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 good evening l ladies and gentlemen welcome to this special June 10th meeting of the city of summit zoning board I'm Joe Steiner and I'm chair of the Zoning Board of adjustment please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge ALG to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which stands one nation under God indivisible liberty and justice for all thank you in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here at City Hall this meeting is a j judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and deorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times for the benefit of the interested public this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and is also being broadcast on summit's governmental Channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30 two transcripts of this meeting are being taken uh one using the video and audio so we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room in addition there is also a transcript being taken by uh a representative for the applicant but that means that you all have to use use the microphones in the room you can't talk from your seat although we may be able to hear you they won't be able to pick you up on the microphones please note that the fire exits are on my right your left and at the back of the room where you entered the city does have an assisted listening system to help the hearing impaired if anyone needs hearing assistance please obtain the system at the dis and return it thereafter uh Madam Secretary would you please call the role of the members sure chairman Steiner here Vice chairman lyit here Mr Yuko is excused Mr Nelson here miss Don here Mr Kieran is excused Mr Malay is excused Miss to here miss chfo is excused Mr feskin here Mr Chuli here you have a quarum you may proceed thank you the gentleman to my right is not Andy Mall his name is D and Andy is the uh the board's attorney but tonight filling in for him is Dennis Galvin who preceded Andy as our attorney and the attorney um advises the board members on matters of Law and he is the key interface with the applicants attorneys Mr Mr Galvin will not vote on the applications the ball kept trying to come out anyway Stephanie suos is a city employee and is a zoning board secretary she works with applicants on preparing their applications planning our agendas and keeping our meeting minutes she also does not vote on the applications also present is Marie raffy from Collins engineering our board engineering firm They Se she's seated over at the table to our right your left also seated at the table is a representative from Burg's Associates our board planner and that's Tom Barren they provide input to the board and also do not vote on the applications our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates all members can participate in the hearings tonight but a maximum of seven can vote most applications require a simple majority to be approved and normally before we enter executive session to vote on an application you'll be advised how many votes but as we're only handling one tonight I believe the super majority is in order we have only one case this evening which will begin with the applicant's attorney giving an overview of the application process to date we then hear from any additional expert witnesses that they may have to help explain the application and why the variances are needed the board members may ask questions of the applicant their attorney and the expert Witnesses once the board members and the board professionals have completed uh their question the public will have an opportunity to ask questions this is not the time to tell us what you think about the case that will come a little bit later before you ask your question please clearly state your name spell your last name and provide your address and again please do that at one of the microphones that's important so that our court reporter is able to keep a clear and accurate public record after all Witnesses have been heard members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak and at that time you will be sworn in and you have can express your opinion positive or negative about the application then the hearing is closed and we enter into executive session where the board members discuss the case and vote we remind all applicants again that they must carefully read the resolution that documents the zoning board's decision and pay particular attention to the conditions contained in the resolution and because they're represented by Council we know that they're aware of that and there won't be any issues there so at this point I would turn it over to the attorney representing Kent play school good evening Mr chairman board members board professionals Peter wolson and Dave Pitney here on behalf of the applicant may have you seated please thank you I know that uh not all of you were here for the original application so I'll take just a couple of minutes to provide some background so as was stated in the beginning the applicant is Kent play school they have property at 42 and 6975 Norwood Avenue designated as block 1901 Lot 1 and block 1201 Lot 1 on the the official tax map of the city of summit and the property is located in the R15 residential zoning District the property hosts the Kent play school a private educational institution that is a permitted conditional use in the R15 Zone on November 20 2023 the applicant received preliminary and final site plan approval with variance relief from this board to construct a new building addition in place of a por of its existing art center and Fieldhouse located on the property the approval permits demolition of an approximately 12492 square foot portion of the existing art center and construction of an approximately 36,6 48qt addition at ground level with an approximately 2514 ft second4 Canal levered dance studio area these improvements are to help modernize and expand the Arts and athletic facilities all improvements are facing the interior of the site we're here this evening seeking a few tweaks to the project that was approved although preliminary testing had been performed prior to the initial application and approval as the project got closer to construction the applicant performed some additional geotechnical testing on the property that testing reviewed build a lower Bedrock location and higher water table than was originally anticipated those conditions do not allow for a basement level resulting in a reconfiguration of the Interior Space of the building the modified building that's before you this evening is actually slightly smaller than the approved building and is lower in height in some areas as you will hear from our Consultants this is due to the lowering of the dance studio from the second floor down to the ground level that change is really the only material exterior architectural change being proposed we're not increasing the extent of any variance relief obtained under the initial approval and in fact are improving upon a few of the variances this application before you tonight was deemed complete pursuant to cour respondence dated April 15 2024 the school continues to be sensitive to any impacts on the surrounding neighborhood and to that end the school held an informal meeting on June 5 with some of the surrounding neighbors to discuss the proposed tweaks and answer any questions the school is not seeking a modification of any of the operational conditions that were attached to the original approval for the record i' just like to acknowledge receipt of the following review viw letters in conjunction with this application Consulting zoning officer review dated May 17 your board Engineers review memorandum dated May 31 your board planners review memorandum also dated May 31 your construction official review dated May 16 your city Forester review dated May 24 your Board of Health review dated May 20 your historic preservation commission review dated May 20 28 your environmental commission review dated May 28 your police chief review undated and your fire chief review dated May 30 in terms of Outside Agency approvals we have received approval for this revised plan before you from both the Union County planning board by their letter dated April 23 and from the somerset Union Soil Conservation District pursuant to their approval letter dated April 17 tonight um we're going to present two witnesses to you one is Rob Walsh who those of you who sat on the original application will recognize as the project engineer he'll provide a brief overview of existing site conditions as well as discussing the modifications uh to the site from an engineering perspective we'll also call Peter Bachman our project architect who will discuss the modifications to the floor plan and the elevations we have with us tonight Paul Phillips a professional planner uh if the board would like to hear planning testimony uh in light of the fact that none of our variances are being uh exacerbated and in fact some are being lessened um we leave it to you as to whether you want that if there are no questions of me I'd like to call Rob Walsh as my first witness questions for the attorney the meeting June 5th that was a year yes prior to the original we had a meeting prior to the original this one was prior to just a few days ago y yes sir Mr wolson yes just one question when you said that Somerset Union uh Soil Conservation those both of those references that's on the revised set that we have here yes thank you they were any other questions for the attorney any questions on this we should move you over here any questions from our professional for the attorney no okay seeing none why don't we move on to your next witness and swearing State your full name for the records by your last name Robert E Walsh W excuse me that was the old address Bridge CED New Jersey EI Associates and what kind of professional are you uh professional engineer then uh Mr chairman do we accept his credentials as having appear before the board we normally swear them in first all right you swear to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do all right any questions for the board on on his credentials Mr attorney he's all yours Rob could you provide a brief overview of existing conditions and surrounding conditions before you go into the any changes sure uh Simone could you put up the aerial images uh for the record let's describe what we're looking at sure uh this is an overview aerial images contained in the amended uh project description that was submitted in March okay before I before you go into that is this new do we we've not seen this in the in the packages we have uh you want to look name it as an exhibit but it is an excerpt from the uh not from the prior one but from this from this current one yes it's an excerpt it's an excerpt from the project description document that was submitted with the application okay has everybody SE I think it's uh image a maybe on this like second page or something okay then we don't have to is there anything in what you're going to be presenting that's new the next exhibit we're going to show you that was on the screen prior to this one is a comparison exhibit of drawing number c 1.5 what was approved last year and then the second page will be what's before youday that's new so why don't we just can you send the entire package to Stephanie so she has it and we'll call it all A1 does that make sense for you sure okay that way we'll have all the documents new for today again uh so what's on the screen now is an overall uh campus aerial view uh North is to the left and uh it consists of the main campus which is an 18.2 acre site uh with the two athletic fields there Synthetic Turf uh athletic fields to the right which is at the southern portion of the property and then the 5.9 acre Northern campus which has those tennis courts a parking lot and a residential building or two uh Norwood Avenue uh separates the two properties that runs uh from Mars Avenue Southward to Kent Place and Rob there's no development propos that is correct all of the development proposed approv previously and as part of this project will occur on the main campus so if you can go to this next image and this is an aerial image now North is running up the page uh Norwood Avenue is on the right hand well wait a second we're doing some rotation okay that's better North is now still to the left so the mustard color brown building that's the building Edition and you can see that it will be attached to the Fieldhouse with the Gable roofs and the Dormers uh that Simone is pointing out that's the building we're also reconstructing the entrance driveway that currently runs between the proposed addition and the building to the North or to the left that's being reconstructed to be uh functionally kind of the same driveway however additional uh six additional parking stalls will be gained on the site by uh installing them in the island that separates the Ingress driveway from the egress driveway uh so that's basically the limits of the project essentially that driveway the building addition and the surrounding sidewalks again the athletic fields are to the right the property generally slopes from that upper right Athletic Field which is the southernmost Athletic Field down to the lower left which is the intersection of Norwood AV and Mars Avenue that's it and I go ahead there's no changes proposed tonight's application as to the drive from that was approv correct correct unchanged just for Clear propos what you're showing here this is the new layup or is this the original I'm sorry it's difficult to hear you if you would sorry is this the proposed new layout or is this the original this is the new layout overlaid on an aerial image and again this is an this was taken from the new project description document that was submitted with this amended application but with this new layout that parking configuration has not changed correct correct so uh what I'd like to do is you know what Simone can can we go to the next exhibit which is the comparison document and if it helps do you think we should give out the thing is this what done is taken the before and after and put some large red text on it but from having prepared it I can't see the red text very well but we do have 11 by 17 copies I think they're better to look at if the board is that okay yes please [Music] please thank you thank you any there you go and should we mark this as no it's already in the package I think is this in the package no it is not so we need to this is a mark up of old and new so I would suggest what what number are we at two a two good I think we should Mark this a good choice un must not dead Okay so so this what's up on the screen now is the first sheet you see before you which I've got identified in the lower right hand corner above the title block and bold text approved site plan that was what was previously approved last year and in the red boxes with leader lines I'm pointing out various features on the site which are basically the the essence of the change and I'll go around and and indicate those and then I'll follow up with a little some of the other features that are labeled but they're they're part of the basic drawing so number one I guess I want to start with the basement level within the footprint of the mustard colored shaded building Edition there's a dark line and and we've indicated with the text to the right outline of basement level you could see the basement level was probably oneir of the overall footprint was in the center of the building and that's what's being eliminated so that when you see the next plan you'll see that uh that line is not shown there is no basement secondly uh if you go to the the Norwood AV side where the two entrance are I have a box there that says stairs and Ada ramp to East Plaza the East Plaza is that notched area of the building Edition where we we're we're going down uh to meet the level of the existing gymnas previously this plan uh it had a basement level uh and then above that it had a level uh that was 5T below the existing Fieldhouse the Fieldhouse gymnasium which is a buting the proposed Edition had an entrance that's identified and can you point to that Simone kind of uh up there at the end of the Ada ramp we've called it in the plan East egress doors those doors were at the same elevation of the gymnasium and then if you go to the other side the South entrance or an area where we had the dance studio was on the second floor and the sidewalk went underneath the dance studio overhang those entrances were at the same elevation of the gymnasium so everything to the left of that and I mean there was just a Carter that connected that so everything to the left of that was 5T lower so that Eastern Plaza area we needed to set a stairs and a ramp to get down to that level and then uh get back up to the gym level uh which was 5 ft higher so we had a retaining wall there an ADA ramp a set of stairs we had a rain Garden in that area and we also in the front of the building near the main entrance facing the new reconfigured driveway we had a rain Garden there uh some of the other features uh and I'll come back to the lowering of the building uh over we needed uh because the gym they when we removed the existing building and they just left with a field house gyms there were no restrooms so for a temporary measure we provided a temporary restroom trailer that is still going to be part of this application however the ramp that's the temporary ramp to the Fieldhouse that was just below that that's being eliminated we had you know because the Fieldhouse level that side of the Fe building the grade is much higher so we were constructing a retaining wall with fencing to go down there lighting Etc to get to the ground floor floor level that's been eliminated we have an atg grade sidewalk that goes to a temporary door and within the gymnasium we have a temporary ramp that'll ultimately be removed so that feature goes away and then lastly the slightly shaded portion of the building on the athletic field side the south side of the building Edition you can see an area where we've identified as a second floor dance studio building uh overhang in that case the the the building was the second floor and to get into the building from ground level the sidewalk went under that area and um that's how you got in the building so those are the features uh oh and by the way the one other temporary feature on the right hand side um well closest to Norwood AB there's a temporary parking area that'll be uh place during construction it'll be used for student parking and then it'll be removed at the end of the project a temporary office trailer was shown uh as indicated where Simone's pointing on the drawing on the right hand side uh that features being removed it it was there were offices that were in the existing building where people would be dis displaced from their workspace and that was approved on the prior plan and now it's no longer needed no I think if we show the next confirm right oh and by the way the green area on the roof that was the green roof area that was used in the calculation for a reduction in building coverage uh that's still part of the building as is the um the grain garden areas but they've just been reconfigured go ahead and the reason that it was deducted from the building coverages because you get a credit under the ordinance for having that correct right Green Building feature design feature which it's per ordinance that you get that credit okay and now uh the second page of what you have in front of you is now identified in the lower right as the proposed site plan which is the proposed s plan you have in your packet of drawings as well as what's on the screen above and the first thing I want to point out it's it's Rel the you can now see where we've indicated a dash line going through the building which now uh separates the floor ele the higher floor elevation of the uh existing Fieldhouse to remain will match the building addition immediately adjacent to it will match that elevation which is 5T higher than what was previously approved and you could see see the line where we've indicated dash line through the building the change in first floor elevation so and that change is uh that 5 foot differential I had mentioned um and again if you look to the top of the sheet or which would be the East Plaza area we no longer need the steps uh it's a uh ADA Compliant ramp 12T wide that goes down to I shouldn't say a ramp because technically it's not a ramp it's a sidewalk that's ADA Compliant goes down to the level that's equivalent to the gym and then it's basically at that whole level East Plaza as well as the area behind the addition or on the norw a side of the addition is is at is basically a walkway with a retaining wall to the east side leads you to the gym Fieldhouse gym to remain that proposed sidewalk to the back grade sidewalk to the field house does that exist one more time is the proposed atg grade sidewalk to fieldhouse is that an existing condition today no it is not that that area immediately North if you would just imagine if the building addition portion is is gone the area immediately North to the of the existing gym or to the left of it that's open lawn area in its current condition uh the other so we have the raising of the floor to match the gym the elimination of the basement and then the reduction of site features uh such as stairs and ramps uh due to and it's actually a savings and cost less excavation due to that adjustment the rain Garden which previously was not in the greatest of locations I must say we were asked to have Green Technology we were in the midst of nearly finished site plan and we added them in an area that was convenient but probably the not the best for growth and sunlight and so forth so we've increased the size of it and we now have a rain Garden on the athletic field side south side of the building Edition slightly larger in square footage and in one location and then adjacent to that we've brought the side or the second floor dance studio down to the ground floor level and in order to do in doing that we needed to Route The Pedestrian sidewalk around the south side of the building into those new building entrances which are at the same level of the existing Fieldhouse this resulted in about 800 S ft of additional impervious area uh net and uh when we ran the calculations and you know it was no impact to the storm waterer management system that had enough room to handle the additional runoff and controlling and as to lot coverage and building coverage we were complying with ordinance and we are still comping that is correct uh and you can see it's not as it's not as dark of a green color but we now have um The Green Roof areas in two different locations one at top the studio dance studio and another one on the north side of the building above a one-story Edition or entranceway which is labeled the West entrance into the building and just to put a a fine point on these green features the total Green Garden area has been increased from 673 ft to 763 correct correct and the green roof has been increased from 1628 ft to 1799 correct um as mentioned in the prior exhibit the entrance temporary entrance to the Fieldhouse existing Fieldhouse building will remain however we no longer have that 7 foot deep Canyon of uh a depressed walkway with retaining walls on either side it's at grade it's ada8 compliant it gets you uh uh students from the gym door exterior door up to the temporary restrooms uh which will still remain as was in the prior project and then finally you can see I've indicated the area on the right hand side upper right hand corner where we no longer have the temporary office building can we talk about the variances that have actually gotten better sure okay so four area ratio the maximum of the ordinance is 25% and we were granted a variance to allow 2526 so just that is correct 2600 we're now only proposing 2511 correct right a reduction of 0.15% right and we had gotten a variance for Combined fence and retaining wall up to 13.5 ft which was approved correct correct and now what is that how you propos it's 11.2 25 ft a reduction of 2.25 and where that was occurring for reference is that Eastern Plaza area the retaining wall on the Norwood a side of the building Edition and and finally uh we had received a variance for slope disturbance we up to 5,167 square F feet we now need less disturbance and that's 4,843 is that correct correct a reduction of 324 Square ft mainly due by taking away that temporary office which was in an area of steep slops and I heard you say that there's really no material change in storm water system or configuration no Remains the Same and no changes proposed escalating uh no changes in lighting there was one question in one of the memos as to whether the new light by the temporary entrance way shielded that will be shielded in accordance with the notes that were provided on the pre previous approval and that light was part of the prior approval although it at this point it was down in a hole because it was at the depress location now it's at grade and it'll be approximately 8 feet above grade uh and it will be shielded from the adjoining properties and you heard me go through that robust list OFW receiv injunction with this yes I've reviewed them and I have responses for all the colies you can comply with all yes absolutely you testify to yes any else that's it oh the building height I just want to say we calculated uh there's a building height drawing I forget what drawing number it is but uh that requires that we calculate the mean grade around the building by virtue of bringing the second floor dance studio down to the grade the perimeter of the proposed outline changed at a different route so when you run the average numbers and crunch it out the actual building for the proposed went down by 500s of a foot but the building structure in what it was uh proposed really isn't changing other questions thank you from our professionals questions Marie you're up first well it's it um I think they they mentioned most of the stuff that was in my letter um you know maybe I'll just reiterate some of the some of the things that we would want um the storm water management did not seem to change based on the changes that were made to the site um I think they testified to that and we would agree with that um we're going to want an operations and maintenance manual um for the system which I think you probably that was submitted on you know beginning of last month uh to demonstrate compliance with the uh prior resolution perfect um could you could you talk again about those walls and how tall those walls were um just wondering oh we are 11 and a quarter and subtract three and A2 foot for the railing height okay whatever the math works out on that I don't have my all right so we'll we'll have some calculations on that right so we uh have the the sections and stuff that are shown in this plan we have another plan that will be submitted for building permits we've done all the structural calculations I think one of the footings is a lot narrower than what we exaggerated on the drawing but we have uh the Wall Drains for that will connect to the new drainage system and so we have we do have structural calculations sign and seal for that okay all right good um and there was there was no changes really to any of the uh circulation that was in the um in the drive AIS um so I don't think there was anything else that we had to talk you're not doing any any changes with garbage trucks and school Vehicles no um from the last application um and you're not modifying any of the locations of the mechanical equipment or air conditioning so um that's all I have Tom sure uh thank you just a few minor questions you answered most of the ones that I had so the location of the security booth um on the exhibit you just handed that is that the proposed location thought there was a discrepancy maybe on something no the the I think in I I reviewed both the prior approval as well as the set of drawings and and the existing Booth is labeled and uh we've indicated you know in all the sheets and where the proposed one it's going to move slightly because we're realigning the sidewalk to match the Ada curb on the North north side of the new driveway configuration we're coming across with that same thing so we're bumping the uh the security booth just to the east of that new walkway but it'll be located consistent with the virtually the same location consistent with the exhibit oh absolutely yes I think the question or the discrepancy I may have seen was between the engineering and the architecture PL the comment just make sure they're consistent maybe they are maybe but um thank you uh sorry through my comments can you um just confirm the proposed the new building height I know you mentioned that it's a very slight change just you have the numerical yeah the numerical values I do not have that drawing sheet in front of me but I do have uh what the approved Building height was was 4362 and currently the proposed Building height will be 40 3.57 as I mentioned before reduction of 05 ft I the resolution has a different figure so there were different numbers in different places so that's just why I wanted to right now I saw your report which in the table agreed with what we've calculated and we've shown but in the written comment there seemed to be a difference we're talking about inches or a fraction of an inch just wanted to be clear for the purposes of the record and then finally um have you provided details for the green roof area is that yeah the green roof area that was not sure whether it was on the the um uh March 1st mle which you have before you right now but when we did the plans for compliance uh we updated the cross-section to agree with the town's cross-section which was our one we took from another job it had all the layers almost exactly conditioned but it didn't have that which I may the town may not have it but I know the D has the leak detection layer so but all of it is consistent with that and of course that's to demonstrate compliance with the ordinance the actual structural building stuff must be consistent with that or much better there's other details that go with that such as railings and what understood thank you that's all I have Mr chairman I'm a bit confused we have two applications here we have the one that we approved last year and we have this one and every once in a while you're saying well it's over here in the old one somehow that all has to be brought over I believe into this one and I'm not sure that I'm hearing that that's happening you're referring to it uh to certain items that are in the other other document you're saying yeah well we'll be doing that doesn't it have to be in these documents if I might I I think what I heard a couple of times and I understand the confusion is that we subsequent to the original approval we submitted a set of compliance drawings to comply with the original design and some of those features have not changed so I think that was the reference but I think they have to be included into this set of documents right and we we will be submitting a complete compliance plan if we're able to be approved tonight which won corprate everything that you've heard I I go to The Experts to does that make sense yeah okay that's why I have experts any other okay questions from the board yeah just the the the one question I have I mean everything you've described tonight is a slight shrinkage if you will with the exception then of of an increase in the impervious coverage by lowering the dance studio that's correct yes okay so maybe this is the question for Galvin so Mr Galvin so that's what we're focused on um well the fact that they're changing the plan yeah you're trying to test out whether or not you think the changes to the plan are sensible to the extent are you so you're seeking a variance for an increase in prvious coverage no we did not need a variance for lot coverage or building coverage and we don't need one okay okay thank you for that reminder because I had thought in when I was reading the materials that there was no additional variances required thank you that's good no additional variances require it's the only thing that increased but even though it increased it doesn't trigger a variance thank you if it did we'd want to know more about how they were so needing the storm water in so everything is smaller basically right okay um I have a question about and I I'm not sure where this is going to fall but typically it would be under engineering um traffic so uh and this goes I realize that this has been previously approved but this is a new look at this right for all new approval so we can't actually rely on the prior approval and I wasn't here for the last approval so I have to ask questions that maybe could we get that clarified yeah we're Bound by our prior approval aren't we no the way to understand this tonight is the applicant has an approval if you said no tonight they still have an approval what we're going to do is they if I'm understand is correctly they think they are presenting us a better alternative than we already approved and but they do need us to ratify it and if we ratify it they'll give up the prior approval we're not going to leave them with both opportunities so you know and why would the I I know you're at a disadvantage because you weren't at the last application but the proofs wouldn't necessarily they're not changing in any substantial way they're not we don't have ask my question which CU it's it's you asked you asked me for input I go ahead ask your question I wouldn't it no no it's it it's based on the um memorandum from Burgess dated May 31st so it's relevant to the new application sure um I I I said coming in tonight yeah yeah come listen coming in tonight I know that several of you did not hit hear the first case and I think I've did this for 30 years and I know it makes it hard for you because you're right we don't want to redo the whole case right now we could but I don't see I don't see the just I don't see um we did send out to the all the members the transcripts and the videos corre so they had an opportunity to hear it I got it that makes it even better so but anyway ask your let's ask my question is based on a letter from May 31st so I'm not going back to the last you're fine you're fine that's the question um there is a question about the thirdparty use and uh I'd like to know about that I I didn't hear any um way of addressing that you know third party use of the site will be limited to 6 to n on weekdays 1 to n on Saturdays and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. on Sundays um and uh Burg just says again we question if third party utilization could be somewhat Limited at least one day of the week on Sunday for instance and this um stands out to me as somebody whose children did use this school in earlier times as third-party use basketball practice and stuff this is a phenomenal facility that you're building right with like so many more uses the theater all of this you have a lot more seats you have a lot more um possibility I'd say for third party use so I think that question question that was raised here it's like I'd like to hear um an answer to that also because it is going to increase traffic on the weekends for third party use since potentially so I kind of want to know what the thoughts are on that yeah if I might so um we had a robust discussion regarding those topics and there were many members of the public here uh that expressed concerns about traffic we met with them a second time and we came back to the board with these proposed operational conditions were things that we proposed to address the concerns that we heard nothing about this amended site plan will in any way change the traffic in terms of number of cars in terms of peak hours from that which was proposed at the time of the original approval right I guess what Burgess is saying in this Associates it was this particular for this particular appr this was their comment so I just wanted to hear like maybe I I can elaborate and maybe my wording was poor but I think where we left off with at the last approval was that there was going to be some coordination with neighbors to alleviate some of their concerns which included parking for special events because people tended to park in the surrounding neighborhood and not on site so I think there was an indication that there was some communication with the neighbors obviously the room's not packed as it was maybe there are a few interested neighbors I you know I don't want to uh rule everyone out but um in any event uh there was a concern I don't know if there's still a concern but maybe you could just help us understand um what happened through that communication or or what the school is planning to do to help the Neighbors in this case yeah I think it's captured in the conditions that are found on the original approval uh appoint a neighborhood liaison and hold a neighbor community meeting at least annually provide appropriate Staffing by the school's internal security team to manage traffic and parking to request assistance from Sumit police during major events as they do now already and to place neighborhood signage where and when appropriate to encourage a limit on street parking by attendees and and I would also note that um the police chief's review of the application this tonight's application had no objections so the school as we discussed again you're at a disadvantage hasn't a very uh robust I use that word again relationship with the police they actively work together to try to minimize any impacts including traffic so um those were some of the things that are taking place in addition to the neighborhood meeting that we just had prior to this but we will regularly have neighborhood meetings and and share I ask uh we a number of months since the adoption of the prior resolution has liazon been appointed she's here okay so I still believe that uh perhaps we should include um condition number 10 from the original resolution which is the one you just read that come would be all the conditions from the prior resolution will go in this one and in and the resolution that says that this resol that if they're going to use this resolution the prior resolution they'll abandon it you know once they activate this okay yes we're where we were expecting and we're happy to live with those conditions that the bo work through and placed on us any other questions in the board yes I have one maybe two um the retain wall is on the East End of the of the building so that sidewalk you said was grade level to the building but it's recessed below that retaining wall if I read correctly it's not visible to the neighbors outside yes that's correct is it that's going to be lighted with those any types of Lights the yeah it's a depress when you're stand landing on Norwood you're not going to see the retaining well plus there's you'll see the railing which is you know 3 and 1/2 ft high but then there'll be landscape screen in front of that so and I know this was probably reviewed by the fire chief but my fire hack's coming out um the fire department connection for the for the um Fieldhouse used to be on the building I'm not sure if it still is is that being moved to the street yes it is in fact uh we met with the fire department and uh um they suggested what you know because we having a hot box there right we're going to screen that but let's bring the uh they're the ones who suggested bring the fire department connection out to the curb beautiful and then just a question about the the new parking Arrangement here um I know it might be difficult but is there a way to it looks is there an there's an island between the in and out yes is there is there is there going to be like um planting to kind of shade or prevent the neighbor from seeing down there and not interfere with pulling out of the driveways yes that's correct we have Landscaping plan that addresses that from last approval any other questions from the board questions from the public not time to tell us what you think but time to tell us if you have questions I see none so we would I'm sorry I'm sorry I had one more question and maybe this maybe this is just the way the drawing was done but in the North excuse me the southeast corner on the proposed site plan is kind of squared off as oppos as opposed to the approved site plan or it's rounded is that just a drawing mistake or is there actually more square footage included than there squared off now uh let me understand where you're talking the East the southeast corner of the building good catch Southeast yeah Southeast Corner oh you're right no that was a that square footage modification is included in the calculation and you're right that was originally the concept planned was to have that a rounded corner it's been squared off right thanks okay I guess you can move to your next witness thank you Mr chair I like to call Peter bman you SAR to tell the truth the whole truth and that's the best truth I do state your full name for the record by your last name Peterman I'm AED beening as a AR I principal at jcj architecture I numerous public boards board last year and your license is in U licenses in New Jersey Connecticut New York Massachusetts Nevada in good in good standing in good standing okay any questions from the board if not we accept your credentials and turn you over to your attorney thank you um and what we're going to show you is built around the set that you have dated March 1st but it has some additional drawings in it I have a thumb drive here that I can give to miss bring that we can email it to you so that would be the next exhibit a3k great thank you very much so Peter um you know you heard discussion from an engineering perspective uh in terms of any changes can do the same from AR yeah exactly so uh the drawing that's on the screen um shows above uh the um the condition that was approved last year where uh in the notch of the building um and Larry is going to show you with his cursor where uh where the dance studio uh was and you can see that it's up on um columns and it it's been referred variously to an overhang or a Calver so that dance studio was raised up one story with an entrance to the building immediately under it the drawing below shows that dance studio brought down to the ground floor the thing that's important is that this is the only exterior change that we're talking about to the building itself and um what you can see on top of that uh the roof of the dance studio is coincident with the roof uh with the third floor level um and uh there is a white square on top of that which is a um Terrace for folks to walk out onto uh to observe the games that are happening in the fields immediately to the South and the gray area on that same roof is the green roof that we were talking about uh that Rob mentioned um that green roof represents a uh a enlargement of that of the green roof that we had in the original um approved uh drawings the rest of what I have up here is going to be just a way of explaining why and what we've done to the building interior um so thank you Larry so what you have here is the building section drawn as the as you all approved last year and that shows a basement uh which is approximately below that red line and it shows the Fieldhouse roof at the top of the drawing on the left side and it shows the highest point of our new building as well and you can see the call outs I imagine um what is important to understand is that that red line is a um indication of the water table that we found um so it became a significant challenge uh for us to maintain that basement and you've heard testimony that we have resolved to eliminate the basement thank you so with that with that um basement eliminated what we were able to do was um accommodate the athletic uses that had been in the basement at the first floor and the theater that had been at the first and second floors into the building above into the floor levels above that so in essence what we've done is we we've pushed those uses up higher in the building but the word higher should not be misunderstood the building itself is no higher than it was last year uh it it is coincident with the height of the existing Fieldhouse um and uh and there's been no sacrifice to program which is of course important to the school uh yep that's fine so this is a drawing of similar to the drawing that Rob showed which was the pre-existing roof plan and you can see that angle of the dance studio which we know now was in this case up high and now when Larry changes it you'll see it's down lower so this is a roof plan and the thing that's important to understand is that the uh there's been commentary about how we we've come back to reduce the variances that we've been looking for and the roof um has been brought more of the roof has been brought within the 35 foot height limit next that is the basement as it was and you've most of you have seen this drawing next and it's a little silly to show you but this is this is what it's like without a basement obviously next please um so this was the first floor as you've seen it before and it's worth just noting uh around the conversation that Rob uh uh uh LED about the um Eastern uh uh wall the Eastern retaining wall reduction in height you can see that the lobby which is the gray area that looks somewhat like an hourglass was all at one level it was all at a level that was 5et below the existing Fieldhouse level next please but now you can see in that same place where the lobby uh hourglass is down you can see stairs and ramps that bring the whole uh Eastern end of the lobby up 5T from the 342 elevation up to 347 which then allowed us to reduce the height of the retainer wall but it's important also to see that the uh on the lower half of the drawing which is South um the pink dance studio is also now on the first floor if you went up a level in our prior design work and the your prior approval that was the first floor of the dance studio this was overhanging open space next one and now it is just the upper level of a two-story dance Studio it should be said that the dance studio was always two stories high but now it goes from the first floor through to the second floor with a roof above that and it was here on the second floor up to the third floor um and now we're just going um uh we're we're going up through the second floor and that's the end of the dance studio next please uh in the prior application in the prior your prior approval uh the dance studio this is the upper level of the dance studio which went from the second to the third floor next please there it is so now instead of that at the third floor level there is a green roof and a roof Terrace um and that roof Terrace is accessible from the track and the pre function area of the theater so the only physical changes to the build building are um on the south side of the building interior to the campus uh of the school and next please we just show you these which you've seen before to just demonstrate that there are no physical changes to um what might be considered the more public side of the building uh go ahead and these are yep y so thank you those three sides are unchanged from yes and that's what I have okay questions from our professionals Marie I do not think that I have any questions for okay Tom so um program wise essentially the spaces are the same they've just been changed in terms of what level they're on can you are there any Chang in terms of loss or gaining program spaces or you know for instance you've added a locker room lost the locker room yeah no okay so it's the same yep we were able to accomplish that within the alope okay and just to be clear the um I guess elevating the theater space technically increases the central height of the building so it can go up to the third floor it doesn't increase the total height but it you know technically raises it to some degree like in the middle of the building it it doesn't raise the building higher than it was in the prior approval what it does is it brings that roof level up inside a paret that had been approved already right so perceived from the outside you wouldn't know the difference corre okay uh that's all I have okay questions from the board I just have very simple question this is the this is the entrance off the parking area that that's now a non-p parking area right the the entrance off of Norwood yes this is this is um standing at the Western end of the new entrance Drive looking toward norw this is more for my information sure sure totally if I come in this front door I have to go upsteps to get to the to the Fieldhouse um or do I go down steps to get if I come in grade level into the front door you come down a couple steps to 342 okay and then once you're inside to get up to the gym or up to the Fieldhouse uh you have a 5 foot rise okay and there's a two-sided elevator that gets you there and the Really the new building is I'm just trying to wrap 5T lower than the current field have uh yes I saw one photo back there with a rendering of you know this building next to one of the tutor buildings um yeah just a little and it the historic preservation Comm committee did make a comment about how um this building does not um tie in with the neighborhood or the existing campus um the buildings on the existing campus and I'm just wondering if you have any comments to address that sure um this was talked about a lot last time we were here in the room um and it was talked about in the neighbors meetings um the idea while it appears in these renderings that it is not um uh tutor in nature the idea is to use colors and materials that tie to it while acknowledging that this is a building that's being built in the 2000s right so the surrounds for all of those arcades are in a dark wood the arcade itself I'm using the uh a colloquial word but it's um is very much structured like the porch and arcade on the maybe house to the right of this view um the stones are similar in color and Hue um so the idea is to not be a literal tutor building but to take the materials so that that recollects the style of the of this building now every building on campus is not a tutor building building right true yeah I mean I live right in the neighborhood I walk by around the school every single day so um it just it is a sort of a stark uh change to the look of the neighborhood is I guess what I the one observation I mean the building itself when you just see the building is wow like it's super cool modern building but then when you know I don't see it in the context of all the other buildings but just um is that the view from the interior of the that's the view from interior of Campus that's right if if you had to count the number of different architectural styles on campus what would you say that is five six uh it's uh I would I plenty I wouldn't care to enumerate but yeah more than two more than two sure think the elementary yellow vinyl isn't it or what was at one time the elementary was yellow vinyl yell pain I forget I'm not familiar with that vinyl design that wasn't our we don't do yellow vinyls and and and as I recall we did have a conversation about If This Were to be a tutor building what the roof height would have to be for it to be um come on what's the word you know in to work appropriate well I I was thinking I was thinking more um with the roof lines and everything so so a little dimensional thank you so that that would work and yeah You' be way way up there that's exactly right I recall that conversation and the idea was that if we were to get the um amount of program to your point into a building that was tutor we'd have to have a pitched roof and it would far exceed the allowable Heights of uh on campus any more questions from the board questions from the public seeing none thank you uh do you have additional Witnesses Mr chairman I do have uh Paul Phillips with us if the board wants to hear planning testimony but to the extent again that uh no new variances are being created and we are in fact as you heard improving on uh a number of the variance conditions that was granted we leave that to you uh as not all of us heard it does anybody wish to hear that additional testimony I'm seeing a lot of shaking heads so I guess we can uh stand on that I'd just like to once again thank you all for coming out an extra evening uh at the exorbitant pay level that they have established here in Summit for your service um and um let you know uh how we continue to be very excited about this substantial Improvement we're not quite there yet um at this I was going to I was going to beg for an approval at the end so of my com but we're not there yet at this point it's now appropriate for the public to come forward and tell us what they think of this if there's anyone who wishes to be heard on that all those folks who came out on seeing none now I take what he'll take your final s Joe before we go can I ask if the if the uh neighborhood per the neighborhood liaison uh if she chose to come she could she's chosen not simple very simple question for you have have when you met with the when you were appointed and met with the school were you satisfied with what their proposals were to an extent just so I can be clear she's you're an employee of the school yes she is the Le on okay I'm sorry I'm sorry confusing okay so do we have never mind do we have neighborhood okay is there a a corresponding representative of the public there I can speak no to some degree um okay can you can you come up here and tell and use a microphone so we can hear you I was involved a little bit in in in the ne I was not at the neighborhood meeting but I'm aware of the neighborhood Dynamics both from the testimony in the first and and through discussions with my client um there they maintain a contact list of neighbors um and they regularly send out information to the neighbors um I don't know if that answers your questions and if you want the it's not the way I understood this to happen I understood it to happen the other way around that they they were going to be in contact with you okay would you like to hear from the head of school I would okay and this is testimony SW affirmed testimony about to give this matter is the truth the whole truth not about the truth I do kindly State your full name for the record Jennifer galambos did you spell it yeah that's good g a l a m b oos thank you okay if you can good to go I identified you as the head of school at can't play school is that accurate that is accurate okay um the chairman has a question well I think I'm just trying to find out where where we stand with this group and if the the leison is from from the school I'm trying to find out how involved the public has been as they were in the past when when Vicky Brown was identified asaon um we met with one of the neighbors BJ kogan who has been often an involved neighbor and uh then um since then alerted them when any um refurbishments would happen to the school we notif Whenever there is going to be additional um car traffic and last week when we met with the neighbors five neighbors came um and including BJ who said at the meeting that she felt that the school had been tremendously communicative with the neighbors and um felt that uh that really there were very very few changes and um that she felt that we were on a on a great trajectory in our in our neighborly Rel that helps a lot anybody else have I I do was there any discussion about the parking on Norwood just above the athletic field between um Crescent and I guess that's uh the forest in cemp place no I'll leave it at that any other questions on the board no okay thank you so much any other public comment ments questions if not I turn it back to you for any closing remarks we respectfully request approval of the application okay conditions I'm going to rely on the conditions that we had in the resolution the last time I don't know what they are but we do use we we have the resolution everybody has a copy of the only additional condition I'm going to employ Andy to add is that by activating this new approval the applicant is agreeing that the prior approval will expire in exchange for the new approval so they're not this is not the case that I'm worried about there is some other case that'll be down the line where a developer may have a first approval and a second approval and they're left with the ability to decide if they want s sausage or pepperoni and we don't want that that's not good Planning and Zoning but I'm going to do it for mostly for practice purposes that they're going to give up the prior approval and exchange for this approval we understand that is that acceptable it is acceptable okay so otherwise you're good to go I'm assuming that the other uh the other item is also the uh acceptance of the um Engineers letter for this application as well yeah we'll do we'll do that we'll do that any questions questions so I'm looking at page seven or of 10 I guess on the conditions I don't know that's only that's page seven in this whole big thi yeah go somebody did a good job you're paying by the pound it gives applicant shall be bound by the exhibits applicant shall provide all required performance bond that'll be the same those are all by the way those are our standard okay and they're in every resolution so but in this instance we mean the exhibits from the prior hearing as well as the exhibits here because they've Incorporated them already by reference to explain their proposal okay maybe I'm looking at the wrong page now uh no they sounded sounded right to me yeah good except they should remove the basement one because it doesn't apply anymore well was the well then Andy will Andy will pick up on that and take that send that I'm sorry I missed it that's okay I'm I I I I did this for years and I was always very careful to mark down every single condition as it flowed through this case just didn't require it is there a Community member who is going to be the neighborhood liaison there there is is that person BJ that you referenced I mean is that something that do they have to should they have to name a neighborhood liaison a lead person or no my my suggestion is we're certainly open if the neighbors want to do that um otherwise we we'll continue to communicate broadly the neighborhood as long as they're keeping the list they're going to be communicating with everybody M so and neighborhoods waxing Wayne in that regard anyway y you know BJ may not live there forever and somebody else may not want to step up right every time somebody well same as same as this okay all right uh into uh how many votes are required for this I don't know five five thank you I've been just told it's a it's a use so yep but I always make the attorney tell us all right you're clear now uh you've been told thank you who would like to begin deliberations it off Paul you're all the all over here by by by yourself do I let you start want you let somebody else okay we let someone else who wants who wants to start I but um I'm I'm happy to kick it off um I think the uh everything that's being asked for is reduction of what was already previously approved um to me this is a clear-cut case that they're taking what field conditions and hardship and modifying in in the good reducing some of the key points that we've already that were testified at at nauseum and questions with the community um and I look forward to this getting resolved and built and all I can add is I think you know that some of the outside ramps and walkways um straightening them or leveling them out is in fact an improvement for the campus and I I guess I tend to be sensitive for people who need ADA Compliant building to feel othered by it and I think this makes everybody feel like they're literally on the same level so I can certainly approve this done I I mean wasn't privy to the first meeting but I I tried to watch some of the video and [Music] read let's move on um I I don't see any downside to this I see nothing but upside uh I was a little concerned about the um continuity of the uh tutor style throughout the complex or campus I should say but um I thought about it a little bit deeper I said well maybe place is trying to move into the modern ER so um this might be the best first step uh I was somewhat familiar with the building from my previous uh employment and um I think it's an improvement and um uh I can wholeheartedly support this anybody else sure okay uh I agree with everyone on this side they've taken an incredibly complex site an incredibly complex program and made the best of it and I I don't think we could ask for anything more than that uh the slight reductions and the variances there just a bonus to a project that we already approved so I'm more than happy to to approve this one as well the only thing I would add to this is that um when they discovered a water table issue that affects the whole neighborhood and uh all of the community that uh would have uh issues with h with any kind of water it's also some safety issues that they've addressed from what we uh we have looked at so um you know and this the whole thing is to have safety for students safety for staff and safety for the neighborhood and uh with the uh with the group that's working with them uh from the school and um when I hear some of the names that have been uh brought up of being the neighbor neighborhood that's working on it I know that they uh they're in good hands and things like that from the people we know so uh I have nothing but uh commendations for all of you who put the uh the work into making this happen and would be happy to accept a motion to approve so move second is there a second second Mr Nelson may we have a roll call vote please sure Vice chairman lyit yes Mr Nelson yes Miss Zan yes Miss to yes Mr feskin yes Mr Chuli yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you very much conratulations really appreciate it I hope you all have a good week uh we have I think one item of additional business that Miss suos would like to get done because it's seven PES nods uh okay okay so we're going to look at the minutes from June 3rd 2024 um I would like to get a vote on that we would just exclude members who were excused that evening which were Mr Yugo Mr Nelson thank you so much Mr Chief I mean Miss Cho and Miss Z thoughts on approving the minutes move to approve second okay all those in favor any any opposed great the motion carries okay we meet again in a week weeks in a row a day on the 18 Tuesday Tuesday Tuesday okay do we do do we get extra pay for this do we get one joke from Dennis extra gratitude but you know about uh Sylvester stal tell us he's on he's on his third marriage the first marriage was Rocky the second marriage that was Rocky too don't quit your day job yeah right don't attend still got it still got it I wish