Good evening. Good evening everyone. Welcome to the May 5th, 2025 Asbury Park Planning Board regular meeting. Chairwoman Barbara Kerzac, can you please call this meeting to order? Yes. This meeting is being
held in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, Public Law 1975. Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the Coaster and Asbury Park Press by publication of the annual meeting notice and posted on the municipal Bolton board and municipal website. All notices are on file with
the board secretary. Official action may be taken on the following matters before the board. This meeting is being recorded by APV for your viewing pleasure. Please join me to salute the flags of the stands. One nation under
God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Um, I will now take roll call. James Banano is absent. Councilwoman Clayton present. Second. Okay. Um, Jim Henry here. Jeremy Hoffman is absent this
evening. Mayor Moore here. Jen Souder here. Daniel Shaneo here. Bob Zuckerman is absent this evening. Kathy Mclacklin here. Okay. Uh, Vice Chair Gunnan here. Chairwoman Carzac here. First item on the agenda is a resolution
for approval for 7-Eleven Bangs Avenue. Does anyone have any uh questions or concerns on the board? I just had one question. So you put in the resolution they needed nine residential spots. So that whole thing with the commercial has been settled or Yes. Yes. Yeah. There's
no Michelle and Donna had looked through the plan extensively and for this commercial since what was the essence of it and it didn't need it because less than 10,000 ft. Yeah. It was because it was less than 10,000 square feet. So it was pretty straightforward.
Got it. After all after Yeah. In the end. Yeah. Okay. If uh if the board's satisfied, can I get a motion to approve the uh this resolution? Who's eligible? Oh, the members that are eligible are Jim Henry, Barbara Kurszac, Ivon Clayton, John Moore, Michael
Gunnan, uh Katherryn Mccclaclin, Daniel Shaneo. Okay. So, Michael, you moved it. Ivon moved it. I second. So, Ivon and Michael second. on a Michael second.
Okay. Um Jim Henry, yes. Ivon Clayton, yes. John Moore, yes. Katherine McLaclin, yes. Daniel Shaneo, yes. Vice Chair Gunnan, yes. And Chairwoman Burba Kerzac, yes. Okay.
All right. Next item up is the Main Street Redevelopment Plan proposed amendment. Okay. Shall I? You shall. Yes. Okay. Good evening everybody. Nope. Whenever you're
ready, please raise your right hand. We solemnly swear affirm that the testimony about to give this matter be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Uh, please state your name and your affiliation with the board and the city in this in this matter. Uh, Donna Miller. I am the board's planner
and uh, in this instance, I am uh, assisting Beth McManis and Michelle Alonzo as the architects of this amendment to the mainstream development plan.
Uh I believe you have in your packages uh copies of the amendment that's proposed and uh it's resolution 2025 210. Yes. And basically what we're here to do
tonight is determine consistency with the master plan of the proposed amendment. And so just to recap, what is being asked is uh there's an area in the
redevelopment plan that designates a part of the main street area as a community shopping zone. And in that zone, we don't permit adult daycare uses. Um there is an existing adult daycare
use in the community shopping zone and it seeks to move its location. So the proposed amendment is going to say okay adult daycare permitted at a specific site and that's the specific site where this existing daycare center
wants to move to and it happens to be the existing Dollar Tree store if everybody's familiar between third and fourth on the west side. So Dollar Trees coming out I think they're already out.
Um so uh the amendment which is exhibit A to the resolution um specifies the type of use, the location of the use and establishes a parking requirement for the use. So, um, what I've done is gone through and
reviewed the most recent master plan re-examination report from 2018, um, and tried to determine whether there are any goals, objectives,
recommendations that are consistent with this change or inconsistent with this change. And I believe there are three Oh, sorry. Let me just make sure three or four four goals that are
um indicate consistency. Um one is um one is in the land use plan section um where there's a recommendation to upgrade the appearance and function of neighborhood business areas. It's very general. It's from the original master plan, but it was carried forward in the
new one. um that was found to be still relevant and that there are actions taken uh in the various um business district redevelopment areas uh and specifically calls out Main Street um to
address vacancies and unappealing character. So if Dollar Tree store is vacant, can't find a use to occupy it, this allows a use to occupy it to prohibit
extenduating vacancies on Main Street. Um, in the urban design plan section, there's uh a recommendation to ensure first floor uses in retail and entertainment districts have an inviting and interesting appearance and are composed of active uses. And so having a
daycare center again in a ground floor use um given the specific site uh with large storefront windows uh there's um active use that would be evident in the space.
Um the next section is economic development plan where the goal is to encourage the healthcare and professional scientific and technical service industry sectors as they are expected to experience significant growth in the next decade. And so as a
adult daycare facility um that is a healthcare um technical service industry sector that would be um a recommended industry type to be in
uh in that area. Uh the community facilities plan recommends providing community services which address all demographic sectors of the population such as schools, daycare facilities, recreation facilities, and senior centers.
Um and so again, the recommendation to um add daycare, adult daycare uses to um the plan and specifically in the community shopping uh district seems to be supported by this master plan goal.
Um, now I did find one section that seems to be contrary to supporting the recommended change and that is in the land use plan where there's a recommendation to
um strengthen and improve citywide neighborhood commercial districts as centers of employment, shopping, services, entertainment, and education. So, it's not completely inconsistent, but um there's a hierarchy of a a preference particularly in the
community shopping zone for commercial retail shopping type uses. Um so, um hierarchically having a daycare center may not be as um you know, highest best
use. So, um, it's kind of a secondary recommendation, not necessarily completely inconsistent, but not 100% consistent. Um, so basically,
um, it's up to you guys to decide whether the change is consistent or not and make a recommendation to the governing body, uh, of that finding. and uh any recommendations if you think there should be additional regulations
or conditions um to that recommendation or to the proposed ordinance. So they're going to move from what the volume is building. Yeah. So it's not like adding new, it's just moving, right? And that's that's the community shopping center. That's also right. It's the same thing,
right? But um they're in the back of the building, I think, over there. And um and and so the amendment doesn't say that adult daycare is permitted at the Y now. So hopefully the new use that will
go into the Y will be a conforming shopping zone use. And what's about the parking that's over there by the dollar tree? Is that going to be all their parking? Is that I'm not sure how they're going to break it up. that's um to be decided I guess as part of
whatever plan they come to the city with. Um right now they've crafted this amendment to the redevelopment plan so that they can make whatever parking they need will be available on
that site. I have a a three question. Um, so we're only looking at whether for the redevelopment plan whether that use should be permitted, not any design, nothing like that. Nothing else. Well, the parking in the specific location in
that specific location, but um and it's not the Dollar Tree is still there and that's changed today. I mean still um because I think the well your point about what we can say about what would any um anything
around the regulation that I'm I'm not sure how much we can say at this point if it's just a change to daycare like moving across the street basically it's just a use thing I'm there's nothing about design that we can say at this point. No. And there's no proposed change to the design
regulations. You know, if so, if they go into that building and they want to change the design of the building and it doesn't comply with the redevelopment plan requirements, the design standards, they have to come to the planning board for site plan approval and design exceptions or whatever. Right. It's only
the use. This is use and parking specific to that. I'm sorry. Sorry, too. One second. Is it use in parking? Yeah, because there was no parking standard for adult daycare in the redevelopment plan. So now we're creating a standard for adult daycare uses to have a parking requirement. But
we're not just determining that parking tonight. We're not determining the parking tonight. The governing body has already decided what it should be. That's what's in the proposed amendment. And what is that? And the existing parking that's there goes with the building. So the building already has
parking. Yes. And so that parking is not going to change it, right? Not that I'm aware of. No. But Okay. But that's but but to be clear that when we're saying that the government that so mayor and council have already said this is a good thing.
No. Okay. But I guess that we're not clear as to as to if we're saying that the building and the parking lot that exists that it has if that's enough. I don't I don't know what it has. So I don't know. It clearly only has a portion of that lot. Yeah. It has
like half the lot. Yeah. The amendment is saying one space off street space for each transportation vehicle. I think that's what it say. Yeah, it did. It did say something like that, Daniel. And and let me ask you, you said it's
specific to that address. Is it specific to that user or if the user chain just say okay they go we say okay they go there and that operator goes out.
Does that automatically make it that another adult use adult care be in there? You said it's specific to the Yeah. So, if there's another operator, if Jersey Shore Adult Day Healthcare
um says not doing it anymore, moves out of town um and another lency wants to come in on Main Street, that would be the only place they could go. It's not for the operator, it's for the site. So, we're doing we're we would be okaying
the use for that specific location. Correct. For anybody, right? That's what the governing body has decided. Yes. And then if somebody else wanted to change that use, they'd have to come back. We have to do it all over again. As long as it's a permitted use in the community shopping zone, they don't have to. Okay. Gotcha. Right. And what is our uh
influence on us? We're making it a confirmed. Exactly. At hopefully a more beneficial location for the user and, you know, maybe the Dollar Tree. So, can can I ask that that if if we
approve this and we say that that all right, this building can do this with the with the parking spots that come with the building. I don't know how many there are. Whatever they are, that's it. You're not giving an approval. What? You're not giving an approval. No, we're making recommendations, right? We're
making a recommendation. Finding of consistency or inconsistency with the master plan and then if we want to make recommendations, we can. Yes. But the recommendations, if we're talking parking, then we have to that's a recommendation. Okay. Right. So, I'm
just saying that those parking spaces have to come with the building, whatever they are, however many there are that come with it at this point. Mhm. Five, six, seven, how I don't know how many there are. They're on that side. and that we are not asking and the recommendation in my opinion everybody
else has another opinion that it is not in front of the building that they cannot take any spots in front of the building as their own like it's not like a loading zone you mean on the street on the street oh that's what I'm saying yeah on street is not within their no
parking spaces on the street now there are none there are none in front of that building there are no there aren't oh I by the driveway entrance there's parking on the street. Yeah, I think there's park on this side of the driveway, but not directly in front of
the building. Well, I mean, again, on street parking is not in the it's not in that, but it could be a recommendation that we make. Fair. then and the use for the old place would go away under this if we approve this or we now this
doesn't do anything to the old location that is still subject to whatever the communities on uh community shopping zone permits would the senior care still be permitted there are we transfer a new use if the senior care is existing there is irrelevant yeah it doesn't have
anything to do with the existing uses in the building at the Why? This is only proposing this is only proposing at the Dollar Tree location. But but are we propo are we proposing moving the allowance of that use to another
property or are we adding another a use at another property? So now the expectation the expectation is a move but there's nothing in the regulations that would well restrict that. So we might in fact
be increasing that. We might be permitting that use if we approve this. We might be permitting we might get two the use in two. So that's something to think about. I don't know if anybody thought about so we're increasing
something we didn't want. Why is that particular building uh particularly attractive for this use? Unfortunately I I don't know. I didn't I hear I've only been asked to step in at this stage. I don't know the backstory.
I don't know the history. I think some of the backstory is excuse me. I think this is correct. So, I'm not swearing on a Bible. What I've been told is there's a new owner of the YMCA and they did not
renew the lease of the agency in there. Yes. So, the agency has to find a new location. The only place in Asbury Park is the Dollar Tree, which is soon to be vacant. And what I have been told is the
majority of the people that use this facility are Asbury Park residents. I'm not saying that's the truth either. I know quite a few of them are because I've been in there. I know the people. Now, I believe on the YMCA on the side street, they do have some reserved spots
for their little mini buses. Now, I agree like all it says like enough spaces for each vehicle. Now, what happens if they have 50 vehicles all of a sudden? Like, and that should have been asked at the council level. So, my blunder. So,
that's something we're going to put in. But aren't we saying they need to have they can operate their business, but if they operate their business, they have to have a spot for each vehicle plus one spot for 900 ft. That's a recommendation. But if that was what makes it into the plan, then they couldn't operate. You
know, once they get once they run out of spots, they can't have more, right? Okay. I don't know. I don't know how that works. I don't know that that I would Well, what what do what do they have now? How many spots do they have now? because I believe well I don't think they have any now. I mean they may
have streets on uh spaces on the street reserved but there's no wall street parking at no no street but how did they get this it was before my time. How did they get the spaces on the street reserved? I don't think my time.
You're right. Before all Yeah, I don't think they're reserved. They just I think they put up signs to each vehicle providing transportation. So I know I don't know what that means. That official vehicle. So when they come in to do their occupancy, they're going to
tell the zoning office how many buses, uh, how many people have cars, whatever. And they're going to do the calculation based on how many spaces are allotted to them, uh, on the Dollar Tree, you know, shared site because I think that's a shared parking lot. Yeah. And then if it
doesn't meet it Mhm. they're going to come see you. Yeah. And if it does, you'll see them go in there and start operating. Okay. But is the board okay with having Cuz I guess technically if you say yes, this gets approved. Technically, that use is permitted in
both locations. What's going to happen is the board's going to make a recommendation to the governing body that it's consistent with the master plan and whether you think there should be additional parking or not required and the governing body is going to say
thanks appreciate your input and then they're going to decide what the standard should be by having a second reading or whatever on the ordinance. Government body has no talking about the use. Yeah, governing body has no obligation to accept in
whole or in part what we're recommending. I understand. But but I think Dan's point is should their amendment be add a use to whatever this block is. Remove remove an excess remove this use from 600 Main Street. That's my point that yeah, if you want to make
that use. Yeah. So, the use isn't permitted at 600 Maine, but I understand your concern that, you know, if their lease gets renewed and then we've just made this new site available, somebody else could come in, then we have two of these adult and somebody else comes in.
I'm not just saying, you know, it seems like we're going through this because the use was not per you went through this originally because the use was not desired in the in the zone. So, I'm not saying I really care. I'm asking the
board. You know, the way this is written is not that it's saying, "Okay, 600 goes away and we go to 11:05." It's just like you're adding 11:05 for that use. Is the board okay with that or they want to make a recommendation different? Makes sense.
Makes sense. And the only thing I'm going to say is I don't know that you can, you know, land use is not person specific. No, it's not. So they can't say it has to be Jersey Shore. No. No. No. Then it's it land use
has to be sight specific for a specific use, not for an individual. It's not person. That's the only Well, I'll get my opinion. I think it's we should add it. I think it's a good location for an adult daycare. If we end up with two, I'm fine with that. I'd like to go one
step further. I'd like to see the whole zone uh have that as a permitted use. Uh the population is aging and you know 5 years from now we may need another facility
and I don't know but there's the possibility that another building might become available for that use. the the the thing that that I can say about that, Jim, and you can correct me if I'm wrong here, Donna, from with from your other hat, your planning hat, because
we're going to be doing some modifications to zoning shortly. We're meeting like in a couple of weeks and we can propose that to say add it. You're right. It is. 2 weeks or something like that that we
can propose that we add that as a use and I'm fine with that and we can put that in and then it goes in front of the it goes we propose it goes in front of the public it goes in front of the council it go it goes in front of everybody so we can add that as a
suggestion and that's how to the council's attention how can it be okay for the 600 block of Main Street it's not okay for the 1100 block of Main Street which made no sense to me but you're saying it was were okay for the 600 block of Main Street. Well, then how's it been operating all these years?
I I can't say. I mean, again, I don't know when they moved in there. I thought it was a permitting. Oh, jeez. Many years ago, right? So, it may have been before before the zone would have been before the redevelopment plan. I have no idea. It might have been, you know, permitted when it was a B
district. All right. So, here we are. Yes. So, I have a question about parking. So the re the recommendations here is one spot for each vehicle plus one spot per 900 square f feet. My concern is is there's employees there. Is one spot per 900 ft
enough? In your opinion as the board planner, is that enough parking for for this use? Well, both I and the redevelopment plan are pro no parking minimums. So,
um, you know, I'm I'm going to air on the side of I don't think they need parking. All they're doing is having their buses periodically. Hopefully, we'll encourage other modes of employee transportation. Um,
uh, unfortunately, I think they're required unless, um, now I'm going to take that back. Uh, it used to be a regulation. Uh, I don't know that it still is, but um they weren't allowed to um do um drop off
pickup by personal car. Um but um the point is it's more of a drop off pickup rather than store your car all day. So, but I was thinking the employees who work there have to have to get there somehow. But maybe it's by
foot by bus, some might park. That was that was kind of my concern. I'm also that as part of figuring out why it was one per 900 square f feet, they've counted how many full-time employees on, you know, a shift and accommodated all that. Perfect. But that
that could that could be a recommendation that we go and it sounds like they're already they're going to end up having more parking than they do now, right? Well, that was my question is like do we like this number one per 900 ft? If that's about right for how many employees are going to park per
shift, then works for me. How many square feet? Right now, all the employees are parking on the street because there's no place for them to park other than on the street and and the buses that drop off and they
kind of use the front of the building. So, partially it's there is parking right at next to this building that they did not have before. How many parking spots are there? I don't know. Mhm. As I recall, there's about nine plus a
um a uh commercial uh a door in the rear that uh you know, a loading platform in the rear of the building at the end of the parking lot on the west end of the parking lot. Mhm.
Was approved. Yeah. I don't know who has rights to what parts of which lot over there, but there is a sh there is a shared parking situation. I think only the uh the south side of that parking lot is for use of the uh
you know the building. Yep. Um was did you have something John or were you okay? All right. Any other questions from uh the board members? Any other questions from our
professionals? No. Any questions from the public? No. About this particular situation? Oh, this is not a public thing. No. Well, that's up to you. I like I like to open it up to the public personally, but if we have no nobody has anything to say anyway. Okay. All right.
Um, how about if I just give this a shot and then you can jump in if if I'm if I'm off base here. Um, I'd like to propose that we we approve this use with a recommendation that the the
parking is enough for the trans for those for the trucks, the buses, the buses that come and go and for the employees. And that's the
recommendation. That's the recommendation part as opposed to the approval part. You want to add anyone want to add anything to that or remove something from that? That's kind of kind
of I I agree with what you're trying to do, but it's it's kind of difficult to um if there's only finite spaces and they have it's better than what they have over here. But if they but but once again it's up
to the city to the council and mayor and council to to adhere to to agree to agree or not agree. They can say reconsider what the calculation they consider what the calculation is if it makes sense. You're just saying sort of like a heads up. It's a recommendation.
Heads up as a recommendation. Please look make sure you look at this and ensure that there's adequate on-site parking for the operation vehicles and employee parking. And then they that at least they'll be aware of the issue and then whatever whatever they can do they will do. Right? If there's no space
there's no space. That's and and they will decide whether that's okay or not okay. Okay. And they don't have any big buses. They're like the vans and it's drop off pickup. So they can drop them off and they can go park their van someplace else and then walk and bring
the vans back. Doesn't seem to be bring back to 600. They'll probably bring them back to 600. You're right. Park them in Walgreens. All right. That's that's that's my proposal. If anybody has any concerns about that. All right. Then I'll make a
motion for that to be the the proposal. Second. Who's going to get the second? Dan or Jim? Jim. Jim. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Second. Okay. All right. Um, Councilwoman
Clayton, yes. Jim Henry, yes. Mayor Moore, yes. Jen Solder, abstain. Abstain. Daniel Shaneo, yes. Kathy McLaclin, yes. Vice Chair Gunnan,
yes. Chairwoman Karzac, yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Got it. All right. Next uh next one up is uh 527 Bangs Avenue. Yeah, Madam Chairman, I've reviewed the notices. They're in proper form. We have jurisdiction to proceed.
Terrific. [Applause] Yes, they do. The resolution says what the resolution says 615. Okay. Mhm. And the
front is no park. Okay. If I may, Andrew Carris, council for Pearlbud Realy LLC with regard to property at 527 Bangs Avenue, block three, excuse me, block 3101, lot 9. As
the board may recall, this property had been subject to approvals in the past for a mixeduse building, 42 apartment units, ground floor, um, commercial. The reason that we are back tonight
exists for a slight modification to the plans. Um, originally the approval provided for balconies on the second floor in the rear of the building to extend about 5'4 in from the back facade
of the building. Um, we advertise seeking an amendment to that to allow it to go to the edge of the building. Your board planner correctly told me there was an inconsistency with the plans that we had submitted. So it is actually not going to the edge of the building. It is
going 1 ft 8 in off of the edge of the building. So not quite to the edge of the building. So the amendment that we are seeking is the railings, the deck on the back which has been approved. a balcony. He's going 7' 8 in from the
rear facade of the building, which will be 1 ft 8 in off of the edge of the roof. What are those two directions again, Andy? I couldn't hear you. Sure. From the facade, it's 7'8 in. That's where the railing is. And then there's
an additional 1T 8 in then to the edge of the roof on the And that's 1 foot. What was this? 8 in. Thank you. And what I'm going to do, and I apologize for the late submission of this, I am going to pass these hours reflect that correction. Again, I do appreciate the
board planner providing me with that information in consistency. And what I'm going to do is mark as A1 for identification this plan for today's date. And that's really the extent of the application here tonight
for an amendment. Very simple, very straightforward. It's limited. I have one witness who's going to testify, Mr. Lucinelli, essentially to what I provided. Right. Can I say something before we we get started here? Sure. Thank you. Um,
going forward with with your clients and with our uh our architect, can we be sure that the dates on I know the dates are all messed up. 100%. I I 100% agree with you. So, I
I I don't know what I'm looking at, but we're we're going to redate these to the current date. I don't disagree with you. I agree with you. Okay. Um on that because both of these plans are all are all over. Nice. Okay. Here you go.
[Applause] Um I'd like to call David Lucenelli, our architect for our testimony. Please raise your right hand. So swear affirm testimony about giving this moose motion about the truth. Yes, I do. Uh, please state your name for the
record and spell it. David Bruceella. B U S I N E L L. Mr. Bruceella, can you please give the board the benefit of your qualifications? You testified? Yes. On more than one occasion? More than one occasion. Is your license still current? Yes, it is. And what's your field of
expertise? Design. You're an architect. I am an a registered architect. Okay. Any any need to get any more? Yeah. Okay. And and what we're looking at what was just provided to us is the correct date 72324.
Yes, it is. All right. So this this was created 72324 that you just provided to us. Yes. Also give me some background to your familiarity with plans. So Mr. Bino, you're familiar with this project, correct? Yes. In fact, you've testified on this project previously, correct?
Yes. And what we're looking at A1 for identification and plans there JCA group is an architectural firm but you've worked with them on this project and as I indicated your overall responsibility for the architectural permissions on this project. Correct. Yes. And looking
at what's been marked as A1 for identification. I just want to take you to the what we're looking at on page A2 which is up on the screen. Am I correct? Yes. And that reflects the amendment to the application that we're here for tonight relative to the balcony.
Correct. Right. I want you to describe the dimensions on there, what is existing and what we're looking for in terms of before he answers that question. I want to swear in my staff. Okay. Okay. If I may, Barb, is that okay? Sure. Okay. Please raise your right hand. You sly swear affirm
testimony about this matter. The truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. I do. Please state your names for the record. Your affiliation with the board. Donna Miller, board planner. Sam, board is pardon the interruption. It's okay. So, I'm sorry to be harping on this, but the first
page says it's it's July 23rd, 2024. The second page says it's August 5th, 2022. It's incorrectly paid. I'll tell you right now. Okay. So, tell us what dates we should be looking at on all of these on all these various pages. Go ahead.
So, what dates? When was the change made? Cool. Because I've seen That's fine. I'll bring of these plans multiple times over the past several weeks and they all say 723 24 is the last revised date. So, were these prepared today? The
revisions, the revision on this particular on page two, page two, yes, was made today. Yes. And I'm going to have JCA red. I keep in mind I've had this issue with them. Okay. Go. But Mr. did not make the changes. He didn't, but
he's familiar. He had conversations with them. So, somebody at JCA group made the revisions. They just didn't update the dates. Correct. On the plans. That is correct. Okay. Looking at what is marked or uh A2 of
what's marked as A1 for identification that reflects the dimensions of the balcony. Am I correct? That's correct. And what are the dimensions of the balcony reflected on this point of view? The balcony itself is 7 foot. the uh outside face of the rear exterior wall
to the railing and then 1 ft from the railing to the edge of the Okay. And what was approved was at 5'4 in. Am I correct? That's correct. From that facade. Am I correct? So we have our total dimension of that rear revision is 94. Okay. And that's the extent of the
revisions that we're seeking. Am I correct? That's correct. That's all. Okay. I saw something else. It says this was done to enclose the garage
opening. Is that true? Was the garage opening not closed before this? It's the note that's right there. Cuz it's right. It's on the note itself. It says I get the deck. It says to enclose
garage opening. What does that mean? The deck was in there was an open area above the garage. Okay. In the rear of the building and it was decked the roof of the garage was extended to the edge of the building. So therefore the railings were then extended to enlarge
the balconies. Okay. But there was an opening in the roof. There was of the garage. There was an opening in the Yeah, there was an opening in the roof. Now there's no longer an opening in the roof and the balconies have been extended. was open for ventilation or anything the
such of the garage. That's a good question. I'd have to find that out. What's the question? The question was if the opening was for ventilation of the garage. So the garage. I'm not That's just a general question. It wasn't a part of the original application. It's a
fair question. If you're going to close it, yeah, we should No, that was my not compete with the train. I thought it was it was my understanding that that it was extended that was I think it was it was
a gap for whatever reason. I don't think it was Can you speak as a mic please with your hand? Yeah. my recollection here from the approved plans. Um cuz I went back to the approved it extended to that property
line, that roof. Um I'm pretty sure that I don't know why that note is on there, but I'm pretty sure that the approved plans and every time we've come back here should have gone to that property line and closed. That's why I don't know what what that note is.
Yeah, we we'll we'll find out. Well, we'll we'll find out. That's the bottom line. was construed to mean that it was open uncovered, not open like the garage is open, just the roof area is uncovered because the balcony above
doesn't come out as far. That's I'm thinking it just was uncovered. The balcony didn't extend over. Okay, that that I agree. He's going to have to I just think the note is poorly stated here.
All right. I can while you guys are looking I can say that the extension of the balcony personally it's okay. It looks it looks makes sense. If that garage if that has
anything to do the ventilation then I'm not okay. So the ventilation for the garage then I'm not okay. So it's there. Yeah. Um, like I say, I recall that plan. I went through it today, the old plans on it, because I
was myself so confused with the dates. Nate Paul had it going right to the property line that Well, if this does get approved, I would like a condition to be that if it has nothing to do with the garage ventilation, then it's
fine. Previously, that it was not agreed upon that it was garage ventilation. If it that's not an issue then I see I personally don't see concern here but anybody else has can certainly voice their opinion. So I have a copy of the
um 2019 plan uh open to me and the entire back wall is a solid enclosed covered parking area from that original the original approval. The original approval that we
did, it was enclosed when it was built. Even though when it was built, it wasn't. It was proposed to be enclosed. It was proposed to be enclosed to start. Yes. What exists now? That it's already done. It's done. Build consistently.
Yeah. 151 exhaust. And that's why my look at plans didn't send it all the way across. Does anybody have any questions? Yeah. That is correct. Going from 54 5' 4 in
to 7'8. So it's not going to go flush. It's going to be it's going to be wortht 8 in off the edge. So you're going additional 2T 4 in. What's the expansion? Provides more area for the tenants.
Does that reeling exist now? Yes, the building, the railing that we're talking about, the people who live there. When was it discovered that this was not accordance with the original? We submitted when they were finishing the building. That's when I came in. I submitted this in the application
November, 6 months ago. And you're just getting here now, correct? Well, you were originally supposed to be heard in like February or something. I screwed up the notice. Are people living in those apartments? Yeah. Mhm. Oh, it came out beautiful.
Building's beautiful. So, it was built in and then we're coming for you. Correct. Second floor. So, it was before any any other questions from the planning board members? My only thing so and this was even in the the agenda is
that there's still uh inconsistencies with facade from the original plans by us approving this tonight. We're not approving any we're not saying what's there is okay because the city is still working with it all. We're not here for the facade. We're just here to address this one issue. I
just want to make sure we're not like rubber stamping what you built is okay. Okay. No. One of the conditions of all amendments is any outstanding conditions of prior approvals that have not been revised or modified by this amendment must be complied with. Okay. Do you have
enough? No. Any umbody else? I just one other question. And so you're not going to do any extensions on the third floor or the fourth floor? This is only for the second floor. Only for the second floor as it goes over the first. Correct. Anybody
else? Any questions from our um professionals? Any questions from the public? Okay. Um All right. Then, uh I would propose
that um we approve the extension of the balcony. I'm I I'm still not warm and fuzzy about the about the ventilation, but um if if it was on the plans that that
it it was brought in as closed. Yeah. Then I'm fine with it. So without any kind of Yeah, I'll I'll you'll have your I'll put something in there to mention the roof that it's represented that the roof has already That's fair. That's fair. uh and the correction of all the dates
submission of documents revised date that this is only the extent of the modifications granted everything else remains correct and that's moved by Barbara yes uh and the second so
any discussion none okay um Councilwoman Clayton. Oh, wait. You're right. We haven't opened it to public comment. Oh, I thought you did. I did two questions. Two questions. Sorry. That's okay. Okay.
I'm sorry. Can I get a motion to open a public comment? So move. Second. Second. Okay. All in favor? I All right. Let's go. Uh Jack, I'm still good with Barbara and Yeah. Well, who it was Barbara that uh
made the motion and Daniel seconded. We've probably had changes over the years. Do you have any issue with the entire board voting? No. So then everybody will be eligible for this. Sure. Okay. Okay. Um Councilwoman
Clayton. Yes. Jim Henry, I'm going to abstain. I just I get very upset with when the developer does something not shown on the plans or and changes it without
prior approval. I'm going to abstain. Mayor Moore, yes. Jen Solder, yes. Daniel Shaneo, yes. Kathy McLaclin, yes. Vice Chair Gunnan, yes. Chairwoman Carzac, yes.
Okay. Motion to adjurnn. Okay. Is this all in favor? Hi everybody.