somebody cuz their property ends right there.

[27:13] And it wasn't up for option when [clears throat] they purchased their

[27:16] house. Any other questions for me?

[27:20] Okay, thank you. Please give it to some serious consideration. Thank you.

[27:27] » Anybody [clears throat] else from the public wishing to address the board on

[27:30] this application? Seeing none, hearing none, motion to

[27:33] close. >> Motion to close.

[27:36] » Second, Bryce. >> All in favor?

[27:38] » Aye. >> Any opposed?

[27:40] » [clears throat] >> Mr.

[27:42] Did you >> Kevin Smith.

[27:44] » Kevin. >> Yeah, please. Um

[27:47] I think the board's questions were intuitive.

[27:49] And I think a lot of the questions that um

[27:53] need to be asked were properly answered. I mean, the the lot is consistent with

[27:56] the remainder of the neighborhood. There is no deed restriction on this lot that

[28:00] prohibits it from being developed as a residential lot. So, it perfectly

[28:04] squares perfectly within your residential zone. As we've said before,

[28:08] the applicant fully intends to comply with every other bulk standard that's uh

[28:12] that they're required to comply with when building the new home.

[28:16] And uh for those purposes, we do believe that the board uh has the proper

[28:19] information before it to grant the relief that's been requested. So,

[28:23] Jared, do you want to add anything? >> No, I think that summarizes it well.

[28:27] Thank you. >> I have a question

[28:29] for Jared. How did the applicant acquire

[28:32] acquire [snorts] this lot? >> I don't know that. So, I'll ask the

[28:36] applicant to step forward and answer that for the board.

[28:43] » Um my realtor brought it to me. It was posted on the MLS through Compass. He's

[28:48] an agent for Compass. So, I get notifications on the Compass app that

[28:53] the lot was for sale. I took a look at it and thought it looked like a good

[28:57] piece of property and I I made an offer and it was accepted.

[29:00] » So, it wasn't bought through a tax sale through the township. It was bought the

[29:03] regular What do they call that? Fair share

[29:07] » Arms length transaction. >> Well, it's through a realtor.

[29:10] » Yeah, through through a realtor, through through the MLS.

[29:13] » Okay, no, I was just wondering cuz it said something about taxes and I just

[29:16] wanted to make sure. >> No, I I understand.

[29:18] » you purchased it, just to clarify, you you understood it was undersized.

[29:23] » Um that was brought to my attention during

[29:26] my due diligence period um that it was a little undersized, but it looked

[29:31] consistent with every other lot on the street, so I I thought it was buildable.

[29:35] I thought we could fit a house on there if every if every other lot had a had a

[29:39] house on it. >> And that's I think it was stated

[29:40] [snorts] by your attorney or that you had an agreement to just let me lay

[29:45] it adjacent to it to make it compliant.

[29:48] » That's correct. I mean, there's there's homes on on every other lot on the

[29:52] street, so I there's no other lots to purchase.

[29:54] » Let me let me ask one other question. Is there any way you can

[29:59] close the other house to your left is right on the property line. Is

[30:04] there any way you can uh relocate the house a little further

[30:08] away to give them some more You don't have

[30:11] to, but you meet the 25. I'm not saying that, but

[30:15] give them some relief? >> Yeah, no, I I understand.

[30:18] » Um certainly take it under advisement. We wouldn't make it a condition of

[30:21] approval per se, um so long as the applicant complies with the other bulk

[30:25] standards in the zone. Um certainly willing to entertain that.

[30:29] » Yeah, I am. >> How about moving it back?

[30:34] » Well >> I mean, if we could do it for

[30:35] » He he has room to the right. Right? Am I reading it wrong?

[30:40] No, I'm looking at it. He can go to the cuz the house that's on right on the

[30:44] line >> Right. So, essentially, the neighbor's

[30:47] house is non-compliant. >> It's the 25 ft.

[30:49] » Right. >> Moving it back would make it more

[30:51] incongruent with the rest of the neighborhood. I think what we want is

[30:54] conformity with the neighborhood. I I I understand the the logic of buying

[30:58] and moving it back, but I just don't think it would

[31:01] um be a positive impact overall.

[31:04] » Of moving it back? >> Of moving it back?

[31:07] » Correct. >> Right, but moving it to the right

[31:09] » It's fine. >> Yeah, yeah. I think the bigger thing to

[31:11] consider is the other improvements like I I believe we need to check the septic.

[31:13] » Septic? Right. >> Yeah, I think it's the city Is it city

[31:16] water or is it septic? >> It's city water.

[31:18] » the septic? >> All right.

[31:20] » And that might make them move it anyway. Cuz if they're septic

[31:25] the way it's the county might make them move it to comply.

[31:30] But, it'd be something to consider and make things

[31:36] » That's all I have. >> Sir, there was another question uh about

[31:41] the not the size of the lot, but uh the

[31:45] configuration of the lot. Can you address that?

[31:47] » Sure. Yeah, I can speak to that. So, so the lot lines

[31:51] are rectangular as are all the other lines within this lot. There's an

[31:56] easement for the so-called blush.

[32:00] Um I'm

[32:02] happy to answer any questions. Um there's an easement on the back of

[32:05] the property. It's well to the back of where the activity is happening, so it's

[32:10] shown on on the plan that was submitted. Um

[32:13] referenced in the indeed that was recorded.

[32:15] Um I don't know about

[32:18] » Is that still there? Is there a small structure

[32:21] » There's no structure there now. The shack is not there anymore.

[32:23] » The shack's gone. >> The love shack's gone.

[32:27] » Was there a destruction there? >> For whose benefit is the easement?

[32:31] » Yeah, that's what I'm that's what I'm getting at.

[32:32] » It's to the benefit of of um lot 15, which I presume is 122, so.

[32:38] » The other issue with our own property >> you got to wait. Okay. Okay, well, as a

[32:42] condition of that, will you be it's uh well, it it's for the benefit of 122,

[32:45] not the benefit of Okay, we'll leave that alone.

[32:50] » So, the easements It's not

[32:53] No one will >> Well, it's for the purpose of the

[32:55] structure, I'm assuming. >> It's not there.

[32:57] » It's not there. So, it's just going to remain there. The only way it would be

[33:00] removed from the lot would be if the 122 would consent to it, but you're not

[33:04] requesting that, so. I'd have to go back to the deed. I don't

[33:08] have that with me. >> May I already say that the easement is

[33:11] extinguished when the when the structure goes away?

[33:15] » Okay. >> Which is out of out of out of bunch of

[33:17] court documents showing on the survey >> You were going to say it again, weren't

[33:20] you? You were going to say love shack again,

[33:23] weren't you? You call it yourself, why not?

[33:25] » Yeah, I was going to say that. >> [laughter]

[33:28] » No, I don't do that.

[33:31] Anything else, sir? No, closing statements, sir?

[33:34] » No, no, everything is perfectly well and fine. We appreciate

[33:38] the board's consideration. Thank you. >> I have another question, if you don't

[33:42] mind.

[33:46] » Public portion has been closed. Mr. Solicitor, just one question. Just have

[33:50] to stop at some point in time, so we have to follow the process, but he's

[33:53] going to do an exception. Do you mind if you should stand up right there?

[33:56] » Okay, I just have a question about when you mentioned it just

[33:59] » Uh we can't hear you until you come up to the mic. Thank you.

[34:03] » Marisa said it again. When you mentioned 25 ft and the lot is actually only 100

[34:08] ft wide, so if they got to go 25 on one side and 25 on the other side, they can

[34:13] only make their house 50 ft wide. Is that correct?

[34:17] » That's correct, yes. It's a tiny little house. Not necessarily, it could be

[34:20] deep. I don't know what this 1,500 sq ft it could be 30 by 50.

[34:24] » If the survey is showing some kind of configuration, they have to be able to

[34:27] go deeper. >> Deeper, yeah, it could be if you just

[34:29] look to your left there, madam, and you feel free to look.

[34:33] » Originally, when my husband mentioned the love shack,

[34:36] they built that originally before they built the existing house at 122 that

[34:41] they presently live in. They built that, three brothers, so that they could

[34:46] have somewhere to stay while they were building the house at 122.

[34:51] It was knocked down by the second owners uh because complying to uh homeowners,

[34:58] so they opted to tear down the love shack. Um but it was and there is still

[35:04] some existence >> this just doesn't really help us, to be

[35:07] honest with you. If If it's not there anymore, part of the structure is

[35:10] doesn't really >> part of the structure is still there.

[35:13] » What's there? The love shack? >> Um

[35:16] » The footings for the uh chimney is it brick?

[35:20] » That is still there. >> I have a suggestion.

[35:22] » One that probably >> owner, if you can get the approval, you

[35:24] agree to remove all the structure in the back?

[35:28] Whatever exists, you'll get rid of it and properly dispose of it. Okay, so

[35:31] that'll address that issue, so. >> Okay. But I just wanted to make sure

[35:34] that we were that it was 25 and 25, so it can only be 50.

[35:38] » The house width They will not be issued a build building permit if it doesn't

[35:42] comply. And if they want to make it wider, they have to come back to this

[35:45] board to make it wider. And you will be

[35:47] noticed according to municipal law not you'll be noticed by certified mail.

[35:51] » Okay. >> Okay?

[35:52] » Thank you for your time. And please consider us.

[35:57] » All right, well, we've uh heard the testimony of the uh

[36:01] neighbors open open portion. Um

[36:05] Do we have a motion?

[36:08] Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Just I'm going to generally summarize the application.

[36:13] The The application is David Robertson, application number 2608. He's seeking a

[36:17] C-1 vari- variances for the lot area, lot front- frontage, and lot width

[36:22] variances. The attorney as well as the engineer described the relief that is

[36:26] being sought. I had marked as evidence A1, which is

[36:30] the tax map. A2, which is the

[36:33] survey. I'm sorry, the tax map is A2. Survey was A1 with the configuration of

[36:38] where potentially the home will be located. Attorney place for the record,

[36:41] I'm going to just read into the record what the municipal land use states what

[36:44] you must consider. The applicant of the requirement the

[36:47] applicant has to prove that the strict application of zoning ordinances like

[36:51] setbacks or lot size causes unique undue hardship to the physical characteristics

[36:55] of a specific property such as narrowness, shallow shape, or

[36:59] exceptional topog- topography. The applicant again must demonstrate the

[37:05] physical hardship, must demonstrate the unique condition,

[37:09] and the applicant must uh put on the record what there's no other

[37:12] alternative, for instance, obtaining additional property to make conform with

[37:16] the requirements of 1 acre. So, it's your determination again, you

[37:19] have to look at the negative criteria that it will not cause a substantial

[37:22] detriment to the public good, which is a kind of an elusive concept, but I think

[37:26] we understand it by now being kind of astute board members, and will not

[37:30] impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. So,

[37:34] that's what you must consider. Should you need a motion to approve, and then

[37:37] you can vote accordingly. >> Thank you. I apologize. I thought you

[37:42] did that before we uh >> It was so quick before. I slowed down

[37:44] this time. >> Okay. All right.

[37:46] » Sorry about that. >> That's all right. No problem.

[37:48] » So, we did hear the testimony from the applicants. We heard uh the portion,

[37:53] uh and our solicitor has summarized the application and the standards.

[37:58] Uh do we have a motion?

[38:04] » Motion to approve. Bruce. >> Do we have a second?

[38:11] » Second.

[38:13] » Madam Secretary.

[38:16] » Mr. Race. >> Yes. I feel the applicant has satisfied

[38:21] the criteria. The applicant has no means of of such obtaining additional

[38:26] property. Uh there's no deed restriction on the

[38:29] property. I believe the construction will uh

[38:32] improve the improve the property. Yes. >> Mr. Deary?

[38:37] » Yes, I stayed. >> Mr. Kozak?

[38:40] » Uh the lot conforms with other lots existing lots in the area. Yes.

[38:44] » Mr. Mulvihill? >> Yes, I stayed.

[38:46] » Mr. Colavita? >> I think our question here was whether

[38:49] the property did uh conform to the rest of the area.

[38:53] Um and it does in fact conform to that. And there's no other variances that are

[38:59] being requested. Uh yes. >> Okay. You're approved.

[39:03] » Okay. The one thing I just maybe just amend your motion was subject to outside

[39:07] all outside agency approvals. So they have to comply with everything else as

[39:10] well as removal of the previous structure located at the back

[39:14] of the property. If you don't mind just amending your original motion and just

[39:18] » Can we amend the original motion to include statements made by our

[39:23] solicitor?

[39:26] » Yes. Um

[39:28] I'd like to amend my motion to include all recommendations by the solicitor.

[39:34] » Okay. And you do make a second to that.

[39:37] No, just as everybody agrees. Just Yeah, that's all. All in favor? All right.

[39:41] Anyone opposed? >> Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, folks.

[39:46] » Um our next meeting is June 8th. So we'll hopefully have a resolution ready

[39:49] by then for you.

[39:55] » Thank you.

[39:58] » The next application before us this evening is Mr.

[40:03] Uh is number 26-11, Mr. Paul Murdock, really our variance.

[40:10] Please step forward.

[40:14] » Okay, Mr. Murdock, just state your full name for the record and your address.

[40:19] » My name is Paul Murdoch.

[40:23] » And your address? >> Pardon me?

[40:25] » Your address. >> My address 216 Karen Drive,

[40:28] Williamstown. >> Okay, and just if you could just

[40:31] [clears throat] raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

[40:35] and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do.

[40:37] » And just for the record, the applicant is seeking a rear yard variance

[40:41] uh to allow 5 ft where 12.5 ft is required to construct a 720 sq ft

[40:46] detached garage along with any other variances or

[40:50] waivers deemed. It's in the RGPR zone, 216 Karen Drive in Williamstown.

[40:56] » All right. Sir, in your own words, can you uh tell us why you're here this

[40:59] evening? >> Pardon me?

[41:01] » In your own words, can you tell us why you're here this evening?

[41:04] » Oh, I I wanted to make better use of the uh yard

[41:10] have more useful space in front of the garage.

[41:17] » Okay, so you're going to construct a garage or is it there already?

[41:22] » No, I'm going to uh construct it. I hire a contractor.

[41:34] » Good. >> I have a question for you. You're You're

[41:36] asking that the back of the garage be closer to the property line.

[41:41] » Right. >> 5 ft instead of 12 and 1/2 ft.

[41:45] » Yes. >> Okay.

[41:47] » Yes, that's correct. >> Why can't it be used for what it's

[41:52] » asked? >> Yeah.

[41:53] » I I wanted to use make better use of the uh

[41:58] of the yard to have more space in front

[42:03] of the garage. We've got a a deck there that

[42:07] would clash with the uh

[42:10] garage. You'd be coming down off the deck,

[42:14] you know, right down to the garage right in front of the garage.

[42:21] That I want to move 7 1/2 ft farther. Right. Back, yeah.

[42:28] » And the purpose of the garage is for the cars?

[42:32] » Right. >> So, you're going to have a driveway

[42:35] going back, too, aren't you? >> Well, I don't think that I can have a

[42:39] driveway. I don't know. Uh

[42:43] That or

[42:47] Do we have Do we have a survey Do we have a survey there?

[42:49] » It's not part of the application. >> Okay.

[42:52] Is that the survey there? >> Yes.

[43:00] » [snorts] >> Dan, I want to say it's probably it's

[43:01] 40%. I don't think I think it's okay with the lot coverage.

[43:03] » Yeah. >> Okay.

[43:04] » But if he's But if he's adding a driveway Yeah, if he's adding a

[43:07] driveway, that might >> Yeah, that's going to And the drive The

[43:09] drive >> And you need to take a look at the

[43:10] configuration of where it's located.

[43:14] » Proposed is 34%. >> So, they're saying he'll be under

[43:18] » He'll be under without a driveway.

[43:22] » So, the only reason you want it

[43:27] plus the driveway.

[43:33] So, the only reason you want to move it forward is not a hardship, it's just

[43:37] that you want to have a bigger yard. You can move it forward then, right?

[43:43] » I can't uh >> You can't apply.

[43:48] » Yeah. >> Is it like if it's going to touch the

[43:50] house or there's something there or there's a pool [snorts] or

[43:54] septic or anything? >> Right.

[43:56] » Mhm.

[44:02] » Just as for the record, just as square footage of the garage,

[44:05] what's the plan say? >> That's going to That's allowed to

[44:08] » The The plan uh >> states 30 by 24. So, this is a little

[44:13] bit smaller than that. According to our record, it's 720 square foot. And sir,

[44:17] how big is your house?

[44:21] » Pardon me? >> Do you know the square footage of your

[44:22] house? >> The square footage of my house?

[44:25] » Yes. >> Uh

[44:27] what's the square footage? >> Um

[44:29] » 1590 >> So,

[44:32] just I'll put it to you this way, the the attached or detached garage that you

[44:36] plan to build is not going to be bigger than your home.

[44:41] » I'm not sure of the square footage. >> Okay.

[44:45] » Of the house.

[44:48] » We're using >> I changed

[44:49] » saying this this way or

[44:51] » It's Stone Forest. >> Where is the side?

[44:53] » Yeah, they're they're they're probably It's probably 1500 square feet. 1300

[44:57] square feet. It's a rancher in in Stone Forest.

[45:00] » It's just that what, you know, as far as the name.

[45:03] » [clears throat] >> The square

[45:06] » I It's It's It's 1500 ft of living >> Yeah, we

[45:09] » Yeah. We're just trying to put on the record

[45:11] that, you know, it's not going to be bigger than your home. And you just have

[45:15] to know that the you know, it can't be bigger than your

[45:18] home.

[45:21] » I can't hear anything that's on there. >> It's [laughter]

[45:24] okay. It complies. How about we just say it's safe we summarize it it complies.

[45:27] » I'm having a hard time hearing us. I want

[45:29] » Okay, I talk loud, okay? >> It might sound

[45:32] » Okay. The accessory building your building is smaller than your house that

[45:35] you want to build. Yes or no? >> What's the question?

[45:40] » The building that you're building that you'd like to build, okay, is smaller

[45:44] than your house. >> Yes.

[45:46] » Oh, yes. >> Okay, there we go. You

[45:47] » Yes. >> Thank you.

[45:49] » I'm sorry. >> That's okay. All right.

[45:52] It's been a long day. >> Once.

[45:54] » You need to be sworn in as State your name You need to be sworn in and state

[45:58] your name. >> Joyce Murdock.

[46:00] » Okay, do you swear affirm to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

[46:02] » I do. >> And you live in the same place with this

[46:04] gentleman? >> Yes.

[46:05] » Okay, good luck. Thank you. >> I just wanted to say I don't know if she

[46:10] I couldn't hear it too good, but the whole problem is that

[46:16] the 12 ft from the back of the fence would put the shed

[46:21] right where I come down my steps to go into the yard. I don't even have

[46:28] about three steps to either turn left or turn right. The It would be directly in

[46:37] front. If it would If it would be 5 ft from the shed, it would be in the center

[46:45] of the yard and it wouldn't be so I mean, I could

[46:49] come down and we could use I mean, if you just look from my house, all you

[46:54] would see is right next to We just built a new deck on there. And it just

[47:00] wouldn't be feasible when I go down the stairs that we're blocked right there.

[47:05] And we And we need the size the shed because we have so many things in our

[47:11] seller that we wanted to put in there. That's

[47:15] why we wanted the size. My husband's ex-husband's retiring. We just paid our

[47:20] house off. His dream was to have this nice shed that he can sleep in there.

[47:26] And now, it we we couldn't build that if we had to have it 12 ft from the fence.

[47:33] And we're making it uh just like our house. It's not going to be a sore thing

[47:39] sticking up. We're putting the shingles on. It's going to look proper and neat

[47:43] for nobody to complain. And he That's That's what he wanted. Just that like

[47:50] that. >> Okay, so you're stating that you It's

[47:53] going to look like your >> use of the of the with

[47:57] the 7 ft farther back. >> Okay, and you're saying you're going to

[48:00] make it look like your home like these fans.

[48:02] » Just like a little section. >> Yeah, not a pole barn.

[48:06] » I hate to have this retirement and be happy.

[48:09] » Okay, another question. Do you do you currently have

[48:12] If we're both talking at once that court recorder won't be able to or the the

[48:16] recorder won't be able to understand. Uh You don't currently have any issues with

[48:22] drainage in the back of your property or you know, with your running into your

[48:27] neighbor's yard. So, if you put this building there and close to the property

[48:33] Um there's not currently drainage issues.

[48:36] » A a drainage issue?

[48:38] » Correct. >> No, there's there's

[48:41] not even it's just woods behind. Uh >> But you do have a neighbor to

[48:47] the side of you, correct? >> We have neighbors to the side, yes.

[48:48] » Okay. All right, on that side of the property.

[48:52] » No, there's never been an issue with drainage.

[48:54] » Okay.

[48:57] » How high is it going to be? >> Tall. Uh two stories.

[49:02] Probably 20 ft maybe.

[49:07] » It's got to be approved by the state. >> Yeah.

[49:10] » And it's going to be the same color as your house.

[49:13] » Right. >> Right?

[49:14] You're not going to use it for your business.

[49:16] » Oh, no. >> No business, just

[49:18] » No, I have a I'm restoring a

[49:21] old pickup. >> And the

[49:23] » That's the main reason. >> You said there's woods.

[49:25] » Right. >> There's not no neighbor right behind

[49:27] you. >> No.

[49:29] No, there's been that's been woods ever since we lived there for 26 years.

[49:41] » Any other questions from any of the other board members?

[49:47] Motion open to the public. >> I move.

[49:51] » Do we have a second motion to open to the public?

[49:55] » Second, goes on the >> All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

[49:59] Anybody from the public wishing to address the board on this application?

[50:04] Seeing none, hearing none, motion to close.

[50:07] » Motion to close, Mr. Chairman. >> Second, Rice.

[50:10] » All in favor? >> Aye.

[50:11] » Any opposed? >> Mr. Solicitor, I have

[50:14] » Okay, I'll summarize the application briefly, number 2611, Paul Murdock is

[50:18] seeking a rear yard variance. 12 and 1/2 ft is required, he's

[50:22] requesting five for the construction of the 720 ft square

[50:26] ft detached garage. He's put on the reason the

[50:30] his wife has actually put on the record the reasons for the uh request for the

[50:35] uh garage in location and the size. Also, the applicant's indicated that the

[50:41] construction materials will similarly match the house as far as the shingle

[50:45] color, color of the siding, or whatever the

[50:48] what's utilized for the outside of the house. Not going to operate a business

[50:51] there. Of course, they have to comply with the township lot grading ordinance

[50:55] and all other outside agency approvals.

[51:00] » All right, we've heard the testimony and our solicitor's uh summary.

[51:05] Do we have a motion?

[51:11] » Motion Motion to approve, Rice. >> Do we have a second?

[51:20] Mr. Secretary? >> Mr. Rice.

[51:23] » Uh I believe the applicant has not proven that there is undue hardship. Uh

[51:27] the applicant has ability to move the said shed up.

[51:33] Um so I vote no.

[51:37] » Mr. Geary. >> Uh I vote yes. Um sounds like to me that

[51:43] um it's going to be a little situation

[51:46] getting off your deck and being right in front of you like that. So, I vote yes.

[51:50] » Mr. Kozak? >> I think where he's putting it will

[51:53] utilize the yard better for him and as he stated in his testimony,

[51:59] it would be behind us. So, it won't

[52:02] affect any private individual house. So, I vote yes.

[52:07] » Mr. Moville? >> Yes.

[52:10] » Mr. Colavita? >> We spoke about the drainage and the fact

[52:14] that there's no properties in the rear behind him. Also,

[52:18] I think they proven to us that you know, the the yard

[52:22] it would take up most of the yard. So, yes.

[52:26] » Okay. You're approved. At our next meeting in June, we will

[52:30] have your resolution prepared and then we will have to provide a copy of that

[52:35] to the zoning officer so you can move forward with your permit.

[52:38] » Okay. >> have to wait until that meeting.

[52:40] » What do I need to do? >> I'm sorry. You cut me off. I don't hear

[52:44] you either. So, >> Your application has been approved.

[52:48] That'll be available at our next meeting.

[52:50] It'll be sent to you so you can then go through the zoning process to start your

[52:56] Okay. Building process. >> So, go back to the zoning office then?

[53:00] » Yeah, you'll you'll be notified when the ordinances

[53:03] prepared for you. >> Okay.

[53:05] » Okay? >> All right.

[53:06] » Have a good evening. >> Appreciate it. You all have a good

[53:10] evening.

[53:15] » Do we have people Are you waiting to hear a

[53:20] certain application [laughter] or

[53:31] Last week? Last month? >> I thought there was a meeting about the

[53:36] Cross Keys and

[53:44] » Oh, that was the council meeting. This is the zoning Board of Adjustment.

[54:05] » [laughter]

[54:08] » So, uh Got you.

[54:11] Open to the public. We have a motion to open to the public.

[54:15] So moved. >> Second.

[54:17] » All in favor? Uh any opposed? Anybody from the public wishing to

[54:21] address the board on any uh topic? Seeing and hearing none, motion to

[54:26] close. So moved.

[54:28] » Second. >> All in favor? Uh any opposed?

[54:32] Uh approval of minutes from April 27th,

[54:35] 2026. Do we have a motion to approve?

[54:41] We have a second. >> Second.

[54:44] » All in favor? Uh any opposed?

[54:47] Do we have any reports? >> No.

[54:57] » Stick up your your name tag, if you can, and plug it.

[55:00] Kathleen? >> No report from the council.

[55:03] » Thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn?

[55:06] Motion to adjourn. Do we have a second?

[55:10] All in favor? All right. Any opposed?

[55:18] So make a statement. One minute each.

Zoning Board May 11, 2026, at 6:30 p.m.

Transcript