Testing. Testing. Okay, everybody ready? Evening everybody. In compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, adequate notice, this meeting has been provided. Should any member of this board have reason to believe this meeting is being held in violation of that act? They should so
state at this time. hearing. None. We will start with the pledge of >> allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> So we have all the libert. So the alternates are not. >> Okay. Roll call. >> Mr. Bizair >> here. >> Mr. Jones >> here. Mr. Riggs >> here. >> Mr. Crowley, >> Mr. Gorgone >> here. >> Council member Bodner >> here. >> Deputy Mayor McDade
>> here. >> Mrs. Reed >> here. >> Mr. Lhome here. >> Mr. Bedus >> here. >> Mr. Krippen >> here. >> Thank you. >> Okay. We have a resolution for adoption 05-26-2026 Addis Inc. 1317 Beach Avenue, block 1146, lots 6 through 24. Any motion?
>> I'll make a motion. >> I'll second. Oh, sorry. >> Got it. >> Okay. Do I have >> first and two seconds? >> Do we have a motion by Mr. Jones, seconded by Deputy Mayor McDade? Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you,
>> Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade? >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid? >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley? >> Yes. >> Mr. Lholm? >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs? >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair? >> I stain. Thank you.
>> Then we have the minutes of the April 14th meeting. >> Make that motion. >> Second. >> Second. >> Mr. Riggs motions. Mr. Lunhome seconds. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> M. Gurgone.
>> Yes. He got shut out about twice. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reid. >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lholm. >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair >> staying there as well. >> Thank you. >> Now,
>> okay. The only application tonight is RAJ Realy Investments LLC 1501 and601 Idaho and Kate May avenues blocks 1177, 1178, 1188, and 1189 for preliminary major subdivision with
hardship relief. Mr. Monzo, turn your turn your microphone on. Can everybody hear by the way? Okay. >> Hey, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
>> Speak into the microphone. >> Please bring it closer. Mr. Monzo, please bring it closer. Thank you so much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Anthony Monzo representing the applicant. Garage Realy Investments LLC. We just need a couple minutes while the
professionals set up the plans and then we'll proceed with our presentation. Mr. Monzo, do you have any exhibits tonight? >> I have I have one exhibit. >> Okay. For the record, the exhibit is marked A1
and it's a prior decision that was rendered by the DP with respect to the wetlands in this area back in 2000 when Velvanto was developing its site. Um, and we'll explain the reason for that as
we go through the presentation. I think we're have any more here. Pass. So, Bill, >> give it to someone. >> Okay. >> I I gave up mine. >> You got an offer down? >> Did everybody get
>> Yep. Good. Okay. >> My vote doesn't count. >> Sure. Oh Gary. So I have uh with me Wasim Nater who's a professional engineer who prepared the subdivision plan along with the
stormwater management plan and the storm water management report that was submitted with our application. Um Rob Antonav is here. I don't plan on having him testify. He is the owner of the applicant Raj Realy Investments LLC.
His family's own this property since 1988. So this dates back several years, in fact decades. Uh so to give uh just a brief introduction, we do have a planner too that's not here yet that will provide
some testimony. When he gets here, I'll introduce him as well and he'll place his credentials on the record to be approved by as an expert along with Mr. Nater who has not appeared before this board in the past. So, and I see a lot of people here
because I think it's understandable that when the East Kate May Associates litigation was settled a few years ago, I think everyone thought that that eliminated any potential for development at Sil
Point. However, that that property that was owned by Eastgate May Associates never included these four blocks that are along Maryland and they're the first two blocks past Pittsburgh on the north side. Actually,
four blocks. So, that this project was never part of that. And and I think there was also an understanding or misunderstanding over the years that all of this land was wetlands. And as we go through our presentation,
we'll um provide testimony and also we have an exhibit in the in the um stormwater management report that has an a letter of interpretation issued by the department of environmental protection last year that approved the boundary for the wetlands
uh and also um applied a 150 foot buffer. So this development project will not impede the wetlands and it will satisfy all the buffer requirements with the exception of some minor buffer averaging and transition area averaging
uh requests that will be made and will be consistent with the D rules. But until um we get feedback from the planning board and we know what can be approved locally, it's premature to seek
the averaging plan and the transition area waiver. So that's why we're here now. We're only seeking preliminary approval. Uh and there are some hurdles that still need to be um attained and that includes the two D permits. Uh we
also need to uh pursue an amendment to the water quality management plan because at the time the S point track litigation was ongoing uh the DP accepted the city's uh plan endorsement and as a result of that plan endorsement
almost all of Su Point was um deemed to be not in the sewer service area with the exception of a few blocks further east toward Coast Guard base across from beach club that the D was willing to approve as part of a settlement which
ultimately was rejected by the Army Corps of Engineers. So, this application is um even though the applicant owns four full city blocks, uh this this is four blocks 1177 and 1178.
And the applicant is seeking to uh subdivide those two blocks into 22 fully conforming single family residential lots that meet all of the standards for the R1 PW zone which is residential one
preserved wetlands. So the city has um adopted zoning ordinances that um have the wetlands and the environmental areas uh in mind and that's why this applicant is developing this project in a way that it is there
are three lots in this that are not going to be developed. Two of them order on the east that are small irregular lots which the applicant will deed restrict. There's a large lot in the middle that is mostly in a transition area that the
applicant at this point is not able to deed restrict because of what needs to happen at D. And typically when D approves transition area waiverss or buffer averaging um they will condition those types of approvals on conservation
easements for lands that are not being developed. So, we want to just keep that option because things may have to change between preliminary and final. But the one thing that's going to be consistent is the applicant will comply with all of the um D regulations and will condition
any approval on getting the the additional relief that's needed and that is amending the water quality management plan. And also um these are all paper streets that were laid out when these blocks were laid out. They lead nowhere other than to lands that are already
preserved as part of the East Cape May settlement. So the city is requesting and conditioning would ask that approval be conditioned on vacating the streets which streets which is a function of the city council and typically when the
streets lead to no land that can be developed and doesn't landlock any developable parcel or any land that is developed. The streets are typically vacated because the streets preliminarily belong to the applicant and ultimately became subject to a
public rightway which are public streets. So when the city decides those streets are no longer needed, they revert back to the property owner and this will have new streets that are laid out as part of the subdivision plan. So, I just wanted to give and especially
since there are several people here that again are concerned about this application mainly because of the wetlands and because of the East Cape May settlement. If I may, I just want to give a little bit of history and I'm I'm familiar with it. I know Craig is, I know Bill is. And you know, this case
with East Kate May Associates went back to 1988, which is actually the same year that these parcels were acquired by the applicant. And back then the applicant received approval to build 366
single family homes in Soul Point on about a 100 acres of land. And that approval was received before the adoption of the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act. Um however what the applicant needed to do in addition to um dealing with
wetlands issues is get a permit under the coastal area facilities review act CAFRA and that's where there was some push back by D. There was initially a rejection. Um ultimately in an attempt to try to settle litigation because the
applicant in that case pursued inverse condemnation, the D was willing to allow 64 single family homes to be built along Maryland Avenue directly across from the beach club. uh that offer was re not only rejected
by the applicant but also opposed by several groups including the American Literal Society because they were in fact wetlands. So in that case the applicant was seeking to fill wetlands and the D was doing whatever it could to get out of the litigation. So they were
trying to settle with some limited development in lie of having a large award for inverse condemnation. The courts ultimately rejected that offer because it was not permitted under the caffer regulation. So it was
ultimately remanded back to the agency D to come up with a method of offering amilaration for the lack of ability to develop those lands which resulted in a settlement agreement that was reached between DP um the applicant East Cape May
Associates and the city of Kate May was involved not as a defendant in the case but the city was obligated based on a 1950s agreement to provide all of the infrastructure for that project. So the city wanted to make sure number one is
there was only limited development there and secondly that its obligations to put in the infrastructure were addressed. Um so it was approved actually for 81 units in that same location plus there were 14 affordable housing units just east of Pittsburgh Avenue. The problem is the
Army Corps of Engineers took a look at it and said that these are wetlands under our jurisdiction because they were connected to the harbor a navigable waterway. So the Army Corps of Engineers took jurisdiction over the matter, rejected the settlement and therefore it
went back to the drawing board. Another solution was offered with about 110 units just off of Pennsylvania Avenue in the northwest quadrant of the track. And a group of citizens in East Kate May got together and formed a group that fought
that as well because of the D basically ignoring its own rules which ultimately resulted in a settlement uh with some monetary compensation and no development in Zul Point track. The developer did retain some small parcels of land just
east of Pittsburgh Avenue that is still owned by East Cape May Associates, but none of that involved these four blocks. These four blocks have always been independent and have always been partially obstructed by wetlands in the
four in the two blocks that are further east. the two blocks that are being developed have no wetlands and do have some transition areas that are being complied with. um in reading some of the um comments
and concerns and there again sure Dennis >> you just said these two properties are contain no wetlands >> the two blocks that are being proposed there may be some wetlands in the very front of them but there's well within the 150 foot transition area that was
>> according to your paperwork the entire core of of the two blocks is wetlands according to the D No, according DP, all of the development is outside of the wetlands. All of the proposed development is outside of the wetlands and also
outside of the 150 foot. >> I think I think the >> Mr. Monzo's talking about the area where the houses are being built is not wet. What you're talking about is the balance of the block. >> Yeah. >> They said there was no wetland block. >> There's wetlands on
>> it was it was semantics. >> Yes. The two blocks where the development is going to occur certainly contains wetlands. >> Your where your where your development is proposed is the uplands portion of those two blocks. That's correct. There
are certainly wetlands in those two blocks. So you were correct. >> Okay. >> But but not not significant enough to de to prevent the development that's being proposed along with the transition areas that have been required by D in its letter of interpretation.
We need we need to swear you in. Yeah, I gota >> Yeah, let me just finish and then we'll we'll bring you up to provide some testimony. >> Tony, before we before we go any further, we need to swear the professionals in including our board. >> Okay, why don't we do that now? I have
>> Wasim Nater if you want to just um place your cred. You want to swear him or >> swear him in firm? >> I haven't placed his credential. >> Raise your hand. >> Craig, >> do you swear affirm? Craig as well. >> You know, and Craig, do both of you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, you got >> I do. >> I do. >> While he's here, I just want to have him place his credentials on the record so the board can accept him as an expert. >> You may want to pick up at the microphone, sir. >> Oh, sure. Absolutely. So, name is Wasim
Nater. W A S I M N A D E R. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey uh since 1992. I have appeared before several hundred planning boards up and down basically uh the state of New
Jersey. Um I am the principal of uh the NATO group and um I am the CEO. Uh I also have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree in civil engineering. Uh I also teach at NGIT as a professor in
the civil engineering department. Um these are my credentials. >> Are all your licenses current? >> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman. >> Anybody Anybody have an issue? >> No. >> No. Okay. Thank you. >> Before I go to Mr. Nater, I just want to
make a few more points and then we'll have him provide some testimony. And we talked about this land not never being owned by East Cape May Associates and therefore not part of the settlement. We talked about it being not fully encumbered by wetlands. There's
sufficient upland area to meet the um development project with a 150 foot buffer. Uh I I introduced or I I provided exhibit A1 which is a letter of interpretation from 2000. The D at that
time with respect to these same wetlands determined that they were just intermediate resource value and only applied a 50-foot buffer. So when the Vento project was developed, the wetlands that are on this property were
determined to be just intermediate resource value and a 50-foot buffer. And the reasoning was most of the wetlands in this area were the develop or were the result of dredging of the harbor and dredge materials that ultimately became
wetlands in this area. So they didn't look at it at that time as having any significant resource value. Things may have changed for the for the purposes of of this application. We're accepting the DP's classification of these wetlands as
exceptional resource value and therefore presenting a project that is within the 150 ft transition area. >> Tony, wasn't that other previous designation the result of litigation? >> It it was it was litigation within the agency. It was an administrative law decision. It was reached by the
administrative law judge and then ultimately the uh commissioner of D who has the ability to either reject or accept the decision of the administrative law judge accepted it and assigned a 50-ft buffer to the wetlands.
And that decision is on the last page next to the last page is actually it's it's highlighted in yellow where it says for the foregoing reasons it is my conclusion and this was Bradley Campbell who was the D commissioner. It is my
conclusion that the petitioner has established by preponderance evidence credible evidence that the wetlands complex north and west of this property which is Venta the old Shelton College site is not documented habitat for threatened or endangered
species and thus does not support an exceptional resource value designation. The 50-foot buffer applies. That's academic really because we >> your >> representation is that you've actually designed this plan to uh in incorporate the 150 foot.
>> Yes. >> And Mr. Monzone, that is the most stringent 150 foot is the is the most stringent there is as far as development purposes. Correct. >> Unless you're in a flood hazard area which is 300 foot. >> Yeah. All right. You're right. That's or
to the high bank as land. Um, so again, the the objectors are here. They have a right to be here. I know there's a lot of concern, but I think a lot of their concerns are based on lack of information as opposed to just straight
opposition to this project. I'm not saying that with any certainty, but I I think it's it's why I went through this background. I wanted to make sure everybody understood what the history of this site was. So, with that, I'd like to have Mr. Nater come forward and explain the plan, address any concerns
that the board has and also um just explain some of the one variance by the way that we're asking for is there's only one variance. Everything else is by right and you know this the the planning board doesn't have the ability to deny a
project based on D environmental concerns but can only condition approval on getting all of those approvals from the state agency which has exclusive jurisdiction over the wetlands. Uh the only variance is a retaining wall which is higher than the two feet that is required and Mr. Nater will go through
the reasons for that. uh the two unders sized or irregular lots that if they were going to be developed would require a variance because we are going to deed restrict them and just make them excess land. It does not based on the definition of a lot require a variance
and it's also an advantage um because by making lots bigger. So, if we just took these undeveloped or unbuildable lots and made them part of the other lots, you count that that square footage when you're looking at lot coverage and when
you're looking at floor area ratio. So, this plan was to try to have these lots pretty uniform and all consistent with the R1PW zoning chart and not have these big lots that people can build bit build larger homes on and provide more lot
coverage than would otherwise be permitted under this zone. So, I think the environment was considered when this layout was being developed. So, if Mr. Nater can come forward. >> Okay. Is >> that a colorized version of what we have
in front of us? You want to mark that as A2 and put today's date on it as well? >> Yes. >> And make sure you leave that >> for the record. Okay. >> What what sheet that we have is that >> C101. So it's a color version of C101 marked
it as as exhibit A2. Before you get to that, Tom, could you go through the waiver requests you're looking for? >> I'm not sure what waiverss were were I went through the comments, Craig, and I'm not sure. I think we addressed everything. >> Let me let me address the board.
>> Okay. >> It might be appropriate. >> So, we're not used to dealing with major subdivisions. I mean, this board has granted them in the past, but it's you know, we get in Kate May, most of the land is already developed. So, we're it's not something that we deal with a
lot. Um, when I do in in my in my review memorandum, I do a completeness review um and identify the items of the checklist that have not been provided um
and make recommendations as to whether the application is complete or not. Ultimately, if if you recall on any application, we always vote the board votes on those waiverss. So, um in this case,
um the elephant in the room is the wetland stuff. So, one of the checklist items is the wetlands. So, it might be prudent for us to discuss that and vote on that and deem the application complete or incomplete um before we get into all of the, you know, the testimony
and everything from the applicants. Um so on page three of 10 of my report um there are two checklists from which uh there were not the information was not provided. Um under the C and D variance
checklist. Item number 12 is a certified list of properties subsequent to that my issuing this report that information was provided. So item number 12 has been addressed. They are seeking preliminary major
subdivision approval tonight. So they would have to if they were granted approval, they would have to come back and get final approval at another date. Um so we have a checklist for preliminary approval and we have a checklist for final approval. Under the checklist for preliminary approval,
there were two items in which the applicant had not provided the information that was required. Item F, which is a copy of any protective covenants or deed restrictions applying to the land being subdivided, shall be submitted with the preliminary plat. Now, there are numerous easements on
this parcel. Uh, stormwater easements, uh, sanitary sewer access easements, all of those documents would have to be provided. Um, as well as there would be I believe and I'm not this hasn't been mentioned yet, but I'm going to ask this as a
question to the applicant. There is a proposed homeowners association. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. So, those documents typically would be submitted for review uh and reviewed by the board um and ultimately approved. Um, so that's that's light
letter F. Um I recommended that this information could be provided prior to final uh our final major subdivision approval. Um typically in the preliminary stages uh we're moving we could be moving streets around or you
know dealing with storm water revisions and stuff like that. So ultimately we typically um address those prior to final approval. Um so it's more of a deferment to final letter I and this is the elephant in the
room I think. Um so there is a requirement that the applicant submits uh information related to the wetlands and it says where a development or any improvements are made to any Brookstream channel wetlands or shoreline the plans for such improvements shall be approved
by the state department of environmental protection Kate May County Cape May County Planning Board and all other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the manner. So, and I indicate evidence of New Jersey D approvals is required. Um, the
applicant also mentioned in their opening um they need to amend the water quality management plan that would allow them to sewer this property. Um, so those would be typically the approvals that we would need uh in order to grant
approval. Um, so that is a checklist for preliminary approval. However, in this case, and and they've they've indicated that it doesn't and I I'm summarizing or or just kind of >> putting it putting it in my own words,
but they're saying that it doesn't make sense for them to permit this their transition area waiverss and um uh uh modification lines. It doesn't make sense to do that. come to this board with the possibility that you guys
require something different and then having them to go back and have the repermit it again with the D. Um so they're they think that it makes sense for us to consider this grant preliminary approval conditioned on them going back and getting all those
necessary approvals. That's what they're asking us. So that's the waiver. Um and if if I said that wrong or am not making sense of that, you guys should testify and justify the waiverss. And that's also consistent with the municipal land use law in section uh 4055D-22B.
It says where approvals from other governmental agencies are required, the planning board shall condition approval on the subsequent approval of such other agency. It's impossible to to get all these other approvals and then come for preliminary approval because things
change. We don't know what they're going to want. We don't know. We want to have an approved plan at least preliminarily so that we can go to the D and say this is what we meet all the local zoning requirements. This is what we have. We need a couple um areas of relief with
the waiver of the transition area and also with the buffer averaging and the amendment to the water quality management plan, the street vacations. We actually did talk to the city administration about this and they encouraged us. In fact, they said, "We're not even going to consider a
street vacation ordinance until you go to the planning board and seek preliminary approval." They told us this was the first step. So, we're basically following their direction as opposed to trying to get all these other permits and approvals, which require city council to take some action, including on a water quality management plan
amendment. It's going to come to the city council, and they're going to have to pass a resolution of no objection. They don't want to do that. At least I got the message I got from the administration is they don't want this coming to city council until we first go to the planning board and get preliminary approvals. So, we're bas
>> Mr. Monzo, I'm sorry. Um, I just wanted to ask, uh, will you be going to the Kate May County Planning Board in advance of the D application? >> We've already submitted the application to the county planning. >> Did you get approval? >> No, not just submit it. >> Just submit it. Okay. Are you on their
docket for a meeting? They typically approve approve it administratively. Okay. >> And then if there's a rejection, they'll send it back and we have to just modify plans. >> Will we be notified of that? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> What what I was going to say is it it
makes sense that the governing body would never touch an application like this for a a water quality management plan amendment or street vacation without the planning board fully vetting it. So that's why it was recommended
that they come here first from the administration. >> And just in my in my general practice, I've been doing this for a long time. I've never gotten D approvals before getting either a site plan or a subdivision approval because that usually takes much longer. It's going to
take about a year to go through the um water quality management plan amendment and it may take shorter to go through uh uh D for the wetlands relief that we're seeking but it takes it's a process and not having an approved plan
>> as well. There's no it's not caffer. It's not a caffer project. It's 22 units. >> Okay. >> If we exceeded 24, it would be under caff. >> So the two remaining units don't count as lots. >> No. >> Okay. >> And >> can I ask Craig a question?
>> Sure. Uh on the preliminary uh approval, uh the city has the authority and the ability to require an environmental impact statement as a part of the submission. And and so my my question is
uh this is a two parcel uh division of into 22 actually 25 lots uh but it's surrounded on three sides by the broadess tract which is by all accounts FEMA and D and the Army Corps
of Engineers is an environmentally sensitive area of the highest significant priority in terms of environmental sensitivity. Uh if that's the context of where this piece of property is located, why why
shouldn't we require a comprehensive environmental impact statement on that area before we proceed any further on this project? I looked at that and I was very stunned that an environmental impact statement was not a checklist
requirement of either the C and D variance or the preliminary subdivision. >> It it is under our code section 417-5C. >> I I believe it's covered in the site plan requirements, but it's not covered
in the major subdivision requirements. the checklist um that's in in our code does not have a requirement that they have to provide an environmental impact statement. Now that being said, your point is is valid because because this
is environmentally sensitive area. Now are >> FEMA says it's their most environmentally sensitive area. >> So okay, I'm trying to just get a grasp on this. the
when they go to D permitting, they're going to be required to submit a CAFRA compliance statement, which is far more intensive than our requirements for what our requirements are for a um environmental impact statement. We
typically allow them to submit those CAFER compliance statements in lie of um so you know that would be something that I would ask them to do certainly >> as a condition. >> As a condition
>> okay >> as a condition. Well, personally, I would like to see that kind of a study done before any any other movement on this project is taking place because >> So, Dennis, are you saying a study or are you saying a statement? Because >> an environmental impact analysis, which
is >> impact analysis. So, you actually want to study. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that the language >> study just like >> the problem with us getting an environmental impact statement is that there is no prescribed buffer in our ordinance. There's no in prescribed
requirements for them addressing certain environmental constraints. That's why they always leave it to the New Jersey D. Um, so we can't we can't apply stuff that's not in our ordinance to their development because there's nothing in our code. So we'll get that. We'll see
that it might be environmentally sensitive. Where do we go from there? >> But how how are we sure that DP will will will examine each of these? There's two pages of of required areas to study in an environmental impact statement in
our code. How are we going to be sure that the DP does that kind of comprehensive job on all of those two pages and including things like uh wildlife and rare and endangered species and the whole thing >> all of it all I was preparing a caffer
compliance statement this morning so I'm very familiar with them. Um they are extremely comprehensive. um you have to go through essentially the entire CFRA code and demonstrate that you comply with every chapter that's in there >> and not just and it's not just within
the two parcels of land we're talking about now. It's within the the surrounding area of that whole see because my thinking on this is that the city and lots of folks spent time and money on this broad desert track
problem. It it is the most complicated, complex land acquisition we've ever had down here. And it's all hinging on the environmental sensitivity of this area. Not just this, not just these two pieces of land. The entire area is a is an
ecosystem. It's it it was sold and concluded as a comprehensive ecosystem covering that whole area. And and if we start a process that chisels off a little piece of land, even if even if the individual is by right entitled to
submit plans for that, we we need to make sure that that that something doesn't get out of whack and it'll be too late to fix it. >> Understood. We are not environmental experts. >> Correct. That's why we always defer to
the outside jurisdictional agency which is the New Jersey DP to one evaluate what you know the impacts of this development are on the surrounding area you know vegetation fauna etc. So
wouldn't it be better to to uh table this whole issue until that study is done so that we are comfortable with what it's going to do to us? >> I can tell from a legal standpoint if it's not in the code in terms of what is required from the applicant to proceed
here today which my understanding it's not based upon what Greg is. >> It's not a checklist requirement. not a checklist requirement notwithstanding that there may be other sections within the code then the applicant is not under a requirement to produce one although I
would imagine that in order to get final approval you could ask the applicant to produce that before ultimately uh final approval >> actually that's not what I was said that's what I just said what I said was why can't we just postpone the
deliberation of this applicant until the state does that study. >> The problem with that is that uh ultimately this applicant needs to have certain direction from this board on preliminary approval before he can get all of the uh ducks in a row to
ultimately resolve a lot of the environmental concerns. >> What what I'm hearing, Dennis, is there's there's a lot of people that a lot of eyes on this project and it looks like the first one has to be us. that that's the direction I'm getting from all the all the professionals.
>> You may very well approve this preliminarily and it go to the D and they might find issue with it and they may have to come back with a whole new drawing depending you know on on their work um
and bring back an amended preliminary and final subdivision application at some point. I think >> we have no idea what is going to happen after we're done, but we give them the initial direction of okay, your street widths are okay, your roadways are
network is okay, the parking is okay, and it establishes how much room that they need to do what they're going to do. And then whether they can permit it or not is a totally different question left up to the New Jersey D. Would it ever get to a point where the D would
say this whole project is too adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas to to proceed? >> I don't know what they're going to say, >> Mr. Monzo. The title owner of the soil tract is NJ. Correct. >> That's correct. So I mean if I the major
concern here is us knowing prior to any final approval whether or not the DP has gone through that envir environmental impact checklist >> called a capper compliance >> complaint statement. Okay. And to ensure that they have looked at this and
scrutinized it to understand if there will be either now or at some future point in time. >> So Tony didn't you just say this is not a CARFA permit? It is not a CAFER project, >> but the but the permitting is under the umbrella of CAFRA. >> The D land use regulation program will
will vet it from an environmental standpoint, not just looking at transition areas. And I I just want to point out, you know, the city has re has zoned this area R1 PW. Craig laid out in his review memo
the intent and purposes of the R1PW zone and this applicant meets all of those requirements with the exception of one variance for the retaining wall and there's justification for that which we will provide. I mean if if the city didn't want any development here they
could have zoned this just conservation areas no development. They wouldn't do that because it creates problems, legal problems to try to zone somebody out of any substantial or any economic benefit from land, especially that predates any zoning changes. And again, this if this
applicant had come in here in 2000 when the Velvetto project was being developed, I think it would have been a much much more intense development because there would have been much more land to work with and it would have eliminated the retaining wall waiver.
The only the only reason the retaining wall variance is needed is because of the transition areas and the inability to slope the lands down into the transition areas. So as to not so as to not disturb the transition areas, the applicant is looking to do a series of
retaining walls that are higher than what is otherwise permitted under the under the code. And because it's in the zoning code, I would typically look at it as a waiver and Craig identifies it as variance. not disagreeing with him because it's something that's in the zoning code. >> So, >> so, so this would come back to the board
again. >> This has to come has to come back to the board. >> They're only asking for preliminary approval tonight. It has to come back to the board before they can create lots. And to the extent to the extent that the environmental issues are of grave concern here, which they obviously are,
you know, normally or sometimes final site plan approval is given subject to a condition later on that they get the D approvals. I would suggest that in this particular case when they come back for final site plan approval uh final um
approval, subdivision approval that uh you make sure that you have all of the environmental data in front of you before that is actually granted. >> And would that be for final approval then at that time? >> Correct. >> Final approval >> be final. So, so then it'd be the
possibility of saying even renderings of what the houses would look like and >> but it it would also it would also be making it subject to the council vacating the streets. >> Yeah. >> There's there's there's different lot of moving parts here. >> Them getting approval for the modification of the wastewater
management plan. That's the major hurdle. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And tie to water and sewer. None of that exists. So >> I mean there there has been um it was reviewed by the superintendent of water sewer department. So it is available >> and just I just want to touch on why
this is not in a sewerable area. >> At the time when all the litigation was going forward the city had their plan endor Craig maybe remember this >> I know >> and a new plan endorsement application had to be submitted and everything in S point was said we're never going to develop this. I'm not sure if it was
based on an understanding that it was all owned by Eastgate May Associates, but they did carve out those blocks on Maryland Avenue where the D was going to allow development. So, right now you have, I think, three or four blocks across from the Beach Club that are in the sewer service area, but can never be
developed. And you have four blocks here, only two of which we're looking to develop that are outside the sewer service area. So, it's almost like a trade-off of one for the other. And the only reason these were lumped in with everything is because of everything going on with S point litigation.
Okay. >> I I have another question with regard to affordable housing. Um it's noted that you will be required to have four units. Um so before this obviously would come back for final or even before uh council
like to know what the plan is associated with that. I understand that you can do a contributing for the point4 but the the four units need to be identified. >> Yeah. And that's the areas have not been identified. They are exploring areas for that. Obviously that's a condition of
approval and we also agree that that will be phased so that for every four market rate lots for which permits are issued, there has to be one affordable unit provided one out of four 20%. And also under the ordinance that unless
it's changed, Craig, when you're doing set aside, 20% set aside, you're allowed a 40% density bonus. We're not taking advantage of that. It would throw us over the caffer limit, but again, this is all environmentally sensitive development on large lots, totally
consistent with the residential with the with the most stringent residential standards that exist in Kate May. The board's familiar with the density bonus because um Harbor Cove subdivision took advantage of that and I explained that to the board back in back in the day. Um
so I agree with Mr. Mono Monzo's >> comment there. Um yes, they could take advantage of a density bonus and they're not doing so. >> Um um that being said, I I I think we're starting to get into testimony. It would
it's my recommendation that we vote on completeness now on those two checklist items letter F and I under the major subdivision checklist under 445-28 on page three of my report and just make
sure that we're the board is okay with granting those waiverss and moving on with reviewing this application. Can I if we have specific questions as Bob said on what style housing and so on more um about the development that
should be held till the next meeting or is that something we do tonight? >> Well, unless you're prepared to explain to us how many bedrooms and the style and the usage of the homes. >> I haven't gotten that for you. Okay. Not that far. >> All right. So, >> yeah. And these are just lots at this point fully conforming. So there's just
a footprint of development that's being approved and you know each homeowner would have to come in if they are sold as lots with its plan. It may not we're not looking at track housing where we're going to build every house looking the same. So similar to what happened you
know along Beach Avenue where the Christian Admiral was people will buy lots and build homes that will go through whatever approval process is necessary >> and you know consistent with the neighborhood scheme. Um >> Craig, are pools permitted in this area?
>> Yes, pools are accessory appro approved. Um >> accessory use >> accessory use to a principal single family dwell. >> Tony, I did add to have a question about your plan for the size of the houses. Your plans seem to show anywhere between
9,400 and 10. >> That's a lot size. >> It's a lot size. >> No, no, it says >> that's a lot size. >> Oh, it's a lot size. I'm sorry. Okay. >> I think are we looking for a motion for completeness at this time? I'll make that motion. >> Thank you.
>> I have one more question. Um the water supply in our town is in jeopardy and how do these 22 homes fit in with pools into that? Has that been explored? >> Right now there's a motion on the floor
to deem this uh this application as complete. Your question really goes more to the to the application itself. So there's a motion there. I haven't heard a second at this point. >> Perhaps you would perhaps perhaps we could just ask you to clarify that there
might be some questions. You're asking us only to vote on >> the completeness. >> The completeness. Okay. >> It's the waiverss. The waver to move forward. >> I'm looking at Maryland. >> A lot of times what we do is do these at the end >> like and listen to the whole thing. But
these I think on an application like this I think we should deem either deem them complete or incomplete so that we don't waste our time if we deem them incomplete and waste everyone's time in the audience. Um make sure that the board is comfortable with granting these waiverss um and moving on into the
application review. >> So it doesn't mean that they're not going to meet the requirements of the of the waiver later on. It just means we're not asking for it right now. Beyond that though, there's there's a motion that is on the table to have this application deemed as complete. If you
vote yes, you're voting that it is complete and the application for preliminary um >> subdivision approval will move forward tonight. If you vote no, then that ends tonight's hearing on this issue. The
applicant then uh will submit and resubmit and you'll be right back here with respect to uh this application. So really the only two waiverss that they're seeking are the ones that are identified in Craig's report on page
three, items F and I. And both of those items have been recommended as moving as uh recommended by Craig as to waiver and move forward move forward. So I've heard a motion but not a second. >> I'll I'll second.
>> Okay. Mr. Rig's motions. Deputy Mayor McDade seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Yes. >> Council member Bodner. >> Yes. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Reed? >> Yes. >> Mr. Crowley? >> No.
>> Mr. Lhome? >> Yes. >> Mr. Riggs? >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bizair? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Okay. Mr. Nater. Since Tony has done such a terrific job
talking about engineering, I was going to tell him go ahead and continue. >> Well, you're so what I say doesn't matter. Um, >> so if you can just explain the project and and I want you to focus as you do as you explain it on the road and the retaining wall because that's the only
issue that I think has been >> identified as a as something that requires a variance. So >> yeah, absolutely. If I may, um, I know we we identified this one as exhibit A2 um >> on the reverse. >> I'm sorry.
>> It's okay. I'm not sure everyone in the back can hear you. >> I will try not to scream. How is >> Is this good? All right. Um I'm going to start with this one. This is actually C102. I'm going to need
>> We haven't A3. >> Is there a number on that? Is that part of the application just not colorized >> or is colorized? Thank you. >> C102. Yep. >> Do we have 102? >> I don't I didn't see this.
>> So, it's part of your plan. >> The big one. Is that the big one? Okay. >> What we decided to do is to basically bring two exhibits that give you >> Can you see? >> You're all right. Okay. um that give you the ability to see the
proposed subdivision relative to the adjacency to the adjacent uses uh to our lots to our proposed subdivision. As you could see in here, we're basically situated between 1178 1179.
Maryland Avenue is situated at the center of our sheet in here. This is the background of our exhibit is the aerial map of uh the location. So you could see on the lower half of the sheet are the existing homes that presently exist uh
with the exception of some new development taking place on the upper side of Valento. And then the upper side of the sheet in here represents basically the subdivision that we are proposing which is a 22 lot subdivision fully conforming with the exception of
the variances that we or the waiverss we just voted on. So what we did is we shaded the area that represented the wetlands. Now to give you a little bit of brief history um we we worked with the D over the course of almost two years. We went out we delineated the
wetlands. We met with the D. Uh it's a very very tough site to get into. It's um I'd be highly surprised to even find anything which I didn't find anything that existed within the area. Nevertheless, something different subject. The um we we met on site
several times at the end uh we agreed as to where the line is and where the wetlands line is located for which we surveyed and located on our existing plan. So what you see before you with the subdivision plans that we submitted, you will see the location of the
wetlands basically relative to the boundary of the site, an exact location. It is represented here on this exhibit A3 as well. And as you could tell, the subdivision does not encroach onto the wetlands. It basically takes Brooklyn
Avenue and extends Brooklyn Avenue. And because of the buffer that the D gave us regarding the wetlands which is the highest buffer that that it can give to wetland which is 150 ft. Uh we decided to stay as far away from the
wetlands as possible. So we did not completely maintain that rightway that existing rightway at Brooklyn Avenue. We actually started with it and then made a bend into our property and created a brand new rightway that will allow us to create lots on either side of the
proposed road. So, as you come in off of Brooklyn, you come all the way through the property into the very first part of the subdivision. You get to a stop sign. You make a left into a new road again that parallels Maryland. That road takes
you all the way, it's identified as Cedar Court, takes you all the way to a culde-sac. And then at the end of the culde-sac, the first culde-sac, you drop down south in the direction of this of the lower part of the sheet to another culde-sac. And again, we propose the
lots on either side of the proposed roadway uh within our property. >> Sir, excuse me, a question. So you would be bringing in construction vehicles along Brooklyn. >> It's the only access point.
>> Well, right now this is the proposed access the main access point. However, we have an >> clarify the audience is not able to see it. So I just want to clarify for those listening at home. >> Okay. >> Um we do have a proposed at the end of the culdesac the second culde-sac which
is closer to Maryland or the paper street portion of Maryland. We do have a proposed emergency access that ties into uh Baltimore, I believe. So, vehicles, construction vehicles can use that access if need be, and they have a dual
ability, whether it's Brooklyn or Baltimore. Um the U as I said earlier, the the proposed subdivision completely stays away from the wetlands themselves. However, we do encroach onto the buffers
for which we prepared a buffer averaging plan. A DU allows you to submit for a permit for buffer averaging. So, if you take portion of the buffer, you have to give them back equal amount whether in length or in square feet. And that's what we did and that's what we designed
this subdivision to basically take as only as needed in order to um allow us to create the 22 lot subdivision. and we found areas that we gave it back to the D. Now again as stated earlier we will
be upon receiving you know hopefully an approval we will be going to the D for several permits and those permits are also identified on the sheets. I believe it's the grading and landscape plan uh that you have before you. It will be
general permit transition area waiver. Couple general permits and transition area waivers. Um in order to remain away from the wetlands and in order to remain or maintain the disturbance to
the minimum possible which is the footprint of the road, the curbing on the road, the sidewalk associated with it. We basically were were in need to create or to build a retaining wall at the edge because if we did not do a retaining wall as all of
you would know, you'd end up with an embankment from the edge of the road down to a limit where you meet existing conditions, existing grade condition. So in order to limit that additional disturbance, we proposed the retaining wall for which that retaining wall ended up being higher than 2 ft. Now that was
one reason, one main reason. The second reason is that the utilities the proposed utilities within the road network that we are proposing uh such as the the sewer system that we are proposing uh we we elected to keep it as
a gravity sewer line and in order to keep it a gravity sewer line we basically needed to have a certain elevation on the road to maintain that depth of that sewer line and tied to the existing conditions or to the existing sewer system within Brooklyn, Maryland
and so on. Uh those two conditions dictated where the elevation the roaded elevation and the final elevation is going to be. And again that dictated then as to where the edge of the road is going to be and how far we can take that edge of the road out and how much
disturbance we will end up having. So again, I go back to what I stated earlier, which is we ended up building a retaining wall or proposing a retaining wall. We're not building it, you had proposing a retaining wall at the edge of the road to limit the disturbance to the buffer.
>> Can you trace on that on that exhibit where that retaining wall is with the varying heights? >> Absolutely. It's actually shown also on your plan. I believe it's on the grading and landscape plan with designation of TWWBW top of wall bottom of wall and each one
of them gives you an elevation as to what the top of wall elevation is what the bottom of wall the difference between them represents the height of that wall. So having said that um >> excuse me sir for for the public can you give us what's the minimum what's the
the >> so the maximum height that that I I recall looking at the plan is approximately 7 ft it's um it's either exactly 7 feet or 6.9 ft >> that above grade or above sea level >> it's above grade
uh at the very beginning as we start with our road from basically the intersection of Maryland and Brooklyn, uh, the retaining wall is approximately 1.9 ft. But as we get into the site, it varies from that point. Now, that
elevation, that 6.9 ft elevation is not on the road. It's actually I haven't gotten to that yet, but it's actually behind the homes in order again to limit the disturbance associated with the construction or the building of these homes to the minimum possible or the
maximum possible, whichever way you look at it. So we're not disturbing any more of the buffer beyond what we need. Yes, Tony. >> And an 8 foot and an 8 foot retaining wall wouldn't disturb that much brick, mortar, concrete.
>> So the retaining walls that we're proposing are reinforced concrete walls. >> Yeah, >> they will be institute. They will not disturb any more than the location where they will be. >> But your own wetlands are you're in close proximity. I mean, it's sort of everything's a little bit of I mean, I'm familiar with this. I live in Village
Green. I mean, it was a marsh, so you know, we all know what it's like there. You know, after a period of time, I would imagine something with the weight of an 8ft wall. How long is this? >> It's not 8 foot, if I may. The highest I said is 6.9 ft. >> Okay, 6.9. I stand correct. It How long
is this retaining wall? >> So, the the 6.9 is the highest point of that retaining wall. It drops on either side as you go 5t one way and 5t the other way. It actually >> So the pitch >> it it it changes elevations because of the grade uh the existing grade right in
front of it. So >> but it's behind the home correct >> there. The wall is behind if I may get to it. >> This shows it's on the roadway going in >> again. Let me get to it. I haven't gotten to the explanation of where we are.
>> Let me just ask this wall is retaining what? water coming in. >> Let me get to it if you don't mind. Give me a chance to explain. >> Okay. >> What we're doing. >> Hold on one second. >> Hey guys, let let him try to explain it
to us. I I was confused myself. So, let's just have one conversation. >> And that's why I I just wanted you to start at the entrance because it the heights vary. If you and if you can >> that's just if you can kind >> suggestion was a good one. Put your finger on where the wall is on the
>> I'm going to highlight it better. >> Whatever. Let's >> this way. Everybody can see it. So >> he's going to explain it. >> No, I'm sorry. A member of the So these plans are were made available through >> Well, we have to see it. >> We have to see it first and then we'll
turn it around. How's that? because we have to see what what he's pointing to to make sure that we're clear from the applicant standpoint and then we'll turn it around. >> You're more than welcome to come up stand behind us. That that's a good idea. >> You can come stand behind us if you want to, >> but we need to see it. So, but then we
can turn it around if you're okay with that. >> Yeah, we'll turn it around. >> We absolutely will. >> And the chairman, you do you want it here? Do you want it back there? Wherever it would >> is everybody okay with being back here
and then we all turn around look at it >> around that's perfectly fine >> when we do presentations. Yeah. >> Back where that other sign is that >> Yeah, that's fine. Thank you. >> Yeah. Now everybody has to move forward.
>> Need go there. >> I don't know how many people can see it from here. Anyway, >> I can at least see what your what your um >> just need to put this. >> You want to leave it here? >> Yeah. Did Did anyone want to come up and see
it? Are you all good? Okay. >> Microphones, please. 5.9 wall. Yeah. So you can see the difference between the wall. Hope everybody can see it. Um, >> so what I highlighted on this exhibit A3
with an orange highlighter is the location of the proposed retaining wall. >> The proposed retaining wall starts almost right at the intersection of Maryland and Brooklyn and works its way north on the sheet. Um, basically
following the edge of the proposed road, the access road into the proposed development. Um it is again like I said it is provided and designed to maintain the limit or limit the disturbance associated with the road to the maximum
possible. So we're not encroaching any more into the buffer than we have to. It makes a turn by the very first lot. >> Um if you can what's the height of the retaining wall in that initial section where the road is? Like I said, it starts uh at the beginning in here approximately 1.9 ft and then it
increases because this is a lower area by the wetland. There is a ditch that connects this wetland area with another wetland area that's not shown on this exhibit A3 over to the right of the proposed access. Um, so it basically it
it >> covers that that lower dip which is the existing ditch and then it picks up again all the way to approximately 3 ft along the road maybe almost 4t. Like I said it varies in elevation. >> Would you be able to mark that a little
bit so the board can follow? >> It's actually it's on the sheet like I said but for the public's benefit it might be helpful just so we have some pinpoints along the way here. I'd be happy to do it. Let me I'd have to look at the plan so I could follow what the plan says >> just so when the public comes up and
they start looking at this they can see >> yes >> kind of the benefit of your your narrative. So the other question is when you have the the the B the B W and the T bottom of the wall top of the wall >> correct
>> the bottom of the wall is a grade >> the bottom of the wall is the grade >> grade and the top of the wall is is >> is the road elevation >> the difference between those is the height of the wall >> yeah it's like I said we for design engineering this is how we identify retaining walls bottom wall top of wall
we don't call it by height we call it high elevations of these two u segments >> and and obviously I I don't think you have to mark like every step of the way but I think it would be beneficial so they can see kind of where you're
talking about in the beginning and then kind of just some pinpoints along so because I know I'm sure they're going to want to come up and see this and it's easier to visualize
like J, >> I I I do think u Mr. Monzo, you know, should this application move forward, it would be very helpful to have a rendering of this. >> I'm sorry. >> A rendering of what this wall is going to look like in this development as you enter and as you,
>> you know, navigate through. Even if it's behind the homes, you can still see it from obviously if you're driving through. So, it's going to be an enclosed wall almost within this area. So, >> um I had a question on this bill.
>> Hold on. Go ahead. >> Yeah. My question is your plan the the D said that where you're putting your your lots is upland and not wetlands. >> Correct. >> Why do you need a retaining wall if it's
not in the wetlands? So the D created general permits and the general permits are in place to give anyone any any citizen of the state of New Jersey the ability to make changes to their requirements whether it's a 50ft buffer
or 150 foot buffer. So they're not these lines are not set in stone. So that you have the ability to basically encroach into those buffers a certain distance as long as you give back elsewhere the same amount of area that you're taking out.
So we are only fitting within what the D gives us the ability to do so. >> Yeah. But my question is if the lots are not in the wetlands, why do you need retaining walls around all of them except the ones up on Kate May Avenue? So we stay within the
requirements of a general permit. Again, there are every general permit has its own requirements as to what you can and cannot do and there are limitations associated with it. So in order to stay within those limitations, we propose the retain. >> In layman terms, you you can't have any
drainage going from these lots into the buffer. That's the purpose of it. >> No, no, it's not it has nothing to do with drainage. It just simply is a footprint of disturbance. It's it's basically what the D tells you is that we don't want you to go beyond those limits that we established for that
specific general permit. Uh you could do whatever you want. You know, you could encroach up to 75 ft. You could take 75 ft of those buffers but give it to give it back to us somewhere else. >> I'm talking about the wall. So the the
wall is like I said when you cumulatively add all the disturbances associated with the the the the buffers and what you can give back because of the limitations that we are working with on this property when you do so um you
you need to balance the takeaway and and the give back. >> That's the buffer averaging you're talking about. >> Yes, that is the buffer average. >> We're talking about the wall. >> Well, that the wall is still >> put a fence up. you you can. The only issue with it is that we haven't gotten to the elevation of the road yet. I
we're ahead of ourselves. I haven't even discussed what the elevation of the road yet, >> but I'm I'm happy to do so. You would allow me to give the elevations associated. >> Mr. Nater, if you can just explain why the road needs to be elevated, I think
that might clear things up. Is that >> I think I did, Tony, but I'm happy to to, you know, revisit that again. So the reason why the road is elevated to the level that we are proposing, there's actually several reasons. Reason number one is related to the utilities that
we're proposing. Again, if we don't have a gravity sewer line, we end up with a pump station and I know the city of Cape May does not necessarily endorse pump stations. In the event of a of a power failure, that pump station is not going
to work. So gravity line is always suggested and recommended. So that's the primary reason as you get these lots that are further away from Maryland Avenue um and where the sewer line is situated to get the sewer at the proper
gravity that is required by the DP. You need to elevate the road so you can bury that sewer line. Otherwise, you're not meeting the invert, the existing invert within Maryland Avenue. So that's primary reason number one. Now that you've elevated the road, you fit the utilities within that roaded. As a
result, you have two potential situations or conditions. Either you leave the road where it is and you follow the embankment down on either side of the road to meet existing conditions that for which you're disturbing more of the buffer than you need to or you propose a retaining wall
to hold that back and limit the disturbance to the buffer. So that's the reason and henceforth the the uh uh the reality of the design, the change in the design to fit what we ended up with. >> Did you uh say a minute ago that when
you planned the road you you cut off the connection of the wetlands from the left to the right? >> No, >> you didn't say that. >> We never cut it off. >> Well, on this map on this map here, >> there's a pipe that connects from one side to the other. We are
>> you're going to run a a conduit underneath. >> That is correct. Yes, absolutely. We would never cut it off. >> I I have a question. >> Community going to be located. >> Uh it's not a gated community. >> I thought they said
>> no, the only thing I don't know who said that, but uh no, the only there is a gate in here at the end or at the at the limit of the emergency access because we don't want people once this is built, we don't want people utilizing this access. This is only emergency for emergency
vehicles, but outside of that, this is not a gated community. >> Mr. Nater, yes. Just a question. On the elevation of the road, um, at its at its peak, how much higher is it than what is it? Maryland Avenue there. >> How much higher is it from the existing >> road? Yes,
>> that's what I was going to get to. Um, so again I I refer you to sheet C5 and sheet C5 gives you elevations on either side of the road right from the beginning all the way to the very first
lots. Um, I got it here. So you got at on the left side when you start driving in approximately station 5 50 plus 0 I'm sorry 10 + 50 you have a wall elevation of approximately 1.9 ft. And if you get
to station 11 + 0 0 you have a a difference in elevation of approximately 5.9 ft. And then as you work your way up to station almost uh 11 + 75 you have a three an elevation wall elevation of
4.2. And then as you work your way over to the very first bend before you go behind lot number one you have a and it's covered by uh it appears to be approximately 5T. So
like I said, it starts low and then somehow it picks up. >> So you go from like from Maryland to its peak is about a 5ft difference. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And is it sanitary or storm water that's dictating this? >> That is correct. >> Pardon me.
>> Yes. Sanitary and storm. Both of them. >> Yes. And it's a continuous wall as you have it indicated on the orange all the way around. >> It's a continuous wall. So theoretically >> that basically maintains that buffer
between the wetlands and their buffers and the proposed development, but there is no wall on the upper side of the subdivision, >> but the entire interior as area of the all of those residential lots would have a reinforced concrete retaining wall going all the way around. Correct. >> That is correct. Yes.
>> Can you point >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. Well, I was going to ask looking at your looking at CO5, you have the the rightways delineated on here as well, >> correct? >> So, and it looks as though
So, there the concrete wall would be on looks like on lot eight and lot one and lot two. >> Yes. >> On the rightway. >> Well, we're looking to vacate that right away. Again, it's part of the vacation would be to vacate Idaho,
which is in its entirety across our our blocks. Uh to vacate vacate portion of um Cape May Avenue. Cape May Avenue right away is 200 ft. So, we're vacating half of that. Um vacating the entire
basically right away for Brooklyn and uh vacating partial rightway of Baltimore. So the it's a it's it's basically a rectangle as you could see. It's difficult to see on this exhibit, but
it's a rectangle and the streets cut into it in a cross manner. So we are vacating the streets that are but our properties. I just want to point out and not going to interrupt your continuation on this but this is a dilemma of what are you
going to satisfy? It's the D doesn't want disturbance in the transition areas which is the only reason this retaining wall is being proposed to avoid that to to help it's an environmentally uh sound technique to to eliminate disturbance of
transition areas but in order to do that we need a variance from the two foot height limit you have on retaining walls this project this I mean it can be done without a retaining wall but again it would bank down and slope down into the transition
areas which would create D problems. Not saying it's insurmountable, but I I don't know that there there's enough land to work with to meet that transition area requirement. Now, if this project was brought here 25 years ago with a 50-ft buffer, I don't think
we'd be talking about retaining calls. >> Back back to my original question before we got all sidetracked here. Can you just point where I guess simply where's the highest point of that? Where's the 6.9 foot? Where does that where's the high
point and where's your low point? >> So this is the highest point right at the corner in here of lot >> lot number one. >> Okay. And where's the low point? >> Varies. Where does that start again? >> Right here at the very beginning we have 1.9 ft.
>> Okay. So now after that 6.9 foot where the high point is where where does it it all starts sloping back down from there or does it maintain at that 6.9 >> all the way behind the houses >> be yeah but it doesn't maintain that level. No. So >> it it varies
>> it varies because it basically the road is not straight you know again on any proposed road you have a high point and a low point. >> Okay. >> So with that in mind you know with a low point it's going to basically with >> Yes correct >> properties. Yes.
>> So, as an option, >> is it on the lots or is it on the wetland side of the lots? >> It's on the lots. The retaining walls are on the lots within the lots themselves. They are proposed to create a limit of what the potential owners can
build on and what they are not allowed to go beyond. >> How wide are they? >> Um, you mean the retaining wall? >> 6 in. probably going to end up being more like 8 in with a fence on top. >> So, how so how high is the fence that you're proposing on top of this
retaining wall? >> The that's the first I'm hearing of a of a fence on top of the retaining wall. >> Well, the the code does not allow you to have a 5ft retaining wall or 5ft wall or 5ft drop without having a fence. >> Right. >> So, the code requires you to have
>> So, how high are you proposing a fence to be on top of the retaining wall? So, probably 42 in. Okay. Because I think just for the benefit of the public, people are trying to visualize what this retaining wall is going to look like. I know the board, myself, I'm
trying to visualize, okay, in the back of the property, the retaining wall, high point, 6.9 ft. And then you got 42 in of a fence on top of a 6.9 ft retaining wall. >> Again, high. I'm talking about a high and a and a low.
>> You're right. But you you're you're I know it's our nature. We harp on on on always the max and the min, but this is one point at 6.9. Like I said, as soon as you you march your way 2 ft beyond that, it's going to drop. >> Sure. It flows. It flows with the
correct property. I think we're all just trying to visualize how how it would would look. >> Yeah. And ultimately that retaining wall is basically going to have vegetation that's going to grow and cover that retaining wall. It's not going to be a a
nice gray concrete wall that will remain concrete wall forever. Uh we are proposing um lot landscaping. It's shown on one of the detail sheets that shows all the landscaping that is proposed on the lot. Now certainly there may be variations when a potential owner comes
in and buys a lot, but we're giving them guidance as to what we are proposing in terms of landscaping on the individual lots. And there is quite a bit of landscaping proposed. So, with that being said, ultimately that retaining wall in the rear of these lots that are
basically facing the wetlands uh will ultimately have vegetation that will grow up that wall and all you're going to see is the fence. Now, keeping in mind, we also have a another exhibit that shows a section that's taken from Vento through our property, and you
could see basically that the elevation is practically the same u within maximum of 1 ft difference. So, we are not proposing to build this property to an elevation that's going to exceed the existing elevations of Vento. It's
practically almost at the same elevation as Vento. >> I'm having trouble visualizing um the roadway that you want to vacate. Is it becoming incorporated into the actual housing lots? >> So, the the presently the
Let me get to uh probably a better plan. Give me a moment >> because that would be city land and if you want it vacated or >> it's actually not city land. It's um >> well the owner I mean I'll let I'll let Tony talk to the legal part of it. But this is a a paper street that if there
is no use or purpose for it then it should resort back to the property owners but that right ofway not just us. It would be us and the D and everybody else that owns properties adjacent to that paper street. It happens all the
time in the state of New Jersey. I've I've >> The city does not own the streets. It's a public right of way. The city controls the streets, but if they're ever vacated, the city can't take ownership of them. It just reverts back to the adjoining property owners. >> All right, >> Mr. Nater, I have a question. Please.
>> Yes. Yes, please go ahead. >> Um, what's that number? >> C9. >> Map CO9. It shows it it shows like an elevation and it shows like the tip it shows like the the raised concrete and then it has the fence above it, right? But then it has
the lot line sloping down to that. >> Uh let me get to that plan and take a look at it. >> That's what I thought was >> what was this? Yeah.
>> All right. I have CO9. Um, this is part of the plan sheets that you have with you. Uh, which detail is it? >> Upper right hand corner. >> Yeah.
>> So, yeah. So, this is a typical landscape wall section. Again, we provide details. Um, we propose a or we're proposing a concrete retaining wall, but there are many other types of
walls that can be constructed that are the same as a concrete retaining wall, especially on the properties that will be eventually owned by private homeowners. So, private homeowner may decide to say, I want a landscape wall instead of a concrete retaining wall.
and we're giving him the option to have the ability to build such a wall. >> My point was that it looks like the lot the land from the lot is sloping down to the retaining wall. Correct. >> Yeah. It's a typical it's a typical
section. That doesn't mean it gets built in that manner. It's >> then the fence the fence is actually above. >> So you have a fence and the lot line lot slopes down to this down to the fence. Correct. >> Not towards the fence. It's it's to meet the top of the wall. It doesn't. The fence is not retaining anything. It just
simply up in the air. >> Now, is that typical for all the lots? >> That is typical for all the lots. That is correct. >> Okay. >> That's however though, we do have a a I'd have to check to see which detail it's on. The concrete retaining wall.
>> The lots are not surrounded by a wall. It's a fence that's on top of the wall and the ground goes to the basically to the top of that wall for each of the lots. Then the wall goes down to the correct area. >> Yes, absolutely. >> Because I was envisioning a tall wall
around all the property. >> Oh, no, no, no, no. Okay. I'm I'm glad you clarified. No, >> that's what I thought got described. >> When viewed by from the street, you're pretty much only going to see the rear fence, >> right? the pro. If you're looking out your backyard, you might be able to see
the wall across the way to the lots. Like, you know, this is U-shaped. So, if you're looking out your backyard, you may be able to see the backyard, someone else's wall. But otherwise, if you're driving down the road, you're really not going to see have much opportunity to see the wall except for in a little
where they like there's some little returns in the wall. That's the only opportunity where you're really going to see it. If you were on the inside, would it look like a hollow essentially with the with the wall all the way around? Is that what >> that's the wetlands the wetlands buffer and all the vegetation? So it's it's
it's going to be grown up. >> So all the lots are essentially then filled to the level of the top of the wall. Correct. Yes. >> Correct. >> So I'm sorry. You just mentioned that the property owner will have the choice to be able to build a wall or put in landscaping >> to be able to build a a landscape wall
or a concrete retaining wall because they ultimately will maintain that. So well within the right of way within the going back to exhibit A3 again. So >> they have a choice of wall materials. >> Okay. >> On the roadway approach before we start
the lots that has to be a concrete retaining wall. That's mandatory. But then beyond that, the wall behind the the um the proposed lots can either be concrete or landscape wall. >> So, how do we know that they're going to do that?
>> Because we're going to submit plans, site plans to Craig for his review. >> I mean, one thing is to build a retaining wall. I mean, obviously that is is a little bit more permanent than someone saying they're putting in a landscape plan and then following through on it. I'm not I'm just trying to make sure I think this board has you
know um have have some issues in the past. Now there's a flexibility of you can do concrete or you can do some kind of a landscape plan and even though it's submitted um >> no it's not with all due resp um >> he's saying that there's the possibility
of the material of a wall changing. >> Okay. If this plan is approved, you're every lot that has a wall on it, retaining wall on it, is going to have to have a retaining wall built on it. >> Okay. >> As per the >> Yes. period. And yes, >> but it doesn't doesn't necessarily mean
the same wall for every 22 lots. >> It could be. Yeah. They may choose a different material. I I don't I don't necessarily think that's a great idea because you It's not really decorative. The people aren't looking at this. So, like, you know, I I would I would argue
that they should come up with an engineered wall that's consistent throughout the entire development and everyone's required to build that wall. >> Well, that makes sense. >> And and I also have recommendations that there are the retaining walls actually in the the rightway. The rightaways
ultimately will be accepted by the the city. The city will own those. the retaining walls that are in the city. I recommended there be substantial upgrade to the type of design that they are because the city does not want to maintain those. They want them to be
built once and not have to worry about >> Well, wouldn't it be better then, Craig, to require the builder to build all those walls and then let the lots fill in as the people buy them so that the walls are there when you market the 22 pieces? Is that >> I I agree with you. That's the way we we
we would be looking to do it. >> Change my mind. I I'm working on. >> So, so where that where that wall is on the interior, there could be as much as a 5ft drop down to to down to grade. >> Correct. Yes. >> And on the other side on the street side
that's got to be pitched towards the street. >> That is correct. Yes. So at at on one side it will be the the >> a drop >> a drop and on the other side it will match basically the street level. >> So how much how much fill you bring in? It's a lot of fuel
>> to those to those lots. >> Oh, to the lots. Well, like I said, they vary because >> and the street. >> We have to several conditions to build these. One, like I said, utilities to build the road. Two is the flood hazard and the elevation of of the finish floor
of these homes that have to be higher uh than than flood elevation. So, there are many conditions that we're working with in order to be able to build these homes. >> What's the existing grade there? Now, >> it varies. is the existing grade at the beginning where we we access the site is approximately
five and a half six as you go up to the top left of the of the sheet it goes up to approximately eight so it varies from five to eight >> we got to get it up to around 11 >> we have to get it up to about 11 yes so that's why I said you know up here at
the very first culdeac we don't have any walls on the back proposed lots but we do have it on the side that faces the wetland. >> It would it would make sense, I think, that all build all the walls at once before you start
>> Exactly. >> So, but and secondly, uh what about the footings of the walls because you're going to have to do a lot of work inside the buffer zone to to create footings to build those walls that are going to sustain themselves as as the flow of the
land goes from the top of the wall to the street. Otherwise, your drainage system doesn't work. >> Yeah, you you're right on with the idea of building the walls and filling these lots before, you know, we turn it over. Uh we've we've debated with the owner
what direction to take, but I do agree with you. The best way to do it is to construct the retaining walls. Obviously, we have to construct them for the road access. So, might as well continue all the way around it and finish them off. And then this way you could proceed with telling the homeowners that this is ready to build
but this is your limit of construction. You will not be able to exceed that limit of construction which is the retaining wall and the fence. Yes. >> Can I ask you another question? >> Yes. >> Somewhat related to this, but when the state came in and did their analysis for
this uh >> interpretation letter. >> Yes. >> 25. They were only looking at the wetlands within those two pieces of those four pieces of property. >> So the the state well they're obligated to look at all the wetlands within the
property the subject property plus 150 ft beyond. >> Okay. Did they what what was the state's assessment of the wetlands above that top line would be the built indicate May Avenue? >> As part of our application, there were
no wetlands anywhere near that that spot up here on the top. Uh there were also a wetlands delineation done and approved by the state for the previous owner before it got turned over to the D. And those wetlands were substantially further away from this development.
Well, my question is really there's nothing in the state's letter that says that. >> Yeah, they they're only going to send you a letter. The LOI is is specifically to the lot in question to the property in question. >> They're only going to give the answer to the question you asked them. Did anybody
ask them to assess the state of the wetlands above that property? Again, in their regulations, you're supposed to go beyond your property up to 150 ft because if there are wetlands within that 150 ft, they would cast the buffer on your property. So, you do look at it
beyond the limit of your property. But the legal part of it is that when you submit to the D, you're submitting for your property. And when they issue the LOI, they issue it for your property. They cannot issue it for somebody else's property. It's technically, correct me if I'm wrong, it's illegal to >> What you're saying is you need to
delineate wetlands that are surrounding at least 150 ft from the boundaries of the property. >> Correct. >> D review that and as a result determined that there were no wetlands to the north that were impacting this project. >> Exactly. In fact, there were we did find
wetlands to the south uh west of our property that we showed and we also showed a buffer casted beyond or associated with that those wetlands that basically is shown on one of the >> that LOI is comp encompasses all the wetlands that's surround each of that
that only lot only that lot for the LOI correct I >> mean the LOI is specific to a single lot >> it's specific to the property that you own. >> Yeah. One of one of >> could be one lot could be, you know, a lot of 200 acres or a lot of >> all four blocks in this case.
>> All right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. All four blocks. That is correct. Yes. >> Yeah. All right. I get it. >> I think at at this point um maybe we should have some planning testimony to at least address the reasons why and the
proofs that are needed to grant this variance. And I think there's C1 and C2 criteria that Craig identified in his review memo. And then we can go back to to Mr. Nater for um the comments that Craig had in his memo as well that that
are unrelated to the retain to the retention wall. So we have Craig uh Ron Camp, if I pronounced that correctly. >> That works. Council. >> Okay. Um who's a professional planner. Um you can swear him in and then he could put his credentials on the on the
record. What's his name? >> C R E I G H. Last name is R A H E N K A M P. >> You swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So I hope you got it. >> I do.
>> Want to spell your last name again for the record, please? >> Yes. It's Rancamp. R A H E N K A M P. >> Mr. Rancamp, can you just provide the board with your credentials, please? >> I will. And I'll keep it short unless you uh drag more out of me. Undergraduate University of
Pennsylvania, graduate uh degree from Georgetown. I've qualified in New Jersey in over a 100 trials. I've qualified in four other states and three federal districts. I was a consultant in the development of the residential site improvement standards here in New Jersey. Uh I spent eight years as our uh
professional association's vice president and I appear regularly before planning and zoning boards throughout the state. >> Where's your home base? >> Pom. >> I'm sorry. >> Where's your home base? >> Um raised my family in Palmyra at the moment. Your business >> in Palmyra. My business was in my home.
I'm self-employed. But I have to be honest. We recently moved to Maryland. So I'm in Betton, Maryland is where I'm currently uh residing. keep a PO box in Riverton. >> Is your license currently in good standing? >> It is and has been continuously for 35 years.
>> Hey, everybody's good, this gentleman. Okay. >> Just uh before you get into the the proofs required for the variance, can you just maybe add to what Mr. Nater testified to as to this retaining wall? >> Do we reasons for it and the benefits by
having it there? >> Sure. We've got we've got a a couple of issues of of relief, but I'll do that one first. Um, as council discussed, um, classifying this as a C1B, uh, to get hyper techchnical, um, which is a form of hardship variance, but is
specifically tied, and fortunately your review letter uh, from from your engineer has the standard in it. Uh, if you look at C1B, you'll see exceptional topographic conditions um, or physical features uniquely affecting a specific property. And that's exactly what we have here. It's the interface of the
wetlands, wetland buffers and upland areas and how best to use those upland areas and where those conditions create a peculiar or exceptional practical difficulty. So, it's not an impossibility. You don't have to go to that level. It's just a practical difficulty in the development of a
particular parcel of ground. That's the standard that we're addressing here. Um, and as you heard from the testimony, this is simply a way to do two things. One is to limit the area of development relative to the wetlands and wetland buffer to goes to a particular end and
ends at that point rather than feathering off the grading further into the buffer area as would be required to make the grades meet. Um and secondly it creates a demarcation for the residential lots as to as people said you go back in your backyard at at a
proper level and then you have your rear fence. It keeps people from wandering back into the areas where D would rather have them not wandering or mowing or doing property maintenance as happens when you don't have a a physical barrier between the developed area
you're trying to protect. I apologize if I broke your microphone. All right. Well, anyway, I'm typically loud enough anyway. Um, so those are the purposes that are being accomplished by this particular variance. And it's created, as I said, by the uh
configuration of the lot and the issues that Mr. Nater had testified to. And as I said, the benefits with limiting access of homeowners to the rear areas um and allowing the roadway to access the site with the minimum area of disturbance allowed to allow that to occur.
>> So these would in your opinion constitute sufficient purposes of zoning for C2 criteria as well. >> Um they would um yes, you could certainly qualify it under both. uh C2 is a policy variance and then I would talk about the benefits uh related to the purposes of the act. Um and here the
the overall policy purpose is using the land as zoned. Uh the governing body has determined that this is the R1PW zone. It's intended to be used for development. Uh and these are practical solutions to deal with the site conditions to allow the land to be used
as the governing body has zoned it. um that advances both purpose A um and in this case purpose G and that you're providing housing uh which meets needs of New Jersey residents um and the benefit and detriment weighing would be the same as I uh spoke for the C1. So
that would cover proofs for both C1 and C2 on that one. >> How about Jay? Promote conservation of historic sites and district open space energy resources and natural resources. >> Sure, you can throw in some of the lesser ones. I'd also throw in purpose M for the efficient use of land. Um so yes
there there are other purposes but A and G are the primary >> and you need to touch on the negative criteria. You want to elaborate on that? >> Um I did and I will again. Um essentially there is no negative criteria. The wall is not creating um a situation where we're have a wall where
people are supposed to be uh trying to access and you're blocking it in some way. Um it's not aesthetically displeasing. The people in the homes are not going to see it. the only people who will see it will be seeing it across a uh vegetated wetland area. How how much practical visibility the wall will ever
have um is fairly limited. Perhaps most exposed at the road crossing of the uh drainage way that Mr. Nater was talking about. Um so it's fairly well disguised in the landscape from an aesthetic point of view. Um and there is no physical detriment that it's creating in the
landscape as a result. So in your opinion this variance can be granted under both C1 and C2. >> Yes. >> I have no further questions. >> We also had the lot variance of the open space lot lot frontage width of the open
space lot. >> Do we need that variance if we're deer restricting it? >> The way that we discussed this prior to this meeting >> because I looked at the definition of a lot. It says a lot that can be developed. And since we don't have a lot that can be developed
>> looking up the city code to see that. So there's the planning variance element of it which I don't think we have to address because it's not being developed you know because that's you're saying you have to provide access and you know has to upline it and improve street
in this case I think the city code says it has to be you know minimum loted and I don't think it specifies whether the law is develop >> well in the definition of lot that's where I I pulled that from >> Yep. I think he should give testimony with
respect to the >> Okay, >> we'll put it on anyway. >> Frankly, it's easy enough for me to say, council, what you just said is testimony. >> All right. >> Um, first thing I was going to say is this is not a lot for development or a lot of development. It's a lot to allow an area to be preserved in open space
and owned by the HOA. Uh, typically the planning purposes for having a lot frontage requirement is to have an open area that you could have a driveway or access uh to allow that lot to be used appropriately. here there is no use that that frontage would be required to
support. Um it's very common in most modern ordinances to have an escape clause that open lot open space lots don't need to conform to the lot requirements. I couldn't find that in your code. Um so I think technically we need a variance for it but I think the testimony is it's not a lot of for or of
development. It doesn't need access. It's going to be managed by an HOA. There's no reason to require a lot frontage in this case. it would be a C2 variance um and primarily driven by purpose M the efficient use of land. Uh there's no practical uh benefit for having a lot frontage on an open space
lot. >> I have a question about that. Craig, help me out here. Where is the frontage you're talking about on that lot? Because it doesn't look like there is one >> in the top right hand corner. Craig, is that where
>> right here? So this >> So I'm looking at C03. It would be right here. >> Is that the dead? Yeah, it's this. >> Is that it? >> It's this this section right there. >> Okay. All right. All right. >> Yep. >> And that's lot 24 on the plan, Craig.
>> Is that lot 24, right? >> I couldn't see. >> Okay. >> It's lot 24 on your table, sir. >> It's It's this area right here. >> Yeah, lot 24 on my table. >> Yep. on pa on the table on page four, it's identified as lot 24.
>> I also want you to address although Craig hasn't identified it >> ft right here >> it seems to be um below the square footage Craig on on require for zoning. >> Which one's lot? >> It's like 7,000 or so
>> 7900 >> 7900 square feet. >> Another open space. >> That might be a typo. Let's find that. 25 >> I think 25 >> and there's a question on this lot area. >> Yeah,
>> 25 is that triangle right down here. Where did you go? >> After you've driven off the wall that we have there, >> you'll wind up in lot 25. >> All right, lot nine.
>> This is 22 must be. >> So my my my question on that lot is why couldn't it be consolidated with the next with the block 1188 >> lot 22?
It it can be. Um, but what I referenced earlier is trying to make these lots uniform, not creating larger lots. >> That's a big lot. >> But if I mean, if that's the preference of the board, that's not a problem because it's not going to be developed either way. >> It's a better practice to not have
constrained lands that would be under control of DE deed restrictions in private ownership at the same time. In in this development, the lots are the lots and the people get to use them. and the additional lands that are being constrained by any restriction of D are off lot. >> So in this
>> we try not to mix the concepts. >> Since this lot only touches one other lot, it would be your recommendation to consolidate it. >> I I would not I because it's going to be constrained by other deed restrictions by the time we're done. >> So we'll just leave >> simply going to be a headache for whatever land owner you give it to. >> So then ask for the variance for that.
>> Ask for the variance. The same testimony applied to this lot as the previous one. >> Again, yes, it's it's an open space lot. And as I just said, the it is theor the theoretically possible to annex constrained land into developable lots. We think it's cleaner as a management
process in the long run that your lot owners have usable land wherever they want to put fences or sheds. They know where it is. It's their lot. It's all developable. And the doubly constrained land because it's got some sort of DP restriction is not thought of by the
owner as being on their lot. So there's a benefit to not consolidating it. Um, and from a development point of view, it's obviously not intended to be developed. It's an open space lot, will be owned by the HOA. Um, and there's no reason for it technically to meet a lot size for development.
>> Greg, just so I understand too, lot 23 is is everything in the wetlands and the buffer zone that's diagonally straight. That whole >> that's going to be under the authority and control and responsibility of the HOA. >> That's my understanding.
>> Yes, sir. plus these two little side pieces. All right. >> Yes, sir. >> Go all the way. Everything, all this is all HOA responsibility. >> One of the benefits to granting this lot area variance is if it were consolidated with lot 22, which is going to contain a
single family dwelling, it could drive impervious coverage >> higher because you're counting the open space of lot 25 that can't be developed. >> F as well. >> Yeah. So, So you can get the weird development on that lot 22. So I don't
recommend consolidating and I recommend granting the the variance. >> Thank you. >> Did you get testimony as to the negative criteria with respect to the lot area on 25? >> Um there isn't as I said because it's going to be constrained by restrictions
because of its environmental condition. it's going to be owned by the HOA and restricted from development in the in the HOA documents that council will be reviewing at the appropriate time. Um, so it's not a lot for or of development in the future uh that it would need to
meet the minimum lot sizes in terms of in terms of it there is no negative detriment to protecting and preserving open space through an appropriate mechanism. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Um we had one last uh technical variance not not listed is that we're um seeking to do offtrack
affordable housing um in conjunction with your governing body. That is a variance of this board of the ordinance restriction to allow that to happen. So we'll work with your governing body on implementing it and on the phasing uh of of the affordable units and all of the things that go with it, but it's a
requirement of the of the of the zoning ordinance that we have the set aside. Um, so it's simply you're recognizing that we'll be doing this uh in a creative way with your governing body. Um, and they will weigh in on how that gets implemented. >> Yeah. So, um, I I want to make sure that
that information is shared back with this board. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so as a member of the governing body, I appreciate your comment, but it's critically important to everyone to have that as part of a public information. So whatever plan is
developed um it will be shared back with this board before final approval. >> Absolutely agree as your council was talking about earlier on some of the environmental issues. The condition wouldn't simply be affordable housing is waved. It's affordable housing will be implemented brought back to this board
at a future time. However you want to structure the management of it. We don't get past this point without the board at least acknowledging that they're not going to be on site. Um what comes next will be what comes next essentially. Our ordinance grants the gives the flexibility of doing it on-site or
off-site. And you're saying that it's going to be offsite, >> right? >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Do we need to deal with the positive and negative criteria on that? >> No, because you're actually implementing it. You're just implementing it with the governing body rather than the planning board. So, it's a variance allowing that to occur.
>> Okay. >> So, basically, if I could recap, you're looking for four variances with respect to this. >> You need a variance. You're looking for four variances with respect to this application. The first is the height of the retaining walls, which you've testified as a C1 or a C2. Uh lot
frontage with respect to lot 24. Um lot area variance with respect to lot 25 and offtrack afford affordable housing allowing the governing body to uh work with this applicant to establish that. Those are the four.
>> Yes, sir. And and to to the comment uh sir Greg, if I may use your first name, I didn't catch your last name. The reason why I'm doing it as a variance is because U-Hack overrides local ordinances. So that U-Hack requires it on site. So we need a variance to do what your ordinance would allow us to do.
>> Which is strange because we have an approved plan for the state court. >> I know life is weird. >> Okay. I understood >> and I spend too much time in those waters to forget it, which I probably should. that it would be easier if I did.
>> I have no more questions. Um I know we have a very lengthy engineering report, but does the board have any additional questions for Mr. Ren? >> Thank you. >> I have a question. I'm sorry. Uh not I don't think it's for you. I asked it earlier and I'm not sure if I'm going to
get the answer tonight about the water supply in Kate May. Has there been a feasibility study whether we can handle this sewers? >> I can answer that question. Say it's not me. So I'm I'm going to step away from the mic and let Mr. Nater come back.
>> Thank you, sir. >> I think the question is about the infrastructure >> that that they're proposing with within this development. Correct. That's the question. >> The the question at hand is the infrastructure that they are proposing and how does that tie into the existing
infrastructure that we have? Is that is that your question? >> Well, you're talking uh 22 ounces pools, couple of bathrooms in each home, uh and the infrastructure for sewers and so on. Yes. How does that impact the city of Kate May and the water system
>> capability? >> Yeah. >> Right. I just was understanding the question. >> Has that been considered? And my other question is um I don't know if I'll get the answer tonight for this. This is a very tenuous area as Mr. Crowley pointed
out with wetlands and um how are um insurance companies looking at insuring homes in an area like this? I know people have trouble getting insurance in certain areas and this seems like one that would be
not really a buildable area. >> I I can't speak to that. I I know from a fire protection standpoint has been reviewed by the fire department for fire safety issues which also comes into insurance um but as far as other insuranceances I'm not sure why there
would be an issue. Obviously it's a something that whoever builds a home would have to deal with but um I can't imagine why insurance would not be available for both um fire protection casualty storm and flood to the extent
it's necessary and financed. Um, >> you want to address that, Mr. Whitner? >> Um, I agree with you. I I I don't see a reason why any homeowner would not be able to get home owners insurance for their property or for their homes.
>> Uh, all these homes will be built on upland areas. Uh, that's why we're limiting the disturbance by creating those kind of buffers between the proposed construction and proposed development from existing environmental features. So, we're not we're not again
I I've stated it once, maybe maybe more than once, we're not disturbing the wetlands themselves. We are disturbing the buffers, but we're giving it back. So, if you see on sheet C5 on the lower left hand side of the sheet, it tells you how much we're disturbing and how much we're going to give back. And we're
actually giving back slightly more than what we're disturbing by approximately 100 plus square feet. So, we're being very generous to give back to the D more than what we're taken from the D. Bill, do you can you answer that for me?
Do people buying homes? >> Just just for perspective with regards to flood uh proofing of these houses versus the surrounding neighborhood, this road is a at a will be at a higher elevation than
both Brooklyn and Maryland. So those roads would flood before this road would ever flood. This road essentially runs from elevation nine um up to about 12 and a half at the at the top left corner on that plan and then it
falls down at the culde-sac a little bit, but um the surrounding roadways are at approximately elevation uh eight. Um, so there's subst this these roads are substantially higher and more floodproofed compared to the surrounding neighborhood.
>> So, so the answer is you're high and dry, but you can't get out. >> Yeah. >> So, I have I have a question. Yes. >> Is this is this water system looped around or >> It is looped around. Yes, >> it comes down this easement right here. >> Yes, that is correct.
>> Marilyn, the the I can also um verify that The water department has looked at this, has commented on it. Um, this went through an initial round of re the plan revisions due to their review and my
review. Um, I reviewed based on the residential site improvement standard requirements for water systems. They looked at it from a citywide standpoint. Um they made recommendations and the engineer has implemented those uh recommendations into his plan.
>> And one of the recommendations was that access road to the culde-sac which the fire chief thought was important from a fire protection standpoint. >> Yes. >> How how will that be made? Is that asphalt? >> Is it accessible like for public safety? Is accessible 247?
>> It is accessible 24/7. It's not it's not asphalt. It's a reinforced turf basically system. >> Yeah. >> What is the weight ratio for that? >> Oh, it's it's it's used all the time. It basically looks like a natural cover, but it has the ability to sustain a fire
truck or any other heavy vehicle on it without any issue at all. >> I think the fire chief recommended that be a hard surface, not the surface you're recommending. >> There there has been recommendation from the fire chief that there's a more robust surface provided. Okay then we
don't have an issue with that revision. >> We can make that change. >> Are there going to be any restrictions there like gates or >> there will be a gate at the culdeac because we really don't want anybody driving on them exception of emergency vehicles. >> How would they gain access to the to go
through the gate? >> They will always have a key to it. They will maintain a key and the homeowners association will have a key. >> Okay. And in the fire chief's uh report that I just handed you there, one of the comments was talking about access to hydrants and and adding them and you're
comfortable with those recommendations from the fire chief. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. Bo has a question. >> I'd just like to address your remarks about housing. So my understanding is the
obligation through this bill would be 4.4 units of affordable housing. Um I realize that that's a look there's a legal obligation to you know to do that. Um practically speaking look Kate May has
not just an affordable housing issue but a moderate um moderate price housing issue. Um, housing is simply expensive here and by taking those locations off site. Um, my concern is as
little moderate price housing there is in Kate May. You're going to be competing for this for whatever that's four properties that potentially could be got uh be purchased or or rented by a police officer, a teacher or a firefighter. So, you're going to be um
my concern is that by taking the affordable housing obligation offsite is actually going to be contributing to our housing issue in town. Not necessarily it I know it it provides additional affordable housing. The obligation of course carries with this project. So,
you're going to have that obligation anyway, but I am concerned that it actually contributes to our overall housing issue within >> Well, it further exacerbates it. Um, and I agree with Councilman Bodner on this is a very critical issue and a very
critical um, inflection point for the city right now, both affordable housing and workforce housing. So, this will be I would advise this team to come prepared to council with an exact location and plan and to have an understanding are those units ready to
rent? No attractive periods of time in which renovations need to be done. you know, all of those things. We've we've sort of gone down that road before and this is something that is very critically important um to this administration and to this city at this point and to its residents. So, I I want
to make that point very clear. >> And you also need to understand that last time we went through this road, uh a developer uh did this swap and swapped uh a five- bedroomedroom unit for a one-bedroom apartment on Lafayette
Street. and the current state of uh affordable housing statute says that's a fine swap that makes a lot of sense. It's that's the that's the condition we got to live with. It's not it's a box that uh we got put in by somebody else
and it's not going to ever work out. >> So, I'll take that as a question and first I'll say I would love to take the two of you in front of the legislature and let you have at them. Um, I will say I I've not been retained to work on on on this particular housing plan. Um, two
other projects where I've done offtrack um implementation, we've used non-residential properties. Um, so we we find empty stores, empty industrial buildings. Um, and that in that case we're creating net new units within the community. Even where we are um
selecting an existing residential structure, typically there's a substantial amount of rehabilitation because the affordable units not only have to meet various architectural requirements, um they have to meet modern building code. Um so even though you may be swapping what might have been
workforce for affordable, you're getting a substantial upgrade to the quality of of the building that the housing is within. So it's never going to be a net loss or negative. Um, but we certainly the team has heard that we need to figure out how to make this as much of a
net addition as we can. I I I love your comments. I I would I would love to take them to the legislature. Almost. Not quite. There's actually a a there's an actual table that the developer gets 25.
Let let me do the complicated version so the board understands it because we are asking for relief on this. Um there is a phasing requirement for all affordable housing throughout the state and it's adopted by um HMFA the housing mortgage and finance in a regulatory structure that's required wherever you go whether
there's an ordinance or not. Um and in that the developer gets 25% of the development without affordable housing. At the 25% threshold 10% of the affordable housing needs to be done. you're 50 at 50, you're 75 at 75, and you have to finish before you get to 90
on the market. Um, because we're doing four and a fraction units, um, typically you're not going to do one at each phase. It's going to be we find a building and we're going to do our four units. So the likely request to the governing body as we figure out what this plan is is, you know, we get to 40%
and then we do all of them or there'll be a a rational phasing plan put before uh the governing body and ultimately back to this group um that implements phasing. So you know the developer is not going to just do the market rate and run that they can only get so far. But you allow them to get a little bit into
the development because you get your site infrastructure built, you get all your permits, all of that stuff happens, and then you make sure the affordable housing happens. >> And allow the purchasers of the lot to build as opposed to the developer building. >> The state statute goes to cos um which
gets really messy when you're selling lots because you don't want somebody to sell lots that they can't get a CO because of this phasing thing. So, one of the things we're going to have to work out in the phasing plan is how to limit um sales of lots to cos of affordable. So, that'll be one of the things that we're going to have to
address with your your governing body and coming up with a rational phasing plan. But, you're absolutely right. You can't do CO to CO when you're selling lots. No, >> you you wind up with all the lots sold and then people screaming that they can't build their house. It's an absolute disaster. And we will not do that to you.
>> You won't you won't be selling lots. >> We won't sell For example, if I if the rule is 25% CO, we'll do 25% lots. We'll simply substitute lots for COS in the regulatory phasing table or something like that. Obviously, the team has to come up with what the implementation
plan is, how long it will take to rehab and all those detailed issues and then tie it to a number of lots that can be sold at various phases in the construction plan. >> So, and again back to the most critical component is coming in prepared with the wear. you know this the plan is will be
necessary it will be important but the where will be equally important and for those of us who know this town very well sitting around the stable um you know that's a big question. So um that that's why regardless of what gets detailed in
these changes that get made and and how we come to that decision the where is going to be critically important >> heard loud and clear. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Good point, Steve. >> Just one more.
>> Mr. Nater, I just want you to in in light of some of the comments I heard. Will you talked about this project, but will other residential properties be adversely impacted by storm water? >> No. >> No. Absolutely not.
>> Everything's being retained on site. So everything is retained on site. >> Um the site is located within the title zone of the Atlantic Ocean. So there is uh the D does not require that
you do any uh storm water uh storage uh for quantity. What they require you to do is uh water quality which we are proposing as part of this subdivision. Uh three different locations for water quality where we are collecting the
entire runoff that is generated from the road and portions of the homes actually the entire structure the entire house and the immediate vicinity of it that's going to basically grade down towards the road and flow towards the road. They'll all be collected and they'll go
into three different locations where they will be treated in a um a mechanical treatment system which is a bunch of filters that are accepted by the DP and allowed to be constructed and I believe uh this was also approved for
the Vento subdivision. It's very similar kind of a design before it gets discharged into the waterway. Now, when it gets to the hundred-year storm, the hundred-year storm basically is the storm that is the tidal storm that impacts the entire island with the
exception of very few locations here on the island. So, there's no way that you can retain the 100year. There is no fluial flow through the property that we could retain and discharge. However though we are not restricting the flow from basically working its way and
moving from our site to where else it was flooding or simply coming back to our site with the exception that the proposed development will be above flood elevation which is what is required you know by the city and by the D.
I'm think we're think I'm thinking mostly about storm water. >> That's >> as opposed to flooding. That that >> that's what he was talking about. >> Not not flooding. >> No, that he was talking about strictly the storm water requirements >> because he's in a flood zone. I agree
with him. They're they're not required to deal with the retention and storage and volume requirements because the rationale is you're in a flood zone. It's going to flood. So any system that you would have would be inundated with
water. So they're you're required to address the water quality management requirements. Cleanse the water before it's discharged. And that's what they've done. >> So you get flooded with clean clean water. >> Yeah. Now >> and and get the water to off the
developed. >> Water flooding and tidal flooding are two separate issues, >> right? Could you um you had mentioned this before uh there was going to be some kind of a covert underneath the roadway to Could you show me on what plan that that's described?
>> It's on CO6, I believe. The utility plan. >> CO6. >> Yes. It's also shown on the U on the profile. >> I don't know. Can I point it out to you? >> That's the
>> That's it. >> Mhm. >> So that when this is this is tidal flooded wetlands. >> So that the whole area is tidily influenced. >> So the tide will come in here. The tide will not get up. The tide will come up this way. >> It's it's not the tide. It's the >> storm water.
>> Storm water. No, I'm talking about the >> it's the 100year the 100redyear tidal elevation. It's not the normal eb and flow. No, that does not come to the site. >> Culvert handles only 100year flood. >> Yes, it allows for for water to flow from one side to the other. Does not obstruct it.
>> We have no additional testimony. You want to go to Craig's review memo? We can do that now. >> Um >> I need Unless you want to have chairman. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Hey, Bill. Just if we can go back to
this, >> if we can go back to this access road. >> Yes. >> Can we Is that as wide as it can be? >> That's as wide as it can be to meet the D requirements. >> Is that elevated as well? Like this road? >> It starts elevated and basically comes
down to meet existing grade. So like can we can we put some kind of approval that that the fire chief approves >> this actually >> because it's going to be critical to >> it was actually made a little bit wider at the request of the fire chief I think >> right but I'm just saying like it was
grass it was going to be a grally service can we put some stipulation that >> to the surface of it before it's >> yes we don't have an issue with that >> we yeah both the width and the both the width and and the surface >> it's important >> you talk about the access road, not the
main entrance. >> Not the main entrance. >> Yep. Yep. The emergency access road. Yep. >> And that and that surface should be accommodating the vehicle loading for the largest fire apparatus. >> Yes. >> So, >> yes, absolutely. >> Make that a condition of approval.
>> Yep. >> And is that going to get plowed with like a city street if it we get another 2 ft of snow? >> It has to. >> Okay. >> It has to remain open at all times. When I say open, not the gate, but open for vehicles to >> and who and who's maintaining that
access way. >> Uh we would have to actually discuss this whether it would be the homeowners association or the city. We haven't gotten to that point yet, but uh I think that that's what Mr. Lindomes where he's going with that is is who's going to be responsible for
that. So I mean I think we should probably make that clear tonight what the board's pleasure >> Yeah, that's probably. that's on a private lot, you know, correct? The stuff within the rightaway that we're going to be accepting is, you know, ultimately the city's responsibility,
but that is something that needs to be >> we agree that it can be a homeowner's decision. >> The HOA will address >> uh well, so I think we just want to make sure that that's okay with the fire chief. Um because if if this is the road
in which they are accessing for emergencies um and the homeowners, let's just presume they're not here in the wintertime because these are all rental properties. So they're not coming down to shovel and there's an incident back
there. So I you know the scenarios could be many. I think that needs to be a discussion with city administration to determine and figuring out whether or not it's in the best interest of the fire chief and the and police services, the EMT and otherwise. Um, you know,
it's an isolated area. You can imagine that there may not be many property owners there during the winter months and we have big storms and they need to access that. >> Yeah. My my anticipation would be that it would be a contracted service. We Okay. you know, or I mean to the extent the city is plowing
>> Yeah. >> the roads anyway if if we can enter into some type of >> Here's my thoughts. >> The HOA would maintain the surface. >> Yeah. >> Plowing would be the responsibility of the city. There's no way they're they're
going to plow that little segment and that be that would be their only obligation to plow. Are they going to really going to plow that little segment >> in an emergency? they're going to find a way to get >> to get in. So, I think as long as we're in consultation with the fire chief and
the police chief, that satisfies at least my concerns. >> Yep. Craig, let me just push back on you. There are homeowners associations in town that that provide snow removal for their their residences. That's part of the HOA contract. So, I mean,
>> where's where's that? >> Uh the ones on Lafayette Street. >> Public a public rightway. But a public rightaway, Dennis, >> this is a public rightway. >> No, I'm talking about >> Yeah. You're talking about a parking lot, but not out on, you know, New Jersey Avenue. >> That's That's not this animal. I mean,
when when we accept the street, we accept the we accept the utilities within it. We maintain those. We accept, you know, the plowing and and the maintenance of all the improvements within that. But but the homeowner association is going to be responsible
with snow removal on Cedar Court and Cedar Drive and and the culde-sac. >> I guess >> those become >> public streets. >> Public streets. >> Okay. The HOA is is is meant to take
care of the common elements, the retaining walls on common like common streets, the storm water system. That's, you know, there's three separate systems on this. They have to maintain those. That is a that's an element of an HOA to
maintain those. >> All right. >> And and I'll just speak from the administration side. It's actually easier if it's just public works responsibility to do that because then there's no who does what, where, when, and how. That's the streets that they
have to cover. because I've run into issues where if it is the homeowners association now they're like well who does what when they have the plows out they can they can handle that >> well I'm going to speak from my experience a homeowners association in a
community that we're talking about own those streets >> and they're responsible for the repair and the snow removal >> I belong to one right now in Florida and any community I belong I talked to those
roads are usually owned by the association. >> That's not the case. >> That's not the case here. >> So they've made an arrangement with the city. >> They they will the city will take over the ownership of the street. This is K Avenue is a street already
>> for example. >> Yeah. >> But look at Harbor Cove. What happened there with the private homeowners? >> But Cape Avenue is becoming the homes >> Yeah. That's still a road. >> So that's I'm speaking from my perspective. I I agree with Craig's analysis that it it's easier if it just
is the city street and then we would assume that responsibility. My question is about the the the width here on the two culac since it is going to be a city street. You have 40 I'm trying to look at the first one. My eyes are bad. Can you help talk us
through the width of each culde-sac and how that relates to the width of the actual street for public service for you know DPW and fire safety and things like that. >> So the the pavement width is 28 ft. The
culde-sac um diameter is 80 ft. Um the rightway extends beyond that. So you've got curbing that surrounds the culdeac. That's the big culde-sac down to the south of uh or where a road ends. Basically the upper one is not necess
it's a shape of a culde-sac, but it's not necessarily a full culdeac. It allows for the ability somebody that that ventures into the property mistakenly and needs to make a turn and head back, they have the ability to make that turn. and even for the fire trucks
that if they have to stop at that location and attend to any potential emergency, they have the ability to do so and still allow vehicles to go by without any interruption. And that's my question is so are we proposing allowing
them to be able to park on this the street if if they need to or is everything going to be in in driveways and that's where we're we're forcing everybody >> public is not allowed to park in the culde-sac areas. Okay. >> Period. We we made that uh clear to the
fire official and he agreed with us. >> No parking on these streets at all. >> No, no, not on the streets in the culde-sacs. There are >> there are certain parking locations on the street. >> How wide how wide is the actual street itself? >> 28. >> So the like I said the pavement width is
28 ft. It's very similar to what was approved for the Valventto subdivision. uh seven feet will be uh in certain areas allocated for parking and the remaining 21 feet >> the parking on one side not both sides >> that is correct only on one side >> I think it's appropriate for you at this
point because all these questions are directed at the RSIS requirements can you provide a statement verifying that this plan has been designed in accordance with residential site improvement standards >> it it it thank you Craig it is designed
in accordance with RSIS standards It's uh the most recent I believe that was adopted in 2023. >> Okay. >> So we have designed it in accordance with RSIS and >> and what that means is it's not our common street. I mean Vento is a perfect example of it. We were subject to that.
Vento has parking on one side and sidewalk on one side and that's the requirement for this type of street. Same thing here. Parking is permitted on one side and there's only sidewalk on one side. Okay, that's the that's
requirements of the RSIS which supersedes our code ordinance. I have to say it in some ways it doesn't make a lot of sense because people use the sidewalks on both sides of the street and you have people who are be crossing the crossing the street in the middle of
a block and it's it's a safety issue to walk out between cars to go from one side of the street to the to the other and back again. I'm certainly concern I mean there's there's certainly safety concerns with that and not by not having sidewalks on both sides of the street.
>> I hate it. I I agree with you 100%. Um, but we end up with this because that RSIS supersedes our ordinance and therefore we can't make them put sidewalk on both sides and we can't make them widen the
road to our typical standard. >> Okay? because that should h I mean another you know another piece we have an issue with parking in town and we don't know how the properties are going to be utilized but what we have seen in other neighborhoods where residential
properties that were uh formerly family homes have become uh short-term rentals. You know, the impact on those neighborhoods has been significant as far as the increase in on street parking where people who used to
be able to find a parking spot near their near their house, now they can't find a a parking spot even on their street. And this uh by having parking on only one side of of the street is going to impact
significantly on, you know, on that. And there's going to be now another potentially if there's 22 additional residences in that area, it's going to put that much more pressure on that area of Kate May for parking which is already seeing increased pressure.
uh our our plans uh show a typical lot um I call it landscape plan but it also it also um it's actually on sheet CO9 top left hand
side of the sheet it um gives the um uh the ability for practically every every lot with the shortest even the shortest driveway to allow for two parking spaces within the driveway plus a parking in a
garage before you even spill over into the street. So, we've taken that into account and we've done calculations that are shown on sheet. I understand it's just that and and that may be that may be what the um what is permitted, but we have we've seen that
in areas that had what's permitted that have it's increased on street parking. So even um you know you have a uh just because the the the the way the properties are being utilized and the impact on the neighborhood. So losing that one side of the street parking just
has an impact. That's my point. >> Understood. Nope. >> Can I ask a question at this point? Um, it's been discussed a couple times about this homeowners association and I'm not clear based on what I've read so far is what is the homeowners association going
to be responsible for and what are they not going to be responsible for and could we include in this document that we're reviewing a list of things that they for example in utility utility infrastructure as as an example. So is
there a way we can generate that kind of a list? We don't generate it. >> Well, we do if we require them to. >> Well, actually, >> it is required. It is required prior to final sub uh subdivision approval that
they provide the HOA documents. And at that point, I guess you can go through the documents and make sure that includes all of those areas that the HOA is going to be responsible for. At this point on preliminary subdivision approval, we obviously don't have the
HOA documents to review. >> Just just the way this is spelled out now, that's a street. >> Yeah. I'm not >> city street and the all the water and sewer utilities are not part of the HOA. They responsibility of the city.
>> That's what I was asking. >> That's how it's being presented. So the city is presenting to >> the city is going to be responsible for the installation of all of the util. >> No, not the installation. >> The improvements are put in by the developer.
Ultimately, the city inspects those improvements, verifies that they're acceptable, and then accepts the city street >> and everything under the streets. There's going to be all the utilities, >> everything within the rightaway lines typically will be >> all the utilities plus the storm water
removal system, >> right? So the like I I mentioned it earlier, there are some retaining walls that are within the the city right away. I recommended if we're going to accept those, they have to be of a higher quality and better build, you know,
higher high better engineered retaining wall as opposed to the ones that are on the residential lots because the city doesn't want to mess with those. Once they're built, they should last forever. >> Okay. I can ask a question. um for the
environmental commission did the review and the and in part of the sample landscape plan they found that most of the species were nonnative. You guys have a plan to address their concerns in terms of um native species
for the proposed landscape plan. Um we definitely will work with the with them to identify what native species that they would recommend and um their availability and so we don't have an issue uh making a change to what we show
in terms of landscaping on the land. >> Okay. So you would work with the environmental commission and the shade tree commission to ensure >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Craig will Craig will read that into the >> Yeah. >> But then they can they can respond to that at that point. They're he's going to ask him do you agree to do this? Do you do this? They're It's going to be on
the record at that point that they're going to agree to do it. >> I just wanted to ask the question in advance, but that Yes. Thank you. >> All right. >> You're allowed to. >> You're right. Thank you. >> And I just did. >> And with regard to Craig's comments, we've
>> We go to Craig. >> Is your um presentation complete? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Far away. >> All right. Um, I'd like to summarize my May 6, 2026 review memorandum. This is a project located in the R1 Preserved
Wetlands Lowdensity Residential District and Preserve Wetlands. You've heard um a lot of testimony with regards what is proposed. The applicant is seeking preliminary major subdivision approval and that will be conditioned on quite a
few things that we discussed tonight. Um you've heard uh testimony um that there are 22 proposed detached single family dwellings and three vacant remainder lots. And I'm just going to roll. We already deal we already dealt with
completeness so I don't have to touch that. Uh we we did recommend deeming it complete. It should be noted that item F and I will be required prior to them getting uh final major subdivision approval. So
once again this is only preliminary. They have to come back and they have to come back after they get all their D approvals and all the other regulatory approvals that are necessary. Okay. Um I'm just going to roll and just
highlight the variances. Uh they've already provided testimony in the positive negative uh criteria with regards to the variances that have been requested. There are two that are identified on page five of 10 of my report. One is for lot frontage for lot
24. The second is for the retaining wall height. And it should be noted that the retaining wall height in our code has a maximum of two feet. So anything in excess of that requires a variance. Um it also permits uh to have a safety
protection fence on top of it. Um they're proposing to do that. Um I'm encouraging them to do that. I would not want to see someone, you know, have a child go out the back of a dwelling and fall over a 5 to seven foot retaining
wall. So, not something we want to see. So, did I for those reasons, I did support um granting that variance. We added two uh one is for lot
25. uh it had a lot size of 7,917 where 9,375 is the minimum permitted in the R1 district. And we also um they requested a variance from our affordable housing
requirements and that's based on the uh hack UHAC requirements and they would like to modify the phasing plan that's required and that will be negotiated with city council and um as per a
recommendation uh from the board that should come back to this board for review and approval. >> Correct. Yes. Okay, that's I'll use that language. Okay, so those were the four variances. You've heard testimony with regards to those. I'm not going to bore
you with that. I'm going to move right on to my general review comments. All of these should be conditions of approval unless otherwise noted. Um item number one is section 52559C, potential development. This is our
evaluation for the street vacations. Um and it says that if we're going to vacate streets that we have to make sure we're not um hampering anyone from accessing their street. So ownership matters. We can't,
you know, block anyone from not being able to access their street. So that evaluation is done before this recommendation is made to city council. Um so that should be um provided and addressed.
Second item, um we've asked for the meets and bounds of the residential lots and the remainder lots. Um it is recommended that they be deed restricted from future development. I believe through testimony you've you've actually indicated that you're going to do that
>> except for lot 23 >> which is the center lot because of whatever we need to figure out with the >> Okay. But ultimately there will be no development with dwellings. >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay. Now, does that include all the block and lots that were included in this development? Block
1177, 1178, 1188, and 1189. >> No, just 1178, 1179. >> Why are we not indeed restricting 1188, and 1189? >> They're not really not part of the application, although they were initially stated as part of it, but all
the development is 1178, 1179. Correct. >> Is there potential development >> opportunities on 1188 and 1189? >> We don't see any, but I'll let what Mr. Nater address that. >> The You mean the encroachment on 11?
>> No, the two blocks next. >> We're not We did not include those two blocks as part of this subdivision. >> We understand. But is there >> they were part of the application? >> Yeah. >> Is there an intention to do so in the future?
I don't believe that there will be, but give us a chance to talk to the D about it because we have not had the opportunity to go back and discuss this item with the D with regard to where the wetlands and their associated buffers. So once once we're done in here and we submit the plans and the permits to the
D, then we'll have a better idea where we going to go with the >> Are you submitting that? Yeah, >> I used the question. >> Yes. where the street ends at 1178. It hasn't been culaced or anything else.
>> Talking about these right here >> designed so that could cross over Brooklyn Avenue over this 1188 or whatever that is >> 88 or 89. >> It it's not it's not intended to cross over from one side to the other. Uh the
D has indicated to us that those wetlands will not uh basically have any reduction in any buffer. Uh they gave us the opportunity to look into the buffer that has been uh imposed on our property
of 150 ft. They said if you do a study and you submit to the D you have the opportunity to reduce that buffer from 150 to 50 ft. That does not mean that we're going to come back with any additional development or any additional lots, but that may potentially mean that
some of the lots that we are we have on the inside will no longer be disturbing the buffer. >> So your testimony is you haven't really taken a look at >> 88 >> 88 and 89 to see if there's uplands or >> we have we're not looking to develop 88
or 89. Let me ask a logistical question because when this when these plans were initially submitted, >> all four blocks were included in the application. Have has the application been modified to only include 1178 and 1177 >> 777?
>> The plan indicates 1177 1178. >> Okay. What does the application in include? >> I have to look at the application. >> Can I ask another follow-up question to that? That's an important application. I want to know whether or not you're planning >> on submitting an application to the DP
that includes just the two lots or the four lots. >> Just the two lots. >> Okay. For the record. >> Yes. >> Can I can I offer something here with respect to these two lots? >> I I I want an answer to that question with regards to the application.
>> Well, I I actually do have an answer. >> We can >> How could you have an answer? And my answer is that if if you look at if you look at this plan they gave us, >> they've already identified wetlands, you have to add in buffer zones, which they haven't added in. And when you do, both
of those pieces of property are not developable. >> They're not. And I suggest that we I I suggest that we use the same application for uh restricted development and that because it's in front of us and it's in their application. Well, we >> I made a recommendation to deed restrict
to prohibit development in those blocks. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> They're not offering that. >> Well, not at this time. It's not that we >> No, I'm just We won't be offering >> That's what we're dealing with. >> I'm going to I'm going to recommend that Mr. Herurles's you hear Mr. Hurles's
recommendation. >> Okay. So can I als can can I say that as part of being part of the vote that we could that be incorporated that this board would consider and we can say that it's a condition of approval. >> The answer to the question is that if
they were included in the application so to the extent that they're not including those lots in this application they actually are in the application. >> They are in the application that's point but it's not on the subdivision plan. >> It's not on the sub. They were initially we were looking at including all four but it was eliminated from the plan
inadvertently. It wasn't eliminated from the application >> because it's here. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So are they they withdrawn from the application then those other two blocks? >> Well, we're still discussing that. >> Okay. The question is have you withdrawn those other two lots from the
application? And if so, then you need to re you need to file an amended subdivision application >> because you cannot submit them to the D and you can't I mean we're now not clear on exactly what we're approving or not if you're not taking them out.
>> The D has already said they're wetlands and you have to add the buffers. >> We're at what does the application Yeah. >> four blocks, right? >> Not not the D right now. Well, >> the application as is currently situated before the board includes all four lots.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Can you give us a few moments? Sure. Discuss that. >> Well, that's up to the chairman. >> No, we'll take we'll take a 10-minute break. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Microphone's off, please. >> Twisting and turn everything to I'm
disgusted. You see what I'm saying? >> Yeah. Look at this piece of >> These are two pieces. >> They have wetlands right in the middle. >> They have wetlands. Plus, you have to add buffer zones. All these things have got to be added to buffer zones. The whole the whole both of these parcels
are totally covered with either wetland. Why would they leave them out? >> They because they want to change the possibility that they're going to do Oops. By the way, if you want me to just put it on the record, I can do that if you want. >> No, I got it. The way I have it, Gray,
is that whatever lots are not restricted by D and not needed for infrastructure. We will do. That's basically it. >> Thanks. I'd say provide a conservation ement. This construction is so broad. I don't
think that's actually what he's asking for. >> Okay. All right, guys. We're back. So, I guess your answer to Craig's question is, >> well, let me Yeah. So the board's concern is that these other areas are
not developed for for residential lots. That's the overriding concern that the board has. And the applicant has no intention of adding additional residential development. But we would rather have the D work out
those issues with us. And whatever they um whatever they say is subject to a conservation easement, we will agree to and whatever is not needed for infrastructure, we will add a conservation easement for. So the bottom line is we will agree with you, but we
don't want to do it at this point. We want to do it when we come back for final after we see what D is going to require as a conservation easement. So we will accept a we will accept the conservation easement that the city wants to the extent those lots are not
already restricted by D and to the extent they are not needed for infrastructure only so that there will be no residential development on any of the remaining lands. >> Tony, did you uh get D approval before you agreed to deed restrict the three
lots inside your project? >> They have not they have not >> they haven't done any of that. Well, then why they got the >> first of all, we said we would only restrict those two lots which really are outliers that really don't have any >> you're deed restricting lots
>> two the two lots and we say deed restriction we're really talking about a conservation easement >> and and we'll use the same language that the D uses for conservation easements. So we include everything that is protective of the environments with respect to any of the land that is not
needed for infrastructure and not otherwise subject to a D conservation easement. Whatever is left over at the end of the day, the applicant would agree to expand the conservation easement to all of the undeveloped parcels. >> That's 11 block 1188 and block 118.
>> That's correct. >> Craig, is there any anything you want to add to that? >> Okay. Thank you. question. >> Basically, the applicant is agreeing that there will be no further residential development on blocks uh 11
whatever they were 1188 and 1189. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> So, I mean, >> okay, I I do have another question for Tony. Tony, on in the state's letter, uh, it said that the designated places where the wetlands exists have to be
shown on your plans and have to be marked as such as as a a piece of land identified by DP. In their letter, they say that now is that where is that on the map? on sheet. Where it says it
>> on sheet CO2, >> it says bottom of first page, fresh, it has to be identified with the quote freshwater wetlands and water boundary lines as verified by DP. Is that on your plan? >> The the wetlands are shown on our plan.
They're shown on sheet CO2 on in its entirety on sheet CO2. basically showing wetlands on blocks 1177,78 and 89. That is correct. >> But you submitted four blocks to the D.
>> Yeah, that's 77 78 88 and 89. >> Right. So we but it came back from them 1188 and 1189 are both identified as wetlands in these two big lines with space that will be requiring buffer zones in the middle.
How what how is that not good enough to restrict this from ever being developed again right now? >> We just agreed. >> We just agreed to it. I don't know what >> they didn't agree to it. >> Yeah, they did. They >> agreed to it. >> No. Can it Can it be deed restricted?
>> They agreed to do that. >> We agreed to it. >> They agreed. They they agreed to send it to D. >> They agreed. >> Yeah. >> Is that going to be part of our recommendation? >> There is that's going to be one of the conditions. They made a representation that the lots will not be developed
except as it relates to infrastructure and uh slash or uh conservation that's placed on it by the D but they have made a specific representation that they will not further develop those properties for residential >> that's going to be in our resolution.
It's going to be whatever. Yes, that'll be >> and and we also I mean if we can if we can refer to it as a conservation easement as opposed to a deed restriction and this way it has a little bit more definition to it because that's a an easement that is generally approved
and and required by D and we'll adhere to that same requirement. >> Correct. Okay. >> All right. Item number three on page 6 of 10 is a stormwater maintenance plan has been indicated. Uh a HOA is required. Um so we've asked for HOA
documents must be provided for review u prior to final approval. Um they should also include the stormwater maintenance uh in in that HOA document. Um item number four, excuse me. Um the applicant has proposed a
stormwater system within the paved cartway. I think that might be a remainder comment. I think you removed those. All of the storm water systems have been removed out of the rightways. Is that correct? >> With the exception of the culdeac, I believe. >> Okay. >> The there are two that remain because of the the room that's available for us in
the culdeac. >> Um, so and I mentioned the road will be elevated and will contain a reinforced concrete retaining wall that supports roadway fill. The application indicate who will be responsible for maintenance and infrastructure within the rightway. It is recommended that the HOA be
required to maintain the walls and the storm water system within the rightway. >> I think this was discussed uh already. >> Understood. We don't have issue with that. >> That's okay. >> Okay. Um five deal deals with the
construction detail uh for the reinforced concrete retaining walls. That would be necessary uh for review. Item six. Uh, >> do you want to um add to that that subject to your approval
>> as well as the city engineer? >> I'm I'm going to make a a general comment. Um, sort of what we a fixed I might as well do it now since you mentioned it. Um, so I did not I I thought that you were going to be developing all of these
lots. Um, I wasn't aware that you were going to be selling them off. Typically, when we don't have house plans on our we deal with a lot more minor subdivisions. So, I have language that recommends we provide a deed notice for every lot. So,
when it's sold off, it comes up in the deed search when there's a train when there's a property transaction. And that deed notice says that the applicant is required to comply and provide individual landscaping, grading,
drainage, and utility plans for each lot that are consistent with the approved major subdivision plan. Um, and the applicant is required for the uh costs of review and approval of those plans. Um, are you agreeable to that?
Yeah, I was thinking more of like a declaration of covenants that affect impact the entire subdivision gets recorded before any lot gets sold and therefore it's >> so long as it's a recorded instrument I'm fine with it and I will provide the language with you and we we'll include that before we get to final. But
>> this is something we stand we do in all our minor subdivisions when we don't have you know we don't know exactly who's building what. >> Um so in this case I think it's appropriate. >> Okay. Okay. Um, and that would address the retaining wall issue too.
>> What can you just go over one more time, Craig? What that what that deed notice would >> So it's a deed notice. So when So what the problem we were having is someone was buying a lot and they weren't knowing what they had to do on it and they would go try and pull a construction permit and then they would get hit with all the requirements and
they'd be like, "Wow, I got suckered into this, you know, paying this amount of money for this and I got to put a storm water system in. I got to do this. I got to do that." Um so what this does is when that be it's a deed notice um and it said it's just a little paragraph
and it says they're responsible for pro providing uh having an engineer provide a grading drainage in this case it'll be a retaining wall plan uh landscaping utility plan and it has to be designed and consistent with the overall major
subdivision plan and they're responsible for the review of those plans. The concern that had me pop up was not any of the procedural stuff, but don't devest the board of their jurisdiction of granting a variance and say it has to comply with
>> No, it's that's not the intent. The intent is notifying >> in there then. >> Yeah. Thank you, sir. >> That's it's it's more about notifying them of their obligations. They can we have never discouraged anyone from coming in later and requesting variances.
>> Just I'm not that's not the intent. The intent is to notify them of their obligations. >> You you mentioned retaining wall in that list of things. I sort of assumed that the developer was going to be responsible. >> Well, I think that that's so that we're going to discuss. I haven't gotten there yet.
>> Okay. Um and we might as well talk about that now. So, I think the recommendation is is that the developer is going to be constructing the entire retaining wall system before the lots are sold off. That should be a condition of approval.
>> Okay. >> Yep. >> That's an extra one. >> Including the improved wall where you said the city needs it. >> Yeah, that's so the stuff within the rightway is going to be an enhanced wall. You know that I'm going to approve
that design. Um they already have a a retaining wall detail for the the single family dwellings. Um but that should be constructed overall before all the lots are off. I would I would argue that it's you know it's
comprehensive to the development for protection of you know flooding and and you know all of that all of those issues that things that they you know verify that are important to this project. >> Would you want to add also that maintained by the HOA?
>> I I think I already have that one in there. >> Okay. >> Can we just add it also in conjunction with consultation with the city engineer as well? You have the board engineer and the city engineer working together because eventually it's going to become >> absolutely >> it's gonna become my pro problem. So
>> I will not steal Paul's thunder. >> Okay, thanks. >> Okay. Um item number six is um this is just the building height requirements that this says that they have to conform um to the maximum building height. We don't have any of that information
obviously. Um number seven is the requirement that all the dwellings have to meet the minimum first floor elevations and must conform to chapter 258 which is our flood damage protection for new construction code. Um uh the
flood zone mapping indicates that this is both in zone AE8 and AE9. So they're both um appropriate. Um, eight is our standard requirement that they have to comply with the floor area ratio. Nine is the uh my comments
on with regards to the parking situation. Plans indicate 20 foot wide by 25 foot deep paver driveways typical of all dwellings with garages. Um, it appears that three spaces are provided per lot
as defined by RSIS requirements. Is that your proposal? You're going to be providing three. Are we requiring garages in all of these units >> or are are they or are these individual future home owners going to be designing
their own property and complying with the residential site improvement standards based on their number of bedrooms? >> The ladder. >> The ladder. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. Just a question. PA driveway. Is that >> We're getting to that. Well, it's here though. It's listed in as one of these
comments. Wait, in number seven. >> Number number nine. >> Nine. >> We're not there yet. >> We are just >> We are to number nine. >> Yeah, we are on number nine. >> Oh, all right. Um, so the the the idea is that we're leaving the choice up to the homeowner to decide if they're going
to go with a paver uh permeable pavers or not or not. So if they decide to go with pavers, they have to be permeable pavers. >> Okay. >> But if they decide to go with stone, stone is permeable. So it can
>> you're So that's >> the question to you is >> Yes. >> Do your storm water calculations >> take credit for permeable P? >> Yes. No, we don't. >> Okay. >> Yeah, we take >> So it could be any surface. >> It could be any service. We just meet
lot coverage is. >> Okay. So then there should be no restriction on that and there will be they'll fall to the city code and they can provide whatever driveway that the city code allows. >> Okay. Yes. >> Got it. >> And if they don't have a garage, they have to put three spaces outside. >> Depends. >> No.
>> So they're going to be required to park in accordance with the number of bedrooms that the house has. >> So if they have five bedrooms, they're required to have three spaces. >> If they have four bedrooms, they're only required to have two. >> Two and a half. two.
>> It rounds down. >> You just want to fight with me tonight, don't you? >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay. So, that's the parking. Um, so, in other words, they're going to be complying with the residential site improvement standards for the parking requirements for each lot. >> Yes.
>> Um, number 10, uh, just indicates the site triangle requirements. Um, so those should be provided on the plan. if I think you've updated the plan and provided most of that information. Um I think we need to see the meets and bounds and and descriptions of those. Um
but that should be a provided before we get the final approval. Um 11 is easements for street intersection site triangles should be shown on a plat and descriptions provided for review. I just said that. Um 12 uh the existing mosquito ditches will be located on
certain dwelling lots. There's a 15- foot wide mosquito ditch easement that's indicated. So, we will need to see the easement documents that prevent any disturbance within those. Make sure that no homeowner fills those and impedes the
flow of storm water through those mosquito ditches. >> Yep. >> Um 13 um is our review of the storm water system. Um this is considered major development. Um they have provided a grading and drainage plan designed in
accordance with the city code. Um the report indicates that the design complies with this not only the city code, the residential site improvement standards um NJAC 521-7.1 and the New Jersey Dtor storm water
management rules. The applicant has proposed a mechanical filter system to address runoff quality. The proposed systems are located uh they were located this I'm going to strike that they're no longer located within the paved portion of the proposed
roadway. Um but they are are located within the stormwater easements. So providing the comments in this report regarding stormwater issues are addressed. The design is acceptable. I've asked um for some additional storm
water information to be provided in the stormwater management plan that was provided. Um and that has to be consistent with the New Jersey D best management practice requirements. Um 15 maintenance plan for the stormwater system has been provided
consistent with section 43710. Um they have to provide that in the maintenance plan. The maintenance plan has to be provided in the HOA documents. So that that is their responsibility. Um so here here this is where I my
question I rose from. The plans indicate a note indic indicating storm winter management permeable pavers typical of all driveways on proposed lots. Is that that's that's where I got my comment from. And you're telling me that that's not
>> no longer in effect? It's no longer in effect. Initially, we wanted everybody to have permeable pavers um which will aid in basically storm water management, but that was not a factor in the design. U but we no longer need it.
>> So you're you included impermeable driveways for your stormwater calculations. All right. So we strike number 16. >> Um it makes sense to keep that. >> Yes. 17 is they is our standard condition that they have to comply with
chapter 525. 18 um this is our review of the rightaway standards. Um so the proposed street and rightway has been reviewed for compliance with the residential site improvement standards. The applicant has indicated the proposed development will
generate 222 trips per day. And we need that information because the RSIS determines how we uh design the roadway based on the number of trips. So a 40
foot wide rightway and a 24 foot in one section and a 28 foot wide paved cartway with no sidewalk on one side meets the requirements for a rural street residential street access which supports up to 500 vehicle trips per day. Parking
on one side of the road is proposed. No parking signs have been provided for one side of the roadway. Um that should be modified to include um the culde-sacs because there's no parking in the culde-sacs, right? >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Shouldn't that be signs that say no parking? >> I was just going to say what it says. >> We added that to the place. >> All right. Keep going. >> No parking signs. Just kidding. Or >> 19. All utilities are required to be
provided underground. So there will be no overhead power lines or anything like that. That's a RSIS requirement. And then finally, availability letters from all of the utility companies are required. Uh 20. Fire hydrant details in accordance with the RSIS are required.
21. Asbuilt surveys of all utilities and storm water systems shall be required as a condition of approval. 22. water design water main design and calculations have been provided per the RSIS. Um, and we ultimately will need final approval from the city sewer and
water department. Um, and I put that in there because I had not seen their review memos and I will go over those at the end. 23. Uh, street tree are required. Uh the street tree plans indicate
um our street tree plan shall include a planting schedule with describes the quantity, common name, botanical name, size and comments for each species. Uh street trees have to be planted within the rightway because the city ultimately uh protects those and shade tree
approval for the proposed tree species is recommended. Um I would add environmental commission too because they had some uh comments with regards to the species that are proposed. 24. Um
this uh just shows the requirement that the landscaping plan is required for each individual lot. Um we've seen that there is a individual typical lot landscaping detail provided on the plan. However, I believe that needs to be
modified consistent with the environmental commission's comments that I will go over. Um, and piggybacking that right in, item number 25, um, is my reference to, um, the city's environmental commission, um, and the recommended species. Those should be
incorporated into your design. 26, uh, just indicating the sidewalk has been provided on one side of the roadway in accordance with the RSIS. There was a sidewalk width of three foot indicated. That is not permitted.
>> I think we corrected that. I believe >> I'm sorry. >> If we didn't correct it, we'll go ahead and correct. >> Okay. It's going to be four feet, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. There is a stop controlled intersection is required at both the T intersection along Cedar Court and at
the proposed intersection of Brooklyn and Maryland avenues. So we have asked for signage and striping designs um to be provided and the plans have been provided to incorporate that. Um 28 is our standard condition that they
have to submit the final plans to the uh streets and roads department for review and comply with the requirements. 29 is our review of the street tree uh street lights that are required. So lights I think they overlit this and the city has to pay the electric bills for
these. So, we only want to see the lights where they're required. >> We're happy to reduce some >> because you there's there's there's a lot of lights on this plan. Uh, a lot more than uh anywhere else in the city. So, lights are only required at the culde-sac, the T intersection at the
proposed connection with at Brooklyn and Maryland avenues. So, the other ones should be removed. Um 30 is our standard condition that they have comply with the fire department, police department, all the other departments and I'm going to go
into those right now. So we received a fire department review dated 51926 that recommended approval. See attached comments and those comments are uh access to the culde-sac from the utility easement from Baltimore Avenue will be
need to be reinforced. We discussed this. You've agreed to that. So that has to support um the firefighting apparatus um weight for whatever we decide that's going to be that in that improvement. They've asked for additional fire
hydrants to be installed as part of the loop hydrant system at the corner of Maryland and Baltimore and the corner of Maryland and Brooklyn. >> Yes, no problem. Parking along Brooklyn Avenue entering the development will need to be prohibited in the 24 foot
wide section to not impede emergency access. So, no parking signs along that section to need to be added. Um, we got here there's a bunch of emails here. I'm not Tell me if I missed anything. Uh the
police department recommended approval dated 51024. They did not have any comments. The environmental commission uh recommended denial for the following reasons and they have three reasons. Proposed transition area buffer plan for the exceptional quality wetlands is
questionable. The areas offered for compensation will be impacted during construction and everyday use. How will homeowners know these areas cannot be touched? Um, so we've discussed that and we did recommend, you know, deeming you
complete and make if any approval is uh granted tonight, it's conditioned on you getting all of those approvals. Um to answer that last question on Velvetto Avenue subdivision, I recommended that signs prohibiting disturbance in the
wetlands a uh areas be provided along the buffer boundaries. >> Are you willing to do that? >> Yes. >> Okay. So that that would I think would address the second part of that. >> Okay. Item number two, city approval should not be granted until all wetland general
permits in the buffer averaging plan is approved by the D. Um we've already addressed that um in the way that we're going to handle it. Three, the sample landscape plan is unacceptable. Most species shown are non-native. Lawn should not be permitted in this highly
sensitive wetland area. >> So one, we've asked you to comply and provide, you know, native species. >> We've agreed. I'm not sure how about how to deal. >> How about lawns though? Lawn. >> I'm That's what >> I mean this is a elevated area. It's not
a prone to flooding. I mean >> I don't believe that our code prohibits lawns in in the preserved wetlands area. Um, so it's a recommendation from them,
but I think your plan can go a lot further into complying and having more beneficial wildlife species with with regards to your planting plan. I'll keep going. The public works department recommended
approval with no comments dated 520 2026. Um I I think there's an email in here just agreeing with the request for additional hydrants. And I think that's it. Did I miss any reports? >> No.
>> Okay. All right. Back to my report. I was on 30 number 31. Um oh here's the deed notice. I was looking all over for that. So there there's the deed notice language. >> Okay, that's that's taken that's what we uh recommend for all of them.
>> 32 is um this is just our standard requirement that this is a major subdivision. So you're required to um post the required performance guarantee and inspection escros. That's handles that's number 33. Also number 34 is your
approval is conditioned on all on compliance with all other necessary state, county and local approvals. Um which includes the wastewater quality management plan um modification.
35 isformational. This is not within the HPC's jurisdiction. It's not in the H it's not in the historic preservation area. Um 36 is we always require that the lots be revised uh consistent with the tax assessor's review. Um they have
been that has been done before they were heard so that our reference to lots is going to be consistent with uh his recommended lot numbers. So that's a good thing. Um 37 is uh they have to comply with the title recordation act uh upon approval by the board. Um 38. All
meets and bounds descriptions and easement descriptions must be provided for review and approval. Um and then finally and after approval evidence of filing is required for those. 39 is another um requirement for the title recordation act with regards to the
proposed monumentation of the lots. 40 is they are required to comply with all applicable affordable housing requirements at the time of approval, issuance of building permits or certificate of occupancy as applicable. We've already heard uh testimony from
their planner with regards to um a variance that's that was requested um that deal with the phasing. Um just to read into the record, they are required to provide 20% set aside.
So, their obligation for 22 dwelling proposed dwelling units is a 4.4 affordable housing obligation. They're required to provide four units and required to pay into the housing trust fund for the fractional space. Um, and
we've talked about the timing and phasing portion. >> Just a clarification on that comment. It's the uh it's whatever the affordable housing requirements that that are in existence at the time of approval, not as they may change. So
>> did I say as they may >> well it says at the time of approval issuance of or certificates of occupancy. So I just wanted to make sure that >> right >> whatever's in a state >> there's certain triggers in in the that's why I I phrased it that way but I understand your
>> clarificate point of point of clarification. Then finally last item just should the board grant any approval the applicant is required to revise the plans to address all conditions of approval and submit six sets of compliance plans to the board engineer for review.
Okay. I'm happy to answer any questions the board has. >> First of all, is the applicant uh accepting of the engineers uh recommendations and suggestions? >> Yes, except as noted, but yes. >> Yeah. I I I do have one comment that I
just want to make before we set forth the motion. Um and looking Yeah. um looking at this uh plan um and the sensitivity around the number of units being put back there, the one side of the street having parking, the other
side having a sidewalk, uh the wetlands. Um I would put forth to you to consider um not developing some of the lots for homes. And I'm talking specifically about the inside perimeter lots, which would take about um you know, seven or
lots out for development. So, lots one, two, three, four, five, seven, and eight. And I put it forth to you as a consideration as you go through this. You know, we've talked about parking. We've talked about having sidewalk on one side. We've talked about the concern
uh around the retaining wall. This would significantly reduce that retaining wall requirement back there and only requirement on, you know, required on I think three lots on the right hand side as you're coming into the into the uh development. So, I just put it out there
for consideration as you go through this exercise, as you look at what kind of homes are going to be built, how many bedrooms they're going to have, the density that will be back there in what I think many in this city consider an extremely uh sensitive environmental
area. Um, and so I I just want to put that forth as a consideration to your group as you're looking at this development before you proceed any further. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.
You would have got you would have gotten a notice. >> Should I identify myself? address. >> My name is Walter Deforest. I own a home at uh but on New York and Baltimore
and uh the other sides of Eleno. >> Can you spell your last name for me, please? >> D E F O R E S T. >> What's your address? What is your address? >> 1500 Delano. >> Thank you.
So, for those of you who who are not familiar with it, um it's a very uh serene and beautiful space of land back there with many animals. There's a lot of coyotes,
beautiful hawks, and it's a very special area. It very much attracted me and I spent a lot of money for for the lot that I got. And uh
if you look at the drawings of where the wetlands are and you listen to the presentation of variable council and experts, what they tell you is
what they're asking you to wave is the essential thing that will enable able them to destroy that ecosystem. They told you that it wouldn't be economically feasible to comply
because they would have to do too many other things. And so you are the key to it. and they wanted you to say okay so they can go to the other agencies and said well Cape May is okay with it
and I just wanted you to hear from somebody who looks at this so first of all they're actually destroying the ecosystem there and if you listen to their answers on
the other two parcels what they didn't say was they wouldn't disturb those parcels. They only said we won't put residential homes in there.
So we could put a big road through there or do other things and so you have to listen my opinion listen carefully to what they say. So what may the result of this is we're
not just destroying the ecosystem in these two parcels but also the other two and you your decision on a retaining wall is critical because if they can do it without the retaining wall let go ahead and let them do it.
If they don't need your variance they wouldn't be here. I think that's you put a lot of money on that. So, what do I care about? I care about the ecosystem. And listening to the presentation and
the board's questions, I have a concern that that issue has already been passed. The board's already passed that issue about whether or not to preserve the ecosystem. And if I'm right on that, as I fear I
am, then you would go to a couple other issues. They're going to not just drive out the animals back there, but they're going to do two other
things. They're going to put two roads back there because if you listen, again, you have to listen. I don't mean to talk to you that way. I get trained to listen carefully to what lawyers say because
I'm a lawyer. And what they said was they're going to also use Baltimore. So that that's what they want. So if you've already made a decision that we destroy the ecosystem
and and that is not my I I just I'm just a resident and and I bought this from my retirement home with my wife. I am quite retired yet, but I'm this close.
So, I wouldn't let them use two roads. It's bad enough they're going to use Brooklyn. I wouldn't be letting them drive a lot of construction vehicles through the
other side. One highway back in there is enough. And then if that orange line and and I was listening to to your comments
about how many lots they're going to develop. Well, they're going to develop as many lots as they can, right? As many as you say they can. But that concrete wall, I'm going to look at the back end of that concrete wall. Now, they're going
to they're they're very they're going to not obstruct the views of the other side of this bowl that's being created. It's sort of like a big bowl being created back there because they want to sell the lots.
That's what this is about. I mean, that's this is America. You could sell lots as long as you don't need a variance, but they're going to shape up it like a bull.
So on the one side of the bowl, the people who are on the other other side, not my side, the other side of this are going to have to be looking at something and they're going to make it attractive so they can sell them a lot because nobody wants to be looking at a concrete wall, which is what I'm looking
at. So assuming you're going to destroy the e ecosystem because that's what they want to do, then I don't think they should only be able to take care of one side of that wall
somehow. They should be forced to, if they're going to create some sort of natural system back there, they should do it on both sides of the wall. Otherwise, we're going to have a real
monstrosity here. We're going to put two roads back in there and then we're going to build what looks like a prison wall, the backside of a prison wall. And so think about that. Would you want to be
looking at a seven or 8 foot concrete wall with a fence on top of it and destroying all the animals back there? There are a lot of animals, but let me assure you, at night time, the birds are really
beautiful. If you want something pleasant, maybe you should do this sooner rather than later, come back there at night just when it's getting dusk.
And the birds, the night birds come out and they sing and it's a beautiful thing. 200 ft. We'll open up to anybody in the public. You need to state your name, spell your
last name, and give me your home address, please. >> Right. My name is Robert D. Young,608 Maryland Avenue. I appreciate the time. I appreciate the information. My son Timothy could not be here
tonight, but he wanted me to read something. So he's addressing everyone. Good evening members of the planning board. I am here to speak against the preliminary major subdivision proposed by RAJ Realy
Investments. Current regulatory and geotechnical realies. This 20 acre footprint is not dry stable land. The recent letter of interpretation issued by the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection on June 9th, 2025 confirms that a significant portion of this property remains encumbered by wetlands and transition areas. The soil here is characterized by high moisture,
hydric conditions, and regular inundation, making it inherently unstable for construction. Because the property is so heavily constrained by these environmental features, the D will need to review permit applications for any proposed
development. This parcel is a low-lying area that acts as a vital sponge. Everybody seen a sponge? What happens when you squeeze a sponge? It's got to go somewhere, right? Where do you think it's going to go? I
can show you our future. You can take a look at these pictures. This is my good friend and neighbor. >> Hold on one second. We're going to have to mark those. >> Sure. >> Did you take these photographs? >> Ken Yates did at 1624 Maryland Avenue.
>> All right. So, we're going to mark them. What was the last marking that we had? >> Objector one, two, and three. >> And he would also have liked to been here, but unfortunately he had personal issue that he had to attend to. But I will tell you this, there's a lot of
people in our development that walk around that for one reason or another did not get the certified letter because obviously it might have been sent to a house that they're not at. The point is every >> there was a list generated by the city.
>> Oh. And I'm sure it was sent to everybody, but I mean there were a number of individuals and I don't want to mention them by name because they're not here, but they would have liked to been here, but they just didn't have the time unfortunately because they didn't know about it.
>> You really do need to keep your comments to personal firsthand knowledge. >> Sure. >> I gave you a little leeway because son wasn't here. >> Yep. But you really do need to keep your comments to firsthand knowledge. >> Okay. >> Very good. >> In effect, you are testifying here today. >> Yes. Okay.
>> Please. >> Okay. Uh the parcel is a low-lying area and acts as a vital sponge for Cape May by absorbing storm surges and heavy rainfall. It protects our existing neighborhoods from flooding. Paving over
this land creates a 22 housing lots would replace the natural absorption with impermeable surfaces like concrete and asphalt, forcing the water into our streets and putting unnecessary strain on local drainage infrastructure. Even with this 20 acre footprint, the
land is linked to broader wetland systems. It provides highquality habitat for federally and state endangered species. There's a lot of things we just saw the other day in Osprey. The site also serves as a crucial
stopover point for migratory birds along the Atlantic flyway as well as butterflies and other animals. I would just think for a moment when is going to be the opportunity for us to keep a rare continuous piece of natural
open space approving local variances for a land that is ecologically sensitive and fundamentally constrained by state environmental regulations is a risk to our city. I urge this board to deny this application, uphold the preservation of
this ecosystem and protect our community with costly impacts of increased flooding. >> Thank you, sir. You do understand that the application is consistent with the land use laws except for the variances
which are sought and that the applicant can build this development uh irrespective of whether or not the board grants or denies this application. The issue is whether the board is going to grant the variances. But um it's if they meet the criteria, this board is
constrained under the law to actually approve this application. >> Right. And I and I appreciate the opportunity and I did not know about this when I bought my house a year ago. And people that have been in the community for 30 years, they never thought that anything like this could be
built. So that's where the concern is. >> I just wanted to make sure you understood that the constraints that this board has to act under. >> Right. I I I think I I don't understand everything, but I'm going to continue to try to be more informed as we go. and I apologize for anything I may have said
that was out of line. Thank you very much. >> Question, >> Mr. D. Young. >> Yes. >> I just have a question. >> We heard your environmental concerns, >> but can you focus on the retaining wall and the height of the retaining wall and
how that's going to have a negative impact on you where you live? I think what happens is when you ever have a grade and you have a wall, you can go in anybody's neighborhood in the backyard here and people take and they raise their border of their property.
Why? Because they're trying to keep the water out from other people. You're trying to keep the water from other people out of your development. And where is that water going to go? That's my opinion. >> Are you an expert in engineering and drainage? No. So it's your opinion but
it's not based on any expert. >> That's why I said I'm learning. I'm learning. >> I'm trying to learn. >> Thank you for your concern. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, my name is Mark Stok. I live at 1629 New York Avenue. I just wanted to remind
people that I've been here for 23 years. Been through some storms. When Hurricane Sandy came through, the water came from the back, from the bay in. It didn't come from the ocean. Now, in our home,
1629 York Avenue, which our backyard is the homes on Maryland Avenue, we had we got the city. We we couldn't come into our home. The city, they wouldn't let you in. The city was closed. But we we got about 10 inches of water in our garage, which obviously did damage. And
once we were able to come into town, the water at Maryland Avenue on the curb for days just kept pouring over into the into the obviously into the sewers. But when you start talking about what this gentleman said earlier, when you're
talking about elevating the streets, everything else, that water's going to go somewhere the next time we get a big storm. Not to mention that we all know how wet it is back there all the time. That's why we call them wetlands. So, I just wanted to kind of remind people
that we do get storms down here and the water from from the wetlands is it Marilyn Avenue is always soaked. All you have to do is walk the street and see the damage. So, I just wanted to bring that up. Hi, my name is Marie Paglooi, 1620
Maryland Avenue. I've been down here now about 28 years. And every time it rains, the streets get flooded. They get flooded from Baltimore up to Maryland Avenue. Even this past weekend, we didn't have a lot of rain. I mean, there was ducks floating in the street. My
backyard, I had to put in drains to keep the uh the water to at least where I can walk back there a week after after it rains. So, I'm very concerned about them building more infrastructure because there's no place for the water to go.
And and that's one of my major concerns. I mean, I have a whole laundry list of things that that we talked about. Shade tree commission. You can't knock down any tree in this town without them all over your back. You c I can't put a built-in swimming pool in and I've tried
for 20 years and it's because of lot coverage. Now you're you've mentioned the built-in swimming pools. Is everyone going to have to go before the board to make sure their lot is, you know, sufficient enough? I mean, these are some of the concerns that I have as well. And then I know when they did the
houses on Velmentoto, Gus Andy was coming in for years with truckloads of stone to build up that street. Are we going to build up, you know, that area before we even build on it? And if so, you know, where are all these construction vehicles, you know, going to go to when when they come into town?
You know, that's just a couple of the things that I have other than, you know, of course, the ecosystem with the birds and and the coyotes that are there. I mean, they're there. We see them at night because I live directly across the street from them. So, you know, they're in there. And once you start building, where are all these animals going to go?
Just another another thing to uh think about. But like I said, you know, I just think, you know, you my biggest concern is really the water because it rains, it floods every time it rains, and we don't even need a major storm. It goes from Brooklyn all the way down to the middle of of 1620 Maryland Avenue. And you can
drive down that any rainstorm and you can see that that street's flooded. Thank you. Stacy Sheen, S H E Han, 928 Columbia Avenue. Do I have to be sworn in or not? Okay.
Um my question is concerning the CAFA permit for CAFA and wetlands even though this is under 25 units. Has the New Jersey D provided a jurisdiction determination confirming no CAFA permit or additional wetlands review is needed
due to the proximity or to exceptional resources value wetlands and habitat. Well, the trigger for caffer is 25 residential units. So, there's no jurisdictional determination needed for
that. >> But I thought there was more than just the the number of houses. It has to do with the wetlands, the proximity to the wetlands and if you're impeding things with that >> that that's a wetlands issue. CAFRA is a hard trigger with either 25 residential
units or if it's commercial property 50 or more or over 50 parking spaces. Um with residential as long as you're under 25 it's not subject to caffer jurisdiction but it is subject to all the other areas of D including wetlands
water quality management and so forth. The applicant is going to be >> the applicant is going to be required to obtain all necessary NJD approvals prior to uh getting final subdivision approval to the extent that's where it goes. This application
>> um in Kate May we are the roads that we have is what the roads were built years ago which conforms to a lot more one way with parking on one side of the street. Here we have a development that we have the opportunity to make the the street wider and have
parking on both sides, but they're going with the fact it's only going to be parking on one side of the street. Therefore, not allowing more parking spots for these homes. We all know that people come with more than one car. Homes are usually two, three, four cars.
And where are they going to park in this area that's already going to be congested with parking only on one side of the street? Patricia Gray Hendris, H N D R I C KS 106 Ton Avenue.
So before I address the development itself, I think it's important to recognize and put on the record how we got here. The preservation of SU track was not automatic.
It was the result of decades of litigation and the sustained effort of local residents. The concerned citizens for the preservation of soul track stepped in as an intervenor in this court case in what
became one of the longestr running court cases in the state of New Jersey. This was not a joint effort with the city of Kate May. Despite efforts to work collaboratively,
the initial the initiative moved forward independently. No city funds were raised used. Instead, the concerned citizens of for the preservation of Sultre raised over $500,000
for pro from private citizens to carry this effort through completion. My husband Charles Hris served as the president of the concerned citizens for the pres preservation of Sultrek and he passed away in October. But he died
knowing that the work had been completed and the land preserved. Tonight I continue that work. Over the past several weeks, I've been flooded with phone calls asking the same
question. How can this development be happening? Didn't we win the case when the state purchased SU track for $19 million? And I've made it clear, as clear as I could, these lots are outside the bounds
of SU track. This application is not a violation of that preservation. However, and this is the clarity that's important as a broker of real estate, a former member of the Kate May planning board
and currently serving on the Cape May County Planning Board and reviewing development applications. I can tell you this, the preservation of Soul Track is directly tied to the value in the market dynamics of this development.
When the state acquired a 100 acres, it did not simply stop development. In fact, it fundamentally changed the surrounding market. At one time, the track would have supported hundreds of homes.
But permanently removing that density, the supply of future housing in this area was s significantly reduced. And we all know when supply is reduced, values increase.
And it's important to remember what was avoided. Development of the SU track would not only have met hundreds of additional homes. It would have required the city to assume significant infrastructure responsibilities under a previously
negotiated settlement agreement. And just as important, there were real environmental implications. It's already been mentioned tonight, and many of us remember Hurricane Sandy
when the soul track functioned exactly as it should, as a natural sponge absorbing water and helping to protect the surrounding community. that protection would have been compromised
with development. And we don't have to speak about this in abstract terms. This evening, the Cape May Planning Board is hearing a specific subdivision by an applicant who could very well be
setting the stage for other potential residential development. In fact, he owns parcels that were listed in the C Kate May County Mun Multiple Listing Service in May of 2021
for approximately $5 million per block. But following the SU track settlement litigation, each one of those blocks, the 1500, the 1600 blocks of Maryland and the 1500 and
the 1600 blocks of Idaho were price adjusted from 5 to$25 million each, but have since expired from the MLS. This is not coincidental. This is a market placing a very real
premium on the value created by the permanent preservation of soul track. At the same time, the land is no longer a subdivision. It is permanently preserved open space.
And in real estate, proximity to protective open spaces carries a premium. buyers pay for protected views, a quieter environment, and the certainty it will never be developed.
But beyond economics, there's something else that must be recognized in this room tonight by you, the Kate May Planning Board. The Soul Track is not just an open space. It is a historic landscape.
The views across those 100 acres, they're open. They're natural. They're uninterrupted. And they're part of what defines this area in Kate May. And once those views are compromised,
they're gone. It's also been acknowledged that while this land may be developed, the responsibility at the local level is to ensure what is approved. It is strictly
it and should be compatible with the master plan and it minimize the impact to soul track that includes real practical impacts such as increased traffic surrounding streets which we've heard Baltimore
we've heard Brooklyn we've heard Maryland. So while this 22 home development may sit outside track, it is undeniably bene benefiting from it. It benefits from the removal of competing
density. It benefits from the adjacency to preserved land and it benefits from significant public investment that enhance the value of the entire area. And that outcome,
the preservation of that track was through the effort, funding and persistence of private citizens who carried that responsibility for years. So as this project is evaluated,
it should be done with the full understanding that the value shaping the development today is not accidental. It was created, protected, and paid for through a
communitydriven effort. I have a question. Can I ask her a question, Mr. Chairman? >> Mrs. Hendris, I just have one question, please, before. >> Certainly. >> Sure. >> A couple questions, actually. The first,
thank you for your comments. You served on the planning board and you were also a member of city council for four years. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. During that time, if you were so concerned about preserving this land, did you ever propose an ordinance that
would have reszoned it as conservation? as a as a member of city council, in spite of the fact that I had my head next to the pillow where my husband slept every night and he did what he
did. I did what I did and I was advised by the solicitor that I should recuse myself from any discussions. And if you went over the four years that I served in office, both
as a city council person member and as the deputy mayor, I never once commented on it. >> But if you put aside the East Cape May Associates project, which was involved, the citizens group that you're mentioning, they were not involved in
any litigation with this applicant. And these four blocks have always been out there as land that was eligible to be developed under zoning. Putting aside Eastgate May Associates, you could have just said, "I'm going to limit my let D worry about S point Track and
Eastgate May Associates, but we have other land here that we could restrict for conservation purposes, but you never took that initiative. But now that the applicant is here trying to get approvals based on the ordinances that were in existence when you were on city council and continue in
existence, you're opposing the development. It's not fair to have an ordinance that allows development and say we want to have it for conservation. Do you agree with that? >> I don't think I said conservation. You're you you're dealing with a variance tonight. >> Well, if
>> by right >> they can't build it. What else is it going to use for? >> But I'm saying he has he has they have the the right to do it by right. >> They're doing it by right >> if and the variance. >> So your opposition is mainly the
retaining wall variance. and tell me why that alone is a problem. >> I'm not going to get drilled at this point. At at at this point, I'm not going to get drilled. I've made my comments >> and I didn't >> She just did though. >> I'm just saying I didn't bring up my
comments in I was talking about the landscape, the preservation, and the value of the land. If the val if the land wasn't this valuable, >> all land and cape value. if the land wasn't as valuable as it has become
after sew track. Thank you. I'm not going to go through cross-examination. >> I think you made your point. >> Hi. Please state your name, spell your last name and your home address, please. >> Yes. Roz Johnson, J O H N S O N 826
Lafayette Street. I would just like to uh remind the committee that you are the guardians, one of the guardians of Kate May. And before you make any decision,
uh please ask yourself the question is what is presented in the best interest of all of Kate May? Thank you. Anybody else?
Okay, we go to close public portion and I guess Tony, do you have any closing? >> I do. Uh, M Mr. Chairman, just bear with me for a second. And I didn't mean to be
overly critical of the comments, but I was only trying to point out that what I'm hearing is the people that object to this do not want to see any development here. And the retaining wall is really the the reason that's being
used for that. But the underlying motive is no development. although they all have their homes in areas close by and don't want their uh views obstructed or just don't want any additional development in their neighborhood. Um we
have an application that meets all of the bulk requirements for this zone. There's not one variance from the bulk requirements that we're asking for except for those two irregular lots which could be consolidated with the other lots. But I don't even view that
as an issue. The only real issue is the retaining wall, which is doing nothing but protecting the environment. Because without the retaining wall, there would be more damage to the environment or at least more impact to the environment because instead of having a retaining
wall, the elevation of the road would have to slope down into the transition area. Um so the testimony was clear both um both experts who testified that this is is an exceptional situation. It meets
the hardship criteria. It also um advances several purposes of zoning and also satisfies the negative criteria. So there's really no reason for this board to deny this application. This is
a first step and you know this first step will lead to other applications and approvals that are required including going to city council for street vacation, going to D for an amendment to the water quality management plan and also obtaining the transition area uh
waiver and the buffer averaging. There was one comment about doing anything you want in the two other lots even though there's no homes that are going to be built there. A conservation easement specifically says what you can and can't do in those lots. You can't build roads.
You can't do anything there. The whole purpose of a conservation easement is to conserve the environment. And that's what the applicant in this case would be willing to accept for any of the land that gets that is not approved for development and is not needed for
infrastructure. We do not see a real need for infrastructure in in those two adjacent blocks. although the roadway is kind of like bordering it going in. So there may be some need to put some infrastructure in that area depending on what D says but this board can't deny
this application based on based solely on environmental concerns. Um it has to be a planning reason and I don't think there's any reason and even your board engineers supported the waiver or the variance for the retaining wall. So with that said I do thank your time. I thank
the public for showing up. It's always nice to hear comments, although even when we disagree with them, their voices can be heard and should be listened to. So, I appreciate it and I would ask that the board approve this application as presented.
>> Okay. >> Comments from anybody on the board. >> Yeah, I have a comment um specifically with regard to the application before us today. And the core element of that application is the
creation of a design and the design rather of a retaining wall. And I haven't heard anyone speak about the negativity that could be connected with a retaining wall. And in particular,
uh you're taking a piece of land which is contiguous to and aside from all the designs and the sketches and the lines and code and law, it's one big piece of land. It's it's soil. It's uh it's
wetlands. It's uplands as we call it on the plan. But it's all just one big piece of land. A lot of it 100 acres of it have been chopped up to to make the the broadesses tract and the the land that is dedicated to a natural environment and a natural
ecosystem. That land is connected to this piece of property. Uh I'm concerned that the creation of any kind of a uh surface disruption of the the flow and content of the land by
creation of a a retaining wall could undo the balance of that whole piece of property. Not just this property, not just these lots, but the land contiguous to it. because you have to when you look at the maps you see that this piece of property which they have all by right uh
connections to I I I don't have a problem with that it's it's uh surrounded on three sides by the natural preserve the the preserve that was created by that agreement u it's it's the habitat it's a home for
species it's it's all the things that make it make it almost like a church and I think putting a wall at the edge of that is going to have a a a as yet undetermined impact on things like the
topography, the flow of groundwater, uh because the water is going to seek its own level and it might go beneath the the retaining walls if it could. So, I see this thing, and I hate to be overly humorous about it, but I see this thing as the bodess track being an
environmental church. And I and I see this proposal as as taking the last three pews of that church and putting a Chick-fil-A back there. It it just doesn't make sense to do something like a retaining wall in an
otherwise pristine natural environment before we're absolutely sure that that retaining wall is not going to damage that environment. And nobody's proved to me tonight that there is no damage. Nobody's even discussed the fact that there could be damage. And so I don't
think I would like to I don't think I would vote for this at this point because we certainly need further discussion and and and um edification about whether or not that retaining wall is a good idea and a bad idea, not for this applicant, but for the neighbor of
this applicant, which is the Broadessor Tract. And that's the that's the crown jewel of this town, not these 22 homes. The crown jewel of this town is that natural environment, that natural ecosystem, not prepared to support
cutting into it without the absolute assurance that it's not going to hurt it. And so I'm going to vote no on this. I'm going to vote no on the on the variance to provide that wall because that wall to me has been an unproven and problematic addition to an otherwise
pristine environment. >> Thank you, D. ANYBODY else have any comments before we vote? >> You need a motion. Um I assume that the best way to proceed. >> What say the variance? >> The variance because if the variance
goes down, the application goes down. >> Not necessarily. I mean, we could still do a subdivision. we'd have to go back to D and get relief from that. >> Once once the variance goes down, the subdivision plans that you've given us are no longer viable subdivision plans. It doesn't mean that you can't resubmit
on substantial difference in in the new plans. But as far as you're sitting here today, the plans are in in my opinion are uh based upon a grant of the uh variance the variances which you have sought in particular the variance with
respect to the height of the walls of the of the retaining walls in your application. I can take two votes but I think the best place to start is to start uh with respect to the variance and then if you want a separate vote on the application after the variance has been granted
>> or denied we can do that. >> Can you just give us two minutes? >> Yeah. That's wave request for I think he said But it's going to go into the transition.
Oh, you're here. It's actually back. >> We're okay with just one vote on the entire application with the variances. >> So, you want just one vote. So the vote then is to approve or deny the
application with subdivision >> the subdivision application. Uh if you vote in favor of the subdivision application then you are granting the four variances which uh the applicant seeks. And just
to reiterate what the variances are, give me one second. Uh it's the height of the retaining wall which uh the ordinance allows for a twoft uh retaining wall and the applicant seeks uh uh retaining walls uh in excess of uh
6 ft uh and graded down to lower than that uh throughout the development as outlined by the engineer. Um the second is lot frontage with respect to um uh lot 24.
The third is a lot area variance with respect to lot 25 and the fourth was allowing the governing body to approve offtrack affordable housing. So those are the four variances which are sought uh by way of this application. Again if you vote in favor
of the application you are voting in favor of the variances which the applicant seeks. If you vote against the application then you are voting against the application. You're voting against vote against the varian Well, yeah, you're voting against Well, not
necessarily. That's the problem with doing just one app one vote is that you're not going to get uh the the reasoning of the board as to what was deficient in the application necessarily. >> I mean, it's board's call as to whether
it's one vote or two votes or more than that. >> Yes. I I think that we need to move forward with a motion to either grant or deny the uh variance with respect to the height of the retaining wall and then have a separate vote after that with respect to the
application >> and the other variances. >> And the other variances. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So we need a motion to either a motion to approve or deny. >> I have a question. I have a question. I have a question. If you deny the variance,
>> yeah, >> you deny the application. >> How can you approve the sub application? >> You can't. >> You can't. You can't. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, yeah. >> Thank you. >> I'm I'll make the motion. >> The motion is to approve the C variance with respect to >> the retaining
>> the retaining the height of the retain. >> We're always told to make a motion in the affirmative. >> Affirmative. >> Yes. Because a tie a tie a tie vote means that the >> So if you vote if you vote yes, you are granting the variance with respect to the retaining wall height. If you vote
no, you're voting against the variance. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Deputy Mayor McDade motions. Mr. Lholm seconds. Mr. Gorgone. >> Uh before I give my answer, um just want to make some comments here. Um, not that
I disagree with what the the public has said, I I do agree with them. Um, but because this is a preliminary uh approval and and and not a final approval, still a lot of steps that they have to take uh including coming back
before the planning board for a final decision and the D is not going to be a quick and easy uh decision for them to make. Um also the fact that we put a lot of uh constraints and restrictions in
what it is that they are allowed to do and not allowed to do. Um I think it puts some controls on what's will take place there. But this is a byight um uh area. they are allowed to build
without coming before any board just applying for a construction permit and would be without all of those constraints. It would be without a a retaining wall or a minimized retaining wall which means the land would slope right into the wetland areas or or the
areas around it which I think is a is a big problem. But with these conditions that we have applied um I think it it it makes a difference and it does provide some controls. So therefore I'm a yes.
>> Council member Bodner. >> Just want to say uh before I vote I appreciate that so many people came out tonight and also the remarks that uh that the public made and also I want to compliment council for the presentation. And I know it's not easy doing a presentation under these circumstances,
but thank you. It was a very professional uh presentation. Um I'm, you know, obviously we're addressing the the retaining wall. Um is ultimately that's what it comes down to even though we're looking at this development
involving, you know, 22 22 residential properties. Um I'm struck by the scope of the Orange Line. um when you stood up and worked with the orange magic marker encircling such a large part of this residential
development including the entire inside of the horseshoe which would be the uh where the retaining wall would be located um and regarding the the height of the retaining law uh wall um you know I think Mr. the forest. I think you said
that it created a bowl, the appearance of a bowl. And that's the same image that I had as far as um considering this when you were u laying out your your testimony. Um, in addition
to seeing this retaining wall there, I see up to a 6 foot n foot 6 foot n inch drop off the back of residential lots, which I'm really trying to wrap my head around how that is uh safe for this
neighborhood and is um is is something that we should be considering approving. Um and ultimately when I look at the the plans and see that lots one through eight are inside the wetlands buffer um I recognize your
right to develop the property but when I look at what our legal standards are and what we are considering here um even with the uh the conditions that would be put in place if this were granted. I think this would be carefully crafted if
it were granted, but I do not believe that you meet the standard for uh the zoning standard within the law. So, my vote is no. >> Deputy Mayor McDade. >> Yes. Um you know, this application has been a delicate balance um hearing from
the public with regard to the environmental issues which you know, we are all well aware of. Um, this is a 22 unit by by right could be built without this one variance that they're coming to us for. The retaining wall I mentioned
early on in my comments um in during several hours ago that you know you're building a wall that's 7 feet high and how dense is it and you know we're all very familiar with this is sand right? That's where we live. Um this is wetlands. So that complicates it even
more. Um, from a personal note, I actually had a retaining wall on my property in Pennsylvania that was about 8 feet high and one day it just fell down. Um, and so it was water. You know, it had been con constructed very well and it had irrigation and it had all of
the appropriate runoffs, but after a great deal of time, the the dirt and the, you know, just gave way and the wall fell down and had to be rebuilt again. This is the kind of thing that the power of water can do. We don't know what the impact will be on a 7 foot high
retaining wall. It is one of the reasons why I recommended perhaps you wanted to take a look at what you were putting into this area. Um I appreciate the the time and energy that has gone into this. Um, I know this is at the early stages,
but I would implore you, um, to take a look at if you're going to pursue this application further, maybe coming back with something that might be a little bit more palatable and maybe something that would ease into the environment.
Um, if you know, if not, I at this point in time, I can't approve this. My answer is no. >> Mrs. Reed, I concur with um Deputy Mayor and um Mr.
Bodner and my vote is no. >> Mr. Crowley, >> I think I said what I was going to vote and uh I don't need to repeat it, but I I would just say one thing that and and this this wall
to me has it backwards. The wall is being put in there to protect the homes from the wetlands. And we should be all about protecting the wetlands from the homes at all possible. And so I stand by what I said
before and I I just can't support this uh in its in its form. It has not proven itself. So I vote no. >> Mr. Lhome, >> um excuse me. And I think the uh the wall is less impactful than a slope that
could go into the uh wetlands for uh for quite some feet. So I vote yes. >> Mr. Riggs. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jones. >> Yes. >> This is a by rate reser uh by rate
application subdivision. We put as many restrictions on this property as we can. I I'm going to vote yes, >> Mr. Bizair. >> Love this position. Um
I I can't I have trouble visioning. It's like it's like being in a stadium looking down where where the wetlands is. Um and and there's there is a possibility of taking some of the other houses some of the inside lots, possibly
sloping them down. Maybe you don't need 22 lots and possibly redesigning it to where you could have a slope that makes makes it a little bit of a more natural setting. So, I am I'm voting no. >> So, the motion uh that was in the
affirmative fails and the variance is not granted. I'll enter I guess we're going to entertain a motion on the application as a whole at this point in light of the fact that the variance has been denied for the record. >> Anybody can make a motion.
>> I'll make the motion. So, just to be clear, this is a motion on the subdiv preliminary major subdivision. >> Correct. And >> and the other three variances, correct? Okay. Thank you. >> We need a second.
Second. >> We have a >> So, it's been I I didn't hear the motion. It's to approve the subdivision, right? >> So, a vote of yes is you're approving the subdivision of a vote of no means that you're denying the subdivision in
light of the denial of the variance. Does everyone understand that? >> No. >> No. One. >> If you vote yes, you're voting to approve the subdivision. If you vote no, you're voting against the approval of
the subdivision. >> Approving the subdivision without wall. >> No, that what's before you was the retaining wall. The only reason that we're going to this vote now is so that we have clarity on the record.
>> The variance the variance was denied. >> Question on your proposed language. Uh how could we approve a plan >> which has a central element of it removed and >> you can't
>> Oh well that's the answer >> formality to say no. >> So the motion's been made >> you you can't you can't approve the application without the variance. So the fact that we've put the motion on the
table is just for clarity of the record at this point. >> Do you understand? >> Understood that. Yes. >> If if they were to come back with another subdivision application, it doesn't just automatically happen. It would still have to come back to the board.
>> Still confused. You're confus >> you're confused about what? >> You can't have this subdivision without that first variance for the >> So you're going to vote no if that's if that's >> I don't know how else I don't know how else to
>> but it makes >> based on based on your recommendation that'll be my vote >> that's all I'm going to say. >> Okay. >> The fact is that the variance was denied. This is just for purposes of the record that the subdivision is being it
can't be approved without the variance. >> Basically, >> we have a motion by Deputy Mayor McDade, seconded by Mr. Riggs. Mr. Gorgone, >> no. >> Council member Bodner, >> no. >> Deputy Mayor McDade, >> no. >> Mrs. Reid, >> no. >> Mr. Crowley, >> no.
>> Mr. Lholm, >> no. >> Mr. Riggs, >> no. >> Mr. Jones, >> no. >> Mr. Bizer, >> no. >> Thank you. Um, can I entertain a motion to pay the bills? I'll make the motion to pay the bills. >> I'll second. >> Seconded. Uh, Mr. Produces second.
>> Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, >> I need I need a motion to pay the bills. >> Motion. Sorry. Okay, >> I made a motion. >> All in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Okay. Motion. >> Motion to adjourn. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Hi. Good night, everyone.
>> Good night. >> Oh my god. second. >> Yeah.