this is the uh June 20th meeting of the Haden Heights planning board meeting is being held in accordance with the sunshine laws of the state of New Jersey chapter 145 by mayor and Council and the planning board for official notices notice of this meeting was posted on the burough Bolton board and Burrow's website for that purpose uh I have a roll roll call for attendance Suzanne please mayor hul here councilwoman Haren here chairman Hansen here Mr duus Mr famular Mr Shannon here and Mr Schmidt here here's we have a quarum let's have a flag salute please I pledge allegiance to the flag the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all all right before before we get to our case load this evening we have some administrative business uh first would be the approval of the planning board meeting minutes of May 16 2024 has everybody that was present had a chance to review the minutes if so are there any question or questions or comments seeing none I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes I'll make a motion to approve second all in favor opposed extensions motion passes uh we have three resolutions this evening the first one is uh case number 24-44 P William Kenny that's 1944 South Park Avenue block 141 lot one and that was C variance for a shed as everybody that voted affirmatively had a chance to review the resolution any questions or comments seeing none entertain a motion to approve the resolution motion to approve second motion a second roll call Z mayor H yes councilwoman Haren yes chairman Hansen yes Mr dulus yes Mr famar yes and Mr Schmidt yes motion passes next resolution case number 24-5 d1p and that's Charles mcleer 2108 Avenue block 54 lot five and that was C Varian relief for a new back porch and an expanded front porch has everybody had a chance to review the resolution if so any questions comments on the resolution seeing none we want I'll entertain a motion to approve I move to approve the this resolution 2451 second have a motion a second roll call Suzanne um councilwoman Haren yes chairman Hansen yes Mr dulus yes Mr famular yes and Mr Schmidt yes motion passes last resolution case number 245-3 P that's the VFW Hall at 615 East Atlantic Avenue block 39 lot three and that was C variance relief for a sign of sign and identifying the building um has everybody had a chance to review the resolution if so any questions or comments on the resolution seeing n entertain a motion to approve second roll call Suzanne okay mayor Hal yes councilwoman heren yes chairman Hansen yes Mr duus yes Mr famular yes Mr Schmidt yes okay new business our first case this evening case number 24-4 d3p that's Gregory bosong 4112 Avenue lock 15 lot 16 uh looks like its bulk variance relief for an expanded driveway ramp in deck on a single family dwelling looks like he's represented by Mr Irving this evening uh we're familiar with Mr Irving's qualifications so we'll accept him as an expert witness in the field of ser serve at PE to LA and planner okay let the record reflect go ahead Marty floor is yours you want to be sworn in I'll swear um Steve yeah um you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes did you say you're a professional planner as well yes an architect yeah and Landscape AR license landscape architect land landscape architect correct all right good evening everybody um Mr and M here tonight to se relief for a number of fault Varian variances they're proposing uh a mod addition to the existing single family home property is an undersized lot F wide where 60 ft is required and 10,000 ft in area where 12,000 is required osing two story Edition this back part of the house here and enclosing an existing one story scen porch for sunro so it's a modest as well they're proposing a detached two-car garage dimensions are 22 ft 20t 440 ft Which is less than 450 maximum allowed by our variances are for the expansion of the the nonperforming structure have an existing uh minimum side yard of 6 6.9 ft and because we're expanding out the back um that existing nonperformance has has a minimum of a 10 foot side yard set back our proposed enclosure where the actual work is Tak place is actually 9.1 ft so we just shy of the available 10 ft for the for the Improvement um and also because of the narrowness of the lot the Agate side yard cannot be met again the existing side 18.1 ft and with the expansion that 18.1 ft that side will remain the same Mr Irving you are expanding a deck though yes corre de itself also lines up uh but that that would be at the rear that sun room area okay and that lines up with that newly to be enclosed area as well that is 91 as well um we're providing that c garage and and expanding the parking area which which drives up coverage calculation need for a coverage variant for over by roughly 1,44 Square ft and um will require on the maxim re the main point of all this is that M has a health issue the design in this as you can see includes a a wheelchair access ramp to the rear deck and the floor plan includes an elevator uh up to the second floor to access the new man bedroom that would be part of the addition in terms of grading of the lot we propos we're not changing the existing um drainage pattern of the lot um the existing contouring of the land and flow of water is all from from uh this left hand side of the plan coming down uh and then down the driveway we're proposing 4 in high curve so that that water does not escape the property and impact that neighbor and and you see the the gra in the back here uh similarly you know the natural drainage is all going the same exact way that it used to go there's no improvements to the front yard therefore no no gr other than just tying back in the reservice driveway um yeah is willing because of that 10% increase in uh in covered to provide an infiltration in accordance with Mr B's recommendation I believe that this plan given the fact that the addition itself is no wider than the existing home would have no negative impact on the Zone plan or master plan or the neighborhood uh detach Gage of course is in keeping what you got answer so I don't believe there's any so just one question Mar the the uh impervious coverage overage most of that's due to the fact that you're providing the driveway so that you can put the garage in the back correct yeah Drive The Lion Share of the increase and that we designed to be uh in width the same way you would see an 8A stall it's a 5 foot aisle and then p and to achieve Ada accessibility obviously okay Mr Irving am I am I maybe you provide some clarification is there a second floor Edition as part of this yeah the second floor Edition is over this portion here of the so it's not in the area where the existing 6.9 is correct all right so that so that is a 9 one for the single sidey yard that you're looking for right the Rel is 9 so to answer the question a little bit better here's where that addition is taking place and the the existing home you know on the ground floor that far kind of closing in that back so it's still an 18.1 aggregate the 9.1 on the individual side yard right um is the ramp uh made out of deck material you can explain what the ramp will be made out of yeah well it be pressure treated lumber for the framing of course guys have you decided you want to composite deck or Cedar haven't decided okay well the only thing I would ask if we can have information uh because this is in benefit for the impervious coverage variants is it going to have openings in between the individual boards and will the surface underneath that deck material uh be perious yes so that plays into and this indicated in our review letter d d has issued uh uh recent uh and current because the change is storm every every couple minutes uh but the current interpretation from D that that decking material in that fashion with gaps in the wood uh decking and open uh pervious to the uh perious to the ground underneath is not pervious impervious surface if it's a new new wood deck right but some of those those composite decking systems are tight to each other that then then they're going to have to demonstrate that as part of their compliance and show detail how it's going to be built if it's going to have the gaps in between the boards then they don't have to count that as impervious if it's composite and it's tight buted uh right against each other that's going to be considered uh impervious we're just going to consider that that that amounts could considered impervious for the purposes of the variance relief either way right so that's worst case scenario it's not deciding on but it does provide some some additional greater infiltration if so we we're I'm just clarifying that we're worst case with what's being sought I don't want provides even though the relief being sought is 4.44 in terms of drainage calc calculations by the D it may be less than that but we still based on our ordinance requirement would be voting on the 40244 appropr coverage you want to you want to go through your letter now Steve and we'll come back to the board for any questions or comments after that uh we refer the board to our May 1st uh 2024 review as uh m iring has already indicated the variances sought um are several existing conditions uh one for existing side and side aggregate uh but also for an existing minimum lot size U where 10,000 is existing 12,000 is required by The Zone it's been clarified uh for the sidey yard new variants it would be 9.1 for the one side yard with an 18.1 new Aggregate and a 4.44 impervious is coverage we have several review comments uh referred to in the uh 34 Pages 34 and five of our review Mr uh Irving has already indicated that they will comply with all uh comments and uh recommendations contain our review yeah that's correct Marty absolutely you guys are good with everything in the letter yeah okay clarify one thing from Mr B is first comment was a question about the PO height of the goby there's no um increase in you're under 35t you're under 35 anyway I would imagine okay long as we're less than 35 that's all we need have nothing further Mr chairman um does anybody have any questions for the applicant or Marty or Steve comments seeing none we'll open uh this this matter up to the public anybody from the public that wishes to come up and speak on this application uh please come forward we'll have the solicitor s you in seeing none we'll close public comment bring back to the board for Action uh Mr chairman just want to point out it's not in our review but it's a matter of ordinance grading plan will be required to be a grading plan will be required to be submitted yeah they're over 500 it's subed we're yeah so the grading plan is I just want to for over 500 square feet obviously on this I would imagine yeah right okay thanks Steve thank you um so the testimony provided um by Mr Irving uh to me demonstrates that the applicant is looking for a C1 variance for hardship um the existing uh property has a lot of pre-existing non-conforming conditions um such as the lot size the lot width um seems like pretty clear that it's an undersized lot um so they're looking for um variances for the lot coverage um one thing that was discussed was that the garage and the driveway um contributes to that level of impervious which is a um has been considered a positive uh site attribute um in Haden Heights um they're also looking for that side yard setback and I noted um and which will be noted in the resolution that it's uh 9.1 instead of the listed 6.9 um and the applicant has agreed to comply with um all the conditions of the board Engineers water anybody want to make a motion to approve or disapprove the application at this time I make a motion to approve the application thank you um uh with the conditions of of uh Box's letter um based on the fact that the uh property is uh a hardship being undersized a second I'll second or any any uh discussion or questions on the motion I was just say you know that lot was 60 feet wide superious coverage would be like 34% and um you know you wouldn't have the sidey aggregate setback issues so I agree in the uh impervious coverage variance advances the B's desire to keep keep yeah GES in the rear the and we're achieving ADA compliance safety issue so public safety issue uh any other discussion seeing none roll call suzan mayor Hal yes councilwoman Hearn yes chairman Hansen yes Mr duus yes Mr famular yes Mr Shannon yes and Mr Schmidt yes motion passes thank you good luck with your project I'll just uh make the caveat that we make to all the applicants is that next month at our meeting or next time we meet usually next month we'll do a resolution that memorializes the decision that was made this evening and then once the once that happens that that uh notice will be at will be put in the newspaper that notice the decision and up until 45 days after that point somebody could technically appeal the decision so seeing that nobody came out to object tonight the likelihood of that is probably pretty low but if you were to proceed with the project before that appeal period expires you would be doing so under your own risk okay that's it thank you thanks for for coming in guys okay next case is case number 24-6 G 2p that's Benjamin Athena uden 23 1 Avenue block five Lot 10 and this is a two-story addition to the back of their home see we have a special guest with us this evening okay you've appeared before uh planning boards before I had no objection I'm familiar I move that we uh accept the credentials as a expert in the fields of architecture and planning I'm sorry I didn't get your last name Robert j i r r i welcome Mr ignar we'll have a we'll have Elena swear you in as soon as she's ready you're going to give anybody that's going to give testimony please come forward and we'll have we'll have everybody sworn at at the same time do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you you say architecture and planning architecture and planning right Mr ignar you're a licensed architect licensed planner yes in state New Jersey yes thank you so I brought some photographs we need them so we're seeking both VAR as well existing nonconforming lot area seing for non-conformity sidey setback aggate and [Music] side and there's two pieces to the project one really ised it's a small front door entrance canopy you'll see the details on the drawing that was shown also to the HPC I they that the addition to the Varian the back of the building 33 it's two stories on the first floor it is overlay portion of the old kitchen which will be removed that's the only portion of the building will be removed small and it's overlay exting sidein the exting right side wall the new this is the additions there's a single some s purpose purposely set it in because the historic district we didn't want visible from the street as possible upstairs kitchen connection right now the house only bath on the second floor so we FL to I saw their report you're you're in agreement with all of all the recommendations I think there were seven recommendations in the report that I saw absolutely okay okay um the Practical difficulty with the site is that it's such a small blot that zone it's four I'm sorry it's 6 699 so practical difficulty is you can't build reasonable structures set back undiz lot which is a result of the undersized lotum so would you like me just to go quickly through our letter sure thank you with chairman absolutely thank you June 14 2024 review as we heard from the applicant that this is uh really relief s for several existing conditions um um which are in support of the variance request which we'll talk about in a moment but minimum lot size in the R17 15,000 square ft 6,995 Square ft existing minimum lot width is 75 ft 46.6 3 is existing um they have an existing um sidey yard of 5.17 feet uh 15 feet is required and then also a sidey yard existing aggregate of 12.7 s feet the relief that they're uh proposing is only to have a 10 foot side yard setback uh where 15 ft is required that is the only new relief the applicant has indicated that they're going to comply with with the 30 foot maximum loot coverage um and we also uh have a few few comments uh directing uh the rain spouts away from uh neighbors uh but this is less than 500 square feet so a grading plan will not be required uh so most of the relief is existing through H siiz lot uh and the only new relief is a 10 foot sidey setback where 15t is required for the new addition currently that side it is noted that they are adding a small uh canopy on the front of the house we know that not to be an encroaching into the front yard because it doesn't extend all the way down to the ground it's a cornice or or an eve in our opinion so there's no need to recognize that as any uh extension of any encroachment into the front yard have nothing further Mr chairman anybody have any you have anything for further Mr gari expanding without character of the street especially in the historic district it's given Ben Anda the ability to stay in this house for a long time just always been there in quite investment in the property be able to stay there for the family providing a desirable visual environment to providing of a visual Environ positive visual environment envir anybody have any questions for the applicant or Mr anari or Mr Bach I have a question Mr um the lots to either side are they also narrow or are they yeah they're very similar in fact very similar right so so maybe Excuse Me Maybe these were really supposed to be two 75 foot loots and end up being three 46 fo I mean look at it so yeah it's just the way it was done exemplifies yeah extreme small they are y it's an anomaly in that District yeah thank you did you say that the neighbor um on one side has a similar addition to the back right side which is the East soueast Side a littley anything anybody else seeing nothing we open the application up to the public for a comment questions anybody want to speak on this application 233 1 Avenue please come forward we'll have you sworn in seeing none we'll close public uh I don't does anybody need any further discussion or questions if not would bring it back to Elena for a summary of what being sought this evening right so it looks like the only new variant that there um requesting is the side yard setback which is 10 ft um where 15t is required uh besides that it appears they similar to the other property have a lot of pre-existing non-conforming conditions um and that variant is the result of the pre-existing nonconforming conditions of the lot size and the lot width um similarly also to the last one um this appears to be qualifies for the C1 variant um because any strict application of the zoning regulations would be a hardship to the a based on um as previously said these pre-existing nonperforming conditions that create some exceptional practical difficulties is the layout of the property um and it sounds like they are going to comply with um board engineer letter and also the recommendations for the HPC keeping the character um of the property and I think it's also you know a benefit that a neighbor has similar addition on the back um as well anybody want to make a motion to approve or disapprove the application I'll make a motion to approve the application with the um with everything that was set forth in the boach letter and saying this because the I definitely see that a hardship to the um homeowners to have a lot that small in that District it seems to be more than half the width that it should or half the size that it should have been in that [Music] District all right we have Motion in a second any discussion or questions on the motion seeing none we'll take a roll call Suzanne mayor Hal yes councilwoman Heron yes chairman Hansen yes Mr dakus yes Mr famular yes Mr Schmidt yes um um Miss McCall wait I for got motion passes congratulations you you heard the Gettysburg address I gave about the uh appeal period for the last hearing same would apply here just to make you aware good luck with your project oh I forgot you Brian I forgot Brian sorry [Laughter] yes all right our third and final case for this evening is case number number 24-5-11 53 Station Avenue block 25 Lots 16 and 17.01 I see they're represented by the illustrious Mr Riso this evening uh anybody that's going to give testimony should come forward we get your qualifications have you swor in no rush Mr if you give me one minute please to get set up noan is every that's all right no door opening no exhibits you rap you rap sure of course solicor is going to run upstairs for a minute we just need we just need a minute or two Elena's got to run upstairs real quick to check something I think so you want to go you guys set up set everything up [Music] what's that no I don't think so yes I never asked not that situation you can't go can't walk to the next car could to crawl under the train it's pretty funny it's a mistake you only hopefully oh yeah yeah like that's a mistake you only make once fo yeah can I crawl on the third rail after this train stops please stick my tongue on the third rail [Music] [Music] wouldn't oh that was a long application people were beating them up oh yeah and it was there for like six months anyway right they were there long they were there last time and we did that plan board meeting I think uh when I have anybody who's going to be sworn in come forward professionals represent question okay uh CLI been before the board it's Cliff Quay right um CLI been before the board planning and Engineering right we're familiar with his credentials we'll accept him as an expert WI witness and then who's our other AR and then I have Gary frell and Anthony um they are the principles of the applicant in case the board wants to hear from okay we'll have everybody sworn in raise your right hand you swear or affirm that the testimony about to provide is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes in terms of the Anthony's qualifications your license in the state of New Jersey no I'm Pennsylvania and Delaware my business partners license in New Jersey it's up to you if you want to establish some criteria I'm happy to do that the only I'm unfamiliar I think we should set a we should set a record you do it now before I call him as a witness whatever's whatever's easiest for you whatever whatever you would prefer we can do that now we might as well get it out of yeah let's do that so we don't forget Mr Spencer by whom are you employed arits LLC and how long you seven years and what is your role um of the 50% and um what what are your roles there what do you do um everything from taking on new business being new clients to feasibility studying schematic design all the way through final quality control and you're licens in Pensylvania in Delaware yes have you been accepted as an expert in architecture in Pennsyvania in Delaware yes have you ever been qualified as an expert boards in New Jersey no you have a partner who is yes okay and very brief did you give the board the benefit of your educational background yeah I attended Temple University receiv received my bachelor of architecture uh that was a 5year program graduating in 201 prac and your license is a good standing yes I have no objection Mr chairman I have no objection thank you for doing that you're familiar with the building codes in New Jersey obviously you're familiar with building codes you or whoever prepared the plans are IBC right okay proceed please good evening chairman Hansen members of the board my name is Aro I'm an attorney with the law fir of Z bichko I'm filling in this evening for Damen deluka of deluka Lois and Burr because Damian unfortunately had to be before another board tonight for our court order he wanted to be here he needs no disrespect hopefully I will fill his shoes um I have the pleasure this evening of representing Station Avenue lost LLC the applicant in this case that entity is the legal or Equitable owner of 501 and 503 Station Avenue more commonly known as block 25 Lots 16 and 1701 on the tax map of the bar these two lots are at the southwest corner of White Horse Pike and Station Avenue 501 station is a two-story structure and 503 is a one-story structure both are in poor condition the applicant proposes to demolish both buildings and all the site improvements and construct a new mixed use building mix excuse building excuse me which will have 3,991 sare ft of commercial use there's no tenants yet and and that will be on the ground floor and 12 apartments on the upper floors six one-bedrooms and six two-bedroom units two of these apartments will be restricted to low and moderate income individuals in other words they will be affordable units the property is located in the CB Central business district and within the Historic District boundary the applicants previously submitted an application to the Burrow's historic preservation commission from which it's received approval for the demolition of existing buildings the property is part of a non-c condemnation Redevelopment area and is subject to the terms of a Redevelopment plan adopted by burough Council on nove November of 2023 by way of ordinance 2023 colum 1537 which I'll refer to during this presentation is the Redevelopment plan or sometimes the RDP the purpose of the Redevelopment plan in part to anal and encourage rev revitalization and the development of mixed use buildings you can see from photograph on the easel propos building in context the building would a substantial Improvement to the downtown area as compared to what exist today it will include a roof deck which will be a nice amenity for the residents the proposed mixed use is permitted on the property P pursuant to section 6 A9 of the Redevelopment plan the approvals that we require ire this evening and we're seeking from the board our preliminary preliminary and final major site plan approval any historic approval that may be required by this board to my knowledge we meet all of the requirements of the Redevelopment plan and therefore unlike the prior two applications we need not we do not require any variances or design waivers or deviations under the RDP with one small exception regarding Street trees and we'll have Mr Quay testify about that the reason why we need that one small deviation the board deemed this application complete on May 16th we have Mr Box review letter dated June 12 of 2024 we will provide the testimony that he's asked for in that letter this evening through our professionals and we have no objection to any of his recommendations and again the only issue not issue the only concern that we will address are the uh the spacing for the street trees um the purpose of the site plan is to confirm that the application conforms with all the applicable ordinance requirements and in this case the applicable RDP requirements the application complies with and is consistent with the RDP this is evidenced by Mr Bach's June 12 letter where he shows repeatedly in states that we comply with the requirements of the RDP and he's asked for Testimony where clarification is needed and again we'll provide that we also have a letter from the burrow planner the Burrows planner Leah Fury Brer dated May 7 2024 which was addressed to burrow Council and excuse me where she confirms that the proposed Redevelopment of these two lots is consistent with the Redevelopment plan according to miss Fury Brer the purpose of the Redevelopment plan applicable to lot 16 and 17.01 and block 25 is to provide a framework for mixed use development that will enhance the character of Haden Heights and improve The Pedestrian experience while safely accommodating Vehicles if there are any minor deviations from the Redevelopment plan requirements the Redevelopment plan provides that the redeveloper May request a c or bulk variance from the planning Bo as part of its site plan application according to miss Fury Brer the applicant site plan and Architectural submission reflect the Cooperative design and planning process and in conclusion the proposed mixed use building is consistent with the project description in the draft Redevelopment agreement is permitted by the Redevelopment plan and it appears that the concept plan is in general compliance with the redevelop plan standards the Redevelopment of these properties has been a collaborative effort between the redeveloper and the Barrow tonight's hearing for site plan approval is one of the multiple steps in the Redevelopment processes as board is aware the adoption of the Redevelopment plan was intended to facilitate the Redevelopment of these properties and The Limited purpose of the site plan aspect of this evening's hearing is to confirm that the application does in fact comply with the Redevelopment plan and any other applicable requirements the other purpose of tonight's hearing is to obtain the historic approval from this board as required under the Burrow's ordinances the HPC after two hearings has approved our application they made a recommendation to this board and like the HPC we're requesting that this board also approve the demolition of the existing two buildings which have very little architectural or historical significance and that the board this evening approved the construction of the new building as I mentioned earlier we have two experts this evening Mr Quay of stantech engineering he's a licensed planer professional the board's already accepted him as a as an expert we have Derek Spencer our Arch who's already now been qualified and if necessary I can call Mr frell Andor gielli the principles of the applicant uh with that I'd like to call Mr Spencer Mr chair that suits the board okay um Mr Spencer did you prepare the architectural PL that have been submitted with the application yes okay you have them here with you yes okay and they're on usual over there yeah first we have rendering here that only she on this board I have build build add building A1 are are were these submitted with the original application or any of these new I know the uh pictures were submitted the original application the plans have been updated no the plans are consistent with what was um what was originally submitted I think what we have in access to what was orally submitted some of the more historic related documents that were presed okay why don't we Mark um the ones that are new A1 um anything that was submitted with the original application I don't we don't need what do you want to call it what the new ones that we're going to Mark at day one uh we can call that hisor documentation thank you could you please for the board provide an overview of the architectural features of the exterior of the proposed building and refer to the exhibits as necessary sure so we're providing a three story building at the corner um we have a fully commercial first floor along Station Avenue the residential entrance to the building has been pushed back along White for pike provide the most amount of commercial St that we can uh we really looked at a lot of the buildings up and down Station Avenue for architectural inspiration looking at their materiality detailing as well as some spatial um I guess pedestrian components we looked at how different storefronts are entered up and down Station Avenue and we model our building after some of those same Design Concepts we have a majority of the first floor um is set in about 7 ft from the property line to kind of arcade that could be for outdoor seing for a cafe but it also opens up sights at the corner pedri we have mostly brick a red brick facade at the second and third floor we do have some some brick at the ground floor as well we have a lot of wood paneling that's been painted as navy BL color you see here that's very consistent with a lot of build down station uh we are using double hung Windows the simul [Music] Street two B on station B Window on the white again an architectural element that's very consistent Street the proposed building have a roof deck is that correct yes we have a roof deck that's accessed by two staircases and one elevator there is an elevator in the building the entire building the Ada accessible including the and can you discuss some of the primary features of the deck and how it will be operated um so there's going to be two roof decks one that will be dedicated to the commercial space so they can have access to it whether it be for employees or um you know patrons of the business and there will be another side that will be completely separate for the residences um there will be you know it's called a pedestal paper system so it would be a nice kind of tiles and then there will be a green roof surrounding that for for some storm water ation their first floor of the building will will be for commercial tenants correct correct and as of yet no tenants have been selected that correct okay on the second floor there will be 12 apartment units there's six on each floor on floor two there's six in the same six and six will be one bedroom and the other six will be two bedroom correct yes that's correct okay and two of the units will be affordable yes okay now the Redevelopment plan has certain architectural uh design standards and Mr Bach identified them on page five of his review letter dated June 12 um I'd like to go through them with you so at number eight um a architectural design features now Mr Box says it app but just so that we can provide testimony as Mr Bach uh suggested we do architectural design features shall be employed to create visual interest at The Pedestrian level and street level and to integrate each building with the surrounding area can you explain to the board how we're doing we're achieving that yes I can [Music] actually Street here you can see a lot of arital handing detailing at the ground floor matches a lot of the existing buildings in the street we have recessed ENT both both the commercial entrances as well as some lighting to make sure that the sidewalk is on our property boes as on the site over and Mr so uh the first complies indicate the submission the other ones that are asking for Testimony we're not indicating complying well that's I'm having testify appreciate the clarification and I apologize for any confusion um Mr Spencer the next item new construction should utilize compatible architecture that respects and enhances the nature and character of the downtown area can you provide testimony with respect to that yes so you can see here in a sub material that presented HBC we have done a lot of research up and down the street build a lot of el we have a lot of these architectural elements included in our building next item the first floor of the building facing Station Avenue and the white hor Pik shall include prominent transparent entryways flanked with Windows or other openings at least 33% of the first floor facade can you speak to that please yeah so along Station Avenue we actually have 48% of our first FL is blazed and all the white 33% is blazed and then we have another opening that have a metal MH Screen into the parking area to kind of simulate a window so that would also count towards us we actually have so weet that next item building facades facing Station Avenue on the White Horse Point shall include recesses projections and openings and variation materials and repeated base to reflect of the predominant development pattern in the area yeah we talk about good the building entryway shall be articulated and provide shelter for pedestrians with a porch Portico col for on WE comply that next item all Street frontages are primary facades primary facad should utilize brick panel siding and glass as the dominant materials secondary sides of a building shall include the same materials but the proportions may vary however secondary facades May provide a mural and little of matching materials do we comply with that requirement so can you explain how please yes see here we have so that's approval subject to approval by mayor council correct which is consistent with the Redevelopment plan and we'll obviously agree to that as a condition of approval um the corner buildings located at the intersection of the two public streets shall receive special masing and treatment to the find the intersection in that regard at the corner of Station Avenue in White Horse Pike welcome signment shall be provided to identify and Define the gateway to the downtown area consistent with sign requirements in the later section do we comply yes so we have 42 in parids which are 24 taller than the Adent parid bu we are also the next item the first floor building facade should be St back at a minimum of 5 feet from the second floor facade for a distance of at least 30 feet from the building corner to create a colonade and covered patio at the corner we can glide are AR conceptual PL actually at 29 ft along White Horse Pike but we will comply with that we'll move that wall back and lastly the building massing shall be viewed at the corner to define the intersection the paret at the building Corner May extend an additional 24 inches above the adjacent paret for a maximum of 20 linear feet in each direction from the building Corner we comply to that requirement as well awnings and copies on the building must be the same shape color material height regardless of the individual business ownership and or tency in the building the awnings of canopies do not extend more than 4 feet out for the building faada and must be a minimum 7 feet above grade just can you confirm no warnings or canopies are proposed cor pilot houses are permitted to extend above the maximum Building height to make use of rooftop outdoor space with the following conditions number one the Pilot House May extend a maximum of 10 ft above the roof with an additional 5ft allowance at the elevator hoist hoistway to allow for entrapment requirements do we comply with that yes the Pilot House must be set back a minimum of 15 ft from the building facad along Street furnes we comply with that requirement as well yes we do all rooftop activity must be set back a minimum of 8 feet from the building facades this does not include green roof elements we comply with that as well yes we do okay with respect to Rooftop hbac units they must be screened to ensure that they are not visible from street level or from the second floor Windows of neighboring buildings screening may be parapet walls or architectural screening design to complement the building do we comply in this so can you provide test explain to the board how we do please yes we do around the areas where we have hbac equipment we have a full 42 in parit that goes up to block where we don't have HVAC equipment we have a lower parit that was asked for by HC to lower the overall Mass so we have 42 here the as I mentioned we also have a similar up and we and we agreed with hbc's a and devise the plans corre so relief will be and I'm not objecting to it but relief will be required for the lower power P because a 4 freed development plan indicates 42 Ines required for power P I would ask for the relief just so you have it it's a design waiver problem sure sorry it it's lower than 42 we just heard testimony for the first time that the part of the power bits are lower than 42 Ines correct they are okay what are they um was that at hpc's request is that why we did that yeah that was at hpc's request to keep the par as low as possible just a little bit higher than what the green Ro will be they're about 18 to 24 if the board wants us to stick with the RDP that's fine we just wanted to accommodate hpc's request I have no objection to the parit I just want to recognize it so we have a clean record right so so that 8 foot setback then you're going to have a 42inch rail then guard rail safety wise think the RDP RP that re says the par the par have to be a maximum of 42 inches above the roof line so betiz to thank you have 42 that was proposed more like a metal State fence not as a Sol again just a request HC right so it so it's an IBC rail can get 4 in 4 in you know Circle through the okay thank you so sorry just to recap do we have a prior release of that or no that time no no um and I can't see the graphic did you show where the railing is the railing is here the 8ot set line around any OCC so will the railing be visible visible visible from the street with the the lower Power Pit um when you're looking up from the street are you going to see this most areas we do have it model in ourd model you can't see it from where the camera angles are located but obviously you can get very far back from this building I'm sure at some point you would be able to see it which is why HP C requested to be kind of a black metalate but from any of the sidewalks in the surrounding area where we have these camera angles where we can't see the pilot houses or thank you and lastly with respect to the utility water meters gas meters electric meters ground mounted mechanical units they must be hidden from public view with structural landscape screening we will comply and how we do that um the meters of the building are going to be located will be located on the wall that back up the lobby front of the cars screen to make sure the cars arble to um with respect to signs do we propose any identification signs uh not at this time I welome okay which I was about to get to so there's an existing welcome to hat night sign at the corner do we intend to replace that with a new welcome sign on the building it is on our conceptual renderings we were asked at HBC to actually remove that lettering um but that was just a request uh we did not actually remove it from this for for the board's benefit um we told Bar Council we would try to remove the existing sign in a way that the town can reuse it elsewhere that's the extent of our responsibility with respect to that welcome sign but well that's that's with the with the [Music] Redevelopment and you're triby to the negotiations as the Redevelopment entity obviously U do you want the ability or a condition of approval for a welcome sign if you this the time to ask because I we hav't included in our so it's either relief now or because it is a requirement so I would suggest if if it's acceptable that a welcome to had height sign uh as negotiated under the Redevelopment agreement with the Redevelopment entity so you'd be working with mayor and counsel and whatever that is or none if you guys if the Redevelopment entity decides or if you choose not to okay but that way the land use board's out of that as a condition approval we will as we've done we will continue to work with burrow councel with respect to the welcome sign Miss good okay all right um with I'm just going to keep moving along if that's okay right with respect to historical approval um section 450-17 of the B's ordinance states that all actions that affect the Improvement within a historic district which were in after to be reviewed by the historic preservation commission this includes demolition of an improvement in the historic district as I've already mentioned we have already received that approval from the historic preservation Commission Section 45018 of your ordinance says though that for all planning board applications which affect an improvement within the historic district that the Historic Landmark project review application must be submitted to the planning board and requested for for planning board approval we've done this again we received it from HPC we're asking this board likewise Grant the same approvals you us understand 24 no it's okay thank you mrus I appreciate that so the criteria for the demolition of the structures in historic district um per the ordinance the factors include uh the existing building significance to the district as a contributing or non-contributing structure and probable impact on its removal from the district economic feasibility of Alternatives architectural value and importance of structures to the burrow and the extent to which retention would promote the general welfare Mr Spencer in your opinion do the existing buildings have significant to the district as a contributing or non-contributing structure uh in their current state I would say they're non contributing uh they've received many alterations over the years impact contributing stat and will the demolition in your opinion have a material impact on the district is it economically feasible to keep the two buildings in your opinion from what I've read and understood will the removal of these two structures be detrimental to the public interest the other factor is the extent to which the retention of the buildings would promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real estate values generating business creating new jobs attracting tourists and new residents encouraging interest and study of American history and the history of Haden height stimulating interest in architecture design educating citizens in American culture and Heritage or making the municipality your a more attractive and desirable place in which to live does this criteria apply to these two buildings okay the new building with the increased residential and high quality architecture would promote some of the fact of Des not the existing but the new correct I don't have any further questions for Mr Spencer I don't know if Mr Bach does but move on to Mr qu there's one of our comments regarding the encroachment of the architectural elements into the county RightWay is that Mr Quay or Mr Spencer is going to be discussing that okay thank you I did want to add one thing about absolutely pleas in this it talks about the N inch height on lettering um it was talked about with HBC that n in it would be far too small for for the sign of this nature uh we are currently proposing the lettering somewhere between 12 and 14 in but again be that's all condition of of coordination with the Redevelopment entity in terms of a condition um who will be given testimony as to operational aspects there's several questions regarding um shared access to the elevator the the trash enclosures who's is what how's it going to work who's is that architectural testimony is that owner testimony or or is it Cliff Quay testimony Mr Quay can testify to some of Mr Bach and what he can't answer I have thank you perfect representative C I have a question so regarding the the the roof decks so we have a commercial deck and a residential deck and um I'm just curious I mean you you mentioned the commercial deck could be used for patrons of the commercial business or staff I mean are you considering a restaurant in that corner is that something that you envisioned and that would be would you rooftop dining is that that you're trying to say possibly yes and and so then um if you're thinking about a restaurant in one or two of those locations retail locations um requires a commercial kitchen and and Commercial duct work and so forth and uh how does that work in your plan as you try to get up through two stories of residential yes we actually um and we're going to talk about trash in a little B as well you can see on the plans we have a trash room show which has a shoot one is a shoot down the other one is a up to the ro we're actually getting rid of the trash Sho have put the trash downstairs int that trash shoot is now going to become the shaft way for the ventilation kitchen for potential kitchen potential yes the shaft will be built into the building you know they would have to come back and fit that out with proper equipment if and when that LE get sign and certainly if we were to um have a commercial tenative as a restaurant we would comply with all FOH ordinances state laws Health codes Etc it's fine and then as far as the the the individual condens units that's just piping that just runs down the Walls you're not you're not using that you're not using sh that no there's no shaft re just be thank you so a question with that shaft because I I would assume put my architect that on you would have to extend it higher than the Pilot House for to be able to effectively use would you make that shaft part of the Pilot House the shaft would not align with the pilot house you would be keeping that space you know good radius away from that I think we might need 8et clear uh I'd have to kind of look into the code requirements for what that kitchen Hood equipment would be I think that might depend on the size of the kitchen Hood what we're exhausting a lot of different U you know technical requirements based on the actual Steve it's it's not smoke it's it's no I I understand yeah yeah no but the problem with those is that you got to clean them and so is is it fair to say that you it would not you would not this extension of any kitchen exhaust equipment would not be visible from station or W bik that's all I was getting toward anything else from Mr Spencer at this point [Music] so you can see here the the small let's call half wall that comes up around and then that's notate protection protection is required 42 so [Music] that you do have one exception area for the stairs yes from the streets correct that's not a pilot house though it's just an exterior stair that goes down one of pilotes the elevator located between the lobby of the building and the commercial space that be a two sided elevator for use by the commercial space that will be used a special key that they would have to up just to elev it so the resid the rent um residential elevator and the commercial ele it's one and the same it's going to be shared shared by both the rooftop deck would be shared by both depending on which door you go out is be it would be just one side for the commercial only the tenants of the building and Commercial P if they go up not the same have individual is it access controlled or something along those lines have a f the door anybody from the commercial space going up would have to be obviously escorted up so the Pilot House does most of that work you can see on the backal roof right now it's not prob thetion not and the elevator is only AC is accessible from the lobby on the and also in the commercial space one but no access to commercial space two can you provide any uh Insight we have trash enclosure where the dumpsters are which we heard the residents are the residents bringing that the trash to the dumpsters and there's a trash room also I understand you got rid of the trash shoots on individual floor but what is that first floor trash room that actual um we had some some rearranging that needs to happen just for utility rooms for meter sprinkler pump room Etc that's where trash room is actually going to go to that utility space that's required so the tenants are just going to take their trash to the dumpsters and the enclos you're not going to actually have a trash room per floor or a trash room underneath the overhang of the building the trash inclosure will be under the second floor of the building in the adjacent to the parking area well I guessin the footprint when you're when you're when your floor plan renderings you actually have something called trash which is the trash enclosure I would assume and you had trash room on the first floor the trash room is becoming utility room thank you and then the second and third floor trash rooms are going to disappear there right correct that's going to be the shaft that's going to be utility space so the tra the the trash is being removed I guess through the is will be through the burrow contract so the trash truck is going to be backing up into this space it will not it will not be by burrow even for theer that yeah right we'll have the owner or I'm just see how's that trash truck getting back how's that trash being it's all way in the back of that property we'll provide testimony that's a good question and we'll answer any other questions for Mr Spencer at this time obviously we can bring him back up if the board does Mr chair I have my next witness would be Mr Quay there was just one more U that would t from Mr Spencer I'm sorry regarding storage so in the Redevelopment plan it calls for storage uh for tenants bicycles strollers and other large personal items can it be provided in the unit do you need any special additional space we are actually going to take about half of that trash room at the first floor and going to dedicate that square footage to a bike room at the ground floor and then you have Ample Storage in the space for other larger person closets and all the units that are yep I just wanted to check off my testimony items no problem thank you Mr Quay I you've been sworn you've been qualified have you been PR uh principally responsible for the preparation of the site plan for this application I have okay and were you present during my introductory comments I was and were they factually accurate they weren't they weren't or they were affirmative can you take us through the condition of the existing structures and existing conditions please sure so I've been through through both buildings including Corner around the basements and so forth and um they're uh they're in fair to poor condition uh there appears to be some settlement issues with some of the foundation particular in the back you can see the door jams are out of alignment and things of that nature on the rear of the building on the corner um the second building in uh which is the one story one which I actually demised into two commercial spaces uh has some type of Craw space up front which was not accessible and the back of the building's on a slab um so I was in and around all of that also um I mean certainly with a lot of work they might be serviceable in the current condition they're not great shap um can you give us an overview please of the site plan that's being proposed to the board this evening sure so first I just provide a little context so this is proba more this is the one that is not in your packet and it's simply just a placement of the site plan on top of an AI in the immediate surrounding area which I'm sure everybody what's the um it's a we got a label anari photograph so that's probably so this this just provides the cont site at the intersection station on theeast EXC um St buiness to us uh music studio over variety of office and Retail uses across the street from us um mly story office behind this with Associated parking area so that's just sort of the general context of the overall site itself so the site plan been proposed was described as the building of in close proximity to both Station Avenue and white fight setep back a little bit from way fight on the line stage Avenue uh single loaded um driveway in the rear IT services uh six parking spaces one Ava space and five uh regular spaces a trash enclosure under and they they exist under the overhang of the second floor in the back so the the drive V is open to the air but the spaces themselves are under the set FL the building there is a uh trash en closure area about 8'4 in by 18 ft um it's going to service both the commercial and residential tenants in the building uh that's accessible through a door that comes off the back wall and then will be accessed with a wider door on the front where they will literally have roll out dumpsters that trash service is contracted by the building owner uh you know they will come in they roll the dumpsters out they pick them up and they'll and they'll have to back out of the back out of the line in order to service that there's not any practical way to turn a vehicle around in the lot so certainly you're going to want to schedule those at times we don't have all that traffic that is typically occurring several you know several times during the day out out on 30 on P um so it was it was interesting when I was coming down here tonight um I guess about quarter seven it was probably one of the least heavily travel times set up been in the air I've been in the area many times um I was thinking well that might be a good time frame for maybe pickup but certainly you know early in the morning before rush hour starts would be another consideration but I think the key is that you want to schedule those since you're Contracting that service you can figure out the best time to do that um Mr GRE can it be a rear loaded going to be a rear loaded removal so they're not backing they're backing into the site could be so so I mean that's the other option so they're backing into the site and then pulling out and load it from the back and pull out that's something that you can so yeah that's there are plenty options that we could that's actually a great idea so we could certainly do it that way and then that makes a whole lot more sense to that as a conditional and while I'm asking questions materials on the trash enclosure if you can so the matal the TR it's the the Redevelopment plan indicates that if the enclosure is separate from the building um it needs to be a complete masonry enclosure um you know this is actually under the overhang of the building so technically it doesn't fit that component of the Redevelopment plan but the intention is to put exterior materials on this that match the other materials that are going to be complimentary exterior facade materials not a chain will be a steel frame gate on the front that's that's you know not you know you can't see so opaque screening uh exterior architectural materials not chain Ling fence that's correct thank you so we we're going to be renewing all of the uh All The Hardscape around the per of the site um you know the sidewalks going to be reconstructed but we're going to maintain the same pattern of materials that are along uh Station Avenue currently system with materials up and down Station Avenue with the you know the brick papers and the you know the surrounds for the tree pits and so forth we're looking to match them exactly as they are currently um you know one thing that was talked about was the tree spacing the V ordinance contemplated um 40 foot on sunent and tree spacing these two trees that we're proposing are actually in the same location that it's out there currently which is about 65 ft apart and there is a decorative light pole that's uh you know fairly close to the middle of where those two trees are we could introduce another Tree in between those two and get it about 30 foot on Center I'm a little concerned that as that tree matures it's going to have a negative impact on the on the light fixture that would be in fairly close proximity to it I no objection the we indicated that that was relief required of further Redevelopment plan I have no objection to the waiver being considered by the board we appreciate that because with that um that's really the only the only deviation we need because otherwise um Mr qu you've reviewed the Redevelopment plan I I have and I was I was fairly heavily involved while it was being drafted and uh with the exception of the deviation and I appreciate that the board just granted us with respect to the street trees do does this application comply with all the appal requirements of the Redevelopment plan yeah to the best of my knowledge of certainly Steve thanks for sending we need to you know take a look at we we should be able to comply with whatever's in there so to whatever extent we don't we'll make it happen Mr Quay if you're talking about compliance uh the Redevelopment plan calls out for medical dental chiropractor Veterinary and therapy and wellness offices then a minimum of two typical parking spaces and one ada8 space shall be provided one site yep for our previous discussions prior to the hearing is it can you testify that these uses are not contemplated they are and and I just to further on that so if by some chance they were contemplated in the future it would require us to modify our off-site parking agreement to add two more spaces so that we would have enough spaces to make make up you would have you would have to seek some sort of amended approval because you this requires on site and right now you have all the on site designated for the residential except for the Ada space yeah my my read of it was that um we have to provide spaces for the residential units either on site or within I believe it's 500 feet of the site through a parking agreement so what we're doing currently is we've got five on site spaces we've got one Ada which is required and then we've got seven by by lease agreement at the site that's immediately behind us here which is within 500 ft of the site so I want to get into bunch of detail but if if by some chance a medical use was contemplated in the future we would need to then get two more Spaces by agreement within that 500 ft to still comply with the 12 that we need for the residential units because two of those spaces on site would have to go but that's not part of your application right now we not so because we're not looking for any parking relief or anything else so your testimony is they're not contemplated under this application they're not contemplated but so the board's clear but we're not ruling out that possibility but they are not contemplated and if that should happen we will and we'll if they to come back then that's what we would do yeah that's and that would just be an amendment because otherwise we don't have proof of the requirements no I'm completely so and Mr quig can you talk about the one other item that would possibly and my opinion not being compliance unless you get the uh waiver that's uh currently submitted to the county for the encroachment in the right way so so the buildings um along there's there's overhangs on both uh the white hor on station Outland the bay windows that were described previously that extend beyond the building facade on the second and third level which I think frankly add some great architectural character to the building but as Steve correctly pointed out that protrusion into the RightWay of Station Avenue will require approval from the county which we've had preliminary discussion with them and we don't anticipate a problem with that so but we will provide uh you know provide proof of that acceptance from the county of that of that protrusion into the right away out front all right so if and I just have to cover all the bases um if you do not receive that approval from the county yeah would you remove that encroachment you would have to I don't think we have a you you would have to so I'm I'm just trying to prevent you having return for anything so it's either or you get the approval from Cy County for the encroachment or they would have to remove the encroachment because we cannot approve improvements on property that is not private property for can the county owns their property we can't approve anything for it for the board's benefit it's it's in our prary discussions with the county they they indicated us that they have no Machi this and and I will note that in in some of the other surrounding communities um they actually have provision for those overhangs and encroachments into the right away and I've had other applications that they've involved County Roads and we haven't had an issue with that condition So based on my interaction so far with County Planning department and County engineering I believe it's probable that the enr will be granted uh but we don't have it in hand yet um Mr Quay can you discuss as per box letter uh the Landscaping plan and irrigation for the site yeah we're we're planning to irrigate all the Landscaping on the site and we'll we'll make the adjustments that Mr Bach recommends in his letter related to some additional Evergreen plants so forth so we take no issue comments um I I believe Mr Spencer covered this but just to be sure um with respect to the uh we we'll comply with all requirements regarding utility structures and meters as per red development plan yeah that's correct and and what Mr Spencer testified to is consistent with my understanding handle that we've covered the trash Mr Buck any further questions okay um how about lighting yes so the the lighting the lighting in the rear of the site is proposed to be underneath the overhang for those parking spaces and you our initial look at that was that that was going to be adequate to provide enough light on the drive aisle for safety purposes um you know we we'll make sure the color temperature is consistent with you know what what're Hing for um there's an existing uh post land on station out that we're proposing to leave in place we weren't proposing to add any others along there there is a on on on the pipe um there is a uh you know part of the part of the traffic structure and so forth has a pole with an overhead light on it that's more traditional type of light we weren't proposing the decorative lamps along the pike um and it doesn't appear that I could be wrong but I don't I mean Station Avenue is really where those lamps are focused current so the existing architectural uh Street Lamp will remain yep um it's your testimony and for the exhibits uh you'll have uh under canopy lighting that'll be non-glare and not visible uh to the public and the rest of it will be uh pedestrian architectural lighting just as necessary for building certainly the The Outdoor Cafe areas and the door entrances we going to have required waiting as for the building code and uh but all all non glare and shielded yep that's correct and if we can make sure that's noted in so carries Forward Forever non glad is and shielded thank you you want those details added to the plans Mr boach it it can be yeah it can be noted there really going to be in the architectural as long as it's in the resolution to the plan that but it's we're not really going to be reviewing any lighting except for the under canopy that's provided by Mr Quay the rest of it's going to be done by the the building code officials under the architect um there was some testimony earlier spr about mural do we propose one or do we not it's it's set the approval and discretion of what was that one the mural that's it's not I I don't believe it is HPC has for not to be put up too yeah Council goes h then we won't provide one but no as long as you agree that it's going to be under the requirements it has to be approved by mayor and Council it's never approved by May Council there's no mural so but that's you're not you're not proposing any deviation from what over the Redevelopment that's all we're asking respect to affordable housing this requir is it correct that the applicant's proposing two affordable housing units that's correct is it also true that the applicant will address the bedro miit and income restrictions of those units F Council Redevelopment agreement this is also true that for the commercial portion of the Redevelopment the applicant will comply with the applicable non-residential development fee requirements whatever they need be that's correct um parking Mr Bach you want us to go through parking or we've covered that um any we we've indicated in our review what we indicated is in compliance in and what testing is required I believe there's only one other aspect that we're really asking for uh for a little bit of information if Mr qu can provide that um the and you agree to all the technical items in our review we do yes uh you are proposing some stormw uh uh remediation I am yes you indicate you indicated in your uh submission items that this do not qualify as a major Redevelopment under njd St regulations it's just not it's it's less than a quarter of an acre of additional perious and it's less than an anchor of disturbance could you go through what you were proposing in terms of what you think is appropriate and actually it's a voluntary U storm waterer remediation design certainly so um had some experience looking at storm water issues in this area of town I was actually answered One Time by grabwell to take at back of their building um and I'm familiar with all the storm water was put in you know for the building behind find RW well but um first came out to look at the backyards of these two areas it was quite an experience and that uh they're both low lower than everything around it um they had basement type sum pumps installed in pits back there with uh you know pump out lines that basically just got them out to the the apron at um you know one white f um I would say that all my years I think that's the first time I've ever seen that particular appr to uh the drainage area and um you know so certainly we knew we needed to do something to try and address that situation uh so what what we're doing a couple things one is uh the back area sort of sits a hole currently we're building that up so that the you know the cave surface itself while it doesn't drain directly off the White Horse pipe you know it overflows the white Force Pike now so it it's got It's very close in green to the uh you know the sidewalk the apron out in front if you build any you know an inch or cell water up it's going to escape to the par and that's just to provide a point of emergency release when not impacting other properties around us and then the second thing we're doing is we're putting a an underground system in under the rear parking lot uh that's going to you know go down to a peral level of soils that's you know down about 6 or 7even ft in ground um and uh then provide overflow from that system up the side of the building to tie into the drain the to in front of our sight Station Avenue but that's you know once again a it's you know the system's got to build some water up in it before it runs out that piping Station Avenue I think it's going to represent a significant Improvement to the drainage um you know at the rear of this site and um know it's not strictly dictated by code because you don't development I think it's the right thing to do I talk to clients about that and they agreed and that's you know that's why it's being proposed you had an issue we need to do address and I think uh we've taken a fairly robust stab at addressing it and Mr Quay prer discussions prior to this hearing um you are going to have an infiltration component but you're going to do a u a clay maybe you can describe it a clay cut off wall uh facing towards the gradwell recording studio and those properties so infiltration will not project uh and you'll demonstrate this by mounting groundwater mounting calc we're going to supplement our report with a mounting analysis and we're going to use a uh basically a impermeable barrier on the vertical sides of the system to not allow water to travel horizontally out of this to basically force it down into the sub soils you know below so this is going to protect ground mounting analysis goes from the point of where the infiltration is and it usually goes on an angle 45 66 whatever it is this is going to restrict it the sides are going to be impervious it's going to infiltrate straight down they're going to have to demonstrate that it Dew with in 72 hours that's a state requirement so we don't have mosquitoes and they're going to have to demonstrate that have no impact for the infiltration uh where we can't impact anybody else's basements that's really what that is all about and Mr Quay um you indicated that you have the green lines in the front maybe this was a question from Mr Spencer um all the roof leaders where are the roof leaders coming back and going to the underground system so we're not going to have any roof leaders that Splash onto the sidewalks oh no no no roof leaders SP and can we have that a condition of the resolution no roof leaders that would discharge directly to the sidewalk areas on station and white horse bike and you can do many different ways of doing you can take them out to the curb but as long as you have the roof I'll say this if you know if we had to bring leaders down on the front part of the roof um we'll we'll look to coordinate piping that inl out front perfect thank you got a storm in out front of the site that gives us that opportunity but and that would eliminate around to that from the system haven't worked out all the details of roof drainage yet but they will not be coming out to the side and the reason that's important all station AB if you recall as part of the The Pedestrian improvements have the small dis pipes going through the curb mainly for the winter events so when you have the small drip you don't have the freeze lines going across the sidewalks so they're not going to have that either will that be the same for condensation line uh drains of any sort as well I'm sorry what was that like condens like any any um air conditioning condensation drains the sanitary lines the sanitary system yeah condensate TRS off to time the sanitary they don't consider that storm what are I'm not St just that that's that's going into the SE system oh I know there are a couple older buildings here that window where conditioner type things that are dripping down on on the sidewalk as well so well that won happen that will happen with this new building thank you sir Mr qu you did a trip generation analysis is is that correct that's correct and and we can go into detail if you want Mr bu but the bottom line is your analysis indicates there will be no measurable impact on the transportation I I mean I can briefly describe it so you know the the the retail the retail commercial space that's on the site currently is about equivalent to the amount of square footage of retail and commercial space for repos so that essentially from a trip generation standpoint is a wash so there are two apartments on the corner building currently we're going to have 12 so the analysis comes down are looking at an additional 10 one and two bedroom apartments uh they generate I believe 4 a.m peak hour trips additionally and 5:00 p.m peak hour and believe it was 67 total daily trips from the site I what's there currently it's based on the background levels of traffic in the area it's statistically insignificant and this as for just for parking just s s the board's aware for clarification so the art Redevelopment plan requires parking for the residential units to be dedicated for use of the residence between 7 pm and 7 AM will comply correct yep and we'll have the appropriate signage we will and as I said five of those stes are actually on site and seven of them will through a lease agreement immediately behind us on the site behind us and then if you want to can talk about the commercial component too so the commercial space for the Redevelopment agreement does not require on-site parking actually it doesn't the way it's worded is that we need to demonstrate that there is adequate public or private parking available within 1300 ft of the site for the number of spaces that would be contemplated for the given use that's in there so what we did was we went out and took and this this is actually in the in the report so I don't think we need Market is seate exib I just blew it up made but we looked at the site we looked at that 1300t perimeter actually really only we didn't get into granular detail out of the margins out here but um but you know we identify the number of uh public parking areas that in this location and found more than adequate support for public parking uh to support the use the retail commercial use that's contemplated whether it be a standard commercial use or even a restaurant now the restaurant component you know is based on employees and tables we don't have a layout so I made a sort of an estimate of what it might be and you know my opinion and my observations on this are that we're not going to have any problem complying with that component based on the number of spaces that are available you know out in the community and I mean I've I've come to Heights many times you know for the restaurants are there and I can say I don't think I've ever may had to walk a block or two but I've never had a problem finding a parking for so parking as presented is compliant with the Redevelopment plan thank you [Music] Mr so if that's not that's the that's what's required the Redevelopment plan that's it so they're compliant with the Redevelopment plan which is our guiding and and I think and you're going to hear me talk about this anyway but I'll take two me two minutes for this the Redevelopment plan is the ordinance for this application this is our rule book it is separate and unless it is uh if it specifically changed something that contemplated out elsewhere in our ordinance Redevelopment plan takes precedence so that's our rule book at their compliant not asking for Relief then there's really nothing that we can do here and that's very specifically one of those items only required a three-year lease with the option of renew and they have provided proof of that um the only thing why I'm talking sure um so we don't have to go any more into trash or testimony um there is a requirement for an operational statement to outline the plan for solid waste and recyclables can that be submitted as condition of approval now they have some of the changes that we heard about and that way the applicant indicate yes we're taking care of trash recycles yes we're going to have the track truck back up and we'll remove uh the trash as necessary so it doesn't come out of the enclosures that's pretty much the whole thing that we need I should recorded it you you and I have done too many of them but that's what we're looking for no no problem thank you I have no other questions for Mr quag just to to finish up then two two quick questions Mr Quay um you've reviewed Mr Box's June 12 letter are there any comments in his letter that uh we don't agree with it we need to clarify we've covered everything nothing other than what we' covered in testimony tonight and in your professional uh opinion as an engineer and planner does this application comply with all the requirements of the RDP in the ordinance as Mr Bacher said with the exception of the Tre spacing that we already talked about yes and the possible encroachment that that's correct I don't have any further questions of Mr Quay Mr chair with that um that would conclude my presentation I do have again Mr F Mr J Elli here are the principles of the applicant to the extent that we've not answered or addressed any of the questions uh from Mr Bach any of the comments in his review letter or any questions from the board but they're here if the board Dees necessary but otherwise sure sure and this will be very very brief because I made sure I went through and got the testimony we needed so refer the board to our June 12th 2024 review two points of relief as we already heard about uh through testimony is uh spacing for the shade trees uh uh and then also the other only other point of relief that we recognize an encroachment at Cy County provides the approval if not encroachment has to disappear but that's technically in my mind relief because we don't contemplate improvements of buildings on any other property except for private property uh the applicant has proved Excuse me yes I would treat that as a I I would treat it as as I like to do on Redevelopment plans a waiver I don't like to go on a designed waiver or a variance I go on a waver of compliance and I think that is the cleanest way any objection Mr R yeah yeah and and variances and waivers but I don't think it it it rises to the level of a variance because it's not into the bulk standards uh the applicant has provided all the testimony that I required and asked for uh under the review uh the applicant has indicated that to comply with all technical items and conditions and they also submit an operation statement as the plans for solid waste recyclables and they'll update the application materials as necessary to indicate the removal of the trash rooms the re the storage that they're going to provide and everything that they testified tonight the application material should be revised to reflect architectural as well as um engineering uh the appc is agreed uh to provide all the Outside Agency approvals and provide them uh once once they are um obtained uh Mr qu is my understanding that you're you're seeking or currently seeking a uh waiver for the driveway with the do no we're submitting we're submitting an access an actual access permit yeah it's very similar to another application we had in Aon so it's a driveway modification permit and a minor access permit right okay so you will provide some sort of evidence that do will be approving whatever modifications to the drive aisle thank you that's all I have chairman I just yes Steve I just was curious that the site triangle issue at at White Horse pight it's not really sight triangle and Mr C should probably signalized intersection okay so signalized intersection doesn't have side triangles okay traffic light doesn't have side so we have no issue regarding that okay so did I have a requirement for a site triangle on my review you said something a site triangle should be shown at the proposed driveway along White that that is not I'm sorry yes they have to show compliance they're going to have to do that for their access per anyway right but the for the side driveway they're going to have to show the uh side triangles based on uh Mr Gray maybe you can point out and give some initial testimony based on the distance from the curb to the front face of the building uh do you anticipate any difficult having an ashto compliance the distance back from the edge of the travel Lane to establish a site triangle is 14 ft and we have more than that from the curve line have that you I think you have it easy from the curb even without a pain in chatter line so they're going to have to demonstrate compliance with a Nash site triangle and I'm I'm sorry uh Dean I thought you were talking about the Redevelopment plan we talked about site triangles at White Horse Pike and station that's what I was talking about with a traffic light that's different even though that that that has a turn on right you don't have you have to worry about that that's that's the rules the rules are it's signalized intersection you do not have to worry about the site triangles yeah and actually so the turn on right the site triangle issue would actually going in the opposite direction looking at the traffic that's coming you know into that travel lane from you know the the east east side the intersection and the development doesn't impact that at all I I was saying from going east on from station going east to make a a rightand turn going towards barington so that that'll be a similar side triangle along the White Horse bike where they have the 14t clear so they'll have a compliant AST more than 14 ft from the Stop Bar to the curb line so the site triangle would be out in this area here so it's from the edge of the travel Lan back so the contemplation is that you pull forward to the edge of the travel Lane before you make the turn and the the building's not close to being obstructing Mr qu would you be so kind as a part of compliance to show exactly what we're just talking about for those likes and that way we can add that add the site triangles even though they're technically not required but show that if it was not stop controlled that they would still be compliant for the ho intersection I think that would U address some of the concerns is that correct sir all right Mr if the board has any questions I'm happy to [Music] good evening everyone Ken funer 414 Second [Music] Avenue I do mostly qu mostly questions um the additional parking I think the gentleman in the blue shirt said would be least from next door is that the blue law office or is it the 120 White Horse Pike parking lot it's it's the law office that's immediately behind us okay excellent and um by way of comment I'm just curious whether Mr Spencer he he testified that uh 501 has no historic value I'm curious whether you know the original uh purpose of the building yeah I let me clarify my comments I'm not saying the building as a whole has no historic value I'm saying its current condition it's no longer contributing in the capacity that it once was okay Ian I believe it was an old butcher shop I believe that the first butcher shop it was the original structure certainly has um historic value okay it's been quite degraded over the years uh with non-compliant um additions and modifications sure sure just when you throw siding on it you've immediately white vinyl windows aren't the most historic right so by by way of that reference to the butcher shop um I might have a suggestion and I don't know um I don't know access to the Redevelopment commission but I see the mayor is here I know you're on the commission I might suggest that uh the owners give some representation of that building the original uh 501 the crooks butcher shop and whether it be in in the form of similar to the TD Bank the White Horse Pike um panel that they have in the in the back of the Bank building or um as a member of the board of the historical society as you probably all are aware we've got 14 or 15 historical interpretive markers around town um possibly the owners would be willing to put together a historical interpreted marker somewhere on the property identifying the building that's something we okay surey it's it's a quick hit and and I'm sure Margaret Westfield has got pages on that building already so that the development of a sign would not be an issue at all but that was my suggestion thank you for your time Mr Hans members of the board that concludes our presentation um we hope that the board has appreciates um the Improvement that we are proposing here and we'd ask that the board uh grant our application SE yeah um the applicant is requesting preliminary and final s plan approval um the building is in hisory District received recommendation from the hisorical commission um it appears to me that they um are only requesting relief for the waiver for the street trees um and I did note a few conditions of approval I know that there are I noted quite a few in the letter but the ones that discussed here tonight you humor me just make sure I have them all um sure that the any lighting will have be non Blair and shielding shielded and that'll be a condition of approval um we'll also have no roof leaders right used roof leader or down spouts discharging a sidewalk yeah because that of thing um would be a safety issue and then I also have they're going to submit the operational statement um but I think that was already in your letter correct I I asked for them to give operational testimony instead of laboring the point and since we have so many changes on like the trash that's represented if they give an operational statement as a condition of approval that would be appropriate in the sight line on the drawings yeah and and also the uh easement lines on uh uh the on-site driveway which is required as well as the four legs of the ad Json intersection as they agreed to thank you that was be my next question so the testimony provided tonight demonstrated that they were in compliance with the Redevelopment plan which is you described um is really the governing ordinance uh for this application um they are requesting that release that I mentioned um there's be quite a few conditions of approval that we just went over um they're going to comply with the um all the points in the letter which I noted had a lot of just changes to the plan so that it's clear um and then the only other thing I would add is just recognizing the encroachment if it approved by ca County because technically that is that's relief because we're approving something outside of the property line perfect thank yeah to be may or may not be approved um Mr qu I think I have this in my letter U any U um operation of maintenance for the storm management would be recorded and become part of the D that's acceptable standard practice y yeah I don't know if I have that in my letter but I think it okay it's all running together at this point yeah no I think I think that was thank you I that thank you approve the application and could we suggest preliminary and final preliminary and final all F through motion to approve uh as long as with box letter uh things discussed as far as the trash being backed and [Music] cwalk that encro for the C County right way is in compliance and a waiver of and any other w we might discussed but I not very good I'll second mayor Hal yes councilwoman Hearn yes chairman Hansen yes Mr dulus yes Mr Shannon yes Mr famular yes Mr Schmidt yes and Miss McCall you very trees okay good get up by the gota sit down with you Jes how you been you look good