##VIDEO ID:Zpv-F6OchGU## not I have planning board meetings will be held in person at the meeting Hall on second floor of the burner Hill Municipal Building at Road meetings will be live streamed on YouTube with no opportunity for public comment on YouTube members of the public wishing to offer comments or ask questions will be required to attend meetings in person e e e e e e e e okay now the Red's off so then maybe opposite maybe it's this why all right I think that's it okay that's meeting okay great um we did get Communications one from the sumerset county the circulation plan public notice and they posted a draft circulation plan I took a look at it thought it was not a DAT the DAT was stale um the NJ DP case number the suspected hazardous substance discharge notification reive that right no much location but doesn't know what the was it deter what material wasar not no tolean do anyone here for an item that's not related to the agenda that's tonight any visitors not related to the agenda hi Aaron D 51 CR Drive in Bernville do anything War public comment not related to an application I wanted to comment quickly on the EET application that was in today's paper um uh quick recap the board had voted to extend the um yeah yeah I'm sorry to interrupt Mr sa was just saying something that that's appropriate while it's not on the agenda it is a pending application uh by pending I mean the hearings are pending at least for the time being uh so we can uh you have a procedural comment or question as opposed to the substance or merits of that pending application as you know you let me know if I'm I don't have the ESP which I wish I did I play tomorrow's lottery number but but the uh so we're going to keep it to procedure or questions go ahead JY and really more about um procedure in general so sure um the application was uh adjourned to allow the applicant to conform its uh building to the uh qrp uh and at the time it was determined that um you know there really was no downside to it the uh you know there was no as Mr Warner indicated there was no risk of a default approval anything like that and um you know they were trying to make the plan better uh fine um I just read uh today and uh the Chairman's comment in the papers you know made me think back to um much's testimony on this particular application that under question from Miss Hazelton I'm sorry this particular excuse me air yeah that we can't talk about I'm not going to talk about it other than to what his State I I'll try and rephrase um it may have been stated that applications that had been the Chairman's uh statement to the paper was that the uh storm water DP regulations had changed since the application was originally submitted um and uh it has been stated or you know it's potentially um the case that applications that pre existed that um the new regulations the enactment of the new regulations are grandfathered in um and therefore do not have to comply with the uh storm water regulations uh so all I wanted to you know put forth is this is a property that our ownin correct on Mill Street for Mill Street um the uh the EET property uh our EC has stated is an environmentally sensitive lot I you're getting into the merits of the equinet application I just I don't want uh I'm responsible for the for the proceedings to abide by the law so I apologize that I had to interrupt you um but it falls on me okay so so uh um you're getting into the merits of an application of of course Constitution and due process being what it is very important and we're subject to it as well we should be uh equin not here so so so uh and if and when FP equin proceedings continue as I recall uh uh they uh they have until the end of September before their uh uh extension of time for this board to Act expires and either they're going to pick up before then or uh they're going to be probably dismissed without prejudice because uh uh they don't pick up by then and the board may have G to that point that's TBD to be determined in September uh what happens but we can't get into the merits of the equinet application we can't get into the merits of the AR application once we open that proceeding summarize basically you're pointing out that what absolutely true with an application is before us their grandfather Yeah if an if a new application is submitted they're not grandfather and I completely agree that that's the law where he was beginning to go next was I don't think I even need to mention Eon or any individual all I would say is that developments that are in the pipeline and existed in the pipeline prior to the enactments of these uh new storm water regulations once the application is submitted correct that's the case yes if I trust you what all I would say is that when a developer approaches this board I respectfully submit that the uh idea that you know we're essentially locking in development rights for you know applications have been going on for a long time by extending extending extending um those development rights undermine and contradict the current storm water management plans comprehensive plans that have been enacted by our DP so I would just respectfully submit that when and if the board has approached at some later date with a uh extension request um that it consider conditioning such extension on a stipulation by that applicant that it will abide by those new storm water management um regulations and if when the board wishes to consider that I promise the board I'll advise you as legality or like the same at that time thank you legally uh uh uh I believe the board understands your your and there may be You may wish to contact TR I'm not being I'll leave that for I'm not being but the laws with the laws but of course laws change thank you okay anyone else from the public on something other than um do I understand correctly that Mr brightley you're leaving I'm sorry heard that was in the paper I'm glad to hear it wasn't but you're not you're not Mr brightley as I understand it as a uh there's a resolution that uh appointed him uh for this year uh at least for at a minimum for certain matters if uh particularly those that he is continuing on and at a minimum so he is here pursuing to resolution and contract with this for as am I and as is Mr Z okay good because all I was to say if you are Le I wanted to thank you for all of the attention and um detailed review that you provided for the I hope you get many more opportunities to thank you uh anyone else okay no old business our new business is just to review those pretty straight name I think they all Mr I all right so a motion b49 Miss Gardner yes Miss G yes Mr Graham yes Mr har yes Mr McQueen yes Mr sim yes Mr Walden yes and Mr zaro yes the motion cares you sticking around um is there any request uh for an extension so this just a placeholder I think den you're just leaving those headings in there right just in case something pops up H we don't have any request extension no that's what I thought okay then we are at the main event which is say our f see and we ready for your statement uh terrific good evening chairman board members John wcala on behalf of AR Bernardsville pleasure to be back before you tonight want to thank everybody for coming out uh for a special meeting this evening uh this is a continuation of the hearing uh when we were here last uh we had actually concluded our direct testimony there was public comment uh we spent a fair amount of time talking talking about conditions potential conditions um I have spoken with Mr Warner uh there was at least I'm aware of one M of the public uh who was not available at the last meeting uh that I understand does want to make a uh their own public comment and we take no issue with that um we also uh are requesting the opportunity to reopen uh we have brought one additional witness back uh John MCD he's a professional planner uh as board we recall we talked about the the various deviations some of them more minor in nature we got Gamel roofs in certain locations as opposed to flat or pitched roofs and a few other uh details uh but we did spend a fair amount of time talking about uh the height of this structure in terms of stories uh it is and remains our position uh that our proposed project is consistent with the original development designs that went into the development of the Redevelopment plan the Redevelopment agreement terms of four stories on moristown road uh and obviously we have the topography and we've got that uh lowest level of parking and storage that being said uh we spoke to uh in the alternative to the S board uh believe that variance relief is necessary uh we are requesting that I spoke to that issue uh when we were here last on July 25th uh but just for the record and for the board's edification uh we thought it would be best to bring a professional planner in uh to provide planning uh proofs uh with respect to that variance relief we understand Mr MCD who will be sworn in and qualified will be subject to any cross-examination obviously by the board board professionals uh and any member of the public tonight okay you you got the ball so yeah that's and Mr chairman and and certainly discretion of the board to reopen uh uh for Mr McDonald's testimony you heard the reasons why as I recall we received the memo from Mr Zeo to my left August 12 listing five potential deviations from the Redevelopment plan uh Mr uh Apparently one his primary concern is being expressed to be able to address from a planning perspective for the applicant frankly appropriate uh unless and until those d a for clarified and potentially before the applicant how the applicant know at least initially contended they had a foring application now they may not they may have as many as five deviations so I think it's appropriate uh for a planner to testimony testify and the chick board to allow the applicant to reop for that purpose recognizing as the applicants Council stated everyone including members of the public had an opportunity to question instituitional witness and that's my advice to the board ultimately the board okay so um would you like to which would you first uh I'd like to call Mr McDon in the first instance yes I'll swear M right hand is free do you swear to God or affirm testimony about the truth the hold truth truth yes they do thank you Mr McDon can you please provide the board uh with a brief summary of your educational and professional background and licenses that you hold sure thing hi there again everyone my name is John MCD I'm a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey that license is current and it's in good standing I'm also certified on the national level aicp the American Institute of certified planners that certification is also current and in good standing and this is what I get to do on a nightly basis throughout the state of New Jersey so I get to see the nice full cross section of our of our beautiful state and your beautiful town as well where I've been many times before I move we accept John's credentials he's been here before he's been qualified previously by this board we do thank you Mr chairman thank you Mr McDon you're you're familiar with the uh the project uh that's before the board uh the Redevelopment uh area designation Redevelopment plan uh and the site plan application that's here this evening is that correct yes I am uh you've had the opportunity to review the memos and particularly the uh the deviations uh that have been identified over the course of the hearings is that right that's correct I'm going to turn the floor over to you to uh to speak to the project and and then get into to the deviations and or variances that are before us this evening you got so Mr chairman what I'd like to do is use Mr zabo's latest memo to the board August 12th as as a road map I'll say in terms of the relief that the applicants requesting um as always Mr Zabo has sort of boiled it down to the board as to where we stand in terms of uh the relief that the Board needs to consider I know some of the relief may be subject to interpretation um I'm not here to debate whether the relief is or is not needed I'll neither concede dispute my analysis specifically focuses on whether the five deviations that are in Mr zabo's report meet the statutory criteria for Grant of relief and I I find that all five due I'll walk you through my planning rationale in that regard just by way of background here again my familiarity with the site three tax slots here in Block 25 Lots one 2 and three or about an acre that are developed you've designated it as an area in need of Redevelopment got excessive pavement out there and certainly not contributing positively to what is a visually prominent Corner in your community and a and a gateway to the downtown the surrounding uses as we know consist of a variety of downtown type uses we've got retail commercial religious we've got that New Jersey Transit line that's a boundary at the back of the property as well that's going to be important because some of the relief that the applicant is seeking relates to that back uh portion of the property uh the plan is for redevelopment for a very beautiful new mixed juice building that is going to accentuate and Revitalize that corner there um great detail great uh concern for quality and aesthetic um again a beautiful plan with ground level retail and then 68 apartments up above which is fully conforming with your higher tiers of zoning in terms of those usual intensity of use controls the use complies the density complies Captain is not asking relief for any of those higher intensity of use controls we're in the P s-r Palmer Palmer Square Redevelopment Zone and the stated purpose of the district is right in the Redevelopment plan itself which is to promote Mio development on this particular piece of property the Redevelopment plan is for the three lots that are before you the applicant has followed that plan essentially to a t but for these five deviations which I would offer a relatively minor in nature when when we consider all of the other controls that are are cooked into this really well- written uh Redevelopment plan and the laudable goals and objectives that that underline it um the project substantially complies with the Redevelopment plan again in terms of the use in terms of the bulk in terms of all those nice design uh charact conditions that you have built into the plan so the relief is five-fold and you actually have severed in terms of the way relief can be considered here in the community under the traditional C criteria where we would apply the balancing or the hardship standard that we see in the mlu that is specified in the Redevelopment plan as to what type of relief would fall under that umbrella and then there's also relief under the lower standard of a design exception where we look for instead of applying balancing or hardship we just look at reasonableness and what we call impracticability so in Mr zabo's report he identifies two deviations that would fall under the C standard that balancing with hardship standard and then three deviations that would be the lower level design exceptions so we'll take you through them one by one the first relates to the rsis to Minimus exception for parking I see Mr korak over there um who gave you extensive testimony in that regard 102 parking spaces proposed which meets the requirement under your local standard under rsis it would be be 122 spaces but of course the default in the rsis is back to the local standard so you've got justification right in the regulatory language of rsis that provides the justification for that relief not to mention the extensive testimony from a sworn expert on the oath that the parking complies second is the number of stories somewhat of a technicality because as you're standing out there on 202 in the corner um the building itself is going to be proceeded has four stories it's four levels and of course the overall building uh which is measured both in terms of height and stories the building height fully conforms so I'll say the cube if you will the box of the building fully complies with the height and volumetric controls uh in terms of what your ordinance requires the only relief is not for an added story on the top but a drop down on the bottom to effectuate parking and circulation and to respond to the beautiful landscape that you have here and the way the site slopes down so I've done at least two other Redevelopment plans here in uh this portion of town we've had a similar situation where the parking comes in from the back at the lower level and you have sort of a walk out or a walk down drop down type foundation in the bag the key point there is it's going to effectuate all the benefits of the project itself all the positives that are articulated in your Redevelopment plan with minimal if any impact in the public Realm again this is a drop down and exposed foundation in the rear get vehicles into and out of the building not violating any of the purposes of height control in terms of blocking Scenic views creating negative shadow effects creating an imposing or obtrusive structure along the streetcape this is a drop down in the back where the parking is we've got all trees lining the railroad line that's the impacted portion of of the property uh so no substantial detriment in that regard as well in terms of the justification for those two sea level deviations I would offer that you can find justification under both the C2 balancing test as a better zoning alternative for the site or under the C1 hardship criteria related to the characteristic of the land not the building per se I think this board well knows that to meet the test an applicant either has to hit C1 or C2 not both this application actually hits both so I think it's double strong in terms of the justification or the or the proofs under C2 the positives of the application as a whole we've got this case known as the pulling case which says whenever we consider the balancing look at the application holistically the Redevelopment holistically so looking at the project benefits as a whole and what this is going to do to that corner there we see multiple purposes of zoning being Advanced including purpose a promotion of the General Welfare with new housing stock and service uses a nice compliment mix of uses here that will serve your community second purpose M which is our planning goal for the efficient use of land that's what Redevelopment is takes a developed piece of property um reuses it repurposes it and that's again consistent with our goal here as a deterrent to sprawl and development On The Fringe where we're taking down trees or Woodlands or forests sensitive areas this is right here on a site that has been already predominantly cleared and paved over uh so substantial um improvement over that which is presently there purpose G which is our planning goal to provide for variety of uses and appropriate locations according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens there going to be a nice Diversified mix of housing types here and service uses again that will complement the downtown and then finally purpose I the promotion of a desirable visual environment I'll let the building speak for itself and the site amenities that go along with it you've heard and seen a lot of testimony in that regard I think our applicant has given great care to attention and detail it's been an interactive process and the end result as I stand here now is a Simply Beautiful project that again a visually prominent Corner in your community those are all the project positives counterbalancing them with the potential impacts based on all of the testimony from all of the witnesses before me and the evidence on on the record here relief for the number of stories relief for the rsis paring Dimension a DI Minimus exception can be granted without substantial detriment to the area or the Zone um as I said that extra story is really inconspicuous in the public realm it's not to gain a height Advantage but to catch up with grade on the downside and the parking Supply as I said before will meet the local standard and that's a real regulatory requirement under the rsis standards that's the C2 test and if you don't like that you've also got the C1 hardship test which are practical difficulties related to the land here we have a building that complies in terms of height the extra story relates to the land and the dropping down slope um under C1 we have multiple subsections subsection B pertains to the Topography of the land um a would pertain to the the size or shape of the land that's not the case here but certainly the slope of the land is what's triggering the need for that that extra relief and I I think the design here is responsive to that terrain whereby relief relates to the land and not the building per se that's really a textbook hardship case uh practical difficulties related to the land for an otherwise conforming structure that goes towards the sea relief now the design exceptions again are a lower standard here simply an element of reasonableness and impracticability the three deviation there are the roof type remember you have one portion of the roof that is a Gamel roof as opposed to a pitched roof or a flat roof relatively minor portion of the overall building it's something that came out of the interaction with the HPC and a recommendation from them so it was really driven by your historic commission and an applicant that's being responsive and sensitive to same so in that regard we think that relief is reasonable and appropriate and certainly meets a standard of impracticability which means serves no real practical planning purpose to uh correct or alter that deviation next there's deviation related to providing interim power to all the units in the building somewhat um unusual language that I don't typically say um we know that this site is going to be powered up to meet IBC standards or the international building code standards with the wiring that for emergency aisles and like in the event of a power failure will go on um also the applicant is willing to stipulate the second part of that requirement is to put in conduits so to the extent future technology comes into play either on a temporary basis a wheel basis whatever uh the infrastructure is there to support that so to the extent that the applicant is not putting in an actual generator that could power the entire building including all the units we think that relief is reason reasonable and appropriate we've met building code standard anytime zoning goes outside of building code I think that's that's an overreach and again here we think the applicant has met the good spirit of the ordinance to provide all that that infrastructure uh that will provide for future demand of Technology when it comes online and if it comes online lastly relief related to the facade entrance orientation uh the fact that the RO the front doors don't necessarily face the street because they're behind that Archway somewh of technical relief we do have an accentuated entryway or dateway to the development but the the front doors or the doorways are behind that element so the literal requirement of the ordinance is not met but we certainly think the spirit of the ordinance is met to have a demarcated entryway to those residential uses facing the street although it's not a front entrance per se it's a I'll say an accent accented entrance all of that said we believe that the deviations meet the lower standard of relief of reasonableness again interim power relief is reasonable since it meets IBC we're putting in all that infrastructure to provide power to the units uh to the extent that comes available online in future technology and then finally again the facade relief is reasonable since there's already going to be a Gateway element or an archway in place prior to the doorway um with that said I would offer that I believe this is a good application it certainly has landed in a very good spot it's been an interactive process and that's what the land use law says it should be um the project as we stand now is in substantial compliance with really those laudable goals and purposes of your Redevelopment plan and the underlying ml your master plan uh of course this Redevelopment plan has been found not to be substantially inconsistent uh with the goals and objectives of your master plan so the two are are clearly aligned the applicant is aligned with the Redevelopment plan so there's a good a good line there a good Nexus with your planning policies with respect to the relief uh the requested relief will have minimal if any impacts and most importantly satisfies the criteria for Grant of that relief so uh I would offer from a planning standpoint this applicant has met its burden under the law and approve want get here that's all I have on Direct John thank you all brightly um RSI the parking do this number include the EV credits remember we chatted about what the real number is I just want to be sure the spread is accurate you know between provided versus Mr chair while he's checking can I ask Mr McDon one or two quick questions yes thank you Mr McDon the um is it your position that the Redevelopment plan for intensive purposes governance the Zoning for this particular site yes well if that's your opinion then with respect to number four the deviation to permit emergency power generators you made mention if I recall correctly of uh uh uh if one asks for something that's beyond the building code of land sport being one if one ask for something Beyond uh the building code that might be an overreach yes okay if one agrees in the Redevelopment plan that emergency power is required to provide conduits with power to each and every residential unit then that would not be a correct not that aspect no but to provide the actual power that's a substantial burden financially on on any applicant I understand you're arguing that there's an impracticability to literal compliance with that provision but for the board to recognize that that's a deviation that the applicant has to address they're not overreaching because the applicant agreed to the language of the Redevelopment plan correct I don't know the history of whether that this applicant was I don't assuming yes but I was not directly I I think I can surmise that yes the applicant conceded to that's what the council adopted Mr War I don't know when that language came in and if the applicant was privy to it when it came in I don't well take take back whether the the timing of it that's the Redevelopment plan and what the Redevelopment plan says what it says that's what CS correct yes and I'm not saying it doesn't apply no I understand you're arguing a basis for deviation uh frankly when when you talked about the issue of potential overreach for something Beyond building code that's when I jump the the because this is a situation where even assuming arguendo that this is beyond the building code it's in the Redevelopment yes okay so so in that sense the planning board would not be overreaching by uh recognizing that deviation and requiring the applicant to demonstrate and entitlement to relief their from correct correct I I maybe to couch it better I'll I'll swap out the word overreaching for the word atypical it's not something I typically see in in I'll leave the wording to be what it is the louder is more preferable to me than the former but uh I'm not conceding that it's all the way there yet thank you thank you I believe the number is 133 and then when you take the EV cig yeah which is the wall it goes down to 122 that's accurate it's good it's that's the good number I just wanted to be sure that what you just confirmed that's the Delta Bo right well that's what I have as being that requirement does the applicant stipulate that that's the delta or continue to stipulate that that's the Del I think yes we do okay then at least for the time being Mr chairman that's a Del okay um we will accept questions from the public of this unless the board has board first but I'm sorry it's up to the chair normally we do the board first as long we got the the lawyer question relating to John Z's mail out to us and thank you for your presentation um if you look at having to do with the parking now we determine that 102 spaces is okay even though I don't feel that less 20 spaces is the minimist 20 SPAC is a lot 20 space is lot s foot but if we determine that 103 is what we determine then fine and Garder the Minimus as we discussed before that's the language that the RSI uses it's not meant to be judgmental meaning small well but I'm being judgmental meaning right minus 20 space is not Comm yes but well saying that the next the next sentence where it says household [Music] characteristics access to mass transit I don't argue with um geographic location and availability of w site paring resources in your estimate I assume looked at the area and found this parking that other people love to downtown yes now where where would this parking be and is this parking for the residents or is this guest parking would there be a charge for the parking most of the parking downtown is public parking and if that if they overflow from this building takes the parking that exists right now that's that's a problem as I see it the the testimony on the record is that the parking Supply will meet the demand under the requirement of the ordinance which is the basis for relief from rsis I I understand I understand all that but I'm just based my comments on this Meo right here the language Madam G came right out of the rsis for the acceptions and those examples of where the RSI have commits board some flexibility determining whe whether or not there's adequate parking whether it could be reduced the decision was made by the governing body to reduce the parking because of two reasons one proximity to the train station and secondly because we're learning as planners and as Traffic Engineers that parking demand has changed over time there are recent studies that have come out one lers particularly that survey a lot of developments but we're finding that we're over parking so um to go back to this application it was testimony presented indicating one compliance with plan which is important the technical deviation from rsis parking but rsis is like these are the standards we recommend now some Town adopt those as their ordinance requirements residential development but not always in this case there's a different parking standard but we still have to recognize RSI as because state but there's a recognition that that these type of developments uh can function quite well at levels that Below rsis in fact rsis hasn't been reviewed and adjusted it's being reviewed now in light of all this new information is coming give you some background joh can you just I think some of this would be repaired if you parenthetic you were thorough if you would parenthetically remove triple I and IV those last two terms are not part of the rationale for seeking relief it is accurate that that's out of the statute they could be it's out of the statute but in your your commentary could say look three and four are are not relevant here're they're not claiming that three and four justifies the deviation they're just claiming that one and two justifies the deviation and I would I would say three and four don't apply I mean if they were trying to B deter that but I understand one and two and um with a followup statement about one and two on yours and I understand you were just thoroughly giving the whole the list right uh you know the housing characteristics what I was referring to some of the background information that's coming out now that's indicating that household sizes are shrinking demand for that's actually increasing demand for and units residential units but it's kind of like for the Vari I know this for the variances it's like well there's like a through I you know all the different possibilities that you can see but the applicant typically selects certain ones as this witness did says well it's this this one we think this one we think and this one I think and I think in this first one what they what you're suggesting the applicant is requesting is under the little little ey you know under little you know the first two is what which you it's just you list it all four it's kind of like listing well here are all the ways you can get a see you know a variance well I wanted to share the the entire and and it's almost like we need to understand but but the applicants only not the applicant your your explanation says the first two are the ones that are relevant to seeking this deviation not relevant it's it's the first two are the most follow the the applicant free to present any other information they want to get to the other part you don't have to satisfy every PR no no no it says it says in the text any one of these I'm just saying the third and the fourth are not relevant and are not supported so but that's okay they don't need that they run to be support Mr chairman it's clear in the memo that that where where m sa gives his opinions he has an A and A B A relates to number two and access to best Transit being relates to number one household characteristics pretty clear I age with you just do it like this and then there two left over with no lines Point saying that that's what needs to be what stated is just we're just affirming what stated in this particular go ahead question done now can you tell me what shopping centers you can reach using the S6 line I'm sorry Mr can you tell me what shopping Cent you can reach using the the BL line oh I don't know that answer can you tell me how where offices factories uh stores places of appointment you can reach using Blackstone line again I I don't know I didn't do that I could I didn't do that as part of my analysis well you did the analysis on the application of the RSSI exemption so I thought would have thought about that can you tell me how many people ride the train from Burnville every day I can't you can't well according to the um Su County Planning Transportation plan in 2022 the average daily writers ship was 64 you take away the students from that that are from GL pack that number probably comes down to about 20 or 30 one of the reasons people don't use GL line is it doesn't go any you want to go to New York and you want to spend two hours going there okay you want to go to nework you want to spend an hour to two hours going to nework okay I'm not sure anybody here is going to be going many are going going you want to go to Mor it's two trains you got it takes you two hours to go 10 miles you know it it's nice to say that the train station is a mass transit facility but it really isn't because you can't use it for anything so you know I I I find that that as a a factor in reducing the necess necessity for cars is um elusive it's it's not true you know if if that train line was used by a lot of people going places people going regular this Summit you know but we need knowly Heights to go shopping you know that's not exactly what happens um so I I find that the considering the veral train station would be a factor in compliance RS standards to be uh not not help and secondly although I understand that the there was General evidence that shows that apartment houses require less parking than what formally in the case have we seen a study done by anybody that relates the number of units here kind of families we have here to the number of parking spaces yes we have ruers has just come out with a study no I'm saying this so we don't have any evidence on second thing so I'm not sure I see how we can grant the rsis Redemption All say say is the rsis has language that says you can look to the local standard as a justification for Di Minimus exception we'll get you the site the regulatory site but this complies with the requirement of your Redevelopment plan your Redevelopment plan has a ratio for parking I I Mr Mr McDon can I ask you one question rsis is actually a maximum correct well that's that's another Factor as well yes I'm just I I have my promise your analysis Mr like we just add a little context to to your observations you're right except that part of the problem is that you need certain densities around centers like the transit center the railroad to kind of foster the kind of services that you are looking for and and so facility is there you build the density around it then Transit starts to react to that as part of the transit diligence on set and if you take the attitude that we're not going to get any residential down here because there is you know we don't accept we we have to have rsis then then what you're doing is you're going to frustrate possible future improvements for example the tunnel project if it's a record that's going to open up lines to New York City we we have to plan for the Future Part of That is creating a scenario where we can entice governmental agencies like New Jersey trans to invest in systems that will then support the densities that are coming around these these downtowns and the only way you do that is if you build it you're not really if you don't have Raad track the Raad track that's not going to change for the next 50 years because I don't hear anybody playing additional rail Transit maybe in the future have you might get buses but maybe you won't you know is this you know when we doing the downtown plans we uh we looked around to see if we get a company to contract and take people into with New York so they have to take the train and we found that no bus company would do that it just wasn't the density population so maybe you're right but we have no proof of that I I I've see it all I see it in a lot why the state pushing Transit abil it's because the idea is to resurrect and to make viable these transit system so we can get cars off I understand thatn I just don't see I just don't see it for the glst well not V you have to consider the evidence I'm not arguing I'm presenting context so that you can make a decision joh can you add can you just it's a minor thing but it's been brought up now can you just add L LS to the railroad station a lot of people Lake CL Buss the bus runs there and it's faster to get into the train towns are promoting um no you can add it that's all it's it's is a bus is still considered mass transportation is and and you could have um all kinds of systems that expedite people into the city or other locations they have you know I'm just saying given the POS of traffic on the rail which is true adding in explicitly that it's not only newly Transit it's also your not it's just more complete you're obviously picking people up at the same spot but but it's solve the problem the point okay I just had a question as far as the testimony for item four the power and conduit uh I believe um the testimony was that the power wouldn't be supplied to the units but the cond would be installed to every unit that is correct which really is the lit literal language of the of the Redevelopment want to make in some respects I'm not even sure if we're seeking a deviation because we are as we've looked very literally at at any number of those Provisions the reason why we've got the uh you know we took a literal reading to on the other deviation with respect to the entry to the to the um residential portion of the building we view it the same way relative to that section so we're we're willing to comply with the with the literal when I heard it I just wasn't sure because the way the memo was right stating to is what's in code correct what's in code is you have to have an epss for building size its power has to be in dedicated conduit by code what's in building code is you have to run conduit for electricity to the units that's what's in the code you have to run conduit so they're not stipulating to anything that they weren't going to have to build anyway exactly as they would that's what they're stipulating to they're seeking relief because the plan says no you're going to provide emergency power to the residential units the same the way the testimony sounded to me was they were going to run spare conduit in Case Technology came that's to the point so the way I interpret is there would be additional conduits for emergency power out a later date we're going to comply with the literal language of the Redevelopment plan as it's written as it relates to that the literal language of the Redevelopment s plan says you're going to provide emergency power to the unision not provision conduit with the language he'll ad us the way it was written as result of view of 26 came here made recomendation that incorporation plan aded the aded plan reads emergency the UC sorry that is not what that's not what the plan says if you look at the plan that's attached to the resolution in our on our website does not have that language about to the extent the our sufficient to provide inner power to the residential portion in the event Electric Services is interrupted the requirement shall include the running of con propos I want to read something different what was May that was the I'm looking at that that is the language in the adopted version we have does ex yeah it does not it does not specify to the extent right it does not it I will quote again it's just it's under emergency pass hour it is on page oh I'm sorry 31 of the Redevelopment plan and it reads emergency power sufficient to provide interm power to the residential portion of the development shall be provided in the event that electric excuse me electrical service to the development is interrupted this requirement shall include the running of conduit to each unit within the proposed development but technically you're not meting the exact literal language but you're not providing if I understand correctly and C keep turning it off the energy sufficient there's no need to to have cluse in the Redevelopment plan if you're just restating what's in code right we're we're right so please please listen they so they are still looking for a deviation yes yes that's what I tell like that well I think we're willing to comply with this I will tell you we're we are certainly providing to the residential portion emergency uh service necessary for Life Safety Systems lighting elevators yeah that's that's not even worth no now that's that's by you have no choice but to provide that you can't we don't have to provide it for the elevators necessar yes you do because you're above limit in the code you have to provide it for the elevators check your check your your electrical code so the reason for this just to give you a little background on this is the state is mandating that we deal with climate change and we have to have an addition for master plan that deals with climate change one of the theoretical effects of climate change is the loss of power too large for an extended period of time which we've all experienced here so we know we're going to lose power we know it's going to be an extended period of time and so to get out in front of this given that this application is exceptional the Clause was added that says you've got 68 units here families and when the power goes out which it absolutely 100% will you need to provide standby power to those people because we can't accommodate them in the library where are these people going to go what's the town is the town going to be providing emergency services for these people that's why it all has to be put into the plan to get out in front of it during the formation of this um particular topic that's why that Clause is there it is not about oh provide the epss which is mandated by by building code that you've got to provide the epss it's got to be in seate conduit all that stuff is there so the only purpose for the Clause is to say you've got to provide Power for the residents that's what the purpose of the Clause is because otherwise there's no reason to even have the problem yeah we we respectfully disagree because the language is what the language it does not specify that every unit has to have full power uninterrupted service in the case of emergency uh I can tell you and I'm sure Mr mcdunn will tell you I've been involved in projects with thousands and thousands of residential units and know of no project uh that has mandated generator service for uninterrupted power family projects I submit that experience is not relevant okay the past is the past we're willing we're willing chairman to accept the language that's in the Redevelopment plan which says you'll provide now are you saying that this says it's just residential it doesn't say that's 68 units we're also providing emergency service uh of course uh well of course that's I don't care about that that's building code it's full power B it's power you're going to provide standby power to the residents to the residents to their units their refrigerators are going to continue to run their stuff I don't believe the Redevelopment plan says that it does say that where does it say to to to take Mr Hart's reading I went to the website and I pulled up what they adopted um I slightly different language it was modified by Council it says emergency power sufficient to provide inter power to residential portion of the development shall be provide which they're doing in consistent with the IB and this requirement shall include the running of conduct which they also do no so you could interpret it the way you want that's what it says well you can provide but it has to be doesn't go out for an hour and and it's a on prity that this has to be done for this particular maybe unusual service but we're looking after the people that eventually will live here I don't disagree and I know I know you know chapter and verses we're supposed to be abiding by but there are on the ground reasons why fathers brought us up we would all love to have emergency energy when there's an outage the question is is it practical can they do it here in this development and Evacuate the purposes of the Redevelopment plan that's the question the standard is reasonableness is the applicant asking for reasonable relief for a 68 unit Boutique scale development this is not a massive development in the context of what might be able to support that kind of infrastructure but for confirmation Mr chairman I think this is important Mr chairman I'm listening the uh you're conceding that deviation relief is required from the literal language of the Redevelopment plan with respect to emergency power for the res I am not conceding or disputing any of the relief all I've been asked is to give testimony and an evaluation as to the criteria as to the WEA the relief meets the standard assuming arguendo you're deviating from that standard by virtue of not providing power to each and every unit for whatever an interim period of time is inter period interim power interim power so that's an interim period power unless they want that inter power they want inter power the the uh the what is your argumentum assum board is interpreting this is requiring deviation the reason you're here what is your position with respect to an entitlement to that deviation again if the applicant has it's it's a standard of reasonableness the applicant is providing all the emergency Life Safety uh measures and the conduit to the extent there's another Sandy and there's no power in that building for a month there's still an opportunity to wield some sort of power there or some sort of technology to power those units if need be the infrastructure is there to meet the Practical demand why is it impractical for the applicant to provide the power or the availability of the power from the get for the units the critical mass is not there to support that kind of a impact on the project what critical mass would be necessary I don't know who are you suggesting should support those people I'm sorry I give too many questions at once who are you suggesting should support the people that are in that project when there's a loss of power like Sandy who should naal bar what do you think it's supposed to happen I think those people will be subject to the same response as any other apartment dweller at or residential home or residential homeown yes you're on your own yes okay why is that unreasonable um I'm not agreeing or disagreeing no one's no one's put forward what type of a financial hardship it is if you're running all the conduit to connect those units for basic electric you know you can do for certain things that it runs the refrigerator maybe it doesn't run the air conditioner that draws a lot but there's been no everyone's saying it's a hardship nobody said it's going to cost $3 million it's going to cost $100,000 it's going to cost $10,000 you're running the conduit that's one question um separate it apart from whether um the reading of the Redevelopment agreement says you were required to do this or not chairman Graham you're saying people have to go to the library you have common spaces so there's a clubroom there is a fitness center you know is there going to be a shower in the fitness center it's going to be running water can you provide full services to those common areas so that the people who are living there for your example don't have to go to the library I mean that that's that can't be a tremendous hardship to provide that type of and and I'm not sure that it's adequate I'm just being a devil's advocate that no one's put forward how expensive it is to give basic refrigerator few lights in each unit and or what it would cost to have something in the building and I don't know if that would be considered adequate I'm being a devil's we've submitted four levels of power coverage for consideration which has been strippen from the latest stuff but there four levels and there different levels of cost involve but we need basically the expectation is that there would be standby power essentially for not instantaneous not continuous but that there would be power available for the residential units and so we're getting twisted up and on frankly is the word emergency and there the requirements the emergency requirements for residential are the minimum the standby power for residential the epss requirement are very the the the providing power to the residential units so that think stay there um would be uh a different level and I I don't know the the intent was you provide the intent was supposed to be provide power to the residential units not just code if it was just code we wouldn't have a clause well we have other General Clauses that are in there as well chairman listen we again we're willing to stipulate to it candidly there is no Direct as to what is interim we're going to take a literal reading we will comply uh with the requirement and uh re are you going to be providing power to we're going to provide interim power we're going to comply with the literal language Mr Warner that is in the document you're going to provide inter power is that what you're saying well which should be wonderful I mean that's what isn't isn't defined Our intention is to provide emergency power as stated so there's PSS which is the emergency power supply system it's mandated by code you have to implement it all of your life related systems have to be on that it has to be in separate conduit that's all that's all IBC it's required now you don't even need s has to be elevators because of the your unit okay yes that's not that's saying you can get out of the building that's what epss is designed to do is to let you safely Evac evacuate the building you can't live in the building with epss unless you have power to the residential units so you it's mandated of course you got to be able to get out of the building your emergency lighting your elevators your fire panels all that stuff has to be on epss by code this is saying look we know we're going to get another outage we don't want people in the streets we don't want them cast out of this apartment sitting over in the library charging their thoughts which is trying to support the rest of the town so what would be best what would be good for a premium C line Class A facility is to have hey when you get these power outages just like you would have if you bought a home and you put your Genera in it you're going to sit there and be comfortable well in these apartments they're Delux their brain you'll have power and that's what the intent of the CL is not providing lighting to get out elevators to work I have a question he stated that it's unreasonable to require power in but how much have you done an analysis and what it costs we don't actually know what uh inum means what is that it means indefinitely does it mean full power for a full unit with computers and and and hair dryers and everything for unlimited perod all those estimates and the amount you can look at the guidance there's no further guidance chairman it's look at various levels of guid they'll give you both your electrical engineer will give you both maybe you can run without you can have all this stuff done and they'll ask you those questions and say what do you want to do the key is that people should be able to stay in their Apartments when there's a power when the power is going to occur they should be able to stay in their departments so and what's the path from here I mean we've been having a discussion should we discuss the interpretation of the language here to provide some other to the applicant should we let the applicant respond to the I guess what we could do is WR condition Define now that's of the plan some level less power condition [Music] maybe there's a standard uh under the NFPA 110 for reduced residential that I don't know if it would be palatable to the board or not and that's a level of reduced residential power and I'm not an expert on anything but the law the the uh the the uh I know who at restaurants the the the um the uh too the uh but uh the uh but if I understand correctly there is there are different levels of power that could be provided uh including something for reduce residential which is under a particular standard we have an engineer but he's a civil engineer In fairness he's not an electrical engineer I'm not an engineer at all the uh but maybe that's something that the applicant can uh make a determination either now or as soon as they can that that is a level of interim they can provide over and above what may be mandated by the build the code I'm not an expert on that either uh the uh and that they could stipulate to that and that might be sufficient for the board particularly in light of the interpretation of the language of what is providing inent power to the residential portion of the building I don't know I just spit all that that's a Le uh but maybe that's something but I don't know we to take that to deal with that well we don't have to yet because they haven't offered it they uh there's no they if they're offering it then we then we can address um but uh but is that something that the applicants want look at you're asking for an interpretation you're asking for what's a standard you're asking for guidance uh I don't know if that's some something that is a path toh stipulate to condition that would be sufficient to the board together with the argument for deviation uh I throw it out there yeah we're certainly willing to consider it I just don't know the particulars on that Mr Warner you might want to find out quickly just some guidance engineering wise for you you will probably find that partial provisioning of a residential unit is as expensive as full provisioning because require separate panels um it requires probably require separate conduit to the emergency power when I did the numbers it looked really like why bother doing that especially for your clientele um saying all all the red Outlets are going to work but everything else isn't um you you you need to look at it you need it's unfair to move beyond what your original thing was which original request was we want Rel you know Rel from that St situation you really need to get the numbers for yourself to understand the cost of implementing um the power to the residential units now it's up to you it's only residential in the plan right it says nothing about the commercial and um or the common areas or um the uh or the retail so you need to think if once you need to just think about that and there what makes this a premium offering from a retail perspective oh you'll have power so there's a chair if we're at a point where there may be a path with respect to the emergency generator issue I did want to follow up on a question with respect to the DI Minimus language from the rsas not judgmental exemption on the parking because there was testimony that they met the standards and candidly I forgot any ordinance in the Redevelopment plan I forgot what it was maybe help maybe I'm not alone maybe it would help the board as they tell us uh remind us uh how they compli with the Redevelopment plan and parking standard there's a difference in rsis have we I don't think we've had any question we've had testimony multiple times regarding compliance with the RSI numbers your planner testified that it's very important that you're in compliance with Redevelopment plan parking requirement right I didn't hear him say what it was and how much in compliance with it Mr said it I apologize he didn't say is volunt RS RS he testified that rsis looks among other things to do you comply with the local Municipal standard okay uh if it's that important I'd like to remember what it was in the Redevelopment Redevelopment plan explicitly talks to it right and I'm assuming correct me if wrong Mr Z that he's correct when he says that you're supposed to look among other things what the municipal standard is yes okay sounds well development comes in only because state requir consider lot of towns we've done it here uses default RS zoning enir we didn't do that in the Redevelopment plan a different which you're allowed to do under state law and what's the number of the plan what do you propose and how much do you meif buy uh the the requirement in the Redevelopment plan is on page 28 and it's 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit which the 102 exactly 68 1 10 uh the nonresidential uses accept restaurants are one per 300 Square ft and we talked about those parking standards when the plan came in what numb so gu question so so so our total our total parking right is 134 we've got 32 that we've discussed multiple times or for the commercial and 102 for the residential units so I'll ask Mr Warner and Mr Z minute the law stipulates that local ordinances are the governing language why do we need a deviation for rsis C because the technical application what the state did was they adopted the rsis as a uniform standard for all the municipalities because every Municipal had different standards they wanted to standardize things to reduce costs so essentially the deviation stipulates that we recognize the standard but our local law states otherwise that's essentially what ordinance the ordinance can require more it depends you know that's it can require more it was modified development and it was it was the comparison like state why maybe our traffic engineer who does the parking as well can tell us with the number so it's not that complicated I think it was yeah I was just looking at that the development plan requires one and a half spaces per unit L 68 is the one two and then for the non-residential uh except for restaurants it's one space per 300 which is 9423 / 300 which equal 32 the commercial 102 + 32 is 134 and how many are provided 134 oh so they just met so they have no provision for restrooms well we actually aul in the ordinance the restaurants that they have to come back traditional part correct or just have less seats I be limitation we talked about that at the time when you reviewing the Redevelopment plan there's a provision in there for constant monitoring and CCO make sure they don't exceed the supp parking on the site we had that in the plan we had that conversation so am I correct MC that in a nutshell you comply with what Redevelopment plan requires but you just made it is that right we comply with the red plan yes okay uh it's not it's not a test of whether you just made it or not that's not relevant well you comply so to the extent the board is obligated pursu to what you and Mr Z the experts say to give serious consideration to that no thank you so is it this was to be thorough right basically that's what John was trying to do for each of these go this in fact even a requirement technical application code the state requires that you consider rsis now they modified the law you don't need the agreements to exceed anymore and you don't have to send in the letters saying we've granted these deviations because frankly those letters just piled up at DCA nobody looked at them anyway right uh so the board um should apply the Redevelopment plan standard right and based on the testimony that has been presented consider granting this section up to you guys based on what has been presented to you so you just be basically we're just being thorough and we just want to cover the base and and make sure that this aspect is not basically challenge or anything like that in a way it's just it's just doing the right thing to cover it you had well you don't really need that had the benefit of of testimonies from a traffic engineer from their planner from our traffic engineer and you can consider the d the story yes this John John John McDonald used the C2 criteria as part of the r now looking at the holistic benefits of the application yes what would so my understand see2 is you compare what's required what's provided and how you show the benefits or least the intent of the orance what would be the compliance issue in the back probably some um in my view excessive and unnecessary grading to render that portion of the building um or fill in the back so that that constitutes doesn't constitute a story so it's sufficiently buried so it's not an extra story well does the ordinance I'll ask this of John Z does the ordinance use the existing the existing establishes the Redevelopment graded B we established a grade because of the recognition of the grade differentials that exist cross slopes and everything else on the property we knew that there was going to be exposures there was going to have to be high cation we decided oh it was a reasonable number to use based on spot elevation that provided and just to clarify there's four stories on that 4 away and to the testimony behind could could be filled to cover the foundation but I don't think that's when you looked at this at this part plan did you look at the similar Vision in the zoning code I did not I the Redevelopment plan so the simion Zone relates I was one the Gras that Division and I can tell you that that division was intended to prevent loing buildings on primary streets and it was intended when there was a uneven rate to permit the um the ex the extra floor as long as it wasn't used for residential purpos so that exception didn't make it into the plan but if you're looking for the intent of what they were trying to assure you that the four story requirement and putting that in there because this is in the Southeast corner of the project it essentially the variant would achieve the intention of the general intention of the building Cod plan of avoiding large buildings on major streets and in the back you would where except for the people who live on Prospect Street and people passing by the train won't even see it that that that was going to be a problem so don't agree with you on suay but I think that you're right on that I I will certainly rely upon that as a foundation for my conclusion as well course so but I want to make sure because this was initially your object objection and it sounds like it wasn't my objection I said they needed variance so but did you just argue against their need for a variance no it was a b he was was was doing was displaying how we forgive yes the stories in the rest of the downtown so were justifying the acceptance of the baring and yes there go the gr granting of the because that's not the fact that the frontage the main entrance the main facade is on M Road that's for and the secondary road is M area secondary yeah we're not talking a major deviation stories in terms we're talking inches very limited areas of of the of the building it's not the entire building the perspective say here's here if you then the railroad tracks as the back of the building they're perfectly fine you're allow you're allowed to have that fact we need that because we want that story open to the air for fire reason you look at the other Frontage which is not area now it's a little different there then you get into the degree to which they have too many stories on the front because it's revealing the um so the reason I was asking because I'm trying to get down I we're sort of doing a little deliberation here which I don't know appropriate but I'm trying to get down to the issues that I think require discussion so so it sounds like the parking issue we have code this issue sounds like we have precedent for variances being granted you have a Ral rationale R the power issue is still up in the air so I think that probably requires the discussion don't forget the gam group The gam grp the G group is can I I know Mr McDon actually you know he's got another meeting tonight and he makes it there can just go through the questions we know we have we know we are still I think he's already testified as much as he can relative to the generator we know we still have to I don't know we still we know we still have to discuss that issue but can we just maybe get through questioning uh from the board the public and so forth and then uh if the p and this is this might help you make your decision is that if the power goes off in the summer that that's not a big deal it's it's uncomfortable and it might not be the best thing to for your refrigerator but in the winter if you don't if you have a building of that size any length of time there's no power in you your expenses are going to be replacing broken pipes ceilings uh anything else that could possibly happen electrical wiring it's happened to me in my own home and that's a single family home but if you're talking about 68 units 68 units for any length of time not having power the investment now might mitigate your investment down the road when you're going to have real problems I mean we've all experienced this that's why we all have generators that's a good point there could be you know it's like be insurance benefits there could be any number of question let's open this up questions from the public so at this point for this witness is there anyone in the public who has a question for this witness just the question not based on his planning testimony just your name and address Mike Stevens 12 with um just want to clarify on the on the parking in reference to restaurant what exactly is the requirement if there's a restaurant the restaurant requirement is different than for retail restaurant is one space for every four seats and for retail except restaurants it's 1 for 300 squ fet so how limiting is that for restaurants and what what was the what was the part about if they go over the limit they have to provide parking somewhere else no I can address that basically there's a calculus of what is required in terms of par the applicant has to maintain that balance and provision Carri into condition so inine that any change in tency in the commercial portion will require review and an adjustment so let's say restaurant decides to go into a retail space the number of tables and shares would calculate and be calculated and they can't exceed what the available Supply is at that moment for that development so it's going to be balanced going forward through C and if somebody wants to get a CO and there isn't enough parking they have to get a variance get that variance and they won't OCC St Co certificate start that's the way it works so as I understand maybe you got the tables and chairs can't go too high they got to stay within whatever the parking how lied is that depend I could add something just assuming all 9234 square ft of commercial space was one big restaurant you could have 128 seats for 32 spaces 32 4 and that will be it just and oranges it's apples and oranges understand rest crime a portion it's a kitchen and supplies and and reception so forth and they have a section that's tables but the point is that if they want to keep using their the spaces for the restaurant uh don't forget that's 32 for all of the retail commercial so there a subset of spaces there see let's say it's 10 spaces for the suite that becomes the restaurant well that's 40 Cs and the the bur recently provided an order and said restaurants and general exceed parking limitations that are approximate to their they have to purchase out access to parking spots through other private me so we have that new ordinance in place so govern and assist the board if there was ever a reapplication for any restaurant not just this they would have to purchase is that limitating on this development I think the answer to your question is legally uh it's but the Redevelopment plan dictates and the applican agrees to it so uh the applicant is is accepting it as reasonable uh okay not too much not too little my other question just on not Building height so from Mount Ary Road it's five stories it's not true from the street it's four stories how is it four no it drops downwest Corner southwest corner southwest corner is yes on Mountain correct on front hence the reason for the and just so I can visualize that does anyone know what is the difference in pight from the top of Rebecca collection or whatever right across the street to the top of this building so that should be three stories higher back not maybe someone else witness the question should be sorry I'm sorry he testified the planning that included the the story's deviation so it should start with them I don't I don't know the answer be two stories higher the overall height complies it'll be 20 ft higher than Rebecca that's it yeah rebeccca is three story no it's two no it's three this is AED discussion that's fine we've lost track actual hearing right thank you next next question thank you name 51 press on to drive in [Music] if you if you would indul me could you please elaborate on your response to Mr board member Sim's question about the upshot of you know the uh refusal um if it pertains to granting the height bu variant relief that you're seeking I believe you testified about um regrading you uh elaborate on that what that means what that would look like sure well the first part of the answer was we look at what the the good that this application does as a whole which is to reverse the stagnation eliminate the Sea of asol that's out there um and the overall sight betterments that this would introduce now on the counter balancing side the question was how would you eliminate the variant I mistaken we said if you raise the grade in the back so it's not an exposed Foundation but I'm understanding that it's actually based on the insisting grade thank you har Hazelton 397 mine Brook Road Bernville I don't think you can answer this question because there's been so much discussion about the AL the alternative power in the case of a power outage but I'm sort of imagining if we have conduit to every location and if that's where we land if that's where we arrive and I don't know what the Bard will decide should there come a time when power needs to be provided and it will where where on this site with the building covering everything except for the central Courtyard of garden where will the generators which would be sizable be likely to be located how would we find space for them to make that power available I don't know thank you on one 25 Wasington Corner Road Burnsville resident really just looking I know you need to go just want CL no I just want on the record and clarification so I can discuss it with ar afterwards since you're here as their official representative that you felt that it was an overreach for our zoning process to ask for things outside of the IBC which is a minimum standard in this state so if you truly feel it's an overreach and that was your testimony at the time to this board then that's something that I think we need to take up question so yes my question is did you make the statement that it was an overreach to have the process of asking for things during the zoning process that full plans full engineering full sight plans everything are not fully done and approved was that your statement my statement was retracted with the word that's the way it was struck he he retracted it I us I used Words which I said atypical I clarified with atypical jump yeah you did but you know it's it's something that my personal name has been brought up several times in this meeting and I didn't bring it up no you did not sir but it has to do with just this process so I just wanted on the record that trct on the any other questions from the okay um format now what um are we done with public question question and um I guess rest to many conclusion well well I think the applic the applicant stipulated to uh one member of the public would requested to uh participate uh remotely that was uh not our our practice uh and uh and then requested to uh speak this evening uh because he was able to be here in person uh to make comment uh not withstanding the fact that we closed public comment right so that's the next step right I would that would I believe that that would be appropriate and I do know our court reporter has been going for about an hour and a half here and perhaps we can take a five minute break chairman sure minut resume at 9:20 Mr chairman I'm dismissed than you are you are thank you