all right let's the clock in this room is a bit behinds like but online we're saying 7 o'cl so we started with recording so gosh away America the for stands one na indivisible thank you um okay okay this meeting thank you is called assur to the provisions of the open public meeting act both adequate and electronic notice of this meeting has been provided by way of publication in the hon County Democrat and K news newspapers on or about February 1st 2024 and January 30th 2024 in addition notice of the meeting was posted at the B of flemingon Municipal Building located at 38 Park Avenue and any handicapped accessible entrances there too posted on the municipal website provided to the municipal clerk and distributed to all persons if any requesting copies of the second this meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and maybe be broadcast this meeting is a Judicial proceding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate for a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times all right can we have the roll call please I mayor Carol here trying to promote um she's in the attendees but I don't know if she can um to her Mr cion is excused miss giin here Mr Hill here Dasa here Mr cook here miss whitesman here Excuse miss swingle here Mr eeko here here M kazinski here Mr clo is excuse Mr Hill Mr Ian Hill EXC I'm here miss mcis here and Mr chman is excused and uh Miss fararo are has join public is she here Eileen or no she is um she was just promoted I am here there go there she is thank you sorry guys we got you in the end that's good all right item one on the agenda is public comments um this is for item specifically not addressed on the agenda um in front of us right now um is there anybody online or in person wants to make any comments okay seeing none we'll move on to item two May comments uh I just wanted to let the planning board know that um shry commission and the en commission had a joint meeting for I think the first time ever uh to discuss a number of items including the checklist which they appreciated both both commissions and had no comments on um storm order and uh the the U state required new updated uh tree ordinance shade tree ordinance um and as well as our list of of acceptable trees um in attendance that meeting with my mcmanis um I don't think this meeting would have been as successful as it was uh both commissions I think got a lot out of it and um Miss mcmanis is now working on a new ordinance encompassing encompassing comments from both boards um along with you know the state minimums and um I know that the shatri commission has already appointed subcommittee to look at uh trees uh what would be acceptable on a new list and getting rid of you know non nonnative or non good quality shade trees like the old uh pair all over rare Township and 30y old subdivisions um and environmental commission uh has not appointed a subcommittee yet but they sure they will as soon as Beth is ready to roll so she's working on that will'll get comments from both commissions and then have it reviewed by um Municipal attorney and um I don't know where it's going to originate either this board or the council but it's by the council because it's all coming through yeah from those individual commissions that are not armed the planning sense yeah so but it was very very successful and um it really was um so I was really happy about that and the the parking committee continues to meet and work on um the nuts and bolts of fixing things around the town including you know the light timing and um two traffic lights uh that are issues the one on North Main and the one on Broad Street the only one that seems to time right is the one on Main Street um you know there's not a lot I can disclose at this point because a lot of it is being re uh re re-evaluated to make sure every eye is dotted or he's sketching out Jay is sketching out traffic consultant uh areas to make sure things will work um so you know as I can record things from that I will so that's it thank you um Council comments item three yes just um our well Marsha and I serve both serve on the the traffic committee so I think she pretty much assess gave a gave you a great update there um we are getting our stop sign hopefully on the corner of William Street and broth um that has been pushed through it was supposed to be today but there were weather issues then just I'll let you know that the beer corn and tomato F what sign the stop sign are you talking about the one Williams yes it's not up yet it's not going to be installed until after the do finish all their and then it's going to be installed afterwards and there'll be a police officer posted there to make sure people are here to it before we okay I saw the um the sign for it the other day I think yeah so was I'm crossing fingers that happen sooner rather than later and beer corn and tomato Festival they are looking for volunteers so if anybody I've got to give a pitch in for Tony Parker councilman Parker they need volunteers that's it okay thank you um item four HPC comments Dennis we didn't have a July meeting it was cancelled as we had no applications um and then the only other item is hopefully at the end of this meeting I'll be clear on the next steps for the Historic District boundary so that we can figure out when we're going to move forward with that and who needs to do what I want to make sure we're clear on that that's it for me it's not on the agenda we definely need to either talk about that maybe do that in a minute okay yeah I'm G to do that just now thanks Dennis okay professional reports um so s said that let's go straight to B uh sure so I my professional report I'm gon to say really only addresses the historic district so uh Cara and I have communicated I think she she issued a memo today I don't know if the board had a chance to if that was distributed to the board just yet yeah but it seems and I don't want to speak for Cara I think she's still on the line um but it seems like we're starting to get a process in order where there'll be a joint planning board and HBC meeting to to do the public hearing she sorted out the notice issues as well and confirm that those properties in the extended District are required to be provided public notice and uh one highlight I I just want to reiterate is the municipal land use law provides a very simple process the Burrows is a bit more robust So for anybody that wants to cross check what we're doing or is interested in seeing uh the language for themselves please take a look at the fal ordinance as opposed to the municipal Lang law which provides more detail on notice and how the meetings should go um so I don't want to steal Caris Thunder I want to defer to her if she has any more commentary that she's got let's hear that before any go ask questions with the two of you on that then yeah no I don't have anything further um Beth is correct that where we wanted to make sure we were correct on is the ml has one process but ours is a little more intensive so I attached uh both language language of our ordinance as well as the ml language to the memo that Beth and I did so everybody can see what the difference is um but basically we can discuss the process for the joint meeting which would be between the HPC and and the planning board we need 20 days notice to the newly affected property owners that would be affected by the new expansion of the district and um that would be done 20 days prior to the date of the hearing um at that hearing we could do the review and presentation of the hpc's report and the public hearing on that as well as the planning board review and recommendation by vote of that report should the planning board seek fit to do so and then from there it would go to the town committee for review and introduction of an ordinance so that's the process it's outlined in the memo obviously available to answer any questions tonight or any other point um but we're we're clear on the differences between the mlul and our ordinance and we certainly have a path forward um and can select date so that we can comply with the requisite notice requirements it sounds to me like the process is the one that we' a few months ago when we talked about it the process is the same it's just that we've clarified who needs notice and how much notice so that we can go on and set a day for that moving forward is that right that's that's correct and and we've confirmed the additional requirements again of our ordinance versus the ml just wanted to make sure that everything was in line and that we were sure exactly who needed to be noticed we have all that figured out now so we could pick a date from what I can see the next hearing date we have which is August 13th um wouldn't give us enough time to do the 20-day notice but we could do it for the next meeting after that so the last one in August 27 okay so be enough time to gather together notices and get them out in so they were delivered 20 days before that date okay yeah the list of the property owners that are affected by the um District change tax the tax assess he has to be given all of the addresses right would that be with the HBC or John hatch no exactly which we have the addresses um we we definitely have all the addresses I don't know if we have the names um I think that uh I what I what I would recommend is we take that math to the tax assessor and just have him provide the addresses of everybody and that way it saves time for the HBC as well as planning board and it's done officially right okay correct yep and then we would be able to put together the language showing that it's both a joint public meeting of both entities and uh once we get that notice out then we can discuss exactly how that happens but it it's not two a 200 foot list and the standard sense of it it is just from what I understand it's the properties that are affected so the the tax assessor might need a little bit of information on how to identify those particular properties we've got the addresses E I could get you the list of the addresses so we have each of the properties that are impacted with that help yes I think so Dennis I think that would be good okay map and work that but then you can cross check against denn's list just to make sure that they're covered yes I think sorry sorry I what were you saying as long as the attorneys agree I just um it's just my two sets too it's just a different kind of list you're saying so it's not like pull out it's not a traditional 200 foot lless from the property that is you know in a typical public hearing right and now car is it every is it just the new addresses affected or is it all of them it's the the new address is affected and again that was a little bit of of confusion as well because when you're dealing with a change in the boundaries of a zoning District you have to do everybody whereas with this it's just the people the new people that are within the existing uh the changes to the district right so that's good that's a shortterm list we should be able to correct correct and obviously it makes sense there's no need to notify everyone that already knows they're in the district we're just notifying the new people that are going to be there right um there was also another question regarding recusals of people within 200 feet I'm not finding anything that requires the recusal of anyone within or within 200 feet of the new boundary so that is not an issue either um of course if as usual if anybody feels that they have you know any concern with participating then they should themselves recuse but there's no mandatory recusal required okay thanks for checking on that appreciate that so um those that need to be involved in this process know what needs to be do we can move towards getting that um Dennis I guess you if you can also Le with the HPC I'll make sure that they can we have a quorum for the 27th of August okay um and then does the HPC present in the joint meeting is that how it the flow should go okay got it yes that you're presenting right their report yes they're presenting the report to the board the board is going to review and make a recommendation with regard to that report that will then go to the committee now the only question that we would need to know and the board can either you know discuss this at the next meeting or just so I I know when I have uh have an idea in mind the board has to prepare its uh recommendation to the committee within 60 days of when it's presented with the report by the HPC certainly if you're prepared to do so and we've seen this report a number of times I can have something ready for the board to act on that night um if the board sees fit if not you have 60 days from that date that it's presented which would be August 27 to make your recommendation back to the committee back to the council I I would like to see if you can have that ready I think like you say we've seen the report enough we know what's coming it's no big surprise have that ready that people that's a good point I asked about the HPC what what about our regular board is everybody going to be available on that date or do we have a quum available that date anybody traveling or is it too close to school to travel at that point school's almost starting right it might have to be remote because but I be able okay thank you anybody who's currently online is are you all available we have to check with Brian I guess and Mr Campion we'll check with them okay so we should have a quorum to be able to complete it and then what I'll do what I'll do everyone is I'll have it prepared and obviously you could use it or not use it um so that way you've got both options and uh if we need to make any changes on the record to what I prepared based upon what happens during the public hearing we could certainly do that as well yeah I think that sounds like a plan car thing and one more item I just want to add I think in car if you disagree but I think at this hearing we should be uh addressing the historic district as well as the amended St preservation plan elements I think that that if as long as car does need spr I think that can be noticed and both actions could be reviewed and taken by the planning for that okay yeah there's no no need to do it twice if we don't need to what I I missed the second part I'm sorry what was that I I was just saying uh in addition to Simply expanding the district boundaries the burrow or the planning board should also hold the public hearing on the amendment to the historic preservation plan element of the master plan that was done oh I got it boundary thank you right well thees the whole reason seems logical to do that all right great so we've got a plan to go forward to aim for that date we'll put that on the agenda for that date then please Perfect um professional reports you have anything else then uh Tre is underway and St preservation stuff I think that's all I can report on now you have any idea when you're G to have a draft I would say I call need at least another week to get that done okay that's F you're tell month we is great good all right um and then so that's that's talk you um car do you have a report right now as you said you yeah I would like to go into executive session briefly to discuss um the potential litigation issues involving the living wall um but other than that I don't have anything else and we could address that at the end of the meeting the end that's okayy moreon living you're absolutely correct mayor oh gosh yeah alternative though does not sound so good Mr um person giving you the option um Mr Hill online do you have anything hi nothing from engineering report now okay great thank you very much um okay then we'll move on to item six which is approval of the minutes from the June 25224 regular meeting and those were distributed and there any comments from anybody on those any amendments or comments we have to make motion to approve thank you mayor Carol yes Mr Hill yes Miss visaro yes Miss giin Mr dasna yes Mr cook yes Miss Whitman yes Miss swingle yes Mr E yes thank you all right thank you um no item seven ordinance review 20248 the ordinance replacing the land use submission checklist do we have to do on this one it happened while I was away and I thought it was moving through the process it's back the council so the council uh voted to introduce it as proposed by the planning board so now you have to yeah this would be our ordinance review the same way we review any other amendments to the zoning ordinance that are introduced by Council uh we need to review it and make a finding that it is not substantially inconsistent with our master plan um obviously the land use law requires us to or encourages us to have a checklist this is a better checklist that better serves the buau in that sense and I don't want to speak for Beth she can certainly say additional information as well but um I think the the board can find that it's not substantially inconsistent with the master plan so I agree it's not I don't think it's um substantially or uh at all inconsistent with the master plan it's just it's a better version of the process that the burough is currently going through I did have one comment on the ordinance just as I was uh cross checking it um it's really a comment in the checklist as opposed to the ordinance that Christopher C wrote I assume Chris wrote it um no Alex fish wrote sorry yeah so in in the ordinance so the ordinance itself is is fine in the checklist it references submission of traffic impact statement and what I hadn't uh quite recognized as we're going through the checklist itself is there's an ordinance section in the burrow code that uh that addresses what should be included in a traffic impact statement my recommendation is that we simply provide a reference to that and it is Section I believe it's section 1515 is the traffic impact statement so in the table it should say submitted traffic impact statement consistent with Section 1515 um and and so I I make that recommendation and then as a complimentary ordinance I don't think it it needs to be included in this could be a separate one but I also recommend that the section 1515 which references the traffic impact statement simply uh provide a reference to the checklist just so everything is Frost referenced um and I say that specifically because that section requires a traffic impact statement to be submitted when there's uh major site plan which is great Inc consistent with our checklist but it also is for a subdivision for when there are 10 or more Lots being proposed and that is a detail that we don't have in the checklist I recommend and I can give the the specifics in just one second but I recommend that the ordinance language remain uh very general it just say simply that the traffic impact statement shall be required pursuing to the checklist included at the end of this chapter which is exactly how the checklist section is handled uh wouldn't we be wouldn't we be covered on that anyway even though we didn't Mark a check on that that this checklist is meant to be a guide and we can add for any application could say you this one triggers for as for our ordinance a traffic impex statement so we require it even though it's not written on this check list that you know you might be able to but I think there's benefit and Clarity in not having potential conflicting information that needs to go through an interpretation because we we require pursuant to the table that was just completed the checklist we require the traffic impact statement for major preliminary subdivision or for any subdivision that's major as well as for major site plan which is consistent but then we also require it for Dev variances which is not listed in the ordinance and so I recommend that we take the when it's the triggering language out of the ordinance narrative and just simply RI upon the checklist I think that could be done as a separate ordinance if the council wanted to it would just be a simple very similar to what we have here just clean up that language but that's those are my recommendations one that item uh for the record item y on page two reference uh I believe it's section 155 of the ordinance traffic and back statement pursuance section 155 and that the planning board recommend a further ordinance Amendment to The Narrative of the ordinance that cleans up language and the text about the traffic in statement to uh essentially reference the applicability as as set forth in the checklist table so this would be in the referral letter back to the council so that our attorney there will see exactly what ex your thoughts part yeah the planning yeah that's my recommend just a little clean up to avoid any potential conflicts down the road y we'll do it at this point yeah yeah it'll get forgotten I mean I'll forget anybody else right Mr he knows it yeah we could certainly do it that way include both of those as recommendations and then um I I would obviously leave it up to burrow counsil but I don't think the first change uh in any way impacts the introduction of the ordinance because we're not changing the ordinance we're just making a clarification in the checklist itself which would be an attachment so that could very easily proceed for adoption when it's scheduled um and then if the uh the council decides to take the other recommendation to amend the other section of the ordinance it could do so as it cease fit but we could include both of those as a recommendation of the board via a uh Motion in a second yeah that's a good catch thank you does anybody else have anything I mean we can't were involved in it obviously had we way as well hopefully we've covered everything but did anybody notice anything that they've thought since is missing we need to add this is our chance to change it now before it goes forward anybody on the board have anything I don't see I see a lot shaking heads and uh Cara you're work with Beth to do um a letter to back to the governing body then yep yeah that schedules for public hearing on August 12th if it comes back August 12th okay before tonight or before then it'll be sched then can I move that we find for orance 20248 to not inconsistent with the uh master plan uh and transmit those two recommendations to Karen Beth just said to council you did a double negative you inconsistent I no the law says not inconsistent it's annoying it bothers me every single time we have to do me too annoying all right I need a second please thank you um and can you call the RO on that please mayor Carol yes misso yes Miss giin yes Mr Hill yes Mr B yes Mr C yes M whitesman yes swingle yes Mr E yes okay um I need to ask for a motion to change the agenda we want to switch around items nine and eight on our current agenda so that the completeness um hearing listed as number nine can be done before number eight um to allow um with a turn around for people in the audience or people involved um can I have a motion for that I'll move second thank you we take the rooll on the I'm sorry I missed mve on adjusting the agenda yes yes yes Miss giin yes Mr Hill yes Miss Whitman yes Miss swingle yes Mr E yes thank you all right with that being said we'll move on to item eight which is now completeness for Plaza One LLC application 20245 I was like lot 43 Lot 12 r one New Jersey Route 12 application for interpretation I'm not seeing the little camera thing here to turn on start video so you have to promote that Compu and is there any other is there something else to share yeah now start video if he starts video and then he can he can just all the panel should be said that SC okay you're good we all thank you thank you for that courtesy as well good evening stepen Bromberg Bromberg law office on behalf of the applicant plaza plaza 1 LLC um this is our application for a request for or of an interpretation um or in the alternative D1 variants um to allow Plaza one to have a tenant named Osprey Lane LLC um they have essentially a u a boutique clothing store that's located in Somerville and they're going to be expanding into lamberville and they want to have a space in Plaza 1 in order to have their management office which will have about two employees there and they will um have some minor when clothes come in they'll process them they might steam them put them in the system and then send them to either Clemington uh Somerville or Lambertville so it's really a low management office type thing with some minor processing of the cloes um we think that it's a permitted use in the zone and we rided the two citations to the um Highway retail zoning ordinance that we think it's per um and we provide testimony with respect to that um and if you don't then we're going to ask for a use variance because I think it's a good thing for the buau um so our application is filed for a request for an interpretation or any alternative for D1 variants Mr clerico issued correspondence I believe July 15th and he narrowed it down to a couple of issues or a recommendation for the board to consider um for us to provide uh in the absence of a checklist which is forthcoming um if you note the application materials that we provided um we provided a substantial amount of photographs of the site of the interior of the building of the door of the entrance way of each room and of where the activities are going to be taking place um we provided the approved site plan from 198 and the testimony will be that there's been no changes to the site this Plaza one's been around for a long time for over 40 years there's been no changes there's no external improvements proposed there's no internal improvements proposed um I know that the photographs depict the area because I took them and I walked through and took where everything is going to take place um so Mr clero recommended essentially two things one is an updated survey we don't have an updated survey we have the the plot uh the preliminary site plan that was approved in 1980 and the testimony will be there's no changes U that's the way it appears now and that's documented by the photographs that I took all around the building um the other thing he asked for a floor plan um I took the photographs of each and every room giving you an idea of what's going to be taking place and I think that adequately provides the board with information about what activities are going to take place um the other issues uh We've addressed by way of a zoning chart or uh I provided the zoning ordinance and the zoning map and the certification of the payment of the taxes and utilities which took us a while to get um so we're asking in the absence of your checklist we provided a lot of information for you to be able to weigh this application we'd like to be scheduled for a hearing and um it's about it happy to entertain any questions they when I looked at the pictures it almost looked like there was a little bit of construction going on maybe but is there going to be construction down there no if if there was construction it was painting I don't even think they're changing walls or anything so they don't have a floor plan they I I the Tom today quite honestly and he does asked if you had a floor plan for that's attached to a lease or something like that and we don't have one in that configuration because previously that space was part of a larger space for I think the Republican committee and then it got severed off sometime in in the the P something like that it was part of another u space so we don't have a floor plan of that present floor plan but I did take the picture s showing you what essentially what the floor plan is if you need a sketch of a floor plan um I'd like to be deemed complete and try to get something to you in advance of the meeting or at the time of the meeting where we can present that um but we this tenant is really needs to get into that space as soon as possible in order to get we don't want to lose this tenant I would like your tenant to be a tenant in Flemington bur with clothing so well maybe that'll work out in the middle but this won't be honestly just a you know it's not a retail store okay does anybody have any questions for sness the AF no quiet okay yeah I I have no problem moving that it's complete conditioned upon getting a sketch of a sketch doesn't have to be ar of the layout of the space um prior to okay mayor Carol yes Mr Hill yes missar yes um actually one question carara um well actually John um if uh this is an interpretation and in the alternative of a D1 use variance would the mayor and councel be for de yes the this one class one and class two members have to refuse themselves if it goes to a d variance we're going to ask for the interpretation first um and then if that is then then I will be in two stages depending on what the uh board finds that uh under its interpretation relief is required then it goes to the second phase and those me then correct is that accept that's fine okay very good thank you um I will call we call the RO then um mayor Carol yes Mr Hill yes Miss visaro yes Miss giin yes Mr Dash yes Mr cook yes Miss whitesman yes Miss swing yes Mr E yes thank you and the hearing B um what do we have in the next we have to it would be a little it' be difficult to do the August 12 time there wouldn't be enough time to notice that the next of course is the August 27th we have a joint meeting with the HBC as we've just discussed I'm so I like your excuse so the first meeting in September then 10 10th of September 10th of September great okay okay thank you all very much um excuse me when was the date that the um the floor plan sketch had to be submitted the Friday before September 10th so uh the 6 I guess okay thank you all very much thank you all right we'll move on to new item nine completeness public hearing for dou CRA application 20242 block 419 1829 Main Street for the record I live at 197 Main Street and I will be refusing myself from this item on the agenda I'm G to hang out well because we have an executive session I'm recusing myself as well I live at 194 okay all right I'll I'm gonna listen just to learn we follow for you and Jeff or we'll text you or whatever when ready thank you and Dennis you'll have to um you have to blank yourself yeah thank you all right thank you U my name is Robin R I'm an attorney with the law firm of lza and lza and I represent dougas Sebert um Mr Sebert uh owned 189 Main Street from 1996 to June 2024 um when he uh sold the unit um sold the building um I submitted a consent from the new owners to this application um to the board um we are asking first for the board to find our application for certificate of non-conformity complete and then to allow us to present a public hearing um we did provide notice of the application um I believe Mr clarico uh reviewed our application under ordinance 1501 and I uh sent a supplemental uh material in my letter dated um June 13 2024 that was um after Mr cber was representing himself initially and the matter was declared incomplete um I believe we provided all the documentation that Mr Caro listed on his um his his memo and I would ask that we be found complete uh yeah uh Bob just wanted to recommend that the um the board consider whether the Conformity is required under sub chapter M um he doesn't take any position on it but that's something for the board to consider can you please explain that to the board and the public um well I can read it for to you um whenever an application for development to the approving Authority is permitted or required by this article it shall be in such form and accompanied by such Maps documents and materials as are prescribed by this article and shall be submitted to the administrative officer in such numbers as is prescribed here in no development or variance application shall be deemed complete for submitt unless it conforms to the form content and data requirement of this article and any other applicable provisions of this ordinance no application shall be accepted unless it is filed on the official application forms of the bureau the standards for submission contained in this article shall be considered the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health safety and general welfare so they didn't submit it that way in that form I I would say it has um everything's been addressed that was in his previous um checklist well his review so um I have no concerns with deeming it complete so the word shall is used was shall did they did yes okay confus yeah okay so your your office is saying that um we can de complete we feel that we inclined correct okay thank you is anybody else other any comments on the whether to do completes anything that's missing anything we want to see I see nothing then guess I need a motion to being the application complete as so moved oh was it yeah you went so quick I miss you all right then we call the roll on that Mr Echo we need to vote oh yes thank you Miss swingle yes mayor Carol yes misso yes Miss G yes Mr Hill yes Miss whitesman yes Mr yes um Mr they were accused oh sorry accused so EX okay so I understand the adequate notice was given that we can move on with the public here in direct correct yes um I know um I did check the the notice against the mailing over seats and it was reviewed by um our attorney okay just um should we Mark the appit of service um as an exhibit uh yeah generally I think Hera usually um marks exhibit A1 as the application in all supporting documents and then A2 is the notice of hearing A1 would be the application no supporting documents A2 would be the of service all documents attached to that would be the publication um list of owners and the proof of meal there were some minor um I gu call issues regarding the service of notice there was one uh where the person's last name was U Rosas Ras but the mailing um the mailing s said Ros but that was delivered and signed for by uh Mr Rosas there was one R um that was addressed to a pitan address but it had the Flemington zip code on it but it was signed for it did contain the Pittstown post office stamp so I'm satisfied that uh that was correctly served so after view of the documents the board does have Juris have thank you thank you um I have um a number of exhibits and I made hard copies of them and I think it'd be easier if I just kind of pass them out uh at the beginning instead of um you know as I go through them were all these issued previously or do we need to put them into the on the recorders and separes they should be marked these are all marked already they're not Mark that we can mark them as we go along okay all right I'll just give the board members the pack some [Music] exensive was this available online we have yeah I did send it to yeah it was emailed to the board um it's on the website as why I put it on to the one drive so that um and um I believe Robin has a zip drive drive so that she can share the screen right okay copy in person fine like like photograph you get submit them as a set D you're referring to the email that exhibits no that's thank right yeah I think you have to go to the the directory you might be able to e is your camera off yeah then I think you need to share screen camera facing it says host disabled participant sharing popcorn and ice cream yeah it's a m day it's okay no that's f f i need to press green share No I don't want to share my screen there's an arrow next to the share screen button and allows you to set the permissions sorry I'm not participating partipants can Shir let's try that remember the public with an interest thank you does that help do that help you do that yeah I should say multiple I selected yes for that screen hang out thanks sorry about that little pick up um so um Mr Sebert is here because he uh has owned uh 189 Main Street for almost 28 years and it's uh used as a four family house um it was used as a four family house when he bought it and we're trying to uh we're asking the board for a certificate of non-conformity order to get a certificate of non-conformity we have to show uh the legality of the use at one time um right now this property is in the uh TR Zone uh PR is a transition residential Zone it allows um single family and two family houses um it doesn't allow three family four family houses it's intended as a transitional District between uh the commercial zones of the town and the single family houses um but we're going to show that this house really has an unusual history that it stopped being used for either single family or two family uh over 80 years ago and that uh the board can make reasonable inferences based on the evidence it is circumstantial but there's enough here for the board to make a reasonable inference that this was a permitted use uh when it began uh in in the burough so with that um I'm I'm going to go through some of the documentation that I found um and when I'm done with that I'm going to put Douglas seber I'm gonna ask him to come up and testify about his ownership of the property what he's observed about the property uh what he knows about the property um what the burough knows about the property um and uh and then we'll ask the the board to to make the inference that this is a a permitted grandfather juice in the burrow um so the first my first um that it's really just photographs and photographs are really just to kind of um give the board uh you know a uh visualize property it's a large property it's about 3,800 square feet um should are we marking this whole yeah we should well um yes Robert you just want to go uh one document at a time like photograph you that a would Beed by five photographs yeah and that would be divit a33 okay so this is A3 and I'll have when Doug gets on the stance I'll talk about this more in depth um but I just wanted everyone to to know on everybody's seen this building I just wanted everybody to know what building it was um the second document that I have is a zoning ordinance ordinance 2-79 and I'm GNA ask if that be marked as exhibit 84 and um this is an ordinance um that I found for an open request and I'm um I'm introducing it because it has language in it that says and I'm going to read the language a use building or structure existing on October 16th 1972 or of an amendment there to although such use does not conform to the provisions thereof may be continued except as otherwise provided in this section um and the section is basically standard law on non-conforming Abes the following section so uh I'm going to take the position that we can show that this was used for multifamily uh by 1972 um that shows that it was uh illegal multif family use when it was established you know when the PO family use uh started um this this ordinance from the burrow seems to uh grandfather those uses as of 1972 it's hard to find records um the burrow you know as we all know is a very old burrow uh you know the ordin the zoning ordinance probably goes back to the 40s or probably earlier um so we're trying to piece together um um you know various uh aspects of the D zoning to prove our case here tonight um our third our third document is and I would ask thaty Mark exhibit A5 is uh just a an excerpt from your 1997 master plan and the reason that I uh wanted to uh introduce this document is because it talks about multifam 3 four unit residential it doesn't say that they're permitted but what it says is says three and four family dwellings are scattered throughout the burough but generally are located on the fringes of the central business district three and four family dwellings are found predominantly within the RB transition zone um so to me this is a recognition by by the board and by the buau that these uses these three and four family uses do exist they are in the burough uh they're in the location where this is on the fringes of the central business district and they're in the RB transition zone which was the precursor to the TR Zone um the TR Zone I believe is from the late 90s and the RB transition zone was immediately before that so uh both both of these ordinances recognized that there's a degree of non-conformities in the burrow and there are three and four family houses located in the location where this building is so A5 would be the title would be portion the master plan title it's just the specifications yeah I'm sorry what year was the uh is um7 I think it's 1997 and uh the next document is um this is just background I'm just going to give you a little background about the house which I think is important um this is a document that I got from the um let's mark this A6 it says residence of Henry FL this is a document that I got from the Historical Society um I went to the B the uh the Hun County hall of record to see what documentation I could find um and I asked the historical society and it turns out that this building was um originally the home of a very prominent Flemington attorney it was sold in 1883 to his wife Annie uh Henry fluck died in 1900 and Annie died some time thereafter and their son Linton inherited it he sold the property in 1921 to a man named Adam Robbins Adam Robbinson sold the property in 1926 to Jacob and s Keller and then in 1927 the Keller sold it to Alex and Mary hadu and Alex and Mary hadu would um would own this property from 1927 to 1959 and then the next exhibit uh is I would ask that that be marked A7 a newspaper article yeah this is titled fingon State please to change orders right this is an article that I printed out from uh newspapers.com it's stated October 14th 1938 and I want to read certain uh excerpts from it says State Police Barracks will be moved October 31st from Pennsylvania Avenue to the property 189 Main Street at Grant AB according to an announcement by corpal char Charles fiper owner of the present site Mrs marget hul wishes to restore the house to a private dwelling meaning her own house Troopers have been housed at the hul property since August 1st 1932 when they move from park at to have better access to the highway Mrs May Smith who has been board mistress with the Troopers will move with them taking her family with her she will be given separate quarters in the large house on Main Street so um I think it's well known in the burough or at least among the people who are involved in the historical society that this building was at one time used as State Police Barracks um so it began its use the state police bars in 1938 uh New Jersey State Police um were required to live in the barracks uh while they were on duty uh there's a actually United States Supreme Court case addressing the taxation of benefits to State Police where it says that um and so the state police officers living in this house along with Mrs May Smith so the property in 1938 ceased its use as either a single family or a two family home and began its use as a place where multiple unrelated people lived in the same place my next exhibit is uh A8 I'm going to ask that newspaper article be labeled A8 a r an article entitled R Township State Police barracks on Market again yeah and um this is a newspaper article uh it's it's from the hunon county Democrat and it's actually from March 7 19 1996 but I I printed it out because what it says on the second page it says the area State Police Station was at 189 Main Street in Clemington for many years in 1959 the Troopers left that address for the building on rout 202 between the burrow and three bridges that is now the Pud shot so that kind of tells you the length of time that this building was used as St barck from 1938 to 195 and my next exhibit is documentation that supports this newspaper article I went to the all of records and I'm gonna ask if this document this is a d from uh Alex and Mary K to Vincent schwat and I'm gonna ask this be labeled exhibit A9 to be from Alex and Mary had to V schwat chw yeah it's dated September 9th 1959 right and this is this just supports uh what the newspaper article says that in 1959 you know changes happened to the property it was sold from the Had State Police left and now Vincent schwat became the owner and my next exhibit is an excerpt from the uh the Flemington ran Township resident directory 1964 and I'm going to ask if thaty labeled uh exhibit 81 and so I was trying to uh you know find information about how the property was used when Mr Trot owned it um the buau I did Ser of op requests on the buau but there really wasn't a lot of documentation that I could get uh the tax assessor records the um you know building records really didn't go back that far uh so I um I went to the library and tried to see what information was available uh in 1964 if you go to the second page of this document you see Vincent schwat is living at the uh residents along with Steve sansi and Steve Theo Jr so you have three individuals uh living at that um you know at that Residence at that time and then if you go to the third page an obituary for Mrs Simoni who lived at 189 Maine her husband Sten was her s Survivor so this was a family it wasn't just Vincent schw a couple of Roommates there were like three families living at uh at this uh unit in 1964 so it's continuing its use for multifam um I have a uh I have excerpts from newspaper articles uh showing um various people who uh who lived at this property I can't I don't think it's on the on the line but I'm going to just describe to you these documents and has to have it exhibit like is exhibit uh the A1 just series of newspaper articles yeah and it's just to show you various unrelated people living at this house in the 1960s so the first one is May 1st 1965 it refers to Edward fter 189 Main Street this is about the same time that those other three people were living there 1964 um 1966 January 14th you have Ambrose Readington of 189 Main Street and again in March 1966 you have George Brady at 189 Main Street uh next one you have William Thomas of 189 Main Street that's an article August 1st 1969 January 8th 1970 you have Mrs garboski who lives at 189 Main Street and the last one um uh is 1971 April 30th 1971 it refers to Albert chza 189 Main Street um so what these show is that you know this is not a single family house or even a two family house there's a bunch of unrelated families unrelated people living at that location um the the U the use of the foure family is grandfathered as of 1972 uh 1971 you have Mr chza and then my next exhibit uh I'm want to mark that is 812 this is uh Flemington telephone directory from March 1972 and the second page um shows uh first of all 782 is the the exchange for Flemington and uh Vincent schwat his name should be circled on off to the right if you can see it which shows Vincent schwat living at this location 189 Main Street with his phone number so he's been living there uh this is his home um and then the next page of the telephone directory um I don't know if you can see where I've circled it but it shows a man named Victor Ferrara 189 Main Street with a different phone number 782 0806 and then the page after that um it's up in the yeah and that's uh war in Garland 189 Main Street 78263 8 AG so in 1972 which is right before that grandfathering date you have from the telephone directory you have three people with three different phone numbers living in this location and just the year before 1971 you have the obituary of Albert chza so it's possible that you know that the fourth unit wasn't rented yet or that whoever got in there didn't make the phone book at that time but this is more evidence uh that I think will support the the inference of the four family use of this house and then my last document before I ask Mr Sebert to speak is this and a12 a12 is it okay a13 so a813 is a deed from it's just one page of a deed from Vincent schwat to Leon and Ed milman dated August 28 1978 and that's to show when the milans began their ownership of the property and when Mr schwat ownership ended and with that because Mr seir is the person who bought this property from um from the milman I'm gonna ask him to come up and there's a couple other uh you want to put those in at this time um was like yeah I'm gonna ask dou to about that so please raise your right hand be the truth the whole truth truth yes please state your name and address and your last name for the record Doug Sebert s i b t 76 Line Street in um Douglas you're the owner you were the owner of 189 Main Street in last mod correct yes and you bought the property in 1996 yes and um how was the property used it was used as a four family rental and um so you've used it during your entire ownership as a four family rental oh yes when I voted it was was a for family and remain that way I didn't do anything to it at all and is the property fully Leed yes it was okay so there's each of the four o each of four apartments are currently occupied by 10 that's correct that's correct okay now I'm going to ask you we're going to go back to 1996 and I'm gonna ask you to look at document uh we have to now 14 84 okay and can you tell me what that document is what A14 is this was the listing for the sale of that property when I purchased it and uh the listing says Victorian lady with four Apartments great investment correct that's correct so this building was being advertised at four family building correct yes okay and um and this was open right I mean this was a listing that public advertis correct oh yes it was by Park of real estate and uh let's let's go to the next page this document um the listing showed we units correct yes okay and we have the date of that listing which is July 1996 correct yes and the same listing also represents the this building former police sta right yes okay and did you ins spe this building uh when you looking at it and when you were consider considering buying it yes and what did you observe well I went through it and saw the four apartments two on the first floor one on the second and one on the third it was fully leased at the time and barded as an investment property and I want to um I want to show you a document uh I guess we're up to a15 and this is a a15 is um Department of communitys of registration correct I thought the um the listing the the Century 21 was 14 and then we have this listing that's this is 15 15 you can you tell me what that document is yes it's a registration with the Department of Community Affairs it's state register for the use of that as a for family which I got Le on mailman who had it previous me as well was transfered my so Mr milman represent this was registered as a a four family with the state yes and um did you have discussions with Mr milman about the use of the property yes and what were those discussions what said just said it was a four family when he owned it and he aled at all and I purchased it with that same intent and was it registered with the state he said it was and then I had a transferred in my name and then every five years they come not inspect house it's in performance you know the certificate of registration from the DCA does indicate that there are four uh units on the property that's St [Music] 1982 um and then the next next document uh is um a real estate contract that's the real estate contract that you entered into with Mr Mrs yes and um if we turn to page uh return to section uh four of this this document there's a list of correct yes and uh uh that was um so the property was fully rented and it supports your description of your conversation with Mr uh with Mr milman that this was a use that he had been using it at four family and it was fully reached and then if we look at number six I'll I'll read section six the buyer intends to use the property as a multif family home the seller states to the best of sellers knowledge that the use do not violate any applicable zoning ordance building building code or other law so that also um is consistent with your understanding your discussions with Mr milman that this was a for family use when you bought it and legiate property yeah was a four family house and that's why IED it the rent on with rning the time that You' own this property you the DCA as well yes person okay I'm G you with exhibit but I have be Mar exhibit A7 which is a this property dated June 5th 2018 from the DCA and for the TCA this is this building uh M milman had it and since youve had it it's been registered with the state as a PO family building correct yes and has the DCA inspected this property yes and has the DCA approved the property yes and the page after that I believe tempic get of inspection BCA expected this property it's a multiple dwelling correct and then um the next document is a can you tell me what that is that's a certificate from the town yes for fire inspection for smoke detectors for each of the four units and this uh this was issued what was theed like two two so so at least if for back about 2002 the inspectors went inside the property correct that is correct and for four units every year thereafter to pay Fe the B observe the four unit uh use of the property yes and um your tax on this property is a 4 un property correct yes have you been taxed on this property for four unit property since you bought it yes at all times un years yes that's correct um I'm skipping the uh tax thing because an error but I did submit the to tax assessor um document uh with the supplemental letter that I sent shown before 4 units and then our final U document is um exhibit a uh we were up to A8 this okay A9 and can you tell me what a19 is sorry and you're built for four separate units correct that is cor and have you been built for four separate units since you bought the property yes I have and then then I'm want to go back uh to the first exibit I'm going all the way back exhibit uh exhibit A1 and I'm on the second page and I want you to uh explain to me um uh we've got four units in this building does each unit have access to the outdoors that's correct each unit has a separate entrance two w apart okay so the front entrance that service the first floor unit okay secondary means of erress as well and then U which unit that's unit number one which is the first floor right hand side which is entered from the back front of and uh this is another unit unit two from Grand side s down on the first Flo and uh this last photo that photo is um in the rear it's for unit number four which is access from the back and you go stairs third level the front door service is the second unit all individual separate now do you have an opinion about when these uh units were created when this access to the Outsource was created well if you look at the material of the house um and the detailed trim work and it was interesting to go back to your earlier photo with the first owner Buck family um shows and indicates that detail trimwork that's been on the house and if you look at all these entrances they still have that same similar trimor that place on the back of the house these doors that are here um are definitely many years ago you can tell there's some St glasses still within some of these doors um none of these were installed relatively recent this is definitely something that's been here many at Le back so so you have a background of instruction correct yes I'm a superintendent for a construction company for 40 years for how many years 40 40 years okay you to observe these these entrances to the outdoors and you believe they've been there since at least 1950s absolutely thank you um I U I don't have any other um U well one one more question the fireal St was add recently correct when you sold the property yes okay and you had no issues with the property corre no okay and you sold the property in June 24 yes and the current owners are U using it as a four family as well correct yes turn witness over to the board okay anybody on the board have questions for this witness please much you sild 73 we thata being fulfilled which is because it's 3,800 feet fling bur yeah based on a a rental inv prop so you don't call me own no I do not why do we need the certificate um if he doesn't own the property shoulder be asking for the certificate well be an agreement that um that he was going to get it it could have been uh was that what was agreed to it basically States anyone with interest can can apply yeah douas filed the application uh when he was the owner of the property and it was an understanding with the purchasers that he would follow through this application and we did the application sent to the B um and so he's following through and and frankly as somebody who owned the property for as long as he had he's in a better position to come to the board and explain backrounds of property we B was a continuation F he filed the application before he sold and it was an agreement that he would pursue the application and get the certificate of non we did the rest of the board back up yeah stop sharing scen can see that so I have a question so Mr sers to the best of your recollection um for the past 28 years uh this property was used as a for f yeah so you can you can absolutely testify to that because you owned it and um and to the best of your knowledge based on some of the documents we've seen here tonight it appears that this property has been used either as a two three or four family since 1971 I can't find I I I'm just trying to think of of I'm trying to connect the dots I think that that telephone directory shows three three and I think that from the obit obituary of Albert chza the year before you can infer that there were four people in there and Mr um Mr seber's testimony uh is that there are separate entrances to the outdoors and that that's looks like it has existed for decades going back to 50s and the current ordinance Beth says this area that uh the our district transition residential so it's one or two families and when was that Tak place I don't have the exact date but I think it's uh it was in place as of the 2010 master plan and it seems uh in the 1997 master plan which was submitted as uh I'm sorry I forget the exhibit number but that references a different Zone District in here or I'm sorry that's the so I guess I'm sorry uh the ordinance was about in January of 79 which it had a provision that anything that existed any non-conforming Bill infrastructure existing as of October 16th 1972 could be continued yes but I don't know when exactly the district I can't verify based on the documents I have and and I've also reached out to the burrow uh for some of this old old zoning information I can't verify the date in which the TR District began and what might have predated much less what zoning would have been in what that zone District would have committed 20 whatever not M I think that you you know there was um there may have been some relevant zoning between 1972 say and 2010 for the master plan or the 1997 master plan but in the absence of it what they've provided is the ordinance that states uh generally that uses in existence as of 19 October 1972 are legalized and so I think what the board's charges is determining did this property include four apartments in October 1972 if yes then it seems that they're eligible for the certificate and if the answer is no then they may not be eligible because I personally can't help identify a date between 1972 or a date after 1972 that the board rived and the um we don't know a date when the transition from RB to tr happened but also was your testimony that it that the TR it's within the TR because it was in the RB that was your test no I'm asking that your testimony do do you therefore do you have proof that the RV completely became the TR and that therefore this build this building was included in both um I I believe it was in the RB Zone um I don't have uh that uh evidence right now I'm not relying on the RB Zone designation because I don't believe the RV Zone allowed for family housing it was a predecessor to the TR Zone these were both transition zones transition between commercial and uh single plan and your testimony about where the it was um from 1972 is the phone directories am I correct you don't have any other proof that that was just because multiple people were living in it doesn't mean it was divided as it currently you got three people with three separate phone numbers uh you've got the history of the house as a police barrack so you have and you have at least you know Department with Police barracks and you have um evidence of multiple unrelated people living in the building do that is your testimony that it was actually subdivided at that time into the apartments because I only see phone I think that's yeah that well it's um it's asking the board to dra an inference based on phone records along with Mr seber's testimony about four separate exits in the building off is she she's not she has her hand raised Sor um I just want to make a point that in uh 1981 through 19 1987 at my home my parents had the phone number 98782 100000 I had the number 98782 4600 and my grandparents lived there as well phone number 98782 5127 did you all have the same last name yeah but nevertheless I mean my deceased partner you I had did not have the same names and had totally confers so um I don't definitively approve it yeah circum it's hard to you know especially there's a lack of documentation if I could get tax cive records from 1970 were permit and I did Oprah files from the bur but I I didn't get a whole lot going back that far so you kind of have to find the documentation that you can get and ask the for inferences and I think that I think that based on the the size of the house the history of the house with police bars the evidence of multiple unrelated people living there throughout the late 60s and 70s I think the board can brought an inference that this was a multifam house and I think Mr seberg who has a background in construction uh um Mr Sebert has a background of instruction and he testified about he observed these four separate uh entrances and exits outside the twoes have been there for decades right next question um you item A5 is the sale docu or the registration and it's also related to the this is the clear date in my A4 between A14 and a15 we have the date of 96 when you brought the when Mr C brought the property from Mr milman do we have did you find anything that we know that how long Mr milman had the property and to prove what it was like when he bought it because otherwise we've only got 96 as a clear full found we know when milman bought the property that was 1978 and we produced the deed uh from from 78 yeah that A3 okay but this de doesn't mention for family it that's not unusual I know that I'm just looking for something that says he wouldn't really say and I appreciate that I'm just look I'm looking that's the only proof of that date but we don't have anything that states what the building was like at that point right this doesn't say that well we have Mr you and it was advertised as a four family I went through it it was four Apartments I haven't changed anything of the four plans so it just the inference was that it was subdiv well saying that the 196 date the evidence she gave us 14 and 15 gives us that 1996 date I'm not I'm not questioning that I'm looking for something before that doesn't that um either one of you can answer the same document that we're looking at the listing from July 1996 page two uh doesn't the document state that there are four tenants and the owner is Leon and edman yeah right so 96 but that's the date we have fruit we don't have official concrete fruit before that correct this is absolute yes it is absolute but on the day they listed it it was rep yeah and and the proof you know the proof is have2 Mr C's testimony Mr milman passed away is testify about his conversations and his Communications with Mr who own the property from 1978 to 1996 just what number was oh you didn't put them in order :15 Creed dates St right so A5 1982 show it being in 1982 um not withstanding that I have a question um we mentioned the transition date um that you mentioned from the the 19 ordinance that was voted to us that we think might be 197 something yeah 19 no 1997 85 was that list so that's an excerpt from the master plan and when I also have is um I have the land use plan from our 1997 master plan and it's it's just a map but in there it depicts the property within the V so 1997 well that's what I wanted to ask I'm curious about the Century 21 ad in 1997 I'm sorry 1995 1996 it specifically says join the other Grand Painted Ladies convert to single family within law and what that is implying and why it says that it says Victorian lady with four Apartments rate of investment or you can because of the current zoning uh and we're not saying we're not saying that PO family was permitted at I can't believe that that PO family um this is the TR District the transitional district for one and two families that's why I produced that other word that that to but it's almost saying I Johan weinhofer was the chair of the RAR and Township plane where she certainly knew land use law she's the chair for many many years yeah and her husband was a judge very prominent in this County so it seems to me she knew the law and certainly understood land use and she put on the FR big letters she also aoran lady four Apartments I mean you would think that somebody you would think that people who are doing something that's illegal wouldn't that about that they wouldn't openly advertise for apartments they wouldn't register with the DCA they wouldn't uh you know Town look I mean an illegal apartment you know that's and that's another basis for asking the board to gow an INF into the legality in there that you know people who are very open about you know Victorian lady Apartments they saying you know the milman I think pretty clearly believe that this is a legal for their registration the DCA their representation of the land use contract and their uh their um their real estate gr advertising it as a for part building right um in regard the dates and um this may be a question for Beth rather than you but I'll ask you that's time right now um you are coming to us for an application within a year of what change have you testifying to that we're not we're not this is not um the TR District uh as far as I know has been around since I think the late 1990s right so I think Douglas had a misunderstanding about that but it's it's actually that's I was about it's been correspondence about we have that question that's fine because I was just a little confused about what date of um applicability we were to focus on so it is that we need to there's as of this day there we have no proof before 1982 that this was a multif family but we have no proof that that was an accepted use that's correct the only time we know that the PO family was legal based on the document submitted is 1972 and they legalized any non-conform abuses and maybe it was legal then to begin with but but we know that if it wasn't legal it was it was legalized at that time on a general basis for the whole town we have no proof that this property was included in that correct right now the testimony we have right now that's correct but I think that if they could show that the property was a four family in 1972 then then they could demonstrate that that ORD ordinance legalized it right so at that point it either would have been 1972 either it was legalized because it was non-conforming use or it was permitted and the ordinance didn't apply to them but either way it was it was legalized or legal at that time and so I think what the board has is in the absolute documentation it seems like there's a gap from that 1972 date to the most the earliest DCA registration and that's 1982 right can you excuse me yeah it does not that the building was constructed in 1990 right but it doesn't say what it was yeah yeah no I get that I think we all know it's of that age um so we've heard a lot of testimony about uh about what the uh how the build the building condition at the time of purchase and what was represented at the time of purchase from the owner which I believe owned the property in 1972 um 78 7 78 I'm sorry um so I think the board my recommendation the board focus on that gap of time I'm also if the board is interested you might you might want to better understand why Mr cber believes that the four entry doors were installed uh decades ago part to 1972 to understand what it is that that leads them to that conclusion that might be helpful as well he did mention he experience in construction and you mention because there were glass paines in those doors that you just don't see those the building material itself and the doors and the hardware that's on it which would which was typical of what what times your experience 60s do we have any do have any evidence pictures of those that you're referring to or it's just well we have decades and there's different Decades of there 82 is 40 what some years ago and 72 is 50 years ago I'm not a building architect to be able to say when but all the do can be within a wide range of true true and the material manogany gr for the sou structure on the side structure just evidence for long time right I do have a question for for our attorney because we're here to draw an inference and if in fact the earliest date that I could find it legally well not legally the early time I can find it being called a for dwelling apartment is the Department of Community Affairs registration from 1982 which dates the closing in 1978 so now we're six years from the time we're trying to however if I can just on that if you don't sorry to interrupt you to but we have no proof that Mr milman didn't subdivide it in 78 and then register it in 82 he could have I'm just saying you I'm not saying that's the Tru I'm just that we don't have any proof I this isn't really a land use question but if if there have been government agencies including the buau of Clemington that have been uh charging this as fourth family taxing this as a fourth family um water sewer as a fourth family since at least we know 1978 should we find that this isn't a four family wouldn't this applicant be due all those back taxes back and all those charges back possibility why when they got the benefit of family I know what you're saying that uh see another thing you can consider is you know utilities were installed um you know would they have been installed do they have do they all have their own meters all four Apartments have their own sewer meters or or water meters their own water meters not water meters there's one water meter to the house but it's charged with usage for sew sewage charges are based on F the water structure electric meters but there's only one meter the electric meters are separate but the sewer meter there's only one water meter okay for the whole building yes correct which is typical of so what do you divide them among four Apartments when you get the bill I just pay and I keep the rent based on usage of utilities how how do you make that determination it's just a rough idea I know what the bills are so if I know the current rent is $500 a month and I say the water is x i 525 a month so it's just a an equation that I put together based on the value of rent unit to Bill that St back to your your comment that you that we would owe them back whatever one they I don't even understand how possible because theyve gotten the benefit you're saying that's a whole another and the in doesn't really build here that there's you know the doctor of the stole that when the burrow has basically taxed this for decades as a four family been sued from four family um that the burrow you know it's inconsistent with the Burrow's own past practice especially this is an open for family you can see the the entrances to the outdoors nobody's hiding it open you know uh smoke detectors DCA um you know uh and the buau has you've never been cited by the buau correct so you know there's an a stole argument that the buau um you know having allowed this for so long um you know if it we now to claim that you know it's it's not a appropriate use you know it's it's really inconsistent with the Burrow's own conduct and how it's treated this property there's also the issue that if the burrow were to you know try to to stop the use um you you would then have the burden of be a reasonable Deb and I don't think that you can make that case um uh you know we think we we understand this is certain stle but we don't have Smoking Gun it's it's tough to get a Smoking Gun from you know circumstances and the lack of documentation but there are reasonable inferences that can be made based on the age of the building based on the past usage of the building we know it was police bars we see you know um you know we can't bring people back from the 60s but you know we see the different people there multiple people living there three separate people in the 1972 phone um milman um you know he's not here he's he's dead I you know passed away but the evidence is is is D's uh you know when you say proof this is proof it's not it's circumstantial proof to be sure but it's still evidence Doug's conversations with him when he bought the property uh the advertisements of the property and the uh the representations in the contract are also well you know Leon mil's you know um representations and so that brings us to 1978 and um INF said this was right um does anybody else on the board have any questions for this witness yeah I have one question um Can the ryness describe a little bit more detail as far as the to um number four apartment because it seemed like the entrance is the other three seem more consistent to the architecture than number four the fourth floor apartment is entered from the back up the stairs you walk into the door into the building and and go up another flight of stairs third floor and the door seem reasonable what can you describe the construction of that door uh that door is a uh an entrance Door in what regard it's a wood door with glass not stained glass just regular glasses okay thank you and the one last question the DCA started inspections in 1982 that was the first date um and it was four apartments or more right yes for four units and that was for the previous owner and then he transferred when I reapplied for the the DCA CER certificate was put in my name when I purchased it so it's going on Whiley on the place as well and that was for 1982 but I guess the record existed prior to 82 then for the DCA we just don't have it on we did over the GCA okay it's hard from any any agency I guess they you know yeah isue with the bur as well we just you know wer able to get documentation you know certain point I do have a question when we write our Master plans um I think we participated on 1997 one I believe or maybe not you um but Carl do we put in a line have we ever put in something like existing nonform uses or but we use the word grandfa on this but it it wouldn't something that the that you find in the master plan the master plan might recognize the the existence of non-conforming uses it might make a recommendation that the council address those non-com uses in some way um well we don't have a I don't want to call it Grandpa I believe that's what it's called but it's well the ml does have a section on noning structur uses but they can be continued it's something existence of where changes his grandfather that was my question if if in fact we've got to get to we've got to prove and the question here is is this grandfather essentially if yes then it's eligible for the certificate of non-conforming use because if because I'm defining grandfathered as something that was legal at one point and now is not because the ordinance has changed and that's sort of the essence of the question here hold on though you right you just stated that a non conforming use could be continued a non-conforming use is defined as one that was once legal pre-existing it's just it's not just literally something that that it it's not that provision of the M land use law is not intended to permit a use that was created illegally got away with it and then is allowed to continue it's that's intended to make sure that if you if you had a use that got cine approval for example and then the zoning changed it means that you're allowed to continue occupying that consist with the approval so the testimony in A4 that they provided the nonconforming uses were allowed to continue wouldn't that imply that there is it your testimony that it was a non-conforming use in 79 that was allowed to continue I I I don't know but um I'm saying that um you know in in in 1972 you know you have to have a date like what's the date of the ordinance and we're so you know like like once's the date we start looking at it and saying you know um I you know right now it's in the TR District which you know based on what I could find was you know established at some point in the late 1990s and I I found that ordinance and so you know uh I'm positing that the ordinance said if it was created that was perhaps in response to the um the ml which was adopted in 1975 um and World changed it owning ordinance but I'm putting that as the day for the trend to the to the TR District yeah you're it A4 ACC to evidence show that it a nonconform in use in 1979 no 1972 this is ordinance 2 1979 look at the second page it specifically references 1972 but even so then item A4 is suggesting that your your testimony is that it was a nonconforming news in 1972 so the B point do we have any evidence that was that it was a conforming use before2 but I don't think but we don't need evidence that it was conforming because I I think um in 19 on October 16th 1972 if it was nonconforming if it was not a permitted use it was made to be permitted right because that that's what that2 in 1972 on well in 1979 it's a little confusing for whatever reason seven years later they went back in time but that ordinance says on October October 16th 1972 if you are a non-conforming use you are uh continue you're allowed to continue it if and so we have that date if it's non-conforming if it was legal at that point then it it seems it seems like 1972 that October 16th 1972 is the date because either was non-conforming at that point and specifically allowed to continue or it was legal at that point and the ordinance didn't didn't apply because it was in a zone that permits po families we just don't we can't verify the zoning as of that point so but I think that that date Works in either circumstance but Beth the date of the I I sorry we're all trying to catch up on our uh legally easier if the document was dated 1979 and it said anything from 72 would be allowed to continue non-conforming and the DCA document from 1982 which referenced the sale in 78 of a four family doesn't that say that at that time in 19770 in 1982 when DCA started looking at this I mean I believe it looks like the burrow may have charged them at the same time but doesn't that say that they recognize that they that we or the burrow would have recognized that as a four family in 19 at least in 1982 for sure there are in where folks get these DCA certificates for properties that are not that that are not legal it would be great if if all billing and entities whether it's sewer and taxes and DCA all coordinated with the burough zoning officer to make sure that everything being charged or registered was consistent with one another and legal but that's just not just simply not how how our state Works um It's Not Unusual to have folks being taxed or to work to for them to be working with DCA for properties that are actually not conforming with the municipality but DCA is not calling our zoning officer to say hey we've got a registration here for a 4unit home is that legal it's just simply not happening um qu question do we know when DCA started inspection inspections for for dwelling units because the 1982 inspection is nothing more than a continuation of the change of ownership for the next 5e cycle so did they start inspections in the 60s the 70s do we do we have that answer I uh I was not able to get that information from the uh BCA I don't I don't know when they started when that I was not able to get a documentation from that but we do know that the 82 is representative of the transfer of ownership when DCA was due for the next cycle for inspection right is that the testimony uh testimon that Leon milman registered it with the DCA and represented that um that he had you know Doug Doug's testimonies that Mr milman represented that he uh didn't do anything to the property that it was a poor family correct testimony it was a poor family when he bought it so that's Doug's testimony about Mr milman representation bringing us back to 1978 and that's consistent with the documentation that was provided including the statement and the real estate contract that you know to the best of sellers knowledge it was a use and as the mayor pointed out his broker uh is planning board um bran and has some knowledge about this stuff and uh you know it was held out to Doug as a a PO family by the person who owned since as a legal po family by the person owned since 1978 any other questions from the board members for this uh Witness then I'll open to questions from the public for this witness please anybody oh sorry I'd actually I had one kind quick question no no no it's fine sorry I kind I was trying to find the buttons um mine might be a silly question but I was just are those is that a fire escape behind that entrance too that fourth entrance that was correct do we know I mean who when was that installed the DCA to have two means of ESS um the ordinance change for egress so I had to put that in and I went through the they approved it and what what your that was that would the DCA code would have changed yes early on in my purchase because I had to put that in you don't have sprinkl no we do not no but two me were required and that's why put in and then I put in okay so you so you put it down you it wasn't there before you right I'm sorry did you get board approval for the fire St or just construction code does that answer your question Hannah do you have any more questions yeah that was I was just curious about that whether or not it was previous if if it was something that was with the property previous to his ownership or if he installed it so that was it thank you they have or something like that uh I think it's unlikely that they were required to I just thought maybe there might be a resolution floating out there address the for families yeah I did I did OA the town for the buau for Resolutions get and I also over permits and things like that but there's just a limit to the records that were available okay um then I'm G to open it to uh any questions for this witness from the public please I don't see any online do we have anybody in person questions I don't have questions for the witness but I have a request and comments I would like to make so would it be more appropriate to make it in comments or questions public right we usually usually we go like we have three totness we allow the public so it's fresh in minds but we can leave that to that point all right so no further questions for this witness for anybody okay do you have um any other Witnesses or is this is your okay then do you want to make a closing statement before we go to discussion comment usually if the wants to they can make it at the end of yeah after testimony is okay all right so then we can switch from questions to comments then I guess got all that then we can make comments um do any the board want to make we kind of drifted into comments slash questions already but if there's anybody wants to make a comment all no okay then we'll open it up to the public for comments would you like to thank you yeah you need to come up and we'll need to get your name and um a microphone otherwise people it needs to go on the record officially so it's closest I can get it yeah if you don't speak into it they can't hear you so you can state your name and address Janette Zin 187 Main Street how you spell your last name i n usually doing public comments yeah if they're giving testimony they should be sworn you giving testimony I have comments on I have a request what do you feel comfortable to you please raise your right hand with the testimon this matter the truth truth truth yes thank you U I'm my request is that the Zoning for um 189 revert back to one or two family homes it was or Zone um to quote the plumton buau council notes it said changing the zoning is meant to allow for more things that the public has brought to the planning board including entertainment and things to do town that change doesn't Advance any of the um any of those requirements okay um it should be Zone for one it is in the same district I'm in we're zon for one or two family uh homes um I would like to see it revert back to one and two family homes in the future I as far as what has happened that's and my book is over with I've been in Flemington for over 40 years living in at 187 um it seems that the change to more families was made without the sanction of the zoning uh group here and was probably illegal at the time um I'd like you to consider the historical nature of this location and keep the zoning is originally set one and two PS Clemington makes a big thing out of you know being a historical s town and having we want tourists to come and that type of think and um this four unit home um next door doesn't look like what we're looking for for historical purposes in town it looks more like I I don't mean to need the ritory but there is a difference between that area and the apartments at the other end of town and right now there are four garbage cans I believe and four U recycles out there which are right next to my property rather than being put back you D go p on Main Street you could see two of them out front and the others in the back um if you have four families in there you probably have a minimum of eight cars possibly parked out back um there are outdoor cooking units in the backyard um they got hit with the storm and two of them have been down ever since just laying in the yard with some other things and the one is standing up but um the appearance of the property just doesn't look like what you would think a historical property should look like the house is beautiful you know the the exterior of it um the tenants don't always pick up I mean again some of them do some of them don't um I find hooking remnants of my art um if they if the house is allowed to do four units then I would think you're opening up something in the future for other people too looking for variances that they may want convert their houses for you also I could maybe ask her the same request I don't want to but we could maybe um and so I'm asking that um the um9 Main Street on the corner of Grand Avenue the Main Street continue to be zoned as a one or two family home for the future that's my request okay thank you she wanted as a witness any questions for this comments Mrs when you moved in over 4 years ago what was there was it a four family was it a two family what do you remember I only remember one person living there and I I was working at the time so I can't say it what year was that I came in 1982 in 1982 don't remember one family no there was one family one person living there single guy that I got to know but I know nothing about the other tenants I know nothing about the tenants now as far as that's concerned either were there tenants in there in 1982 he was but I don't know was his name being recall Maurice and um I think he passed away from there also later [Music] okay okay thank you thank you I hope you I I have comments I think some of the um concerns um you would um no questions uh well I have one question if I were to um put you in touch with the new owners um would you be interested in talking to them and um uh you know having your concerns um addressed I think the concern is the zoning not not the not the people I mean you know I can't control the people and I realize that if they know what they do in their yard is their thing it's not mine um but I just think that because we are in a historical district and a big thing has been made out of it and I have been I've had to uh conform to some of the requirements required by the town for historical houses um but you know it should be family home is right where does the um new owner live um the de says that they live it identifies their new residents as the um I believe this is this house but I don't you know that's that's what's reflected in the which was provided uh to the um right front of me the Deep identifies their here is this the de identifies their new residents as uh whose address is about to be 189 Main Street Flemington um that's what's in the de I can't tell you whether that's where they're actually living but that's what teach says confirm that but you know concerned about the appearance of I mean I think it's kept up nicely but if you're talking about things in New York um I would suggest um talking to them um Express those which also don't necessarily have to do with whether this is a grandfather's juice um but you know if that's a concern for neighbors and you know we all think that you know everyone should be a a good landlord and a good neighbor um you know be will to and I have no problem talking to them either if I need them at some point but um I just like I said I and I think the fact that um Mr CER has had four people in here I don't have any problem with that but I think because of it is a historical home that should be treated as such and that should be own as one or two PS going forward next comment on that yeah um you know one of the concerns you made was one of the things that you expressed was that they find that this is a PO family that opens more to other buildings I I really don't think it does and I actually think that there's an excellent case for use variant because this is a site that is has a unique history it's really different from the other buildings because of its use as police bars um so um you know and and the size of the site it does have parking in the back it's bigger uh than most of the other buildings around so I think this building especially given its past its history can really be distinguished from other um other buildings around area but having said that you know your own planning board in the 1990s acknowledged that there are a lot of three and family uses that implies that at one time it was legal um it said that they're there the RB District um probably because it was legal at one point um this is not I the mayor at one meeting expressed concern about historic homes being carved up to I express it all the time yeah but that's not the case here because this is has been done for decades so it's not like you have some intact historic building that's going to be C up and subdivided it's it's going resistence for you know as as long as we can tell and certainly since Doug bought the property back in the late 199 and according to the person who in 1978 that situation existed that do this the Zone allow where the Fishers live in the funeral parlor which makes this place look small and there two people who are well think was my babysitter they were my babysitter when I was little so they're much older than me uh in that big house we would allow for them to come we want six apartments in here or four or eight no every application Rises and falls on its own merits um anybody can ask for anything for one so you can't stop a request um I will say that if there's I mean planners will point to a prevalence of a similar use into in an area to demonstrate a lack of impact but there are many other factors that would need to be considered so um I think suggesting that this is going to create a PR ents is is probably going a bit too far but there but the you know but the board has to acknowledge the reality of of the type of testimony that you hear where you where people say well there's multiple family dwellings all over the place and so this is just one more with with no with less impact but as I said there are many other factors the board will have to to consider that are sight specific to as far as I know all the homes in the area are either one or two family homes with that exception until you get further down the street could be I don't know what's Downer it's further down it's closer to that's wish make it thank you so do you want to make your final closing statement and then when I was just if you do that usually posst for a break and we have a little break and then we come back before Bo discussion and if we have vote make sense sure so I'm asking the board to um to infer from the evidence the documentary evidence that D se's testimony that this is a pre-existing non-conforming use um it has not been used as either a single family or two family property since 1938 that's over 80 years that's the last time we have any evidence that this was used either a single or two family it was State Police par for a number of years uh 1938 to 1959 we appr that so um the inside was um cut up and used for you know uh multiple unrelated people to live there um it looked like it was used for um that Vincent schwat bought it in 1959 and 1978 that he lived there and also seemed to be having other people live there as well um who were not related to him or to each other uh you know the 1972 phone book goes for sure three separate people they've got different last names different phone numbers um and then another person with another different last name died in 71 um it's it's pieces of a puzzle and when you put it together uh the board can reasonably infer that this use has existed since 1972 probably earlier you have DG's testimony about the the entrances and the materials in the entrances you have uh Leon milman representations um that he bought the properties and four family and didn't do anything to it Doug has testified he's not here he's dead but Doug spoke to him and certainly this realtor was very open um about the properties of for family people who are doing things that are illegal don't usually uh advertise it that openly um you have the B Zone conduct the burough has done nothing you know if this is a zoning violation the bur has done nothing to enforce that um the burough instead has been aware that this property has been used for four family not for a few years but for decades uh D bought this in 1996 that's almost 28 years ago that's almost three decades um you know the burrow has uh you know inspected it the DCA has inspected it and I think that based on all of this evidence I think board can reasonably infer that this is a legal use that's existed for decades and then it should be last okay thank you we have to close the public hearing at this point right so can I have a motion to close the public hearing ption so all in favor we'll um we'll recess until 9:15 is 9:15 and we come back with board discussion at that point Thank you thank you you're at can we call the role again e to make sure everyone's back please yes uh mayor Carol here councilwoman farara here miss giin yeah Mr Hill yes Mr Dash remains recused from the application and has not had the Bas your cook yes Whitman yep Mr Echo yep here um Mr sh also remains recused uh Miss binski is also recused from this application uh Mr Kina here M mcis here and Mr Hill here thank you perfect all right so it's time for board discussion on you want a motion first and a second then discussion we close the public we already close public before we can discuss right we want to are there any do does anyone feel the need to deliberate before we propose a motion or is there things that want to be raised certainly the bo can discuss this matter um then get into discussion someone can propose a uh make a motion okay so so I have a again it goes you know we're a land use board but I'm trying to wrap my hands around this um this notion of um I'm going to use the wrong ter U you know implied uh implied consent or implied based on the fact that we can imply going back to at least 1982 that there were units there because they got charged with from they got um uh DCA came in and looked at them they um they we can't in further they paid bills based in the burrow but sooner or later it's you do see bills that were for for family for sewer um so I'm just I'm I'm trying to wrap my hands around it like if you know if you have an easement and you use an easement worth 30 years and it's it's out in the open and nobody has said anything you can claim title to that EAS so is there any kind of law that I mean I know we're trying to go back we trying to connect it do to 1972 because of the date but I'm just trying to think if it was being used this way we know at least 28 years 100% this has been used as a for to make reasonable inferences based on the testimony bur of proof is on have the pro Pro his Cas Bo based on that testimony findings as to his witness's credibility as to the history as as presented by the app C from that use the mic from that the board can make reasonable inferences you know as to what was going on with this property as of 1972 based on the history has presented so the applicants presented um or councilor stated that there was problems of course some people aren't living anymore the agencies don't have the records going back that far so they they presented the history of it from the history has presented the board can make reasonable inferences um as to what the youth was doing back in 1972 so let me pay devil advocate to your statement Todd um we know how Lucy gooy things were back in the 70s and 60s I mean I've looked at minutes and they're like so undetailed they're so unstructured and you know land use law was relatively new was like the Wild Wild West municipalities so you know just because you had an easement and you were using it forever doesn't mean that anybody knew that it was illegal right doesn't mean that the zoning officer actually there wasn't even a zon what am I saying there was no zoning officer back then right so there was no I don't think there was anybody actually checking any of this stuff when things happened they just continued in the burrow like no no no that was my question you be i i i agreee with you my question was from a real estate perspective 30 years of using somebody else's property you can claim any e to that property unless it's the king's property but but again you know so I didn't know if there was any kind of Statute from a land use perspective that I know we're trying to no there's no time limitation there is no to gas went went out what 15 years ago and reclaimed e that people were they buil patios on and you know sold houses with patios on them and they took them all back they were brutal no statute that says if you been doing something so many years from a land use perspective there not like a real estate that was my question and um and again this isn't a land use but I'm just trying to think it's all wrapped together if you know burden of proof is on the applicant but if the burden of proof was on the burrow would we be a to prove that it wasn't a them I guess that's my question for the board yeah know I mean that's relevant here because because we're not there the board doesn't have the burden to disprove it okay the B the board's job is to hear the testimony to make findings ands right and you know based on the member of the public that had said you know they you know they would wish that this would go back to whatever is allowed we do have several four family throughout the burrow um in larger homes that have been diced up and and we certainly have ordinances in play that don't allow that to happen today I believe um but would the expectation be if we find that this needs to go back to a one to two family do that undue burden on an applicant well the applicant would make I'm sure the app would make certain arguments it would require probably uh use fance relief to uh you know keep it that way but I'm sure the depending on the finding of the board I mean there's there's a bunch of arguments an applican can make based upon the history saying that they were you know four family they paid utilities as a fourth family they were inspected as a fourth family those are all that's not really present before the board now things that could be expected that could be you know depending on a board's decision as to what could uh what the what Avenues the applicate to pursue because I I you know I mean from a you know master plan perspective and by the way Beth we did not participate in '97 not that old but we did participate in 2010 I looked like wait a minute 97 a little early for me but um you know the you the fact that we have four family we do recognize that we have four family we we don't necessarily want more four family and I'm not sure we have a mechanism that stops the four family because it rides with the land I believe you know unless somebody unless one was to you know be destroyed from natural disaster or something they couldn't rebuild a fort family I think that's the only way correct that you could stop the four families that we have when you sell a four family I mean it presumes that they're legal but yes I mean if if we have a legalized four family unit I think that's there's if the the use the permitted use runs with the land so they're able to sell it as many times as they they like and that four family or three family or five family whatever the case may be as long as it was legal to begin with only if you could find the paperwork when they were legal and that's why we have this process so that folks that are changing ownership or something else that's that's occurred on the property the property owner has the opportunity to confirm that the these start legally essentially so and I I'll get off my soap box so even though you know all the master plans that we participate in together many of us up on the de where we we encourage U even back in 96 we were encouraging to bring things back to a one or two family mother-in-law sweet to try to minimize the um the the excessive cutting up of old victoriia so on and so forth that's not what we're talking about here we're talking about here is can we reasonably infer by two really big words reasonably reason infer that this has been used as a multif family since really we only have to go back to 1972 the testimony that was given did give us a re in my opinion a reasonable inference back to 1938 we know it was a police barracks we know that there were Troopers living there and we know that the the Mistress of the trooper and her family lived there as well so um because that was in that article that she was moving back with her family with the Troopers again I'm inferring that the Troopers didn't live with her and the family as one big Kumbaya they have separate Apartments but so so you know from a reasonable inference back to 1972 I think we can get it back to 1978 very easily so now we're if we're really trying to to bridge the 1972 1978 to say you know is there absolute steadfast proof I can't find it but is there a reasonable inference that from 38 to 59 to 72 to 78 82 to 96 the present yeah I I I I can see reasonably inference that that house was was three or more can't say four because some of the testimony there were three names or three Bs so that's where I that's where I'm thinking it's not that do we want this do we not want this is is there a reasonable inference that this is property has been been used like this for at least since 1972 the question that I kind of go back to is the part of the ordinance that we didn't get into and that was the fact that does the building have the right to continue as a supposedly non-conforming use due to the 1972 there's the use of building structure existing on October 16th although it does not conform it maybe continue this contined I mean it it seemed to imply that any structure that didn't fit the ordinance under this would be allowed to continue as is God Bless but it's a me not a shell it's a me God bless yes meaning they they don't force you to continue it that you may continue it as it existed yeah unless it burns down or or if it's total Destruction you have you know Mrs Mrs zinc testified that in 1982 when she moved here 40 years ago which is the date that we have certain that it was a four bedroom four house person house she doesn't remember anybody more than one person living in there she only talked to one person she said she remembered only one person being there and she remembered his name but but she didn't remember any seeing it you know right she said she didn't remember see any else we didn't know anything about whe whether or not it was a for house she do want yeah we don't we don't have any proof of when it was divided into the apart even which we've got evidence of testimony of decades it's a little unsure about exactly when was transition yeah it's it's I you know I think there's some inference but there's nothing certain I applaud Atty rights research um but it's not certain and I you know um I personally know support allowing it to continue with a poor family because it's not certain and I would like to see people back together as a one family or two family because we have a shortage of those in the bur among other reasons I just ran to our tax assessor yesterday the percentage of apartment in this town and I thought he was going to pass out and he figured out the number 61 % of all dwelling units in this town and apartments that doesn't count the spice Factory doesn't count the Union hotel you're both being constructed we're at 61% Newark is at 72% so you know it's a really really high percentage and it's not you know it's why houses like the gettes and Bell Street literally flipped in two days were well over their asking price because there's no inventory in this town for single family home only less than 40% of our homes or single family so you know I without definitive fruit I don't support this say sorry Melissa anything add or questions or discussion oh do you want to come you want me to come back to you if you yeah by the way the state New Jersey average on apartments is 33% across the state of New Jersey as a portion of C stock and we're at 61 plus% most densely populated in the state the state average is afterward count is right anybody online on the board um want to contribute to discussion done onute um just like um yeah I'm looking at the last six years right from 72 to 78 um was there any changes or was it always a four bedroom prior 72 is the board in agree do we need was 72 pretty much the date my first question to the board but is do we agree that 70 anything prior to 72 was legal or we is that open okay because like if we're agreeing that if every so maybe there's really two motions here we have to approve that we agree on the 72 date and then then it becomes conjecture it's of Don the 72 data is anything Pro anything that was nonconforming in 72 would become conforming or be would could or may continue so long as it wasn't changed that's what's in the ordinance that's what's in the ordinance that a prior governing body and plan would recognized as a match number so the we got them definitively 82 but then after after that it's all inference or speculation on getting back before 72 72 right I mean 78 was when the new this current previous owner indicated there was four bedroom now did the the former owner add Apartments to sell it um within 72 and within the six years prior to listing um but it is a lot of circumstantial evidence here um was it three bedrooms um was this state police barracks just there's everybody in one common area and stuff um I mean because really a question of legality here right I mean granted it's at 61% currently I mean the zone is not going to allow for anything else but this would be uh would would not decrease or increase the number um but yeah I'm stuck on that six years is kind of where I'm focused in on like is it reasonable like what's the burden of proof is it just well we think reasonably 50% that nothing's changed from 72 to 78 prior to listing bunch of phone numbers in a phone book enough proof yeah yeah being ni to presume that what was what was testified what 82 with the DCA that that was that was exactly how it was before 72 therefore it complies with 1620 of this ordinance that it was pre-existing nonconforming at that point and therefore became grandfather in that's the phrase that we don't legally have right well we have the witness right B in 78 was four bedroom and the other thing is that you know was the construction material and we have the Phil book right you know did they build a fourth apartment um after 72 just to try to make it more maybe I don't know I mean that seemed a little out of place compared to the rest of the apartment or the entrance but the testimony from the witness was that it was a one door see to the same build um and we got the phone book with three persons listed right the phone book only listed three so you're right was there fourth back then also the doesn't doesn't was the fourth added from 72 to 76 people right it's not necessarily that they were in separate Apartments just because they have a separate phone um yeah that's the bit I struggle with this I wish we had some real clear evidence of what the floor plan or you know there was four units before 72 you know between yeah what I'm struggling with right now phone phone a phone book from whatever date several dates we were six and six and even that's 10 years 12 Years A lot could happen in 10 12 years then another 10 years after right but like you said three phone numbers doesn't doesn't your phone numbers doesn't mean connect that these people were actually but brings up a Val point with whether or not that fourth Flor was being used that I mean reasonably it could have been three bedrooms three apartments and the fourth was added before was sold regardless it looks like it was potentially a multif family I mean what's the burden of proof 51% um preponderance of the evidence I mean this is not like a case um it's it's not like it's a civil it's not like we have a burn of proof for without Unreasonable Doubt here right we can have some reasonable down still claim that 51% of the evidence seems to indicate that it was a multif family dwelling prior to 1972 not like we're convicting someone of murder I'm just throwing that out there so I don't know like what how would we even write the resolution if we were to head in that direction just but to your point know um what the evidence the amount of evidence we have pre 2 is just phone books isn't it or is it something else no it's just pH book just a phone book and construction and and the testimony that we heard tonight is what I'm is what I'm Milling in my head right now but you could you could Beyond an inference it's at least two because in 1932 Troopers plural moved with Mrs May Smith and her family who would be given separate quarters plural in the large house but that's what I mean but but again they're giving separate quarters so separ not they could have been connected quers would imply separate with a family in tropers in 1932 well yeah maybe but not necessarily well the fact that you may not have had four kitchens right and you might sharing there still multi family by definition right not well they're not Apartments though right they're not apartment there's not much you can make you can't go that however many B were in this house so it wasn't they didn't move into apartments in the 30s they moved into a house in the 30s and correct typically that's right had that like a old Greystone Park I mean they had a house um they had all the nurses there I mean they just shared a house um I mean that wasn't uncommon people share houses all the time doesn't make them multiple Apartments you know I mean anybody's got kids in college probably at some point had their kids shared a house with other people and they're sharing a half one kitchen living room one refrigerator you know and when you rent a house in this town you rent a whole house so it doesn't make it cut up into into different apartments with separate kitchens and well the only we have proof of that from 82 that's I'm looking for2 well DCA may have inspected a prior to 82 but we don't have that record right when DCA started insting and the DCA said that you know he bought it in 78 so yeah land law didn't even start until the 70s right 75 didn't start there was like that's what I said the minutes going back in those days whether somebody just gave some tacit nod whoever gave the authority there was no zoning officer I mean should long like like uh they met they voted yes and they moved on there's no testimony or anything so you know trying to get proof that this was permitted prior to 1972 is really difficult when with the all right the Burrow's tax Maxs when did we start with tax Max and what exactly is capture F the tax because I'm complet does it just capture the address and what the structure is tax NS have lots and blocks structures even describe that it was separated out well the problem is we page of the deep right they show owners and they show lots and blocks and they show you know show structures right like I know my de there's a a section have that crazy building in the back there's a section of my de that falls out that building because we have a right away right they've got that's a deed we don't they didn't give us the Deeds the whole deed so we don't know maybe there's something in um it doesn't I mean if it if it said anything about the building I would have put it in but [Music] and Don to your point or or from our attorney's perspective that word reasonable I I again I don't don't get me don't misinterpret I I I would like I would like this building to go back to L than four family but what I like and what we're charged to do are two different things so reasonably infer we've got it back to 1978 if we hit it 1972 no because in 82 it says the multiple dwelling unit that changed hands in 78 that doesn't mean that in 78 you're right so let's go like we didc back to 82 so so now so 10 out of 40 years or 50 years we can't so does that go above reasonably infer because 10 out of 50 years are missing so your murder come and you know like I don't know like if you're but it's the 10 years it's the period of time that the governing body said this is now going to be legal so what matters is that 72 days in the ordance right the laws of law they said 72 burden of proof is on the applicant the Lost law I don't know I I I believe we were charged with reasonably iner were we or were they charged proof we reasonably iner burden of proof based on the testimony based upon the board's evaluation of the evidence and and testimony and their evaluation of credibility and make reasonable influences on that testim I don't think that I don me has opened up a real doubt on whether that forth floor was an apartment at that time based on that phone book the phone book evidence from the 60s where it only shows three phone numbers so to have four apartments in the 60s to me it's like has opened up a lot of data in my mind but there were ever four Partners himself maybe milman put one in an extra one right that they an2 the evidence we have support for yeah if it's reasonable to infer the with three from the evidence and say which again sketchy no approvals needed even if they were they'd probably be sketchy minutes um I don't know you know I'm not 64 but if that was the case you could reasonably infer that there were three Apartments Poss Poss have three numbers from 72 we have potentially three if they added the fourth or not um but if zoning started in 75 how are we going to find the records with Unreasonable Doubt uh prior that I mean it really comes down to those six years is what I'm looking at I'm giving the testimony due justice but like did something happen in from 72 to 78 that was illegal that moved into a four bedroom four family apartment or three or whatever was not permitted in the zone that's kind of what I'm and and there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence that at least indic cases with three requirements know the board can give when board's valuating something they can give the alternate relief if the board finds there was a validly existing three family home see that's with the point yeah but even the three family I was just going to say unless we have proof that the phone company would only put phone lines into separate apartments and this doesn't actually prove that they were separate apartments right right it doesn't say 189 a 189 C like they do now if it said that I'd be much more comfortable and then looking at then we've got the the evidence from A1 person 656 66 they have individual mail boxes or does it all go [Music] through so even an A1 shows and it could have been people moving through within a house that wasn't necessarily subdivided you know the evidence from 11 EXC the applicat council has indicated they would like to make a comment so to do that open public hearing I'll make a motion when we [Music] reop it's just about the phones at that time all phone lines are hardwired there would be in my eyes there would not be three phone jacks in one room they would be independently brought to each apartment it's not like cell phones today where you get three different numbers so you have three different people living in that house you have three different phone numbers I would think that one would be an apartment wired in the wall one would be another one wired in another apartment and a third in another apartment so the inference of at least three Apartments were there because you had three7 when I was in college we still had land lines hardwired in the wall and my roommate had one and I had one they had totally different numbers all the same room the same room are your are the phone is there any phone wiring still in the house no there's not even the Jacks there may be outside where the meter is but not in and do you have um you working for the phone company do you know that that's the case back in that date I just know from construction how you hard wire phone jack is here wired it's not it's not Wi-Fi like today understand what about Electrical Company you have four different meters going to that's now done isn't it like the timeline we're looking to like Pro the separation must have you talked to the electric company to try to find out when they they were there when I bought it so I mean I don't know what kind oford the electric company keeps and there separate P all Bas but Beth your comment my question to you while we're still open is um often times utility companies and other agencies you know don't necessarily conformed to our own zoning in other words the electric company could come in I could say I want 10 meters in my house and they're G to come in and do it because I want 10 question do they have electric company have tell you wild you need P to hook up a meter to they're not just going to come put power to a meter unless you had it wir that's the way you get a meter you electric service put in apartment with a panel and it go to the meter they not put a meter going back that far oh no I'm just explaining because it was jcpnl forever lington elri for that somebody's got records should have records maybe I say that we yeah does that conclude your additional questions you want to make in the public payment so we have to if anybody has any questions any questions based on that anybody else have any questions before we close the second portion just to clarify there was there was physically four meters on the house when you bought it yes and that was in 1996 yes 70 oh that's 96 or 786 bought the house ni doesn't help Don missing it proves almost 30 years of that existence we're looking for 50 but we've already been said not we don't have that evidence you can't use that well you can in a reasonable inference not you wish to choose to infer yeah yeah not in an absolute fact um we have favor of cling sorry right okay so we can go back to our deliberations anybody else anybody online other than Don have any question any uh anything to add for the discussion discussion thank no Hannah nothing okay anybody else here Melissa did you I answered one yeah I sh I answered one of my own questions and I'm struggling with and yeah okay all right are we in a position anybody feels that they can make a motion to to deny the request to keep this as a poor family do the lack of substantial credible evidence and um [Music] um I think Avail I don't think that they satisfied the requirements under the law and um to the satisfaction of the board because everybody's vacillating all over the place I'm the only one who feels firmly about this so uh okay anybody second that I'll second it okay so we have a motion can I just confirm the language of the motion it's a motion gring for certificate of nonconformity and the motion is to deny certific basically because the board has found that the uh structure the non-conforming structure did not predate there wasn't a showing that the nonconforming structure predated the uh the date of the effective date of October 16 1972 correct okay then we vote on that basis and the vote is and the vote is in a yes will deny the there's been a motion to put for that for the board to decide to deny certificate of nonconformity based upon the fact not predate the effective date of October 16 197 is that seconded yes so a yes vote would be to deny the application then it fails then somebody can make a motion in favor of the applicant but that's the motion is it stands and it has to be completed the vote prior to discussion after us we used to only do discussion after a motion and second never before that was your point that was my point early conclusion so you made your you know put your decision into effect but you want to discuss it if there's no more discussion then there's been a resolution and it's been secondly a motion that's I a motion and this is a yes denies correct and no says they did have reasonable and for for discussion purposes if it's a if we vote Yes what happens to the current applic current residents in the apartment does it REM do they remain until such time well if the attorney and the applicant then appeal or they put in for a use variance or whatever they they stay until this is concluded I suppose there would definitely be an eviction at at some time there have to be that would that would come further down but this vot would actually Legalize It indefinitely essentially is what we're saying because if we were to say no they was saying that it's was legal at 72 therefore it's legal from this day forward right um yes would indicate that it was illegal burden of proof was not metant yes all or some of them was and as far as the evictions or what happens after that's really need to be worked out that's really a separate issue separate not part of okay thank you the clarification second yes please mayor Carol yes Miss swingle yes councilwoman fararo yes Miss giin yes Mr Hill no Mr cook no Miss whiton yes Mr Echo yes yes um that's five yet um sorry six yes and two minut thank you see you again um all right do we need to do with this with the compter here to like stop it doing yeah we want to do yeah we it chair items we have the next meeting I next meeting put something on the last one in August but we don't have anything we don't is there anything that might possibly come up for like a resolution resoltion for this one we have to memorialize this right yeah so we could days to Res within 45 days so we could do it at the end of August meeting if we didn't have next meeting so right now we have nothing on the agenda that's two weeks away two weeks away so so weit a little bit from iar you want to Beth Liberty Village has applied for a a demolition permit and to demolish the site in the middle of August before they get planning board approval can you please disuade him from doing that I don't think the planning board will me on that I will uh I will reach out to them I'm also in the middle just so you know the first step in their process if they need to do a P6 review that's been needed for the last five months it's been ongoing as they submit updated documents and additional documents that would enable them to be are we close they getting so we maybe suggest that demolition per before that was probably not the best yeah if they got it already they really shouldn't I know they're gonna wait until after the cour torado festival so good night John gonna wait until after tomato so we have you know like forn them don't do it won't like it you know Town's not gonna like it either because then the taxes go away yeah they're I know they're eager for that review they just additional documents last week so I should be able and I've been communicating with them uh outside of like official memos in terms of just giving them an indication of what's still missing what I'm working on right now is I'm going to f and writing regardless of how cons they are can you like a fire um fire marshal told me today that come January 2025 I think you said January but it's definitely 225 I think it's the first of the year sprinkler systems in them hello he better start building they're Fire Marshall Ken told me today we were talking about Sprinklers and tea berries and he told me that state they were G to make it to happen this year and they pushed it to next year but I can't remember the date certain but it was 2025 it might have been June it could be July it was a j month so SC or what I was just saying that's going to screw up a lot of performance for people it's going to screw up a lot and it's really expensive it's really expensive so I think these are probably Council related issues too right because until the planning board has an application before us um we're kind of not in control of a lot of these things at this point Pap you were turned all the way up when you when you said that gosh I'm so sorry I'm so what you said but we know we just got in trouble right what did you say we shouldn't discuss it here or well I mean we don't have an application before us yet certainly it's going to come here it has to come here as part of the Redevelopment plan but we really don't have much involvement or ability to say much of anything until that point so that that's just what I was saying um also for the record can we note that um I'm back Mr Mr D is back in the miss kazin and miss kazinski andina left clearly I am back show all right so um we have nothing on the agenda for the 13th the 20 I forget the date s thank you is currently HBC joint we hope that go um and you said also the the historic element of the master plan yeah doing the two things so can we do that that notice all in one I I'm going to defer yeah we'll work on that car yeah right Perfect all right and September 10th would be the public hearing for the plasa one application yes right that's what's coming up let let I know if you're not available for any of those meetings um okay and Dennis can let us know the HPC are available for the August 27th as well please um all right I don't have any other chair item especially given the hour so um because we've got an executive session to do so let's move on to item 11 the bills they motion bills all in favor of paying the bills May Carol yes counc yes yes Hill yes Whitman yes yes yes thank you so item 12 is executive session if needed I understand car this is needed yes I would like uh the board to vote to go into executive session to discuss potential litigation concerning the living wall at the Flemington Circle um I there would not be any sort of action taken during executive session and it's up to the board as to whether you want to close the public session and indicate that you will not be returning or if you would like to return um after the executive session but again I don't see any need because I'm not going to be looking for any action to be taken this is just an update I'll make that motion second Perfect all in favor close the door and lock the webinar post so that no one else can jump in so I'm