e e e e e e e e e e
e e that good welcome to the uh December 3 2024 Bernard Township planning board meeting and we will start the meeting with a salute to the flag every Al to flag the United States of
America to the for stands one na God indivisible andice for all I will the open public meeting statement in accordance with the requirements of the open public meetings law of
1975 notice of this meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards was posted on the Bolton board in the reception hall of the municipal building located at one CER Lane Basking Ridge New Jersey was sent to the Bernardsville news in whipy New Jersey
and to the courrier news in Bridgewater New Jersey on February 7th 24 additionally it was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice the following procedure has been adopted by the burners Township planning
board there will be no new cases heard after 10 p.m and no new Witnesses or testimony will be heard after 10:30 p.m. um next item on the agenda is the well let's do the roll call Miss kefir
please certainly uh chairman deian I am here Mr Crane here Mr kuzo here Mr eorio here uh Mr ladzinski here Mr M uh Mr MCN M manduk and Miss Smith have all
indicated they are unable to attend this evening M Master Angelo here Mr sevil here Mr Rabino here Mr drill here Mr good here here and for the record Miss keeper is present uh chairman you have
AUM proceed okay can we have a motion to excuse um miss manduk Mr MCN and Miss Smith yes move SEC can I have a second please second second Mr
yorio all in right y all in favor all in favor opposed obain thank you okay next item the the agenda is the uh approval of the minutes for June 18 2024 regular
session and I'd like to know if anyone has any comments or questions regarding the minutes I see no comments no questions can I have a motion to first we have to um identify who can
and can vote everybody who is present this evening is eligible to vote okay uh can I have a motion to approve the minutes for um June 18 2024 make that motion I'll second
it I'm sorry seconded Mr thank you okay all those in favor I those opposed thank you any abstains no one
abstains okay next next item on the agenda is the approval of resolutions we have five resolutions to approve this evening beginning with the Bank of
America block 1802 Lot 25 address 125 South Finley Avenue application PB 24-1 this application is being withdrawn without pre uh are there any did everyone read
the uh resolution does anyone have any comments any questions no can I have a motion to approve the resolution Mr ceville
second anyone you can second I'll second all righty Mr Crane I I have to okay uh Mr crzo yes Mr yorio yes Mr
linski I have as well okay uh M Master Angelo I wasused Iain Mr Seville yes Mr Rino yes um chairman
Demers yes could you change me to exstension as well I had accused myself I forgot okay thank you next you ready uh Cindy I am okay next resolution is
karbo uh application number pb24 d002 block 1602 L 2.01 address of 174 South Finley Avenue um are there any comments or
questions regarding the resolution I see no comments uh can I have a motion to approve the resolution chairman um you are eligible let's see Mr PUO is eligible Mr sevil and M Mr Rino are eligible those are the four so
the motion in the second come from those four and only those four will be called to vote yeah you can make motion okay I'll make the motion to approve the resolution second okay Mr kzo
yes Mr sevil yes Mr Rino yes chairman deman yes thank you okay are you ready for the next one I am okay she is ready uh the next resolution is Fenwick
Basking Ridge Homeowners Association block 7702 lot 10.01 through 10.05 and I guess the lot numbers are 367 the addresses oh those are the addresses oh right okay uh addresses
three 6 7 10 and 11 on Fenwick place and the application was pb1 17-8 C and who's eligible to vote on this one
uh chairman gersan Mr ororo Mr linski Miss Master Angelo Mr sevil Mr Rabino six okay are there any comments regarding this resolution no uh can I have a um a motion to improve the
resolution I will second was that Tyler Mr second thank you Mr cille can I have a roll call Mr Rio yes Mr linski yes Miss Master Angelo yes Mr sevil yes Mr Rabino yes uh
chairman deman yes thank you okay the next resolution is um let's see William and Carol MOA block 1401 lot 11 address 11 Mountain Road
application pb22 d1a eligible vote those same people uh chairman deman Mr roro Mr linsk Master Angelo Mr Mr
Rino okay does anyone have any comments questions I see none I will ask for a motion to approve this resolution so move thank you Miss
mangelo second second Mr yoro roll call Miss kefir Please Mr yorio yes Mr linski yes Miss Master Angela Mr Seville yes Mr Rino yes chairman Dean yes thank
you okay uh regarding the approval of resolutions we are on uh the fifth last but not least Fellowship Village um block 9301 lot 33 8,000 Fellowship Road
application number pb1 13-6 and this is the resolution resolution of the uh landscape committee issues Landscaping conflict resolved resolution yes and um I will ask so this
this res there was a landscape committee and that was myself Miss manduk right but resolution this is by the planning board because that it was a dispute understand brought up to the planning board so who El to vote on this resolution uh chairman Demers Mr Crane
Mr yoro Mr linski M Master Angelo Mr ceville Mr Rino okay okay are there any questions or comments I see none okay can I have a resoltion a motion thank you a motion to
approve the resolution I'll make that motion thank you Mr Crane I'll second thank you Mr mistrangelo a roll call please miss kefir uh Mr Crane yes Mr iio yes Mr linski yes M
Master Angelo yes Mr Cil yes Mr Rino yes chairman Demers yes thank you okay this this the we GNA why don't you move change why don't you move the ordinance referral up
okay so we are going to now address item number nine on the agenda which is the ordinance referral um ordinance number
2567 um which is let's see ordinance of the township of Bernards amending revising and supplementing the code of the township of Bernards chapter 21 Land Development regarding uses permitted in the E2 and
E4 office zones this ordinance is here on a master plan consistency review in accordance with the municipal land use law and the board has and it's been handed out ahead of time two things this evening the first is a memo from one of
the board planning experts Elizabeth mcmanis dated December 2 2024 I assume everyone's had a chance to read that but one of the board's other planning experts is also here Mr SCH and I'm going to suggest he summarized the memo and indicate if he
agrees or disagrees with its conclusions I also handed out before the meeting there's an attorney sitting in the front row Keith llin um he's a partner at engino Taylor and they he has a letter dated December 3 2024 which uh they
represent signature Acquisitions and signature Acquisitions wants its position considered by the planning board that's why I handed it out ahead of time it could be summarized Mr L you tell me if I'm wrong but the third paragraph on page one basically
summarizes the position that um the ordinance is not consistent with the master plan correct that's correct and just for the for the board's purpose we first have two members who are going to refuse themselves from this matter who are those members John
CR okay so you guys just hang out in the hall we'll call you now on a master consistency review it's not a public hearing actually the public does not have the right to speak or give anything to the board but it has
to be done in public and I suggested Mr Laughlin asked if take could hand this out I suggested there's nothing wrong with that I asked the chairman and the chairman in the exercise of his discretion said you know what all the more information the better let's hand it out so by a shaking of heads has
everyone had a chance to review both Beth's December 2 memo and Mr Laughlin's December 3 mem yes okay so my suggestion is Mr SCH um why don't you just again Beth doesn't
have to be here you don't need anyone to testify but since you're here why don't you summarize I guess it's page two of her Memo and then indicate what your opinion is on this yes um page two you've also reviewed Mr
Laughlin's December 3rd letter which I gave you ahead of time correct yes I did okay okay um well I start on page one the summary of the ordinance beth hits five bullet points there's really two main points do you have do you have a copy of I do not can you give Mr wman a
copy thank you very much and there's two typos on page two which Mr SCH correct yeah thank you um the first change is to um in the E2 Zone light manufacturing is presently a
permitted use and this amendment will uh eliminate light manufacturing as permitted use and the second uh change is in the E4 Zone the storage and maintenance of vehicles operated by or as a bussiness is a permitted use and this
amendment will delete that use as a permitted use in the E4 Zone and then the the rest of the changes are are incidental uh housekeeping changes that just go along with those two main changes uh so moving so Beth indicated
by five bullets there were five changes that this ordinance accomplishes yeah she broke it that into five naming the Lesser changes the um permitted forms of development for example in the E2 Zone it's office- laboratory I'm sorry office-
manufacturing right now of course we're eliminating light manufacturing as a permitted use so that'll be changed to office laboratory just like the other zones and also in the E5 Zone which we're not changing any of the permitted uses presently under the permitted forms
of development uh heading there it it's it's termed Office business Zone that designation is actually a Remnant that should have been removed years ago um and the changing that to laboratory is um just consistent with the current framework of the zoning if you look down
to the um a couple paragraphs below there where it it says letter A uses and number one permitted uses says these zones are designated for office and laboratory uses and the the the headings and and
some of the terms are just changed to be consistent with all of that um turnning to her page two moving to page two typ on M Stakes for the record yeah Under The Heading master plan consistency it says the ordinance
is not inconsistent with the township 2010 master plan or the 2023 reexamination report actually it's the 2023 master plan that was reviewed by m mcmah it's it's not the reexamination
the 2023 reexamination report and cross out 2010 master plan and insert 2023 correct correct and then there's one more typo of the next line I assume the next heading where it says 2023 re-examination report that should say
202 three master plan okay okay now what about her conclusions and her well right underneath the the main heading there master plan consistency is the finding that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the Township's 2023 master plan and she goes
on to site a few sections of the um master plan that are uh that support that finding um the um you don't have to go through all of them but that's she has cited some uh Provisions in the master
plan where she says it's consistent with and take a look at if you would the uh December 3 letter from Mr Laughlin the third paragraph on page one um in your opinion is that a correct statement that if the master plan specifically
identifies the statutory purposes of Planning and Zoning that are identified in the municipal land use law spefically njsa 40 colum 55 d-2 purposes of the act and that would include quote to provide sufficient space in appropriate
locations for a variety of agricultural residential recreational commercial and Industrial uses and open space both public and private according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens the master plan does say
that correct I believe it does I'm not comparing it but and so what's your opinion on whether the ordinance Amendment whether
ordinance 2567 is inconsistent with this particular purpose of the master plan cited in paragraph 3 of the December 3rd 2024 letter say that again Mr L the point of Mr Laughlin's
thirdd paragraph is that it's signature Acquisitions position that ordinance 2567 is inconsistent with the purpose of the master plan through because of the
purpose of zoning to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations they've underlined industrial uses right in your opinion does is ordinance 256 and7 inconsistent with that purpose no I believe it's not inconsistent with
the master plan for the reason stated in Mr mcmanus' letter I understand M mcmanus' memo identifies the office employment zones providing major regional corporate office and employment opportunities she
identifies three of the goals goals One n and 15 she identifies two of the objectives land use and management objectives and four and she identifies two non-residential development objectives numbers one and two I understand that you agree with M Ms
mcmanis that the ordinance is consistent with those let's say hypothetically if the ordinance was inconsistent with the purpose of zoning to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses and the ordinance was consistent
with these other things if an ordinance is inconsistent with part of the master plan does that make the ordinance inconsistent consistent or not inconsistent it doesn't make it inconsistent okay and then I'm going to
get back to in your opinion does ordinance 2567 is it inconsistent with that one purpose cited in the third paragraph on page one of Mr Lin's letter you said it's not but I just want it for the
record it may be as to that one right section but I don't I don't think that makes it inconsistent with the master plan okay so your opinion overall it's not inconsistent with the master plan no okay for the reason stated in best memo
correct and taking into account Mr Lin's letter understanding yes that okay any board members have any questions from Mr Shai do any board members have any questions from Mr Sly everyone shaking their head no no no someone want to make
so here are your options right option one is it's inconsistent with the master plan option two it's not inconsistent with the master plan option three it's consistent with the master plan let's go I recognize this is not in hearing would I have the opportunity to
respond to what you're um said you don't have the right but you want to it's up to the chair yeah if you I mean I think it's took this time to come and uh I appreciate it and thank you for the thank you board for your courtesy sure my name is Keith llin uh Lou G Lin of
the law firm angino Taylor and um I understand that my letter was uh delivered today and thank you board members for considering it um in addition to the paragraph that was read before I just think it's important for the record to note that um I represent
signature Acquisitions LLC which previously filed an application with the township of Bernard's uh zoning board for preliminary final M major site plan approval and this is in second paragraph of my letter to um construct two mixed
use buildings of light manufacturing space and office space which after years of meetings was denied by the zoning board on November 14 2024 on the second page which I know what you're going to read I'm obviously
let you read it okay the planning board what the statute says they have to do is review the ordinance against the master plan recogn recognizing that whatever your client says was proper or improper targeting by the governing body that's not before that I recognize that I just
want to think it's important that the board have the full information as to our position here we believe that the Genesis of this ordinance is improper and a political targeted purpose to prevent our applicant from proceeding with not only the application that was
denied but any future development of the site with our proposed use and that's all I want to say and my suggestion to the board is okay you listen that's not before you and just because he said it doesn't mean it's true or not and this
is for the township attorney but there's case law but this is not for the board saying that if an ordinance has an improper and improper purpose if a proper purpose can uphold the ordinance but that's beyond our strike recognizing that and when this comes before the P
committee for the public hearing I assume you're going to be there and that's what you're going to say we will be there and we will say that but just think it's important for the record to have that and again we maintain that it's not consistent for the reason state in our letter and thank you for your time appreciate it thank you Mr thank
thank you for coming okay so uh again any comments uh anyone want to make a motion yeah motion um that ordinance 2567 is not plan of
202 I'll I'll Mr quo second thank you miss m strel roll roll call please miss kefir Mr craane okay recused I'm sorry uh Mr kuzo yes Mr
riorio yes Mr linski yes M Master Angelo yes Mr Rino yes chairman de yes thank you okay thank you take care have a good
night okay next item on the agenda is the modification of condition yeah we get our our peeps back good point always thinking y
you're right representing yeah and you're doing a darn great job of it we have everyone back Mr Crane welcome back Mr Seville did you enjoy your quality time quity
time okay next item on the agenda is the modification of condition uh which is an extension of time for Fellowship Village block 9301 lot 33 address 8,000 Fellowship Road and 55 Allen Road
application PB 22-5 I believe this is the um the staff housing right okay okay can you identify yourself for the record uh yes I can uh good evening uh for the record Kenneth mcferson of the
law firm Gibbons PC uh on behalf of the applicant Fellowship Village Inc uh the owner and operator of the existing uh Continuing Care retirement community at 8,000 Fellowship Road and 55 Allen Road uh designated as
block 9301 lot 33 and block 941 lot 9 uh this this is pb22 58 so as the chairman asked is this the
stat housing it is okay so the board adopted a resolution when doing what uh so the the board adopted a resolution uh let's see
here uh yes thank you October 1st 2023 uh and um our office yeah granted uh preliminary and final site plan approval and conditional use approval uh for the construction of the
staff housing uh at the property parking areas that had a condition in there saying what that you are seeking to modify and extend yes condition number one of the resolution
um which states required plan revisions it did plan revisions and they must be uh signed by the board by October 3rd 20124 so Fellowship is requesting a modification of that condition uh to
allow Fellowship uh our letter says 90 days but uh tonight we're requesting a 9month extension so you're requesting from October 3 2024 to what date uh July 3rd 2025 okay and the reason for the extension
request is uh couple different reasons uh first just on the 9mon just to allow enough time for the board's professionals to review and comment appropriately um but more the the bigger
reasons um my colleague Jennifer Philips Smith submitted a letter to the board October 27th 2024 uh requesting the modification um fellow was worked diligently uh to address the conditions of approval I think it was August 27 was
did what did I say October August thank you August October I know I know August 27th okay 2024 thank you Mr chairman um has work Fellowship has worked diligently to address the conditions of approval in the
resolution however before finalizing the tree replacement and Landscaping elements of the site plan uh Fellowship first undertook uh to resolve the landscape buffer uh plan for application pb1
13-6 um which was the resolution that was approved adopted uh this evening yes we remember that very well yes yes um and that of course is based on the report of the landscape committee that
was appointed for that application and basically saying that took so much time that you needed it finally resolved before you could do well they were hoping to get some treat credit I understand yes you needed that resolved we needed that resolved you can get the
before we can move ahead to finalizing these site plans because of you know the possibility that y some of this would impact what we're proposing as far as landscaping and I do uh Fellowship does have a witness here uh this evening um
civil engineer uh for the site anyone have any questions for the engineer but where where are you with well I think the uh engineer that would be a good question we do have question well my only question is is it
nine months going to be enough um yes and we can have the engineer address that but I think we are confident and Mr I think Mr SCH U might agree also come on up and again this is I don't mind let's get everyone sworn in just in case
does everyone here swear or affirm that the testimony you're any given this matter or any comments you might make would be the truth the hold to nothing but the truth yes I do yes yes identify yourself for the record please uh Daniel dockerty Dynamic engineering and slow d
o u g h e r t y okay next rice good g o o d board engineer David schide planner okay you heard a couple questions you might as well yes um I appeared before the board for the for
the application for 55 Allen gave testimony for the civil engineering um as um um Council had represented we wanted to make sure we had a clear separation between the landscape items that were still open before we proceeded
with resolution compliance um there are a couple things we didn't we didn't expect the landscape items to really go on that long uh but there are we didn't either Mutual sorry um so in tabling our resolution compliance um some of the
items that were tabled uh we did put together our plans we've got our basically all our plans drafted up but one of the elements that we couldn't complete um was the finalizing of the storm waterer management design more importantly the geotechnical
investigation that would go along with that um the um the uh Township's requirements via uh the d uh njc njac 7 colon 8 storm water management requirements um include um a timeline
for geotechnical investigations uh for the purposes of storm water management and determining seasonal high water table um there's a time period a wet season and a dry season during that time period where you can perform those tests um for when you don't observe uh actual
modeling in the in the soils so we want to perform those tests during the wet season because we are precluded from being able to do that uh during the dry season um and so it it saves us some some double double efforts so that dry season or that wet season is only from
January through a through April so at the end of April this past 2024 we're precluded from being able to perform that test so we have to wait until January to perform the tests at which time we'd be able to promptly submit for review U by your Professionals for resolution compliance I expect we'll
have an exchange of some at least one review letter um if not a couple and that's that's the reasoning for asking for the nine months is that we have sufficient time and reasonable time to have that review and response take place um up and and and including some
administrative time for all that to take place and have the board sign the plans because that's really the the end of the timeline is for the board to sign the plans and nine months is going to run from October 3rd so it's really seven months yeah and so is that enough
uh de so again it's so July 3 2025 is that enough time in my estimation yes I understand the board I mean you ask for ask for take it out ask to
take it out to December 31 I mean unless 2025 I would think a year would do yes the applicant would agree to that December 31st 2025 yeah I'd just rather not see you back here thank
you in a nice way we appreciate it take agenda yeah okay uh I'm sorry Mr Crane did you have a question Maybe Can't there was also
the the architect was going to design the architect was going to design a front facing rear yes yes that been done that's been completed yeah okay yeah the architectural renovation or revisions per the board's comments has been
completed we also we I think we also going to check the tree diameters on the site David yeah wasn't there supposed to be's office did a a tree survey on that
microphone really yeah as loud as I am for for the record for the recording yes our office completed a review of the the trees on site including diameter of the various trees and we have provided a plan to the board which we can reapply as necessary but we we did provide a
plan showing a tree count that's all all questions I have thank you okay I guess we're ready for a motion yeah so uh would someone like to make a motion to modify condition number
one to extend the time within which the site plans have to be signed from October 3 2024 to December 31 2025 sove now second so M mangelo made the motion and Mr Demian
second um what's that Mr cran yes yes yes linski yes M Master Angelo yes Mr yes Mr yes chairman Demers yes
thank you okay uh next item on the Mr Crane are you gonna be asking for extension for building permit no they won't need that because that's tied in to well you better check it's a good
point right check the condition in that resolution for how long you have to get it's going to be two it's going to be October 2025 two years so they got more time to revise the plans than they to get yeah so let's
can we come back uption so either give them to the to 1231 2025 to get the construction permit and then maybe what
October 3 2025 to get the plan revisions do you you guys are planning to go right to construction after the I mean is this a fluid oh yes I it's uh fluid they're uh want to develop the uh the project as soon as possible the same
date I would give it at least another six months to June 30 just to allow for review of construction permits what condition number is the construction permit that yes seech Mr cran yes and thank you
14 so page you know 21 what's the current date they need to get the concession permit October 3rd 2025 so I assume that you're going to request that condition number 14 also be modified to extend the date by which you
need to get a construction permit to June 30th 2026 yes we'd like to make that that uh specific request so the plans by December 31st 2025 and the construction permit by June
3r 2026 correct say that again I'm G to amend my motion let's just just make a new motion okay I'm G to make a new motion right to modify the condition for
the plans to be submitted by December 31 2 and the construction permits condition number 14 yep to be modified to be modified to be June 3rd 2026 is that correct Mr that's yep
that's correct so that's the new motion to replace the old motion someone going to second that motion I'll second that motion going to be a brand new vote we're going to June 30th yeah June 30th
June June let's say it's June 30th 2026 what the heck months after the per okay I June 3r uh June 30th would would be great okay so June 30th excuse me thank you okay a roll call Miss Mr Crane
yes yes Mr Rio yes Mr linski yes Miss Master Angela yes Mr yes Mr yes uh chairman yes thank you okay um next item on the agenda is
the review of the annual parking report for Fellowship Village block 9301 lot 33 8,000 Fellowship Road uh application PB 13-6 and on this one can you ask Mr SCH
what role the board what's what's the board supposed to be doing with this okay I will ask Mr SCH Mr SCH Mr you take that you this I think I could address it or try to anyway um
thank you again uh Ken mcferson Gibbons PC uh on uh on behalf of the applicant Fellowship Village Inc uh this is in relation as Mr drill said application number PB
13-6 block 9301 l 9 UM 8,000 Fellowship Road um for the board's reference this is uh the resolution adopted October 18th 2016 uh that was preliminary and final
uh site plan approval and conditional use approval um and in that for the big expansion for the big expansion um uh for which uh construction you know construction is completed um in in that
resolution condition number 22 I'll I think I'll just read it that's a good idea okay um condition number 22 it says parking Management program dated February 16th 2016 the applicant
shall Implement and abide by the parking Management program a copy of which is attached here to and Incorporated by reference here in uh and then the other relevant portion of that condition 22 is uh imple
implementation of guideline number seven of the parking Management program uh dated February 16 2016 which states the following uh Point number seven are for two full calendar years following the issuance of a per Perman uh of a
permanent certificate of occupancy for the final building covered by the approval of the site plan application pb1 13- 00006 Fellowship will prepare a comprehensive annual parking demand study by a qualified independent
professional the annual parking report will include the conduct of on-site parking demand counts to identify Peak parking demands by residents and employees as identified by decal decals hang tags visitor parking and vacant
spaces uh the vacant space is will be tabulated separately for each location identified a number three above and shall also include a study of the health center lot and upper oval parking area uh demand studies shall be conducted on
typical days of operation at fellowship and shall include a minimum of four weekday during the late a and early PM periods a minimum of two Theater events shall be included in the study to ascertain Peak onsite parking
for outside group events uh quick aside on on the theater parking from on October on uh September 20th 2022 uh the board memorialized a resolution granting applicants request
to modify uh condition this condition number 22 allowing the use of the on-site uh theater multi-purpose room without any limitations except the limitation prohibiting performances or Productions on weekdays between the peak hours of 4 to S um and then the last
paragraph of this uh guideline number seven of the parking Management program condition number 22 the annual parking report shall be submitted by December 1st to the planning board staff planner and the planning and Engineering consultants for review professionals
will provide recommendations to fellowship and the planning board for discussion at least 10 days prior to the first regularly scheduled meeting in January of the following year calendar year a public hearing will not be required for this review and attendance by Fellowship is discretionary
Fellowship will voluntarily comply with the planning board's decision um we don't have witnesses here tonight uh Fellowship um they have a holiday tree lighting event going on this evening otherwise um Mark agular the executive
director would have been here uh this evening and also our our uh fellowships Consulting engineer Mr Gary Dean it was also unavailable uh tonight um but NE nevertheless
um so that's the condition uh and speaking of Gary Dean of Dolan and Dean Consulting Engineers he submitted a uh the park the required parking evaluation report on May 3rd 2024 uh Fellowship submitted an
additional parking report dated September 27th 2024 uh to address the corresponding report of uh Mr Good the board's engineer dated July 15th 2024 and then uh Mr Good issued an
additional report uh dated November 12th 2024 uh which notably found that the existing parking capacity at fellowships property is sufficient to meet fellowship's current demands um our office submitted a letter to the board uh from my colleague Miss
Smith dated November 25th 2024 in which uh Fellowship agrees to address the remaining parking data discrepancies as well as the status of the parking program uh the implementation of the parking program
guidelines what was that last date uh sure November 25th 2024 November you're right I'm sorry no thank you for double checking me I was I was wrong before so I appreciate um okay um
so Fellowship said they would in our letter would address those in the next report um we're we're asking uh this evening that uh the board withhold any judgment on additional reports thereafter until until we have a chance
to address those which we're confident and Mr Dean is confident uh that he can do adequately um and that that's pretty much it so uh there were several letters uh I know Bryce you've been working with
Mr Dean or there was some some some U uh discussion between the two of you and you still had some recommendations right yes sir so so to take a step back uh to answer Mr drill's Question um we
as the board engineer uh as noted in the reading of the condition uh 22 guideline 7 that the annual report will be submitted for review so that report from May 3rd as noted was submitted we did a review on July 15th
as noted a response was provided to us on September 27th as noted and we issued a new report on November 12th since that time I had a conversation with Mr dean of Dolan and Dean uh about our reports
both reports specifically the latest report and what can be done to rectify by the various items that are identified in our two reports um mainly the items that are identified in the two reports for the edification of the board you have our
report I'm sure you've read it but the highlights are that um the resolution was very specific on what needed be provided uh the number of reports when they were to the to the fact of the date of when they need to be submitted by and what information was will be included um
identifying Peak data at certain times of the day uh and very specifically to each of the parking areas so some of that needs to be resolved also the resolution had 11 guidelines in condition number 22 not all 11 guidelines were identified and reported
to in the annual report that was provided Mr Dean you fully believes that he can address those in future report reports we'll leave that up to the board's discretion we believe that two may be necessary one for sure is
obviously absolutely absolutely necessary um though we do identify in our report that it appears that the parking is sufficient there's quite a bit of discrepancies in the data that was provided um the the data was provided was pretty comprehensive by the
on-site staff to the point where they counted parking more times than was needed in the resolution it just was not presented in that manner and one of the biggest discrepancies that we found was these were averages that they did on a
monthly basis for the years 21 22 and 23 reviewing that data we found there was averages and and what was in this report was available parking spaces for example the available parking spaces in
August of for the Antioch parking handicap was 2.1 the average was 2.1 available parking spaces there's two handicap spaces how do you have more available than you have parking it's an average so therefore some are below some
are over but how do you possibly have more available than there is and handicap parking is a pretty simple one they're marked so and I'm not trying to demean the person who did the work I'm sure they did it diligently what our stance is looking at
this data it brings a point of how accurate is the data if I find these obvious issues isues and that's what you know that's just one example there's multiple of those examples throughout the reports and that was the one that was the obvious was that you
know wait a minute how do you have more available spaces than there are spaces there's a lot of discrepancies between the plan of how many parking spaces were in each parking lot you know is there 120 127 124 that needs to be tied down there is
a certain number of parking spaces that were in the approved plans so those should be consistent throughout who's who compiled the data did Mr Dean's office compile it or did Fellowship staff compile it gave it to Mr Dean and
he put in a chart or what so in May in in Mr Dean's May 30th 2024 report he included a single Peak demand count that they did on April 12th of 2024 from 10:00 a.m and at 4 pm so they did the AM
and PM on that one specific day that was done by Mr Dean's office everything else was done by everything else was done completed by staff at Fellowship Village I don't know how many counts they did they they provided tables three tables for the different years every month for
all the available par all the different parking spaces through the different parking lots can can you go back read the condition again read the condition in the planning board resolution specifically um it's guideline number seven right right so guideline seven
just picking out the piece demand study shall be conducted on typical days of operation at Fellowship Village and shall include a minimum of four week days during the late a and early PM periods a minimum of two Theater events shall be
included so stop for a second but it doesn't say who is supposed to do the demand study but guidelin seven came from Mr Dean's office correct I believe my recol it's been a while but my recollection is
that these guidelines the board asked for suggestions he made these suggestions he Mr Dean submitted this and the board then accepted that and made it a condition in the resolution earlier in in guideline seven Fellowship Village will prepare a
comprehensive annual parking demand study to be completed by a qualified independent professional right not correct so to me it's Crystal Clear that that hasn't been done well the
report was submitted by qualifi I understand read that sentence again has to so I just will prepare a comprehensive annual parking demand study to be completed by a qualified independent professional to be
complet and and it says study not report right so either way can comply in the next report so the so when I said before so what so the the board has this report
seems to me you have again just like you have POS different scenarios one is to say yeah we'll wait till the next one to for you to do it right or you could say you know what so how how how many reports were they supposed to do and how
two what intervals so they were supposed to do two full calendar year for for four two full calendar year so they're supposed to do two reports on a calendar year basis to submitted by December 1st
of each year once the certificate of icy for the final building has been issued which you know we have one report that's the time frame so so when you say a for a full calendar year so it's two it's
two reports two reports for two for for full calendar years meaning in order to meet this requirement of the four week days and all that and and the Theater events it gave them time to do that
data the resolution wasn't specific to say that you had to do counts every single week every single month or anything like that it just you had to do a report once a year to provide data on typical days and during the peak days now didn't Define how many how many
typical days that sort of thing this constitutes one report and it wasn't averages right the the resolution SP spoke nothing of averages it was all well it spoke pretty clearly about counts right on a Aver not averages
right so a report has been issued and this is why we're recommending that two more be done the board can decide after the next one if they find that theyve really addressed all of our concerns and discrepancies that one is another it appears overall when's the next report
due in like sometime around June this so the resolution stated December 1 year from now no this year this year well this year 2025 they're trying to amate what they deficit on right and we're confident we could do that so they
submitted a report in 2024 it was submitted in May of 2024 the resolution said they submit reports by December 1st Okay so the timing is off okay so to say that they need to submit by December 1st of 2024 well they did submit a report by
December 1st they submitted it may in May but it was submitted before December 1st so the next report is due by December 1st 2025 right this my this is where I'm going with this the May report
didn't follow the guidelines of what the condition right basically so it wasn't a so what it wasn't well it's basically try to address that it's it's an attempt at a committed at a report had a lot of issues kind or it had some issues we'll say technical professionals back and
forth so the next report in other words do you when do you restart the clock with using a professional if they've been collecting data with doing it the same way since May or since the last report
it's still at that time frame is can I ask something yes is what you're requesting through Mr Dean that the board basically give you a pass on this one and wait till the report that has to be
submitted before December 1 2025 to see if you're doing it right that's your request correct in essence I wouldn't phrase it give us a pass it's a little bit uh you know it's kind of a we're trying our best to comply with the condition but what they are requesting
is that we don't we don't make them do two more reports and throw this one out that you don't make them do a redo on this one right and another that you wait until the report this du before December 1 2025 I'm not taking a position on I'm saying understand so I just want to make
sure they do it right so in other words if they were going to use data from six months ago you've been collecting that data which they did wrong the first time you well the report isn't due till next December right well I'll tell you Mr chair I'll tell you uh fellowship and Mr Dean are very intent on getting it right
s in this process of a lot of letters it's been a lot of work a lot more Focus um on all sides from our side Mr Dean is going to be focused on working with yeah I mean and I didn't dig you know this is Bryce's job I read the reports there was like you know was it would have taken me
six hours just to right there's a lot that's why you guys that's why we pay him that's right I didn't take six hours you did a great job by the way Bryce seriously go ahead this was I my
question is your bottom line is you think there is sufficient parking it's just the manner of collection of the data has been a little Inc so it it appears like I said there's a lot of it's a lot of discrepancies that need to be clarified
um overall for the whole facility it appears there there's there's enough parking based upon the counts average not average Peak so we don't need to look for a problem we can give them some time it it appears that there is parking available throughout the whole site now
is each individual parking lot right I don't I can't Analyze That properly because of the inconsistencies it's too hard to sell which Mr Dean and I discussed like I said we had a phone conversation my you know based upon that phone conversation I have confidence that Mr Dean understands what we're
looking for can I make a suggestion whatever the board's going to decide on this there should be memorialization of that so it there should be some document coming from you Bryce and Mr Dean or you know getting a
confirmation that this is what they will do going forward and and then then the board can do a resolution not tonight look to see what the board how the board wants to handle it but then have it done with a
piece of paper that Bryce runs by Mr Dean and then Bryce tells us this is what they're going to do for this the next report that's due before December 1 2025 if that's what you're going to let is that in your final letter so sort
of with with respect Mr drill I would say that that is in the November 12th report does Mr Dean agree with everything yes yes because he told you on the phone yes but if Mr Dean was replaced we don't have a resolution in
place to you still have my November 12th 2024 report we're on the record Put it on the record you agree with everything said in his November 2 yes yes and we think the November we can address it's specific enough Mr good did a good job on the most recent all of them but November
12th specifically uh fellowship and Mr Dean feel like we have a clear idea of how to address it and are working now to do it so could we could do a resolution then tonight based on his November 25th letter based on the representation of fellowship's attorney that they agree with everything in there if that's the
way you want to go and not make them do a redo that's November 12th November 12th yeah well I don't think we're ready to decide if we want to redo we want to look at the next parking report right
and our recommendation at a minimum in our in the November 12th report we recommend two more reports if the based upon the November 25th letter from fellowship Village there asking for only one more because
saying don't so what I would what I recommend tonight to the board is to at a minimum one more report to determine if they provide everything that's in the resolution I'm not trying
to question their data they need to follow what's in the resolution St for a second you guys agree with everything in his November 12 2024 letter including two reports no not the two reports we uh in our letter submitted um November 25
thank you uh we asked the board to withhold judgment on whether two additional reports are needed but just to until when withhold judgment until the Mr Good has an opportunity to the next report is submitted the reviewed
and when's the next report going to be submitted well it has to be submitted before the end of the year but the board well I mean before the end of 2024 right 2024 or 202
2025 so one year right right so they agree with everything in bra's letter except they don't want to do they don't want to do two reports they want to do one report they want the board to withhold judgment for a year because we're confident we can address it and
get it into you sooner rather than later well okay sooner rather than later so how soon how how soon before December 1st i' Mr Dean would be able to I don't want to you know necessarily throw out a date saying I don't you're going to have
some you're going to deliberate and have some idea of what you want done but I don't think we can do a resolution until we get answers to this to exactly what at least they're willing to do it for not willing you to make them
do it but that's that's the request right made a recommendation like the two the two reports by when would you like the next report F I don't want to I don't necessarily want to drag things out I I believe
though to get they give the best opportunity for Fellowship Village to address these items in one report allow them to collect data that follows the resolution provide a report that follows a resolution by when by when give them
until December 1st of 2025 so they so you agree with that if they submit earlier that's fine but I think that would be I think we stick to what because basically what we're looking for is then to follow the resolution the resolution says December 1st backing off the two reports you're now saying one
report by December 1 2025 as long as they follow everything else in your letter is that correct so my recommendation tonight is that yes let do one contingent upon them doing everything that was asked of them and at that time the board can evaluate if an
additional report is necessary but at the end of the day when we eventually get this one report and it's you know uh November 30th and that report is insufficient for by your standards and then ultimately our
standards we have no time for a second or even third report within the calendar year of 2025 that'd be correct the the original plan was to doe calendar year so um the plan would be if they submit in your hypothetical they submit
November 30th of 2025 we review it in 10 days we say it's we recommend that it's not sufficient the board agrees with our recommendation it's not sufficient they would have to do another report in 2026 so Mr good what you know I I wish you
weren't backing down from your two reports and and clarifying what those two reports are so the first report what I think are what you're saying is that first report is a redo of the 2024 report the report that should have taken place and should have been accurate I
think if we do that I think there will then be an alignment on what you're expecting what the applicant is expecting and we get this all right the only the first time so to speak I don't think do I don't think they can redo because just because the data has to be
collected it wasn't collected correctly so I think I I read Bryce's letter is saying he wants one by June 30th then you can tell if they're on the right track and then the second one by December 1st now he didn't have the dates in there but that's how I read that okay am I right thank you Mr drill
from the letter the intent of the letter no okay what was the intent of the two the two reports when and when by December 1st of each calendar year okay but what data would you be using in that first report the new data that they're collecting that matches the
resolution not I would not consider the 2025 report as a redo of the 2024 report because they're collecting new data okay the new data for the two reports will all the data sets will be coming from
20125 that would be my understanding unless they have data collected in late of 2024 because say the report was from may they may have data they've been collecting since we've been collecting data is my understanding Fellowship has been yeah but it's it's again that goes back to my point before it's got to be
collected by properly right by is that part of the problem that Fellowship collected the data wasn't collected by the independent we don't know at this point how the delay the the data that was collected in 2024 after the May report was issued how that was collected or what was collected that will have to
be determined once we see it in the report and we could clarify that in the next report exactly who uh collect the data don't know how the data is being collected but we have to assume because this didn't surface until recently that it wasn't collected per the conditions
no we I mean Fellowship would say that the data was collected on site as required by the resolution and on site by an independent person well there was a site visit by Mr Dean not collected by independent Authority which is the issue so
can I make aend can I make a recommendation let's get a report by June makeing that commitment and and so you're saying so the planning board with hold judgment get a report by June 30th
by by by Dean professional his office has to collect the data his office um completes the report the study his office collects the data his office completes the stud study by submits it by June 30th and then the
board withholds judgment until then we'll forget about what happened on this last one you get bry's opinion on that and then you guys can just say yeah we're good you'll do one last report we may wait you might wait yeah so in other words you're asking us not
to commit to two reports I think we're all willing to at this time not Jud commit to the requirement for two more reports provid submit what is required what is required by June 30th and the board's interpretation of what is required is
data collection and Report prepar study preparation and study completion all by the independent entity not by staff by Mr Dean and or his office is that correct that's correct and uh Fellowship that that's
reasonable to Fellowship you know they want nothing more than to finish this out with exactly Mr good is looking for do any resolution on that because we're going to have all this in the minutes right Cindy yes so other words we'll Reserve judgment it's yeah that's somebody for
the minutes make a motion well wait I'm not ready I have a couple other minor maybe silly questions but I'm going to ask anyway so the data had for example 2.1 2.2 parking spaces right available
Park available available but can you have a a fraction of a parking space available like should they round down these were these were averages be averages at least so by having an average you do a count and you do I count two I count three I count two
I count four I count one 1 plus 2 plus 2 plus 3 plus 4 divided by five is a is a decimal right and that's what they came up with it should not be an average on the same page but you said you went like this and I went like that right like the
FedEx saying shouldn't be no fair enough should not be an average it should be typical days and Peak demands and that's what his letter says now at the end of the day when we get the act the report with with the properly acquired data um
and it and what if we don't have enough parking spaces that's well even with then what do we do this the report we submitted uh Mr Good's wor case reports well I don't know I'll try to address your hypothetical after but the report finds that there is adequate parking at
Fellowship for the current demand that's in the report now that's you know okay I'm already looking for the solution but okay fair enough problem engineer incorrect correctly they're
agreeing to do it correctly and get it on June 30th you guys would be agreeing to judgement you review that so um W it up yeah so the our board attorney uh suggested that we make a motion yeah the motion would be and what I'm hearing is
the board would make a motion to withhold judgment on the parking study issue until after reviewing a new report to be submitted by June 30th 2024 and that
report to be done and the study done in accord with condition uh guideline 7 and condition 22 which is everything is done by the independent traffic Consulting both um the
counts everything okay uh so can I have a motion so moved yes I so move as to what Mr drill has just outlined I'll second that
motion thank you Mr mangelo all righty Mr Crane yes Mr kzo yes Mr yoro yes Mr linski yes yes yes
yes yes okay thank you very much happy holidays to everyone thank you thank you the next item on the agenda is uh any comments from Members board members John you have a
comment yeah I have a comment um some of you might know I've been in the building industry development industry retired now for about 45 years through those years I got to see a lot of planning boards and uh this planning
board is one of the top notch ones that I've seen and we should be proud of the diverse well educated gr that we've got here that's a thank you John thank you what do you
want I got I that's what I really talk and John I just want to say that um in all seriousness you your input on this board is very very helpful
Cly to me as the chairman I you know I I appreciate your expertise and um yeah can I say something and I enjoy sitting next to him and I hope you leave him next to me for this coming year I want a year to year and uh yes so thank you and
and to the entire board and the professionals and Bryce I think you did a great job on that parking report I've read through these meows like you know where are we going with this but um yeah so so great job and David as always and Cindy thank you
thank you thank you and everybody dan and and so um next item I guess that's it other comments have January meeting well actually we're not ready we I think we have a December 17th we have a
December 17th meeting calendar um at this time we are not prepared I will not know until Friday at the earliest as to whether we're going to have that meeting or not but as soon as I know you will know okay thank you that
okay any other comments questions no staff no again okay Mr Rino yes question for Bryce the uh the parking spaces 2.1 is the average those are handicap
spaces I'm going to look real quick so I don't misspeak uh off the top of my head most of those those ended up being handicap spaces which was interesting in in in that sense right so I'm just wondering because there's going to be so
so you know so many more regular spaces over handicap spaces should they distinguish the two when they do the averages so don't get distorted I think they do right so they they are they do distinguish between all the various
spaces there are handicap there's 15minute parking he was just using that as an example of discrep that was flying off the page I don't know how they do that it's yeah gotta good okay I I have any others no I
have one other question or um yeah question for Miss kefir you uh sent out this um it's a state development and Redevelopment plan cross acceptance letter that was written to the mayor yes do we do there was some
mention of planning those are always those are always forwarded to me and since they're of a planning I've been asked to C them to the board if there's any interest in reading them or whatever but that's exactly why may it's kind of an
FYI yeah okay thank you to Paul to that point or chairman to that point there I think there's an assignment of representation yes and so was that assignment made do you know Cindy should
I it is not something that that falls under my purview and I don't know okay the township did decide that and the county and the uh State Planning Commission accepted the fact that the township will go with somerson County as
their representative and coordinator and like we had done in the past actually I think it was a suggestion from the highlands Council that the highlands Council be the go between um between the town and the
direct CR acceptance okay suggest in other words there's no action on our part no no okay uh on that note if there are no other questions comments uh I will ask for a motion to adjourn the meeting so move
second second second the meeting is adjourned thank you everyone C