##VIDEO ID:7o2mZUDk35k## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e Pledge of Allegiance IED to the flag of the United States of America and to the repblic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible andice for all good evening ladies and gentlemen pursuing to njsa 10 colon for the open public meetings act notice of this duly and regularly scheduled meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment has been published and posted in all appropriate locations excuse me sorry roll call please oh excuse me Gina do we have to S Gina in first as we know our uh uh our recording secretary Elizabeth ramr is out on maternity leave um the township has assigned our assistant zoning officer uh Gina tamoa to act as um the recording secretary in her absence um I would ask that the board uh consider this and and if appropriate make a motion to appoint um M tulo as the interm recording secretary um so with that um I need a motion on a second through the chair I'd like to make that a motion a second roll call please Mr Heyman yes Dr hofstein Dr Hudak oh sorry Mr Hudak my apologies oh sorry Miss pares Miss Rosal Mr Martins yes Mr Safford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes motion passes you've been appointed as the intern recording secretary congratulations thank you all for your patience my understanding is that you'll also be acting as the zoning officer tonight is that correct correct okay very good so you'll be sworn in um with the professionals at the right time thank you excuse me roll call now please Mr Heyman here Dr hofstein Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Miss Rosal Mr Martins here Mr Stafford Smith here miss Bradley here do we have any resolutions this evening Mr Murphy uh we do we have three of them um this evening we have resolution number 2024-25 Jackson Pines Road Block 14001 lot six eligible to vote on this particular uh resolution are U Mr Hudak Dr hofstein Mr Heyman Miss Parnes Miss Rosal Mr Stafford Smith and Miss Bradley who was the last one sir Miss Bradley Miss Bradley you need a motion in a second a motion a second please motion second roll call please Mr Heyman yes Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Miss Rosal Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes okay uh now we have resolution number 2024 49 it's resolution uh granting variance relief for a 33 by uh 33 foot by 30 foot by 20 foot single housekeeping unit Edition on an undersized lot for property located at 10 calvalry Court block 39 02 lot 95 eligible to vote on this resolution moment please miss Parnes Mr Stafford Smith Dr hoffstein Mr Hudak Miss Rosal Mr Martins and Miss Bradley need a motion on a second please second call please Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak Miss pares yes Miss Rosal yes Mr Martins yes Mr Safford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes finally we have resolution 20245 that's a resolution granting variance relief for six foot high solid fence in the front yard where it's not permitted for property located at 932 Anderson Road Block 2801 lot 81 uh eligible to vote uh on this particular resolution are Dr hoffstein Mr Hudak miss pares m Rosal Mr Martins Mr Stafford Smith and Miss Bradley roll call please Dr hofstein Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Miss Rosal Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes I concludes the resolutions for this evening okay do we have any minutes for this evening uh I was advised by the board's uh secretary Don di austino that there were no minutes provided by Miss ramro uh for appr even all right I have uh a voucher for the recording secretary the acting recording secretary for this evening uh from Jackson Township in the amount of $175 we need a motion and a second to pay the voucher please M to approve vot call please Mr Heyman yes Dr hofstein Mr Hudak Miss Parnes Miss Rosal Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes any announcements this evening Mr Murphy do have this evening application number two uh which is Tracy Place LLC uh block 4201 Lot 10 in the R1 Zone uh this is variance number 3520 this application has been carried um to the January 15 2025 meeting of the Jackson Township Zoning Board of adjustment uh the applicant has wave time and uh there will be no additional notice so this is the notice for the January 15th meeting that concludes this evening's announcements okay and we need to swear in the professionals please absolutely ladies and gentlemen if you would please raas your right hand do you Solly swear affirm that the testimony information questions or comments they about to present before the board will represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes if you would each please state your name and your positions with the board Evan Hill Board engineer Ernie Peters board and planner Gina Tumalo assistant zoning officer thank you very much No Ex session this evening correct Mr hary not this evening Madam chair I do anticipate one perhaps at the next meeting if not then the first meeting of December okay no matters for discussion or I should say are there any matters for discussion uh not this evening Madam chair okay no administrative approval so we are going to move to applicant number one jpo Jackson LP Grand Harmony amended preliminary and final site plan 83 7-1 Miss Jennings yes thank you good evening for the record I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of w Goldman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant as the board is aware we're here this evening seeking amended preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct an inclusionary Housing Development on property located at Harmony Road and formerly identified as block 4801 Lots 5689 and 10 and now known as block 5801 lot 5.0 one on the Township's tax map the property is approximately 45 acres and is located in the LC zoning District back in March of 2020 the board adopted a resolution granting a use variance to the applicant's predecessor and interest to permit the development of the property with 202 town home units including 40 affordable housing units a use variance was necessary because the LC Zone does not permit multifam housing the board also granted a c variance to permit the height of the accessor clubhouse to exceed the heights permitted in the LC zone for an accessory structure on January 19th 2022 the board adopted a resolution granting preliminary and final major site plan approval to permit the construction of the 202 unit Town host and conclusionary Housing Development including common amenities and related improvements proposed by the applicant the applicant is now seeking to amend the Ping final major site plan approval to modify the 2022 approved site plan in some the modifications are a reduction in the total number of buildings from 25 to 24 a reduction in the total number of units from 202 to 195 the affordable units will remain at 40 so the reduction is in the market rate units only which actually increases the percentage of affordable units in this project from the original 20% so slightly over over 20% uh the affordable housing units will be clustered in the southwestern portion of the site instead of being integrated amongst the market rate units all the market rate units will have three bedrooms and a basement uh 18 of the market rate units will have a onecar garage and the remaining market rate units will have a two-car garage all market rate unit basements will have Ingress and egress windows and there's a new amenity package uh with respect to the tot lots and uh the other amenities on the site which will be more particularly described by the site engineer and we're also increasing the square footage and the height of the clubhouse the applicant is also seeking 1 C variants from ordinance section 244-5518 in support of The Proposal the applicant relying on the direct testimony of two witnesses Bill Stevens sitting to my left the applicant's engineer and planner and Maly rub the a professional architect we are in receipt of two reports one from the board planner dated October 29th and one dated October 31st 2024 and I believe we might also have one from somebody else I can't recall is was it any other reports not that okay we got it so with that would like to have our first witness sworn in good evening Mr Stevens if you would please raise your right hand good evening good evening do you saw me swear affirm that testimony information questions or comments you're about to present before the board will represent represent the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you if you please state your name your uh uh affiliation and your credentials William Stevens stns I am a professional engineer and a professional planner licensed to practice here in the state of New Jersey JY and I've been appearing in that capacity in front of this board for probably more than the last three decades Mr Stevens this board accept your credentials thank you m chairman and good evening okay then if you could Mr Stevens um I know I gave a brief summary of why we're here and I know you've been involved in this application for some time so if you would please describe uh the the property and what was originally approved and then walk us through the proposed changes and if you can rely on any exhibits if you just mark them identify them for the record thank you I'd be happy to yes so my office prepared an exhibit package which I'd like to hand out they're all pre-marked so the record will accept the pre-marking and incorporate that into the uh record thank you Anthony also has the exhibit so he has them displayed on the board and so they can be seen online as well the first exhibit is an aerial photograph prepared by my office this is based on a flight that was taken July 1224 shows the subject site in the center it is the Disturbed site that you see the property boundary shown in yellow highlighted around the site and then the Disturbed area being the area of construction for the subject site as Miss Jennings said in her opening remarks this project previously received approval went through resolution compliance and was placed under construction so we have made some substantial improvements to this site already the majority of the on-site utilities are in the detention basins that are located around the recreation area stop the recreation area is in the center of the job the board will recall there's a circular Road system that goes out to Harmony Road with a couple of culde saacs that come off it and then the center of the project the two detention basins or rain Gardens that were located in the center are already constructed as well as the final detention Basin before out falling into the wetlands so all of that has been constructed we also have Curb built from Harmony Road up Grand Harmony Boulevard which is the first street that comes into the center of the job this area then we have curb and stone for the pavement built about halfway around the the proposed Circle so we have a lot of improvements in including the majority of the utilities are also in so I wanted the board to be aware that this job is thank you I don't know why I'm struggling with the point is that the job is sub substantially under construction a lot of the infrastructure is already built and we're not proposing to change any of that we are making some minor changes to the site so having said that as Miss Jennings said the property is located in The Limited commercial Zone and we did receive a use variance from this board to build this job as well as the preliminary and final major site plan approval to the figure this one out there we go so located to the to the north and to the east of the site it's basically residential homes as Carlson Court across Harmony Road from the subject site and then County Line Road is located just to the bottom of the map and there are commercial sites located along the bottom of the site also as Miss Jenning said we we received a c variance for this project for Building height for the clubhouse in the LC Zone accessory structures are limited to 15 fet in height we received a variance from this board for the clubhouse for this facility to 19.83% 3 ft and tonight we are seeking to raise that a little bit further to 27 ft we'll go into more testimony about that a little further on in my presentation the original site plan approval was for 202 units including 40 affordable units we are now proposing to reduce those units down to a total of 195 units but the affordable units will remain there will be 40 affordable units in this housing project Anthony if we can move over to exhibit A3 so exhibit A3 shows the plan that is being presented to the board this evening and and shows the areas that we're looking to change on the site and those areas generally are the areas inside where the recreational component is we're looking to make some small changes there and then also to change a kulis act it was previously approved known as Serenity Court located at the southern part of the map which is where we would like to relocate the co-units for the project the board may recall that the prior approval we had 10 10un buildings in those 10 unit buildings we were going to build four stack flats for the affordable units in the middle of those buildings that became problematic going through the design and potential construction of these buildings and the applicant has determined that it would be better to separate them put them on their own for a whole host reasons which we'll also get into a little bit further on so we're going to change those 10 unit buildings into eight unit buildings reduce the number of units in those buildings and then re relocate those 40 units to the southern quadrant of the site so we're proposing these these three buildings located in the southern site which will be the co-units three separate buildings there will be 20 first floor units that will have two bedrooms and there will be 20 two 20 second floor units which will also have three bedrooms the reasons why we're really looking to to make this change and and this really is the biggest change to the project is that we think this is a better planning alternative moving these units outside of the 10un buildings and clustering them into a A culdesac or a court of their own mostly for uh management purposes I don't need to explain to this board that the co-a rules are complicated the the marketing sale and the system that goes into this is complex there have to be very special things that have to happen for the the COA to qualify for the Township's plan and the applicant's proposal is to have a third party manage that for them they're going to build them but they want have the ability to have somebody else manage all this so that so that it's done properly somebody who specializes in doing coah housing excuse me so Mr Stevens you are stating that a different Builder will be constructing the cola housing no I believe that my client JP Orleans will be building it they're going to have somebody else to manage the sale of it so Dr Austin I know you you know about these things but perhaps for the other board members there there's different qualification levels that go into who can get these units and then there's a whole Lottery system that goes into it it it it's complex um it's a lot for a person to manage who's not familiar with that type of thing so this is what we're seeing in all of our multif family developments now we are segregating our co-units out and generally it's being managed by somebody else other than the developer themselves because JP Orleans isn't an affordable housing developer that's not what they do they they're a for-profit company and they're they're building homes for market rate units it it's not their function to build affordable housing so that's really what this is about and I I think as the board sees other multif family projects here in town this is now the preferred way to build COA we like to see them separated and and moved out so that the whole thing can be segregated into itself the the approach is much more cost efficient also and and that is one of the things that the COA rules is trying to drive to make affordable housing more coste efficient for the people that are required to build it and then the one thing that is well it's Paramount to me is as the design engineer is is ADA compliance everybody today they they all want external entrance to these ground floor units and when we have that when we have an exterior entrance to the ground floor unit that means that they all have to be handicapped accessible every single one of them and it becomes a very difficult assignment to make the grades work when we have them in the middle of other buildings it it honestly became almost an impossible task so by segregating them here and building them into a pad themselves we can much easier comply with the Ada rules and we'll end up with what we think is a superior product so that's one one of the big reasons in my mind that we ended up doing that I think it's important for the board to understand and it was in your planner's letter as asking us to to address the affordable housing plan this project is not in or well it wasn't in Jackson townships affordable housing plan when we first proposed it this was a negotiation with this board for this project that we entered into in good face many years ago and so it's it's really a bonus to Jackson Township's affordable housing plans we're not in the plan but it's it's a bonus to the plan all of which will be worked out through the township administrators themselves I think just if I could add because it's more of a legal issue I'm sure many of you know that the fourth round affordable housing has started and Jackson got hit with a pretty large number so these will go towards your fourth round obligation because you already satisfied your third round obligation when we got this use variance application we were not within the plan that was blessed by the superior court of New Jersey so this is already into your fourth round yeah just to expand on that our our fourth round Co number is 954 affordable housing units so that's pretty significant because I think it was somewhere around the 300 mark before something of that nature that's a pretty significant increase um so I so I do do agree with that that particular sentiment um I I presume there's no issue with equal access to the amenities all the things of that nature I just want to put that on the record that the affordable housing units will have the same access yes yes they're part of this project and we'll have all access to the amenity package in the project as every other resident would thank you one of the other changes that we were looking at is adding I'm sorry one of the other changes will be we had had a mixture of units in the prior plan we are now looking to make all of the units three bedroom units so all the market rate units will have three bedrooms have a garage a basement and we're looking to add Ingress and egress windows to the basements simply for a safety sake uh we had agreed we would not have bedrooms in the basement as part of our original use variants and that condition stands we are looking to change the amenity package for the project we are now looking to build three tot Lots one of which will be located down near the affordable housing project located down in the bottom of the job this area and the other doot Lots will be located adjacent to the clubhouse along with some basketball courts we're proposing and and a splash park along with an increase in size to the clubhouse we are removing amenities from the prior approval those would be a dog park a pool and pickle ball courts that were previously approved we're going to replace them with the tot lots a splash park and two basketball courts the the applicant believes that the pool itself is a is a costly thing for a homeowner association to be involved with and that they're underutilized they believe that the splash bark is a better alternative they believe that the proposed amenities are more suitable for the community there's really no reduction in the recreational opportunities it's just they're similar amenities Ju Just different we had agreed dur ing our initial use variants as well as the final site plan [Music] approval that we would have the the tot lots and the passive open space constructed before we received 25% of cosos for the project this was not in there because we did not previously have the basketball courts in but we would agree to have those built before we have 50% of certificate of occupancies issued and before 75% of the certificate of occupancies are issued will have all of the amenities constructed including the clubhouse and we are looking to increase the size of the clubhouse from 2,278 Square ft to 4,470 square ft we're looking to increase the height from 19 ft to 27 ft the applicant believes that this will simply increase the recreation opportunity for the community and that for the 200 families that are going to be living here they believe that the prior facility was undersized by increasing it and raising the height is there going to be a second floor no second floor it's still going to be a one-story structure we're going to have architectural testimony Dr ofstein okay can describe more about the the structure itself is there going to be more parking now that you're making the clubhouse larger we did not increase the clubhouse parking as as part of this application the clubhouse is solely for the residents of the facility and it's it's made to be so that it's generally in walking distance from most of the units it's expected that more residents were walked and dri to the clubhouse so we didn't believe believe that we needed to add additional parking but we're always willing to listen and discuss things with the board is there a requirement of in the size to how many how much parking there is there is not a requirement we had agreed during our initial proposal trying to get it right yeah we didn't we did not include the clubhouse spaces in our calculation of our parking so you'd have to give me a minute to give you the number that we had agreed just had a quick question about the clubhouse while you're looking that up that be available for for uh events renting by the for for the residents to have events and things like that yes all right just the residents though so they can't have outside guests come for a party or something of that nature I understand the the concept now what I'm driving at is and I'm just using real life experience of my own I just went to a birthday a one-year-old birthday party at a clubhouse in in a in a in a unit in a development similar to this and the parking was woefully insufficient at the clubhouse so it's just something to consider if you're going to allow those types of events we might want to consider that Bill's just trying to get the right number for you so the record's clear Mr um you testified Mr Stevens about um the affordable housing units or and you use the word uh segregated from the rest of the community um what is the conventional wisdom today about separating the affordable housing units from all the others and the possible stigma that gets attached to that area so what we're seeing from a planning perspective Mr Hudak is that this is now the preferred way to build affordable housing well I know you testify that it is easier for the management company to manage so there's and it's you testify that it's more cost effective for you guys I'm concerned about the the residents of that area and um you know if it's the attached to that so if I could just jump in it it's really more because this is a for sale project when we're doing rental projects they're usually apartment buildings and they're integrated and nobody knows you know the difference but here we have a development that's going to be sold to individuals who are going to take out a mortgage that's probably going to be the biggest investment that they have and so we believe that from a marketing perspective for the market rate units it's better not to have the affordable units mixed in with them we also have an issue because when you have uh the affordable units it's very hard to find people who actually qualify for affordable housing you have to remember you can only make so much money but you also have to qualify for a mortgage and make your mortgage payments and so for the For Sale Project we may have empty units for quite some time and we don't want to leave the market rate units with empty units it doesn't make any sense and then you put that on with the fact that with the construction of the units themselves when you have affordable on the first floor they have to be handicapped accessible so it makes it very difficult when you look at the whole project and you have this market rate and people are these are going to sell the market rates are going to go quick uh we don't want to have empty buildings with units here and there we feel it would be better and then we'll we're going to partner with an affordable housing um entity who does this all the time because there's also a lot of marketing that goes into this you have to have very specific areas of the state that have to be U given notice uh many nonprofit organizations have to be given notice all of the applicants have to file with the affordable housing liaison their application that has to be vetted and then all the qualified people who can um who qualify for the affordable hous then get put in the lottery system so it's a very honorous task to undertake so it's just we believe that it's better for the success of the project for us to pull out the affordable and have them over here here and the and the law allows it you're not required to integrate the affordable units and for a for sale project it's just very cumbersome I do it all the time with my affordable housing clients when we're doing rental projects it doesn't seem to have the same effect because you're dealing more with Apartments as opposed to this type of a a product so again all of the your statements refer to the benefit of the developer I am questioning maybe Mr Peters can weigh in on this as well um you know how the residents of this area feel and and what what everyone else is doing out there and what the how everyone is feeling about this segregation right well so I can't speak for somebody who is buying an affordable housing unit because I'm not that person so I understand what you're saying but when you look at affordable housing you have to make it economically feas for the market rate developer to build the affordable housing and they're telling us that in order for their project to be successful they need to have the affordable units put into separate buildings I believe they're going to be beautiful buildings they're going to be part of a beautiful Community um the buildings outside are going to be very nice but yes people will know that those are probably where the affordable uh units are but it's going to be a brand new um construction it's going to be terrific even the affordable units Madam chair yes just to follow up on that because I might not have been following along all of Mr Steven's testimony um either Miss Jennings or Mr Stevens is there a phasing plan proposed currently in this set of plans for the affordable housing unit construction yeah so you we have to by law and that would be your affordable housing liaison it's very clear that as you're constructing the market rate units I believe the first 25% of your units can go up and then the next the first before you go to the 26th unit let's say you have 100 unit project you have to build 25 of the affordable and you got to think about the affordable or in in only three buildings so we're going to build the affordable probably much quicker than we're going to build the market rate so there there's a set forth in the uniform housing affordability Control Act that is very clear as to how you have to do it so we will give you a plan so you're you can guys can follow along as the cosos are uh ISS in your building department but that's all statutory that we have to do and we we can't get around that my question was is is it in this set of plans it it it is not Mr pet the reason I was asking is because I think Mr hudak's trying to figure out are you going to build 154 units and then before you build the 155th unit build 40 affordables I think he's looking for the project to be integrated M Jennings gave the correct uck standards that when they get to 25% of the market rate units they have to build the first affordable unit they're not going to build one unit you're going to build a building so when they get to 25% which I guess would be somewhere around 50 units then they have to build one of the buildings so they will be integrated it won't be they build all the town homes dump the project have someone else come back here and say well we want to put more market rate units up that would violate the use for this project so there is a phasing plan for the affordable housing unit so they're integrated into the project I think you're misinterpreting my point and that was that I am concerned about uh when the bus comes to pick up the kids to go to school I'm sure it's going to stop there so these kids coming in out of that segregated lowincome house or housing they're GNA I don't know are they going to be ostracized or they going to be uh picked on because they live in a low income you know it's not spread out throughout the whole project it's limited to one area so maybe I can maybe I can I can try to address this a little bit the co-regulations with regard to that type of concern are pretty stringent um one of the things that I took notice of and again I I'm sitting here and looking at the plans and I'm wondering um you know one of the requirements is that uh these types of units are not built in a place uh or a less desirable location than market rate right that is a requirement um I don't necessarily see it as less desirable but you may disagree with me um I think that it it this is not the first plan where I've seen um these types of units in their own I don't want to call it a section but but in their own sort of you know uh uh buildings right sort of together uh and there's nothing in the law that prohibits that I will say that the statute uh as well as our ordinances pref you know say that they prefer um that the uh these units be integrated um but there's no legal requirement that they be integrated so if I I don't know if that maybe helps answer the question a little bit better well I agree right I believe they should beated rest of but what that's not what we're seeing here correct I keep hearing the word segreg and you know I hear that it was an unfortunate word yes my next I agree so Mr herak I think I can so um this this is this is not a new way this is not a new design method or planning method uh Builders have been clustering the COA units in a certain section of a development but it's still part of the community that's being built all right um they large track builders they do that for active adult communities where they have affordable units uh in one area of the active adult community and then they have their market rate somewhere else we have such we have those such type units right here in Jackson as part of the Westlake um as far as some of the other types of multif family plan applications we've seen and approved we've seen it both ways we've seen some that have been um co-mingled throughout the throughout the market rate buildings but I would say we've seen more so where they've been clust Ed in that development but they've been clustered together somewhere so it's not it's not uncommon um it's not uncommon and I can tell you but when my recollection when this application came in front of us there wasn't I don't recall that being a large all right never mind Ernie Ernie reminded me of of my my non recollection no it's it's a good point Mr udak and I think another way to look at it is if a project decides it's not uncommon for a developer to offer two types of units I mean that's done all the time and there isn't going to be a sign at the end of it's gold EXA that says affordable housing you know the Township's going to know about it's going to be on your roles and take up some of your responsibility however it's it's not going to be broadcast in the neighborhood it's going to be just a different unit type I'm sure in the neighborhood you grew up in you know you lived in a house and some of your friends had bigger houses some at smaller houses I know I don't look at people differently because of that I was on the orig Sor I was on the board when this was originally heard and um I haven't heard in my four years now I haven't heard too many of the multif family developments like this but this one specifically I remember and it's funny because I didn't realize until tonight when he pointed out the name changed so I didn't realize that I heard this original variant so when I was reading through it so originally was called he blah blah BL oh the applicant's name changed yes so I was a little like Ryan anyway that was one of the things that stuck stuck out to us then and I remember questioning the board members then what is the standard and although it need done both ways one of the things that stuck out was we like it was integrated there was some discussion about garages were they going to be the same because although they they're obviously going to be different than the market rate units were they going to be similar so they out so um I'm struggling a little bit like Mr Hudak obviously with um I understand from a business perspective right I put my business hat on I understand exactly why you're making the request but I think back to the original hearing and part of what was like was that they were integrated in part of I don't use the word sayg either cluster you said cluster cluster um in a different area but um I do remember that being part of the discussion so um I I can understand completely why you want to discuss it because I'm struggling with it myself my other question before I open the qu Miss point is is back to the parking that also I remember was uh a question at that time and um when I went back to the resolution it talked about the number of spaces but if we're going to be renting it out for use I would think back on what Mr Murphy said I would think we really need to discuss some additional parking there um one of the other developments that was well up at that time they talked about the problem they have with parking and how they're out parking outside the neighborhood so if we're having a a large event we're making it bigger we're raising the they're talking about raising the roof I think we really need to address that as well because otherwise we're going to end up with some of the other uh developments like we have in town so I think that's definitely something we would need to address as well thank you um so my question when hearing all this is um what are the standards that's always what I like you know hold on to is like and and Mr Murphy you mentioned something um vaguely about maybe our ordinances prefer it but don't require it is there any like because I just think it's dangerous path to go down to start saying well I'm concerned about you know this person when and and bringing subjective like I could appreciate wanting to you know protect X or you know talk about my preference about why but I just always like to go back to like what are what's the Benchmark that we need what do we need to be measuring this against what is like what are the criteria because I just think it's a it's uh that that's what I always go back to I I mean I wish there was a set criteria and let me just I'll read the portion of the ordinance that I'm relying upon to to kind of tell you that it's there's discretion right I mean there is discretion it's not as if it's a set standard and what the uh section 24425 says is that to the extent possible low and moderate income units shall be integrated with the market units so like any good lawyer I could read that 16 different ways I was just going to say you could argue that it's integrated you argue that it isn't correct um but what that leads me to conclude right from from from the way that it's worded is that there is no requirement that they be integrated it's preferred right it's preferred the statute mimics what the ordinance says um you know so so again there is no requirement that they be um clustered and there's no requirement that they be integrated um again I I tend to agree to a certain extent with Mr Stevens um and Mr uh Mr Peters and Mr Hill uh and when I say that I I personally have seen them I I am more used to seeing them cluster personally same um you know so so again to me it's not an uncommon request um nor is it anything that overly concerns me my concern was more related to the use variants um and whether whether or not that was considered by the board in the grant of the use variants um that's where my head was because I wanted to make sure that we didn't need a new use variant My ultimate conclusion on that as I told you was that I I don't believe that that was considered by the board as a condition for the use variant I do believe it was testified to but the resolution is pretty clear that the only condition that was placed upon the applicant was the 20% um set aside for the uh Kaa uh as offered by the applicant it wasn't even required mad chair if I might offer a real world experience um on balance I think that this plan would be a superior plan when it's finished and you're standing out there and the reason for that is because they're going to be Bill eight unit buildings get rid of 10 unit buildings and they going to be eight unit buildings so there's not going to be any 10 unit buildings so when you think think of multif family projects I lived in a place called Windom place behind Freehold Regional Central State Hospital what an end unit I didn't realize until I lived there for probably two or three weeks that mine was an affordable building because it was 10 units and in the middle there was two stacked units for the life of me I couldn't tell but I did notice when I drove around that the I lived one of them bigger buildings and I didn't enjoy the architecture of it as much so to the extent and again one person says potato and one person says potato on balance how it looks there's going to be similar architecture to the area where the affordable units are going to be and instead of having larger town home buildings we're going to have less large smaller town home buildings so if you think about it from that perspective I think unbalanced what the site looks like when you walk through it you drive through it you see the school buses circulate around it yes they need to be here for an amended approval they need to go through all the details with us I'm very happy to see the board members have looked at the plans and understood the difference between what was approved previously and what they're proposing now which you know when you look at bills two sheets what I think on balance sheet should also take into account that they're not building larger buildings in the end they're going to build one fewer building and all the buildings in theory would be smaller than they were previously because they're going to Cluster affordable units in their own buildings just and again we may get more information either from Mr Stevens a planner an architect but my perspective as you look at this project when it's finished I think it's probably less intense the project that was originally approved just to piggyback off that I I I completely concur with what Mr Peters said but um just piggy back that I think the applicant here deserves some credit um because the the entire reduction is to the market rate units uh the requirement in the use variant was 20% right so because the applicant has actually reduced the number of Market units um uh but kept the affordable housing units the same uh giving giving the township 40 um they they've actually given us more than than was conditioned in the use variants so I I mean I again I I you know I think that that you know that that deserves some consideration here because again I you know as as Miss Jenning said you know we have a an enormous C requirement now um you know so so just some food for thought it doesn't take away from the idea of segregation but the way that I look at this particular plan personally is that it from a planning perspective the way that I see it Mr Peters feel free to disagree I'm not a planner it makes the best use of the propert it appears to me to be the best use of the property and it appears to me to be appropriately designed so that perhaps it won't look as though those are affordable housing units but perhaps it might look like they're rental units or something of that nature uh you know so so again I you know I don't think the location is less desirable uh you know and again I I I I I prefer the word clustered like everybody else here um but but ultimately you know Clubhouse parking aside I I think you know I I think the applicant deserves some credit here this is I see it as a welld designed plan and just if we could just address the parking for a second oh I'm sorry yeah I just wanted to make just a couple comments uh one I think we corrected something by using cluster instead of segregated that's a better word and I wish they would come up with something better than affordable housing because in a lot of people's minds uh they equate that with welfare and low income and if anybody ever heard had a plan it down about affordable housing and these people have to earn significant money to be able to either purchase or live in these homes at one time they were talking about $882,000 I don't know if that's close to a number um yes I was on the board on in March of 2020 and I was surprised that you had in integrated units I mean everything we seen uh going up in Jackson now has the these clustered homes uh it's just as we said it's just a management way and if you and these units have to be managed and if you have them dispersed between other buildings how does a management company manage I mean they have to be within reason so U I don't see anything wrong with what was going on and just one quick um mention on uh parking I think chairman was discussing about the parking situation I think it's called Cooks Landing right across okay I mean if anybody drives in there you cannot drive through there there were cars parked all over the street the town had to stop them from parking outside the community recently and I just hope that there's enough room for two cars to go on the street and maybe uh street parking has to be eliminated and in those cases and and again look for more parking areas yeah so we would actually like to address the parking because the site is actually significantly overp parked and with respect to the clubhouse itself there are 60 spaces that we didn't even count in our parking calculation that are right next to the clubhouse and if you think about the clubhouse it's less than 5,000 squ feet I'm want to make the math easy uh if it was one per 100 if you had an ordinance requirement that's only 40 spaces we got 60 it's going be more than sufficient spaces if somebody has a little party there or something like a first birthday party for their friends and family to come over instead of having it in their home plus bill can go through it but the the testimony is that each unit has been assigned two spaces whether they have the garage two-car garage or garage in a driveway or even the affordable units have one I believe near them and there all be assigned spaces but Bill probably should testify rather than me I the only reason I I thought I I and again I I was not on the board's counsel at the time when I was going through this I thought I read that there were 44 spaces and you just test there was testimony that it was not increased so but it was increased the the site plan was approved is is the same parking area that we have now 60 spaces but we we never count I could have read it wrong but we never counted those Mr Murphy in our calculations U Miss pares said she wanted to hear what you know what are the facts what do we compare it against we are required with this Spa with this project everything included to have 566 parking spaces we have 695 spaces provided plus the 60 spaces in the clubhouse so we are we are substantially overp parked and I know we went over the cooks Landing debate at length when we talked about this that was not one of my projects but they're very narrow roads I think some of them are as narrow as 20 feet if I remember correctly very narrow and and very underpar we we addressed all of those things we went through through there that is not this project this project will in my opinion end up being the nicest multif family project in Jackson Township and I mean respectfully I will tell you looking at it from the aerial site plan view to me uh much better design than the place that I was at for the clubhouse parking uh so I I I have significant less concern so thank you madam chair just to finish up on the off street parking Mr Stevens on Tranquility place that aisle width is 30 ft the entire project is a fire zone correct there's no parking permitted any place in this project correct stre we do not have on street parking here that is correct so that's one of the problems that we had diagonally across the street down the road this design also because it's it's not condos or apartments there's also limited space along the street because of the number of driveways for the 195 units that are being proposed so yes could someone decide to go and park on that 30ft strip one or two people in between a number of the buildings Maybe please understand that the entire Loop Road is posted no parking fire lane there'll be signage to that effect as opposed to and I I remember Dr hofstein having this conversation either at the use or site plan well if we make it 30 people will park on it so should we have it at 24 no we need to have it at 30 so they built something that's sufficient in withth to handle the traffic and they provided quite frankly 750 P parking spaces what amounts to just under 200 units so yes it three bedrooms there might be a few more parking a few more cars if you did the calculation but in the end for the project there's 750 or 55 parking spaces for right around 200 units so we we don't have any quote unquote commercial vehicle parking areas on site if uh if a man is a plumber and he brings his Plumbing Vin sorry beat me to it you beat me to it thank you if a person is a plumber and they bring their van home they Park in one of their parking spaces yeah what just say uh no no and I mean I I don't know what the Township's rules are I mean people are probably parking in residential zones on their driveways right now now in the streets I don't know if you they get cited for that I don't know if that's an issue not really a land use issue I know Mr I know what Mr hudek is driving at um I I I live in a development similar to this um and we have a designated area for commercial vehicles um and and they're not permitted in the regular spaces or whatever you want to call them um I don't know that that's as common anymore um and given the nature of the fact that these have driveways I I feel less concerned it's all owner occupied in the entire development so these are going to be built driveways and their own parking spaces there's a few guest spots but you're certainly not going to park in somebody else's parking spot I mean these town home communities do have those rules but I mean if there's a representation that the HOA is not going to prohibit that I I would feel pretty good about that and in a situation like this there are no public roads for them correct mam chair I I'm like used to seeing neighborhoods where people have a cargo van in their driveway I'm just trying to understand like they're not they they're not permitted to use Park their pickup truck or their cargo van in their driveway commercial registered correct I think that's title 39 yes because they're not allowed to in landscapers plumbers that was one of the cases that was the development that we talked a lot about then um but with the point though that's something the association agreed on like all the residents agreed okay we don't want people parking there Plumbing well I can't speak to whether the residents agreed that was what the HOA agreed and I think what Mr Hudak is trying to avoid having that situation okay um I think well I think Mr Peters was going to give us some very valuable input on that did you did you have something you want to say title 39 something of that nature I think there's two things one is the imposition of title 39 which the applicant can concede to which allows this town to come in and write and enforce parking laws and then if the HOA has something that says you can't park commercial vehicle or a certain size vehicle on site have some enforcement power can so where does that leave somebody yeah I I think the intents not to do that I mean it's going to be some look if a plumber buys one of the tow houses and he wants to park his van on his drivew in his garage what what do we care I think we're kind of going down a little bit of rabbit hole nobody has indicated that commercial uh a resident's commercial vehicle that they use for their their Plumbing business cannot park in their driveway or in a parking spot here nobody's nobody suggested that I think that it came up as a hypothetical but there's been no testimony on the record that the HOA restricts that right so we're going down I I think we're going down an Avenue here and I I respect what you're saying but I understand what Mr Hudak saying um because like I said this I was on this originally and that was one of the developments that was brought up and that was one of the problems that was cited so my suggestion here is and because I completely understand where he's going where does that leave somebody Cooks Bridge despite the fact that they shouldn't be parking there at least they have an option of somewhere to park this location you're really not going to have that but that being said with the over parking situation you do still have Clubhouse parking there are some other places they could go within the development if it's not an HOA regulation so there is an out there I but I I appreciate Mr hudc bringing that up because that is a huge issue yeah over there that development is a parking nightmare yeah and again I I think it's a valid concern because we don't want we don't we would there's really nowhere to park on Harmony Road those types of vehicles yeah I I see where you're going okay I I have a question just for the record um Mr Stevens you mentioned that you're not making changes to the size of the clubhouse parking lot because it looks on the plan like there is a change no we we had 60 parking stalls before we have the same number of stalls now I'm looking at exhibit A4 looks to me like it's missing the row of parking that's closest to the clust club house and there's more I mean it's a good thing there's more now but I it looks different it looks like there's an additional it looks like it's it was 46 and it's now 60 yeah I think you shortened yourself that's why I said it looked like 44 before I think you actually did increase it I think we did Mr Murphy I apologize for misspeaking you you you are correct M cornes uh exhibit a A4 Anthony if we could look at that so exhibit A4 I I prepared just to try to make it simple for the board to understand what we were talking about those are the two areas of the project that are being proposed as part of this revision and and it's a good thing also now because we can look at what was previously approved and and what is being proposed so yes we did end up adding another row of parking along the front of the clubhouse so we did increase that that uh number of stalls in that parking lot slightly you are correct thank you for correcting me and another question I don't know if I don't want to interrupt your flow but since we're all going off on tangents um and I'm looking at this lot this uh exhibit it looks like you um highlighted the areas that are have the revisions but I'm trying to understand because I think the 10 unit buildings were reduced to 8 unit buildings but I don't all I see is the common spaces and the new um affordable area so I'm just I'm Cur I'm I'm just trying to make sense of like where are the other changes no problem and certainly understood I was I was trying to give you the planning testimony and yes there have been some architectural changes to the buildings we are going to have architectural testimony our architect will go through that in detail with you but yes we did change the 10 unit buildings down to eight unit buildings as has been discussed in my testimony and Mr Peter's testimony and and that is the intention it's just not indicated on this plan as the revised are you're right I could have circled the middle of those 10 buildings but I did not okay can I ask a few questions um some very just specific make sure I understand the map and then the final one so the affordable housing just to be sure it's buildings uh because you nicely uh numbered the buildings so it's 456 that is correct yes those are the affordable okay um so the outside architecturally they're going to be exactly similar the others they're not going to be exactly the same they are going to be similar and again we're going to have another witness and we have an architect here with us this evening is going to give that testimony okay um okay um so in theory I know nothing about what's going on and I just drive through it I'll be able to tell that those affordable ones are a little different than all the others right I I I think my testimony earlier saying that we're going to have two unit types in this project is is correct and and it's not unusual for a job right so two unit types affordable non affordable correct am I right well if you want to use those words yeah you wouldn't say non aordable but Market I get you I get you um okay I understand that um the clubhouse right so so You' mentioned you you it was about 19 ft almost 20t that you got approved for and now you want to make a 27 correct uh but it's still just one floor yes okay so who's going to be so tall that you need 27 ft I'm going to have why make it so tall I'm going to have the architect give that testimony I just want to give the the planning I'll wait for that I know it's next to a basketball court but I don't think we have a 27 I just think it looks nicely this building we one floor look how high our building sing is it gives a lot of ambiance to a structure it does and the the planning testimony here I I think think this really is a DI Minimus variance that we're asking for we're approved for 20 fet we're asking for 27 ft the clubhouse itself is surrounded by buildings that are 35 feet tall at again permitted it's because it's an accessory structure it's only allowed to be 15 feet high so that's why we're asking for this but when one looks at it from the street it's 600 feet off of Harmony Road I mean you're not going to see it from the street the only people that are really going to see it are the people in the community themselves and it's going to be a benefit to the community so I think it's something they're going to appreciate the aesthetic quality that we're going to see but again the architect would give more testimony yeah but thank you that that's a good so it's not going to be taller than all the other buildings because the other ones are actually taller the other buildings are tall correct and just to clar thank you just to clarify you're looking for a c variance not a D6 variance correct correct so you don't exceed by more than 10t or 10 what 10t structure that only applies to a principal you're right but correct you don't need a D6 variant C variant however we should all just think it's as it relates to the LC Zone correct that is correct that's an LC Zone requirement accessory structures 15 ft thank you because we didn't reone the property corre use variants for this use with set of standard the height yep correct but the height of the clubhouse was dictated and given in great testimony going through the orig approval so we do need to amend that that's what we're seeking to make it slightly taller okay I thank you I appreciate that yeah um what was my oh so so the square footage of the clubhouse is almost doubled right so the occupancy is there a limit to how many people can be in that clubhouse at one time fire and all that kind of stuff again that's architectural testimony it's not something I'm familiar with I'll ask him about that um it also related to to the parking um looks fine to me you got 60 60 spots that are open to anybody not reserved for anybody so if I have a party um I had a few I was writing them down as people were talking no I think that's it thank you thank you Mr Hen a couple questions um first of well did I miss this Clubhouse is that going to be able to be rented out to people outside or is it only specifically for people part of this HOA only the residents of the HOA perfect uh next question is there going to be EV parking outside I'm assuming that it wasn't a requirement then it probably is now it it was not a requirement then and we have decided that we are going to comply with the EV parking mandate and and make the the project compliant so we agree to comply perfect thank you sorry just reminded me of the other question so in the clubhouse it's only for the residents right but me as a resident I could bring 50 of my friends no problem right yes so I want to make sure that that's clear yes it's only for the residents but I can bring 50 Outsiders and that's why I need the park you can make your birthday party that's fine yeah we want to watch as long as not being rented out essentially you won't be rented perfect no commercial rental right thank you thank you what one of the points that Mr Peters brought out talking about variances for the project in in his review letter Anthony if we go back to exhibit A3 please talks about the area located immediately adjacent to to the Wetlands we're we're talking about building number six this building so one thing that we had never realized and was never shown on our prior plan was the township has an ordinance that buildings have to be a minimum of 50 feet from Wetlands lines so our prior application was by pure happen stance it was 54 ft to the building that was Lo located along that CAC this building is 4911 ft to the wetlands line and Mr Peters pointed that out uh so we're just going to agree to comply we're going to move the building so that it's 50 feet we'll find the 10 inches that we need to find and we'll move the building so that it is 50 feet we will comply with that requirement Mr Peters also asked about about building coverage and maximum lot coverage we we do comply with with both both of those there is basically no change or very small change to the building coverage two1 of a percent and to the lot coverage less than half a percent so they're both very small changes and still falling within the requirements think we talked about the parking at length already one of the things we we really didn't talk about though and should is the the parking for the co-units each co- unit is going to have a driveway in front of the unit itself so you have one driveway parking spot for your unit then Mr Peters just said that listen you know these units they they should have two designated spots so we will designate spots in the parking Fields themselves so that every unit owner will have two designated spots one in front of their unit and then one in the parking field we we talked about ADA compliance and to to me that is one of the biggest benefits says the engineer who has to design these grades and make make these walks work it's it is not an easy task but having them all in in a building next to each other makes it much easier than having them in different buildings with different varying Heights so we are going to comply with the Ada and I think this building will be an improvement in our ADA compliance somebody had asked about the EV Mr Heyman I think asked about the EV parking we're going to agree to comply as I said in my opening test testimony the storm waterer management system is largely constructed for this site and we we have no questions that the changes can be handled by the existing storm water management system and we're happy to work through those details with your engineer if he has any further questions we did submit just because it is a application requirement we did submit the original environmental impact statement that we had prepared for this original project along with this application just to get through a checklist requirement but as as the board can see the site is is already cleared mostly developed we are not changing the limited disturbance as part of this project so there there really is no environmental impact to this revision the the Landscaping that we had proposed for this project the board may recall we have substantial Landscaping plans increasing buffers because a lot of this was farm field originally there wasn't a lot of landscaping so we are doing some extensive plantings we had not made really any changes save to accommodate the changes and improvements that we have the interior of the recreation area and and the COA clustering area but other than that we kept the Landscaping plan exactly the same as it was Mr Peters does have some comments and the applicant agreed to comply so we we are going to comply with his comments lighting for the site is going to remain exactly the same with the exception of making some small changes to Serenity court so we need to light that parking area one of the things that was discussed at Great length when we talked about lighting for this project was whether or not we were going to light the walking trails around the perimeter of the project and we all agreed that that was not a good idea and the applicant agreed at that time that what we would do is Place Ballard lighting at all places where the walking trail meets the paved roadways so that people would have a clear definition of where the walkway starts and where the road starts and we are going to continue doing that garbage refu collection we had talked about this at Great length and and there are no changes it will be done by the homeowner association the town has no obligation here it will be done utilizing rooc cans those rooc cans will be stored inside of each of the units and the architect will testify further as to how that is done but there really is no change to what we had previously preped proposed and and the same thing is being proposed for the Clubhouse we're going to use rooc cans for that as well and while while we don't show it we will add in a a screened in fencing area to store the robo cans for the clubhouse but we're proposing to utilize the same method as we're using for the rest of the development as far as utilities go for the project we do have Municipal Water and Municipal sewer here the sewer comes from the south uh out the county Line Road that sewer is already constructed the sewer is on site and it and it is already built the water is coming from two directions it's coming from the north on Harmony Road to the South to the project as well as being connected through that same route through that same project to the South out to County Line Road the water has been extended from the site in Harmony Road is in the project has been extended down to the connection point where it joins the project to the south of us they have not yet constructed that water but we understand it will be done shortly and we will complete the loop for the water jtm has asked us to go back and update our approvals from ocua and D for this amendment should this board look favorably we have to go back to the D and to ocua to update are utility improvements to reflect these changes with the chair yes just to follow up on the EV um I was referring to before was by the clubhouse is the on Serenity Court where there's you mentioned that you're that the low-income housing is having only one parking driveway and then one designated on the street so I just want to make sure if they have two EV vehicles that they're going to be able to charge it on Serenity that you're going to have EV stations in their parking lot as well because if they have two Vehicles then they can't charge them because they only have one driveway that is something that people would have to end up working out I mean we're required to provide up to 15% Make Ready spaces that's what the EV requirements are we're not going to build two EV parking spaces for for every unit that that's not something we're going to do right no I I don't mean that I mean is that oh will the affordables have access yes correct yes they will yes you're saying you're going to put EVS in by the affordable and by the club that is correct my concern we're going to comp to be designated but I just want to make sure that they have access to it near their home right we we will comply with the rules and yes we will provide some EV parking down in Serenity Court as well thank you for the clarification moving on talking about the environmental constraints for the site the board will recall we we had gone through and gotten all our D permits flood Hazard area and and wetlands permits prior to this your engineer brings up the point that our letter of interpretation Wetlands letter of interpretation has has expired which it has we do still have the valid Wetlands transition area averaging and all our Wetlands permits are still valid however all the work's already been done we're not doing any more work in that direction it's already been finished I don't believe there is a need to update the existing Loi but again well I would I would agree with you the fact that the project is under construction there's no need Y and and we do have the we do have valid Wetland permits happy to supply them if anybody needs to see copies we are not proposing any changes to any of the buffers that were previously done we're not proposing any changes to the dimensions of the driveways all the buildings previously were located 26 fet from the curb line that Dimension will continue to stay the same we are not changing any of Dimensions from the buildings to the parking areas you know sidey yard setbacks that types of things we had agreed originally that would be 15 ft as a minimum and that is what we're providing there will be a not will be there is a Condominium Association that's already been created for this project it's created and the master deed has been filed all of the deed restrictions for the open space Wetlands flood Hazard area all of those have already been filed and recorded as Mr Peters did say we are we do have no parking signed striping on the plan and we're proposing no change to that that is going to stay the architect will will give more testimony regarding the architectural improvements the improvements along County I'm sorry along Harmony Road have been begun we have as I said our utilities in we have our storm water in we have the the curb in what we don't have is our polls relocated I don't know if anybody's heard any of this but it's hard to get polls moved these days so we're waiting for jcpnl to move their polls as soon as they move their polls we will get the site you know the frontage paved there as well but that is what we're waiting for the county improvements are started just not completed waiting for the utility company I think that's uh generally what I had to in my in my testimony thank you that's the direct testimony any additional questions Mr Stevens I have a question so it looks like the original plan had a dog park and that was removed in know 195 units with pets can you tell us why that was removed the the applicant believes that the amenity package they proposing is is is the appropriate one that's this is their value this is what they think that people want any other questions Mr Stevens call your next uh witness at this time I'd like to call up our architect Maly rub good evening Madam chair members of the board my name is Melissa RB I am sure just raise your hand sure thank you you s me swear from the testimony information questions and comments they about to present before the board be the truth the whole truth of nothing but the truth I do thank you thank you please state your name uh your affiliation and your credentials we do um Melissa R last name rub um I am a project manager at BF design and Associates in lco New Jersey I'm a graduate of the City College School of Architecture I'm licensed here in the state of New Jersey um and I previously testified before Jackson's planning board and many other Municipal boards throughout the state this board accept your credentials thank you thank you thank you and if you could um just go through the different building designs and if you're going to rely on any exhibits that should identify them for the record sure we'll do tonight I'll be presenting our architectural proposal for Grand Harmony outlining a few key items um to give the board a road map of our discussion I'll begin with the requested minor modifications to the previously approved market rate Town Home Town Homes I'll be referring referring to the standard town home as the Berkeley model then I'll briefly introduce two alternate layouts um for the market rate Town Homes called The Frisco and Aspen models next I'll present a new single car garage model um which we'll call the Crestmont um which were will be in lie of the previously um design areas at the COA units um we'll then review the floor plans for the new COA buildings and lastly we'll end with the clubhouse design Anthony if I can TR you to pull up exhibit A5 thank you um A5 is a standard building elevation for the maret rate units um this these this elevation was previously approved by the board um so my focus tonight will be on the requested modifications um to these units for the record the Berkeley town homes are approximately 1,13 Square ft at the first floor 1,288 ft at the second floor with the dimensions of 26 ft wide and 62 ft deep each town home is three bedrooms 2 and a half baths with an option to add an additional up to two and a half baths um Mr Peter's review letter raised the question of Building height these Town Homes reach approximately 30 ft um um to the midline of the highest Gable varying slightly because of grading um but always under the 35 ft limit um if we can move to exhibit A8 please which is the attic plan so we have added an attic and a basement plan to our submission um the attic yeah that's the first Flor second floor thank you attic um the attic includes an an optional bonus room a playroom and bathrooms for you know as as options for potential buyers and exhibit [Music] A9 the basement features an open area and an optional room labeled area B with an optional powder room um we are furthermore requesting the board remove the restriction for an egress window at the basement the egress window is being requested purely from a safety standpoint um we feel that if there's a playroom or a home office in the basement it would be prud to provide a second means of erress from the story we'll now proceed to exhibit A1 and a12 which are the alternate layouts um for the market rate homes I want to um stress that from the outside these buildings will be identical to the Berkeley model um you won't be able to tell the difference so it's only interior layout changes that we are presenting tonight um exhibit A1 thank you is the frisco model um this model again has minor changes at the ground ground floor um with the um with an optional study um in the breakfast area and the Loft area at the second floor has been removed to expand the owner Suite um if we move to exhibit a12 that's this is the Aspen model um similar to the Berkeley in layout the Aspen is slightly shallower so that's the difference here um at 58 ft due to site constraints so this is you know sometimes the site wouldn't allow for the full 62t model model so an end unit might be clipped to 58 ft and this is our Aspen model um we'll now move on to um exhibit 813 so in lie of the Kaa unit as um Miss Paris stutley pointed out the building footprint has not changed and the reason for that is that where the Stacked two unit um co-units were in the center of the building we have replaced with a 24ot wide town home so this is again a three-bedroom unit with a single car garage um and that's why the buildings have become lower in density from an 8 unit to a 10 sorry from a 10 unit to an 8 unit because they're no longer stacked units they're a full town home now um this model appears in buildings 1 2 3 7 11 12 17 19 and 22 so that's those these are the buildings that will be affected um this is so this is a typical Crestmont unit um it's a three-bedroom design with a single car garage which is 12 ft wide we also have included an alve in the garage area for two rooc cans um so to address item B7 on um page N9 of Mr Peter's letter we believe that there is sufficient space for both a parked vehicle and a and the rooc cans um if we move on to exhibit A14 so this is a full building elevation with the cresmont unit um integrated in so you can see that it Blends you know nicely into the other units and um and and aesthetically it's it's all cohesive now um exhibits A5 through 24 are there previously approved architectural drawings I've I've um admitted them as exhibits just to have in my back pocket if we wanted to um reference them for any reason but we're we're going to move on to exhibit 825 thank you very much um so as you know the uh the discussion during Mr Steven's testimony um he has organized these three buildings around a in a court-like fashion um buildings four five and six um the the layout of these co-units are identical to the ones that were approved previously we have not changed any items in the layout of the building we have just grouped them together and organized them differently so again um and you know not to rehash the point but there are some architectural considerations to grouping these buildings as well um again the COA units are slab on grade buildings while the market rate units um do have basements and constructing these two buildings side by side does have logistical implications um for our client the second reason is that as Mr Stevens mentioned the ground floor is an adaptable unit and so you know complying with all the Ada codes at the threshold changing from Mark the market rate units to the CO as in the Cent again um might would be challenging to construct lastly from a fire rating standpoint the COA units have 8ot ceilings on both floors while the mark rate units have nine foot ceilings at the first floor grouping them would simplify um the fire rating requirements for dwelling unit separation now um exhibit a25 is a typical elevation of the COA unit building so architecturally it's speaking the same language you know as the rest of the development um it really Mir the aesthetic and the colors the material um palette is really all there and um sorry exhibit 826 is again the first and second floor plans of the co units um as a full building and if we just move to a27 we can see a zoomed in version of one typical layout um again this has not been amended at all since the previous approved draw you know previous approval these are the same again they're just grouped together um lastly we have the clubhouse so if we could Anthony if I can trou you to go to exhibit a28 um after Consulting with our client and you know and the community we have enlarged the clubhouse as Mr Stevens um described from 200 sorry 2,278 s f feet to 4,671 foot footprint um the new club house is is approximately 51 ft deep and 97 ft wide 27 ft tall to the midline of the highest Gable um the program is very similar to the previous Clubhouse just kind of enlarg each of the spaces we feel that that's appropriate for a community the size um and we did at a conference room but other than that it's it's a very similar program to what was um in the old clubhouse at exhibit a29 lastly um that's our architectural elevations you can see that the reason for that 7 foot increase is that there's a single gable roof over the um the U multi-purpose room and you know that's just why the the room got bigger the roof got taller that kind of thing um and stylistically it really does blend with the rest of the development um we think it'll serve as a beautiful centerpiece to the community and um just for the record we are proposing two wall signs one at 57 square feet and one at six square feet I can point those out that's the large one and there's a smaller one right over the front door um Donna did I get everything I do I think you hit it all and Bravo I like how you Ed the word grouped instead of segregated or clustered I thought that thank very well um uh it makes much more sense now having seen her PL having seen her plans about why the uh roof is taller and the fact that it's still not as talls the buildings makes I mean it fits is what I'm trying to say and not doing a good job um and uh Mr Peters I just want to say thank you trying to see it from the back end and see it finished makes much more sense to be honest with you than thinking about I can remember the original discussions how it sounded great being integrated but listening to Mr Peterson then to explain if it has a 9- foot it definitely I can understand some of the issues that it would create um so I thank you for that I think you did a good job helping me understand that so thank you both any questions from Miss rub Mr Martins I second um so thank you I understand the clubhouse a lot better now and um everything that so how density how many people can be there at one time without a problem sure so um if we can go back one she to exhibit a28 the multi-purpose room is our you know main space and that's 2 200 square feet um code mandates that in a table and chairs configuration we allocate 15 square feet per person so we do the math it's about 166 persons at the maximum and so we design egress um you know to comply with those okay yeah and and I'm just looking at 166 so how many cars you know the parking space thing again but I just want to say the 100 66 numers again a it's kind of a code allocation that doesn't mean that you know the room will be set up in a tight table and chairs configuration that's 15 squ feet per person but it's unlikely that it be actually set up it's kind of you know the sign somewhere posted around here maximum occupancy that's where it comes from so right right right right it's a code number not want to be to looks looks fine to me thank you any other questions M Rob yes Mr I have a couple um your plan show an unfinished basement um can you explain what uses of any would be permitted in an unfinished basement um right now you know the it's it's extra space if the community decided to the HOA decided to raise the funds and finish it that's you know going to be a building department up to the building Department's discretion um I imagine in the beginning it'll be used for storage and the like um but again as of now being that it's unfinished it's it's not really allocated for a specific use my concern is occupancy if at some point the unfinished basement is meant to be occupied the building's twice as big as it is on the plan currently correct yes so at that point you require other things such as parking so we're concerned starts out as unfinished we all know what happens when something starts out unfinished the attention is not to have another you know ause down there as in gathering space I I I don't think the the ceiling height nor the um nor is that the our client's intention well the reason I ask is it appears from your elevations on drawing Z2 that it's a 12 foot tall basement correct let me double check that so that's yeah floor to floor without the you know floor structure I would say 10 foot ceiling in that room okay you would in your direct testimony and I I apologize for asking questions at 994 8:45 when everyone seems to like your project now but we didn't get the plans until today um I haven't had a chance to review what you talked about sign area for the building do you or your engineer have any idea if it complies with the municipal ordinance as it relates to building signage the reason I asked and Miss Miss Jennings will probably help me with this if you're asking for a variance we don't know what it is so if you're telling us that the signage on the building will not require a variance that's perfect otherwise I can't comment on the building size till I review the ordinance against it so if they tell us that the building signage is going to comply with the Municipal ordinance we're golden if not we need to verify that it doesn't require a variance yes so I think what it requires is that with respect to square footage we're fine it's the limit is usually one and there's two signs would that require a variance that would require a variance okay there we go thank you I didn't want to rehash the parking again so thank you for bringing it up I wondered that with the B um myself so I was hoping when the future we to bring that but again we are significantly over parked on this site so if they were ever in the future to go in for a building permit let's say there would has to get a zoning permit first so that would be analyzed then but right now that's just speculation well again our concern is if there's going to be a use right now it says it's unfinished at some point in time are we going to ask the homeowners association to come back here when they decide they want to finish it I think they well they would have to get a zoning permit but if they don't need any parking that's what I'm saying we're so overp parked I don't think it would trigger any any use question no that's all over direct testimony yeah just open to the public first and then uh just very quickly because I think we kind of really vetted everything uh pretty well this evening again this is just an amended preliminary and final major site plan we're not touching the use variants and then of course we're asking for the C variant for the height of the accessory Clubhouse and I guess I would amend my application to ask to allow the second sign if the board doesn't want to have allow us to have the second sign we could certainly remove that now and if in the future the client wants that second sign they can come back but I really think we're well under the square footage permitted under the ordinance we just have two signs instead of one larger sign so with that I would just respectfully request that the board Grant the approval question I might be conf confusing this with another application that we had but wasn't there an issue of the uh mail delivery that there was one spot where all the mailboxes and everybody had to come to that spot to pick up the mail is that an issue here they're doing cluster boxes I'm sorry I said they're doing cluster boxes cluster boxes located in each one of the buildings right so the the post office has really changed its rules they're they're trying to push cluster boxes for for all projects period but they certainly apply to mult family projects we had agreed to provide cluster boxes when we did this project and that is what we're going to do and they're going to be throughout the development correct yes I my client says I think you show them on your plan I I don't recall specifying where they're located but we could certainly work that out with your professionals uh it's it's a United States Postal Service requirement that we we're agreeing to comply with nobody wants it everybody wants to fight it because we all want our mail delivered to our front door and it's getting harder and harder to get that anymore uh any any other questions discussion I I would I like this project the way the way they presented it uh the building we we're just going to have to live with that the way everything is going and the changes certainly uh that they've made uh improveed the property and uh I I would definitely uh vote to approve it no are you making us a motion no unless somebody else has a comment I then I won't any other comment I I have similar thoughts I I it seems to me like um we're not really speaking to the variant itself as much as some of the conditions and there just some logistical reasons um overall some improvements um otherwise you know it's potato potato or um so it it seems to me to be very reasonable you know they they started construction they ran into some logistical issues part of the building has Basement part of the building doesn't eight floor8 foot ceiling 9 foot ceiling um and other similar things and it's just some technicalities that's what it seems like to me we're not really speaking to anything material as it pertains to the actual variance that was granted um so I I have similar sentiment that overall just minor minor changes and or improvements so would you like to make the motion um sure I don't want to take uh Dr hofstein Mo I would make the Motions I was just leaving it up to Mr Murphy to have we leave nitty-gritty stuff anything else want to to be included I say he didn't speak up so I'm like I guess he has nothing to add I would make a motion to approve the application I would agree as well I think um they did a great job and Mr Peter's clarification about the grouping um really helped and Miss R's explanation um my concern was the parking but you are overp parked um so um I I would agree as well so if it wasn't seconded I would second the motion because I don't remember if it was I'm sorry who was the motion Dr Dr H okay and Miss Bradley the second second it yes you got it roll call please sure Mr Heyman yes sorry it's okay Dr hofstein yes Mr Hudak Miss Parnes yes M Rosal yes Mr Martins yes Mr Stafford Smith excuse me Mr Mark right seven yeah yeah I said yes no he's the Mr Martin is the alternate correct yeah he doesn't vote tonight I'm sorry I should have my apology I want to said yes anyway voted yes anyway Mr Stafford Smith yes Miss Bradley yes great thank you so much have a nice evening motion to close motion to approve sorry about that I should have address