in accordance with Section Five of the open public meetings act chapter 231 Public Law 1975 be advised that a notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board town hall and mailing to the officially designated newspapers a list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the Town Hall at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday January 17th 2024 Cory biller here Alison Canfield here Michael Cohen here Gan Halbert here de neis here Frank sakon here San David cosbro here Michael Zion here that's here um before we begin with any applic tonight we're going to start with our memorializing resolution um right for the resolution of the planning board to approve Professional Services by our board attorney as was introduced at the last meeting and it is Sao shock where we will be represented by stepen Warner joins us tonight welcome to your first meeting with us um what do we need to do in order to approve we need a motion a second and then a roll call V okay great I move to approve do we have a second second Alison Cory biller yes Allison Campfield yes Michael Cowen yes de Nevis yes Frank s Sean yes David cosgro yes G on Halbert yes that's all yes thank you very much for your confidence appreciate it welcome you um as you may notice the next two items that had been on our agenda um are going to be deferred because we have not yet received the minutes of December 20th uh 20123 actually it was a note I lean to just wishful thinking um so we will go ahead and defer those until our next meeting or when we have them to distribute same goes for memorialization of application 236 which you just received we haven't received yet okay um so as soon as those are received they will be distributed for our review that said we will move next to our first uh and only application of the evening application 237 855 Woodland Road um this is for amended preliminary and final site plan approval um and before we commence I know we do have um a few recusals uh from members of the board um we have recusals from Mr cossrow um miss nevas and miss Canfield who all had previously um during the application the initial application had participated um not as planning board members at the time um so in order to eliminate any appearance of conflict of interest they have chosen to refuse for this evening um we would have you wait out in the other room and we will call you back certainly for the latter part of the meeting and there's a TV in the any more Madam chair with your permission while Council and the applicants are preparing I did have an opportunity to review the notice for this matter and the Affidavit of service and publication I found the content of the notice to be sufficient found it to be timely served and published both on January 5th both of the uh both of those at least 10 days prior to this evening so the board does have jurisdiction to hear the application and decided this evening should it conclude this evening good evening everyone uh it's a pleasure to be back here in beautiful Milbourne in person uh for my first time in a while uh my name is Derek orth and I'm from the law firm of engino Taylor and I'm here on behalf of the applicant 85 Woodland Road LLC uh we are here tonight seeking your approval for two relatively minor items as I'm going to get into greater detail we are seeking amended approval so that we can locate our Transformers outside the building which the board previously approved as is required by jcpnl the utility secondly we are also seeking an extension of the period of protection for these approvals for one year which would run through October 5th 2024 um a little bit of background on the subject property I see a couple new faces on the board and I I welcome you also congratulations to uh Mr Warner on his appointment so uh the subject property was previously identified as block 1904 lot 72 to 75 it has now been Consolidated into lot 72.0 one the property was previously occupied by a texco gas station and a few ancillary structures most of the structures located on the subject property have been demolished accepting the Summit Medical Office Building as the board may recall this this property was rezoned back in late 2019 pursuant to a Mount Laurel agreement between the applicant the township and the planning board to permit a 62 unit inclusionary Community along with 10,000 square fet of medical office space the applicant filed an application requesting preliminary and final major site plan approval with bulk variant relief in June of 2020 following nine public meetings which I had the pleasure at being at to uh the board approved the application honor about May 5th 2021 and granted the applicants site plan approval along with bulk variance relief for a required width of an upper story stepb back and also a temporary shortage of parking during the construction of the project the parking variance was required at the time because the project as initially contemplated was proposed to be constructed in phases so as to permit Summit Medical to continue its operations during construction while their new space was being built the resolution of approval for the project was memorialized on about October 5th 2021 which is where the one-year extension date comes from um post approval the applicant pursued all of the necessary Outside Agency approvals for the project I laid these out in one of my letters to the board but briefly we have obtained approvals from The Soil Conservation District the D the county who issued a letter of no interest the Township's pedestrian safety board we also have obtained a tww permit the board has signed the plans and we even obtained a demolition permit now we ran into one major issue during resolution compliance and Outside Agency permitting um specifically jcpnl will not permit the applicant to locate the Project's Transformers and there are two as our witnesses will testify inside the building um as the board may recall we had testified during the course of the prior application that the Transformers would be located inside the building we fought the good fight with JC pnl um over the course of the past year uh but they would not budge I obtained a letter from jcpnl uh dated July 27th 2023 which was included in our application packet uh that letter States as much as I have just said which is that jcpnl requirement is that the Transformers be located outside the building or else they will not energize the building so in other words we need the board's approval of this amendment in order to construct this project our professionals will describe the plan revisions but briefly stated we cut into the previously approved building footprint in order to locate the Transformers outside the building we had to reduce our building coverage in order to accommodate this change and we made a few very minor modifications to the building footprint uh that said the Transformers are located within the previously approved footprint for the project and we are not violating any of the setbacks which were approved by the board so uh one last item before I start introducing my Witnesses I want to update the board on a recent development with the project um Summit Medical will no longer be occupying the 10,000 square feet of medical office space um just by way of news reports that I have read Summit Medical was acquired by Village um I can't remember the name but major medical conglomerate and they are the process of merging operations uh they still have a lease for their existing building on the property but our expectation is they will vacate that space in the coming months and formally terminate their lease the upshot of all of this is that we will most likely no longer need to construct the project in phases um rest assured we are still constructing the medical office space uh but we'll need to find a different tenant so now now that I've spoken for uh far too long I'd like to introduce my Witnesses I'm going to start out with Michael lonza Fama who I'm sure the board is well familiar with he is our civil engineer uh Mr LP is going to present an exhibit which superimposes the new building footprint on the previously approved plans um second our project architect Rob where are you there he is Robert Waldren who's going to present elevations and renderings of the exterior modifications to the project as a result of the relocation of the Transformers so with that said um Mr Warner or Madam chair if uh however you'd like me to have my Witnesses swor it I'm fine to go ahead and swear them in uh individually um I would like to request as we move forward if we can address the um checklist waiver items I believe there's an Eis waiver request yes so we can do those upfront to make sure we're going to proceed into the application follow in that process yes so I don't know if you have somebody specifically that you wanted to testify to that I would say that I I did not um it was my understanding the application had been deemed complete which I don't need to understood that the waivers were given the that would be our engineer planner would know but I wasn't given information that it was teed complete that it was not teamed complete I I deemed it Complete because they did did you request a wa if they requested a waiver for the Eis that was in the application right typically as we get them we receive it and there may be a checklist waiver request item then we usually just request simple testimony to clarify why and then we would as a a board to approve that waer request if there were any other waivers requested can do that I don't believe so I don't see I usually like behind this the front application sheet they typically have it certainly should be something that the engineer can testify we we did submit an E with the initial application I can okay so it would be the same because there's no correct change from the initial application correct the only change to to the project is the relocation of the Transformer I just as I see on the uh on the second page of the letter it mentions the E request so I just want to make sure we're following process no no no problem at all so so if it was previously award if you're relying on the prior Eis and and the engineer and I'll swear it one in in a moment with your permission Madam chair but Kuan as to the appropriateness and the board could render DEC determination if that waiver request should be granted this second time around if you will Reliance on the prior Eis for this application I prefera we do that okay okay with your permission I'll swear in the applicants witnesses as well as our two board professionals as is my practice I swear in our board professionals every application so if you'll all four if you raise your right hand I believe we have two witnesses for the applicant uh do all four four of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do I do thank you all we can proceive mam chair my name is Michael lonz zaama that's l n Za f ma I'm a licensed professional engineer land surveyor and planner licensed in the state of New Jersey I'm a principal with the firm of Casey and Keller Incorporated 258 Main Street Milbourne New Jersey I've been licensed as a professional engineer and land surveyor since 1984 and a professional planner since 1985 I was the engineer on this project back in 2020 and um as uh uh Mr uh or pointed out that um we did prepare an environmental impact statement back in April of 2020 wait can I pause oh sorry I'm I'm just on a roll I know I see that are your uh all of your licenses up to date yes they are they're current okay we will hear you as as you're as a an engineer as an engineer today okay thank you you're welcome nowe certainly so the waiver request for an environmental impact statement was made because the initial application did submit a a very detailed environmental impact statement back in April of 2020 I believe was the date on it I I prepared it personally and uh the elements of the environmental impact statement are not being changed as a result of what we're asking for this evening so therefore we would ask for a waiver of a resubmission of a new environmental impact statement okay does anybody have any questions for Mr L ofmer regarding that testimony on the request for an Eis waiver okay I move to permit us to continue hearing the application by granting the waiver request a second a second okay you you could do a you could do a roll call this is not a formal motion it's it's just a it's only with respect to the checklist for okay all in favor I any oppose okay thank you very much thank you for allowing us to go through that process as Mr oric pointed out we brought an exhibit this evening which I have mounted on the easel to my left um I've broughten uh reduced copies it would be a little easier for board members to chair's permission we can mark it exhibit A1 Mr Lono are you Distributing A1 or is this another this is a A reduced version of A1 okay Mike if you want to just identify sure the um what has been marked as A1 is the approve a copy of the approved site plan uh which had a date of uh April 14 2022 and what we've done for tonight's hearing is we've superimposed in red the outline of the building footprint as it has been currently designed um as you are aware when we come in for site plan approvals the architectural plans are not fully engineered well the luxury you have of this evening's application is the building has been engineered structurally and mechanically so that there were certain little adjustments that had to be made to the building for certain column supports and wall supports so you'll see that the footprint is slightly different than what was approved on the perimeter but the points of interest are two the uh along chadam Road in the front of the building you can see where the proposed Transformer area is indicated and the red rectangular area is the area that's been cut out of the building to allow for the location of the Transformer which is the dotted uh uh rectangle um we had to have a minimum amount of clearance around that structure is required by jcpnl and it had to be open to the air vertically to screen that from the street to make it look like what we had presented under the original hearing is the wall that faces chadam Road matches the facade of the building it's going to be brick and and the same materials there will be a solid fence gate metal gate that will screen the Transformer from the street and allow for Access by jcpnl uh via grass pavers that will be installed between the edge of the sidewalk and the gate itself so a truck if it needs to get in there excuse me a crane or truck needs to get in there to service the equipment they will be able to do that and the gate is very going to be very similar to um the garage door opening so it it Blends in well with the facade and you'll see uh Mr Waldren will present some uh exhibits that compare the original facade elevations the renderings that we presented at the 2020 hearings and the current configuration you'll see how similar the building does does in fact look the second Transformer is located uh in the Southeast corner of the building along Woodland Road and the same applies an area of the building has been cut out to allow for the placement of the Transformer uh in that location so that it's easily accessible uh from the street and has the adequate uh clearances that were required by jcpnl these cutouts in the building result in the building being reduced by about 1100 square feet um other than that no other changes have been made to the plan with regard to overall lock coverage is the same uh the utilities coming into the building are the same water gas uh electric um sanitary s are all exactly the same same number of units same Building height um same storm water management system the drywalls that are proposed at the southern end of the building uh as Mr orth pointed out we have all our necessary permitting from the state of New Jersey um for sewer and for U our flood Hazard permit uh individual flood Hazard permit to develop within the reparan Zone uh of the stream so all of those are in place they're valid the uh flood Hazard permit is good until 2027 um the sanitary s extension permit um does run out in the spring of this year however we can apply for another two-year extension with the state and that's where we're at anyone on the board questions from mrama B on that testimony yes does the do the Transformers give off any emissions whether sound or or gas right now no there there's no there's no emission they they might make a slight humming noise but they're contained within the enclosure would keep that it's really a very minimal uh amount of sound we we had numerous negotiations with JC pan discussions alternate ideas trying to put the Transformers underground if not in the building and and this was the only way that they would be willing to work with us on this was to have the Transformers outside you know your only other option are are numerous polls along the street with the can type Transformers which obviously is not what we want in this area was something changed between the design and present time that they wouldn't Gra approve like I guess I wonder why we would have initially had a design well the the bottom line is that um we we hadn't engaged them thoroughly other than asking for the fact that they could service the building we never got into the question of whether or not they'd be willing to put we never asked the question until after we had our approval and then we got into it um we have done Transformers with psng for example um in in vaults or inside buildings in more urban areas like Hoboken uh and and Jersey City however they they jcpnl just would not do it okay gotcha other any questions regarding the uh sound or noise is the facade or the door whichever whatever Blends in with the garage door does that have any sound attenuation capabilities if the humming noise does proved to be it's a it's a metal gate that is slightly louvered to allow for air flow um I I don't know what the sound deadening capabilities of it would be but I imagine something could be done but it's it's such a a low level uh humming that you might hear it really depends on how it's functioning uh so I couldn't tell you whether or not what the deciel level would be at the street for example but it it really would be minimal yeah if we could have something in there where would be fixed because it is directly across from the apartment complex just looked on the map too that we're directly across the building so if it does bother them something could be I it it would not be a noise that would bother someone from across the street you'd have to be right standing right next to it this is on the side that faces across from the you're talking about the one on Woodland oh down there want to see okay sorry I was looking on chat yep thank you okay do any members of the public have questions for Mr Lonzo Fama on the testimony he just gave great I can invite you to come up you can just ask the question you don't have to get born in you can just ask the question but if you can do it on the mic so that folks can hear you who might be watching if you could just say your name and address yes I'm I'm beatric Shear I live at 101 Oak viw Terrace Short Hills which is right next to the project and I am concerned about the sound um what where exactly is is the Transformer going to be on Woodland Road or is it going to be in that finger that goes back um they I'm going to exhibit A1 we have one Transformer located at the southern end of the building like by the finger that you're referring to but not located in the thing par no okay yes but it's on Woodland it looks like yeah I'm just interested in the Woodland one I it's on Woodland Road sure okay and would the sound even though it wouldn't go across the street would it emanate to the two houses closest no to no would not okay thank you thanks other questions okay thank you F questions I'd like to call my next witness which would be our architect Rob Waldren Madam chair if I made just for clarification you're presenting both the amend request for the amended approval for the Transformer locations as well as the extension are you doing that contemporaneously in this presentation or do you intend to do it sequentially sure uh the the testimony is going to be contemporaneous I will ask the board for two separate votes at the conclusion of our pre presentation there is a bit of legal argument uh with regard to the extension request I'm just going to recite what the statute says the factors are for an extension request is is all um which I would do after my Witnesses testify on the amendment application okay M chair I have no objection to the procedure legally and and I think it's prent that there' be two separate votes understood so one vote will be presed to the Transformer uh change extension of time exactly I do understand they're interrelated with respect to the operative facts involving JCP andl so it makes sense to contemporaneously present it as well does the does the sequence of those votes matter I it it uh when you say matter legally there's no requirement that one be before would you advise a certain sequence of those VES I don't see I don't see a problem with the request for the amendment first then the extension second that's how I to the applicant to make that request the applicant does have the discretion to present present the case in that way correct it is my preference to ask for the the vote on the amendment first prior to the extension Sor okay uh you should be sworn and yeah move to this side I hate to put it to anybody's back except the whole audience will not be so we we might just want you to put it kind of in front of where that one is if that's all right just I'm G to point it so I'll point and come back no it's better so the public can see if we can just move mic's exhibit and you know what the microphone will you can take it like a stand up have a grand all time we'll get you sworn in first oh you sworn in but we'll hear us uh Robert walren from Michaels and walren Associates in River bale New Jersey uh I'm a licensed architect I believe for 15 years now I'm not sure somewhere in that range uh and my license is in good standing and have you been qualified as an expert in the field of architecture in front of other planning boards in the state of New Jersey yes many okay can you name just a few uh Jersey City uh uh Newark uh tons in ber County um botin just did yeah many I've done thousands of residential units throughout New Jersey great thanks and did you participate in the design of this building the architectural design so we did not do the original approval we were hired to do the construction documents and we are the ones that kind of uncovered some of the issues that needed to be like once you get to the point where you're you know getting into more detail with the drawings okay we will accept you as a a your witness in architecture and look forward to hearing your testimony and additional relationship to this project okay okay so you should be able to remove that yes and um Rob just here Mr walr has a few exhibits which he has mounted on this board here I have also printed out packets for the board to make it a little bit easier but Mr wal should probably identify the exhibits first before I start passing them out we can or we can label each one as we get to it whatever would you like the packets now sure okay now in my great excitement I also attached Mr Lon of's exhibit to the back so that is just a duplicate pass sorry so the first drawing is actually a drawing that had been previously submitted that is in an exhibit so it's not included in 11 by 17 lab it as A2 right exhibit was this submitted in the prior hearing no this is or it was submitted previously in connection with this it was submitted in connection with this application more than 10 days in advance of this evening yes it was it does not have to be marked as an exhibit just please clearly identify exactly what it is that sheet the last revised date Etc yes this would be uh sheet a100 basement plan and it's dated uh 62122 thank you with a sorry progress date of 10923 okay so last revise 10923 thank you so uh this is the basement plan but actually in this section of the building the basement is at grade level uh so this is where uh Mike had shown that we had cut back the building to create space for the uh Transformer as well as gas and electric meters back here and then we have enclosed that area uh with a wall which I'll show in the elevations and more detail with uh two access gates in front this is a101 first floor plan uh with the date 62122 with a progress date of 10923 again this is all that on this level it's showing is the continuation of the cut back of the building with the uh Transformer area uh below the second floor plan which is a102 dated 62122 with a progress date of 10923 uh so it's the second floor plan but is actually at grade along chadam road because there is a continuous slope as we get up here so this is where we look located the second Transformer and you can see we've cut back the building here located the Transformer an electric and gas meters behind the enclosure wall this would be the first exhibit that we had not previously submitted May Madam chair are we going to submit the balance of these as a compendium exhibit a82 or is each one going to be 82 A3 etc' be great if we could just mark it as A2 packet and how many pages is exhibit a two one two three four five and the uh we could ignore I take it the last page which was the duplicate exuberance that's a five page compendium exhibit A2 if you could just identify it in a general sense yes okay so this is labeled ex exhibit one and these are the street elevations so along Woodland here you can see the whole facade and this is where uh the first Transformer enclosure is located uh and we have blown up that detail here so you can see it a little bit more clear uh it will have a uh castone veneer with a cast Stone cap and uh the black metal gate in front of the Transformer and this uh castone veneer you'll see is a continuation from the castone base that is located all throughout that building so it continues straight through on the chadam road elevation uh you can see the whole elevation here but this section here highlighted in the dashed box is uh where we Rev positive for the transformer for the second Transformer location again we've blown up that area you'll see castone base with brick above and a castone cap and another black metal gate and you can see in this area the castone band is at this level and then brick and then a castone cap so that's the uh reasoning for the different treatments of the two enclosure walls just where they fall within uh on the building facade so exhibit two is a rendering a current rendering of uh the Woodland uh Road uh elevation here and you can see in this area here is uh what I was previously describing on the elevations is the continuation of this castone which becomes the Transformer enclosure with uh the black metal gate exhibit three uh which is our current chadam road elevation rendering and uh this is where you see our second trans former uh location here and you can see we've cut back the building for the open air uh that was previously described and uh our enclosure wall and black metal gates there exhibit four actually shows uh the current rendering along Woodland as well as uh the previous uh rendering and uh you can see same materials and design uh castone bases brick uh castone window headers banding uh Bays all that has been kept and you can see in the previous uh rendering that they had that same castone base which we maintained and what we used to enclose the first Transformer location exhibit five is shows our current chadam road uh elevation rendering with the previous rendering below and again and you can see we maintain the materials of castone Base brick brick Sills brick headers the bay the uh angled roof the Dormers everything we altered this uh area here to push back and continue that same brick and castone base with a castone cap in that area to enclose our second Transformer I think that's it I m just to clarify the record because she referred to all five pages of exhibit a82 as exhibit one two 3 four five so again just for clarification the entirety of it is a five-page compendium constituting exhibit 82 thank you madam chair thanks I have one question um regarding sort of the impacts to the the square footage and you know you didn't cover any Interiors I understand you weren't the initial architect that was the middle Wasco team yes gave the original testimony but um understandably because you're cutting out that square footage and from every floor above there would be impacts can you speak to what those designs would be the impacts and if those impact the certainly the affordable units and with the you if they would still comply with requirements Etc yeah so actually the previously architectural drawings did not have detailed unit layouts so they were kind of a rough layout uh rough elevations matching and all that so we've actually Dove to the specifics of it all and have met the same unit count affordable everything so we were able to do that uh while still cutting out those spaces yeah I was just going to ask them since now we know wa can you tell us where the affordable units are going to be are they you know where where are they in relative to the Transformers uh they were laid out before the Transformers were put in and if we had to alter it uh because of that so it was not based around where those Transformers are I don't have an exhibit that has uh the units and where they're located but I can tell you they were certainly located before this came up but I guess was their square footage reduced by the fact that you had to cut out part of the building uh no questions we will get to questions from the public yet thanks I just want to offer the board or questions that were raised coming up by the testimony okay that's fine yes we will welcome questions to the public we just have you come up and just say your name and address and then feel free to close your question questions Charles vanara uh just tell your last name b a m as in Michael B A R A like with an m in there instead of an R um I've been a resident for 27 years um also an engineer for over 50 years sorry Mr bber can you give us your address please oh 37 Keats Kats Road in Short Hills and and your questions okay uh if sound from the Transformers is a concern would you not employ sound deaden in Concrete Construction in the in the Cav cavity where the sound with the uh Transformers are it's very simple to either sarate the wall or put Pebbles or something like the sound deadening uh walls you see on highways it really doesn't affect the construction at all but I I think that would be a smart thing to do if there's concern over the over the Transformers it certainly would mitigate that so I would I would suggest you do that secondly I'm sorry I go ahead CH Ju Just to be clear this is for the questions only the comments would come later when you're swor in and you can give testimony once SW that you be SW so that the T so the question is have have you considered and and we should give opport answer okay yes I think we certainly can study any sound deadening uh in it is a concrete wall it is clad in Brick uh and I know there's methods where we can inset the brick and do certain like yes we can absolutely do that just so clear is is the applicant but before I asked the question if I may Madam chair uh the applicant obviously has to comply with njac uh 7 call 29 the state D requirements for sound levels no greater than 50 DBA at night no greater than 65 DBA in during the day uh uh at the property lines as well as our local ordinances which are consistent there with um you recognize that Council correct yes I do okay and uh is the applicant offering by way of stipulation or anything more in response to Mr bar bambara's question need to be sound dead we we will comply with the state statute um and also I will also say if there is a sound issue associated with the Transformers provided JCP now doesn't make us come back again no we will employ appropriate I think this is almost like a no cost type of thing it's certainly smart and if it's if it's an issue with something we will certainly do um provided pnl allows it so good faith effort subject to review and approval of our engineering department the appropriate personnel in the township for with respect to sth deadening materials utilized yes okay thank you for the stipulation coun okay I don't know if it's a question but just to help the one resident on sound sound falls off by the square of the distance from the subject you might know that so till till I'm sworn in that might help her understand thank if I could just mention one more thing it's typical for these to be sight mounted with no enclosure uh these being what I'm sorry Transformers so I think already having the enclosure is going to be better and I'm not a sound engineer by any means but uh it will be better they're usually just sight mounted and maybe landscaped in front of them so thank you any other questions for the architect okay come back absolutely uh there were pavers mentioned that were supposed to be in front of the gates are those primary whe pavers or just regular pavers they they're what's referred to as grass papers thank you other questions from the board um Council are you finished with Witnesses I do want to give the public an opportunity for Testimony but I don't want to get ahead of you no I'm I'm I'm finished with with uh Witnesses I did want to address um one thing I noted in in the professional reports um um the police and the the fire uh Marshall report these are essentially the same reports we got a couple years ago on the initial application I wanted to note that one thing the board did not approve uh last go around was the fire apparatus Road around the building because we have a pedestrian walkway there that's Township property and we're not able to to do that so I just wanted to make that clear that condition Remains the Same um and that what was shown on the signed plans that we previously received but everything else in this report um we've worked post approval with both the Fire Marshall and the uh the police department and of course The Pedestrian safety board um we have arrived at a series of pedestrian safety improvements which the township has approved um we've also undertaken um pump test for the water supply to the building and FL test fire hydrant flow test um so and and of course the building is going to be n FPA 13 as we had briefly stipulated Madam chair may I follow up briefly sure with Council on that the the uh so if I understand correctly with respect to the fire officials memo uh you're stipulating to all the items except the item number three regarding the fire app apparatus Road since that was not a prior condition of approval for the reason stated correct item number two it appears be a recitation um anything where he cites to a statutory requirement um we will comply as as applicable um for five were already stipulated to as part of the initial approval um with regard to six we have done the fire hydrid testing and our engineer has um submitted that information and it's been approved by the far Marshall so that is already taken care of um without any uh improvements there 78 nine things we already agreed to 10 I believe that was part of the initial approval but that's no issue um even if it's new we will submit the cad plans number 11 and of course 12 and 13 which is not the noxbox and the numbering of the premises um we will comply with appreciate that clarification if I may continue Madam chair the F uh uh there excuse me the police department's traffic Bureau memo January 3 are you stipulating to the uh three items that are set forth during the way I read this report is he is essentially asking us to comply with the conditions in the prior resolution and The Pedestrian safety improvements which are shown on the plans which we will do okay thank you for that clarification and I don't I'm just double checking to see not to steal any Thunder from our engine while our engineer had no concerns and our planner who can certainly speak from if there were any conditions of approval there might have been a couple of items uh potentially could be conditions I guess I don't know unless they've been satisfied in his his opinion we will have a public testimony I have a question can I ask a question uh yep let's finish it this thir and we have question you're good for cl yeah testimony has answered the question today good enough thank you I appreciate that uh nothing further Madam chair okay thank do you had another question for the architect okay well it's about this report I'll ask it tell me if it's okay so um I'm sure name again Beatrix b a t r i Shear s h e a r 101 o futas short house thank you um so about the fire fire Marshalls report was there a specific um opinion given about any risk from uh fire pits or grills on the roof um the uh the building is located right next to the arborium as I say I live right next to store many many leaves fall in the fall and it appears to me that that would create a serious Fire H a serious fire hazard I understand the everything would be turned off at 10 p.m but other than that there's not necessarily any supervision going on up there and um the fire pits could be on I don't know if the grills have an open flame or not and I I I would like to be assured that the the Fire Marshall or whoever has uh written this report has considered that danger for the applicant Council to address do you have any sure and then I can um put up Mr Lonzo Fama to testify briefly but we do not have any rooftop amenities um that was withdrawn on the the the there's interior Mike would you please go through the plans briefly um refering back to exhibit Michael can I request you pull it out a little bit so she can feel it on on exhibit A1 uh the Courtyard area where the fire pits would be located or totally surrounded by the building structure there's nothing up on the upper section of the roof that was eliminated at at the original hearing so it's only this enclosed area which is surrounded by the building that's elevated so he he indicated that we could not store any propane there was a condition in his letter and we will certainly comply with that there the leaves will fall there the leaves will fall there it doesn't have I don't know how familiar you are okay we just want to make sure if you're going to we will allow a testimony I just to make sure keeping everything at the same he hasn't exactly answered the question you're saying so there was no consideration given to any risk from leaves falling on the fire pits or the any open fire from the grill I don't know if the Fire official did that your your question did the Fire official I can't speak for him well there was a report so I thought that well we could we could read what his comment was regarding the grills well it's really the grills I don't that might be a problem I'm more worried about those fire pcks with the open ples and the leaves what what he says in item number four in his review memo is open claim cooking devices and outdoor fireplaces SL pits must only be operated in the designated areas as per the approved construction plans Open Flame cooking devices and fireplaces SL pits shall not be operated within 5 ft of combustible construction well that doesn't so so that was I think the answer is that was not considered the leaves falling on the open fles was not considered thank you you're welcome other questions to you would you like a brief closing statement um on the to okay I'm just going to say we appreciate the board's consideration of the application uh this evening which is for a very minor Amendment which is necessitated by jcpnl requirements which unfortunately is outside of the applicant's control and the control of the municipality um having presented the testimony of our two witnesses I respectfully submit that there is no detriment no negative impact from the plan modifications and in fact the building coverage is being slightly reduced as a result of these modifications for all these reasons I ask the board to Grant the requested Amendment thank you for your time singular Amendment regarding Transformers first yes ma'am great am yes and if I may clar get clarification from Council the uh for the applicant uh the sentence in the resolution on page 11 uh is uh that is seeking to be amended amongst other things is Transformers will be located in mechanical rooms and not outside of the building that's the uh sentence that gave rise to the modification including the site plans themselves which had the I take it which had the Transformers interior located as opposed to exterior located correct yes that that is what the requested amendment is about I did note um in my opening statement that we are very likely not going to need to construct this project in phases which is a benefit um to everybody involved it will shorten the time frame of construction so that may be modified depending upon when some Summit Medical vacates the premises and terminates their lease which we expect to happen in the near future and the uh site plans will be amended accordingly uh uh based upon the uh new proposed Provisions is that if if this application is granted cor should the application be approved we will amend the site plans um as necessary to capture the approved Amendment and we stipulate all the uh approval would be subject to all the condition stipulated to already if it's approved correct correct and we've in fact satisfied most of those conditions because the plans have been signed with respect nothing further with respect to the amendment request M chair thank okay great I would like to give the public the opportunity to provide their testimony so if you would like to provide testimony we'll have you just come on up and then you can state right now it's just limited to the amendment limited to the amendment on the Transformers we're going to discuss the extension next yep we're we're just sticking on the Transformers now so if you have any comments or statements you'd like to make to the board come on up we'll have you sworn in and then you will be able to make your chars bambar b m b a r a 37 Keats Road uh in Short Hills if you please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you please proceed thank you um further to sound mitigation um and I I did ask you you said you had no plans but it's you I mean there are doors and there are sound deadening doors that have you know perforated uh you know double wall and sound editing material I'd give thought to incorporating sound deing materially seems to be a concern I did want to point out that sound falls off by the square the distance so if you're twice the distance away it's one4 the sound if you're four times away it's 1/8 the sound so so you you may or may not know that but that would help with sound mitigation but if you can stop the reflection of that sound that would be the goal so I would suggest that thank you okay um any discussion concerns I think uh I just didn't know um on page 10 of the original resolution um final sentence of paragraph s it says other utilities to be provided to the project include electrical service gas cable and telephone all of which will be located underground I know in theory the service is underground I don't know if this is part of that that that require some sort of technical change to the language if I may answer yeah that's correct I me there might be other items in the resolution that but we're not necessarily there'll be a new resolution of approval that will be uh memorializing the board's determination accurately based upon the testimony and the modified sit plan and condition so we don't yeah exactly we don't have to cross out certain items from here I just did take note of the one that was the major one uh so I I thought i' point that out excellent observation okay um I think so we're not on it's not said and done this is only with regards to the Transformers um the comments from the professionals um which uh Fire Marshall and police specifically to which the applicant has agreed to stipulate all conditions um site plans would have to be amended do we have a motion to act on except for I apologize except for the fire apparatus road which was except the fire apparatus Road as previously uh I guess granted or discussed in the initial application and a good faith effort to utilize sound deadening materials for the enclosure subject to the review and approval of our engineer and other appropriate Township of officials was I believe also stipulated to yes and this would be in the context of an amended preliminary and amended final site plan approval there is no variance relief it would require a majority of board members for passage okay and of course we'll do a memorializing resolution um I move to approve second Cory biller yes Michael Cohen abstain Frank abstain s Sean yes Michael Zion yes Gaston H yes that's yes okay that was regarding the trans forers now we have a discussion on the one onee time extension yes Madam chair okay the DAT of that said October would be yes the um so uh so briefly the resolution was October 6 it was October 6 I was off by day but I knew it's Le did you 365 days yes so in uh New Jersey as the board of is aware uh when a board grants preliminary and final major site plan approval those approvals are protected from subsequent changes to the zoning ordinance for period of two years um in this case we the memorializing resolution which the board adopted May 6 or excuse me October 6 2021 uh takes us to October 6 2023 um there's a legal standard for a request for an extension and we submitted the request under two prongs the statute is njsa 40 55 d-52 I referred to subset a of that test as the flexible balancing test for the board um the standard there is that the board May extend a period of protection on an approval um up to three times for in one one year increments um the test there is a balancing act is the board weighs the public interest in the implementation of any zoning changes which impact the approval in this case there are none that we have identified the developers interest in extending the period of protection in this case we have pursued all of our Outside Agency approvals and obtained them all but for the jcpnl uh Transformer location issue and the circumstances in which the need for the extension arose the case there is Jordan developers NJ super at 680 um here we have worked diligently to obtain all the necessary Outside Agency approvals in connection with the construction of the project as I noted previously we have obtained the D approvals we have obtained the Hudson essic speciic Soil Conservation District plan certification the county has issued a letter of no interest we've have met and obtained the internal approvals from various agencies Within the municipality including the Township's pedestrian safety board we have obtained a tww permit for sewer for the project um we have also obtained the signed plans from the board's professionals and we have obtained a demolition permit to remove hydraulic lifts on the property and otherwise undertaken other demolition of those existing buildings on site um we vigorously and at Great length engaged in a year-long negotiation process with jcpnl in an effort to obtain a their approvals to locate the Transformers inside the building which is something that we wanted to do and I think that the board wanted to see as well unfortunately we were not able to do that um so that was the delay in why we were not able to commence construction of the project although we did commence demolition so that's our request for the flexible extension under subset a of the statute subset D of the statute which is I call the mandatory extension uh states that the board shall Grant an extension of final appr of approval if the developer proves to the reasonable satisfaction of the board that the developer was barred directly or indirectly from proceeding with the development because of delays in obtaining legally required approvals from other governmental entities and that the developer promptly applied for and diligently pursued these approvals so if the applicant makes that showing the extension request is one that the board must mandatorily give um so here it's the same fact pattern we apply for all the necessary approv approvals to commence construction of the project we obtained these approvals we had a year-long negotiation process with jcpnl from which we did not emerge successful unfortunately and jcpnl is a quasi governmental agency um they dictate to us effectively where these Transformers go and um their their word goes they will not energize the building absent us locating the Transformers in a location which they approve so for all these reasons I respectfully request and submit that we have satisfied the extension criteria and ask that the board Grant the one-year extension request through October 6 of 2024 thank you happy to answer any questions thanks can we ask questions if you want respect to the arguments he made if that helps no it's okay just you can ask any questions certainly and members of the public can ask questions and members of the public of course can come in on the extension as well okay did anybody have any questions based on that when did you first seek approval from jcpm we obtain a will serve letter in connection with the initial application the will serve letter essentially is confirmation from the utility that they will provide power to the building or whatever the utility is whether it's water or sewer in some instances here it's electricity um we then uh sent our and JC pnl really doesn't want to deal with you until you have signed plans from the town the plans were signed August 1st 2022 we reached out to jcpnl September of 2022 sent them the plans paid them whatever the application fee was for the Transformer location we we engaged in a series of emails field meetings Plan reviews with the JC pel professionals and we're ultimately informed via the letter that I obtained from JC pel that they would simply not locate the Transformers where we had previously propos them so the plans were signed by the township almost a year after the sort of the start of the statutory period correct do you have any knowledge as to why the plans weren't signed until a year later I'm going to turn that to my engineer that's a good question and this like a temporaneous presentation you remain under oath and I assume the board will continue to accept you as an expert in the field of civil engineering yes I acknowledge I'm still under oath Michael lonz ofama with Casey and Keller again um a number of permits needed to be acquired from uh the state of New Jersey uh specifically a tww treatment works approval which approves your ability to connect to the sanitary Source system because we're generating more than 8,000 gallons per day as well as an individual flood Hazard permit to be able to construct the building within what's referred to as the reparan Zone um unfortunately this section of the stream had no prior studies that were acceptable to the state of New Jersey so we had to perform What's called the HEC Rass analysis or flood Hazard determination that took us several months to prepare back and forth with the D it took us about a full six months to secure that permit from the D the tww took us about another three months uh the county and Soil Conservation was about another month so um it it took quite a while to secure the Outside Agency approvals we had three meetings with The Pedestrian Safety Committee um to finalize the design of of certain traffic safety measures during construction uh as well as make the necessary changes to the plan as required by the conditions of approval as you may recall there was a detailed study done uh regarding the Arboretum and whether or not birds were going to hit into the building as they migrated that took a significant amount of time uh to complete so until we could get those done the municipality could not sign off on the plans Jason C pnl would not enter into any type of discussions until those plans were signed you're welcome any other questions regarding the extension from the board okay did the public have questions regarding the extension um for Mr on what he stated great just again name and address we're not my name is Jeffrey fil 11 in Alexander Lane Short Hills New Jersey it goes to a statement that was made earlier today about how the project sort of changed you're asking a question just it's going be a comment because it goes back to whether the the application is materially changed if you're G to do a comment that we want to have you sworn in to you want to SW me in or you want ask a question my hands raised Mo the Bible whatever you want to do Madam chair would you like me to swear him to make that state that is fine you can make your testimony okay do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is a truth truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do okay and Council you have no objection to this gentleman making the public comment prior to the public comment section thank you just triangulated him for the record so you're good because one earlier today was disclosed that some Medical Group would not be the tenant and I think of the people that are on the board today that are here I think only two heard the testimony two years ago and it was a very contested it was by virtual and the understanding was that Summit Medical would be the tenant I think today we heard that Summit Medical will not be the tenant for the 10,000 sqare foot um addition for commercial space that really today the application is that we're GNA have residential and speculative office space the world has changed since this application is approved uh if you read The Wall Street Journal today um a major president of an investment Bank says we're about to have a a billion dollar meltdown in commercial loans the question is has the nature of this application changed material that's really a question for your attorney maybe to look at tonight that the application that you thought you were having an extension was basically the same application the only thing that was going to be changed was the Transformer but if when we when were here two years ago remember this was very contested about rooftop decks and things like that was this the understanding of the people that voted that Summit Medical was going to be the tenant and they basic going to continue the operation that they had tonight we heard at the beginning that some of medical is not going to go here that this will be speculative medical office space and the question is is that a material change and does that affect your analysis whether to extension and the question is since you approved this has the town enacted other zoning ordinances if you did not enact it and they had to come back such as like a rooft top deck band would that be subject to it those are the kind of issues we have but I think something that came out very earlier this morning this during his presentation about the Summit Medical Group in my opinion that has to I think you need is a factual issue and maybe a legal issue whether the applications are the same because of that change now that you're really building speculative commercial office space thank you okay thank you um I don't know if you want to make any comments to sort of unprecedent on on how we approved it I don't think we had condition to a specific ten and I think we had a condition to a use but I don't know if you can speak to that I know you didn't you weren't the attorney that's fine I'm happy to speak to it I just that there are a couple of things I think we probably should do number one we should give applicants councel an opportunity to weigh in with respect to his position on behalf of the applicant as to the relevance materiality or lack thereof of this change uh and what the appropriate standard is whether a material change to the application is or is not the standard and if if so whether or not this is a material change assuming it is a relevant to the standard number one but also number two one of the things I wanted to bring out and I appreciate this gentleman also pointing it out was that uh at the appropriate time we should hear from our planner uh I was indicating to him earlier that we need to hear this which is uh it was a representation made that there has been no change in our ordinances in the interum which would have an impact and I thought it prudent for the board to get confirmation as to whether that was an accurate statement or not from the applicant um so those are two items okay um I don't maybe we could deal with the first uh if if if the chair if you're with your commissioner we could hear from Mr pedo as to whether or not his opinion there were any material changes in the ordinances relevant to this application in the two-year in since he approval and I Bo SW good evening uh members of the board Madam chair uh gr pedo here at the board planner this evening um as the aware and the public is well aware there was a rooftop prohibition ordinance that was passed during the interim period uh since this application was approved um the ordinance does stipulate that uh rooftop enclosures must be enclosed by building walls on along all sides um and be constituted an interior Courtyard that is the permitted version of the roof commenity space um as configured you know I haven't taken a detail detailed look as we didn't really get a full set of architectural plans to kind of review um so that is something that is kind of a question but that is one ordinance that that may may impact uh this and that would impact the Zone zoning overlay correct correct yeah that's a Township wide ordinance but but the as proposed is there is there a rooftop or only a courtyard would this comply with the ordinance even as amended it's a it's a good question in in my initial look at the application of the presentation it does appear to be an interior cour completely surrounded by building walls it is you know there is a street level Courtyard you know I haven't I haven't reviewed the plans in detail but um at initial glance it does appear that um the majority of you know there are four sides of that open interior Courtyard that are bounded by building walls so thank you just my okay and any other zoning changes that would impact any of the sort of topics not to my knowledge so is there so is that the only one is the courtyard that there's nothing nothing on the roof on the roof is that correct I just want to correct yeah yeah yeah the ordinance stipulates that you know uh um rooftop is not permitted but if surrounded by building walls correct and then maybe M chair it's that now appropriate to hear from applicants coun with respect to that issue as well if he wishes but also in particular the argument uh that was proposed by the gentleman so the the the members of the board that were on um and I actually did the final hearing on this application so I I recall it very specifically we had stipulated in writing to remove the roof the originally proposed rooftop deck as a condition of approval from the project recall we used to have and this is the the basement we used to have over here we had proposed a rooftops act with amenities um that was very controversial as Mr Feld noted and in the um in what was a prudent move we remov that from the project um we do have the interior Courtyard space that is true but in my opinion it is not subject um it is not what the new ordinance was meant to address and nor does it address um technically or as a matter of Law And as far as the amended approval does a material change in nature in your opinion uh where does that fall up anywhere in the an is for the board to consider in the context of the extension request and if it's at all relevant uh uh what is your position with respect to uh the um the change needa submit Medical Group not being a tenant occupant perhaps of prospectively of of of that 10,000 square F feet sure the use will remain the same um we are not modifying the use at all we will need a new medical office user for that space that is not being changed so from a land use perspective in my opinion there is no impact on the approvals that the board previously granted we did have discussions certainly during the app initial application on this matter regarding Summit Medical that was in the context of how we're phasing the construction of the project was not from a uh ml use perspective um so I respectfully disagree with Mr Feld and uh I say it's immaterial to the extension request if I may ask the council a question M chair yes uh is it your understanding that there is a body of law that uh arguably prohibits land use boards from zoning based on the identity of the tenant or user uh as opposed to the use itself that's correct and and if you look at the zoning ordinance for for this site it does not speak to specific uh tenants and if the board wishes me to answer whether or not I concur with that legal opinion I can sure um if I can just ask a followup gram that might be for you it's the rmf2 is like we created a new zoning over life for this oh the age thank you um and it permits multiple use it's not just only permitting medical use in that in those squ footage yes okay and so that's a set like it's a commercial use is compliant with our town that's correct okay a minute did you just say that again so it does so it's not that that space can only be used by medical it's that that space is you know set aside as I guess commercial and whatever Milbourne Township permits or I don't want to I'm misspeaking so please correct me but I believe it could be multiple different tenants would be suitable for that space But I believe if I may mam chair and and Council can address this I believe there was a stipulation and commitment that it would be medical just not specifically this particular ten so it can't be any so it can't be okay that's what I wanted to would that be correct with respect to the stipulation and agreement Mr uh forth on behalf of the applicant yes it's medical office it's a medical office use um we can't just put in you know neighborhood retail uh down there it has to be the same use great consist with own thank you okay I think if we're done asking questions then I know then I want to move into the public testimony for oh you want to ask a question okay sorry just have you come back up so you can be heard on the mic it's okay again Beatrix Shear 101 UT teras and I'd like to ask a question of Mr Lama now the courtyard that you're that you're saying is not a rooftop can you point that out again certainly the area in through the center section of the building so um it is on the roof of the garage correct that is correct so in that sense it is on a roof yeah but it doesn't the definition of a top amenity as finding their ordinance well it it is not surrounded by four walls is it it's surrounded by three walls correct so it so it's on a roof it is not surrounded by four walls right it's it's also a stipulation in the Redevelopment plan that we provide this interior space as amended space it's actually spelled out square footage what has to be included in it so we oh and we have to adhere to that so the the fire containing elements the fire pit and the the two of them and the four barbecue grills or whatever they are that's not stipulated anywhere correct no that was not thank you just have a followup question what he just said um again Jeffrey Feld there was a reference to a Redevelopment plan for this project I'm aware unaware of any Redevelopment plan being approved by the township committee regarding this project it's never been presented to the township committee so I don't know how he can make a representation as to a Redevelopment plan that has not been approved okay so can you clarify what revelop Mr Lon of misspoke Mr Mr Feld is correct there was no readon plan this was just a rezoning ordinance for this site thank you okay thank you have a question yeah uh Jerry Kung 17 Lee terce just spell your last KU NG um did I hear correctly earlier that during the prior approval the location of the co units was not specified I'm not I don't recall okay uh the reason I'm asking that question do I have to phrase it in the form of a question yes please okay um can I ask the board the question or do I have to ask him the question it would have to be the witnesses it might start off with something like isn't it correct that okay am I reading this plan correctly in seeing that the two co-units on this floor plan are uh they're not adjacent but directly across the hallway from each other so on each floor specified I see two Co UNS and they're directly across from each other which plans you uh architectural plans you had them up earlier um so these aren't all the floor plans these were just the ones impacted by the trans that showed the Transformer are you picking him up does he need the mic so I think there's two floor am I correct in that there are two floor floors on there that specify Co units uh yes okay so the the upper left and upper rightmost unit are the only two Co units on that floor shown is that correct uh which Flor sure that one's fine uh yes there are two currently here yes and there are no other Co units on that floor uh no okay and and the second floor plan if you flip the page is it also the case that there are two Co units on that floor across from each other in the same location as the prior floor yes okay so those those are my only questions I will have testimony later on thank you okay thank you if we don't have questions I I think we would be ready move to the public testimony but unless anybody else has questions okay so for public testimony as uh thank you Mr Feld for showing us the way no you didn't Mr venar did um you'll come you'll raise your hand you'll be sworn in then you can provide uh your testimony with respect to the extension of the time frame for this application for I guess action to take place extension of the uh time of protection invested rights in the preliminary and final approval previously granted thank you so testimony time now Charles Bambara b m b a r a 37 keiths road Short Hills one more time do you swear to God it's a new section do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the TR I do thank you please proceed um I understand there's a history to this project I understand a lot of it cannot be gone back on I understand that the developer and the engineers all have a significant amount of of time and money invested in this I do want to point out um I'm a new member of the flood uh mitigation advisory committee and uh I became more aware of the branch of the r way river that runs immediately behind this property U that begins on canoebrook and goes down past the the bottom of the high school fields and joins the other branches of the ri River and we are in desperate need of retention water retention and this is a prime location for water retention I understand it's not the time to go back on it but just be aware that this is a one time time opportunity and it'll be gone uh now there are construction techniques for incorporating retention in subbasements I know that's not part of this plan but it's something you ought to think about because it's something desperately needed to mitigate flooding into town that's all I have to say thank you we can let's wait for all and then we'll do it as we discuss yeah I think that's appropriate so other Jerry Kung 17 Lee teris y please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give us a truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes please proceed um it's my understanding or I in looking at these plans I think that there may be some clustering or segregation of the units going on um and I understand that that was an issue with the anas application um with the anas application I think that we had seen all of the floors for the the floor plans for each floor of that building including the location of each of the co- units um and it was my understanding that there were some issues related to sort of the clustering segregation aspect of the location of those Co units um so I'm just wondering if it makes sense for sorry that's a question uh it may it may it may make sense in my opinion it may make sense for the board to ask for more comprehensive building plans and cooc location of co-units if uh you would like to be consistent with that how that process played out um I'm just a little confused as to how the approval process had gone through the prior time without seeing the location while that was required for any thank you address one more time sure the Trix W Shear 101 o Tera Short Hills do you swear to God or airm testimony about to give is a truth whole truth or nothing but the truth yes I do thank you please proceed and and it's not really factual testimony I'm giving this is my uh request my opinion for for the board that you not approve this extension um the so that uh it it I I did not hear a whole lot of evidence of U effort to meet the meet the deadlines um it uh and there was uh contrary to what the attorney for the Silverman group said there was uh an ordinance passed a zoning ordinance passed about rooftop Decks that does affect this building the what they they they want to name it something else uh they want to talk about the deck that they didn't get to build they had two decks and this one this interior one remains it is not surrounded by four walls and it is on a roof and so um because there was not s in I did not hear in any event significant evidence of uh that would justify extending this extension and there is uh an ordinance that was passed that would affect it uh I would ask that you not extend um the approval thank you anybody else want to provide testimony okay um applicants Council May uh thank you for the opportunity to be heard as I recall from the prior approval um and it was actually I did I did observe the Annie says Port portions of the application this project was specifically mentioned as one of the ones where which work cooperatively with the municipality with Lo with regard to the location of the affordable units the affordable units and I don't believe we have all the floor plan shown here do we yeah okay the affordable units are distributed throughout the project they're not clustered I mean two per floor um is very you know well distributed in my opinion um so that's just response to the gentleman who made that comment uh secondly we've presented you with of the Outside Agency approvals we have pursued the process and the time periods which it took to obtain those approvals including the fact that we did not approximately a month later and we then in an effort to adhere to the original resolution and the Transformers where they had we were where we had originally testified we engag in a year-long process with jcpnl to effectuate that we were unsuccessful we're here tonight um for the board's uh to for the extension request there's also been some discussion with regard to the rooftop ordinance which the township adopted um post approval of this application um we've heard testimony from our engineer who's also a planner that that ordinance does not apply to this project um also the specifications and the ordinance with regard to this site specifically require that courtyard space to be where it is um so we have to adhere to that as a condition of the zoning ordinance that we are specifically subject to which the township adopted in connection with this um application so for all those reasons I respectfully submit that we have amply satisfied the criteria for an extension I ask the board to Grant the extension through October of this year thank you kindly thank you um I apologize I do have one final question and I think it would be prudent for the board to hear the response to this in looking at the um image where it shows where the fire pits are which is I believe to the right of this the courtyard I shown on the second floor plan I just what I'm trying to understand is where does it exist on the courtyard level and then what's above the fire pit it looks like there's building above it like almost like so that it's in a cave and I just if you could confirm or correct if I'm misinterpreting that do you understand what I'm saying Mr H I think so okay so if you could point to where the fire pits are located the fire pits are located um to the right L I'm sorry to the right of that red line to correct to to the right of the red line and Northeast quadrant of the uh of the courtyard so there were two fire pits proposed there and then we had uh some grills located um at that upper level there's there's actually two levels to the Courtyard this is an an upper level and then this is the lower level and effectively what floor is that upper level on top of it's it's on top of the parking garage remember the parking garage changes grade as we move through the development so on the in the image on the left which is called second floor plan you can see so you could see the courtyard yes is on that level you can see the parking garage is at that same level okay but where are those pits those pits would be located right along in here by the gym no maybe further back perhaps there here is I'm sorry you're right that that is actually sitting on top of the jet the right on top of the second floor this area here is actually sitting on top of the gym in the amenity Lounge at the second floor level at that second floor level correct okay and that extends back over so then this extends back over the parking Gar so from those fire levels there's only one additional level of building between that and the roof this is the level the courtyard is at this would be the level that it's above correct so it's it's a parking garage okay and then the amenity spaces are looking out into the courtyard for a connection between building from effectively the second floor out yes technically first the gr slopes all the way up so you're going from basement to second floor which each floor has some connection to grade okay but yes okay thank you for clarifying that sorry Michael I know you had a question yeah I have a question so you said there that there were only two um affordable units per floor but there are 12 units and there are four floors so we're in the first phase which is what was shown on the ples that were shown okay so where are the other four units it's not two per floor it's got to be at at three per floor or could be six per floor and two on the other floors that's what I'm trying to understand no it's a good question and the architect's going to respond yeah so uh we don't have the upper flors where the Transformers weren't located we were just bringing the Transformer but once you're above here the residential completely comes over here so then they're spaced on the floor above here it becomes much larger so there's one uh complete residential floor here and then there's a partial residential floor so there's two more residential floors Above This section right here so how many so so can you tell me per floor how many affordable units there are I don't have that but we were matching the affordable requirement that was in the resolution and they were at the time distributed and we did I mean I exactly I can speak having been on the board I mean it's it's not testimony but I can tell you that was discussed and there was a general distribution of them I agree with what the the observation was that these are vertical but there were I think eight others distributed elsewhere perfectly appropriate for board members to impart their personal knowledge and knowledge gained from prior hearings uh uh to the B to the balance of the members of the public and the applicant so in fact it's more important that it be imparted as opposed to just kept in one's head just a question closing you said you reminded us that you had about a years worth of negoti negotiations with jcpnl approximately how many meetings did you have with jcpnl Mr we we had at least three site meetings with the representatives of jcpnl as well as numerous email exchanges um constant conversations with their engineering staff a constant back and forth proposing different Alternatives rather than placing the uh Transformers outside the building we talked about underground wals within the street on the property um nothing we proposed or designed or came up with uh met jcpnl requirements so so can you approximate how many designs or Communications there were um as I said I remember three site meetings um we've had I know I've had at least four email exchanges with their engineering staff I know the developer did at numerous times uh as well as the architect in trying to come up with a solution um I I can't give you an exact number but there it was it was a almost a a weekly thing so there were it was a weekly thing for 52 weeks yes they they were Relentless did jcpnl have published and defined guidelines as to what the requirements were for a Transformer a building of this type yes they did okay so it's just I'm trying to understand why it would take 52 weeks why you go through the process of multiple suggestions if there were clearly defined guidelines which I imagine would have said it has to be located outside within so many because we we were trying desperately to meet the requirements of the resolution of approval and not have to come back to the board for an amended approval simple as that seems like a very long amount of time to going back and and sight it was probably unnecessary but at the time we were trying to comply with the what we represented to the board what I represented to the board and um uh trying to to give an enclosure and and we know of other utility companies that do allow enclosed Transformers so we we felt that uh jcpnl was being a little unreasonable but um we did not prevent okay thank you okay thanks appreciate the other followup questions so M chair guidance be acceptable guidance from you before we have our discussion certainly absolutely the the extension request as Mr orth stated earlier he did accurately State the alternative standards for an extension under Section 52 of the ml well the flexible standard uh granting the developer the right to seek an extension bear with me uh uh of one to three years uh generally uh under that flexible standard uh which uh even greater discretion is given to the board for flexibility uh for the development of large projects uh and he also accurately stated uh the uh mandatory if you will as he calls it he's not incorrect uh language in subsection D of section 52 as an alternative basis as I understand it he's saying under either or both uh the applicant is entitled to the extension and the mandatory language has a specific standard because of delays in obtaining legally required extra Municipal approvals where delays were beyond the developers control um the uh and I take it the argument is it was jcpnl that was a control not the developer um the uh you heard uh uh the representation from the applicant uh that there was no uh material change in the ordinances which would impact uh uh in the interim uh you heard our planner testify with respect to same and I take it the applicant is also arguing the time of submission rule uh that the uh uh uh ordinance uh that requires the resoning including the inclusion of fire pits on the rooftop uh was adopted uh or excuse me there there excuse me was was uh at play and is still at play with respect to this particular application and that the are um excuse me that the uh new change in the ordinance was something that was an amendment after the application was filed and the amended excuse me the original preliminary and final approval uh was already granted and actually technically Still Remains uh I'm sorry does not still remain uh this is a that would have been October 6 of 2023 um the applicant is entitled to make a request for an extension even n prot Tonk as we say in Latin we lawyer sometimes after the fact uh retro retroactive to October 6 uh uh 2023 for the one year to October 6 2024 so there are these alternative standards uh that were referenced I just wanted the board to understand the applicants council did accurate ly uh uh reflect those alternative standards if the board finds that the applicant met either one of them if not both uh then the application for an extension would be granted uh uh by the board um I think that's there's no conditions of approval it's it's a granting or not uh and I think the applicant has spoken to at least in part what might happen if it's not granting thank you um board members just concerns I don't know if you got something it for later or just a comment I wanted to discuss the just just mention the retention yes yeah we have we did M Kell correct there there are dry Wells located on site for storm water retention so that was into consideration yes we asked uh Casey and Keller to include those in the plan to sort of mitigate the flow going into the stream it wasn't anything prior you know this was an almost totally paved lot and all the runoff went directly to the stream but we asked them to include the drywalls to help to mitigate that thank you I have a comment so it seems that there were clearly defined guidelines from the utility company as to where the Transformer could be located they were publicly accessible um and you know it seems that the initial design that they had approved did not take those into account and it seems like they spent a year trying to work around those guidelines um to me that seems as if maybe there was a lack of due diligence or poor planning to have designed and sought approval for something that you know the utility company wouldn't allow and therefore I don't know if it's necessarily the fault of the municipality or the utility company that it took as long as it did did because it seems like they were trying to um you know do something that was not otherwise permissible to the utility company I guess I think we asked the same question I think we kind of had the same question and and the the response that I heard when I asked it earlier was that they reached out to them but they just agreed to sort of provide power to the site and they hadn't got the the developer or the architect at the time didn't do that that research and that due diligence of saying okay we're going to put it on site where can we put it and they said you know some you know we've seen it we've done there's precedent that it can happen you know en closed so they made the assumption that they could and that was the the flaw they made an assumption they made a flaw assumption and I don't know that the town should necessarily have to Grant an extension because they made a fail assumption that fair question sure um you know we heard right the either sort of the what it the subset the flexible test or the the the D the developer getting approvals delays so what say what I would say is the developer getting approval delay they were trying to get approval for something that had they done the proper diligence they would have known they against um okay comments thoughts I guess sort of one of the thing I I do acknowledge that working with townships and and quasi governmental entities like jcpnl do take a long time and is slow what I'm getting sort of caught up on is that that they knew of the the the looming deadline um of October 2023 and at some point and I also appreciate you wanting to comply with with the original um approvals and have it inside but at some point you got to say hey I see that there's a deadline coming up maybe we just have a cut bait because we knew that there is a deadline s like so I know something I was just thinking about and I guess as Council we have the ability to deny right that that is an well well a couple of things sure I mean again the applicant Council correctly stated the two alternative bases for granting D is mandatory in other words the board has no choice if the board uh or if the facts demonstrate that the developer was Bor or prevented from proceeding because of delays and obtaining legally required extra judicial Municipal approvals beyond their control um but also there's the flexible standard under a uh and and I don't have this I can grab this actual standard In fairness maybe Advocates Council can repeat what that flexible standard is to the extent that one or more board members may be questioning whether it really was uh uh beyond the developer control based upon the dialogue that's already taken place the flexible standard under 52a I could grab my book but you probably have it right in front of you yeah I'll double check you I'm I'm citing to a case and it says this is the Jordan developers case there must be a balancing process in which the board weighs the public interest in the implementation of the zoning change the developers interest you might you might want to speak louder in the mic oh sorry there must be a balancing process in which the board weighs the public interest in the implementation of the zoning change the developers interest in extending protection and the circumstances in which the need for the extension arose R so as we testified previously we spent a year obtaining all the necessary Outside Agency approvals for the plans to be signed which is a prerequisite for submission to jcpnl to energize the building so that process with jcpnl didn't start until the fall of last year um so that's when that began um they did Issue a will serve letter for the project which is something that every applicant submits to a board when they come in on an application customary and that's as far as you're going to get with a major utility company when you apply for approval for a project and what is your argument with respect to the circumstances uh uh of the case and and the implications of denial of an extension and the like in other words what's your what's your position Visa that part of the Jordan balancing test visy the board's discretion to Grant an extension under subsection a of 52 sure there is no the we've already heard the testimony from our planner and the board's planner has has confirmed as well I believe that there has been no subsequent change to a zoning ordinance which implicates the approvals for this project secondly um the developer has a very highly vested interest in extending the approvals here um this is a project which is subject of a Mount Laurel settlement agreement since 2019 site was rezoned it was one of the first ones that the municipality rezoned as part of the Mount Laurel process so there of constitutional interest in extending these approvals here um thirdly the circumstances in which the need for the extension arose occurred as a result of our desire to comply with the testimony we presented to this board and also the condition which was imposed on the application with regard to the Transformer location so we pursued this uh vigorously in an effort to comply we were unsuccessful and this is of course M Laurel settlement project was one of the first ones in town it's subject to an agreement and um declining to Grant an extension here would potentially be a grave you know danger for this project so for all these reasons we ask the board to approve the extension and if I understood you correctly it's your argument also that the current that the resoning ordinance that remains in effect by which this project uh uh was approved by this board uh requires uh some of the I rooftop amenities Visa it requires the it requires rooftop but but not Rooftop in the usual sense but rooftop of the garage if you will ities was that part of your position there was a very detailed resoning ordinance um that was implemented for this site which with very stringent architectural and design requirements and we comply with all of them um and as I said before we remove the rooftop deck that was initially proposed when this application first came to a vote before the board so other than the roof do top deck do you foresee any other foresee because you don't know what you can't predict but any other potential issues if if the extension is not granted I don't I don't know I can't I um and then the other not an elected official I appreciate those here that are um but I don't know what what uh happen because I think we've been trying to get at this information as far as this quasi roof deck whatever area are there walls surrounding at least three of the sides and how high are those walls I have to yes I have to turn back to my professional he might want to give him the mic as well Rob thank you so you can see the courtyard is located in this area here so on this side because the grade is changing and the the building steps up uh you have three levels of the building on this side and four on the other so SP yes it's it starts here on the street and enters kind of into this so you're looking at this here and then it comes in further there so I was OB wasn't on the board at the time but can you give some for since you are can you confirm that the ordinance actually says there has to be fire pits and outdoor grills it does not in name it say there has to be outdoor space for many means it doesn't it doesn't say that there needs to be outdoor fire okay that was somewhat misleading I thought that was was I think I think he did testify that in response to V's question so so for clarification on that then there needs to be outdoor space doesn't necessarily need to be provided inside of thata I think I think it does have to be located there but I don't think it specified what but it doesn't have to have a fire pit necessarily I don't know if they can confirm that that was I guess on you you were on this application at the time I know it needed to be located there they also wanted to put proposed to put amenity space on the it sounds like there's also multiple levels righted outside I believe those are part of the required square footage for for public and then another question I would have is it seems that there was a suggestion that if we were not to Grant the extension that that would put this project in paril I'd like to know exactly what what you guys meant by that do you mean that you're going to just abandon the project as opposed to going back and and res submitting no it it it could I I don't know what what action May what may come in the future the we would like to hold on to the approvals that we had um we worked long and hard for them and we don't know what may transpire in the future which is why and it's very customary for Developers to request extensions of of approvals for the project so that's what that wasn't we don't know what the future may bring we are going to proceed with this project um we are going to construct it assuming you know the board approved it or actually board did approve the amended site plan but the extension of the approval will give us time to submit construction drawings which will take approximately 60 days um to get into the town and after that we'll be ready to move forward with construction sorry more question now for our professionals one is is about a year for project this size is that is that long average short for getting everything signed off by the township I don't have anything else to really compare it to this is really the only I mean big thing yeah I mean I don't think it's it takes a typical residential application usually and it takes up to a year for them to get me residential plans for something like this I would expect maybe a year two years would not be I mean typically we never get them within a month it takes a while and then he's represented that it's not uncommon to have um extensions I don't have an experience in this area do you have um maybe Mr ped could speak as well but if the chair of permission if I'm being asked my experience while it's not a a legal answer I'm certainly happy to give you my experience frankly uh uh extensions are generally granted for projects particularly larger projects I've been involved on behalf of uh the boards and the municipalities only uh I've been involved in uh uh numerous uh uh inclusionary projects and 100% affordable projects of this magnitude and and even smaller uh where there have been uh at least onee extension requests if not multiple uh uh uh oneyear extension requests which were granted by boards for what it's worth uh uh uh under uh well under circumstances not very different uh from this one it is uh I don't like to use the word routine so I will not um but uh I will say that it is regular and and again if you're going to give an opinion the one year to get the town to submit all the approvals is that well that that that uh it's different for every project I think uh I don't do the developer side I do the municipal side but uh from where I sit it is different for every project uh certainly it is not on common um for uh permits and Outside Agency approvals like d approvals uh to take a year or longer uh particularly for a project such as this uh and you cannot get side sign plans until the approvals are are in place so I guess in general it doesn't seem in my experience again not giving a legal opinion um but just an experience being involved in the administration and the process of projects such as these on the municipal end uh not uncommon for it to take a year or more to get to that point uh and not uncommon at all to request uh extensions of time for the preservation of vested rights uh of a year or more for projects of this size and nature did you have ADD just concur um speak um I concur with Mr Warner's assessment um having you know worked on Municipal Sil like Mr Warner um you know typically following large scale project approvals um if there are conditions associated with that you know the the applicant is bound to First execute those conditions uh begin the design build process seek the outside approvals you know obtain all those prior to submission to even for Township review so you know it's not the township that's that's delaying that process it's you all that other stuff that has to happen before the township submission for those approval process so um and I just in my experience as well um I have not seen uh denial of an extension request um I've seen exension but have not not personally been a part of a denial and extens request and while not on this type of application as the planning would have received extension requests as well and a handful of applications over the years I've participated which have a um I think we've closed the public commenting question it's a it's a matter of of order than it is a project question it it's the discretion of the chair as to yes we will take additional question or comment my question Madam chair I I hate to bring this up okay but is it appropriate for a board member to vote on this issue when she's been asleep for half of the testimony honest to God you know I'm a resident and and that's a little insulting you I'm sorry I've been sick for two weeks I understand that but the I could address that Madam your permission I just I'm sorry I that's okay board member just I'm sing observing that and this is an important vote this is an important V we're gonna we're gonna with the chair's permission we're gonna address the the concern you raised uh one two three four five we have uh oh so you moved chairs okay you had a name plate in front of you that's recused uh uh we we we do have one two three four five six board members we need five for a quarum um in light of the observation that was made and I think there was not an um I think there was a concession that there may there may have been accuracy to the observation so there need not be any further said it would be my legal advice to to the board and the board chair um that our one board member uh not vote on this matter and we do have a sufficient quarum of six board members to vote on this matter that said I always like to triangulate applicants Council as Mr orth Knows Mr orth you have no objection to that I I didn't observe any anything that was complained of um I I have I don't know what to say I've never um heard something like she hasn't denied it bring it up would like to recuse she's recused uh for for not for a conflict of interest but for the uh for for the uh circumstances observed and reflected on the record we have one two three four five six I keep counting just to make sure uh we have six board members who remain qualified to vote uh and thank you for that observation and how many affirmative votes do you need uh majority my math is four out of six okay oh and and and I will also advise board members um for this vote and prospectively if you're qualified to vote uh board members um generally uh the obligation is to vote yay or nay uh if there's a reason why you're not qualified or you're um have a conflict of course you shouldn't be voting you should be recused um but if you are qualified to vote generally the obligation of the board members to vote yay or n before going goad one question for our Council the ramifications of yay or nay on this vote uh we were talking about the effects of uh if we did say no to the extension that they would just have to come back and reapply is that the only thing or and what are they protected from for the next year if if we do well the latter well the latter question what do they protect any changes in the zoning ordinances that uh might implicate or require further approval in the interim period it's a protection period from ordinance changes uh is is to answer the second question is is what the protection is for in order for them to then um commence construction uh uh uh uh with which they've already gotten demolition done um but as I understand there hasn't been a commencement of construction at least yet uh as far as what the applicant may or may not do if there is a denial of the extension I'd have to at least first uh rather than speculate a deferred applicant council with applicants Council interest that question well the board has already approve the the application to amend or to amend the application so the the the amendment has been approved if there is a subsequent zoning change which impacts the project then we would have to come back for an approval however that said if the board denies the extension request I mean we would have to consider all available legal remedies and I'll just leave it at that let me ask you if I may uh if the amended approval was granted already which was uh the the uh is there a vested rights protection associated with that amended approved I would like to say that there is that would be a convenient answer for me I'm not sure what the answer to that is I'd have to research that I believe believe that we have you know the application was submitted back in October I'm sorry November um we are vested I would say with the amendment I'm not sure Mr Warner I don't know the answer to that it's the commencement of construction when that when they get Grant forther in or how applicants Council can address that as well I wish sometimes the law very clear black and white yes or no uh sometimes it's a little gray uh the uh there's a body of law that speaks to what constitutes vested rights a commencement of construction and does uh I could tell you that there's a case that says uh uh uh soil boring tests are not commencing construction uh is demolition permits demolition of the building and other um grading work and the like does that is that sufficient uh it's it's a gray area frankly under the law and I would would be appropriate not for me to argue whether the applicant does or does not uh uh has not has or has not already met that uh uh stage it's for applicant to make that argument we have proceeded very far along with this project we did commence demolition activities we did receive demolition permits we have obtained all the other Outside Agency approvals um but for the const the actual physical construction permits so I think Mr Warner accurately stated it is it is a bit of a gray area in terms of when you you vest your protection however um I would argue in the alternative that the commencement of demolition did vest the period of protection so why did I file the application well I filed the application because it was The Prudent thing to do because it is a gray area because it is something that applicants and developers always do when they approach that time period of two years from the date of the resolution for the avoidance of Doubt so it's there's been a tremendous investment um by the developer in this project and there has been on the part of the board as well as all the board's professionals over the period of years in the how we got to here today so certainly we have all invested ourselves in seeing this project uh get under construction and we're very eager to start that process thank you thank you yeah I mean the jcpl notwithstanding they did have to go through you know multiple government and CI governmental approvals permitting you know we heard it wasn't that they just said oh we'll just reach out to jcpnl wait and they went back and forth they they did all the other flood and whatnot tests so I feel like were they making good faith efforts to advance the getting to construction I feel that you can argue they they they did take steps they weren't just waiting um yes I I don't know that we heard you know you submitted plans you said September maybe last year after you received the sign plans I don't know when you first heard back from them saying no you know was it within a week or two weeks or a month or two months and then you know this this year long back and forth um but you know and then sort of the question that I think was some of the board at what point do you say okay we got to rework this so we can meet the deadline or whatever it is I understand you're trying to get there um but I think that's what's raising maybe some some questions um Mr Warner said it it didn't say it's routine but um gr St characterized that it is typical for boards to Grant extensions so it doesn't seem so out of left field I know we have as a board done it so I'm in I think it is it's a practice that that exists that's out there there's multiple subsections dedicated to it it's not an irregularity for for a developer to require additional time to get all their and on the topic of of vesting investing occurs obviously at some point but it's whether it's shovel on the ground or testing or something there's some action by the developer that that sort of initiates this vesting period correct that's cor so so you know in theory you know I I was talking about cutting bait in in theory if a developer wanted to try to ensure vesting or help ensure vesting they could cut bait earlier seek this amendment earlier and then put a shovel in the ground to try to protect their vesting instead of so I what I'm saying is is one of their arguments is that the what they saw from jcpnl was in the interest of uh comply so so so had they if you're going to carry that forward assuming you know that they taking their word for it if they weren't as interested in complying and they were more interested in protecting what would arguably their right invest in their right of protection they could have like as I said earlier cut baate earlier sought a sought the the the uh recourse that they're seeking current now earlier and then put a shovel on the ground to in theory protect their so you know you okay and they didn't do that though correct corre yeah so we're here they're asking right so I deadlines exist for a reason I think there's something to be said for that it's not it's not absolute that we have to Grant this extension no but I think it goes both ways actually is that if we if we take their word at it and you know I I think getting the Transformers in the building would have been better for the community so if they were arguably fighting for compliance with what was required originally to avoid coming here they could have stopped that and said like I don't care we'll we'll put it outside and seek the our planning board's approval you know six months ago so they can put a shovel on the ground and protect their rights in theory sooner is one way you can also look at I I don't think that the applicant has not made a good faith effort to comply that's just my VI I'm sorry I think that was a double negative you don't think they have not so just for clarity you think they have made a good faith effort to comply okay yes you usually we attorne use the double negative okay um so that said those was just six of us um so we could potentially take a motion and vote and go from there okay standard sorry when you do do a motion make a motion whether it's under a or D you're yeah the gentleman from the public gentleman again they they they requested it it not required the board to do that but certainly the board has the discretion whether it wishes to say under sub a subd or both or neither uh you know certainly the board has the of discretion to do that um I will move to Grant the extension as requested by the applicant um I think by by both the flexible test and the subset d as well I I I felt that was justification so that's my motion is there a second to Grant the extension okay or is there an alternate motion to either Grant or deny an alternate motion to Grant could be on uh one or the other of the the two bases as opposed to both bases but we don't want to we can't split up the vote too much because it ultimately has to be one vote uh uh to see how many out of six uh is is in favor of the motion would it be fair to make a motion well I also think we need a time frame in it quite frankly I think the request was one year oh it was I I assumed I'm sorry I assume the motion was for one it was for was appli does anybody want to make a motion I I mooved to make a motion to approve under under a um flexible test the flexible test but not and also for one year for six months but the application was was a year so and the one year the one year would be NK Pro Tonk so it would be uh October 6 October it would be until October 6 so I don't even know yeah it' be about a nine month I guess from from here on so so is it is so so I I I would make a motion to approve the year based on the flexible but not the required and the one year ending October 6 2024 okay we have the motion is there a second for that motion second so your motion you withdrew I had to okay got it Cy B yes Michael Cen no Frank SEI no Michael Zion yes guess on hbert yes Vel yes okay four to two the motion passes I'm sorry I took your I that's okay thank you just thank you for everyone's time tonight we appreciate um your attention and consideration of the application this evening thank you very much you can within your year we're going to be moving very quickly I think we've gotten a very clear message from from the board thank you um we're going to take a two-minute break and call back the members who uh recess and then we will continue with our okay we're we're we're back okay we're back and just uh announc thank for the record Deborah David and Alison who joined us welcome back um we're going to move on to uh our business items um but because it is already almost 10m we are going to propose to adjust the uh agenda for this evening Graham if you could stand up you were going to speak we're gonna speak probably for a while so we invite you uh as our planner to approach the mic um but our discussion of the open space element of the master plan if you can speak to the discussion and also the items that are available to the board and the public sure sure so um good evening everybody gr pedo uh serving here as Township Board planner um was excited to share the open space plan with you all this evening um but in the interest of the late hour and trying to make sure that the public has full access to this um you know I I suggested to the chair that we perhaps consider um you know carrying this introductory uh presentation to the February 7th uh meeting of the board um I believe at this point we have no no other matter scheduled that evening so it be the only item on the agenda um and allow for better transparency and presentation um I have provided my digital presentation to uh the board secretary uh so that will be posted on the T website tomorrow so everybody can even take a look at all my slides but I was going to present this evening um in advance of the meeting on February 7th um and again that is just going to be an introduction of the the plan element that is not the statutorily required public hearing that will then be scheduled following the introductory presentation um I do just want to again thank uh the m of this board uh particular our subcommittee members Miss Nevis and Mr Halper um for their work um and also to the you know 1300 residents that participate in our public Outreach process um so I'm looking forward to sharing the results and and talking through the plan but that's my recommendation uh that that we thank you and we can just confirm that on February 7th when this would get carried to it would be the first item of business so that people are interested in coming it would it would happen at the beginning even regardless if there's other items to discuss we could do that like first I yep I would like that okay because especially because we were intending to have it push it yes thank you sure okay that brings us to uh does that need to be Ren noticed or it's not a notice yeah it's not the formal public hearing so just I guess in the interest it's just introduction the formal hearing will be noticed in due course that is correct okay we have two ordinances um to be discussed tonight the first uh is 2657 -24 this is on the prohibited uses um DRZ 301 and DRZ 604 and Mr comment uh my only comment is that to the extent can I I think I only received and I think the rest of us only received our professional reports this morning before this and uh had a particularly busy day so try to delve into it but I just if if we are permitted to I'd like to push the discussion of this to another meeting so that we have more time to review and think about our professional reports before voting on something like this so just want to bring that up before we started subst talking about the TC is scheduled to take it up at the next meeting and I don't believe you have a planning work meeting before then so really should be done that's right but we do have 35 days to act on it like sort of technically so we just received it effective today or effective for one yesterday introduction was last evening so I think the formal transmission was today correct right so I I I recognize you are hoping to act on it in the sort of two week time frame but in sort of the due diligence of allowing us the opportunity to review it to have our planner report I understand the concern that's what Mr I mean I'm starting ready to go right now yeah I am too I read everything it's very straightforward well it is um Madam chair and I can you turn on your mic please just we're getting picked up no I just want to make sure record everybody Madam if the chair wishes I I can briefly speak to that um I mean certainly it's ultimately up to the board to decide whether they proceed or not uh in my experience uh uh first of all to make clear for everyone there's really only one issue here with respect to each ordinance and that is whether the ordinance is inconsistent with our master plan or whether it is not inconsistent with the master plan I know that's one of those double negatives but it's actually the way the statute reads uh so we have to use that double negative not inconsistent um that really is the only issue for the board to consider I I certainly recognize that uh uh uh the uh board only had a certain amount of time to review the memo but we do have Mr pedo here to test it's not testimony it's not a public hearing uh it the public hearing happens at after the second reading of the ordinance before adoption uh at the governing body level so m of the public get a public hearing at that point in time um it's not uncommon to to analyze to a question that was asked in the LA in the last matter um for master plan consistency reviews uh to uh not have too much of a lead time given that the governing body introduces and and there is only a certain period of time within which uh to proceed there after and it is a fairly isolated issue uh consistent or not inconsistent now all that said all that said the board decides whether the board has enough time or not and it could decide that now or it could hear Mr ped briefly and decide whether it feels comfortable or not to proceed after hearing that it's up to the board um sure do you want to take a a vote if we feel ready to it would be a STW po because no vot okay so do do we I guess hands if we feel ready to proceed and hear maybe it makes sense to have Mr I to make his presentation first and see you know see if we feel that we time can we ask if people feel comfortable proceeding yeah yeah I think do do we want to have Graham speak to us and reflect sure we want to advance it do we feel but it's great okay okay all right um good evening everyone um so we do have two ordinances uh that were introduced last evening at the township that are here for referral uh for consistency consistency determination by the planning board um this consistency determination is pursuant to section 40 col 55-64 um the first ordinance that I'll speak to uh is 2657-20 um this is an ordinance to amend the prohibited uses section of the DRZ here in the township um specifically DRZ section 604 provides a list of uses that are prohibited throughout the township um presently within the ordinance this this list currently uh contains only cannabis oriented uses and all other uses not expressly permitted in the ordinance as the only as the full set of prohibited uh uses within the township um while case law holds that these are not expressly permitted are considered prohibited relying on this Clause these Township development regulations and zoning ordinance and also Municipal staff uh up to kind of interpretation on some level of these things um susceptible to interpretation and challenge I say to resolve this potential issue um this ordinance before you now explicitly lists uh some further um issues that would be prohibited within the township um those added uses include pawn shops uh rooming and boarding houses sexually oriented businesses slaughter houses smoke shops tattoo parlors including body piercing establishments and Retail wholesale of weapons or Firearms including shooting ranges um in addition to that just for the benefit of the board um we've also uh the ordinance also creates uh cor corresponding definitions for for these terms so those are are now defined um uses as well creates a little bit more uh transparency for staff administering the The Zone ordinance um next I'll go through and talk about the relationship of the proposed ordinance with the master plan um so the above ordinance advances the following objectives and recommendations of the master plan reexamination one uh uh protect the character of established residential neighborhoods encourage land use and development at an appropriate scale and density this is objective 1.01 of the master plan on page 43 um with the exception of existing uh smoke shop Lounge on upper mil upper milour Avenue um these uses do not presently exist in Broad scale across the township and the township committee seeks to protect the township of existing character from uses considered to be delerious and undesirable um to promote clear userfriendly and transparent application review and public hearing processes for development proposals and applications as so as to ensure an effective and wellp publicized mechanism for residents to report on quality of life issues and code violations um the additional prohibit this is um page M1 of the master plan is this statement um the additional prohibited uses will explicitly stipulate various uses that are commonly prohibited in in Suburban New Jersey communities and that do not presently exist within the township formal inclusion of these uses uh on the prohibited list within the Der will remove eliminate confusion and facilitate smoother land use Administration for staff so um those were the two um master plan consistency areas that we identified as part of our review sorry and maybe I didn't see it because again I didn't have a ton of time to review this but you said that there were definitions provided of of yes in section one of the ordinance the text of the ordinance uh these terms are defined such as rooming house these are now defined terms within the ordinance so but those terms at like smoke shop rubing house tattoo parlor are there defined terms for that or those are there are defined terms for that well again that's one of the issues I had with having this is that I skimmed it because my calendar today was was back um okay um that was just my only first question any other questions yes um so how common are these prohibited uses as defined in other towns most other communities do include uh this this prohibited list um you know is actually you know we've looked at other communities where we do land use Administration and this is examples of uses that we Community ordinances so this is very common okay so milb is doesn't have this already as opposed to other towns where this has been clearly defined and delineated correct okay yeah so and and it's important the the distinction is that you know while M does prohibit these uses um by that catchall statement which says all uses not per not know expressly permitted or prohibited um that that does lead to some um kind of confusion you know in in the administration so the the intent here is to kind of clarify that confusion the things that are prohibited currently is there a list of things that are permit sorry permitted currently yes within the ordinance uh yeah each Zone District expressly States what is permitted in those use categories so so here's I guess we're going to talk about the substance of it of the several minutes I got to to review this here's where my concerns were with regard to being inconsistent with the master plan in the 2018 master plan reexamination it discusses the negative impact that e-commerce is having on sort of downtowns like melbour and other places and talks about the need to attract exper experiential businesses including personal services and establishments um and these some of these preclusions see de to limit milburn's ability to accomplish this goal of of attracting more service oriented businesses now we could have more barber shops and nail salons downtown you God knows we don't have 75 of those in a two M Square the other issue I have with regard to the master plan is that the survey that the 2018 reexamination over and over again reemphasized or or or respondents reemphasize the need for diversity of retail and my concern is that in times times are changing values are changing and and who who determines that a smoke shop or tattoo po body piercing all some of these things are deleterious and undesirable because you know just my own unscientific typic typic OB observation is that from when I was growing up to now tattoos are a lot more C and people are not like in biker gangs and things that used to be associated with it same things with body piercings what is it to say that that is deletar and undesirable same things with smoke shops and again I didn't see the definition of smoke shop so I'm not sure exactly how that's defined but we already do have a cigar shop and other than that was brought to our attention once because of a a change the next door neighbor but nobody else has seemed to have an issue with that so that's my concern is that it's it is inconsistent with the master plan at least revisioning 2018 at least from these two Provisions but again I have a ton of time to go through the whole thing I would I would disagree with that so these types of establishments are not currently permitted therefore they would fall into that catchall they're not currently permitted correct and this would just bring Clarity so that we don't have officials in town hall having to make a judgment call as to whether this is or is not permitted and these are consistent with what other towns have in terms of prohibitions on certain types of businesses and while I understand your desire to have diversity of businesses I don't think these types of establishments are reflective of the character of our now and and I don't think that this is the type of thing that we necessarily want to have out there um you know without Clarity we we should we should take a position on it so it it would it would help a lot to to when when we say that this is currently not permitted could you explain a little bit further about how how why it's not permitted um well so I think I think I think Mr Sak's point also kind of opens a door to some of the interpretation issues that that staff have administering some of these ordinances um you know I think one of the the things highlighting smoke shop as a as a use um you know under the current ordinance and in the absence of it stipulated as a prohibited use um you know when when a prospective Zone person comes in and having done this myself on the municipal side as as a person in a zoning office they say I want to open a shop that's going to sell cigars and you know I have cash and for selling things that's a retail transaction so at first blush that's retail that's retail sales so retail is permitted within the zone so we permit retail sales so that's that's where some of this definitional gaps start to occur same thing with tattoo establishments um personal service definitions we have a personal service definition here within the township is an establishment that renders the service to a person a haircut um you know get your nails done you know those are personal service establishments tattooing could be looked at as perhaps being a personal service establishment in the absence of a prohibition on that use or a further definition defining where that use May Beed so this ordinance kind of solve some of that administrative question and provides a little bit more clarity in that process um I hope that kind of answers the question a little bit um to to create some but it also to me it gives a value judgment on so it's not I disagree with you in the sense that it's already prohibited I don't think it's already prohibited I think it would be prohibited by this it might be did you know somebody might no actually I can't think of a way that it's prohibited currently I think it's adding a Prohibition that doesn't exist currently based on certain value assumptions that limit that that that ultimately limits this town's ability to you know increase retail opportunities tax revenues and things like that if it's really not something that's that's desirable in the community it would fail as a business within six months to a year and be out of here so there are certain things that I think are more obvious than others like sex shops and things like that but again that's that's even that In fairness is my body assumption so yeah so I think at least with respect to some of these prohibitions some of these things to me are less obvious than others to be deletar and undesirable and they seem inconsistent with a 2018 responses to the to to the reexamining as well as the sort of the text of it by this definition like if a jewelry store wanted to offer piercing that would not be permitted to correct and that's so that's that would be us saying that that we think this is delerious activity okay as right and that's a personal issue and I would say I disagree with that assessment um I don't think that is consistent with the master plan from the personal sorry then vote that way I suppose yeah yeah no I'm I'm just I'm sharing because I understand that as part of the T you know you wear a couple frames I just want to give you feedback I guess for from a personal perspective um and same I guess tattooing just not permitted at all it's not like a primary use or whatever just it's not a permitted service and to by this correct okay are these these restrictions common in other towns like ours there are certain communities that do um you know prohibit these there are some communities that have created permissions for these uses so you know it it kind of depends on the on the community so um but you know this is a list of um prohibited uses that we see in other similar communities um in the area could these activities happen at the Maller Hills then for instance it's a good question I'm sure uh no I mean if it's a Prohibition it would not be I thought sorry I thought the question was do those currently have that no if it's as characterized here this is prohibited uses without throughout Township yeah who came up with that I'm not why were these particularly identified was there reasoning as to things that are in this ordinance this was a so um wearing my because I do wear two hats one as board planner what's Township planner as Township planner you know there was a a request from um the TC uh from Administration to prepare an ordinance uh we took a look at similar communities uh that have a list of prohibited uses and this was the list that we put together um this was Advanced based on that initial review so smoke sh for instance we already have one in town so if it's existing Grand or correct yes that's correct and that was called out and and if something is grandfathered in uh that means uh that in the event there were to be an intensification or an expansion of that use they would still require a d uh uh two it's called but D variance relief from the Zoning Board of adjustment when you're grandfather you're grandfather for what you got so to speak but not more than what you got and it's as the case with anything just because we have these I guess prohibitions restrictions in place if a a vendor wanted to come and locate in town and provide a service that wasn't you know permitted they would have to come before a board and seek a variance which is yes which is exactly sort of the the types of things I recall you know both in the master plan talked about making it easier for businesses to to you know to come and locate in town so this would be potentially if it were some of those businesses which we're saying we don't you know want effectively um they could come and could come to a board and see there VAR relief but that would be kind of the opposite of inviting your business into that from that perspective and just for clarification that board of course would be the other Z Board of adjustment because it would require devarian right you should also keep in mind you know is it better to have them come ask for permission or to have no recourse once one of these uh comes in and we may find that to be undesirable I think you made a good point if if it's not desirable and Community is not you know supportive of it then the business may not succeed and I think if if they're more likely to just go to another town than seek permission and we may have just you know had a business it open for another six months a year or whatever that we're losing tax revenue on but but wouldn't people from other towns come here to to get the service it's not necessarily the people in Short Hills I can't see the people in Short Hills going for tattoos but people could come into to Short Hills to get a tattoo if they established it but potentially sure but they come in they stop I don't think I don't think the market argument necessarily holds it Chang it potentially changes the character of the town as well and we shouldn't be shortsighted on a few dollars of taxes which is questionable whether we make any real money anyway but I mean we have a smoke shop now and has that brought crime to the well I mean I think when you think of a typical smoke shop nowadays they're you know like faked shops are selling paraphanalia and other things what we have in town now is a I would say upscale cigar bar right which I think is something that again I didn't have a chance to look at the definition that's the one of the reasons I wanted to push this to another day so I had more time to look into it because the definition of the smoke shop is something more elegant and high scale than that you know is potentially different but I haven't had the opportunity to really review this year can you read the definition of smoke shop sure certainly um smoke shop uh shall mean any premises dedicated as a principal business to display sale distribution delivery offering Furnishing or marketing of tobacco tobacco products electronic smoking devices or tobacco paraphernalia including providing an area for smoking tobacco products but excluding any grocery store Supermarket convenience store or similar retail use that sells tobacco products shall not be included within the definition of a smoke shop an area for smoking shall the burning of inhaling from exhaling the smoke from or the possession of a lighted cigar cigarette pipe or any other matter or substance matter of substance which contains tobacco or any other matter that can be smoked uh or the inhaling or exhaling of smoke or vapor from electronic device so that would include like and Torino itself wouldn't be pered however they would be grandfathered it in this but you can still have a retail shop smell it selling bongs and other stuff I suppose um no tobacco products or U well they Canabis oh yeah that's there's a can yeah sorry there's a separate and cannabis is existing that's an existing prohibition I have a question sure is there H any kind of scale where it's a retail B retail C retail you know as it in other words a scale of what considered Prime retail versus you know say d where is you know and is that based on dollar amount or is that scale out I I'm I'm not sure you know from Planning and Zoning perspective there is not uh you know we have a retail definition um but it doesn't Define classes of retail anything that's what I was looking for thank you could you sh on J J all use is not expressly permitted in this ordinance are prohibited yeah so um that's a catchall statement um that applies to the ordinance in its entirety that you know absent any express permission it's not permitted um so you know this now we have now that is what you have now correct just moved it down we just moved it down from B to J it moved from B to J so in Essence even if we didn't put all the others in it would come before us and we could make that all J gives us that that's the problem that's why this is right so there is there's a level of administrative judgment that has to happen by staff um to determine whether it fits another defined category within the ordinance um we have retail and Retail service you know there are other definitions of that are much very broad which allow for great great flexibility um in reviewing potential you know uses um but this list start creates a subset of expressly prohibited uses that are more defined essentially that's what what this is doing um and just to clarify your last comment that anything that is you know that is seeking to locate within the town that's not permitted would go to the Zoning Board of adjustment not this body because they would require a d variance Rel Michael just it's it's not even just the tax revenue it's you know people come in if we had another cigar lounge or something like that they might order pizza from there or to go to to eat their food they might you know go you know Lobster Shack whatever it is tattoo parlors I can even think of like you know you go into original shark the the barber thing all of their Barbers who are pretty nice guys are tatted up from their toe to their top of their head those guys come in they can get more tats eat food stuff like that I just I just think there's it becomes very dangerous especially when our town has told us that they want sort of the town is changing and they want to to to utilize different services to start legislating against certain businesses and and sort of tying our hands on certain things so um you know I think times are changing so assumptions about what you know the bikers coming in and getting tattoos and piercing and stuff I don't know is is necessarily was there any public input into these decision like these classifications no if I may I mean on the part of well no he I was just gonna add something when he's done not to this point that will happen later that the public hearing is scheduled that was one of the things that's provided for the process of a public public didn't know like the you know brainstorming for the list came from some some yeah also I suspect it's difficult perhaps even impossible to segregate uh uh the master plan consistency or inconsistency with sort of the policy determinations that of course are the jurisdiction of the governing body and not the board uh I think everybody kind of pointed out how there there's some overlap if you will uh because there were some objectives that were referenced by one of our board members uh reflecting a uh opinion that it may be inconsistent with some at least provisions and of course there are Provisions two at a minimum in which our planner tells us it is consistent uh for the benefit of the board and the members of the public I don't know how much benefit it is frankly but they help you with the standard um uh the standard is not pure consistency or perfect consistency uh when the board makes its determination um um that's why in part they use the term not inconsistent substantial consistency is under the rigs case uh the and others the standard um so I don't again I don't know how the to which if at all that helps um but sort of I guess another way of saying it is what do they used to say Almost Doesn't Count except in Hors shoes and Hand Grenades when we're kids maybe but uh well almost counts sort of almost consistent or substantially consistent is sufficient for a finding that an ordinance is not inconsistent uh again that's a determination for the board to make um if that helps also if it helps uh uh what as the board may know whatever the board determines for example if the board does DET and this is for all master plan consistency reviews if the board determines uh that the ordinance is inconsistent uh the next process is for the governing body to decide whether to abide by that finding or with an effective majority I.E a majority of all the governing body members and what we call a reasons resolution make a determination that notwithstanding the planning board finding of inconsistency uh the governing body decides for various reasons stated in the resolution to nevertheless proceed with the adoption of the ordinance post public hearing so I just want to make sure everybody including our new board members know exactly what the standard is and also what are the ramifications of a vote one way or the other and just some background so this did start coming out of public comment one of the speakers at public comment um raised a request for the township committee to consider a ban on gun shops and so um following upon that the township committee asked Graham to just take a look at what other towns have and to come up and that's how this list was generated so it did actually start from the public thank I have a question so so we've heard two different t on whether it's consistent or not how does that play into um deciding whether it's substantially consistent judgment that's you got it uh I mean you have a planner who may or may not opine one way or the other um you have a but but uh uh uh the uh that that's the alwick of the of the board members it's that's your your discretion to to make that determination based on what's provided to you uh by the planner uh with the legal guidance and your own uh questions answers and deliberations yeah I I I love I I I do feel that restricting you know gun shooting ranges might be appropriate for downtown Melbourne absolutely but I don't know that I agree with all of the the proposed permitted uses I think some of them miss it is my personal opinion but I appreciate that thank you for the context of you know the origin of it I think that's what so I guess I'll make a motion that uh that this ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan second okay and if I mayor a double now it's allowed that's it's okay when he does it because that's what the statute say and if I may we did uh uh uh as a best practices in my opinion uh we do draft a a resolution it's pretty Bare Bones one page when you get a lawyer to draft a resolution that's one page as you know that's pretty Bare Bones uh uh this uh draft resolution uh provides for a that the ordinance is not inconsistent the double negative uh that's not meant to be anything other than to sort of a template for the board to start with and you decide ultimately whether the word not stays there in the resolution or not um but we do provide that so if the board is going to render a determination one way or the other you can go right to a memorializing resolution in one vote this evening so that is that one page template that was distributed earlier uh I just gave you the synopsis of it so there's a motion on the table from Michael that it is not inconsistent with the the going go back to substantial if it's 5050 that's not substantial then it is inconsistent or it is not this is like yeah no that that's I said not everything in the law is black and white 100 you know a yes or a no 100% they the uh not the the case law is not in consistent substantial consistency I think it's fair to assume that if it's a sort of a 5050 uh well I don't want to say what's fair to assume you have to decide what substantial consistency is and what not inconsistent means it's really it's really for the board to make that determination that the cases don't go was so specific to say you know 51% is here and 49% is here and 73% is there it's it's not that discreet quantifiable and it's totally based upon the master plan and not about personal preferences it's totally based on the master plan is it consist consistent with the master plan excuse me is it not inconsistent with the master plan or is it inconsistent with Master for the record I have no tattoos and I've ever spoke to don't have a gun either we know of so so it's to vote not inconsistent we would say yes it's not inconsistent to vote that it is inconsistent we would say no correct on this motion and second and roll call vote that's about to happen correct yes Cory biller no Alison Campfield yeah Michael Cohen yes Deborah Neves no Frank sagam yes suan David Cosgrove yes oh and and we only have nine voters even though we have 10 board members here someone's an alter it guess on Halper say no that's all no doesn't pass does not pass it does not pass which means the the report or the we we know we I'm sorry madam CH apologize for interrupting but when a motion doesn't pass we have to go to the alternative motion understood um because we do not have anything that passed yet thank you uh and I'm sorry that was a four to six that I get would I'm sorry it would be four to five I'm sorry four to five yes so well it's up to the board whether they want to make another motion I will move to state that ordinance 26574 is inconsistent second so now a yes vote would be saying yes it's inconsistent this is the reverse of what we just did Cory biller yes Alison Canfield no Michael Cohen no no de neis yes Frank seaming no suja Shan yes David Cosgrove no gon hbert yes that's all yes okay so now we have moved was so was five to four yes and acted to state that it's inconsistent with the master plan so the note goes back to the TC and they can still take action yes yes but they can proceed accordingly well you will still have a public inut and then either amend and then act on it or act on it and again I apologize since it's my first meeting and our first master plan consistency review together uh do you want the resolution memorializing the one page with the word inconsistent as suppose not in or a letter from our clerk either is acceptable uh we we do the resolution just as a matter of formality since it is a roll call vote but sure we can have a resolution that they just basically matches what we have it's something that we previously have not done as a board but I think your recommendation is just to do it to formalize what we just did because it is a and I would say since the vote is always not inconsistent we should probably leave that leave it in the resolution that way well well but I'm say it's five it's five to four that it's it's inconsist consistent or not incist yeah I just took out the word not okay so do we need a motion on the second oh no that that we just did it in in the memorializing that's why I pointed out that we had a resolution to memorialize so you could only could do it in one vote should you so desire just looking over the Stu I wanted to make a comment to make sure that we did include a comparison or at least somebody looked at the shortterm uh rental ordinance that we put into effect not too long ago because I know there was this reference to kitchens and serving food and then in this one there was also to non- Kitchen facilities and not sure if that is consistent in itself but just to take a look at it to make sure that you got everything L sure sure we'll take a look thank you okay we have another ordinance we do yes um so the second ordinance uh on referral this evening um is ordinance number 26582435 seeking to amend the um historic preservation section of the DRZ specifically uh creating a new framework for demolition reviews um that we have kind of a long summary here uh I'll I'll read through uh some of it a little bit just to kind of give you a general framework um but you know kind of in summary and Miss Canfield can certainly opine a little bit in her role for HPC um the um Township presently for landmark properties and landmark districts they're incumbered by hisor uh certificate of appropriateness review process for modifications to buildings um the the ordinance before you seeks to create an additional review process uh for total demolition so this is only for applicants seeking to completely demolish um a historic resource that's been identified in the historic preservation element of the master plan and has been surveyed for historic value um so the um ordinance uh essentially creates a demolition review framework for those properties that have are identified in the s preservation element of master plan and have been surveyed for historic value um with the survey on file with the state historic preservation office um it requires an application to be made to the HPC uh you know prior to issuance of a a total demolition permit um so this does not encumber the properties from against any other modifications they can you know replace siding Windows other things um this is only applicable to Total demolition is total demolition defined because I know sometimes you see these houses in like you know a Corners like total demolition is defined within the ordinance um I can pull it up and and read through that um in just a moment um so um this is modeled this demolition permanent ordinance is modeled after an ordinance that I wrote for the township mclair similar situation um which saw propensity for a loss of historic structures and resources um so there is a total demolition review uh there as well and this is the same framework ordinance um that has been introduced here if you just clarify it seems like if something is already designated in the store would it like they can't just go and demo it like I guess what is this add is so existing designated properties existing Landmark properties are already subject to a total demolition review through a certificate of appropriat process this expands just the total demolition review process to those properties that we identified in the histor preservation element of the master plan that have been surveyed for historic value of those District that have not been designated so approximately how how large is that you know is a number that we still need to qu the township committe had the same request of meet last night and that's a number that we um will have to to figure out because it's not the full set of properties within the store preservation plan element it's just those that have been surveyed for historic value clarification the element of the master plan these properties are in the queue per se so we haven't uh actually had the funding to research whether or not they are still historically significant so what this is allows us to do is to do that if it comes for a full demolition so as far as however many are listed in the element of the master plan doesn't necessarily mean that's how many we have those are just properties that have been identified since what 81 of the resources to which need to were recommended to be designated at some point in time but some of those are not Sal salable anymore so we don't know that yet so again this is about not getting them designated yet funding not to do that and that they are on the element of the master plan of resources historic resources that have not yet been either designated or identified can you go over the timing because now I'm confused right because you just said it's they have to you know so I have a property I want to demolish it it hasn't been surveyed yet but then you were saying by asking for the de the demolition permit that could spur you to I want to just fix no feure a little bit Miss Kenfield is referring to a nomination report and a nominating process for designation uh surveys is just you know a historic a historic preservation expert looking at a property and determining it has value or may have value for historic preservation purposes so I guess I'm trying to so the percentage the the most of the properties that are in the plan have not yet been surveyed is that correct no that's not correct oh that's not correct most of them have been surveyed yes quite a few of them have been survey okay at one point of time you know what I mean Whatever Whenever they were they need to be updated probably but at least we have some record and that's why they're on the element of the master and that would prevent them protect them from being demolished that would be sufficient it wouldn't it would just subject them to this additional review process for total demolition only to be demolished as a right I guess is what I'm saying and who would pay for this additional review uh there's an it's an application um and it's the application is submitted to the S preservation commission and they facilitate the review of the application so they would cover the cost of this review say a developer or person comes in and says I want to demo and rebuild this home and someone say well actually you're on this list I know you're not designated as St but you're you're in this area so it triggers this you know now now you have to there's an application form right and so they have to fill out the application P be submit it to the store corre preservation commission pays for the survey who who pays to have this the applicant there's an existing survey that's done so that's why I want to and we need to to separate the n clature a little bit histor the surveys that Allison has is talking about is there throughout the throughout time you know people have surveyed and looked at historic properties and surveys are collected and collated and cataloged at the state historic reservation office they have all the surveys that have ever been looked at for any historic property what Allison is referring to as far as the designation process is a nomination report that's a locally required report for landmark process whereby somebody has to do research on a property and identify the five subst or eight substantive criteria that the property meets locally to be Landmark listed that is a separate document that has not been done and that's not part of this process I don't want to conflate these two processes so um we're just establishing the total demolition review just to those properties that have been looked at at some point in time by the historic preservation office files there is a a document that exists that you know this property was looked at it may have historic value so we should look at it before it's torn down to see um you know if it warrants preservation or protection at some point yeah helpful to know how like how many homes back their home has so the ordinance also sets forth a full notice requirement so all Property Owners effective 90 days after adoption of the ordinance would have to be notified by certified mail so they would know um and it is only applicable and I want to be very clear it's only applicable to Total demolition so yeah sure sorry um I'm trying to answer a couple questions so it's defined in the new ordinance right because you don't want to take a home that has historic value and just permit it to be demoed but I just also don't know somebody a I just feel like see and I also want to just note that there is an exemption process for um unsafe structures or properties that have been deemed unsafe or public Hazard by the construction code official those would be Exempted from this review process and that demolition per obviously can be issued in the interest of protecting public health safety and Welfare so I just want note that Alison in the case of like the application that happened last year there was a home that had some historic character but they were going to do a demo is this like that kind of this would kind of protect from that like our town yes in other words it's it's been surveyed and that's I forgive me because I kind of confused everybody but the survey at one point in time took funding to do a survey the the more more recent surveys that we've done of course we're all familiar with we did downtown survey and again that's all done already so what we're trying to do is just make sure that U you know we're protecting these properties whether and right now with the survey done we know they're historic we don't know condition we don't know necessarily you know everything about them which then is the more extensive designation process but right now we aren't able to protect some of the pieces that are over already on the element of the master plan in the queue as to that they should be possibly deemed historic gotcha and unrelated to whether it's consistent or inconsistent with the master plan ironically you can have a house that maybe deemed historic but has been gutted on the inside and looks like nothing like what it used to and it's and a good example if I can throw you know the the house that lives on Old short road that we this I think we subdivided that property I think I did come in front of this committee and say that the house and that if I may that was a prior application that was decided in more than 45 days has expired since that decision by the board since the publication of the resolution of the board yeah yes okay thank you please continue so I mean that's a good example of that yes so it's been serated already and then when they appli for demolition there's a Next Step that takes place for study further the application for total demolition to the historic preservation commission is reviewed by the commission with the applicant present that's where they can share details on you know issues you know structural issues choose and kind of convey the situation to the commission and then the commission would render that decision um and the ordinance also sets forth an appeal process so the HBC can appeal the applicant can appeal the hpc's decision to the board of adjustment they feel that it was an incorrect decision so total total demolition yeah I before um okay so the definition for total Demolition and totally demolished the section definition shall be applicable to the raising dismantling destruction removal or demolition collectively referred to as demolition of all or substantially all of any historic resource including any publicly visible visible facade including removal of a building site or structure from its site which may or may not include the foundation substantially all of a building site or structure means at least 50% of the exterior walls or publicly visible facade wall as measured by the exterior surface area of the building site or structure any demolition partial or total proposed within uh five years ofe demolition issue permit issuance for the same property will be considered cumula with respect the percentage of exterior walls of facade demolished or removed when determining whether total demolition is sought so leav leaving the chimney that Cory is talking about is not acceptable correct right and you can't do two sides and then two years later right so they would protect that so it sounds like the survey sort of puts a pin in the property and then if someone applies for demolition it kicks it over to Historic because this pin has been put in correct and historic then says okay this is one of the houses that we've surveyed and has been shown to be historically significant however you want to put it so therefore they need to come before us before they just takeing ball to it and then we will hear their application and we will make a determination as to whether or not this is a a property that we're going to say no on demolition or yes they can go ahead and demolish it yeah I I just want to change the Wii to the HPC not sorry I was talking as an HPC person that's correct that's correct okay so that's kind of what that's it we're talking about exactly exactly and I like your characterization of put a pin in it is is exactly correct so that was a pretty substantial list it wasn't I mean it wasn't the number of designated properties is a smaller list but then there were a number that so yeah and it's but it's the only the ones that have been surveyed so it's the ones that have the pin in it so um there may be some properties that I just identified that you know may be aspirational but nobody's looked at those yet so that's where um and the TC had the same request we're going to curate that list so we have that to kind of share out um the number and as I mentioned there is a notification process set forth within the ordinance to notify those property owners that they're income with this if this now this if this passes that with then I would think for the HBC to survey those other ones that they haven't gotten to survey so that you know ultimately that list would be complete is there a way for potential purchasers to have this list like because if the current a not assume there's some place that some potential purchaser of a property in the future sure the ordinance sets forth that the building department will maintain that list and have that list available so and I'm sure that could also be published published on the website for for availability so I know um just because of my former mon hat um they have now put the demolition overlay on their zoning map so folks can see that when they go to the zoning map which properties are subject to Demolition and of course again but it's not an overlay it's specific it's not it's not yeah it's more for utility for you know as far as it's not an overlay Zone but they're just conveying the information just want to remind everyone that that of course the goal the current jurisdiction of the board is to make the determination whether it is not inconsistent or yeah so I can move into the consistency riew now unless there's any other questions do that starting get yeah okay um so let me just put back to here okay um so relationships to the master plan so the ordinance as discussed advances the following objectives and recommendations of the master plan re-examination and update um one uh protect the character of established residential neighborhoods and encourage land use and development at an appropriate scale and density uh that's objective 1.01 page 43 um with B Bird's history as an established a verban community much of its built environment and part of the character that make it an attractive place to live is its historic building stock um providing regulatory oversight of such historic resources is a mechanism to protect the Township's historic character um to recognize and encourage the preservation of areas structures and sites of historic interest that's goal number five of the master plan on page 45 um encourage the preservation and restoration of structures of historic and or architectural significance that's objective 5.01 on page 45 and encouraged the Milburn Township historic preservation commission to conduct reviews of neighborhoods and structures to determine if there are additional areas or sites which deserve protection under this Township's historic preservation ordinance and make corresponding recommendations to the township committee that's subjective 5.02 on page 45 of the master plan um this ordinance amends the hpo to protect an expanded set of townships historic resources encouraging their uh from Demolition from Total demolition encouraging their preservation and restoration by protecting them from Demolition um and then the final uh section of the master plan uh which has a relationship to this ordinance is to monitor recent tear downs and new construction in single family districts to determine whether additional zoning modifications are necessary to protect neighborhood character that's on page M1 of the implementation Matrix in the master plan um when historic buildings are demolished it is often to make way for new construction of modern single family homes regulatory oversight of demolition of historic resources will help to mitigate this trend and evaluate historic resources there a time frame in which the Review Committee has to meet 45 days5 days okay does anyone want to take action on this proposed ordinance I'll try again hope that this ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan second and do you want to I we have the same resolution we changed the names to protect inoc I guess no but to change the name of the ordinance and the number of course but it's the same ordinance it reads not inconsistent at least for now okay um and if you vote Yes that it remain that way I would just ask alen when she modifies the other one and this one as well if you could just put in the introduction uh the date of introduction by the governing body for each ordinance I didn't have that handy okay it's yesterday so it's a motion and second to find it not inconsistent with the master yes Alison Canfield yes Michael Cohen yes de NIS yes Frank zami yes Su Sean David cosbro yes Gaston hord yes that's yes great not inconsistent for ordinance 2658 there were all yeses all yeses okay could hear what she it was okay um our next meeting is Wednesday February 7th 7:30 p.m. um we will have the open space discussion and I would like to also use that um part of the time to talk about some follow-ups from the last meeting we had a few items were brought up and discussed we've started to talk about them um with the professionals and with my I'd like to provide an update to everybody about um what we do this year that is that including by making this meeting avable yeah we going to talk about that um and making things available electronically and bylaws and few items that came up we've been started to advance okay I move to adjourn all in favor night oh yeah