e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e all right we'll call the meeting to order let's see um will the secretary please call the RO sure chairman zooker here Vice chair person balson Alvarez is excused Mr spur here Mr felmet here council member Hamlet here Mr delori here miss McGee here Mr forelli is excused Mr Stern is excused Mr Bell is excused Miss Bowen here you have a quarum you may proceed thank you uh this point we can do the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all so in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 colon 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here in City Hall please be advised that this is a no smoking building fire exits are to my right and your left and the back of the room this is a scheduled meeting of the planning board there may be other meetings currently running running simultaneously with this meeting if you're not here for a summit planning board meeting your meeting may be upstairs or elsewhere in the building um at this time we can take up um are we doing the minutes at the end still can do them at the end you no I'd like to move them up okay have to move for approval of the minutes um has everyone had a chance to look over the minutes from our our last meeting and does anyone have any comments or Corrections hearing none I'd ask uh for a motion to approve the minutes so moved second second all right all in favor is this a Voice vote no this is a voice vote Voice vote Voice vote is f Mr chairman all right then all in favor I all opposed any abstentions all right the meetings the minutes are appr appr D I think tonight we're going to take um a little change to the order of the agenda um due to the fact that we have a um an ordinance for the city of summit uh which creates a Morris broad Crossroads overlay Zone district and um although that was number six on the agenda I I think we're going to move it up now and just give uh a chance to go through that now tonight we'll hear from uh two professionals to lead us off on this matter I've asked Mr Warner to give the board a summary of the legal parameters of what a consistency review is which is what we're being asked to do tonight and uh which which is guidance as to what our legal responsibilities are and what we we are and are not going to consider to right after that we'll hear from Mr Burgess who will explain exactly what the overlay does and uh how it how it impacts the master plan and how it is impacted by the master plan so I ask Mr Warner to to start certainly Mr chairman thank you this is a section 26a of the municipal land use law referral of the uh ordinance uh to our planning board as we've done before uh in the process the uh governing body the uh common Council introduces uh development regulations uh dr's uh and uh those are referred to under the mlul the planning board for master plan consistency review after which there could be a second reading by the common Council and a public hearing at that time uh so section 26a sets forth our statutory responsibility uh uh for a referral uh prior to the adoption of a development regulation the planning board shall make and trans sub MIT to the governing body within 35 days after referral a report including identification of any provisions in the proposed development regulations which are inconsistent with the master plan uh sometimes uh the question arises is this a public hearing the answer simply is no it is not a public hearing the public and nor is the planning board considering the merits of the ordinance uh whether you're in favor or against that has nothing to do with the planning board's narrow statutory Authority on a master plan consistency review uh in fact the Cox conic trus refers to it and says clearly the statute does not require a hearing uh nor uh does it require the matter to be open to public comment uh and uh the no one is deprived of an opportunity to speak to concerns raised by the ordinance because when the matter is returned to the governing body the common Council with the board's recommendations on master plan consistency review uh that is when there's a public hearing uh and uh that is when all members of the public have an opportunity to weigh in on the actual ordinance itself uh so again the narrow frame of reference and Authority for the planning board is simply whether the ordinance is and we do the double negative for a reason not inconsistent with the master plan uh the reason it's not inconsistent as the standard is because and I'll read uh uh from the statute 62a it requires every zoning ordinance to be either substantially consistent with the land use plan element in the housing plan element of the master plan or designed to effectuate such plan element and the Supreme Court in the seminal man alipin realy case weigh in on what substantial consistency with the master plan is and the court said that clearly some inconsistency is permitted provided that the ordinance does not substantially or materially undermine or distort the basic provisions and objectives of the master plan so uh all saying about close is close close enough close is more than close enough uh substantial consistency is simply not substantially or materially undermining or distorting the basic provisions and objectives of the master plan so that is your standard of review that is your charge as a planning board um we provide a one-page I am capable of drafting a onepage resolution here's proof uh we provide a one-page resolution that simply uh says uh based upon the report of Mr Burgess who we will hear from momentarily our planner uh the board here by finds and determines the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan and that's the report back back to the governing body if that is what you find um if you find otherwise we can remove the word not easily enough uh from from that phrase so it's up to you to make that determination after hearing from Mr Burgess um the reason we provide the one-page resolution is so that you can move right to adopting the resolution which is your report back to the governing body uh so you don't have to do it in two steps thank you Mr Warner okay I hope that clarifies it at least a little more than it might have been before and just to re iterate so uh our deliberations today are a discussion among uh the panel uh it is not a public meeting for that purpose though there will not be public comment invited today but there is a public meeting on June 11th when the public will have an opportunity to at Council that that's absolutely correct Mr chairman my understanding is the ordinance was introduced May 21 it's scheduled for a second reading in public hearing uh before the common Council on June 11 well more than 10 days which is a statutory uh requirement and again we are within that uh uh interim period uh to do our job which is to weigh in on the master plan consistency review councilwoman H well and if I may u correct me if I'm I'm wrong uh Mr Warner but there will be a point at which the public can come back to the planning or zoning boards upon whether or not the council approves of the overlay Zone that is the that is the part that is the public facing process in which they can talk about all of the things that they want to talk about development parking noise all of those things correct C certainly in the process not only will members of the public have an opportunity uh during the public hearing which is currently scheduled for June 11 before the common Council to weigh in on the ordinance itself uh the merits of it not tonight but then uh but also if that ordinance is indeed adopted uh then ultimately nothing would happen development wise until there was an application for presumably site plan and maybe some variance relief uh uh presumably before this board as opposed to the zoning board so there would be that another opportunity after June 11 uh to weigh in on an actual development application assuming the ma uh the matters proceed to that thank you thank you for that clarification so this is just an administrative function only and there there will be an opportunity from planning or zoning again but it will only be after public bid would be for this property cor correct this is yes this is just the master plan consistency review all right thank you thank you that Mr Burgess okay thank you I was glad to hear the councilwoman use the word administrative function um it is such an administrative function in contrast to a public hearing function that I don't even get sworn in because I'm not technically testifying correct um the statute's interesting you have 35 days from the time the council refers the ordinance to you to take an action and you know you could decide that it's consistent or inconsistent or partially consistent um and you make that recommendation or comment back to the governing body then the governing body can do as they wish anyway um they could accept your recommendation in H or in part or reject it in whole or in part um so it's a pretty fluid process that the state legislature had had established but with respect to this ordinance um I think everybody's aware that it consists of four lots and the four Lots Encompass a total of 1.6 acres in size on the property fronts on both Broad Street and Cedar Lane as well as mors Avenue and three of the four Parcels are already owned by the city Lot number one is the Chestnut public parking lot that's at 406 Broad Street uh Lot number uh three is the firehouse property and as I think everybody knows the firehouse is going to be relocating to a new site sometime this summer and that's at 384 to 392 Broad and lot number four is developed with an office building at 7even Cedar Street Lot number two is the one lot that's privately owned that's a 20 foot wide sliver there's a driveway on the pro on that property at present in terms of the ordinance itself it's designed to its purpose is designed to accomplish a few very specific things it specifically talks about encouraging inclusionary multif Family Housing Development it talks about encouraging a certain amount of public parking it also speaks to the issue of encouraging some uh usable open space and in addition it talks about providing some accessibility to St Teresa Memorial Hall all of that has to be done within the context of a comprehensive integrated design and that is why one of the ordinance Provisions uh requires a minimum of at least one and a half acres uh to ensure that the property will be developed as an integrated hole rather than in peace Mill development um the permitted uses are four specific categories of uses they include multif family residential development it includes mixed use development um with atg grade uh retail uh establishments uh it also includes office uses exclusive of medical and dental offices and it also includes townhouse development including stacked townhouse design uh it has the conventional accessory use category just basically saying anything that's customarily incidental to a permitted use with could be allowed it does expressly permit prohibit a certain number of specific uh accessory uses including drive-thru facilities including detached garages and sheds and also Standalone parking structures there's a whole host of area and bulk requirements associated with this zone I'm not going to list them all but some of them were significant ones are that minimum tract area of 1 and A2 Acres there's an F standard of 115% and that is specifically designed to encourage the use of the overlay zoning rather than the underlying business Zone it permits a maximum density of 30 units to the acre it does however if you do something less than that it still does in fact require a minimum of seven affordable units to be constructed on the site there's an interesting limitation that restricts the maximum length of building to 180 ft on the property and I think that was truly a function of a lot of the comments in a recent hearing uh on a portion of this property uh building Heights are limited to three stories and 36 feet there is a provision whereby it can be increased to a four-story 46ft tall building provided that that Upper Floor is set back farther into uh the building design and there's a whole host of um build building design criteria a lot of which is already spelled out in the ordinance and every Anyone Who develops this site will have to adhere to those to those standards if the council were to adopt this ordinance there would then be a request for proposals From perspective developers and um that process would have to play out in front of the governing body um and as Steve had mentioned once that takes place it would be at that point point where it would eventually come back to this planning board for site plan review now one of the other things that this ordinance does it does mandate that prior to the formal submission of this to this body there's a series of technical review meetings highl some of the technical details of an application and ensure compliance to cod with the maximum extent possible now as Steve had indicated you know the bottom line issue really is all about is the consistent or not and everybody calls this a consistency review in point of fact it's actually an inconsistency review and um as you know from our memo um we have concluded that it you the resoning is not inconsistent with the master plan we looked at both the 2000 master plan and the 2015 downtown plan and the 2016 m master plan revision SL reexamination report as well as the most recent uh housing element in fail share plan and all of those documents are pretty consistent with each other in terms of its goals and objectives they talk about uh implementing parking strategies that priori prioritize parking for visitors and residents and workers in the area it talks about promoting mixed use development it talks about encouraging inclusionary R development and it talks about encouraging a compatible intensity of use that is not inconsistent with the established development pattern in the municipality so recognizing that in each and every one of those instances this ordinance is consistent with those Provisions um it's safe for us to have concluded that this ordinance is in fact consistent with the master plan and therefore you can determine that it's not inconsistent with the master plan and with that I'd be happy to answer any question from the board yes well Joe I'm not uh not going to call you out you did a great job so thank you I will um make one correction for public record if I may um I think correct me if I'm wrong I think you might have made an error in saying that um the maximum is 30 units but in fact that's the minimum I think it was just um I think it was just I just want to clarify for the record we're on the same page the minimum is 30 units the maximum would be 48 per tract right I I I'm sorry when I heard was it 30 per acre 30 per acre okay I just want make sure which still gets you to 48 cuz it's 1.6 got it I just want to make sure we're on the same page so than you John sorry I just want to make sure I'm like okay I'm listening um so in the instance of if a developer picked 30 units on one tract or they let's just say 30 units the minimum affordable housing in that tract would be seven correct correct which is what that 23% something I just want to make sure okay I thought I heard you say the max maximum was 30 and that's that's the only thing I just want to correct and make sure we're on the same page 30 to the acre and this is a 1.6 acre got it okay perfect thank you that's that was the from a practical perspective Joe I mean how can the planning board be helpful I assume to the conversation that the public should be having and that the mayor and common Council should be having it's easy to kind of check the box on inconsistency or consistency but I assume we're kind of spurring a conversation that should Arise at the next the next hearing yes it's the governing body's responsibility to have that public hearing right and that's where the public comment will take place and both myself as well as Tom from my office will be at that hearing to assist in that is it best to focus on the goals for example from the 2016 reexamination and make sure that in Broad Strokes if this conforms with the intent of that particular document or the others that are mentioned here yes okay if I may add Mr chairman with your I like to refer to the planning board as The Gatekeepers of the master plan that is uh uh we alone uh separate and apart from the governing body um uh adopt the master plan as and uh uh and are in essence The Gatekeepers so that is why the governing body comes to us for the review of consistency or inconsistency I thought only lawyers use double negatives now I know planners use double negatives as well which is gives gives us company um so uh that that is the the narrow scope and that's the way we can in my opinion and the ml's opinion uh best facilitate the process uh for the next step the governing body can we pick up on one thing you had mentioned is that the review is meant to assess the consistency or substantial inconsistency however you want to look at it between the master plan but also the housing plan elements you called that out specifically in in one of your your comments there yeah the the the uh well every uh uh every municipality's master plan will have there's a mandatory uh uh uh plans and a housing plan and a land use element those are mandatory elements so those are somewhat of a focus if you will for consistency purposes but really it is the and please correct me if I'm wrong with purgis planner uh it is the master plan in whole all elements are relevant to the recog recognize um a master plan can can consist of many different elements the statute identifies about 15 different elements uh the only obligatory ones are the uh land use plan and the housing element and fair share plan and the statement of objectives and the statement of that's always part of the master plan or land use plan um I might have neglected to mention the housing element and fair share plan but that was designed to implement the settlement agreement that the municipality has with fair share housing center and in that settlement agreement it specifically does talk about encouraging um includ iary development and that's why it really all ties together nicely I you'd mentioned in your memo here site is not currently listed as a plan mechanism in the city's 2018 housing element and fair share plan so if we're going to put a special emphasis Shine the Light on the housing element for just a moment if anything this codifies makes consistent perhaps even argu a deas point improves the likelihood of development and by codifying that um afford hous will encourage the affordable development affordable housing correct and what's interesting is that in the settlement agreement and then in the implementing ordinances for the Mass housing element and fair share plan there is a requirement for a mandatory set aside ordinance for any multif family development so that really ties the Bell around it all okay right I'll be quiet for a minut go through you Mr chairman Steve I think it's such an important point and I spend more time in this document the housing element in fair share plan from 2018 and if you really read it you've been doing so much work on this for so many years Joe and and it literally lays out all of the overlay zones what they are what they were designed to do um so this is not something that the common Council just came up with and I I live and breathe it but I want to make the other members of the planning board I know Matt delori lives and breathes it too but you know you want everybody to feel comfortable and and know that you should feel comfortable reading this document and and we've been doing this for years these overlay zones the or seven seven eight I think we have eight eight um they have very specific there were very specific reasons in our settlement agreement that we created those overlay zones they were required for a reason they were mandatory set asides for a reason and you should feel very comfortable in my opinion in reading that document and knowing that that this is consistent in that same path yes it does thank you have any other comments or questions from the board well thank you very much Mr bures okay my pleasure um at this time um I think well we have a one-page resolation resolution from Mr Warner uh which which um allows us to refer uh this matter back to the council and uh with a decision that it is not inconsistent with the master plan if that is your vote uh and so U at this time I i' take um a motion to approve the resolution sorry Mr Mr Zucker is there meant to be more substantial deliberation or have we kind of kicked the tires on it and we just proceed to you know what I'm happy to deliberate more I just thought we got our question I just want to be useful to Council in kind of the process but is there anything else Mr Burgess that Tom's going to be up there at the podium at the next meeting wishing we had said or discussed no actually I think we covered it all okay pretty comprehensive Mr bures just one one question uh the the document doesn't specifically for instance reference the design guidelines that we've worked hard to include but they are by implication included I take it in every in any proposed plan for that site uh that is correct and in the ordinance it actually does identify the fact that you have to comply with those design principles thank you very much the I have one more comment I just want to be clear on um can you opine on the Open Space Mr Burgess as far as like what that will bring to the community it's not necessarily it's it's obviously you can what what do ordin this is one of the the many things I I did Skip because I thought um yeah that other application uh the ordinance does specifically say that at a minimum there has to be 9,000 square fet of um contiguous open space with a 100 foot linear Dimension along Broad Street and it's designed to ensure that we get a substantial amount of common open space that will really add had a visual feature and focal point to however the development takes place on the site so it's mandatory and um I think there's really no getting around the requirement the way it's spelled out in the ordinance and I think through you Mr chair this is something that is not prescriptive right we're not designing what's going to go on this site and I think it's important for the public to understand that um this is something that uh is going to be a public process a public public bidding process and and that's the most important thing that we're not stating what's going to be on that site it's a flexible space and and we've been talking about getting these properties up for sale for a long time while also achieving our affordable housing goals so that's why I'm happy to support this ordinance maybe just to double tap on what D was saying too is when I look at the 2016 reexamination the first goal which is guiding development to maintain and enhance the character of summit the overlay Zone as proposed is not overly constrictive not out of conformance with um our drro with even our experience frankly and other planning or zoning applications that we've seen in recent years and certainly reflective of public comment that we've heard in Prior in recent years um focused intensely on that site um so if anything this will through the able guidance of Mayor and common Council and the city Administration hopefully open a process where we'll see a diversity of viewpoints and interest and create creative ideas that'll land this really at the best possible end results for that I too could support uh the resolution as Steve has drafted I won't you try to Tiptoe Through the double negatives any other comments or thoughts from the board no I'll just I'll just add on that I think this is a good um transition zone that allows for flexibility I I did watch a little bit of the council meeting saw the presentation which went into um more detail in terms of density minimum maximum the flexibility to allow for um business while also promoting uh mixed residential use um so with that and some of the concerns I've heard over the past and looking at the master plan um certainly will be in support of this as I do not think it's uh not whatever the double negative uh the right the right way so I'll be supporting I would just like to add that um you know this this board has been looking at this project and this piece of land for years we have found um similar development large actually larger development uh somewhat consistent or not inconsistent and this this program actually uh really I think gives the public a chance to um to get the best value out of this property and and to move this this this uh project forward um I don't see how it in my view it is certainly not inconsistent considering that uh we have we have already uh been looking at this for years and uh this is really what we're looking for before so and that okay I make a motion to you could just adopt the resolution adopt the resolution providing uh that that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the city's master plan how about that make that Mo thank you Mr do I have a second second Mr Filman thank you okay chairman zooker yes Mr SP yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss M yes Miss Bowen yes the motion carries thank you very much um next up um we have public hearing regarding um it's uh planning board application 23271 um on two Park VI Terrace Mr Sheen Mr chairman if I may while council's approaching I did have an opportunity to review the notice that was provided uh there was a Reen noticing for this particular application I believe the board's aware the content was sufficient it was timely served it was certified mailed on May 15th published on uh in the official newspaper May 16th uh both of those States being more than 10 days prior to this evening uh so the board does have jurisdiction to I should say continue to hear and ultimately decide this application thank you Mr Warner you're welcome can you hear me now okay thank you sure good evening Mr chairman members of the board uh for the record my name is Bartholomew a Shan Jr and I'm appearing on behalf of the firm of Dempsey Dempsey and Shen uh in advance I would like to apologize for a horse voice and potential rumbling uh coughs the allergies of the season have taken their toll uh if I have to leave the room the witnesses can continue speaking I know what they're going to say all right Mr chairman members of the board this case was originally heard on January 20th 2024 a review of the transcript that accumulated uh administrative reports of January 12th 2024 and May 17th 2024 confirm the following facts the application regards existing block 4706 Lot 23 existing Lot 23 consists of 17,8 and3 square ft of lot area in the R6 Zone requiring 6,000 square ft of lot area this condition alone represents an unusual and peculiar circumstance making a development that relates to the neighborhood in which the lot exists extremely difficult there is a thoroughly appropriate existing development of a single family resident on the easterly end of the existing Lot 23 facing warned Road Lot 23 and Lot 24 to the north I'm sorry Lot 23 and Lot 24 to the South are in common ownership this ation proposes a subdivision of Lot 23 which will result in two lots fully conforming with the requirements of the RS6 Zone but requiring several lot averaging variances uh combined sidey yard variances and a building coverage variance spread over the two lots the particulars of the proposed subdivision are uh presented in Christa Anderson's memorandum which I believe resolves uh potential discussions over the lot averaging ordinance that occurred at the last hearing proposed Lot 23 the portion of the lot currently developed will require a pre-existing South Side yard condition of 5.2 2 ft this is an existing condition which will not be affected in any way by the proposed subdivision there is a resulting combined sidey yard of 31.8 ft percent where 33% is required it is considered uh when you do the math to be a minimal inconsistency with the requirements of the zoning ordinance there is a building coverage variance uh which proposes 24.3% where 20% is required on existing Lot 23 there is a lot area proposed for Lot 23 of 7,000 880 Square ft where according to the lot averaging ordinances requires 12,356 Square ft it's a showy number but the testimony that you will hear this evening will uh put it in proper context uh with the observation perhaps inaccurate but strongly recall based on uh many nights before the board of adjustment that the lot averaging ordinances in fact need some refinement to make them truly applicable and instructive for the objective that they're pursuing not for tonight proposed law 2301 the proposed lot width of 6539 ft is in a Zone where the requirement is 60 ft but by the lot averaging ordinance lot withd averaging ordinance it is required to be 80 ft questions presented at the prior hearing by board members and members of the public that required supplemental information included the UN unauthorized grading in the area of proposed lot 2901 1 the existence of a stream on proposed lot 2901 storm waterer management issues on proposed lot 291 and a sanitary sewer easan in proposed law 2901 there was also a development envelope that was in question on the proposed law 2901 based on the uncertainties of the existing easement for the uh Senator sewer tonight these questions will be addressed in testimony by the civil engineer and professional planner based on prior testimony the following facts have been stipulated uh based on the applicant's testimony there is no intention to change the existing Improvement on Lot 23 there is no intention to remove any trees there is an intention to maintain an approved grade based on a grading plan that was submitted with the materials presented to the board there is an acceptance of the condition that the applicant will make the front yard fence on proposed lot 23.0 compliant and finally the record should reflect that the Union County planning board the Union County has confirmed confirmed its approval by a letter dated December 20th 2023 it's my intention tonight to offer the testimony of Andrew Clark first followed by Paul Richie the planner and let them have their uh lead in the presentation in the absence of any questions which I'd be happy to try and address I would at this point be prepared to call Mr Clark thanks Mr Sheen is a quick question um a conceptual development plan has been provided and I think that'll be of interest to the board thank you for being responsive to that request will Mr Clark be the best point of reference for questions on that I'm sorry Mr Spar sure uh I didn't I didn't hear what you said okay there's a conceptual development plan included yes as Mr Clark will address Mr Clark will be the best to address thank you okay and just for a matter of the record I think Mr Shen was referring to lot proposal at 29.01.2012 uh I just wanted to make sure that Mr Clark will be addressing the um the neighborhood average because I think your point was at 6539 um versus 60 with the requirement of 80 yes so he'll be discussing the Mr Clark will certainly be responsive to those questions okay but the planner will address those issues okay because it sounds like there's something that we haven't addressed as either a zoning or planning board that I just want to make sure that I I understand fully it's I sort of got the the statement from you that you that we were doing something regarding the neighborhood average that isn't making sense to you from no no that that was not my intention I'm sorry I just want to understand I'm just saying that based on uh past experience with the application of the uh lot averaging and with averaging ordinances uh I know and I believe Christa Anderson uh endorses this comment that the ordinance has a loadable objective but to achieve it it needs some refinement okay so by way of example uh if you're comparing Lots on one street that have a depth of 100 ft with lots on an adjoining street that might have a depth of 200 ft there has to be some formulaic adjustment to make them relevant that's a and that's because if you were looking at this is just neighborhood average you'd probably just say no right that would be say that again if you were just looking at this for neighborhood averages it would be a no because it wouldn't make sense but it sounds like what we're seeing in other applications we're doing that I guess that's what I'm just trying to understand well I I'm not aware specifically okay I was just of any deliberations that have been taking place either here or at the board of adjustment okay maybe somebody can just educate me um through you chairman just on the neighborhood averages I'm just trying to understand what your concerns were and I want to make sure we listen to them I think we will get to that when planning the planning conversation thank you if you'd like to call Mr Clark sorry sorry Mr bures just one quick comment at your desk you all have noted noticed that I placed a memo on everybody's desk it's the same memo that we had sent out last week however inadvertently we had indicated that it was to the zoning Board of adjustment so just to keep the record clear I recent the exact same am but just chain zoning board to planning board okay thank you U you remain under oath from the prior proceedings uh you understand that correctly I do okay and I take it your license uh as a uh both a land surveyor and a civil engineer for cor that's correct one of the few remaining dual licenses remains uh sure what that means but remains a good standing standing in the state of New Jersey yes recently renewed in fact that's right I think the the deadline for many came recently so uh I'll uh now that I'm done with the Vader I'll leave it back to your counsel thank you Andrew Clark c l a r ke you're welcome Mr CLK you testified in this proceeding in the prior hearing is that correct that is correct and have you reviewed the administrative reports that have been both at the prior hearing and in preparation for this hearing I have have you uh addressed amended plans and presented new plans in support this application yes would you like to have them introduced into evidence at this time Mr chairman so that we get the housekeeping out of the way and then Mr Clark can testify to uh yes they could be uh entered into evidence Mr Sheen could I ask that you use a microphone um there's one right yeah we can use Mr Clark's so it can catch you on the record Mr Warner there is a conceptual development plan at a grading plan that has been submitted uh to the board in in connection with the uh application that is being heard this evening and what I would propose to do would be to ask that they be be marked as A3 the conceptual development plan and A4 the uh grading plan lot grading plan that's fine we have conceptual development plan dated April 10 2024 so that's A3 and lot grading plan dated April 12 2024 that's A4 they were both submitted more than 10 days in advance of this evening so it was not a requirement that they be marked as exhibits but uh certainly Pro enough in my opinion so we got them marked A3 is the concept development plan A4 is the lot grading plan thank you and Mr Clark you're prepared to address issues uh of storm water management sanitary sewer line uh the steep slopes The Firm etc etc all of that please take us through so the since our last meeting the uh subdivision itself hasn't substantively changed but um to just refresh our memory a little bit um from the last meeting there were some some questions that were raised and uh potential issues so in response to those primarily what my primary efforts were following that meeting is I did go out and visit the property again and collected topographic information so that we have some um mapping based evidence of of of what the conditions are in the field I know I testified to all that last time but uh it seemed appropriate at this point to bring some some material and plan evidence of that so I conducted the Topo I also responded to the um uh engineering office with a grading plan for the uh Stone burm in the back end of the property to correct some changes that had been made that should not have been um so that that is been submitted and approved by the engineering Department um for correction and then additionally uh it seemed like it would be appropriate and instructive to have a conceptual development plans one one of one of the questions that um came about at the last meeting was uh you know can we can we get a a a proper house on this lot given the the sanitary line and the potential for an easement and the setbacks and so forth so that's the other substantial effort that uh I undertook in the interim and have presented Ed in the conceptual development plan so first quickly about the easement um there there are records that show as my plan depicted from the beginning uh an approximate location of the sanitary line when I went out to do the survey um in early April I attempted to open the manhole in the roadway with no success um and I actually have pretty good amount of practice at this so after I uh devolve to um unseemly cursing um before I injured myself I stopped I couldn't open the manhole to actually visually verify the line but I'm relying on the records and there are um city maps of the sanitary that also depict graphically although they're a little uh approximate I'll say um that line running up and then running across some of the back lots that front on Mountain so I'm confident that there is a sanitary line in there the nature of that line isn't as clear I did enter the neighboring property with permission and use my metal finder to try to find a manhole in the event there was another manhole at that end I did not um identify or find that that doesn't mean it's not there I just didn't have any success with that it could also be that it's uh doesn't have a manhole structure and it's servicing one or more houses uh without the manhole so that's there I then went uh to Union County to do a little bit deed research I dug back through the records of the properties this the property we're proposing for subdivision was um on the original filed map as its own lot um in the way that we're presenting it now um that filed map was from 1931 it's when that area was first subdivided the first well the oldest record I couldn't find 1931 or two I found 1936 there was a transfer of that piece and in that piece it does refer to an easement um but it's very and it's not unusual for deed language of that era um to not be super descriptive the the reference to it in that deed says it is understood and agreed that the forging described property is conveyed subject to a sewer line running through the easterly side of said property for me that equals easement there's an easement it doesn't say how wide it is it doesn't give any particulars or who's responsible for what maintenance or restoration or a lot of things that go into easements today so in my view there is an easement there that's a little fuzzy all that said I don't think we have uh including last meeting we take no issue with creating perfecting or advancing that easement into something more formal and and current um in a 10 or 15 foot width whichever um suits the engineering department and the city to allocate to that um so on the plan that I have I've indicated a 15t wide easement unfortunately I didn't label it well um but it is the dash line that's just to the left of the uh left side of the proposed dwelling that's shown there on the conceptual development plan on the conceptual development plan which I think we called A3 everybody at the board has that plan in there hands yes right so the the dash line that runs as I'm indicating here just to the left of the of the proposed dwelling would be where that easan sits the setb back's 18 ft so it basically creates a new setback for for any dwelling that's that's the effect that it has and so what I've done here is holding the 8ot setback on the right side keeping in mind that one of the yards has to be more than 8 feet as I believe I testified last time due to the combined side yard that's required so one of them had to be bigger than the other regardless so if we keep the right side at 8 ft and honor the 15t easen it more than handles the combined sidey and a dwelling can I'd say a a nice dwelling that fits in in scale and size and and uh all the basic parameters of bulk uh with the streetcape along there and so this house I I borrowed a house from another project I had done so wasn't just a box that was made up this is a nice house that exists in chattan Bur and um it's about 1,900 ft² footprint which is within what would be permitted uh for this subdivided lot that also means that the F would be pretty close you know uh I think we could get very close to um what would be permitted for the F so in terms of its scale size and and the consistency with the neighborhood I think that's what I was attempting attempting to demonstrate here also demonstrating that the topography and the grading is is is situated in such a way that it can be very reasonably graded to provide proper drainage and develop the property as you would you know any single Fam Family lot in in Summit um it's modestly graded there are no steep slopes front loaded garage which would be permitted for a lot of this width and um I I showed the dryw in the front I did did size it to make sure it wasn't um unrealistic in terms of its size to how how that would be handled um there is an overflow as was noted I'll go through the comments in a second to the catch Basin out front that is also permitted um and in the event that the soils are not uh conducive to dryw application uh which is sometimes the case in Summit um we I've run into a number of instances in the last couple of years where you've had to modify the design um to make it more of a detention system so it's it the the dryw normal function of the dryw would be it collects a certain amount of rain from the roof area uh 3 Ines of rain over the whole roof and Andor the driveway whatever impervious areas you're capturing and you size the dryw to handle that volume of water the idea is that if the soils are are are suitable then the water will percolate into the soil and return to the groundwater over time usually D standard is you want it that to drain in 72 hours so if we reach a soil condition where the perk rate does not allow for that 72-hour drain time then we look at the system differently and it becomes more of a detention system where we hold the volume but we don't strictly rely on infiltration into the soil if the soils are not very good so in those cases you have a very small Outlet at the very bottom of the tank that goes to a storm drain that that's kind of the key is you have to have an available storm drain for that to even work in this case that is the case um and then and what happens is the tank slowly drains out through that small Outlet uh versus percol getting into the soil but what it does is it allows for controlled release so you don't have a flooding condition that that uh develops from a simple rainfall or even a two or three inch rainfall so in my opinion the the storm water can be managed quite normally on this property um we would hope that the soils would would support the drywell use but if not there is the option that I just described um so that's the basis of the of the conceptual development plan is to show uh that that this site is reasonably developable the grading works the storm water management can be accomplished uh in in the same way that any permit or development in Summit would normally be and uh we can accommodate the easement without having an unusually small or constrained or you know narrow house um so that's that's the presentation of the conceptual development plan I can take questions on that specifically before jumping into the comments if you'd like questions just a couple quick questions yep um maybe just as a point of clarification um the side yard left side yard setback um is it calculated from the property line or from the easements that encroaches so the setbacks from the property line from the property line right the easement basically on on any property in any case an easement what an easement is fundamentally is a right in your property that someone else has right be it the city or a neighbor or what have you so so it limits you don't have exclusive right to that area then so in the case of something like this the restrictions that come into play with an easement like this is that you can't really put like a shed or a pool or any you know substantial structures in that area often you could have say a fence as long as there's a gate there so if they do have to access it they can you know they can open the gate and and get in there with a machine um and one of the comments that I'll get to um pertain to the Overflow Crossing there I think that's a commonly seen type of intrusion into an easement because it's it's another utility that's in play and really it comes down to whether engineering would say yeah that'd be okay because there are a lot of cases where you have easements where there's literally a driveway that's in the easement um or a patio sometimes and those are perhaps Legacy but sometimes it's like well this is the only place we can reasonably put the driveway and it's going to be in the easement and then and then we have some added language that goes in saying you know in the event this has to be torn up who's responsible for restoration and that type of thing so there are elements that can go into an easement but the setback is measured from the boundary line okay this is just an additional constraint that's on the property and I had a note from the prior hearing that there was and I'm sorry if I missed it in the in the revised memos interest in perfecting also an easement at the rear of the property and about a seven well that that was discussed and it was one of the notes and and that was part of why I was looking to see if there was a manhole over the fence because according to the the the mapping such as it is from the city it goes up our line and onto the neighboring property it shows a sign like it might be a manhole and then cutting across two or three of those lots that front on Mountain that's why I wanted to see if I could find it because sometimes they're just covered um if if this if it turned out if we did some more thorough investigation got the manhole open and ran a camera up there and traced out the line and it turned out that that sanitary line is kind of running on the rear boundary then that would make perfect sense and I think we'd of course be agreeable to that right if in fact it's 10 12T or something into the neighboring property then really that becomes a burden on the neighboring property in terms of the easement sure it might need access depending on what's Happening from from the easement on on this property but the easement might be best centered on the actual utility which if it's far enough back wouldn't impact our property does that make sense it does I guess I'm trying to just understand who's going to who's going to answer that question ultimately well the the real answer to that question would be as I just briefly described what you can do is you can open the manhole and and there are companies that'll put um you know a little robot in there and and and it will go up the pipe with a TV with a camera and so you can visually inspect what's happening in there but they also have the ability to use a transponder and Mark on the surface as they go along where that is that's really the answer is to have have a a video inspection done of that line and it gets to a point where there's a structure or a turn then we can figure out where that is MH if it turns out that that's right on the boundary then yeah that would be a split easement right right along that rear line right I'm I'm not ready to assume that's the case necessarily but but if that were the case then that's what we would do right it's only before we lose that one so I understand uh the STI the condition the applicant is stip stipulating to which is in essence if the if such video evidence assuming there's an approval uh uh subsequent to the approval uh uh results in locating the sanitary sewer line along that rear boundary uh on the subject property you would agree to uh perfecting it EAS with respect to that rear boundary line as well correct yes well actually Mr Warner I think we're asking that they make a condition that they I'm sorry that that the applicant uh agrees to conduct that test sure and and and they would ultimately anyone who built on that lot the city would require them to do that regardless okay when whenever whenever you're near an easement and this has been my experience anyway when you're near an easement even if you're not going in the easement it's it often request to you know please have a video inspection done and provided to the city so that so we can verify before any work takes place that the Integrity of of the of the line itself is intact you know otherwise then the you know let's say it's a builder comes in and starts building but didn't do that then you get into a big argument over well you know no it was that way before you know so so yeah that that would be something that that would be agreed to as part of determining where this line is and and where the easement should belong and we would put that as a stipulation in the resolution we've already got it an approval yep and thankfully it wouldn't meaningfully impact really at all building even less so on the rear line because there's a bigger rear yard setback so you know I think maybe you'd have to be careful if you were putting a fence in depending on what type it was if it was truly on the line right well I'm sorry that I'm interrupting my own Interruption of you I apologize but the chair's permission the the the uh that's how that's how I I get the permission to interrupt the the the um I'm reading a stockade a stockade fence already in addition to the stone uh burm along the rear line am I misreading that no that's correct okay that's correct so the fence could be issue I'm just pointing out that if in fact there was a sewer that was shallow yeah on the rear boundary and you went to put a different kind of fence in that maybe went two or 3 ft down with a with a footing or something then you might have to be careful make sure you know where that line is that's why you create an easement yep okay in part in part is anticipated to be an issue with the current Stockade Fence I guess is what you're saying no I think if if it was it would already be there be the issue such as it is all right thanks so I'm Sor I'm done interrupting my apologies without in any way intending to inhibit this discussion uh the concerns that are being discussed now are actually more appropriately part of the development plan that would appear either before the board of adjustment or if it was fully conforming through the Department of Community Services administrative reviews as building permits would be issued so that the territory that is being discussed now most assuredly would be uh covered one way or another probably uh through the Department of Community Services if it were a con plan oh we understand that Mr I appreciate that uh but we do want to make sure that we understand fully what the what the issue are and and the issues that were raised by The Neighbors in terms of how to deal with the drainage so I'm glad we're addressing it now gets to the next point with respect to theing plan that you okay I'll back in and sub to the board and you indicate whether or not there have been any changes on the lot since the last time that you did the surve not not since there have been no changes to my knowledge since I did the survey in April which address the issue of the firm that was raised in the planners and Engineers report yes there's a there's a a stone burm towards the back of the property that's depicted on the plan um that while you're referring to the grading plan well it's on both plans it's on it's on the it's on the conceptual development plan as as well it's it's Stone berm is labeled in the back and you know it comes up 12 to 18 in and pretty big rocks um I think the idea was that there's it's beli there's a historic like um tile pipe in the back there that was probably set up for the same type of reason to address some drainage along the back line so uh the attempt was to create sort of an area where the water would ENT trap and then hopefully get into that tile drain but the engineers indicated that you know this was done without a permit so submit a grading plan and we did which was proposing to restore that area um that is in response to the engineering inspection and the indication that this work shouldn't have been done without a permit so restore it that's different than what we're showing on the conceptual development plan where here rather than just simply restoring the grades there on the conceptual development plan what I would propose to do if for any any client that would said hey I want to put a house here is put a cut off drain in the back there that actually collects the water and brings it out to the storm drain instead of just inundating the property CU what happens on this property when I did the survey I did um speak with the neighbor to the rear in Lot 27 and I got a few data points on the other side of the fence and I did observe and we spoke for a few minutes about what uh she encounters and a lot of the surface water issues that do um impact this property and and of of course the neighboring properties that front on mountains certainly Lot 27 in particular is when they redid the road out in front on Mountain there's not much of a depressed curb and it's pretty level with the sidewalk so on a heavy rain event water just floods down her driveway and it comes right down along her house and ends up in this backyard and then flows onto our property so as much as they are we we ultimately also become recipients of that drainage situation that um you know probably is best add addressed by correcting the sidewalk Arrangement out in front of her house but that's a separate issue that we can't really get involved in but but1 is downg gradient right so 2301 is downg gradient of all of that and and so along that fence line on both sides of that line water does collect in uh substantial storm events and tends to sit in there which tells me that the surface soils at least are probably a little clayy and don't absorb much of the surface run off of that area so what I'm proposing on the conceptual plan is a linear drain across there because it's not that situation where you have sort of concentrated flows and you go oh we'll put an inlet right here it's it's it's it's more dispersed so in that case I do a linear drain some people call it a French drain stone with a perforated pipe in the bottom that then conveys the water to you know a collection system which is right out in the front so that's that's sort of the situation with the stone burm and how that's being corrected but then also what I would recommend in a proposed plan to address some of that runon we call it not runoff but run on from the neighboring property Mr Shan if you don't mind can I ask you to use the microphone over here or use a microphone so you're picked up on the record in the meantime I have a quick question sure you said there haven't been any changes since you surveyed the property in April what did you see I remember that you surveyed it three years ago four years ago something like that what visually did you see that was different from four years ago till today primarily that that stone BM in the back back that was that was the difference is is all the way towards the back of the lot um you know was the tree coverage the same four years ago as it is today to my recollection I think trees suck up a bunch of water as I remember from science to my recollection when I did the survey before it was it was uh largely uh treeless there are a few trees that are towards the road and on the right side but um it wasn't wooded when I did the original survey it was it was in much the same shape so the main difference was the stone BM in the back okay um I have a a few questions if that's okay you had mentioned in 1931 that you had found that the properties were together could you just detail that more what was existing then or could you clarify that or that they were separate yeah sure yeah they they were they were separate properties uh 1931 was the year that the filed map so so land when it's subdivided in New Jersey and in many New England states the meets and bound States we call them um it happens one of two ways they either subdivide individual piece and say hey we're going to take this parcel of land and we're going to you know cut it in two or three or four you know we're going to carve off um or trying to find the right map because there's a number of maps um or they create what's called a filed map so that would be um what we call simultaneous conveyance so in this case there's a there's a 1931 Kent map that some subdivided these pieces and I don't know if I need to mark this um but these Parcels were lot nine and 10 on this filed map you do now do what are we at 85 I think we're up to 345 yeah and A5 is a filed map 1931 correct uh the map is called Park View Terrace and could you Mark is he able to mark the property on so I indicate right on here so so this is Park View Terrace this is laid Mountain Avenue and and these are the two lots that we're dealing with right now so 1931 on this map it was a lot and this was a lot and at some point um they came into common ownership and that lot line disappeared Mr chairman if we could just make sure not only the board members have a look but if any members of the public wish to take a look at that I didn't bring enough copies for everyone but it is public record at at the union Cy call the record yes right we're done so we're talking about these two lots right here Mr Clark there's some people in the back would like to see it be this is the original map that cre Mr Mr wer you might be wondering I I told Mr Clark that I would not practice engineering if he didn't practice law when he's doing such a good job that I'm thinking maybe I could testify about the engineering I think I think Vanna White should be worried about her job Le doing [Laughter] great I'll give you some legal advice don't all right thank you so that's the history of the file that and then you mentioned the drywell uh the difference and do you would you not do a soil to understand now or you press push that push that on the developer I mean obviously yeah that that would be something the developer would engage with as part of the permitting process and the construction process and how many how many of these different basins do you say get put in are they primarily the catch Basin or is it is it the other kind that slowly releases into the storm system so we're always hoping for soils that will allow for the infiltration that's the idea but sometimes that's not the case so is it 50 75 90% for it's maybe 25% okay you know cuz sometimes we'll find soils that aren't great but they're still they're still serviceable yeah um and and then you want to have a decent overflow but the Overflow in that case at the top of the tank not not a small Outlet at the bottom but it's it's definitely the minority and uh you know that Summit actually has in their ordinance there is a provision for if there's uh simply no good Alternatives and the soils don't perk and there's no cash Basin to release the the water to there is a possibility to seek a waiver from the the drywall requirement but we we tried to not do that I think I've only done that twice in you know the past 12 15 years and again it should be noted for the public that if somebody does come to develop this and they're within their rights they would still go through the process of engineering ABS Department of Community Services if they were to build something that had variances or required other kinds of relief that required you to come to the board these are also the same kinds of questions that the board would be asking so just for the record the sub and and the top level like the the the regulation and control of the storm water would happen even if there were no variances if if you're just you know you variance free you're going into to put an addition on your house or put a new patio in or redo your driveway or put up a new garage it's always in play councilwoman Hamlet did you have a question well I think my biggest concern is is the perk test and I guess my question is is what is your hardship if you can explain that to what's your hardship just in the project in general I may be mistaken but I don't think that you can necessarily condemn property because the soil doesn't that's not my question my question is what's your hardship what your what's your hardship that you're presenting to this board well first it's not with regards to the drywell but in general what's your hardship to the property I'm not I'm not arguing hardship right now right that's my question is my question is what is your what is your hardship I I think the planner is better situated to argue the the variances for the application but in this case the lot is the the one variance that we would be seeking for the lot that would be developable is the lot width and that's the variance for that is the lot width relative to the neighborhood average not the Zone we exceed The Zone width and I think that kind of proof is better done by the planner that's why he's here understand my concern is the perk test I've I've seen so many incidences in Summit right now where we sell a property it's out of the the person's hands who sold the property the perk test isn't done and then the neighborhood is getting flooded so I'm just questioning I guess why wasn't a perk test done just to alleviate these concerns because once we do this it's it's it's in essence it it might if we're not planning on selling the product property or maybe we are I'm just concerned that you know there there were their neighbors were saying there were trees but there aren't and I just want to make sure that the storm water management is is being thought about I guess I no no no no no M fellow I'm not trying to be difficult I'm just trying to understand the uh the perk test is something that will be factored in to any development that takes place on the lot and it will as Mr Mr Clark indicated conform to all city ordinances this lot is a receiving lot this lot is not a contributing lot so it is in this lot's interest to resolve all of these storm water management issues as opposed to the Lots which are upgradient to it uh listen in this area um particularly in the uh drainage catchment area of South Summit off the uh Oakridge avenue hill uh it it's a an issue that requires careful consideration far beyond the scope of a subdivision hearing but well within the experience of the Department of community services and the engineering department which will look on this issue with great concern and great care I guess my question is this if we don't have the proper storm water management ordinances with a conforming lot let's say it's conforming and you don't go for any variances what are the storm water man what would be required from a storm water management perspective in that instance what if it's conforming they wouldn't have to do they would have to get a grening plan but it wouldn't have to be over and above I guess that's my question and with all that water running downhill that's my concern there are State ordinances State statutes city ordinances that more than adequately protect the storm storm water management plan required for this property uh what you're talking about is um managing the entire attachment area from the south side of summit Which is far beyond the scope of uh any consideration uh with respect to this lot other than to say that this lot is bearing much of the consequence of that sheet runoff from the south side of the Hill uh it it understand right I mean I I don't think there's a possibility for us to negatively impact uh from Storm Water Events the uphill properties that are behind us on mountain or even the the neighbors to the side um with some basic grading on the property so that you're not actually you know filling and pushing you know all your water off to them the the storm water management I mean I understand what you're saying I think that it's probably uh a a stronger basis generally to look at storm water in that light to go above and beyond when what you're seeking is a lock coverage variance or something that directly pertains to storm water management in this case anyone would have to manage the storm water just from a permitting standpoint and and you know I suppose you don't have to go above and beyond but you do have to follow the rules now if the rules should be above and beyond and higher than what they are then you should change the rules in Summit not not look at an individual application and say well hey you're putting an addition but we'd like you to do more than everybody else there's always a standard there has to be a standard thank you thank you thank you not yet I have question to Mr oh you don't with this witness okay well I was going to just touch quickly on the the professional comments make sure those are addressed please uh yeah I think I did I just want to scan through real quick and make sure I didn't miss we do have new reports what's that we have new reports right and uh I don't think Christa's uh me newest memo warrant's comment for me necessarily goer yeah I'll jump to the engineering so in particular uh new commentary uh number six on I'm referring to the Colliers report dated May 17th 2024 and on the second page comment six uh confirming no improvements have changed since the date of the survey so since April that's correct uh next one um indicating the slope of the property that's I I concur with that it's gently slop from south to North um confirm that there are no steep slopes on the property that is confirmed there are no steep slopes uh present on the property continuing comment on page three um yeah and I think I covered the rest of it on number 14 has some commentary about the sanitary sewer and the easement and the conceptual plan I think I've covered that pretty thoroughly Stone BM comment 19 has been commented on yeah I think I've covered all the comments unless you see something that I missed No in fact I I think the board kind of addressed everything and and you went through it all um I guess the one thing I just just kind of wanted to Circle back on was that um 7 and 1/2 foot sewer easement along the rear property line and I know we've talked about that um and I just wanted to state that I think that the city is looking for a 15 foot wide sewer easement so that would be 15 feet you know with with it centered on there so that's how I came up with this seven and a half understand that so if it seems to be like it's off I don't know if the board feels comfortable with that but you know I would I would see that you should be s and a half ft into this property from the center line of well un un unless the sanitary sewer once you pass our property is 15t on the other side I guess that's that's where I was trying to get to so certainly if that 15t uh centered on the sewer impacts our property and requires dedication of of an easement of some size I think we're agreeing that that we would we would comply with that right right okay you know once once we can definitively track down where that sewer line is I'm not a big fan of making easements not being sure that it's centered on the actual utility itself I agree because I've run into cases where that clearly happened before and the sewer over here and the easements over here so um the and that would be stipulated as part of this approval and not pushing that off to um a building permanently on are we right I yeah I I have that from last hearing I just wanted to make sure um could you talk a little bit about that that um drainage um pipe that you're talking about in the backyard I'm not clear about how if that is going in as soon as the the subdivision happens or is that something that you're proposing when a a building goes in it's it's shown on the conceptual development plan that I produced because that's what I would uh design and recommend for anyone that was going to develop this property um whenever I see condition in the field where you have um a considerable flow coming on the property from neighboring properties um we prefer not to have that impact us negatively so if it's already in sheet flow coming across then I would put an Interceptor drain of some kind and then bring it to the C I put it in as a condition of appr I thought you were stipulating to it so I'm glad I'm glad you as asked that question the only reason I I'm asking is because I know you said you're you're you're removing the BM that's just happening that's not a part of the conceptual so if remove the burm which was originally put in to to intercept some of the offsite flow it it led me to think that you were actually it would be better to do that and and ultimately that's really the the answer even if you left the BM and then put this pipe drain in in in the space just behind it I I think we have a simple question and that is are we correct that you're stipulating as a condition of approval to do that uh if this applica if this application is approved yes okay and so I got it so if that's the case then where where is it actually draining to how's it how's it being conveyed to so it would be conveyed you know there's a drain near the lot line between Lot 24 23 there's a drain that's there right now yes that drain is connected out to that catch base it is okay yes and and so the the the most direct path would be to run that pipe across and then bring it right to that drain which then has you know through movement to the catch Bas new P okay and should reflect that Mr clar is referring to the conceptual development plan answer Mr Clark could I ask you how do you size that drain how do you know how much water how big should that pipe be well you don't really uh without doing an exhaustive and and completely inefficient study of the side of the hill and what's happening on the street so I I mean I would I would put in a 6 in pipe um maybe if it if you made some observations out there during significant storm events you might go to an 8 inch but that'll carry a lot of water I it's not a perfect answer it's a do you have a sense for I I I I am not an engineer myself so I wouldn't know to respond to that but I think what we're agreeing to here is that that correction will be made should the subdivision be approved that is what we just discussed very go and that it would be in consultation with the Department of Community Services simply because um you would be applying this time in due process to put infrastructure in rather than the BM that had been put in there without any approval so I would deferred to the city engineer and professionals to I even talked to them when I developed the grading plan in response to their visit to the property that um you know is this the way we should go and and he felt like at this juncture just restoring the grades back to where they were was you know the the immediate step that that was necessary but I think it's the right answer is to put an actual all such conditions will be if there's an approval uh subject to review and approval of engineering with respect to storm water man of course without a doubt yep so in this case if we're running a drain line within the easement that and that that case the stipulation would be discussion with the part of engineering because you can't as as of right I think it would all tied together uh because because the easement such as it is and shown on this plan doesn't yet exist in that format um all we have is the language I read to you which says there's an easement right okay so they would be engaged and and involved in that process of developing the easement itself describing it getting the right plan for it and filing okay and there's no concern that utilization for sanitary sewer access and storm water management on the site B I don't see any any question with that it's very common to have multiple Utilities in an ement area depending on how big it is and what's going on there you probably don't want gas in there but storm drain I think be fine okay quick question I'm sure Mr F given the hypothetical um site plan that we're looking at and we just talked about some stipulations in terms of the drainage in the back um is there anything else on here that would be that we would want to stipulate as a board something along the line of the proposed dryw well that you talked about earlier is that something that well I mean you you you can stipulate that but what I'll tell you is that it's a requirement regardless if we never were here and we like if this property existed and they said you know we're going to tear down that house and put up a new house the easement would come up the dryw and storm water management will all come up in an engineering review and get handled and I know that because it happens okay oh sorry yes sure miss h chair um so I guess my question is are you 100% sure not doing the percolation test that that dryw would work appropriately yeah one of the two uh paradigms that I described would because we there is a catch Basin out front so the the second thing that I described where it becomes more of a detention system with a controlled outflow at the bottom of the system that only works if you have an outlet for it so if you if you had a site where here's the road and then you go down the hill and there's just a hill there and it doesn't perk then you have a totally different problem you know then then what I described wouldn't really work because you couldn't you can't get by gravity from the bottom of that underground system to a storm drain that's that's above you right in this case that is an option and it does exist as as as a possibility so if the soils are not ideal or not perking the way we' want we would go to this alternative system and you have that option because of that catch then can we think about that as a stipulation if they do the perk test and they have to redesign their um my other question is this so in the back where the burm is and Marie mat chairman what's the system would they need some sort of gravity system to get that water because we'd be going back uphill then from the BM no how would that work so how that would work if you look on the conceptual plan where the where this drain is you can see I've got a little dash line again not very well labeled that that runs down to the drain that's located right near this boundary corner and that's connected out to the catch Basin already so it's all downhill the one you couldn't open that one no that's the manhole that's the manhole the catch Basin is the storm drain that's there the man Hool is the sanitary okay so the topography there makes sense Marie yes okay okay yeah they're actually um you know I'll just reiterate what he said that they're they're trying to capture offsite water okay oh I get it I just a couple more simple questions I know I throw you a little bone here would you expect the developed property to have an improved storm water management conditions and ultimately benefit the surrounding properties 100% it it would be a vast Improvement when you you get a with proper storm water management some Landscaping a lawn new trees shrubs it would it would change the whole thing okay now to my questions the 1931 map what Mr Sheen did you want to say something no no after your fetish pleas uh the 1931 map or other Maps you may have stumbled upon in the archives or even physical evidence on the site did you identify any evidence of construction prior to 1931 or prior to the subdivision just to give us a sense of what other than some not prior to 1931 right okay I mean the only indication I'd have is if there was something sometimes on the old file Maps you'll see like an original house that's shown on there or you know a pond or some feature that might be shown on one of those old Maps but there's and I don't want to suggest that the lot is undevelopable because there is no evidence to that effect but just interesting point of reference and then a final question just building Mr felet was saying is one of the quick rule of thumbs that I would have in judging the suitability of this plan is whether or not a conforming development could have effectively put in place post subdivision so I think you had mentioned the R6 Zone front-facing garage is allowable that's one one element I didn't see noted on the plan any AC or generator locations do you for see any issues placing it a conforming location air conditioning or generator no and then because of the relative density and that's a bit of a loaded term so Mr Sheen can cringe um the Landscaping that could be conceived for this property would you see any limitation in that respect terms of U protecting neighboring properties against encroaching light or sound or anything else that that may negatively impact their quality no I I see the the Landscaping potential U consistent with u the properties right around it as well as many properties in Summit um so so there's ample space and opportunity for all those types of landscaping okay okay those are my questions oh yes please so where would the driveway be and where knowing where the proposed drywall is going to be where would the driveway be I'm just thinking of lot 22 um and where would the garage sure I know I just think it's important because we're obviously increasing impervious coverage so we can have you know all the drywalls we want but when we really talk about putting a driveway in there and how close it's going to be to the drive driveway would have to be how close how far driveway would have to be be according to the ordinance it's got to be at least 2T off the line in this case it's uh you know it's more than that because it's it would in this Arrangement it would be lined up with the garage so it's you know more like 8 to 10 feet off the line um and you know lot 22 also has a driveway that that's just P you know where I've shown um so I mean I I think this is this type of arrangement is the most logical way to develop this property especially with the easement setback issue on the left side you know it would make more sense than having a driveway on the other side to me but that doesn't mean that it might not end up that way um and then it would be a little farther away from L 22 I guess but it would be substantially the same in terms of the driveway itself wherever it would be it would be conforming understood I have a question sure um about your proposed grading plan which I guess shows up on both the conceptual and the regular drawing it looks like this grading is going on in the backyard or the back of the property um and then in our the col report and and in the burus report it refers to um um there's no tree removal plan and then an item six in the Burgess report it says the applicant should be confirm the extent of proposed pre- removal to accommodate the proposed grading so I want to know how that is going to happen in the backyard this isn't a construction plan well I know but it's it is appearing on both plans no no I'm that's only to say that it's not exhaustive it's not exhaustive this isn't something I'm about to submit for permits no no no but all those will be required for permits are you doing any any of this stuff referred to in item six of the brid's report and tangentially item 11 on the coler's report there is some grading that I've proposed in on this conceptual development plan yes and some of the two of the smaller trees there I expect would be affected none of is none of that is contemplated tomorrow no no that again again this is a conceptual development plan so this isn't what we're proposing right now to build this I'm just I'm just referring to these two reports that talk about what the proposed I would respond the same thing to those comments is that we're not actually engaged in a construction process right now with what's shown here this is illustrative in order to demonstrate that the site is reasonably developable within the normal parameters of any property that might be developed in some I would like to think about this for a second um for does the applic can intend to um develop this themselves at this point or they would sell the lot to to someone else because I'm thinking you know we're learning a lot about this lot we have our own ideas about this lot we're not sure this this any application would come back to us and I was going to ask that the if the board agrees that we would ask the applicant to stipulate that it would come back to us but if they've sold the lot they're not yeah I I think Mr chairman and with deference to uh Mr Warner uh the converence of jurisdiction beyond the statutory uh jurisdiction limit I'm not so sure it's something that is within the power of the board but in respect to your comment uh if the application required relief in the form of a variance uh in thinking about this uh my experience uh suggests that the board of adjustment is every bit as sensitive to the concerns for storm water management that have been discussed here this evening as the planning board would be and that the planning board should be able to take comfort in the certainty that the board of adjustment will do the same type of uh great work on storm waterer management for any development of this plot or the Department of Community Services will do the same great work that this board is doing with regard to storm waterer management for any development of the lot but the the plan that must be accommodate that the plan that must accommodate storm water management is actually a plan that is proposed for actual development understood yeah now we we understand that part um through you Mr Shar um Joe can you talk a little bit about the uh we have a a relatively newer board can you talk about subdivision and what occurs in the planning board and what occurs in the zoning board and what's in our drro I know it's a I don't mean to put this all on all of you but I think it's an important thing to talk about um because we're doing something that's not normally in front of us we're subdividing a lot and we're not putting a house on it but we're talking about all of these storm water management issues so if you wouldn't mind opining on that briefly let let's back up a second with a subdivision uh the only reason it would ever get to the zoning board is under the really two or three specific issues if when they propose their dwelling uh it exceeds f for ex FL area ratio if it exceeds f for that house on for that oversized house on the lot they would have to go to the Zoning Board of adjustment if they propose a conforming house after they get the subdivision approved here then they would just go to uh Town Hall to get their permits uh the same would hold true if there's an issue with Building height over certain Dimension certain footage um but those are real really the only reasons they would end up before the Zoning Board of adjustment we had raised the question about the tree removal because the question had come up at the previous meeting about trees being removed so I thought it would be informative to find out you know in plan where you're showing this proposed dwelling you know are there a number of trees being removed or not you know there's no standard that says you can't remove it to place of a dwelling in a lot but it was just for more information purposes so maybe given that context you could answer the question now I don't think yeah I I I mentioned a moment ago that that if this development were put forward this way there are two trees that are close to the dwelling and the driveway that I expect would have to be removed I think the two in the front I I think you could argue would be able to be maintained okay um but but the two that are interior that are that are close to the driveway and and there're smaller diameter I'm not sure they'd even be what Summit considers regulated trees um but you know they would still be submitted as removal okay and and okay that that's understandable now you have testified earlier that this footprint is around 19900 Square fet yes so with a twostory building 3,800 square fet that would exceed F except that you take out the garage up to a certain point that's where my next question and of course any architect would have to um stay within the constraints of what the zoning permits which I think in this case for this lot believe it's like 3,400 would be the approximately would be the permitted F so they would have to design to those standards or go for a variance for f which if anyone asked me I'd say you're out of your mind don't bother you're not going to get an F variance for a new house you you have no argument for it so my expectation is that any plan that's developed would be fully conforming and they wouldn't go seek variances for anything okay thank you thank you at this time I'd like to invite the public to ask questions of this witness and this is a question this is the question session uh you'll have an opportunity at the end to express your view on the application itself but this Mr chairman just so I'm clear this is for the survey or we will be hearing testimony from a planner is that correct yes okay thank you my name is Christina amonson I'm still under oath from the last meeting I believe uh you are but if as we're our board professionals just to put that on the record um but if you're asking questions you don't have to be under oath but you're brilant okay Christina amonson I live at 109 laret road which is on the top of the hill it's the corner lot at the very top of the hill that they're talking about um so you testified or you told us that when you did the um original uh site plan or whatever or review there were no trees on the property that you're I guess I would well I said there's a few trees about four trees that are there and and to my recollection a few years ago uhuh the site was similar is what I said it wasn't a wooded lot when I did the original survey okay for the record all the trees okay so you're testifying now so if the chair wishes to give you that permission you ask I would ask you to hold your comments on the overall application till the end this is just for questions that is questions okay thank you yeah do I have to go off you do my name is Roberto tixon living on Mountain Avenue can you expell your last name please t as in Tom i c as in Charlie Z in zebra I was in Oscar and is in Nancy Tian I your address sir sir sir your address is 171 Mountain okay and now you're asking questions of this of him based on his test this sorry this is the L you said have no trees what can sir sir sir Mr chairman with your permission sir do what are you showing the witness we need to the board needs to know because I I55 as previously marked the uh this was the fil map one at a time the court reporter is going to tell us one at a time I'm going to be the first one they the uh filed map 1931 A5 okay and and he's showing you that and you're going to answer his what was your question yeah I wanted to clarify if I heard him correctly that this subject lot didn't have trees I'm not a tree historian or a tree expert I don't live in this neighborhood I've visited the property a few times to do some survey work so I'm not the authority on exactly what trees were where and when I know I know what I saw when I did the most survey what I was indicating on here is that the subject properties that are the subject of this subdivision are these two lots having nothing to do with the trees that it's these two lots are are are the subject when did we do the last surve so the last time I was out doing survey work was April 8th of this year yes that's so recent okay because we we've been living here for Years sir just questions do you have any further questions oh yeah I was just asking about he did say that do you have any further questions no just a confirm so you did say the when you can okay so I would just make my comment later on thank you do we have any other questions from the public for this witness Elanor Readington 165 Mountain Avenue in Summit we are the property that is above the question the property in question and Mr Clark did come out and walked our property very professionally uh I would like to ask you if a drain is installed uh since the property you mentioned being regraded since we've been there the property has probably been raised 12 ft by two years worth of dump trucks delivering wood chips to that property uh would that drainage system come from our property as well if you're mentioning regrading right so so the drain we're talking about would be at the the back of the this property that front on Park View and on the other side of the fence from your property that we don't really have the right or permission necessarily to engage in physic will work on your property unless it's something that that you know you gave permission for but what I'll tell you is that the water that ends up in that back line um will end up in the drain once it passes under the fence um so so so you should see some fundamental benefit that would result from that even even though it's not on your property it's very close to your property that water did not accumulate there until the regrading was done and all the trees were REM thank you thank you please your name and address please my name Christine Le l i n 171 Mountain Avenue Summit New Jersey 07901 Mr scar Clark Clark yes when you answer this Bowen's question that uh you did come to survey the property and you came again to servey the property and you see there's no difference in terms of trees correct yes when did you come the first time October 1st do you have a mind you have any picture I'm I'm sorry I can't hear you what did you say why you have any picture a picture do you have a picture of stop did do you have you asked him if he has a picture of when he came October 2020 right I don't think I have a photograph from that and how do you prove that uh you see no difference in truth I'm not sure I need to prove that I'm just telling you what I recall from the first time I came out in 2020 to now I didn't cut any trees down no you didn't I'm not I'm not charged with protecting the trees I'm just recalling that when I surveyed it the first time I wasn't climbing through trees there were a lot of sawdust and wood chips that were there the wood chips were there and I surveyed the property and then when I came back it looked pretty much the same to my recollection were you hire by the owner to survey in October 2020 okay that an my question yes I think I have to take what you believe you sir I'm sorry ma'am I can't hear you but are you asking him the next question no I said that uh he well there's going to be comments you can comment at the end this is not this is just for questions just questions okay so the question that uh I have for you is that you were hired by the owner to survey in October 2020 and that you so a lot W chips did you yes a lot which a lot that's a quantitative question are you a that Mr CL I mean it was more than the ordinary amount of wood chips I would say on AER yes that's that's very very true that's very very true thank you very much Mr Shan would you like to call do anyone El any questions before we go to the next witness do we want to do need a break five starting now before the next are we ready to go to the next W so we can take a most assly I'm sorry did you want to break now it'll be a while let's take let's take a take a seven minute break and uh we'll get back to the next Witness e e e e e e e e e e e e e e he's Mr she's coming back okay I think we're about ready to get back in sessiones there's not going to be a negative impact on the street okay we ready we're back in all right Mr Sheen if you'd like to call your next witness sorry ask the testimony of Paul Richie be given in this matter SW for that I'll swear him in with the chair's permission do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you R ICI and Sir if you could just point that microphone and speak into it just so that the people in the back can hear it's embarrassing how close get all the way up can use it first cuz he's going to V hear you share this for a second all right Mr Richie would you uh describe for the board your occupation yes I'm a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey what qualifications did you uh bring to that professional uh employment I have a master's degree in city and Regional planning which I received from Ruckers University in 1997 I've been licensed as a professional planner since since the year 2000 I also have our our national certification an American Institute certified planners planner since 1999 I'm currently a planning consultant in in six towns um I testify regularly in front of boards throughout the state I I testified in sum much for I might have been your your zoning board last year and a few times over the years I've been I've been qualified in over 250 towns throughout the state um several uh courts as well Mr chairman I would submit that the witness is qualified to give expert testimony in the field of professional planning based on the qualifications that he spread on the record does anyone of the board have any questions for Mr Richie we accept you as an expert thank you sir now Mr uh Richie having been qualified as an expert can you describe for the board what steps you took to prepare yourself to discharge your professional responsibilities and an opinion with regard planning in connection with this matter sure uh I reviewed the the materials that were submitted as part of this application uh reviewed the professional reports pertinent sections of the the zoning ordinance pertinent sections of the the 200000 master plan 2016 master plan reexamination report I was on two conference calls where I was able to ask questions about the development um I I went by the the subject property on on on on two occasions I also looked at uh tax maps for the area as well as I utilized uh a geographic geographic information system and mapping available through New New Jersey geographic information Network as a basis to uh estimate lot sizes uh throughout the area as there's a number of regularly shaped Lots in this area of sub it chairman I would submit that the witness is qualified as an expert and established Foundation to give testimony as anert in connection with this matter and would submit to I'm sorry sir I'm sorry Mr chairman I think uh he the board has already accepted Mr Richie as an expert in the field of professional planning correct we have I don't think we need the Board needs to do any further sure is it is it necessary for me to reic the variances that we're we're seeking this evening uh yes please sure okay um again the site is located in your R six District um your scheduled space regulations identifies a minimum lot width requirement of 60 ft and a minimum lot size of 6,000 square F feet however it's the uh neighborhood average calculations that are are are stemming um the Varian is associated with lot size so for Lot 23 the remainder lot with the home from section 35 .6e requirements to be met on lot and within Zone District uh neighborhood average calculation to perent a lot size of 7,880 square ft where the averaging calculation requires 12,356 Square ft to perit a total sidey yard setback of 31.8% % this is also for remainder Lot 23 with 33% is required to a total building coverage of of 24.3% where 20% is permitted and a new lot 23.0 to permit a lot with is 6662 feet where 80.4 feet is required per the averaging calculations um Mr Richie before you get into your analysis from a planning perspective I would like like you to ask answer the question for the record uh to confirm that proposed Lot 23 is currently fully developed um yes it's constructed with a with a home by fully developed I'm not sure what what you mean by that it has a single family residence that is developed on the lot yes um we're going to be seeking the variances under the flexible uh C2 criteria where we can show that this is a a specific piece of property that this application would Advance a purpose of the municipal land use law um that the benefits of the the deviation outweigh uh the detriment and that the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good namely the surrounding Property Owners uh and the The Zone plan um I don't want to be uh repetitive a lot of some of my introductory information is has already been stated but when we talk to the negative criteria we speak of a substantial impairment to the Zone plan and it's already been stated throughout this application here that we do have an existing oversized lot that's a has an irregular l-shape that is just under three times um over the minimum lot size as identified in your schedule of of space regulations as a planner that clearly identifies this site as a as a as a lot um that has potential uh for subdivision I I've done um a number of of additional um analysis that I I'm going to discuss with the board I'm going to have to rely on my notes due to the the technical nature of them maybe a little bit more than I I I traditionally do um but um Let me let me step back to what the analysis I did um consisted of um again U this L-shaped lot currently has 185.36 feet of roadway Frontage uh on Parkview Terrace again that's three times larger than the the 60 ft um minimum identified in the schedule space regulations uh I also looked at um there are several R six districts in your zoning map and in this specific R six District the contiguous area um includes approximately 376 residential lots there are are some Lots associated with the park and school and the like um that I excluded in the calculation um um when I did look at all the residential lots there's only one other L-shaped lot that that exists it's a partial L-shaped lot it's not fully L-shaped it has a another regular configuration and the L portion of that lot um is only 40 ft wide so that lot wouldn't in my opinion be a good candidate for subdivision being would have an undersized width um out of the 376 Lots only four lots are larger than the subject property they're all contiguous and located at 36 38 and 42 Mountain Avenue and 102 Elm Street somewhat distant from the subject property none of the four larger Lots contain 120 ft of lot width so they would require variances today even under the underlying schedule of space regulations for those lots to be subdivided uh for this reason it's my opinion this lot is a unique lot specific to this R six District regarding how this lot fits into the existing character the area I offer the following um cic block is is bounded by Parkview Terrace laed I say laed road is that correct uh Mountain Avenue in in Midland Terrace that contains 40 residential lots excluding the subject property um and using because some of the lots are a regular shape so I have a geographic information system that allows me to take the lot lines as as calculated by uh available through the New Jersey Jin it's New Jersey geographic information network uh and I use that as the basis for my uh average lot size so this is not suring information but as a planning tool it's the best information that we have without um essentially having surveyed information and without because we have a regular shaped Lots trying to to figure those those lot sizes out but it gives a good idea and it's largely representative in my opinion of the characteristics of the area uh 20 out of the 40 Lots on the block are smaller than 7,880 square feet that's the smaller lot and 29 out of the 40 lots are smaller than 9,923 Square ft the proposed lot the average lot size for the block is approximately 8,747 square fet and I looked at this because in this regard uh the subject lot is two times over two times larger than the average lot size on the Block in which it's located and that's 17,49 4 square feet would be two times the average approximately we're 177,000 883 square feet exists uh Parkview Terrace from from Midland Terrace to waren Road contains 19 properties that's the same side um of the street of the sub division again using the gis system um of those 19 Lots the average lot size I calculated to be 7,275 square feet uh with the smallest slot being as small as as 5,025 squ F feet um moreover when we looked at or I looked at lot widths the the reason that the the lot width calculation is raised to 80.4 feet is because the remainder lot has a width of just under 120 ft and that's increasing the lot width requirement under your zoning requirements however the four closest lot widths the park is across the street so I I can't look at that are 66.3 feet 65 oh 66.5 ft 68.9 ft and 68.9 ft with 66.6 ft is proposed so clearly the proposed lot width is substantially consistent with the existing character of the area on on Parkview Terrace where the new proposed developable lot uh would most immediately adjoin uh be oriented in face looking towards the park um while the subdivision is proposed it's my opinion that the mass of the house uh the existing house and how the lot with presents itself from Lorden Road will remain unchanged as a result of this subdivision and again if anyone was to the site uh at the intersection this is a downhill portion of of this of this area of the community um that the house that exists in the property in terms of it if its height is is modest uh modest compared to many homes in the area and in my opinion is a home that does not exude uh significant Mass if anything it's a it's a it's a quaint Charming home um that one that I think would benefit the neighborhood um if it was indeed uh retained um this again is my opinion why greater Focus uh should be placed on the loot characteristics associated with with Parkview Terrace uh and clearly this is where the the new development uh is proposed um um overall it it's my opinion that the proposed subdivision which was a lot in the past to begin with will continue and and does result uh in sound land use planning um the degree of this disparity of of why uh you're zoning under your neighborhood calculation analysis requires the the requirement of of 12,000 I want to give the incorrect number uh 12,356 Square ft uh it largely relates to properties on the opposite side of of of laid Road one second get to that um and these are uh 98100 and 104 laid road which contains lots that are that are much deeper than the subject block block 4706 these lots are 192 ft 196 ft and 200 ft in depth again the minimum lot depth for the zone is 100 feet however I mean and these are lots that are associated with the averaging if you look at the entire block and uh that's from wung place to Mountain Avenue relatively short block there are other examples of of significantly different lot depths as well uh there's lot depths of 140 ft 153 ft 127 ft and 130 ft what I'm trying to say here somat is that you know statistics are are you know a funny thing um and that you know this property is is is receiving a substantially High burden as a result of these larger debt Lots across the street that don't necessarily relate well to a property that's being developed on Parks side Terrace when I did review the information I think it's clear that you should be proud of the fact that you are not a cookie cutter town that has all the exact same size and and lots and things that maybe Mr bures and I uh studied in in in planning School the levit towns of the world where you had a a repeated subdivision subdivision after subdivision which was what we were taught is what you don't want you have a very healthy mix of of sizes um um throughout this area and I do agree with our attorneys that while the neighborhood analysis uh is a useful tool I don't believe it's a it's a perfect tool and I think it is one that that could be uh refined um I I've testified many times on community character and and one of the items that that lends to the mass and scale of a property from the street in my opinion more so relates to the width of a lot rather than the depth because you have a 200t w uh property from the roadway you don't see all the way to the back of that lot um and and the width of that lot it dictates the type of home that you're going to have on that house or that property um you know clearly it's width whether you can have a one car zero car or twocc car garage whether that garage will face the street or or could be turned on the lot in the like and all these other elements Associated um with development um however when we look at the lot wids on the same side of the street of the block as laured road that that are most proximate um to the subdivision the two closest lots are 70 ft um in width and 64 feet in width where 68.6 ft exists today and would remain since the l l Road subdivision front Ines is not not changing as part of this application the home or or the like uh it's my opinion that since we are proposing lot and building standards that are largely consistent with the character of the surrounding area our application presents an opportunity for improved zoning to the area alternatively a large oversized lot out of character with the area in terms of the area in shape would remain which would increase the likeliness of development of new replacement home of that could be out of character um with the area um regarding the building coverage the applicant is Seeking a building coverage to allow 24.3% or 20% is permitted on the remainder lot um I do note that the subject property does adhere to the maximum amount of floor area so the amount of Residential Building space uh would not be exceeded and also the amount of impervious coverage on the remainder lot would be 5.2% lower than the requirement of 42 % as well these all signal to me that these aren't signs of of overdevelopment and there isn't a substantial departure um from The Zone plan um I I further note that the the impervious coverage variant is is largely associated with the one-story garage um that is that is facing uh Parkview Terrace I that I say Park View it is Park I want to say Park View or parkite but Park View clearly uh is associated with that one-story garage um U I think it's a it's a better um alternative to to keep that garage you could meet the standard by removing it uh then you would lose off street parking on that lot uh in the context of this application I think it's clearly a better alternative to retain uh that existing off street parking regarding the combined sidey yard U we have a sidey setback to allow a total setback of a 31.8% with 33% is required again I don't believe this is as a substantial departure here where the subdivision line is proposed um the sidey yard setback would conform to the Zone plan it'll be I think .1 feet larger and there's an existing side yard setback of 5.2 feet that would remain unchanged as part of this application I do note that this is um a corner lot and it does require two front yard setbacks uh in the city your Zone standard requires 25 ft where both of those frontages have and will continue to have 3.1 feet over 5 feet more within each front yard so it's my opinion despite this departure um that's I believe somewhat minor in the side yards there still would be adequate light air in open space um on the remainder lot I think it's also point out um to just discuss need very quickly as a planner um as a planner and as the community planner I know that New Jersey suffers from a tremendous shortage of housing uh New Jersey future reported in July of 2022 that nationally we are millions of of housing units short of meeting demand um and they state that the situation is proportionally worse uh in New Jersey I think most people realize despite more mortgage rates um doubling tripling in in recent years home prices has remained relatively constant uh and likely have even increased since that has occurred in value and as a plan a that tells me that uh the reason that that's occurring is that there's still such a a strong demed and demand for single family housing I I looked at your your master plan and I looked at your 2016 reexamination report that was located uh on the city's website and I think there's are are two areas that are that are on point with this application um goal one guide development to maintain and enhanced character of summit I'm not just going to read these uh Summit residents love the scale character and historic fabric of their City there are competing concerns regarding opportunities for reasons appropriate growth and ensuring that new development does not detract from the quality of the existing built environment in particular in existing residential neighborhoods then objective 1.04 maintain the prevailing character of neighborhoods in addition to maintaining the overall character of summit further care should be taken to prevent the periodic deterioration of the prevailing scale of neighborhoods and blocks particularly in single F family residential districts residents have three particular concerns that may pose a threat to maintaining prevailing character in Summit neighbor neighborhoods transition zones lot mergers and lot subdivisions I know and I'm just going to stop there for a second this is a large oversized lot um under your your neighborhood calculation ordinance if I have a conforming property and the properties around me they they merge the Lots I now have a non-conforming lot uh in the neighborhood in the case of potential lot mergers there's concer about larger homes on merged lots and that that speaks to what we have here we have a lot that's three times larger than or just under three times larger what your schedule of space space regulations requires lots that do mats existing patterns and can disrupt a neighborhood's existing character conversely lot subdivisions are also of concern where Property Owners may be incentivized to construct dwellings that are out of character with the neighborhood in this regard I believe that here the benefits of having more harmonious lot sizes and widths in this area outweigh any detriment alternatively the potential to construct a home with a floor area of 6,231 sare Ft exists plus space for up to a 576 576 squ foot two-car garage or total area of 6,807 square ft I don't believe this is a type of home that would fit into the character of this neighborhood in my review of the neighborhood for these reasons I believe this application will support uh the following purposes of Municipal landus law purpose e because the existing lot is 2.96 larger than the minimum lot size in the schedule of space regulations and over two times larger the average lot size for the block it will promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that would contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and preservation of the environment to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for variety of residential uses in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens that's purpose G purpose a promote the general welfare of the area through the development of a new single family home which is in strong demand and need in community today um regarding the negative criteria um the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good um or Zone plan as the proposal results in um the new Lots would result in making a large a regularly shaped L-shaped lot to be more consistent with block 4706 proposed lot 23.0 would closely resemble the platting pattern for the four closest Lots on Parkview Terrace the remaining lot will adhere to the maximum permitted impervious coverage requirement maximum permitted floor area ratio maximum Building height maximum front yard setbacks for both frontages in the newly proposed sidey yard setback um Mr Clark has demonstrated that proposed lot 23.0 one can meet all building requirements for the district so any new building would be located in a location and of a size that is anticipated by your zoning ordinance um for the reasons that I I've already mentioned the the undersized nature of the 7,880 Ft 9,923 squ foot Lots will not result in a substantial departure from The Zone plan again as the Zone plan anticipates Lots as small as 6,000 square ft um and I've also testified that at least half of the lots are equal size or or or smaller um then the the smaller lot that's proposed and I testified I think that 28 out of the 40 lots are smaller than the larger lots that are proposed on the Block um the in terms of the intent and purpose of your Zone plan it's it's mentioned uh in your zoning ordinance and it states that I'm going to skip over the purpose of the r six and all the other residential zones is to preserve the Integrity of existing single family residential areas by preventing the intrusion of non-residential uses into residential neighborhoods and maintaining existing development intensity and population density consistent with single family residential neighborhood patterns compatible relationship between newer expanded houses and traditional neighborhood houses that reflect the best of the neighborhood character particularly in terms of scale sighting design features and orientation on the site is encouraged um based on my testimony which I think i' I've gone through in in detail I've shown that these these properties would fit in better to the character of the area than the existing arrangement in design that uh exists today associated with this large oversized L-shaped lot uh and again the benefits of having more harmonious lot sizes and widths in the area outweigh uh any detriment and again I mentioned that the alternative for this lot uh based on a zoning perspective is up to 6,800 in square ft of development which I believe is out of character with the area I have no further questions of the witness thank you I'd like to ask uh at this time if our professionals have comments that they'd like to offer or questions actually of this witness I'm not sure questions or just comments for the board um yeah I gather the focus of your testimony on the positive criteria side is the C2 variance relief and maybe you could explain in some detail about the C2 release so the board understands that uh sure it's a it's the flexible standard is which I mentioned in the beginning of my my test you can seek the variants under hardship or the the flexible balancing test and under that test I have to show that uh variances relate to a specific piece of property I I talked in detail about that also I have to show how advanced is a purpose of the municipal land use law and I I talked about how that occurred as well and then I have to show um that the variances can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good that's namly the surrounding property owners and can be granted without a substantial detriment to the intent and purpose of your Zone plan which I just read and and and discussed how um that would not occur and then with the the law suggests when the benefits um of an of an application outweigh uh the detriments then uh we've met our our burden appr proof under the the flexible C2 criteria yeah and real quick I'm sorry Mr B and and here also that for the reasons I mentioned that this subdivision results in improved Zoning for the area based on the alternative that's also part of the the analysis if I may Mr chairman Mr Richie is it your testimony that the benefits substantially outweigh any potential negative impact uh I did because two lots that are more harmonious with the area would result in in two homes that are more in character than one large oversized home sorry Marie do you have anything no don't okay um councilwoman Hy uh you mentioned that um thank you for your thorough very excellent uh commentary there you mentioned that you used the gis software for your planning purposes does that show topography and topography changes over time um topography changes over time right so I'm familiar with the sophomore and and I'm pretty sure that it will show you the tree change over time had your office looked at that because I think I think in in speaking with Mr Shen I totally recognize that all of the storm water is coming off of off of the hill and and it's the responsibility of the homeowner to control storm water management on their property so while they may never be able to control all of the storm water I think what I've been hearing from the residents over the last few months is is the frustration over they feel as though and even maybe before Mr Clark came that there were trees there and I know that there's software that can show us with confidence that there either were or weren't trees it doesn't matter to me I'm agnostic to it but I know that we have those tools as planners so why not just get out in front of what what we're really talking about here the public and the residents are frustrated over trees really do cause obious obviously as you know storm water management issues the removal of trees and what I'm hearing from the residents because everything you said was was spoton but can we confidently say up here that there's not a public detriment because what we're hearing from the residents is that there's no trees and I just want to know if when there were trees and when they were because there's software out there that can show us that regarding regarding the software first of all I think it was a testimony I I should say this first from Mr Clark that this site is receiving off-site water and there is no storm water on the site or no storm water prevention or management occurring on the site today and at the subdivision from 1931 um remaining that the house was built there likely would be no storm water improvements on a property of that date as well and that he's indicating and I think he said when the question was asked of him would this result an improved storm water to the neighborhood I think he said up it would 100% meaning 100% yes that it would regarding how we can I how I would identify trees um what I would do is I would probably just look at a historic Arial photography um there are there is liar you're probably aware of information that I can I can touch the top of the tree and the bottom of a tree to determine the height but that's in a raster type format that I can't visualize that tree but if I get lucky and put a point there I can tell you that I can tell you the first return of when that that light beam hits the surface of the Earth and then where it hits the surface of the Earth and that that analysis could tell me the height of that tree but I would look at aerial photography if I wanted to look at the what trees may have been there in the years past i' theer to Mr bur he would do but that's what I would do well there are aerial photo photographs that go back 5 10 20 years and that is one way to find out very quickly when um may may I Mr chairman when when did your client purchase the property Mr Shane are you aware of when they took ownership of it 2017 okay because Google does show in 2013 it was a very wooded lot I'm not sure between now and then when those trees were removed but there was substantial tree removal um separate from a subdivision because the trees aren't there anymore and there's nothing we can do at this point about it um but certainly there does show in 2013 a very wooded lot there which I would imagine would frustrate a lot of people and I guess maybe that's the point that you're that you're making it doesn't impact point is the Cent one is that pre- removal that may have taken place on the site is reflected in the current status of the site and if there is no stormw man on the site now if it's developed and they create storm water management on the site it will be a benefit uh I honestly think that based on the testimony of Mr Clark that this is a receiving lot and there is nothing that this lot can do other than collect the water from its site in development detain it and release it slowly but it will still be receiving water from all of the properties on Mountain Avenue that drain through it and if they manage it through a storm pipe uh that will be a benefit whether the trees were cut down uh or not cut down will not change the current circumstance of being the lot in its current condition if the Lots develop it will benefit from storm water management that does exist now and did not exist in the past Mr Richie um you mentioned U that given the lot today the L-shaped lot today the existing tutor could be torn down and replaced by a 6,000 foot house according to the dimensions based on your zoning and the four year requirements for the Zone um my calculations indicated that what this lot could bear based on the the zoning by building permit without coming in front of this board if setbacks or zoning board if setbacks we here to and the like excuse me I get you the exact number um 6,231 square fet based on floor area but your definition of floor area associated with the fla ratio calculation allows a 570 576 ft two-car garage so hypothetically 687 total square feet could be built which you would characterize as out of character in that neighborhood I would yes and now if the now you're creating the original Lot 23 under this proposed subdivision would leave um the old lot um nonon well not it's conforming in terms of size but the house that's sitting there if that were torn down would that be able to be replaced with something of similar size or would would setback requirements require a smaller house well I'm I think you were testing testifying to that but I the FL area ratio is in compliance the the front yards um because it's a corner lot you require 25 ft the existing front yards are are 5.1 ft further pulled from the street um the proposed side yard of of that's proposed today is is 8.1 ft which meets the 8T requirement but facing the direction towards laed Road the which really is functionally the rear of the house there's a variable rear yard but it's as as little as I think 5.1 ft uh that's the non-conforming condition um that exists today that's we're not proposing to be exacerbated but if the house was torn down um based on I don't know the exact number but our combined side Ard was 31 8% where 33% is required a couple more feet would be required on what's the functional rear of the house um but it appears to me that a same siiz home could be could be built and one that would be taller on the remaining one this yeah three uh three chair I'm assuming you're using the corner lot calculations I'm not looking at it directly right now but assuming that's 20% larger um okay yes the Flor ratio is a is a percentage right but knowing that corner lots have to be 20% larger I'm I'm asking to share with the board if that's the calculations that you use was inter turn corner lot um in terms of the the FL ratio that the I'm talking about the the Lots as are platted today so that's not that's not going to change in terms of what could be built if you approve the sub okay other questions from the board on Mr F you have a question um I heard a lot of the testimony was based on the you talked about the neighborhood um calculation analysis that's in our dero so and you and you cited the zones and the and the different sizes of houses and did your calculations to show us that if you it's not linear if you look at it differently you know it can be viewed as a conforming Lots right that's kind of where that was going so I guess for for Mr Burgess as as board members up here are we supposed to be looking at I mean obviously we we take in every all the information we can as these applications and these experts come forth but we have a neighborhood calculation analysis and some of the variances are applicable to that analysis is that correct yeah they're very focused on that issue recognize two things um they're basically arguing for both the positive and the negative criteria side that the proposed subdivision would result in a much more compatible Arrangement than if the site were just developed with a single family house so in terms of the positive criteria when I asked about the C2 variance uh option there um the issue is you know is there a public benefit to the cruise from the grant of the relief and what they're arguing is that having a more compatible confor lot Arrangement that's more consistent with the neighborhood is a public benefit that's what they're arguing uh on the negative criteria side you know one of the problems with the negative criteria is that you have to show there's no substantial detriment to the public good and again they're basically arguing only if you articulated it this way but they're basically arguing that having that more compatible lot Arrangement does in fact result in the fact that there's no substantial detriment to the public good because they're arguing that's a benefit to the public good and then you're only left with is there a substantial impairment to the intent of the master plan and one of the things he mentioned in the master plan is encouraging compatible land use arrangements so you've really got to take all that information I didn't mean just to talk that side of the room um you got to take all that information and decide for yourselves whether um the applicant is proven the case to enable you to vote yay or not on the application okay does that help it does but do you think that we should be looking at the neighborhood calculation analysis a little bit differently as no I wasn't suggesting that right um and these kinds of applications you know typically the focus is on that neighborhood character it's unfortunate to deal with this whole tree issue because I appreciate that you look back to 2013 and realize that it was a very heavily wooded property um and if you use that as the sole criteria to deny an application you end up with the existing condition and then you have to side does that represent the true negative and the fact that this line is close to three times larger than the surrounding neighborhood that's for you to decide okay thanks I assume it's existed that way with one house of the property for quite a number of years so any other questions from board um I at this point I'll ask uh if the public has any questions of this Witness me if little confused I'm sorry just as you know name and address again sorry Christina amonson 109 learned Road also known as 163 Mountain Avenue before that um so forgive me if I'm a little confused but you're saying that the public benefit is the fact that now we're going to have conforming lots and the public detriment is that we don't have a conforming lot is that basically what you're saying what I'm saying to to paraphrase it is that and this is reflected in your master plan that your master plan is looking preserve really the scaling character nebor um and if you're Park through terce there's there's many lots that are that are mod sized Lots some have very modest Siz homes there's some that are that are larger like and that's because um I showed that on facing Park parking towers that side of the street of the block had lot sizes that were under 8,000 square feet in area right so that that resulted in a certain character that NE if you have a lot that's twice as SI twice the size of the average for the block when you look at FL air ratios and the notable FL you build that's going to essentially double that what could be built there in terms of building square footage um so I gave it an exact number you can essentially have a 6,800 square foot building on the subject property the debt it's my opinion that two lots that are more in character with the neighborhood with homes that are smaller more in character with the neighborhood is a better zoning alternative for this area of the city so you're basically saying because Parkview Terrace has some smaller Lots the lnet roadside which is one street that has one two three four houses on it um should also have smaller Lots because basically what you're doing is subdividing the lot on lnet as well as the one on Park View Terrace in order to get to where you need to be right um I I I don't understand the lot that's being sub Ed the frontage on both sides then on lnet as well as on let's put aside the corner lot situation as well as on Park View will then be more consistent with the lot sizes on Park View as opposed to the lot sizes necessarily I mean like my lot's 100 by 120 the laret side is 120 so clearly this is not consistent with my lot and my neighbors who are here both all of them have bigger lot sizes and we just saw a house built across the street I think it's 104 104 104 or 102 I forget the number that's huge 104 huge Sor she has sworn in but it's your discretion to get back sorry so clearly that's not consistent with the Parkview Terrace so the lnet side is being sacrificed for the benefit of Park viw correct well no that's not the case because that's what it seems to to the block itself as a whole Len and the the two homes that on on Len on the same side of the street you're on the opposite side of the street no I'm on the same side you on the same okay the corner I included Your lot in my analysis the Aver um so I think your Lots maybe 100 or 110 ft in width in front 120 and 100 I think I had 100 whatever the it doesn't matter the point is it's not 60 and I don't believe your lot was considered as part of neighborhood Anis and yet we'd be on the same street so the value of my home will be adversely affected by whatever you do here because it's on the same street I can't speak to Value because I'm not an appra yeah me neither I will say that the subdivision the question is you're applying value so you're talking over each other folks one one at a time it's not the time for argument it's the for question the question remains the the calculations that are perhaps appropriate for Park View are not necessarily appropriate for Learning and that's the question whether what you've done is basically averaged everything for the benefit of the the part viiew subdivision piece but you're also affecting learnet uh I I disagree because I included every your your sub your property on the same block as the subject bloing by calculations on average right there's some that are smaller and some that are larger let me ask you a different question will the resultant well you're saying it's not going to change from the lnet perspective because you're not touching that piece but in effect you are changing the lot size that will be fronting onnet because now it's going to be dramatically smaller than what was there before correct it will be smaller yes yeah so that's Mr chair Mr she I'm sorry what's that I askon a question certainly no it it's he has a constitutional right to ask you a question uh uh you you haven't well once you've provided testimony and I think it's a fair bet that you might have provided some testimony already so I've been trying to formulate the question interrup point is he has he has the constitutional right to ask you a question simp question please in your statement you described a property on LED road that was developed with a large house is that correct correct and what El was that was it 104 feel free to go look for it I'm I'm sorry ma'am it has well she's neighbor so she knows the we all we all get it but there's rules oh in a quasi judicial proceeding which is what we're in right now and it's my job as the attorney to help make sure it stays consistent with those rules in the Constitution so please just ask the question uh yourself from the mic the house involved in the development of that house so I don't know any of the questions I wasn't involved in the development of that house the house that you are talking about in your opinion is too large for the neighborhood no it fits the character of the neighborhood but but that's not the point the point is that what you are proposing to end up with onnet no my question is simple one you you feel that that house is too large for the neighborhood no that's not what I said one of the board members asked a very important question which is if you were to take down the house that's existing on the lnet road lot could you replace it with the same house and they the answer is no because it wouldn't be it wouldn't fit into our current you know planning mson that's not my question I know but you're asking me a completely different question and I don't think that I think the house is beautiful I think it's great it's you know cadd corner I don't know Mr chairman I think in In fairness to M Edmonson uh you asked her a question if you thought it was out of character she said no she doesn't I think we're done asked an answer okay thank you another question from the audience for the witness question uh John raor 167 Mountain r a p p o r t uh two questions I just want to make sure I understand you mentioned all the different neighborhood analysis that points said 40 houses is that Park View um the 40 was for the entire block bounded by Park viewed mountain in Midland ter okay uh the second question is you mentioned a house called 6800 square feet could be built on that property right yes that's assuming there are no easement requirements that they have just really just lot coverage right so nothing to do with a sewer line or anything like that which we've already spoken about previously with Mr Clark um I think you raised an excellent question I might have to defer to Mr Clark might have to bring it back up how that easement could affect I looked at it as the percentage that's permitted under the Zone um as a percentage for f right sorry I'm I'm not I'm a novice so I'm sorry not so sure yeah so am I waiting for Mr Clark to or is that do I just take that question is it I didn't do a study of of of M Mr Clark you you Mr Clark you remain under oath if the applicant wishes to have you try to answer the question as well the applicant can do that with the chair's permission I do you have my permission is that what you'd like you'd like Mr col to respond I I didn't do that analysis but I just looked at my conceptual plan and whether or not you could get to the 6800 Square ft that's of course on two floors or two and a half floors um I'm not certain but you could get pretty close to it um the house the the footprint that I have is about 1,900 Square ft which you know is about a little shy of 4,000 ft on two levels and you have another you know 15 to 20 ft that you could go back and you have the width of the envelope between the easement and the sidey yard setback so I think you could probably come pretty close to the 6,000 square ft of floor area maybe maybe a shade over that okay within the building on thank you Mr sh just has a clarifying question what Mr Clark just said is the nightmare scenario we should hypothesize is overbuilding in a sense over develop on the site or perhaps a portion of a lot left as wood ships with uncontrolled storm water management what's the worst what's the what's the nightmare scenario that we should be contemplating and trying to ameliorate you don't have to respond I'm so you're asking Mr Clark that well Mr Sheen who's you orchestrating the case or or the plan is that a planning question we'll let the applicant decide is the question what is the worst scenario it goes to what are the detriments we're trying to amarate here and if the scenario is through this non-conforming L-shaped lot that you're hypothetically and it's all conceptual assuming that you could build to the greatest extent possible by what the DRL allows what the building envelope allows that's one scenario the other scenario is the existing conditions continue and half of the lot remains uncontrolled for small management varying grades of wood chips uh trees of varying conditions and my question for you is should we consider that as the the leading scenario or should we consider that the likely development path for this particular lot is more towards building to the maximum allowable I'll start maybe you can finish I'm not an expert in storm water management nor have I been out there during a r event have any experience in terms of how water is impacting andtime you can you know do a Redevelopment study you know in an are Redevelopment criteria in certain instances right if water's running have ply out of control I I think as a planner I can identify that and say hey that's that's not a good situation um but you I I spoke to your master plan and your master plan even recognize the concept of lot mergers as an issue being that this is a wealthy community um where someone might take two existing Lots merge them together and build larg your home your master plan identifies that as a problem in itself and that's the condition that you have today so again if you if you want to encourage a more uniform size and character in this neighborhood I think the subdivision is clearly the best way to do that thank you thank you other questions from the board okay oh oh we have one more question from the public yes question for the witness CHR L 171 Mountain Avenue Su New Jersey 0795 I like to hear about your neighborhood planning because you mentioned a very very good point that you are proposing sub division you believe a subdivision benefit the neighborhood and I understand the you talk about the Parkfield laret mil and terce and the mountain and you believe make the smaller each lot will benefit the neighborhood is it right yes and do you the summit overall should consider subdivision repat that this neighborhood with a Memorial Field we got the privilege to enjoy the Big Wide Open Space so you're proposing let's chop them small small small subdivision will benefit neighborhood my question to you is that you did so many Township in New Jersey state and you believe a subdivision will benefit the neighborhood yes so we extrapolated this concept the subdivision to bend neighborhood Summit is not a huge town we are small town so we subdivision benefit Summit overall yes or no does it benefit Su yes my testimony is that it benefits the area with more harmonious lot sizes and and building sizes and you heard from Mr Clark that a lot that currently has no storm water controls on it would be improved that would better control storm water that would be for the subject lot and I think he said the neighborhood overall as well benefits associated with development because again I'm not an engineer but storm water man is a more recent type of development activity but that's not my question I'm sorry OCC years ago that's not my question my question do you believe Sumit overall will benefit from subdivision yes or no yes so following your logic Su currently will probably double number of the houses is I'm thinking about the h s Avenue all those beautiful houses over there all subdivision then that's our master plan for city of summit is it right yes or no I'm not sure if I if I fully understood the question but what what I stated as part of Mr Sheen stated part of the initial testimony you have a a a chart in your code it's called the schedule of space regulation that determines the minimum lot size for each district and then you also have a second provision in your code that requires you to average um based on existing characteristics of the area that really replaces your schedule of space regulations so when when I open if I wasn't knowledgeable of summit and I open the schedule of space regulations um I would think that this lot is 2.96 larger than the minimum lot size in the district I then drill down through your code to then undertake a neighborhood compatibility analysis which essentially supersedes or replaces that that that schedule space regulations and then each property in a district essentially has a different requirement as a result of it so um you're looking at me I did not answer your question indeed because you are not answering my question I'm sorry but I do want to I'm sorry to take this opportunity to comment on what did he say actually ma'am we're going to do a comment section actually right after this sure I I guess I could roll into it if uh if there no if there's no further question from members of the public Mr chairman then we can go to public comment if the applicant is rested uh well let me ask before before you start your comments are there any other questions from the public for this witness be very quick I just want to follow up on what Mr sh said so again your name and address for the record Roberto tixon 171 Mountain Avenue if I heard you correctly regardless of their whether There Were Trees prior or there were no trees wouldn't really matter because what would happen is that when there is a new house built there will be some form of a downflow water management right Landscaping yes okay because uh we on Mountain Avenue we're actually on a hill and if sir do you have a question because the comment is about to come up oh okay so basically again whether there were TW or no TW wouldn't really matter because there would be protection for water flowing down right it wouldn't burden in in so far as inundation flooding it wouldn't cause that your property yeah not at all okay I just wanted yeah thank you Mr Sheen do you have any uh do you have any more testimony or anything else you'd like to no that that that's the uh applicant's case Mr chairman I'm I'm sure the chair will give you an opportunity to do a brief summation after public comment yes well that was the plan all right is there is there uh now the floor is open for public commenton hi again Christina amonson 109 lnet wrote do you need me to spell my last name a m u n d as in David s o n usual but it's an know and as you know you remain under roath I am under oath right so two points I failed to see the benefit that I would receive from the subdivision as a member of the public and as a resident of lnet Road number two indeed we've talked a lot about the trees the trees regardless of whether you believe so or not do add a great deal of value in terms of sucking up water as it flows down the hill and um the removal of all the trees on that once wooded property happened about I want to say 3 4 years ago and has since been replaced by woodchips some of which were actually brought into the property because there weren't sufficient trees believe it or not to actually cover the property and raise it to the level where it is today so biggest issue I have is that I am concerned that um the size of the resulting Lots which I failed to see how they benefit me I I failed to see the benefit and I'm concerned that it will actually impact adversely the neighborhood that I live in when I bought our home in 1997 the neighborhood was fairly settled fairly um wooded fairly beautiful and now it's changing in nature because trees have been taken away lots are changed potentially in sizes smaller homes are being put in where other homes did not used to be and so you need to consider that is not necessarily for my benefit or that of the other neighbors who also bought at the time so that's so Mr chairman Mr Shan would you use the microphone if you don't mind just to make sure that's okay uh Mr chairman uh we've heard an awful lot about trees I would like to to present the applicant as a rebuttal witness to settle the question as to whether or not trees were removed whether if trees were removed it was done with compliance with federal or with state or Municipal regulation and we'll clarify the issue it might be helpful Mr chairman I remember her testimony from January so maybe we can look at that as well I actually have it if you you have the testimony I mean she is here isn't she she's here and her testimony won't take five minutes I mean I'll allow it thank you question you're going to come up and testify in response to the questions of when you bought the property how many trees were on the lot what trees were moved whether or not they were removed in compliance with local ordinances and what type of foood wood chips you put the have y so we we bought the house you're going to lean into the mic S I believe you I believe you testified was sworn in last yes I was January so you remain under oath as a fact witness please give your name and address though nonetheless short Susan bow b a l o g h yes no wor bow oh I'm sorry is this on we cannot hear you I'm talking into it can you talk a little louder though sure okay uh two Park View Terrace thank you in town that we can hear sorry stay stay close to the mic okay um yeah so we bought the property um I think it was the end of 2017 um October yeah I think it was like October 2017 and we moved into the property in I think February of 2018 um and but I also own the property 105 laid which is adjacent to that so I'm quite aware of of the the trees and and what was there was kind of over quite overgrown quite quite honestly um so yes so we did have the majority almost all of the trees are moved in two different um at two different times uh in conjunction with the what is it the Forest City forest yes exactly um we had all the permits they came out they came out and looked at the trees a lot of the trees and I have a you know no pictures picture well I could just show you um because of the water coming down a lot of the trees were compromised and so we were concerned about it but we did everything within what the city forestry was comfortable with and we did that in two different at at two different times we put the wood chips on to um well two things one was for Aesthetics because it was just this kind of weeded lot which it was previously uh and just to have something impervious on there that would also allow the water to drain but it looked much nicer than just this this open follow that someone said that uh the wood chips were 12 feet high is that correct no in 12 no they did say 12 feet but um no I don't even think it's it's 12 in but I I don't know we had quite a few but it's a big lot so we had them dump and then we would just kind of rake them down to make it to make it look uh just nicer quite frankly thank you um can I can I also oh talk let's let's hear questions from the board oh okay because I have some other things but okay for you Mr chairman sure I was just asking Mr delore if he can pull up the tree permits just so we can everybody can feel confident that these trees were taken down with full faith and confidence of the city of summit which I think is a fair question we can't pull that information up I'm trying to pull it up right now um because I think it's an important point and if if this resident is saying that she did it in accordance with the city and their regulations and I think that we should you know trust that that's the case um I would just say and this is something that came up to me is that where where the shore towns have oceans to Summit the trees the ocean so we appreciate and take very seriously in the city of summit that trees are to be maintained which is why the questioning is coming through because there are people who aren't careful or they just want what they want and they remove their trees so I think to council member Hamlet's point we're going to assume that you did have them removed properly I don't have at my disposal the tree permit database but I would assume that they were done in compliance or else I doubt you'd be testifying in front of a room full of people yeah they came out and they wrapped the trees with the you know the G appreciate the spirit of the loss of those trees which is why we did it detal to a neighborhood absolutely I guess do you Mr chairman was there a requirement to replace any of those trees normally there's a there's a one toone replacement or I forget what the exact no so there was no replacement and I don't know I mean you know I don't know if that's because it was just a lot I I honestly don't know but no property City have to I mean I think we have at this point I think we have one two three maybe six six trees I think there's three on the side yeah two no I think there's three on the side and three in the front actually three three in the front two of which are City trees they're on the the easement of the city outside of the subdivision hearing that we're in I will go ahead and just confirm that for the sake of transparency to the public that that has in fact taken place and according to the testimony certainly sure um are we good any other questions I have a question um so you took the trees down assuming by permits um what was your intention to do with the property at that time and why didn't you pursue just planting more trees um I actually we just didn't have I I wasn't we didn't have any attention at the at the moment it was more just managing that piece of property protecting our other two houses from anything detrimental happening from the trees cuz obviously we lived in Park View and we owned the house next door I really didn't want a tree falling on my house or my neighbor's house but uh that you know that was just the the intention was just to clean up the lot make it presentable deal with the trees and we just you know left it at that okay yeah because I I was just going off of what they were saying earlier in terms of when it's developed I'm assuming that someone might want trees and property if if it's if this goes through and it's and it's purchased then you're going to have that same yeah absolutely but but at that point I think when you're absolutely right but I think at that point when anyone's going to develop that they're going to they're going to manage the water they're going to deal with all of that they're going to put in the trees and Landscape the way they would like to to landscape their property so I would hope that that's what they would do if I was going to develop the property and build a house there myself I would absolutely you know want would put trees back but in accordance with you know get the house done how do I want to landscape it where do I want shade how do I want the trees so I would hope that that's going to happen absolutely okay a question Mr chairman if I may bow uh you indicated that the trees were suffering from uh the inundation of water from the hill behind you is that correct yeah yes so the your lot was a receiving lot yeah I mean I can't show you pictures I have them of with with the trees there the water streaming down from from up above and you put down the wood chips to control that uh surface flow well we did two things we put in and I I I talked about this last time when we did work on um our lnet house we put in I'm not that good at I guess a is it a catch Basin Andrew I'm terrible at okay wording sorry so we put in a catch Basin at our Corner we also to help Mary and Paul who lived in the house this is before we purchased the house from them we put a catch Basin on their property because as I had spoken before the town was giving them a hard time because water was coming down and in the winter water was going ac across Park View and it was freezing you know between their house and the park and so no one was happy with that you had ice going across the street um you know this was a 78y old couple so when we did our work we put in those two catch basins which did alleviate and did help you know so we were you know we've been trying to do our part to like help the water coming from up above us we've never created the water we've only been dealing with it since we since we lived there so yeah so when the the lot when the the trees were removed except for I think I said like the six that are still there um wood chips seem to be the easiest thing to do to put down to again aesthetically make the lot look nice and try to keep weeds you know keep the weeds down um it's pervious so the water goes through it um but it helps to you know slow down the water flow going down to the street and into the sewer and it has it has done that it's not perfect but it has done that thank you okay can I ask you question please what difference have you seen in terms of water I'm assuming it goes down to Memorial Field yeah what difference have you seen the benefit of the wood chips in the gravel since you took down all the trees in 20 sometime after 2017 um gravel no I understand what what gravel I think I drove by and there was gravel on it I don't I don't know maybe I was wrong maybe it's an old driveway or something there no there's no Gra all right have you what benefit have you seen from the actions you took of taking down all of the trees to create this permeable yeah it's definitely slowed it down well again the two the two things we put in uh catch basins we could put in previously help I'm talking about the trees just that you can estimate the benefit of taking down all of the trees on the laot the benefit of taking the trees down was that they weren't going to fall on us on our you know property but you said that the drainage got better when it was wood chips so I'm just wondering if you can quantify that at all yeah it did it just because it just had you know I guess you know just not having just the the mud and the muck that was underneath that I mean it was just Ivy and you overgrown there was like nothing there it was all very oh no I was thinking more specifically about when you're saying the icing problem you had on a park fews yeah well that that helped the the catch basins helped that tremendously and then the wood chips also helped to stop that so so you still see it you can still see if you if you look at it you when it's a when there's a really heavy storm you know like hours of you get those huge thunderstorms coming in you can still see it kind of coming down you'll see little Paths of it much much much less than they did and it doesn't go across Park View but also actually also I have to add they put in a sewer the the the town put a sewer on Park View when did they do that I'm trying to think of what year that was so that's right at the end if you're looking at at my if you're looking at the Parkview house in my driveway right to the end of the right there there's now a sewer there that didn't exist I I forget when they put that in so that's also helping with you know with the water going [Music] down you want to take up any more questions from the board or should we go to the public okay I'm going to ask U yes thank you anyone from the public has a question for that witness hearing none I thank you I think they might have more questions just not that well okay they have comments though do we want to finish the public comment yeah we have to finish public comment now so I welcome those who have final comments to make I know Mr chairman I take it this is going to be a comment that's based on the new testimony from Mrs absolutely um actually for the record as one of the original drafters of the tree protection ordinance I can honestly tell you that sorry as one of the original drafters of the tree protection ordinance currently on the books I can honestly tell you that the it only applies to trees that are 16 in diameter breast height which is pretty significant and also if you are allowed to remove the trees you either have to replace it somewhere else on your property or pay into a fund that the city maintains to plant trees elsewhere in the city so that's the situation that's it thank you all right we can have any other comments on the application at this point ly me Chris yeah and you'll have to give us your your name and address again then I'll swear you in name and address Christine Ling 171 Mountain Avenue New Jersy 0791 yep please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth K some when you're coming it's the same thing if you want it to count I I have to swear y that it that's how the municipal land juice Law requires quasa judicial proceedings to work in I just have a question if you you don't want to be swor you don't want it to be sworn testimony you don't want it to count uh I don't if you don't want to be sworn uh then that's fine yeah you don't want to be sworn okay that's fine then you can she's not sworn I just have a question so uh do you hire someone to remove the trees oh did you take it down all by yourself do do you understand the question M right stand up please and go up to the microphone or come up to this microphone and answer question uh yes we hired Frank's tree service okay but the since the diameter is less than 16 so sorry and the the sorry um and uh how many times do they need to come in to take down all the trees we had them we had them come in twice okay so if I remember correctly I think one probably 20 18 and it was 2019 um yeah I think so I just I'd have to go back and look so I think it was 2018 and then probably 2019 I'd have to go back and look at our bills to be honest with you so that means you bought a property 2017 sorry miss Lynn is this a question because you're making if you're making a statement the statement I'm sorry okay you need to swear in for statement or you're going to go on unworn but then do we testify un sworn I mean no no we don't testify okay so my is you like to be sworn now yes please okay please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm the testimony you're about to give is the truth all truth or nothing but the truth truth yes yes thank you yes please proceed with your comment testimony so my comment to you is that uh when you bought the property you already pend to take down those trees to create a subdivision because for us to schedule tree company we have to schedule quite a in the the fence to take a trees down so do you have the plan not reflect the testimony that was given should be Sten from she Mr chairman she she made her comment it's that's her her uh that's so that's her opinion that she's asking asking the board to come to that conclusion you heard the testimony you'll make your own mind up I think the and you'll judge everybody's credibility board can weigh the validity and the and the intent of the of the of the question as it was stated as a statement as it was stated so so in Ence I think the chair's overruling the objection the comment could stand because I simply just uh try to understand found the timing perspective because we also need to remove the tree which is dangerous so that's why we had to do that and it's difficult for us to try to take down the tree like that and we need to schedule kind of in advance it's not easy to take down just even one tree we in fact didn't take it down we just train it we lost tree during Hurrican s yeah that's unfortunately y but my point I'm trying to make is that with the intention to remove all the trees a lot of trees and because uh it's a less than the DI diameter so you don't really need a permit you can just take it down yeah so it seems to me that this is a p in planning that try to take this property take down the trees and make a sub vision and I happen to try to think that Su so beautiful uh do we want to have this neighborhood become subdivided than all the small houses I know it's a question consider the situation right now but it's just my overall that we live in Summit for many years the first time come here and uh just realize how much we love this city of summit and I very much like to have neighborhood inch as much as POS possible but let's just are my personal opinion and thank you very much everyone thank you thank you any other final comments from the from the audience okay thank you all right Mr Sheen if you'd like to summ summarize offer summation Mr chairman members of the board we've gone on an extended Adventure tonight that has relatively little significance in terms of a simple minor subdivision as requested by the applicant storw management is a critical element in any development in the city of summit uh the lot in question is one which as I have indicated and the testimony has indicated is a lot that is inundated by the water from the properties on Mountain Avenue to the South the people who are concerned with the runoff on Lot 23 are the people who are creating the runoff that they're concerned with the development of Lot 23 which is uh a lot that is currently inconsistent with the character of the relevant neighborhood which I would submit not withstanding the uh lot averaging ordinances in Summit is really one that runs to the west from the intersection of LED and Parkview H and that the properties on laed to the east although appropriately developed uh do not relate to the properties that are on Park View if you look at the proposed lots that are uh the subject of this subdivision proposed lot 2301 is a lot that is absolutely perfect for a small developing family with children who will attend Brighton school play in the park and it is a starter house that is in essence what the r six zone is designed to create it is not a Zone which contemplates a 177,000 plus Square lot square foot lot uh the original map or plat that was filed in this uh area created the lot that we are proposed to subdivide uh this is going to create a lot that existed since 1931 which was fully conforming at that time uh the areas of non-conform formity for proposed Lot 23 are lots are a non-conformities that relate to combined sidey yard the area of variance is less than 2 feet based on my math and uh the lot area averaging nonconformity is one that is created by the Lots across laed which although within the Ambit of the ordinance are unrelated to the neighborhood that is absolutely the relevant neighborhood for this application the benefits to be derived from sound planning creating a lot that is in substantial demand for the people who are coming to Summit with developing families and the avoidance of of a large lot which is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood satisfy the uh affirmative criteria under the statute when it comes to the negative criteria with regard to propos Lot 23 if you look at it can you say that that Improvement standing alone on a lot that has 7,800 Square ft a corner lot as Miss Hamlet has pointed out which is fully conforming to the 20% increased standard would represent a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan it stands there everybody has gone out and looked at it is that a substantial detriment to the public good a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan I think not with respect to proposed lot 2301 you have a lot that is fully conforming to the Zone it will have no adverse impact with respect to lot averaging because it doesn't apply and the one variance that that is required is the average lot which width which requires 80 ft where 65 ft plus is provided the 65 ft lot width is Con consistent with the lot width in the surrounding neighborhood the relevant surrounding neighborhood on Parkview Terrace and a development on that lot will have to conform to all of the dimension regulation standards of the city of summit or if they don't for some reason or other uh it will have to go before the board of adjustment which has a rich history in dealing with issues of that type and can be relied upon to make a wise decision whatever that decision might be if that lot is developed it will most assuredly provide a benefit to storm water Management on that lot perhaps not for the properties on Mountain Avenue because the water is coming from them uh it's not coming from this lot uh it currently has a sanitary sewer line that runs through it which Services properties uh adjoining it uh on uh Parkview terce and uh perhaps even one of the Lots on Mountain View or mountain side I'm sorry Mountain Avenue uh that easement will be created in a form of 15 ft that will provide a significant benefit to the community and to the surrounding Lots who Sewer Service go through that easement uh in in addition to the lot in question I would submit to the board board that there is no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and no substantial detriment to the public good and there is a substantial benefit to the development of that lot since it creates an appropriate development of real property in an area that is uniquely suited to receive the development of a small house with children who will attend Brighton school and play in the park and I commend the application to the board's favorable review and uh ask you to Grant this single lot subdivision which has consumed a tremendous amount of time and energy and I thank the board for that attention and concern thank you thank you sir Mr chairman if if if you would like I can list the variance relief and all the conditions within a couple of minutes uh uh and uh then the board can deliberate on same all right we should hear the list uh it's a the applicant is Seeking a minor subdivision uh one oversized L-shaped lot into two uh along with four bulk variances uh lot proposed Lot 23 would be 7,880 square ft which complies with the minimum lot area uh but it does not comply with the neighborhood average lot area of 12,356 square ft uh if that's one variant second uh the lot width uh for lot 23.0 proposed lot 23.0 complies with the 60t minimum requirement at 66.6 2 feet width but does not comply with the neighborhood average lot width of 80.4 Ft wide the third variant combined side yard setback for proposed 23 of 31.8% versus 33% minimum required and the fourth and final variance building coverage on proposed Lot 23 of 24.3% uh versus 20% maximum permitted uh that's what I have is uh the four variances along with the minor subdivision if it ends up being a motion to grant that relief I'll assume unless I'm told otherwise that it's with all the stipulated two conditions including the following uh the comments and conditions set forth in the board planners memos of May 20 and I'm sorry January 8 2024 and may 2024 uh the board Engineers memo of January 4 2024 and May 17 2024 the zoning officers memo of January 12 2024 the construction officials memo of December 14 2023 and consideration of the recommendations of the environmental commission uh in their December 15 2023 memo uh at the last hearing the applicant stipulated to jurisdiction being retained by this planning board for subsequent development applications on either or both of the subject Lots uh to the extent same required variance relief uh however that would not be inclusive of D variance relief if any uh that would be the sole province of the zoning Board of adjustment by statutory law the municipal land use law and that such um jurisdictional provision would be uh recorded in a deed restriction with the county clerk's office uh the sanitary sewer easement of 15ot width would be provided along the east uh that would be an easement provided to the city or should the uh City desired to accept same uh and it would be uh 15 ft wide uh at least 7 and 1/2 ft from the center line which might result as we've had a discussion earlier uh in more than 7 and 1 12 fet width coming from uh on the subject property it's to be determined um all outstanding agency approvals including Union County planning board notwithstanding the fact that that's already been provided so perhaps that's already been satisfied uh the applicant can continue to maintain a garden on new proposed new lot 23.0 however of course no accessory structures may be on uh uh or principal structures without uh uh permission uh can be uh on that lot I thought I heard today that the applicant agreed to a front yard fence on proposed lot 23.0 one being rendered compliant yes yeah it's in one of the uh engineering reports okay and also with respect to the sanitary sewer uh there would be a PO a video inspection done in conjunction with I guess a development subsequent development application and if it's determined that a sanitary sewer line also runs along the rear boundary of the subject property uh then the applicant would uh provide a sanitary sewer easement to the city with respect to that line as well and same would be perfected uh and the applicant has uh stipulated to or at least offered uh to install a linear infiltration drain along the rear uh of the uh I guess it's proposed lot 23.0 near The Stone burm uh sub and all storm water uh and other engineering requirements would be subject to the review and approval of our engineering department I believe that's all I have as far as stipulate to conditions of approval I have one question Mr Warner with regard to the retention of jurisdiction if the development plan does not contemplate any variance relief there is no requirement that the application come that the development come back before any board right I said if there's variance relief not D variance relief it would come back to this board this board would retain retain Juris ition that was the stipulation from the last hearing date in January MH okay thank Mr that's what you're voting on okay that's to gr with all those conditions or not oh now now now now now we're talking um I just want to lead off with um the observation that you know we're being asked to Grant a C2 variance which is a using a balancing standard and um you know is there a substan a substantial benefit to the public and and no substantial detriment and um we've heard that the variances requested for instance the lot area um is is a variance but largely because there are a couple of properties on Larned that are not actually uh next to this property or in the same line with this property that have thrown off the average there and I I I personally found that persuasive um we're asked to talk about uh to look at the width of the property um the average is 80 but again thrown off by a single property that's 120 that skewed the average up is otherwise compliant with the neighborhood in terms of the width um we're also concerned of course about um the water problem on this property and we've heard testimony that and we've seen evidence that I think um the absence of of a of more retention systems uh is is a problem that and and build developing this lot would actually uh offer some solution for the neighborhood um for that reason and and and along with the um conditions that were attached and the con the concessions that the applicant has made uh I find that on balance I don't find any substantial detriment to to to the zoning plan uh or to the the neighborhood and I I I can find myself in support of this application but I'd like to throw it over to the other members and hear what you think thanks for doing all the heavy lifting John that was good well well very thoughtful um I tend to lean towards uh your interpretation of the testimony um and my my own reading of how I think this lot will evolve and law I just to belor the tree point for one more moment um a loss of any tree here in the city of summit especially those that are mure and adding to the canopy is is is certainly something that we should be concerned about however we have not seen the conclusion of development to this lot either in its current form as in l-shape or in a subdivided form so I think more to how either this lot itself in existent form will will ultimately evolve or in a subdivided form how Landscaping will be sensitive to this community's Decades of clarity and conviction around preserving and expanding the tree canopy and when Mr Clark is likely involved in the team that I'll give it probably 31 and a half days comes you know comes back and says you know is exploring development opportunities um you know for for this actual property is going to be sensitive to uh Landscaping plans that can expand the tree canopy and and I've always seen Mr Clark and professionals that have worked with him to be sensitive to that um what I would otherwise just want to expand upon is um the testimony by the planner especially on the concept of Harmony I think is is important variance relief exists for a reason the ml the master plan the drro and formula driven land use is not perfect and there are unique uh Lots in this case an L-shaped lot oversized for the neighborhood um that is not well suited in terms of its development potential by being guided simply by a formula driven approach so when I look at lot area lot width combined side yard setback maximum building coverage um I can see through subdivision more harmonious developments and in doing that amiliar Ates a number of inconsistencies the lot shape and size in its existing form Aesthetics um especially in the context of the character of the neighborhood I don't believe it's in the interest of the community to have thousands of square feet covered by wood chips as a long-term kind of aesthetic benefit it doesn't I park there Park View every Saturday for soccer with my daughter it's sorry it's not tremendously good-looking um and I can't imagine for Neighbors in in the broader Community or those that utilize more real field um they can't they can't see beyond that to something um that can really uh really improve the overall neighborhood and then the final kind of criteria that I looked at and was tremendously uh grateful for the conceptual development plan that is the definition of a double-edged sword in these kind of hearings um and Mr Clark you took a beating but you took it you know with good spirit today um I I believe that the subdivided lot is developable it's developable uh in developable in the character of the community with no substantial negative impact um from my time on the Zoning Board hearing probably hundreds of cases storm order management is a leading criteria for which to judge the benefit of a development application and uh even through this conceptual design and through Mr Clark uh his efforts to anticipate the variations on storm water management um the investment that a either the current owner of the property or their successors would have to make to put in place a conforming storm water management system it'll be a substantial Financial investment and I I believe will benefit the surrounding properties considerably um and certainly far beyond what its existing form is so for all those reasons um I could support the applications with the conditions as noted next very very very eloquently said by both and I think it's full of a lot of the full context of this as the person who receives a lot of the complaints about where construction takes place and then later people are being flooded out um it's difficult as a planning board because we know that development is coming here and that's why I think in the first hearing we wanted to really have a much medier conversation about what could go there and I do think what I heard from the applicant um made a lot of sense I think our calculations in town do work but you can see there are a number of lots that are 200 close to 200 deep in the neighborhood that do influence the numbers I think in the 30s the neighborhood was defined and it made sense that there was the 60 by 150 lot that existed there I think what is unusual is a giant L-shaped lot that I think would be very troubling should somebody come along and build something there that wouldn't be acceptable and then the fact that they are the receive receiving of the property which in other instances that we focus on in town where they are not the they are um they are not there receiving someone else's water that becomes a very difficult situation and I'm happy to see that um we're being thoughtful right at the start as a board to let the applicant and really anyone who comes to the city to develop to know that City's taking its trees very seriously and its storm water management very seriously happy to report that the city will be working on a new iteration of the tree ordinance that is actually tightening it and making it better um so happy to see that and I think it this does um I can see somewhere along the way somebody wanted a bigger backyard and combin the two but in the end this lot did exist and it does make sense that there could be an as as right INRI built uh property that does make sense so for all those reasons and by those my colleagues named and for all those written in the resolution I think I can support this application anyone else sure uh so I've been struggling with this one from the beginning but I can see um certainly appreciate all the professionals comments tonight and all of the residents so understand that we bear a true um responsibility to we're never going to make everyone happy um what I will say is that I also feel confident that this L-shaped lot was probably two separate Lots at one point um I serve on the planning board but my committee is also the one that handles all the trees and the infrastructure and the storm water management uh Mr delari and I have been talking about this since 8: a.m and printing out tree ordinances so know that storm water management is becoming more of a priority we're working on the drro within this committee making storm water management so you can hold myself and and Mr delari and the planning board accountable for fixing those storm water management issues um that is something that will not um we can continue those conversations and we can have a meeting at City Hall and we can talk about all of the drainage problems but as Mr Sheen said tonight we do have some massive problems with storm water that are coming down that hill and and I do think that that's something that the city deserves the residents and we can have a meeting about that um but and I will take that on as my responsibility but um you know I will say I think we've done enough today to I can support this application but I will bear the responsibility of getting back to the neighbors and and solving the storm water manag issue that certainly sounds like it's a it's a real problem for you thank you Council woman other comments yeah I don't have anything too much to add except outside of what was already said um so I'm not going to restate but just wanted to first of all thank the applicants and the experts that went back and um put together what was asked for in terms of grading and bringing back the extra information as it was very helpful for us to make this determination um as well as the residents for coming out for both times um and kind of enlightening myself I'll speak for myself on some of the issues relating to some of the storm water the tree all that stuff right so um in the end we do have to strike a balance and I do agree that uh it's it's after hearing everything seeing everyone come back and allowing the process to play out that it's certainly um I think in the best interest to to to uh move forward with this application Patrice sure um the same and thank everyone for their time and it was a very lengthy process and I agree I also support the application because I truly believe that being left the way it is undeveloped you're never going to fix any of storm water drainage problems that you have I feel like it is a better opportunity to create a better and safer environment near the park to have that water dealt with so by and I think that will encourage that so I support the application as well I do have one question sorry um I just want to clarify will this be this will be in the resolution so when the property is sold when the property is sold the potential buyer will have will all of this information will be on the record in the resolution when the buyer purchases the lot is that correct the resolutions are not recorded in the county clerk's office if someone does due diligence uh such as their uh uh purchasing uh the purchaser's attorney when they buy it they'll find the resolution here um can one the one portion of the resolution uh uh that was uh agreed to by the applicant to be recorded in the county clerk's office was the retention of jurisdiction by the board uh if the board wishes to have the entirety of the resolution or or the portion all the conditions of the resolution that portion recorded that has not at least as of yet been stipulated too could the could the um easements by be recorded oh easements will be recorded once they yeah eans have to be reported the county clerk's office once they're established yes so how will the potential buyer understand all the requirements for storm water management and how does that by the as I said the the uh if the applicant wants to stipulate to having the conditions section of the resolution or the entire resolution recorded they can record it in the county clerk's office and then it will be in the chain of title uh otherwise uh nowadays uh I don't know how many uh I don't I don't do Residential closings um but uh you have to you have to look in the in the count in the municipal records some attorneys do it for their clients some I suspect don't if the property is built within the law during zoning the zoning review which would be standard for it come General application the zoning officer will review prior applications and then use those in the resolution to look at what's being proposed in the permit if it does need variances then at that point as well those materials would be gathered by the appropriate they'll find out then I understood the councilwoman to be asking you know how can we make sure they find out before they purchase the a lot and that would require recordation in the county clerk's office because resolutions aren't recorded indor an Oprah that their attorney or an Oprah that the attorney as I said Good attorneys in my opinion will do it I mean you you see what I'm struggling with right the the new owner comes and and buys a she will the applicant stipulate to having at least the condition section of the resolution and its entirety recorded in the county clerk's office I think they given the opportuni that an request Mr she presents more more than adequately protect a potential buyer and to to add to the uh filing uh which will have to be done with regard to the eement once the the line is identified with Clarity uh I think that the applicant would decline to see the resolution Incorporated in recording at the county well excuse me before I let me just jump in Steve we're talking about just the conditions is that a two page two or three yeah 20 or $30 cost for recording should be that much yeah I don't think that's a terribly unreasonable burden it sorry was that I say the board can impose it y the the and and uh Mr bures in your opinion would that be an unreasonable imposition of the uh uh uh as a condition or would have a Nexus that would be related to the relief granted and therefore be reasonable if the board opposed it it would be reasonable to do thank you Mr bures they you can oppose it want to suggest that it be added as a condition you know I I do and the reason I think Mr delari disagree or agree you can check me on this one um a lot of times we're seeing development occur and someone may have purchased it and the resident just didn't understand all the complexities and I feel like it's you know it's the right thing to do to let them know sort of what they're getting into from St it's happened to me um so I think if we're going to get better going forward as a community you know I think it's the right thing to do it's just my opinion but I I think it's the right thing to do and we're you know we're meeting everybody halfway here so I think it would be nice if we could you know record it on the record the uh so if I understand correctly and I might be gleaning but it's gleaning time perhaps uh the the the um is uh am I hearing a motion to Grant the approval with all the conditions stipulated to including one additional imposed condition being that the conditions section of the resolution of approval would be uh required to be recorded uh in the county clerk's office particularly since the applicant already stipulated to recording a portion of it with respect to retaining jurisdiction yes I'd like to make that motion do I have a second SEC second okay Mr spur yes Mr Felman yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss McGee yes Miss Bowen yes chairman Zucker yes the motion carries thank you very much thank you Mr thank you 70 get better take care of that we we do have one resolution to adopt the Summit High School and then I'll come see you maybe the chair wishes to dispense with the other items I think we're going to carry Steve you okay with the carrying yeah but can we just adopt the Summit High School let's adopt the all right so coming folks let's just keep moving because we we really want to uh wrap up tonight so um before the board we have um a resolution regarding the playing field that we that we reviewed the board's master plan consistency review of the capital project at the turf field that is planning board case 23- 272 um a resolution was proposed uh recording uh the testimony that we heard and uh the discussion of look see what was the date of our meeting uh the meeting was March 25th 2024 thank you March 25th 2024 um this does anyone have any comments or questions or Corrections because I think we we really just want to vote on the approval unless you have a anything else in there that make a motion to approve the resolution I've got a motion do I have a motion SP than you second second Susan thank you can I just uh State the eligible voting members please do sure so it's chairman zooker Mr spur Mr felmet council member Hamlet Miss McGee and that's it five okay and the motion and the second were inclusive of that group so we're good so far okay so I will do the vote then um wait oh sure quick question from council member I just have I just have a question just because I don't know how this works but so in and I'm not trust me I want to go home as well but all of the trees were taken out I'm sure all all the trees above the the Housing Authority were taken out sorry below and it says in the res ution that the applicant will soften if not screen the north side of the proposed retaining wall with Landscaping features subject of the review and approval of the city Forester and in uncons so how do we is there anything we can do to make sure that that happens condition of approval it has to be complied with and and so how do we enforce this that they actually that the Board of Ed works with the city Forester and the Summit Housing Authority to put the trees back in how do we enforce this because as a planning board as a planning board do we have is there any enforcement do well the well the these are recommendations because it's a capital project we don't have a phone so uh uh the uh they stipulated to them they stipulated to having consultation with the Summit Housing Authority and having it reviewed and approved by the city Forester okay uh so hopefully it'll happen at some point this will be the resolution yeah unfortunately we can't do more than recommend in because it's a capital project then that's all the authority we're given all right thank you um so we're going to do the vote okay chairman zooker yes Mr spark yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Miss mcke yes the motion carries thank you we're going to with the permission of the board we're going to bump uh the drro subcommittee update and cross acceptance documents conversation to next meeting no objections here all right um I have to sign myars myars and otherwise we're we're finished for the evening thank you everyone you yeah e