All right. No. >> And uh Steve, we need a motion, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's a motion to close and close. I don't think motion and end executive session we open. >> Second. >> All in favor?
Any back on the house? >> Okay. He's probably >> So now we are here to RPMs
of which they're created. Okay. >> Sorry. That's all right. >> Yeah. >> So, good evening chairman, members of the board. Craig Janetti, the lawful Dave Pittney on behalf of the applicant Mineber Road urban LLC or Burman
Associates LLPs. Uh this is a application for amended uh preliminary final site plan approval involving uh three sites as this board approved in 2024 affordable housing
development uh consisting of 63 Burners Avenue, 18 Mount Air Road and 163 Mine Brook Road. each received separate resolution of approval opposing the amendment uh connection to all three. Um
the application seeking revisions to uh mainly the architectural features of the building which was presented to this board on October 23rd, 2025. I was not here. I was in South Carolina but my colleague Paul MaggiC
was here. Um and I did watch the hearing and and with what uh was presented and discussed at that meeting. Since that time uh we did submit some revisions to the architectural plans to address uh some of the inconsistencies
that were identified. Uh we have our architect here this evening that can testify and answer those changes. We also met uh with Mr. Lincoln at the uh historic preservation advisory committee with respect to it and did receive uh a comment review letter from the historic
preservation advisory committee dated November 5th, 2025. Um so in a moment I'll have uh come up here and testify as to the architectural plans um that were submitted board. Uh
she also has some materials um the board requested uh that we can mark in evidence and and pass around with the board. I think one thing that's important um to address with it, you know, the two kind of main changes
relate to uh the change from the fiber cement siding to the vinyl siding and then also to the uh the roofing type from the standing seam metal roof to the asphalt shingles. And then there were some other uh minor other changes to the
building as well. All the changes that have been proposed conform to the zoning ordinance conform to the design standards. We're not seeking any relief in connection with it. And further I know it was explained at the last
meeting that the reasons for the changes uh were in connection with effectively cost overruns in connection with the project. As you are aware, this is a municipally sponsored 100% affordable housing development. Even though it's on three separate sites, it's considered
one project with respect to the green housing tax credits and as one municipally sponsored project. And so in consultation with the bureau, with respect to this project, uh we made these revisions um since it is industry
sponsored, it is a collaborative process with respect to it. So, we explained the reasons why the changes were made, but the cost and those cost overruns are not the basis for why we're seeking approval here tonight. The basis is because it
conforms to the zoning ordinance and it conforms to the design standards. Um, and actually that's even acknowledged in Mr. Lincoln's uh review letter with the historic preservation advisory committee. Unless there's any uh procedural or housekeeping question of
me, I'd like to call our architect up um to address this one. Procedural. I think you mentioned this. If the architect can expedite it by outlining the changes to what he's done from the what's the delta
and we don't need a representation of >> Yeah, I wasn't going to have her go through all the changes that were done. It was more the the changes that were done. >> Yeah. Not the original changes. What's been done since the 23rd was I guess >> correct. Yeah, that's what that's what I
have her. That's fine. >> Reaffirming that's what she said. Sharing just a couple procedural issues real quick by May. the the just reminding everybody that this board continues to have jurisdiction the matter is carried on
from October 23rd without further notice this evening. uh B having testified previously you may not uh and C I did uh ensure through certifications that all two
nine uh all nine uh board members who are on the deis and all uh are qualified to vote this evening. not only having been present for a large content of the last hearing but also
hearings as well to the extent it might be arguable that they had to they did not so they call the last preliminary and final as well
as all the amendments thus far and the last meeting everyone fully qualified certified to vote recorded for the submission. We'll start at some 814. >> Oh, all right. I have 813.
So that one very >> No, I haven't. >> Yeah, we had A13 was polarized building too. >> Okay. >> Now I people have trouble reading. >> So we're on page 14. Great.
You remain under >> and your license remains good standing as an architect state. >> Yes. >> I'm not going to take any more lives. >> So, Miss Puma, since the last meeting uh and I guess we can just show what's on
the uh board right now. Basically going left to right, we have what was originally approved by the board, what changed during resolution compliance as part of the historic preservation advisory committee review which was part
of our uh condition of approval. And then last on the right and that's the current version that we're seeking approval for this evening. Is that correct? >> Yes. And so maybe and with those sheets, I guess it's one is for Minebrook, one
is for Mount Airy Road, and one is for 63 Bernards. So maybe we can have those three sheets marked A14, A15, and A16 >> with today's date of >> um member.
>> Okay. And the other ones are going to change. So they're still correct. Do >> you mind just fresh my recollection? The second one you said was based on the historical feedback. Why was the color change >> between uh
>> from one to two two I mean two to three match but one to two you added a blue >> one to two. So the what you see in one was approved by the the board but part of the um approval was we had to meet
with historic the historic and kind of work through the color selected for each of the buildings. So >> so the colors were selected in consultation with uh the HBC and they signed off on those plans. So maybe uh and as the chairman noted as
we kind of go through each sheet just mark it and and say out loud what we're marking it as. Okay. >> Um on what's marked as sheet A14 if you can just describe kind of what has changed since the last plan that was submitted.
So since the last plans of the October, nothing has changed on the sheet that's the city. >> Is there any changes to any dimensions or anything like that? >> No. >> It was asked about the last
ele. >> This is a new sheet. This will be a 159. >> And what's the date of is that October 29th at 95? >> Yes. >> So on 814 you're saying the stone day s
just the way you were you presented it before 23rd. >> Okay. >> It's not change. No change. Okay. A15 is the other go to A16
moves us to 189. Uh this is building one. This is the building closest to Mount Air Road. The only change from on this drawing as opposed to the last one was the colors of the shingles to be whether it would
due to material availability previous >> and this This is another color. >> This will be a 18. >> This is building two. This is the building further into the lot. Uh the only change here is the same thing. The
uh the weathered wood asphalt shing. No other changes. And then we're moving on to 60° burn. So VA So uh couple changes here. The um the green color for the the vinyl siding
was changed to a more green tone. The previous submitted color was a little darker and didn't mix as well. So the uh previous historic kind of And then the other change was the same asphalt shingle
was updated to be weather as well. Same as 1800. >> Yes. I think you said they're textured >> is the other side of 16. >> And what side is that? >> Is that the west side? And then sorry one other thing regarding
mount area the solar block that was the other change >> is that isn't that true as well. Yes, except uh you couldn't see it on the >> as a result of uh no longer proposing solar as part of it. The dormers that
was previously removed were not. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Oh, that's important. >> That's a difference from what we saw. >> And then uh I'm sorry, but did we see the middle board the same elevations? >> Yeah.
And the difference there being part of it is the lighter green. >> Yes. >> Maybe we'll bring up the uh roof shingles material board to the board. We're up to 8:21. Yep.
821 wood 82 is charcoal. >> So this is the weathered wood. This is what's proposed on 18 m area and 63 burners. And then this charcoal shading is what's proposed online. >> Black
charcoal. We're going to add >> the original. >> So if they're just showing us, >> but it's not a change from the other ones. I think you said age. This one changed from Appalachian sky. >> Appalian sky. >> Sorry. This one is
>> weathered wood changed from Appalachian sky. >> Used to be Appalachian Sky previous. >> Anything else you want to tell us about this line HDX? >> Yeah, they're threedimensional shingles.
Um, 30-year warranty. Very common in residential construction. >> Widely used. >> Would you like to get passed around or >> No, maybe just do the thing some extra, you
know. repairs. >> And from an environmental standpoint, are any concerns using these type of singles? You mentioned they're commonly used. >> No, for the environmental commission, uh, council did raise the issue as as a
as a comment that um the runoff from asphalt shingles actually is not environmentally conscious. it throws off um I don't remember if it was petroleum or what whatever the products are in the
singles and I can hold it on my >> they're petroleum based so it throws off that and it goes into the waterway which is was their comment of concern with respect to the as >> understood
>> versus the metal roof which prevention approved as well. >> Correct. But they're not there's no >> environmental regulation that prohibits the use of the single >> and then uh Mr. Pumo, you had uh an opportunity to
review the historic preservation advisory committee >> review letter. >> Yes. Uh, and also during this process, did you speak uh with Mr. Lincoln? >> I spoke with we touched base. I sent him the updated elevations and then um he said he was reviewing them and then I
saw the letter come >> and there's really nothing to address. He didn't comment. >> No, we didn't have a back and forth there. You didn't have any questions or anything? >> Mr. SH if I may question the agent before we leave the HBAC
court 2025 for the record um the uh required language in the resolution clear that
future housing projects or other developments in the bureau will not assume that by sighting is the more acceptable. Frankly, from a legal perspective, uh this would be binding on the future.
Anyway, it's almost like gasping for winter perhaps, but uh that sometimes people sometimes people get it. Um the uh the that I see the merger. So would the applicant have any objection should
the board so desire that have a condition in the resolution resolution. Uh just reiterating I believe the law anyway that this is not residential on patriotic patients. >> I wouldn't want it as a condition but if
they wanted their findings that they looked at uh I wouldn't be opposed to it. and it's not impacting our content. But I think it's better presented to the governing body on if if you want to address that subject is better to address in
regulations um to developers know when you're developing whether or not vinyl is accepted and and I I think that's a fair comment and it's a condition but it gets a little problematic. Um but if should the board approve the
applications and should the board wish to have that in the findings I think appropriate I would agree the appropriate portion of the reser give samples of the final different colors.
>> You like to see that? >> Do you want to see all the colors or >> whatever you're using? I mean, it's the same. >> And you don't have an example of the original. >> I do. Okay.
matched up if uh you know what that'll make it easier. >> Okay. >> So, just as a comment from the environmental council, the RU plank had earth um insulation. It was more energy
efficient than the fact it doesn't warp and fade. Okay. You have to paint. Um, >> that's correct. You have to paint fiber cement. >> I'll show you.
>> You have to paint fiber cement after >> 15 days or so. Yeah. >> So, this is the original bracelet. >> So, we'll mark that 22. Yeah. I could say party grace >> and party grace
>> bracelet >> bracelet >> bracelet >> bracelet >> or is it hard >> or >> and then the next exhibit could be a vinyl metropolitan gray
>> what's the manufacturer of the vinyl >> the vinyl is a Westlake Royal So this is West Lake >> and the vinyl metropolan gray sauce. No, just is there any normal um insulation that
there's under the uh siding all siding that would >> Yes. Um >> store >> we we have one inch of drift under the vinyl insulation in all >> and that would not have been under this
party >> that would have been under the >> as well. >> Yeah. that company the W company will offer an insulated sizing >> I don't >> the styrofoam back >> if it does it's maybe maybe a half an
inch not even and really >> yeah it would be like maybe R1 half for reference the the one inch of foam is like an R R5 what's
car I don't know that exact value. >> I would say it's minimal though at best. >> Right. What >> minimal in this >> is it irrelevant in the sense that whenever you've got insulating in your interior cavities, wall cavities. Is
that >> Yeah. What we have in the wall cavity and that one inch of foam, whatever is outside of that is irrelevant. whether it's >> inside the wall cavities or >> R21 >> and then you have one inch of foam outside on the exterior of the wall that
the Hardy goes on top of. >> Yes, that's >> so you're getting your R value from the one inch of insulation on the outside of the and then your siding is going over that. >> Yeah. But the inside the interior of the
R20 >> R2 Yeah. That's like that installation president environment committee is concerned you're to the same place no matter what historically I mean that's more for the for the developer it's it actually has
greater insulation utility bills tend to go down if you um even versus um soon afterwards I can't see >> the comments made by
>> any other questions or architect the the changes and the materials on the for the board you do you're doing vertical side of too same company >> same company same color same uh
There's no change to the Well, except for the administr the another panel she went through last time. The windows themselves stay the same. >> Same. Yeah, >> you mentioned a few things, but
>> that's the same from what you spoke before. That's scary for today's latest change. >> Any other questions? >> Nothing. Can you see? Nothing. Uh, so it's uh we can have the public if you
have questions. So this week so it's just a request right to do with it. and but I think the concern the consensus was
um you know the long-term quality and how so the thought was that the owners of the build just concerned that that front building on Mount Ary is probably
the most prominent of all the community gets the highest ground traffic, road traffic. People will be stuck at that light and look at it on constant basis. If it is all possible, we'd be greatly
appreciated by myself as an individual and a board member if we could figure out how to get back to that higher quality sizing at least for that bill. I just think that's a prominent building in town. There's
another development that's supposed to front of it that starts to get higher quality. There's the downtown goal to make the downtown of a different standard centerpiece. And it would really be a shame to kind of
value engineer and understand what we're doing. We're making it the best we can with limited resources. But I think that would go a long way to make it a little bit more comfortable with these changes.
>> I will bring that message along. I would just ask maybe resolution should they agree to do that that we don't have to come back. We got a verbal that was committed. We will put that in the resolution
that the version that was approved by the historic side and it's just the side not just for >> you can write something in that says if if their option if they decide to revert the materials to the original proposed
materials the building >> that that's included in the resolution. resolution. >> Yeah, >> Steve, you got that nice cover. >> That makes sense. Yeah, understood.
>> I get I get you. >> Okay. So, for this witness, uh are there any is there anyone in the public that has questions for this witness, which is different than comments? questions which um that elevation I can describe it but is
it I guess that would be is that east I'm sorry is that west or >> yeah building is facing south >> it's facing south building is facing south runs along the track
we'll clean up your notes closest to the road. >> When you're driving, >> you're driving into town. No, you're driving north. >> So, when you look at that building, you're looking at it south elevation. >> Oh, coming up on it that way. I'm
thinking >> Okay. Uh, no questions from the public. I'm sorry I did not ask the professionals if they had any specific questions for the stairs. >> Okay. >> I have no further witnesses. >> There no no further witnesses. We can go
to public comment. Is there anyone that in the public that would like to comment on this application? So it'll be if so come on you'll be sworn and you can make a comment seation
two questions >> and and they're trying to be clear and helpful. One of them is I mentioned does the building our our presumption and is that the building units are separately
electrically metered that there's a meter for each unit. >> Yes, that's correct. >> That is accurate. So it gets located somewhere your you know whatever you work out with the engineers. Okay. I was wondering in the context of the original one that had the reviser, but as long as
we reverting back to their metered >> there. Yes, >> that's fine. >> Originally shown >> the another comment hopefully helpful. You got a lot of hill, dirt, whatever. Tons of it. Some of it will be needed to
back fill the wall. Have you thought about how to decide the hill or the the way >> I personally have not but I'm sure >> I I guess I'd like to suggest there are locations in Bernardville that need
like that like on 02 they're trying to fill and and maybe work with your partner the the council to see >> um if they could facilitate or locate something that might actually uh
be closer and whatever it might be more optimal Well, for you just as a thought uh because of a lot of it interest nothing to to really add. I could say, you know, this um
RPM has been working with town for a long time on this project. Kind of taking a long time to get here, but project under construction. Uh they're very excited about it. Very excited to be in Burnersville and look to continue to work with Burrow and seeing the project success.
And then as the board knows it's it's an amended approval with respect to each of the three separate sites all of which are one consolidated project if you roll for the third round obligation important
to house burrow. Um so it's amended approval no deviations no barrier from redevelopment planations etc. just the amended uh preliminary and the main and final course site plan each of the three. Correct. Council,
>> correct? And one other question just for the public. Um is the digging is the excavation at Mbrook complete? Was it fully dug out or is there still more? I mean, there's a lot of dirt.
>> I can check if you give me one second. We we did look at it. Yeah, I think it's close. I >> We don't uh there's a pole in the property that has to be removed. Okay. >> So, there it will be probably another couple weeks. That That's the poll,
>> right? Correct. Okay. But in terms of excavating into the hillside or whatever, you've you've hit the distance city, >> I believe. So, >> not just the pole, it's I didn't mean it that way. Yeah. Okay. You're not going to blast the poll.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Sure. Any discussion then? >> I agree with Joe's Mr. DeMarco's comments. the main thorough prayer to the town. So your visual appeal is important.
>> You put a uh on that one is there a monument you have? I there is the other ones I think have signs or monument ever you know >> they do um >> it does have a monument sign.
>> I guess >> seven and a half by four and a half. The key point is that really is like a lot of people just like Joyce said are going to be sitting in traffic looking at that and it's an opportunity to to shine. So,
okay. Let me any other comments to make a motion. We did one build all three. We uh >> you know we did keep them as three separate sites. Uh although they're one project. So >> we did do three.
>> Yeah. We should have we should have three consent. So let's see my Brook Road application per so I would move to accept the changes as presented
tonight with regards to the micro road with regards to interior some of the design to approve of that and grant the amended plary and final site plan approval or what the conditions stability to.
>> Yes. >> Second. >> I have one one little comment and that is the address like the number the street number of mine. Can we make sure that we get the right one and that it's there and in the as opposed to just it's
mine bro >> 163 m. Yeah, I knew I knew a number. >> Okay. I've seen a lot of numbers. So, let me just make sure that it's that's what's there. It's accurate. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. So, we have a motion and a second, right? So, >> yes. >> M. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Martin? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walden.
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Kazerina. >> Yes. >> Motion in Paris. >> Marco, you're high. >> I would move to um >> approve the preliminary site plan
application as amended. state of the presentation with regards to material changes for 18 Mount Bearing Road 124 one subject to possible hopeful
for consideration back to original approval for the front grade that I'll proc >> Mr. Mr. Marco. >> Yes. >> Excuse me. Miss Gallup. >> Yes. >> Mr. Graham.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Malia. >> Yes. >> Mr. Marson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. De. >> Yes. >> Mr. Walden. >> Yes. >> And Mr. >> Yes. >> Number three for 63 Burns Avenue 102 lot
23. I would move approval of the amended site plan approval with regards to presentation made uh with regards to the material attributes. >> I'll second that again. >> I'll second.
>> Okay. Thank you. And Mr. Marco. >> Yes. >> M. >> Yes. >> Mr. Gr. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. >> Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bam. >> Yes. >> Yes. Mr. Walden. Yes, >> thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Uh so that's good. Let's see. >> I'm sorry. were any of these cars or did we approve everything and I didn't last
>> they missed one meeting and then there were others that came and subsequently seen these parents Any motion to approve the bill, 745? Yeah. >> Yes. Mr. Graham. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malia.
>> Yeah. Can you please believe the right? >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yeah. >> And Mr. >> Yes. So it's a signal coming. >> So we have a board review pending
works or these are the 73. This is their address. They're 73. But this is the building next to them. It's part of the building next to them. And it looks interesting because there
are other. So it's going to be interesting plus um I guess the other thing is who knows where parking don't exist anymore. So
so anyway we'll see it's good when they're successful. We had a with 73 crew had an oculty arrangement where they were allowed certain number of tables or people whatever but
they could move a portion of them to the outside but they had to shut down a piece of the inside >> the glass portion. >> Yeah. And um you know it just that'll come up again some kind of discussion
about the floors and stand there. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh business and visitors anyone here to talk about anything else?
No question. Okay. I think while there is unless sign anyone has any other concern or comment the best you could that will very