e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e we're going to call to order tonight's uh meeting of the township of Bernard's zoning B uh Board of adjustment uh the first item on the agenda is the flag salute so please stand States of America the stands na indivisible andice in accordance with the requirement of the open public meeting law notice this meeting of the board of adjustment of the township of Bernards was posted on a bulletin board in the reception hall of the municipal building ker Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey it was also mailed to the Bernardsville News whiy New Jersey The Courier News Bridgewater New Jersey and it was also filed with the Township Clerk all on January 8th of this year and it was mailed electronically to all those people who had requested individual notice the following procedure has been adopted by the Bernards Township zoning Board of adjustment there will be no new cases heard after 10 o' tonight and no new testimony heard after 10:30 p.m. um is there an O of office you did that already Tak care of we have board M thank you welcome welcome welcome thank you kiy for joining us she took office she thank you uh Miss keeper will you do a roll call for us certainly uh Mr Cambria Mr helverson and Miss Herrera are unable to uh attend this evening chairwoman Jers here miss Balman here Mr Krauss here uh Miss Pichi here miss poar here Mr TTI here Mr SOI here Mr Quinn here Mr schl here and for the record Miss Keir is present uh Madam chair you have a quum you may proceed excellent thank you is there a motion to excuse the opposit of our missing members tonight so move thank you I'll second thank you m all in favor opposed abstain thank you thank you um next is the approval of resolutions the first one is Phil which was ZB 24002 I think that's been circulated in advance um to members and I think there were some medits we skip oh we did Skip minuts sorry about that um let's start with the approval of minutes the first one is from our regular schedule of meeting April 3rd 2024 which I was not present at but I did watch I'll make a motion to approve second thank you miss poar and miss Balman um all in favor I opposed abstain I will stain yes thank you thank you um the next is the approval of minutes from our special meeting on April 11th 2024 I think likewise they were circulated in advance mam chair a motion to approve the minutes as drafted second thank you Mr con and M B okay wait a minute that was on 411 oh sorry yeah M person just second them I believe Mr CR was special meeting I was not I will second I will second need to all in favor I opposed I will abstain Iain we have four exensions um next is the approval of resolutions now we're up to 7A which is Phil ZB 24002 Miss keeper do you want to tell us who's eligible to vote on that resolution um let's see we have Miss Balman Mr Krauss M poar Mr you're eligible Madam chair I'll make a motion to approve the resolution as drafted thank you Miss pman second thank you Mr T Miss Balman yes Mr Krauss yes Miss poar yes Mr tanky yes thank you next was uh approval of resolution 7B Patel ZB 245 oh sorry I was just going to say the same people are eligible for I'll make a motion to approve this drafted thank you Miss P will second that one thank you Mr M Balman yes Mr Crow yes M haar yes Mr tanky yes thank you um and then last on the resolutions was MIA MIA ZB 24007 chair I'll make a motion to approve the resolution as drafted thank you Mr I'll second thank you m poar m Balman yes Mr kuss yes M poar yes Mr T yes thank you thank you Miss keer um next on the agenda is 8A completeness and public hearing for merilus David and Tera which is ZB 24009 mam sureair we're going to be carrying that yes we're going to be caring caring that with no further notice do you want to I'll just make a quick statement regarding notice for the record um got a little bit of speech I'll just run through it okay so this matter will be carried to the board's June 5th 2024 meeting which will be held here at the municipal building one col Lane at 7:30 pm. with no further notice being required for the reford the applicants at notice for this evening and I found the content and timeliness of service of said notice U sufficient to Grant the board jurisdiction over the case tonight U notice was sent to owners of property within 200 ft of the subject propert on April 24th 2024 by certified mail and was also published in The Courier news on April 28th 2024 both more than 10 days in advance of Fin heing and hence because jurisdiction is proper at this time no further notice either personal personal or by publication shall be required as this announcement Service as notice of the rescheduling so that's it that one you're here for the marals I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly application uh come back June 5th we're not doing anything with that tonight so okay that's all perfect thank you very much so that's carried June 5th no further nervous required um next on the agenda is 8B River Walk Village LLC believe we're welcoming them back good evening Madam chair board members members of the public my name is Michael silbert I'm an attorney at the law firm D franccesco baitman located in Warren Township New Jersey I'm sure the board's already familiar with this application so um I'm not going to do uh summary of what what the board's already aware of um so I'm sure the board recalls the applicant appeared before the board on April 3rd 20124 uh and the applicant sought the elimination of a conditional use requirement Bound in section 21-23 and five of the township zoning ordinances which currently mandates that a retail Center shall contain no offices on the first floor consequently the applicant seeks D3 relief to permit office uses on the first floor of Riverwalk Village Center uh at the time of the last hearing the applicant was engaged in in ongoing negotiations with the prospective medical office tenant a dentist if you recall uh to locate them in approximately 3 3,100 sare ft of space on the first floor at the hearing the applicant represented the board that they did not want to be limited to just 3100 ft of office space on the first floor and furthermore the applicant represented to the board that since office cases are already permitted use on the property the applicant did not feel that it was uh appropriate for the types of offices on the property to be restricted uh the board had very strong reservations about broadly permitting office uses on the first floor without some kind of space limitation so after the hearing and obviously taking taking to Heart what the board had communicated the applicant took a closer look at the ordinance as was detailed in the applicants resubmission letter dated April 18th 2024 to see if they could propose a rationally based condition as it relates to the variance relief being sought so turning to section 21-1 12.3 and5 the conditional use requirements also mandate that at least 50% of the floor area for Riverwalk Village Center be dedicated to restaurants specialty food stores retail sales and services uh in other words 24,8 68 Square ft approxim ly a Riverwalk Village must be allocated to these types of uses so I referred to that as the 50% requirement uh I have some supplemental exhibits I can pass out if the board did review my letter this kind of explains the uh justifications for the calculations and these calculations were amended based upon Mr s's memo which I received on May 6 um I believe this is the only exhibit so Market is A1 so are these new we haven't they are new yeah they weren't submitted to the board so Mark exhibit what is it what is it that you're giving us there what I'm going to get into is a proposed office cap and I'm just I what I laid out was the justifications and the calculations how I arrived at that number um Madam chair I'd like to say that for the record that I uh have uh watched the video and I am qualified to vote on the application and I did um go to the site uh specifically to look at the signage issues and the uh traffic issues and I just want to head that thank you very much um and thanks for mentioning that and I'll use this opportunity um to also say that I wasn't here last month but I also um watched uh the video so uh I am eligible to vote enough to speak we have questions we have signed certifications for both board members for that effect excellent thank you so much for putting that on the record before we go any further so this is exhibit A1 you want to call this proposed office cap exhibit perfect sounds good date that today yeah that's great thank you so um based upon the the feedback we received at the April third hearing again the applicant still seeking to elate the eliminate the conditional use requirement as it relates to office use on the first floor but the applicant proposed a condition that the office space to be permitted on the first FL floor be capped at 5725 sare ft approximately um and this is the maximum amount of space on the first floor that would be uh permitted to have office uses and the reason why we arrived at this proposal we thought we felt this was a reasonable condition is that it aligns with the 50% retail requirement which ensures that at least 24,8 168 sare ft or over 8 8% of the first floor of the shopping center or the retail Center uh remain dedicated to restaurants specialty food stores retail uses and services um so it's our contention that this proposal is consistent with the Township's master plan which we'll we we'll discuss in Greater detail uh applicant also amended its application since April 3rd to request bulk variant relief to permit tenant tenant signage uh to be mounted on the second floor so specific specifically the applicant seeks permission to install tenant wall signs on the second floor facade of the main building uh of Riverwalk Village which is prohibited by section 21-1 17.4 e1b so in accordance with Mr sh's updated report uh dated May 6 2024 um the we we are requesting that the signs be slightly larger than the signs that are currently exist on the first floor so the signs that currently exist on the first floor are 2 feet or have a vertical distance of 2 feet and they're permitted to be have a width of up to 12T um the applicants seeking signage here that would permit a vertical uh height dimension of of 3 feet um and we can address why we feel that's that's rational and reasonable um but just to address some of the comments in in Mr Sid report the the signage will not be backlit it will be consistent with the existing tenant signage on the site except for how I otherwise stated um and it'll be uh in Conformity with all the other applicable sign regulations the only thing uh Mr schy is in your opinion does the applicant need uh any variance relief to the requirement that Heights can't be mounted above 17 ft or is under the conditional use requirement standards it's just a matter of it being mounted on the second floor it's the second floor okay okay yeah all right thank you so um ironically this request aims to facilitate the applicant's efforts and leasing the second floor space so um before I call recall my first witness uh which was uh Mr Brian silbert and I believe he was sworn in obviously at the last hearing so he remains under oath but just as it relates to the office cap calculation so the applicant stipulates to complying with comment number four in Mr sches report that the office cap calculations for the first floor shall not include the Carney Bank building located in Warren Township um in accordance with common six in the same report the applicant stipulates that all tenant leases shall require that employees Park under the building in the covered area uh covered parking area I believe all the leases already uh mandate that and we'll continue to to do so so um so with that as an introduction if I if I may uh recall my first witness U Mr Brian silbert like before you go any further let me just stop you just to clear on the scope of relief that's being requested sure you guys are requesting a D3 correct that's correct only because the proposal only violates one condition of section 21 12.3 and5 and that's the condition that requires retail that requires that no office use be permitted on the first floor of retail that's correct okay just want to understand and then plus the bulk variance relief associated with the signage okay thank um so just uh just by way of background information to refresh the board can you talk about the the current tenant makeup on the first floor and second floor yes good evening Madame chair and members of the board and the professionals I'm Brian silbert I'm president of silbert realy and management company we the uh managing agent for the uh principal owner who is uh who is also here this evening Mr Bruce bosina um we have a great mix of tenants that are there presently we have approximately uh 14 tenants on the first floor of Riverwalk Village Center um uh constituting 89% in retail and restaurants um the second floor of Riverwalk um we have uh in place um four tenants um approximately 55% least and approximately 45% vacant uh and that excludes the uh what we refer to as the Bank building in a Warren Township and uh just speaking to the types of tenants on the second floor second floor is not only limited to office tenants is that is that fair to say that you have other types of tenants up there other types of uses uh that that's a correct uh statement we we have a pardon me we have a uh Boutique Fitness tenant on the second floor um uh that's occupying space there that's correct the remaining tenants there are are office and medical so just um worst case scenario if the second floor were to consist entirely of office tenants and the board were to permit this the variant Le we're seeking with respect to the D3 variance worst case scenario the building would be able to have um meet its 50% uh retail Ser retail Center type uses requirement is that accurate that's that's an accurate statement yes uh let's talk a little bit about the uh the dentist uh because we we spoke at length about that at the last hearing um and maybe you can touch on on the status of that and talk about why you you were seeking flexibility from the board C certainly um we do not have a signed leis with a dentist for the uh Shopping Center at this time um we continue discussions with the dentist um the purpose of the variance is very straightforward uh as we spoke about last hearing um the uh climate of retail has changed dramatically um I have many projects in Jersey and outside of Jersey um that afford some limited non-traditional retail uh office Medical Dental uh and the like um and we merely want to have a little bit of latitude uh within Riverwalk Village Center uh for the same situation we are by no way trying to change the makeup or the complexion of the center and make it a retail complex on it down downstairs uh which is why we uh felt very comfortable um with approximately 5700 Square ft in totality for the ground floor for some uh level of of of retail today of office which you know could could include uh Wealth Management it could be Urgent Care Medical but we need some component of that it's it's very uh common place today in in retailing and uh just to clarify for the board um the owner and applicant uh as well as your companies associated with Marketplace is that is that accurate yeah yes it is U Michael uh Mr bosina uh had also constructed the other I call Trophy property uh called 100 Marketplace down the street from here just to the South um and uh similar uh similar uh uh project there and with respect to Marketplace uh are you aware of any restrictions on office use on the ground floor there uh no there there uh are none and we um we have um you know some office type uses downstairs um functions very well there and how about uh signage are you allowed to have signage on the on the second floor or you recall at the top of your head yes I I have actually a much much more uh uh tenant friendly signage package over Marketplace so much so we've had tenants tell us uh I've handled the leasing personally on the project since before it was constructed so we've had tenants say we don't want to go into Riverwalk because there's no there's quote no signage the difference with the two projects specific to signage are the following there are two pylon signs over at Marketplace Monument pylon sign very tastily done one is actually on Martinsville Road uh one is on mountain Boulevard as you come in there're two different ones quite frankly if I didn't have that we wouldn't have some of the tenants that are in there I do not have that ability at all at Riverwalk we have the name of the project out there uh when it was originally constructed and that's the only signage that's on there in addition to the facade signage also in Marketplace I have second floor tenants there as well that have outdoor uh uh facade signage uh on the second floor and I'm just asking you a little bit more about the surrounding area um um so there was a new project uh actually in Warren Township can you just talk a little bit about that that project it's it's across the street from Riverwalk I believe yes there's a I think the the project that Michael silbert is speaking of is uh opposite Riverwalk um it's a uh small Center um it's in it's in Warren it it has large facade signage and it has a uh it has a pylon illuminated sign right off the road um it's if you're driving down Martinsville Road um if you're coming from the north to the South it's on the east side if you're traveling from the south to the north it's to your right and it's diagonal across from Riverwalk uh it doesn't have a name there's a Dunkin Donuts in there now yeah I think plys is in there but needless to say it's different municipality subject to different zoning requirements but again we're just describing the the surrounding retail area so I'm going to move on ask you a couple question questions specifically as it relates to to the variance relief we're seeking so I'm going to talk about something uh the board's familiar with the cry Square standard uh that's the standard that uh the burden has to to meet when they're seeking a D3 variance and the board's focus is is on whether the site remains appropriate for the conditional use despite the fail failure of the use to conform to all the ordinances conditions so as a reminder unlike a D1 use variance the use itself is permitted so the use is permitted Al be it with conditions So based on your familiarity of the property the testimony you provided is it your opinion that the site remains appropriate as a retail Center despite the location of limited office space on the ground floor yes most definitely and and you've kind of touched on it but just expand upon upon that a little bit why do you think that's why do you think it's not going to um change the change the retail Center in such a manner that it'll take away from the retail uses I I don't think it will change the character and the Integrity of the shopping center because the types of office uses that we would Envision at a future date there is great Synergy with the types of tenants I have there I have um a couple of million square feet of centers that we manage uh it is very common practice again today to have some of these office type uses whether it's wealth management whether it's an Urgent Care um uh and it doesn't change the character what what it does is it allows some of these other businesses to participate in the customer flow that these businesses would not otherwise benefit if you can't put them on the ground floor so there there is a I like to use the word Synergy in retailing it's it's quite quite accurate to what goes on today but um you can drive around to other properties in in Jersey outside of Jersey and it's it's it's very common practice to see that and it's this is may be a silly question but office uses are permitted on the second floor correct correct that's correct so the original building design already took into account parking for example as it relates to office uses correct okay and uh that being said is it your opinion that parking will not be substantially impacted on the property as the as the result of the proposed deviation from the conditional use standards I see no I see no negative impact with parking uh whatsoever uh with what our request is at all um parking has not been a problem on site and parking will not be a problem on site uh we're very adequately parked here there's shared parking because of different hours of operation different types of tenants and um we're very comfortable with the parking uh for this property and and and in fact if you had a you know a restaurant use for example that that would be permitted we wouldn't be before the board um that could actually bring in more traffic is that is that an accurate statement that's an accurate statement um uh for those of you not familiar we have a restaurant there that serves alcohol we have uh several others that do not um they're open for different different times some are not open for lunch some are open for lunch um but that's all part of the shared parking so no I Envision no issue if we were to have another restaurant there quite frankly and and just to uh clarify my question so when I say traffic I meant that it it triggers a higher parking requirement per the Township's ordinance if it were a restaurant use is that that your understanding that's my understanding okay um let's just discuss the master plan a little bit and you've had the opportunity to peruse through the master plan the 2023 master plan as well as the 2010 master plan yes I have read okay um so the app applicants proposing a self-imposed office cap and this office cap will limit office uses on the first floor to approximately 19% and I'm citing to to Mr SCH memo but the 2023 Township master plan uh number four in page 12 States retail shopping opportunities in existing business zones should be strengthened by discouraging or restricting office uses from ground floor areas so do you think an office cap that is restricting office uses on the ground floor is consistent with with the provision of the master plan that suggests that office be restricted on the ground floor I believe that the uh office cap that we are proposing as a ratio to the entirety is is quite adequate and it's reasonable uh from my perspective and my experience and the reason why I'm asking that question is because the master plan and correct me if I'm wrong is not suggesting that absolutely no offices be permitted on the first floor either it's it's it's suggesting that there be a level of reasonableness or that it be it be restricted and and isn't that exactly what we're proposing still Mo most definitely um Michael um again uh I spent a lot of time analyzing our Square footages other assets that I have regarding office use medical use sizes that are needed um and the entirety and and we feel very comfortable with the numbers that we've presented as being as being reasonable and again not changing but enhancing the Integrity of Riverwalk as a as a community center here and just so we're all clear on on the negative criteria correct me if I'm mistaken but the the key word here is is substantial or the key phrase is substantial impairment of the master plan the board must determine whether the applicant's proposal proposal poses a substantial impairment to the master plan so it's not a matter of whether it's necessarily consistent or whether it slightly deviates the question I'm posing to you is do you think that in any way this application poses a substantial impairment to the master plan no it does not none whatsoever no substantial detriment and I want to ask you a question because you're talking a lot about Synergy um do you have any concern that the propos use will negatively impact foot traffic which when you read through the master plan that appears to be the major concern of having office space on the first floor no I do not at all believe that that would be the case to the contrary you think it could actually help bring foot traffic to the site I think it I think it can enhance foot tra foot traffic and I can speak to that based upon my experience in in other similar properties in other parts of New Jersey and I'm asking that question based on page 45 of the 2023 master plan so um so if if the reason for the prohibition was to prevent against negative impacts to retail oriented tenants which is when I look at the master plan that's at least it seems it suggests that's the reason why there should be restrictions as it relates to office uses and it's your position that this may actually help put traffic it's fair to conclude that that this will not substantially impair the master plan right that's correct it will not sub it will not subst moving right along to the sign variance here so we're seeking um variance relief with respect to signage we're seeking a C2 variance or what's known as a flexible c um so we want to emphas emphasize the benefits and the positive impacts of of the signage and what that'll do to the property the surrounding area and community so talking uh just turning to uh purpose I of the ml which is in section two is do you believe the proposed second signage is designed to enhance the architectural features of building uh contribute positively to the overall aesthetic appeal of the property yes I do okay um and again it's going to be consistent with the with the existing signage there right it will be consistent with the existing signage um but for it will be one foot larger vertically um can you discuss thatly yes um we analyzed subsequent the last meeting our signage and some of the problems that we've had with the second floor here um and in large part has been the lack of of the consumer knowing there's a business upstairs um what we need to appreciate here is signage is supposed to inform the public retail signage of what's there it's not it's it's not to be a mystery the way the property is developed if you look at the exhibit believe was presented um the second floor is set back a distance from the first floor facade secondly the height of it is is just under 27 feet from the ground where the sign would be we are merely asking for support relief to make that sign on the vertical height 3 ft versus 2T the two feet are the downstairs front facade above the storefront again we are speaking about four signs on the second floor set back and elevated three times in height that was the basis of the decision many V many visits out to the property and Analysis based upon also other signage that we have in other product so that's how we arrived at the 3ot vertical still maintaining the 12 12 acrosss the width that your response there kind of hit at purpose A and G of the ml so again just just to to to reiterate here you believe that this signage will help improve invisibility and identification of the businesses located on the second floor it can also uh improve um improve that for visitors and emergency Personnel by clearly indicating the location of businesses on the second floor that that's correct and that's the intent of why you want the sign you don't want to sign there where somebody says what does that say I I can't see it because it's set back and elevated and so there are certain tenants and correct me from WR there's certain tenants that that require or or look for signage obviously signage rights is that an accurate statement yes it is so are there certain tenants that are potentially turned off on leasing second floor space because the second floor doesn't have signage yes that's correct so not necessarily specific to the to the property but just to the community as as a whole um do you think that granting the release with respect to signage promotes the the public interest as it promotes economic vital vitality and that it'll bring these tenants that you're speaking of to to burnard's Township that wouldn't otherwise come to burnard's Township yes I do in the same way we have down the street in the uh 100 Marketplace project with the outside facade signs can I just a question are you presenting this information right now can we ask questions about this this please do ab keep asking questions back and forth I'm just wondering if we could actually ask some questions intermitten here like maybe you could review this Exhibit while you keep asking questions so that we can kind of flow together versus at the end ask you a million questions that's that's perfect that work just just maybe you can review this exhibit and absolutely please you know let us understand if this is scaled correctly because it looks like the first floor and the second floor aren't even if the second floor is 3 feet and the first floor is 2 feet it looks like the second floor is smaller than the first floor on these diagrams do you the sign you know what I mean like the the red outline here is that scal to three feet versus or that just someone putting it's not it's not to scale so it's not it would be larger I don't know if it's larger I guess it's larger and it's not the if if I may if I may the the the width is the same as the downstairs um it's vertical it's the vertical that's larger um but I will defer to council and where plan it's not going to be flush I assume because if it's the windows in there and everything it's going to be something built out that you're presenting what I'm saying is that the the boxes that you're seeing aren't to scale that we're representing the accurate dimensions and where they would be on the building exactly that's where this yes those if I may it's arital diagram no no I I Mr Cross I appreciate the question excellent the location of the proposed signs are outside of the areas where those tenants would be okay we've we have had as a company companies come up there and say nobody's quote nobody's going to know we're here we're not comfortable so the locations that you see have been paced off we've gone up on a ladder those are those are accurate locations they're not well it's going to be 5 feet to the right or left no no no no it's exactly where you see it there okay so so may I ask a question the sign if it's 3 feet tall and you're at the window head is going to project above the roof line r got' I'm saying the loc the location the location the box is where it's going to go but I'm saying if you put a three foot tall sign it's got to project above the eve of the roof to your point Beth I think it's going to I was looking at that it's going to it's going to take up the entire area not just the brick phase but it's probably going to be right up to the bottom of the because 3T is about that entire area between more I I think that's no I think that looks about three how much space there is between the top of the window andat so we can understand what three means look like it's about 18 in above that but we we have we have again I'm trying to understand the the question if you would Madam chair we want to understand if the bottom of the sign goes at the top of the window where is the top of the sign the top of the sign will go um just below the trim that's it it's basically where it's depicted that's the three ft okay is it three feet between the top of the window and that bottom of the the whole sign fits there that's that's correct us cor that's correct so it'll be under the projection of the roof and shadowed absolutely under the absolutely under the projection of the roof no no no no no you're not you're not a little unorthodox but you're you're not going up in this area by the roof at all you're below that you're below that I'm I'm just saying it because the sign's below if they're 2et tall correct they look bigger that but the reasoning is you're you're seeing a photograph you're seeing a photograph taken from the taken that's part of why we're requesting it be larger because the photograph that's taken I have the same thing you do obviously is taken on the ground and you're looking at a you're looking at a faad sign that's approximately 10 ft in the air these are set back these are set back over 20 ft and they're 27 ft in the air so you're you're not if you understand I understand which which is why you can't make them the same size because you're not going to see them properly Mr Silver can I ask you a question yes did you did you guys go out and measure these areas yes we've taken measurements okay so yes we've taken measurements so you know a 3ot okay so so 3 feet on the picture that we see the white Eve or molding whatever you want to call call it you're saying the sign fits between the window and that no I said the sign will fit below it's a little hard for me to tell on here somebody said well does the sign go up to the roof no the sign doesn't go up anywhere near the roof The Sign May protrude a couple of inches above the the trim the white trim if you will but it's not going up the it's not going up to the roof okay cuz it's tough to tell by this picture I appreciate that no no no it's good they're good questions that's why I'm asking you're saying 3T is below the roof line that's all we know that's correct that's correct okay it's in scale with the way it's built we would never put it up and say well let's just stick the sign up there and it's going to be up on the roof positively no it's been measured and that's where it is but you're looking at it you're looking at a you're looking at a a a I guess I would call it a rendering superimposing the exact location of the sign where it would be in relation to the tenant the store um and as I said below the roof line and but it may it may be over about 2 in onto the white onto the white trim but there's no detriment to doing that in terms of the in terms of the uh appearance of that front facade at all it's the same material as we have on the ground floor photo shows it more accurately because it's it's lighter the other one's in someone Shadow it's hard to tell okay you this one I think you can see it yeah I I think I'd rather just go by his testimony because it's to scale so we better just ask and and the alpha Fit club sign that's shown in the picture the Alp Fit club that would be moved up so that's even part of there's two things there's a sign and there's a banner that someone hung up there okay so allow me to look was that a grand opening b or something yeah it was that was the so yes sir that's a great question so we allow the tenants subject to municipality to have a grand opening Banner it's the only location in New Jersey that they have a second floor location uh that was a bit that was a big issue we don't go on the second floor um what they wanted to have to effectuate that lease was the sign above their store people were concerned they going say well they come here they look at Alpha fit sign say well where's Alpha fit Alpha fit's not there so so Alpha fit would want its sign by its by its store there so that that facade area is allowed to have the proper facade sign for that tenant which would be vacant Unit 8 if that makes sense what about do you have a rendering of what the sign will look like we would submit that as an exhibit ma'am based upon the particular tenant that would rent space in that has to go in and that will be submitted but is will it be consistent with some of the signs on the first floor that seem to be you know they they vary based on I guess what the what the the Le the person who's leasing wants the sign to look like so you know the word the um letters are different uh the colors are different you look at Henry's versus o Bagel uh with their symbols so what what will it sure so when we have a tenant to lease up on the second floor they have to be back lat that would require pardon me compliance with the signage criter IA the letters Etc and when we submit for zoning the application goes in that will include their sign detail so the four signs may look different depending on what their tenant what their logo may be or what their color they want yeah not yes not not dis similar like like you raised an example the Henry's Jeweler right the b the original The Bagel tenants been there the Old Bagel right yeah but very tasteful and it'll be subject to the approv of bur okay right all be submitted obviously with the with a signage permit application exactly the signs on the second floor would only be for the second floor tenants only for those second floor tenants and only in those areas it's not well can you move it 5T over no this is where it would have to go but right now it's a big problem because it's a problem so it's one tenant per sign yes ma'am how far is the distance between where we see the signs on the first floor and then the building is a little bit set back there's like that Terrace area there's distance yeah there's approximately 16 ft further in from that from the railing that's there it really 16 yeah so so when you when you couple that if you look at these if you look at the signs on the first floor you know it's the height of a basketball uh court if you will this has been measured and it's on here it's 267 in the air then you're set back and and to put a two for vertical sign my son comes he he says you want to put a 4 foot sign there I said no we're not going to go in for a 4 foot sign he says well you're not going to see it I said I'm okay with a three-foot sign he said but if you're going to do two it's not even going to it's too it's the scale of it doesn't work so we're going to go with the three at the based upon the board allowing us to do that but that's the reasoning why if it was the same height hypothetically but it's not it's a second it's a second story combined with the fact it's pushed back the other issue is and again Michael Silber touched on it earlier and it and it's worth making mention of it when Mr bosino went in years back and had Riverwalk uh I'm sorry Marketplace approved we have the facade signage and the second floor but there were also two Monument signs approved tasteful Monument signs that there today I have no Monument signs here to work with so I'm really I really got one hand tied behind my back with with renting that it make it makes it challenging and then when you get a tenant that you have on the second floor that would be a good fit here it's it's really we were very fortunate very fortunate to get the alpha fit there because they had no signage up there they didn't want to do that um that's not the norm so so we're here in conjunction with the application tonight to to ask the board for some you know sort of cooperation on that you said they're not going to be back lit how do you plan to light them they they're going to be illuminated exactly the way we have the well I I didn't mention about yeah exactly exactly the way the we're not looking to change anything within the signage package with the exception of two points point one is point one is um 3T vertical point two is allowing to be put on the second floor of Riverwalk that's it everything else complies with your exactly what you had approved previously nothing's deviating okay for the illumination um which is why I specifically asked for it in my review memo but that there's no illumination allowed over 18 ft so you would need another another variance for that just pointing that out if you're asking for light illumination yeah then we we yeah then then uh David we would need that then obviously um you know so you'd like to amend your application to yeah we we'd like to amend it to se that going to request relief our variants to allow for an illuminated sign up of routin that's correct the four sign locations now they going to have multiple sign signs like for different tenants or is it just you're just asking for four signs or you're asking for four locations great question multiple signs could be up great question so the reasoning behind the location of the proposed signs on the second floor is because the way the building is built constructed and demised we call it demised right that's where the tenant would be situated so by way of an example if I could stand for a moment the the sign to the furthest south here okay as you can see on your drawing where I am that is if you will the frontage of that future tenant whoever that would be so that's where their sign would go conversely this sign that's here where my my finger is and I apologize I can walk over there if it's if it's not visible to you this this sign this location and here if I may this is where Alpha fit is D just so you both can see so the The Logical is that's where their sign is be proposed because that's where they're occupying space there wouldn't be multiple signs for one tenant there wouldn't be a change in the pattern of it if if one tenant were to take a double store they get the one sign that's what they're getting but this assumes you're going to have four different tenant there cuz that's how it's demise to put in there um you know but we're not looking to double up and give the tenant two signs could you potentially have more than four tenants on the second floor I I I will give you my opinion first of all keep in mind this is the front of the building the front of the building so we we have and may have a tenant in the back of the building I'm not asking for signage there you can't appease everybody and it's first I'm corre but I'm just to get nothing up there is just not it's in today's climate it's really makes it very challenging and and we're sitting there for a long long time uh with what was the former the former YMCA which is now the alpha alpha fit so if we were to approve it it would be four signs four signs only only one tenant per sign now and in the future correct I'm I'm fine to commit to that yes so you're never going to subdivide a space and ask sorry can I just remind you if you can speak in front of that mic I I assume we'll finish this tonight but in case we don't we may need to not it would it would not be in my in my judgment and my many years experience doing that it would not it would detract from the character to turn around and put more signs up there we don't I don't want want them I'm not going to turn on and do 1,000 foot tenants up there and say Well everybody's going to have a no that that's not proper we looked very hard at this we spent a lot of time I had other senior people from my company out there this is a very tasteful scaled setup for the second floor to hopefully achieve some success up there going forward um I think in the beginning you mentioned the vacancy rates can you tell me what they are again the vacancy rates on the second floor and the first FL vacancy vacancy now um we're about 46% vacant on the second floor yes and on the first floor uh first floor I'm about 11% vacant okay to miss Proctor's point someone subdivides or let's say someone wants a sublet could they not take if they're let's say they have their the the main tenant has a sign okay you could split it into two signs of 12 feet two signs take the we would not allow that on a su we would not allow that on a sublet that that that would not be that's not customary in what we do we would not allow that if somebody's going to do an assignment and they're and they're leaving their assign is gone we would allow a replacement sign consistent with this ordinance if the board were to adopt it but you're not going to split a sign no we're not splitting the sign one tenant one sign okay the illumination now what would that be on a timer or would be dust to it would be it would be set up it would be set up David exactly how the rest of them are and they're all on timers so that's how we have the building set up now with the tenant facade they shut off around 11 o' is there a time that they go off at night or they on I don't want to tell you something I'm not certain about they don't stay on all night they go off at whatever the ordinance requires and again just cuz they're upstairs they have to supp with what's downstairs can you go into now why can't you put a monument sign is there a zoning restriction or you just don't have property to put it on you just go into it a little bit while you can't have a monum sign or a pylon sign anywhere on the property certainly um the the monument sign was never uh part of the ordinance here never approved as part of the original resolution here um and we have Mr bosina built a beautiful stone sign for those of you that are familiar you turn you come in and it says Riverwalk Village Center um but I I guess a two prong answer you could go in I guess conceivably and build a monument sign there if you wanted to do that um you get into a lot of other elements who's allowed on it versus not on it what's the height of it to me it opens up a whole different element it gets into a lot of cost issues and I think you know In fairness the reason we're here today is you know the retailing retailing has changed you know I said when I was here before you could go down a Bridgewater Mall and you had kraton Barrel right kraton Barrel now says Summit Medical what was done many years ago when this was approved roughly 2020 I'm going to say 2020 uh 2 2000 I'm sorry not 20 2000 it's a different world it's a different situation so we're we're coming back in for some reasonable cooperation but we don't feel a monument sign up in the air is warranted here a few tasteful signs on the second floor that that that will be fine that would that would help me and help the uh ownership here and quite frankly help the community bring in some some better businesses there that aren't here today I have I have a couple more questions um with respect to the first floor can you explain again like why do you need the office space on the first floor why do you need it on the first floor if the second floor is 50% open is it you have certain businesses that will only use the first floor even if you have this great signage correct I'm missing the point that's correct okay so you have tenants like Charles swab Fidelity invest M I don't want to name a few and well you left out this it's not my intent City MD they don't go on second floor okay we get calls all the time literally get calls all the time what do you have available I I can't put you on the first going we don't quote we don't do second floor different business than it used to be okay so it's it's like foot traffic it's people just don't have enough correct they want that visibility okay they it's it's a it's a very different business than it was uh in the past um okay and then also with respect to the um exhibit that you gave us I think you marked it A1 I follow the math in terms of why you came up with 5725 I get that um and I think uh I ran the numbers really quickly so 18.7% um right uh is it right 18.7% yes so that's with respect to square footage right so 5725 how how many tenants is that is that one tenant two tenants three tenants like just to think about because we're only going to say you know office with respect to space but yes Madam chair I I respectfully I don't think I don't think it should matter the number of tenants if I have a I'm not saying it does I just want to understand okay so I'll give you the distinction I have an urgent care right now in a shopping Center I'd love to have here they're in 5700 and change maybe we wind up having a different medical type Urgent Care Walkin that needs 3500 ft it's a common number and maybe I have a wealth management here that's in 2200 so we're not going to have numerous tenants here and we touched on at the last meeting this is not to put this is not to turn around and put an accountants office in here or a lawyer office with all due respect accounts and lawyers this is to turn around and put in businesses that are that are very customary today seen in retail environments that only go on the ground floor which frankly frankly is why the dentist had approach us and said we only do ground floor today we only do ground floor how many square feet was the dentist yeah I'm just trying to get I I uh that was about that was about uh 3,100 Square ft so so board in essence if I do one deal with the medic what I can only do one more anyway so we try to limit our asking though 572 correct is that typically typically for a Riverwalk in the first floor what would be your best guess in terms of number of tenants my best my best guess yeah um no more than three okay one to three could be as small as one one to three so so looking at the picture of the current tenants like O Bagels and whatever the jewelry store and everybody else are they 3,000 ft 2500 ft so you're saying three of those stores if they vacon they left you could replace them with three office spaces or are you saying I don't know does it vary per location and you can't really reconfigure those right combine two or three of them together pardon because there's doors and facades and I'm just trying to figure out what you could do if you wanted to do anything you wanted to do I'll do the best I can to address your question um so so the answer answer to the first question is we have 10in as small as 1,043 Square ft with our Pharmacy okay we have an interior designer there in 1567 I know the center a little bit we have a European Wax and 1100 now if you go down the other end I'm about 1,700 ft with the Super Cuts okay so if I have if I have a requirement Mr Krauss that we feel can make prudent business sense for this property and the consumers that cuz remember we we want it we want it to flourish we want it to be the right thing we conceivably conceivably we could put two stores together but it's a heavy lift with the with this great Center that was built to say okay we're going to turn around and we're going to we're going to take three small stores and go create a a large area now I could turn around and take one and parir it maybe with the next one that that's not inconceivable um but but you know again it's it's we cross the bridge when we have a have a reason to with that use if a making sense and my question is you're changing the I know all the stores there I go there all the time so taking three stores out and making one mega store of something eliminates three businesses like you said that might change the environment of the the facility right so you have an anchor on one side kind of the Starbucks you have the anchor on the other side three West then you have little stores I'll call them in the middle right a lot of Little Stores but if you take out one of those or three of those little stores and make one 5700 Foot Store you know possibly it changes the environment to say three big tenants versus two big tenants that's all I'm trying to rationalize in my head and maybe that's what other people are thinking too maybe not um that's the the environment that we're looking at and we don't do this every day like yourself so we're just trying to figure it out we we have a pretty good stable tenant here some great what we call Mom and Pop we love the they're great great tenants we have a few Nationals I.E Starbucks um you don't know what the future holds with with these companies um if Starbucks were to leave for whatever for whatever reason I have 1,600 square fet there I'd like to fill that but if we have a great tenant that's not a use in River Walk that says I need two stores and we have an ability to put two together that's not a bad thing it's got to be the right fit Mr Krauss so we need flexibility leasing wise going forward but it's not our vision to turn around and take businesses away here and get one tenant a little bit a little bit larger so here would be um my concern and we touched on this at the last meeting when you're talking about um the different tenants and the office use versus retail use and you've specifically mentioned Urgent Care MH I would have to I sit back and I wonder um what is the turnover for an urgent care so if you have a restaurant you look at people you look at cars and those cars might be in the parking lot for an hour and a half two hours right if somebody's going to Super Cuts it could be 45 minutes right so that's turning over if somebody's going in for coffee that 15 minutes probably in and out unless they're going to sit on their computer for a little while but when it comes to urgent care or Charles Schwab I have to ask how long is somebody going to be there with their financial advisor is it a two-hour window that that parking space is taken up if it's urgent care could could you have 10 spaces that are there for three or four hours because they're waiting for doctors to turn over their visit so I'm not familiar with urgent cares and how long and how intensive the park is so would you like me to answer your question Okay so we've done analyses on these types of uses because we don't want to overburden any properties parking or demand um you have a turnover generally averaging under an hour for Urgent Care okay and and in two of the I don't want to talk out of school two of the wealth Management's roughly 45 minutes to two major household names that's their data not my data because we look at it here there are certain types of businesses retail where people will have a longer period of time to stay restaurant is one of them especially if you sit in a restaurant and you're dining as opposed to I want to grab soup or I want to grab them taking some food out but that's why uh the shopping center is designed for what we call shared shared parking if you go there in the morning it's a little bit different than it might be at a different time of the day or if you go there in the evening I'm going to go have dinner well your interior designer is not open your your Henry's Jeweler is not open then you have your shared on the weekends so there's a it's a great question but I'm giving you the answer we we would be very mindful of that dentist um the the turnover in the dentist office is more similar than to uh urgent care because you are targeting potentially a dentist's office and with um nine treatment rooms so I there there are some issues with parking but in terms of turnover you've got the cleaning versus the r canal versus the whatever so you have do you have any date on what the uh turnaround would be of a a fullscale dental office also a great question so here's what I yes we do and here's what I can tell you okay in all cander if somebody's going in for an office visit to a dentist they allocate one hour and that's part of the analysis that we're given in the work we do I do not have data respectfully if somebody goes in and says I'm getting a root canal or I'm getting you know whatever it is and I'm not trying to make a j so I I that um but the center is designed and parked adequately based upon its approval and based upon what we're requesting here and I don't want to get into test testimony on things that I'm not qualifying because Mr Mr Quinn did mention that there is a requirement that you have one space for each physician dentist on duty which would you don't really know how many at least I didn't hear how many you might have in this potential office at one time if if I can just briefly address that and I would turn it over to the board's professionals to talk about how the the the ordinance has been treated and applied to this property over the last 20 years but my understanding is is that if there was a dentist going in on the second floor we would not be we would we would not have needed to return to the planning board or the zoning board based on how the ordinance has applied to the property over 20 years so Mr SL Mr Quinn can can chime in but essentially my understanding is that the property was approved for these mixed uses and it was determined as long as these mixed uses are going into the to the site um it's been historically treated as having adequate parking I'm saying that because if a dentist went on the second floor you know the board wouldn't say oh was there out OFA parking or maybe they would say that but yeah we would the board might say that but it wouldn't we wouldn't be before the board is what I'm trying to to uh but you are before the board we're we're before the board but we're so we're going to ask the questions but my but the point that I'm the point that I'm trying to highlight is that the parking requirements are not impacted because a dentist is on the first floor versus the second floor that's what I'm trying to highlight well I'm I'm looking at it from the position of wherever the dentist may be they're going to be parking someplace so I have a concern about the parking I live very near there and I've lived there for 29 years very near that Center so I'm quite familiar with it and use it and sometimes it's like bumper cars in terms of hard to find a space people are pulling out Etc so I do have a concern about the foot traffic the parking flow um as this Balman was talking about and I wonder if you could you feel that you've adequately answered that before the board can I jump in since it was since it was my question that prompted all this or my comment that prompted all this my understanding is that when you do do a shopping center here office use or retail use is generically appli to the parking standard right um so that the question I asked a was if now if they've got uh U lot for office and Retail or retail and they come in a new tenant comes in and it's an office use and it goes to the zoning officer is the zoning officer going to look to see how the part it's an office use consistent so therefore he's going to apply you know the four or five per or is he going to dive into the ordinance and look and find out like I did and see is it so my I may have been overzealous is the point I'm saying in my initial comment it may I may have over complicated it it might not be something that the zoning officer would look at it and might be something that's inherent in the original approval so so so there were concerns about the parking that no I had them too but I'm just saying I may have overstepped what the initial approval would have contemplated right or or even needed to well the point is if it was an office and you had employees coming in every day they parked under the building building so the parking wouldn't be an issue but a dentist's office and a medical office while they're an office you have patients coming in and out so they're not parking under the building we we mandate um in all our leases as I think Michael silbert had said we we mandate every lease in in the shopping center there all employees must Park under the building and in the back whether their office right that's what I'm saying something where you have patients coming in and out they're not doing that so it Chang changes yeah we we we feel it it it does it absolutely does but I'm trying to highlight that it they're going to park in the front if the office if the medical use is on second floor or the first floor it doesn't impact the parking calculations if there is an office use a medical use on the first floor the parking requirements for that are less onerous than a restaurant and I know I know we are before the border and the border is doing its job and look at the application because it's before the board but I'm I'm merely suggesting or trying to highlight that if we were trying to put a restaurant user in there or you know it wouldn't be the zoning officer would not have kicked us every time there's a change in tenant the zoning officer's not going to kick a retail shopping center to a a l use Ford it it would my point is is you're adding office space on the first floor so it does change that volume have you looked at the number ofs parking space has anybody done a parking study I think because normally that's what we see when you when you say a a park we did original approval this type of use requires this many parking spaces and adding it together and do we have it enough to cover no but two to I think the larger point and to their point too is for example restaurants permitted right they've only used the entire Center was parked at either four or five per thousand square F feet that's what a restaurant is going to be far more than either one of those right so so really the restaurant uses the worst case yeah so so it it's either leaving a lot or very little to the zoning officers to figure out every time a new tenant comes in right so you either use them the larger more general which is probably what the Z is going to do or we dive into each tenant each time in each particular use and they're going to need to create a roster of parking and I know centers that have done that and so does Bruce Bruce's sister I was involved with that Burnsville Center and every time there's a new tenant that comes in there's a it's it's a headache but that Center was that Center was designed differently that was designed and it was another town but it was designed per each particular use not per a general as a general uh super supermarket so if you look at the overall calculation for the site you have four additional spaces then are required if you looked at what the square foot is for office and what the square footage is and the spaces per thousand square fet for retail so you have four additional but if you were to change the office use on the ground floor and calculate it at retail space numbers right you would then be underp parked and I think that's kind of where we're going here so like so my question and I understand restaurant are like you know six cars or whatever it is per thousand square feet right like four 5 and what seats per seat right so but is is medical office use more of like five cars per thousand versus the standard office which is four cars per thousand because then you start to and I understand the shared parking I do I I understand everything you're saying but not knowing who the tenant is us makes us have to wonder what the worst case scenario is I think I mentioned that last last meeting as well you did so if we're looking at um the medical office users if their parking parking intensity is higher than what's measured here then I think it would be I I think we're sort of curious like what is that what does that study look like we'll answer I I'm going to let my answer but there's just there's an assumption being made that needs to be clarified the assumption is that the second floor consists of office space the second floor can consist of any of the permitted uses on that's that's permitted in the zone obviously certain tenants are not going to go on the second floor is that's our testimony but there are there are service uses that are on the second floor so my I'm trying to highlight that you're looking that when a when a site plan is created for for a retail Center and I'm probably saying things you already know it's you can't predict which tenants are going to be on the second floor or the first floor 24 years in advance it's it's changed so what was anticipated in the site plan review in 2000 where maybe it anticipated and I don't and I don't really think it did anticipate that it' only be office on the second floor I just tomorrow it might change where there's less office overall because there's more retail service uses on the second floor so it's hard to make these assumptions yet you're saying worst case scenario I understand that but let me if I may let me a little I just want to say something um yeah if you don't have enough parking your tenants aren't going to be happy yes and you can't park on the street there there's no downtown area so it really only affects them it doesn't really affect anybody but their tenants I don't know that to us it really matters let me make a couple of comments because maybe I can I can yeah um I apologize I can't see the names clearly L bman Miss Balman so let me try to answer your question the center is parked at 4.8 spaces per thousand I have a bank with 23 parking spaces that is part of our parking you may not be aware of that okay that's that's an important distinction so I have use of that bank parking number one number number two that was in my calculation though that was I'm looking at that okay go number two so I'm I'm at I'm at virtually 5 per thousand anyway I have an interior designer with one or two employees that has almost 2,000 square fet under that analysis they are allowed nine call it eight to be conservative eight they got two I don't think they they're not going into buy stuff not but but that's why there's shared parking ratios so the fact that that particular business that's an original tenant there is a very low and and interior design and furniture stores historically are two per thousand that mitigates other things that go on and that's just that's that's one example so you have the parking overage with the bank of 23 we all know Bank hours you have the interior design and most importantly we have to comply that we have adequate parking for the tenant otherwise we as landlord have a legal liability so we have to comply with the parking and we have to demonstrate that we can adequately do that I'm in the shopping center Business 40 years I have a little idea of how to do that I don't say that don't take the comment the wrong way we agree with you 100% but we are very comfortable in what we have for parking with River Walk whether we had 5700 ft with office we're not worried about the parking compartment we're worried about sitting with vacant space over and over and over because the change of the industry there right um I'll turn it to to the board professionals if if they have anything to say obviously I I uh asked my my witness a number of question questions as it relates to the positive and negative criteria so um I was wondering if Mr SCH could could aine on some of the the testimony that he heard yeah or Mr Sly if there's anything in your memo that you think wasn't addressed fully your memos ask for of clarification I think I understood you correctly I think what you were saying is that the retail Center was designed with the understanding that there might may be there's going to be office uses in correct yeah that that's what I'm saying that the retail Center was designed that there would be office uses in there I was trying to point out earlier that it was also designed to accommodate retail Center uses on the second floor as well right right so that would include just try to precise like does that mean that they anticipated that there could be office uses on the first floor as well not not that's why we're here no I mean I don't think the building would have been designed differently but um Chris what they did was they parked the entire first floor as retail okay 5 per thousand and then the second floor they split office retail office has the four per thousand retail has the 5 per thousand so if as as um uh the representative from CER said it's parked close to five it's like 48 49 it's closer to five four I didn't have anything in my memo that had not been addressed um but if we haven't covered the parking enough all the shopping centers in town they're done based on a big a concept of lion's mall for example five spaces per thousand that's it uh if you parsed out an individual doctor's office it's going to be higher a restaurant's going to be be way higher um an office general office use is going to be lower um Hills Village Center is the same Dewey Meadow um a little bit different but none of the tenants in any of these uh centers were were uh reviewed individually for their parking demands uh in uh in Riverwalk here and and also at 100 Marketplace the planning board did it a little bit different where they assigned a four th000 to the second floor assuming that was likely to be office and 5 per th to the first floor assuming that was likely to be retail that's just a little variation of the 5 per thousand that you would get or it was applied to Lion's mole um actually as far as the parking requirement of the ordinance goes moving an office used to the first floor the parking go demand goes down but I mean we're talking from a practical standpoint but just that's how the town and and many towns um assign parking requirements to shopping centers to to avoid having to you know look at each individual tenant um knowing that in the end there's going to be some of these kind of low parking generators and some of these kind of high parking generators and they're all going to mix together and probably you're going to get end up getting some kind of demand that you plan for by just assigning at the broad number um that was one one question I had on the signs not that this would would be a um an issue but your your the signs on the second floor would strictly not only be limited to four tenants but four tenants who uh occupy the second floor in other words no tenant on the first floor would be using signage that perhaps was not used on the uh because you had a vacant space on the second floor correct that is not the intention and we would never I play figured as much but the answer is no we would not do that Mr Clint is anything um not addressed in your M no I think I've talked quite sufficiently on [Laughter] this any additional questions from the board for this witness before we open it up to the public are there any questions from the public um for the testimony you just heard comments with questions good evening to Stein 172 Riverside Drive it's just questions concerning the sign and the parking and the easy questions really you talked about the signs and you said they're going to be uniform whose's responsibility of these signs being made so the your responsibility or the tenant's responsibility we we have uh requirements as to the signage we receive what we call sign proofs and the signage is is fabricated By An approved sign vendor that makes signage okay so you have like just one vendor that they would go to I assume generally that's how it's handled okay um question about the parking because you have mentioned about retail in office space and that there's a possibility of getting medical office space down on the first floor and my question is basically is how many handicap parking spaces do you have at this time I can look at the resolution sir okay I'm not trying to beat anybody up it's a good question I I don't honestly know off the top of my head I don't want to guess at it we have uh 281 in total um and it would be in the resolution of approval Ju Just to I'm I'm sure the board would never permit uh you know an approval where the Ada where we weren't ADA Compliant okay well the question is if you were to have a medical facility down on the first floor were you going to increase the amount of handicap part working for people who are coming in for care for like a Med medical set a dock in a box basically as they say MH uh were you thinking about increasing that that's the question well I think if I think if we had a medical tenant downstairs and we were exceeding the the the ratio if you will of what the original approval was and we had to add a handicap space we could could do that um but it it it it's also sir it's based upon the ratios of what the commercial space is all we're what we're seeking is to be able to put a portion of that downstairs well I I understand there you know there's compliance um just that you know I know over lines where they used to have a medical center there and they had increased some of the parking there and that was basically the question but thank you very much just to further address that one if a medical tenant were to go in there I would imagine that the the zoning officer and they submit a zoning permit would look to make sure there's enough handicap spaces if if not they would say you you don't meet the ADA requirements we we would fully comply is the answer we would not expect any T we we wouldn't do that I have handicapped family I would not uh do anything but make sure we have adequate handicap parking just just one general question I'm sorry is there a limit um of hours on any of the look uh stores or could someone go in and operate 24 hours a day just curious I know they don't right now I'm just wondering if there's any restrictions on any of that from the management company or the require the tenants adhere to the hours of operation in the ordinance yeah there's no hours in the OR usually that's something that would be imposed at the time of site plan approval if there was a concern about it um I'm I'm going to check I don't think there's any restrictions on this particular property but I'll get back to you traditionally do you bring tenants in that would operate 24 by7 or I mean on the retail location versus upstairs you know you don't see them I'm just curious It's not that common yes I do have tenants that are open 247 what would be an example Pharmacy care certain medical pardon meent care potentially could be 24 not all but some but some um so we had we've had some um that that have the answer is we will comply with the ordinance 100% you know whatever the more curiosity because we don't have any right now so you know it could change that good good question absolutely are there any additional questions from the public do not see any this time we'd like to ask if there's any comments from the public on this appc either for or against Now's the Time okay seeing none um anything further from you you want to turn it over to the board yeah just I'll just thank the board for their time um obviously the Mr bosina and property management company um have been and I'm very biased but I think they've done an incredible job at these two shopping centers over the last uh 20 years and um you know I think uh they just they they believe in their hearts they're doing what's what's appropriate and best for for the burnard community and I hope the board takes into account their their track record over their time here so throw it back to the board so thank you madam chair okay thank you madam chair could U Mr seski just highlight the three variances that we will be uh voting on absolutely do that now yeah sure okay you can summarize um the variances if you could and also there was culations if you're comfortable doing that yeah absolutely of course as always okay so applicant here is seeking one D3 variance and three bulks uh and again if I get anything wrong here inacurate please jump in and correct me um first they're seeking a D3 conditional use variance for in order to deviate from the condition under Section 21-20 sorry 21-1 12.3 and5 of the ordinance which requires that uh no office use be permitted on the first floor of the retail Center the applicant is proposing to that in in a degree of magnitude of about 5,725 ft um so that's the first D3 hopefully I explain that best way I could uh first bulk Varian is for retail sign vertical Dimensions uh maximum height of two feet two vertical feet is permitted per sign the applicant proposes uh three feet for four different signs uh second bolt variance is uh for retail sign mounting height uh it's only permitted on the first floor by ordinance the applicant proposes four signs on the second floor and the third is for illuminated signs at a mounting height over 18 ft where that is not permitted the applicant propos four signs that will be eliminated at a height of 26' 7 in that's my understanding also the applicant will be complying further stipulations to the conditions in uh Mr SCH two respective memos on the application I think they're both covered in the may6 one but for the record the first one was March 28 2024 um and we'll get into those unless you want me to um additionally there were a few other stipulations offered during the proceedings U those were kind ofou by the application change from the first year the applicant shall be limited to one sign on the second floor per tenant or subtenant uh next the eliminated signs will be on timers consistent with other signs in in the retail Center and oh ALS I think that's it there was also a maximum of four signs and only for the tenants on the second floor yeah it's one for tenant maximum of four in the specific location correct I think it goes without saying that Max of four because I make that CLE um and then one thing I'll just mention actually I just want to clarify uh there was a condition in in Dave's memo that you got stipulated too that would be that the applicant would be requiring for any pieces that employees Park under the building are we doing just under or are we doing under and behind the building under and behind sir and behind because I have spaces in the last far row to the back of the building the the the purpose of that originally was to take them out of the front so if somebody wants a park non covered in the back that's fine that's what I thought I just wanted to be clear as to what exactly is going on there okay and I think that's it if anyone has any questions I could try to clarify I think you got okay Co all right okay terrific um yeah you did well um okay so we'll um turn it over to the board um if anybody would like to kick off uh deliberations anyone have anything to say I'll start with a couple of comments um just I thank the applicant for returning this month and clarifying the application for us um as supposed to last month we had some questions for you we appreciate that and um and for adjusting the calculations too to discard the warn property so kind of narrows it down and um I mean basically my feeling is as far as parking um it's on them they they have to rent the space their tenants have to be happy and it's tough It's a tough business to rent these spaces it's a juggling act so I I appreciate what you do it's can't be easy and I think the burning will be on them to adhere to all the Coes as far as parking thank you Mr tanky you just have some comments uh I just I agree with what Mr T just said I I was initially concerned about the signs on the second floor but now that I see that they fit and they they kind of blend in with the the White and The Brick background over the windows and there's only going to be four of them am I I have no concerns about that any longer I also think that the area that the um Center is located is the signs aren't going to be a problem for anybody it's not like signs are facing you know some houses across the street I mean it's it's sort of highway is at that point so I think that and and I think that they are Tastefully positioned assuming that they look like the rest of the center I think it would actually be quite a nice addition and we as a board and residents of this Township want to see a successful Center thank you we don't want vacant spaces and it's reasonable that a tenant on the second floor would love to be identified on the SEC as being on in the center and on the second floor so I think it's completely reasonable um I think the SI the size of the signs make complete sense to me um and it doesn't hurt anybody so for me and and as far as the parking I agree I think if people can't park in a center me in particular if I can't park I don't go so um I think that to some degree it does police itself um of course as the board and making a decision in the matter I think we have you know we want it to have the understanding of what type of traffic we are going to be looking at um and including the the foot traffic um to see Synergy among retail uses and office uses and making centers become lifestyle centers I think is a beautiful progression from where the centers kind of started you know 20 years ago so for me I'm completely in favor I I I see no detriment in any way I'm happy to make a motion if anybody else has coms any more comments before we do that we'll come back to yes I um excuse me I was also initially concerned about the signs but I I'm now looking thinking about it um the first four signs are Tastefully done they use the logos of the individual businesses the colors that they want so ass uming that the signs on second floor would be in a similar nature that the business there would use their logo and their you know font or their script whatever they want to do and I uh going past there at night it is sometimes a little dark on the second floor and I think that would actually brighten up you know it would kind of make the center look a little more attractive in the Night by there so I my concerns about the signage have been mitigated and I agree on the parking if you can't find parking you're going to go away and you may you know you may come back later or you may not come back at all if you can't find it so it really is going to be on the burden of the of the tenants at that point to see about the parking situation so and you know I am at this point in favor of the the application thank you thank you I just want to make one comment about the office space on the first floor too that it would be consistent with the master plan um the master plan tells us to restrict use on the first floor which you have done you've limited it to a certain number it's not going to be all office use so we do appreciate that you did that certainly also office use is not what office use used to be this is more medical office use or use for the public to walk in on it it's it's not private office use you know that changed quite a bit since Co so I I'll make a couple of comments I mean these are you know we're seeing more and more of these there is an evolution of of change in retail and office space and where people want to be and where where they don't want to be and if they want to be home so you know clearly our job on the board is not to rewrite the ordinances that's not what we're doing here so for this application I'm very focused on the fact that this is D3 variance like we already have permitted uses in Riverwalk and Riverwalk as the complex is very important to to our town um you know it's it's very noteworthy people know where River Walk you know complex is so you know I appreciate all the questions and comments from the board because we want to make sure that we get it right because it because it is kind of the center or or one of the center pieces of our town um you know I think with respect to the parking again we have permitted uses so I get it's the same as it's the first floor versus the second floor and the way the calculations are done although I do understand and it probably makes more sense the way um if I can say that the other towns do it with second flooor versus first floor as we go through these these Evolutions but I'm comfortable um especially given um the new limitation right on your new application with respect to 5700 square feet and I think you said 5725 and I think there's a half in there so you want to make sure he gets that right um but with respect to that percentage I I actually think this site can accommodate that from an office space perspective I didn't want to get too hung up on dentist versus medical because the truth is we have no idea what's going in there we really don't um and that makes our job harder and we ask a lot more questions but at the same time I was comforted by the fact that it's only this much space so even if it's not a dentist and something else that we didn't think about we're only dealing with you know an x amount 18% of the first floor that could have been on the second floor anyway um with respect to um you know the vacancy and I think Miss bman said it it's in the town's best interest to to have viable businesses in there we don't want to see 50% vacancy on your second floor like never want to see that um with respect to the signs um yeah I think it makes a big difference that there's a 16 foot setback and it's on the second floor and um you know and there's no Monument signs so I actually am very comfortable with the three feet signs and and the four one per tenant and hopefully they'll be in the character of your your existing um your existing building but I think especially with respect to you know the parking you know your success is tied you've been running a very successful business there we assume that you will continue to do that so you know your businesses are tied to getting um to getting that right so as long as it's compliant um you know we you know should hope uh hope and wish you much uh success um and I think that's it uh for me can I ask quick point of clarification 5725 or 57255 I just want to be precise the under 57 25.5 okay there you go thank you as well get that right um okay um so I think those are the comments um and I think Miss bman generously offered to make a motion anybody else is welcome to I I think youve offered first be happy to thank you and we have deemed the application complete or do we need to yes we have correct um so so I am in favor of uh this application um I thank you very much for your time and um coming to us twice and for your expertise and very thoughtful responses to all of our questions um I with regard to the D3 conditional use um I do think that the site um accommodates um your proposal so I see no issue I see no no detriment whatsoever to the public good in fact I see this as a benefit um and I don't see any impairment to the master plan so I would um as far as the C variances for the light um I a C1 I think if there was a strict application of the zoning requirement you would have difficulty getting tenants as you've all as we've already seen um I see no detriment with regards to the to the uh signs on the second floor um am I also C2 C2 as well um and I again I see no substantial detriment I only benefit to um everything that you're proposing right now so I would um deem the application um approve the application and direct our board attorney to draft a resolution memorializing our decision and all of the stipulations within that you have already outlined hopefully without any TI this time than you I'll second that thank you Mr T Miss keeper Miss Balman yes Mr cruss yes Miss Pichi yes Miss pakar yes Mr tanky yes uh chairwoman Jers yes thank you second time's the charm there you go thank you very much board and chairwoman thank you for your time forward to seeing the signs now Mr welcome to the zoning board I'm seeing the other Bo planning board of L that's right no worries okay thanks for everybody's patience we are gonna just take a five minute break and then we'll um we'll be back on okay e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay um Miss keer do we need to do another roll call now that we're back on to yeah let's do it just make sure we're all here all righty um cheer wom Jers I'm here we're not on are we on yes we are okay okay Miss Balman here Mr KRA yes here m yes M pakar here Mr T grey here we're all here thank you Miss keeper next up on the agenda is uh 8 C which is Don V LLC zb2 4008 you here come on up Madam chair while everybody's getting situated I'll just point out for the record I review the applicant's notice found it to be sufficient full to the content and time limits of service uh it was published in Bernville news on April 26 24 and sent to owners of property 200 ft of the subject property in April 22nd 2024 both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing and thus in my legal opinion the board is jurisdiction over this case thank you thank you good evening good evening um my name's John Sullivan I'm an attorney with the offices of Vastola and Sullivan and I'm representing the applicant which is Don V LLC uh don V LLC is the owner of this particular piece of property which is located at 77 Stonehouse Road Lot 4 block 6001 on your tax map uh the property is located in an R4 zoning district and it's currently improved with a rather small single family dwelling the application before you is for bulk variance approval um in order to construct an addition to the existing home and to also increase the height of the um the second floor which is a which is uh not quite up to code we have submitted a few plans to you uh first is the plot plan prepared by Mark Remy our engineer that's dated October 28th of 23 last revised March 24th of this year we also submitted the floor plans and elevations prepared by Steve druga and those are dated August 20th of 23 and last revised February 20th of 24 and we also submitted the survey by Lakeland surveying and that's dated June 16th of 23 um there are several variants which I won't go over now I will let my um our planner discuss those uh most of them are pre-existing conditions um some are not being changed at all by this application uh a couple others are being enhanced and one is actually being reduced that's the overall lot coverage our Witnesses tonight are I have Steve duer who is our architect Mark Remy who is our engineer and Paul gles who is our planner and if I could I would begin with Mr duug why don't we get everybody sworn all at once Mr professionals everybody be testify okay you go do all of you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth so hope you God thank you very much Mr Sol another thing i' like to ask at the front end I see you have something on the easel do you have any other exhibits would like to mark them at the front end that Tes yes so the first exhibit um maybe we can mark that A1 and then I'll have Mr Dua described that during his testimony I think all of the other boards you have up those are just copies that have plan that have been submitted right same Revis dates and everything same they hav't been revised since uh no the plans yes the plans are the same dat but sub okay great okay except for the right here this okay all right no problem yeah just wanted to front end it so we don't have to disrupt anybody while they're Tes hey Mr jurer would you state your qualifications for the board yes Steve Jer registered architect in the state of New Jersey offic is at 250 Stelton Road mcway New Jersey 08854 been in uh register architect since 1976 and my license is still in good condition last I looked and you've had the opportunity to testify before uh boards in the past yes I have and you've been accepted as an expert in architecture yes we would ask that Mr duw could be so accepted okay thank you we will accept him as an architect thank you now Mr duer you're familiar with the uh property itself correct yes and you also prepared the architectural floor plans and Elations that we've submitted to the board yes and could you begin by um uh describing the uh the existing structure the existing structure is a one and a half story dwelling once the small dwelling roughly 1100 ft on the first floor 1143 ft on the first floor about 330 330 s f feet on the second floor the second floor has two bedrooms which are undersized and basically not if you were to go to get a permit today you would that would not pass so you have the elevations here pictures have the front elevation the right side uh the rear and the left side the existing structure existing structure again is it's one and a half story elevation now with regard to the Second Story you said it wouldn't uh muster up the code under today's standards that's correct can you explain to the board why that is uh two reasons number one ceing height existing ceiling height in the second floor is 5' 10 with a slope ceiling and the size of the rooms don't meet minimum requirements for bedrooms and also and and the windows and erress requirements for Windows and so on okay and could you move on to the um floor plans for the existing dwelling and explain to the board what we have there yes this is the existing plan of the existing conditions floor first floor plan and the second floor second plan is two bedrooms with a slope ceiling 5 to 10 ceiling height the first floor is a living room a small bedroom up front another bedroom back here and uh two two bathrooms kitchen area family room and living room with the deck out the re there is a side entry here that right now will be closed up for part of our so right now there's um essentially three doorways that can lead to the exterior uh yeah three doorways the rear door to the deck side entry and a front entry and there's also a basement yes there is a full basement underneath the front portion of the house the rear portion of the house is on Cross spas and then if you could move on to the proposed floor plan and elevations to mark this as A1 also or oh is that a cup what was submitted um actually well to that point the first board you had up there think get a title for that it's just what is that just photograph exhibit let me see what photo of existing conditions okay and that's dated uh this is dated uh 84 2023 phot thank this Flor is which is A3 is first floor plan of the proposed so proposed alterations uh we have a we're proposing a covered front porch across the front of the house renovating the first floor with another another bedroom and a private B to that bedroom which could be a uh office or a spare bedroom kit will be modified new countertops and a powder new power room in the back and the rear posos an addition 10x1 mud room 100 S ft and a two car garage attached to the back back portion of the house and a new 10 by10 deck the rear of the house existing family the existing second floor is under it's under sized and it's heads iosing the expansion of the existing one and a half story dwelling by enlarging the second floor raising the roof creating a full height second floor 8ft ceiling and uh creating rooms for we have four bedrooms on the second floor master bedroom with private bath two and three other bedrooms and a full bath for those three bedrooms plus a laundry room on the second floor this is a elevation front elevation of the building garage towards the rear roof line the second floor siding second Flor windows on the second floor porch covered porch with the the roof across the top P going AC the whole front and while we're on the um front elevation can you give the board an idea as to the materials that will be used basically vinyl sighting four singles col and so on this is the right side elevation the right side elevation back hereti G to this side to the side windows on the first FL before you leave that drawing is there a reason that the the two rooftops are different color or design is it on the yes the garage versus the house that was just a uh pattern of the what cat drawing was just not wasn't quite So the plan is for the roof to be the same the roof is going to be the same just it was was supposed to indicate that the garage just set back further but it didn't come out quite just clarifying any other question I have yes I have the rear elevation and we the other side of the left side elevation left side elevation re elevation we have a new deck open deck rear of the garage or rear of the muds and course the second floor be able to the rear right side the left side elevation show the portion of the garage back in here the deck and again the Gable side Gable front porch cover porch cover FR porch with the roof so you'll have two windows uh at the back of the garage uh their back the garage has Windows in the back yes two windows in the rear the garage okay and then I just wanted to direct your attention to Mr sches report uh item number six um and the question is um to what extent has the condition of the existing dwelling been investigated and whether there is a potential need for demolition beyond what we've shown investiga the existing structure and the structure was found to be adequate structure there's no problems with the structure and as far as anticipating any further demolition than removing the roof line to the second floor there is no uh problem with that there's no additional requirements in our respect anyway I have question I drove by today and it looked like around the exterior is all dug up is that something that you're doing right now or that was ous the owner received a permit to lower the first lower Foundation the in the the basement the basement was a lower it was a very tight low ceiling so they excavated and lowered the floor of the of the basement and that's what that work is that was all permanent in I think okay prior the existing crawl space will remain a crawl space just the basement in the front remain a crawl space yes okay and the foundation walls are all good that they don't have to be yes replaced they're all structurally sound okay question you've got for your proposed first floor 1232 ft that's correct that doesn't include the cover PCH it doesn't include the mud room or the gar includes the includes the first floor and the mudroom it yes I'm tr32 so I was trying to figure out how much like David was how much of the existing footprint utilize so is your proposed footprint exactly in line with the existing your maintaining existing we are maintaining existing foot just going correct going up any at a level on it and then I just wanted to direct you to Mr Quinn's report um item number six uh to confirm that the proposed deck is to be a closed design that is is currently included as it is currently included in the impervious coverage for the proposed condition the proposed deck is an open deck there's no roof over it so it shouldn't be included in in the coverage that's where I was yeah okay and then the other not just not just open in terms of the the roof but there there's no partial wall just a railing and the floor will be Gap floor yeah typical 2x4 2x6 either wood or we'll talk about coverage at the end of the day' got all over but that comes out yes so was the proposed deck included in the impervious yeah okay yeah they have 114 Square ft can we do do you want us to wait do do you mind doing the impervious coverage numbers now just so that we can all TI out or would you like us to wait um we're gonna have Mr Remy our engineer address that okay I actually don't have any further questions for Mr druga so I don't know if the board does or not not at this time thank you are there any questions um for architect from the public you can um call your next witness uh yes that would be Mark Remy or engineer Mr Remy would you state your qualifications for the board sure my name is Mark Remy I'm a New Jersey licensed professional engineer and owner of reman Associates uh we've been in business for about 12 years um licensed in the state of New Jersey among other states uh throughout the Eastern SE here and your license is in good standing yes it is and have you previously um qualified as an expert as a um civil engineer before other planning or zoning board yes I have who would ask that he'd be so accepted thank you we will accept thank you Mr Remy um you are familiar with the site as well as the proposal yes and you submitted the plot or you prepared the plot plan that we submitted to the board that's correct and why don't we start out um I think you did you redid your um coverage calculations uh can you start out discussing those yeah we I mean we redid the coverage calculations based on the letters of Mr Quinn and Mr slay's reports um there was some question as to the breakup of the numbers or the makeup of the numbers of both the existing and proposed impervious coverage so we kind of went through and I Quantified all of these in a table so I have additional copies here um if anybody you want me to submit them um you know it just might clarify some of these numbers a little bit Yeah if we could perhaps we can mark that as exhibit A2 yes is that lot coverage calculations ex yeah I only have about six or eight copies so sure give one to professionals the board will take that the rest is that dated today uh I don't have a date on it but we could dat today thank [Applause] you while we're at it Mr Remy the uh the plans you have before us you mentioned that changed up there perious calculations is that a revised set of plans since no this is the uh this is the set of plans that was submitted to the board with revision three on it dated um March 24th of this year okay so those were the ones that you guys okay great thank you yeah I have not updated the plans and this does not reflect these calculations okay clarification Mr Remy could you take the board through your calculations both existing and proposed yeah so what we did based on you know again some of the comments from the professionals is we broke down the existing uh items the impervious items which includes the existing dwell there is a shed at the rear of the property there's a detached masonary garage with there's like three concrete patios associated with that um concrete uh walk and porch at the front of the house uh gravel driveway and there was a comment to include the bill code doors at the back left side of the property which we have included in these calculations um there's two numbers at the bottom of the column that are Quantified the the impervious coverage based on the total track area which is um you know 22259 ft which I think was one of the comments also in the professionals letters but there's also a um a 25t RightWay dedication at the front of the property which reduces the property by about 8 ft across the front of the property so we have a number based on that as well so that's why there's two inferious coverage numbers at the bottom in the proposed condition I'm sorry just before you go into that um just can you explain to the board um why have why we're uh proposing a dedication yeah the the survey that we received from Lakeland survey shows a 25t dedication from the center line of the highway um which encroaches into the into the property boundary by about 8 ft and this this particular lot unlike the other Lots on the street actually shows the property line coming out into yes the it does yeah it actually shows the property line at the center line of of stone Ro and as a result we're going to correct that by making the appropriate dedication correct so our property line will be more in line with the the other property the other yes thank you so in the proposed condition again the the existing dwelling is remaining so we have the the square footage Quantified there um the proposed addition to the rear of the property the garage in the mud room will add about 721 Square ft of impervious coverage to the property um we took into account the three uh second floor can levers at the left front and right side of the of the dwelling um we have the billup doors included again I'm not sure if they're going to stay or be removed with the project but we left them in the calculation um the new front porch and then to change to the gravel driveway with the proposed application there's about 984 ft of gravel that's being removed um the new driveway will kind of be cut off at the face of the garage and then the gravel at the rear of the property that access the original you know the existing shed and the existing garage will be removed so there's a difference in the to amount of gravel um so again we Quantified those numbers um based on the developable tra area so the area minus the dedication um existing we're at 23.12% in cious coverage and in the proposed condition we're at 19.69 per imperious coverage so there's a reduction of about 651 square feet of imperious do you have any concrete pads for uh air conditioning generators anything of that nature um utility we do not any shown here um I I don't know what the proposed hbac looks like or if there's any generators proposed that be included now we need for H yes need a for the will the bill Cod go away with the proposal the basement be accessed to the interior uh B Cod doors and remain yeah B Cod doors remain yes okay so we might need a 4x4 pad or something have add a 4X foror be the time if they want so that add about 16 squet of improv coverage percentage going to give us a little by four that's enough yeah yeah 4x4 should be enough usually the pads are 3x3 we'll give a good siiz pad if they want to use one unit I don't 3 by one unit will serve the entire house so 4x4 patch 20 20 sareet 16 16 okay and do you mind uh saying again to spend another minute on the driveway the gravel driveway once being removed I I heard you say the the am to the shed and the yeah right now the gravel driveway extends up the right side of the house there's a detach masonary garage and a shed towards the rear of the property so the gravel driveway kind of extends back to the front of the shed and to the side of the driveway so with the new proposed condition with the with the construction of the garage um the driveway is going to be cut off kind of at the face of the garage and then all of this gravel at the rear is going to be removed the shed will be removed the existing gar will be removed so the driveway kind of be cut off at the front of the garage okay and that would just be grass that's just going to be yes in the garage that we're removing that's a um that's a onecar garage and it's uh not in very good condition is that correct that's correct so in terms Mr SCH terms of the the impervious coverage you had estimated 19.15 just like your comments on these new uh proposed imp impious coverage numbers well that the 19.15 was based on what what's shown on the the plan the previously submitted plan now we have exhibit 82 which I didn't look at everything on it but it IT addresses the comments uh myself and Mr Quinn made uh this question for the applicant you in our review memos and we're now at 19.69 plus an extra 16 square ft right so what that quantify to 19.7 I can do the math real quick with a 15 foot um uh 15% requirement yes that's correct just want to go around so this is being reduced from the 24.2% or the 2.69 you have it's being reduced yeah you have 2.69 and this drawing says 24.25 yeah the new exhibit no this plot one of one oh no I think the existing coverage was recalculated on theit also yeah yeah don't yeah this this is meant to so existing coverage so not counting the um the new HVAC pad the calculations are that existing on the total track before the dedication is 19.71% and the proposed will be 16.79% and then the impervious existing on the developable developable track um after the dedication is 23.12% existing and 19.69 per proposed and I just redid the numbers with the 16 square F feet added in for the HVAC cpad so we're at 16.85% based on the total tra area and 19.77% yes y 19.78% [Music] current single family dwelling um there's a small deck at the rear um detach Mason garage with with about three concrete pads attached to it and a detach shed at the rear um in the proposed condition you know we'll be putting the addition towards the rear a a new deck off the rear of the property um and like I had testified earlier removing a portion of resist Gravel drive so there's no other improvements um proposed and I wanted to direct your um your attention to uh some of the uh board professional reports um actually first let's start with the environmental commission report did you have a chance to review that yes I did and they talked about the minimum improvable lot area being on the plans is incorrect um that has been corrected on the plans that have been submitted to the board is that right uh yes that I mean the table was added in response to one of these reports um but there was some question I think from one of the other reports that they wanted it removed but we can we can address that I think we would want to revise version with the new calculations well there was and I forget which report it was in I think one of the professionals report suggested removing that tap the the lot yield and the improvable lot area don't apply for an addition project app actually improvable lot area applies for new dwellings the lot yield table is only for subdivisions so it's all shouldn't even be there yeah I thought there was a comment originally early on in the project in one of the earlier submissions that' be added in because it wasn't part of the first they didn't come from I'm not sure where it I don't have it I think it came from the environmental commission so we will we will submit a revised plan um taking out what we don't need on the table and then adding in the new impervious the impervious coverage calculations will be revised to reflect what we discussed earlier and remove the um light yield table um next in terms of the environmental commission they talk about um storm water best management practices uh to be given consideration during the site work as part of our final site grading and restoration could you address that yeah we don't have anything proposed for storm water best management practices at this time again we are having a slight reduction in the amount of impervious coverage on the site so in theory the amount of storm water runoff should be a little bit less um we have qu those numbers but there was no plans to provide any additional store water treatments are are the roof trins being just put out into the lawn or how is that working because you have additional roof space with the garage and everything how's that work right now I mean they proposed leaders out to the out to the okay and in your opinion based upon the current drainage patterns um is is any further storm water management uh required for this site no I don't believe so um there was no requirement to provide any additional stormm water um treatment um right now the property does slope from the front or you know out Stonehouse road down towards the rear there is a slight swell towards the back property line which I believe discharges to the uh kind of to the Northeast and uh there's also a comment in here that uh we will do what needed what needs to be done to preserve and protect trees during the site work yes that's correct and we will comply with we will comply with that we can add some details for tree protection and also a comment that uh we should consider adding some uh planting some native trees or shrubs is that something we can do yeah it can be done right now there are some trees at the rear of the property and on the right hand side of the property um there's also a you know a a board on board fence at the rear and towards the right side of the property um I believe on the I would call this the West Side there's a driveway um between this and the neighboring properties uh I wanted to direct you to Mr sly's report uh May 2nd of this year um and the comments that are addressed under our section um one and two I think are more informational uh let's start with um three uh subsections a through e is there anything um here that we either can't comply with or require some further discussion um no we can comply with all of these and this comment here drove the you know the revision of the impervious coverage calculations which we submitted so that came out of these comments so we've kind of complied with all of these comments within that new calculation and then same question for um item 4 a through C are we able to comply with that yes and then item five I'm asking you to confirm that the uh RightWay dedication to Somerset County will not exceed the 25t with shown on the plan um we based this information based off the survey we got from Lakeland but we can certainly confirm with the county that that is accurate the main reason for that is if the county is requiring more dedication it's going to affect your your front setback correct and the board is going to need to know that um because you're already requesting a variant so it's going to get even smaller yeah it's my understanding that the surveyor did some research into into this um and that's where he determined this um the 25 foot but I personally don't have any confirmation from the county or correspondence from the count and item seven uh with regard to the lot coverage disclosure form we will comply with that can we can we go back I'm sorry can we go back to the right of voice I don't think I I fully I missed something what is the right of way for are they planning to do some Road improvements or is it just because of the distance from the street I don't believe the County's planning to do anything they have standards right of way that they want in case they ever need to do anything in the future you typically on a road like this will be 33 feet from the center line I don't know that they require dedications for projects that don't involve uh new buildings and and things for additions I don't I don't recall ever seeing one I'm just saying if um and even if they do ask for say 33t wide dedication um a lot of times the um applicant might Grant the 25 ft and then an extra 8T of in easement that wouldn't take away from the lot area um I wouldn't think they'd be asking for anything in this case certainly the the survey and the existing RightWay nice clean that up um so I don't think it would be an impact but if the county does somehow have jurisdiction to require a dedication more than 25 F feet then it wouldn't be a problem if it's granted as an easement but if you're granting a 33 foot wide rideway the board would need to know to Grant you 8 feet Rel based on the new set Box off of that yeah typically the older homes in town have property lines a lot of them that go might M include that go to the center of the roadway yeah and but it's not your usable property it's it's it's a right of own by the county here they've they've got some iron bars that were set right um behind the de Center Line that appear to be like 16 and 1 12 ft so it looks like they've already anticipated a 3 33t full width right away which was Old Country Road right what they're doing is giving you 25 foot for the county which gives them a 50 foot full regularly which is ample but is really bizarre is the property to the next NE immediately to the south of them appears to have a 30 3 foot half width which is going to result in a 66 foot wide right of way down here which but there's there's evidence for all three throughout you know 200 ft here it's hard to know what the Count's going on right I've never seen that before until we bought our house and I I was like we on the road yeah all the way up South Finley it's the same but right now right now as the property as the property sits your property line goes to the roadway so you still have your mailbox I don't think there's any sidewalk there and and the grass so I mean technically technically your survey is at the center line of the road right the survey is to the center line of the road but if you if you look at the map plot plan there's two pins that are set maybe 2 feet behind the edge of pavement those are about 16 and 1/2 ft from the center line indicative of a 33t full right away now they're adding got it I'm with you thank you it's important to point out that even though they're losing lot area they're still reducing the coverage from what exists that's a pretty right my question on the reduction in coverage it's being reduced and I know the town considers gravel impious coverage but gravel in my opinion does drain um now you're covering it with a bill building um so it is changing the drainage patterns of the property I mean yeah I you know well they're getting rid of the garage yeah and the shed building and the shed yeah but a lot of this is gravel that's being taken out and covered with building I mean to be honest in my opinion gravels on driveway end up being pretty impervious my driveway had 3/4 inch clean gravel on top of s stone mine Dre perfectly no mine does not but anyway walkways and whatnot with there's not typically heavy traffic on them they drain but driveways typically don't they get pounded down over time so well that's my question though is this property slopes to the property to the rear is is putting buildings that are covering areas that were originally graveled going to impact the neighbor's property and should drainage be considered well rear of the property again the gravel driveway is being removed and replaced with grass right so the grass in theory will also slow down some of the storm water that runs towards the rear of the property as far as we can tell from the survey that we received from Lakeland the property does slope from the front towards the rear but then it does go up again towards the neighbor's property so creating almost like a Swale uh between you know the rear of this property and and the neighbor's property um there should be a net reduction a small net reduction in the amount of storm water that runs off of the property based on the fact that we're now traveling through some some grass area before it gets to the rear property line Beth along along the storm water management lines typically because they're also over impervious coverage right so what we've been doing lately is anytime an applicant comes in and increases impervious coverage albeit maybe it's less than the th000 square foot that triggers the retention requirements we've been making them if there's any increase at all as a as a measure to mitigate the impacts associated with the overage we've been making them retain whatever it is right because they've increased it here they technically decreased it so whatever impact there is to the surrounding neighborhoods ostensibly it's already been realized so if they red now I'm if they reduceing per Cod should be better what I realize when I'm arguing this is that you could be encouraging people to blow through the impervious covered number and then come in and say hey we've reduced this so whatever impacts already realized so there may be some maybe you want to consider slow motor here I didn't initially consider it because the reduction impervious coverage had that had been there for a long time the impacts were already realized so I thought this would be an impact I'm thinking of it like you're thinking of it like the flow is just increasing so the flow off the roof is causing more water to go out a drain pipe right and that shooting out versus hitting the ground and settling around right on on gravel so that's my only consideration is I this property those gravel areas were not that compacted it was grass growing through it it was well I it the property was very overgrown okay and I appreciate your perspective on that I actually didn't get to look at it so so well so if if you're uncomfortable not providing some drainage maybe we we take the approach we've done in the past as is we look to mitigate the impacts associated with over coverage and we provide some mitigation for that and yeah the roof drains draining like we typically have into that type of so you see where I'm going I do and and if if the board so wishes we can add a drywall to infiltrate you know to collect the roof trins and infiltrate that water I think it would help just we the SL proper decent and we'll be able to run the roof leaders to that so you stipulate that yes as part of application and and can I just go back to Landscaping were you saying that you were going to add Landscaping per the recommendations or that naturally you're going to put some in to make it look better or are you stipulating that I'm going to add five trees on you know I I can't we don't have any right now the plan doesn't show any proposed Landscaping right there are some exist trees towards the rear of the property towards the right side of the property there is a solid fence at the rear and towards the right so we feel that provides sufficient screening of the neighboring properties again on the on the I guess you call it the west side of the property um there's a driveway here um I forget how far the nearest house is on the other side here's driveway access that was that was my concern you have that house that rear of the house on the other side of the wooden fence and would the proposed second floor new second floor would there be any lighting issue of those people seeing lights from the back of the second floor um that's a to me AR question good question that we need any SC or uh second second floor of the proposed dwelling may be higher than the second floor of the existing ring behind okay basically the same level plus there were existing trees in that area as well and you would Beav in the existing trees yes the existing trees were on the neighbor's property and they were they were kind of sparse White Pines they they were they were gaps they were it was not a full screen and then the to the property on the right it was all deciduous trees there and you could see that house the proper to the left you couldn't see at all but the properties to the rear and to the right you definitely could see and there was not ever green screening and and overall how much are we we red we let me try that again overall how much are we increasing the height of the structure from what it is now to what is proposed existing structure was about 18 ft we're adding uh 10t to roughly like 10 feet to the peak talk about to the peak of the house on that rear on that side the rear elevation is this there's two small windows on that second floor one is the bathroom window and the other one is the master bedroom window so there's really not that many windows there considering entire addition and the window height um how much would that increase from what's existing window height of about about six feet and um the applicant has indicated that they can certainly add additional screening along the rear um they were talking about some arbori as well as some U some shade Tri shade type trees as well um you know and I don't know how you want to handle that but uh if that would be the disatisfaction of your board planner and engineer you would Sate to additional screening in the rear of the property and the right side as well you can clearly see the house next door on the right side to the rear end the right side yeah the right side house is it's only about 6 feet off the property line it's very close to their property line the right side being the south west property lot yes okay which lot is that technically a fence would be put up or someone wants to barrier between we don't I think that's what to rev and approval of Da so so you're stipulating to some additional screening in the back correct and um we're not removing any trees are we no and then just um item nine um we would comply with that as well correct uh that is correct and then with regard to uh Mr Quinn's report of May 6th um is there anything in this report that we either cannot comply with or does require some further discussion um I we can comply with all of these items I don't believe there's anything that requires further discussion um just real quick respect to item 8 we calculated the limit of disturbance to be about 3,000 sare ft so it wouldn't require you know soil erosion or soil conservation approval but we would provide silt fence at the rear of the property and some measures to prevent yeah the township has an ordinance that way okay yeah we will comply with that you'll do with the engineering department there yes so in this report item one and two we've already discussed are we proposing new utilities or are we going to use the existing utilities believe the plan is to use the existing utilities and items four and five we've already discussed six we've already discussed seven has been discussed um item eight uh I think you just mentioned and are we able to comply with 9 10 and 11 yes we are thank you that's all I have for Mr R any additional questions from the board if you don't mind sure quick one uh just the envir commission member I think we didn't touch on like two two comments on there with me I'm trying to pull back up my J fantas wait no I'm looking for my uh my out Sy okay so there were two other conditions this one didn't really much of a condition but they uh the Comm environmental commission wanted you to be advised of the potential for inground tanks Le paint and vestos and and to take proper precautions during demolition so I suppose the condition to come out of that would be that you guys would take proper precaution to start demolition for some those in 10 minutes I think yeah and I think that would be part of the Dem any demolition permit that would be required by the town as well I would expect that as well just want to make sure we're touched on their memo and then also um as far as reusing any kind of demoed material um would you guys want to make a good faith best effort to recycle repurpose or gift any of that so it's in there EXP I'm sure it will be recycled okay you know good all right thank you want to make sure we nail that thank thank you any additional questions for our um engineer any questions from the public I know what that motion Witnesses uh next would be our planner Paul lights thank you Mr gles uh could you state your qualifications for the board sure I'm a licensed planner in state of New Jersey I just renewed this week um a member of the American Institute of certified planners I a master of city and Regional planning from Ruck University I've been testifying before boards throughout the state for the past 20 years I've not been before this board but I've been before Bound Brook Franklin Hillsboro Ron some of going watch on in the area and your license is still in good standing it is good as long as that check clears this week it should be good be so accepted we will uh accept you as plan thank you and Mr CL you're familiar with the site the area and the uh proposal before the board I am and you've had the opportunity to review the um Township ordinance and master plan I have and could you start out by um describing the site in the area sure I think we're all familiar with what the Project's know to be the previous um testimony covers all that so the the property we're talking about is the 77 Stonehouse Road uh block four and uh I'm sorry lot four and block uh 601 um it's uh 461 Acres now and it will be 436 Acres after the RightWay um dedication um and it's on the northeast side of Stonehouse Road about 500 ft south of Rockbridge Court the lot size we talked about is 20,8 2089 Square ft um according to the tax records the the home was built in 1905 and has about, 1470 square feet um the oldest listed sale date was in 1981 is in the R4 District um residential zones are designed primarily for residential use uh again most of the residential Lane use in the township includes medium density residential um the established character is dominated by lots of One Acres or less and includes lots of small as a quarter acre and this District represents the heartland of burnage Township so the permitted uses include residential development public and private golf courses and a clubhouse farming a and horiculture public parks roads and purposes home offices and Family Daycare homes the existing and proposed use remains a single family home um to the north of the site we have um some uh single family homes and then the Rockbridge Court uh subdivision um Emelia North is lot two which is 65 Stonehouse road that is 1.27 Acres it has a single family home that was built in 2014 that home the tax records indicates are uh just under 3500 Square ft it was last sold in 2013 and the olded listed sale date for the lot was 1970 um to the South is lot five that's 81 Stonehouse Road that's even smaller than our lot a 0.19 Acres that home was built in the same year as ours in 1905 it's listed as just over 1,000 square feet and it was last sold in 2005 um to the east we have the two flag Lots um behind the lot we have lot three which is 71 Stonehouse Road that sits on 1.24 Acres that's a single family home built in 2008 and that's just over 4,500 Square ft um and then lot 301 which is 69 Stonehouse is 1.44 Acres that home is built in 2007 and it's just shy of 4500 square ft and to the West is wooded open space and as part of the the single family home development at the Summits of gr Basking Ridge and that represents the P1 and the rc4 zones okay and could you just reiterate for the board the variances that are required sure um they're all pre like you mentioned in the opening they're all pre-existing some are being exacerbated some are not changing and some are actually being approved so we have a lot area where one acre is required we have 461 existing and0 436 proposed and that's because of the rway dedication we've been talking about the lot width required is 200 ft we have 13 1.51 ft and that's not changing that's a pre-existing non-conforming the front yard set back were 75 ft required 35 FTS existing and we're going to 33.5 ft it's a pre-existing non-conformity being exacerbated by 1.5 ft the rear yard setback um is were 75 ft required 61.65 is existing 41.3 ft proposed that's a pre-existing non-conforming conditioning being exacerbated by uh 20.3 5 ft um and we just had a long discussion about lock coverage 15% is permitted um I believe the numbers we're going with is uh 19 19.71% is existing on the developable tract and then we have I guess it was uh 16.79% 7% is proposed 1978 um on the developable tra so we have just about a reduction a total reduction of 650 Square F feet um so we're improving that non-conformity by 650 Square ft um I reviewed the uh 2003 master plan thank you to the board administrator for pointing me to that one and not the 2010 one uh two spots on the your your website but I think we're going to be all right tonight um your gold and objectives of the most recent master plan um they include the purposes of zoning in the municipal landuse law they also include neighborhood and Community character to be protected and attractive St stat Street Scapes throughout the township should be retained and improved uh the carrying capacity of the Township's natural environmentally sensitive areas should be respected through the application of conservative development density and intensity limits also mentioned is uh the provision of reasonable diversity of housing should be maintained to serve various household needs that under the land use plan U the master plan says that the land use policy should strive to maintain enhance Community character protect the Integrity of existing neighborhoods and prevent the intrusion of incompatible new development the land use plan should assure diversity and balance among various land uses that respects reflects all the goals of the master plan and again the primary jective of the land use plans to maintain the character of established neighborhoods protect the quality of life in those areas while substantial undeveloped insured portions of the community will develop at a lower intensity the master plan sets a key objective uh the protection enhancement of the established R of character that pervades much of burners Township um there's also two other kind of Keystone issues that are brought out in the land use plan one of them um is the uh the market driven forces um uh one the market driven forces impacting the township is the residential tear down um which is where smaller older homes are replaced with larger new homes in some case the tear down may include combining existing residential lots to accommodate a new larger home um and that goes on to say how they can negatively impact the fabric of the neighborhoods um they can The Lure of profitable real estate profitable real estate investment can have negative impacts on the neighborhood character uh and then lock coverage is brought up where lock coverage standards have evolved in response to a number of Highly of a number of public policy concerns um and Environmental Protection and conservation of natural resources are principal objectives with water quality uh among those concerns retaining negative native vegetation U mature trees limiting runoff generating coverage plays a significant role in protecting water quality and neighborhood character um and so um those are all part of the Landy plan and I think we've we're going to we'll show how we've addressed all these issues with with this application um so for under the statutory criteria for for bulk variances you know we've listed the five bulk variances and I think actually we can do both the C1 and the C2 analysis um in the on the site um because I think there's an element of hardship due to the existing lot size but I also think there's um there's some benefits of of zoning as well under the C2 analysis so I'll go go through them now under the C1 um you know we want to demonstrate physical limitations of the site um that create the hardship so I'll just note that the lot is legally existing it's non-conforming for the R4 Zone um and the lot areas even being further reduced by just over a th000 square feet to to provide that conforming RightWay with um as the planners uh memo stated the applicant's property is less than half the minimum lot area required and given the lot's depth and and the minimum required front and um rear yard setbacks there is no building envelope on the property and so there's no conform or no conforming location for a dwelling on the lot um so the home has to exist in some sort of negative space if we were to follow the strict adherence um there's no adjacent oversized lot from which to per purchase access property eliminating the opportunity to increase the lot size or lot with conformance we have the two flag lots and another Underside Lots but really don't give us that ability to increase the size of our lot um the location of the existing structure on the lot dictates the existing and proposed setbacks um and the existing imperious coverage uh imp impervious coverage is pre-existing and it's being actually improved on the site um now when we complete the C1 analysis we also have to address the negative criteria under the C1 I'm going to do that um under the the C2 is the same testimony in terms of the negative criteria under the C2 which is the What's called the flexible c um I have to show we have to show that the application relates to a specific piece of property that purposes of the ml would be Advanced by deviation from the ordinance requirements we can those variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good um uh and that without they will also not negatively impact the Zone plan and general welfare and then we do this this balancing test where the benefits um of the deviation would outweigh substantially outweigh and any detriment so number one the property legally existing not performing a lot L have the minimum lot size and there's no conforming location for a dwelling on this lot um under the positive criteria under the ml I think we hit a uh a number of the purposes um including purpose C which is providing air light and open space um and I'm tend to be when I'm on the other side of the day I tend to be tough on this one in terms of what does it really mean but I think in terms of this applic even though we require variance relief The Proposal is reusing the existing structure it's maintaining most of the original front print and it's reducing impervious coverage on the undersized lot so this is a reasonable approach to updating an older structure into a Mod single family home on an undersiz lot so I think the applicant is taking the steps necessary to ensure even though we're undersiz we're still providing adequate light air and open space on the property um purpose e is to promote the establishment of appropriate population population densities um that will contribute to the well-being of persons and preserve the environment um there's no change in the population density of the area The Proposal is to update an older structure from 1905 into a modern single family home in a single family home District so we're not changing the density at all um uh purpose G is to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a number of uses um respective on environmental requirements to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and I think you know again this proposal takes this older you know 100y year plus structure in need of substantial repairs converts it into a modern single family home and an existing lot that's going to comport with the surrounding single family homes in the area and there's a need for this type of housing in the in the state um of this type Statewide so this is a good spot for this this is an appropriate spot for this and the proposal makes sense in terms of upgrading the existing structure um purpose I is to promote desirable visual environment and I think you know by transforming this uh vacant structure with overgrown landscape into a nicely designed single family home we have the front porch the new roof line and it's going to be ready for single family occupancy so I think we're increasing the visual um impact of the site itself and again under purpose J to prevent to conserve historic sites and districts open space and prevent urban sprawl it's the ReUse and Improvement of the existing structure that prevents urban sprawl and maintains the foot of the older structure provides an upgrade a single family home and it fits in well so by keeping the same footprint the general public is used to a house being there and being on in that kind of context so we're preserving that context and not creating sprawl so can you you know I'm sorry yeah and you feel that the the design and the size of the house um fits well into the area I think it really does if you look at the proposal you know we're looking at us uh you know the single family home we're going from what we're going to to uh from 1462 to 2536 ft give would take a couple and when you look at some of the surrounding homes we've got um 3400 um we've got 4 4500 4400 but even next door we have about 1,000 square ft so this home is going to act as like a bridge between the existing home next door and there surrounding houses in the neighborhood and it fits right in that middle spot on a decent Siz lot and it's um I think it makes sense it's a reasonable approach um so again under the negative criteria we want to talk about the impact to the public good and that's usually the impact on the neighboring properties um so and the and the surrounding neighborhood so again we're reusing the existing structure maintaining the footprint and reducing a purpose coverage we're removing two other pre-existing non-conforming conditions on the property by getting rid of the shed which had an insufficient reard setback and the detached garage with an insufficient building separation um we're actually making a lot more conforming in terms of those two conditions it's a reasonable approach to updating the uh the old structure um it comports with the size of the surrounding structures there's uh and the surrounding properties will benefit from reinvestment in the property so um the second half of it negative criteria is the impact on the Zone plan and the general welfare um I think I demonstrated that the proposal advances some of the object goals and objectives of the master plan it's not going to have any negative impact on the master plan um it removes the pre-existing non-performing conditions of the shed in the garage we advance five purposes of the uh of zoning on the ml the neighborhood community and characters protected and we have attractive Street Scapes in the township um we have a diversity of housing being provided by this um mediumsized home compar to the neighbors um the uh the issue of residential tear down where the smaller older homes are replaced by larger new homes is not exacerbated this we're not combining Lots we're not subdividing lots and we're not doing a tear down this is a rebuild and a rehab so I think we're not contributing to that major concern in the land use plan um and we're going to retain the footprint and have some uh architectural amenities added to the to the property and again the concern over lock coverage you know this is not a typical knockdown this is a a rehab and an addition we're also adding additional landscaping and we're reducing coverage on the site so those two big issues that were highlighted in the land use plan aren't being affected by this proposal here at all and then we go ahead and we do our balancing task between the benefits and outweighing any of the substanti outweighing any the the detriments when it comes to lot area it's uh it's already nonperforming we have a slight reduction due to the RightWay dedication um and so the benefits of allowing the proposal to move forward including the site improvements in the reinvestment in the building and The Limited foot part of disturbance um out maintaining significant side yards and rear yards um outweigh any detriments to to to the Zone plan under lot width we're not exacerbating it we can't cure it it's the same benefits as as listed above um for the front yard setback we're increasing that by 1 and 1/2 ft to create this covered front porch along the front facade of the building it's an improvement on the functionality it has improves the design of the front facade helps integrate the building in the neighborhood the the the the building uh to the right next door has a porch similar um so I think it kind of adds um uh into the character of of the neighborhood um the rear yard um we're exacerbating by over 20 ft um for the garage in the mudroom um but this allows for the removal of the shed in the garage um and we still maintain a decent uh rear yard and we still are able to maintain a buffer between the two properties um one thing I will note about flag Lots is that when you develop a flag lot you know you have a funky front yard rear yard side yard relationship with the Lots around you already so I think the board should have a little less concern I think we're addressing it there's an existing board on board fence we're going to be adding some additional Landscaping but it's not the traditional kind of concern you would have um when buffering and it's a residential used to a residential use um but you know uh your concerns about your neighbors and where your rear yards come into the side yards and such that's part of the game of developing flag Lots so um I think the board can consider that as well um and lock coverage we've talked about a lot you know we we're improving the situation um and we're doing a reasonable approach to development of the whole site so given that I think the board can comfortably Grant um the variances requested both under the C1 and the C2 test thank you any questions um from the board for planner can I ask I know we always typically ask did you talk to your neighbors you know about the plans is there anyone in that would had been talked to Neighbors were that you're aware of from from any of the neighbors I haven't talked to the neighbors that would be something you you want to ask the property owners I didn't know if they were going to come up next or if you were going to have any we weren't going to have them testify but they are available unless the attorney wants to represent one thing or another off are you answering for them or yeah I can just say I don't I don't think there's been a specific discussion um with the neighbors regarding this plan so no concerns you didn't hear of any concerns after the notice no one came over to talk to you or anything or no and are you developing this property to live in yourselves or is are you flipping it just developing it and then selling it what who who's going to be the occupant of the of the home yes yeah uh the idea is to um to get it renovated and sell it to a third party who would um you know become the residents okay so basically they're the developer the contractor yes but they are the owner as well right and I think there were some pictures along with the application do you know who took them and when they were taken photographs were um taken by Mr Shaw who's a principal of the applicant and one were those taken the ones that we submitted with the application uh rly probably just about just prior to the uh submission of the application okay and and are they essentially um picturing what the uh property looks like now is there any material of changes from the pictures that we're looking at now no it it accurately depicts what what is there um additional questions from the board I have one point of clarification for the planner so I believe you st you guys are requesting five bulk variances I had counted four um the one I think the one discrepancy would go a lot with I have that understood as a pre-existing nonconforming condition I included it it's pre-existing nonconforming some boards required to restate some boards don't so and okay side of being cautious I reced it it's not being changed at all the four that are changing are the lot area uh front and Rail Yard setbacks and lot coverage lot width is not changing at all to put up the spot but you waigh they don't need a lot with VAR okay I just make and Mr SL Mr Quin is there any points in your memal that you feel W accurately completely addressed I don't have I don't have any addition questions or concerns I don't either um if there's no questions from theard uh is there any questions from the public on this application oh no not on the application actually just for our planner are there any comments on this application no anything else for us or you giving it back to us I think I'll give it back to you I don't want to we'll take it I don't want to belabor the point you just heard from the planner so yeah we can go from there I was going to ask him to repeat it but I think I got it I can do it faster I get yell all the time okay do you want to give us a recap absolutely so the applicant here is requesting four bulk variances I'll run through them real quick the first is for minimum lot area one acre is required the out 436 Acres which equates to approximately 18992 ft the next is for the front yard setback for the principal dwelling uh 75 ft is the minimum required there and the applicant is proposing 3.5 ft the third is for the rear yard setback of the principal dwelling again 75 ft is the required minimum the applicant is proposing 14.3 ft the next is lock coverage ratio well the last is the loot coverage ratio uh 15% is your maximum and the applicant was proposed at 19.78% so that's it as far as variances go I'll run through the conditions first off in the front end they're going to be stipulating everything in uh our board planner Mr SCH memo ated May 2nd 2024 as well as our board engineer Mr quo dated May 6 2024 and uh everything in the environmental commission review memo which was originally dated March 25th 2024 and revised through April 22nd 2024 though there were no further comments on that revised version additional conditions that the applicant stipulated to during the hearing um I think this is already probably encompassed in uh D's memo they'll be dedicated the right of way to the county I'm going to come back to that in a second um also I think this was probably addressed by the other prior stipulation the professional MOS but I just noted that the applicant will be submitting revised plans correcting the lot coverage calculations and removing the approvable area table that's on there erroneously those already the applicant has also indicated that they're going to be stipulating to adding a dry well to capture runoff from the roof drains which would be subject to the review and approval of our board engineer next the applicant has stipulated to providing additional landscape screening along the rear property line which would be subject to the review and approval of our board Planner on this page oh wait a second back to my one I know there one oh going back to the right of way dedication the applicant is to confirm with the county that they require a 25t right of way dedication only and if in the event they require addition the get an easement for that area or otherwise have to return to the board to see further variance really based on the increased reduction to the size of the lot set my well doesn't it decrease the lot area as well see okay all my point is anything be 25 ft you got to give e for it otherwise you got to come back so that's that's that and unless I'm leaving something out please let me know if I no tree remal I think that's probably I don't know they won't be really any trees right yeah I don't know if that was covered by cover one of but if not okay think does anybody have um any thoughts they want to kick us off here on this application I'll just say the current home is in this repair definitely in need of improvement um so uh that being said this will improve the housing stock um reducing the impervious obviously as we spoke about we appreciate that they're doing the dry well any the additional screening that we requested uh definitely in character with the neighborhood and there would be no detriment to the zoning ordinance or the master plan I would be in favor of approving this thank you Mr tanky any additional comments no I just I agree with Mr tankr that this is certainly a needed upgrade to the uh property and uh I agree with the planner that it is sort of a transition from the smaller to then the flag lots that are 4,000 uh square feet houses so I am uh also in favor of the approving the application thank you so I'll uh I'll move to deem the application complete and advise our board attorney to draft the resolution memorializing our decision to Grant the salt relief subject to the stipulations agreed to this evening by the applicant under C1 and C2 and I will second that motion thank you m keeper Miss Balman yes Mr cruss yes Miss Pichi yes Miss poar yesy yes chairwoman Jer yes thank you okay thank you you thank you very much thank you have a good night everybody okay who do we have are you uh I'm Chris yeah is is it for the is it we we is that that's right okay hang on one second okay so I guess we should do uh a straw poll for for the board appreciate that you've been sitting here all night for your swimming pool application um but it is 10:45 so I need to take a straw poll for the board on willingness to hear this application or if we need to push it uh to our next meeting sorry Miss Balman but your name begins with B so I think Miss keeper is gonna kick us off okay yeah can you please yes Mr Stay sure yeah let's do it Stay or Leave that's okay Stay or Leave can we hear this yeah we can I don't think I can put aine onon you're no I'm okay let's just do ro can you do one please what are we voting on you're voting on your willingness to stay for this application okay all right I'm going to start start again M bman yes okay Mr Krauss yes with a time limit Miss Pichi yes with a time limit Miss poar no sorry but no Mr tanky no okay we have oh a chair woman Jers yes have four yes two can can the if can we could hear it with four like could two people leave if they feel the need to leave that's a question I don't see why not okay so as long as you have a yeah I'd like to I'd like to hear this one if we could he's been sitting here all night but if people feel the need to leave and it's been a long night and we've been here three hours so it's not just you know it's just mentally can we can we do a good job for you so is that a thing don't I can't think of a reason why we put it so anybody who feels they need to leave because they can't do it and is no judgment let me just give the applicant an opportunity sir do you want to come up to micro abely we're not starting to hear you're not I brought no support So this yeah and that matters you have no Witnesses and Stu but but at the same time you know we try to be very careful and mindful on how we plan these things out so we do try and plan it such that we'll finish on time so right so so my question to you as the applicant here would you be okay with two of the board members leaving we still need to get a majority of those three out of four four out of six I I am certainly fine um as long as you guys don't think that compromises your ability to hear this out take that as a go for okay Miss p no judgment that's fine our board professionals okay staying for with the time limit okay yep you get paid by the hour so do we zero um so why don't we set a time limit uh of uh 1120 maybe it won't take all all of that time but but we will stop it at that point okay in time including a uh a verdict on this case m i I have to get up at 4: a.m. to drive to Philly so I appreciate the time liit so we go so are you staying I'll stay okay so we're going to have five uh members still need to get three out of five to to pass M poor no problem sorry it went late I apprciate smaller Universe of people we need to impress sure okay so why don't you tell us why why you're here miss miss uh keer you just have to make a note of uh that Miss P's leaving thank you why don't you tell us why I mean we know why you're he tell us I I'll do my best to be coherent at this time sure professionals you swear orir the testimony you're about Tove the truth whole truth about the truth all we got I do go thank you um I'm no and just to be clear we're not rushing you you should do the case the way you want to do the case if we don't finish it's fine we don't finish but but don't let any pressure feel like you my my biggest challenge at this point is doing math this late at night I have that's I'm on my phone because I'm doing numb sorry um so so I live at 16 mono Place uh which is just on the other side of town uh we've lived there since uh 2019 um and kind of looking through uh through this whole process um you know I've I've learned some things that I did not know about the property uh that I think probably impact uh your evaluation and would love to kind of share share what we found with you um but we are requesting uh an increase maximum coverage uh to the property to accommodate a swimming pool that we're putting in uh so uh I guess of note is our home uh before we purchase it uh was uh some form of renovation I guess they raised it and and built a new house and at the time uh they had to apply for a variance to increase the size at the time um I was not the house it's a house okay yes sorry um I I was not aware of that um through this process uh we learned that uh they actually slightly increased the maximum coverage that they sought in that variance so the house in it existing state is already over um I did not know that when I purchased the house when did you buy the house 2019 just to ask you questions sure um the additional piece that I didn't know is that to accommodate that increase in coverage they put in a storm uh water drainage system um that is buried in our backyard and is actually where we plan to put the the pool in the first place um so that caused a little bit of a a glitch in the planning process because uh the outline of the H the pool was the same place as the drainage system um so we do have an existing system to kind of uh take water uh keep the water on our property instead of sending it elsewhere um and it seems to operate well there's a couple uh inlets or if they're inlets or there's drains um at different parts in the yard that you can see it you can see them fill up when um we have a heavy rain uh so uh in putting in the pool though uh we're asking for additional coverage over what we already have and had slightly exceeded uh and uh I guess my understanding of the way uh the calculation is performed the swimming pool surface itself does not count um but the area around the pool counts to the impervious coverage right actually counts for imp just been stor okay okay thank you um so I I will say that we were mindful of this from the beginning uh we would have liked to have put a more extensive patio in and we like the patio that we stone patio that we have right now um so we we kind of made a deliberate decision when we designed this to limit the area around the pool but we really didn't know until the design came out that we would be um exceeding and in needing an additional variance so the pictures that we see here did you take these photos yes part of the application okay the second one I'm assuming is just like a oh that's just like a artist rendering of what it might look like what it might look like right so the first uh I think it's a set of four pictures does this accurately um picture of your backyard as it looks now or that's right not standing the grass is greener yep okay and the patio you spoke of you can I guess see it a little bit in these photos it's snug to the house snug is it a fire pit as well yep and it's not um you know it's not contiguous there are cracks in the P you know there's pavers so you know there is some drainage I think through the pavers and it looks like an 18 by 38 right that's right is that a standard size I think so is it 20 by 40 or 20 by 40 20 by 40 so it's slightly slightly less okay and do you want to just describe uh is uh do you agree have you seen Mr Si's memo yes I've I've seen them all okay do you agree with his um calculation and thank you Mr for laying them out like this because try do on a fly each thing I I think I I agree with if they are wait yes I do I do the ones where I saw some math err Thomas I think were yours but the ultimate conclusion was correct your math was just not wow sorry my engineer was incorrect too no no no I'm happy um look at the end of the day what what we're trying to do with this since he's over pv's cover we are taking the approach that everything that's all effective covered that's over the ordinance requirement they mitigate for that's right in this case as I I spoke to Mr we yesterday about it I gave him the option of we can either expand your existing system or we can look the cut back and perious cover that's on the site he said his driveway was pretty much the way he wanted it so what I did note was that Dave was kind enough to send me the uh 2014 team development plan and I noted that they when they designed the system there was some additional volume in there so I credited him towards that and came up with a number of 300 square feet additional on top of that that would take care of all impervious cover overage effective from perious coverage overage rather than remove the driveway what I told him he could do and communicated with his engineer about it he's got the existing system his system is the discharge is at an inlet right so he's got the system underground the thing bubbles up and discharges over the inlet if he raises that Inlet when he's doing all this yard work if he raises that Inlet an inch and a half he'll capture additional volume run off in the volume of the system he has and mitigate for all the impervious cover he's over running for the terms of the ordinance okay and what was the result of that conversation um I agree with them I don't know how complicated that will actually be um but if it sounds like it's just a matter of raising the two Gres that we have slightly which are now kind of flush with the ground um we're willing to do that so you would stipulate to doing that sure okay I would prefer not to of course but I think the board would probably prefer that you did so might might be helpful for you if you wanted to stipulate to that that you're over and that's the recommendation yeah I I mean the alternative which is something that to dig a new pit right if do this you'd have to dig a new hole and do that that's why this you've already got an existing hole that's got if you just raise the outlet very slightly you wouldn't even notice it frankly with all the gring you're done doing in the pool this inid is 10t from that pool yeah believe me that's a very well well the additional option that like I haven't kind of discussed with my engineer yet is if we needed something to accommodate like pool runoff um that we could put a small pit kind of near I was just asking our lawyer if there was a way that we could write it such to give you the flexibility to address the amount of overage that we're talking about but give you the flexibility on how you would address it here's what I would propose as a condition at least the way I now the applicants shall provide storm water management infiltration for all excess effective impervious coverage uh 300 sare foot net increase in order toate the of the nonconforming condition or remove a portion of the existing driveway subject to the review and approval of the board engineer that's kind of pull from Tom's memo so we can probably ask to remove a portion of the driveway but yeah I think the way I have that worded gives you you just have to provide infiltration yeah okay that that's perfect that's perfect is there did you speak to any of your neighbors about this project did any of them contact you only a few that approach me um there's someone uh who's putting in a new house for the last four years right next to me um and he and I have been kind of chatting throughout he knows it's coming did you hear any concerns about your putting in a pool no my neighbor on the other side said looking forward to seeing the pool uh woman across the street has has has a pool how about the Cherry Lane people um I don't really know anyone on Cherry Lane except for one person directly behind me um Pete and he didn't did they have any that person behind you have any issue no okay have you noticed any water well one of them is a renter okay so have you noticed any water issues um currently since you've been living there you left right behind you our neighborhood has water issues and um kind of talking to folks they're not things that have always been there and I suspect that others have regraded their backyards and that's contributing to it I mean we have kind of wondered what to do because others only in heavy rains others water comes to our house so which direction from uh kind of well if you were standing in the backyard the far right corner um but it's it's not since it was before the new house so it's not um it it is not just the new house um um yeah but but water comes from my neighbor on the left onto our well if I'm fa you're facing the house the neighbor on the left that everything comes down towards this culdesac and we're in the path of it and what's happened I think is that water is no longer allowed to continue it just comes right back towards my problem that's why we're so focused it's one of the reasons we're so focused on on the perious cover like we have to get the water um you know moving and to the right spot we definitely don't want to exacerbate any any of the existing problems and that's why you know we ask for additional stipulations with respect to storm water management even though it's a pool well I mean the problem is it's you know the water is not just coming from our it's not like it falls straight down on our property and stays there it moves from other places so you know in a way I'm kind of mitigating other people's grading issues and I'm not sure that that's what I want to do either I think um uh Mr coin you also had some comments around the fence yeah it's 5 feet I I don't know why the plan says four feet okay yeah I was a little confus and and my engineer looked at it and he said it's 5T but then he said maybe it's wrong it's 4 feet I'm like it's 5et it shouldn't be that hard to figure that out um the tree that's behind where the pool is that going be removed or is that exist no just looking at this one picture with a big tree I'm sorry kind of Po's going to be like right there right uh or am I looking at it incorrectly it's it's actually over so that so this tree is on the other side of the property so there's no so it's over here closest tree actually is not showing up in the picture it's see the okay perect yeah it's like we deliberately did it cuz we we like the cover and yeah the only other thing that and I've been now putting this in standard every time somebody's at this situation where they're over in P's cover is that and we spoke about this just make sure that your contractor comes out here and says hey I'm going to connect that patio with this walkway it's going to be great yeah problems yeah y y yeah yeah I I I know and uh in the old location there was a connector but when we moved it further away it just so you're aware of that just you're on a TI limit we' have yeah thank you so is the reason that you moved it further because if you were closer you would have um the storm water management system is in the place where you would have put the pool is that what I I mean we actually had the pool originally where we the wanted to place it was right over the storm water we didn't know it was there so it was through this process that we learned that that had been put in in the first place so not everybody in the house is happy with where it is um Mr slly is there anything on here that we didn't address um there was something about the lighting oh yeah I think the lighting is going to be standard like down in the pool we're not putting in any additional lighting we're not putting any additional lights around the patio the no and as a condition of approval you would utilize the best management practices uh when discharging pool water yes yes that may actually be the solution to the water drainage issue too so Mr s did we miss anything else on your memo no the soer set of control measures that have to be done anyway yeah um now it's covered it's been covered i't further any any trees being removed no trees no trees yeah no no like stepping stones between is this a and a no you can't do anything it's just going to be it's just grass yeah yeah yeah I think Mr Quinn already pointed it out but it's really important when you're asking for an application that's over a lot of times when things are going you know it's very easy to be like wouldn't this be great wouldn't this be great it's not so great when you go the pool guys will suggest well they out they Outsource the the pavers so somebody probably will you're right sure um any additional questions applicant go ahead can I just hit the environmental commission M okay so there were four conditions I don't want to take up too much time this there are four conditions I saw in there which I think are pretty reasonable we'd ask stely to um you'll employ best uh storm water best management practices during site work and as final part of gring and restoration it's just going to make sure the yeah yeah of course um you'll employ best management practic practices to protect trees during site work of course okay um you're going to use best man different practices when discharging cool water another thing I'll just touch on were you proposing any trees any trees on the pool well we were going to wait we were going to wait until after but this water drainage issue that we're having in the neighborhood we thought of putting some willow trees okay in the back corner because we kind of understand they suck things up they do okay um that that would satisfy the other condition commission they wanted you to plant some they recommended you plant some native trees and shrubs yeah we will landscape around it okay regardless of what okay and uh watch that the willowes don't get flowers oh yeah just pushing back and then last uh last question this is just not for you just to everybody just want to confirm the scope of relief um 22.5% lot coverage is proposed that's yes that's right okay all right that's all I got so thank you yeah excellent thank you are there any questions for this applicant that's okay any comments on this application for or against thank you anything else for you before you want to give it to us no I appreciate you guys staying so late thank you anybody fall asle okay all right should I summarize my the yeah let's do it okay first off actually before before we lose anybody else should have set this at the front end um notice everything was sufficient as far as the notice goes time we served content was good board as jurisdiction didn't point that at the beginning poting now applicant seeking one bul variance for lot coverage ratio as I just mentioned prior 18% is the permitted maximum applicant proposes 22.5% as far as conditions go the applicant is going to stipulate everything in our board planner Dave schl memo dated May 2nd 2024 everything in uh our board engineer Thomas Quinn's memo da May 4th 2024 as well as everything the environmental commission's memo dating April 22nd 2024 though I will note that as far as an additional condition goes and this kind of it's kind of tied to what's in Tom's M anyway but as I mentioned earlier um this was something we stipulated to the applicant shall provide storm water management infil for all excess effective impervious coverage is about 300 foot net increase in order to mitigate the impacts of nonconform condition which would be subject to the review and approval of board engineer that's what we touched on earlier have some flexibility to install some additional drainage so I think that's it leave anything out please remind me you got it all right anybody want to kick us off here I I will um I will say that I I just don't I don't see any detriment here I see I think that you've been very kind and mindful of the overage in in impervious coverage and um a lot of times people aren't mindful of that so we appreciate that very much um we are very sensitive to it and um we are sensitive to where the the water goes and it really is I I think that it'll be a help for you I think you're going to see a benefit as well yeah I hope to additional storm water management and adjusting the system any way you see fit so if nobody do do you want me to just go does yeah just go just go okay so I would deem the I would deem the application complete and um I see this really as a C2 I I don't see it as a C1 I don't see it as any detriment I think that it's going to be a nice addition um to the neighborhood and um nobody complained about it so I would I would uh direct our board attorney to a resolution memorializing our decision and with all of the conditions and stipulations within second thank you Miss Balman Mr Krauss Miss gever Miss Balman yes Mr kuss yes M Pichi yes Mr Tedy yes chairwoman Jers yes you all right good good luck thank you guys I would like to thank Cindy for being incredibly patient with me and our pool company who were not easy on this process patient was the entire Bor actually thank you good luck with your project thank so much um Cindy is it okay if we push the annual report to next meeting all right let's do that um any comments from Members or comments from staff I think we have a meeting um next Thursday which is going to be signature so that's next Thursday right here and you all those of you who are eligible to vote I did put some additional information in front of you wonderful physically today yeah yeah okay I didn't look at it but that was on signature it's yeah it's it's um signatur response to the E's met oh okay fair enough okay I will look at it um so that's next Thursday so and Madam chair I will not be qualified for that be refused on that so I will not be attending the signature okay but if you change your mind between now and next Thursday sure want to watch if you watch 12 if you want to watch 100 hours feel free you know if it's this weekend you got nothing going so Netflix you know I've watched them all excellent no help to us at all thank you um and that's it right uh Miss kefir anything else that's it okay thanks very much for staying everybody was late motion thank you second second all in favor