##VIDEO ID:AFb7vLyEySI## e green light yep we're good and we got picture now we don't green light look like we're looks like we're good we got a picture we have two we have two seats wait around that was a good conversation yest yeah yeah that was a good conversation I he's he's very and yeah it's uh he does a nice analysis and like right on the money well yeah it's good that we know that what we gotta do we got do one of the critical milest January 31st firmly send back inting is that FL yeah doing all right sir all right good evening folks and W welcome to the um to the planning board meeting of Wednesday December 11th at 7:30 and at this time um I would ask that uh your cell phones are either silenced or shut down um and we'll open this meeting up uh pursuant to the open public meetings law this is the state for the record that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the public by publication in Union County HW on December 21st 2023 and by posting on the bough website and filming of said notice in the office of the municipal clerk filing of said notice in the office of municipal clerk the zoom Access Link for viewing purposes is posted on the board website this is a regular scheduled meeting of the board at this time can I have a moment of silence and a flute I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the repblic for which it stands one nation under thank you than oh yeah okay we'll just wait for a moment hold mayor blumenstock here Mr capoano here councilwoman salmon is excused chair greet here miss vagio here Mr Barkin Mr nearad here Mr McCormick is excused Miss biano Miss hay here and Mr buers is excused okay um if everyone has had an opportunity to read the minutes of our prior meeting um do I November 13th uh do I hear a motion I make a motion second second all those in favor I opposed hearing none motion carries and before we open up the uh the meeting for further discussion on some ordinances and then go into um into our um fourth round affordable housing um scenario I would just like to uh take a moment to thank um Kim salmon and Ken kabano for their uh their service on on the planning board and um and they they're very good service actually uh and um we appreciate all all that you've you provided for us and uh thank you thank you very much and I hope uh hope you have a wonderful holiday as we all probably move along the way so I just want to say sorry just wanted to say thank you to councilwoman Salon I know she's not here tonight but uh for her work and Ken thank you for the years of work that you put in for the planning board and done some some great things up here thank you thank you okay with that um we'll move into the zoning amendments as recommended by the master plan reexamination and also resoning amendments to require plot plans for an increase in impervious surface coverage by 400 400 square feet and a requirement for grading and drainage plans when there is an increase of a th000 square feed and with that I'm going to turn it over to Gabe of haror consultants and he can give us a little rundown on some of these ordinances that were handed out to each one thank you Mr chairman um first of all does everyone have uh the ordinances okay all right so good evening um there's two documents I'm going to go over um this in terms of proposed amendments to the zoning uh ordinance uh the first document um is the B gwood ordinance number it's it's related to recommendations from the master plan reexamination that was prepared and adopted by the planning board in 2023 uh there was three recommendations outlined in the master plan that uh recommended amendments to the zoning ordinance and these are reflected in this proposed proposed amendments uh the first one is there was an industrial commercial District zone that even though it was in the zoning district there was never actual an area zone for this so it was always in the zoning orang but never really applied so it was I'm not really sure how it got there but it it's not applicable so the recommendation was to remove that to make sure there's no uh confusion uh with a zoning District that doesn't apply to any property uh so the first amendment is to remove that entirety it's uh section 10697 and that would be completely uh stried from The Zone urance and removed uh so that was the first recommendation uh the second amendment that would need to be made is since this is section 10697 which is what's going to be removed there's going to have to be ruming of the other ordinances so that will have to be reflected uh since we're removing that section so you're going to have to re uh renumber the other uh ordinance numbers within that chapter to reflect that 10697 is no longer there uh the third amendment uh as recommended from the m plan this is related to the two family residential Zone the RB zone so as permitted a as now the only two family permitted are two families that are on top of each other where they are uh unpierced by ceilings so that's the way it's reframing when there's one family on the below and then one family above but it was recommended and there I've seen some applications here as well for two families when they're side by side and that was not permitted in the zoning ordinance so what we would do is to make that permitted uh we make SE uh unpierced by wall so two family dwellings are permitted when the dwellings are separated by unpierced ceilings walls and floors so therefore side by side since it's separated by a wall would be permitted so that was a recommendation and master plan uh the last recommendation from the master plan that's reflected in this is to permit ground floor offices in the business district um in the general business district offices are permitted on the ground floor already so there's no restriction the only restriction was related to the central business district where it says that professional offices are permitted when locate by when located or find this chapter when located on Upper Floor of a structure so by removing that when located on Upper Floor of a structure that would therefore permit offices on the ground floor in the central business district which I think is appropriate uh considering changing nature of business own's business uses and you retail being supplemented by office uses as well so I think it's appropriate and I think that's uh will be reflected in this so I I think um those were the recommendations for the master plan so that was the first document the second document want to go yeah you know I know bill has a couple questions on the on both documents so maybe we'll do a document by document okay thank you thank you Mr chairman yeah Gabe really just one it's just a a grammar and it's partially the existing ordinance uh 106-93 to two family residential Zone uh B2 I think it should read two family dwelling units DW you're gonna have to move your mic closer I can't hear uh let's see I do well there Mr chairman all right the second the third amendment to chapter 106 uh 106-93 two family residential Zone B2 uh reads two family dwelling units when a dwelling units are separated by on peer ceilings walls and Floors I think we should change it to walls or floors doesn't have to be walls and Floors uh and and believe it or not that's it Mr chairman than those perhaps be I'm not joking Endor Endor I also have thought of Endor yeah Endor is fine too thank you done I com uh yes okay just maybe to make it simpler because I don't know what Reliance there's been on the numbering system but you might consider uh Steve I'm gonna ask you to do the same thing with build it move it closer thank you just saying um section 106-97 has been deleted other words leave a number in there and then you don't have to remember everything SE I was thinking about that I mean it in just in rather than Reber just delete it and then in its entirety yeah no but my experience I agree with Mr Barkin on that you I typically would see when you then later look at the code they'll say section 97 has the word after it delete it and you leave the numbers which then later in life if somebody is talking about some section and referencing it nobody has to then figure out what did it used to number and I'll ask two attorneys I mean I've seen deleted I've seen reserved does it matter well it was this was deleted this is deleted okay yeah Reserve means means for future right for future yeah which it could be that would that would make it easier I'm I would just make it Del leet page the number okay good anybody else okay you want to carry on with the next one okay the next one is stem from Victor um his role as a zoning officer this in terms of not being provided the proper documentation information to help assist and guide in making some of the zoning decisions which then stems also in the construction department and in construction role and so these were suggested in collaboration from the beginnings of of Victor uh and so I added certain uh verbiage to uh 106 D20 and just kind of a background and you'll you'll me you'll see that their structure is defined is is is mentioned throughout these these two sections these three amendments that I'm I'm going to propose but just for clarification what is a structure per the zoning earance a structure is an object consisting of a combination of materials which is constructed erected or placed below upon or above ground level and shall include any building edifice construction or piece of work or any part thereof or any can combination of related Parts including an object attached th too for occupancy use or ornation a ground surface designed and constructed manner to be utilized for the park and constructed matter to be Iz for the parking a motor vehicle is not considered structure so when I first saw a structure you you think you think of a building you think you think of as long as the line that but way the definition is defined that a p is considered a structure uh so uh adding pavers is considered a structure per uh the Burrow's uh zoning ordinance so that had some clarification when I helped do these amendments for for the zonings so 10620 is this is in terms of what building permits required and what it does say is that no structure or part thereof shall be erected raise move extended enlarge alter or demolish and no land shall be altered filled or used unless and until a permit has granted by the construction official so that includes pavers buildings anything related that's fine as a structure uh where the proposed structure is either a new structure or in addition to an existing structure the applicant sh submit applications as required by the uniform construction code as well as three sets of plot plans to the construction official however in this case if there was nonstructured uh improvements such as Asel as all parking areas a plot plan wasn't required so now we're making the proposal is to make a required for a plot plan where there's non-structure improvements that exceed 400 square feet and then three sets of these plot plans should be submitted to uh submit it to the zoning official and the construction construction official who they'll refer it to the zoning official and then also I added uh more additional requirements what a plot plan entails and what the required in including existing structures proposed structures improvements existing impervious coverage proposed non-structure improvements and just to provide a little more clarity on what these plot plans have to show in order to make a better determination by the construction official and Zoning official uh so so as written now if there's any changes to a structure a plot plan is required uh I don't know how enforced that is I know sometimes I've seen plot PL submitted for zoning uh applications for for paver sometimes it hasn't but we want to make it Clarity that even though structur or non-structure uh if it's why more than 400 square feet a plot plan has to be submitted and shown with with what they're proposing uh what the existing conditions on site and show the information necessary to make a decision so that is the first uh proposed amendment that's for 10620 uh section A the next one is 10620 C so as it's written right now no building permit shall be issued for Direction moving extending enlarging or altering of any structure or any part including a single two family dwelling unless until the grading drainage has been reviewed and approved by the burrow engineer so this provides requirements that the the grading and drainage has to be approved and has to be provided for any any change in structure that's the way that the ordinance is written uh but we also want to make Clarity that that rating and drainage will also be required if the the suggestion is for non-structure improvements exceeding 1,000 square square feet of in prvious coverage so that was the re that's the recommendations that grading and drainage is uh required for for non-structure prvious impr improvements for 1,000 square feet and then also I want to Clarity that there's major uh uh uh major storm water Control Act major development that is for one acre or more so it's 1,000 square ft up to the threshold of major storm water uh requirements uh but rating and drainage is required for any change in structure uh on the property and as well as written as of now th square feet of non-structure improvements also what's deleted is there was section that such review should not be requireed for the extension enlargement or alteration of a single or true family dwelling unit when such construction would not increase the lock coverage of existing structure by more than 20% I think we have to say that any improvements no matter what type of use where it is has to apply for these requirements um even if it's a single family or two family you we need to know the drainage we need to know that there's not going to be impact the surrounding Property Owners uh so I think that it should apply for all uses uh in in Garwood um and associated with that too uh there needs to be application fees and escrow fees for these plot plans and Grading and drainage uh so the recommendation for the fee structure is for a plot plan uh for res and non-residential uh structures uh improvements they require site plan so this only applies for the residential so plot plan uh what's being proposed application fee is $100 uh escrow fee for500 and for grading drainage it's $200 and escro fee of $1,000 uh so I think with these proposed amendments provide applicants going for permits have to provide additional information information that can help provide the necessary Decisions by by by uh the Professionals of the buau uh and I think this will help uh guide and protect the the burrow by having these additional requirements um for uh for requirements submitted question yes go ahead um engineer all right on the second page like on top it's approved by the a burrow engineer now I do understand that the burrow engineer not not the planing board engineer move your mic um not the planning board engineer but the burrow engineer um I think it's uh his responsibility for the uh the the uh the the uh the uh warm water control storm water control I think um so would that be so if a resident needs to submit this plot plan plot and that would be that would be uh reviewed by the Barrow engineer and not the zoning official That's the Way It Was Written in the ordinance that that the burough engineer would would review it that's the way that it's currently written so I didn't change that all right whose responsibility is a write down for that for like if we didn't say if this was a major development okay um who would review the storm water control part of it like I know there's you know like a 15 page like whatever um ordinance with regards to uh a storm water um um as per state um he's not proposing to change it he's still continuing bar engineer it says BR engineer now and he's not proposing to change what does it say I know but your question is who's you're asking application nobody no an application before the board we review the storm water yeah you review it okay an application like myself with an addition right like I I just did an addition but it didn't like like impede um like um it's outside my uh structure so if I had to do it where would that go where did my plot plant plot PL the plot plan goes to the construction official and then the conru it to the zoning official and then would you send it to the burrow engineer that that that would be the construction official to it be respons so we need some definitive Kathy I agree 100% with this ordinance at all I just need some defin something definitive K we're on the same page I agree with everything you said I think it's easily resolved get the bur engineer out of there and put change change the current ordinance to read for engineer okay because we had this discussion about five years number times six six years ago where it did say barel engineer but it should be board engineer and so that's a basically it's a simple change that can be made I I this in terms of efficiency I think that is a good is a very good recommendation it does go to him go so it's one less I just I just didn't well under the municipal you have to speak into the mark because nobody can hear you is better yeah the planning board can't review PL for one and two family houses so why are we getting the board engineer involved for those that's a problem I think I really belongs I don't think it's necessarily the construction official or the Zone officer this is a technical review to address what I guess is a is a drainage a drainage issue yeah impact so it seems to me that the that the town that the burrow engineer should review it because it's not coming here um it can't come here under the understanding it already goes to right the borrow Planner yeah it does a zoning official I understand what you're saying but you know Kathy was alluding to uh something earlier and she's 100% correct you know we decided years ago that um the engineer burough engineer public RightWay yes correct anything going on public right B engineer individual property individual site board planner and Steve I understand what you're saying is right also that typically you would say well why is it going to the board and J if the board itself is not involved these are all I know we I'm going to get have to use exact words these these are not all site plans but these are all individual property plans that should go to the planner I'm sorry should go to the board engineer because the burrow engineer has not been involved in site planning in this burrow for years and I'll be honest I'll be very upfront I don't think the the burrow engineer has reviewed a grading plan on a piece of property in in years and that's what we're trying to address right I I I I know what Steve is saying but I think you should go to the board and I I agree I think that's the way to go and I but it's not coming to the board no no it's not coming to the board we're just we're just saying board engineer because board engineer means uh land use right um it's it's not a L's question it's a technical engineering design question it's no different than like when I submit an application doesn't go to the zoning off but nothing goes to the burough engineer right now Steve nothing unless it's in the public right away everything on an individual privately owned piece of property goes to the board planner I understand what you're saying believe me I truly do but I think we're only going to muddle up the works and I think and I and I think yeah for for clarity purposes I think I think both Steve and Kathy are are correct I'm not saying on a technicality basis that that may be not correct bage but I think from a from a logical standpoint and to ensure that things flow the way they should flow well I think it should go to the board planner that would then yeah I think one thing we have to we should be making the distinction not using the term board planner we why don't we use the term board engineer and I would even be more clear I would say planning board engineer so we know exactly what we're saying but why are you doing that I understand I understand completely the concern you're articulating I think on a technical legal manner yeah your position is correct but there's a real world thing that's happening in Garwood that for whatever reason it's probably just not for years it's probably for decades but in the real world the burrow engineer hasn't been doing this and doesn't apparently do this and to the extent anybody does it it has been the board engineer so the purpose of this as I understand it is just to make sure that somebody's doing it yes and again I think if one wanted to get down to the Precision level of what you're talking about I think you're right um is it the same person no no but that I think is the the issue in Garwood we have everybody is part-time and you have so it makes it very difficult and you're adding a person to the process then if you make it the B engineer and that's gonna I mean it's you know these things already take time you're gonna I just think it becomes another layer of bureaucracy for the residents and I think there is something in the land use um Hudson engineer um there's a definition there are definitions I think we did of board engineer responsibilities versus burrow um engineer because I worked on that I do recall that it's in an ordinance um yeah it's it should be under definitions because that was a that was a yeah no I just because of what you said we very it's it's we're very sometimes different than other municipalities because of our size and the way we allocate different jobs in our town because of that right um I'll read the definition in the code uh bur engineer as used in this chapter and I'm sorry I'm reading well I'm reading from the definitions of the of the code as used in this chapter the term bur engineer shall mean with respect to all application for the planning board the board engineer that is the engineer pointed by the planning board burrow engineer shall also mean the board engineer with respect to all onsite I'm sorry I'm reading this wrong yeah I apologize let me start over too many bees and everything else as used in this chapter the term burrow engineer shall mean with respect to all applications before the planning board the board engineer that is the engineer appointed by the planning board burrow engineer shall also mean the board engineer with respect to all on-site inspections and approvals of projects which have been approved by the planning board bur engineer shall mean the municipal engineer I'm reading it but that's wrong I'm reading it because I caught myself thinking it's wrong it's the definition if anybody else has the code I mean you look at this definition appears to be wrong um because on to say bur engineer should mean a municipal engineer pursuant engineer essay Etc with respect to any inspection and approval of any offsite improvements including but not limited to improvements in a public RightWay or any of the duties ad Min Engineers prescribe at a New Jersey statute so I'm sorry what we're saying is what we wanted but this code is still wrong when was it when was it should have said board engineer you don't have the code nobody else has the code I don't have okay can you look at that because I believe what we want is the board engineer to do everything related to individual applications and the engineer is Right any inspection approv of off-site improvements including but not limited to improvements of the public right away or any of the duties yeah look at the definition it's uh you know obviously alphabetical within 106 print that book [Laughter] out well you know what that's a good question it's a good question uh that will check me uh uh let's see 106 D4 okay Gabe you might want to check that out I'm actually reading for the most current one so 106 D4 you know alphabetical pero engineer yeah but I want to agree with Kathy I have a vague recollection yeah that we did this yeah yeah like 10 or ago that we've had this discussion yeah um that bill what you were saying before was correct that the uh conclusion of that discussion still was Burrow engineer for individual properties planning board engineer for individual properties burrow engineer for anything out in the uh offsite or out in the RightWay or anything like that and that the definitional section was clarified to basically cover the point that you're raising and I just wonder if the copy of the code that you're reading might have predated that because we did agreed you know in the past 1976 but maybe like 10 12 years ago we did this I agree so just might want to double check but so the bottom line here is what we're saying is we just we just definition right 106-c um where Gabe is changing to bur engineer should be the board engineer board engineer okay that's why they call a direct board engineer or even better plan board engineer what was that a 106 what 106 D4 that was the original Edie just wrri right that's correct correct the second one that we're changing is the 106 D6 uh d c right you're correct correct like I know C's looking up should I just continue or who's on who's got the floor you have that clear yeah I'm wrri down I have a different question or point and Bill you'll love it because it's grammar in the change to 10628 where it says three sets of the PO plot plan is to be submitted you need subject verb agreement it's three sets it would be art to be submitted but I would actually change it to 37 part plan shall be submitted but you need subject verb agreement between plan and is I mean sets and is which would be sets and or shall be submitted okay yep yep y this was this one was the right one because if you read it again is it corrected no it's it's but if you read it it it it basically means what we wanted to me okay because it does say you know I know because it does say that the burrow engineer shall mean the the municipal engineer pursuant to njsa 49-14 with respect to any um inspection and approval of any off offsite improvements including not Lim to improvements in the public right away or other duties of the municipal engineer has prescribed by New Jersey statutes but in the first part of it that was just so like anything under 106 went to the burrow went to the board engineer basically so there was no question coverage is yeah just in case like we missed something back then okay we're good we do have clarification on that right okay yeah right Steve did you have the floor oh I'm sorry I didn't mean to interrupt figed who was going you want to go you go I just have a quick uh the mic we can't here okay I have a question on the definition of structure if I was not sitting in this room tonight I don't know that I would have taken the leap of understanding that this includes papers so I don't know if that's something that maybe should be part of this definition but I don't I'm looking at this and I'm not really understanding how papers would apply structure construction or I I don't disagree with you and any clarification is good but I mean this this was supposed to be a catchall for anything you know an object consist combination materials you know on ornamental could be right so if I agree with you but if you're G to start out calling out pavers okay then you're going to start calling out uh blue stone slabs you're going to start calling out um you know everything um the difficulty with with an ordinance is once you start listing one thing well it excludes everything else so if there's a way to do it but we can't put in the word pvers but we can certainly amend it to make sure it's more I just I could just see somebody you know putting papers down in their terrorist or creating a terrorist not understanding they were supposed to have submitted a plot plan I don't disagree I hear what you're saying I mean I even could put gun the blue stone slab in kind of the same paper type of category I would think but I I don't know I mean the way Thor written any pavers that installed a plot plan was required to be submitted I I don't really think it really was in P yeah what about what about if you just make it imperious impervious coverage a minus or not including um any kind of a uh surface design and constructed in a manner to be utilized for parking Motor Vehicles is not considered a structure okay any any impw yeah but Mr chairman can you say that again hold on what was that no I'm saying say that again any any imperious coverage aside from parking um a parking variance or a parking structure or a parking that's is not considered a structure here's the problem with that you might be using the paving pavers for parking yeah right I think the problem is actually with the last sentence Motor Vehicles yeah the problem with the last sentence is and I I know what it means what you mean is if it's like black top drive that's not a structure that's what you mean in that that's what you mean in that last sentence the problem is is a paver a ground surface if it's being put there to be used for parking yes and that's what's confusing I don't know it's I I understand Mary and the point you're making I think it's good you read this and if I wanted to be difficult and I was a lawyer for um a homeowner I could very well argue that P is a ground surface that is designed and construct to be is constructed to be used for parking my car therefore it's not a structure and and I think that's the problem do you think that sentence should be deleted what's that you think that sentence should be deleted yeah and that solves the problem I'm all for that I'll agree with that I agree with that because the whole purpose of this like of this ordinance that we're doing is is for the submission of a pop plan so there's you know like we know where so there's L confusion basically yeah if you're putting in a driveway well the water got to go somewhere it's not going in the ground okay Mr chair we good I think so I had a question I have I do have a question unless uh do you have anything further gab I mean either I'm sorry what is there's a sentence on the long Steve we can't hear you after saying that plan shall be signed and sealed by a licensed professional then it says the owner of a single family dra unit they prepare and sign said building plans and Sh find an affidavit to that effect with said plans right I don't know what the affidavit says and is he that person qualified to do it Yeah question I mean the way that I believe the intent was that you know to have a survey something prepared by a licensed professional and then the homeowner marking up that survey with his the information so I think that was the 10 I'm gonna take it a step further at a homeowner you can D up your own electrical plan you could draft your own Plumbing plan you can draft your own you know with your house you can draft your own plw plan that's law are we trying to figure out the impact from a drainage point of view on Neighbors from an addition for example P how can you get a plan from a Layman because we cannot we cannot prohibit them by law we cannot prohibit a land Reed you can reject it and say no you have to get it by somebody my understanding for all these years has always been as I indicated just as a homeowner and I don't never understand how they can do their own electrical plant but just as a homeowner can do all those a homeowner can do a plot plan but here's I don't like it but here's the real thing this is being submitted into the burrow to look at right right so if some owner homeowner comes in with a do-it-yourself plot plan and it doesn't fit we have a burrow official who's looking at it and how often does that actually happen like never W okay so when's it going to really happen here what's going to really happen what's going to really happen is somebody's gonna have the survey from when they bought their house because they want to do something and they're gonna take that survey and then they're G to take a sharpie and they're gonna draw what they want to do and they're gonna hand that in right and the board professional will then look at it that's what will really happen and this is what Happ the zoning plans to just go to the zoning officer home owners take a survey they want to put a fence they just take up a home a survey and and mark it up they want to put in you know a patio take their own survey and Mark it up happens all happens all the time happens all the time but but this says building plans the homeowner shall prepare and sign said building plans and file an affidavit it doesn't say they can prepare the plot plan or the site plan Ian good point but they have but I think it it sounds like they didn't didn't include plot plans and should have because the previous sentence says building plans and plot plans yes but then the next sentence says that the plot plan needs to be prepared by a licensed professional I think the language is a little the sequence of the statements maybe is a little confusing what's wrong with leaving it the way it's right leaving it the way yeah yeah it doesn't say that the pl plan has to be done by a license yeah it does it does in the third fix that's what I'm saying I think building plans and plot plans then it just says building plans and then it says plot plans so but but no but that's the order of the sentences most restrictive to least restrictive no least restrictive the midd one in the middle yeah the lease is in the middle that's why when I was reading this I was getting a little confused online today when I all right so which sentence are you starting with so if you read uh all building plans and plot plans shall be signed and sealed by an appropriate New Jersey licensed professional authorized by the New Jersey administrative code to prepare such plans the owner of a single family dwelling unit may prepare and sign said building plans and shall file an alphad davit to that effect with said plans the plot plan required herein shall indicate current site improvements proposed structures proposed non-structure and be prepared dated and certified uh proper properly referenced to a licensed land surveyor of the state you want to switch a second I think I think inserting that single family for building plans is kind of creating some confusion so you want to switch it that's what I would I I would agree with that yeah I agree that's more yeah logical because it almost seemed like it was contradicting by tucking it in between those two statements so so you want to do got that one two three want to do 13 two as long as you wind up with a drainage plan professional right purpose yeah yeah right all right Mr chair you have that do you have that change yeah okay M I just have really two questions um we want I believe for the zoning officer to be involved that's part of the problem that we had with the famous application on okay plans are being submitted to construction official everybody says well then he'll put it give it to his owning officer I think it should say be submitted to construction official and Zoning officer that's fine okay I could then a Gabe any place it says construction official Ed and Zoning officer it's in a um and it's an e and and talking about e um I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry leave it in a leave it in I apologize I apologize had too many things take it out of a and let me just stop talking about that so we take it out of a official keep instruction official and Zoning officer add Z zoning I'm sorry I get too many notes and I confuse myself stick with a okay um we have okay the answer is C uh no building per shall be issued etc etc um I I am I am sorry I got to write better notes to myself go back to a which says it's in red w coverage for non-structured improvements exceeds 400 square fet three sets of a plot plan shall be submitted to construction official okay plot PL should show so we change that to construction official and Zoning officer the next sentence plot PL should show finished grades open space existing structures proposed structures improvs existing impervious coverage I recommend we say existing and proposed impervious coverage and I apologize confusing everybody including myself moving moving right long um I want to come back to the discussion of the numbers but um all right we talk about 400 square feet which I like and would agree with all a sudden in C we go to a thousand square feet of impervious coverage you know the lot the lot sizes in Garwood some of them are only 4,000 feet so you're talking about a a resident only has to submit something when they get to a th square feet that's a quarter of the lot and if we're talking about trying to reduce storm water flow I think the resident should also be utilize or be required to utilize that 400 number and not be allowed to go up to a th000 square feet that's that's 25% of the lot they can pave but is it Bill does it does it does it mean um like additional improvements no the whole sure enlarging altering shall be issu for and for nonu impr mean if we're using 400 square feet in a I would but but if we do um if we if we um which which which which um will exceed 1,000 square ft of imperious ofage um not of the new stuff of the entire of the existing end it's everything right and I agree everything you know if we I don't know the the the exact wording but um so okay with the 400 but if it's a, square feet I mean the way the way it's written now is that any change of a structure of a structure which is defined requires grading and drainage right but now we're talking at non-structured improvements yeah so I'm just saying if it's 400 everywhere else where do this a th come from and let's just stick with 400 that's all I'm saying I actually agree with Bill I'm fine and one of the things I Circle right away is why is it 400 in one place and a th in the other place and you could very easily just in section c change the th to 400 and in section F change to, to 400 it all correlates and then if you're doing something that you're going to do a 400 foot 400 foot addition it's got to be reviewed and makes sense for the match and Mr chairman you might tell me this is not for for now but um in going back and forth with definitions and everything else I realize you know we have definitions in the ordinance in two different sections we have it in 106 D4 and then we have it in the flood control 106 I'll find the number in a second um we have definitions there 13 4.2 and my recommendation while we're doing this and and Don and Steve uh you know uh word give in but whatever the word is accept your your thoughts findings um I don't know why we have definitions separate in 134.2khz movement you don't have to list everything Bill your preperatory comment was excellent I do remember my prefatory yeah this is not what we're doing right now but but we're making a change this is an easy one out all you have to write all you have to write the ordinance relocate definition contained in 106 d134 point2 to 106 D4 you don't have to write the whole thing just relocate them that's my recommendation but are there any sections of the code that refer specifically to those sections of the definitions well that that would take another look question I think we should move on yeah I think that's to either move on or we establish a Review Committee I'm not that's what you want to do well I'll be happy to elect you as a as a committee chairman you want to do that um cor Maria first why don't we do this why don't we do what we did yes about the other one we'll talk about it some other time I like that idea can I just ask Gabe was there any particular reasoning behind the thousand square feet that we should be aware of before we change it it was just a number threshold I was I thought me and Victor talked then we said thousand all right let's do a thousand but it wasn't it should be consistent reason I have a final question on the um on the last sheet that you have the pl um I'm not I'm a little confused on what you're trying to the difference in the dollar amounts and what's one what one is for and what the other is for uh let's see that plan residual residential I'm sorry residential you have $100 and then you have $500 yes the escrow that's escrow I understand that I'm saying then you have residential on the bottom $200 and residential $11,000 I know one is ESC and one is you know when is every plot plan the I had the same question it's for the the grading and drainage yeah not every plot plan will need the grading and drainage review correct the same question I had read it twice that's okay okay oh have to to to 400 right yes yeah but it is okay yeah all right good all right chairman last but not least this just general question for gab mean are you covering yourself with the fees because so many times things aren't dumb because you know how do I phrase that you know the engineer isn't being paid are these fees adequate to cover I I I discussed with Victor and he's good um I there was no fees before that that right so the question from council members will be is it um with other communities around us comparable oh yeah yeah okay we're not over obviously the thing we don't want to go and overcharge our residents so okay okay very good great is that uh and there's one other question that that I raised to you earlier and I think both had the same question just upd quick update on on popey okay so uh popey they paid their inspection fees so they they have resolution compliance they submitted all the Revis plans we submitted they have a resolution compliance four or five months ago I know they submitted the plans to the construction uh Branford Construction office uh but yeah they they're they're it's been radio silence yeah has anybody after them they've recently paid inspection fees so that's that's showing that yes maybe they're going to start again and move move forward with it but uh I I haven't heard from any from I haven't reached out I can't reach out so I was going to say do we have a Channel or we can reach out okay and and lastly I have an extra one uh dietrix yes anything on dietrix question that I'm not aware of yeah I know we put a timetable on yeah we did I mean I haven't seen any movement whatsoever into moving you know one one one store into the other while they do the building on the other side so maybe we could just reach out to them as well and remind them there was a timeline yeah we gave them so many days to submit their permit to submit their their application and begin the discussion of that timeline was excruciating yeah yeah yeah it was with's that Dave do you have anything finals uh thank you for comments reviews recommendations and I'll update it accordingly um I don do I submit this to you you how what's the process next for this sure why not okay all right so I'll update this and I'll submit it to you and then yeah copy a Dell on it okay good and um Don after that the process is it goes back to the council for intro and then planning board before adoption again or I would have said adopt it I would have said the best way to probably do it would be for G to give it to me this is not going to take Gabe long no we'll we'll bring it back before the board at the January meeting then this board can recommend it to Mayor and counsel and you guys do what you do okay very good okay on the um we have Mar here for in conversation uh concerning the state of New Jersey fourth round affordable housing so uh with that Michael thank you g enjoy your night and have a great holiday thank you Gabe bye Gabe good evening um Mike Str from Harvard Consultants I wanted to continue my conversation um from last meeting that we had and I have a couple of handouts U Michael could you speak into the mic a little bit absolutely I have an agenda I wanted to go through tonight um here you have handouts hand them out these are the handouts if we could just pass those out I don't think I have one for everybody I thought we could share it's it's really not much of a handout it's you're going to be a little disappointed but um it tells a story and it kind of continues the conversation where I started off last time all right do we need to go into executive session on this I think the first my I we're not up to that part yeah got it it's the next item would be exact my first question is the last meeting I went through I had two handouts I handed those out two detailed memos um they're very detailed I know there's an awful lot packed into those memos does anybody have any questions on those memos or what I discussed last time was I kind of threw an awful lot at everybody last time and I just wanted to ask that question before I start again and Don I apologize I didn't bring an extra hand out of the memos but I will make sure that I forward those to You Adele has those you could forward those to Don and make sure that you have there's two memos I handed out at the last meeting briefly okay oh great okay very briefly we're not g I'm not going to walk through them all over again but the first memo breaks down the fourth round uh affordable housing Bill legislation and ingrained in that memo is all of the timelines that our burrow Council and our burough planning board will have to meet and I spent a little bit of time going through that timeline last at the last meeting do that consistent what was happening on the um uh teams conference yesterday that's on the second item that we're going to talk about tonight so last time I went through the memo I went through the time frame talked about the deadlines and I just want to make every sure everybody was aware of it this board is responsible as the planning board for putting together the housing element in fair share plan that's our affordable housing plan under this new law it must be adopted by no later than June 30th 2025 and I just want to reiterate that and we really don't want to get too close up against the wall there with that deadline because it's you know you want to give yourself a little breathing room so if we could um I know we're thinking ahead but we're going to go very quickly with time frames because if by the time the plan is prepared it has to be Advan made public so many days and we're all going to have to have a public a public 100% there's a public hearing we'll walk through every part of that housing plan it'll be made available on on the B's webs site in advance I will walk everybody through it um but if this the new state regulation says we must adopt this plan by the end of June we really should be penciling a date in early June you would want not get too close to the deadline and then you start doing the math 30 days prior to that has to be on file and made available to the public so the work has to be done really at the end of April yeah okay um that means you know then you throw in some holidays we're going to have a very short window to put this together so I just want to make that clear and there's and that deadline is firm so which may require us to have some additional meetings in the first four months or three months of of the of 2025 I don't I'll stop there because it's all ingrained in the in the first memo that I handed out all of the deadlines I just want to keep bringing them up because they're very important they're all identified in that memo and our job is to make sure that we meet all those deadlines so far in 2024 we have met every deadline made every submission to DCA the second menmo very quickly talked about the numbers okay our number for the fourth round is 80 how did we get that number I broke it down in our memo I gave you all the methodology I walked everybody through the different multipliers and we showed you at the last page of that memo on table one uh I spent a little bit of time talking about land uh capacity factor I just handed out one handout tonight and it's a map we have now the individual properties that the DCA has identified are quote unquote developable land in accordance with the state we turn around and Ma those properties um the reason why I'm bringing this up is because our next the The Burrow's next action is by January 31st 2025 the mayor and the governing body are going to need to or are required to adopt a binding resolution that you either agree with this number you accept this number or the burrow has the opportunity to provide a different number and explain why and provide any EV evidence um I just handed out a map that what we did was we took the DCA mapping it's now online um it came out two weeks ago um the report came out in October but it didn't give us the mapping and the property so we're kind of stuck in in neutral for a while so we now we have the properties we map them and the state identifies three properties in our in our town that are developable lands and they're identified on this map all three of them are property class 15c the law specifically states that 15c properties are exempt so the three properties in our opinion it's a clear-cut case of they don't belong we had a total developable land acreage of 399 as I went through last time almost point4 of an acre so even the state is saying have no developable land we have no vacant land okay and the three properties that they've assigned us to don't fit the category of the new legislation so our recommendation and we've we've documented it all we've downloaded we have all the property class information and so forth on the properties they're all burrow there's three burrow owned properties they're all class 15c properties um and those are exempt from the definition of De developable lands so our next step is to provide um the bur attorney and the burrow uh with a very like a one-page report summarizing our opinion copy and paste what the requirements are for to meet the definition of developable land and when the our recommendation is going to be that when the binding resolution is adopted that we don't accept the number from the state um because we don't have 399 acres of developable land as it's defined by the DCA we have zero based on the dca's multiplier and they and their mapping that's the good news the bad news is it moved the number from this will move Our obligation from 80 to 79 all right it's a big build up a big down so but listen it is what it is but we have a responsibility to identify that um and so that we're putting that together and we're going to send that to uh the burrow I'll stop right there yes Mr chairman um these properties were recommended in our master plan re examination to be forwarded to council okay to be put on the rosi so that would even be better correct yes if it was on the rosi it would make our life even that much easier so I know council is looking at it but if it's a 15c classified property that all if it's a 15c classified property that's also exempt but to have the extra protection of the Rossi is a great idea we would strongly recommend that heard that man [Laughter] right I know all right but I just wanted to you know indicate that if we put it on the last hey I think you mentioned that once before Bill too once yeah but mayor protected you're protected either way so even when without yes it's great but even without it the fact that the three properties are all owned by the burrow and classified as 15c properties that gets kicked out of that classification so um I wish I had better news that it moved the need a little bit more but that's what it does so basically we go down from a 80 to a 79 uh commitment and uh with that we do have credits and some other items that we are going to talk about I gather now or yes so that that finishes item number one that's the memo and then the mult uh the methodology and the land capacity factor and we're preparing this report we're going to give it to the uh the governing body for their adoption in January done that resolution will get sent down to DCA within 48 hours that's another hurdle you have to you have to meet these deadlines or else you lose immunity so you have to keep Mak making sure that we meet every deadline and make the submissions down to the state on a timely basis if you don't you lose immunity and like said this bur is in great position because the burrow has done everything that they're supposed to do over the years and put together the plans and has approved the project that that they agreed to so we don't want to go through all of this and it miss a deadline that's all now Mike um if I could just point out this was actually something that I was talking um to somebody about last night even though we send in that resolution there's still a month where it can be challenged by any developer any whatever now the likelihood I know with Garwood being that there really isn't any land and that this is a high number to begin with I'm sure I don't see anybody challenging it um the question that then came up is well if we don't foresee any really big challenges and um it is such a high number to begin with do we create our own number and take that risk at that point it is a little riskier the problem the problem with that is the problem with that line of thinking is there's three multipliers that you have to use to calculate your number right we're zeroing out the third multiplier all right instead of the state even acknowledge it's 339 it's really zero based on right their their mapping okay so one of our three multipliers is at zero and then the other two are locked into known published data which I've outlined in the email from from the Census and American community survey the law states the exact range the exact publication the exact all of the how what you can what you have to use in order to do that calculation so out of the three multipliers the only one that you have in my opinion any significant wiggle room where where you could really analyze it and get into it and I'll give you an example I mean some of my municipalities were given you know hundreds of acres of developable land um in their report and then when we got the mapping and I'm not exaggerating more than 50% of the land was in public rways and it was identified as railroad tracks a DOT land uh Township rways County Parks properties that were on the Ros SE so there's a there's a lot of that going on so but that's where you have an opportunity to really make a difference the problem is we're such a small municipality and they've already started at all uh us off at such a low number that even going to zero you can see it doesn't move it if you wanted to insert a different number after you put the zero in the third multiplier which I did on table one of my memo and showed you the difference 80 to 79 the other two multipliers are already set I think other some of the discussion is some things that I had mentioned at the last meeting that municipalities and I say this because I'm sure it's going to be brought up at my at the council meeting sure that um there are other methodologies being put out there to use that are more beneficial to some towns not as beneficial to others um and I think some towns around us are considering using putting uh a resolution together using the that methodology and I I know you can't um yeah iation to do that I'm because I'm staying in my Lane yeah and you'll get legal advice and listen to that and and I just don't I want to stay in my Lane um if if the if the governing body adopts a resolution with a different number we'll put together a plan and defend that number um based on on you know what they come up with I am aware of a lot of the litigation that's out there I I get countless emails every day and you could feel the frustration you can understand everybody's you know it's throughout the state everybody's trying to put their heads uh heads around this um I'm going to stay in my Lane though that that's the law appreciate that that's the methodology and that's what I'm earmark to do until I'm told otherwise and I know this can go down a lot of different I'll let those people make those arguments and discussions yeah okay okay uh Michael how do you want to proceed right now that's all I had really for public because I wanted to close that out is like circling uh and closing the conversation that I started last time I'll close with this I I have those two memos I just want to keep bringing those up because I think there's an awful lot of really good data in there it should answer a lot of your questions and I I would encourage you to you know take a look at those if you have any questions and that's all I have for public the next thing I wanted to talk about was something that's and I'm just gonna I'm just gonna check with Don on something you can M video yes okay at this time we're going to go into um Clos session um do I have a motion to go into close session uh for the purpose of discussion on um the fourth round uh affordable housing um can I ask what has to be in why it has to be in private yes uh like to address that I I'll just I'll defer to Don but this is what I'm going to talk about next is is clearly in my opinion and being very involved in the town's affordable housing process uh potential litigation involving in uh affordable housing development in our burrow for the fourth round okay that's exactly correct it falls under the potential litigation exception to the Sunshine Law Bill thank you you know I have to ask and I think we're protected by asking so thank you I think was a good question I was going to be uh raising the point anyway that out I got the memo okay Mr chairman given that then I'll make that motion do hear a second okay second all those in favor I okay we then several a minute or so we'll be into executive session um okay and uh we'll stay here e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay of executive session um and I will propose uh I will propose the motion to per forward um a number to present to the state for our for housing commitment of 79 I will second that number with the recommendation number what pleas it mayor blumenstock um I'm accusing or abstaining abstaining Mr capoano yes chair greet yes Miss vagio yes Mr nstead yes Mr Barkin um Miss hay yes motion carries okay than you I will report that back at the next council meeting um at this time I will open it up to um any uh comments uh or anything that the public would like to discuss uh concerning tonight's uh meeting you're and seeing no one online um I will close that portion of the meeting hear a motion to adjourn i' make that motion to adjourn and have a nice uh holiday absolutely all those in favor I Merry Christmas thank you yes have a wonderful holiday enjoy travel travel safe if you if you are traveling yes yes e e