Okay. Yes. The open public meetings act. Please note the following. All burn planning board meetings will be held in person at meeting hall on the second floor of the burn municipal building at 166 road.
Meetings will be live streamed on YouTube with but with no opportunity for public comment. Members of the public wishing to offer comments or ask questions will be required to attend meetings in person. The YouTube live stream access for all
meetings is YouTube at Burnersville Buroughs. This link will also be available on the agenda for each meeting which is posted on the burough website.org and on the burough hall public bulletin
board at least 48 hours prior meetings. Notice of these changes has also been emailed to the Burnerville News and in the third news by posting a copy on the burough website and by filing a copy the municipal clerk on January 23rd, 2025.
It's the intention of the board not to continue any matter past 11 p.m. at any regular or special meeting of the board unless the motion is passed by the members of the president to extend to a later specified cut and same shall be announced at the opening of the meeting.
In addition, the board is not intended to get a new hearing after 10 p.m. or begin testifying of a new witness after 10:30 p.m. Any hearing conducted by the board is it cause any judicial proceeding? Any questions or comments must be limited to
issues that relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching the decision. The quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Roll call. Morco is absent. Miss Geller present.
Mr. Graham here. New board member Mr. Malia here. Mr. Morrison here. Mr. Saskato. Mr. Paso is going to via Zoom and he's
just having some difficulty getting his face to show. Mr. Mr. Siml here, Mr. Walden here, and Mr. Zazarino here. Mr. No, no.
Okay. Uh, communications relates to 114, which is the that's across the street from town. and so conservation
environmental planning. Is anyone here for something that's not on the agenda tonight? There are two chances to if you are okay. I see none. There are no resolutions.
Um so under business we this the routine thing we pay our bills. So uh any discussion here? Oh, it is there. I'm sorry.
I move to pay the bills. 9,643, please. Second roll call. M yellow. Yes. Mr. Graham. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr. Marvin. Yes. Mr.
Yes. Mr. Could you try turning up your volume? Yes. Yes. And it does not. Yes. See, we're okay with basically a default
saying, I guess, unless he didn't he he gave the confirmed for that. We're going to I believe we've confirmed that he can hear us. We still need to confirm that we can hear him.
Can you hear me now? Yes sir. Wait, is that isn't it? Yeah. Because I think Can we hear you? Board member Sat, can you say something so we can confirm we
can hear you? Yes, I can hear all of you. Can you hear me? No, he's okay. Mr. Chim, we have enough members of the board to pass that particular motion. I'll make a determination with respect to Mr. Sass.
Um, okay. technology. All right. So, we're up to the main event which is the it's fairly usual um which is whispering with public hearing
and then I'm well I think that echoing the We have a meeting that board member so there's not particip Mr. chairman and just for the record this is a Bville LC 395
Mark town road what we referred to not that not not that one time I whispering words public hearing upon the settling of the land use board litigation excuse me litigation post a initial determination
uh the first thing I want to do is confirm that all our board members are qualified are consulted with our board secretary who has confirmed confirmed for me as she will again right now I suspect that all board members on Dis as well as board member SO
hear him and he's able to hear and I still find out uh have been present at all the hearings or listen to the reporting for any hearings they were not present for uh and they have all certified such reconfirm that on record.
Yes, absolutely. everyone for whatever meetings they miss or they weren't at any of these last year. everyone including our new board and they now have an opportunity if both Denise and I are wrong to let us know
the wrong and hearing nomine speak now forever holding peace they say so and we reconfirmed and reconfirmed again that all board members are qualified um with the possible exception board
you're working on the audio and be sound him as well. The uh if you can't do it without the major on board the um let me put this in
context for everybody. Uh the uh municipal land use law and case law is very clear when uh settlements are encouraged in land use board matters. Uh and in fact
there's the process pursuant to among other cases of the most famous for lack of better terms the woods case. There's a procedure for having settlements. First of all, specifically as this matter, this matter
was a four four uh vote for approval. In essence, what constitutes what you call a statutory denial on the initial application by this applicant. Subsequently, there was a prerogative appeal which is the way
one does not like the result brings appeal to the superior court and the applicant on that statuto denial did so. We responded. There were settlement negotiations uh and uh ultimately a settlement
agreement that was unanimously approved by way of a resolution authorizing the execution of that settlement agreement and an associated consenting. Thank you for the explanation. Uh
was in place as a brief explanation for the council law work to these matters. Uh when a matter which has been appealed from municipal board to the court can be settled while the matter is pending. Hear whispering woods be middle township
220 super 161. The law division case the um I'm sorry. What was that? Oh, okay. The the um there's also the case of friendl. We're not going to
understand why it is a mixual Remember to set up my view. as an I've already same echo we're okay now
I I believe so and although members of the public brought to my attention that maybe there's the possibility we could have board member Sassel call in so that he could be heard uh to once he can hear everything. But
if we can confirm he can see everything and hear everything which is already occurring maybe he can telephone in we can hear him as well perhaps. That doesn't work.
You can see everything from here. I think he can he can hear it, but maybe he can with dial. Can Can you dial in as well? Dial. Zoom. Oh, yeah. You could dial into
You can dial into the Zoom. Yeah, I gave him that information. I'm happy to call if you just keep them on mute. Yeah, absolutely. Oh, thanks. Um, I got
you. Oh, please. I'm sorry. Home. I got while he's working more pages. a lot back to what I whispering with s I know
waiting bait to hear the uh so any matter that's appeal from municipal board maybe settled by the parties pursuant to whispering woods as well as a friend of deep gladstone case and progyny and the
core elements are that any settlement is contingent on a public hearing on notice advertised to the public. The hearing solely addresses the settlement uh and it is followed by a public vote
uh and ultimately a written resolution memorializing the determination of the board. That is to the process. Please follow me. I have the um in this particular case I have uh Mr. Sel here now I'm going to um yeah if you want to unmute yourself
there. Thank you. Thank you. Now we need to board member Sass you can hear us. Can we hear you? He's on speaker here. He can hear us. Yes, I can hear you. Oh, nice. Okay, we can hear. Thank you. You
offered the uh again in this particular matter uh there was statuto denial, an appeal, ultimately a settlement. The board unanimously authorized the execution of
the consent order. uh in connection with a settlement that provides for the processes under the hearing of this case. That consent order uh would require that as soon as reasonably practicable following the consent order
that was entered by judge men in the superior court uh that pursuant to with a public hearing be held with Springwoods. Uh the public hearing must be conducted uh open to
public for comment and the settlement proposal voted on. Uh the board shall by reference fully incorporate into the public hearing the record previously com filed concerning the application including all the prior testimony. So in
other words, all proceedings that took place thus far are incorporated by reference uh and everybody has participated by watching and being here in in in public during the hearings uh andor uh
listening to the recordings. So this is not a redo of a prior hearing. Only those members of the board were present at all public hearings or who pursuant to the NL certify in writing to the board they read the transcript or listen to the recording of any public hearings
on the application from which they were absent shall be qualified to vote on the settlement proposal. That is all eight board members so long as we can continue to hear from board member Sasso and BC and hear us. The public hearing shall be
limited to considerations of the term of the settlement proposal. Again, this is the order of the court I reading from public comment and board deliberations and both uh the pliff shall notice the public hearing consistent with the requirements of the ML. I'll confirm
that in a moment. And the board shall consider the settlement proposal and at the conclusion of the public hearing shall vote and render a decision thereon as reasonably as soon as reasonably practicable but not later than 60 days following the vote. uh we are required
to memorialize the resolution setting forward by decision and if the settlement proposal is approved and a resolution memorializing it as such is timely adopted uh the plaintiff shall dismiss the litigation with prejudice
never again if the settlement proposal is not approved uh and within the time frame uh set a resolutionization uh then the parties are to promptly notify the report and where we can be in
a case management conference set up a briefing schedule and the litigation will continue. Uh so again it's where it's a unanimous settlement agreement on part of the board uh with the applicant. The settlement is the only thing that is
addressed in the hearing uh and uh the only contingency is to have this hearing uh open to the public with comment and deliberation vote. So with that, I do want to put on the record that as with every application, I reviewed the
notice. I found the content to be sufficient. I found it to be timely served and published. It was served by certified mail on July 10, published on July 10. Both of those dates being at least in fact more than 10 days prior to
this evening. So therefore the board does have jurisdiction to hear this whispering woods settlement presentation and Mr. Chairman with your permission at the appropriate time I'll swear in all the witnesses whether it be before or after
council uh makes his opening statement that we give him the opportunity. Okay. Whichever whatever is your pleasure. All right. Well, who's going to tell? I just uh my intention at the moment is uh just to have Evan Smith testify. So
and raise your right hand and our board professionals will raise their right hand as well. All of you swear to God or affirm that testimony of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but I do. Thank you all for being sworn in.
Just one more time. Uh Mr. Sasso, you can hear me? Can I hear you? Yes. Yes, I can. Thank you. I know we have eight board members qualified and ready to serve your
district settlement and the chair. Back to you or me. All right. Good evening everyone. My name is John Witchescala. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Englecino Taylor. Uh and it's my pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of AR and
Bernardsville LLC. Uh hard to believe, but it's been almost a year. Uh we were last here in August of 2024. Uh little bit of background. Uh and I know everyone's read transcripts, but there are some new board members. Uh
brief background, my client, uh is an affiliate entity owned by Advanced Realy Events Investors. Uh it is a privately held and fully integrated real estate investment development and management firm. Uh their headquarters are located about three miles from here in
Bedminster, New Jersey. Uh it is a company that was founded in 1979. Uh the company's developed over 20 million square feet of commercial space. Uh and they have over 3,300 multif family residential units throughout the northeast region that are part of their
uh ownership uh portfolio. Uh they do take pride in developing, owning, and managing their real estate assets. uh and they particularly specialize in high-end redevelopment and re revitalization projects such as the one that we are proposing here. Uh the
property that's the subject of this application is what is commonly known as the Palmer Square site. Uh it's located at 35 to 39 Olcott Square. Also has a street address of 5 Marstown Road. Uh it's designated as block 125 lots 1 2
and three. Uh property has been owned by the Palmer family dating back to at least the 1930s. Uh it is developed currently uh with several commercial buildings and a large surface parking lot to the rear. Uh back in 2022,
uh the burrow undertook a study of this particular property to determine whether it would be deemed an area in need of redevelopment under our uh New Jersey local redevelopment and housing law. before before that terminology uh it was actually whether the area was blighted.
It was the blighted area act. Uh they changed the name and the terminology in that regard. Uh a study was performed by the burough's professionals which resulted in the preparation of a a study. The map of the area uh was was
prepared as well. Uh and what that study found is that this area, this particular property constitutes an area in need of redevelopment. Um the hearings with respect to that when you come in for an area in need of redevelopment, there's actually a two-step process. First
instance comes before the planning board for a public hearing uh and then ultimately uh before the council. Those hearings were held back in the summer of 2022 about three years ago. Um, and with the ultimate determination being made that this property constitutes an area
in need of redevelopment, uh, mayor and council adopted a, uh, formal resolution in September of 2022, uh, that made that determination. So, that's the first step in the redevelopment process. Next step is looking at development of a
redevelopment plan that's under the redevelopment law. Uh in that regard, the municipalities professionals uh again prepared a redevelopment plan. And what that redevelopment plan really is, it's it's a new it's a zoning ordinance that pertains specifically to this piece
of property that the town is looking to see to have redeveloped to have revitalized etc. Um that redevelopment plan was a collaborative effort. uh significant consideration went into it uh in terms of uh coming up with
redevelopment standards. Residential density which was originally set at 68 units commercial there was a desire to have you know first floor commercial. That redevelopment plan as it was designed established a minimum of 8,000 square ft
of you know ground floor space uh you know for retail commercial uh purposes. Uh it hit on uh it provided for the parking standards, it provided for building heights, it provided for setbacks and things of of that nature. Uh remember redevelopment plan,
redevelopment area designation 2022 redevelopment plan doesn't come in until 2023. So there's a fair amount of time that was spent relative to to the development of of that plan. uh March 27, 2023,
uh Burough Council introduced ordinance 2023 1960 and that's what introduced this redevelopment plan for the Palmer Square site. Uh and what again what it proposed was for the development of a mixeduse community on the subject
property permitting 68 residential units uh and again a minimum of 8,000 square feet of um of ground floor space. uh during the pendency of that uh concept plans largely similar to the to the plan that
we have before you were released was part of the public vetting process uh back on April 13th. This very board reviewed that uh April 13th of 2023. his board reviewed uh that redevelopment plan. Uh part of your usual process when
you review a zoning ordinance to determine is it consistent with the master plan and there was a master plan consistency determination made. Uh the ordinance came back to the council public hearing second reading on notice published etc. And the burough council
adopted the ordinance uh which adopted the redevelopment plan. Thereafter, AR at Bernardsville was designated as the uh as the redeveloper of this particular site. Um and in August of 2023, there was actually a redevelopment
agreement that was entered into between the burrow and AR at Burnersville. What's a redevelopment agreement? It's basically a contract. Um uh you have an entitlement to build the project, but you you have to build it according to, you know, the requirements. So, what do we have? we we really have a contractual
obligation to proceed with this uh with this redevelopment. Uh and among those obligations uh and there are numerous terms and conditions that are in that redevelopment agreement was approved at a public hearing had to be approved by a resolution before uh burough council
could sign off on it. Uh but it's set forth, you know, what the obligations are and there's mutual obligations and and cooperation provisions between the burrow and and the redevelopment here or in any other project. Uh obligations to to construct the project, all the
associated improvements, obligations to afford the affordable housing trust fund uh requirements that are contained in there. Uh and otherwise just to see this project come to to fruition fruition and revitalize this particular site. Uh we
filed this site plan application uh on September 23rd, 2023. So we were we were signed the redevelopment agreement. We had our contractual rights. So we filed that application seeking preliminary and final site plan approval for the
project. At that time again 68 res residential units and about 9,230 square ft of commercial space. So we actually complied and actually exceeded what what the minimum was relative to that that first floor uh commercial
space and we came up with a project that uh you know saw to to the vision that was consistent with with that which had been presented you know throughout this deliberative redevelopment plan process. Uh we had our first public hearing in
this room uh back on February 8th 2024. uh and thereafter we had six more public hearings. Uh over the course of those seven public hearings uh we did receive significant feedback uh from this board and from the public uh and candidly uh a
lot of those comments uh really did improve the project. a lot of the suggestions that were made, optimizations as as we we discussed at numerous meetings. Uh we did significant modifications to the to the loading zone that would allow for multiple vehicles
to get into the building and uh you know whether it was the Amazon deliveries or or larger vehicles that could get in without blocking traffic etc. Uh we increased uh setbacks greater setbacks to Marstown Road. I think that was a Mr.
similar suggested that along the way. Uh we did a better mix of unit types. We ended up with less three-bedroom units. We enhanced fire safety measures uh throughout. Uh and we also improved on architectural. We received architectural
comments along the line along the way um that that I think and landscaping enhancements as well that that really improve the project. Uh we articulated all the benefits of proceeding with the project uh which was the vision of the burough council when it embarked on the
redevelopment journey back in 2022. Uh hearings and public comments were completed on August 15, 2024. uh we spent a sub substantial amount of time as the board may recall at the end of that hearing and actually at the end of the July hearing talking about
conditions of approval and you know we know we ended up somewhere with about a hundred some odd conditions significant number of conditions I've been doing this for a while I've never seen that many number of conditions particularly on a redevelopment project uh you know where there was a plan but uh but it was
important uh certainly to this board and public and so forth so you know We agreed to those as Mr. Warner said earlier. We ended up with a 44 vote which is a statutory denial. Um we filed filed an appeal. Didn't want to file an
appeal. Um but uh but that is the means and mechanism. Uh certainly we are hopeful we can reach a point and we're always looking as as the courts encourage and you know to to achieve a settlement in this regard and and that's
uh that's where we are um presently. Uh this is a whispering woods hearing. Warner said it we anytime you have a settlement under that whispering woods case law uh has to come before the public uh to present the settlement and
the opportunity uh for discussions. So, so in terms of the settlement itself, all the documents are on file, but you know, there were a number of points that uh that we looked at uh relative to to settling this case. Um, and I'm just
going to run through them briefly. I'm not going to read it verbatim, but uh you know, in the first instance, it was please provide the DOT approval of the proposed sight lines for exiting from primary driveway on Marstown Road. Alternatively, DOT could say they're going to lower the speed limits which
would shrink the sight lines and allow approval etc. Uh since the outset with respect to this application, we've known we've got DOT jurisdiction. They ultimately make the determinations regarding sight lines with the speed of the roadway through there. Um we have uh
and as we indicated the applicant would agree to modify the application for the NJ DOT major access permit to comply with all terms and conditions required by NJ DOT and the issuance of a major access permit and that permit would actually be conclusive evidence uh that
we have satisfied uh the obligations regarding sightelines. Uh we have been submitted uh at at DOT. We are still actively working uh with DOT uh and we have agreed that we will continue to provide the municipality uh going
forward with copies of of any submitts and any responses we get from DOT regarding the permit itself. Uh there's also comment regarding providing the NJ dot approved right of way line on Marstown Road including hot square. Uh
it's really a surveying matter. Uh and we will submit a revised sign and sealed survey confirming that the red way line that's shown there is consistent with the applicable NJ dot general property parcel map cited in the title report. We
actually have that survey. So we are in a position to submit it and of course it'll be subject to uh uh to review and so forth uh by Mr. Brightley and I guess perhaps Mr. Troutton as well. I don't think he's here this he's not here this evening but I know he's your uh your
traffic consultant. Um we talked about we had a fair amount of discussion there are conditions that pertain to if this project is approved what's going to happen during construction concerns over construction uh staging phasing etc. Uh
we had a number of of responses in that regard that are in the settlement agreement uh that we're going to prepare construction phasing traffic control plans. We're going to work with your construction department, your police department, uh the DOT, Somerset County
Planning Board, and engineering departments to work through those. Uh we're going to incorporate those procedures during construction to facilitate immediate accommodation of construction vehicles within the site. We certainly wouldn't want to be in a situation where we are blocking traffic
uh uh through that through that stretch of road. Uh prohibitions against vehicles idling. Uh no queuing of vehicles on the public roads, you know, unless approved uh by Somerset County or the BO during construction. Um pickup
construction materials, debris, things of that nature. keeping the site clean, having a lay down area on the site so that you know the materials are on the site, you know, not sitting out on a roadway. Uh and and that basically everything is uh is secure. Um building
and maintaining mesh screening as well and some sort of decorative during the period, you know, screening along the uh the frontage during the period of construction. Uh so it doesn't just look like a big construction site uh going forward. Um and probably the most
significant you know item uh just relative to plans uh it goes to to our architectural plans uh suggestion was made request was made uh that we we reduce the height of a portion of the building along that uh that westerly
facade really just to soften it so it didn't look like four stories above for the pedestrians walking through there. uh and and we were more than happy to to make that uh those revisions uh to accommodate that reduction. Uh by
bringing that down, we lost one unit. So the plan as it presently stands is uh is 67 units, 68 units. Um and uh and again, we still have the the same amount of uh square footage, which is about 9,000
square feet of uh of commercial space itself. Um, relative tonight, uh, we did make the, uh, plan submittals. Uh, and I know I can see some of the board members have the site plan. Uh, what I'll tell you about the site plan, it it really is
the last version of the site plan that we had because the modifications didn't change the the physical layout of the site. It's really the architectural layout. Um, all we did with respect to those plans is to modify that unit count uh, you know, in the bulk chart and so
forth. We still maintain the same amount of parking that we had previously. And um and other than that, we have the architectural plans and they have been revised to reflect those uh those facade changes and and building changes uh that
uh that are along that uh that westerly uh building. And uh so you know really that is those are the terms of the settlement. Uh I have one witness, Mr. Smith, who I'm going to have uh get up and speak to
those architectural plan changes and um and then we'll just take everything up. Just one quick question if I may for the applicant plaintiff. Uh the uh the settlement also uh confirms that there's
the maintenance of all prior conditions stipulated to during the hearings that Yes. Yes. I'm I'm Mr. Warner. I'm glad you brought that up because I turned my page too quickly. Uh we are going to agree to uh to all terms and conditions.
Uh although I do want to clarify uh that relative to items uh emergency generators, etc. Uh what we are going to do is we're going to comply with the redevelopment plan as adopted uh relative to any terms or conditions
in that regard uh which do relate back to uh the uniform commercial code and those requirements. No, that that that's all I No, I miss I I appreciate that. M the entire of the summary of the settlement terms were set forth. I
didn't want anything to do. That was an important one. It was at least 100 as I recall. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Well, then we're ready for your first question. Okay. So, uh, Mr. Smith, um, I know you you've
been sworn in and stand whatever you're going to do. Um, you've been previously qualified, uh, as as an architect, as our as our external awakening as chairman, would you like me to have him go back through or just confirm that your license is uh,
still still in good standing? The state of New Jersey. Yes. All right. Terrific. Uh so Mr. Smith, you've been involved obviously in the in the overall design with respect to this project from the outset. Correct. That is correct. Uh I see we have the rendering uh that
was prepared by your office. Um still remains the rendering and the design of the building. Correct. That is correct. Uh we made some modifications to the plans uh as a result of the settlement agreement. And I'm just going to turn the floor over to you to uh to walk us
through those changes and you know elaborate on anything that I think is important uh for the board and the public to know. Just one item. Is this a new exhibit? And if so, we'll not a new exhibit. That is the uh that is the rendering and I will confess I
don't know what it was marked as evidence but it was uh what's that A5? It may be a bring, you know, any problem with Martin A1 for this proceeding. That would be perfect. Yeah,
let's just Yep. So, why don't you just explain what A1 is since you have it up there, Paul? Bring it back up and just explain uh what it is and what our viewpoint is and so forth. I know this doesn't go to the changes, but uh you can give an overview.
So this is looking across Oka Square reconstructed Palmer building rest of the development the retail space called out with awnings along the entire length of the OK Oak Square binding and
the really effectively with the changes this is what you will see the changes don't don't affect this view um but what little there is is happens to be behind the tree there. Uh so I will go on to to Yeah, please. Yeah, go on.
Uh just show you in person. This is uh the elevations as presented. So this is the this is a before. We need to mark this or this is this is submitted. This is in the plan set. Correct. This is submitted with the new plan.
Just mark it. Why don't we just mark it? Red's market is exhibit A2. Explain what it is if you can give the date. Uh we see the date up there on it. Um just explain it. Okay.
So this this is what had been presented the last time we were before before you all. As you may recall that some of the the shape of the thing that different is
going on Mount Berry Road also contains the parking entrance. Um we had changed the shape of that a year more than a year ago in response to some of the uh the uh comments um from from the commission and
from others. And if you go to the next Oh, before you do that, just drag the mouth. The whoever is controlling this, drag your mouse over to the center on the peak, the right peak of the center there. Just notice for the
audience, just notice that section and then drag it down uh right there. And notice that section as well as as before elements that now flow into the next
for the record. A2 we revis and a sheet number so we have reference the one A2 go back prior one just let's get the date on it. Yeah, we do got to make sure we get a good record.
Yes. Not for the June 27 204. A2 is what? It says last revision June June 27th 2024 planning board hearing submission. Okay. Is that is that correct from the
witness? Is that correct? You got answer. Yes. Oops. And this is revised set of elevations that show the reduction of height. And wait, hang on.
So this is just so this is just confirming uh this last revision date was 627204. That's exhibit 82, correct, Paul? Yeah, A2 is is a six sheet six. This is not No, this is not A2. I'm just
No, it's the new A2. This is the new This is the new one that should be So, we're going to call this This is This is actually what's in our plan set. This is a part of your package. Just for the record, why why don't we just call it A3? Yeah,
this is the old one. It's the old one. Okay, this is the old one. This is the old one before, right? Just so ready for the next sheet. I can put them side by side too. You did it the way before you just went quick
clip and you can actually see the exchange. Yeah, listen identified first and we can have a record and then you can put it side by side please. Thank you. This is A3. That's correct. What is A3?
Revised elevations, new provisions to the west elevation. And the day six there's not a new revised by date, but that is the revised by date or this is
the revised plan as submitted uh with the documents. Correct. That is correct. which still has the same all day. Is that it? Y has the same has the same has the same date now revised by Yep.
All right. So, walk us through it. Please explain it so the public understands what's going on in the board as well. So, that same element, thank you chairman for pointing it out, is brought up by an entire by a full floor. I'll
show you the plan ramifications of that. And in general, the eve line of the bottom of the gamble is actually roughly similar to the e of the bomber as a result. So it kind of follows follows
the street area as it goes downhill toward the bench. And I think what and you get some softening when you're coming from from south area
you see that and as a result of this change uh basically modification we're at 67 units doesn't otherwise alter you know the site plan itself or the the other in except for interior layouts. Correct.
And we have we have those in our set. The resulting plan and changes to the loss of that unit and reconfiguration of of that area and the parking remained the same same 130 horse spaces, right?
And that's it. And Paul, I know you were doing it again. Just you can probably show it. So before after. Okay. Okay. Um well then uh Steve basically we can
have uh there's only one witness. So we can have questions of the witness from the Oh sorry it's you tell me I is it direct concluded. Uh, it's yes,
council. Yes. Okay. Then the the board can ask questions if they have any. Members of the public can ask questions if they have any. Uh, and then uh if that's the last witness and members of the public make comment. The board
can deliberate uh and vote on uh the closing. Well, he certainly has the opportunity to make a summation after public question. after comment. Are there any questions right now from the board for this? And and the
questions are not limited just to the test this witness, but with respect and obviously the settlement, but everything that's been presented, you can be a settlement C. Okay. Then everything related to the settlement, right? But not the hund you
know that's well I guess that's in the settlement. Well, no, no, the old stuff is is not going back over again. Yeah. The new the new stuff is that nothing virtually all 100 remain and then the new change.
I have a question about submission to do. What's been submitted? There was a there was a report from DOT given to us in the spring last year. Mhm. has everything been submitted since then. There have been submitt since. You know
what? I'll I'll ask Mr. Corak just to address that. Mr. Cor, please raise your right hand. You swear to God, our firm testimony about to give is the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. And I apologize forgetting, but uh I'll leave it to council.
You're been qualified previously as a as an engineer uh as our traffic engineer. your licenses are still in good standing. Mr. Go ahead. Um, M. Shimoff just, you know, want a clarification on where we are with BT, what submittals
have been made, uh, that were in the the review process. If you could just provide an answer. Most recent submission this year. Um that was to address comments from DOT made on December 12th
4 which in turn were based on on our submission July 22nd and we will be providing the survey the submittals and any responses as well
to the board. So there's there's been one submission since the last in the vote. Correct. All right. Are there any um we're going to take questions for Mr. Chairman just clarifically
the standard paragraph standard be reviewed says you have 90 days to respond otherwise the application is automatically withdrawn. Did you get that extension been in coordination throughout process
manager to confirm that the application is still um okay so um this is probably a subset of the public's concern but there's an asset here where you can come down and
you can ask questions I told you to includes have to be in the form of questions. There'll be a separate uh section where we talk about public where public comments basically state your comments and concerns.
So if there are any if there's anyone who from the public that has a question to ask of these two witnesses um please come down and um Secretary knows where I am, but you're
the the uh just give your name and address and then you can answer. Direct the question. I'm Al Laca. Um I live in Basking Ridge. I'm a member of the Mason's Lodge right here in downtown Burnsville. Um a question to the uh gentleman who just gave testimony earlier, the engineer.
Where's the parking going to be located in there? Thank you, sir. Yes. Parking is under is underneath the building. Oh. Oh, so you're blasting underground. We're dig We're digging. Digging. Okay. Thank you. That's my question. Um, since you're here.
Yes, sir. We tried reaching out to you to make sure that you're aware that your current lease of the cell tower that's on the lodge will be impacted by this building. We're This is the first we're hearing of it.
Yeah, I know. Well, they're kind it's kind of hard to Yeah. But we'll strongly object to that. You should you should I don't know what the condition of that is. You should take it to your members or whatever and just sort of figure out what you're likely going to do with that. Was that letter sent by register mail?
No. What was the question? No, we have a tax part of our settlement for the record. No, because the place is you have a gall the uh the
you were noticed. Yes, the the chairman did open it up. It's not part of the settlement. No, whatever out you have outside visav contractually or otherwise there's other parties. Uh you speak to your council and figure it out.
Right. And there may be no. You just said it does. You're on the record by saying it does. will it's got Yeah, I think I think you know in all fairness I mean you're talking to a nonprofit that needs maybe once twice a month sir I'll swear you later
okay I'll take it that's fine my question was the underground parking thank you so much I'll come back for public comment thank you at 250-1 power Roman uh my question is to go back to the other picture the first picture with the flag pole
Yes, that doesn't seem to be to exhibit is that exhibit A1 correct? Yeah. Thank you. Please proceed with your question. My question is is that the scale? I don't think that the flag pole is going
to be higher than the building. It just seems like everything is not Is that Is that scale? Okay. Is that to scale? And what is what is the height of building relative to the flat? Yeah, the drawing is to scale because
the flag pole is so much closer to you. It looks taller than the So it's so the question is is the flag pole taller or less? It is less tall than by how much?
Don't know, but I know it is less. How many how many um how many uh stories is it? Two stories high. Is it three stories high? Um can you tell me that was approximately three stories high
school? Thank you. Any other question where either Kathleen Shepard, 16 Ambark Placeville, New Jersey 079 board, otherwise known as Burnersville. Um,
I would like to hear how are they dealing with the I live off of uh Ambar which is off of Mount Ary. Yeah. I'm vitally interested in knowing how they're going to do the traffic,
what they're going to do to allow us to even get into town and out. And what if that doesn't work? I mean, what if we start it and on day 10 it just doesn't work? What happens? We all have to suffer the consequence of
it. And your question, ma'am, is about the track, right? It's very important. Yeah. No, we understand it's just questions now. They now you have to direct the question to them and and they have to answer the question if they can, right? Well, we had Well, I'll respond because
we had extensive track traffic testimony throughout the seven hearings that we had back in in 2024. Uh property is zoned as a redevelopment plan that allows uh full density of 68 units. We're at 67 units. Uh and um you
know with the commercial space as well. Uh but certainly all of our traffic testimony goes in. We're not providing any supplementary traffic testimony in this regard. All record uh and everything that was uh was in previously uh is all incorporated into the uh
so I can't get it's okay it's we don't you know very few of us do this area uh so so uh the Mr. I can get counselor's counselor's of statement is correct and in accordance
with the consent order or prior proceedings of the court. What's hard perhaps for people to understand or difficult to deal with perhaps is that the hearing already took place. This is not a hearing on site plan application. This is a presentation
of a settlement agreement as I explained at the beginning but I'll reiterate to clarify uh for everyone. So, um, I'd like that happened already. I'd like to help your careers on your particular location where
Yeah. Historically, that lot used to have traffic that came in and out of the driveway that is on Mount Air. Of course, it doesn't anymore, but it used to have traffic there. That traffic would have directly contributed to the
backup that you're accustomed to seeing in Amber. There is not that is not there today in this plan. The applicant has taken that entrance and turned it into a loading entrance where trucks pull in to the underground and pull out according
to some truck the trucking delivery schedules. So in terms of the backup from Amber Road to center ambar um you should see no impact.
Now, the traffic stud get worse. Well, no, it won't. And the traffic study said it won't get worse. Well, gee, if it does get worse, then I guess we have to be up to that traffic. Then, like anything else, and what you
should already be doing because it's terrible now and you should be talking to the police department and having them work cooperatively with you as a Mr. Chairman, but both respect This is a settlement presentation and it
would not be appropriate for the board to render opinions on the respect issues. It's so simple answer. The simple answer was the traffic study showed that there would be no minimal but no impact on your particular
traffic study. Are you putting these some where all citizens can see? Where would that be? They're all on file. um with Miss I have the website.
You can find the planning area. And are you talking about the driveway into this area that's being developed? No. What I'm talking about the driveway. What you're concerned about is traffic from your location,
right? Which is off now. Yes. Okay. Your loc your track that's severely backed up. site, but that traffic is not impacted by this development because there are no cars going in and out of that driveway anymore. If
anything, it's improved. I'd like to know what you're talking about when you say that driveway. Is that where the parking lot is? The where the driveway behind the Palmer building chair. I'm going to reiterate my advice to the board that what's occurring right now is improper.
Okay. uh and that what should occur is that the prior hearings were incorporated by the record. You can look at this is a presentation of four or five additional settlement items, modifications, conditions and not a
rehearing and certainly board members should not be rendering opinions as to traffic or anything else. That's not record proper. the record goes. Could I add my legal advice is that we proceed with the settlement proceed presentation in
accordance with whispering woods case uh and stay within the parameters of our jurisdiction legally as a planning. Could I ask a question about the gentleman that couldn't give a report
from the DOT? Did don't we have somebody who he testified regarding a submission back and forth? You can ask a question of him of that. Yes, that was Could you elaborate on that please? So
what you are to be answering and finding that I'm sorry the process with the NJ is that whenever you looking to locate a new rideway to a New Jersey state you want to apply an access
as part of that access permit review process the DOT reviews plans they review reports they review more than just traffic they review drainage they review utility connections They read anything that could have an impact to their road listing and they issue an
applicant a comment button that basically provides a list of comments of changes that they're requesting or more information needed. Now, it's not uncommon for back and forth um comment letter responding to the comment letter
additional comments. It's not uncommon for that to go several testifying soon before Mr. was asking for the latest in terms of our progress with the DOT submission in terms of when things were submitted and
doc responded that is uh the answer I gave to the board um and the DOT application is very much still in but that can run concurrently with municipal
application we don't foresee um any significant portal with the DOT to receive that access from from them which would be condition of approval from that's the main driveway you're talking about which is under 202 which is a
state I believe it's the main driveway into the garage yes when so how much of the delay or there will be yeah the impacts to traffic do not rise to that level of significant impact
very minimal changes to delays One more question about the solution. I don't think I have another thing to say except who started this whole thing. We we'll swear you in make your public comments but have to wait of testimony
just like there'll be the driveway on 202 we can't hear you I I'll just object because I think what we've said is we're going to make the we've made a submitt we will provide
copy We're not here to provide more testimony regarding DOT the DOT permit other than to say as we did in as we have in the settlement agreement. We will comply with the DOT they have jurisdiction and there's something they
don't agree with it. Uh then we either need to modify it. We may have to come back to the board if the DOT says no you can't do this or you have to do that. It depends. But we're not here to provide more testimony regarding regarding traffic. We had seven hearings in this
regard. We've s made a submittal and we will continue to provide copies, Mr. Simoff, to to board. We were we were led to believe that we would be copied on the submissions. Yes. And you will be they were made of recognition.
Right. and we and we're having a whispering woods here uh hearing now to determine this uh this settlement. So with that we will provide copies of everything and the surveys etc. And you certainly have you know Mr. Troutman is
your traffic uh uh consultant to review same as well. Okay. Uh any other question questions from the public? Okay, seeing none. None from the board, none.
So, so and none from our um professionals. All right. So, next would be public comment and then submitting deliberation vote. Okay. So, now slightly different from that, we're opening it to public
comment. hard if if you can be concise. Um if you agree with some prior public comments, say you agree with that public comment or disagree
um as opposed to rehashing everything in the comment uh because it's we want to be respectful of people's time. Um but please it's now public comment. you'll be sworn I'll swear everybody in and
then the chairman said the law requires the board to ensure that there's not repetition etc. So, please do listen to other people's comment and it'll be the same. Just say they're the same. Okay. So, it's open to public comment
now. Um, whoever would like to make public comment, please just give your name and address New Jersey. Please raise your right hand. Thank you. Swear to God. Thank you. Please proceed.
C O L A T A R C I 8 Dunford D B R I D G E. Thank you. Uh members of the board, I'm here. Uh
Fell Lacada. I am the incoming president of the Nasonic Lodge at well bel 15 Marstown Road. Um you know we've been watching this uh development from afar. Well, not that far since we're right
next to you, but uh you know, with with great interest and uh frankly great concern uh especially as you just mentioned a few minutes ago that there is going to be uh disruption to a significant source
of income to our lodge. Uh, you know, in addition, we're also very concerned about the traffic patterns, not around the uh, you know, within Route 202 Road. it's your guys' business, but more uh
between the buildings and underneath the building and how that traffic is going to get in there and get out given that our building which is I don't know what 110 15 years old um is a matter of a couple
of feet from uh what appears to be some pretty significant construction. So, uh, with that, I'm going to turn over to Alabama. We've got some more around again. Do you swear to God or a firm test about the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please. And just give your address again. I'm Alcon. I'm with the Mason's Lodge 15 Road. Um, for the record, I'm the former mayor of Burners Township. also the former chair of the quarry task force in
Bernard Township and also I was born and raised here in Burnersville. I lived on Claremont Road and Street Bernards Avenue and on Maker Road just to put things in perspective. Um had we known earlier uh about the weight of what you just brought up, we would have been here
much earlier. Um we didn't we have no objection to the redevelopment. We have no no question about that at all. We think that's great for the town. you know, if if that's what your governing body wants to do, that's fine with us. One concern that came to mind was the parking, and this gentleman just raised it to our attention that the parking is
going to be underground. They're going to be digging. Our building was built in 1910 as a church. The Masons bought it eight years later, meaning we're probably one of the oldest tenants next to the Palmers in downtown Burnsville. Maybe I'll have to go back and ask some of my
relatives, some of them who owned businesses in the center of town. We're concerned with that heavy equipment digging. This is a stone and mason uh mortar building. We've invested significant dollars doing the roof, the exterior of the building. We've been a good community partner for over 100
years and we're here today saying they're going to be blasting perhaps or heavy excavation within feet of an historic building within feet. Feet. Growing up on Claremont Road, Antry, uh,
Bernard's Avenue in particular, I grew up when the quarry was in full operation. You know, you'd hear the siren go off for some of you that are younger. I'm not going to date myself, but I'm kind of dating myself. You know, it was not uncommon after the whistle blew that the boom would go off, minutes
later, you'd see cracks in your walls, cracks in your ceilings, things would fall off the shelves, out of the cabinets. It was just something that, you know, we expected back in the the day. That was just part of life in Bernardsville. Um the the frames were great uh great tenants. Um but that's
what we dealt with here. We have a 115year-old building that will not survive heavy construction. Now look, I've had my years in as the chair of the quarry task force where I dealt with ordinance blasting heavy equipment moving, dealing with residents
complaining about cracks in their buildings, in their foundations, and in their their structures along the back end of the quarry. That's more than a quarter mile away. We are feet away feet to get to this point to settlement. and
maybe you sent me a letter or two, but as mayor of Basking Ridge, we'd make sure if we didn't hear from somebody when a major construction project was going on, we went and knocked on their door. We made sure we got a hold of the residents to let them know what was going on. Now, I don't mean to chastise you guys
at settlement. This is what you guys got to do. I'm hoping you're not pushing a lawsuit onto other people because that's just not fair. That's just not fair. You have to take in the whole the whole situation here. We're we're we we'd love to work with these guys, you know, and come to an amicable situation here, but
you're you're responsible for your vote and your vote has to protect the people that have been here that have been contributing the community and you have to take our concerns at heart before you vote. I don't think it's anything that we can't fix or address, but just give
them a green light right now. Not right. And to bring up the fact that we might be losing our cell tower lease after we had that and like our incoming president said is significant. It's significant dollars. It pays the monthly bills. To lose that just like that here, loaning it here for the first time at your
planning board meeting, that's a little bit of an eye openener. And you can vet that I'll be talking to my superiors when I get out of this meeting. But still now the impact on us is even more more ownorous. So I'm asking you to do your due diligence. Um, you know, there's there is settlement contract
negotiations going on. As a former mayor, it's give and take. There's no immediate deadline. Is there an immediate deadline set by the court for a settlement by the end of this or summer? Yes. End of the summer. We've still got six weeks to come together and try to come
up with a solution. Six weeks. Yeah. I to be accurate. 60 days from the date of the order. I can sign that date. Okay. But we would still have time in order to come to some kind of agreement. We're not here to put the hammer down. We're here to protect our interests and
protect what's been ours for 115 years. So, please take that into great consideration. I ask for your support on this and let's get us in the same room and avoid these problems. Thank you. Do you want to respond at all to that?
We we were led to believe that well I'll say a couple things and uh I know actually during the early part of these hearings I reached out multiple times to one of your council uh had had discussions asked what the
concerns were and I forget who that was uh well I will tell you one of my law partners was is actually a mason as well so I reached out to somebody I don't recall who it was it was a while back I this is what I will say first off there's been nothing in the record
regarding any impact to your cell tower or anything. Second of all, second was a statement a statement by the chairman. Sorry. Mr. Yeah. the the that's that's
not the process as they do. Uh I understand who we're all um the uh for you to uh but the the uh and uh and yeah the chairman made a statement uh that's uh
whether it's evidential or not that's a different issue. Now just listen relative to we we're can't do anything that impacts the building. We're certainly going to be sensitive. We're certainly sensitive to to the proximity. There's an alley through there and we
will certainly meet with you and we've got to go through a whole process assuming the project is approved etc. Uh we've got to have pre-construction meetings uh any site work etc. That all gets reviewed uh by Mr. Brightley as the as the board's review engineer. uh and
we are certainly you are our next door neighbor so we will certainly uh have discussions uh with you address any comments any concerns if you have a point person I do know that I reached out a number of times to one of your members who I was asked to reach out to
um and did not have I forget and I forget who it was Mr. So proud by the way that's okay while you know you're here at settlement now I I over there until I met somebody and sat down and talked to us the talking I think is the check right which is like a
little black uh black pop three that uh you continuing your public sure um yeah it's just you're the path that he's talking about is compatible
right It's like I think a 2 foot8 little path at that, right? And um but still, we're not here to to cause any real problems. We were just trying to protect our interest. We'll be glad to work with them. And if you can delay, that's great. I'm sure we can all come to an agreement and not just take not
that he's not a tr untrustworthy person, but being in government, hey, I have to to protect our interests. And if there's a way we can all come to agreement, come here, take a vote, move on peacefully. Wouldn't that be great if the communities uh the neighbors got along coming out of the gate? But that's all
we're asking here. They have an obligation to not harm your building. If they do, they're open to damages. And they did. I'm telling you, as the dy appointed representatives of the elected officials of this town, who you are, they're
constitutional officers, aren't they? We're appointed. I'm appointed. David, wait. He knows the answer. people understand there are all sorts of testimony happening here this even
you're a quasi judicial board and by s by such your vote matters and you're responsible for protecting the rights of your citizens your residents and those people therein and that's what I'm appealing to they should have come to us a lot sooner we shouldn't be here we shouldn't be here
tonight so you were given notice Again, sir, again, sir, if I had a massive project moving into my town, we made sure we reached out to those neighbors and they knew before any public hearing. And if there was a settlement going on, especially in that particular instance
with a neighbor, especially a neighbor, we I think we even put a law on the books so the the esteemed attorney can look uh that there has to be a notification to neighbors before any construction permits already been issued. I'm sure but we're not there. We certainly served notices many times regarding the the
hearings. We had we had seven hearings that span the period between February and all. Again, we have no problem with your redevelopment. It is the issues now with underground parking, the vibrations, the effect that'll have on our building which is feet away and now the loss of a potential cell tower lease uh
complicates the matters 10fold. So, we're asking that you take time, let us work this matter out way beyond that. Well, m Mr. Chairman, I'm going to And I'll I'll just have a comment once again. Advise the board members that this is public comment.
Allow the public to comment. It's not debate between members of the public and member of the board. That's not what this is. terms with Mayor. Mine is very brief. My name is J
R. Please explain the Can you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and not the better truth. Yeah.
Well, you can only give your truth. Others can give their own truth. That's right. This is to the board. I just want to to tell you that as a resident of Burnersville and watching this process, I didn't grow
up there. We moved to New York. We moved specifically to Bernardville because I moved specifically to Bernard because it's safe. It was a beautiful community.
I worked really hard to get here and I'm really disappointed at this process. We're really disappointed with how this has gone, but the outcry that I have seen from the residents that this is
taking place. I know it's a done deal. I know that we put a lot of thought in the objections and the comments and mass, but to take down a little tiny corner of that building and say we're done, I think that's it's absolutely horrible.
But a lot of this is a done deal. So, I just question why I'm here, but it's so that I can publicly object and let you know of my disappointment and how this whole thing has taken place because I love this town and I worked hard to get
here and I'm really sad to know that my people my people representing me is ending up with this. Thank you for your time. Hi, my name is Jerry Boland, 28 Old
Mountain Road, Lebanon, New Jersey. The name is uh last name is closely related to the Boiling House. And can you please raise your right hand? You swear to God or refer testimony about to give us the truth. hopefully nothing but that as well as that which
you already gave. Yes. Um I have been asked by the the clan leader to come and voice our opinion on the on the loss of the boiling house. Um we've already lost the the boiling house
in Pluckman and uh now the architecture here is going to be gone. From what I understand, there's no uh there's no plan to try to keep it after it was declared recently one of
the top 10 historical preservation needed sites in New Jersey. Uh and they they keep those it's over 200 years old that house. They keep that architecture for a reason. They preserve it for a reason.
If there's any way you could preserve it in any way, shape, or form, onsite, offsite, um it would being greatly appreciated by the board board. Thank you. Aaron, 51 Crosby Drive.
You swear to God testimony about to give us the truth but hopefully not. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Um they're here for a whispering hearing. I appreciate Mr. Warner's um description of that. I just wanted to quickly read um from the
actual opinion itself. This is at 220 NJ super 172. A public interest is always present when a municipal municipal body settles litigation. It would be unthinkable that a planning board, for example, charged with the proper enforcement of local planning and zoning
ordinances denied an application only to turn around and negotiate a final binding approval of a modified form to settle the very litigation which ensued upon the denial. If such a settlement could be final and binding, that could be the hypothetical result, but it cannot be. the settlement must
necessarily be conditioned upon a public hearing of the agreed plan on the agreed plan just as if a new application were being presented to the board. So while I um certainly uh I'm not disputing anything that was said, I just want to
make clear that in my opinion and for this board consideration that when you're listen this isn't, you know, just a chance for the public to get up and vent. The board should be listening to the public and looking at this application as amended by the settlement
agreement with fresh eyes after after hearing from the public. You know, as um Mr. Wiskella stated um you know there was a redevelop redevelopment plan put in place that's the zoning for
for the properties. There was a redevelopment agreement pursuant to which the applicant undertook a contractual obligation to develop the property in accordance with the redevelopment plan. That's not what this application does. This application
uh does not um accord with the plan and that's why they're looking for varian relief. there needs to be an opportunity for this board to weigh in on question of whether they are entitled to the variance relief that they're seeking that they need uh unad land abuse law.
And so just I've already um spoken on it um but uh very very briefly speaking of what was not presented tonight. you have a a a plan which takes one um small
um corner um element of a non-conforming five-story structure. That's the testimony of the um planner, Mr. McDana, on the record in this matter. Um you have a fivetory non-conforming structure and it takes one small element of it and
brings it into conformity. brings it down to the four stories that the redevelopment plan mandates as the maximum number of stories for this development. So they need a variance um
under new municipal land use law require excuse me C1 variant I've already stated has no application here. Um this is the only lot in the redevelopment area. Um there's no hardship. The council knew the lot was dealing with um C2 requires
a balancing of benefits and detriments from the grant of a variance. The C2 variance cannot be sustained where merely the purposes of the property owner will be advanced. Rather, the community must receive a benefit due to the fact that the variance represents a better building alternative for the property. So you're not just looking at
the taking away a unit and bringing this one small aspect of the building into conformant. Is that better than what you previously had where it was entirely not informing stories? The question is, does
it represent a better alternative from a planning a zoning perspective to have a fivestory nonconforming structure as opposed to a conforming fourstory
structure in accordance with the redevelopment plan? And I would respectfully submit they failed to present adequate competent evidence during the entire course of the hearings. Um, and they failed to present
any additional evidence tonight as to the benefits, the community benefits that would occur by having a fivetory um building when a when the redevelopment plan uh call for four stories. Um, so
again, I think they haven't met their their burden of proof. Um, and I believe Mr. Simoff, you know, asked Mr. McDonald when he was here, you know, what is it? What is what does a conforming development look like? We've never seen a conforming development. I haven't showed you what a four-story
conforming development looks like. Believe Mr. Chairman stated in his uh comments um the province was developing all along is one story too tall. So you know that there needs to be an opportunity and I asked them tonight I
would respectfully submit you know for that inquiry to take place does this project have they have they carried their burden of proof of establishing through clear and confident evidence confident credible evidence that they've met the criteria for variance believe
five stories has done four stories I don't think they have. Um so one other uh quote from another this is a health division case um in the progeny of whispering words as Mr. Warner, but it's called Warner Cove versus Sutton.
That preceded if I recall correctly. That's a 90 I can give you the citation 274 NJ super 464 division case from 1994 which is some type forms 1987 was whispering. They still named it whispering not a war
hearing though. This this was the appellet division expanding upon or actually the appellet division's take on on the question after the law division um started off in 1987. Um and this is on page 472 to 473. A
municipality and exercising its power delegated to it much to it must act within such delegated power and cannot go beyond them. Consequently, if municipal action is unlawful, having it incorporated in a consent judgment will not breathe legal life into it. And so,
what that says to me is that if you couldn't do it originally, you can't do it by putting a set agreement. And so, by approving the site plan application through the settlement agreement, um you would be I would respect the submits exceeding your um authority on municipal
land. Um as Mr. forcella. I'm actually going to take uh um issue with one of the statements Mr. Wascal made um in his um original opening statements about the uh
commercial space requirement. Um he said that the redevelopment plan um had a 8,000 square foot uh commercial space um mandate. uh not um with all respect uh
page 21 of the Palmer Square red development plan under the heading redevelopment plan details states that the plan is quote excuse me I'm intended to quote permit the redevelopment of the property for mixeduse development where commercial uses occupy the first floor with
residential development above does not say commercial uses on only a small portion of the first floor doesn't say commercial uses something more north road does not pay whatever fraction we decide at some later date in a private
agreement with the redeveloper says the first floor they have two3 first floor being occupied by residential usage they need a use they would need um if you if you look at the uh talking land use and uh
administration uh gambo They say that use variances aren't permissible in redevelopment contexts. If you want different use, you got to go back to council and get them to change the redevelopment plan. Either way, um whether they're correct or not, couldn't get a use here. They need to go to the
zoning board adjustment. Um same with uh the um uh affordable housing um uh element of the plan which um has not changed as I see it in the settlement
agreement. Uh the same page 21 under relevant redevelopment plan details it states that for Palmer Square uh redevelopment the purpose and intent of the district is to allow for multif family inclusionary development of the site. So uh inclusionary development is
not defined by the plan itself but the plan does say that whenever there's no defined term look to the um broke code both the bro code and the state law on affordable housing um there's regulations define inclusionary development development containing both affordable units and market rate units
um so uh again I don't believe the variance from that um from that uh requirement in the redevelopment plan is available um but even if it because uh a land use board, whether it be um the
zoning board adjustment or even the council if they want to go back and try to uh amend the redevelopment plan to not amend the plan or um enact some type of u arrangement that violates state law and the um
fair housing act as amended in March 1024. um clearly and unequivocally uh states and requires that any multif family development within the highlands region room the entire bureau must set
aside for uh affordable use 20% of all new res of all new units uh constructed so um can't do something by selling agreement that you couldn't do otherwise and you can't um I would respectfully submit you
can't approve a kind of violates the fair act. So um for all those reasons I would uh respectfully ask this board as has already been asked to look at the application again with uh with with fresh eyes and uh decide for itself whether it believes that the
um variances relief that are var relief that requested and required for approval have been the standards have been met and um the other um issues that I've set by um this board uh has power to um to
adopt. So, thank you very much for your work on this. Appreciate it. My name is Diane Bagley, 52 burn. Um I was here most of the else right again.
It's okay. You swear to God or prayer about the two here for most of the meeting. So I remember probably was around December Mr. Sim brought up um something about the sidelines and about the traffic on
202 and the entrance and eress from the building. And I think there's only one driveway on 202 so you could make a right hand turn or left hand turn. And um so
my question is that was December and you were going to talk about the DOT getting involved which they have to obviously because it's a highway and if I understand correctly the transportation
gentleman said that something was submitted in June. So what happened between December and June? To me, it would be prudent that that's a huge important factor in this large
development. So, why wouldn't the DOT why wouldn't you wait to have a settlement or something until you heard more from the DOT? And also um I'm not familiar with the procedure, but it does
the DOT only hear from the client who the applicant or does the DOT hear from the planning board or some of the people in the community? And that's just a question. So
I think that before you make a really firm decision about this, you have to hear from the DOT and they have to hear from both sides. Thank you. Did you want to No, the the applicant
after all might have had questions but the public comment period. So, but the to the extent the applicant uh who council makes a summation and may wish to address all the comments that were made including those that in the form of a
question it's incumbent upon us to allow the Did you want to summarize though to her point that's all did you do that it's the applicant so does the applicant summation applicants council may wish to do that oh So
for them to decide if and when and how to please I know it's our board members want to help everybody and I hope that very obvious it's not let me make it very clear they want it
they want it um but they do also have parameters within which they must operate as a spotlight judicial volume I don't expect anybody to fully understand that uh means but but uh but suffice to say what it means is at times they can't
help as much as they might want to uh very least. So they have to do their job, listen to the evidence, allow the applicant to present, hear from members of the public, and then within the parameters that the law allows them, regular determining,
uh, and they take their advice from your board of professionals. Anyway, I'm sorry for going off, but that's that's fine. That the answer is okay. You just have to wait. No problems.
Uh, additional comments from the public sensor. I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Uh, I just want to go on record again saying I'm strongly opposed to this project, but I do applaud the board for all your efforts um and everything that you've
tried to do in the constraints. The attorney just said, you know, you can't do everything. Um, the council really stuck it to the town. Um, and but I applaud you guys in in doing everything
you can. I I I appreciate that the one unit um reduction which will help uh visually on Mount Air Road. In my opinion, I wish you the applicant would have knocked out the top row all along
Route 202. I think this thing's going to look ridiculous. I think as people see this thing going up, just like the building next to the fire station, as that thing grows and and when when they start building on top of the cement there and see how tall that and how
ridiculous that building's going to look, this one is going to look even this is the center of town. It's going to look ridiculous in this town. If you had taken off another, I think maybe five apartments on that top floor along along Route 202, probably wouldn't have
been as financially appealing to you guys, but that would have made it look much less ridiculous. So again, I just want to applaud you guys for everything you've done and again voice my strong
opposition to this entire project. Thank you. Thank you. Next comments for the board to do. I'll make a motion to close portion there. Second.
It doesn't have to be a roll once by all. I believe we're up to summation if any for county. Yeah, I'll just be brief. Thank you very much. Uh I do appreciate the board's consideration in this regard. Um we had
uh an extensive record with respect to this application. We've got a project uh that is furthering the vision that your burough council had. um when we entered into the redevelopment process, adopted a redevelopment plan for what really is
going to be a very transformative project. Uh it's going to breathe new life into this area of town. Uh it's going to be a different housing type. Uh we said it before, we expect it's it's going to be available for for young
professionals, for empty nesters. Uh and it's going to be bring people right in, more people into your downtown. patronize your other restaurants and stores and that's the whole purpose of redevelopment.
And I know change is tough. It's just in terms of the location itself, but we did have extensive testimony as it related throughout the process through this redevelopment. You heard from our our engineers, our architects, our traffic engineers, and you heard extensive
planning testimony from Mr. Mcdana to support the requested variance relief for the deviations. Uh and he provided adequate statutory reasons. Uh this whispering woods and I've heard what Mr. Duff was saying. This this is why you
have whispering woods hearings for these very circumstances uh where there is a settlement that is available and we bring this to to to you as a board and to the public as well as it relates to the DOT. Listen, it is a
very deliberative process. Uh those are outside agencies. We're subject to their approval. We cannot control the time frames uh that that whether it's the DOT or the DP or the county planning board. Uh we're permitted under the municipal
land use law and the local redevelopment housing law to come in before the board. Uh we don't do that lightly because you've got a professional traffic engineer who's looking at this and saying I think the DOT we we've got justification here. They may very well
come back with more comments. And as I said earlier, if they were to throw some curveball at us in this regard, then that's going to be our problem. Um we can't we can't pull building permits until we have all of our outside agency approvals. if DOT
or or any other agency did some uh impose some requirement uh that would require modifications or changes or prevent problem from an access perspective. Well, then we'd have to come back before the board again. Um so that that is the process in that regard.
But uh you know it's it's uh you know we we've been at this for a while. Uh this is you know we're in year three uh now in this regard. Uh and we would just respectfully request uh that the board uh grant approval uh of the settlement agreement and the project uh with all
the terms and conditions that we articulated uh previously and uh as reflected in those settlement documents that we discussed here this evening. Uh and once again uh thank the board uh for your time and your professionals.
Just if I may remind the board of its obligation at this point. Uh now that the hearing has come to a close whisper and w hearing that is on settlement. Uh the board uh did as previously mentioned approve this settlement on the public hearing which
is a requirement under the whispering woods Warner B7 as far as I'm far that is uh the the uh and and their projecting uh but uh and we are in
accordance with the consent order uh that uh council was authorized sign by your resolution and was signed signed by judge men who is the uh presiding judge to purpose for the bar of great litigations in this vicinity at this
county and beyond this county. The the um so now the settlement that you previously agreed to contingent on this public hearing uh because it is public interest litigation uh then is now before you as presented
as you've previously seen it. uh you've heard from the applicant with respect to the settlement. Uh you've given the me uh members of the public in this properly noticed and open public hearing
an opportunity to ask questions and to make public comment with respect to the settlement uh and it's modified project. Uh now you deliberate uh and you vote on the settlement. Uh and as you recall it
continues to have all the conditions previously agreed to with one m one exception. Uh uh but uh it is consist that uh generator modification is actually as we've discovered
consistent with the redevelopment plan. Uh and uh so in essence there are actually only I believe uh were only three deviations from redevelopment plan originally not for um
and now is your time to deliberate and decide whether you will continue to agree to the settlement agree that you previously briefed. deliberate. You can move second and vote. You can at some point you'll have to move second
before, during or after. Once you do that, it's over. I I have a question for John Sabo. Yes. Um given the revised plan that was submitted with the one unit bought is this is the southern exposure the
southern elevation now considered to be a rear yard and therefore entitled to an extra floor according according to our ordinances the the plan the development plan may have different
development plan controls and controls yeah and and it's specific to the height mention all that. So anyway, provisions for the DC zone would not be applicable. Okay. But if it's consolation, the DC zone
on a rear exposure would be loud or when you have a grade going down like that, it's consolation, but it's not relevant. Okay. Thank you. Anyone
preservation of the conditions of approval was important as is the deliberation and then are there is there a way to make comment at a vote? Or just yes or we can
you can you can make comment now respect and then deliberation is is is your opportunity to express what you intend to do and why. I acknowledge that um the uh generator
was out. I think the applicant needs to seriously consider the business proofs of not having an e not having a standard generation facility and if they don't they need to consider the plumbing implications and the insurance implications for not having uh freeze
protection but I it's a trade-off I understand but you do need to intelligently make the tradeoff from a business perspective and a sales perspective we're all in it together to try to get you to to successfully
occupy these units. Um, and you know most about a separate comments there. I um have little um credence in the town's consulting that
described the school impact the impact of the schools. It's not your you know your application but the testimony that went into that I find not terrible. I had been led to believe that there was
more interaction with the neighbor in regard to the 4 foot uh alleyway that's there. And I'm sure you guys did a lot of work on on the walls and the construction details and strength and you know I remember you talking about
you know a lot of attention being paid to that border of your property. So um I was comfortable with your statements about it. I I'm
deprived but they were more aware of it. Yeah. I think separately the concept addressing the concept of before property and preservation issues. It's a it's a great idea. just that it sounds
like it's going to have to be community driven to try to figure out more than just hey come on down to the Morland house and get some antique artifacts put or whatever. Um it it sounds like it's going to have to be a public thing because there is nothing mandated in the
applicants in the applications to do that. Um I I I'd like to say that in support of this process, the applicant in fact was concerned that the board was
essentially the one of the biggest issues was that we were potentially considering ing dot approval as part of our approval and that their position which I understand was we shouldn't be doing that. It's it's just as the
applicant said like if they can't get their permits then they have to come back or whatever and and they certainly need them before they begin construction. I think that was the applicant's of of various points. That was their case. that case was it we should not have um
used it as part of our deliberations for the original um goal on the application. We have a slightly different opinion but but we understand we understand and realize the process and and realize the applicant's rights and and how that's
that's gone. Um anyway, enough of there. There, you know, there's a lot of points, but those are the ones that came up tonight that I thought a little more information help
understand anyone else, anything? No, I would just I would like to say um although a number of the design choices for the project for us go aren't something that I would use or a number
of people in the audience would uh like to see here or you know do as a if they were in charge of the project. I think the developer is um you know making choices that are within
their rights to do uh certain um although I don't believe some of those choices are going to benefit downtown Burnsville. Um I think some of the concessions that are given and uh looking that we're looking at uh
kind of are going to be the best that uh we can expect. Um when with the constraints that were put under with the redevelopment agreement that was approved by the DAP um there's certain things that uh we can
and can't do the certain thing that we can suggest. Um, I think uh actually I hope the town council uh is listening to uh us listening to the uh meetings that are
going on, the developer and uh the people in the audience uh so that when other redevelopments come around, they take uh a little bit more interest or a little pay a little bit more attention to some detail. Uh
that's that's about all I got. One other uh point for the public to consider as as is known in this application, the concept of parking fees is is left to the developer in and in in
other words no say in that. And if and given that there's a lot of opinions about parking, but that aspect is still to be worked out with between the developer, the applicant and and the council. And if
you have any input on parking concerns or considerations beyond just the which is they've done comply with the number of spaces and things like that, but if you have anything in particularly regard to access or fees or whatever, um
probably should make the council aware of that. it it is in fact a a known outstanding um statement by by the applicant that we're all agreeing is true that it's going to be up to them and their their actual implementation.
So just still an option for you to weigh in with the council constructively please. Okay. Is there anything else to No, I just you know I believe that you know the terms you know this settlement
have material impact on the plan as a whole benefit to the repeated please don't hear so sorry I believe that the the terms that are in this setting you know material impact on improving the overall
policy we're saying benefit I actually just throughout the process appreciate the the willingness from both sides to the up until this point um because now we're looking at the iteration. So it's kind of a testament
to the process working. I agree. It's been exceptional and you you should give credit for as hard as we pushed you. You also you you accepted our comments and optimizations
leveraged them um to yield a better better result. We also want to thank you for your comments for the follow. people to know that there was significant back and forth in good fa significant back and forth faith to come
to the settlement have anything further file Okay. All the way up. All the way up. Um then the next step would be to entertain a motion.
It's a motion to grant. It's motion to approve the settlement uh that was previously approved with the contingency of the public hearing which has now been resolved. Uh well the opposite there's no accurate conditions
to settle already got more conditions in I sorry can you clarify the motion please to approve the settlement data to approve the settlement data. Um April 24th,
2025. No, that's the resolution. Yeah, that's true. Mr. Zazarino second. So, we'll call Miss Galler. Yes,
Mr. Right. The uh that second was for that motion. That's correct. Thank you for clarifying that on the record. Please do roll. Miss Gell, yes. Mr. Graham, yes. Mr. Malia, yes.
Mr. Morrison, yes. Mr. Sasso, yes. Thank you, Mr. Stemoff. I'm going to abstain it. The U. I voted no the last time.
I can't bring myself to vote yes because I don't think that the applicant has been open about their dealings with the DOT. If that reason I'm abstaining. Okay. Mr. Walden. Yes.
And Mr. Zazerina. Yes. The motion carries. Thank you. So Mr. Warner just so I'm clear next steps. The consent order
is a resolution folks. We're still having public is a resol on this matter. Uh pursuant to the consent order within 60 days uh we are required to have a resolution of
memorialization adopted by what 60 days. I think I think you're right. 60 days and that would reflect approval of the settlement, the project and all the conditions of approval that becated. Correct. The settlement includes everything. Yes.
So we will endeavor to memorialize accurately by way of revenue to avoid the termination this evening and have it ready in advance of 60 days from tonight to adopt. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
All right. Uh the agenda is always a pending application pending uh for the 37 that's the ex Bank of
America issued. Okay. Speak up a little bit here. Next item on the agenda is board reviews and there's a heads up about a new application that's surfacing. There's no
statement about it really other than um it's intended for the six of anacre lot that where is where the Bank of America ATM was a well it's 16 it's.16 so it's not.167 but it's.16
was this bleed if you know the news no addition And so yeah, so it's a heads up. Um I have one concern and that is we just on this lot we just passed another application that
said their parking would be supplied on this lot. So if any well first of all of course it hasn't been de complete yet. contest later that we schedule once it's
scheduled to hear it. uh and uh the extent anything has that we do prospectively by way of uh perhaps has an impact on some other uh but that happens
I mean municipalities they they they but then you know we'll be able to impact somebody else might have to do so now this is not going to be an area in need of redevelop as far as you know this is just an applicant that's coming and saying I'd like to
develop this piece of property and you know I investigation or investigation and certainly we would know about it because it would have to come out first public hearing on an area need a redevelopment recommendation
they obviously but there in the absence of that are normal downtown quarter zoning which is where this is right. It's downtown shouldn't be discussed. No yet it'll it'll be normal. It'll
follow the process. It's in likely to go in front of us versus the board of adjustment or whatever. I mean as far as we know it would be a normal application as far as we know at this point. By normal I what you mean is the zoning ordinance would govern it as opposed to
a redevelopment plan which supersedes the building. Correct. Yes. Okay. I just want some clarification. It wasn't a typo in this way. Uh, anyone here to discuss anything
wasn't on the agenda? That couldn't swain. No. Okay. No executive session needed, right? No executive session required. Oh, Ben.