that's what I do unru box exactly we are ready to start Mr TR Mr here Mr Leonard here Mr vilus President Mr Walter here Mr B Miss Christie here chair got here adequate notice of meeting of the Bedminster Township Lanes Ward was filed with the Township Clerk sent to the Bernardsville news and The Courier News and to all subscribers and posted at the Township Municipal Building one Miller Lane Bedminster New Jersey on January 12th 2024 flag the United States of America and to the rep stands one nation God IND with liy and justice for all right I will open it up to the public for anyone who has something that they'd like to discuss it's not on the agenda um seeing anybody you see well it looks like we have a couple of people online but I I their phone number is not named so I don't know exactly who Okay um so if you are interested in speaking you can uh raise your hand unmute yourself um you can what it says raise your hand or if you're on your phone you can uh press star n anyone in the public interested in speaking seeing no one we'll close it to the public okay we have minutes from January 11th reor meeting I make a motion to approve the minutes second all in favor iOS Iain I'm estain to you obain yeah okay minutes are approved uh we have a letter um postponing 202 Route 206 for a change again again again and we have official notice of intention to approve a preliminary State development and Redevelopment plan uh I believe um if anyone they're invited if they want to go has anyone um stepped up no no I mean but they don't have to let me know they can just I just wanted to inform everybody that it was something you were invited for yep okay uh we have some determination of the playlist Paul uh Madam chairman the mise application is for a use variance along Somerville Road uh there's been a number of documentation submitted in response to my original incompleteness letter uh based on the information provided it's my opinion that the way was are appropriate the application can be deemed complete and schedule for all right we need to approve that yes sobody is interested that's a motion to wave the remaining items for completeness and to deem the application complet is second mov okay Mr travalini I Mr um djini I Mr Leonard hi uh Mr rodilas hi Mr Walter hi Mr first hi M Christie hi chairwoman geta hi motion is approved and they are actually scheduled for okaying okay moving right along okay uh and we have another one here penc the penc is a uh deck variance uh request to see variance um again there's the application has been submitted there are some waivers that are outlined in my review letter I think they're appropriate given the maor and scope of the applications recommended that be okay need a motion to approve motion second I'm sorry it was first rich rich and second was thank you Mr travalini hi uh Mr gini hi Mr Len hi Mr RZ hi Mr Walter hi Mr first hi M Christie hi chairwoman gcha hi motion is approved and that can also go next week or no they they were not in time that notice oh okay so I've given them the March dates and told them to let me know what's going to work best for them oh all right um do we want to talk about the old business here Paul the the only thing I will tell you is that um I'm still going back and forth with Larry on some language and I have to do a last minute tweak on some of the numbers just to make sure everything is consistent between the various documents okay but once I get the information from Larry we should be good to go forward it off to the governing B good then I think we're ready for 2475 lton rad for right ahead sorry good evening Michael austman appearing on behalf of the applicant 2475 lamington Road Bedminster LLC the applicant is the owner of the subject's property identified as block 27 Lots 21 and 22 and located at obviously 2475 lamington Road um the property comprises slightly more than half an acre in total and slightly more than 410 of an acre take out Road rway that's existing and proposed the property comprise I'm sorry the uh the applicant acquired the property in August of 2022 uh the property and the building have been vacant since 2007 about 17 years as a result the condition of the property has been described by Mr banish as blighted the applicant's intention in buying this property was was to clean it up and and restore it he's hired Architects Engineers a planner uh to develop a plan for this property initially he's been focused on the building and its use um the building on this site was originally a house actually um let me back up and say that that uh the property uh comprises two lots uh and there were originally two houses on the site one on each lot but one of those houses was removed a while ago um from the 1960s to the 1980s the building on this property was used as a bag Branch with a drive-through window uh in 1990 a certificate of occupancy was obtained to allow the building um to be used as a stationary store known as Paparazzi in 1996 uh the planning Bo planning board approv was granted to allow the building um on and the site to be used for three uses a stationer and paper store on the first floor Paparazzi a catering kitchen on the also on the first floor that was to be used for U off prison catering and uh that business was known as Grill Master and finally uh the second floor of the building was approved to be used for children's themed birthday parties and party planning by 2007 the building was vacant um since buying the property in 2022 the applicant has tried to find a permitted commercial use to occupy the building but he's been unable to do so and you'll hear more from him about that um you'll also hear that there has been substantial demand for residential uh occupancy on this property um so the applicant is proposing to clean up and restore this building and property and eliminate the blighted conditions and make this site attractive as part of the uh Bedminster Village area um he's proposing two separate residential tenant spaces one on each floor of the building a two-bedroom apartment on the second floor and a two-bedroom apartment on the first floor to that end the applicant is seeking use variant while the ordinance allows a residential apartment as part of a mixed use it it does not allow two apartments if this application is imp is approved the applicant intends to do a number of things to the property first make improvements to the exterior of the building in accordance with the architecture plan and the rendering that have been submitted uh fixed the broken porch rail uh replaced the lighting fixture to comply with the ordinance and with to comply with Mr Ferraro's report eliminate excess impervious coverage and parking as suggested by Mr Ferraro and Mr banish um which will eliminate a non-conforming condition and finally landscape and clean up the property all of this we think will greatly improve the appearance of this property and the uh and eliminate the non-conforming condition that that currently exists with respect to impervious coverage the way I would like to proceed this evening is to call the following Witnesses uh first Mr Richard van Orton who's a member of the LLC that is the applicant Mr Paul Fox the applicants engineer uh Mr Joseph maresi the applicants architect and lastly Mr Peter SE the applicant planner um if I may begin with Mr van Orton okay Mr van Orton please raise your right hand you swear firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the TR God I do and please say your name and address and spell your last name Richard van Orton it's Capital ban capital o r Deen uh I currently reside at 1610 US Highway 206 in Bedminster and uh I'm a member of the LLC 2475 l inton Road Bedminster fell asleep thank you please go ahead joh when did the applicant acquire the subject property uh we closed on the property in August of 2022 August 23rd and what was your initial plan for this property uh we looked at the property for approximately three or four months um and kind of fell in love with it it's a great character for downtown um Our intention was to pretty it up and uh restore it so it looked more like its original uh you know use and um that's why we decided to buy the prod did you contemplate uh one use initially or did you contemplate mixed use uh originally we were looking at two uses because when we looked at the property we had two we had two separate entrances uh and two separate uh units in the building so that's what we thought that the uh the approved use was okay and have you tried to find a commercial tenant for this building and if so what happened yeah we closed in August and initially started advertising for commercial use of the entire building uh by October after only having uh two inquiries um we decided that to to explore using the upstairs as an apartment which we understood was approved for residential um and we obtained our co uh for residential occupancy in uh March of 2023 um we continue to advertise for commercial use downstairs um but realized by March uh that we weren't uh getting any uh any inquiries in the meantime because we advertise for upstairs being residential uh we we had about 28 applicants for one uh two-bedroom unit with regard to the commercial inquiries that you had what whatever came of those uh we had uh the taco place in downtown Bernardsville who was looking to expand his business in Bedminster he was interested in the Drive-Thru for a morning pickup uh he caters tacos and and uh Lattin food uh Spanish type of uh you know quick meals for the laborers and he felt that a drive-thru would be convenient and we doubted uh being able to use that and uh he never came back to us we also had a um lady who was interested in starting a breakfast uh lunch and at type of place um but that she never followed through did you have any other inquiries no and were there any applications for there was no application for commercial use at all there were just two people that came to look at it okay so you indicated you put a tenant secured a tenant residential tenant for the second floor we did okay um did you obtain and you said you would obtained a certificate of ocy is that correct correct on March 8th okay 2023 so if this application is approved what is your plan for the pro Our intention is to um pretty the the uh unit up uh and um make it more um presentable for the downtown and how are you going to do that uh you know Nice Landscaping um bushes and floral um uh you know improvements um cleaning the uh exterior eventually reiding the the the property um painting restoring the original uh porch uh woodwork things like that um we're also going to be adding residential uh facilities such as outdoor picnic area um covered um uh eating area for the tenants um where will that be we uh intend to convert the old uh drive-thru to a covered Pavilion um where the tennants would be able to have uh you know Recreation activities for like what living you know uh picnics parties you know things like that we're posing a picnic table right picnic table underneath yeah what's the surface of that uh area going to be uh it's currently asphalt are you proposing anything on top of it uh well uh what we're going to do is once we cut back the uh asphalt that exists uh to comply with the engineering's design the engineers design um we'll look at what needs to be repaired our preference is to do uh a similar uh Stone type of uh covering um you know it all depends on uh a number of factors but uh that's that's our intention what are you going to do with respect to the lighting um well we our original plan I think called for a a too bright of a light so we're going to cut back the lighting plan to accommodate the requirements of the town are you going to be modifying the location of Lights given that the uh the the parking areas in the back are going to be eliminated and yeah we added we added lighting to accommodate that correct okay has the lighting plan the final lighting plan been prepared yet um I believe we we're in compliance um with what uh Mr Farrar had asked us to comply with but I don't think we're ready to present it because of the final plan has to be put together okay and are you planning uh any changes with respect to the impervious coverage uh we're going to reduce the current inferious coverage so that we're in compliance okay obviously Mr Fox will talk about that um now one of your neighbors on lington road is the Delicious Heights restaurant is that correct correct have you spoken to anyone from Delicious Heights about this application and if so what what was the nature your conversation I have um of the 28 applicants I don't think I don't think you can we don't follow the strict rules of evidence but this sounds like hearsay so I'd rather we didn't go into hearsay through this witness there's ways to do it but it's not through this witness okay that's fine um I have question questions for this purpose a few questions um Mr asman uh Mr vorton received a certificate of occupancy is this property currently approved for residential use and what department gave that occupancy that Co because my understanding is it's it's been previously approved for commercial use so why would a residential use be you know allowed with a CO I want to understand that whole process a little bit better okay I I was not directly involved in that maybe Mr Orton pan Orton can uh answer what was involved in getting the SE um well I I also understand that the code does allow for detached residential units so um when we inquired about the use of the upstairs Department we were told that it is allowed for residential use uh single family residential use and we asked if we could get the CE uh to move an ATT tenant upstairs uh and we were told it doesn't matter if we use half of the building quarter of the building as long as there's only one residential use if if if I can just weigh in here because I've been involved in this for for quite some time I think frankly the direction was very clear from the zoning officer a single family residential use is permitted if you have a residential use on the second floor and a vacant first floor that's not a single family residential use no zoning permit was ever issued for this use okay you got a CE but you never got a zoning is anything on the first floor now or is it empty it's empty and the Tenant lives upstairs corre they're there correct and the building is adequate for a tenant according to it I I see what permits were were obtained to uh separate the utilities from the upstairs and downstairs they were again they were issued the there was a new construction official at the time those zoning permits were identified or applied for and the co was issued and again no zoning permit was issued for the uh modifications to the building and no zoning off zoning permit was issued before the C because I was involved in the conversation with the zoning officer who very clear and she's on the on the zoom and could herself as well but uh she gave very clear direction that a single family residential use is one of the permitted uses in the zone and single family residential use is the use of the building and mixed uses are permitted residential upstairs and Commercial downstairs but there's been no site plan approval that would allow that mixed use So currently Paul is there a CO for residential use that's legitimate there is a co uh without a zoning permit whether that's legitimate or not that's not for me to decide I'm just telling you that that's what exists for the property so that's really purpose we're here is to reone the property well the purpose here is a use variance to put two residential uses in in the building right two residential so I think we heard the testimony was that the intention was to try to at least lease the first floor for residential uh for retail purposes was in any of those iterations that you described at the onset U Mr Offman um did you describe a situation where there was retail tenancy on the first floor and residential tenants upstairs um Mr van Orton can answer that better than I I'm talking about before he even bought it yeah in those various iterations that you describe before he bought it I don't think any any anything happen before he bought it but after he bought it he advertised for a residential tenant I and I believe he testified that uh he tried to lease the property the entire property to a residential tenant I mean sort to to a commercial tenant or um he would have accepted a mixed use in other words a commercial tenant just on the first floor he couldn't find any commercial tenants for either the whole building or even have that's correct and and you mentioned that you advertised that we did and did you hire a broker to help you do that uh the broker who uh we bought the building from was our agent who tried to secure commercial tenants and so do you know where they advertised it or how how long it was on at that time it was with Keller Williams so I mean did they advertise in the newspaper did they advertise online do you do you have any ideas were they advertised the I mean I I don't recall any newspaper advertising but but he listed the property and you had a couple we did have a couple people come in yes express interest correct so nobody can I ask Frank the pictures that are on your report Frank are they recent pictures yes I mean the place looks pretty banged up we we haven't done any work because we didn't know if we were going to be commercial or residential I mean when you bought you had it for a year and a half I mean if I was a perspective renter or even commercial use i' bu and say he's out of his mind and not to be mean or anything but it's pretty it's pretty bad well we did clean up the exterior I mean I see a shutter hanging off I see the back I see well the the shutter is actually historical hinges and we haven't uh taken the shutters Down clean them and put them back up when we met with the historical commission we did not seek permission to remove the shutters the shutters were left off the rendering by mistake is the is that a plywood covering one of the rear windows uh that was existing when we bought it so in a year and a half I mean if you had people come to look at it commercial that you didn't think that might be something the inside is the inside is sheetrocked over it but the the previous owner who who closed up the window put left the sheo left the plywood there I believe the nans were intending to re uh you know fix the facade outside when they were applying for use as a bakery and the bakery went of business I just I mean if someone comes in looking for relief or saying listen I need help I can't I just wonder how much effort they put into it to try to get you know try to avoid asking for Relief and I'm just wondering with the place looking as bad as it is it's is it are you incentivized to make it look so bad that you can't find a tenant and then come in asking for Relief I wonder about that in um in March of 2023 uh the zoning officer officer asked us to stop renovation until we move forward with the change of use plan we applied for the permit to convert from oil to gas we needed a permit for the entire building to have the gas meter installed okay we had to have two gas meters installed we needed a permit to do that they would not install one gas meter we got to permit for two furnaces to separate the the old boiler that was there and we installed the one for upstairs so that we could get the certificate of occupancy for the tenant to move in and then she told us to stop it's sat there since then so we've done no work since March of 2023 because of that reasoning so you wanted to get you needed to get two gas feeders because your intention was to have two two people two uses in there I assume an upstairs and a downstairs well again when we purchased it we thought it was to uses cuz it was two separate entrances that were not connected interiorly it was it was two uses but it wasn't to residential uses well like like I said I have an email from the zoning officer it says that it's allowed for residential use we don't care if half of the building quarter of the building or whatever is used so she allowed us to occupy it with a tenant upstairs I I have to I have to step in because we're gonna ask Suzanna to to bring it on the record but she never approved residential on the second floor and Commercial and vacant on the first floor I know that I've been that conversation a 100 times I've seen the email where you were told a single family residential use is permitted but that's for the building that's not up just because you have a unit upstairs doesn't mean it's a single family residence and the fact that if you were going to have a residence upstairs and Commercial downstairs that requires a site plan approval which was never obtained is she on yeah yeah hi guys I'm here Susanna let me swear you in uh please raise your right hand do you swear airm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God I do and sanna please state your name spell your last name and um just explain your position at Bedminster Township uh sure so my name is Suzanna car last name is k a r as I am and I am the Bedminster zoning official suanna maybe just describe anything that you'd like to add to what Mr ferero said um so the situation I think um did get misinterpreted um I did speak with Mr van Orton emphasizing that if it was two uses it would require site plan approval um his intent was a single family use which is permitted in the zone um I think the main issue that became significant is when a construction permit was issued to separate it into two separate units with him knowing that that would require board approval thank you anybody want to ask Susan questions Susan questions anything more on the board suan did he come in knowing that he was going to have to get approval or did he not know that at that point and was he informed that he had to get site plan approval so I mean I spoke unless it wasn't clear but um we went through the ordinance of permitted uses we spoke on the phone we spoke through email um you know the prior use which was commercial uh obviously would be able to continue as that but what he was looking to do would require board approval I thought it was clear um I don't know if I mean I pretty much told him that it would have to go through board approval um so I don't know why a permit was issued for building um with him knowing that I mean to separate even the utilities that does change the use of the building so that is when zoning stepped in to let him know that the building cannot be occupied it has to go through board approval uh that doesn't mean that maintenance should have stopped in anyway it means the use of the Interior should have stopped we do have a court hearing next week um to address the fact that it is still being occupied it was not supposed to be occupied with residential um I drove by it's still occupied there's lights on at night someone is living there so I I don't know why there's not not a good line of communication um I mean the ordinance is online it's very clear wait there's a court hearing you said no she said the ordinance is on no the court hearing next that that means there's a summons and complaint for I being right Mr I'm sorry there a summon and complaint against you and your municipal court for occupancy is that correct that's correct I just was there an appeal of that was there any appeal of that to this board answer is no right there there was any I'm sorry I didn't hear was there an a appeal of that summons and complaint to this board there was no decision made on that Su no but you would appeal the Su right you had a right to appeal within 20 days of the issuance of that order was an appeal under Section A made to this board of the that order no there wasn't um just say no yes I mean you don't have to like elaborate I just it's important to know what we're here for well I received I received the notice for a d variant so you don't have to elaborate sir sir may I explain no no I asked you a simple question yeah but there's it's it's a little bit more convoluted than that that does the convolution is I I I went to court it's as simple as Court did not have me on the a appeal sir you don't even have an issue about an a appeal it's been lost forever lost you did not bring an a appeal you're in municipal court and you're here you're here seeking a d variance for two apartments in a zone that does not allow two apartments that's what we're here for the applicant should please go ahead and present that testimony in that case period Tom EXC excuse me I I didn't follow this totally so there was a uh a complaint filed on a zoning violation in municipal court and what was the disposition of that complaint the hearing is next week what it's next week the the the hearing is next week oh it hasn't been heard yet correct has a plea been entered plea for not guilty thank you the prosecutor said that he wanted to dismiss the case because Mrs Caris did not show up for the pre uh conference meeting he said he could not dismiss it he didn't understand the complaint and he postponed it awaiting to hear what happens at this meeting okay thank you and I would just like to add that I spoke with Mr huitt the prosecutor for is scheduled for next uh Thursday I will be there it will be a trial um depending on the outcome of obviously what happens here tonight yeah I I would just like to say um or a question to Mr Osman that um I originally brought up because when I heard the CE and I obviously I just knew something wasn't fitting and it appears that things didn't fit and uh for Mr van Orton it's just so important that especially residential situation that all the township departments review that because if there's ever a problem an injury a fire or anything like that everyone's going to be responsible for it and we need to make sure that especially in a residential situation that all of those um are followed all those you know RS whatever are followed I just want to kind of clarify why I brought it up in the beginning so I I have a question you are are are you in the real estate business somewhat I am okay so did you make any effort to go before you closed and find out the exact situation of this property yeah I I had numerous uh email conversations with the zoning officer now you were also um in the midst of a lot of changes you had no uh building in um building inspector no I'm just asking you knew the status of that property did you know it because you said earlier that well there were two entrances and I thought it was two units correct and I asked if residential was allowed and we looked at the the resolution which allowed two uses so we thought it was two units but but that that's that's the point I'm getting to you you had every opportunity to know exactly the status of that property before you bought it but you didn't well we looked at the we looked at the resolution it says two uses it doesn't say anything about residential uses you know but you you know you could you had the opportunity to know exactly what you were getting into I mean I buy property a lot of people buy property if you have any question before you go to the closing you're at whoever's desk can give you that answer and I think you I mean you seem like a pretty smart guy I mean and you know the history of the property there I mean you know what you were getting into I would think I'm still trying to understand something about the the previous uses that you described there's only ever been one tenant at a time there historically or there was there ever two tenants there were two tenants at one point or another and both there was two tenants they were they were both retail tenants yes yes you said there was three tenants there no there were there were three uses but two tenants oh two tenants three uses it okay all right so the separate entrance explanation goes to the fact that there were two separate tenants at some point yeah right and even though there was a a single utility that single utility might have been submetered or otherwise incorporated into the rents about how utilities got paid right but there two are two electrical meters and both electrical meters were in two different companies names but there were two but again there were two tenants and they were always same use retail as far as I understand they were both retail not not quite retail but commercial commcial commercial okay commercial uses okay so at no point in the fact at no point in the history of this property did a residential use occupy the building at the same time there was a commercial use not to my knowledge okay so today we're not just you know if and I think I think it's understood correct me if I'm wrong Paul or Frank today if he wanted to use the building 100% for retail he could do that that's no there's no variance required it's that's a permitted use in the zone he's good with that he contined to have two retail uses on the property be a mixture of a residential use and a commercial use but he cannot have but he cannot have two residential uses there but that's what he's seeking is he's seeking a use variance for that for that Second Use right if he were to have an an accessory an apartment and Retail he needs site plan approval from this board as a planning board which he did not pursue well and which he proceeded to do apparently without getting a site plan approval from any board and he doesn't have a zoning permit to have the current apartment well I know that's that's the problematic part those are the facts that we that's the problematic part yeah now are there two guest meters now or not there are there are that's and and that's fine if he wants to continue to use it for two commercial uses or I I'd like to ask a sacriligious question Frank what's the best use of this property well I think you're asking the wrong guy yeah no I'm not I'm asking the right guy if I ask anybody else I know what the answer I mean if I ask the applicant I know what the answer I mean the properties why don't we hear the four Witnesses of this applicant who is only here by the way seeking a d variance for two apartments all of this other stuff is almost irrelevant but even if listen to me please yeah pabula rasa remember Blank Slate even though they might have done something wrong we don't treat them worse because they did something wrong but we also don't treat them better because they did something wrong or because they Advanced some construction or they spent some money on gas or they mistakenly understood something they have to prove to you a use variance for two apartments in a zone that only allows one if you have a mixed use building this is not that this is not what their proposal is if they're denied they probably can continue for site plan will run apartment upstairs and Retail downstairs and from my memory of this site the bakery approv they might have to get some sort of concession to keep the the drive through which was for a bank uh but which might not be allowed anymore if it's not if it's a different retail business because we'd only allow drive-thru for banks and we might have allowed it for Bakery so we so to parras you so if we singular if we focus on the application for the variant that he's seeking and we were dispose one way or another on that right let's say for a second we approved it for a minute okay then he goes next week then he goes next week to court and the judge says he's in violation does that void our if he has decision if he has a use variant approval he would probably get his case dismissed if he he does not have a use approval would probably say wait till this case is over but that's none of this matters because we again fabul rasa he gets no benefit by having done anything wrong he gets no harm by having done something wrong so we're here for a BL the issue that Paul raises and suzan is is here to talk about has really no bearing on our evaluation he thinks it does what the applicant thinks it does but that's why I asked him did you appeal the denial of the zoning permit the answer was no we are not here on an appeal right so we're here Fus on the merits of this application singularly we haven't heard a single witness who can testify as to the special reasons yet and that's Peter St who's last so it's not We're not gonna turn to Frank we're gonna turn to their four Witnesses we're gonna hear this case OD inite them I guess because four Witnesses about the same subject is going to end up with Peter St telling us why the special reasons are I'm I'm waiting with baited breath okay thanks for that okay is everybody clear now on the board as where we going okay Madam chair I just had a couple questions to clear up some of the testimony okay um be good one one of the comments Mr ostman made in his opening statement was that the drive-thru area was going to be removed and you said it's going to be retained as a picnic area which one is it no I didn't say it was G to be removed it's going to be converted to a uh I maybe I misheard you um okay so it's going to that extension on the building is going to remain okay just for the second is what I was meaning when I said Return to a residential condition I was not assuming that the drive-thru appearance of the building would be remain I assume that got like resal what it's going to look like well we can ask the architect about whether it's a portico or whatever the heck it is right a carport yeah I ALS I also want to correct something about the historical preservation you know regarding those shutters and the fact that one shutter is hanging I don't think his I know the historic preservation committee did not discuss shutter hinges at all so I mean I I don't you testified that the historic committee you didn't want to fix the shutter because of something the historic committee might have said to you I'm on the historic committee we never discussed the hinges of the shutters we did discuss shutters but not the hinges right but the the entire window needs to be refinished to put the uh correct uh hinge on so I'm sorry if I misspoke but that's what I me so we didn't do any of that work yet so the shutter our plan is to the shutter could not have been put in place uh I understand I believe we took the hinge off and did not put it back on because there's no place to mount the hinge so so it can look like this for this length of time we have to re um re uh the window and and uh re trim the window to put the shutter in properly correct and we did give give you permission for the siding and the colors it was all discussed you gave us permission to clean up and repaint yes yes but we were told in March right after right after we got the permission when the spring uh weather started to break we were told to stop work the shutter and the I think the stop work interior of the building but we won't go there because that's not the discussion tonight but relative to tonight's disc discussion you talked about beautifying the site which obviously I'm sure Mr St will talk about that's one of the benefits of the application um you talked about Landscaping in bushes have you submitted any plan for that we we have a presentation on what we're submitting yet but you have not yet presented to the board nobody nobody seen that yet the variance has been revised since we've gotten the reports from Mr Ferrara Mr Bad which you just got last week and uh Mr Fox is going to present advise Varan PL tanas in C and that includes a landscape plan I'm not sure okay we we will see that I just because the reason why I think it's important is if there's going to be some representation that there's going to be some Landscaping out there we should know what it is so there's a plan that can be followed um well it's going to be a site plan conver into twoes or a waiver of it's both boards right to see a c plan wasn't required yeah technically for two for two family house site plan is not required on the municipal anus level but I have to add that we are here for a use variance applicant's burden of proof on a use variance is very significant perhaps the most significant of any case that comes before the zoning board if the board wants to see site plan details the board will be able to require those in order to decide whether to Grant the variance not as a site plan but as a d variance so that's your call it's also their burden and beautifying something is done best when there's a few pictures to describe how beautiful something's going to be so I'll turn to their architect and Mr to tell us all the great special benefits that are special reasons that are going to occur and I continue to say think we better go on to the next witness and and and maybe my questions really end up going to Mr Fox because you talked about a lighting plan that was going to bring it in compliance I don't know if he has that tonight or or what you meant by that you also said you're going to reduce the coverage to be in compliance and I don't know if that's it's in compliance with the coverage or compliance with what's appropriate for the two family residents and I I'm assuming Mr Fox is gonna present something on that those were the questions agree with Paul we do not have a revised variance plan at least I don't have I'd like to see a report from the historical commission also there is there is a review and it recommends something I didn't see it it's pretty straightforward well I'd like to see the feure all he asked for two windows to be changed on the side of the building the one that was uh uh has the bo the board up so all it was going to be is taking those windows out and putting siding on that wall that was the extent of his request to us that night am I correct except for color door the front door with the and that all the paint needed to be of the historic from the historic collection so what what was asked of us was very minor was just the side of the building uh window at that point the shutter wasn't hanging at that point the front porch wasn't hang you know broken it was different at then all right okay let's move on Fox please I guess Mr Fox please come forward and raise your right hand you swear Pro where affirm that tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so I'll be God please St your name and address the business address is sufficient Paul Fox for associates 13 Place far board recogniz and accepts all box qualifications as professional engineer please go ahead J Mr Fox was your firm retained by the applicant in connection with this application and property yes we were and did your firm prepare the variance plan that was submitted to the board in connection with this application yes we and since receiving Mr F excuse me one second can you want to sit down so you have that microphone there you can get because I don't think get picked up on the microphone it's very hard cover sorry you know I have a hard talk a little more slowly I'd appreciate um since receiving Mr Ferrara Mr Bish's reports last week have you had discussions with the applicant about changes to the variance plan to address the comments in those reports yes I have and did you prepare a revised version of that variance plan that reflects the proposed changes to the variance plan that was submitted yes I did and I I'd like to perhaps have that marked and I think you have C you may have copies to pass out yes this is an exhibit we prepared for tonight showing uh revisions to the plan to accomodate it'll be a A1 it's not showing from the SC gets the big easier read okay if everyone has that exhibit A1 um I'd like to ask Mr Fox to present that plane describe what's shown on that plan sure after reviewing the comments uh from Mr banish as well as from uh Mr Ferraro we took a look at the primary goal of reducing the lock coverage first of all to eliminate unneeded areas of pavement and gravel so to do that we uh have shown on this plan where we would still retain the circular driveway going around the back of the building but quite a bit of the gravel area and the pavement area uh that's immediately behind the building as well as toward the rear of the property would be removed additionally a portion of the walkways along the uh Eastern side of the building would be removed as well as uh some of the pavement in front of the former drive-thru these changes allow us to reduce the lock coverage from over 50% down to 35% which is conforming for the Zone in addition to making those changes to the existing parking and driveway uh the shed that's located immediately behind the home would be eliminated in favor of putting a larger shed to the rear of the property for use by tenants for storage finally the area where the former drive-thru is located is proposed to be used for an outdoor patio area for used by the tenants and there would be fencing six foot board on board fencing on the street side as well as on the west side of that to provide for both privacy and screening now as far as lighting we need to prepare a lighting plan that would address these changes because the original lighting plan was designed for the parking and driveways as they presently exist with this plan we would revise the lighting plan to provide only the necessary lighting for what we're showing here with respect to the proposed Landscaping unfortunately due to time commitments and scheduling this week we weren't able to prepare a landscape plan however we would use the landscape plan previously approved for the bakery as a starting point and work with Frank on any modifications that may be necessary Mr Fox if I could ask you with respect to the uh um patio area that's to be created so the the cover over that area is to remain that's correct so it's going to be a covered patio exactly that was previously shown to be removed as part of the bakery application we did that application you may recall but I think that's a fairly good use of the area uh in the current use if it's proposed for two uh residential uses I think that's good having some outdoor area that's covered for use as a patio like that what is the current um impervious coverage on properties uh currently the impervious coverage is uh almost 53% and what is the permitted coverage you out 45% you're proposing what coverage 35% and why did you propose angled parking uh on on that plane this prevents somebody from thinking there's two-way traffic uh cars come in One Direction exit the other direction so it avoids confusion uh one of the things that I've noticed at my home is that there's either a UPS truck or an Amazon truck there every day and having uh a drive driveway that goes fully around avoids vehicles from having to park in front of the uh property avoids Vehicles backing out of the driveway it's just a safer Arrangement and if you had put in straight head-on parking uh in the area where you're proposing the parking what effect would that have had on the side yard the grass area between the parking and the property line the parking would have been ended up being closer to the side park property line because for that sort of arrangement we require 42 feet of space between uh where the sidewalks end and where the pavement would end so we'd have to actually push the parking area closer to the side property line if we were to do that and with regard to the area where trash cans would be stored can you point out where where that will be so we've provided a note on the plan that right now there's an existing concrete slab under the existing shed that shed would be removed and there would be a fenced area for recycling and refuge containers in there behind the building out of sight and would a garbage truck pull in to get to those or would those can't be rolled to the to the street for residential use like this it would be rolled to the street I questions for this I I have a question you mentioned a shed in in the back for storage yes if you I can show it on this plan uh so if you look where the paring is here there's a shed proposed behind that for use by the tenants for storage and is that in compliance with the Township's storage requirement for apartments I'm not familiar with those requirements so I couldn't testify to that you want me to read you the the requirements and I may be wrong so somebody correct me if I am but uh 13- 63.7 storage areas this is in the Bedminster code for each department unit in addition to any storage area contained inside individual dwelling units there shall be provided for each dwelling unit 250 cubic feet of storage area in a convenient centrally located area in the cellar basement or ground floor of the building where personal belongings and effects may be kept locked and separated from the belonging of other occupants well I certainly think they could provide that storage in the basement here but it it would be fairly small and the basement in this uh facility is my recollection the one time I was there is fairly low so having it outside is probably more practical in this instance so are you asking for a variance not sure if on the storage area a variance or an engineering waiver or waiver what what section is that in George uh 13- 63.7 250 in the uh in in the um heading of the land use I think um 250 per unit yeah we only got 3 38 380 378 my client has advised me that they will meet that requirement in the basement of the existing building they just want to provide outdoor storage for things like bicycles and whatnot that would be too difficult to carry down to the basement and is that a dry basement area do it get that's good good for you I know this this past two months it seems like no basement is it's tough you find it Paul no I'm still okay so go um I'm just you see 13-6 01 this with me I'm going through this is under um I'm sorry what is again George now I'm in the 600 so I have it as 13- 63.7 storage areas right that's under the section that talks about tow houses and apartments right the overall heading of that just town right 6 that's exactly what 63.7 says I just wanted to make sure that it would apply to this it wasn't part of a particular and that's why I prefaced what yeah it looks it looks like it generally applies to apartment it it applies as far as I can tell thank you so excuse me I um department is defined as three units or more so this wouldn't be an Department under that requirement and say say that again about the three units Mr just pointed out to me that um for that uh provision to apply it has to be three units or thank you Mr St for pointing that out that's I where did you see that it's in the definition section ah okay okay thank you okay anybody have any I have a question question Mr Fox Mr Fox um so if if you could go over again the thought process because it seems to be enough property behind the building to put parking versus the sidey yard um was what was the thought process there because the other question I have is um it it that first parking space seems a little close to the front of you know to this front line so I just want to understand that a little better I understand why you want it to have the circular pattern but it it for residential use a lot of times parking is towards the back instead of sure looking at this the existing parking Arrangement was mostly to park on the side and when you look at the driveway is what we would reconfigure the driveway going around the back of the building that represents really the minimum turning radius that you would want to have for a driveway of 25 ft so any parking would have to be to the outside of that radius and we would actually be pushing it closer to the adjoining residential use in the back of the property so we felt it was better having it on the side of the property adjacent to the existing commercial use on the adjacent property okay um and then Paul question Paul Ferrero um is there a setback requirement for a parking spot in the VN Zone it's six feet from the sidey yard six feet yes and what about from the front line that's that's what I'm looking for right now I don't see them you could potentially put that fifth spot there was language in there about General requirements for commercial uses but this is commercial not a commercial use usually commercial use is 50 feet set back but I just wanted to kind of double check that it's for for commercial this on at 20 feet 20 feet okay I don't I don't see a a standard for the parking setback So to that end that first spot as you come in on the right there is encroaching further on the front yard setb yeah when it could when it could potentially be at the rear where the proposed shed is and the shed relocated within that building envelope so to speak and avoid the furtherance of the encroachment in the front yard the sidey yard seem to comply fine the proposed shed may have to re be relocated maybe to the western side of the property but you could potentially shift those spots correct Mr absolutely it wouldn't wouldn't make a difference that's exactly he getting in thank you yeah I have a question yeah Tom I have a question uh maybe you can answer what stand if if we're um looking at a variance for a different use what standard do we use for all the bulk requirements do we use the standard for the use that's being that's that's zoned or we use a minimum yes at a minimum you could request the bulk standards all be met but you also can adopt new conditions that address the use variants they're you're not allowed to have two apartments in the zone so whatever whatever you think is appropriate if you were to Grant it you could consider other requirements or conditions for example like I'm not sure you'd have to approve a proposed storage shed they have maybe you wouldn't approve that right so but they are allowed if you were a single family house you're allowed to shed but there's not a single family house so in determining whether to Grant the use variance you will you if you grant it you may impose additional conditions beside the bul standards okay and and here we have an application for a variance but not a site plan right that so far this is a two unit apartment building they are asserting correctly that the municipal Landes law does not allow site PL to it be required for duplexes or single family houses but what I said before I still hold to regardless of what they say that when you review a use variance you reviewing all aspects of the site and any conditions or requirements you want to impose in granting a use variance you could do that and you can do that in conjunction with a site PL approval it's not called a site plan you do it now if you were to Grant the approval you would do it now there is a way to bifurcate site plan from use variances but there is no site plan as I described before there is a variance plan right okay so this this plan that you now have before you tonight for the first time which actually uh may need some additional revisions is called a variance plan okay so so in other words just to simplify things if we were to think that there's nothing wrong with having two family residents there we could have a vote and we could approve that and tell the applicant that the applicant has to come back with a site plan no the variance plan could include details about what you need to see on the property but like Tom said single family and two family dwellings are exempt from formal site plan review so you're going to want to know that for instance that there's Landscaping going where he tells you it's going to go so but it's not going to be the kind of a site plan you would get if this was a mixed use with a commercial use and a residential use so in other words whatever the site plan that we want to have approved we have to do now don't use the word site plan yeah separate yourself from site plan which is for I understand the plan for the site but we I used the right word the best word and actually Mr Fox used it was his variance plan and he called it that I think and he described it as that and he said to night that he made a change to it and he might have to make some more changes he said all right so but this is a zoning Board hearing so the only thing we have to work with with respect to bulk standards right now is what exists in the VN Zone if we want to add conditions to make it more compliant with a residential use we can do that here and now but the only standard that he's working with at this point is the standards of the VN Zone correct whatever going they're whatever you're going to attach if you grant the use variance and no that was my question does the Zone standard the question yeah that's I already said that the bulk standard of the Zone generally speaking apply okay uh and they're not asking for from what I can tell they're not asking for any variances from the bulk standards to some but very important when you grant a use variance you determined understood what but those those would be all additive if you grant it but it will not be an aight plan hearing okay and it will not be a future site plan hearing there may be a future variance hearing which at which this continues and which a revised variance plan may have to be brought in to your satisfaction doesn't sound like it's quite there yet since the Landscaping that the witness says they will do is not on a drawing that's why I never should have gone to lawo well that's why that's why we're waiting Peter okay in other words in other words with all due respect to Mr Fox when he said when he testifies that the um the the coverage in his zone is 45 the coverage the permissible coverage is 45% and that contemplates a commercial use that percentage has no binding impact on us and we could say well we want it to be 25% coverage that's correct okay thank you you look trouble brid I'm not sure I agree with contemplates a commercial use of course it does it contemplates BN Zone period what it's what we decided that was was was the coverage for a VN Zone whatever the uses are in the VM what but what are they they're either residential or they're either commercial oh you could have just residential yeah well yes you could have yes you can have just residential we establish that you can have a one family house there right now right so whether it was a one family house or you know a three unit commercial building 45% is the standard today oh I didn't I made a mistake that's the only qualification I make it statement I'm really not questioning your rationale or reasoning but no I don't think trying to say all we have is own right now I don't think Steve made a mistake when someone seeks a use variance they have to satisfy five of seven of you that the special reasons exist under the affirmative criteria and that all the negative criteria which attach to all variances are met you might determine that a coverage lower than allowed in the zone is required and for you to be satisfi that there' be two family two family house on this property you might require that there be no shed you might require that there be no Portico extension you might require that they improve the exterior appearance of the building in a way that they haven't offered to do that that doesn't mean that you can't do that when you are considering granting a use variance for use not permitted in the zone and so don't B bind yourself solely to the ordinance or to the bulk standards think in terms of whether you're satisfied after we hear all this wonderful testimony we're going to hear from the three more witnesses two more witnesses of what the special reasons are in the affirmative criteria and what how the negative criteria are being met so stay tuned if I could just weigh in though the permitted lock coverage for a residential use a detached dwelling unit is 40% for a this is between 15,000 and 25,000 square feet and a non-residential use it'd be permitted 45% so there's different bulk standards depending on the use in the VN Zone that's correct all right that's that's an important clarification because and which one is he using here he's using the commercial standard he testified about the 45% situation is a commercial problem but they want to change it to so the metrics that Mr Fox outlined here this is what I'm trying to get you the metrics that Mr Fox outlined here between what is required what is existing and what is proposed well what he he's showing on his plan pardon me what he showing on his the exhibit tonight shows 35% so that's below the 40% that's proposed yes and that's just just to clarify that's to the Future RightWay line correct okay is that's what Paul it's to the Future right of way line okay EX so so it's over a half an acre right now but if you if you take out the RightWay it's less than a half an acre it's 04 something correct am I reading that right Mr Fox 0 four something to the right away very small print0 4335 I think I'm yes that's right well in the proposed condition it be 0 416 even smaller yeah so well you sent me that and when you create that fraction it gets to 35% you're using the lot coverage divided by the 043 lot that's correct or 0 416 lot I'm sorry what the proposed lot size will be okay we're not allowed to count area within the RightWay and again if if what Paul just said I didn't think understand that to be the case but if the lock coverage requirements within the VN zone are different for residential uses than they are for commercial uses are you applying the residential criteria or the existing commercial criteria so on this chart we show the 45% which is what the VN zone for commercial commercial use is correct but even at but even at 35 we're good because you applied to 40 we're still not seeking a variance for lot coverage that's right correct if we apply the residential standard that's right but correct me if I'm wrong you're not looking for any bulk relief here right correct we we can add bulk relief that's our prerogative right Thomas you can add requirement we can add bulk requirement don't think of it as don't think they're not ordinances they're they're the conditions under which you would be granting a use variance okay that's not a resoning everything's on the table Yeah well because you're the zoning board because we're in the zoning board you have to be satisfied with the affirmative NE criteria we haven't heard anything about him yet anything more for Mr Fox so just to reiterate it's possible to take that first parking space and move it to the back yes we could slide that row of parking spaces back further so uh I don't believe we're required to be within the building setback but I do think we're not permitted to be in front of the building itself right if this was a new application so right now there is parking that's you know probably uh three or four maybe five feet in front of the building line so we can easily slide that back and get that there's a little triangle there's a bigger triangle that so the reason I favor that is because it it's a it's going to be a residential situation so we want to make it look less like a commercial situation right but but is it is and and let me ask you Lou is is that the what our master plan says for that area to make it look more residential no not at all okay but but Tom said everything's on the on the right no no I know but I'm just saying I'm not and we'll get we'll get to all that we I think the important the important thing to keep in mind is that the property to the West as well as the property to the north are both Residential Properties and the reason that we wanted to keep the parking on the other side was to keep it a J to the commercial use and I I think that's a good that was the goal there I think the only other thing I wanted to point out uh you may recall a few years ago we had a site plan application for the property that included the country picnic uh the former Sports people building uh they have not been able to find any tenants so that has not proceeded okay but that's planner stuff right that's not your you're the engineer right correct okay thank you I just don't think Mr St was available aware of that just because uh it's something that we were involved in and five parking spaces is all that's required that's correct so and did I hear you say you're prepared to pres present that landscape plan to us at some point at some point not tonight unfortunately we just didn't have time to repare prepare it uh again we did have a landscape plan prepared for the for prior application on this property so I'm sure between that plan uh with myself and and Mr bandish we can uh come to an agreement and we and did we describe within this plan or any other plan you may be working on the um proposed I mean I know we're talking about are we talking about new siding or are we talking about painting we talking about replacing windows or we talking about leaving them it's not the architect oh have an AR com architect will testify that okay all right anything we have yes we do yes just just going back to my letter there were there were two comments that um there were actually three comments but one of them was um the is the parking going to be repaved is it going to be curbed um and if it's not it's not going to be cured that a waiver will be required uh we were not planning to curve it because this is not a commercial application your normally see curving on something residential we would prefer to not have it curved will it be read paved uh that would be up to the applicant I haven't discussed that with him presently uh the condition of the pavement is pretty rough and uh the one parking area is currently gravel there certainly given the flat grade of the property there's no issue with having gravel there uh it would certainly be a a I think pavement is required in the ordinance for parking and I see that it's on the right hand side that's you're saying is gravel correct which is where the parking is that's right so and it's very difficult for people to park at an angle on gravel when there's no stripes so I think parking is really going to be or Paving is really going to be required I'm not particularly troubled by the curbing because when the cars drive off the curb the applicant's going to have to fix it or drives off the pavement the applicant's going to have to fix it but I I believe we should be properly paved and striped I will leave it to four okay uh let's take a five minute break sure I think we should do that and then we'll start with your next great I know after let Paul come back up and if there's any questions or comments all right that is five minutes I'm going to open it up to the public for Mr F's testimony you see anybody J okay again so there are some of you that are on say iPhone or just a phone number you can either raise your hand you can do star n on your phone you can just unmute yourself and let us know that you have a question it is your Mr Fox anyone have a question the okay then I will close it to the public Mr thank you also I we'll have no new testimonies to 10:00 okay we will can't go this long night anymore okay next Joseph Mar sure Jo please raise your right hand do you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you out yes and state your name SP your last name and give us at Le a bit address Joseph Mark hay m a r c hes e uh business address is PO Box okay PO Box 184 Kenville New Jersey 07847 thank you jna I don't believe you've been qualified testify before this board so some minimal qualifications would be helpful than Mar what is your profession I am an architect would you please summarize for the board your professional qualifications yes um I'm an architect I have a practice in Morris County New Jersey I graduated from New Jersey Institute of Technology and with a bachelor of architecture in 1993 I passed my uh registration exam in 2000 and I've opened my practice my sole practice in 2002 my license is in current good standing thank you and board will accept Mr Mar's qualifications as a registered architect please go ahead gentlemen Mr maresi were you retained by the applicant in connection with this application yes did you prepare the architectural plans so were submitted to the board as part of this application yes and have you reviewed the Boswell engineering report dated January 24th 2024 prepared by Mr Ferraro yes would you please address well before you address Mr F's comments in that report haveed time said would you please address the question that came up regarding the sting of the last yes uh I do believe that um reciting would be a he will reside as part of part of this project yes yes is that an owner's commitment that we're hearing yes okay I'm sorry got me clear okay um next would you referring to Mr ferrar's report would you please address the architectural issue so we raising that so section three of Mr F's report refers to the architectural plans and uh the first comment comment a under architectural plan says the photo renderings of the building show facade changes such as the removal of the shutters the shutters are currently in disrepair and falling off the building approval from the facade changes is required from the HBC the HBC approval notes the removal of Windows and modifications to the porch railing is not mention removal of the shutters I do believe that we've talked about this was addressed before that the shutters are going to be refurbished and remain on the building when the other modifications are implemented are you familiar with the shutters on the um from when I went and measured the building yes um the second comment under architectural plan says the architectural plans do not know which windows are to be removed this needs to be presented to the board I apologize for that these are on the right hand side there's a wind there's a window in the first entrance leading up to the second floor which is already boarded up from the interior and not is closed in from the exterior it is the intent for that window to be removed there is a window above that a double window which is inside of a closet which is also intended to be removed now the um architectural plans that you submitted separate apart from the renderings the architectural plans do not do those show that or they halfen half they do not show they don't show the windows but [Music] um they show it it's uh mostly existing since the window on the inside of the first floor was boarded up I did not include on the plan itself the arici plans that we submitted you prepared we submitted show floor plans and elevations correct so are they shown on the floor plans on the elevations or both uh the windows removed are not um the windows removed are not shown they're not on the plans themselves they're not shown it's being removed or they're not well not shown at all they're not shown at all because because they're to be removed to be removed Yes except for the double window in the closet which was which is not on the plan but on the elevation but it intended to be move removed on the screen yeah I had the elevations yeah watch elevations the East the East Elevation that double window elevation yes the East Elevation the double window there that's the one in the closet which is intended to be removed it also doesn't actually match the uh rest of the windows it was probably added to the later date or something that so I believe it's a casement window and mo most of the other windows are Double H so it's not intended to be there you just repeat that again which Windows being that double window yeah which would be the second floor that's a casement window which doesn't really match the other windows so uh and it's also inside of a closet oh it's inside of a closet so it's going to be boarded up and removed correct correct and so that's out that is so this elevation is wrong just the window what just the window just the window yeah but the rendering is correct the render uh yes the rendering is correct yes showing no window yes Mr maresi the item C under architectural plans and Mr far's report also relat Windows um it says the windows on the East rendering inconsistent with your architectural PLS then show a double window on the second fill that is not rered I think that's what discuss correct I have no further questions for Mr Mar okay the board have any questions for the architect okay so Mr Mary you're saying that the siding will be replaced or covered over do we know what's going to actually happen what materials are going to be used and is it um is it part of the plan at this point the exterior side the siding can be replaced if it is yes I'm sorry could you was there an answer to that question or was it I don't know we're going to replace the set replace it not reclad it with vinyl or something else replace it with new Hardy Board or new shiplap or new sighting it's important to us okay you want a few minutes gentlemen to to confer and just decide what citing you'll use I think that would be a good idea yeah just you can just take a side do you want to look the hpc's certificate that there so that everybody asking that just yeah did HPC recommend yes approve the application use more historic pet for the front door that's paint yeah I don't think they move two windows and fix are existing siding according to this paint exterior as existing and the existing siding is ship may you took pictures pictures yeah be clear I was asked before about whether or not those were my pictures the ones with the snow were taking couple of days last week but the first picture in there was a Google Street View picture just so you know from the street couple of years ago okay so do we know what kind of siding is going to be replaced or repaired that's the question uh a cement fiber sighting so you're repeal you're going to replace the existing siding with Hardy plank is that what you're saying a that or a equivalent equivalent okay and the colors are going to remain the same as what they are they're not changing as per the historic commission I believe well that's what I mean yes yes think is is Kathy still on Kathy is white an approved color yes there's probably 45 choices of different colors whites that he can choose from okay okay and is the and is the kind of um colonial blue or whatever we call that today without being uh politically incorrect is is the colonial blue that they're showing on the trim is that something that's consistent with the HBC uh you know very often that the um renderings that we get uh don't you don't really show the right color that they would have to show us the exact exact color number from the Benjamin more palette to be approved so they'd have to pick one from that palette yeah there's probably some that are similar to it but they'd have to pick one from the palette so Kathy you're expecting this applicant to come back to you to the historical with colors and I would think that if there's any change in other than repairing the side the the current shutter if any and anything else is done it has they have to come before the um HPC anything with the um a lot of changes I see here were not approved by HPC they would need to go that's why I was confused Kathy and and U so yes the answer is yes they have to come back to you yes and I and I think when we were when we were approving this it was a matter of this was going to be done immediately prior to making decisions regarding what was going to be done in the future and that was the reason why we said fix or repair because there there there was discussion something was going to happen in the future but this was a fix to repair until that happened anything else for the architect yeah yes so the shed that were showing on your first floor plan that is the one that's to be removed right and you hav it indic and and you haven't indicated the new one on here right I have not indicated the new one but the shed that's shown is the one that's going to be removed okay and the um in the Drive-Thru uh or the the area identified on the first floor plan as the drive-thru that hasn't been developed as any sort of outdoor space Etc show it as still a driveway not as my plan but uh as according to the other professionals plans yes the only thing that I can't read you planing look at the first floor the second floor overhang over pavement so there's no development of that of that area as a portico or anything like that at this point the old drive-thru yeah not on mine on the engineers plan there's the Wood stock bent six feet high on the front and side St yeah but and we don't have a landscape plan or anything like that identify how it might be so what is the intention for that area at this point uh what has been presented before think a small yeah is it supposed to be another porch is it supposed to be a covered deck is it supposed to be a covered it's a covered Portico I believe was the testimony from Mr Fox it's covered Portico surrounded by fencing on two sides to block views of it from joining property in the street all right so the rendering doesn't reflect that and the floor plan the architectural floor plan doesn't reflect that at this point but that's the intent no that's the intent and the plans will be revised according okay and and the fence and the shed will have to go back to the HPC just say that again I'm sorry the fence and the shed will have to go back to the HPC because they were not on the plans that the HPC approved okay so I I do have a question about that so we going to fence area underneath the ptico to create a a living SP like a patio sort of situation yes under the Portico right now is it maybe Mrs VOR is it asphalt paven right will that be changed to papers or cement or anything different that area just underneath we would make we would make it conducive to a nice picnic area so if it's if it's needed or required yeah we could do that and we're trying to make a hital residential exterior yes so it might be railroad ties blue stone something like that to kind of make itre conducive to that kind of uses okay good question for you and we can make that a condition correct sir absolutely okay I guess it's hard for me to tell by this plan you know what's new and what's existing than you know because we don't really have an existing plan this stair well man is that all existing right now it goes by itself upstairs to the second floor like that yes because you have to steer well literally like 12 inches away from the door is that an existing condition it's all it is all sorry it is all existing yes there are no structural changes to these plants right and have that little piece of wall sticking out there um so which is basically a dense space on the inside of that St well yes okay and that front door opens out into the the first floor unit yes okay can we look at their rear elevation first for a second um so on the side elevation we already just identified that that double casement is out right correct on the rear elevation in the only photograph we have which was I guess taken by Frank's team [Music] there's looks like four windows on the first floor plus a door if I'm reading that right one one being the operable window one being the boarded up window one being the window at the toilet then there's the door which I guess is under some kind of overhang there and then there's a door there's a small window to the right of that right so of those one two 3 four windows in the door you're only going to have two windows in the door going forward right that is correct the door boarded up window will be gone gone and sided over one way or another and the small window very far toilet size window to the right that gets boarded up too it's already boarded up on the inside yes well it wasn't boarded up as of this picture there's a window here that's out and there's a window here that's out the interior was covered but the exterior okay all right and describe to me what is going on in the rear of the house with respect to um outdoor spaces is that a new deck that's proposed on the rear of the house yes is that actual I think it was I think it's a deck on the one plane it's a half half of it's a deck half of it railroad ties and and U does that say concrete all right so so where you come out the door it looks like there's a porch with some steps wood assuming yes and to the right of that is is is a concrete paved area I'm looking at Mr Fox's plan for that and your plan doesn't seem toward articulate the difference between what might be wood and what might be concrete there's two concrete areas on Mr Foxy yeah well this you're talking about this traff well again on the architectural plan if you look yeah it's all what they're showing is a ramp and a stairs on Mr Fox's plan the ramp isn't identified but the scare is there this is shown us two separate things on here but on this it's all yeah that's I'm trying figure out so what so what is the intent all wood or that combination of wood and some kind of concrete patio uh all wood all right okay the whole thing is W so this is all decked that whether that's TX or something else we don't care at this point maybe HPC does um right I think TX might be a problem there all right but that's all new wood good H and are there going to be any rules as to what they can the tenants can do on the decks are they going to be barbecue um are they going to be have gas grills are they going to have grills under the ptoo um what what rules are there going to be for that those areas would that be fire code yeah yeah it would be fire and coming from the hills I mean they restrict us heavily on that over there I think there's a distance that those things have to be away from the building if I'm not mistaken like 10t 5T whatever it is and that's a state you know State [Music] yeah I do have a question first floor tenant second floor tenant does the patio porch in the back deck and or the padding on the ptical are they separate for each tenant do upstairs get one area and the downstairs people get another area has that been thought through the plan would be that the uh back outside the back porch would be for the first four tenants and the P for the second not necessarily common the one in the portical on the on the west side all right so they're coming out that staircase by the the door by the staircase on the on the east side and having to go around the building to use that west side and the covered porch at the front is exclusively the first floor apartment too no no I'm sorry it's not oh yeah one by the staircase okay all right and that's the only entrance to that unit right yeah for the second floor un it's just stair yes do you have um Relative Dimension of bedroom number two well relative dimensions on all these bedrooms some of them look a little small the first or second floor plan just says no work existing no work on the third floor yeah we were not proposing on changing any of the walls or anything but which Which floor first or second floor second floor says proposed proposed bedrooms oh um no the first floor is the the first so is that entire second floor apartment existing to remain the whole thing yes okay on the first floor bedroom one is approximately 11 by 11 or 11 half by 11 and bedroom number two is we're in Improvement made to that second floor apartment to make it function as a residential apartment now this is all existing I I there no proposed changes to the walls or anything and walls were existing Plumbing was existing all we did was reconnect the Cabinetry and the uh sinks and and stuff like that that's all we did and there was a gas connection for that scope I'm sorry there was a gas connection for the range yes and there's currently a double door entering the kitchen from the stairwell even though that one of those doors is like if you take take a wrong step you're going to fall down stairs that's existing yes do we know whether these have all been all these things that are existing have been approved at some point through our building Department I don't know they don't need if this they don't need they had they have a CO so it's okay right they they they have a CO and I would assume that meant the construction official was through there okay but but if you're not satisfied Grant the experence you can add requirement anyone else on the second floor as far as square footage for each of each proposed part of two uh the first floor is 930 square feet and the second floor is 605 square feet 606 uh 605 yeah um Mr Mar going back to that double door in the stairwell yes I I just think it'd be wise to make it one door I agree and and and not have a door open from that stair maybe Mr van oron can tell us how that is arranged on that second floor the uh it's like a French door the one side of opens the other side doesn't the only reason the other side would be open in case there even bring so that's why we left it as is that's why they put that double door in there to get pinut it be closed is it isly a French door is a French door with glass or no but there's only one handle on the side that opens up at the top of the stair where the left side is permanent unless they need to get something inside the so the left side is basically a fixed panel make sure no one was stepping off all right last time here Bo any more questions for the architect all right then we'll open it up to the public let's anyone sorry if you can oh actually no I can go up and down we don't have that many you can say so again people that are on phones if any of you um there's only two actually besides Peter and Suzanna if you have a question you can unmute yourself you can start nine raise your hand anybody okay imag it doesn't look I'm sorry chair have to be Columbo here for a second one more question did we talk about the roof are we replacing the roof um no I believe the roof is in good condition the roof is in good condition and doesn't need to be replaced okay you have an idea about how old the roof is okay get up there there um one of the things that we would look at doing is uh reping removing the chimney now converted the gas they're direct vented units so the chy is one of the things that what so what is the chimney function for now just a flu oil boiler in the basement if you're going to do that you got to bring that to the HPC as well correct it is the okay looks like we are done with our architect any next witness call Mr Peter St please raise your right hand do you swear from to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you God I do and please St your name spell your last name and give as leis a business address uh Peter St STK 80 Maplewood Avenue Maplewood New Jersey Mr SE what is your profession I'm a licensed planner in New Jersey and uh would you please summarize for the board your professional qualifications uh yes I have a a bachelor's degree in civil engineering um Masters in City and Regional planning from ruter uh I uh have been self-employed for over 20 years uh prior to that I was the planning director for the township of Montclair for about 10 years and I also served with a uh as an associate planner with two firms Malcolm castler Associates and Alvin G gersan Associates um in Trenton New Jersey and I've uh actually I think I've testified here before on a few occasions and I've testified in approximately 250 municipalities in New Jersey as well as in Superior Court and tax court and been accepted as a a planner in those jurisdictions and my license is still in effect the board will accept Peter's qualifications as a professional planner please go ahead gentlemen Mr St were you retained by the applicant in connection with this application I was have you been to the site and looked at the surrounding area yes and have you reviewed the reports that we received from Mr fero Mr Bish I have uh what other information did you review in preparation for your testimony this evening uh well I certainly looked at the master plan and the zoning ordinance and I was here earlier to hear the testimony of the other Witnesses before you get into your findings and conclusions do you have any exhibits that you intend to refer to this evening and so maybe you can have that yes I have a five-page exhibit and I have actually hard copies because I having trouble that'll be I think 82 I so that you can go in keep keep it going so I'll I'll first just tell you what's on the exhibit and then I'll refer to it as I go through my testimony so uh A2 consists is this A2 what would what we A2 A2 is a five-page document prepared by me it stated uh February 1 and I'll just briefly describe the pages the uh top half of the first page as you know is the zoning map where I've identified where the subject property is uh below that is a uh Google Earth map uh it's probably about three years old but I highlighted uh where the subject property is uh the second page on the left hand side has two photographs taken by me on January 27th of this year and they accur accurately uh depict the sad state of conditions of the property on the right hand side is a 2020 aerial photo it happens to be infrared so the trees kind of disappear uh the next page has additional photographs taken by me uh and uh the upper photographs on the same date of of January 27th of this year U upper left is a perspective from near the rear yard uh the rear yard is shown on the right hand side where the you can see the additional enclosure uh on the left lower three photographs left hand side shows the frontage of the property um the middle one is the lot the residential lot to the uh West and then as you know there's the uh Crossing project which has two buildings and a u uh a retail space that I it's been vacant for a while um and then on the last page I just colored excuse me the second to last page P4 in the upper right hand corner I just uh darken some of the area with green that shows where the existing Greenery is and again we're going to increase that uh on the right hand side I in red I've indicated the big changes uh because we're dedicating right of way the property will now be less than a half acre um and the front property line will be closer uh to the front porch uh simply because of the dedication that the county is requiring and on the last uh page I've just reproduced uh two sections uh one the master plan on the leand side and the zoning ordinance on the right and I'll kind of just run through uh my testimony so um this is an older building as you know 1887 uh it's on two lots that have been merged uh but talking to the uh gentleman that owns the property that wraps around the left hand side in the rear uh there were houses on each of these lots and in fact there was a also a barn if you face the property the left hand side and there was a drainage channel that came through the property that was eventually culverted but the barn was on the other side of the drainage Channel there was this house and then as you face it there was also a house on the right that house apparently was removed and one of the problems at that time were not um wasn't Sewer Service uh apparently the septic was failing and that house was was demolished uh 1887 is on the tax records and is already detailed there's been a history of use of this property uh the building is functionally divided into two units um again it was at one time a bank uh hasn't been a bank for many years it was a stationary store on the bottom uh and a catering use on the second floor and uh it did appear before the board in the past U the applicant uh wants to use it for uh a two family dwelling uh and as we've talked this evening uh the improvements have been refined so I think the board has at least a better idea by testimony of of what the plan is the plan is to produce more Greenery on the site uh to dress up the Portico so it's no longer a vehicle place it's a place to uh uh to sit um and there are uh improvements to the to to all the facades of the building um as you know this is in your village neighborhood commercial Corridor it's kind of at the Western end and on the north side of the corridor this is kind of the property adjacent to us is the last really commercial property this uh has been vacant for commercial for a long time As you move to the West there is a larger property again that wraps around which is in residential use that's also obviously a historic home and then you have the Bedminster Crossing uh which is two newer buildings uh set back uh there's about 4800 square feet of retail space somewhat illustrative of the fact that retail is a tough sell um that building happens to be as you know set back a little bit and and I believe the vacant space is still the retail space is still vacant um your master plan uh was updated in January of 2005 and I've uh pulled a quote from it uh it's on the leftand side of the fifth page of uh A2 and it recognizes the existing condition the first description of the village District um is has a mixture of residential and non-residential uses so so it it doesn't talk at least in the master plan that it's only a one family or commercial use but it does characterize the area as having a mixture of use and it's as anybody uh driving down the street knows many of the buildings are woodframe buildings that were originally residential buildings and have been converted to commercial over time but the solid commercial area is really east of us um also of interest in the master plan is that it recommended that when you have uh single family detached homes the density is a quarter acre lot for each dwelling unit so were we not to have to dedicate land to the county uh we would have a half acre of land and at least from a density point of view we could have two dwelling units so historically there were two dwelling units on this property the lots have merged uh we want to put two dwelling units but in one building uh and again at least from the the use is not permitted I'll talk about that in a moment but but the density is what was it closely approximated by the master plan uh on the right hand side you have the permitted uses uh and uh as you know it's it's predominantly a retail um um permission uh it does allow detached dwelling units so I I suppose if we completely gutted the inside and turned it into a single family house that would be a permitted use um if we put a retail use on the first floor uh that would be permitted uh although it would require some kind of site plan review although banks are permitted as a conditional use and there was a bank here one of the conditions is a 1 acre minimum lot size so we we could never meet the standards for a bank and uh my recollection is that the banks are not very much in wouldn't be interested in this property and there are few Drive-In facilities that are um uh a left banks are pulling back on their Branch facilities of a you know 25 30 years ago if you asked a traffic expert to study a bank they would only study it Friday afternoon when everyone race there to deposit their checks as you know I haven't been to a bank in two years because uh you do this electronically so uh this is U technically a medich case um it allows mixed uses so I can have an apartment over a commercial um I can have technically two single family homes on the property you do then excuse me you just said there's not enough uh land there well with with the dedication you're right we're just under uh a half acre you can't you can't have two houses but from a point of view of density the answer is we're very close as I said to what the ordinance looks for and there were historically two dwellings on this property but the lots have merged so this is a bichi case uh we're picking two dwelling units in a building that was designed for residential use um it's not a permitted use uh in the zone some combination of that again residential on the second floor would be permitted uh but we want we would like to use this just as a two family house um so we have to show special reasons there's some purposes of the municipal land use law that are Advanced we have to show peculiar suitability of the use to the property and we have to meet the negative criteria under the enhanced burden of proof uh there's several Municipal land use law purposes that are Advanced and in my opinion uh first of all um there's aside from the fact that it should have been fixed up a while ago or better maintained the answer is the applicant is seeking approval to fix up the building so it looks better this building does not in my opinion is not well suited for commercial use you have a porch in front uh you know retail use typically has large windows it's inviting that you you know walk in um that's not the nature of this building this building was built residential it's got small windows it's got a porch so the front facade is not that apparent it really looks like a residential building uh the only thing strange about it is the drive-thru on the leftand side and the answer is the applicant is trying to return that as if it is a a essentially a porch um so in my opinion uh purposes a and I'll talk about them in detail e g i and J are Advanced by this application um a talks about encouraging the most appropriate use of land and G Talks about providing sufficient space in an appropriate location this is at the end of the active part of your business district the next property over is residential the next property over is the Bedminster Crossing where it really doesn't relate to the Front Street you know part of that first building uh does have a commercial space but it's set back it you have to get through it almost to the Courtyard in back of that building so I do think that residential use generically um is uh reasonable in this area because it's not well suited for some kind of commercial use and again because it has a historic flavor in my opinion you don't want to convert this building into have a facade that's more like a retail or office facade um that would in my opinion destroy the flavor of this building in terms of the doors the window pattern and especially the front porch purpose e talks about uh encouraging appropriate population densities we are just because of the dedication of land although no one's going to expand the road just on our property so this is a like a paper exchange the county wants it and we're going to give them the land but we do drop below uh a half acre which means we're we're a little higher in density uh than the two units that would be permitted a quarter acre per unit but we're not that far off um purpose I talks about promoting a desirable visual environment and again there are going to be significant changes in a residential theme uh and we did talk about adding Landscaping uh making the Portico no longer look like a dry through Portico and finally purpose J talks about uh the conservation of historic sites and this is a a use that in my opinion requires relatively little modifications to the facade of the building which it it keeps it in the residential flavor and that frankly is the historic use of the building so I think there are at least five purposes that in my opinion are advanced in terms of peculiar suitability um as you know the retail V envir has collapsed to a certain degree there are some vacancies in the area but more importantly specific to this property is it's really at the end of the active part of your retail District to the west of here there's just one vacant retail spot in the new uh Crossing building and that hasn't been rented I'm not sure why but the answer is it's been vacant for at least a couple years um in in my opinion the building is particularly suited because this two family use allows you to respect the facades of the building to approve them and and to not have to manipulate both the inside and the outside of the building substantially in order to accommodate a commercial use uh before when there was the catering establishment they had to poke you know uh sophisticated air exchange equipment on the back you can see you know it it doesn't fit well in a building of this style and this this age in terms of the negative Criterion I'll I'll repeat some of the the things uh we're certainly going to improve the Aesthetics of it we're Lessing the impervious coverage uh which is significant uh there's more than sufficient parking uh the rsis standards for two two bedroom apartments only require three spaces uh your code may require more but but the rsis standards which frankly rule um only require uh three spaces but given the nature of the busy street County Road lamington um it is nice to have an overs supply of parking um so no one has to worry about where guests are going to park uh and it's nice to have two driveways so no one uh so s there's a smooth traffic flow uh more predictability on someone entering and exiting uh the property uh again residential use is not foreign to this Zone um it's it's uh you can build a one family house on this property uh although one would say it's not well suited because of the volume of traffic here and again many of the one family we do have a historic house next door that's one family but it's set back a long ways from the from the front of the property but in a building like this that's up toward the street it discourages um uh in my opinion uh just someone building or using this as a one- family home uh as a two- family home I think it makes e the applicant has made the Judgment it's made economic sense uh and it is going to generate some kind of U purpose to uh renovate the building because it's it is uh has a deteriorated look at the moment um so for those reasons I think there are several public purposes that are Advanced I think the use is particularly suited giving the size of the building and the fact that you don't want to manipulate it that much so that you preserve the historic character and part of the character is the open space around it um you know actually the bank you would say is in the wrong Lo is in the wrong direction you know that that kind of damaged the look of the of the building but in my opinion the applicant is going in the right direction less traffic more than adequate parking more than adequate Green Space uh my opinion uh and also because the master plan anticipated a mixed use in this area uh this can be approved without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment of the Zone plan and zoning ordinance were there any other comments in Mr Bish's report that you want to he something in his excellent report um I have to disclose that Mr banish and I were roommates uh in another world on the planet were there were there caves roommate or Cav made I think I covered the items that he that he uh wanted me to cover questions I do I do want to take Mr SE respectfully take issue with some of the things you've said um you repeat it several times this is the furthest west we have commercial properties yet on the other side of the street we have four or five properties that are commercial that go all the way up on to the corner to that's correct except that because of the nature of the street and not having like a urban environment with blocks and it's hard to cost the street so if you're you know the trend is to get globally to get residential use in downtowns to get kind of a walking environment lamington is not a nice road to walk across it's not well suited and that's why I concentrated on the North side just want to clarify no I there's a pizza place across the street there was there's a bank uh there was a automobile dealer a number of years ago the almost all commercial properties all the way up yes but I this side at at this end in my opinion has a different character and it radically changed obviously when uh Bedminster Crossing came in the property to the West Was that all one lot in this quarter acre was subdivided from a bigger lot at some point you said they were merged our we our application is for two tax map Lots yes that have merged as on so as you if you look on the so was that subdivided from that larger parcel to the left it's separated by don't know I would suspect not well there these are both I think in the 1800s both of these buildings so uh I'm I'm not sure of how when the Lots were created but the the owner that I who has the property to the rear and left I met him on site and he was he told me the history of the property that there were two houses on each of the there was a house on each lot uh plus there was the barn on the west hand West Side that one time and he he has some history because he he lives in that house and it was his parents house so he he has some long-term personal history of the area so what with previously if they were two different lot if at one some point in time they were two separate Lots presumably they were two different residences or two different structures on those yeah there was a a a a single family home on each of the Lots talk to me a little bit about The Pedestrian goals of our Zone plan and the walkability that you said is trendy but maybe not so trendy what is interesting in your 2008 master plan you had a a map of encouraging sidewalks and and the the sidewalk was on the other side of lamington you did get new sidewalks because of the crossing but as I read the map there wasn't a plan to have sidewalks on in front of this property and the property next door but but at this point in time there's a sidewalk on the corner lot that goes all the way to this property line yes there's a and there's a sidewalk that starts at the Crossings property and goes almost all the way to uh the auto body shop I think there might be a little strip that's missing there so if we were truly going to make this pedestrian we would put sidewalks on the north side of lamington road all along that route uh potentially Yes except that I in your 2008 sidewalk plan it did the way I read it and I think it's pretty clear that the emphasis was on the other side of lamington road not only sidewalks there but that was kind of a walking trail and it did not recommend that for the north side here of lamington that that was before that larger residential project was even conceived of the north side of the road which I I can tell you if we if we did that plan 15 years later 16 years later might look a little little different well it's there if if this property had a sidewalk the only Gap from Hillside Avenue 206 would be the property to the west of his that's correct I don't mind sidewalk to resal we like that that's very good wrong going small little piece I do have a question about it's built and then the whole thing is there so thank you yes that's what we wanted so was there I I didn't understand in your testimony that there was any acknowledgement of any negative criteria here I don't well there's less traffic more pervious coverage you know the real effect of this is the right of way line is going to be pushed over about 10 feet but they're not going to expand the roadway there that makes no sense so the what this does is you know the negatives in theory are the building is the front setback is being reduced more but physically not changing the lot now not any worse than the corner lot right correct it's um the lot areas being reduced to less than a half an acre and again it's there's a public purpose here now given land to to the county so the focus really is on what's the negative of having two apartments here rather than an apartment over a commercial use and in my opinion I mean the applicant has given his business plan because it's very difficult to uh you know retain a tenant in a small space like this but to me to try to convert this into a active retail use is going to mess up the facades of the building in your opin residential use a higher and better use than retail or commercial functions well I think uh higher and better use is a real estate term I'm not a real estate but I can tell you that um you there seems to be um an ins an insatiable demand for residential uses now compared with commercial uses you know planners have this great Neo you know Colonial look they like you know Apartments over stores and that's that's an architectural image but unfortunately it doesn't meet the marketplace you know these commercial components are kind of a wash economically but you know uh I've you know I represent a number of developers that again want to convert commercial space into residential space well let me not let me let me not use the the real estate ter then let me just I'm going to steal your thunder what is the best use for this property in your opinion in my opinion it is given the fact that this is historic building and and part of the nature the niceness of this is its setting and it's going to be more green when this is done it's it's it's a gentler land use it's not going to produce as much traffic it's going to be fixed up and if this were in a row of woodframe buildings that all had were converted to office and Retail use I wouldn't be here but this is kind of at the end of the row and this is not an area which I think is again I I think there's it's it's important that it's at the end of what I would consider your active commercial area at least on the north side of lamington it might be at the end of the row but it might be at the end of the row but it's still in the historic district and through and throughout your pres throughout your presentation you kept talking about discussing how they going to preserve the flavor of the historic district and I'm wondering how are the tenants going to do that I mean what are they going to be able to do on their front porch on the front porch or under that Portico what furniture are they going to be able to put out there that's going to be historic look to look that way but but I'm not sure you you control the you you control the inside of a building I we are talking very much about keeping you you you personally talked a tremendous amount about that this is going to be keep the historic look of the town and how do we preserve that by turning it into residential and allowing residential people to make those choices because you've just said you can't control the tenants well you you I mean I don't know if the tenants are going to be neat or slobs I I just don't know that and you can't control that but but you can't but the you can you can have rules like if you live in the Hills by putting Landscaping first of all I think the front porch is going to stay as a porch and and uh you know I know that uh for in some apartment buildings they have what they call Juliet balconies that are non-functional balconies because they don't want people to put stuff out there because it looks bad this is a functional porch someone could sit out here put a chair on it and and by putting some Landscaping on the Portico it becomes a private area and I think that Shields it I I would hate to I'm not sure zoning goes so far to regulate what someone can do on a on a deck or a porch uh I know I I agree but that's why it's not zoned for residential well it's it's it it could have one it's zoned for residential in that this could be a one family house exempt from site plan approval that's the end of it but economically it doesn't make sense in my opinion and there's a need for some housing that's not luxury people in town have problems with securing employees this is housing that could I agree I agree with that I I'm not I'm not questioning that I'm I'm looking at you know your presentation was all about uh keeping the flavor of the historic district and I'm just wondering okay how is that going to be continued with tenants that's all I'm not talking about the building will be fixed up and you you won't know I mean in my opinion this board can't control control the nature of the tenants it can control the facades of the building and the use and in my opinion two two-bedroom apartments here um is is fits within the building given the fact that these were always separate first and second floor types of units for whatever the last 50 years um You by Landscaping in my opinion you can Shield the private areas from the public areas but I I don't think you want to well you can do what you want but I you know to say to someone you can't put a a chair out on your front porch or you can't have a grill in the back I'm not sure if if if that's reasonable considering that this is exempt from site plan approval and it's it's OB the board has a lot of power because this is a use variance that as they say that the dimensional standards are subsumed into the use variant because you don't you don't have standards for two family house in this zone so you have a lot of discretion but but in my opinion you ought to it ought to be um reasonable you know one of the things that attracted us to the building was the front porch we need to come to the microphone yeah one one of the things that attracted us to the building when we purchased it was the front porch and we want to maintain the front porch to look historical we have not repaired the the railing there because we want to go through this process and do do restore the porch uh correctly adding the back res residential areas en closing the back residential areas with nice Shrubbery and fencing will allow the tenants to live their lives as as they want to but I have no problem trying to move their uh exterior access to the back instead of on the front where the you know the the bystanders and the the towns people will see it when they come into town and I think that's a conducive use that will allow the historical preservation of that building commercial use would be even worse like to make an observation that front porch is probably not of a depth that would make it seem like an outdoor Recreation Area you'll see people put things like rocking chairs or benches or things like that that are acuts you see on a front porch but I think like we heard if you build the space in the back for people to go use as that outdoor area that's where they're going to go that's where they'll have privacy I think that makes sense yeah but bot apartment opens up the the bottom apartment opens right up onto that right so if you're going to cook a grill that's you're do you're not going to walk around the whole building to go do well we've already had to deal with that with the tenant on the on the on the second floor where we've asked them to not hang out on the front porch and leave it messy okay and the big issue is there's no covered space in the back so we want to make the conducive living out the exterior conducive to living outdoor in the back we're adding a lot of grass so there's an area the the uh tenant upstairs has a child he wants to play so we want to move them into the rear of the building and it's a big backyard yeah and us moving the shed out of the way that was there uh relocating the parking to the side all is conducive to a rear exterior for the for the uh tenants to live all right we want the shed in the back so they can have bicycles because they ride bicycles downtown that that increases the flow of people down downtown all of this is to create a better exterior living and if you look at uh Bedminster cross crossings they have a similar setup in between the two buildings there is U you know an area for outdoor spare so that's what we would like to do in my Madam chair in my opinion this is clearly a residential building whether it's a two two family Residential Building or not is is ultimately for us to decide but I don't think that I have a I don't think the architect has has completed the job in terms of of articulating how this property actually flows I don't think Mr Fox has completed the job with respect to how the property is landscaped and how it might be um enhanced um you know I'm I'm still struggling and I consider myself a visual person I'm still struggling about you know I think we we're talking about making a lot of improvements but I'm still struggling how that's articulated ultimately and so whether it's adding a sidewalk which I think would be a plus whether it's moving the proposed shed which might be a plus and shifting some of those parking spots further off the street but the idea of a of a porch close to the sidewalk is to me the definition of the village Zone and that that works very well but I just need more to understand how this actually functions and how uh it would be Advanced we know we talk about a lot more green space we talk about some of these other things that might be um kind of The Zone plan but I'm having a little trouble envisioning it and I'm usually pretty good at that so so you could what St you could ask the applicant to come back at a future hearing with a more detailed variance plan with all the details that you've talked about that they've promised tonight and you've been inquired about I'm not saying you should do that I'm saying you could do that and that might help you know more information before you're deliberating and voting which might be whatever your vote is I I'd like to know if the applicant is resting their case they are done I have another another thing to add if I can uh everyone is familiar with downtown with the uh Sims uh Jeweler correct with a what the Sims jewelry jewelry shop I can down in village there's a s not a dill green right on right next to delicious onton Road a little bit further west and and you walk by it and you see how beautifully uh flowered it is yes that's why we want want that building and that has a commercial use on the as permitted in the zone correct the first Flor correct but I I'm I'm making a relationship to how the exterior would look okay um so that's what we would plan on doing add floral arrangements add Shrubbery to do that so um this is my proposal to the board um I will uh suggest that upon approval of residential use for two units that we will pave the parking we will do the cement fiber siding we will do the rear decking wood or equivalent for the exterior deck we will have the one-way driveway uh grass area for residential exterior covered picnic area with pavers parking move back s on the side past the home uh but leaving the back area for residential living uh we will have the Lock Storage of 250 square fet per apartment in the basement uh exterior shed for large res uh residential living items biking Etc uh residential garage I'm sorry garbage and and uh recycle storage area keeping the litter uh contained instead of blowing around uh exclusive extensive Shrubbery and exterior planning my my similarity to The Sims Jeweler and then we'll add the SES well I I i' just like to pick up on what Tom said um and on what brid said I just want to go on the record that I'm not prepared to vote Yes on this application and the reason that I'm not prepared to vote Yes at this point have really nothing to do with the essence of whether it's a two family or not a two family it has to do with the nature of the presentation and with the promises that are being made in the context of the specificity of the materials that have pres been presented tonight and predicated upon the lack of specificity and to some extent with one or two of the witnesses the lack of credibility I'm not prepared to vote Yes if the applicant comes back gives us the landscape plan gives us a plan showing with great specificity the architectural detail and addresses the issues that have been raised that have been repeated by the applicant as promises and they're on plans then I'm prepared to review those plans and make a decision are we closing stat if you would like to make a you know comment or you know Tim do we need to open it up for the open you know need to open to the public for public comments okay so public um if anyone has any comments again or testimony or or questions testimon your questions you still have two iPhones you can start on you can unmute yourself ra your hand yes yes um I wanted to say we are not resting our case and I agree with the statement that was just made that the applicant needs to come back with a landscape plan and more detailed plans and that is Our intention to do that so I I don't think it would be appropriate to vote at this time in fact we'd like it to be carried so we have the opportunity to submit those I think that's a very good idea I would be very um good to clarify all the issues that was brought up so that the board could see it and not just visualize it in our minds as to what you want to do so I think that would be great but right now we're opening up for this witness so let's uh I think is there anyone there did not see anyone do anything any differently but if you would like to comment un mute yourself star n let us know that you have something say no none at this time I don't see anyone I see no one in the audience so we will close it to the public okay does the board agree with that I would like make a statement I'd like to um thank Mr van Orton for creating a very comprehensive list on his phone there and if you can take that list and put it into plan and and give us a spe specific I think we've all been very happy with that and I agree with everything Steve said and I could never said it better than he did a lawyer sure come on try anyway come on uh the applicant is willing then I think that's the direction we should go we are okay so we should carry to a date certain and get an extension past that date so let's try to figure out our calendar with Janine well we doation next week so it won't be next week we can carry to either of the ones in March the we need revised we need RIS variance plans at least 10 days before the public hearing continues so really the applicant should tell us when the architect and Mr Fox can be done their when are our meetings next month 7th and the 14th correct March 7th and 14th are March meetings ex have photos of the existing maybe even the interior so revised plans you know really you need them 20 days so that Frank and Paul can look at them um so you really probably looking at April uh would be 4th or 11th I mean I I'm not I don't want to speak for the architect and for Mr Fox but I don't think they can do work in in 10 days so you want to go to April or you you guys are you guys are telling us so when do you want to be on with with Revis plans 20 days before the public hearing you know if we could just have one second so I can just talk to I April certainly uh we agree that April makes more sense than March okay first meeting in April that would be the first Thursday first Thursday in April April 4th through April 11th your choice at this point um give me one second April 4th would would work for us thank you okay so Mike you'll extend that time cor action till the end of April absolutely yes okay and so we will carry the U 2475 lington Road llc at public hearing until April 4th 2024 at 7 pm there'll be no further notices that seems fine so we're we're done with this this case good thank you very much tonight yeah thank you yes okay Bo have any comments then we motion can I sorry sorry I just wanted to tell you maybe maybe read that notice about the state Planning Commission plan it sounds unbelievable but at the last meeting of that two weeks ago they claimed they're going to have a draft they April 4th there's something ridiculous that even though there is none yet and even though all the Departments of the state of New Jersey are going to supposedly comment and in participate including their comments into that plan by April uh I wish them luck I never heard of such a type three but apparently they think they can do it but I'm not so sure the D representative thought that they could do it he said so it's a bizarre undertaking I don't know why the go is so rapid and the only reason I can think of why they are doing it so rapidly is probably to try to segue it into something called A4 which is a statute dra Bill to revamp the entirety of M Laurel implementation eliminate COA if to's Authority somehow to some well supposedly the Department of Community Affairs is basically the governor which I can't believe the governor really wants to have that Authority but that's what they're doing and they're trying to say that it'll be handled by mediators appointed by the Chief Justice which seems inconsistent with the Constitution but that's what they're trying to do and it's bizarre and so get ready for the world of Mount Laurel round four in a very strange uh legislative attempt to supposedly ramp and reform they to preempt are they going to preempt the control we have over these our towns yes it's very bad for municipalities there's no doubt about it the whole concept which take away and limit the immunity that you obtain from the fair housing act and from U CO's 30 years of Crisis which were created to eliminate the builders remedy and give municipalities the option to go to an administrative agency as a safe haror for IM immunization against Builders R lawsuit this bill as proposed and as revised in proposal would actually circumvent that in a great way circuit immunity result in mediation like a clean slate right ridiculous it isn't even a clean slate it's a ridiculous it's ridiculous proposal that should be should be scra people scrapped by the legislature and the governor and they should just appoint the people to co and let Co exist and deal with a bunch of people who didn't get elected anywhere are going to tell you what to do in your town that's right that's right wait wait wait get worse than that beautiful you live in a town that got hit by a build remedy worse than almost anybody and so after the court and they did such a crappy job of figuring out what's your obligation was that the court told you you owed 819 affordable units when you actually owed 157 so so that's what Co came up with for you so after this Builder remedy crap they came up with this really bright idea where Co develops these rules there's an administrative procedure you don't have to pay lawyers and planners to do every single part of it you could go through Co then we did over and over again and got certified it worked fine until it didn't and so instead of only Reas didn't work the only reason it didn't work is that the final draft of the third round rules got to the table like your table with 12 people were supposed to be sitting only six people of the 12 were sitting there and they voted three to three to adopt the regulations what does that mean they did not adopt the regulations they did all the state agency didn't bother to do and I'll bet some of the people that weren't there were department heads or their representatives who one more vote would have carried the regulations that had been drafted by professionals and supported by experts and and fixed after they were thrown out twice to no fault of the towns by the way that who were effectively innocent bystanders who said here's our plan and we're sitting there for six years so get ready for round four by this crazy legislative and government and executive branch idea it is a disaster it is not a good idea if anybody has any juice with the state and with the legislature and with the governor you should urge them to stop A4 and just app Point Cod the rules are all in everything we need is already sitting there re would would a change in the governor help this I can't I can understand why any anybody in the legislature or the governor would want this the whole thing has been about elected officials not wanting to get involved in this right because they didn't want to wash their hand and say not my fault it's CO's fault but all of a sudden they're making it their fault that's right the big and they don't need to because all that is required and I'm not being prous is the mere appointment of 12 people by the governor to COA and the as long as they don't vote 66 affir affirmation of those 12 people by the the state senate and then they adopt regulations consistent with The Fair Housing Act which says towns are im immunized as long as they file a substance certification application which you have done his St through ever since Co sounds like another sign of the Apocalypse yeah it's really very weird I think there may be a time when you'll be asked be to adop the resolution urging the governor and legislature not to do this new statute and that would be a wise for all mun 565 municipalities in New Jersey to adopt regulate a resolution like that um it's really very very strange what's going on and but why don't we start with one yeah well that's I'm sure that Larry's on it and I'm sure he's very very involved in trying to prevent this from being adopted the way that it's proposed and he's very active in that and so the sure of the committee is as well but I just wanted you to know about it because I know noticed that you got that notice of the state Planning Commission so I just by chance had gone on the meeting and noticed that they were talking about adopting this or introducing the state plan by April and I thought that's pretty bizarre there's no draft of the state plan that they want to adopt but they're going to introduce it on April 4th or something like that doesn't seem realistic I if you look at the state plan it is a map partiel base almost it's not quite as good as the fin map but it's basically a mapping of the entirety of the state of New Jersey with planning areas one through four and with environmentally sensitive are is designated and if the D's ready to tell us what those are which they they think they are the reason why they're saying a for is because it's already done well you would it's already done it was not produced or available at the was discussed they're goingon to roll it out said I don't think I can get probably been five years in the making by a group of 30-year-old Millennials who have a better idea I don't know but all I can say is it's chaos you live in a state that's chaotic and this proposal is chaotic Y and it's very detrimental to municipalities it's also extremely detrimental to sound and good planning which should be based on a local basis with coming up from the top not down from the top up from the bottom not from down from the top so that people like you can know where uses should be allowed this I'm about to retire from this this is so you will not believe when you read it you will just say who wrote this so fre 80 pages of chaos what do you don't think so I don't think it's gonna be stopped because I think the Democratic party and the legislature thinks that this is a good idea some it's it's not going to produce more housing but they think it is and they bought the Kool-Aid from from the Builder plaintiffs and from build fair share housing center they have bought into the theory that towns are all bad and municipalities are all bad and that housing will only be accomplished by being forced need through zoning when in fact zoning does not build housing it's really complicated to build aable housing and is zoning that's the sole impediment to that just the construction costs alone for housing are so high that zoning is not the sole impediment so all you got do is look at Carrie be reading about it if you get asked about it it would be best to just skip statute just a point Cod no just a point Cod and let's let's keep IM immunized and keep planning and and let's develop realistic formulas for what the obligation is because one of the jobs that Co was imparted with was to create realistic economic and population projections for determinations of fair share it is it must be realistic you know it isn't just ma imaginary we we can produce it therefore it is it doesn't work that way and that's what the Fair Housing Act says that's why it does not need to be changed so stay tuned but keep reading the papers and looking online think see that some Municipal entities will suggest that towns adopt a resolution I hope they do and hope you get the draft there's also an explanation of the bill in your planner in your njpo planner by jeffan who's who's my friend and a very good land he's the expert in Municipal uh Mal oral housing from the municipal perspective in New Jersey representing hundreds of of the towns in New Jersey and and trying to get the legislature to focus on why the statute the proposed bill needs to be change um but it's like a locomotive and it's going fast so okay it almost got introduced in the lck legislature of last year oh I'm sorry I just want to say real quick with you guys the M review letter that we got from Paul for the application that's next week this was also the plan that they submit it with you so don't throw it away bring it with you next week and everything else will be up on the website tomorrow I just wanted to say one other thing we lost a resident this uh past week she was very involved from the Chan in our committee uh Teresa petus I don't know I know George was on environmental with her and and Jeff was uh her funeral services are tomorrow in Branchburg between three and seven anybody she's also a member of the hills that's I say she was very involved in the was on the RMC yeah for years and she was on the RMC she was very involved in the town and she was a vice chair of the environmental yeah so um we all say prayers for and I think God heard our prayers um it was a very debilitating she was diagnosed with abilita diseas literally like maybe two months ago yeah in November she was diagnosed with Lugar ALS and so so that's a blessing it is a bless that's what I'm saying um God heard our prayers because it was yeah so tomorrow Branch yeah okay emotion