Minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Public Meeting of Wednesday, May 22, 2013 Present are Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams Also present are Marc Leckstein, Esq., Leckstein & Leckstein, and Anthony Abbonizio, CME Associates. Absent are Mr. Bucco and Mrs. Gotell. The Board accepts the resignation of member Guiseppi Ciaglia with regret, and thanks him for his years of service to the Zoning Board. Memorialization of Resolution V 13-103/Marino, Applicant and Property Owner: Andrew Marino, 148 Idlewild Lane, Block 57, Lot 9, Variance request to construct a 12 ft. 6 in. wide x 12 ft. long garage addition and a 2 ft. x 12 ft. building bump out on single family home located in the R75/PC zone. Variance required for building coverage 25% permitted, 28% proposed, is summarized into the record by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Falco moves to memorialize, seconded by Mrs. Friedman. Yes: Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams Memorialization of Resolution V 13-105/Giraldo, Applicant and Property Owner: Tomas and Theresa Giraldo, 261 Edgeview Road, Block 247, Lot 23, Variance request to construct a 14 ft. x 30 ft. one story rear addition with basement to existing single family home in the R 50 zone. Variances required for front yard set back 25 ft. required, 20 ft. existing and proposed; side yard set back 7 ft. required, 4.6 ft. existing and extended; set back from top of bank 100 ft. required, 45 ft. proposed, is summarized into the record by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Phillips moves to memorialize, second by Mr. Falco Yes: Mr.Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams Memorialization of Resolution V 13-100/Negro, Applicant and Property Owner: Jeffrey and Jennifer Negro, 11 Lake Boulevard, Block 25, Lots 1 and 2, Variance request to construct a 28 ft. x 12 ft. 4 inch two story addition to an existing single family home in the R 75/PC zone. Variances required for addition 10.5 ft. from Lake Boulevard where 25 ft. minimum required; 4.8 ft. from Second Street (second front yard), where 25 ft. minimum required, and structure 33 ft. from top of bank/steep slope, where 100 ft. minimum required, is summarized into the record by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Phillips moves to memorialize, seconded by Mrs. Williams. Yes: Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Williams
Page 2 Memorialization of Resolution V 13-101/Frasca (dba Mr. Bargain III Auto Parts USA), Applicant and Property Owner: Dominick Frasca, 148 Lower Main Street, Block 253, Lots 12, 13, Variance request to erect a 36 inch x 60 ft. sign on face wall of existing commercial building in the NC (Neighborhood Commercial) Zone, where signs are not to exceed 10% of area of face wall or 30 sq. ft., whichever is smaller. Proposed signage is 196.8 sq. ft. and building where sign to be placed is 198.8 sq. ft., is summarized into the record by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Falco moves to memorialize, seconded by Mr. Phillips. Yes: Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams New Business V 12-111 (rev)/opuszynski, Applicant and Property Owner: James Opuszynski, 40 Willow Avenue, Block 136, Lot 13, Amendment to original variance approval extending addition to 18 ft. x 23 ft. from 18 ft. x 16 ft. Variance required for Side Yard Set Back 20 ft. required, 9 ft. +/- proposed, on single family home located in the R 100 zone without sewer. Mr. Leckstein swears in the Board s professionals. The applicant, James Opuszynski and Mrs. Opuszynski are0 sworn in by Mr. Leckstein, who states this is an amended application to a prior approval. Mr. Opuszynski states the prior application was for a 19 ft x 16 ft. addition. The one side wall which should have been 23 ft., there was an additional 7 ft. that was not stated on the prior application, but it was shown ondrawings. It was an error in the write up of the application. Mr. Leckstein marks as Exhibit A-1 a survey, which the applicant states is showing in yellow the original 18 x 16, and in pink is the 7 x 7 not included in the original approval, which is a side wall. The applicant agrees to meet all conditions of the prior approvals as well as any new conditions with this approval. Mary Ann Manzo-Deterlizzo is sworn in by Mr. Leckstein, and states she owns Block 136, Lot 6, adjacent to the applicant s property, but she lives at 110 Kingsley Way, Freehold, NJ. She is wondering where the additional 7 ft. will be vs. her property line. The applicant shows her on his survey. Mrs. Manzo-Deterlizzo says it is an issue with her property elevations and run off to her property. Mr. Falco moves to grant the approval, seconded by Mrs. Camillary. Yes: Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams New business, V 13-104/Saad, Applicant and Property Owner: Emad Saad, 59 Wilson Avenue, Block 120, Lot 6, Variance request to maintain 54 inch high fence in front yard area, erected without prior approvals, where 4 ft. high maximum permitted; maintain two stone pillars with electric at driveway, 55 inches high less than 5 ft. to front property line where front yard set back is 35 ft., and accessory structures not permitted in front yard area, erected without prior approvals, on single family home located in the R 100 zone without sewer.
Page 3 Mr. Leckstein swears in the applicants, Emad and Anna Saad, as well as the Board s professionals. Mr. Leckstein marks as Exhibit A-1 a survey prepared by Richard S. Zinn, Brunswick West, Inc., of the property dated September 26, 2005, and a series of eight photographs taken by the applicant are marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Saad says he put up a fence with a contractor without prior approvals, as well as the gate. He received a notice of violation from the Township about the height of the fence. He is asked why his contractor did not get a permit. Mr. Saad says his contractor did a 54 inch because there are properties on the street that had the same height, and he has a pool on the property he considers a front yard, so because he also has a four year old he felt a 54 inch high fence would be safer. Mr. Leckstein says contractors are aware permits are required; Mr. Saad did not ask his contractor about permits until he received the violation notice, and he has been unable to reach his contractor since. His contractor is originally from Staten Island, Highland Fencing Contractor. Mrs. Saad said they had a preexisting fence around the pool, so they did not think they would need any approvals for another fence around the property. It is a misunderstanding from their point of view. Mr.Saad, answering Mr. Phelps, says the old fence was around the pool, not around the whole property. It was a solid wood fence around the pool, and they replaced it with an aluminum picket fence. Mrs. Rescorl says the applicant removed the fence previously approved by the Board when the in ground pool was approved for a prior homeowner; this applicant replaced the fence with a non pool compliant fence, she believes, as it is just a mesh fence that can be removed, not a permanent fence. Mr. Leckstein says this Board will not given the applicant a waiver for putting another fence around the pool. Mr. Saad says he removed the solid wood fence around the pool, and he would be unable to see his child if he were behind the fence. They replaced that fence with a fence around the property and the mesh fence around the pool. Mr. Phelps tells the applicant he cannot understand why he would remove a fence from around the pool and put one up around his yard. Mrs. Saad says they put up a fence in December when they closed the pool; but with all these issues coming up with the fence they installed, they intended to put a fence from the driveway to the garage as shown on their survey. She says the street is a busy street, and there is also a hump in the road, so they put up the fence and gate to keep their son in the yard. Mr. Saad says the same contractor put up the pillars on his property, again without prior approvals, as well as the electric running to the pillars. Answering Mr. Falco, Mrs. Rescorl says in this zone the set back is 35 ft. in the front yard; 6 ft. fences would have to be back the 35 ft., but a 4 ft. high fence could be approved at the front property line. Accessory structures, the pillars, would not be permitted in a front yard area without a variance, unless they are back 35 ft.
Page 4 Mr. Abbonizio says their issue is the fact that none of the work has been inspected by the electrical inspector. There are no issues with the sight line. Answering Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Rescorl says her issue is the height of the fence and the trees in front of the fence make it difficult to back out of the driveway safely. She is not even sure if the fence, pillars or trees are on his property, according to his survey, which shows an existing fence in a front yard when he purchased the house. Mr. Abbonizio says if the contractor obtained permits prior to starting the work, the location would have been caught immediately, and the contractor would be required, once zoning was approved, to provide detailed plans on how the pillars were to be built, including footings, foundation, electrical layout. Once those permits were issued and the work got to certain points, they would require inspections from the building department for building and electrical. Mr. Leckstein says even if the Board approves the pillars, the applicant must still obtain all permits. Mr. Abbonizio says there is no issue with line of sight because there is no sight triangle, it runs parallel with the road. Mr. Saad says he saw another house with the same type fence on the corner of Route 79 and Wilson Avenue, 5 Wilson Avenue. Mrs. Rescorl says that is not Aberdeen, could be Matawan or Old Bridge. Mrs. Rescorl reminds the Board they have approved fences in the front yard 10 to 15 ft. from the front property line. Moving it back 35 ft. would be in the area of the pool. Mr. Abbonizio explains how inspections work from the building department; after receiving permits, there would be an inspection of the trench, backfill and inspection at the box at the house to tie in and sure the correct breakers use. They probably could not see where the conduit is installed; they may require it be dug up again. If all inspections had been done, they could receive final approvals from the building department. Mr. Phelps says there is a 6 ft. wooden fence in the rear of the property. Phillip Bucco is sworn in by Mr. Leckstein, and states he lives at 65 Wilson Avenue, Aberdeen, NJ, next door, to the right of the property. He has issues with the fence and pillars, and submits pictures of his issues. Mr. Leckstein says Mr. Bucco presents a series of five photographs with writing on each of them, which Mr. Bucco says he took and wrote on; the series of pictures are marked Exhibit O-1. Mr. Bucco shows the pictures to the applicant. Mr. Bucco says there is a picture of the fence after he had a conversation with the applicant about the fence and Mr. Bucco s sight issues with the fence. After that conversation the applicant removed two solid panels on the side and put black pickets in so Mr. Bucco had access to the sight line on the street. But referring to the pictures, Mr. Bucco shows that he cannot see thru the panels because he catches the fence on an angle, and it looks like a solid black wall. Mr. Leckstein passes out again Exhibit A-2 to the Board. Mr. Falco says that fence should be 35 ft. back. Mr. Saad says from his land the white fence is 4 ft. high. Mr. Leckstein says the white fence is taller than the other fence.
Page 5 Mr. Saad again says the fence is 4 ft. tall from where he stands on his land; Mr. Leckstein says it does not matter where he is standing, how tall is the fence. Mr. Saad wants to show what it is on his phone; Mr.Lecktein rejects this, and says again the white fence is higher than the black fence. Mr. Saad wants an inspector to come and measure the fence. He has a concrete base under his soil. Mr. Phelps says the elevation of the fence from grade is higher than 4 ft. Mr. Abbonizio says looking at the pictures he wants to retract his statement on sight distance, because it is obviously an issue. Mr. Leckstein says the application is not complete because the applicant has not noticed for the white fence, a violation because of the height, so there is no way the Board can issue a decision tonight. Mr. Saad says his pool, standing on a side, his fence is 4 ft. Mr. Leckstein tries to explain to the applicant to measure the fence from the ground up, not the concrete base. Mrs. Saad insists the fence is 4 ft., saying it is a 4 ft. fence on a slab. Mr. Leckstein says it is irrelevant if it is on a slab. Mrs. Rescorl says the fence is higher than 4 ft., especially if it is sitting on a slab, and cannot be in the front yard but must be 35 ft. back. Only 4 ft. fences are permitted in the front yard. Mr. Falco says it cannot be in the front yard, it is too high. Mr. Abbonizio says the side yard fence is a clear violation of the sight triangle for the adjacent driveway. He explains to the applicant, looking at the picture, there is a sight triangle distance to be measured from an intersection, stop sign, driveway, that has to allow a driver to look left and right for any obstructions/vehicles coming towards them. The fence right now without doing measurements from the ASTO book is an issue for anyone with a driveway adjacent to this fence. His comments previously were in regard to the fence in the front. He needs an engineer to look at the sight triangle from his neighbor s driveway, determine the sight distance and make a decision. It could possibly be a chain link fence. Also, nothing can be planted in front or back of the fence, no screen. Mr. Saad says the trees are not his property. Mr. Abbonizio says if he is striving for privacy behind a transparent fence, that defeats the purpose of that type of fence, no there can be no screening. Mr. Phelps, asking Mr. Bucco, in the applicant s exhibit, O-2, clarifies his driveway is to the right, and the sections of the fence had been removed from that area. Mr. Bucco says with the trees you cannot see on the street, and it is a busy street. Mr. Bucco says years ago there was a chain link fence there. The applicant removed that fence, added soil, raising the ground, and added the stockade fence. There was a concrete wall lower and the applicant raised it when he raised his property. Mr. Bucco said he put a 6 ft. fence on the other side of his property. Mr. Bucco got a copy of the Ordinance from the Zoning Office and gave it to the applicant. Mr. Leckstein says there is a noticing issue. Mr. Saad confirms he had conversation with Mr. Bucco and asked him what he could do to make it easy for his neighbor. He says Mr. Bucco asked him to move the entire section of the white fence at least 1 ft. so he could see thru. All this time his contractor did not come back so he moved it himself. He thinks the fence was originally 4 ft. He says Mr. Bucco raised his property but he disputes that. The pool was always there. Mr. Leckstein says looking at the Photograph No. 3 the fence is lower where the old fence use to be than where this fence is. Mr. Saad says there is concrete there, so he went inside his property to put the fence. Mr. Leckstein says he
Page 6 moved the fence back to a place where it became higher. Mr. Saad says the soil is the same. He said he never raised the ground in that area; Mr. Phelps says he moved the fence back to an area that has a higher elevation. Mr. Leckstein says the white fence is not the subject of the application, so the application is incomplete and advised the Board not to grant approvals. He advises the applicant to revise his application for whatever fence he wants to put in there, but the engineer is telling him he does not like the white fence. It is highly unlikely the Board will overrule their engineer when there is a sight issue. He must rethink what fence he wants there. He will also have to renotice unless it is the same fence asked for on the rest of the property. The Board can direct the engineer to go out there at the applicant s expense and review the situation. Mr. Falco says we need to know everything that has to be done to correct the situation. Mr. Abbonizio says he suggests the electrical subcode official go out there because it does not seem some of the wiring is exterior wiring; Mr. Leckstein says that is out of our jurisdiction. The Board engineer should put his recommendations in writing. Mr. Leckstein says to dismiss the application without prejudice; Mrs. Rescorl advises carrying the application with new noticing for whatever variances are determined, and Mr. Leckstein agrees. The date of the new hearing will be determined. Mrs. Camillary moves to carry the application with full engineering review, with new noticing and date to be determined, seconded by Mrs. Friedman. Yes: Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams Mr. Abbonizio requests the applicant remove the first two panels of the stockade fence so his neighbor has some sight vision coming out of his driveway. The applicant agrees to this. Ne w Business, V 13-107(rev)/Heuer, Applicant and Property Owner: Tamara Heuer, 23 Lower Main Street, Block 273, Lot 7, Variances to construct a 37 ft. x 20 ft. two story rear addition, 20 ft. x 20 ft. roofed rear deck, 24 ft. x 72 ft. paved driveway, and relocate existing front fence 42 inches forward off property line, adjacent to sidewalk. Variances required for Expansion of Nonconforming Structure, proposed addition 1.3 ft. and 3.6 ft. from side property line where 9 ft. minimum required for deck and addition, Front Yard Set Back 25 ft. required, 14.6 ft. existing and proposed, Lot Area 6,375 sq. ft. existing and proposed where 7,500 sq. ft. minimum required; proposed driveway ½ ft. from each property line where 5 ft. minimum required, and existing fence to be relocated 4 ft. off property line in right of way, on single family home located in the R 75 zone. Tamara and Candace Heuer are sworn in by Mr. Leckstein; they state they both live at 23 Lower Main Street. Mr. Leckstein swears in the Board s professionals are sworn in by Mr. Leckstein. Mr. Leckstein marks as Exhibit A-1 prepared by Lakeland Surveying dated June 28, 2010, with hand drawn on the survey what they are applying for. Undated and unsigned elevations prepared by the applicant s contractor are marked as Exhibit A-2.
Page 7 Mr. Leckstein swears in Stan Frederick, Victorian Ventures Construction Company, the applicant s contractor, who states he prepared the elevations, which accurately depict what is being proposed. The elevations consist of four sheets. Mr. Leckstein marks as Exhibit A-3 a series of 13 photographs taken by the applicant, and she states they accurately depict the property as it appears today. Ms. Heuer states she wants to put a two story rear addition to the existing house, as well as put in a deck, driveway, and relocate a fence. Her sister has two grown sons currently sharing a room, so she needs additional living space. She also wants to get away from Main Street, which is so busy, and with the driveway she can come into her property from the rear, Gaston Street, rather than parking on Main Street, which is the front of the house. The addition will also help her get away from the noise on Main Street. There will be a family room downstairs and three bedrooms upstairs. She currently has two bedrooms downstairs and one bedroom upstairs. The bedroom downstairs is not an actual bedroom but was made into a bedroom for her nephews. There will be a total of four bedrooms if the application is approved. Answering Mr. Abbonizio, Mrs. Heuer states this is and will be a single family home, not a two family. She agreed to that when she purchased the home. Mr. Leckstein says this will be a condition of approval that it not be a two family home. She states she has a lot of property, over 200 ft. long in the back. Her property was subdivided and another house was built in the back. Mostly every lot on the block is subdivided. Mr. Leckstein says this lot is not typical of other lots in the neighborhood; it is very narrow. Mr. Abbonizio asks how the applicant will get from the driveway to the covered deck; will she be putting in a walkway. There is approximately 100 ft. +/- between the driveway and house. Ms. Heuer says they will have to put something there, pavers or something. She says it would be 72 ft. She wants a long driveway to get into the rear of the house if they need to, so they don t have to walk so far. It is just grass now, as shown in the pictures. A long driveway with grass. They do not use it as a driveway now, it is all gravel and rocks and gets muddy; they park on Main Street, as does her neighbors. She wants to get away from that traffic, 18 wheelers come down 50 mph. On either side her neighbors have gravel driveways. She doesn t know if her driveway is considered to be a rear entrance. Their driveways are narrow. She has a curb cut on Gaston Street for a driveway entrance, as shown in the pictures. Ms. Heuer says she is putting in the variance for a 72 ft. driveway, but she may go shorter. Mr. Abbonizio says there is no requirement as to the size of the driveway, he is just asking how they will get from the driveway to the house, is there going to be a service walk. Mr. Abbonizio asks if the applicant notified Monmouth County about relocating their fence. They may not be able to relocate it without County approval. Ms. Heuer says the house to the left has a fence at the curb line and that is what she wants to do. Mr. Leckstein explains this application will have as a condition of approval that the applicant seek approval from the Monmouth County Planning Board about relocating the fence, since Lower Main Street is a County road. Ms. Heuer says there is no sense to the grass being there. She would put a white picket fence, no higher than 4 ft. Mr. Leckstein says their entire application will be subject to Monmouth County approval since the property
Page 8 fronts on Lower Main Street. They would probably have no interest in the Gaston Street part of the property, but they must be notified. Our approvals would be subject to the County. Mr. Abbonizio says they should come to us first. Mrs. Camillary objects they came to us first if the County has to approve their application. Mr. Leckstein explains what the County would do; their only concern would probably be the fence. Mr. Abbonizio says the County likes to keep the right of way free of structures, including fences, so they may have an issue with the fence. Mr. Leckstein says it is not uncommon for the applicant to come to this Board first and then go to the County. Mrs. Camillary says again they should go to the County first, the process may need to be changed. Mr. Leckstein says the County gets back to the applicant quickly. Mr. Leckstein says the Board is getting ahead of itself; the application has not even been approved yet. Mr. Phelps says it looks like the railroad tie wall is in front of the property line; the applicant wants to put her fence beyond the sidewalk, toward the roadway. Mr. Phelps says we cannot grant that approval because the Board does not have that jurisdiction. It is up to the County. Mr. Leckstein says the applicant has no right to ask the Board to put the fence on property they don t even own. The fence request is removed from the application. Mr. Phelps says if the County does approve the applicant relocating the fence, it must meet Aberdeen s height requirement. Mr. Leckstein says the applicant would have to return to the Board. Mr. Leckstein says the remainder of the application is fine, but they still need approval from the County. Mr. Phelps asks the elevation of the existing home, not shown on the plans, but the contractor says the elevation will be the same as what is there; no higher than the existing building. He is not doing anything to the existing building; the addition will be consistent with what is there now. Mr. Leckstein says the materials to be used, roofing, siding, will match the existing house as a condition of approval; the contractor says everything will be matched as closely as possible to what is there now. Mr. Leckstein says it must look like one house, not a house with an addition. Ken Gaughan, 42 Gaston Street, Aberdeen, is sworn in by Mr. Leckstein, and states he is a neighbor to the rear, Lot 8.02, and when he moved in this was a two family home; Mr. Leckstein says two family homes are not permitted in Aberdeen, the applicant has stated it is one family and will be one family with the addition. If Mr. Gaughan sees it is being used as a two family, he should go to code enforcement. Mr. Gaughan asks if they are going up with their deck; the applicant indicates it will be a ground level deck, not raised like Mr. Gaughan s deck, although there are no elevations. He looks at the plans with Mr. Leckstein at the dais. Mr. Gaughan says he gets a lot of water on his property. Mr. Abbonizio says the driveway would not drain toward Mr. Gaughan s property, and prior to installation would be subject to a plot plan and grading plan reviewed by the engineer. Ms. Heuer says she has no problem with water on her property, so if the applicant has an issue with water it is from his property, not her property. Mr. Gaughan insists the water comes from the applicant s property to his property. Once the paved driveway is put in
Page 9 the water condition will get worse. Mr. Leckstein assures the applicant the water will not be shed onto his property from this property. Mrs. Rescorl reaffirms one property is not permitted to shed water to another property, and the grading plan will be subject to engineering review. Mr. Leckstein says the applicant is responsible for getting a grading plan, and the engineer will approve it, and that will be a condition of approval. Mr. Abbonizio says the applicant needs to get an engineer or land surveyor to take spot elevations of her entire property, from Gaston to Lower Main, review the elevations to see where the flow of water would be, and her professional may propose contours or swales to keep the water on her property; they could also recommend a property line curb to keep everything within their property. They could have the water stay on her property, flow towards Gaston or the front of her lot. Lori Barnes is sworn in by Mr. Leckstein and states she lives on the other side of Gaston. She has not looked at the plans, but wants to see what the driveway is suppose to be. Is it the width of the property? Ms. Heuer reviews her plans with Ms. Barnes. Ms. Barnes asks if the proposed driveway will go up to her fence; Ms. Heuer says there will be grass. Ms. Barnes is concerned about the line of sight; Mr. Leckstein says she is Lot 6.02 and will not see any structures. She is also concerned her front yard will be affected by water, and she is told it will not be. She is also concerned about trees on the applicant s property, which covers Lower Main Street; Ms. Heuer says she may cut them down. Mr. Leckstein says if the trees are on Lot 6.02 the applicant cannot touch them; if the trees are on the applicant s property they can address the issue. Ms. Heuer will not touch any trees on Ms. Barnes property. Annette Gaughan, 42 Gaston Street, is sworn in by Mr. Leckstein, and confirms she is Ken Gaughan s wife. She also did not look at the plans, and looks at the survey with Ms. Heuer. Mrs. Gaughan feels nothing is affecting her but the driveway. Ms. Heuer says Mrs. Gaughan can see everything from their elevated deck..this is talk between the applicant and neighbor, not testimony. Mrs. Gaughan has no objections to the application. Mr. Abbonizio talks about the materials the applicant can use in the driveway, stone Mrs. Camilly moves to grant approval, seconded by Mrs. Williams. Yes: Mrs. Camillary, Mr. Falco, Mr. Phillips, Mr. Phelps, Mrs. Friedman, Mrs. Williams Ne w Business, V 13-108/Matoyo Partners One, LLC, Applicant and Property Owner: Matoyo Partners One, LLC, 49 Cliffwood Avenue, Block 156, Lot 2, Variance to erect a 72 x 94 monument sign, internally illuminated, double sided fluorescent, 15 ft. off Cliffwood Avenue property line, where 50 ft. minimum required, on commercial building located in the MFG (manufacturing) Zone. Note that sign variance granted for current sign location in 1987. Mr. Phelps announces this application will be carried to the June public meeting for noticing deficiencies. Meeting adjourned. Zbmin052213