Page 2 of 4

Size of the deck that was built, and has been there for a long time. Mr. Dulowski mentioned that there is no one behind his house, and the neighbors use the deck for parties. Mr. Hill asked if there was a shed on the property. Mr. Dulowski said no.

Opened public comment; seeing no one come forward, public comment is closed

Mr. Maher made a motion to approve based on the hardship.

Motion to approve by MAHER/ McIlhinney. Yes: Maher, McIlhinney, Miller, Fritch, Borrelli, Costanzo, Book.

2. Renee Bogart/ Glenn Knowles, Block 18502, Lot 55, 485 Toms River Road- Mr. Gertner stated this Board has a tradition of for warning applicants seeking D or use variances without a professional to assist them, that there should be at least a planner to explain the planning aspect, and if there is a money issue there should at least be a planner to address planning issues, and because this is an individual and not an LLC there is a right to proceed without professional representation. Renee Bogart- property owner- sworn, Glenn Knowles- partner- sworn- Mr. Knowles mentioned upon getting the information to apply, there was advice provided regarding that subject, and there was encouragement or suggestions provided on that topic. Ms. Bogart asked if there is difficulty, can this be reapplied for. Mr. Gertner mentioned that this matter could be carried. Ms. Bogart asked if this could be carried for a month. Mr. Gertner announced regarding matter 2. Renee Bogart/ Glenn Knowles, Block 18502, Lot 55, 485 Toms River Road- on the agenda, the applicants are asking this be carried to the April 1, 2020 meeting without further notice and are waiving time, and ask that should professionals be hired at least a planer, that the zoning office be advised at least 2 weeks prior weather someone will be here or not. Mr. Hill asked if the applicants are the individuals. Ms. Bogart said she is the home owner, and Mr. Knowles is a partner who lives with her. Mr. Hill noted as individuals, there is no requirement to have legal representation.
3. Royal Grove Realty LLC, Block 16005, Lot 36, Knight Drive- Michael Castore- attorney for the applicant- Michael Castore- attorney for the applicant- stated the applicant is seeking an interpretation on chapter 244-175-C relating to yard areas, and this interpretation is not for any property in particular, and the application was made however there was no notice as it is not required. Mr. Ian Borden is present. Mr. Castore stated there are three Exhibits for this evening, Exhibit A-1 which is the provision itself to Chapter 244-10-175, and Exhibit A-2 the definition of chapter 244-2-6 and this is being specifically moved for the lack of definition for a terrace or deck. Mr. Gertner asked if the Board professionals can consent to the statement that there is no definition for a terrace or deck. Mr. Purpuro stated there is no definition. Mr. Castore stated the final Exhibit is Exhibit A-3 definitions from Merriam Webster for the word terrace and deck.

Ian Borden- President of Professional Design Services- professional planner, licensed in the State of New Jersey- credentials accepted- sworn- mentioned that this will get right to the heated part of the matter that was questioned but the interpretation is, of course, of the last sentence of part C under 244-175, which is the unroofed entry porches or terraces may extend into setbacks not to exceed 100 SF. Mr. Borden mentioned this is different than the interpretation that was previously submitted, because that was for a specific circumstance of a front step that protruded into the front setback, so the interpretation in that case was a very specific one for front steps and obviously the Board members that were here but not to paraphrase, but the interpretation was denied because simply that there were steps does not appear within the subchapter C, so the application or the interpretation application tonight is for rear decks. Mr. Peters noted that the Board is hearing another application. Mr. Gertner agreed with Mr. Borden's recollection, and noted the resolution is assumed, legitimate, as soon as an applicant is asking for an interpretation of the same provision of the ordinance, it is important to understand the previous interpretation which dealt with the front yard. Mr. Gertner mentioned that the Board does not want to the same case again, and it should be articulated what was proposed to get this here. Mr. Borden stated the interpretation is sought in the circumstance of a rear deck of a home and how it would be required to comply or not with the setback requirements under this provision. When someone looks at this final sentence it talks about an "unroofed entrance, porch or terrace", there is question as to what an entrance porch or terrace, which noted has no definition in the ordinance, or a definition of deck in the ordinance so reference would be made to other published standards which are the Exhibits A-3, and A-4 which both describe the deck as being synonymous with terrace, so that is the core of the interpretation request that the term "terrace" in the ordinance would apply to a deck, and an unroofed deck which is what this application is speaking about, which do not rise above the height of the floor level, and the "decks" this application references would have an elevation below the floor level. Mr. Book asked regarding the height of the floor level, and of the ground floor, is that to say when someone is walking in at one level and there is option to go downstairs to a level, a lower level and then a level above so someone is actually walking in the steps or walking in from the deck that was mentioned in the backyard, because that's putting it in a foyer level, and there is question whether that would consider ground level, there just needs to be understanding of what is exactly meant by "floor level of the ground floor." Mr. Borden stated the normal term is "finished floor", and finished floor is the first level, it would be in a normal non-split house, and the entry elevation would be as someone walked into the house, and in the case of a split level house, the elevation would be of the lower two levels. Mr. Maher asked if this was talking about an incline. Mr. Borden stated that was correct. Mr. Maher mentioned that would be the first level, however how high off the ground would that be. Mr. Borden mentioned that in all cases found in Jackson, a finished floor which is normally situated about two feet off the ground. Mr. Maher asked if this is with a walkout basement. Mr. Borden stated that's irrelevant to this application, the fact is that the deck would be at the finished floor and would be below the finished floor. Mr. Maher asked if the deck would be on the ground, without elevation. Mr. Borden stated it will be raised a couple of feet if the finished floor in the standard example is two feet above the grade then the deck would be slightly over one-and-a-half feet off the grade. Mr. Maher mentioned that has never been seen before. Ms. Fritch asked if there was any renderings of what this is actually going to look like so Board can have a better understanding of what is being sought. Mr. Borden stated there are no designs, this is to reference the application of a standard deck, with the intention it would be attached standard house design. Mr. Castore stated this is application is not associated with a specific property so there's no real product that's coming out of this, there may be one in the future depending upon what the interpretation ends up being but to Mr. Borden's point regardless of the interpretation, this wouldn't comply if the porch or terrace did rise above the height of the finished floor. Mr. Borden indicated that is correct. Mr. Hill stated as of now the understanding is that is there is no rear deck, as long as it's not higher than the first floor elevation, it would ever require a variance and it could be built right up to the property line. Mr. Borden mentioned that is incorrect, and if this is continued on with the final portion of the paragraph, that the deck when it is not above the floor level, not above the height of the first floor level, is permitted to encroach into the set back is by no more than 100 SF. Mr. Hill asked if that's the encroachment portion. Mr. Borden mentioned it would be into the setback. Mr. Borden stated the application is simply to comply with the sentence and ask for the interpretation that the terrace wouldn't include an uncovered rear deck. Mr. Book mentioned then the question becomes, what is a terrace. Mr. Castore stated that is correct. Mr. Book asked then what is terrace, and when that is answered, there is another question as to why only Merriam Webster's definition was use, and are there other definitions of "terrace", or is there specific reason only this one definition was chosen. Mr. Borden stated