##VIDEO ID:_MPsv4s6qkk## uh okay Robin statement of adequate notice please okay under the Sunshine Law adequate notice in accordance with open public meeting Act was provided January 18th 2024 of this meeting's date time and location the agenda was mailed to the cranber press in Trenton Times posted on the township bulletin board mailed to those requesting personal notice and five with the municipal clerk roll call Miss Anderson here miss elwi here Mr fante here Mr Giddings here Miss Jones here Mr milenberg here Mr Stewart here Mr Whitman advised us he was not attending and Miss Bon here thank you we have a quorum chair next up we'd like to do the approval of the minutes for the November 7th meeting um any additions changes to those minutes hearing none can I have a motion to approve motion second okay roll call for the minutes Miss elwi yes Mr fante yes Mr Giddings yes Mr milenberg yes Mr Stewart yes and Miss Bond I'll abstain okay thank you motion passed next up we have public comment for non-agenda item so if you have a public comment based on uh an not on the application we're about to hear you're welcome to have a public comment seeing no one hearing no one and I I I think we're good so it'll close that section um okay we'll begin with application PB have anyone new that needs to be sworn in okay Mr SP can you turn on your the right button yep not the wrong one just the one that's it's on that's it so that's it so we have one potential new witness Mr Patel you just want him to say his name or do you want him to come up oh well do you swear that the testimony that you about or may give to the board's the truth death the truth to help God okay and then his name is uh c h h o t u l a l Patel p a t okay thanks if he does come to the table we'll get his qualifications but for now we'll just let it he's he's an applicant's uh represented works for applicant so okay very good I'm s creden but not in the traditional sense if you will okay all right all right uh Madam chairman members of the board Dino spini on behalf of applicant biocon generic tank the owner of the property Cedar Brook group as you may recall we were here back in September September 5th there was some additional information and detail that the board uh was seeking we resubmitted um in November you have set some plans we'll go through them and uh we're back to continue the application the focus I know it's been a while for you folks and you've had application since then but so some of the changes that you'll see that we made there were some comments about relocating the dust collectors if we could consolidate them we've done that um reconfiguring the Ada parking we've done that U noise specs we've submitted those we've also provided some renderings actual photos and potential renderings that way everyone can get a sense um screening of the uh Mechanicals bards and the like so uh with that said we're ready to move right along as long as the board is right so um on your last note as far as screening from the information that the board has um chapter 150 of land use 15055 we talk about screening of exterior mechanical equipment so I think this board would be very interested to see um what the plan is how you plan to screen I understand and the board understands that it is in a parking area however um this development is designed to be um research and has been shifted over to um manufacturing we still want to maintain that uh same um Integrity for landscaping screening um not not a look it's a beautiful Park it's a beautiful Park I don't think there pretty it's exceptional it it is so with that I think we're you know there's two components of landscaping here or screening if you will so I believe what we talked about last time which I was pretty sure that everyone agreed upon was slats through the chain link fencing to provide screening from the direct mechs there was also an issue and we'll show you some photos we took some photos from the joining property that shows you can't really even barely see our property from their site so two components screening and we'll go through that this evening now we do not have renderings with slats in them and we intentionally did that because we thought you'd want to see what it looks like slats come in different colors we're happy to provide and testify that they will match the building we'll try and make them match the building if that's what the board but there's a whole there's more slats than there are paint charts so we're happy to do whatever the board's desire is fair enough that's fantastic um to your point of not being another building near that building um youve testified in your for in in the former meeting that there is car parking back there there will be exit ESS back there so there are there is pedestrian traffic there will be people back there so not that it's the frontage of the property but you're going to have employees in and out so we still want that same kind of aesthetic and aesthetic is important to us so whatever you have and whatever changes uh that uh this group has made right right um that's what this board is interested in seeing we gave you a lot of feedback you've checked off uh at least three of those things so we'd like to see you know what your proposal is and then we'll work from there we're happy to discuss it do you want to go right to the screen part of I'm gonna hold one second is there anything that our professionals would like to say to start can you confirm any feedback is there anything that um before they present that we need to say before they get started I just want to say want to say that the we did have a little conference call this morning about 9:30 10 o'clock on the on a lot of these issues so I'll just jump in when it's time Dave that would be great okay all right for the record there are new memos so there was an 1126 memo that ised did 123 planning meno memo and 123 traffic and we did speak with your planner as well Andrew we did not speak with you we didn't think there was anything to talk about I hope you agree with that statement so he's very hopeful you agree with that so are we correct you went in the right direction with the revisions there may be a couple of things but I'd like to see the presentation yeah absolutely so with that said Kevin you've been sworn you're our engineer and why don't you get started uh right might as well start with talk about a little bit because it will address some of the items that came up in the memos is this a new uh exhibit or yeah so it these exhibits this first one is A1 it's uh a boundary and partial to topographical survey prepared by Kevin Roberts engineering this essentially is sheet two of this plan set I just made an exhibit out of it is it sheet two of the new plan set yes okay so um all right so we have the we have the preliminary final site plan that was dated you have the cover sheet then this would be sheet4 and this is sheet two this would be sheet two but I just didn't an exhibit out of okay so um are we up to exhibit a four or five oh it's a good question I can tell you um Robin had three on her minutes but you you have four on here I think um so I had she has three in the minutes from April um I mean sorry September 5th and um we had the so the boundary partial topographical survey we had a site plan as the A2 and a site plan detail we we went through A3 last yeah so we have all right so because you have um you gave me a a list here that she sheet that person will be a for them okay that's the site photographs Sharon what if for this meeting all all exhibits are we if they're new they're B okay we can do that too either way right because it B1 sure okay fine okay okay so B1 is now going to be this page two of the of the preliminary final [Applause] s second yeah so essentially I just wanted to this this is going to address one of Mr hodder's comments about the fire hydrants uh there is a fire hydrant opposite the access drive to the site uh off off a Duncan Drive there's one there there's one closer to the intersection of Cedarbrook drive and again there's another one up in this area on on Cedar Brook and as you're aware that all the activity taking place behind the building here so that's essentially alls I wanted to show on this what's the closest fire hydrant the closest fire it's right here opposite the access drive to the site it is a strength of building to se tour I believe we testified to that that's correct yeah we're not worried about what's happening inside the building we're worried about if something happens outside the building okay just just um for the record say what street it's near so that it's it's off the dunan drive dunan drive okay I'm I guess we're moving on to B2 then yes and this would be site plan site plan detail this will reflect the changes that we made site plan detail so as requested we clustered or grouped the new dust collector units uh which are right here together the existing one is here as part of that we I uh reconfigured the parking area which will require restriping uh located ADA compliance stalls here and down at this area I don't think this is anything in our packet right no it's not this is this no this would be B2 so um what this is looks like it's a blown up section of uh page three is that what it that would be a good description yes I mean it sort of looks like that okay all right so that's a separate and some of the require uh some of the reconfiguration of the par required losing a couple stalls in the meantime they some of the areas quite did not match the uh standard for uh width for the Stalls and I'll just upop Andrew their parking is met like numbers over right if I looked at lizz's report the parking is they're they still exceed the parking requirement I believe it's 166 required we're at 187 okay correct right thanks and we meet the Ada requirement for for that uh I also show uh as part of Mr Ho's memo uh The Pedestrian accesses along the back of the building represented by the triangles uh I also added distances to the ada8 compliant ramps from those points uh the longest is uh 63 feet here to uh from a from a door to the 88 ramps and as as part of the configuration uh Ada ramps will be added to to the site uh at the appropriate spots there are ramp access at some of the turn turnabout or the return curves which will utilize also uh with the the uh dust collector areas it will have an enclosure around it and it's proposed an 8ft fence which we as Doo suggested we're going to use slats to help screen or fill in the voids uh they will have access from both sides there would be gated areas on both sides and Ballers will be wrapped around uh both the new uh dust collectors and the existing um what else was I believe that was pretty much oh and striping um you the traffic engineer suggested we do striping around the uh I believe it's a foot off of the ballards and which I show as a the turn not the H uh we also provided two EV ready stalls uh they will the Chargers will not be in place but they'll be wired or conduit to so just just to ask that those would be eligible for the for the bonus right so you you would in effect be going down to 189 parking or sorry yes 189 or no no oh it is I counted them in in the count so did okay so 187 includes the two okay y okay thank you is there any questions on any of that I believe that addressed most of the comments the the changes in reconfiguration and so forth I believe it I think phot right so I am going to go [Music] to this would be the this is the uh I believe sheet five yeah this is the renderings that were prepared uh to kind of show how the mechanical systems will look and be incorporated or integrated into the building and before we go any further no barb wire correct that's correct we said that last time thank you no no I think we made it clear last time but not an issue and again we did not show the slats on these which will provide the buffer and screening as you will the show kind of purpose and these are on new concrete pads is that what I'm seeing there the the exit the the new dust collect will be on a new concrete pad P that's correct it'll actually be curved so when they change out the the drum any spillage would go stay in that area that's for clean up just clarify your comment the rendering shows even the old one on a concrete pad is that correct or no that I believe is on asphalt I'm saying it's not now but the rendering shows it would be no it's it's going to remain the same depressed conf all right so it would be on depressed wait excuse me the existing isign on what it's on it is I stand correct it is say that again small it's just the rendering shows it around the entire area that the actual condition is just barely as large as the yes I'm not sure again I thought this would be helpful there were some comments last time here folks were not clear about what was actually happening I thought that this would be very beneficial that it is that's what it's going to look like uh this is very beneficial but um to Mr Stuart's question were there any modifications to the initial dust collector that was already in because it looks like there are two like fresh pads so if there's different things happen Okay that's what right so if that's the case then tell us what's happening with the first one tell them tell us what's happening with the the new three the the existing is remaining the same correct so there's no new work on the existing with the exception of removing the Bob wire and adding slats and stalling slots okay the the new one will be placed on a concrete pad recess concrete pad uh it's actually pitched back towards the curb line like I said in case when they're changing out the drum any spillage collected in that area easy to clean and and so forth so that will have a concrete pet and it's curved except for the front Okay of it uh and it has access points that's new one but it'll have gated access points on the front and the rear for maintenance and and removal of the drum okay can I just ask sorry going back to the existing one so that's on a on the current pad is that now comping with industry standards for a desk collector be on that type of pad since we're yes yes yes related question since you're talking about differences in the rendering the rendering shows if I'm not misinterpreting it correctly some kind of fence poles that are doubling as the Ballard themselves no that's just that's they're just going to be regular fence post bage will be added to the outside of the enclosure so so we should ignore the rendering well from that perspective is there we've already identified two things is there anything else that you to your knowledge that's different in the rendering uh not not that I see uh the Rend was prepared by an architect so I guess you know that's what he had for for use of a rering plan is the plan rendering was just for illustra purposes so you can visualize what's there back the building well the plan doesn't specifically show bards independent of the post either it does at the page that has it between well you if you look at tin little details yes it's definitely on and if you can really see it on the sheet four with the site details or it's obscured on the Old Pad because it's right next to the new one any questions on the other other questions on the rending I I actually have a qu question what you're proposing right is um you're going to paint the ducks that are uh heading to the building they're going to be painted a brownish color so they they number three they're going to be galvanized as opposed to the color you're seeing so they'll be similar to what's existing corre so the first one that says existing does have a I I'm got a lot of discrepancies between your rendering and what's actually happening there so you're gonna have to help us get through that well I think we've identified everything you okay so far again the rendering is simply a rendering for those TR purposes from some of the comments we had I thought it would be helpful I still think it's helpful despite the Minimus disc well it I think the renderings was there was a question on how the pipe network was going to connect or into the building and so forth and that illustrates how that is done I think that was a big point of contention that it could be determined from the plan thank you have a few questions um and yes that part of it is very helpful so thank you um you said it's going to be galvanized can you confirm that that is rust proof yes galvanization has a life y so I mean it's it's probably 10 years for us proof after that any it could get rusty because it's outside yeah are you sure the existing isn't stainless steel existing doesn't or aluminum it doesn't usually galvanized doesn't hold up it's definitely galvanized how old are the existing units okay the other question I had on the rendering looks like wooden posts they're not wooden posts they're gavanized fence post standard something you would see for a chain link fence and the slatting is that the is that functioning as the slats no the slats would be something added to the chain link to help uh you know block the view of the they get woven in okay and what would that look like and how far apart it goes through every every set diagonal well they go diagonally through the chain link and it'll fill each void or so that's just um another thing that's can be a little different yeah which is okay I mean you just want to I want to see and I think and what you know mentioned is the fact that color-wise whether you want to match have the building matched or however you want it happy to do that profal yeah I suggested that they match the building so it sort of forms a similar wall across that's question I don't have a strong opinion about it I'm just a little visualizing the purpose of the slats is to you know make it more visually appealing but isn't about 2third of the structure above the slatted portion it is it is it's an a yes so does that ises that really how how tall is the uh the fence the fence is an 8 foot fence yeah anything higher than that is a is a waiver so it's sort of a back and forth there will there be more Ballard around the original oh yeah okay because there's only two shown in your and that was existing but we'll going to add whatever bers are necessary to um there looks like in the existing rendering there's barbed wire at the top of the existing that'll be gone and there won't be any on that correct okay can I ask a question about the dust that's collected uh is it in a container that is fireproof is that and there's a reason I'm going where I'm going with this I'm sure okays and the reason I'm asking that is very specific because the EV parking SPAC is right next to the dust collector and my understanding from speaking to a fire chief who reviews plans there's a new code coming out that EV spaces should EV charging spaces should not be next to buildings fire departments are having a hard time putting EV um cars out when the charging um occurs sometimes there's overheating that might cause a fire and the fire department's basically let them burn out and the new code will be to move the charging spaces away from the buildings I don't know if that starts until January you may not have heard I just heard it for the first time I wasn't aware of that keep an eye out for it but the fire departments are looking to keep the charging spaces not EVS can still park next to a building there's not a a charging going on that might initiate uh some kind of U incident but that something to keep in mind and when I saw the dust collector that's why my question was is this flammable because the the fire departments will just let those cars burn now there is a distance between the building in this case it is adjacent to the building but I know there's you know some buffer I don't know what that distance will be 20 foot I'm not sure it will be in that new code that being said is there a possibility of moving those away from the dust collector you said flam place them anywhere I mean I could place them on the other side of the lot if that's preferred I I haven't se the code I don't know what it is but it sounds like that's the way to go with the new EV space to keep it away from a building for fire purposes be acceptable if we compli with code with subject to your review and approval correct yes okay except for one thing that code doesn't exist so we just agree they can comply with the they can move them the other side at their own okay could you just uh identify the gentleman in the middle that wasad p r a s a last name u p p a l a p a t thank you and here's with biard right okay thank you um you want to go to the well I I is there any other I'll the rending well what is it that you're looking at you think because we're happy to explain it and again renderings if I may renderings that's correct you want to make sure that your yours are safe Ando not on the no they are on the plan they are on the plan view but they're not shown here they're just not on the rendering that's correct iiz rending are making things more confusing renderings are to Simply okay we did them based on what we heard last time that people could not understand what was happening at the site and we thought that this was identified I really appreciate that you brought the pictures um not everyone has has the ability to go you know on the site so I think that was uh really helpful so what I'm going to do is open it up to our professionals see if at this point they have anything to add or offer and then you can go to your last uh your last absolutely y take us a second to do the last one if you don't mind that way they can includ all up to you yeah sure why don't we just go last just phot yeah okay at least I hope so yes got that right so now this is up to B4 B4 yep and our last which is not no no it's not these pictures are taken from the adjoining lot that fronts on South River Road this is from the parking area uh and this is the view from the parking area towards the building uh the vegetation there is dense there's a burm that runs along the property line pretty much goes from 8 foot to 4 foot uh along the property line so you you can see it's a little lower here but you can barely see the the rear of our building from from their parking lot and K what was that distance between the two buildings oh I think it was what I say 175 you did I did I did I think that's most helpful with the sound uh concerns uh for the outside desk collector so I think that's a uh thank you for for showing us that I think that's helpful from that perspective okay all done yeah uh I think they yeah worth thousand words all right we're going to turn it over to our professionals see what uh what input and advice they have um and then we will do a little bit of a round robin with our board and and we just work like we did the last time until we you know have um everyone's questions set F we'll see how that goes okay thank you all right um they did a very good job of revising the plans from a traffic standpoint I think they've answered all my questions uh just some testimony regarding deliveries uh the delivery trucks will have no problem getting to the Loading no well actually they're straight trucks right they're smaller stra trucks smaller trucks there's no tractor trailers if you will that works and the other comment I still have was about the EV spaces um there was a question by the planner about uh how many spaces would it be in the end if you could just adjust the parking calculations on the cover sheet to show how those credits are taking taken um calculated in I don't think the cover sheet includes the EV I I thought I showed the EV on there you do but you don't show the bonus ah I understand so so you do have 189 okay okay we'll certainly do that way no problem that was it the only thing I have is that the the applicant should just make sure they show things like the fire hydrants the entrances in the back um now the Lo relocation of the EV spaces um on the on the plans uh if this application is approved uh also um I did look at the silencer that they they provided and it says that um it is going to be less than 70 DB at 5et away from the unit but in reality our coordinates is is more complicated than that it has it has various decimal readings for octaves different octaves so high and low and um so I'm going to ask that the applicant provide to the town engineer after construction as part of the resolution a uh sound test conforming to the ordinance because that is actually in the ordinance it says that the that the town May request a sound test to make sure that it uh is not too loud that's not an issue uh yes okay thank you um just one question now I know uh the board had requested that you do slats similar to what was at the jar project that was appr by the planning board did you have an opportunity to visit that site I did I went over I took a look at it yes and and would you be amable to doing slats or something similar to what is at that project yes okay and can you actually just because I you don't have to go into great detail but I was trying to understand why the total number of spaces dropped so much between the the August application and now because of the configuration of the parking there in the rear the adjustment of the clustering of the Dust collectors and what happened was we just couldn't get enough another spot because the width which we couldn't meet the width requirement on a couple stalls that's the difference right all right okay and you have the striping you added the striping which eats into the parking spaces that that that's so you couldn't park there that's right a deterrent but we all know how that works okay and just one final question just so I'm clear so I know when you the picture of the existing duster uh collector you know it's the concrete pad sort of um pretty limited and so you can see the underlying parking space and would you be amable to sort of expanding it so it looks a little bit nicer you know meaning it what's enclosed right is that it shows a parking space with like a concrete pad in the middle of it you still see the lined spaces and so I guess I'm wondering if the pad can be expanded to um sort of fill out the the area that's within the enclosure oh well I would think the lines would be removed as part of so you wouldn't even see the lines perhaps reeing around it so that remove the leftover lines black it out whatever the case that's that's what I was yeah will this even be visible through the slats well who knows but it but I think it um it'll look better personally yeah because I think if they stick out so so we'll put a note on the plan because it can't really show that yeah yeah sure yeah those are my only questions thank you Sharon anything are you able to capture everything for the resolution it's all good okay um all right uh I'm gonna release the hounds okay it's all right it's gonna be good gonna be okay all right we're we're gonna start down here we're to work our way around and uh we'll see what questions we have and um we will do our best not to get into the minutia you you have come around to um you know uh to understanding uh the aesthetic now we just have to work through that okay all right Dominic will start with you I know you've already had a couple questions how are you doing pretty simple just one um I asked this the last time but I just want to refresh my recollection um are the you're not using any materials that are biological or biological viral agents that are going to be pulled out into the air no no okay just wanted to confirm that fair question thank you um I appreciate everything you guys have done to sort make this um um a happy space for us but also a successful space for the business and um I I guess I have one very small maybe slightly irrelevant question but you've got all these sort of um pipes these big large pipes the three in particular next to each other do you foresee any issue with like Wildlife getting in there birds birds nests things like that that may create an issue certainly not the operator but I I can't imagine again this is all highly regul at is what it is so you know it's obviously this board it's it's other agencies that regulate them I'd have to think that there's some has to be I don't know how they could get in there but I can't imagine anim get in not in not not not in not in at all I mean in between you know you've got pipe space pipe space that's just perfect for nest things right it's not as close as it uh what is the space in between pipes the picture looks very close yeah again render uh we think the distance is between yeah 6 eight inches between pipes I don't know if anything could nest in there or not it would especially being a pipe that's smooth you know to finding a Nesta might be difficult if that's your concern on yeah just maches like that it has a way of attracting that that doesn't sound that's what you're concerned about the G Going yes sir she's concerned about the gap between the yeah the gap between has to be way more than that's that's you know good that they had that because then we know that that's really the PIP that's supposed to be here but this space right here is what I'm talking about here and maybe it's just something to think about it's four feet between pipes oh wow yeah that didn't seem right the 68 it just that so perfect thank you mayor I think there there has to be a there would has to have to be a maintenance plan I mean most most buildings have maintenance plans for roofs anyway because there's always mechanical equipment up there yeah this is additional mechanical equipment okay perfect thank you Mr fronte yeah thank you so first off it's really helpful these renderings are really helpful to sort of see the space if you squint on the the actual layout and the and the the grid and the fence and the baller knowing where they are placed on the site and it's a big improvement over the design that you came with last time so and I think it's really helpful to see the the parking spots not that one but the the one you had of where the parking spots were and where the entrances were I don't I just it's very helpful just to see um that you've given thought to how the how pedestrians would interact with that space out there it's it's okay I'm just it was the it was the B2 but yeah B2 but it's just I was just saying that's very helpful to her to see that you've you've carefully thought about how the how the dust collectors and the parking spaces and The Pedestrian entrances all interact and it makes a lot of sense so thank you thank you I have no other questions thank you Mike um we'll go with Bill and then Jason you can back clean up okay Bill then to you right either way um so I guess the first question I have is just the existing unit that's installed that said it's five years old how was that approved was it through this board was it through the zoning officer I'm just trying to understand the precedent that's I don't know to be quite honest with you I mean we've never received a notice of violation in connection with that so I'm assuming that it was someone approved it whether it came through this board or whether it was zoning officer Improvement I I can't imagine if they put that up with a bunch of old Italians on you know weekend and it was there on a Monday so I'm assuming someone had to approve it at some point in time honestly a lot of things like that that that size of that magnitude we have not I we've not seen any paperwork on it so um it would have been helpful to see you know the paperwork on and we don't have any because one of the first things I always do with any applicant is give me what you have and they don't have any so if the municipality doesn't have any I'm not sure how we I'm asking for two reasons no we normally do that we can we can have uh examples and we want to be consistent um and so I had actually asked that question earlier as well so we could see what we are we will do because there's a lot of stuff here that we normally would not approve and you we don't want to sit president this is a different site and there you know there there are um because it is a way and well buffered you know if if if it was approved before and there's there's a you know then it's a little bit easier to prove this one what in terms of the exposed DCT work going up the building and the chain link fence the slats I'm not sure is that allowed in the ordinance slats in a chainlink fence um it's not something we would normally approve again for this location if if if the other one was approved and this is one-of aind location it's a little bit easier to approve this and doing the same thing um so if the board you know decides that this is acceptable at this location um I think it's just important that this isn't something that we repeat again and again your your your own Council will certainly tell you but each application stands on its own as you know and we do have some very unique features in terms of the buffering to other property properties and the like and and hopefully the board agrees that this will really not offend anyone else due to that buffering its back it's it's not at the front of the building that we're putting it in uh most visitors 90% of the visitors will come to the front of the building only people that are actually utilizing the re come to the building which will be more of a a blue collar work environment if you will rather than visitors coming to the front of building so Aesthetics are still important I'm sorry Aesthetics are still important no no I I totally agree no matter no matter what to Mr gd's Point um there are uh beginning in 2020 when uh we had uh the covid um Retreat of of the research Parks uh reducing in number we had a gradual progression of more and more industrial Light Industrial in that area I will say in driving that area uh three times now there are uh a myriad of scattered tanks dust collectors um outside equipment uh nothing as um as large as Jar's uh coolant system that's outside but um I'm not seeing that there's any um uh applic application for that equipment that's out there and some has done better than others I have reached out to Liz to say look here's what we have can we write some design guidelines so companies like this don't have to come to us and for us to feed that back they would know uh what we need beforehand so having said that again the application stands on its own one is existing it doesn't mean the other one has to exist exactly like the first one so we uh can only uh attack um work around the three that are being installed well I guess my second point was if it was installed without permits and without zoning approval this would be your opportunity to to clean it up and get everything out of abundance of the caution we can certainly add it to the agenda I can't tell you it's been there since 2019 when prad first came to the site it was already there I don't think I don't think we can do that if we don't know right and Madam chair my point between the blue collar and and the it was the it's Unique every application stands on its own we have the buffering where it's not really impacting any else at least we think we did can I just ask a question of your question so were you saying with the slats were you saying that 100% opaque is not permitted are you what were you what were you questioning well I'm picturing they say slats I'm picturing the vinyl things you you strip through that's right through the fencing that's corre yeah what what I remember proving before was it was a horizontal screening that you did not see through it all it's a whole different jar right it's a whole different level of this is very different but are they they test they testify that they would do what jar I think what they're saying what you're thinking are two different things Y and we don't really have a picture of it to to kind of verify uh that of what they're proposing but if you will do what we did at J yeah if they agree yeah then and then which is different different things at jar too so I just want to be clear what we're approving but there are two different things at jar because they do the slot testified to me that it was going to be vinyl slats well vinyl slats are usually what you put through a chain link fence at a diagonal and that's not J what we approved at jar that I recall is a it's a very nice screening fence that's that's a it's a more like a Louver horizontal SL I think we need to it's a whole different different thing than what yeah so they're talking about the insert slats that's correct I think they're I think okay that's correct I [Music] mean yeah the slats are kind of junky looking and they fall apart yeah yeah Madam chairwoman the slots come in aluminum or plastic a lot stronger well there's green you can get coated in green black we're talking about the fencing uh so the fencing and the rendering which I liked was an anodized black fence which is what a lot of our um warehouses use um just seems to hold up and uh that sort of thing but but that's the rendering and not what's on the first which testified they're not changing so I just want to clarify things because I don't think you're getting the black or if you are getting the black you're getting the black on one side and not the other that sounds like match the fence sounds like we haven't vetted that yet so we match the ex a concept thrown so it sounds like the board is not liking like what you described the SLS going through the chain link definitely not vinyl I hope was not aware of the Alum on other any other location I would have an issue with it I I think the the question is is whether first they have to tell us whether they're proposing and we have to decide whether or not we're going to accept it for this location but I want to make it clear that that's not standard I want to make sure everyone's understand this is not what we typically would approve and you know um make sure we're all in the same page so we we understand not in favor of the vinyl not an issue certainly happy to put the aluminum or the metal or whatever well the andiz lack fencing what would you call it Mr hoder do we know on either galvanized fencing or there's vinyl coated that's what the Black is Black is a vinyl coat almost like like building wire that has has plastic on it but then is it a chain link fence or does it have the slacks chaining fence and then you get and somebody has to insert the the SLS Mr so where we're going with this is that we would prefer I mean we would prefer not to have slats in an anodized fence it it just cluttered but we did ask them to look at jar and to look at the you know the thick um slots that jar used for their Chiller they're they're screen over there it's like a screening Louver fence is what it is yeah it's a nice product I've never seen it before it's a nice product it's a really nice product and I don't know if we we're we're not trying to that one was a horizontal Lou correct exactly yeah yeah that's I mean that's almost like a window Louver it's of that quality yeah as opposed to a fence it was kind of a f it was in between it was you know it was a fence like a like a like an old fashioned window l l you know screening that you have on a penthouse but it was a fence it was in between what is what is the length of of these units so like how long a fence would it be yeah what what's the size of the pad about about it's oh 16 by 24 en closure 16 by 24 yeah see I think the issue is usually we would require Landscaping on each you know around it so that you didn't see anything um and then the cases where we've approved it without the Landscaping it's been you know more recent ones have been the horizontal Luber fence um so I'm just pointing this out I'm not saying we want something we don't want something I just I'm looking for consistency on of what we approve you know throughout the comp there are examples of both and both can work and if we make an exception you know why we're accepting that location that at this location compared to doing it everywhere that's what I'm kind of looking for um the so I think that just needs to be talked out and resolved we'll continue around and then um the silencer where where does that I couldn't understand where that goes uh and that's a question I cannot answer where is the silencer placed on part of theit doesn't stick up it doesn't it's part of the year it's on the discharge though right yeah not the intake so where does it attach to the cut sheet that you have on the drawing where does it physically attached or is it so that's the silence there okay so in this drawing that is where I guess that's that thing for our benefit could you show that on the image so that's it on top so it just makes the unit a little taller as long I don't understand how that works because that's where the rendering is showing the intakes coming but as my my my bigger are concerned with that is more that oh where is this unit exhausting to where's the air coming out what direction like on the cut sheets that you submitted where is the actual exhaust it tells you the um where is the exhaust discharge what side of the well in relation to the building Rel okay maybe your witness should come up yeah I'm gonna bring them up why don't you sit down you can state your name for the um so we have it on the recording state your name and then we'll y yes my name is toal okay and this is like this is the intake so that intake It Go there is a filter bank so you go through that one and that's the exhaust so that goes through the silencer that's exhaust out and it pushes back toward the building toward the building okay okay toward the building toward the building okay toward the building toward yeah of course we're going to do it one more time to this side of the room to get out so that's the inor bank here this is the so goes through this and this is the silence so it goes toward you do can you turn that around and show us where the silencer is sure one more so the the design in the renderings looks like is it are the new units this exact same design as that unit no they're yeah um and I guess how long is your lease for for the space how how long is the lease for 15 years um I I know other applicants we've made a requirement of the approval is that all the equipment is removed at the time of when the lease is terminated this is this is not something we want on the building permanently um I'm gonna take issue with that if it's a similar user that comes in how but I gotta tell you I don't think that's a wful condition to be perfectly honest with you you can't we can't require that they remove it because the next that's right likely the next person coming in uh will use it not likely the same requirements same location same layout I I just don't think it's it's a permitted condition however when the next when the next applicant comes in and comes before us if they don't need those and they are still in the parking lot and the parking lot rules have changed can I just ask Shar is that is that a is it something that's allowed or not however the board votes on I just want to know legally is it something is allowed well I think that the next again what their attorney that I agree with is that if the next person comes and we don't know what they're going to do you know and so I don't think we could require them to remove this I think in not sure how we how we would police that if that makes sense I understand that part um then I have a little more concerns about the application then because I think my next question then my next question is before you testified that the Ducks were going to go directly through the wall not up and over the roof we did not testify to that we can go to the tapes well we testified to electrical components we're going to do that going through the building and out through the roof there sprink in there there's Plumbing there's electric there's everything that would be totally impractical and that was in our testimony last time so why couldn't it it's a pretty tall Florida Florida ceiling space why can't it go that's a pretty large plan the practicality of doing that would be it's done all the time no yes and no yes and no you have a mechanical engineer here to testify to that we we don't and again I just want to remind the board to a certain degree this is a permitted use at this site where here for preliminary and final site plan but you are asking for waivers from the design standards design standards are that all equipment is is screened we're we're practical inside the building so no it's outside the building is is the ordinance so to screen it huh to screen it or to locate it to that all all equipment we're practical I believe the ordinance States I'm just looking to to we don't have an issue screening it we have no issue doing any of that but moving that inside a building is going to be a taller and and it also raised some Christians that we talked about last time as well from what I recall you know at what level do you do it do you bring it in across the uh sidewalk that you're walking under you start bringing the sidewalk around so these were all conversations that we did have last time as well so misunderstood the testimony last time but again just so look I misunderstand a lot of things just ask my wife but part of that discussion last time was the fact that okay then how do we start rerouting the sidewalk do we bring it out in front into you wouldn't have to because this is those ducks are 10 feet tall you it does not but still you want people walking under there in the lake which brings a whole we need professionals testifying to this I don't think you do with regard to the mechanic you're what you're saying doesn't make sense because the duct works at 10t we never it does not affect someone walking underneath the duct work when it's 10 feet tall I'm certainly will to listen what the rest of the board has to say as well can I read the section that they need the designer okay so it's electrical and mechanical equipment shall be located within the interior of a building wherever possible when an interior location is Not Practical such equipment shall be placed in a location where it can be substantially screened from public View and then it's you know roof mounted equipment blah blah blah so okay thank you and then B goes on to say for blowers specifically uh that they should be installed to minimize the visual impact um so I hope so Madam chair thank you um okay yep that's everything all right Madam chair person just one sentence I think Bill Giddings is right that this the applicant's going to need a partial waiver from the screening requirements I'll just the uh conditions for a waiver are under the land use um law it um they should uh you could Grant a waiver if you find that the proposal is reasonable and within the general purposes and intentions and provisions of the site plan and if literal enforcement of one or more terms is a practical or exact un undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question and could that undue hardship also account for the fact that they're leasing the property and they don't own the property that's uh probably one of the reasons too they don't have you know complete control over it and if this is the only practical way to do this because of the kind of operations they have on the site you know and it and and we do have a um permitted use here then you know you consider that it is Impractical or hardship to make them you know do the normal that's under the organ okay but we can still hold them to our uh visual standards and our screening standards well they're asking for a waiver you know so go to the extent that it's practical okay okay because I mean they're on pavement you know and I'm just and they're they are trying to prove that you're not the Public's not seeing it really except the people that are work there you know that are the invitees on the site basically but the adjacent properties are showing that you don't really see it you know so I think you try to um hold them to as much as they can okay thanks sh all right yeah I I agree that this is a unique site location I just don't want this to be repeated you know the of all the sites that we've looked at on this campus this is the one that can take it the best so I'm not I'm not opposing it um but I I'm I think it's very we're trading very careful we've had a lot of these applications and it's it's keeping the the complex you know looking good and professional which is why you you know your be front of your building is beautiful you know it's a great Lo it's a great location um I just want to make sure that whatever we approve we are clear in in that okay can I say you don't want to set up precedent for anyone else and I don't think you do and again you can check with your Council but again I think each parcel is unique and what stand I believe that's what he said it's a unique parcel if we can do it this is the parcel we can do it on because of the uniqueness of the rear parking and the screening and remember the screening on this site was required by this board for those kinds of reasons so all right we're going to move to Jason um let's see what questions you have all right um most my questions pertaining to the uh the new parking um I think three or five I originally asked a question will there be new ballards around the existing dust collector you said yes there's only two shown on the plan no proposed shown We'll add you'll add proposed okay to um to the right side of the existing enclosure you're adding two EV spots is there sufficient room to exit the driver side of the going to make some regular parking spots not so there's sufficient room in a 9 foot okay still between okay so you're saying there's sufficient okay even when ballards are added okay now now I'm looking at the new enclosure and the closest handicap spot to that new enclosure on the left side is there sufficient room to exit a vehicle as a handicap person too okay so you're saying that those ballards right up next to spot won't larger than what they really are right but okay they're going to be a 4 in ball and they are on the other side of the of of the stripe if you will the they're going to be right up against that okay so there's sufficient room for somebody to exit that handicap yeah okay um that was it thanks Jason De most of my questions have been answered I was specifically interested in the silencer piece of it because that I have no idea what that is but please explain one more time to me exactly where the handicap spots are because you're not on our pictures there repres my you have been so good she use the mic so thank you my clarification I guess then is not the spots it's the doors so the doors you've got the little triangles the triangles are are representative of The Pedestrian doors not the the garage doors that are adjacent to okay that's where pedestrians enter here okay now I just wanted to check and um and I know this is I'm stating the obvious and I know um Andrew addressed it but fire trucks will be able to get back in there in a space well we're not changing anything I mean that's it's been this way constru I think it's something that should have been addressed when the original application for the building was yeah but we don't know if there was ever an application for the Handler when the building was well uh no no we're not talking about that when the original application was the the when the construction dries aren't changing nothing's changing nothing's changing from that perspective good question um Jason all so first of all I I didn't get a chance to drive to the site but I did use the Google satellite and street view which by the way was like four and a five and a half years old and it still had this there so it's been there at least five and a half years um at the time there was also not shown on any of this a a storage unit uh adjacent on the far side of the parking is that now gone I just want to clarify self container or free sanding I think that's temporary for the construction correct the that would have been five and a half years ago presumably not temp it'll be removed yeah okay so if it's still there well you would know is it there there still okay so it's been five and a half years of construction it's been some sort of construction in each of the spaces every now and then yeah we're Happ to move it if you want yeah I mean unless you want to come with an application for it but we've been spending a ton of time talking about unification we have unit right across from it okay um having said that most of the other questions have been addressed look I my my my statement on this is it's ridiculously ugly but I understand its purpose the place is back of house there's clearly a public side of this and a non-public side it's very well screened I understand they need it for their business so um and I appreciate that they materially improved um on the organization and reduction to two locations from the first application so I'm willing to consider it a unique circumstance uh so that that's my take on it okay to Bill's point about other uh properties there that have equipment outside when you uh go through the property you see some of those properties that um do have the slats and over time they just deteriorate so easily um so just putting the slots in the fences I think going to be G to go in the reverse of what we want um given uh what we have heard in testimony as far as this being a unique location um I would I have seen dust collectors and Equipment out of these buildings that have simply have ballards and a fence uh I've seen them with Landscaping um I'm looking at um I did go to the site and did drive through um the different developments to see the equipment to kind of see what could we expect and what's holding up and what you know what looks uh what looks good um honestly their um uh one applicant had a chain link fence but they had tree screening you don't have the opportunity to do that so I think it's fair of this board to ask you to uh give us a good-look fence if you're going to put a fence in um anodized fence the black cating fence something that looks we're fine clean something that you know has a clean look to it the slots I don't think are aesthetically a good idea so we would like I if I'm if the board is in agreement I would like to ask you not do that um we're happy to agree so and then um well how solid would you want the fence though that's really the question like I can only right so I can only speak for my and I know the board I don't feel that you've really done much from an aesthetic standpoint I do think that you've cleaned up the striping I do like that you've Consolidated them I do think that you're getting your house in order and that looks you know that it looks better than it did the first time you came um we've been doing applications in in this area for about five years now and we're treating you as equally as um uh aggressive with the Aesthetics as we are anyone else and maybe a little more lenient because you are in the back so I'm not really seeing anything to screen um we're talking about the noise uh and we're talking about the I'm gonna say just the general Aesthetics um if the ballards were nicely placed if the if the fence was a a a good anodized something that had some substance to it and not just a regular um uh I don't know what's a regular fence made of a plence Madam chair could I suggest this sure could we could we work with your professionals who I'm sure will not make a decision in a vacuum I can I I got that sense oh no we let them we trust them I don't they want to on this to be perfectly honest with you but we work with the professionals to come in agreement if we can't then we'd have to return to the board would that be well we have a whole range of ideas of how to uh buffer this right so you go from a chain link fence that is 100% open or an aluminum like gerth type decorative fence or steel uh which is 100% Almost 100% open it's 90% open or you go to something like was that jar which is about 90% closed so that's really if you could give us that direction you you know what percentage closed or open do you want it we can work after that Mr h I want it to look nice I want it to be consistent I want it to be clean there's no reason Reas there's no reason for the fence other than to just identify that this is an enclosed mechanical space doesn't need to be protected it's just it just needs to be there to ID to isolate that space and really to put you know this equipment in a in a in order um so as long as there's order in the back um I'm okay with that wait M chair if I can just looking at the real the real one that we're seeing most of the ugliness or the stuff you'd want to cover is actually above the 8ot anyway I'm not no I'm not worried I'm worried about how ugly the fence is no I'm saying so I guess for me the visibility the amount that it covers doesn't do much because it's not much in there that's unsightly so I think as long as the material is aesthetically well the the only reason I asked is that we know we're going up against the screening ordinance and and if we want a fence that's going to screen that's one thing but if you do an open fence it's no longer a screening fence that's all I don't think I understood you Dave I'm sorry okay so so if the fence is open and it only has thin slats with large openings between uh between each each slack like a like a decorative gir girth fence I would not call that screening or a buffer and it would then be less consistent with our ordinance which which requires screening and buffer for mechanical equipment so what would you what would you suggest to make this look better what would you suggest well I mean the it's going to be more expensive for the applicant but the type of fence that jar did that was the horizontal will do what what I think both the board wants and and what I we would want um but it might be very much giving the pig plastic surgery at this point yeah you're right I'm not I'm not this is a perfectly industrial use so I'm sure you don't take it personally that it's not attractive but it to the point that it's made it's not going to make that big of a difference I mean I think we're kind of trying too hard here I like the idea fence both of them they're all consistent understand what's there is a galvanized chain link fence um what I think what you're talking about is a vinyl coated galvanized fence I'm not sure it's going to be that different to be honest with you but wouldn't a galvanized fence hold up longer and not show rust that's what's there now is a galvanized fence the vinyl code will last long too but the question is whether you're not you're G to make them tear down what's already there to make the two match I'd rather have both match and have two different things right you know so they did say that they would make well we'll make the match that's not an issue but if you want black fabric that looks good I mean and that's easily changed on the existing black v no but I'm sorry I know when I'm talking about chain link fence you call you call the chain link fabric but uh chain chain link coded we're happy to do that if that will stop I think what we so I think what we do is we turn them over to you to make sure Aesthetics are met and is the engineers concern is that going from a partial variance to a complete variance on The Bu design wer it's not a it's not a variance it's a design waiver I'm sorry they say which the only reason I'm stressing it is the standard of proof is much less okay okay so it's it it so it all and I'm I'm hearing a lot of different things but it seems like everyone keeps going back to the galvanized or the coded chain link fence with the we're happy to do that and and happy to work with you with a color it's black it's whatever it is the the coded or the we're going to make them all the same without and not overkill on the just whatever safy just whatever the safety requirements are for the ballards just so that it's consistent to Liz's point just make sure that you know the grounds you're going to restripe the striping should be you know clean visible um to just clean it up I think grouping is about as much as we can hope for here um again not sure how the other one's been there for five years but since it is um I think we just you mirror them you clean it up make it look nice um and the striping goes in we good Mike you okay Dominique you all right also like the others the uniqueness of this location yeah for that reason for that reason for that reason we have a reason we can make the design waiver and we can roll with it as is and Sharon will do magic the resolution on the resolution so we're staying with the galvanized look fence that we have right now in picture for the existing one cleaned up site around it like you striping striping the the EV the EV yes uh the EV parking away from that stuff I have um relocated I think that's I think that's the best we can do just to clarify because earlier there was a comment about that Sharon made about the pad and I pointed out that you wouldn't be able to see it but now you will so where do we land on what is aesthetically being done to the original pad first of all it was Liz it was Liz they agreed that they would just put like like a sealer on it or just seal to get rid of the St to get rid of the striping just so then it looks like and then it looks intentional and then your industrial site looks cleaner and nearer we're happy to do okay all right thank you for the direction yeah okay with the comments made uh can I get a motion to approve the application uh so moved number Mavis second thank you Dominique roll call please you miss Anderson Miss Anderson yes Miss elwi yes Mr fronte yes Mr Giddings yes Miss Jones yes Mr milenberg yes Mr Stewart yes and Miss Bon yes thank you motion passed Madam chair members of the board thank you very much really appreciate it and I appreciate your patience so thank you Merry Christmas to everyone Sharon good luck with the resolution I'm sure [Music] Robin Robin we'll take them off the boards and leave them with you we're going to take a five minute recess and then we will have a the HPC um we will review again HPC Mr hoder Andrew you do not need to be here for this if you gentlemen would like to go home you could go home mpal government I've been through a lot of these so order V2 them I got here we send all of them [Music] than for [Music] think hope a good yeah you sure yes did yeah I think we have I think we have a better list now than was in the original Amendment so I think we have more ration [Music] yeah but going right yeah [Music] look to page later one like modific [Music] no you got all right guys thank you good night there we go all right we want to go ahead and get started um we want uh the last time uh that uh HPC came to us um we had questions HPC took those questions back and they worked on um some of the things that we talked about what HPC is here for us is for an addendum to the master plan it's not an ordinance but it's an addendum so we want to change the master plan to add their recommendation to the 2019 reexamination of the master plan in the reexamination um hpac asked the planning board uh to add or to affirm uh the designated um historic homes it's a long process we've learned about that how that happens how it's done um it's very meticulous um and they have made progress what we learned in working with HPC back in I'm G to say 2020 2021 was that the historic buffer had to be removed that was um something that uh the township committee's legal gave that direction and the historic buffer had to come out um they began to work on that they've got um what you see this evening and uh if you uh didn't receive it there were notes on the August 2024 draft um and I'm going to invite the author of the uh draft Amendment tremendous amount of work if you would like to join us for a conversation we are no longer in hearing mode so typically for the township to accept an amendment we would be in hearing mode and we would have a vote it has to be done in the same calendar year so then it would go back to the township committee come back to the planning board and go back to the township committee for a second reading since we are out of calendar time for this evening this is a conversation uh to help the planning board understand um what the recommendations from HPC are uh we have our planner at the table um and so that we can have a better understanding so that when it comes to us in January uh we can get the crinkles out okay sound like a good plan yes so my name is Evelyn span and I'm chairing the planning board but I did serve as HPC leaon at at one point in time um and then served on the zoning committee and we worked on the Hamlet uh getting the Hamlet approved so that's that's kind of my back history I will say that I heard you in the HPC meeting and I hope this doesn't embarrass you but I did hear you and I thought you were sitting in for Liz I was like it's Liz at the table because you just have a really great uh sense of professionalism and you know a lot about this so what is your background how did you become part of HPC where did you come from how did you get here I moved to Cranberry three years ago and I'm a software engineer but interested in history and architecture so I'm happy to help the town that's wonderful we're very happy to have you uh and I'm sure you you you bit off a little more than you thought uh usually HBC meetings are not this inbt but this is important and it's been a long time coming and I think you you've come to us at just the right time um so how would the board uh and how would you feel comfortable can we just begin and have a conversation kind of have a around Robin talk about you know what we're seeing um and just figure out um what changes were made at the last yes uh meeting because you guys did look at the planning board's recommendations um so maybe you start with your last meeting and the connections that were made and the changes that were made from the first time you came uh to now and if if if that's not something you're prepared to do it's really not on you to do that but if you could just tell us and then we'll just honestly just have a conversation is that okay yes okay great so I think to summarize the changes from the August draft to now uh it it's worth recognizing why the list of properties in the August draft were the list and that came from the historic architectural firms that have advised us on doing these surveys and they proposed those properties based on the original District boundaries when the district was created in the 1970s uh and that's that those are the properties that were surveyed however when we're talking about the master plan here we're looking at more than just what were the the boundaries of that his of the historic district then we're also looking at how things have been built since then how the character of these properties affect each other and so there's this modification to the list is based on that perspective of not just what the boundaries were but also what's been built since and how they relate to each other and so this new list on page let's see pages 12 and 13 describe all of the changes of which of which documents yes of the notes on the August 2024 thank you Pages page 12 lists the properties that weren't in the amendment but the HBC believes should be these are all buffer properties today and we the HBC believes these should be added to the district because they affect the character of cranberry Village and that's visualized on page 13 now I know the print out in front of you is very light so it's hard to see some of those striped green Lots but uh that for example the north side of Station Road is striped green you may or may not see that on your print out uh and then there's one property that was in the August amendment that the HPC believes should be removed from the amendment which is at the very North End of North Main Street that's the red stri okay I'm with you I got it yes what's the significance oh sorry what's the significance of removing a house from the amendment and what's the significance of adding a house like just on a practical level so it depends on the house um the house at the very North End of North Main Street is today not in the buffer area and so it doesn't have any any sort of HPC review if we remove it from the amendment then nothing will change for that house compared to today because it isn't under HPC review and it won't be under HPC review the remaining properties are all in the buffer area today uh and so they are proposed to be added and if they're non-contributing properties again it won't change because the level of review for the non-contributing properties it's a a broader discussion but is is our intent to have the ordinance in Chapter 93 modified so that way we can apply a lesser standard to non-contributing properties um the way that Chapter 93 is written today is we have to apply the same standard to non-contributing properties as we do to contributing properties but we would like that revised to to relax the standard for non-contributing properties so for a buffer property if it's listed on page 12 so therefore added to the amendment the level of review would be the same as it is today because they're already in the buffer area and they would be a non-contributing property there is one property that hasn't been surveyed but it's old enough and its physical characteristics mean that it might actually be have two contributing resources on the property that's at the very top of that list one Big Barn Road uh both because of the uh the barn itself and also because of the field that's adjacent to the contributing field to the north of it so that particular property is in the buffer today which means it has pretty relaxed standards but if it turns out that there are contributing resources on that property then they would have an increased level of review to protect those contributing resources so some properties will or at least one property one potentially depending on how the survey goes one potentially might have more review than today and so so basically the effect to the viewer walking down the street would be that these 1950 houses 6060s houses might look different in a few years might look like a 2025 house because the standards went up the historical pres yes that's right a non-contributing today in the buffer a non-contributing property doesn't need to retain its architectural features and what the HPC wants is so that non-contributing properties today in the buffer it doesn't you don't need to retain the architecture features and we want that same standard to be true for non-contributing properties um that requires a change of the ordinance that hasn't been done yet but that that's the Lev overiew we want so to non I'm sorry I'm so you're making you explain it to a kindergartner but um so if it's in the buffer and it's non-contributing it's then what happens not and I mean it's in the district and it's non-contributing then what happens the way that Chapter 93 is written today we have to apply the same reservation standards but that's not there's already a number of properties um another page in the in the notes will show this if you look at page seven you'll see there's a number of non-contributing properties in the district today that we have to apply that more strict review to and we'd like to relax that so could it be possible with this new change that um non-contributing properties on Main Street could be turned into mcmansions there well there's going to be whatever the zoning there's the zoning rules that adpc really wouldn't have a say in um and then or like modern you know like crazy crazy high style modern so the proposed what those standards would be if you look at page 25 through 30 in these notes okay um this these are the design guidelines from Chapter 93 today but with but having divided them into ones that we want to apply to contributing properties and then ones that we would want to apply uh to non-contributing Properties or sorry all properties or just contributing properties so today if you look at 937 e There's no distinction between contributing properties and non-contributing properties all of these standards apply to every property in the district but what we'd like to see happen is that uh the non-contributing properties are really only judged in terms of compatibility um not about preserving things on the building so to your question about a MC Mansion it depends on how compatible it is with the district if it's if it's designed in a way set back in a way if if details are in a way that it's compatible then this wouldn't prevent that um but it would prevent it from being incompatible and this these design guidelines here help the commission understand it means to be compatible or not compatible that's excellent and is it is compatible to find it anywhere in the specific design guidelines so 26 and 27 yeah you can pages 26 and 27 you can see specific attributes of a building that would be compatible or not EXC quick question yes so the terms of 937 e are for all resources within the historic d right and so this is what you'd be looking for for your non-contributing homes within the district that's right now last time we spoke and it wasn't with you we were told that color was not you know that seems to be everybody's yeah picky point is that uh in the past color had been a point of contention years and years ago before any of us were here let's go with that um but color is mentioned several times in section A yes so color is specifically yes uh I didn't make purposely in this well sort of I don't know if at the time these design gu these are the existing design guidelines but split off okay so there's GNA be more modification not in these notes these I wanted the review of Just this would be contributing or not contributing but this was brought up at our last HPC meeting that if we're going to revisit Chapter 93 are there other things that we can do to reflect the way that the commission is run today is color in here because at some point color was uh under review I don't know if that's why it was in the ordinance that that we have on the books today do you know my guess is that the design guidelines were taken from sort of Universal Design guidelines which included references to color or sorry referen I did the same thing references a color um and so it it could just be that now that it's been sort of put into practice it's become less emphasized and maybe that should be I think what Brendan is suggesting is perhaps it should be codified um amended you know and and and codified that that maybe isn't the level of um input that HPC wants right okay uh currently HPC does not uh have a color um uh palette so uh for example uh a development lid key drive has a color palette that is uh I'm gonna say a Benjamin Mo like something homeowners association association color color palette but hpac I've never seen them do it but hpac does not uh designate color is that right that's correct and I think maybe what um but that I think that's where the misunderstanding is is that before you were there and you know it has a reputation for having had happen and it looks like they the ability to and they have the ability SS what some of thiss that's right and so I guess the question is is that still is that something that they're still interested in doing on non-contributing properties and any even contributing properties the H any property no yes I think in the 25 years that I've done work in town color has never I mean it might have been know what color you think about painting it but it's never been a question on the application it's it's never been an issue it's never been has it been a comment never been a comment even when it relates to two colors of different parts of the same property yeah because I think that's the clarification some people had is maybe they wanted to paint their barn or their their detached garage but I've never seen it in a totally different color I mean I can I can I can say I testified before HPC for my audition my architect is sitting at the table and when we went to the when we when we went to the meeting and we talked about the design when we brought up we said we're picking this nice color they said oh we don't do color they were very specific about saying we don't manage color so I'm sort of surprised to see for a while there was a volunteer conservationist who do testing voluntarily on your historic home if you wanted to know the original color but it was never a requirement it was more something that they offered I I feel like we might be remembering back to the October meeting when when somebody came and and and spoke to the fact that the person that owned the house that he's in currently tried to paint it 30 years ago when the the hpack had just started and stuff that he that person got a lot of push back about the color and I wonder if that's changed over 30 years because 30 years ago we were all new to thee the hisor Jason's point it's it's in the document um so it sounds like it's within the purview of HPC yes that's Chapter 93 has could be good and bad right I mean right I mean it could be that it becomes um something that becomes part of this amend as a recommendation to the township committee because obviously we can't change it here right um this is something that has to be done by the governing body but um it could be right it could be something that's embedded in the recommendation for in the master plan uh amendment I think right but but I think because that was some of the um the feedback or the concern of residents I think we just kind of wanted to flush that out I served as lay on for I think three years with HPC and I also didn't I never uh saw any anything uh that had to do with color but to Jason's point it's in there it could depending on uh the chair and the chair's uh choice so I I think as a broader principle what I'm hearing is that there's a series of ways that over time the commission has chosen to be you know to to apply certain standards that aren't exactly consistent with what was originally written decades ago and it would be my general observation Beyond just color that you use this opportunity to codify what your actual practices are to the extent that they're different than what's written which will make everyone feel great and it's the best time to do it anyway so yeah we we discussed this at our last meeting and a couple weeks ago and that's exactly what the commission wants to do next year we we're going to be asking for some money from the TC to update the design guidelines to reflect how they're applied today and it sounded like because I just want to clarify what you said earlier is you you because from what you said technically you're supposed to treat non-conforming exactly the same as conforming but informally you have been more relaxed about some of the that's impression like I've only been on the commission for this year so I actually can't really say how much has been disting going off the fact that there was discussion at the last test testimony last time but informal discussion this time that the goal is that if you're a non-conforming it won't be stricter than what you had before which implies that we were traing them less strict than what they we could have for the ordinance non-contributing wouldn't be treated more strictly than a property in the buffer area today that's our goal so we have different standards for the buffer properties and the buffer properties that would be added to the district we don't want to impose that level of preservation we just want the compatibility that they currently have to adhere to in the buffer when you say buffer do you mean non-contributing prodct what I'm understanding now there is a different standard for the buffer that's right and what you're intent is is to make the standard now for all non-conforming similar to the current standard for the buffer yes okay that's important clarification okay can I can I go back to a question that um that Dominique had um you know when when we're talking about removing some of the properties from that from a little bit more scrutiny maybe this is a question for you Liz like how how do we protect the the sort of the the landscape or the visual of properties that now come out of that not restriction but that scrutiny there there's there's got to be like building guidelines that prevent this not the mcmansion but you know well there there a couple things one thing is you have the underlying zoning which is always in effect right so you have the height the the F the setbacks um so if if your zoning is written correctly which hopefully it is you know it it it shouldn't permit something that's completely outrageous on a lot without some sort of variance so that will require I think us to also look then at our zoning and make sure that that is tight or or or as tight as it needs to be given if we release from one how tight does the other side have to then become but but the they are also reviewing it you know on the for the compatibility I mean but to to the extent that there's teeth nothing is stronger than zoning you know you know what I'm concerned about is that when you say compatibility we already have existing variances between Styles right we've got 1965 houses we've got 1,00 houses so I think someone who came before the commission could make an argument well what's the difference between 30 years from these two houses and me taking this house another 30 years into the future and it looking completely because you can say well you know a 1960s house looks completely different and so you've already given wide birth to compat compatibility I want the same birth when I go crazy on my house well I think you have to look at it less in terms of style and More in terms of massing and and maybe um you know how like the bulk of the house how it relates to the other houses on the street that might be in the historic district so it could be you know somebody comes in and they build a glass cube right and but you're kind of like well actually that's okay it's not overbearing it it melts it to the site you know that so in that respect I think something that preservationists often talk about with compatibility or you know is when you do an addition to a historic building a lot of preservationists will say it should look remarkably different than the original building because you're are adding something later it should it shouldn't try to imitate so that's a sorry that's like another thing but but I guess my point is is that I think you can bring something into the future without it becoming so like such an ey sore right so so we could change the we we could dramatically we could have a bunch of glass cubes be clear they could if they wanted to but they have teeth here not to so for example 11 can you put your microphone so in 11a it says new constructions or additions shall be designed to be compatible in terms of mass relationships of solids to voids and color put aside the color issue for example relationship to solids to voids would give them the teeth to say an all glass building wouldn't be compatible with the existing solid to void ratio of the of the homes in the air incompatible with the massing of the neighborhood you could you could you I mean oring do there's also a section on roofs they've covered all pretty well yeah one one of the things that I I did learn that wasn't obvious to me before I volunteered on the commission is that there is an emphasis on distinguishing new from old and so it's in general not encouraged to make something look older than it really is uh even on a historic building if you're doing an addition um you should be able to look at it and distinguish what was new and what was old want to be like consider the house right next to Sweet waterer no one's going to confuse it for an old house but it's still a colonial right and that's discouraged that's encouraged encourag okay okay good good I mean having dealt with a state historic in the past they call it like the dnic of something you you make it appear older than it truly is just because you want to give it some sort of character but it's fake and they don't want fake they want authentic historic they don't want they don't want fake historic they just don't want you so if you were doing an addition to a historic home your addition shouldn't look like the historic home it should look like an addition you can make it complimented but it shouldn't be made to look as old as the other house that a little beat up here a little torn there I think that's debatable it it it can there's nothing that there's nothing there no there's nothing that prevents I mean somebody coming in and building a new Colonial there's nothing you know it's just in terms of uh I guess what we're trying to prove is nothing precludes you from nothing is going to make you do that right and that's not necessarily a bad thing right right it's I'm just saying just so from a procedure standpoint an amendment to the master plan is an amendment to say would would be a map Amendment it wouldn't have anything to do with differentiating between uh conforming and non-conforming it wouldn't have anything to do with uh going back through and and looking at code 93 it wouldn't have well well I think or or would yes it would because what where it would and it's contributing and non-contributing just so to to get the nomenclature it and what we have to do if we don't people could bypass us people being HPC but theoretically how we would like it to work is that we do a master plan Amendment to the historic preservation element using let's say uh Richard Grub's study or with the further modifications recommended by HPC then we recommend it in our Amendment um and then that kind of gives teeth because ultimately right the TC is going to write an ordinance that is right sorry that that codifies everything everything that we're talking about and codifies everything that would be but first we have to we we first we can we should recommend we exactly we should recommend everything that we're talking about tonight okay so it shouldn't just be limited to contributing and non-contributing it should be to have standards um for non-contributing that are maybe less rigorous than for contri contributing um what was the other thing we talked about paint um and I can't remember okay what else but the those all those recommendations can be in the master plan amendments so that when it actually does get you know written as an ordinance at the Tec level it comes back here and we say yes this is we agreed this is not inconsistent not inconsistent our master plan recommends these things right okay sure one more what what is the um motivation for doing this I was ask that question yeah what it aligns with the I'm gonna feel that for you because um yeah number six in our uh in our master plan reexamination says that um the planning board committed to designating additional properties for historic preservation and to amend the current historic district buffer uh we also committed to the cranberry historic preservation commission proposing that some additional properties adjacent to cranberry's current historic district be added to the district so uh Liz's predecessor Richard Price went through with HPC uh worked with um Pete mides and other members you were on for 2019 but I wasn't part of that discuss but you weren't part of that discussion um to amend the master plan so it is part this is our master plan so it is it is part of our master plan HPC has spent the last five years getting to this point uh in order to make that they couldn't make the recommendation any earlier because each of the sites have to be designated and like you saw with Mr Grub's uh presentation that's a long arduous process the other part of the master plan was to add cranberry station Hamlet uh Liz did the work on that and put those six homes into a historic Hamlet again a recommendation of the master plan did not and then we amended the master plan to include the Hamlet so this is part two this is more involved it's more detailed it it impacts more members of our town um but in order to preserve the uh Street Scapes of Main Street and Station Road um the recommendation uh from HPC is that we amend the master plan to include a larger um District can I make a couple additions to that though from just having participated in the previous meeting and reading all the materials in terms of practical goals there's several things one the buffer currently because it's just literally space from the houses captures things that really have no need to be preserved like Evelyn's old backyard you know uh in litkey uh and a few other properties so one goal was to clean it up so that people didn't accidentally not conform because a brand new house that's on a street that can't even be seen in the historic district has 20 feet of its backyard and a buffer so simplifying it by dropping the buffer is one two um some of these things where we were curious about why they were being added that weren't had been in the original Zone designated by the National Historic registry decades ago but at the time we're not as old and therefore weren't picked up but it's consistent with that original registry to and since then they've aged into into the range where they would be more relevant um the last thing and but you should speak to this more because I think it was one of our questions before is there was there was there's this category that doesn't fit there are a few houses particularly on northern Maine um particularly on the east side of Northern Maine where they are not in any status right now and they aren't historic but it's being discussed to include them because it would be weird to be driving down Maine and have mcmansions on one side and everything historically preserved on the other side is that a fair that last part is the only part I think there was some contention about it because those houses to your earlier question will most houses aren't going to be having a worse status in terms of it but there's a series of houses a few on the the western side but mostly on the Eastern side of North Main just past Plainsboro which have no status right now and will be in a non-conforming status if this goes through yes there there are on there are a number of houses on North Main Street that aren't in the buffer area today and so therefore don't have any review uh I wouldn't say it's on one side of the street or the other so if you look at page seven for example you can see that on both sides of this street Street are his properties that predate 1940 and have maintained their integrity and therefore are considered contributing resources to the district uh even though they're not in the district today so it is it's a mix of that no there was a recommendation in the phase three report to increase uh to add to the error of significance uh 1940s or pre-1940s so that is rolling in more homes so the first so if you look at page in still in the notes if you look at page four you'll see that uh the in the discussion of the period of significance when the district was created in the 1970s there really wasn't an end date defined for the period of significance um more or less you could assume it may have been 50 years prior that application was first started in like 1975 um and so you could assume that anything newer than the mid-20s uh probably wouldn't been included just because it was less than 50 years old um but in 2017 in the phase one survey 2018 and then again in 20123 the uh the surveyors the the architectural historians uh have all recommended uh defining a clear end to the period of significance of being 1940 so it went from an undefined but kind of inferred end date to a specific end dat in 1940 but just to elaborate on the last point I made because it' be great to hear about it from you on behalf of the um commission the primary motivation for adding the non-contributing I'm G to get it right finally non-contributing um houses on North Main that were not previously in the buffer and are non-contributing is consistency of the because otherwise one could argue that a minority of the houses north of Plainsboro fit your standard so why are we why are you bringing in the majority of houses that don't need to be protected to get consistency with a handful that do sure right because if you look at the map on page five you can see it is denser in terms of contributing uh to non-contributing in the core of the village and it is less Den north of Plainsboro Road so you're absolutely right uh if we wanted to treat the properties that are north of plain ro road as individual sites and just kind of designate only the contributing properties all the rest of these properties would be picked up as being within 200 feet of them under the 200 foot buffer but if we're getting rid of the buffer as part of this then that wouldn't be the case I guess it's a fundamental issue you can drive around town and areas that you're not proposing being historic and find the occasional historic farm house that is not in a protected zone so the issue is and and we're not going all the way to the end of Main Street in the other direction so the question is why this part as opposed to Plainsboro where it has been historically basic Jason's point though the the three satellite historic properties they did their buffer did not extend onto all those properties that are being added between the buffer from the district conglomerate at the whole to the satellites there there's all those properties in between yeah and this was kind of something that we were discussing last time so these folks who had no involvement are now involved right okay yeah and and the purpose of that is to keep the aesthetic of North Main Street that's what we're for we're just trying to get a consistent if you look at page page 11 um I find page 13 super helpful because you can see both the buffer and the ones that weren't previously in on yes if you look at page 11 these are aspects of the master plan 2010 2019 and also the historic ordinance that really from the way we perceive it inart an intent to protect not just the individual properties that are contributing but the areas that surround it and so I'm hoping one of the things that we can get from this discussion tonight is an understanding about whether the planning board agrees with our interpretation of the master plan that it shouldn't just be the contributing properties in the district that it should be the area surrounding them yeah I guess to me because this wasn't available to me the first time or because we didn't have access to all the original information but um I was you know questioning why we're expanding it what's our underlying logic it looking at that National Historic registry I'm probably saying saying that wrong but um it's clear that it originally kind of intended to get the west side of North Main and the south side of Station Road so then if you if you look at that as the original Guiding Light for what the sort of District can be you're basically just saying okay and if you're on the opposite side of the street it makes sense if you're going to protect that streetcape you want to be protecting both sides of that streetcape yes and also there are properties on the east side of North Main Street that in 1975 when the this was first started to be worked on wouldn't have been old enough but now we have a key contributing property on the east side of North Main Street we have a handful of properties from the 30s that are contributing and aren't in and aren't in the original District so on this map if basically you're were saying if we were if we had a buffer it would draw in the rest of those properties it would but we're doing away with the buffer and this is a new creation based on the new standard no buffer 1940 right that comes out of what you're trying to do here today yes okay I seems fair um I'm the HBC administrative officer and K said you didn't mind if I spoke so you're not getting rid of the buffer ordinance correct you're just getting rid of the 200 foot buffer around that historic district so you were indicating buffer ordance is staying but if you put the buffer 2 buffer around these contributing properties that's what you're referring to correct sorry what was the distinction so so the buffer we're not getting you're not getting rid of the buffer ordinance completely correct because it is can be around historic sites yes we're just getting rid of the histor that's right there's a part of chapter historic district currently and that's it okay so I just wanted to clarify that and you were stating that if you put a tour buffer around these contributing properties almost all these are going to be included okay I just want to CL can because now I'm unclear I understand that you may have properties totally outside the historic district that still want some sort of buffer but if you are leaving the concept that the buffer is still 200 feet from any given property that's contributing then you're still going to have almost the exact equivalent of the historic district buffer it'll still for example count the backyard of the L key house to North Main Street correct you're not referring to anything other than North Main Street correct well all of all of the properties in the amendment are within 200 feet of a contributing property um whether backyard of liy would not be within 200 feet of a uh contributing property it would be in 200 feet within 200 feet of what the original um it looks like it's 200 feet from a contributing property on uh cranberry Nick Road can I can I step in for a second I think you have to differentiate between the historic district and then Historic Landmark so let's say they didn't extend the district and so the existing District boundaries remain right we would get rid of the 200 foot buffer because it's actually the ordinance doesn't even permit it that would get rid of the like your old house right what I think there um what maybe Brendan is suggesting is that you do have these outlining proper sort of on the north side of Main Street and that if you were to put if if you didn't extend I know this is a little bit conceptually a little comp not complicated but you did you kept essentially those properties would no would not be in the district they'd be individual landmarks and then they would have a 200 foot buffer and so I think that if you did it that way then you're you're seeing okay they're not in that same group because for examp I get that concept but again just look at the map on page 13 so help me understand where it's not where I'm not right about I look at Blue as contributing properties that should have a buffer if you're treating them individually as a buffer right there and therefore you can see LD key houses within 200 feet of the houses on cranberry neck that are the district not so they are contrib no no no no it's not it's not contributing you have to treat the district as different from isolated landmarks that's the point I made earlier when I said are you talking about things out only outside the district so what you are saying then is with in the district there the 200 feet won't matter even to a contributing property exactly that's that's what I was trying to say yes exactly but but it but so I think because for example when I first started working on this the property way at the North which I think was maybe Mike Kaiser's house or something I didn't realize that was part of the district I thought it was just a l you know justce landmark and and really actually it's considered part of the cranberry Village historic district but it you know it it it was non-contiguous so it had this you know 200 foot buffer around it so I mean that's the AL another alternative which is to not to get rid of the buffer that's around the existing historic district and then on these properties on that are on the north side of Main Street instead instead of expanding the district boundaries you just put 200 foot buffers around them but we don't have a good map for that but the argument is then if you have this map and it doesn't have 200 foot buffers now if these are contributing and they're separate Landmark it envelops all that plus the poor folks back up to it on silvers right that wouldn't be our recommendation that's not what they want to do what would be great to visual illustrate that point is the map on 13 but showing with the houses that will become contributing because it will show that there's almost no space be very few houses that wouldn't be within that there there are none every every property on North Main Street is within 200 feet of a contributing property but read that in youro having trouble so what would be nice is to have a nice Red Line indicating what the district is because still un clear on that I know I know it is complicated but like I think if we could show we could do a map that shows the existing District boundary yes and then sort of say what would be the new contributing buildings and we could show in one color what a 200 foot buffer would be around them and we you could see to what extent like a series of maps I know that M or the you know it's almost like different layers yes there you go it's like um yeah whatever overhead transparency it certainly makes a lot more sense now you're saying there's new contributing properties that would have the 200 foot Halo right that would drag in new non-contributing properties because they would now be buffers but we don't want to involve everyone but we the ones on Main Street are important enough why don't we insect expanded District do away with the buffer add in these ones that would be drugging anyway and uh just go ahead and move on that's it did anybody get that that that is that that totally explains the yeah North M yes that wouldn't necessarily I think explain north side of Station Road which is the proposed Edition which came out out of us asking for consistency so it be totally clear but under that logic it sounds like those aren't currently well no those are caught up in the buffer so they're in the buffer today but if the buffer goes away they're not they're not they're not covered in the buffer whereas not in this map if we had done the top is isolated they still would have been but Jason they are consider adding Master well this was this was our notes leading up to our last HBC meeting uh it but more importantly the this that predates the commission agreeing that they should be included in the amendment but these are these are non-contributing buildings that were in the buffer so actually their standard of review is is really not going to change for all intents and purposes that's correct so they've never so that map well unofficially because that map only shows properties that have been surveyed the properties in the north side of Station Road we know from their date of construction that they postate 1940 so therefore it's going to be impossible for them to be contributing but officially they haven't been surveyed so that's that map just shows the official survey status there is also one difference like if you look again near the bottom right left corner of the map there's a handful of properties on cranberry neck that your map on page 13 shows as proposed non-contributing but the map for the um zoning or for the uh Amendment shows as contributing well this I'm referring this map shows as contributing resource and this map on page 13 shows proposed expansion of historic district oh so you're saying now the color schemes are weird so you're saying in this case blue might be a contributing house it is contributing it's contributing because we're showing two different things it's it's hard to wow no it's it's hard to um s because it's like talking about expansion what would be contributing and what was in the buffer and like trying to capture all that in one map is hardig so if you look at if you look at the notes on page 21 you'll see that the District boundary doesn't follow the property lines it's it's it's described in a way similar to the lot lines would be described in indeed so some of that property is in the the National Registry historic distri uh District but not all of it is uh page 21 shows the original District boundaries Parts like it was formerly like a single building district and now it's turned into a non-contributing I'm just wondering which one this one right here F this property here that was its own district and now it's gray let me see sorry oh I see I see okay so maybe that I so that should be blue that looks like that should be blue right which one it's basically it's the Farmhouse here no no I can speak to that property uh [Music] oh there are a number of properties if you look at uh page eight um of the notes there are a number of properties that were contributing at the time the district has created and have since lost their integrity and are no longer contributing that's architecturally changed enough that it no longer conveys the historic significance I've only been on the commission this year that's all I can say so that that that's one of several properties that have and there's a couple um and if you look at Station Road I would I would say if you look today of what's contributing on Station Road it looks kind of sparse on the south side and that's because two properties there have lost their um contributing status um they're old and the street is definitely feels either well again I've only went on commission this year I don't really I'm not it's not an ACC accusatory question it's just a technical Richard grub goes out and they do another evaluation form on them yes and they and they make a recommendation and how to answer your question it's lost but I guess what I'm saying is if it was in a protected status before how did they make fall fall out of it can you look at page six um where I quote the phase two survey report this is the surveyor talking about the type of changes that tend to lead to the loss of historic significance um distorting the buildings historic massing for example um the one on North Main Street that we were just talking about was one where the addition overpowers the original structure and for that reason it's no longer contributing but but just as a technical matter did they go to the HBC at the time I'm not again I'm just trying to understand the process or in some cases did they just do it without outgoing and then everyone goes oops after the fact I think probably both happens I think probably HPC being volunteers doesn't get everything right and also sometimes someone maybe tries to do it without the hbc's advice gota sometimes also like neglect um Can Happen where the house is significantly reflected and then someone comes in to go and try to save it they'll they'll say to do fix it this way you have and you lose elements that made it historic just seems like so many houses were kind of please come and sit we're just having a conversation no one's sworn in we're just having we're just talking but then you can have the it seems like it was domic what's question so on Station Road you know on the old map it looks like it was almost entirely you know was a big it was a big historic district right maybe only three houses not um contributing and now it seems like it's almost completely all non-contributing if you could look at page five the map that shows the period of significance of the res resources you'll these are two examples of homes that are old and look historic but no longer have the Integrity so there's you can see some of the homes that are that are um identified as pre- 1940 and th those did contribute at the time the district was created I'm part of so there's only two left because I feel like there's more houses on Station Road that look I know it looks it feels old and so for those of us in town we're on that street we feel like that street conveys history but the surveyors have determined they've lost enough of their integrity that they're no longer contributing but is that good for cranberry like it's a technical designation but it can now become a you know I don't know is that it feels like it's it's like a difference without a distinction that could actually cause more harm what you're saying is if you left them as contributing then at least in the future they couldn't further deviate from and you'd have more control over them than if they were non-contributing is that the gist of your question yeah like like it feels like you know I'm just going to use very nonprofessional language but it just feels like you can just wipe out that block and just completely change it I think that's part of the reason why they wanted to roll them in as contri uh as non-contributing but within the district so that they meet the rules of E where they have to comply with with massing and um certain aesthetic uh concerns but not have to deal with f which is a lot more stringent for the uh key contributing and contributing properties so they they maintain an an aesthetic but they don't have to necessarily uh meet all the guidelines for materials and everything else but they were in the histor buffer yeah and on page 13 yeah right but somehow they didn't conform anyway right but so like they already had to but they didn't well some some amount of change occurred from the time that they were designated to now yeah and you can see some of the properties on Station Road aesthetically they have changed like construction has occurred and you kind of sort of say hey does that was that you no of course practical matter if someone goes to get permits for any major constructions can require permits and when they go to the township ship for their electrical permit or their plumbing permit or whatever else does the township zoning officer flag it if they should have been you know subject to an HBC review that's a Rob question yes okay yes that's exactly what the construction official and the zoning officer has and it's just exterior it's never interior they're doing electric that has nothing to do with anything but if they have something on the exterior that they're working on it will be flagged and I'm notified okay or even if the zoning officer approves something thing and it's supposed to be HBC approval he lets me know as well so then for someone to have gone out of conforming through additions or other work like that either at the time the they did go to the HBC which is different group of people and imperfect and volunteer and whatever else and it just was okay maybe it came out different than it was seeming like it was going to be from the rendering seems likely or they just literally did it under the radar and did exterior work without a permit like with some handyman or midnight DIY also the The Sur the grub did a survey and so it's com it comes down to the discretion of that person when they did the survey so they may have had even if nothing had changed in the house it's possible that their definition or their interpretation of whether it's historically correct may have been different than what was done right and I think even over time since the initial establishment of the historic district the uh you know they've kind of refined what they consider to be historic I mean it it's been growing you know since the standards yeah right so the new survey took a harder line than the old survey is what you're saying potentially yes probably just the one addition to an upkeep correct so that's another another factor that it isn't necessarily that they did work on the house without permission of H packet that they not have done is no longer the the other thing to note is that it's now an a it's not hpac anymore since I guess 2006 it's HPC and no no no no it but it matters no no no no you did you did believe me I I noted it I noted it but you know it's important because it it it when it was an advisory committee it had it did not have the teeth that a commission has so some of this stuff could have happened in 2005 and so you know it's not that you know it appeared in the existing survey and then nobody really paid attention and they each pack at the time could have could have done you know said we don't like it but there really wasn't any mechanism for them to stop it so it that's just another I'm not saying that's necessarily would happen but it's a possibility all right so I have a oh you want I just yeah just real quick I just to bring us back to the testimony that we had from the gentleman you know when we went into the whole color thing he did say something that I thought was sort of interesting potentially helpful is that when you become a non-contributing but you are in the district he said it would be really great if the historic district did have a book of what it is the aesthetic that's trying to be attained by the historic retained or attained by the historic district especially for non-contributing properties because he he felt as though most people wouldn't go out of their way to put some build an offensive uh house they you know they but they they have to make decisions in design so he thought that maybe there could be some more help and he was also the same gentleman that talked about the color and all that but he he seemed to be on both sides of that fence he was so and we we took a lot of that we took a lot of that heart because it's funny we we took a look at some guidelines from what was it Allentown Allentown Pennsylvania or New Jersey it was an 100 page book I mean and it went through every detail around your color of your shutters and materials of your roof and and you know details on your fence and how your sidewalk looks and honestly um we looked at it and our design guidelines are pretty much sort of like a cranberry version of that which is smaller town a little bit Le like a lot less detailed um but covers the main areas of what you need to know so I think that the feedback about wanting to know exactly everything that is there I kind of wonder if that person really wants that because if if we get so prescriptive about everything especially when you're in a non-contributing home and stuff um that just I think it can it may cause more problems than than solve I I think part of my concern with the last time that we looked at this we have a lot more information now by the way thank you um is that if we do leave it too wide open um what we may consider reasonable today and we might be all reasonable folks is that someday they're might not be those reasonable folks who take it upon themselves with Petty authority to use these weaponized um broad s broad uh uh rules uh in the amendment and Jason the um yeah one they have to go you know before review but let me just engage our architect isn't isn't there kind of a a standard for you talked about the massing um there aren't there just certain things that an architect or even a I'm GNA say um a builder who builds in a historic district would know that are the are the no NOS or the things that you you just wouldn't do it's no different than this board it's it's an imperfect system and we kind of do the best we can to maintain the qu quality of town um I have seen I think first of all just like you said cranberry is a very forgiving and very lenient HPC as compared to other towns Princeton you know and it has I would say become more lenient over the last 25 years as well uh considerably um do you think that's to a detriment to to miss up my point if you are too prescriptive like in our guidelines that we talked about for different things if you're too prescriptive then then you're gonna get a cookie cutter answer you're I mean I I think it's so I think with the contri non non-contributing structures I think to me it's more what's important is the mass the scale that it fits into the neighborhood that it doesn't scream out at you um and it maintains The Village so that's why I I do support you know all all of Main Street essentially you know being part of it um I think the the challenges are you know there's there's been sort of originally everything was very um by by the national park standards which was if you had wood shutters you had to keep those wood shutters um and you had to take them up and take take them down if you had wood windows that that um you know leaked and were you know you had to restore those and it's very costly and but that is the correct historical preservation thing to do I think there was a lot of push back on that and people override and going to the township committee and the committee saying okay and it's cranberry you know um I think as an architect there are challenges um I think Roofing is one you know where roof had a a building had a ro a slate roof put on it you know 50 years ago originally it would have been a a shake roof I I would never do a shake roof you know I would not want to make somebody put a shake roof on a house because the wood is not the same as it was 200 years ago and it won't last but 20 years and it's three times as expensive uh same thing with a slate roof you know what I mean it's it might be a slate roof I think a slate roof is much more important on certain you know italiante you know style houses that you really want to maintain that but other ones where it was just kind of replaced 50 years ago or 75 years ago and it it lasted for a long time but it wasn't necessarily the original roof that's a big burden for a homeowner and our price range of houses to carry um I think another inconsistency is that's been that I've seen over the years um is final sighting like when I read the standard synthetic sighting to me I would read that as vinyl sighting so the way I'm reading this but it's just me interpreting it is so I have a lot of questions in terms of details as an architect of what allowed to do or not do and I think boards over different times interpret can interpret that differently so I think poning in on some of those would be good to minimize questions and maintain consistency were possible um because like you know H HPC approved vinyl windows of some locations with glud on molans on the front you know on a historic you know contributing house I don't think that's right you know that's been done in the past you know what I mean yeah I haven't done that I would never do that but but you know is a Marvin clad window okay because when you're painting all these windows and it looks you know done right it can look really good if done poorly it can look poorly you know um so I think and also like for a while people would you know it was acceptable just in the front of the house especially like on Maplewood where the houses were close to just put um Hardy Plank and and um as z now I would say Boral but uh trim on the you know on the front but on the sides do do the final side is that okay it's visible by the street it's not so I would just recommend I maybe somewhere in between kind of of looking a little bit more at those sticky points that have kind of happened over the last what I've seen over the last 25 years do those standards go in uh with the amendment like this is is this all one thing that HBC has to do in order to move the amendment forward do they have to have those what what we could put in the amendment is we recommend this be looked at I don't think that we need the exact standards if the standards aren't codified anyway it's it's just a sort of a um recommendation convenience I don't know you know it's it's it's a guideline it really is a design guideline for people whether it's their architect or just the homeowner to sort of understand what they need and and I guess what I'm understanding is that maybe that there needs to be greater specificity or some some clarifications yeah we can make some recommendations in the amendment hey this should be looked at but we don't have to do that the actual looking at it yeah and as as Brandon mentioned before I mean in our last HPC meeting we talked about updating our design guidelines because yeah we we all have never talked about color and then all of a sudden we looked at it and we were like what's this color in here for like pre before us um but I think um like I mean I appreciate your feedback I think we definitely want to like relook at the guidelines because historic preservation you know as you got as you mentioned in the beginning of time it was very by the book because that was how it was it was a new practice but um we've evolved a lot and even when we looked at allent town I mean they've evolved as well I mean you know you know every historic town has to evolve and think about how we handle solar panels how we handle the fact that you know um Cedar Shake is too expensive um it's not practical anymore you know we've had to start much to my Su grin we've had to start approving some of synthetic siding that you know is not because of cost um you know that said the windows were still holding out on the Windows wood windows in the front you know we try to keep everything we do try to focus on the front of the home um always and anything that's visible from the street um and I think again to the comment that you mentioned gentleman before I really do believe that um as his I don't I I I don't know if he really reviewed the design guideline document we had because I do think that that does provide a lot and I do worry that if we were start getting really detailed that we're going to upset a lot of people because we're going to be too prescriptive and then everyone's going to try to find their way around things and and it's just going to be so contentious so I think we will as HPC for sure like look at up updating this we got to get that color language out because we haven't you know obviously used that in a long time so so yeah so just to go back and because I I want to free frame something just to understand it not because I'm proposing it but if as an alternative you had instead simply come and said we've done the survey and here are the new conforming houses but you had done nothing to propose changing the buffer so there was now a 200 foot buffer everywhere there is a buffer there would be plus every new conforming house would have a 200 foot buffer if you do that is there any house in what you're proposing now where you are adding them as non-contributing that would not have been anywhere in this plan that would not have been captured by that so it wasn't in the buffer before I just want to make sure I understand your question going backing pretend like you didn't want to change the buffer rules and there was going to be a 200 foot buffer everywhere yes and and that you still went and did this survey and changed every house that was requested to that was suggested to be conforming to conforming I said conforming contributing um stuck on it been I always say Yellowstone and eity backwards too um so uh so if you had done that and that would that two 200 th those new 200 foot buffers would capture a ton of homes that they don't right now is there any home that you're proposing making non-contributing in your ual plan that wouldn't have been captured by those buffers there's one property in the draft Amendment from August 175 North Main Street that is more than 200 feet from a contributing building a contributing resource and we don't want that in the district that's the one at the very Northern end on the so the so if you make that change everything else is within basically we can say even if all you had done is gone through and updated the contributing properties you're not nothing that you're proposing now is roping anyone in that wouldn't already have been roped in by those existing rules just but that's what I'm trying to get I get what you're saying okay you want say yeah because you're from what I'm thinking you're you're concerned someone's going to be saying like why am I part of this now I wasn't part of it before because they were about to be part of it anyway you want to make sure you have like a guy a business role that really you know applies to them yeah I mean that's how we're we're trying to do this we don't just choose houses at Rand yeah it's it's all yeah it's not so much about the random it's that the first time around it kind of felt like what we were saying but now I think it's not what we're saying and I think it's a much cleaner message that there was a bunch of houses sorted getting roped in because they were kind of in between the way the map look I really believe because when we were in last time with y'all it was the map I feel like the map guided the brain to look at it the not the right way right whereas what we're saying now is hey this this study was done it's consistent with a study of an area that has been defined decades ago had to be done and once we them once we did that we were G to be capturing all these houses anyway but what we're going to do now is much cleaner it's actually going to remove some properties that really shouldn't be in it so we're actually net more positive with this approach than we would have been if we had simply conservatively added properties and their 200 foot buffer yes exactly I actually have a question regarding you mean what do you mean by conservative we're net conservative um meaning meaning this process the net result of this will actually require fewer houses to be protected than if we had that were unnecessarily protected that's what I thought you meant then if we simply added new contributing houses and left the buffer so it's less upset people yeah I think people who are there's going to be people who need to understand that because they're not right now covered but what they need to understand is they were going to be covered either way for those people but just a quick question it looks though as though on North Main Street um where it's the proposed expansion of the district yes on page 13 page 13 yes aren't aren't those kind of new or are what this map that's what I was saying is this map doesn't show it doesn't show which ones were about to become contribut show they were okay and once you once you look at the red dots way back on like page seven I think page the 200 foot buffers around all of those were going to to to bring all those houses into the non-contributing status anyway were they yeah okay yes okay it seemed like there was a stretch but I guess from across the street they were captured okay so I have a question about the lake so if I remember correctly we used to have to go before age hpac HPC for any facades facing the lake my gosh yes we were working we had a discussion about we we wanted to protect the lake we did yeah that that was added um a few years ago but there was um a push to or an initiative to um protect the view corridor of the lake sort of from the the bridge and looking towards the houses on Evans Drive and that got really complicated first of all everybody on Evan's Drive was like were really not interested but also I think what happened was yeah um but but the other thing that we discovered also though is the riparian it's protected by the riparian riparian you can't do anything close to the water therefore there's nothing that um the homeowners can do that would impact anything you know within uh 150 feet 2 I can't remember I think our R50 right I think you yes so it was protected for a different reason yeah so and we always handle the front of the houses normally right before we had we had approach the back of the house back back side the same as the front B it it was also the very confusing I'm not confusing it was got complicated as to like well what view where are you taking the view from like you know at what point are you so the blue on the lake now is just a pretty picture basically you're not reviewing anything on the lake no boats or rafts or when we finalize this is it possible to use a map that actually has the roads that exist in town like there's like an entire path sarcastic question oh right so this was but like there's Park the entire other side of Park Place is missing all the way on the path to the library it doesn't he talking about that it's a there actually are separate tax Lots right roads typically aren't tax Lots um but those are they're municipally owned tax Lots but that was something that uh I was emailing with Brendan and and um Robin about because it's complicated because you know it you're like you know I think Brendan said what why you have this here it's a road or you know you have this in a color it's a parking lot and I think and this is something that we just need to do a little further research on is that if you got oh this was in front of the zoning board when the um cranberry Housing Authority seated back a portion of their property to the town that they were using as a road but it was all still I mean roads aren't tax Lots but Parkplace West is it's a it's a series of tax Lots so we just have to make sure that if we code it okay so if we code it white then we yeah they they are still tax Lots right what do you mean it's it's it's part the driveway Drive House Road yeah yeah I mean we it's part of the property question Justus the these show up as even if well I see I always perceived it but I don't know I don't live here I always perceived it as the driveway to down a hall we gave it a name remember so so you think it should be it should be white then it should be like a [Music] street oh so so should it should it be considered should it be shown as a road understand that it's technically a bunch of stuff I'm just saying the average person perceives it as a as a [Music] roote a sign with a name because I don't people process it that way commonly known commonly known commonly known known and maybe denote where the school is and Town Hall so people can get theirs um anyway for my part I am I toally feel I get it now I understand it I think it's reasonable I've always been in support of cleaning up the buffer thing I we extensively talked about that logic last time so I'm just sharing my perspective as someone who had concerns before no I I think we unpacked a lot tonight that just just didn't know you guys have been and just for the record we didn't have access to some of the more detailed stuff before our previous meeting it's not that we chose not to read it I believe that sent the email uh if I have it right would have been one maybe two o'l or 2:30 in the afternoon on the day of our meeting so and we also had a heavy application um and then most of the people around the table are at work and they slide in so you didn't have the ordinance before the ordinance now what you sent you sent day of we had yeah we had we didn't have this right yeah we did not we didn't have this yeah this was very helpful well this was this was this this was new this was this certainly we didn't have this that yeah helpful yeah I did watch it I did watch the presentation also helpful but uh yeah also the the board wasn't briefed or prepared in the meeting before or leading up to this that this was coming down the pike that this was something that we needed to be aware of uh and also differentiating between an ordinance and an amendment to the master plan so just what the board was charged to do wasn't clear um and um but I do think can I ask a quick question about the amendment in the ordinance Yes master plan is passed by ordinance an amendment no okay master plan is just that it's adopted as a plan add an amendment but then that has to be heard twice you just s me oh I said I didn't say show show that has to be heard twice so an amendment has to be heard twice by the township Committee in order to change the master plan and ordinance needs to be heard Twice first reading then how come so if we said okay today is it because there is no Township committee because you have to have and you have to have a public meeting so the the same the the board that approves the amendment has to be the same board that carries through to the ordinance for the township committee so this board you do have to have a public hearing this isn't a public hearing tonight it's just a discussion okay so the amendment will eventually lead to an ordinance okay so so um planner yes she's gonna prepare an amendment this is we're just talking about to the master plan Master the master plan that doesn't require an ordinance no that's going to get a resolution and that'll be adopted by the planning board which then makes a report to the township committee that would accept the master plan report and then they would go after that they would uh prepare the ordinances to you know that need to be changed and when I say ordinances that would be any chap changes to Chapter 93 right okay yeah and what would go in the ordinance are is is the different um build buildings that we're talking about what their status would be contributing versus non-contributing what would what actual properties are in the district so everything and as well as if if they choose to that ordinance is an amendment to the original ordinance it's an amendment to what's on the books now okay yes so there is an amendment in an ordinance it's just not the amendment that we would be amending and a resolution right thank you I do appreciate it I'm glad I'm not you know when people come in for variances they you always say are they consistent with the master plan well that's the other document there's the ordinance and the master [Music] plan St are okay with the additions that they're proposing on station to clarify these are all that are currently in the buffer so you're you're you're bringing them in under the new definition but you're not you're not taking people who are currently not subject to any review and adding them so are we okay I am so we're okay with station we don't have questions on that we don't okay all right everybody good thank you so much for coming and thank you for uh going through this arduous process um Jennifer and I were on HPC together 2020 2021 2022 2023 years yeah um so um it it's a long process but given that we've been here since 1697 and also since seven um since 16 um it's good that I think uh questions were raised and I think you'll likely have an easier time going back to the public next year uh having vetted all the things that uh that you've done uh with us I know I certainly understand it better um and I hope the board uh does as well um so we will get you on our um agenda uh in 2025 and and then we'll start the process how's that that is perfect good so please take back to your board will be really happy that you guys are we got your feedback tonight and that you guys are you know bring a thank you to Brendan for the I mean that companion report was excellent I it was very helpful um I know uh to me I'm not sure about everyone else but I I know it was very helpful to me um I was not the original presentation so that helped me uh Bridge the two so um thank you again thank HPC for for what they do and um and for uh adhering to the master plan we appreciate so much volunteers and volunteers so we have um two orders of business uh to finish up um our first order of business is to say farewell to Mike fronte and to Dominique so we have two board members that will be leaving us so Dominic didn't continue with the school board she's our Schoolboard rep so I've encouraged her to put in an application so if there absolutely 100% yes um but uh we do appreciate your um uh all of the work that you've done and the growth that I've seen in you in the last year just coming on and moving forward with the planning board so we do appreciate having you at the table uh with your insights and um it's um we're you're going to be mixed ask NOP honestly you asked the questions and we're all like yes that's the question that you drilled down that we we wanted to ask um Mr fron you are leaving the township committee what will happen what will happen what are you gonna do no not be here what are you do at 10 o' at night so okay so let's see what should we uh recommend for Mike to uh binge um nobody wants this uh let's see there's a couple of yeah there we go all kinds of all kinds of things um thank you very much for your feedback and for your support work with everybody absolutely so Robin and I went to the um League of municipalities um confence friend last month um we heard Sharon speak um much uh much of the conversation was uh I I guess the biggest buzz from the conference was the uh fourth round housing and what that means to the municipality so there were lots of different sub um uh presentations that had to do with um with that topic that Jason will be an amendment the master plan once the municipality the township comes up with a plan then they will bring it to them to the planning board for an amendment to our current master plan because we will have to change where housing is we'll have to make some changes to our to the master plan so that will be an amendment and then it will go back so um Robin has yeah assuming the numbers that I read press reports are correct 265 yeah where I mean you're gonna have to change the zoning on something right yeah so that's um that's not in our purview that belongs to right the municipality but right so you can't yeah 265 and there there are many ways to do that uh in the third round there were things that you could get extra credits for so if you had a rental property that was a credit they took that away however if you have a Medicare patient in a bed at the Elms that's a credit so there are certain way certain things that count for our see I paid attention thank you so um there are certain things that will count um so it's not well so actually no because anything over 20% got reduced so our original number was over 300 but they can't uh request more than 20% of your housing stock so that number got pulled Back 2 to 265 265 but an original number based on our land and uh was over 300 but I guess I'm saying it sounds yep that sounds about right typically what we do as a planning board anytime we do a mixed juice or anything like that we try and always instill 20% of our um increase in housing into um a affordable housing well sure but I'm saying it's 20% of our total hous just affordable so you have to if you did the Builder remedy you have to double right and so we right so we we don't want to do that so as a practical matter are we gonna is is protected Farmland immune from this I how so how are we going so Sharon um preserve Farmland is preserve Farmland open space is open space parks are parks you cannot take a park away um so those those things are they're not protected they're just off limits those are things that you cannot use for your housing St proted farm that happens to be Farmland but it's not protected is that's still for our game yeah do we have a mes we do we do yeah so we will take that up in 2025 the other thing I will say to that is we have 10 years we have 10 years to complete this task so it needs to be thoughtful um those kind of questions are good questions um but uh it needs to be part of a you know we need to look at it holistically I think cranbery does an excellent job of having housing um throughout the town so there's not an area that is just design designated um you know for one specific um affordable area so I think the town I think the KY housing authorities done an excellent job of putting in housing and um incorporating it into the community and I think we'll have to be very thoughtful and continue to do that um you know again we have 10 years um and there'll be a lot of thought that goes into that so um but my last thing is to um before we close tonight is to thank Robin for um not just attending those meetings but working with um each of our entities in uh the township uh I ask her question sometimes that she has to go to construction um and and figure out you know what this is and she'll pull up information and um she just does a a really nice job what I heard at the league of municipalities is a lot of strategy on what you do when your secretary over speaks at a meeting and I said over speaks she speaks really and they were like I I was like oh she's really good while she may know the answers that we're struggling to get to she does a very good job of advising me uh and keeping us in line and hopefully keeping us out of any um and the out of bounds uh area um so Robin we just have a little Point setup for you um and we just want to thank you for all you've done but I will give you that after I have a me a motion to adjer a second all right 2024 in the books for