##VIDEO ID:SI3LcZxFjAY## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e he great we'll call the meeting to order great and ask the secretary to call the role chairman zooker here Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez here Mr Spar is excused Mr felmet here council member Hamlet here Mr domaso here m McGee here Mr forelli here Mr Stern is excused Mr Bell here Miss Bowen here you have a quarum you may proceed all right thank you um now in the notice statement in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 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 this is a no smoking building fire exits are to my right your left and the back of the room uh this is a scheduled meeting of the planning board there may be other meetings currently running simultaneously with this meeting if you and there is no one else here are not here for the summit planning board your meeting may be upstairs or elsewhere in the building um at this time we can go right to our agenda and um nobody minds I think um we'll oh we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance for sure yeah thank you I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thanks um I don't see any reason not to just look at the minutes and jump that in the calendar uh did anyone uh have any comments or questions about how the minutes were recorded from our previous very quick meeting um no other comments here um then I'll ask for a motion to approve so moved second second I'm so we may need to change the motion on that if the minutes are accurate my apologies the uh we're talking about the July 22nd minutes I did read them though I promise yes so no we just have to exclude the members who were not present that evening I did read them I promise so I can tell you who they are I watched the meeting that's right yes yeah because she watched the meeting and read the minutes I'm sure it's technically technically would should let's make sure only those who can vote should vote all right sorry for being the the attorney is that your job or something I know I know ring to move it all right so who's eligible so we have the people who were out were uh council member Hamlet um Mr for melli vice chairwoman balson Alvarez and Mr domaso was not here so everyone else can vote but just not those people okay okay so can we have a new Motion in a second who can move you I'll move I'll second thank you Ryan Ryan all those in favor I I any opposed okay the motion carries all right um next up I think we would ask um Mr Burgess who's here tonight to talk to us about uh um proposed drro issues is that is that fair time to talk about that I think it is we're all ready all right um let me just introduce this um as as you know and if you haven't been here um we are going to take some time as much as we can in the coming months to uh review take this opportunity to review potential uh updates to the drro there's always issues that come up every year that uh sometimes just don't get addressed and we'd like to try to stay on top of that um already some thought has gone in our planners have suggested a list Miss bson overz and others have suggested thoughts and topics that we should uh we should think about and start prioritizing so the the point of the list that's in front of you tonight and that I think Mr burges can take us through is to sort of get our brains working around the things that are important to us um we'll encourage you to to compare that list to the priorities that are in our master plan and our reval so that you can go back and just refresh yourself with the things that the city does care about and that we care about and then I think in in in at the next meeting um and certainly up even uh in the in the weeks leading up to the next meeting feel free to communicate with me um or or us and um as we start to prioritize and I think you know we'll talk about the best way to prioritize my first thought was maybe we start doing some rank voting of our top priorities our top five our top seven priorities and that way we'll start to boil down to what the things that we should wind up either this board focusing on or making recommendations to city council to address and uh with that maybe uh I'll let Mr Burgess take us through his list okay thank you I one one thing we should clarify that was that we remember we had a list last time that everybody was you know going to add to or we were going to think about uh Tom B ated Burgess had a list also going because he was very instrumental in writing the DRL so we morphed the two together and this list now represents the one we went over plus some of burgess's additions they have a lot of edits they want to do that these are actually subsided yeah um I think everybody received our September 16th memo and when Tom and I put that one together we didn't think about the presentation of it I'm sure you all talk eight saw eight pages and 31 different items and panic thinking we're going to be doing this for a year um but a lot of that probably three quarters of it was really just simple clarifications there was a sentence that wasn't written it wasn't will written so you those kind of things that you don't really have to waste your time on we're just going to make the suggestions um for specific changes to clarify the issues that are are those uh problem State statements in the ordinance and then this morning Mr zooker and Jennifer we had a conversation with myself and Tom and we thought it would be good to come up with this top dozen issues which is the list before you um a lot of these question we're not going to write the ordinances in front of you obviously we just want a yay or no yes or no and whether or not you want us to proceed with changes these changes or not and then we'll respond for with a memo at the following meeting so the the first one we will just simply go in order regard uh Wireless regulations now there was an old ordinance that had all the wireless regulation spelled out in it um they had been adopted they do need some updating um it's not a matter of rewriting all those regulations but over time the manner in which the wireless Community is addressing Wireless needs have changed um in terms of the size and scale of the product that they put out on the field um so those are the kinds of things that need adjustment I assume everybody would concur it is it something that should be done I'm just passing around just so you know the what the 4G kind of things we have there's one photo going around of of some buildings in Summit that have the 4G that are pretty much setb they're not that visible unless you're looking at the right angle but to makes you think about set back are important you know for those sorts of things but also the 5G um are really big and in the past you know our downtown's a national registered District so the 106 review would kick in which means that would help with mitigating having a big giant pole in the middle of your downtown but my understanding and I have not checked lately but my understanding is that that was circumvented so they're not the FCC doesn't have to submit those for 106 review that needs to be checked right because I think it still doesn't yeah it is my understanding that there are ways to significantly minimize what those original 5G um facilities were and um we're going to be double-checking that and then build that into the ordinance okay so I just circulated a 5G and then something from Joe I just have to through you president just have a quick question so we I'm trying to remember the timing on this but the wire ordinance that we passed I think in 23 recently right sorry that we passed the wireless T Communications uh public RightWay ordinance I believe it was in 2023 recently so would would we be coordinating with that like when we did that we spent all this time and money doing that ordinance I'm just wondering if we can just check with what we approved in that ordinance and then I think it was um ordinance it's number I think 23- 3302 I guess that's my question so didn't we didn't we update the Dr oh we have periodically over the years yes okay I know we talked about we've been doing pass around a picture last time so you guys actually yeah we I we actually went ahead and and but that was um let me just see I'm looking right now I just didn't look earlier but we should definitely double check with what we passed regarding um the wireless ordinance can you give me that um number again I believe it was know we spent Lisa Allen spent a lot of time on this so I would not want her work to go to waste here but it probably nothing to do with what we're talking about um3 sorry no it's not that one it's uh it's 23- 33033 Y and that was adopted that was should have been adopted I think it was at our November 15th meeting okay well we will check that I was not aware that that was adopted actually but I'll dou check that's a longer conversation that I want to talk about tonight a little bit some of those ordinances we find out after the faculty I don't know how much yeah I don't know I'd have to relook at it it's escaped my memory by now but okay let's go to the okay uh the second issue is airbnbs U more and more municipalities are raising more questions about the propriety of having them in their Community do you want us to look into that or not you're getting inquiries from developers about Airbnb about airbnbs is that U no in other municipalities um certain municipalities are and um in a number of municipalities they have not been happy with the results what has been happen happening is in some municipalities um some people rent out a large house for the simple reason to throw a massive party and it has resulted in police time and a lot of aggravation in neighborhoods conventional Airbnb was always thought of as you know local tourist coming into your area or if you know somebody's coming here for a week or so and they're running a place out million is devolved into something else I'd be curious how many are doing it right now he have any regulation no idea in New Jersey um not the Board of Health um I think DCA has some regulation governing it I know Spain was pretty upset about all the airb well if you're Barcelona yeah be interesting to see how New York interprets that over the next year or two as between Redevelopment of office space into probably not straight up hotel but a sort of modified or or an evolved version of an Airbnb in places like Time Square in Midtown and downtown that I think you're going see things that are going to influence how we probably think about J Jersey City had a a quite a bit of ordinance develop uh an action and Amendment and there was litigation involved and so the area in N the the area uh in New Jersey has been flushed out pretty well there there are there's guidance more than a sufficient amount of guidance to enact an appropriate ordinance to mitigate if not eliminate the concern if there is particularly one ongoing I don't know that there is one here but uh all right but but there isn't a lot of other municipalities we've drafted a few ourselves and uh I going to ask de anyone uh Council M council member Hamlet have you heard any complaints about like airbnbs or is that something I haven't heard but just randomly the other day somebody said they were running out their Airbnb so it's actually perfect timing I was like I didn't think we had that in Summit so um could I make a suggestion then why don't we put something together and give you the background information on it and then you could decide I think it's really helpful because you know we're not really expecting us to decide tonight what what goes in but we were just looking for more information and to flesh these things out um but uh let me take a break before we go any further I do want to welcome we do have a new member on the board you're here hello yes glad to be here thank you for being so welcoming learning a lot'll be better if I can say that um if I may chairman he's he's our superstar in uh in the department so we're really lucky to have him uh he is doing so many great things for the city so I rely on him on a daily basis and we just can't can't thank you enough for filling filling the shoes all right austa thank you far too kind thank you and it's domasa yes D thank you okay get that right the third issue on the list uh for single family dwellings the whole issue of sports courts and the like uh in a backyard um I could tell you in communities such as yours you know wealthier communities uh this is becoming a hot but more and more of a hot button item issue in terms of coverages noise impacts and and the like um there was one instance and I forget what municipality it was and it might be Summit where I'll name him vuli the bull player for the Yankees his nephew built um a batting cage in their backyard is that here that is here no idea no here maybe not here seen plenty pretty big depending how you um some of the neighbors are upset I've been I've experienced one where in Franklin Lakes where somebody wanted to build a uh facility for their 12y old who wanted to be a star skateboarder this goes back a couple years and um the neighbors were not happy because it was constructed in the front yard oh boy a half pipe in the front yard was a corner in their defense it was a corner lot so they really didn't have a choice or so they said um but it might be in your interest if you want to allow such facilities we could put together a number of regulatory controls to at least per you know restricted to certain portion of the site even on Corner Lots with the appropriate landscaping and screening to minimize it you know other issues of lighting go into come into play as well so you know we could put all that together for you and then you could make a decision on that I mean I'm only familiar with one recent instance where this was an issue does anybody is anybody familiar with any case cases or instances this no all right I mean I mean I think that if you can get kids outside and play and not disrupt the neighbors it's a win-win for everybody but um yeah the one recent case I'm I'm aware of as well and I I have intimate knowledge with that one but you know the that house was interesting just because they really didn't have too much of a backyard and then the thing I think that most neighbors are really worried about is are they going to play like loud pickle ball on it and is are the proper storm water controls in there is it not going to be red or orange so and lighting and lighting yeah so I don't think that it's not a bad conversation I think you're going to probably see it more and more yeah your ordinance technically permits them permits such facilities now but with minimal regulatory controls oh got it I agree I think it needs to be yeah I think it should I think I think just on on the way this town has developed over the last 30 years and will continue develop um and and there will this will become okay okay good thank you uh screening of a exterior mechanical equipment um presently you allow it provided that it meets the setback requirements for the Zone in which it's located um there are sidey yard setback requirements but that is about it and a question has arisen regarding if you're in the downtown area or nearby and you have a four story building next next to you and they and your two-story structure and they're looking down on you how do you struct how do you establish the screening features most municipalities will simply have regulations governing parit walls at the perimeter um but if you're placing the rooftop of partan is in the center portion of a building on the roof um that might not be sufficient to screen but the flip side of that is if you're going to require screening around a building that's got multiple rooftop apperances the amount of screening and the cost associated with it really becomes exorbitant so there's that balance as to how you want to deal with that situation now this is another one where we can provide you some regulatory controls you do have power wall requirements now um but we might want to consider some additional so we could provide for that in the ordinance if you'd like okay I just have a quick quick can can can we talk about the yeah I I remember your words from the grand the air conditioning yes I get I feel like I get a lot of residents who email me about this so I just want to talk about it I'm sure you do bet topic yeah this has been a um yeah an issue for a very long time so I think what we're we were talking about and and you know many residents have talked about it for years is to grandfather in air conditioning units where they have been for a very long time and if they're just being replaced in kind the same size are smaller um they're quieter now it'll be less of a intrusion than it had been for decades potentially um and so you know we should discuss with burges what they've seen in other communities you know if this has been a problem or not or whether grandfathering in existing you know condenser units is not really going to have an adverse effect but it certainly would make people a lot happier because having to go to a variance and having to pay your escrow and do all of that you know the same amount of work that you would have to do for an addition is just a lot I think what happens and correct me if I'm wrong but I think they go and they do an addition and then when we go to inspect the property we realize that the air conditioner is not conform Augusta you might be able to yeah so he finishes my sentences the idea of direct Replacements from a municipal Municipal enforcement side actually saves time from the zoning inspection right um one of the biggest considerations when I have to listen to the inspectors or what are the issues that keep coming up is first of all residents are upset that they have to go through a board process for Air Conditioning secondly let's say you do replace in kind you go through your board process and then you finally have an inspection done only for that inspector to tell you that you didn't screen perfectly and uh now you have to just go on and follow up with that again so from the side of the municipality engaging in Work Direct replacement does save time for both the employees and residents I would also add if you for generators because at least around me the generators are far louder than the air conditioners yeah I think we were just talking about air conditioners because I do you're right I mean generators have a totally different effect on but we can talk about that in a moment because there's one issue that you kind address get to that but with respect to the air conditioners if you were to provide if you were to allow them to do the direct replacement without having to make an application the zoning board agendas would probably be cut by a third to 40% because this is what they deal with more than anything and what's your experience with with municipalities who have done you know an in-kind replacement set aside so that you don't have to go back how has it affected the community uh only in a positive way um the residents appreciate it the board members who used to review such applications appreciate because it really cut the meeting time down and they have receive virtually no complaints from Neighbors you know who live next to or NE by those that were able to replace cuz the air conditioners of today are a heck of a lot you know less noisy than they were you know 15 20 years ago so if you're in the building department and you have an uh an ordinance that just grandfather's in a location and they're putting in a unit that's the same size quieter whatever um but they see something that doesn't fit or looks like a problem do they have any recourse you got to explain if it doesn't fit if if they're say I'm just trying to think is there any judgment call for an extraordinary situation we still talking about pulling a permit you are you're pulling a permit right because it's plumbing and you still have to pull a permit yeah so there's some recourse that respect there is some recourse but assuming it's going to be so minimal though assuming you're putting the new one on the same pad that the exist the previous one was on there shouldn't be an issue painted neon pink or something yeah I'm trying to I'm just trying to make sure we don't cause a problem but I'm all for it because I just went through this and you know my escrow was grin like Oh and it was a really great location because it happened to be further from every house than any other place on my property and it was the you know 40-year-old location um but this has been going on for since at least 2016 and I remember this being an issue uh before we move on to the roof mounted did you you want to talk about generators here it's generators um have automatic testing as you you know um and you can set them for any time that you want to and many municipalities now just have in their ordinance that they can only be tested you know like on between 10: a.m. and 11 a.m. 4 p.m. or something you know whatever Happ you w so it minimizes the impact of those that decided to have it or not thinking about it and they came by through the manufacturer and they test at 11: p.m. and wake up the whole neighborhood so you can control that much did have a question do we have a we have a screening requirement for generators though right especially in the front yards because I don't think it's followed or enforced too well I it's enforced that's something I put one in I had to screen was four years but I've noticed people don't and they should because it's not attractive in the front um I would think in the front my goodness we better check that because in the front everything gets screened yeah come to beakman Road wow interesting is there any issue with screening them like they don't work as well I'm just thinking if no we're talking about like a low hedge or something that no I was just be set back a little no the air flow you're worried about the air flow that was what I was wondering if you put it like in a wooden box or something you know you built something around it then I think there might be a problem with its efficiency or something or other probably you're right I don't think anyone would do that now it has to be the if there's yeah and I forget if it's three or four feet but they come the manufacturer specifies the minimum distance that any uh fencing would have to be located from the machine okay so then there's the the second bullet point on number four screening reording oh that's what you started the conversation that's what I started talking about yes all right okay okay so does that mean we're ready to go to Five yes okay this came this item came about oh I'm not sure what Tom had in mind because this is a combination of Tom's the uh Clarity what does he say clarify roof design requirements for single and two family dwellings he had something on his list that he had in mind for this and I don't think we drill down on it this morning but I'm curious to know what it is and we thought we would fold into that the double Dormer thing because that was you know just a a probably a oneof but we just don't want it to keep repeating yeah yeah that it's always Troublesome and Steve you would appreciate this somebody built something that I've never seen before you know and I um architectural design is in the eye of the beholder whether it's attractive or not I think there was a general consensus on our phone call that it was not in this instance but writing in a whole ordinance on a oneoff item it's usually problematic um I'll leave it to the board if you want us to look into it in response to that one application we did adjust the required pitch of the roofs MH so I think it's six on 12 if I'm not mistaken okay um so we thought we had addressed it at least partially okay okay yeah I mean I I would love to know maybe we can get a little more color on what if Tom had other examples he was concerned about because that's what it sounded like um and for new construction and infill construction C you know we have a lot of historic districts it' be good to know what he's seeing or what he's worried about on that okay I don't remember what he was discussing but I think one thing that we might add to this as a potential item C deals with solar panels may have been what he was talking about uh not strictly speaking mechanical equipment the way that one would look at condensers or other M noisy bulky equipment on the roof that might be an eyesa but we'll see more and more solar panels uh and I think speaking personally that that's a good thing but there are people who will object to them and and there're and that should be dealt with in some manner U you're not going to be screening them clearly but are they ined obstruction put a little solar canopy over the solar I think it's good to give him a lot of shade I think yeah right we have written some wens is regulating that and and looking at the material for manufacturers you know they are getting smaller um and now they don't have to be as high off the roof as they once were they're more scaled down but now um they're they are making um roof shingles which are solar panels so it really takes away completely the issue and they're also making embodied photov voltaics for facad you know which will be another issue maybe next year or the at the moment the solar panel shingles are yeah from what I understand very expensive right but presumably they will come down in price over time so that might address I'm just suggesting to add solar to the list of things to consider when we talk about rooftops MH yep okay so that was number five number six oh this is a fairly straight simple and straight for I think it's the no-brainer yeah yeah the design standards are presently in the appendix to the ordinance and time and time again Engineers when they're reviewing the ordinance to prepare site plans they miss this completely and we've had it here where they've actually acknowledged oh I didn't know that was in the ordinance because they didn't turn to the appendix even though somewhere in the body of the ordinance it does say C appendix a or b or whatever I believe we made sure it was in every Zone at the bottom of the basic criteria for every Zone it says has to be compatible with the design guidelines C appendix a and we put it in on every Zone and Architects still miss it you know what just got me thinking um the suggestion unless it got edited out I have not sorry go ahead Jo no I going to say the suggestion was relocate those design guidelines into the body of the document rather than in the appendix yeah we all know there's a building uh right on Springfield Avenue right by wind berries that's getting faced and they've expanded they brought it out a couple feet you know the original facade of that building was not really in tune with any design guidelines in the city back when it was made I'm curious I don't know what it's going to look like I guess I haven't walked past recently I don't know if they've attempted to conform or they've ignored it again like I don't know no idea and that's our national register district oh well that'll be interesting to see you don't want to save the 70s architecture you know what I'm seeing it all the time now in my work I'm seeing the 70s building you know yes I don't know the design guidelines but I've been dealing with a lot of issues on the sidewalk there so oh the sidewalk issue yeah of course an interesting one I did have one comment around the changing things I think one of the things that I struggle with just this weekend I was at the farmers market and I noticed there was trash cans with trash overflowing all the time and I get you know all the residents complaining to me I feel like if there's some way to put in here what code this corresponds to and I guess so you might be able answer this because the average person just wouldn't know so they're keeping their garbage let's just say they're putting their garbage out without a container it's in our Dr that it has to be containerized let's say they're throwing garbage out with bags and then the next day I call Augusto and I'm like can you send our code person out but I don't even know what the code is because I look at this thing and it just says you can't do it but is there some way to put what they're actually violating if they do it wrong are you talking about single family residence or commercial just the design guidelines like so this would be like for instance um the in the alleys do have it look like this but don't have it look like these garbage cans with trash falling out of them which is what I find constantly so like what do I do if I find that and then I call austo and I say you know you want I mean I hate to be mean but you want to find people so they stop doing it because then I get the residents who say there's rats and garbage and so like how do we fix the problem right like how what a violation anything else that you would enforce in the drro would be the process right so when there tends to be a drro issue violation U that will go through our zoning officer but for example that initial inspection of going out there gets referred to sometimes Property Maintenance or a zoning inspector um if the real issue you're trying to tackle is um we want to establish some kind of design requirement that says you need to push a trash out but when you don't that would be more looking into the property maintenance ordinance and its aspects which sometimes does fall in line with uh drro items for example our property maintenance ordinance does not permit that um a broken down car is left out in front of a residential property within a driveway Etc um in terms of you know a design requirement or issue with u you know a property that they can sometimes overlap um I see you're but you see my point these items are are they can be t together but I don't see that from a perspective they would the design aspect versus the overflowing aspect so it's it's a different area of the code yeah okay Dar solve the downtown garbage problem all right let's talk a little bit about rooftop amenity space okay oh yeah you see this in many downtowns today it's very popular um should we be preparing some regulations governing that if you're interested I think so I mean every every commercial developer is is talking about how to activate their their exterior oh every commercial developer anywhere is thinking about how to activate their roof space whether it's well anywhere in the US doesn't you have to site a single Town it could be Manhattan it could be Dallas it could be Summit but everyone is thinking about that you're seeing it everywhere today and it's an attractive feature in the res tend to exclusive maybe those who live immediately next door but everybody else seems to enjoy it let me ask the question are we talking about things like uh light pollution noise or are we talking about erress safety um the issue usually revolves around um issues of noise more than anything else and time and how late in the evening it's allowed those are the kind of things you try to regulate in some way the Elks club one that we that came because it wasn't allowed in the downtown I think that the that we limited to 11: p.m. and um we limited the lighting and we we limited the appearance of the balcony so that it wouldn't be that visible from the street because it's a historic district you know I think all of those things should be incorporated into any you know an expansion I think it's been very popular and I think it's worked out and we haven't had as far as I know any negative feedback um maybe we have but I don't think so um so you know if it's not lit and noisy later than 11 it's probably going to work in most zones or maybe we decide just in these three zones or these five zones you know no that that's what I was assuming it makes perfect sense I I was just thinking that in some instances the existing egress to the roof isn't adequate for the numbers of people who would likely be there if it's really filling its purposes and amenity if you know because it's for usually maintenance purposes only so adding a second means of egress when there isn't one is costly and sometimes difficult uh and probably should be part of whatever we consider that's probably a code requirement anyway anyway you know but it'll limit the numbers of uses and you get appeals for variances about wanting more people than Eris allows for yeah be hard I think it was hard to get a vote on the Elks one because everybody was an elk member that's where those borrowing Provisions come inor borrow from the zoning board that wouldn't help y club we were actually really concerned about the the the apartment to was a member of the yach club yeah because you know it's it's a great use for second sorry for uh for upper stories you know to have apartments and downtown and you know we just didn't want to have any negative impacts for people living on second and third story so okay um so we'll check that number eight um okay you presently permit parking stackers we the discussion we had this morning was you know it would be prudent just to check the ordinance to see if it's covering up to date with the way in which these facilities are now being constructed the one thing that clearly is missing in the ordinance is what happens if you don't comply to certain provisions and is that a c or a d variance in other municipalities it's always reviewed as a c variant even though in a a few municipalities the question of a a d or youth variance the zoning board comes up I think it's more appropriate to be in a as a c variant it keeps it that kind of an application before this board uh which is where I think where it would should belong um so we'll double check all that and make whatever recommendations we feel necessary a lot of there's a lot of implications to as these systems age and whether they're still functional and what happens then if they're not functional and you're stacking cars and then where are the cars going to go when it you know like I think it's important to keep an eye on it and to re-evaluate it you know yeah I I agree Jen I I mean there could be a scenario that you're sort of after the after the initial useful light whatever that equipment is if it's 15 or 30 years if it becomes u a maintenance issue or if become something that the land or the owner of a building doesn't want to necessarily fix or spend a capital on suddenly that parking is reduced you have half the parking for the units that you built correct and so that back to compliance is it like a severe penalty is it something else and and the other issues that come along with that is that is the equipment uh operated day to day by in a manual way is it automated what's more likely to break down or not and so there there are a lot of things there that be at and whether we want to have them that frequently because this could be a compounding right yeah it's not been around enough to give us a track record we just don't we don't have enough track Rec I think there's that and I think it's also but even like uh like like um like the roof tiles changing from a from a from a solar panel perspective it's just evolving and so what what might the the the ideal today might suddenly become very Antiquated five five years from now even depending upon how on the flip side it's artificially allowing more units with this system that may not be sustainable so I don't know I think it's something to to talk about okay what's interesting if they're not maintained I would think the tenants of that building would immediately complain because they're not getting their cars then so it might be self uh correct true but it depends on the type of building that it's in as well how much those tents are paying Services there will be other factors that influence I think how quickly that that owner might respond okay um number nine is about accessory dwelling units now typically we have historically in New Jersey talked about accessory dwell solely on in the context of affordable housing the Council on affordable housing regulations would permit municipalities to um allow credit for up to 10 accessory Apartments accessory apartment units uh in their municipality um the track record is not very good in that regard there's only a handful of municipalities that have done more than two or three I'm familiar here with Fairfield in Essex County as an example has had such a good experience they've done literally dozens now in their municipality they are the outlier usually um municipalities put it in their ordinance and then they never happen the state is now taking the position or certain states are now taking the position that you should allow these things everywhere in a single family Zone New Jersey legislature has talked about that but it hasn't gone anywhere yet well I think there I'm sorry there's a bill but it hasn't right but that's kind of languished now I guess what I should say yeah it's heated up and Joe just remind us when when you're talking about accessory dwelling we're not just talking about a separate structure we're talking about um subdividing a house or or mother daughter situation or whatever they call one of two or three things it could could be taking a carage house in your backyard and allowing that to be converted or the second floor on it to be converted to an apartment it could be building a new accessory structure in your backyard um or it could be this is the the Fairfield case more often they have a lot of um by levels in that community and the you know with the rear access they it's ideal to to convert that bottom the first floor at grade to an apartment that's what's happened there those are do with number of split levels that way and convert it um I don't know that that is prevalent a building type here there's some I know there's some not very prevalent yeah yeah um they're not necessarily um in this instance geared to affordable housing um which enables people to pick and choose their tenants more easily if you provide it as a for a for just to meet your affordable housing obligation of 10 un that you're allowed um you don't get to choose who's going to reside in your unit so that's why a lot of towns don't like it for that purpose um if you like we could put together the kinds of regulations that would regulate that and then you could delve into it more if you're not interested you could let me know so we don't what do folks think about that well I'll I'll weigh in because this is of all the topics the one that I'm perhaps most passionate about um not only for reasons of potentially creating more affordable units whether they're counted legally as such or not I think we have in Sumit an aging population people often empty nesters looking for downsize uh yet have a strong attachment to the community I'm 72 I would love to stay in this community for the rest of my life maybe I can afford to maybe I can't but a lot of people can't um one way of staying in town is to find a less expensive unit not necessarily affordable by state standards uh they're also um younger people uh we have three kids and would they have stayed in Summit if they could have afforded to probably not uh because they're far flung and for other reasons but uh it's a very expensive town for young families or individuals first job single people um so the issue of affordability isn't just a legalistic one to satisfy Mount Olo or whatever it relates to the demographics of diversity of the Town older people would like to stay younger people would like to come um you know you look at what is permissible and in fact what is required in terms of um garage space uh we have a uh weekend house in Pennsylvania uh it's been interesting to see in a town that is about the same density how few people use the garage for their cars incredible number and I'm not sure if people drink more there than in New Jersey but incredible number of tiki bars uh highest and best use you know yeah the choices having your mother-in-law or a wet bar you know I don't know you know you can debate it both ways think that be permitted in the code I think it's permitted you know when my wife and I first moved to New Jersey and it was almost 50 years ago 45 years ago we lived in marst toown in a carriage house it was a large property a large house and there was an old it wasn't a garage it was probably at one point a stable or real carriage house that was advertised in the Mars toown newspaper is a carriage house there was an apartment above it and we could afford it when she was uh you know resident at at over at at the marown memorial hospital and uh it was kind of wonderful because there was a family there you know we were newly wed so it was actually really nice to live in someone's backyard not have all the maintenance obligations that a homeowner does pay rent that was affordable walking distance to the train station uh so I'm a big Advocate and and I think I heard from friends who live in Princeton that there's an ordinance in that town which has a demographic or a socio economic profile not all that dissimilar uh it would be interesting to look at what's worked and what hasn't worked when the impetus wasn't satisfying um uh a state imposed uh affordable housing we we did the housing plan for Princeton and so I'm aware that they did that outside of the affordable housing issue they just allow it as a market rate unit and Supply very successful it divers to your point it diversifies the building stock and the price point which diversifies your population potentially which would be great and as a homeowner I would very much want to pick who's living in my backyard exact but I would probably look for a student or someone who has limited housing choices uh and who might keep an eye on our larger house when we're away every weekend exactly all right good point would you consider an attorney no too I think I think that dovetails nicely into the next Point by the way but initially I wasn't sure if you were supporting the accessory apartment or the Tiki Bar they're not mutually at one point when I was on the environmental commission I argued that garages for vehicles aren't shouldn't be necessary and the reason wasn't that oh you could park your car in the driveway just as easily most people do a lot of people do unless it's included ining it was to eliminate the amount of pay thing that you needed to get to a detached garage in in the backyard I didn't have more Recreation space more green space more planting space uh that didn't go over real well but um you know I'm not going to ask for a strule but you know the last time I tried to park our car in the garage it didn't fit with all the stuff that we have stored in there it's a storage bin you know so uh yeah we at least clear out the Chun okay sorry to go on and on I think this should be considered whether we get to a conclusion that isn't controversial or not I to doubt but I think it's got potential yep um maybe we could look at the Princeton language see what they've got since you mentioned that we'll do I don't know if it'll be worthwhile looking at the leg uh the bill because it has certain as well to see with respect to setbacks and the like with the existing structures at least we you know we could start there because they're there you know I don't is that going to be taken up under cross acceptance because if it's a bill that's going to come do we have a say in it or is that something the County's going to be talking about on our behalf good point I don't know if that I mean that's something I mean it's far removed because you're talking about the state plan and coordinating but it's a housing loal plans Etc but it's a it it it might be something can be addressed in the in the template one of the questions for land use and guide well I have to double check that when it formally comes out yeah yeah I going to talk about that at the end so fair enough um see so that was number that was nine 11 now we're now we're on 10 we're on we're on 10 now um look at us so this is about incentivizing for Adrian restricted housing now we had this discussion this morning about this very issue because we talked about encouraging housing for 55 and older as market rate housing and I pointed out that you know for COA that's getting to be a dead term now since they you're allowed to say that again you can say it um but in the regulations um it talks about age 62 in a above and whatever you require uh age restricted housing just like other affordable housing um 15% of the project has to be affordable that means you know 85% will still be market rate so you're serving both PL both entities and you're getting credit for it and presumably we're going to get it a decent concise number although we will also be entitled to a significant vacant land adjustment but you know there is that issue to consider so I be 15% of its rental presumptive 20% owner occupied townhouse whatever right and I will say that bonus credits too yeah but on top of that right now we have a mandatory satisfied ordinance so if somebody were to build 55 and older theoretically they're going to be required to provide some set aside which is great now if they're going to be required to provide set of sides and you want credit for it you may as well make it 62 and above because then you will get full credit if it's a 55 in order you won't limit you're not going to get credit for it so that's a something to oh okay I see I see what you're saying want to Max the credits always well I mean I'm in favor of um it's it's sort of dovetailing on Rick's point about trying to have Diversified housing and I mean the question I think in here is are we talking about trying to incentivize that type of development as opposed to just the general housing projects that that are going to come before zoning or Redevelopment or whatever I I sorry I shouldn't use that word um but I mean de do you have any thoughts on is that conversation it's in the master plan I do I guess what I my first question Joe would be so we're going to get additional bonus credits for 62 and above in the new plan correct yes but they're not going to go back and retroactively look take a look back right no I didn't think so numbers but one of the things with the new regulations for the fourth round is that they're increasing the percentage of age restricted housing that you can get credit for they're restricting it the percentage it used to be uh 20% of the he of your obligation can be addressed through age restricted housing and that is being increased to 25 or 30% 30 yeah 30% I think it'd be an interesting conversation we have to have it tonight but we just passed the developer approval process last council meeting and Joe I know you have pined on that but I would be curious if we when we're talking about doing these overlay zones um if it's 15 and 20% if they're over they're dense by a little bit could you say okay well we want an extra 5% we're 15% regular but then extra 5% age restricted like I wonder if you can get creative with that um I think because of the fourth round RS coming out very soon presumably I we just see what they're going to say about this plan we just don't know what they're the new numbers come out supposedly come out in three weeks well October 20th is the dead technically the deadline if they meet that deadline presumably the regs have to follow or be done terminous with that publication I don't see why it's all supposed to be happened by October 20 supposed to supposed to well I I think we should definitely look at options for this okay and make maybe we can make recommendations and it was just an pellet division semi-related pellet division decision published that just came out out clarifying that you have to comply with The Fair Housing Act and the law against discrimination so that when you re uh when you set your affordable excuse me your age restricted housing uh the age restrictions relate to occupancy but not ownership so you don't discriminate or prohibit say uh uh uh people under 55 or 62 who may inherit property uh as a request Etc you know they could still own the uh the age restricted units it's just that the occupants must be have at least one person who qualifies okay interesting it was I forget what town that was they can own it they just have to rent it I can't remember because was a whole two weeks you yeah I remember the holding though yeah it was important because that municipality was saying the person who lives there has to be has the age the age restricted lower income person has to occupy the unit right and so if your parents bought that unit and then when they passed they were leaving it in the will to you you couldn't get it unless you you couldn't get it you would have you would be obligated to sell it yeah it didn't make yeah they they limited it by both occupancy and ownership and the court said no occupancy yes ownership no but is there is there is there is the intent there or is there is there an intent whether it's in that one or not to make sure that that housing isn't bought up by a group that owns multiple units to become basically almost like a multi family owner as opposed to individual owners is there some something that just needs to be thought about in that yeah yeah that was yeah the the point of that case was well to be consistent with with the law against discrimination the Fair Housing Act was to not prohibit people under 62 from owning age restricted housing um but that's a point you know it could be abused uh uh by a group I guess there's no prohibition against that I guess I guess I'm sort of wondering aloud more than having a strong point on that but yeah is there is there a scenario where it could evolve into someone owning multiple units and as long as they're renting them out to someone who is you know of the right age I don't see what would prohibit that necessarily or you know is that the intent of the housing or is it individual ownership again the the intent to be a that the at least one occupant is aged right and uh and correspondingly that we're not restricting ownership uh to you know but only uh 62 but that that scenario exists today you know I we just finished a project with the Michaels organization who are they're building uh roughly a 100 units of uh affordable housing as a company you know they own the building right but they are obligated to rent all the units because it's 100% affordable project um so you see that all the time okay no I know but if but I'm thinking from the from the version of what we were originally talking about here was sort of individual ownership I think yeah right so like is there a you know is there a is there a separation of that from the get-go of that property or can it evolve over time if there's own if there's actual ownership sh of the units by individuals versus an entity that they are still obligated to rent it to an age to an income qualified is there an expiration on the on the deed restriction uh well uh uh affordable deed restrictions are generally 30 uh 40 it's going to be now 40-year rental and 30-year right occupied uh whereas before it was 30 year for each um but uh without getting too far in into it uh the municipal view is such that even when that period expires uh it would require an ordinance adoption by the municipality to release the affordability controls of the unit as opposed to uh simply oh it expired now I'm free to sell at market rate and that that is the law now they still it will it will expire but the mun all munis and New Jersey have to uh release I would put a cave on that only be based upon it's it's contingent as to when it became uh when the co was issued post June 87 if I I recall correctly you're good uh and uh because that's when uh Fair Housing Act regs I think were enacted to 87 uh and um and that's a pretty solid uh uh uh uh position statutorily and case law wise but suffice to say it's being litigated every day yeah just cuz you're right doesn't mean you're not in a lawsuit it's still 40 years though well but 30 years for ownership which maybe to Paul's Point suggest that some speculators might try to gobble up properties you know with a certain Horizon right now extensions of affordability controls are a Hot Topic because uh a lot of affordable housing that was constructed and Co issued in the late 80s uh it's coming up yeah more than yeah it's come up and and the the municip late 80s and early the municipality has no grounds to stand on I mean in terms of not re in terms of not releasing they have to release well no no you don't have to release not at all they don't have to rele and make sure you get well uh um I would argue make sure I would I would recommend I shouldn't uh that you uh uh get full credit in the fourth round for any affordable controls that are extended uh and the municipality has control over that based on uh the co EGS and uh uh there's a few cases that stand for the proposition that uh the municipality can can decide to release you have the control over that yeah and I have a couple municipalities that have actually have worked out an arrangement with owners of affordable units um with a A Modest payment to extend the controls that's and they use development their Housing Trust Fund money for that purpose exactly which you have to use anyway right which is a perfectly valid use number 11 there was a question raised to me about you the planning board role in reviewing capital projects because the belief was that the planning board has no role and the reality is and if you look at section 40 55d 31 of the municipal land use law as some people are now turning to um you can't have that role absolutely um what I will do is when I prepare um um the memo and all these other things I'm going to prepare a brief blur on that that'd be great revision so you'll have it in front of you so just to clarify so what we're talking about more was like we can only do a consistency review when it comes like Board of Ed but we're talking about just city capital yes Improvement projects yeah yeah I think it's important I mean to give you just a quick example um the park line has been presented I don't know how many times at city council a zillion times and what I'm what I'm finding at least is that the sort of the it'd be nice to have some consistency here because no matter if Council comes or leaves or goes then you know a lot of times residents have questions about a certain Capital project to give you another example um The Village Green project right now on a Village Green and Augusta knows this it's you know it's a complicated project then we try to put a playground in the middle of it and we say hold on let's we're going to wait on the playground because we're doing the Village Green and it I just think it would be nice to have those conversations not to get them away from Council but I'm not sure what it looks like but for me it's sort of the biggest headache that I have um take another example um we're putting paddle ports in right now infrastructure there it's just and what could be used next to it I just I just don't know if council is where are the padle courts going um near Wilson place I just I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't sometimes feel like it's in the right spot well that's what your planning board is there for and you have this board has the right to to you do know you're on both boards I know really not really escaping any of other things to go to the planning board so I don't have to get you know but I think it'd be helpful and even in the budget you know you look at fiveyear projects and stuff and sometimes numbers are just sort of thrown in there and it just it just it feels like sometimes it might need a second look okay just my thoughts just dealing and then I think it adds a nice oversight I would give perceived as not political right I would give is another example agreeing completely with both of you that um when the playing field at the high school came for Courtesy review here courtesy seemed one way you know if it was something in the ordinance that um talked about Civility and uh and and taking it seriously uh it might have been a much better process both on the lighting and everything else I'd be remiss if I over sorry Within legal parameters uh um perhaps regrettably but uh the state that horrible PW preempts us to some degree with respect to schools yeah fire what's that not fire the irony is when that noise is is is is is worthwhile for Public Safety purposes in over 10 years on the board I got one condition that was actually adhered to and it was for a board of education project for an addition on Franklin school and it it is a beautiful Edition it's a fantastic Edition not because of the one condition but that's the only time we got a condition that was that was adhered to just just to throw one more example out there not to go to where why I think sometimes so for example right now we have the tatlock bathrooms that were sort of destroyed over you know over the last couple years and so we've been using patties there and now that the bathroom or the Fieldhouse is being sort of renovated you know we're in these discussions well do we take the bathrooms and I'm not in the board bed obviously but somehow I get caught in these meeting do we take the bathrooms out and then do we put bathrooms outside of you know outside of tatlock and it's just all those conversations sometimes I feel like we're in a confusing spot between the Board of Ed and Council and the planning board which CU I certainly wouldn't know where good bathrooms would be located but and I don't know how that stuff comes back to the planning board I guess but that's my last example so I'm hearing from our Consultants that bard of Ed is not something that we can review no you do have the you can do both Board of Ed and mun there's clearly a review process for Board of Ed as well right the the the primary differ I and the courtesy reviews but the primary difference legally is that the uh State Department of Education preempts our role as a planning board and hence while we our recommendations are just that our our role is purely recommendatory is the language so that sounds like what we have now exactly that's what I'm saying that we we we can uh but Joe's saying that it's that we could have more say not on the board of event not with respect to school project I it would be great to get a little deeper into what that regulation is at the state level so that we all are fluent in it and can better understand what what that restriction actually is I I can assure you that at the Department of Education uh the review is not as thorough as this board would review the project well you know if I may I think the one thing that complicates this even further and Augusto can attest this as well is it's the shared buildings and shared services between the Board of Ed and the city that we we're taking a look at and that's why it further complicates it m might have a little because we have yeah there's a lot of gray areas skin maybe that would open the door to some riew that's what I'm kind of thinking yeah I think I think it would be benefit the city I mean it's millions and millions of dollars that maybe they could use a little help yes I don't know on a much more mundane issue parking for daycare um simply put the parking stand standard in the ordinance and it's three parking spaces at a minimum plus one space per employee now crazy yeah it what was the application that we had Primrose Primrose where they had 200 kids in that building so three spaces plus one per employee if you recall just simply wasn't cutting yet disaster yeah so the thought is the thought is we would review this and think about some suggestions to make it more in line with how we how we do schools right right so we're going to put together new standards for that um the only other issue that I just wanted to touch upon was you know for the an update on the fourth round um all the information that was required to be submitted to DCA um to for I guess about two weeks ago had been submitted so you're current and up to date um the next deadline on the fourth round process is October 20th where supposedly they will be giving us our housing need number now municipalities can either accept that number or do their prepare their own number however you are obligated to follow the exact same formula that DCA is using so I don't know that it's necessary to do that evaluation it's a long complicated formula and the reason I say I don't know that it's necessary is because in the end because we're a fully developed municipality we're going to ask for a vacant land adjustment no matter what and I think you know the focus should be on how we're going to deal with that what I assume is going to be a modest U realistic development potential number uh the process is such that sometime in the month of January we are obligated to tell DCA you know what our number is if we're accepting their number or not or and then we have to offer our own and the governing body has to adopt a resolution by January 30 yes binding bind and it's a binding resolution uh setting forth that number correct whether it be the same or different now this is where it gets really odd because in the month of February developers or anyone can file an objection to that number and then in the month of March the program the affordable housing dispute affordable housing dispute res resolution program will evaluate and make decisions supposedly on all objections in the state of New Jersey wow now I will tell you that a month in one municipality that we had there were 15 formal objections about 23 different projects and I think it took eight years to resolve that that's one municipality I have another municipalities there was only one objection it took nine years to resolve that we just we just had our third round compliance hearing a week and a half ago for for yeah third round compliance for the third round South Brunswick just settled their fourth round I just they they be they finally just settled the third round they rolled the fourth round into it somehow but but but just to clarify so no one's under a mistaken assumption uh uh that one month period uh from January 30 to the end of February I have to say the end of February because that's an interesting month sometimes what what day is the end of February but but um uh for challenges and then by the end of uh March for the dispute resolution program to resolve any disputes uh that period is solely with respect to the number that's all we have to do any municipality has to do by jant 30 and it's possible that the vast majority of municipalities we utilize the number that uh the methodology that's in the statute has DCA spit out for every municipality unless DCA mucks it up in which case perhaps every municipality should challenge or come up with a different number if they muck it up but uh in how they actually uh apply but it is a set methodology and it goes Statewide and then it's reduced to region then it's reduced to each municipality so I believe if they get it wrong it's it'll be wrong for every municipality if they if they process the methodology correctly because it's in the statute um it may be difficult for any municipality to vastly differ from that number but if you have a binding resolution January 30 with a number and no one challenges it within one month pursuant to the leg uh uh the ACT that's your number yeah um that's important is that if you don't if the council doesn't adopt that resolution by the end of January the regulations say you will lose your immunity yeah yeah so it's very important for the council to take an action you'll be reminding everybody I will be reminding Jo if I may looking at the state planning website today and it looks like they're working with a lot of municipalities already on the endorsement are we I know we talked about doing the survey and getting public input but we we're not doing that because we don't we don't have the numbers but then why are they already working with other municipalities for that Endor that was my next item um they are selecting a few municipalities from what I understand just to test things at this point um Joe just for clarity you're on the state uh the anticipated new state plan correct now yes yeah we're not talking about affordable housing now we've flipped over to the state plan we've just jumped over with that question just so we're all clear this is the cross acceptance conversation related to yeah the state plan which which cross acceptance would be a part of if if and when we get a draft plan okay yes um since March when they were supposed to provide the draft document just about monthly we received an email or text or a phone call from the state Planning Commission telling us it's still coming we don't have it hopefully next month and we've got this really good monthly since March so you can see how slow this process is taking U but you know once they formally present the draft um that's when the cross acceptance process will begin and that's when we we get into all the detail and work with them um that's the state plan the housing plan there was a question regarding you know when we have to do it either a reexamination update or a whole new health master plan master plan um this re reexamination you are obligated to do it at least once every 10 years the date that this was adopted it was November 21st of 2016 so we have a little time to decide on when we're going to start the process uh for those that participated in that Saturday morning session with me you'll recall that um I was pointing out how Al this is called a master plan reexamination report over the past eight Years everybody seems to refer to this as your master plan I will say that it's fairly comprehensive and contains a whole new host of goals and objectives um it talks generally about land use issues um and it's got a strong basis for a master plan but it is not your master plan it's a reexamination um the last reex examin last master plan was around 200 remember 2006 I think you're confirming that I believe so okay I think because it had November 2 six or seven yeah 2000 2000 I've got okay it's 2000 unless it was one after but I I think 2006 was the um 2006 was a Rea reex because back then it was it was every six year period so our master plan is 24 almost 25 years old not uncommon that seems to be frankly the most of the municipalities I'm involved with they're about at that point and having a similar conversation and many are choosing let's go the full master plan route now now when we say full master plan let's back up a second because you are only obligated to have two master plan elements you're obligated not three actually you're obligated to have a land use plan you're obligated to have a housing element and fair share plan you're obligated to have a sustainability element if you're going to do a comprehensive new master plan um you have a good start here it needs a lot of refinement to make it a master plan but we can limit our work to those well really to the land use a land make turning this into a land use plan and then doing a sustainability element we're all already going to be doing the the housing plan separate and distinct from that right because of the time timing involved the housing element fair share plan being due under the uh act by June June by June 30 2025 so soon enough right that's basically here well then welcome to the fourth round well no I think I mean that's very help ful for us we are we're you know we we should think about when we want to start and I think the sooner the better and I think you're you're now outlining for us that the sustainability and the land use is our first priorities I could put together a memo on that I'll do it separate from the ordinance stuff I'm just say you understand what it will entail uh we we're interested in timing and we also are interested in what our budget needs will be since that's going to be coming up and uh I don't actually know when we're going to have to give that thought but Ian it's it's certainly something that's a priority for us that we've been talking about sooner rather than later and mean you just look at this it's it's it's due I we don't have the park line on here we don't have all the schools the census dat is okay that's it thank you wow folks all right so um I do have one little addition oh sure from the last um from the last list the only thing that that uh we forgot to put on but for a good reason is the HP ordinance the reason it's not on here for our discussion really is because it's it's on its own track the historic preservation commission um I I think I recall from the mlul basically they they usually run that and then send it up to city council directly and planning board doesn't usually get in the middle of it um we were trying to help them along the way at certain points which which is fine um but right now uh Burgess is helping to draft a new potential ordinance and um they're going to be finished with that draft at the end of September and they're going to send it to HPC historic preservation commission and then they're going to look at it and they may you know have a historic preservation consultant look at it who's the best in the state I'm told um with regard to legally defensible ordinance that's what his expertise is so I think that's a good thing to have somebody like that look at it um and then it may or may not get sent up to you all and we'll see what happens so we're really kind of that's a that's happening so it didn't make the list so I just want to give an update but it will eventually someday maybe get into our diar that's excellent it's going to be a busy year the only other one we might add Augusto tell me if you think I'm WR or not but the steep slope we've been talking a lot about the steep slope one the one other thing you're referring to like additions to the drro from an engineering perspective right so yeah I mean I know Tom's working on it but we just might want to keep it some consolidate Paul you have something um yeah and and I think the uh the other thing we should talk about at some point is is is the Environmental commission and thank you for yeah um but but I think that uh that's something that whe whether it's whether it's its own thing or it's part of the master plan I think it's an important topic to to reexamine because again that's that's changed so much and they they gave Steve spur some suggested change and I'm sure you're aware of them it was um the attachments were really blurry so we we actually are going to wait for Steve to opine let us know what the boil that was like a screen grab it was you blew it up I touched Bas with Donna an expectation that Steve might not be here and good so I I could add something to it if you want but but yes if we could wait for Steve to come back to be a more fullsome discussion that would be altogether appropriate and wonderful the thing that I would want to say is that it's a good list you know and I don't think we eliminated anything you know uh but just in doing the math of these 12 items two of them are procedural numbers six and 11 and and and and kind of uh easy really easy uh of the the other 10 I would characterize five of them as essentially technical um 1 3 4 five and eight if you say that roof shingles are are technical rather than aesthetic uh you could cut it in different ways but the ones that are technical tend to be less controversial they you know uh the ones that I would call demographic for lack of a better word uh numbers 279 10 and 12 have the risk of being more controversial risk raising more you know different opinions uh uh whether we shy away from them or address them forthrightly is you know obviously you know a question of time energy civility but uh but altogether it's a good list I would say in doing a gap analysis not from Steve's perspective exactly but in conversation with Donna I might not have flooded it otherwise uh on number eight we're looking at parking but pretty narrowly you know and discussion has been about the Technics and maintenance sustainability of a particular device I think the parking issue as the ordinance could address it has two other parameters remembering the discussions here that were eventually tabled when the project was withdrawn at 45 Woodland uh it was only last year it wasn't that long ago right uh uh it wasn't about adding stackers it was taking Green Space out for additional parking um the discussion before it was withdrawn was whether there could be on street parking or even parking across the street in one of the public Lots uh at certain hours for people who are resident in that multif family dwelling uh I think addressing parking in particularly and this is where I'm going with it on EV you know we haven't talked we've talked a lot about technology and changes whether it's in cell phone use or other aspects of material or uh electric vehicles are going to change the parking parameters big time uh I already have you know and uh it's really easy in a town that's comprised mostly of single family dwellings to say no problem you know you don't want it in your garage you put it out in the wall and you don't worry about a fire you battery you know no big deal when you get to EVS in multif family residential or commercial garages it gets much more complicated when you get to minimum numbers of spaces and public parking lots or even Lots like uh one of the pharmaceutical companies that came here and we talked a lot about the E uh yeah that that should be uh on the list and you could subsume it into like broading number eight you know you know with an A and A C yeah you know on street parking EV parking and U and Technology of parking I would say that the technology of stackers is mostly an aesthetic discussion you know with all respect to the fact that maintenance has to be required but that would be anything I I agree it probably is mostly that but but just still want to get caught with something could become either likely that would be the only modification I would suggest on on the list which is great thank you for bringing it all together Rick with the EVS I was actually thinking about that as well in our current drro I think it's this might not be popular um but in our current Dr it says that you can't have anything visible on it like a an ad but I don't think when they wrote that they knew there was going to be ads and I mean maybe I'm the only person who doesn't really mind them I mean you can basically get an EV charger for a lot less money than you can if you allow the ads I think it's called Vault or something there's a couple companies out there and I don't know we could talk about it or I don't have an opinion on it but I just I did notice that that's in our drro and when you look at the cost of those things I don't know just my thoughts I know it probably it won't be popular but we should at least look at it so I think you know I wasn't expecting to agree with you on everything but I think I agree with you that you know there are times when ads that defray the costs that would otherwise be burden are altogether perfect and there are times when they're really an isur an insult uh Amanda Burton when she chaired City Planning in New York talked a lot about keeping ads off of sidewalk sheds off of scaffolding um and even keeping artwork off of the scaffold you know plywood on the sidewalk sheds uh because it could devolve into art and into advertising who's to say which is which uh uh but you look at the the bus shelters the new St it's the only way to pay for it yeah uh and uh U you know people are used to it you know I so I think I agree with you that you know that would be a way of ensuring a faster roll out if it's expensive and especially on public Lots but I the one the one Nuance I would say to that is that you know there's advertising and then there's lighting which that advertising is also a form of lighting so it's just finding the right balance of how do you mitigate that or how do you how do you keep that under control because it is all electronic it is all lit and maybe there's a time when it's off all right okay y thank you everybody that was really helpful thank you Joe for putting that together um so we're going to get some summaries and some thoughts uh based on what we talked about tonight before the next meeting yes okay yeah great so everybody do your homework yeah and so we G have a good talk we're gonna have a great talk make sure you know what the Dr says for each of these things too and we may even have dca's numers on we may even have dca's numbers on affordable housing by October 28th our next meeting okay thank you any other good and Welfare we're all good thank you I'm going to adjourn thank you e