##VIDEO ID:TpRhqXl52Sg## thank you Regina good evening everyone and welcome to the board of adjustment Township Berkeley Heights we're located at 29 Park Avenue here in Berkeley Heights tonight is our public meeting it's September 26th 2024 we have 7:00 p.m. on the clock please note that this meeting is being held in conformance with all regulations of the open public meetings act adequate notice for the meeting has been posted on the township website and the township newspaper of record the agenda has been posted on the township website and the bulletin board here in the municipal complex at least 48 hours in advance of tonight's meeting the agenda items will not necessarily be heard in the order listed the meeting will not continue substantially past 10:30 p.m Regina MAV roll quote please pres Mr kello here Mr deia here Mr Ringwood here Mr Sylvester here Mr Pera here M West Augustin Mr Degan here Mr torus and Mr satures s his regrets this year Miss wolf here miss Lany here thank you very much let's move on to some of our house keeping items the adoption of the minutes from August 22nd 2024 Mr Sylvester did you have an opportunity to review the next I did and I make a motion that we vote to accept these Ms and may I have a second by Mr per was absent the last meeting Mr Ringwood seconded all in favor on the minutes from 8:22 24 all right thank you very much adoption of resolution we have one resolution for adoption application 2024 011 Dan rrid 157 Pearl Street block 905 lot six in the R15 Zone this was a not a rehabilitation of a lot uh on Pearl Street which is a divisional Street between luk Providence and Berkeley Heights it was a long pencil shaped lot and it was undersized in terms of with this was going to be a rehab of a house of blight Mr Ringwood did you have an opportunity to review the resolution I did I found it in order I move we accept the resolution second by Mr Degan I second and uh roll call on 2411 Please Mr Sullivan yes Mr Coello yes Mr deia yes Mr Ringwood yes Mr Sylvester yes M West Augustin yes Mr Degan yes motion carries 70 and please let the record reflect that Miss Augustine has joined the Das thank you we have two applications this evening we have a construction review project located at 391 Springfield Avenue LLC 389 391 Springfield Avenue Lot 208 lot 20 in the Downtown Development Zone and that'll be followed by the public Whispering Woods hearing pending settlement litigation and we'd like to hear 391 Springfield Avenue first I believe we have Mr santor representing Mr Forest who I believe is in the that is correct thank you can you please bring us up to date on the status of the project and what brings you before the zoning board this evening um really just a way of update obviously we had some time uh requirements with inside the original approvals and extensions um construction has been moving Mr force can kind of give you an indication of exactly where we are so Bob if you could just um if we could swear them in one second so we can just give an update on where construction is you raise your right hand to sort tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do and your name and address for the record Robert Forest I live at 447 Long Avenue man Squan New Jersey but I grew up in town so Bob can you just um give an indication of exactly where you are on the uh rear building that obviously the front building's complete yes and occupied so dealing with the rear building and what's what the transition of that looks like moving forward um I want to thank the board for approving my project back at I guess my resolution came into effect at in February 25th of 2021 so I thank you for approving that I didn't get a unanimous decision on that but uh I do thank you for that um so you know we had a cou we had like three different projects going on there we had the plan uh the planning board project where we converted the second and third floors apartments and that went well and then we moved on we we the parking deck was condemned and um that was the main reason we were there I didn't want to have an ocean parking deck and that was the variance that you granted me where I asked for eight units and you know we negotiated down to seven um where we you know did that so um the two jobs that we had left were the repairing of the parking deck and U doing the um work that you uh you know pass my resolution that I permitted me to do so um you know started out a little bit slow but we uh picked up speed um and now uh we really shouldn't have any delays I would think that the outside should be done um within the next 3 to four months and I'm hoping to have it completed within six what did you experience delays with manufacturing was there a backlog or a back water on any of the steel products or or or anything I I've heard in the industry there has been some significant backlogs especially intersection improvements yeah the N arms and some of them Metals take a significantly long amount of time and I was wondering in the construction realm if you could experience that with any of these special letters that you've had um we did have that problem but that's not really uh that was mostly at the beginning of the covid problem where you just couldn't get anything and then you know to be honest with you the mentality of people have changed since covid came down and um you know everybody's a day late instead of a day early and you know it's just everything's just gotten less professional and harder to get done but yeah we had some issues with our steel um but uh you know that was held us held us up about six months we were hoping to have that all up in March and we just got that done in uh I guess it was July okay and um the the front of the building that was the original clock tower building one is the clock yet operating or we did that right away that was a planning board requirement and we fixed that up we like to tie in 5:00 in town so hard to get anybody to show up for work actually we lost one another clock over at TT bank or whatever that that was just a modern day clock we have the the classic clock in town um I noticed on the plan set a set of solar panels yes and was were the solar panels on the original zoning Bo yes it was yeah one of the things we did um given the fact that um the way that the ordinance reads it's a very expensive process to go back before the planning board and we included it at that point in time to indicate that we would have future solar and if you can refresh my memory because I don't remember what happened 15 minutes ago um when we had the solar panel discussion are is this the highest Story the solar panels are roof mount flush to the roof and are they higher than the residential community on Shady Grove or whatever that street or watching well I mean what is there two foot parit do you have um or 36 inch power the uh if if you look at the elevation there it's like uh the um parking decks like a Farmer's Bank Barn so when you drive in at the lower level then you're coming up on the second floor level of the parking deck when you go up to the west and you come back in the the the bank the neighbor in the back uh you see the Washington are shade yeah that that's shady okay he's on the culdesac he's got the brick ranch there was two brothers that built brick ranches there and he has the and um yeah his uh I don't think our floor is maybe eight or nine feet higher than his property in the back there so yeah oh but the answer your question with the solar panels you know I reread the resolution and all the minutes from there and it said uh that we were restricted to like 2 feet U above where I'm going yeah that's yeah you know it was so long ago that I remember and I'm sure from the top of the the roof of your building is someone going to be in the sun you know on those but it sounds like they Ranch low ranch style homes they're not two floor homes no it's a ranch yes that area unless we have pretty substantial buffer along that back well we did but I end up having to take those trees out where I work with the zoning officer and you know we're going to replant that but there is a six foot are you thinking giant Optive or something that go I'm just thinking outside the box what the usually that's Community is going to be exposed to you're buffering that that'll just kind of alleviate that glare that may come off of the pound when you look at the plane of the roof at the end of Shady Side it's an Indian guy over there very interesting guy I've talked to him a couple times uh he uh his the flatness of his lot you know really doesn't uh you know because he does have a six foot fence there which is actually on my property which needs to be replaced so you know we're talking about that which you know he has vinyl fence everywhere else that's a fence that's 40 years old that was put up by defonso fence that really needs to you know be replaced so the bottom line is yeah we're going to replant some shrubs there and that's usually what we go with the arbites because they're you know they're more deer resistant and uh they grow Fist and if you look at the screening when they built that building in ' 89 I had built the building for Sid kitchen and somebody else did the parking deck and a guy who grew up in town Steve Treach did all the site work and um those trees where uh you know that road butts in on the side I don't know the name I think you were involved in those houses yeah you know there's they're monstrous Evergreens yeah so it's a lot of screening going out towards the west and we will we will replenish and redo the screening out to the north uh members of the board does anyone have a question or comment for uh an extension for 391 and we're looking at a certificate of occupancy April 15 that sounds reasonable yeah any questions or comments from members of the board okay uh may I get a motion to accept the presentation this evening Mr Kel what is the extension to April 15 April 25 six months uh seven I think it was currently January 25th it was expiring right January 2025 was the right really like it's like essentially a two and a half month extension I think so yeah yeah right you should be to see we got the shell up and the roof is on now so uh you know we just finished like we're finishing up fixing the parking deck because we we have a parking problem if you remember um I made a deal with Mike poo next door to park offsite and you know I'd rather to not be paying him every month but the thing is I need to keep my contract on site so we're getting the second tier of the parking deck done question is really in your favor like I don't if you want to finish in April finish in April but if you're not going to finish in April then you'd have to come back so do you think that are you for like is a buffer till June 30th and if you finish buffer June 30th is more than reasonable thank you for that you didn't vote for me last time I hear you uh Miss West do you have any objection if we uh secure a June 30th 25 on the extension no uh does any member on the board have a different date or an objection or we in concurrence with no I think it's better to have that buffer to the 30th no in 10 in you right thank you okay June 30th appreciate it all the time that you people put in that you're not you're not paid for so I a motion by Mr Sylvester I make a motion to accept that I have a second by Mr per second that motion and a roll call Regina please Sullivan yes Kell yes Mr deia yes Mr Ringwood yes Mr Sylvester yes Mr Pera yes West Augustin yes motion carries 70 thank you very much 391 has concluded and we are moving on to our application public Whispering Woods hearing settlement of litigation proposed settlement of O custom Builders 725 Mountain Avenue versus the township of Berkeley height Zoning Board of adjustment litigation buet number U nnl 00131 d24 we have the applicant and the applicants team here and and we have M wolf that will just explain a little bit of the history of the property and uh we'll have Mr Sor and his team provide testimony regarding the settlements only on this application sure this wolf so history of the project you'll remember you'll remember this matter was before the board for preliminary and final subdivision ofal with us and BK variants relief relating to 725 Avenue the application proposed to subdivide the property into four Lots with the church and Associated parking to remain on proposed lot 3201 and create four other Lots which would have individual dwellings on them on September 28 2023 the board voted for three which is a statutory denial of the application because there was a d variant so five required on November 26 a notice of decision was published and then on January 10th 2024 the applicant filed a complaint in Le of prerogative writ the complaint contained one count and alleges that the denial of the application was arbitrary capricious unreasonable contrary to the law unsupported by the record the complaint really focused on the fact that there was ample testimony in the record to establish that traffic circulation would be safe and that development would have little impact on the neighborhood the complaint demands judgment against the board reversing the denial and deeming the application approved on February 26 20124 we filed an answer disputing the allegations and the complaint in the interim the board and the considered settlement and there are a few reasons that the board I think wants to settle right now there's a multitude of reasons if we don't settle the applicant intends to amend the complaint to assert Federal claims against the board and the municipality right now it's just an action against the board but if they do amend the complaint it would be an action against the municipality and it would be for violations of the Constitution and for the religious land use and institutionalized persons act also known as arupa um the litigation like I said will not be just limited to the board it will also involve the municipality the litigation will be costly for the taxpayers who will have to fund it because now they're paying for the board litigation and the municipalities litigation um and if the board loses the litigation the application is approved by the court and none of the conditions that we all work very hard to craft are imposed so it's beneficial to settle and it's also beneficial because the settlement will limit the potential development of the property because now we know it will be there in the future if the property were sold something else could be built there commercial or residential but right now if we accept the settlement then we know it's just going to be four single family dwellings along with the church so why are we here basically the court allows applicants in the board to settle cases however there's a specific process that has to take place and that's known as a Whispering Woods hearing that comes from W spring word Woods versus Middletown Township but the board has to give the public an opportunity to present their comments and concerns about the settlement it's limited in scope though it's not a review of the underlying application and in the court and Whispering Woods the actual case the court found that the public was given notice and a full opportunity to be heard regarding all changes to the plans and any additional evidence required by the settlement so again it's limited and public questioning and comments were limited to any comments or objections to any evidence presented by the applicant relating to the settlement and then in friends versus of Pac Gladstone versus the burrow Pac Gladstone the court looked at whether the settlement was fair and reasonable so that's something that the board to consider with whether they believe the settlement is fair and reasonable and then we have a few different procedures tonight just because a different kind of hearing all members of the board are eligible to participate regardless of whether you heard the application in 2023 because this is considered a different application um the members of the public may ask questions and make comments regarding all changes of the plans and any additional evidence required by the settlement again yeah members of the public can ask questions and make comments but it is very limited to the settlement agreement it's not not a redo of the underlying hearing uh we decided that each member of the public will have approximately five minutes we'll give a warning when the speaker has one minute and another warning at 30 seconds left uh there's no borrowing time from other people or seeding your time to other people so it's five minutes per person basically be respectful obviously don't ask repetitive questions if you have an attorney let me know because the attorney can has to ask the questions but you can still make a public comment so with that said does anybody have any questions about the procedure I I do okay can we backpedal to the seven eligible voters sure is it a majority of five or is it all seven have an opportunity to vote is this considered a d like how does that work because a settlement is something that we've been very limited to exposure on right and traditionally with a zoning board application it's five either affirmative or denies right but in the case you had mentioned the seven if you can clarify and I'm happy that seven people will have an opportunity for an interpretation and a voice but how does the voting it's work unique there's not really much case law on it I talked to Rob signment I didn't actually I think I talked to you too about it but typically it would be a majority vote but I think in this case because it was a d variance we should go for five affirmative votes so the settlement won't pass unless we have five votes in favor of it not a majority vote okay thank you for your clarification and with that Mr santor I just have one question who are the five of the eight I mean sorry who are the seven of the eight that are participating I'm the one that's out oh you're out okay just want to understand um other than that for the record the notice was sufficient as to form and content I did review it you're all good so um obviously Miss wolf went through a little bit of the history in terms of how we got here um specifically we submitted as part of this renewed review a copy of the settlement agreement and release that had been discussed and negotiated between Miss wolf and Mr Simon who was Council to the developer that settlement agreement release was part of the information packet that was filed and in your packets um specifically in order to just reaffirm and kind of um recap I guess a little bit we have Mr Hollow from Murphy and Hollows which is going to just testify regarding the review of the um planning memo and confirmation of his review of our ability to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement so without further Ado if we can bring up Mr Hollow Mr holl would you raise your right hand you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so be God I do thank you on your name an address for the record William holls 192 Central Avenue New Jersey that's my buiness office and we have uh from Price gregal Philips price Elizabeth Haney is here as the bo just swear you I'm sorry you swear I tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you and Mr Hall is you're seeking to be admitted as an engineer and a planner engineer engineer okay and Mr holl just quickly your license is still in good standing it is you've obviously testified before this and many other boards um I have numerous occasion I would just ask knowing Mr hollow's obviously extensive background and times before this board to be accepted as an expert in engineering we accept Mr holl we've seen him year over year I think it's at least 21 years with welcome back so Mr holl you had an opportunity to um review the settlement agreement uh and release that was prepared in this matter which was essentially encapsulating many of the previously discussed negotiated and agreed upon changes over the course of the many meetings that we had had is that correct that's correct okay and during your course of that review of the settlement agreement release um are there any conditions that you reviewed that um represent any issue for us in terms of complying or modifying or noting the plans according upon a final approval obviously it has to go to a final Subdivision plat at some point yeah I have I've gone through the settlement agreement and um those are what those items that are in there are all the items that we had discussed through the throughout the hearings and I I think we had indicated we could comply with those I think the one that's a little not is to reorient the house on the first lot this was the first lot right off of plan field that's correct and have it B plf Avenue rather than the proposed new road and keeping in mind Mr Hollows the garage and the driveway from a purpose of circulation or otherwise is still going to be on the cue SEC that's correct no separate dual entrance being the subdivision entrance and a separate driveway entrance right next to each other correct correct okay so specifically that was one obviously new addition that had not been on the final adoption of the plan in addition to that um there's also some leftand turn movement restriction that is proposed in the settlement agreement um and uh can you just indicate what the it's a it's a sign that we would have to install at the intersection of the proposed Road and pfield Avenue and it limits your leftand turn at certain times of the day and certain days of the week is that during school hours you have a 7 to9 a 7 to9 and in the settlement agreement 79 2:30 to 4:30 Monday to Friday certainly uh I can represent on behalf of the developer that should the town engineer or any other entity that may want to weigh in on the hours of restriction we certainly have no objection to working with them to expand that accordingly or adjust but this was the agreed sign come from other signs is it consistent with signs in the area like SNY Avenue and uh Springfield or Springfield Avenue and planfield Avenue that prohibits movements at certain times during I mean I think Monday through Friday school I don't know that specifically that it was taken from that I'm not going to sit and represent that but I would tell you that logically it was designed to be within the rush hour movement of school so from 700 to 9:00 am. um obviously being Prime times and then 2:30 to 4:30 if you know that doesn't seem to be uh enough time certainly like I said if if the town they needed to expand that to 5:00 P PM or something like that there's there's no was that did you say Monday through Friday Monday through Friday yep 7 to 9 and 2:30 to 4:30 then just one point of which I just pointed out to miss wolf during the course of the I guess preparation of the settlement agreement there was one notation under on page five which is uh B 11 so bxi page five about two-third of the way down applicant shall comply with Union County sign easement requirements that's supposed to be site easement so I think we all remember the sight line easement that was specifically designed in accordance with the Union County requirements um so that's just a typographical modification that you know there was no sign easement that was required it was a sign easement and that was 7 11 XI on page five and then as Mr holl as you indicated you went through each and every condition reviewed obviously the notes and there's no issue with regarding complying with those items correct that was correct okay now in addition you had an opportunity to review um Miss lany's updated planning memo correct that's correct and any issue with complying with any and all the comments that leaney had the the review by Mr Lane's uh September 25th correct is very similar to the the agreement and I I didn't see any items there that we not we could not confli with and understanding that that obviously Miss Landy made certain notations regarding things that are not on the current plan those plan notes would be made in accordance with the final adopted settlement agreement and then eventually find their way into a major Subdivision plat that would be recorded with the county and there's no issue with those items and it any steps that have to happen that may be outside of the plat such as lot grading plans and all that stuff correct cor okay lot gring plans would be at time of building permit application so realistically um I don't know that there's a any point Beyond really indicating that obviously the plans as they existed and as we've agreed to deal with the conditions as so noted Mr Hollow indicates that we can comply with the memo obviously we would continue to work with Mr Saro as we normally would in any other scenario in accordance with the normal Township procedures regarding trees lock grading plans whatever process that would normally be adhered to we would continue with that process in accordance with the terms of settlement agreement and obviously the final um plans that would be approved so the settlement agreement keeps everything intact from the two years that we spent here with some tweaks and you've also Incorporated additional improvements in the overall final result correct correct and specifically how that came about was obviously Miss wolf had been tracking throughout the entire time and obviously we had made our own notations and when Mr Sim page resolution when Mr Simon and Miss wolf you know engaged in the discussions they made sure that they had a a complete list of all of the conditions that we had previously agreed to to make sure that the representations we would be making to the township are consistent with those representations we made during the course of the two and a half years and Miss wolf earlier in the statements you had uh presented a comment in the event that this application failed any and all the work that was put in by let's specifically speak to the zoning board I I know this went through a planning board approval process and engineering and planning processes in the past but anything from the planning board 2015 through present day or from when the zoning board took ownership responsibility of this project any conditions that yeah so it would just be a straight approval they wouldn't have to comply with anything that we discussed do you yeah I think but just to be clear with Ray saying I want to make sure what you're saying are you saying that well the planning board was gone we started a new with the zoning board so anything that we would board had an opportunity at this application and imposed conditions right it is my understanding that all the the conditions from the 2015 to 2019 planning board were incorporated into the 20121 to 2023 resolution that the board voted on on Cas but I don't have that planning board one in front of me and it would have expired technically so we wouldn't have been bound by those conditions anyway because they didn't have jurisdiction to hear the case because the underlying issue was a D2 and they didn't have jurisdiction to do that and I think In fairness main thing to understand is and it's really important to understand the approvals that were originally granted without theoretical proper jurisdiction were under a lower standard of environmental scrutiny with the DP guidelines which had significantly changed based upon this new application so this application that made through from the beginning of its Inception from the board of adjustment to currently has the highest you know current standard of um of a approval so realistically speaking had we tacked on and come in for the final we would have tacked on to the prior requirements on the environmental so realistically we we have a much more stringent Environmental Compliance scenario here and a bigger design so ultimately net net from what was approved before the planning board to what is now before the board for adoption is a tremendous difference in position in terms of the environmental would you say it's a greater product it's a it's a much more control and greater product relative to all of the um site engineering and requirements and essentially when you deal with obviously the you know groundwater movement calculation storage and treatment all the different things that you have in this none of that stuff existed before so a lot of things U you know changed dramatically with the new RS do you have any further comments for Mr Hollows no um certainly Amanda I don't know how you want to handle procedurally do you want them to question Mr Hollow at this point you have I have Mr pesano to just basically you know why don't we have your professionals and then we will go in our format of five minute question and comments for the public we we'll have your professional speak close that portion then we will allow opportunity to the public at the F minute timeline and we swear on Mr Pano right hand you s the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do and your name and address for the record Michael J pesano that's spelled p SS o l n o licensed professional planner state of New Jersey business address 140 Elwood Avenue bota New Jersey and we accept I know you've been before this board before welcome back and thank you and Mr Place Mr pesano without really getting into any type of complete rehashing of obious obviously all the stuff we've gone through over the last couple years you had an opportunity to review two specific documents uh in preparation for tonight's hearing specifically the September 25th 2024 memo of Miss leaney yes and also the um settlement agreement correct that's correct and having listened to Mr Hollow testify to the conditions that have been set forth having read Miss lany's memorandum and the settlement agreement are there any changes at all in your testimony your opinion relative to our ability to a comply with any of the conditions or B relative to your opinion on um that you had previously stated on the record uh thank you for the opportunity uh just briefly the as you heard my testimonies uh the last moment before the board voted uh I felt that the application was worthy of your approval um since then there have been subtle tweaks to The Miner points of the application so my position then is only more reinforced by virtue of those improvements to the plan I stand on my prior testimony and stand behind this still warranting uh uh approval because it meets the requirements of positive and negative criteria for the relief request okay really don't have much more for Mr Sal miss any questions or comments for this no I I just just for the record I had done a memo dated September 25th which was alluded to which listed out the conditions uh as I think was indicated by Mr Hollows um the the most recent submitted plans are from 2022 the settlement agreement is quite recent in the last few months and so the plans that we have had not yet been updated to reflect the terms of the settlement agreement but of course they would be uh based on Mr hollow's testimony thank you Mr stand sorry any additional no comments not at this time thank you uh we'd like to make a motion to open up the meeting for members of the public that have a question or comment or combination thereof on a five minute timeline Mr Ringwood may have a motion so moved may have a second by Mr Degan please I second all in favor meeting is now open to members of the public in the spirit of alphabetical order ABCs anyone with a last name a b and c you're welcome to approach the podium Mr Barter First up welcome back by name Mr Bart if I could just swear you in would you raise your right hand sure you SAR to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do your name and address for the record Gerald barter 550 planfield Avenue thank you Mr barter you'll have five minutes we'll notify you when you have one minute left and again when there is 30 seconds left okay fre to start okay arbitrary capricious unreasonable and unlawful I would I just can't believe those words were used because that's this board was anything but this I feel and also money was also allocated to defend this I don't understand why we're continuing with this but anyway there's two major issues the safety of the street entering planfield and Water Management we're not going to go into all of this you said so I'm going to skip over that as far as the safety of the street entering an already dangerous inment it said on page 4 B2 it's talking about right turn only at certain times of the day the times of the day seem to scope with school hours I feel at least the morning hours should be every day because that's when traffic is at its highest and uh it's most dangerous there something that's happened since our last meeting the police department put up a a sign for warning of the merging they had to take it down because it was causing incidents on the road it shows you I just I just don't understand why we can't get that merge removed so H how do we go about that if if I make a suggestion does it get done what what's the procedure that sounds like a county thing right you're talking about changing signage uh on from no this is the sign in the agreement Street markings yeah where it's said right turn only between the certain hours coming out of the new Street you talking about two different you were talking about the merge and you were talking about that's okay let's we're here to just address it and then we're here about the sign that was up for a couple of weeks and then went away but you are most sensitive today about the sign that may or may not appear at the end of the C dect where with a new Street may meet Playfield them correct I'm most sensitive about the danger of the street coming out at that location but it's obvious we're not going to be doing anything about that unless it gets voted down tonight but on page four B2 of the agreement it mentions you know in the morning and in the afternoon but that correlates with school time so I'm requesting if that could be changed for the morning hours be every day of the year because that that's dangerous may I ask what you consider morning hours the time frame of morning hours what do you consider that it says 7 to9 no but is that suffice you or I'm fine with with that yes yeah yeah yeah seven days but seven days a week seven well or if you want to put it on weekdays I don't know because of the you know commuters but it well it's my understanding that the proposal speaks to 700 am. to 900 am. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday right right and you are interested in Saturday and Sunday no I'm interested in not having it go away on school days it doesn't go away Monday through Friday every day every 365 days a year it is Monday I'm fine with this okay right Mr santor is that a correct statement if that's the case that's yeah no no the the word school days will won't appear on the sign it'll just be okay if it's passed that restriction of those hours to different intervals during the day Monday through Friday okay on page five item number nine one minute left yes sir oh go well why don't you um on page five number nine it's talks about um that a sidewalk would be put there or a donation to some fund I would like to have that donation to some fund done taken away because without that sidewalk kids coming down this new Street would have to cross planfield Avenue to the existing sidewalk on the other side of planfield Avenue in order to negotiate up to the corner so to continue on to Mary K McMillan or to um the Elementary School Mr barter final comments please go ahead will go ahead well we heard you how many more do you have two we'll we'll hear your two okay um but how do we get that changed is that something you could vote on or sidewalk portion of it yes do you no problem sidewalk is that the sidewalk that's going along planfield Avenue yes from the corner Avenue to the new Street all right if the if this application pass so Mr B that is your request yes the appli seems amable to that can delete the word shall approprate cont okay section 13 page five sidewalk right like what if you get to a certain point and this is where I'm okay with the language because if you get to a certain point and the sidewalk is unable to be built everybody loves a sidewalk but after you do the site grading and everything else if it comes to a spot where you can't do it right it's nice to be able to then say we have the donation so it's fine so if you want to put the language that something to the effect that app sh Constructor sidewalk thank you Frontage with the approval of the township and County engineers in the event that that cannot occur then they and more than likely it'll be the township since the sidewalk is inside the curent so perspective you know whatever primary that we can't do it for some reason because someone tells us we can't do it Point problem Mr your last comment pardon me your last comment yes um section 13 page five is talks about a drainage pipe is not as described in the E it's actually in the easement on 3203 to planfield Avenue it's telling you to move it from the north side of planfield to the south side of planfield and planfield runs north and south so it that language is what number that's page section 13 page want me to show you yes see it's already been moved on here but they were they're saying moving it from this side of the street to this side of the street yeah it's it's really in the easement from 32 well make a around right I'm saying the yes so it's nothing it's a non well it's wrong on the document but that's you know I don't know what drives huh it was basically indicating at one point in time that it was going it was on the left side that's how we originally proposed it right that was Miss's comment and then we agreed to shift it to which my only comment because it says on plane Field Avenue and it's not on maybe we should say two plane field two plane field that's a tweet okay we know what the issue is so thank you very much for joining this a through last names c c a through F so C's in the raise your you s tell the truth the truth nothing about the truth I do address yourk cook 538 planfield Avenue thank you for joining us this evening I take that good evening everybody members of the zoning board this is my first meeting so it's a pleasure to meet you all my name is York cook I live at 538 planfield Avenue with my fiance mik a day we just celebrated our one-year anniversary in Berkeley Heights on August 8th and we plan on being buried in our backyard pending zoning board approval we are new to the discussion but we have some concerns one is the major variances especially related to D2 right now D2 is already over the bulk variance and they're looking to extend that to 179% over from what I understand the relief on section two they want to get to 27.9% and the town limits it to 10% we also have a but the impervious coverage and number three while they're under it currently the ordinance says it's 25% and they're looking to go to 34% so my question is if anybody else in this town wants to then go to that limit do they just have to threaten to sue under the Constitution and Har you know that's specific to the church not the not the parcels of of the property specific to the church so that's their parking lot and again specific to the Church of those numbers but that's still over and again I'm totally new to the conversation but that's still over what is allowed in the town but they're trying to increase that from the 15% that they already already over the five they're already 5% over and they're trying to go another 12% over so that would be 179% over what is currently in the ordinance is that correct the denominator is getting lower sorry because it's based on it says maximum pered other coverage is 10% and number two number two proposed other coverage is 27.9% that's what they want to get to it they're not changing the church it's just that the the lot size because the lot size would be coming smaller because they would be subdividing off the land the amount the denominator is is lower so that's why so they would be out of the ordinance so if it was somebody's house they would still be out of the ordinance but but they're not it's increasing simply because of that because I understand because they're they're giving away land but they would still be under what is what is allowed if it was a house right when we look at at church for example right it's inherently beneficial to the town to things like that so you wouldn't knock that down just because their parking lot is too large okay no I'm just trying to learn in case I want to extend my property and have other coverage yeah that's why people come here right when they're outside of bounds they they come before the absolutely you know each case is treated differently because it's based on the unique situation of the property and the house and everything like that so there's no precedent technically in land use so if you get the approval that doesn't mean that Augie could come in and say well he got the approval I want the approval so it doesn't work quite like that okay that's fine just trying to understand and then the traffic safety is a bigger concern me and my fiance were both in the private sector we work sales remote the traffic study was done I believe in May of 2022 a lot of people weren't going back to work a lot less traffic on the road and now people going back to work it seems to be a long time to not have an updated study as I said we've been there a little over a year we've both almost had accidents coming out of our driveways our parents have almost had accidents as Jerry mentioned the police put up a speed radar that had to be taken down because there almost accid excuse me accidents so I would think at a minimum it would be beneficial to the town going forward to at least have one more study done about the traffic considering people are going back to work there's more people on the road I think it would be beneficial at the at the least to do one more study on the traffic thank you thank you very much for joining us a a through F Miss casle thank you welcome back thank you and if you raise your right hand you swear tell the truth whole truth nothing but the truth yes thank you and your name and address Christen Castillo 560 planfield Avenue um good evening everyone and thank you for your patience and consideration um and allowing me to speak this evening I'm going to try not and repeat things that have already been discussed um the the traffic study is something I wanted to bring up because the complaint alleged that the the board's decision was um their findings were without Merit and the uh the evidence that was presented by the applicant's own witness kind of contradicts the statement so the maximum speed exceeded on planfield Avenue that was captured was 54 mil an hour um when we say that the the maximum speed captured was di Minimus I just don't feel that that is relevant nearly 20 miles an hour over the speed limit can't be considered to Minimus as implied um I wanted to reiterate that the witness confirmed 24% of the vehicles recorded during that traffic study in 2022 um were're going over the speed limit so with 6,000 cars going on the road daily over that 7-Day period meant 10,080 cars exceeded the speed limit um these facts from the applicant's own traffic study actually support the board's assessment that the that exceeding the speed limit is actually routine and the board's denial was not arbitrary but rather very logical and defendable on the contrary um Jerry spoke about the um the sign that was put up earlier this year this is as a result of a terrifying incident I had while crossing planfield Avenue with my daughter um we were walking to school two cars came speeding around the corner their tires were screeching um the one car tried to pass the other in the lane of oncoming traffic and as my daughter clung to my side I raised my hands and screamed hoping to be noticed by um the drivers so I immediately contacted the police department because this was the last STW I had I was very grateful for their Swift action they immediately um reached out to me asked me to provide them further details and I was very grateful that they put the caution sign up and um the additional speed rate sign um as Jerry mentioned very ironic and a sad twist the caution sign actually caused some near accidents and they had to remove um that shortly after um I urge the board to consider the safety concerns we already face and how the proposed development will only make things worse for families pedestrians and drivers in the area um I have a little bit of a different take on the the left um the prohibition on the the left hand turn restriction in the the settlement agreement um this would imply that the line of sight on the cars coming down the hill and in conjunction with the traffic study was not reliable or sufficient as the testimony had claimed um the right turn proposal does not effectively mitigate the risk posed by the speeding cars especially considering the downward Hill where Vehicles naturally accelerate um as they head north on planfield to beat the light um the right turn only would force residents in the the culdesac into an impractical and inefficient traffic pattern especially when needing to transport kids to the school such as Mary Kate and Mountain Park which is what we are zoned for not only is this impractical inefficient it's also extremely inconvenient to make this detour so parents driving to school are going to have to take unnecessary and lengthy detours where they would have to navigate down to Hamilton onto Snider while sitting through the Carline traffic to Hughes which backs up on Snyder for both those entering Hughes and leaving Hughes as they drop kids off up to Mountain to reach the school that's essentially in their backyard driving to Mary Kay for example would involve a 2.2 mile detour instead of direct access by making the left hand turn during those school hours I anticipate the rebuttal to this would be that kids can walk to school if attending Mary Kay but this could become burdensome during inclement weather when there's snow when there's rain or for example when working parents need to drop their kids off on the way to work the question I had in the settlement agreement was that the line of sight to the north is not required or it is required because it only explicitly states that a the ashto and Union County line of sight is required to the South the North was not included in that so that is a question I have based on my limited time I just wanted to say that compliance with the site easement requirements would necessitate the removal of a approximately seven mature trees each over 30 feet tall spanning the front of my property in missen BG's lot in addition branches up to 8 to 10 feet high and four additional mature Canadian hemlocks which are Lush and wide would also be removed this significantly affects the appearance and character of my property leaving my home exposed and diminishing my privacy and my value especially since my house is located on the busy Main Road the settlement agreement gives zero consideration for the alteration of current residents properties and quality of life nor does it specify any recourse or compensation for the applicant to restore either the shade from the mature trees and privacy that I would lose the large arbiv trees planted between my lot and the barers lot at my own expense within that easement were added to control the water runoff from the church property and to provide privacy and that would also be impacted the loss of the trees would increase my exposure further to PL Field Avenue and potentially increase the water runoff issues that I previously had mitigated um to the barter's property the time do you have any wrap up comments or questions how many more comments do you um really I just want I guess to address the um the tree issue in front of my property as well as around the property I noticed you you've been very detailed and patient through the process and you're you're deserve another minute or two okay I know there are things that you'd like to get off your mind and said to the record and you're you're welcome to that comment um so with that at least it will bring up some questions about lot 31 having trees put around the back of the lot but again there's no consideration it seems that there is um any requirement to add trees around anyone else's Lots it just mentions lot 31 which I believe is the sputo residence um and then just one final comment um if the proposed property behind us proposed development was flat without water concerns our discussions over the years would have been very different and without such great emotion however there's a reason our town has an ordinance not to disturb SL slopes of 25% or greater there's a reason these carefully measured regulations are enforced and monitored steep slopes are more prone to erosion particularly when vegetation is removed or the soil is Disturbed they can destabilize the land increasing the hood of of landslides and they post serious rest to properties and residents especially in those low-lying areas um which would include my residents since some about 50 fet lower than the church property they can also compromise the structural Integrity infrastructure such as a large parking lot the soil on the steep slopes can shift over time leading to cracks in retaining walls causing long-term maintenance and safety issues it would be irresponsible to approve this variant due to the poor design of the the subdivision and our concerns are further exasperated by several issues that we are aware of houses that the developer has built over the last several years where houses have flooded within the first year or two of of being built holding everyone accountable to regulations and ethical standards is essential for the long-term well-being of a community and the financial needs of one developer should not outweigh the broader environmental and social concerns am I able just to get an answer on the um the line of sight to the north which wasn't included in the settlement agreement to the best of my recollection the line of sight was from the corner of Mountain and planfield through the street is that correct Mr Holland did both Direction both directions both directions were done which is why the trees are being removed in front of the homes okay because the settlement agreement only says to the South so it was weird that it was specifically called out line of sight to the South and not to the north of of the new road being put in to the South they had to remove and grade the property down to actually SE up to the corner to to the north they don't it's just there are trees that have to come down but there's no no grading no disturbance outside of the right way everything is then so they're they are going both ways if you looked at the plan that Mr H had shown they had to go both dist is same distance both directions you can see both left and right coming out of that turn I'm sorry just with respect to the grading and that information has any geotechnical um work been done that we have noted or no like that I guess looks at boring like they maybe drilled a couple of borings to just see what the soil is like what the potential for erosion or anything of that magnitude if it could hold the weight of the houses at the very beginning there was well at the very beginning there was some SL logs taken it's why we have the infiltration basins so yeah there's an entire obviously all the D compliance was done as part of the overall design of the entire so xxi is the one I'm referring to applicant shall ensure sufficient site clearing to provide appropriate site distances required by Union County and ashto 400t for riew for view to the South but it does include to the north I believe 400 ft is the asht I don't know why Union County would be added in there but but Union County actually was greater less I think Union count it was greater they had a they had a umide by Union County which is actually require I think actually was only 200 or 300 feet so they 380 I think so they they extended it beyond beyond that either way all the trees are going to be taken down in front of my property so I just wanted to make sure that you know if if they're complying with the line of sight that is also to the north and that should be something to be considered since it doesn't seem to be something that's been brought up recourse I think the new is regarding eement versus RightWay but obviously what whatever has been shown on the plan which is on plan right yes that plan that's been you know in play Forever we're continuing to here to and obviously just for a clarification all of this was dealt with in a year or year and a half before the foundy engineering dealt with all of this issues and of course with all the County requirements and that's you know that was the outcome along with the to thank you thank you very much Regina are you picking up Mr santor on the microphones I just want to make sure because I I know you're wearing the mask and you're not near a microphone but I think the the sound system has been improved but I just want to make I have no way to check that I just assume he's being picked up okay I'll come up and speak in front of the mic now I I just want to make sure that we've got everything up problem um a through K anyone with the last name a through K floor is now yours a through P A through P anyone who's interested um I sir would you mind this gentleman the first walk through the door unless you want to defer it's fine learn something from we'll try you raise your right hand do you swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do your name and address John Leo 43 Forest Avenue I have a potential tweak referencing the sidewalks that were discussed earlier in some of the traffic studies and the potential I don't want to say problem but the uh the ability for people to access by walking to this culdesac and out of it and the fact that there's a school right behind this culdesac this town is uh riddled with these exceptional foot paths between two separate neighborhoods and they're used widely across the town between Lots 3205 proposed and lots 3204 proposed if we could put a foot path with an easement between the two properties or and I think it's more difficult to do between the church the existing one and lot 3205 so that people in the neighborhood can access not just the school but the neighborhoods further down Mountain a because you could actually walk continuously from there to Deer Path off of mountain entirely so you would actually probably capture you'd provide a service for the community in that area to walk from that location on without with avoiding the traffic light and walking up at the intersection entirely it also wouldn't be Beyond us to that was the the little one but this I was wondering if if we came down that Hill if there was a way to work with the traffic state to reduce the speed between the large intersection and the new street so that people only accelerate Beyond it with uh complete with uh traffic caling so that you're not accelerating down the hill from the traffic L which seems to be a common problem I think that's all pretty appreciated by the fact that we had to put the Turning restriction to the left even when that turning restriction is is not an not an issue because the times are not in play and we assume there's less traffic uh there still could be walkability issues Crossing going north and south you're adding a sidewalk there uh to serve the culdesac I believe that it might be a good answer to provide the foot path with the easement between the two proposed Lots that's all I have thank you thank you please I would say no and I'll tell you why um and it's not that it's not a good suggestion but it's an application it's a bit of an issue I think sometimes when you deal with private paths that are between um properties number one that deal with maintenance liability issues if people kind of you know you're you're buying a house looking for privacy and then you have a walking path going right through your sidey yard which really if you look at how that connects it's to the back of the woods of the school it's not like it's just clearcut to a particular pathway per baseball field the soccer baseball field is there on the lower side is there a fair changing grade in that area as well it continues to rise up the hill as you go over the course and then there's a I think it levels and drops I don't know how it goes with the school because you have the the steep drop down going down to Mary Kay for um you know where people watch baseball and the kids play obviously lower in the hole but I do think that obviously there's a general goal of trying to create the sidewalks now while I recognize that it may be a little inconvenient for the people to walk down the culdesac to walk back up and around it's not just limited to those actions per se so I think that as the town continues to improve things over the course of time whether they're additional sidewalk projects that continue to connect different parts of the town I think part of what you're seeing here in the memorandums that came from Mr s Faro's office is an idea of you can regulate that which is in front of you and as a result of that part of the suggestions were not our suggestion but really the town's suggestion to the professionals was to make sure there was a continuous sidewalk leading to this so we were really just we weren't proposing it we were just agreeing to the proposition of it and said that we would accept that condition so it's not this is a condition that we added this is a condition that we agreed to that had been suggested during the course of the two and a half year thing so I think that when you look at those types of things in terms of what we're trying to accomplish to cooperate and also the future expandability of it and then obviously those maintenance issues between whose property's going to be on and all those other things um you know I think that's why you would just prefer to continue which as it's been proposed by the town good a through P A through P yes thank you for your patience I know you were the first no problem today would you raise your right hand do you swear tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth I do and your address alesandro menis Galco uh 630 planfield Avenue than spell your last name sure m a n i s c a l Co thank you uh thank you uh so unfortunately I don't really know what's what's much of what's happening I wish I could be could have been more prepared but my family just moved to town uh several months ago and I only just found out about this about a week ago uh so I wish I could have learned more about this project and been more prepared but I I have to agree with pretty much everything that I've heard uh so far I mean for example the I think sidewalk is absolutely necessary um I am very concerned about the traffic uh especially I have a six-year-old you know and and I don't want her to be uh endangered and she goes to Mary Kay currently uh so and we we walk to the school so we are concerned about you know how much traffic might be added and obviously the signage is helpful I don't know how if it'll be enforced because I I know on the right turn on onto Mountain Avenue from plane Field Avenue for example cars still turn regardless of the sign so that's obviously also a concern I'm also concerned that um you know one of the reasons we moved to brookley Heights was because of how spacious it was and how green it was with trees uh because we' come from kennworth where houses were practically on top of each other in certain areas uh and you know come to find out this project is being developed you know like a block away so it's kind of disappointing uh so I am concerned about the trees that will be lost especially when I had submitted a request to have a a couple of trees taken down in my own property and and was basically told no we don't like to get rid of trees so you know that that's obviously a concern as well um and I guess the last concern would be during this construction what hour would this construction be done because I know my wife is incredibly light sleeper and I and I know she's going to be if if it's in the middle of the night she's never going to get any sleep so should this application pass and there is a shovel in the ground the the work performed before construction needs to adhere to the uniform construction code that's established by the town it's probably 7 o'clock in the morning until 6 or 7 o'clock at night day through Friday and there may a tweak on Saturday and I don't think there's a provision on Sundays uh Saturday would be the hour timeline would be a little bit shorter okay but that information is readily available I would talk to our construction consultant regarding the times for construction but the applicant would need to adhere to that time and would this construction uh cause any road closures on planfield Avenue at all I I I will defer to the applicant but traditionally all work is done on site okay there's a staging area that's off of the the primary Road and all work is done within the interior of the parcel if there is an arrangement with the church this project could start from the church parking lot working downward I don't know okay the applicant may have a plan but it's early in the stages for that as well all right uh I do think that the the new proposed road is a little close to the traffic light which I think will will cause further issues with with traffic and uh endangering people during the traffic patterns but I mean it's it's kind of sounds like maybe I'm wrong but it kind of sounds like we're leaning towards settlement here and I don't know if it'll go beyond that but uh I'm just shocked that you to hear that if this if we were to to not settle that someone could just come in and and do whatever they want I mean that that doesn't sound like like it makes sense but I mean I have to believe what you're saying sometimes it takes years this this project has been a concept since 2015 right here we are at 2024 25 and we're not quite sure of what the next step is but it will be one longer than that should this application pass infrastructure improvements take years I worked on a bridge it took 13 years and finally the bridge is open but from from design through ribbon cutting that's how long a project takes and no I understand subdivision project you know with a 10 year span here I just can't understand how if this you know falls through that the township wouldn't have a say on what construction is done uh you know in a propos in a potential new construction they could any any developer could come in and ask for a variance for whatever they want to do so maybe it's not permitted inherently under the ordinance right now I don't have that in front of me to know what uses are permitted right now but any applicant can come in and ask for a variance like they did so anyone could come on so the process would just start over it because I got the impression from what you you said that if this you know falls through and it t it goes to I guess Federal uh you know court or whatever that potentially a new construction without the Township's approvals could be done no I think there's just two issues there if if this gets denied and it goes to litigation right then the judge can say it's approved and there's no conditions of approval so now we have all these conditions that's basically the settlement agreement but if the judge comes in and says Barkley Heights were wrong we're approving this project now none of those conditions are imposed I see so like no left turn signal no potentially no sidewalk or anything like that gotcha yeah all right uh well that's all I had to say uh appreciate your time and thank you very much and welcome to Berkeley Heights thank you ather P anyone please join us thank you you don't remember my name I want to say po p you got P right porus porus I'm sorry thank you yes nice I'm not offended you know what in fact I think it's good maybe I didn't scar everybody the way that I thought I maybe did I think your first name is Lisa though right I was GNA say that thank you very much for joining us I know it's been a long haul you've been here for every meeting virtual and live so welcome back thank you thank you do you sort to tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth Lisa forus 546 planfield Avenue Berkeley Heights um and in all of those other times that I have spoken I have pretty much always spoken on the environmental concerns and taken down all of these trees and I know that's been addressed and I know there's things that talk about it in the settlement where it says that trees will be indicated and replaced and I certainly hope that's true one of the things that we talked about the last time um was that uh there were you that specifically this is a reference to the settlement specifically there would be the five to six six foot to 7ft trees put in along my property which is Lot 36 37 um in the settlement it's specifically references lot 31 and while I think that's great for lot 31 um we had specifically talked about it for my lot and I think there should be reference to all of the lots that are being impacted here that there would specifically be trees put in to afford all of us a little bit of coverage for the trees that are going to be taken down your my is I double check I purposely took the photo because I never remember what number it is no I am 36 I am the first lot that has the woods so our Woods will not be touched and I certainly hope you guys will not step over onto our property and touch our trees um so right Lot 36 so it was Lot 36 that we it's the long it's the long skinny one long skin yep um so last time we had specifically talked about that those tall trees would be put in along our property line the settlement references lot 31 I would request that my lot be put back in which is one of the tweaks that Miss wolf talked about that we've worked on for years um and also request that something like that be put in for the other lots that are being impacted as well 33 34 and 35 it is 3 B15 yes you are correct we did discuss Lot 36 to have a buffer along the back to give it some resemblance of what is there today since things will be removed um we didn't discuss what type of trees but that there would be some type of vegetative buffer right we talked about six or seven foot I don't remember we didn't specify the type but we talked about that they would be and that may just be a typo because I'm not sure why lot 31 would be there anyway so that may just be um right I don't want to take anything away from lot 31 I don't know that family can't imagine anybody wouldn't it's actually supposed to be 34 not 31 right but 3 36 because we discussed that they're going across the back of her property yeah 36 is not a problem we can do that right but the 31 is probably a typo 31's typo supposed to be 34 yeah okay well I would request that all lots that are getting this be specified in there so there's no we can make 34 and 36 right I would imagine 35 once at two well it's not what once it's what was agreed to we can only go by what was agreed to originally if there's an additional request that can be made but what we're looking at is just kind of what we agreed to and we did agree to again 34 and and 36 uh in those areas there thank you I appreciate that um and that that can be put back in um I did want to also I mean the traffic has been the other big theme I know it's been addressed I don't think there is a right answer on the hours any any scenario makes me so uncomfortable both myself and Miss Castillo have sixth graders that are crossing planfield every morning now the two of us are out there every morning at 7:50 crossing our daughters because we don't trust them or not that we don't trust them we don't trust the cars to stop um previously my daughter's taken the bus to school and cars were flying by that bus during rush hour in both directions regardless of the flashing red lights so there's no right answer for the hours I would encourage the most conservative option possible if this road if this is approved and if this road is really there whatever the signage is that is the most conservative would be my particular vote I understand Miss Castillo's concern about the longer drive to Mary Kay I actually loved Mr Leo's suggestion of the foot path when my kids were at Mary Kay we sometimes cut through our Woods through the baseball field and up to Mary Kay In order to not have to do the long walk around um and if the HOA can be responsible for maintaining the water basins I don't see why the HOA this great HOA can't be responsible for maintaining this foot path too so I would you know would love to see his tweak put back on the table um on that sense as well and then lastly I just want to I I'm G I'm an attorney by background too I understand why cases need to settle I have settled cases I didn't want to settle but it is so upsetting as a citizen of this town as a taxpayer of this town to have money if this is voted agre to today to have money and the threat of additional lawsuits went out because they had more money going into this it is so upsetting that that's what this may be coming down to it's so unfair to Regular People Like Us who can't afford to do that and keep it going and couldn't afford attorneys to litigate this for eight years um here and we were representing ourselves so I just I felt the need to say that I know that may not make a difference but it's just really upsetting to be on this side and see the big docks went out and the developers went out over the regular people whose home values are going to be impacted and being even a worse financial position because of us but I thank all of you for all of your attention over the years for all of the work and all of the tweaks that have gone into this to make it as palatable as it could be as unpalatable as that may be thank you we appreciate your attendance year over year here at these meetings thank you so just for the record are we including lots 34 35 and 36 or just 34 and 36 34 and 36 4 36 okay A through P A through P going once going twice a through T A through T anyone with the last name that begins a through T you're welcome to stop up a through z end the alphabet anyone else interested in sharing a comment or a thought the floor is now yours you swear tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you your name and address uh my name is James ker I've spoken before the board I believe back in April uh 7 deepdale Drive in Berkeley Heights um new to this discussion although I've heard you know a lot of Rumblings around town about it and whatnot um I think I live just outside the zone to be able to uh to actually get notified you're probably greater than 200 feet but right anyone in the public sure sure whoever is welcome to join the meeting and participate actively so we appreciate that somewhere along the line line the wind may have blown up Tanglewood and you're here tonight so yeah exactly appreciate it um I too share every concern that everyone up here has given um my family walks across planfield Avenue we almost get hit by a car every morning um I was up here in front of the board about a shed and you know you all shared your concerns about mature trees and water drainage and whatnot so I just had one question approximately how many of these trees are due to be taken down with this project Mr Hollow I know this is animely you recall what the trade count was I know few hundred roughly right over 200 okay about 200 trees that take what anybody about 30 40 years to get to about the size they're at right now right drainage also is supposed to be taken in within your property right that's what you're supposed to do here so what what I and I apologize for being a bit naive but is that the plan here as well water is to be absorbed into each of these properties or is it are you planning on taking it and pumping it to another a bio retention system that's basically hav discuss the use the whole apparently the settl docum is pretty comprehensive basically everybody everybody has a chance to go and say something question they're limited to five minutes so to participant so if you go to the little e e e e  e for Sunday I got go into the participants people IC there the same coell is gonna do some AV Tech the the people at home were on M are muted now I just want to make sure they us Mr we were speaking to you just let us know if they can hear us okay thank you we M all the participants just that we were M okay Mr Hollis can you please uh indicate the general high level overview of the water uh management there are five infiltration basins bio retention basins um four for the Lots one for the road they've been reviewed and reviewed by the engineering department Mr s Faro's office and my knowledge as I spoke to Kathy meller about this um as far as the drainage goes it's been approved by the by Tom's s far's office and um it's really it's five basins and then essentially just for the audience's general understanding obviously there's plan design and then there's compliance so as we go through the through the actual construction process that is reviewed consistently by the township engineers in accordance with compliance over the entire course of construction to make sure that it's in accordance with what's proposed and what's required and we obviously indicated during the course of our things that we would adhere to Mr sar's recommendations in his memorandums and we didn't have any issue with compliance of those items um could I just get a couple minutes to just kind of synthesize and wrap up the are maintained by the away so it's not the homeowners that move in that have to maintain them to be maintained by to make sure they're in good working condition and perpetuity correct I just want to Mr santor just Pan the room one more time sure is there anyone who would like an opportunity that may have missed their turn I went through a through z in the alphabet so I can't wait to hear what you're list I apologize I was late welcome tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you your name and address uh Jennifer Hoffler 573 planfield Avenue spell your last name ho FF l e r thank you uh just to reiterate what the rest of the group has said and thank you for the patience apologies for my lateness I'm sure I'm repeating what people like every voice s yeah um so our driveway is directly across from the proposed driveway going in my husband and I moved in about five years ago a little over five years ago in that time we've seen 12 track incidents in which police had to be called our we ourselves called the police six times of those a young boy was hit earlier this summer um up by Mountain AB so the traffic concerns are very very high for us we have a three-year-old and a one-year-old one and a half-year-old uh dreading this coming in and them walking down the sidewalk and then trying to cross across the street to our house basically so the proposed uh while I appreciate the traffic study and all the work that's gone into this the proposed plan is uh still scary to us because it's it's not safe because we see kids often playing in these woods today try to cross the street in front of our house and have to send them up to Mountain to make sure they're safe so I really want to reiterate what the rest of the room has said um in terms of the traffic safety I agree with the environmental concerns on the trees as well one of the reasons we moved here uh we both grew up in Cranford we love the greenery we love the space here we want to stay here um if this project is approved we will be leaving at least our house hopefully we can stay in Berkeley Heights but um the overall just this project and and to reiterate the prior speaker which uh um caus me to come up here it really feels like it's just the greedy people hurting the Little People Like Us um and really really disappointed to to be back here and hear that this is continuing going on um that being said we're not against something going in there it just feels like this is trying to cram so much into such a little space and at a street and kind of change the entire neighborhood in in a way that doesn't feel safe thank you for your time thank you very much for joining us last call for anyone that and we have a lady that's standing up go ahead you're Mr Forest spoke a long time ago see wa about five minutes okay hand you swear tell the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth yeah thank you address SAR Berkeley Heights um do we have the address I don't think giving can we have your address H your address your address what is your yeah it's Berkeley Heights and I don't think it's required for open public meetings as long as you're a resident you don't have to give it that's that's fine can we get her name spelled though s Aki I give it to you write it and give it to you write on that piece of paper that's right there yes um so I take uh planfield Avenue I I'm not in the vicinity but I think I'm within two miles to where this property is coming up uh my daughter goes to a school which is on planfield Avenue I take this road at least four to five times a day for pickup drop off or you know other activities which are School related and also for work uh my biggest concern is the cutting down of the trees and the traffic so in this town it's been a precedent of sorts that they say a traffic study has been done but a traffic study was done just for that location or did you look at it holistically in the sense of we're a small town I think we're within a radius of 5 miles or 6 miles and traffic flows through and one of the main streets in our town are Springfield Avenue planfield Avenue Mountain Avenue that the streets that connect Springfield and Mountain are planfield and Snider and this property is sitting right in between that so when residents are being told that a traffic study has been done and it's pretty good did we look at how the traffic flows or chokes during Peak traffic hours which is school Pi up and drop off and um I think for a very brief period I used to be an emergency responder um for Berkeley heads Rescue Squad my biggest concern is as is right as it is right now in a situation for during pickup and drop off from Colombia and mkm traffic really blocks up anybody who lives in town and drives in the morning or afternoon can vouch for it sometimes during pickup and drop off for mkm traffic goes beyond this particular intersection of mountain and plan field all the way towards um I think towards July I guess I think it's going west so have we who's going to be responsible if some if let's say somebody needs emergency medical response and there is more a as it is right now there are traffic concerns and then we are adding more we're adding a new Street and we're adding this you can't take a left how is emergency response going to work and um I think our Police Department is located here here and they do cater to anything that happens on 78 have we looked into all those concerns when we are giving it a green signal or is it a threat of us you know a lawsuit that's basically making us make this decision to move forward the we have emergency responses we have an ambulance Squad we have an emergency volunteer fire Squad and the police department if there is an emergency those are the three primary entities that responds to yes I'm saying that the traffic as it is right now can cause during Peak traffic hours can cause a choke point and they cannot respond within those 12 minutes or 15 minutes that's and and they would move out of the way for an ambulance to get to a scene and able to respond so if the as Mr Ring would said that's beyond our scope no no that I'm not talking about Emergen I'm saying if the traffic study has cleared this property to go ahead have you has the traffic study looked into this aspect the traffic study was done to show impact would it create additional traffic with the limited amount of homes it had shown not to and there was a safety study done based on speeds so we were provided two different Studies by two different professionals and that was only for this proper property or did it was the traffic we can look at they didn't do it for the entire town no you I'm not asking for the entire town did the traffic study factor in traffic coming up L field study Factor everything it needs to for this specific project that the board can take into consideration and it took into consideration additional traffic being added during Peak traffic hours the traffic you can read them they're they're they're public all of the traffic studies impact studies you can read them and we took into consideration the additional housing that we going in that was the whole part of what topic stud is all about and it's public knowledge and you can reach stud I mean that was presented several years ago you have one minute left okay and what about cutting down of the trees and then the water issues the runoff that is going to get caused these were addressed over the past two years and earlier this evening with the reservoir or I was trying to listen in on the zoom well we're glad that you're here in person because we appreciate the testimony here trees the number of trees storm weather retention th those items have been addressed with this board over the past two and a half years and those will be mitigated in the current plan should this application pass there is a storm water management requirement and a reforestation requirement subject to the review and the approval of borrow engineer we at time give a final comment um yeah so what happens if the board doesn't take a question you you're over time so do you have a final comment you'd like how many minutes did I get three minutes okay so I think one maybe a comment or a question so basically uh what if we don't accept the settlement offer what's we go back to court so then at that point the uh applicant is going to amend their complaint to include other Federal claims against us so that will challenge our ordinance Beyond this application and it'll just be more litigation so we'll have two lawsuits basically the one against the board and the one against the municipality same case but just two different parties oh against the board because they didn't approve it and what's the other one against the municipality for the ordinance the ordinance okay thank you thank you very much for joining us Mr Forest I know you had your hand up thank you um I wait hang me swear you would you raise your right hand do you swear I tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do thank you in your name an address Robert Forest uh I live at 447 Long Avenue manisan New Jersey but I own properties in town okay I grew up in this town in 1963 and I really do appreciate the the uh thought that you the boards putting into this but this isn't the same town that I moved into and it's not the same town that the old Italian guy grew up in where they used to tell me they used to bring the cows across um Springfield Avenue to uh grav where Cooney May built the shopping center so you know things evolve and you know I hear what these people are saying but you know when when this country was started with the Fifth Amendment Where They Se sequestered the British troops in people's houses they specifically gave people rights and property so my father used to tell me he says you want to be free you have to have a lot of money that because you have to buy the view because if you don't own the view it's not going to stay there for you so when I lived in chadam they put on the agenda will you will you agree to a small percentage in increase in your property taxes so we can compete against developers on certain pieces of property I voted yeah you know that maybe there's something significant I don't know that this property would meet that criteria but you know I think Berkeley Heights is done a pretty good job putting parks in and uh putting in open space and everything and especially with the Mandate that they got from the state with with this affordable housing you know not anybody not too many people are happy with what the town had to approve so that they could meet their requirement so you know I'm just saying where I'm hearing people thinking that you know you can't cut trees down on your property you um you know you uh you know um people are being greedy you know the thing is you know this is what this developer does for a living you know this is how he makes a living just like the butcher has to have deer you know uh cows have to get killed pigs got to be get slaughtered and you know I'm just uh you know a little bit uh you know thinking that maybe you know I'm not saying anything on the Merit of what you have to decide on as far as you know does it warrant an approval or not but I'm just saying as far as you know if you know people um commenting on you know what people can do with their property I think that's a little bit disturbing to me thank you for listening we Pan the room several times may I get a motion to close the meeting to members of the public Mr par make a motion to close the members of the public a second by Mr Jia second the session is now closed to members of the public that had a question or comment and we have a summation Mr s so I recognize the frustration of homeowners this is not an issue of greed this is an issue of Law and we came here with an application several years ago that was originally just supposed to be a an affirmation of a previous planning board approval to get final subdivision approval there was a deficiency that was not created by the developer but the deficiency was an error by a former planner in town by not sending it to the right board years and time was spent money approval was granted we came back in to verify that approval into a final subdivision and had to start from scratch and we started from scratch with a completely new set of environmental requirements that were much more stringent we submitted Traffic Engineers we submitted planners regular site Engineers drainage expert Specialists not a single expert was ever introduced by any member of the public consistent representations such as my property's going to lose value least on one they all sound they're great sound bites but they're just comments they're comments based in nothing if we look at the logistical and conceptual thing here only people that live on planfield Avenue could drive on planfield Avenue only people that live on planfield Avenue can turn on planfield Avenue and four new houses four not 40 not 400 are going to disturb the entire traffic pattern of Berkeley Heights it's Preposterous it makes no sense it's not based in logic it's based in not in my backyard that's all it is there's no more to it than that obviously it's not the same project that when when it's built if it's built if it's approved it's obviously not going to be what it looks like today it'll look different but when we talk about cramming something in as has been represented every one of these Lots is oversized significantly oversized they're all designed in conformant they're compliant in those regards um every possible criteria and item that was given over the course of time we adhere to when we talk talk about traffic we can't redesign intersections we can't redesign County Roads town roads all we can do is develop the property inside the confines of what the ownership would be and the idea we spent a year year and a half in a normal circumstance in any other application that I've dealt with in the many many applications approval of the County planning board would have been a condition not a precondition but a condition of the application which would have been done post fact it's the only one I've ever done in my entire career where we went through a year year and a half and understandably why to make sure that everybody in a transparent basis understood and the county looked at this exhaustively we replied to everything we went above and beyond every particular study that would normally even be required and again we've proposed additional settlements so when we look at this we look at the fact that this offense that we were forced to sue well we spent two and a half years uncontroverted no experts against us no descent from town professionals so everything was in compliance and yet we were voted against so look at it from our perspective a completely essentially compliant application a technical D2 variance on a church that's inherently beneficial to continue the efficiency of that church and separating off which is essentially a conforming subdivision it is one of the most approvable applications I've ever represented in my career and then have to sue for it was not something that was taken lightly or otherwise and it wasn't designed Beyond greed or bullying or anything else it was just a lot of time a lot of money and a lot of obligations were under the developer to try and finish the project and ultimately speaking as Miss wolf indicated in the beginning there were a ton of criteria and a ton of information that we agreed to provide I think that I would hope to think that the board saw us as a willing participant across the board in terms of trying to respond whether it was to miss sonenberg or miss poris or Miss Castillo whatever the different comments and needs it wasn't that anything and everything that was ever said was no basically it was pretty much always yes and we tried to find our way through to come to reasonable solutions to accommodate each and every person to be reasonable and I just ask that the board adopt this settlement agreement at this point in time um because it's an extremely reasonable resolution of the issues at hand thank you thank you very much with that said I'd like to thank the public we've spent many years together many birthdays were spent here with the uh the zoning board we appreciate your time dedication and sharing your interpretations and personal opinions like to thank the application team for sharing the challenge with us miss leey our planner thank you very much for joining us the unsung heroes Miss wolf and Miss gardana have been here year over year with this application as well as many others and I'd like to thank the members of the board for their time and dedication on this volunteer position with that said Mr Koval do you have any final comments before we vote on this um I think I think my comments are personally do I like the application no but I can't vote on the application based on my likes and personal feelings as a professional sitting here I have to make my judgment based on Municipal land use law uh and seeing that this meets all the criteria and there is nothing here that shows me that we shouldn't approve I'm going to make a motion to accept the application or settlement as presented with some of the changes that we had to make within the document this evening so we have a motion the floor from Mr yes yes uh Miss West um I don't have any questions thank you Mr Sylvester no questions Mr Degan to you are you are entitled to voice your opinion interpretation of the municipal land use and share your your feelings on how you would the only comment I have is that and I kind of take exception to this being about money I don't think it's about money I think it's about knowing the law and knowing what the possible outcome would be and actually not wasting money um with this settlement agreement um uh I I just I I don't think it's the town not wanting to spend money I think it's about what's going to be the logical outcome if this goes before a court of law and I think that's what uh really drives this s that's it thank Mr per um I think the only comment I have and I think someone uh from the public had mentioned it before was regarding again you know I keep going back to this left turn thing uh but the time of day it's like days of the week I don't remember seeing anything on the weekend and I know there's a lot of people that drive down that way I live down that way and there's all the sports and stuff going on I mean I would personally like to see some kind of like left turn restriction in the weekend uh but I mean like Mr Degan and everyone else said the law of the law they're not doing anything against the law um so I mean pretty much is what it is thank you Mr D um I agree with Mr de and Mr Kel's statements I would second the approv Mr rwood yeah I I again I I'll start with supporting what Mr Dean said that it's the the reality of the settlement isn't because we're threatened with a lawsuit the reality of the the the settlement is assessing the merits of the lawsuit and where we stand within relationship to the law and what the likelihood would be of success and quite honestly the likelihood of success in this lawsuit for the township is virtually non-existent if if this wasn't a a d variance for the subdivision of the church they wouldn't even have to come before us because there's no valances required for the actual building that they're doing for the for the units so the only reason they're before the board is because of the Dalian for the subdivision of the church it's something that was already approved by the planning board it's a County Road it's approved by the county and they're meeting National requirements so it's from a legal standpoint the words not buckling because we're afraid of a lawsuit we're making an intelligent decision that says the merits of the law in this case are against us in terms of some of the things that were BL up and and look if I lived where you live I would be with you and I am but again the law is the law so you know my neighbors do things all the time I don't like it it's caused major FL to my property but what they did was within the purview of the law and they re received ear Bo the traffic on Playfield Avenue is going to be the traffic on planfield Avenue the five cars or double it 10 cars is not going to make an impact on all of the things that go on with people and and drop off and pick up for schools for the sports that are going on those sports are going to go on and sports go on all day long so it's not just morning hours or afternoon hours on a weekend or morning hours or afternoon hours during the week because Sports go on all day long on Saturday and they go on all day long on Sunday so you know that stuff's going to happen we have a horrible problem there okay the zoning board can't resolve those problems and the development of this problem project while you might feel is going to exasperate it there are different issues that need to be dealt with at a different governmental agency within the town and not this Z Bo thank you Mr Ringwood um conditions M wolf Mr santor we we tweaked some South North sidewalk uh tree buffer one or two others I just want to make sure that we have those captured and memorialized and agreed to before we vote on this sure so I think the person was uh item two the left-and turn movements I think Mr santor said that they would be willing to accept any longer restrictions if that's necessary I'm not sure if Mr santor will accept the uh Saturday and Sunday restriction um there was no specific problem 365 days a year with the Restriction that are outlin yeah I mean I think the reason why I was Monday through it was it was Monday through Friday this will be this will be a this will be marked at those timelines Sunday through Monday and I and I just the only reason of the initial proposition is that obviously you're not dealing with work days so you're cutting down all of the work traffic and that's why we didn't have to propose it for Saturday and Sunday um you know whether or not that creates any kind of additional uh thing I think what I would agree with just to not I'm not necessarily against it but I I think that if we can put language in there subject to Mr I'm sure something can be Revisited by way of the Town engineer or the police Department this something that I think there was a modification at the corner of Russo and by inir the why I mean a truck prohibition or something like that so if Mr Saro comes back and says Hey listen we prer to have this from 2:30 to 5 o' we'll say okay we're not looking to to be difficult in that regard obviously if they say oh could never ever turn left there then you know that may be a different story but you know the only thing on the weekend is you know I recognize that sports are out and going but the amount of traffic on the weekend is much much reduced in that area because obviously there's there's so much traffic related specifically to the school when you remove the school you remove the bottleneck I I mean look we've all been in this town for many many years we drive we all Drive TR field Aven all the time I'm not speaking as a traffic expert but obviously I mean been here my entire life um that's why weos we did so okay I think that alleviates some of the public interest and Mr p y s okay so we're going with seven days a week seven days okay subject to reasonable modification by Mr it's not seven days it's Monday to Friday with the time stated unless Mr Saro or the police department says it needed to be more it's saying it was as Mr saying it stays as is unless somebody else says it should be more I heard it the other way around that's what I Mr what does the board prer 7 days a week or five days subject to review basically I'm okay with five personally five days fine with five that's fine okay we just from my perspective I want it to be logical in the sense that I'm not looking to put an onus upon a resident to sit there when there's no traffic on a Sunday morning at 7 AM to make a right to go loop around the entire town and not get a ticket and I'm just trying to be plausable and logical and reasonable now if something comes into the point where it it becomes an issue then obviously what I indicated you know when they if they were something in that regard then you know and you know Mr K point out another application that just reminds me of the bus depot and Russ place down there where tomel faraoh needed to revisit if there was a change in the volume of buses to to tweak hours of the leftand movement as well sir I appreciate you bringing that because it just reminded me of something that we may a bridge that we may need to cross in October or November then next I think we had the applicant shall construct a sidewalk along planfield Avenue and then if this cannot be done for any reason then they'll make an appropriate contribution correct okay then after that we were changing the sign easement to a site easement that was just a typo we're modifying applicant shall relocate ship the underground drainage pipe from the north to the South Side to planfield Avenue instead of of planfield Avenue and then the next one is is XV the applicant sh landscape the rear yard of lots 34 and 36 and I'm going to be clear it's not landscape their rear yard of the parcel it's Landscaping the buffer buffer right so they're not going to parcel 34 and 36 and putting Landscaping in they're providing a buffer for Lots 34 and 36 where the natural Woods already are they would put something there to continue to give them some screening and privacy but that would be on the new parcel not on correct was the sidewalk subject who only not being able to be done for engineering purposes right I think that's what we were intending yeah like not just if they don't feel like doing yeah yeah okay and I think that was all the Chang yeah my notes that I I see here Mr Sor do you concur y um with that said we had a mo motion by Mr K we had a second by Mr deia and a roll call Regina Please Mr Sullivan yes I presented with the modifications yes Mr deia yes Mr Ringwood yes Mr Sylvester yes Mr Pera no M West Augustine can I can I ask why you're abstaining and not voting yes or no um you can but I don't want to answer right now um thank you uh Mr Degan I know that you are the alternate but how would you have voted on this application if you were full number I would vot yes to accept motion is 511 thank you over you good night good night everyone thank you very much oh I'm sorry they have a motion to open up the meeting to members of the public have second by Mr all in favor the meeting is now memb of public that have a question a general question or comment for the zoning board not related to the no one may have a motion to close mrop a second by Mr Ring second have a motion to close the meeting evening Mr second Mr Ring all in favor meeting is now uh we will see everyone in October do counil do if [Music] you want no no no I I