##VIDEO ID:5JOHmllggIk## we just headamp because we have a limit of9 49 so we're making sure we don't we don't fire code and also please make sure that we're not taking up like three chairs each if we can if you can possibly squeeze in and let people squeeze in that'll be great we're waiting for one board memb on her way we can start with that um we'll make a note in the public she yes we'll make a note when all right I'd like to call to order the planet board zoner Board of adjustment meeting for Flemington burough of Tuesday November 26 2024 um please rise as you were able all right um this meeting is for Pur 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 hunted and County Democrat and CER news newspapers onor about February the 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 club and distributed to all persons if any requesting copies of the same this meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and maybe rebroadcast this meeting is a Judicial proceeding and any questions or comments must be limited for the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and deorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times um we we do have like rules of meetings when we have a lot of public and we'll come to those when it gets to each thing that I think you want to be involved in we'll just go over those again all right thanks some chairs right at the front so if you get late you got to come to the front row sorry that's quite good um all right Alan could we um hold the rooll please mayor Cara here councilwoman fararo here Mr campan is excused miss giin Mr Hill May might might a um Mr Dasha here Mr cook here miss whitesman here Mr Sino is excused miss swingle here Mr EO here Mr show miss kazinski here Mr clarico here M mcmanis here Mr here thank you okay thank you um um before we get into the agenda proper I actually need to ask my board for somebody to um a motion and a second in a second um to change the agenda slightly um based for um item nine which is the ordinance consistency review that was on our agenda and is now not needed um because the the council chose to table it blat night it was chosen to the table to take a app pause so let's make a motion to amend the agenda to bring that up as item number one second I second thank you and I just want to make um um a statement about why we're do say all in favor oh sorry anyone all in favor anybody thank you thank you um so just to let people know a little bit more detail wide for transparency um it was tabled at Council yesterday um we held the subcommittee um prod U tasked with by the council with um creating and working on that ordinance change held many meetings with the FCP landlords uh council members um over the last month or so um and in listening to comments that were made by many people in that um in those meetings um it's felt to be best to take a pause um in the process of working on that ordinance to ostensibly um the lack of data was mentioned regularly and particularly by the FCP that they wanted more data on the uh buildings and unfortunately um they weren't able to produce that data for us to be able to move forward so in order that they can um create that data and input that into this into the process um we're going to have to take a pause and also um because then we're coming up to reor at the end of the year we get new members um we don't know who's coming on to the board Etc um we then reconvene the subcommittee to move forward at that point so it'll be the first and that gives the FCP two months to collect that data together for us I will be sending an email to that effect to the FCP chair and um the council rep for SCP that is current and our council rep so that they're aware that that's the intention of this subcommittee of this planning ball going forward um it's a little unfortunate because there was a lot of really good work um and I thank both the subcommittee and Beth mcmanis for all their hard work on that ordinance creating some good work with the definitions and the SAT codes and change to assist um our our zoning and uh construction officials to help help um Main Street businesses um be able to receive permits um as we would like to see them receive permits um so but like I say that's it's on pause it's not closed completely it's not finished we're going to revisit it and we're going to come together with a sh we had a everyone had a shared Vision um as did this board um of what the way forward um so I'm hopeful that we'll be able to eyon out those things in the new year so I appreciate um your Indulgence to explain that to you so right now then we'll move on to item one on our agenda now this is where I need to excl item one on our agenda says public comments and um but it's very specific and normally we have we have to um it's time for public comment for things that aren't currently on the agenda okay so it doesn't mean I'm silencing we're silencing you it's just that if it's on the agenda there will be time for public comment in that part of the agenda does that make sense for everybody but if anybody has a public comment they would like to make for something not currently on the agenda please feel free right now to conf okay do you want to oh want to come forward for that we need if you do make a comment we need your name and address for the record and then you can speak into the mic so could we also turn on the public view I think that one camera might still be off thank thank you to get your face on the camera for my name is Lois Stewart I'm a resident in the B of flemingon thank you um I just wanted to ask about what's going on at 44 Emery Avenue did they come did that new occupant come before this board for permission or I just heard that there is something going in at the end of my street and I was a little concerned because no one on my street seems to know anything about it are you talking about in the industrial complex no at the 44 just before you get to the highway on the what think I I nothing things come before us but we get we only get certain items that come before us certainly I don't something has com be Full Construction well it's past the driveway that goes into the old rubber Mill it's on the opposite side of the street all the way down by the highway that's where oh yeah think it's a sorry does anybody know what's happening there they're having some open house in December but I don't know open house for what I can't see I think that was Susan Rice had her eye doctor thing there discussion talk we'll get I'm explain it okay yeah I understand we just it's really for the record we're required by law to have a very specific record we need to know who everybody is not my rules all right do we have any public comment for the public comments in the room or anybody online I I don't have the list of theend is anybody online OHL I do not see any hands being raised I don't know whether I'm can Sor what you yes please please sorry I thought I are you taking our public comments on agenda items at the point no no okay that's okay wait we will the will definitely be space for that okay thank you sorry um I don't see anybody online raising a hands I see no hands right so good let's move on um okay it to M comment uh so last night the um the bur Council introduced um an ordinance change to our our really you can't hear me okay last night the burough Council introduced an ordinance that emanated from our parking subcommittee that I formed this year um I look at traffic issues and parking issues throughout the burough um these three or well it's one ordinance but it's three new um stops that are going to be going in uh the public hearings December 9th um so there'll be an all a new always stop has been proposed for Broad and Bloomfield Avenue to slow down speeding um significantly M Street which has the most speeding in the town God bless uh also the most tickets given by our police department and significantly none from Flemington burough um we are putting in an always stop at M mine and Park Avenue M you look happy mine and um stangle and um we will be looking for grant funding to put in some flashing crossing lights uh and improve cross walks at mine and Central mine and Academy and mine at wall I'm not for for people um wanting to get over to dor or to the Catholic church for next year so looking for some Grand funding to do that um I want to thank Jay Troutman for doing that work and giving us a great report um just so there's so many people from the public here other things that the parking committee has tackled we 're responsible for that four-way stop at Williams and Broad um Jay has been working on retiming the fan Boulevard and North Main Street Lake who allow better flow of traffic across uh fan Boulevard to Park Avenue and the left turn on to Main Street from fan Boulevard uh We've also sent a letter from me to the do asking them to retime the traffic late on Route 31 to allow more cars to make a left turn onto Church Streets uh to get out of town um and uh we are currently looking at changing parking in this town to resident only overnight with permits for you and your visitors and your family and um be able to buy more permits but we're having a significant issue um with overnight parking in residential tiny little neighborhoods from the apartments um along Main Street so we're looking at that Jay is also going to be coming to the council in January I hope to present a new parking plan I'm sorry not parking plan driving plan around the Union hotel project um to ensure that the residents of the apartments and the hotel users do not blow out into the residential neighborhood neighborhoods as was promised during all of the hearings at the planning board and the council Jay has designed um a plan that would keep the traffic flowing mostly to Main Street or further down on Broad so he'll be presenting that to the council uh and hope that they do an ordinance change on those streets sometime in probably in January um so that's uh I miss I don't think I missed anything that was a good summary mayor thank you yeah it's been a very productive committee I have to say I'm personally really pleased with the work it's done I think it's making this town safer for the residents and safer for pedestrians especially and I think the speed of which it's been able to respond to people's concerns really quick we've been really fast we've been really fast and I'm really happy about that um so uh so thank you um that's it that's all thank you um all right item three Council comment actually have I mean for I should get close to you a little sick guys so I've been a part of both the parking I think I'll stop here so I've been a part of the parking committee or we call the traffic committee along with the mayor and other members of our professions other members of the community and it has been a really wonderful way um to reach out and literally touch our residents businesses how we navigates our community and we are always looking for insight feedback understanding of what the folks in our community are experiencing so I would really reach out to myself to the mayor Susan angle har we can help if necessary next thing um I want do want to thank Beth MCN and Karen for pulling together a subcommittee on zoning it was uh the work that you put in back was amazing it was wonderful a wonderful opportunity to try to understand what the vision of our current master plan is and the vision of the community and I will say this I'm disappointed that we have this really robust master plan with a vision of what lemington should look like and how we should live in it and what our daily life experience should be and unfortunately we could not get there so I do look forward to um seeing the information our FCP director um so we can truly understand what the gaps are and how we can fill those gaps in our community thank you thank you um all right item four is HPC comments Dennis do you have something for us please yes uh we had a meeting last week uh we approved the porch roof at 13 New York Avenue I lean forwarded that to the board and then the only other item we are planning for the 2025 historic house tour it's uh planned for Saturday June 21st from 11: to 5: looking for uh additional houses and volunteers so if anyone's interested let me know that's it for me is now very popular very busy event wonderful event for the town thank you Dennis all right item five professional reports any of our professionals have anything that isn't currently on the agenda can be with that you need anything else right now okay thank you um item six is approval of the minutes from November 19th 20124 regular Meeting those were distributed by El has anybody got any comments amendments changes that need to be made to those before we vote on them I to approve thank you all right can we take the V call please Mr Das yes mayor Carol yes Council yes Miss giin yes Mr cook yes Miss whitesman yes Miss swingle yes Mr Echo yes Mr show yes thank you thank you all right items seven and eight can I want together resolutions we have we don't I didn't realize when I made my comment at the last meeting that we had only we can be same so we'll have for the we usually have two weeks between meetings we only had one so okay I'll also have e the chick sorry Lois all right I W so we'll add the chickfila one to that as well you get that we'll have three resolutions next time with two on the agenda and one for Chick-fil-A not that's a resolution the pools that was we heard that last meeting and that's a resolution that received a vote last meeting National Pool no um so we'll table those or put those to next week next meeting it's not next week they actually got a few weeks it's November One S right now usual next December 10 17 one next we are again 10th and 17th so yeah we've got week after each so what's GNA be on 12 um we'll have two resolutions I'll do it at the end as well we usually capture this at the end but we'll have the resolutions that were mentioned three resolutions and we also have uh completeness and public hearing Al together for the h te house on that meeting too she was not using the mic at beginning right that's why I said it on here for you so the two resolutions item seven and8 will be at the next meeting as well there's a resolution for um Chick-fil-A came for an amendment of the um canopy canopy thank you for the word canopy canopy it was a quick one um could change they actually reduced the size of the canopy and they came and formalize that um that will be at the next meeting also memorialize that okay so um okay we are flipping through these numbers I love it um okay so item nine we already um voted to amend that so I the new item nine is the public hearing for Hunan County Democratic committee application 2024 of8 111 Main Street continued from October 22nd 24 this is a an appeal of a decision of the an administrative officer mainly everyone you don't need he just might want to have he might have to speak close to the micophone I just want to set up a little bit take your time huh take your time but if you can state your name or something my name is Tom J I'm sorry ohus sorry I'm not theas oh you are notas not I'm not all right so one of the things one of the let make their official statement yeah so um as we typically do for applications is there anyone that feels that they have any uh fiduciary pecuniary or other financial interest in its application or any other reason why they feel that they could not participate in an unbiased [Music] manner so you're going to be your thank you anybody else no and I don't see anybody any of our members online say anything NE you ready son yes we're ready for you everybody uh my name is Tom jine oh do you will you need to be sharing oh we need to see your beautiful face um we need to promote allow me for theolog while you're doing that we can should be a um and then just make sure you turn on the camera but we off the microphone and while you're doing that um Ian all of the notices and Pro serving ERS jurisdiction and matter that's correct thank you did you want to um enter any I'll do that I'll let him I'll let him start and then we'll mark the exib very thank you uh so M the camera you need turn the camera on but don't leave the mic alone because the audio is coming through the other mic there you go long as you like the view of the face that's all good I want to see thank well it's being recorded so smile I have to look good I know everybody's here for this application absolutely hear me um as I was saying my name is Tom Jardine I'm an attorney with the law firm of Jardine Meer Sam spr and suser uh representing the um Hunter County Democratic committee I do have one short witness uh uh this evening Frank banish um will be testifying very briefly um this is as you know an appeal of the zoning officer determination um regarding a use that that the proposed office use is not per permitted in the DB Zone um we're not seeking any variance relief tonight it's just simply an appeal under the mL of the zoning officer's determination um when you have those kinds of uh those kinds of appeals of a determination it's about as close to Legal argument as you can get um in a in a zoning or planning board hearing so I'm going to go through uh usually I would just hand it over to the planner or hand it over to the engineer but I'm going to go through a couple issues and maybe uh probably going to be arguing to the bo attorney all to do that okay before we start um now that he's made his introduction uh we'll mark As exhibit a um A1 the application and supporting documentation A2 will be the proof of notice and publication and a uh pb1 will be the board planners uh memo dated November 6 2024 I'm going to show thing that just the this PC and I stuck my thumb drive in and not sure shut yes yeah it should recognize the thumb drive and you should be able to um whatever files uh just double click on them open them and can you uh down below you should be able to share oh just share okay well that's easier right where would I file folder yellow fold you didn't bring your 5y- yeah I know and then so if you double click on any of and then you can CH all right anyway I will be relatively brief um there there's a truism uh when it comes to permitted uses on the Minal land use law um that if the use is not expressly permitted it's prohibited right um and so in fact many towns will adop adopt an ordinance that expressly says that and so Flemington has indeed done that under section two 263 of your zoning uh code or your Lang law it says prohibited uses all principal accessory and conditional uses not expressly permitted permitted in this Bo are hereby prohibited so as it turns out in practice that's quite tricky when it comes to office uses because there are so many uh of them there could be dozens or even hundreds of different types of uses um that could be characterized as an office use so your ordinance has a general definition of the term office and that's found in section 121 where it defer defines office as a building or portion thereof used as the place of business as a p of a person Corporation firm or public agency or professional and or administrative Services if I hear anybody sleeping and then it says this use shall exclude Medical Offices uh this use shall include but shall not be limited to corporate offices law firms accounting firms Insurance firms and real estate firms now there I said that it excluded uh me Medical Offices you have a separate definition uh for defined as office slmed um uh and while that doesn't apply here it it is uh to be noted that that's the the only other definition of an office in your definition section in your ordinance I suspect that's because medical office tends to generate a lot of traffic and you want to make sure that you're capturing you know whether it's a dentist or doctor uh that there's a specific definition for that um but as I know that you all know because I watched a couple of your meetings especially your September 10th meeting um your off your ordinance does something else too um it defines specific type of uses by their sic Cod right that that's the standard industrial code um and the only problem with that at least from my perspective is that um sic codes are are generally not as specific in their definitions as your code would be or any other of the 563 Municipal land use codes would be in the state of New Jersey when it's specifically defines a term so for example in the DB District which is what we're talking about here um and in other districts where the SIC code is used you have for example uh a section that defines advertising credit reporting reproduction computer programming data processing building services and similar building Ser business services so that's like almost a no no when it comes to Municipal land use law you never say like but for you know uh um in addition and including or including an addition to you T not not to want to say similar Business Services because that opens the door very wide you want to be very specific as to what is permitted and everything that is not permitted is prohibited um but likewise in that same uh DB section you have engineering surveying architectural accounting auditing bookkeeping research uh and development management publicly relations and again and similar services and that's to find the Si code 87 and the point I'm trying to make is that and similar Services opens the door pretty widely to interpretation and I know that mayor I I heard from you the September 10th meeting that you're looking to change that as a counselor somebody mentioned that that's probably not a bad idea from a planning perspective um but it definitely uh um calls into the question the notion that you have in section 2603 of your ordinance uh that um all use is not expressly permitted in the ordinance ordinance are prohibited because you've left open the door because you've said and similar services so you're opening up the door to other uses those two things are pretty much in conflict and I know there was some discussion at the last meeting about maybe addressing that and um I wish you luck on that uh but there is Good News Mayor and board members and that is this if you can find a use in this town that is is the exact same use as the proposed use in this application and see how that's been treated in the past then you have the answer you have the answer as to whether or not this proposed use is prohibit prohibited or not and and that's exactly what we've done so I do want to if if I can click on this maybe not show you let's see here's your zoning map you need to share on zo this we're not seeing your laptop should be on the bottom of the zoom big green button bottom the screen see your that's okay all right so here's your zoning ordinance we don't need to spend I mean your zoning map you're not you got sh the screen maybe you close the file here and rather not beautiful and guess what we don't have to spend a lot of time in this but but we are dealing with the DB Zone and that's this area in red here you want to mark this um I don't personally need to mark this it's your zoning M well let's do that just so we have a reference um so Mark as so whenever we make a reference to this we mark it as a three um and it's a copy of the burrow zoning map and is there a date on the one that you're presenting just to make sure we got the most current yeah it's out it's June 2013 the same M same exact document but I have marked it up and we could mark this all right so we'll do A4 same zoning ma same date microphone a same zoning map not in color June 2013 with commentary or comments or references annotations that you're going to spell out for the record I it's not going on correctly what you have though in this map if I can pull it up correctly is you have another identical use to that and that identical use is in the um I'm sorry the highway retail district and the highway retail District you have the Hun County Republican committee offices obviously the exact same uses okay so I do want to if maybe I can hand this out May maybe that would be easier we can mark this as three okay and just so the records clear the purpose of A4 was to show well the purpose of a show was A4 was to show that the exact same use is uh as the proposed use is in the highway retail District unfortunately the map seems a little cut off and that's probably related to my technology skills but doesn't really matter from my perspective okay um but I will uh hand this out if that's okay is it the same as so this will be A5 if you can just describe that for A4 is a a A5 I'm sorry is a document that shows um now each of these zones the DB Zone and the HR Zone have um many permitted expressly permitted uses the ones that I want the the board to focus on are these five and because these are the uses under which the proposed use is permitted and that's because in the highway retail District the Hun County Republican committee has offices and their offices were approved by your zoning officer by one of these categories now there as I said there's others there's I think 39 total um but he or she used one of these categories to approve the use of the in County Republican committee and as it turns out the downtown business district has those exact same categories right so um obviously you wouldn't treat these identical uses and we would have to I think acknowledge that they're identical uses differently simply because the only difference between the two of them is that you know one's theun County Republican committee and the other one is the Hun County Democratic committee that would be like crazy if you don't mind me using a legal term um but it would surely get you sued I can tell you that um and you would surely lose There's no distinction between those two uses whatsoever um so that's the only point I wanted to make so that you understand that the uses are identical and that we already permitted that use in the highway retail uh district and you had to have permitted that use under one of those five categories and again those five categories includes the language and similar Business Services I would suggest that your zoning officer you uh permitted that use under category number 34 which is engineering surveying architectural accounting auditing bookkeeping research and development man management public relations and similar Services I'm suggesting that because that's what my witness is going to testify as to what the proposed use is going to be um I do want to make uh another thing clear just so you all have an understanding um I know that you have a goal in your 2022 master plan which is a beautiful document that I did read um and like most towns the goal is not to put it on the Shelf but put it into action I do know that in your master plan on page 34 uh sorry 36 um you talk about the downtown business district um and you make clear that the district's standard should be amended to allow first floor residential uses as a conditional use and then you also say additionally uses that are not active such as offices that disrupt first floor commercial activity should be converted to conditional uses and that is a fine policy goal uh on behalf of the the Planning and Zoning Board and the governing body however that has not been adopted uh by the governing body as the rules of the road for the town yet and so that's a nice pre or as I say which we're thinking and and I you know if you put in to place that's great that's not the law of the land right now the law of the land is that office is allowed on the first floor and clearly the DB District doesn't say anything differently from that um and then I do want to say um with respect to the subject property and Mr banish is going to testifying this a little bit known as the hawk house um it has and mayor actually on the September 10th meeting that I listened to you you had said this specifically you said the Hawk house has always been used as office space and so the use is not changing at all and you even used it as an example of where the first floor office has has been allowed and should be allowed you said on the meeting of September 10 and so obviously you know I don't know if you change your position everybody's allowed to change your position um but as you'll hear from our witness office use has been existing on the on the first floor and at this site for at least the last 16 years um and the uses uh in terms of what's permitted in the highway retail district and the hunter County Republican committee are exactly identical and finally just before we get to Mr banish um there Mr raldi who I understand is zonning Officer um when he framed or discussed with uh my law partner the proposed use of the this space he um framed the proposed use as quote political and I I don't want to talk documentation or is this testimony on what Pat raldi had said it's what Mr document showing exactly statement if you look at the the zoning deter I just want to make sure well I want to make sure now you say that but uh but in any way I I'm not to belor the point but obviously you can't Zone based upon political right this this town allows political signage all throughout the town and that's okay you can't prohibit um the the use of office space or any type of space for one political party or the other or a third political party or whatever you can't do it because it's unconstitutional so I I don't know if uh the Gentleman Just misspoke but obviously um you cannot prohibit um the the office use for a political party everywhere in town and of course you haven't done so already because the Hunter and County Republican committee exists in the highway retail District um as a permitted use I would obviously further note that the hunter County Democrat committee is moving or proposing proposing to move down the street from 155 Main um and that's something like I don't know 200 yards you all know better than I so they obviously have been uh an active participant and office holder in this town uh for a while so um that's why we believe that the uh zoning officer determination is incorrect because it's not um consonant with what your zoning ordinance uh States so if I can have Mr banish Mr here is there somebody Michael here no but tag is here if you need me as hcdc exective thank you I didn't nor I app okay Frank you just raise your right hand the testimony you're about to give this for is the truth the whole truth or nothing but truth I do thank you very much evening yeah m v you you just tell the board who you are and what your connection to this property is I'm sorry to interrupt can we just stop sharing the screen so that we can see online my name is Frank banish I'm a licensed professional planner my my business Bish Associates Inc has been headquartered on Main Street at 111 Main since 2006 uh no other penants or other occupancies besides my office has been in the building throughout that period of time and my understanding tonight was that I was here to basically be factual witness I would say to you before that testified about what I just said and then when asked about what the uses were before before I bought it I bought it from Dr cus and when Dr cus was the dentist own the building his dental office was on the second floor he and his wife lived on the third floor and his mother lived on the first floor I understand that sometime prior to that there was a business called Iron Mountain stoneware during the days when Massa was in its hey day and those uses were very popular in the middle of town so that's what I know about the zoning history of the property I was not retained in this matter to give PL professional planning testimony I think as you've heard the arguments here are largely legal arguments I would just observe that the use of the word similar takes on a particular meaning here because it's only used in a few cases in the ordinance and in this particular case it's used to describe a variety of things that this type of an organization does they do management they do research and development to create policy that they promote so they do you PR type activities but they do the the accounting and the other things that go along with managing the operations so when we say and similar Services I think it's possible to find aspects of a number of the things specifically permitted that are part of the activities here the office category and I any arguments about the the master plan or for another day so I'm not here to talk about what the master plan says or shouldn't say I've been recently uh able to comment on the fact that you have a longstanding history of developing and updating master plan that's been thoughtful and always attempted to try to live up to the true character of the birth so I don't have I gri the master plan I'm really here just to say that the use of this space as an office not only seems to me to be again I'm not retained as the planner so you have a planner but first will'll tell you which it and I respect her a lot um but when we think about the use of buildings on Main Street the fact that from the lington circle I'm sorry the uh Main Street Circle all the way up to Church Street those are all residential buildings and then when you cross Church Street most of the way the mine Street those are almost all residential buildings and when you get into the part of town where there are really storefronts that that call out retail use they're a little further into town so I feel like because the because number one I've been operating as an office space all that time number two that probably I can't charact I don't want to characterize the use by the others but when I opened the business I had nine people working for me and they we filled up every parking space every day right now we have three people there full-time that are not fing nine parking spaces so there certain room on my property for additional parking and I can let others characterize what my parking is like I think that's probably all I have to say the board has questions for have questions for this witness checking our V members online I don't see any hands raised thank you oh I didn't any many members of the public have questions for that witness Mr van that's what app just one more way just very quickly um hi my name is Michelle Le tag and I am the secretary of the hunon County Democratic committee uh raise your hand Michelle the testimon about to give this the truth home truth absolutely thank you just quickly um does the H hun County Democratic committee do the same thing as the Hunter and County Republican committee yes it does okay yes it does and and in terms of you sentence or L what that is I think in terms of um campaign work frequency of being in the building the numbers of people that come into the office space it is running a campaign is um having business practices having meetings like uh the Republicans would do in their space It should be pretty ident identical we may be fewer but U the basis of the efforts are the same so okay any members of the board have any questions for this m no any members of the public have questions for thist okay thank you thank you okay I have a couple questions you want to go first um um so you mentioned just a couple questions you mentioned that the um uh the Republican organization has office space in HR District that have been granted zoning permit and I just I wanted to find out can you tell us when it got zoning permit and how and under what SIC code it was allocated I don't know the answer the second question it appears to have been uh granted sometime in the 2012 2013 time period That's My understand May let's let the testim could be wrong but and I'd love to be corrected because I want to be factual um but the the Zone itself has been in the I Zone has been in existence since I believe 2012 but that's when it was adopted I don't believe there have been any changes to it okay um and so by I guess just a I just want to put a final point on by virtue of it being located there the assumption is it was it was located uh legally they received the zoning permit and any construction permits but we can't verify that the was actually granted is that right I'm sorry can can it be verified that a permit was granted or confirmed that well it certainly can be because the Zing officer will have granted the um use um but uh are you suggesting that it's not allowed to operate there no I don't no I'm not I just it would just be helpful I I'm wondering I'm just trying to drill down is there a document that would be helpful to the board that the that zoning officer signed off this use in the HR District approved best case scenario is set under item number yeah zoning officer's uh documentation of that would be helpful I would agree with you we did OA certain documents but didn't receive that unfor was it requested and it just was I so specific yeah that was that was my question too um certainly I no reason to think that what you're stating to this board has been true um but it would be very difficult for them to rely on that without the actual proof coming from either showing an open request for that specific document was made and indicated they don't have it or the actual document or even I don't know who the zoning officer was at the time but that sort of testimony um CL possibly something you know along those lines again I have no reason to think that what you're saying isn't is true but um again if the board's going to rely on it in order to make its determination override the zoning officers uh determination of the use that would be helpful yeah I G have two responses to that if you don't mind no one is that um uh again it's you to to to say that it's not an approved use there is to imply that it's not a permitted use there and that it wasn't approved and so therefore that it's acting illegally there and so that's kind of a funny thing I would say secondly so so you should presume the other the counter and that is that it was approved as a use at that site and the ordinance was in effect when it was approved and and secondly I would say to the extent that the board wants to to get to the bottom of that issue it could conditionally overturn the zoning officer's determination subject to uh revealing that document and and those could all be options available to the board again just trying to to build a record something else that I think might be helpful too um and please again in no way in trying to get this information am I implying or saying that that's not legally allowed there um there was a assumption that it was authorized in connection with the SIC uh those specific sic codes um typically there would be a showing to the board that these were the SIC codes didn't affect at this time of the ordinance and nothing has changed at that point so I don't know if you have any like kind of like a pre-existing non-conforming analysis so anything you have for the board in that respect certainly nothing has changed with respect to the ordinance um since that use went into effect the highway retail District um but to get to your first question it is an assumption by me um that um uh item or use number 34 in the highway retail district and the identical use number 26 in the down uh downtown business district is is the appropriate uh use category uh for this identical use by both of the political parties because and and that's because it talks about uh research and development management public relations and similar services that would be the most logical now there is I will tell you there is an SIC code or a couple sic codes that are in the like um 2133 and 2233 range um standard industrial codes and they relate to government offices I look to see if we there would be a specific um you know thing for political but it really relates to government so I guess if the board if if the governing body want to have a permitted use for for that kind of thing it could look to one of those codes but it hasn't done that question question Do I have I think that's all the questions I have for uh [Music] [Music] yeah before we um yeah we didn't um I didn't like to have the board to question um returning as a witness has because he's made a lot of um testimony if anybody feels that they'd like to question I I do have a question while your testimony was that um wasn't testifying was argument well your argument cites that um perhaps the Republican um committee came in under um SS code 87 or code 87 onl um I I'm not debating whether or not it's similar to all the things in item 87 but there also is one other um item in the highway retail which was we allowed shopping centers incorporating any preceding use so I'm timing is of the essence here because if in fact we had it's a little bit like other applications that we had when we looked back all the way 1972 um so we did allow in the highway retail District which we don't allow in the downtown business was shopping centers incorporating any preceding use I'm sorry which oh that's 40 m yes so it it could have been and again it all comes down to timing I don't know how long the Republican committee office has been there yeah it's it's I will say it's not a um it's not a retail building it's a office it is a retail building actually I I so I'm only questioning if if you so you don't know the date that the Republican committee came in um we think you you had testified that you thought it was somewhere around 2012 or 2013 that's my I don't know Beth what the date is on our on when when this was incorporated well your ordinance go ahead I mean are in the in the burrow code online you can see it's not a complete record to be fair but you can see dates of amendments so for example uh in the HR District in the HR District you can see that commercial agriculture for example is added as part of ordinance 2012-01 in 2012 um and there are a variety of other examples of that uh the HR District was is noted as being updated in as part of that same ordinance I don't recall the other changes I do I know around that time we incorporated commercial agriculture into this district and I I believe farmers markets as well I don't recall what other aspects of the ordinance such as long have so so for all we know sorry you're talking about the I recil District yes yeah okay I mean we did look at the disposition L and it hasn't changed those permit those have not changed since 2012 since uh ordinance number 201201 and I I just think that that being made part of the record to you know show that would would be helpful and again just for everybody's information I mean these are things that are coming across us on a regular basis so you know to make sure we have as much record as possible it's help I have no further question I'm sorry but just following on from Todd's question we don't know when the Republican party went in when when am I like like no if if C listen certainly if the members of the board have knowledge as to this information that's that's certainly that's certainly fine I cannot say whether it was in 97 or 98 but I can definitively say that when I won the election as the firstman Freeholder in this County the party was in that building and and Republican headquarters was already there in 1999 and it was there before 1999 but I cannot definitively say whether it was 96 or 97 or 98 but it was there in 99 mayor just so the record is clear are you a member of the Hun Republican I am not I resigned my position when I became mayor because I thought it was fair to represent every you not one ask a question so my my question on the Tes the argument however you want to phrase it um let's forget for a second the other use at CLA one let's just put that aside that whole argument because I think there is a documentary question that may or not be able to be solved here um am I also hearing correctly from the testimony of the witnesses um in your statement that you would argue that under db26 which is sic 87 engineering surveying architectural so on and so forth is your argument also that this this denial was in in was in was incorrect because the operations of this organization fall under sic 87 am I hearing that correctly because I think we can solve this without having to have testimony about the Republican headquarters if you're arguing that that this should have been allowed because it falls under 7 is that am I am I understanding what your testimony is you are you are I I think you know if you look at that comparison sheet that I prepared I think you can knock out U number 39 because it's not a medical and dental it's not legal services right um so the two most logal ones uh would be 33 and 34 or 73 and 87 I I think it should be 87 because that's most closely associated with what the two organizations do and is the testimony Mr banish that what's going on in that building right now falling under that use that SI i87 as well when we say similar services to engineering surveying arit that's what we're doing okay so again just making sure right that that question not a trick question I'm just making sure I'm understanding the testimony correctly that the testimony of is that the existing operations on in this particular property fall under that code that the applicants business operations Falls you're arguing under that code as well and this should be a permitted use right in opposition to what the zoning officer ruled that's what I'm I'm hearing the test you argu correct that is correct and and of course as I said as I uh stated earlier uh the Hudson County Democratic committee office was H County Office existed on Main Street right just up the road okay any other questions for online I have one um just a question um did you have any conversation with the zoning officer uh regarding the huning County Republican committee that they they they are there and why are they allowed but you were denied um well for what it's sir I'm I'm sort of U pinch hitting for somebody who went to Thanksgiving early so I certainly didn't uh but um I don't know the answer to whether or not my colleague did thank you right that's questions that's questions close so we can discuss first we ask the well and I I also think it might be helpful to ask the question of um based upon some of the questions of the board is there anything else you'd like to look into to provide to the board so that they can make their their determinations um or would you like them to proceed with public comment and closing and and discussion um I know you are pinch itting I realize yes yes because there have been some questions I know the mayor did testify but there's been some other questions and now that I understand your pinch I don't know if maybe your colleag might have had some other information but does the board have an interested in in obtaining that information I guess that's question back it's always helpful to have definitive um Tony and um evidence thank you documentation makes things much clearer rather than us say put kind get in a little bit um it's not clear right it's not right it's not clear when those dat aside from the SIC code we got two arguments I got the Si code and we got the Republicans can do so it's unfair for the Democrats to do it and and that's coming across more as PS say right now right aming tell me please um because of this dat question and the fact that you were you're saying that the date of the incorporation of the HR districts is therefore assumed to have been active at the time that they moved in which we don't know yeah I I I think the answer is logical that the use has been there for some time and so it was a permitted use under some circumstance unless the board has an understanding that there was a zoning board application that was approved to allow that use having said that however I agree with you that it would be good for the board to have all the facts um well let me let me ask this Mr chair M chair um are you requesting that the board adjourn this so you can get those additional facts um whatever your typical procedure for doing that either tabling the application or juring it to the next meeting is fine um I don't know how to typically do it I I certainly don't want to draw the application and I I oh no no no I don't think that's that's certainly not what we're right talking about at all um and I I me I could just roll a dice and have you vote tonight but I I I like you would like to see the actual facts I think it would really help we have a lot of very intelligent board members who appreciate facts I put it that way and it certainly um assists with memorialization we on what basis the board deliberated and made decisions rather than here saying feeling so we can table so just I'm asking what what additional facts because there are two arguments here one argument is um uh it's an allowable use because it's s 3d7 and related and there's one argument that says it's the same as Highway retail uh there's two they're completely different arguments right and I think we should leave it up to the applicating Council to figure out listen I'm sorry to inter if if we come back with indeterminant facts or facts that there's a pre-existing use we're still going to come back to the board and rely on the second argument right which is this and similar Services SI I coding St the most logical you have to allow it somewhere okay all right but would you like to um adjourn and return at a later date we can work out the date you'll have to let us know um have the documentation so that we can put you on the agenda an announcement yeah how long do you think you would name for request so oh you want you need to consult with no no no I don't we would love to have the next meeting presumably at sometime in December I don't know we have two we have the 10th and the 17th okay let's um we already have the 17th okay I think that's yeah I was just going to say because we already have two item two public hearings probably slated for the 10 so um and that would give sufficient time um submit it also any time for to the board to see it appreciate for sure for sure I will just say the board unless um you requested we it would not be our anticipated that we would have more testimony or that I would even have a the witnesses back here unless the board desires to have that it's your it's your argument it's up to you that's fine yeah on this is this is on the on the record now we can we just bring we just come back with whatever extra um testimony you want to give yeah and I and I think and if we wanted to just ask one more time if anybody in the public anybody on the board has any questions of the applicants Witnesses then at least we've given it one more shot and then if you decide to bring them back you can if not at least you've done that per right so having said that anybody before no Happy Thanksgiving see you on the 17th thank you what and no further notice will be provided will be um yeah um so for everybody's um before I move on to the next agenda did you take your we we usually break at 900 p.m. for like a break it would seem logical being as we have a a gap if we just have a it we'll break now and then we won't need to break at nine right so that's what we're going to do we're just going to break now for the board to have five minutes step away um and then we will reconvene at 8:20 come back at25 mayor Carol counc here here here show M kazinski here clo here M mcmanis here Mr TR here thank you right before we get going on our next agenda item I'll just give some um for people that haven't been to one of our meet before um we have some rules um some rules about um engagement in terms of um Coming you've seen some of it in action coming to the microphone giving your name and your address if you you make another comment um but the applicant will be um providing Witnesses and testimony just like last time before before we get to that point um we usually because this is most likely going to go over other meet another meeting we um we'll allow questions for each individual witness as they come up so that we can capture that for the people that hear the testimony can ask questions rather than leaving all the questions to the end of all the testimony which would likely to be another meeting okay so we will allow that that will be happening um I think on timing um our Rules of Engagement allow us to not engagement we're not at walk sorry our rules of operation shall we say um we say usually no new items um after 10:30 but this one will be an item in and of itself so and then we say our absolute latest is 11 to be here I'm just putting that out there we will not go past 11 the CL in fact I don't and here's what I'd like to ask the applicant when we're going forward with this is if we meet a natural point where you've one test one witness is finished and we're going to get that testimony done on questions for that and it's say 10:30 we will end then and start new Witnesses on another day okay that's fair enough that's the way we're going to run it just so everyone's aware and if I could just add that um for the recording and for uh for for the record um if we could just have one person speaking at the same time one time when multiple people are talking everything gets modeled and we cannot make a good record so appreciate your cooperation yeah it's a good point because even when we do these when we listen at home it's it's very difficult to hear multiple conversations so again I'll remind everybody this is a legal proceeding and we want to make sure that the record captures everything correctly for legal reasons um having said that I'm not opening the public hearing immediately because and I'm going to ask Mr clerico to help me here um the board off Mr CL the report when we um when we uh agreed this for completeness um we gave some temporary waivers which were meant to be that the um applicant agreed that those temporary waivers which were we let them not provide some things at completeness they were supposed to bring them to be ready before the public hearing took place and there is some concern over whether those temporary waivers are actually provided before we can go to public hearing so B can you just run through those with us and then the board can decide whether we want to move ahead or not absolutely yeah so um I outlined in first page of the letter the items again from the board's minutes uh the reference the DAT letter oh my letter is dated November 23 uh outline the items that where the board had granted permanent checklist waivers uh at your prior meeting uh back at your prior meeting uh and the ones where you granted temporary check those wav condition being that the applicants would address those items before they would begin a public heing project so I went through all those item rather than bore you with the ones they completed I updated the check to identify what they did and in the letter I only out I only expanded upon the items where I didn't see at least of the information I had available what I would consider compliance with the on the second page of the letter I started again somewhat overlapping checklist item p and 23 I deal with the storm water aspects of the project the specific issue here that we brought up originally was that the applicant submitted all their storm water design um reports and documentation but they had not done the soil testing that's required on several of the storm water basins the reason they had given earlier was that they um because those basins are in the portion of the site as contaminated soil and they were the indication again I tried to quote things from my notes and from the board minutes uh that the uh the D who also reviewed the application again this is one of those situations we have dual jurisdiction D was reviewing this because they have a stream coach room permit they were doing fil in the flood plane and they were doing activities that required D approval which they documented in which they obtained approval from De um the buau also has the obligation to review this from a St order perspective uh and determine that they're either in compliance with well we have to determin in compliance with those regulations we have no Provisions to Grant any kind of waiver from those particular Provisions so the issue at hand here was not having the soil the storm water regulations required when you're doing um stor water Bas of various types of design you have to document the presence of a seasonal High groundw condition they established certain standards for a basin the bottom of basin how much above that seasonal High Ground Water uh they need to be uh and they basically had no testing in that regard the the issue was indication was that that's s the contaminated soil part of the site and that they weren't D had told them they weren't either allowed and the app speak better either allowed or it wasn't recommended that they do that testing until they actually start remediating the site which kind of puts the board a bit of a dilemma but at some point you have to make a finding that the song water design been presented is compliant with the the S water regulations but you're lacking documentation at least in this particular regard uh in order to make that that finding what the again this is from the board's minutes we can board members might have a different recollection of what was discussed uh back in October but um the applicant's response was that they had discussions with DP and DP quote agreed uh that the storm water testing should be performed once the site mediation and cleanup work has been completed the minutes of the meeting state that the applicant was to quote provide a letter from DP and quote confirming that the soil testing cannot be performed until the cite mediation and cleanup has been completed the documentation been submitted back does not include a letter uh so we're kind of back to the situ that we we we have admittedly a lot of documentation here to review but we're lacking the one piece of the documentation that would let at least would allow prevent me from being able to tell the board that the design that's before you is compliant with those regulations probably want to do these one at a time um but that's I what I tried to summarize in the report is and what the applicator saying in their response uh what I'm reading from the board's minutes uh and what the implication of that means in terms of hearing the application um now again the waivers you granted before were temporary your conditioning and graning those waivers before was that you wouldn't start a public he if you had that information you could certainly revisit that decision tonight want to move forward in some way shape or form but with some other condition associated with that but you're that's what you're going to be dealt with this for is five items here that kind of fall in that cast so it's probably better we talk about these one at they are specific to specific issues that was um I was the one who asked for a letter and asked you to get a letter um from the DP regarding that condition was that something that you were able to get on or that that's correct we attempted we were not able to get it I mean this was based on and I can ask Mr BCI who had the direct conversations but my understanding is that we were unable to obtain written confirmation of that that was absolutely the request of the to hold off and just to put a finer point on it we do not argue at all that these seasonal high water tests need to be done uh we just believe that we can do it in conjunction with the remediation and if for some reason the Basin design would not uh work appropriately with the findings of those results we'd have to come back Don let me ask you a question the request to the DP was give us a letter stating that it's okay to wait or the testing until after we do the remediation was that the ask or was the ask um what was the ask Miss kazinski I mean should we swear in Mr pooie before because I think I I need to have him he had the direct absolutely testimon about to give his voice the whole truth yes um state your name Michael pooi and you're a licensed civil engineer and professional plan I am LIC question are we going into public hearing we haveing thank you very much so you heard that I did so my recollection was at the last completeness hearing what I said was had correspondence with d PRI to the completeness hearing actually a year and a half ago regarding this issue when D was reviewing the flood haard affir I thought I had something in writing that specifically said this but I did not find a specific wording of it what I found was correspondence back and forth on completeness issues with DP a year and a half ago and then DP finally issued the flood house area permit the flood house area permit has a specific condition in it the project is in compliance with njac 7 call 8 the St Water Management regulations so Mr clero is absolutely correct he has to certify from his perspective D has already done that dual revieww and said that the entire design of the project is compliant with those rules not withstanding that what I tried to do was then reach out to the individuals i' had been meeting with and speaking with during the process of that D flood Hazard permit and they said they will not issue such a letter D is set up where you have to apply for a permit or a permit by authorization permit by rule you have a long process to go through and there's no such process for them to just issue a letter so the fact that they issued a permit which specifically says that we are in compliance with the management rules but where so where in the permit does it say that you can wait do that testing until after remediation the stor management reports that they approved have that language in it they yes the report you provide that they have been Prov they're part of the record that has been submitted they're part of the I think it's I'm GNA say 1500 or so page well that's why I'm asking can you please provide that specific citation to Mr clero versus having you your client having to pay him forious hour what I will tell them exactly what pages it is on in that report there's the letter from the lsrp for the project site specifically saying wait until after remediation to do the testing Mr clero if he can show you that in the report will that satisfy you well again it's it's whether D said that or basically implied that by approving the project without the documentation um again they're reviewing the storm water uh reports and documentation the applicant didn't apply to the EP for approval of the stmw report they applied for permits as part of the D's review of those permits uh for filling in the flood plane the other Associated uh regulated activities they required the applicant to provide a copy of the storware uh review so it it is it is an awkward situation you have these where the burrow is under our storm water permit issued by D we're specifically obligated to make findings that what's being provided to us is compliant um when you get a situation like this was D um in in this particular case in advance um makes a find they review documentation and say what they're going to say doesn't uh you negate the Burrow's obligation to still make the same type of f so we're not in a disagreement is so we don't there's information we don't have um that again I won't be able to advise the board that what they're submitting is compliant the applicate is basically essentially saying the same thing well we're going to give that to you at some later date uh the reference here I gather is that some report or the LSR be report is a statement that they can't do this either can or won't or don't whatever whatever the wording is in there uh that they haven't done it for these various reasons uh and that's one of the documents that's of the hundreds of do dation went to D the D reviewed uh and and issued the permit for again for the for the reg regulated elements of the project so um you know the question is you know the board could I suppose do a temporary waiver to let them start to proceed my concern is that what point do we at what point in the process does the board have to as part of their finding and I believe it's part of granting the preliminary approval that the Project's in compliance um and I'm not sure how we do that I don't know how we approve it condition upon starting construction on a project to determine whether what we just approved is compliant or not I mean that's really would would we have to make it as would I'll ask the professionals would making making it a condition of approval that that had to be provided and that they wouldn't be able to move so can we put a hard stop that they at that point when they do that testing they cannot go further in our with Regulatory Compliance resolution compliance before that is received by us that's I'm thinking that's the risk we're running is it B that if we don't have it we don't we can't stop them at this point if we don't have if it's a if it's a condition of resolution if it's a resolution compliance condition and all resolution compliance conditions must be satisfied before building permits are issued does that satisfy it or do we still run the risk of having well they're going to presumably again they and I'm not in a normal circumstance an applicant is entitled to start demolition work on I understand there might be some other implication here that precluding them from doing that if that issue off for table um you know they they if they're going to start site construction work remediation here is going to invol removing buildings parking lots taking out contaminated soil it's the whole site's going to be disturbed at that point um and if you want to that make that the hard stop that they do the testing then and either prove that these Basin that they they designed presented to the board are in fact compliant that's fine if they do that testing and and determine that no they're not they're not complying they have to be redesigned I don't know what the implication of that is well the implication would be whatever language we imposed in the condition of the resolution yeah but the question I was going to ask that is in the extreme case it may end up being that it changes substantially the layouts the road rights away alignments the number of housing units like a number of those things could be impacted depending on which particular storm water piece of stormwater infrastructure for the whole site you're talking about like if you're talking about what's happening behind the Brown Street Park it's going to be different than if you're talking about what's going to happen fronting on Route 12 versus something that's happening on the western side of the property those are all going to have different my concern is that those all going to have different implications on on circulation Construction literally to the point of like it might affect how buildings need to get built one more one one or two fewer housing units triggers um our requirements under third round for affordable housing the calculation make it like all of these pieces work together and as you're saying Bob like my concern would be where we get to a point where they've done a ton of demolition CED out all the contaminated soil and then are able to do that testing and then we've got a site that is sitting half empty excavated before they have to then come back redesign and come back in to a series of hearings because it's going to affect all of the other pieces of the construction on site like that's we don't want to have my in my like is there any way we can avoid the potentiality of the things sitting half done for nine months while The Architects are working through plans and us having hearings about well let me go back and I had a conversation um earlier with the engineer um and I think we had similar conversation back in October perhaps um is is there something precluding you from doing the soil testing at this time without just you know going out Excavating doing a soil log if you removing contaminated soil deal with that as a you know as a specific contaminated soil is pring that yes no if but if you dug a soil L on your site uh and you you as part of doing a soil testing you brought up contaminated soil but you dug the hole for the purpose of doing soil testing or reading a soil log or whatever the case may be you could you could deal with that contaminated so I'm not an lsrp so I'm not going to answer thatf if you could deal with it m if you could deal with it on a mass basis when you're doing the whole site I would think you could certainly deal with it on a soil op again I'm not an lrp so I cannot answer how that will happen I can tell you I've worked on contamin sites before and they have been cleaned before testing has been done uh and to put Mr D's question at ease it's not as if the project is designed and will be totally redesigned if something is found to be different the project has a bunch of redundant design built into it all of the small scale B retention basins on the east side where the contaminated soils are have been designed with under drain so they don't need infiltration that what they do need is one foot separation to season on groundwater table as Mr CL po we have to document the season table and we're not at all trying to get around doing that in fact the lsrp in their very initial analysis of the site a long time ago as part of the due diligence years and years ago did a sort of a groundwater mounting analysis and the seasonal high was deep enough where it's not a concern to us there are two larger scale bio retention systems on the east side that could rely upon under the current design using infiltration so not only do we need a separation which is greater it's 2 feet but we also need to know infiltrative rates of the soil and if they come back poor or if the soils are contaminated and not remediated and they have to keep irating and keep blending and keep removing until they do work however as I did have a conversation with Mr claro earlier one of those two basins the Brown Street Basin which was actually done as part of helping the borrow with their flooding problem for offsite work not on the onsite that Basin can easily have under drains put in it and the one down at Route 12 with a slight bit adjustment of grading can have underdrain so the whole issue of infiltration is going to go away we can modify that Basin and therefore the only thing we have to document is of course to make sure that we do have the one foot clearance between the bottom of the Basin and C seon warranty the infiltration is not the issue because you don't have no you do not have an obligation here to do infiltration we don't have an obligation an oblation they were doing it on a couple of locations in material um and the the distinction between a basin that doesn't have the under grain one that does is the ones that don't have it have it under the criteria have to have a you have to document a twoof foot SE separation between the bottom of the Basin and whatever you determine to be the seasonal ground water with the underr that that criteria drops the one right but you still have to document right but the reason I was asking the question was and and from what I'm hearing test what you're saying is that that there might need to be a pause there might need to be some re-engineering of these systems but it you're asserting that it may not it won't necessarily substantively change the the the I don't think it'll change the layout one bit whatsoever it might lift a basin a few inches if we found a seasonal High groundwater table higher than what the preliminary testing from years ago anticipated it to be and I I mean I can't comment on the what if agree I ask I mean because I think you're going to go well I I I was just going to throt an idea yeah maybe it makes sense that the application you know assuming we get through and approval makes sense when the board perspective maybe this is a preliminary uh application preliminary approval upon final or prior to final Basit storm water uh soil testing any confirm any changes to stor Water Management plan and submit for final but what you're hearing here in the way testimony is that even under that scenario they basically have to demolish the whole site through correct if I'm wrong that's what you're saying right part the remediation here I believe demolition I'm not sure it's going to be done in phases or not I think the first phase is the southern half um well the project that's another Factor if you're looking for a phase approval you need we're not looking for p approval no I'm again so we're looking holistically here at an application that's the whole project uh and for us to dispose of that application or to adjudicate the request we have to have the documentation it says now we did it with preliminary with the condition of the preliminary that before they come back to the final before they before they do something you have to Define what that something is that they provide this testing and that testing reveals that they have to change the design but then have to come back and change Mr das's point if I can just ask this the site remediation happens on your point is good everything's open right we're open we' removed the contaminated material but the site is open how long does the soil take in type and to get the the geotechnical testing that Mr Clark when I are discussing for the amount of time maybe a week maybe that sound fair to you no I'm just what I was looking to see is how long that site would be open if you get the site get the testing done get the report the report to Mr clero as have another meeting to be able to then do what Beth said about then allow and I want to share uh a provision I want to share a provision of the Redevelopment plan uh in the section titled application for development it states no building shall be demolished prior to PR to the lot which it sits being subject to a preliminary site plan application unless required for public safet and so I just think the board should acknowledge that that they're unable to begin demol and buildings on the property prior to preliminary preliminary your proposal is that the preliminary would allow them to demolish through the site creation then start do the testing get the testing report then get that to us for the whole yeah I me given the testimony we've heard where they need to remove the improvements in order to do the testing I would be reluctant to see the improvements removed prior to preliminary I mean yet takes uh that requirement set forth in the Redevelopment plan but also I think that this is a it's a really important site for the B we want to make sure that once the buildings are taken down it is on track for redevelopment to the extent possible it seems like this bit of a pick up in that but uh given the testimony maybe it's it's necessary yeah and and just just to round it up I mean what I was what I was concerned about from a completeness perspective was not only Mr Claro's ability to review and provide feedback to the board and the board to be able to to move forward but also our ability to proceed at this point with the hearing to talk about all the other aspects of the application in front of us and what what I'm I'm happy to hear is that there may be changes to the storm water which we have to review but they're not going to necessarily change terribly all the other parts that would be presented as part of my fear was that we were gonna have to have some sort of mate it was a big waste of time and we're sitting there dealing with an open we still have that risk but their testimony is that they feel that that's like a very very small risk of that happen and that's I mean yeah so that that was my concern was that in terms of as as a completeness if we proceeded and allowed this to go for preliminary but not final would we have have to go through a whole another set of hearings with an empty abandoned site and it sounds like no that the general that everything else is mostly the inct the question the design of that those particular aspects of the infrastructure which you know makes me feel a little bit more comfortable proceeding with those conditions that that we were talking one of my concerns with the timing that we talked about a little bit I do want to raise this is if we leave the site open while we're waiting for that process to go to give final that is all open ground is open you get a big storm the run you know the ground that's open now going be wide open right they're going to have to have soil to make sure it go into the well there'll there'll be swift controls in place in the life but I think I do want to speak about timing so you know making this a condition of preliminary approval you know of a final approval I don't see how that saves us any time and reduces the period where it's open because we go out and do the testing then we have to come back and apply for final approval that to me is extending number two and this isn't really a concern for the board but I don't get funding to start the demo and I don't get funding to start the uh remediation unless I have preliminary and final s approval unappealable that's what my contract says I'm just sharing that with you as as the realities of the PX here the making it a preliminary doesn't help it what I've thrown on the table is said I cannot get a building permit to build any structures unless and until I've proven that the stormwood design works I need soil Tes need to do it befor we and what we just discussed we can't do because it doesn't help you what we just discussed then wouldn't help you because you wouldn't be able to get your Fund in if we only corre so the only answer is you you need to do the soil testing before the site radiation way we can't we can't we said we feel comfortable well no no we could what what what what I guess is the question for the professionals is that if we were to make it a condition of final as he saiding he needs preliminary Final in order to PL the work actually do the the remediation that we want to see happen y yada y subsequent test subsequent test all the rest of it if we could the applicant is suggesting that making the condition for building permanent for construction constructing improvements is that adequate is what I'm asking professionals what what risk do we open what's the risk that's what ask again under storm water regulation yourit when you grant you're supposed to be making aing what you're approving comp you feel do that as a tradition of the approval you fine the submitted a lot of information we've done a complete you know review on this read our review I think they've addressed a part of the storms except for this missing piece which is not necessarily the extent of the an implication because I don't we don't have the information that would tell us what that criteria is is it can you tell me is it an unusual thing to ask for the um soil testing to be done prior to site remediation or is the normal standard procedure to do soil remediation and then the soil testing to be honest with you I I can't recall site before that it was dealing with contaminated soils and STW management at the same time uh so I don't know that I've ever you know run across this before yes I'm just TR to determine if we're asking for Something Completely outside of normal procedure also again you have a lot of information here you have a lot of public here on this other issu you have to deal with too but uh if you if you put this in the cas temporary waer and maybe it's part of the hearing have the lsrp you know testified as to what you can and can't do maybe that would give you a better perspective Ive as to what the what the limitations are here attorney Representatives that prior to getting building permits perceive construction they would do testing well the threshold would be as I understand correct along is that they they can't do this until they do all the sight mediation which means that's demolition of all the buildings that's removal of all the pav Services that's removal of any contaminated soil you know testing hauling taking it to wherever it's got to go um whether that's replacement soil I'm not sure um and then at that point before they do anything else before they put pipe in the ground or put curbing in or get any building permits or anything of that HK uh they would then do the testing and if that resulted in some changes to the site grading the site stor order plan to site what whatever they would have to come back witho this board and presuming as for an amendment to the approval to reflect whatever those changes may be and it may very well document that they don't have to change any is that did did he get that correct is that it's it's it's close um mayor couple of things Mr pie the question was raised is it a normal procedure to do remediation de this type of soil test what's your experience I agree with Mr claro it's a rather new situation simply because DP has not enforced this level of testing until recent Star management amendments but I did have three sites around one each each other in Jersey City where the remediation was done this was just a couple years ago before we did detailed soil testing on the site and that that that was my basis of saying that in my experience we have done the testing after the ration so it's dist testing for stor purposes the stor purposes were not required there was other Tes required building design Foundation yeah that's a little different and then mayor just to answer your question more succinctly it's close but not quite my preference and what I was offering up was that I would not pull any building permits for any of the town homes or the veterans homes until we've satisfied the board's professionals that the stor M design works or come back for an amendment if necessary which we think is pretty exceedingly unlikely um but I will need to be doing site work as I do the remediation so it would be I'm suggesting building permits for any of the residential basically you need preliminary and final approval to get financing for the projects correct correct at which point you would start doing the demo and the cleanup of the current infrastructure that's there when it's all gone then you would do the testing that we're looking for correct and it would be part of the resolution that you would not receive any building permits for town homes or the apartments until our board professionals are s with the design based on what the testing comes out like or we come back for an amendment do that right B that's will that work for you Anda will it work for Cara anything will work for me I'm just saying what what I'm going to be able to tell you in the way of certifying something that if you can act on the application um with with without making that finding or making that definitive finding uh then yeah that that would work and as part of that condition I think it would also includ the applicant at the next continuing hearing to bring in your lsrp to answer any questions that we might have is anybody else on the board questions about that I think that sums it up my only question is carara you're okay with that kind of language in the resid I I am and I think that the way that the findings and the factual testimony would have to lead us to do that that the board's making that finding that's required from the engineering perspective and from the regulations perspective based upon the testimony and the testimony change they have to come back and blah blah blah but I think if we do it that way and that testimony is provided then I think everybody's covered okay I'm I'm comfortable that Comfort they're comfortable I'm comfortable you guys yeah thank you for the discussion that cover all five much easier next hearing you're GNA have an LSR your lsrp will be your the first I presume he's available next time is actually relatively simple the um the the applicant was required to file for a letter of interpretation U with d and is waiting for a response um I I believe that addresses the Sor Victor the minutes talk about the advocate obtaining the LOL I don't think that that's not that's not my recollection of the discussion I think the requirement was that they file for obviously they're showing us Wetland areas they're showing disturbances within the Wetland areas uh does your D cover any um regulated activities in wetland are sorry does your does your D permit cover is it just a flood haard permit cover it's a flood Hazard permit okay but item v in the checklist says if issued a copy of an Loi from D or letter exemption no that's true and we we left it that they had to make the application so somewhere part of this hearing again that would be a condition of any approval and again that might go to something before they could actually work that I went went to a regulated thing with the um until the LOI is issued we don't know or they don't know if there are any reg if they're working in any regulated Wetland buffers or Wetland areas uh that they might need other commits in the state and again the board under the under m l law the board can not hold up an approval pending and save permit you would make it a condition right of the of the stfe of the state and we have the we have proof of the application now just not pro with the with the condition I pointed that on because there was the discrepancy with the minutes there and again that car that would be covered with our usual bring resolutions that all extra permits have to be provided by yeah we typically will'll spell out the ones that we know of and then have the catch all language for anything that may come up otherwise okay great thank you all right the next bullet point here is items 21 and 22 this deal would be yes in electric service we did have a discussion of this back in October the current plans we have before do not show any proposal for Alle gas uh either distribution lines or service lines or anything to the homes um the again the minute the the applicant in the response uh said that this say the board agreed that if they enhance the notes about utility uh and and the engineer could speak to this it would be sufficient to address the item but the minutes of the meeting say the utilities will be provided on plans uh and if there's any material changes the location then the plans would have to be adjusted so again I'm just looking for the I basically say the board um since the board since the plans do not show the gas the board will need to clarify and decide whether this item can be given a conditional waiver uh of these items or or whether it still remains in right so this is this is details of gas and electric lines on the plant we wanted to see that where they yeah so you have a plan before you that shows very detailed streets grading storm drainage of water and SE infrastructure including uh service lines to the individual homes where you don't have any information about the underground layout of where the electric and gas lines are going to go where the ter Transformers might be where the service lines to the individual homes and more than most likely depending on how that goes in what that more than most likely would impact is your Landscaping um because they may give you a very nice Landscaping plan and then they these are very tight lots for tight in terms of narrow or whatnot if depending on where the service lines go in they may have a whole host of landscaping and stuff that they can't put in now they have to move it around or whatever so and that's I mean there could be other things that are affected but more than most likely that's the one element of the design that would be affected by now again it's something where the applicant would have to make an application to the utility company I'm sure there's there just fees that have to be paid and whatnot because the elro company the gas company does the layout and comes back to them with the layout they just Incorporated on the plan they don't design it I mean they put a concept together of where they believe it would would work but ility company actually discuss so so like the first point can we put in into the resolution a condition that when they do get the layout from the utility companies that any changes to land plan has to be brought back period yeah yeah more most likely it's land and then s right and then the Landscaping plan has to be set this one a little less this is more a risk on the applicant's part than it is on the board's part and it's unlike the storm order because when the storm order that's a greeny p permit to burrow holes and an obligation the burrow has Burl has no obligation to approve we just need to know the where they're putting it in is and and it's it's a gas and electric company it does the insallation but we can make that condition that our professional death needs to be okay you would any Landscaping adjustments or Ty adjustments just a question um when the gas and electrics are drawn can can we assume that they'll be within the driveway or will they have to be in previous areas The Catch 22 that we're dealing with here because if we were to lay them out on the plans right now the likelihood that the utility provider would look for something different is just as great as if we don't do anything they come back so the risk of changing a plan is there but we do have the ability to push back on them and say no don't put it there put it over here the driveways aren't going to be there you know when those and and for a little bit of further Comfort I guess um I interpreted our discussions in the October meeting as we would show all the existing utilities on the periphery roads that we're tying into and we would not be showing the gas and electric within the site for that exact reason no matter what I show the gas and electric company are going to do whatever they want anyway right well we understand that I think that the issue though is if we have some beautiful little landscape area that I waigh a little further and what I said and what I put into a note about the existing utilities proposal utilities not only are they underground but I put in some uh language on the plans that this is subject to the servicing utility design the servicing utility design must respect the site plans and the Landscaping plans and if they try and put something in conflict with landscaping for example a Transformer then they have to get that approved by either myself or Mr clerico and so that's another safety Factor if you will that they can't you're like the only person I know can tell utility what to do well we could try but they're not going to listen exactly so getting back to this then as the condition would be that if they do some beautiful little landscape area that our professionals need to be satisfied about where it's going to be replaced and we have no problem okay fine I'm okay with that sounds good everybody with that thank all right next one uh Fire official item 32G um we had a a report Fire official I'm not sure we had this report in hand when we did this on octob we did okay so uh we have a report in September 17th with a number of uh comments um some of the open issues that from what I read from the fire Mark fire F's letter was is location of fire lane parking restrictions uh were not shown on the plan as so where they were located um and again the minutes of the board meeting said that that those restriction but any were going to be included on the next set of plan next revised set of plans again I'm deferring back to the board um normally this is something you get when you're disc trusting the overall project I think you want to hear officially acquire official as part of this do you know where you're going to designate and stuff um but again your minutes say you were going to get it before you start to hearing again this was the board's condition so the board should decid if you're okay with it but our minutes like you said already that our minutes we didn't have that um Fire official report did we when we what we said dat in September we didn't have the will work with the Fire official and incorporate the restrictions on any um this minute any quot next revise set should we as a board should we maybe should we We we've talked about doing this before we haven't done it on many things but should we have the Fire official come give testimony to help us or will that help or or make sure it's cover a letter the letter should be I me in most cases letter are usually sufficient usually applicant ofate other right bar officials I you feel that addresses the temp W I think I think it's I think it's fine if they're agree to put all that stuff on plan and we are to all of it we understand the only fire lane is going to be at the Veteran's house everybody else okay with that too or any query I think it's part of the hearing you want to just get an update from the Fire official yes that's not you know exactly what what they're talking about if in the course you know the course of the hearings here again we're not going to finish this tonight get start um that um that the um you can get you can request the fire Marsh that's kind of yeah we could we could bring we could bring the fire and we also could have our official update issue another letter based on up plans and everything and the only the only thing I'm seeing in here that wouldn't just be addressed by way of a willly would be the turning radius for the truck right so if there could be at some point during the hearing the truck shown on the plans present you subed a circulation plan already Mr cie it so if we could get that you can tie that into TR everything else I think is covered by monthly meetings fire department has its monthly meeting and the fire marshal is here in the building we can find out when that is December it's not like asking him to come in speci yeah I think for this size of I think newad um all right last one is um I'm further back in reviewing the architectural plans I didn't there was one one set of drawings that didn't have um what was the reest of information bedroom breakdown and average size I'm just I just pointing it out I think it was the might have been the sure the 101 whatever that is we look into this the information actually is there but in your defense it's very hard to find I looked at the architectural plans for those the town homes and the average size is listed in a tiny Corner box on the front sheet as 1940 square feet for each unit plus or minus you can go uh minus 17 or plus 33 square feet with some different options for Bay and bow window type things this is she with the invisible L very later on in the plans much later on I I only mentioned it we didn't see it and right is it on every architectural plan you said just a specific one can you quote it's on the architectural plans prepared by uh for the town homes it's called the um the lafet and um so it is on there it was just and there there was a discrepancy or question I originally was informed there were going to be 55 two-bedrooms and 56 three bedrooms they're actually all going to be three bedrooms there's a two-bedroom option that they don't want to exercise so all the town homes will be all the mark Town Homes will be those and that changes the parking counts to exactly what you have in your letter later on which we agree with and we still comply that's a lot uh on the condition regarding the uh the additional AFF of housing information I'm comfortable with the application moving forward with that item being somewhat open difficult to find but um and I say that because in my memo I have have a handful of additional questions regarding affordable housing my recommendation is that that series of questions just be answered in an updated submission in the future and I think you can handle all so for example IID ask for where are the locations of the affordable Town Homes I'd ask for verification of those requirements which is part of what Bob is referencing I think that an updated submission that identifies the location and just provides the area of the affordable units the bedroom sizes and all those various items uh should be submitted throughout the course of this project and so I I would recommend I'm not trying to give architecture test I'm just saying the only reason I ask the question was if we have drawing numbers that we can reference in in today and we say it's drawing numbers whatever it is 6 to 22 something right um then we could we could put that in a minute to which joins is that yeah yeah I do want to but I have to say I just my my bigger point was yes to completeness on this item but also just FYI let's put our uh got our eyes and cross our teeth on the affordable housing looking through the applie to beat up with the ARs just so just so I understand because you know apparently we are not wrapping this application by by any chance tonight and we will be coming back we want to address your concerns but um do do they really need I mean it's in the plan that we have to disperse them throughout the community and I think it's 25% the maxim is what plan says why are you looking for specifics now when we might have you know again we have a third party partner as you well know who's going to be building the town homes they could have a customer who says I want this unit on this corner and if we've now identified that to you ahead of time then we would not be able to sell them that unit on that corner when it would make just as much sense to put the affordable on the left side and allow the the you know market rate customer to have their selection so I I I understand that you need to know but we are going to agree to comply with the plan and all color regulations I don't understand why I need to show you where they're going to be right now when would they otherwise be provided be a condition of approval for because it doesn't sound like it can be resolution compliance right I'm just trying to maintain the greatest degree of flexibility and I I I'm hearing you now and I don't know that I know you know I'm happy to think of alternative ways to get I'm GNA shut up now we have a plan great wow all right so we we're satisfied with what we're GNA go forward with on that okay is everybody else satisfied with that thank you is that all of the so do we have to deem it complete again but here's what we do um we do have to do a complete again and here's the action that I'm hearing the world would like to take we are going to uh confirm that items V 33g and 33h have been provided and we are going to wave items p and 23 21 and 22 and 23g 32G sorry my in 32G um and the applicant is represented that they will get a revised letter during the hearing with regard to the fire department and approving that turning radius um we also discussed some conditions that would be imposed um that would uh satisfy the board's concerns and allow the board to wave those items for completeness purposes and pursue to the hearing okay so we're going to like Mr yes Mr yes mayor Carol yes Council masaro yes Miss Giffin yes Miss whitesman yes swingle yes Mr Echo no yes yes all right that being said BL night to open the public hearing for HBC Liberty Village urban renewal LLC um 20249 Liberty Village outall I'm not going to read what numbers all um for prelimin and final major site plan and subdivision okay so um before we start I think there's two issues that we just want to address and put on the record for the board um there were some questions uh in the latest report um that Bob has uh dated November 23rd I'll ultimately Mark all these as exhibits um but there was a question concerning the incorporation of lots 29 and 32 in the application um Bob I'll let you identify what your questions are but I think the applicant has a response to those questions uh that will uh address the issue somewhere in my report if we find it right now P there are um the the application is defined by several properties and I went through all this in my first part of my report about the subdivision of the properties and what's going on on the various components of the prop along long Sangle Road um to the north of what is defined as the application property I believe that's Lot 29 there are some additional I'm sorry that's 32 than uh there's some improvements that extend beyond the limit of the property they go into the adjoining property um the app can speak to ownership that they're listed in the on joining owners list is under a different Corporation than what this application I believe the applicant probably has controlling interest in that it's a different piece of property it's not a piece of property that's been defined the improvements are not on a piece of property that are defined by this particular application was shown the plan clearly shows the property line it clearly shows the Improvement go beyond the property line and again I'll the F back to Care on this but I believe that might go to issue of notice because notice I understand is given to what's defined as the property here the joining properties something a little and what goes on to the north on about um 32 yeah 32 32 North uh what goes on to is relatively um somewhat inconsequential but nevertheless it's improvements are go be on the property what's going on to the south on stangle road is actually a relocation of stangle Road and a parking area um they're essentially taking what was now the alignment of Sangle Road uh and moving it over to align with the road alignment they have as part of their their property and readjusting the parking that's a little bit more substantial uh again it's documented on the plan we can see what it is but it's on a piece of property that's not defined as part of this application is what's what's before you and B I think it's also I'm sorry just as I look at the plan while you speak I think it's also lot 72.0 which is uh through the east of lot 32 well yeah there's there's another question I raised in here about the um the status of Sangle Road um it's I I believe from reviewing other applications that stangle road actually has a dedicated public right away and according to the U the surveys have been submitted as part of this application uh it follows the alignment of Sangle Road right through this particular property uh that's and nothing else a condition of any action planning where we take is that if it hasn't been already taken care of in the in the developers the redevelopers agreement um that the B bur is going have to vacate rights in a public road to Sue this property and then the question is going to be do are we asking them to reestablish those rights as part of um the um where they're realigning staying over through the property so I that's more of a not unimportant not just talking about irrespective of right away irrespective of anything else there physically improvements that are required in order to approve the site plan that are on properties that are not part of the site and the reason we're bringing this up now before we start is we just want to make sure that notice was proper and that we did 200 feet around all of the properties that were incorporated into the application and that improvements are being constructed on that would cover these Lots the 200 would cover the I'm going to turn it over to um yeah so just a little bit of background on the realignment of stangle road we were asked to do that our original plan followed the original Contours we were asked to straighten it out and we're happy to do that the overlap onto Lots 29 and 32 is really grading um I'm sorry it's grading so it's a hold over from an earlier plan we are prepared to represent to the board that we will not be performing any work outside of a public right of way L 29 or 32 we can revise the design to eliminate the grading on those lots just not not toat the point with this is actually a re it's a realignment as you say you're realigning slle road so it's not just grading you're actually changing the alignment of the road uh and Grading is part of it but you're actually changing realigning the road on the ado property I I I will but we were talking about the work that's outside of the right away on another person's property and that's only limited to grading so you know the S roadway line right doing regrading as well as crosswalks and some additionally sidewalking as well in the north what you were just the north you were just speaking of is within now to go to Mr CL goes point to Sangle road is a mess and I it's a mess in terms of ownership because only a portion of it is actually legally a RightWay a lot of it is still in easements that are RightWay easements and dedicated right away and or eil and what we want to do is clean this all up and actually make it a nice clean whether it's right away even however you would like it they would certainly do it but the road itself today does have that curve and a T intersection to the right then another turn to the left and that's where the legal description of the property is and we're trying to straighten it out had for what was requested by the mayor and yeah May the governing body requested so we want to do exactly what you're asking and to effectuate that there are some easements that are on the property below that Lot 29 a combination of RightWay easements and two different RightWay easements one crazy 20 foot wide one that goes for nowhere there's another sanitary Sur regon so what we were saying was this is the realignment but the realignment Falls not on private property but in within easement area so we felt that we would deal with the grading issue we will certainly meet the grade at the edge of our property and not do any grading offsite and that portion of realignment where it does start to the left we tweaking it to the right to continue straight North would fall within the easement areas as we see them today so that we're not working on private property we're working with in eement areas which may or may not be considered rights of away depending upon whether you read all of the the booking pages of all the ements that we have found going over stangle road all the way from 12 up to beyond the 7201 between the uh the brewery and The Distillery as to the north side what um just said was that going to stay within the right away so we're not going to do any work on the private property of lot 32 which I believe is the brewery property we're only going to be staying from the brewery properties little curve cut where the parking is sou and staying within the rway there no work as that's just pointed out there is a crosswalk and that's within the RightWay and then there's a a contour that parallels the right away fold within the RightWay so there absolutely no work on 7201 which is the property of The Distillery I mean all I can say is that from a public notice perspective we need to notice within 200 feet of any property that's involved in the application itself itself um and if there's an easement on thej property then that would incorporate that lot into the application because there's work being performed within the movement area um we have a list of we do we absolutely do um as far as the location of the work I think Bob and Beth are going to have to kind of oind us to that I I once we figure out that that's accurate then I can notice required in the Lots but I I think I need to understand compare the notice Maps as it were we laid the notices out on a map what notices were given for what loss and then where the work is and make sure that there's no work outside of the notice I think what we've identified as the potential box that weren't included the 29 32 And1 The explanations that they're not included for the reasons given um I think we need to evaluate yes I think I'm hearing that they said going to change the nature of the work so they wouldn't provide the same level of work because of this correct that is exactly what I'm hearing I did hear e reference I just want to make sure that there's no work in there's no work in in easement on one of those properties that's the only other concern that I would I'm I'm sure as part of the hearing process we can straighten out where e are aren't how they're going to get relocated how they going be dedicated and whatnot I think the discussion at the moment goes through notice whether that's improvements on a property that was not incorporated as part of the the application and notice it's pretty it relatively clear if you look at the subdivision plan as to where these existing things are it's not at all clear when you look at the site plan because site plan just does it shows physical stuff it doesn't show the e um and I can't sit here and dispute with app engineer just said looking on here I see some easements that that are in there what they are who has rights in them what we're working with the eement that already dedicated to the B for Road purposes uh and then they're just moving things around within those easements those are those are clearly easements that are on other properties clearly easements that well they're being represented clearly as E when the burrow has certain rights Public Access rights probably ownership probably maintenance probably a whole lot of other stuff we're going to have to deal with that as not only as what's offsite but what they're proposing on site but that's something we're going to do is part and parel of the hearing what we're really talking about is whether are here um we have jurisdiction because of a notice that's that's really I guess what we're talking about so I I think I go back to my original question do you agree that there based upon the representations made that there is no work being done on those properties that were not included in the application or any easements on those properties well there is work being done on those properties on those properties whether it falls within an existing easement or not I can't tell okay so that's even because what what I had heard was what chair had heard which was that they were no longer going to be making improvements on those areas so assuming that's the case does that change your I I would say that the case of Lot 29 that's somewhat impossible to put there they're moving Sangle Road I I you're not going have Sangle Road end in the back of the town umre so there's some physical the one the one up to the north on lot um 31 or 32 or S 20 whatever lot falls on again a lot Lin a little unclear particular here um and whether those are I believe those are actually public rights white easement so um but they're on you know other properties um so there's improvements going on let's say take to the north there maybe it's on lot 32 or maybe it's on Lot 21 or maybe it's it's hard to tell where the lot lines are but they're they're adding some additional improvements and doing some gradings of an existing road that even though it's not clearly represented on the plan I believe is is actually in was dedicated to bur it's actually a bur Road at that point but it's on a different point of property the on of the the on the sou 29 is is much clearer there actually a public being represented a public road here is being realigned I mean physically over question mentioned so properties were noticed and proper within 200 Fe of those properties but now if we're worried about some was me but you're say did you say that they were within that 200 ft my question is we would if they should have been noticed with the 200t G so the way that the 200 fet notice is determined is you take all the properties that are being subject to the application or Improvement a 200 foot radius is drawn around all of those properties so even if there were improvements on one of these three lots that was included in the notice the question we would to see is if there are in fact improvements on those properties did the 200t radius is that drawn around those properties as well and the that question it does and I think for the difficulty for people understanding what we're talking about tell me if this is what we're talking about is if we didn't notice the correct area properly we cannot continue in the human until that's done that that is correct and that's what we're try that's why we're trying to make sure go ahead and it turns out that we did not notice correctly correct anything we do is n and void we have to start gu correct and that's why really technical but it could really throw it out for the applicant and for the town right and that's why we're trying to determine what lots are actually having Improvement on so so let me ask the question about 7201 if I could so um it looks as if if if 7201 which is because 7201 is a larger lot you're what you're telling us is that if there's something that's happening at the South corner of 7201 the 200 foot buffer is 200 feet from the entirety of that parcel right so 7201 goes all the way North 100 feet or to the other side of that building over there so there so I think that the issue that we're we're really that would in my mind indicate that if anything is happening on 7201 it's not going to be captured by existing notice because it is so it's at the extreme end of of where the property is 29 is different I think because of what we're of of of of it's adjacent and there's an easement and it would have been captured by existing notice anyway it's the I think it's the North End stuff that we're running into the problem 32 got noticed because of 31 right and then the North End of 32 isn't that far north to suggest that 21 wasn't also noticed right I think that that's probably okay I'm I'm worried about 7201 because it's a long M kazinski do you agree that you do not notice from public rights of way even though the right of way cross is overlock 72.1 you do notice from offsite eans but you do not notice from public right way our work is within the public that I would agree our work on 72.0 one is within the and I tend I think you're absolutely correct except your plan say it's app Road I think your plan is incorrect as I said there's a lot of confli information say from recol that's my recollection that we feel we're probably noticed on that side on the on the other side though on the South Side on lot 29320 and on Lot 29 is where we're actually moving stangle whether stangle roads are private right away or public right away in that area we're physically moving over on another P of the property there there's another 20 foot right away something does that count both so your test Tony is that it's within a right way but it's an easement it's a sewer it doesn't matter it doesn't matter actually I don't think it matters I get carried away but I don't think it matters because it's the buau has rights in in that space and the argument backing on your rights right The Bu has rights in to for things to happen there so the notice issue is not is not a problem because you don't have to as we just establish notice for rights and our concern here is the Noti in I'm also hearing the things that the rights we've going to reincorporate things is that something inate that's that's that's separate issue this is just okay sure I'm gonna let them look sure well the list does have to be certified by the tax assessor but he only certifies given right so if2 and 7201 were not on the list tax would not be able to the credit cover law I think that I think that 32 is covered because 31 31 and 200 foot I don't I don't think we're going to run into problem I think 7201 is the only that's right but that's right away then it doesn't change who needs to get noticed but they said they were going to change what they did to make sure it catch within a certain zone I'm worried that we're going to my point is we're going to make sure that we stay within the right of way all right but that's not going to cause us a problem with grade in or a crazy grade there was a crazy in the past when the road had the curve and extra town houses between the road and the tracks the realignment that the mayor and the administration asked for away theing doesn't need to go that far us yes we take minute YCA I don't have thank you very much um a lot of discussions happened in that break I think we need to capture we need to capture what we said or what we're doing do we yeah can we can you capture it for me please and so there's been some discussion as as we heard with regard to uh the potential for improvements grading relocation let's just say work done in connection with the application on lots 2932 and 7 2.01 so out of an abundance of caution um the applicant and correct me if I'm wrong um has represented that they will obtain a 200 foot list notice as necessary and revised from what they currently have that incorporates those three lots the notice will be sent out with the next meeting date of December 10th um as the date there will be there will not so everyone here and on on um the uh on Zoom there will not be new notice to the people that have already been noticed that are here tonight there will also not be new publication there will just be notied to those additional Property Owners if any around those three lots um meeting will be carried to December 10th uh same time same place and like I said no additional notice other than what's from that's my understanding okay that's my request okay thank you and uh we will therefore put you on the agenda for 10 thank you I'll allow a few minutes if people want to leave before we move on the rest of our agenda Happy Thanksgiving every Happy Thanksgiving to everybody anybody question that I resolve for you day all right I'm gonna move to chair items and as people are moving quite quietly thinking another the time um so the only item I've got on here which is correct is next meeting is December 10 um as noticed on the agenda we already have completely send public hearing for hunted and tea house that if you remember is an additional um to the original site plan so it should be quite quick and then now we have the continuance of this meeting get assuming that the notices that might or might not be needed are done correctly and then we will start the public hearing proper on that date okay I don't have any other things in chair items for today does anybody have anything they want to raise um just just a point of clarification um for item number eight it said it continued from 1022 1022 was cancelled the meeting so does that just means that it seems they continue it from that date that was the original date and they chose to continue it to this date to happen wasn't it that's the hcdc they asked for it but the meeting was cancelled so there was no discussion on that dat I just wanted to clarify if if that if it just simply means that it was continued from the agenda or that we it seemed to imply that we actually had discussion about that on the 22nd no it was for the notice because they and there was a notice put on when that meeting was canceled there was a notice put on the the website and on the the door that that meeting was going to be canceled it was to preserve their notice of hearing gotcha okay thank you re notice for that all right I understand now so no yeah there was no discussion it's simple similar to tonight basically there was no discussion no no public hearing was open okay one quick thing on share because I forgot to write it down what's I know we noticed this last year what's the date of the reorg we have yet oh no we have the reorg meeting it's for it's the 14th I just wanted to double check to make sure it's on our regular schedule of the second Tuesday alen pulled together a list of dates which she's still getting checked from Carla because counc and and when we have that we'll bring it to one of the next two meetings for discussion no you get end of the year I think so I that up remember we haven't heard did they pay the they are up to date on esro now there is a a small balance of about I would say about $800 um it's not going to be much for you know if anybody yes they but you've had no we've had no we' had no correspondence [Music] um bills no bills I thought I was hoping I so there were no bills thank you do we need I need to go into executive session excellent all right Sor [Music] toour all in favor thank you very much everybody thanksgiv Happy Thanksgiving thank you