I think you're muted. I don't know if you can hear me. You're muted. Can't hear. There we go. You should be able to hear us now. Yeah, thank you very much for speaking up. I'm going to start this old spiel again. I
call to order the uh Tuesday, August 12, 2025 7 uh 7 p.m. Yes. Uh meeting of the planning board zoning world of adjustment of Fleming Central. This inerson and virtual meeting is called pursuit to the provisions of the open public meetings act. Both adequate and
electronic notice of this inperson and virtual meeting has been provided by way of publication in the Huntland County Democrat and Coen Hills newspapers on or about January 23rd, 2025 and January 19th, 2025. In addition, notice of the meeting was posted on the door of the
boat at Flemington Municipal Building located at 38 Park Avenue and any handicap accessible entrances there too, posted on the municipal website, provided to the municipal and distributed to all persons of any requesting. This meeting is being recorded with both
audio and video and may be broadcast. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and the quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Can rise as
you are able for 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. Thank you. Um, could we take a roll
call? Um, I let you know excuse me here. Mr. Campion here Mr. Here Mr. D here Mr. Refused.
Excuse Miss Excuse. Thank you. No, I'm sorry. the professionals. Um, attorney Kenski here, engineer clarico here, McManus here, and engineer here.
Full house. All right. Um, item one on our agenda as always is public comment. This is for um comments from the public either in person or online. for items not currently on our on tonight's agenda. If
anybody has anything, either raise your hand um or wave at me, please. Okay, I see none. So, moving on. Item two, may comments, please. Um only one. Um I see that Mr. King is in the
audience. The council I well the governing body received a request from him. Uh the state is allowing tents now back to the COVID uh standards. Um and he is requesting to put a tent back up
um till the end of the fall in his parking spaces in the front. Don't even bother. Well, you don't want to do this anymore. I'm just those times just seating right now. Just just seating. Um and because all that parking the condition of this
resolution and the handicapped as well um when it was discussed with the council two weeks ago it was a volunteer to make a decision um and handle it however many sees fit and um so I'm
bringing it to your attention so so that Bob doesn't have to waste too much time. I will say that we we need to pull together. Unfortunately, because of the way the site plans go and the way that the rightways the rightways and your lot goes right
through the middle of the parking spaces, we are going to have to do a little bit more due diligence to pull everything together with all the documents that are relevant. and I'll ask my professionals to do that between this meeting and the next meeting so that we can work out what we need to do
in order to see if we can get that done. That fair enough. Thank you very much. That's no problem. I'm sorry that we don't have it today, but in doing some due diligence, we found we needed to do a little bit more. I appreciate how this works. Okay. Thank you very much. I have one question. Yeah. Do we have a size of a tent or a
location so we can compare that against whatever the plans and resolution? basically the the front parking area wherever you see the front and I would have to relocate. There is a handicap spot. Um I I would be willing to move the handicap to the side to accommodate that
or if you say the handicap spot has remained I can work around that. Okay. It's just seating is so critically important for us right now it's it's Do you know how many parking spaces directly in front it would be? Sure. It would be six then seven.
Six. Thank you. your help. The ones directly in front of your building, not in front of the other building now has the six plus one handicap there. I think and it would be you would want to just the line that you would want to mark off
would be to the end of the parking spots. It's not outside. I I may have been approached to lose further time. Uh but I will remain within the parking spots. All right. Is that the information we need? Yes, that's all right. Well, we'll work on that in the background. I'll keep you updated. So, thank you very much. I
appreciate it. No problem at all. Try our best. We try our best. Um, and mayor, any further comments? Sorry, I jumped in on your comments there. No, that's it. Thank you. Thank you. Um, item three is council comments. I will reserve comments for our
discussion of item number 80. Okay. All right. Thank you. Um, item four, HBC comments. We didn't have a meeting since the last planning board meeting. Our next meeting is on the 20th and out of that meeting we'll be providing the planner board
with information from the HBC on the ordinance. We have quite a few items on the agenda for next week. So I have a lot to report after that and we'll bring I'll bring out in item eight um where we'll work your talk
about that. Um thank you. We're working through item five professional reports. I'm aware how it's gonna go. Um item five, any I'll just keep it simple. Any professional reports of things that aren't on the agenda today? Anybody want
to perfect? Um item six, the approval of minutes, which is our backdated minutes. We we are going to we're going to we're going to pull together a packet for the next meeting. Right. Okay. I know there's two of them, the March and the June. I've looked at I do
have to look at April and May. So on June you're good with June on fine week and March on fine. It's so we just want to send everything to the board. It's one exact date to just do it all next. That's fine. Next next week
we don't have a timeliness. We're listening doing our best. We're under extreme circumstances. So really we're doing agendas with you things. I don't I'm just want to make sure we have a stash for another.
That was my first question on which ones we make sure we get done and which things we get done. And we always have the video as well. So if anybody ever asks for anything, we have something to provide which actually is more accurate and more succinct than capture them. With that said in mind, having listened
to some of them to help give the minutes. Yep. We really do need to make sure we do this because often when we get involved in our little discussions, we go like this and it doesn't pick any of it up. It gets very quiet sometimes. So, I'll just remind the boards, please get as close as you can to your mic.
Right, that's that. All right, let's move on to um right item seven, which is I wrote it as resolution compliance discussion. You tell me what the correct name is. That's completely fine. I think that encompasses a lot of what we're talking about here.
I'm going to Should I have you open it up for what they need to do? There's three councils here. Council ask them what they want to do. Yeah. Why don't we start out and let him tell the board I know there has been some dialogue back and forth via correspondence memos. I think the board has received them. Um but I'll let Mr.
Pepe take it away. Is this is mic on now or do I need to turn you? You need to turn your camera on on your laptop. We can see your face for the video. Oh, I'm not presenting yet. He's just talking, right? But can't see him if camera's not
on. The people online can't see it yet. There he is. There you go. A little tiny drink. Oh, lovely. A little. So, great. Now we're all on screen.
Good. Good evening. Thank you first and foremost all for your time. My name is Donald Py. I'm with law firm of Scari Hollandbeck. I represent HBC Liberty Village Urban Renewal LLC. We're here to discuss what I'll characterize as five
general areas of concern that we have with respect to the current resolution as it's written. Um, and it's a lot less than I think you you may be anticipating based on some of the repeat letters and the highlighting that
came out today. So the five general areas are to discuss a stagle road detour to discuss a proposed change to the ground floors of and the facade of the town homes that are going to be affordable. the um fence and the
landscaping that is required adjacent to Lone Eagle Brewery um outside what I'll characterize as outside agency approvals and the timing with which we have to comply and then a soil testing issue. I have my
professionals here this evening to talk on those subject matters. Um, I don't know if I mentioned it. The original resolution was 2025-04. Um, give you a little update as to the status of the property. All the demolition is done. The environmental
remediation work is being contracting is being wrapped up. Pricing is being wrapped up. That work scheduled to start next week. We are looking to clarify some you know some of the items with respect to timing
largely because my experience differs from what the practice appears to be here in that there are some approvals that naturally take longer and don't necessarily need to be done before a site plan and a
subdivision plan are signed. The reason for that is they don't they're not really reflected on the plans. They are things like a uh you know complying with the homeowners association master requirements. Those documents haven't been created yet because the uh you
that's really in the hands of of the uh vertical partner that's going to be building the town. So that has to go through the DCA and the like. So that's just by way of an example. I'm going to actually Mr. Puchi will probably identify the the great majority of those types of items which we're
characterizing as outside agency approval. Our ask with respect to each of them is that we can get the site plan subdivision plans signed so that we can submit them to the utility companies because they won't do their work final designs until they have final site
plans. the subdivision will allow us to go forward with the donations to the to the burrow uh you know as as previously characterized and um we recognize the need to complete and satisfy each and
every condition. Uh we're just saying that some of these conditions can be moved to a building permit condition. So we couldn't uh go forward with the town homes were all satisfy. So for us it's
really just a timing issue. Um with that I guess I'll let Mr. Dushi start. And I guess just to clarify uh for the board's purposes um one of the things that I think we also wanted to accomplish tonight with Mr. Pepe and his um professionals here is to figure out
which of these items could be done by way of a condition amendment and which may or may not require a uh application and a site plan amendment. Um which would then necessitate public buildings. Uh so I think that's that's something that we're looking as we find out more
information of exactly what these things are. um is the timing issue that we can look at the at the condition and interpret it to allow just an amendment to push the can down a little bit further um or does it invol that's that's what I think we also need to be
looking at both keep that in mind and ask a question so I guess first thing testimony you're about to give us the truth Hold you forgotten. I do. Ah, good evening, Mr. Pooie. Uh, your
license as a civil engineer is current state. That is correct. Atlanta, correct? Correct. Um you testified before the board chairs accept he has been already we don't we don't need any more
test let's start off though I think this will make many of the board better Mr. Clerico recirculated uh his July 21st, 2025 memorandum and in it um he highlighted
those items that are not yet complied with. I think the concern may be that we have to go through all of them. I don't think that's the case. That is true. Um there are yellow highlights within I believe in the tune of 48 comments and I would say the lion
share of them no problem. We were going to in fact in many cases have already done address those comments. There are a handful of issues that are not quite spelling to the letter of the resolution
edition. Those are the ones that Mr. E announced just about 10 minutes ago ago and those the few that we want to go through and got clarification on. Okay. Do you want to go through them in that order then or is there a different order than you said? I believe the first thing you mentioned was which
Stangle Road. Yeah. So you want I mean you want Stangle Road. I just go take a seat. Well, you want to do that first or the one that you're you're on the table for. I I have Mike here now. So let's talk
about the Lone Eagle fence issues. All right. All right. Let's do number three. Okay. So one of the conditions in the resolution says that we have to place a particular fence in a particular location with trees on both sides of it.
And that fence the exact detail of it was provided to us from Looney Brie in a letter of I believe it was December. They gave us the exact detail of the fence that they wanted to place and all this where we read where we're going to place it. Literally they have a 10 foot east at the northern end of our property
which is west of Stangle Road and about to share my screen. Yes, it's not letting while he's doing that. Do you have a specific condition that he's trying to find? Oh, right. I have them all listed.
There you go. Few seconds. So, at the very northern end, I said on the west side, um, can you zoom in? I'm sure you're all familiar to where the polar building was. Okay. So, so this box right here, this gray shaded
area, that's the number 13. That was the Polo building. And then just below it was the I'm going to say your original is rather slow. It's getting very choppy. Yeah. Just to the left of the number 13 is the parking lot that used to serve the public building, which is just directly
below the brewery building. has the words limit of curb removal in the middle of the Bur building. Just below that building, you see there's a little white gap up to a dark line. That white gap was at the time the existing patio for
and then the next 10 ft up to the next dark line that is within the applicant's property that happens to be a 10-ft easement to Louisville Brewery from the Liberty Village property. And so what has happened is the Lonville Brewery has
extended their patio up to that 10 foot limited line which is basically the curved line of the old parking lot. In that patio area they have obviously patio tables lighting and so it's developed for their use. They also placed a metal I guess you call a white
like a not sorry white it's a black looks like a jerith aluminum uh picket fence limiting you know the edge of their patio at our property lot so at their east we had agreed during the hearing to place a fence at that location but they've already placed the
fence there so it seems counterintuitive for us to then take their fence they just put in at the expansion of the patio rip it out and put in a new one And also the condition in the resolution stipulates we have to plant on both
sides of that fence. The seven trees that were supposed to go on the north side of that fence would quite frankly be stupid because they're be planted in the middle of a patio that they've just expanded with tables and lights. So it does not make any sense to put those
trees there. I met with Mr. um Baroa and Mr. Campion last week and we presented an alternative which was to donate those seven trees to the burrow and let the burrow place them wherever they see fit. I understand from Mr. Campion that there is precedent in the burrow for such a
mechanism. So, we're here to seek, I guess, a modification of the condition to allow the existing fence that was just placed by Rory to remain instead of us ripping out their new fence and putting in another one and to not place the seven trees on their part of the
property that is within their ease where they currently have a patio. Am I dreaming or did Mr. King say that during like during the hearing that he didn't have trees on this side? That is that is our understanding. He said no. I do not not want the treat.
You do not want you did say that at the public hearing. I know. I'm confused why we let this go because I thought we talked about that whole thing. Well, we all missed it in the resolution. Both sides resolution. So then I remember people looked at it.
No, no. So, not to relitigate all of that, the but there was there was a potential objection that was resolved through dialogue and then y'all came to a meeting and said, "Hey, we worked this all out." Was this part was this part of that work it all out?
It was part of it. Yes. And what I just moved to now is you can see the fence now with it says 10 foot patio and the location of where we were supposed to put a fence and there already is one. Now, what was also negotiated during the process of the hearings was this string
of buildings used to be five units. There was another one up at the top and they're too close to them. That was moved over to the other side by Route 12. And this area was flattened out and a swale was introduced on our side of the fence to make sure that any storm that is generated by rain falling on the grass adjacent to the unit does not wash
onto Mr. Payne's patio, but actually gets intercepted by the swale and directed into the wetland area to the west. And and then the other piece of this was making sure we have adequate landscaping buffer between a residential use and brewery. And so that has not that has not changed from what you're
saying, right? Other than the fact that we don't want to place the seven trees on the north side of the fence in the middle of this patio. But we're still you're still doing landscaping on the other side. You're just keeping it to your side of
the fence and trees. Seven trees. And is um Mr. King happy with leaving his fence there rather than you putting a different fence up? Was it is what I I don't know that as that question. The current fence the current fence is
reasonably low see was the proposed fence like some sort of blocking image blocking one. It was going to be a six foot solid fence. Right. It had like a stone veneer panel built into it. Yes. Right. So you say you spoke to Mr. champion except for about trees.
Did you then have you spoken to Mr. King about whether he's which fence he would prefer? I thought you were okay with your fence. I I put a lot of trees there. You want me to just put a lot of trees? I'm a big fan of trees. We can certainly try to locate as many
of the seven being moved. I'm just waiting for that side to That's what I was wondering. Could you put all 14 on one side off seven trees and seven slushes? landscaping plan as soon as my computer usually tricky. I'm not
So, yeah. So, so, so perhaps, so perhaps we could think about our, you know, working with our board planner to maximize the vegetative buffer. The best. I appreciate that flexibility. I think that makes perfect sense. Whatever cannot be maximized there would
be elsewhere. That seems like a reasonable statement. As best I could see Beth's ears turning about finding tree spots. Yeah. So, what um what Bob and I were just chatting about is it seems that there's an opportunity to add
it seems there's an opportunity to add a few additional trees to the opposite side of the fence of Lone Eagle. Right now on their post uh landscape plan for resolution compliance, it shows a single row of evergreen trees. I think there's an opportunity opportunity to add
additional trees in that area, although I don't know that it's a second row of ever trees. The only thing that uh that I've asked Bob to start to take a look at we need to work out is to make sure it's not interference. Correct. So going say what 10 ft off the fence
your property five then you may have to we may have to move the row of trees that were originally proposed. Yeah. Yeah. Waiting for technology to speed up so I can show you less. You have that in front of you? Yeah. It's just share with but I think there's so I guess the short answer is yes. there's an opportunity
for us to work together to provide the required row of trees and potentially a few additional ones to give additional screening as opposed to replacing the fence with the solid fence if that's not what's preferred by the uh by the neighbor. So Ken, I'm interested as well as
discussing with you personel that they that this neighbor is included in the discussion for the complaint. Is that possible or is that not? Um I'm comfortable with that. I'm going to defer to Cara if she's comfortable with it from a legal perspective. I'm okay, but I think Bob's indicated at
least so far what his preference is. Um, we can work with that, but but certainly to given the respect of showing him the plan and saying this is what Beth's going to agree. The only thing I'm unclear of, so we are not going to we're
going to well the proposal again the for discussion purposes is to amend to not amend the style of fencing to match the existing fencing. You're going to keep what was proposed. He's going to keep the new fencing that was there and we'll really just work around the landscape. Not true.
What is there now is in lie of what was shown on our site plans. Got it. Okay. So you will be removing the fence that was proposed and just got it on the plants. We're not going to remove the physical fence. Y situation.
And do we want to kind of touch on the issue you initially raised, Miss Kazinski, on a case-by case basis. I don't think this is a material change, particularly since we're just relocating some plant. So I don't see this as something that could require site plan approval. Although maybe in conjunction
with the other issues you might change your mind but how do you want to address that? Yeah, I think maybe we'll look at them in totality because that might help. Um because if there's one glad you I'm just if there's a way we can kind of massage things so that you
are comfortable on um so I think that takes care of that issue. Thank you everybody. Now to be fair to Mr. Clerico the amended so that this written confirmation is gone out of the condition, right?
So, we just got I think what essentially happened. Yeah. What essentially happened is so if this was the only thing that we were dealing with tonight to Mr. Pepe's point, we would be going through the machinations of u the board understands what the change in the condition would be and do they feel that that would be a
substantial change and do they feel that their vote on the application would have been changed by virtue of the change in that condition? the answer to that is no, then we can do that tonight without a public hearing, without notice, and all that other stuff. If the answer to that is yes, uh then we'd have to go the
second round. So, um that's why I'm thinking if we go through everything and then because if there's one then we might wrap it up into whatever gets let's go through all the points and see where we'll land. Okay. Um, I'm going to jump to what I
will acknowledge is the most difficult issue to discuss because we had a lot of conversation about soil testing at the hearing. So, Mr. Coochie, want to describe what was done and what the outcome was
and where we went wrong. We had an obligation. We had an obligation to notify Mr. No, you did not. Yes. So, we've had I'm just going to share my screen again and uh just
the whole concept plan. This was part of the redevelopment, part of the hearings over and over again. It's been updated. So what happened was we testified over several hearings about using the prior LSRP's groundwater
investigation work and basing our design of all of our stormware management system on that work. And I believe it was Mr. Dasha that said um well how do we trust that? How do we know you're not going to have to redesign the whole project and throw
everything out and waste all of our time for these hearings? But we were confident that the results were going to be pretty darn close to what we expected. And there were for everything west of the extension of central station from church down to 12. Everything in
the left side there were very minor adjustments to an elevation one on one or two of the bio retention systems. Some had no change at all because what we learned is that the data from the prior LSRP kind of stopped at the
extension of central more or less a little bit to the right of it. But what we have is newer information for what was previously known as the east bio retention system which happens to be right here just above what is next the
ground basin and then down at the very southeast corner the route 12 basin. In those locations, the groundwater, excuse me, the water paper that was encountered was high enough that we had to lift the bottom of the basins to the point where
if we kept the Brown Street basin as a bio retention system, it the bottom of it would be above what it's serving, which is all the area to the east on Grant and Brown. That basin does not accept flow from the project site other than the surface area of
itself. It accepts I think it's about seven acres of inflow all from municipally developed areas where you have a flooding problem along Brown Street just north of Grant. There's a low point in the road and even in a minor rain it floods. So that basin
was incorporated into our plans to help alleviate that flooding to bring the water onto a basin bubble it and release it over time. But because of the D rules of having to have a certain distance between the seasonal high water table and the bottom of a bofiltration basin,
we had to change that basin to be an extended detention basin. Different type of um basin. And I'm going to put that to the side for a second and say basically the same result occurred at the Church Street Basin in the bottom
right. That particular basin. I'm sorry. Say church. Not Route 12. Yeah, Route 12 basin. Um, in the bottom right corner here, this is Route 12 basin. Same thing. The groundwater was high enough where I had to lift the bottom and make it into an extended
detention basin, not of what it was previously was a large scale fire retention system. That one happens to accept flow from about 60% of the inflow comes from the backyards of the homes here on Brown Street. and about 40%
comes from the yard areas and the roof areas of the project site plus the surface area of the base itself. So that particular basin gets absolutely no I'll call it dirty storm water. It's all clean water under the DP guidelines. It
only accepts roof areas and grass areas, no pavement areas and motor vehicle services. Those two basins are now extended detention basins and the stormwater rules do not allow extended detention basins as a means of water
quantity control without a waiver from D. Now our position is okay we know we need a waiver from D. That's an outside agency approval. We already have the D flood requirement where they approved the whole storm management system at the time these were bio retention. we have
to go back to D and explain to them, okay, well, the groundwater situation that we tested after we were able to do so by virtue of the LSRP and the remediation and cleanup, we got the information and it's too high for the Brown Street Basin to work to give the
town any benefit. And so we want to switch them to extended detention bases. We know we're going to have to seek that permit and I view that as the um called outside agency approval that the approval of the board can be granted
subject to. However, Mr. Clarot is stuck between a rock and a hard place because for him to certify that the plan, our stormwater management plan meets the stormwater rules, he can't because we have to seek that waiver. But that
waiver has to be granted by D, not by the burrow. So it's kind of a catch 22 and we're seeking the condition amendment if you will. Um this is only the first half of this that um we would
like to go to the D as the ultimate authority the higher authority here and condition your approval that on their approval of an amendment or modification to our flood area permit. That's part A. Part B was the witnessing requirement
and there are two conditions. I believe they were I want to say 12 and 31. 18 and 31 I think. 12 and 31. 12. All right. Yeah. 12 and 31. Okay. Yeah. I'm sorry. Page 18 of the resolution. So condition 12 in the resolution
mandated that there basically it said we had to do the testing. It had to be witnessed by Mr. Clarico's office and it deferred to condition 31 for the timing of when the testing can be done when the witnessing should be done. Condition 31
spells out three particular times at when that testing should be done. I believe it's during remediation um during or prior to site improvements and u at the end I can actually give you all three and prior to commencement of
construction of site improvement. I think that was number two. Is it three? Yeah. Oh, that's three. Number two is upon completion of the soil importation. So, there were three different times that the uh testing could be witnessed if it
were performed in condition 13 31. Yeah. Did not say that Mr. Clerico must witness it. It said he can witness it or it can be witnessed if required. So, it's not a mandate. No, I didn't say
that. I don't say that was such a bone of contention by Mr. Clerico at the hearings. I mean that that's neither here or there. So the fact is as Mr. Pepe said our client and more importantly his contractors failed to notify Mr. Clerico of the
testing. So that's a conundrum because now he cannot certify that the testing was done in accordance with the condition. And that has a two-edged sword to it. On the one hand, would the testing have been any
different or the results been any different had the correct notice been provided to Mr. Claro's office and he had someone out there witnessing. Uh that is basically relying upon the reputation of the firm that did the work and their accuracy in doing the work.
But there's an interpretive um element to it. if the work was done by soil morphology and looking at modeling of sidewall to soil profile. Uh but that's you know the technical side of it and I don't believe when I spoke to Mr. Clerico that there really was a concern
or question about the technical side of it. It was more the administrative side of it. The condition says I'm supposed to witness it. I didn't witness it. So I can't say you're in compliance. Right. did we did have a license for nobody's nobody's questioning the um I
don't think anybody is questioning the the people that did the test nobody's questioning that you used a professional body for that but um you agreed to the resolution correct oh yeah we agreed to the resolution the resol
did say read through it and we all that Mr. Clerico should be there at the following times. Three terms were listed. He wasn't informed of when the testing was taking place. And on item 31 to say that that says
that he doesn't need to be there. It says in the presence of clerico or his representative if deemed necessary. Now I understand that to mean and other board members can weigh in that that's a is his representative of de necessary
that he personally wasn't able to go not that you didn't have to contact anybody. Oh I'm not saying we so did did you I'm just trying to work out because as the mayor said this was a very important issue at the time that we have Mr. Clerico witnessed the testing.
It was a compromised position by Mr. CL and the board. No, I I'll be very clear. We should have we should have notified him to provide an opportunity to observe the testing. But, you know, this it didn't happen. The contractor was obligated to do it, didn't do it. You know, they had they
had the resolution. It fell through the cracks. Where we are now though is is that the testing was done. It was certified by a reputable company. I don't believe that the municipality has any issue by the bureau has any issue with respect to the
findings. So I'm asking forgiveness for having not satisfied that portion. Right. And if I can just add also one reason this is frustrating is that we were very we had a lot of discussion if I remember
rightly if I say this wrong please anybody on the go correct me. We had a lot of discussion about whether to even grant the um application um correctly because we wanted this testing to happen before we approved the
application. And this was a big compromise for us and we did explain that then it was extreme. we were trusting you to do this but as because we we wanted really to have this before we gained approval
and now to find that you didn't even follow the resolution as it was I find it extremely frustrating anybody else or is that am I just it it certainly and I appreciate you've apologized for
doing that but still there's Notwithstanding that, we then now find that you can't actually do the design. I you you we you said that we thought that the testing was going to show that we wouldn't have to change the design, but we do have to change the
design. Correct. Yeah. On that issue, Mr. Pooie, because we do have to change the design, and there was concern, but I don't think it's a change that implicates the site. As I mentioned to Mr. um the change did not result in moving
any unit any basic utility schematic at all. What it did was it lifted the the small bio retention systems left of the extension of central by zero to a few inches. And on the right side the two
former larges scale bio retention systems are now extended detention bases. Everything still meets all of the quantity, quality, and recharge requirements of the state storm management regulations with the glaring
exception exception that as I said an extended detention basin requires a waiver from D to be utilized for the water quality. Uh it's not a what they call a an accepted green infrastructure device.
Sign so it's significant. So your estimate is it's a significant enough change to mean you have to go back to the D. Is that correct? Yes. To amend a flood. So so let me let me ask this question. You might have been about to ask this question is what one of the concerns that I articulated during the hearing
was that the extension of central to 12. We had this we lost any sort of we were talking about some park or whatever but we had to put the bio retention basin there what we're calling the route 121. And visually as an as a gateway entrance from the west into the burrow, what is
it going to look like? Like a buyer retention basin is has a certain different I would What's the difference in aesthetic the design questions between what a buyer retention basin looks like and what you're calling an extended an extended detention basin is the
bottom of the basin is generally clear of anything but grass. The perimeter can be heavily landscaped at the board's discretion, but the bottom is kept clear. The a bio retention system. The bottom has a number of different plants
and it has a thick soil medium for those plants to grow in that is used for treatment of pollutants. But as I said, these two basins uh do not accept any pollutants whatsoever from the job. Indeed, won't accept no flow from the
job. So, if I'm walking along Route 12, what is it going to look like in profile one versus the other? We can still buffer the Route 12 facade here. I can ask our landscape architect
to do we need to change the buffer plans all the way around. By the way, Mike Campion pointed out an interesting benefit for the town on the Brown Street basin. the maintenance costs are going to be much less just to mow the grass as opposed to maintaining all the plants that have to go into a bio protection basin.
Just so the record shows, uh, George Wong, could we destroy again real quick? Sure. Testimony about to spores the truth of all. Yes. Thank you. That's fine for the area, but you know, we went from having this spectacular fountain to now having
a hole in the ground. Thank you, Mr. Josh. A hole in the ground. The fountain is not allowed by D in no answer your question before. So right now we show a buffer of landscaping and this is my
representation. This is not the landscaping plan. For whatever reason landscaping plan just will not load up and landscape architect is not available. But I can tell you that whatever we represent here on the landscaping plans can be brought to
sufficient density to satisfy the concerns of your planner so that someone walking along Route 12 on that sidewalk that's there looking in will not notice what's behind it. They will not notice whether the basin
behind it has trees or shrubs in the bottom or is just grass at the bottom because there'll be an effective visual screen to prevent that view. Okay. So that's Yeah, Beth. Yeah. So I'm I'm looking You don't have to just close.
Um I'm looking at the landscape plan that was submitted for the purpose of resolution compliance. And the basin that's adjacent to Route 12 has a couple dozen plants within the basin outside of the areas that that is graded down for
the bottom. So uh at least half a dozen trees and and several shrubs. So I don't quite know the mix without going through the the species list, but there are dozens of trees, dozens of plants within that basin. And the basin
uh approximate to the brown shrew basin, so to speak, has the same circumstance. Both of those basins at the time of the creation of those plants you're speaking of were still bio retention. Yes. And that's when the testing was going on prior to April 1st in the wet season. Uh
and then the results finally got to me weeks later and that's when we had to adjust the plans and we made a subsequent submission of just site plans and storing management reports through Miss Connor to the board and to Mr. Clerico. So, we have yet to release
Jason to update his plans pending what happens here. And I I appreciate that, but I I just wanted the board to know how uh because I think the concept that that was shown in this plan was consistent with the board's decision in the sense that uh
there are plants, trees, shrubs within the basins to to try to increase the the aesthetic appeal so they look nice for surrounding residents and for those traveling reg. But I think what I'm hearing is that the sorry the the required change
for the extended release basin is that the plantings within the bottom of the basin outside of the grass needs to be eliminated. Correct. Yes. Relocated eliminate. I mean maybe they can be re relocated elsewhere but from these areas they need to be
eliminated. And so for the board's information, I think it's important to understand that that is going to be a significant change to the appearance of these particular site features and the yes, I think there's an opportunity to
put additional plants along the edges of the basins to try to screen the view in, but it is it's a very different look. It's uh I think uh less appeal when you're trying to screen the view in rather than
incorporating plants within the within the basin so that it becomes part of what folks are looking at in sense that it looks like a uh a more natural area with with a variety of plants and shrubs. So it's a very different appearance. To that point though, Beth, um the
plants that were inside were not just aesthetic plants. those were part of the technical and I'll ask Bob to speak on this they were part of the how the basin would work or or is it just any old platform work can you just speak to that I mean in a minute Bob and
then but the more important thing to me as well I'm not saying that's not important it is important but the important part is that Bob Grace on page 23 of his report is that we don't have the capacity to allow a variance for this change so can can Bob maybe speak
to those two items Well, what Mr. Kuchi was referring to is that well, and this is a little bit of an oddity in the in the in the regulations in that the the state storm water regulations deferred uh the jurisdiction to for review of those
enforcement of the regulations down each municipality under your MS4 permit. In this particular situation, the applicant also has an obligation and initially did this upfront to to get D for flood hazard control as part of DP's as part
of their review of the flood hazard uh elements of their application also review the storm water and in their approval of the permits for the flood hazard and if I'm saying any of this wrong please correct me because I'm going on memory a little bit here. uh in
the their approval of that particular commit. They also approved the stormwater aspects of of the project uh and said that if you're going to modify anything, you have to come back with an amendment group, which is what they indicated they're going to have to go back to DB.
There's somewhat of a dilemma on on the burrow side is that the burrow under our storm water rules basically just enforces the the the template, the state guidelines for storm water management. uh the burrow, you know, could at some point amend the
strong order rules to incorporate or allow uh for deviations from those rule areas of mitigation. For example, if you had an area where for whatever reason you didn't want to have infiltration of groundwater for whatever reason uh you could you could adopt an amend an
amended storm water management plan that said well in this part of the burough we're not going to do recharge for whatever the the underlying purpose might be but we're going to enhance recharge in this other part of the bur. So you have the ability to establish certain ground rules sort of like a land used saw with variances. You have the
ability but the bureau never never did that when they adopted the regular most municipalities never did that when they adopted the reg they just adopted the vanilla regulations issued by DDP and and in that situation the bureau doesn't have the ability to grant a
waiver. What's being suggested here is that since this since there's a dual entity, you know, two entities, the bureau and D reviewing essentially the same set of documentation, um that they're suggesting suggesting
that if D signs off on it, then perhaps the bureau can just rely on that element as being, you know, being acceptable. And this goes to the issue of the green infrastructure uh basically issue. I have one fault but you're good.
So can you Bob for the board's benefit clearly the state has adopted green storm water infrastructure GIS rags as a new more restrictive standard preferred to deal with to deal with flood to deal with flood issues to deal with storm
water mitigation. So can you like walk everyone through why is a bio retention or other gsi better than perhap than perhaps this this what's here and like because obviously D is you the DP didn't ban this kind of storm water
infrastructure they just said if you don't do best management practices if you don't improve with gsi you got to come and ask permission to do this other one right so there's a there was a rationale right like can you can you walk through that a little bit because we're talking about part of town that floods bottom
and I'm trying to understand the water. Well, I can tell you what the difference between the the different types of um BMPs um generally referred to as uh what they do what the underlying reason why the state did that. I mean I can't speak
to the underlying the bio redemption basin obviously has water quality features uh that you know are obviously important in in in the processing of storm water uh or management of storm water from runoff from the site Mr. which she's indicating in this
particular area. These particular basins are only taking water from roof and from grass. They're not taking water from motor vehicle services with one slight exception. I guess the brown sheet one technically is taking an existing developed urban area which
obviously has a you know water quality component to it. Um I guess the perhaps Mr. P could respond to this. The reason you had to change from the bio retention basin to the extended retention basin is that you because of the higher
groundwater condition you can't use bio retention basin on brown retention basin requires a larger separation between seasonal high water table on the bottom of the basin than a traditional extended retention basin does. And as I said, based upon the
testing within the Brown Street basin area, the bottom of the basin, if it were still bio retention, would have to be lifted so high that it would actually be above the low point of Brown Street and therefore it would be absolutely useless to the borrow. You have a number of factors here that are kind of working
against each other. again the plan that was presented to the board based on the uh testing the app was originally relying on from the LSRP so that they could put in a bio retention basin which is what it that's what was presented and approved approved
with the condition that oh by the way you really got to go out and retest this in the wet season and verify that you actually have those conditions when they did that they they verified that they didn't have those conditions they had a higher groundwater condition which as Mr. which you just explained, if they
were going to keep a bio retention base, it would have to rise to to such a level that it really wouldn't be effective in its intended purpose, which was to manage water coming off of Brown Street. Again, that's that's an existing developed part of the burrow. It's not something they're they're creating as part of this, but it is part of their
agreement, the redevelopers agreement for for this particular development. So that that's that's the situation you're in to the extent that they that someone has the ability to again assuming the board is comfortable with it has the
ability aesthetic issues. I'll put that on a side for a moment uh that uh someone felt that the extended detention basin is is is appropriate given the various circumstances. The issue is that it's not compliant with the sto the current
storm water regulations that require green infrastructure. So it it's it's not one of the the the infrastructure they need to they're indicating they need to put in to manage water come off of Brown Street has to be at a certain depth. The enhanced or the new
groundwater conditions they just established indicate that they can't do that. they can't rave that basin up and keep it the same type of basin because it would be ineffective u because again they're managing water coming off an existing condition. Uh and they've
chosen to possibly their only choice at this point was to come in with a uh a lower basin uh that uh is is it but it's not green infrastructure. Again, I I can't certify as part of this project that project is compliant with stormwater
rules because it's it's it's not because it requires a waiver. It's not indicating that they have to go to D anyway and I you know quite honestly something like this I would defer you know to the burough stonework coordinator which is your burrow engineer. I I I just know I can't
certify to the board that this is compliant because obviously it's not compliant. Whether getting a waiver from D uh to do this, whether that that's enough of a basis for the bureau to say we're
going to accept this even though we're not granting the waiver. uh and again you have this it's this odd situation unique but unique situation where you have two different entities who are in charge of reviewing the same set of data for the under the same set of regulations in somewhat independent of
each other um you know the fact that D says something's compliant to burrow still can't the burough planning board can't just say oh D approved it so there go we're just accepting D you have to go through the motions and the whole
process of evaluating it and deciding you know whether it's come to the conclusion whether it's compliant compliant or not and as indicated here they you can't you can't determine it's compliant so once once they got let's say they get the waiver from D that would then have
to come back to you or the board engineer for review and just maintain that it's consistent with what we have in our order yeah that's going to go to the issue really of the burough storm water orders which is why I said it which is exactly the same as what the Yeah. But I think if the storm storm
water coordinator or any municipality, it has to ensure ushure that that everything is in compliance with the regulations. In this particular case, it it's a bit of a I call it a gray area, but it's it's it's enough of a um
it's a chicken in the egg kind of situation. Yeah. What's required of the D RA? You have to put in you have to provide them plans of the extended detention business to then I'm sorry he's talking D application
wation process. It's not a waiver application. It's a modification of existing permit. Would you have to provide like the extended uh detention basin I have to submit the current stormwater management report and basically there's a gentleman named Gabe Mahan who runs
the entire storm water side. Okay. for water quality. I've actually had a correspondence with Mr. Boat uh about this issue because he is your storm water coordinator. He mentioned Gabe as well. We've met with Gabe in the past and I have no problem representing I would I would go sit with him and
explain why that we already know this still meets our perspective the water quality component requirements even using extended detention because we were not requiring the extended detention basins for any water quality treatment. They were only required for quantity control, but the perk of the rules is
you have to get this waiver for it. So like an emergency spillway for an extended detention base is not required here or no the outlet structure is basically the same exact structure. The difference is the bottom is lifted and I don't have the question was asked about you know
whether the vegetation or the uh you know what does that really help in the water quality treatment the fire retention system has several feet of organic material it has a special blend of soil and then that sand layer stone
layer and in our case we also put in the stone layer an under drain to make sure that infiltration was not required So I was able to get the landscape plant to load. This is actually the root 12 basin shown right here. And
what would happen is these plants that you see in the circles within the basin could all get moved to the perimeter. So it will look very different from a bird's perspective. Anyone flying over this looking down the you will not have a bunch of individual plant material in
the bottom. You'd have a green bottom, but all the perimeter landscaping that you see on here would be enhanced because all these trees could be moved to infill. Like you can see against the extension of Central Station, some street trees and some shrubbery. Some of the smaller trees can infill between the
street trees and make sure that the view from the street walking on the sidewalk looking in, you can't see what's behind there or you see just green behind through the leaves. Uh same thing along Route 12. Can you pull up the Brown Street? Because I'm concerned about like this is by a park.
Okay. That's going to be one page. Does the Brown Street basin movement require a message D approval or no? Brown Street Basin is the same situation. How much did you raise the pork b? You said you had to lift how much how much
how much higher is it than does it even does it does it retain the right you've lost you've lost quite a volume there. No the top one up too you can't because of where the water is the bio the whole
if you kept the B would have to go like this. It was not wine. But the but the the extended release doesn't have to do the same. The the n the space between the bottom of the an extended release is can be closer to the high water than the bio. Right. But he said he also test the fact
that he's raising the face up by two feet which is quite a lot a large reduction in volume. No. Which said the sides are going to be equally as high. So the overall volume and we still have ample volume to make
sure that we meet all the reduction requirements. Yes. So that would the quantity controls are not an issue of concern. Just trying to find it Mr. Trono's plans where he has a blow above that lease. There it is. Okay.
So this is the enlargement of the Brown Street Basin. just had it scroll right there on my screen. That's a right. Yeah.
So, what you have is the park and there is the retaining wall. That's this dark line uh that drops down into the basin. Currently, there's a discrepancy that Mr. Clerical noted was being rectified. We show a plan with a fence on top of
that wall for protection and safety. The landscaping plans show a curvy fence around the improvements of the park and they do not show our fence. They will. We're going to have two fences so that anybody who's walking on the sidewalk from ground into the project. If they, you know, don't go into the park, but they just walk back here on the the
grass area, we don't want them falling off a wall that's a couple feet high. So, but you're going to have just move the one fence. You're going to have the um the plantings that were already part of the
park still there and then the plantings that we had in the basin that would pro basically provide screening of the wall with these little shrubs or just additional green from the bird's eye perspective. They can be pushed to either the top, the bottom, wherever
you'd like. We have residential development. You know, a house directly to the north and a house to the south. You have a path that's already been requested by the borrow of sidewalks going from Brown Street here back into the extension of Central Station. And to the
extent that we you want us to take some of the plant material and place it on the west side of the base, that's going to screen the back yards or back patios of our proposed town houses from the basin. What about the right side though? That's
the part where at the park you're going to see right into it, right? Well, what happens is this wall that's right here is anywhere from one to three feet high at the top end and it gets as high as five feet right here and goes back down to three and one because of
the slope of the ground into the basin. So you have a wall and uh the concern would either be protecting the view of the wall from the basin and the sidewalk behind the homes
of the development. On the flip side, the view would be okay. Any plantings here would only screen looking over the grass and the plantings surround the basin. But there's already a fence proposed around the park
that is basically a security fence as well as a decorative fence to I guess contain the improvements within the park. But anyone in the park's going to be able to look over and see that open retention basin. Correct. Even with a
fence, any adult would definitely be able to see it. I'm I'm not certain whether or not the fence that is proposed by Mr. Trunko on the landscaping plans is open or closed, but the fence proposed on top of the wall is a 42-in high solid white PVC
fence. So, you would have a solid fence protecting the view into the project from anyone walking on Brown Street looking through the park or anyone within the park looking out the back of the park. at 42 in is basically the
height of this DS here. So someone standing up can see over it, but the the screening that you're blocking is viewing the green space and the vegetation behind it. If it's appropriate to screen the view of the green space from
people in the park, then these small shrubs that are on the bottom side here that will eventually grow can be moved to the top side and filling the gap between the retaining wall and the fence. so that there's a visual screen of green against the white fence.
This discussion of having to discuss these big two changes to these two basins was precisely the discussion we didn't want to be having because we and precisely the reason why we were very nervous to not
allow to allow the application to go forward without having the soil testing done before we gave approval because I seem to have discussion you What happens if it changes? You're going to have to come back to us with a new
design and a new site plan, which is exactly where we are. What probably would have happened, but it probably just would have eliminated that basin. Doesn't do us anything. Part of the RDA. Yeah, it is the um if I can just make a couple
of points of clarification because a couple couple of things went around. You know, Mr. Gucci, you were asked if this was a substantial change with respect to the D in the requirement for a wave. Do you believe that that means it's a substantial change to site plan overall?
I look at it as I do drainage for a living. I do site plans for a living and to me this is a tweak. It's not substantial. I envisioned the question raised at the prior hearing of a significant change, meaning, okay, this is not going to fly. I have to move all
the units around. The concept plan is not going to work anymore. We have to reopen the redevelopment hearings and change the redevelopment plan because the concept plan is not viable. I This is nothing at all like that. This is simply the same layout, the same units.
I lifted a couple of basins a couple of inches and the two basins on the right side of central station that were once bio are now EDS extended detentions. I didn't see that as a big change because to me a basin is a base but with all due respect you wouldn't
have to go back to the D. We know we wouldn't substantial a change you wouldn't have to go back and we also lost we also lost the green infrastructure aspect right for two basis. You know, this is my concern is how deep we're getting into
this tonight. And we had testimony from Brown Street residents about concerns with their kids about being open. You know, I just I mean, I get what you're saying that to you it's not substantial because you
don't have to move any buildings. I totally get that. But, you know, when we're we're sitting, you know, there's aesthetic aspects for both of these basins, um, that are important to the community
for different reasons. Um, the drive by community or walking community versus people with the kids community. So, um, with the playground, you have much more to consider than just the simple question. I was merely pointing out the legalities which I
think Kazinski stated early in the process. Would you have voted differently had this been the basin that we originally presented? And and I think that's the essence of the question when when we're considering what authority this board has to act without a new or
amended application. Well, there's also the fact of would we have voted differently if we knew you weren't going to follow the res the resolution as written like because and what we what we put in there which you apologize for not following. Would we have voted differently if Mr. Clara wasn't going to
be present but those I think that's got point that needs to be Okay. Yeah. Yes. So, um I I just want to chime in from a compliance perspective and there are a couple pieces of redevelopment plan that are that there are a couple pieces of the redevelopment
plan are relevant to this. Uh there are a few places in the redevelopment plan that require substantial consistency with the concept plans that were attached to the redevelopment plan. Uh one item is in section the section stating uh site design and bulk
regulations. Item three, site layout and design shall be substantially consistent with the concept plan provided in exhibit A unless otherwise provided therein. And that includes several items such as the structures along Church Street, etc. Items that are not
relevant, but it also states storm water basin locations, including the bio retention basins located throughout the residential development, the bio retention basin proximate to Brown Street, and the storm water retention basin located along Route 12. Now, I know we dealt with the retention basin
aspect of the basin located along Route 12. It's no longer about the fountain instead of bio retention basin, but there so there's that item. Additionally, there is language specific to the Brown Street area. Uh this is park and bio retention basin along Brown
Street on page 14 and it states the layout and design of the park and bio retention area along Brown Street shall be substantially consistent with the park and bio retention area concept plan provided in exhibit C unless otherwise provided and that includes but is not
limited to the following location and size of the play area and seating areas fencing around the play area, bicycle parking but then plant design and I think this is particular particularly relevant because if you look at the concept plan uh included within the
redevelopment plan um I turn my screen around but what you'll what you'll see is the play area uh as shown uh basically in on the the landscape plan that's shown on the screen but also behind it is very very clearly a bio
retention basin with a dozen or so trees and a couple dozen shrubs within the basin itself. And so regardless of stormwater management compliance, regardless of aesthetic concerns, I think that the I think that
this is also a compliance issue about relief that uh or an aspect of the site plan that is not consistent involvement plan based on the change that's been discussed. This is my concern is that we're doing this on the fly. Um
this had testimony from the public about concerns. I know there was testimony back saying your kids can't you know there's gonna be shrubs there and there's gonna be trees you have to worry about them drowning or anything and you know we're doing this without public notice. We're doing this um you
know without the people on Brown Street hearing any of this and it's a concern of mine that we're doing this on the fly and you're asking us to just let the DP wave magic wand and say yeah it's okay to do this and I'm not comfortable with that. I'm really not. when we had families here
um regarding this detention said I'm saying you wouldn't have approved it but I don't think it's appropriate for us to just agree something when you know we had the public here for this
is an element that was important to you um it was heavily reviewed by the environmental commission yeah they have that Yes. So, I'm just Mayor, could I just say a couple things on that on that statement? I I had the meetings with the Brown Street people
when we were coming together with this whole thing. When we were designing the park, what they cared about was their backyards flooding and having a park on their street. We are spending close to a million dollars on a basin to to reduce the flooding. We've got inlets from
everybody's backyard, so when they flood, it goes into the same system. were spending tons of money on their main two things, a park and lessening flooding in their backyards. That hasn't changed. None of that's changed. That was their concern that there's not going to be plants in the middle of the basin.
We'll put some more around the perimeter if that helps. We'll put some along the back of the park if that helps. But this is for the town. We're doing this for the neighbors. I'm not disagreeing with you. What I'm disagreeing about is the process. that we were talking about this on the fly.
That that was all part of the public hearing when it was all discussed and now you're asking us to agree to changes without proper public notification. That's my issue. I'm not saying good or bad I vote for this or I
wouldn't vote for it. I'm just saying I don't I don't feel good about this process. Well, this is a massive project and when you do massive projects and then you get from the site plans to the construction plans, there's things that need to be tweaked. There's nothing unusual about that. That's all these are is tweets.
You know, there's an adage, you know, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Maybe not. We're not asking for forgiveness. We're telling you because of the the groundwater table, we had to modify these two bases. Holding the same amount of water. What I
dis agree with is I don't feel comfortable about this process. Mayor, I I do understand and even with respect to even with respect to the redevelopment agreement, the word substantial appears over and over. That's the standard under the land use law. That's the standard that you can
evaluate this application from. And when evaluating that standard is would you have voted differently had you been presented with this at the time? And given there is no alternative, that's what I that's what I really don't get. What would you have me do?
I don't know what we can do. This is the only basin that the D will allow here. We have no alternative. I can't I I would love to give you what you what we promised. I cannot I've been doing this a long time and
when things show up in a municipality, I always have the comfort of saying there was a public hearing, nobody came. No, you couldn't come and it happened. I don't have that comfort right now. That's the problem. When this is built, we just say, "Okay, go do it." Then I'm going to have a half a dozen homeowners
that were here at the public hearing saying, "You changed it." When did that happen? It is a decision you have to make. I'm just pointing out that I think that you can make it in favor of my position should you choose to do so. You have been made. We the important part here it
to the mayor's point also is there there's a procedure we have to go through and there's a resolution in place which states certain things which you didn't follow and that we have to consider um whether the changes that
you if you weren't going to follow that resolution would be authority if we know what we know now and that's one of the decisions we want to make right we do also have to consider several other things unless Unless if I if people feel strongly enough
about this and that that we need to trigger the second part of what you were saying. Do we is it better to trigger that now or talk about the other three things at the same time? I mean, we certainly can let the board hear what some of the proposals and
changes are so that you you've heard it. um you certainly have the ability to say that you would have you don't feel comfortable changing the language of the conditions and possibly you would have voted differently. Um one of the things we did have in there in a couple places
is that if there was a change that the applicant shall return to the board for a finding as to whether amended site plan approval is required. So that's kind of what we're doing here. Um, I do think in the interest of moving it along, the more information you have going into that process, the better.
Yeah. And the more input they have, the better. Um, but if ultimately, you know, you feel more comfortable going through the process again based upon the extent of the changes, um, that obviously isn't your future. One thing in terms of the process of the
timing, can I ask a question? Your your um, the tests were done April 16th, April 28th. Is that correct? No, the tests were done before April 1. Oh, maybe the test were given to those. And then Mr. Clerico's letter responding
to your change of design is July. Is that was that period I'm just trying to work out why we didn't hear about this before July? Um well because we were in the process of doing compliance for you based on the initial submission that they had made.
Yeah. which was still based on the Old Testament when they that's when they basically called say stop the review because we have an issue we have. So they came in with the basically a revision to the call it this is um compliance plan 1A. We were reviewing
compliance plan one. This is compliance plan you know one a you know modified. Okay. Which is we call off issuing the report. When the revised plans came in we incorporated that into the report. So we're reporting on the plan that's actually being presented to them because
they basically said stop reviewing that plan because it's going to change. Does anybody else have any questions about this particular issue before we ask them to go on the whole issue? I'm just trying to run through the scenario. So, if you get approval with
the DP and there's no change to the footprint. They were really looking at aesthetic change to the Is there any is there any potential chance that the footprint would have to change? No, because the design as I said we meet all
the stone requirements of quantity, quality and ground. I got so good. So we it's about the aesthetic at this point. So like I guess the options are resolution compliance, right? So if you sort of envision that they have
to get approval and then there's got to be an like what would an amended site plan look like? Would it just be a public hearing or a review with Brown Street residents to say, "Here's the change of the aesthetics. Do you agree or do you do a full formal hearing?" It would be an amended site plan that
these particular issues. It's it's yes, it's abbreviated to the extent that they're only going to be focusing on the changes, the changes of the changes proposed by the amended site plan, which you know, I I would say
should incorporate the landscaping that's now no longer going to be on the other side of the fence. So, anything that they're basically asking to change, and that's kind of why we started this to begin with. If there's going to be one issue that you guys are going to want and feel more comfortable having a a new hearing and and reviewing as the
amendment site plan, then we might as well just put everything together because that's the cleanest way to do it. Um, so you know, so in terms of process, would you wait until the D approval before to this note? I mean obviously I don't think it's going to be any change quality and
quantity of the water is not changing but like if if they did change if they did the said we need to increase well I think that's that's their choice also. True. Okay. The fact is that but but there are other there are five issues that were
outlined here and so if there was a public we're not there yet but if there was if there was a determination that we needed to have a public hearing and it was noticed in the public hearing and they could be working on other things while waiting on the D stuff like that that's different than that that's
different and I think that we're we part of this is to do with the stangle detour which I think is a pressing time issue and I think that that's something that we got to talk about because Yeah, we know Trenton's going to take what's going to do, but like this is this is something that's a little more
in control of what's No, understood. We'll try and move to it. We you know, this was an important conversation. So, um the the last issue Mr. Mr. Coochie was addressing is there are a series of conditions in the resolution that rely on outside agency
approvals. They they don't have to do with plan changes themselves. So our concern was to be able to get again get the plan signed so we can move forward with the process understanding that these conditions all need to be satisfied before we
um they're highlighted in the report and and again I don't you know if you want to go through all of them but they're all and again in my experience it's pretty standard that they trail behind. I mean, these with the approvals they're talking about are ones that are higher
than ours. So, we can never require an applicant to wait until they get one of those approvals before we render our determination. We always have to condition our approval on it. Um, where we put the satisfaction of that condition in the process of
construction is also up to the board. Um, and a risk of the applicant. So, you know, if the board is comfortable saying, well, okay, you have to satisfy that before building permit and in some un questionable circumstance or some
strange other universe, they have to make a major change to something because of the fact that that they've waited until that point. Well, again, that's on them. They're definitely taking a risk by saying, you know, they would like to wait until that point. you have the ability to do that. But if there's a
change, if there's a site plan change that's necessitated because the outside agency approval requires such a change, well, then they're going to be back here. You know, it's that dance. I I do, Mr. F, you do anticipate any planning changes much as we had that prior discussion about the
remaining outstanding the outside agencies that are yet to be done are for proformer per se. I don't anticipate the county having any comments at all because you know for the record just list what those agencies I was gonna say about death
in Mr. particles letter. He lists NJD for letter of interpretation, county planning board, saw conservation district, NJ do for access and route 12, and then kind of folded in kind of sideways is input from the NJ dot as
appropriate for warning devices and or signage at the railroad crossing. We already have the SR permit and the 5G3 permit. They were required before any site disturbance could have under been undertaken such as the demolition. So
that pl permit is done. County planning board as I said that there's no county road involved. So I don't anticipate anything there. So that risk is low. Right. NJ do um I believe the traffic engineer will be discussing the detour
plan with you shortly. So I would feel more comfortable if he explains my paraphrasing of it shouldn't be a problem at all because the use that we're dealing with here is much less dense than the prior use. So the amount of trip generation from this use is significantly lower and therefore it's
not a major change requiring massive I think there's a planning review and other terminology terms of work in the traffic world that I don't feel comfortable guessing at and NJ we know we're going back to them
for the flood hazard amendment and the letter of interpretation is ongoing we have a wetlands consultant that's been on site our office has done the locations are preparing the paperwork so we could submit that. So that is something we're undertaking right now. So to what the board can you do since
that really isn't a site plan amendment issue at least at this point you could amend the condition to say that those particular outside agency approvals uh would need to be satisfied not as a condition of signing the site plan but as a condition prior to pulling that very first building.
Agreed point of clarification. I don't think there is any time frame in the conditions. Now it just satisfies it doesn't say that. Yeah. And usually unless we'll say building permit or some other point then it's just as a condition of resolution compliance which would dictate
I appreciate that and I would like to treat that separately and Mr. Pooie just for the record because I said it but um in your opinion is is this pretty typical that outside agency approvals will go in and every municipal network. Does this does that include the DCA approval
on the HOA because yeah it's going the next thing I was going to say instruction seems kind of early on that but yeah so we could certainly amend that as well um to that should be CO or CO to say C um
should be CO yeah we could do a CO on that one because it's now just understanding that or CO exactly would you be selling units prior to I wouldn't want people to commit them not to because they want to
or the real estate office is open because people need to know and see the documents are used. Oh, no. You can't you can't list a property for sale without having So, they couldn't advertise, they could sell. True. That's not true. You can take
non-binding reservations. You can advertise. You can sell. You can only sign a non-binding reservation. George, I think we still have to have ambassador de so I know we don't need to go there. Why don't we just say before office is over or something like that? Well, since we're coming back anyway,
I've got some time to work on that condition when our hearing here right now, but those two would not be amendments to the site plan. Those are ones that we could just address by way of amendment to the condition language itself. Now, we're just transferring the risk to that basically.
Yeah. And on these very minimal, correct? Okay. Right. Um I I um you know I'd like to really treat Stangle Road the same way. So I'll bring up our um I'll bring up our traffic itself next. That's just Yeah. This the
Do you have a preference? Would you like to which is easier? Try and get you on. Let's do sle. Good evening. Hello. I'm Gary Dean. D E an A. Professional address is 181 West High Street in
Somerville. Okay. SW. Yeah. I just have a testimony about to get this board for the truth, the whole truth, nothing but Yes, I do. Uh Mr. Dean, you're a licensed traffic engineer, professional engineer with a specialty in traffic engineering, municipal
consultant for traffic matters. I've appeared before this board over the past 35 years or so on numerous occasions. I think my most recent appearance was for the union for federal redevelopment. I'd ask you to accept qualifications. Anybody have any concerns? Um,
no. Thank you very much. So just to set the table for where we are and I am paraphrasing that the resolution provided that in doing the construction along Stangle Road not trying to avoid
any questions you may have but that when traffic needs to be diverted we provide a reasonable plan. Have you worked on and developed that plan and did you do so in consultation with borrows? Yes, that we pres prepared two detour plans
uh principally because Main Street as you know is currently under a detour. So for this applicant to begin their work and close stangle, we would initially use the same detour you currently have in place now for Main Street, which
takes traffic around the Route 12 and uh Main Street Circle, takes it up Brown Road uh to Church and then left and then up to Central and then up to Mine. Um once Main Street is reopened, then that
detour would be shifted to take advantage of Main Street and keep traffic off of Brown Street. And we have uh prepared two detour plans. They have been provided to Mr. Treatment for his
review. Um and they provide what you see today, orange signs with detour where needed. We have a supplemental plaque that says Stangle Road so that people understand that's the nature of the detour. And we have one for both the east and westbound directions on Route
12. Um and and really that's it. I mean it's like I said, it's the same detour I followed tonight to come in here up and around, etc. So nothing unusual. It would be typical highway orange signs. Um, I know the applicant has been in
consultation with your director of public works. Many of the signs have already been ordered and are ready to be implemented, you know, as soon as we're through this process. And all truck turnings and this would be a a suitable route for all vehicle
safety vehicles included. Again, it's being used today. I have to believe however it was sanctioned, whether it's through this planning board or the governing body, again, you can't get up Main Street. So it's the same detour. So to answer your question, yes.
Thank you. I I So I have two questions. One is um Black River and Western Rail they're currently running like wine wine trains and ball training. Does this affect their ability to get into the property and park?
It does not. That portion of the the um Stangle Road would still be open. those wine express uh bes have you on August 23rd and 24th and September 6th and 7th.
Um and that the applicant has provided uh and and the railroad has signed uh a licensing agreement with proper insurance to use the applicant's property uh for parking. So the route 12 entrance would be the only entrance people could request to
stangle, right? I mean that's okay. Correct. Okay. That's one question. My second question is um the tracked trailers for the deliveries down road. Correct. U how do they get I don't know that there are any but if
there were I've seen pictures of them. What we have is the use of and I want to get the right property. It's block 35 lot 21 and block 35 lot 32 which is where Ron Eagle is today. There is, I'll
call it a corer between those two buildings. The building to the north on lot 21 and and 32, excuse me. It's essentially the easterly extension of reason or length. That's all private property. It's not a public street, but those vehicles are uh presumably going
to those buildings and they'll just circulate clockwise around those buildings. Go down. They can't go down Reason Lane. There's They can't go down Reasoner Lane. Reasoner Lane is private, but they can use the parking lot, which is the
east side of Michael. Do we have that separated from Golden? Yes. Lane portion of Freezer Lane actually appears to be. Yes. They would go in there and he turned
back behind the building where they for shopping. Yes. behind there and out. He has given us permission to do that. That's how they make their turn. They turn in between the brewery, the two brewery buildings, and then turn right past the back of the carpentry shop and
right back out to Stangle. They're supposed to be doing it anyway in that on the approved site plan for those buildings. Their loading route uh and that is their loading route and there's a 12 foot by 35 foot loading zone already on the approved site plan for that. So, yes, we've considered
that. That's all I have. Unless there are any questions. Well, I think this is an appropriate chance for Jay to That's it. Is that as far as it goes? So
I I I was contacted about this issue under condition 28 28 about um providing a reasonable construction necessitated detour
and uh what Mr. Dean explained in terms of the general routing of the detour is accurate. I did uh prepare a memo for the board to uh outline some of the concerns which have already been
discussed by the mayor and others. Um Mr. Dean has prepared a uh an official detour plan by an engineer. And um my second item was the the truck turnaround area. Um I was not aware that existing
tractor trailers uh do that pattern today. Um I guess I would just request that a truck turning plan uh be provided to demonstrate that there is adequate circulation through there tractor trailer.
Um, comment three was that once South Main Street becomes passable that the detour be switched to South Main Street and get the traffic off of uh Brown Street. Um, I also uh requested a
pre-construction meeting with uh burough officials um prior to implementing the detour, including the police chief, the fire marshal, the public works director, uh my office, and any other pro officials that would be impacted by
this. And then um in item five, I discuss um consulting with the operator of Lone Eagle Brewing to make sure his business is not negativelyffect affected by the closure. And that goes to I I do have
some technical comments on the actual plan which could be worked out with Mr. Dean. But the the main thing that's important is that at the north end of Stangles, I think motorists need to be notified that all the businesses are
open and it's for local traffic only. You can't get through, but that it doesn't mean Spaniel's closed north end. You know, all the businesses are open all the way through. Sending traffic tractor trailers down street, are we? No,
we're not allowed to do that, right? outed. Yeah. But can I just ask um so we can get this on the record um which in these detours which part of Stangle through to from 9
to 12 will be completely inaccessible. How much of it will it's basically the road will be closed right at the boundary of Looney Brewing. Okay. So that if you can't get past Lone Eagle, you're basically stopped at those parking spots where they want to put the
chairs, right? Eagle into what? And then on the other end, it would be uh just south of where uh Church Street is currently crosses the railroad tracks. Sure.
Um I would have to scale. So, so how so how so beyond beyond black they can get to? Yes, they can have black in and out.
What is the time? Do we have a schedule for when these are because I'm looking at the word thing that's saying reasonable construction detail. So reasonable to the developer is reasonable to hopeless. I think Jay added his
Yeah. Item six was it shall last no longer than eight calendar weeks. Eight calendar weeks. So So where church makes the bend comes across the I think we're there for Madam Chair. Yes. It's on the screen. Thank you.
And where my hand is if you can see where my hand is is lone eagle. So the the closure is begins just southeast of Lone Eagle and then extends around the backto back curve on the
applicants uh frontages and then extends to where the large parking lot is which split in half if I understand correctly the southern half is available to what's the name of that George Blackber
what's the building called the old restaurant No, where where uh not Sherman who's the old building the feed mill they use that parking lot northwest of their building. So that's why the road closure
is is essentially the middle section. I'll zoom out, but you'll see from from south to north it's just the the middle. It's the large intestine. The piece with it in the
throat's all good. is the stomach. Uh, and I won't describe the southern section. So, it's really just the middle. It's strange. So, I'm guessing that if any tractor trailers that want to go to Stangle inadvertently come in from Route 12,
we should be able to use the parking lot with the parking lot's not full and the conditions of the parking and the conditions of the parking lot trailer out. So, so for deliver. So, let me ask this question then for deliveries to
businesses along Stangle north of the detour um where they obviously have to access Stangle off of Mine Street, right? Is the I know that there is the Brown Street current detour that uses Central uh station, but for truck
traffic because of the turns and stuff there. Um, can we is there any way for us to ensure that that trucks who are coming in could utilize, you know, 12 to the divorce circle to my street rather
than go through Brown Street. Like I'm I'm worried about I'm worried about the three-way stop at Central Station and Mine Street. Yeah, that is that's the stop like to make a turn to come if they're coming up Central North. They're gonna make a left onto mine and then another
quick left to come down Stangle. I'm concerned about that maneuver as opposed to having them come through the divorce circles and go Yeah. on M Street. Does that make sense? Yes. At each road, but what are they doing today? Yeah. They're coming up. They're coming off 12 and going straight up strength.
Yeah. No, no, but I mean the trucks that would be on Main Street are being diverted to Brown and and the No, they're going they're going they're waver street. So they're going on 30. So another I have another question for both traffic people.
Not withstanding the need to work out the the um Oh my god, what's the word? The detour. So this detour is happening for a specific reason for eight weeks. What's happening? We're going to build a new part of road. Is that correct? The road
has to be reconstructed above a certain flood elevation. So it has to be done. The sooner we I'm not denying it has to be done. What I'm ask the question I'm going to ask is as well as thinking about all the cars need to detour for various reasons.
How much construction traffic is coming and what is the traffic plan for the construction traffic coming to do this work? We have that in place. Yeah. relate to this because I'm remember we're gonna have eight weeks of we all know what Main Street looks like Spring Street and they're digging and
they're pulling stuff all the soil all the roads all the businesses on Stangle. What is the road going to look like for them doing construction? What is your plan? Are we cleaning the road? Are we cleaning the trucks when they come on? Oh, we absolutely have swift requirements and that will be on the contractor. Our equipment is already
there. So, I want to have a question. I think it's a reasonable point. Yes. Because that is the biggest thing that affects people when even if you work out a detour construction debris coming from
that location quite and it's quite close to businesses are they come and all the trucks to bring everything coming along is that the route they're going to come the same route as trucks. No they'll come they'll come off Stangle and the worst construction traffic is going for that
road is going to come through stain. We do have condition 50 that requires a pre-con meeting, right? And incorporates a number of different things, uh schedule of ongoing construction, um how to protect residents. Again, they would have to uh
incorporate cleaning and debris removal and all that as well. So that certainly we could make sure that it covers and I'm particularly sensitive, but the because it's quite it's a it's a big business area now. It's a very public. We have a great event there at the
weekend and I can't imagine having that event there, right? But with construction debris all over it, right? We're going to run a name the mountain context crisis. I do believe that to your point that that is a fully developed retail area,
right? And I do worry as we're coming to holidays and when this starts like that's really a big impact. I'm concerned we need to get the business development community involved in that precon meeting. He doesn't have that in that. Here's the challenge.
If I could nearly said, I'm sorry. I'm going back to news. The longer we wait, the more it's going to push into the fall season and schools resume, etc. So, ideally, I know the applicant would love to start this tomorrow,
right? And the if we can get the precon by Monday of next week, that's the objective because otherwise it has a greater impact on the public as schools resume and they start coming back once we've had the meeting and start the work Monday.
Have the public been notified that the details are happening yet? Yeah, they have been noticed. Everybody who was affected by the merchants got the schedule and got the notice. Okay.
Interesting. The so the trucks coming to make deliveries on Stangle were going to the Circle on 12 and then trying to make the negotiate that Mine Street Stangle. Yeah. Well, I mean that's what I was suggesting. I don't know if Jay's got a
better solution, but I I my concern is that we just want to make sure that deliveries to the my the Stangle District businesses are not trying to also come up Round Street where it's a narrow as opposed to using
but we also want to make sure there's no parking on that mine street so that they can make that turn off and there's the handicap park. Yeah. Right.
Well, it's a street. It's really I think there's parking there now. What's in front of that? No, there's no there's not parking on that side of the street. Church. No, no, no. Church in front of there's a on the north side of the street where the three-way intersection was just put in. Yes.
There's a couple spots there. That's right. It's probably going to be impacted by the swing of the truck. Unless they come in from Maine. Well, the truck the truck comes in now off of mine. So So getting a truck from mine, the stangle happens now.
Is that coming from Maine? That's coming from Maine, right? Are they coming from Well, I I I saw the truck when it was in there. Yeah. I'm not sure if it came and made a left from mine or lot easier to make if I make that turn from coming from my age
and make that swing than trying to swing right coming from 12. We don't have to engineer this body. I I think that the businesses that are on Stangle, none of them are using huge huge trucks,
right? I mean, They're using a 50 foot truck. Well, they're used I don't know about 50 foot, but they're used maybe could tell us if he gets tractor trailer delivery. We do full size tractor trailer. Oh, you get both sides.
Often that's that's question. So I mean we're just concerned about the you know the the impact on if if if the routing is off if m is the routing for truck traffic is off of mine whether coming off main west make a left or if it's
divorce circle then mine east to come make the right turn on sustainable we just want to it might plan for that right it might just impact some parking a friend of mine so I believe that these are deliveries that are occurring now. So these trucks,
these delivery people know what's the best way to approach and turn into Stangle and I believe they are coming from Maine. Although I guess that would be maybe down Park
to get there. I don't know. I just I don't know. It is fine with but but we just want to maintain what's happening now in terms of these deliveries and then sure they can still happen with the roads closed because I'm
sure once they're done if they're coming in from mine they're used to just continuing up 12. So would there just be a truck detour sign versus car detour? Obviously there's no throw there. We'd have to sign that detail to
the back of the signage. That's all signage for the business owners should just struck there to it's not that meeting. Now in terms of the preconstruction issue meeting we mentioned our condition here is just a general that something
must happen before do we have a schedule for those and who's involved in those? That's all. Who's who's doing the pre-construction maintenance? My champion or engineer board professionals, burrow engineer, burough construction as necessary.
I get invited sometimes. Although you have a lot of reading, but do we we have if we had one specifically a date or do I don't think I I'm just I'm concerned with the the blowback we've had from Main Street and
concerns and the the outreach has you know it's got much better concerns we've had. Yeah. We follow that same well that's that is just letting um uh Sergeant Lincoln alley to put out you
know an alert um and then they also put up the orange sign that like alert this detour or road closed so all that stuff you know I know that the chief likes to have them sign up for a couple days before there's a big change um so if
they know that the supreme communion is going to be Tuesday that I want to get something up by sat Friday probably. Um and um I know it's funny because I know we had um we had she wasn't able to be today
because it wasn't a public hearing but um from one of the business owners there was extremely concerned because and this is why I wanted to get the FCP the FCP involved in this process because
there are events and I don't know what they are and I don't know what The impact is dates. I I only just learned that you want to start Monday. The date the dates been worked out with the events that are happening there.
I think the events have been mostly. So I mean her concern was that you know part of her concern was that she heard the road was going to get closed and then one day there were barricades and then the next day there were no barricades and the road was closed and she was going to have some kind of festival and she couldn't do it because
she was she was angry. So Jay, with the testimony given tonight about the ability that the applicant has said that they've got the ability to use the rear of the building to the north of
the brewery building to make that turn. Does that alleviate your concern that that you put in the review letter of the truck being able to swing back around? Yeah, we would just need to to verify that the turn. And then signage presumably to make sure
the jumps are continued on reason and do take the right before they hit the rest of reason because officially it's part of reason right and then it becomes parking lot the what's what's what's half parking lot was part of the project to build that building. Yeah. be careful here to build that
building um that had that that piece of Reasoner was paved as part of that project acknowledging it was a private road. Right. And and they do have right now they do have signage if you if you try
to go beyond the back of that building where the truck's supposed to turn right. There's a big do not enter sign and not do because they can't go anywhere on that road. Yeah. Nobody I don't want to know get stuck in somebody's back and show
just to back up a little bit just fill in a little a couple of the blanks. You know, we we we did have the meeting with the you with the burrows professional out walked the site. That's when we put out the notice. That's when we discussed the
professional the schedule camp. Um we actually considered that the pre-con meeting. I mean, you know, we defer to whatever this board feels is is appropriate, but that's why we sent out the notice. There's no description as to what a pre-con meeting looks like. We
figured get in touch with the guy who's responsible for traffic. And I met Jerry too on that same subject. He was fine with it. We didn't get the FCP involved in FCP was involved. They sent around a memo to all the merchants. They sent around a schedule, the construction
schedule when it was going to be closed. That was done two months ago. We had meetings on Stangle with the merchants to explain it to them what was going to happen. Is it appropriate? Because I'd like to ask Mr. King a question. Is that okay? to asking. Yeah.
Um I just want to know the traffic trails that you have. Do they currently How do they currently come in and out to your site? I I've seen them come both ways um either south to north or north to south. Okay. It all depends and then they and then how do they get out? They just go straight the opposite
way or do they turn? So I I I agree with with Mr. Eckle's concern. If you were going north on Stangle, that left onto mine. That's pretty tight. Yeah, I think they were going to go right and head towards Main Street. I think if they're coming in from Main Street,
they're if you look at the map, it it is angled, but I think it's easier. That's how they and they're going to try to go to brand because that will be the first GPS or even they'll go to main n main street and find that bread and culture and that
make a right there. Church is kind of it's it's not it's not crazy. is church abroad, right? Churches or they'll figure it out. They always do.
Right. No qualification to that statement. They find a way. I mean, if we if we wanted them to make the left turn onto my street coming out, Jay, would we have to eliminate all three parking spaces that are there?
I'd have to take a look at it, but I think impacting support for sure that see you know the return circle how it works like that. We have great concerns. Well, I mean obviously we'll work with our own professionals to, you know, finalize the
design that maximizes the, you know, the uh addressing the concerns bring this board. So, um, no problem doing that. We we, you know, we do have the equipment out there. They're running out of things to do. We didn't anticipate we'd have a
problem. People showed up and we have we have an issue that we need to address. I think we've we we've gone a long way to addressing it. I just like the condition to, you know, to be that we work with the
uh with the burrow's traffic engineer to come up with a suitable uh acceptable detour plan. So would our condition be changed to say um in the same way that we have Mr. Cleico do that with George Newman expects to do that with Mr. Track? say
he has to assign to his satisfaction that the plan is that's being looked at by suitable stakeholders and noticed enough to everything um before they can plan to start work on
that aspect of it. Would that be fair? Mr. Treton, that would be I feel like you're almost there in the discussions you've been having. Is that right? That that's right. and I and I'm capturing all of the commentary and good local law that I just heard. I think we could do that under the guise
of the existing condition requiring a precon meeting and then when we go back and many conditions we could just incorporate the physical detour plan as the aspect I'm trying to bring into it is that miss track to mment satisfaction
they're allowed to start we didn't have that in the original not thing just but for this specific item I think the applicant hears what it is that you're looking for them to do yeah just so I'm here with respect to the precon meeting. What this is that
process to work out the issues for the detour plan. So yeah, under the guise of the precon, this would be part of the precon meeting and that's what I'm trying to get. What more do we have to do for a precon? Because again, we you know to incorporate Mr. Troutman and his
suggestions into what it is to his satisfaction basically with regard to the he would be s enough. Yeah. after this in instead of coming back or whatever it would be on Mr. trapment to say, "Yes, I feel like everybody noticed. Everybody's done what they we've worked out the kinks. We've
talked about Is that fair, J?" Yeah. I I think we get a final detour plan and then we set up the precon and we come out and we show everybody what it is, right? And then they install, right? And include the relevant stakeholders that you feel appropriate,
right? And I guess I would just request to see a copy of the public notice that was given to the Stangle merchants. Um, all construction traffic will be to and from Route 12 only, which they're probably already doing. We had concerns about what was small
street. I think it's I think it's legitimate to also look at temporary new parking. Yeah, parking spaces just to make sure that trucks can that has to be a governing body action. So subject to mayor and council say yes
that's now it's one more layer and now all of a sudden we're getting further and further into the fall as as long as the board understands the consequences the more layers and cooks we have in the kitchen the longer it takes to that is the case we do temporary parking
for braids and car nights and the governing body doesn't do resolutions for me those okay as long as police have that authority to do not I think the chief has that authority does It has to be part right
now. We do have another item if you want to introduce. However, we usually have a break at 9:00 and it's 9. So I'd like to suggest is it okay if I suggest that we have five minute break for people to do what they need to do and then come back and do the next
I bought a sleeping bag. All right, let's bring them in back to audio, please. Um, for the record for the um recording, can we just do the rolling once again, please? Mr. Campion here.
Griffin. Yeah, here swingle. She's not on yet. Um I'll tell you when she comes back on Mr. Here. Mr.
Here, Mr. Mr. Oh, they're not here. Um, attorney Kazinski here. engineer engineer. All right. Oh yeah. Okay. So
yours again. So what's your name? William Fineberg. Fineberg. You swear affirm tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Can you um please share your credential? Sure. My name is William Fineberg. I'm
president of Fineberg and Associates and Architectural Firm located in New Jersey. Uh I'm giving testimony for more than 50% of the municipalities in the state of New Jersey. Been licensed since 1993 in New Jersey and 14
other states. And he used to go license. My license is current. Madam Chair, I say you swear him. I was think heard. Yeah. Anybody have anything as
I'm sorry. Did I You're register. I'm sorry. It's a good stand up. I can 1993. Okay. So, just to set the stage, I'd ask you to take the board through the actual change. But what happened here is when we presented the town homes to this
board pro previously for our site plan approval, we showed the same floor plan and the same elevation repeated for each of the various sections of buildings be they three, four, five or six in a row. A number of those buildings are
designated as affordable housing for reasons that uh that will be explained. We have to change the floor plan of those buildings. So Mr. Fineberg, why don't you go in a little bit more detail? So, the previous floor plan that was presented had a onecar garage on the
first floor, wreck room in the back of the garage, main living space, second floor bedrooms up on the third floor. Um, because of the affordability requirements that are subject to this approval, you have seven affordable
units that are integrated within the uh the market rate townouses. So, the exhibit that's up on the uh screen right now is a representation of the floor plan and a rendering of the affordable units. So, uh I know this board I went
through review letters. I know you haven't seen uh the architecture for both the market rate and the affordables, but if you looked at this rendering and the rendering that's in exhibit B, I believe of the redevelopment plan, they're the same. So
you wouldn't be able to tell walking down the street which unit is an affordable unit and which unit is not affordable. They use the same materials on the outside. They use the same uh uh window types. Everything's the same from
the outside. that what the uh developer have done uh because the requirements in New Jersey under the IBC 2021 New Jersey edition section 1100 requires that affordable housing um in New Jersey have
the ground floor townhouse excuse me I'll back up town houses are not exempt affordable housing the market rate units are exempt from uh ADA requirements so the redesign time was to take the garage out. And if you look at the exhibit, we
still have what looks like garage doors on the front because we want them to look the same as the market rate units. Can you Oh, now you're asking me. How do we do that? Computer.
Grab it out of my say. I did say I got my license in 93. We still use pass. We're talking about further short, right? Yeah, we can hand that out if you want to pass that around. We also have
mounted board. So So you said that the the mercury units are exempt from 88, but but are not. They're not. So I'll read the section to you from uh the se section 1100 of the
code. So town houses that are uh seeking uh multifloor town houses for the credit is sought for lower moderate income housing through the council affordable housing shall have the following features. So again it has to be it has to be accessible. Okay.
Okay. Now that accessibility is limited to the ground floor because it is a townhouse. I'm going to walk you through thinking Mr. Valone have stroke and put in an elevator and no that that's not required. So what the code and requires and and you can see.
Okay. So at the front door when you come in there cannot be any change in grade elevation from the sidewalk into the house. It can only be an inch and a half. So it's a a the sidewalk is flush with the front door. Uh what the
requirements under the code is that we have to have an accessible route throughout the entire uh uh uh ground floor for someone that's in a wheelchair. Not that every accessible unit requires that you're in a wheelchair, but you know, you could have
knee surgery and being on crutches. So the front door is accessible. It's a three- foot wide door. You have to have an accessible re means you have to be able to get to the kitchen. uh minimum requirement for accessible route is 30 inches 30 inches wide. So um
is the kitchen on the ground floor too now? Yes, the kitchen is on the ground floor. That is correct. And we also have to have under those requirements a room or area that can be closed off or a door can be added that can be used as a sleeping room.
Okay. So, if you are someone that comes with a disability that's, you know, wheelchair bound, you're not going to go upstairs and sleep in the other two bedrooms. You you have the ability to be on the first floor. If you're someone, like I said, a knee surgery, you know,
you you want instead of sleeping on the couch in the living room, you can convert that. So, in the back of this unit, when you come in the front, there's the stairs to the left, which takes you up to the other bedrooms. Um, then we have an accessible kitchen. So,
what that means is that the clearances for wheelchairs in front of the refrigerator, you'll see little squares and little circles drawn here. That represents how you access if you're in a wheelchair. The refrigerator is the clearance of 30x 48. You have to have a
turning radius of 67 in. That's what the circle represents. In front of the sink, you have to have a clearance of 30x 48. And there also has to be a workspace that you can go underneath that the cabinet can be remove moved as an adaptable feature which is allowed in
the state of New Jersey. I have a couple questions. So the garage doors are just a facade. Well, no, they're not. They they look like garage doors, but there's storage for the trash cans and storage for the
occupants. So when those doors up open up, there's a 4 4T 2x 10t wide storage room that that'll outside will look like two garage doors. That opens up, excuse me. And then
that's for storage for trash cans because I believe in the market rate unit, your requirement is that trash cans have to be stored in the garage. My other question is, um, is there enough room for a car in those little driveways? The driveways We have to give them all a handicap parking space with
No, the driveways have to accommodate the requirements for the cross slopes for handicap accessibility. We could put Mr. Pooie on the driveways will be suitable. We are losing seven spots because we had previously counted the inside of the garage
as seven spots. Um he'll testify we're still above the minimum requirements, but they're all going to have to park in the parking lot. They're all going to have to park in their driveway. In their driveway. That's what I'm asking. So there is enough room for cars and the driveway has to be sloped so
someone getting out you know the cross slope that you know from the driveway to the front door don't exceed one and 20 and the ramp can we won't have any ramps but the um the um
the highest slope could be uh one in 12 you know to to you need a ramp. So essentially the driveways will be flatter and the sidewalks will be flatter than than what you'll see in market rate units. That's a great part. Um so we've gone through the kitchen.
Now we also have to have a full bath. So on the ground floor, sink, toilet, shower. Shower is a rolling shower. Okay. So when you see at the back leftand corner, um that is a full bath on the first floor. That's a
requirement. Again, the the requirement under the regulations in New Jersey under the uh building code is that have to provide it with a accessible bath and group to it. So all the clearances for around the toilet, all the clearances at
the sink and be able to turn within that and then the shower has to be a flush shower like you see in a commercial. Zero. Zero entry. Correct. And then this area in the back which is called the living area. This
was designed so that it can be your living room or on that first floor but it also has a closet. It has a door. It has accessible approaches to the door. So the requirement is that an area and
in this case they took that area which is in the back has to be able to either add a door or put some closure to make it a bedroom in the event that someone has to sleep on that first floor. Uh the upstairs are exempt. Uh we'll meet the
uh U-Hack requirements for the percentages. So what's on the second and third floors then? So the U-Hack requirements uh that govern the numbers of ones, twos, and three bedrooms um are no more than 20%
ones, no less than 20% threes. So essentially you have two units out of the seven are going to be u onebedroom, two units out of the seven are going to be threebedroom and three units are going to be twobedroom. So assuming that
the first floor it can be a bedroom for somebody but upstairs there are two bedrooms set up and then if it's a threebedroom required under uh hack then those three would count. So so it's just a lot of empty space open space up on the first floor. Oh, no. The
the No, if you look on the second floor up here, there's two bedrooms, two walk-in closets, washer and dryer. That's all upstairs. The third Now, the third floor is just an attic space. So, what we did is um
instead of having a twostory townhouse and a three-story townhouse, but let me just scroll back to the elevations. It's it look has windows. The windows will have opaque film on it. It's black. It's just an attic space, a clear attic
space. It's not designed to storage right now, but essentially we wanted to make that you're building that space to make it fit in because these units fit in within the other market units. So that's so well they don't if they need to use
the access the unit as an accessible unit. They don't get a living spa living space officially. Is that right? that all they would just use one of the upstairs bedrooms. We we there's actually an option in here for a loft. So if that's the case that
someone could take that you know you you find when you're when these units you are occupied and that's something that is a function of the town and and the uh and the applicant. Um you know some
people yes are wheelchair bound. So that's one type of person that might be looking to purchase here. Someone might you know have cereopal pausy and work walks with you know cane. So there's you try to accommodate the worst condition
but obviously there are people that live in these units that have less disabilities than others. So the unit has a lot of functionality to it to accommodate all types of disabilities. Just just for the record, so a family
who had disabled family member that would be really relegated to the ground floor, they could still have the option of having additional family space upstairs even though it might not be accessible. That's correct. Because you know in the condition where you have the three
twobedrooms where you have one downstairs, one upstairs, you don't have to have the bedroom upstairs. It shows it on this plan here in the one, two, three to the to the right. It shows it as a family room. Apparently that other
bedroom would be set up as a family. So these are the units that are being used to meet the affordability requirement. There's no there's nothing saying that anyone has to have any sort of disability at all whatsoever. These are the income restricted units, right? So yeah. So so so functionally it's for anybody who's who's meeting those requirements
that's meeting our our our housing obligation. Okay. I understand that you've gone to great lengths to make the facades and the outside look um identical and and the so the two questions and I don't know if this is
for you or if it's for Beth is are we allowed first question is are we allowed to have different design types of units for the affordable versus the market rate units as opposed to the I have to look the same on the outside and
you can't have a poor people entrance and all the rest of that other nonsense. I understand that which you've done right and or you can't cluster all in one building which you've done. So So that's obviously those are all checked but are we allowed to have different design types for for and still meet the
regs for you know under fair share housing. I was going to ask a related question which is are they are they offering this floor plan but nonaffordable units do they have to do that and we get to tie it into the same question. So the floor plan that they've proposed, although it's different than
the Mark 3 units, it's still compliant. They're still townhouse units and if they there are implications for future projects, but this is a third round project as long as and uh as a townhouse unit notwithstanding the different floor plan. It remains compliant with new
hack. It remains compliant with our uh redevelopment plan given the fact that their uh exterior facade amendments are intended to look like the garage. So they've maintained I think my opinion is they've maintained consistency with the redevelopment plan from that
perspective. So uh and moving it towards compliance with the uh the IDC requirements uh is consistent public housing. So I don't have an affordable housing compliance concern with one exception to something that I heard
which is uh the bedroom distribution the 20% of seven units is 1.4 that needs to be rounded down to one. This is I always thought it was round the long math rules really do not apply to affordable housing.
Suffice it to say we'll comply with you to Karen's question which was also part of partially mine. One of my concerns when this was presented was that for an aging population and for visitability the fact that the original floor plans
had had no habitable spaces on the ground floors. there was the garage plus a you know is is there is there a possibility that this could be a floor plan option for the market rate units because you know is is that possible just raising one of the things I was
going to ask for I think it's a to be honest I like the floor plan for my own personal uh use since you have the since you have a lot more uh living space on the first floor but the concern it raises is we're eliminating one parking space and the site has more parking than
what's necessary however ever. At some point, it seems that there's an opportunity to relocate some of the proposed affordable units to a location that is closer to the visitor parking spaces. So, that with the uh likelihood that you're going
to have multiple cars associated with that two or threebedroom portable unit, that second car or third car is going to be parked much closer than perhaps around the corner and down the way. Great idea. Yeah. So, as people ask about, can we also do this for the
market rate units? I I'm but I think we need to be careful about how many units are converting to that alternative floor plan where they're located to make sure they're build. Yeah. Because my my my concern at the time of the application was around aging
in place and these none, you know, the original floor plan design did not allow for for ground level entry. Um, and I think that there would be a market for at least some of these, but the parking concern is obviously and I'm not looking to unravel the whole thing. I just I
just Yeah. And I think that since we're reducing the parking count and parking count, I mean, I'd have to come back literally every time I sold one of those units by parking. No, we don't want them to come back. But certainly to your point, is there something where we could say this can be
offered, but only to a maximum of so many units in the in the in the general Stop that whole conversation. The market rate units have garages here, please. Okay. I think well I was just thinking keep it simple. There are there are people who want
market requirements as well. I just wanted to ask check as well. You say that they they've done a really good job of making the facade look the same. It's an important factor. Is it they do however they are different because they
don't have the garage right in the garage. Is that that's okay though that they're allowed to not have the garage like the other units have? I just want to just double check. I'd love the I love what they don't. Yeah. In fact, it's very typical for in townhouse developments for the affordable units to not have garage. So,
this is a common technique by developers. Uh it doesn't raise a compliance issue given how this site is used in our housing plan. Right. would have been more compant would have been more compliant for a block like that. I know he's already told me not to say thanks to it,
but I would ask for just as uh if the board is inclined to approve this, I would ask that I be able to work with your site uh with Mike and and just to tweak the location. So, every affordable unit is across or caddy corner
to the extent possible actually. And I think there's going to be easy opportunity. There are just a few units here and there that ought to be uh moved. Yeah. Just the sav the uh you know the concerns. I mean again I don't know where the pecking order comes in you
hack or or you know the construction code but the construction code is a code that's based on health and safety and welfare. I I think that if they're mandating that we do this that then affordable housing cannot say hey it's different and affordable it ultimately points to
uh to the construction code for compliance with with these issues specifically. So there's no there's no conflict between the goals. Well, to that point, it could be if a block like that, say where there's three, were all ADA compliant and one was affordable, you still be they would be consistent.
Really, would it if they were all ADA compliant? Yeah, it' still be consistent because you're offering the same type of unit to each market. Yes. I don't think that raises a compliance issue. Uh it could create a parking issue, but if that were a technically used throughout the site.
Yeah. Yeah. And I do think it would be a, you know, I don't have the end uh developer here who's going to be building the town homes, but I think that's a marketing probably a market right here. Sorry. I didn't know. Um,
this is Tom Beser from Dr. Horn by the way. I know you. Um, yeah. So, you know, identifi again, I'm I'm running a problem that if I identify them on the plan, and I can't market them and sell them because nobody wants to take them
because it's an, you know, listen, it's great if you're disabled. But if we can't sell them, then I have to come back and amend my site plan again to move them somewhere else. I can't do that. No, that's a that's a market decision you made. That's just ask questions
best. No, I know that just basic simple question. But the carriage doors, can a car comfortably fit there with the doors open? Yeah. Yeah. So, you get your trash cans out. Yes. Yeah.
Is there anything to consider on this aspect then of what's proposed? Is there anything else? No. One of the outstanding items of openness is just updated architectural plans. It seems that the final location and final design of the town houses
because this is the first time I've seen this can be confirmed as part of the normal resolution compliance process as long as the board is comfortable change. Yeah, we're fine with that. We anticipate, you know, another round of submissions to everybody, just touching
everything that's left. But these were we needed guidance. These are the things. It's almost like reverse discrimination that I can't have a garage. But if you don't have leg, you might not be driving.
Well, I'm thinking the bigger though, if there was no place for disabled versus, you know, Sorry, I couldn't hear quite what you were saying. Not not terribly relevant. So those are the you know those are the five items
that we have. Um I think that uh Stangle Road uh out the issue with respect to outside agency approval and the timing uh with which they need to be satisfied. Um and and I I think those two items are
are straight up uh clarifications and conditions. Um we also then have the issue with the town homes which I would submit is not substantial because the appearance is virtually identical and the board doesn't really have jurisdiction over floor plans anyway.
It's just that we had changed what we had previously shown you. Uh then the lone eagle fence. I mean we can certainly revise the plans to show the singer fence and we've already heard the owner of that property say he prefers to keep his fence. We
have the issue that we will relocate or andor um donate any any uh landscape materials um to the satisfaction professionals. We have the soil testing in the basin issue which seems to be the biggest
issue. I would submit again though that in the context of that being would you have voted differently when you have no alternative plan that could be devised here? I don't think that you would. I'd ask you to come to that conclusion as
well. That is not a substantial change because you would have voted the same way because there is not an alternative design that we could offer to you nor that you could ask for. We're trying to keep things moving. We want to get the donation done. We want to get out to the
utility companies. We want to finalize with the outside agencies. We need signed plans. We understand there's a number of things that we've already discussed will have to be completed before we can get a building permit and we're dedicated to completing them. These are items that we feel are
preventing us from moving forward. Rightly so, because of the wording and and Mr. Clerico pointed that out, but we're looking for relief with respect to those five items. Everything else we will comply with. Okay. Thank you. Um for the record, I
just want to state that Melissa Swingle came back online um in the discussion at 919. Okay, that's my presentation. I thank you again for your time. Thank you. Okay. Um does anybody have
any questions? I think you know you've answered as questions at this given patient. What about moving forward? Where do we feel we are? Could you kind of summarize where we've been? Yeah. So, I think Mr. Pepe really went
through what the board they're asking the board to consider. Um the issue with regard to the landscaping and the fence I think is pretty much resolved here tonight. Um if there is an amended site plan, we certainly would want to include that on an amended site plan, but the issue
itself has basically been resolved and the condition can be amended to incorporate that. Um I'm going to skip over the basin issue. Uh that's condition 1231. Uh conditions uh condition one uh page
16 talks about outside agency approvals. Again, we talked about the fact that obviously the approval is conditioned on those, but we don't specifically talk about timing. Um, in the event that there does need to be some other change to the plan because of one of those
approvals require it. Well, the applicant's taking that risk, but I think that um they've demonstrated that uh it's a minimal risk that they're willing to take. So we certainly could indicate that the outside agency approvals could be prior to the first building permit and that would
incorporate I would suggest uh condition 9 which is the one about the uh HOA uh docs. I would recommend that that language be changed to the board feel comfortable um to say either before TCO or CO or sale or otherwise required by
New Jersey law DCA whichever is the earliest. So basically whenever you're required to have those in place um the earliest point that would be when they would have to provide that to the board as opposed to a condition of resolution compliance before the plans were signed.
Um the issue of the um detour. I think we've talked about that a lot. I think that uh Jay hears where everybody is and if the board is comfortable um we can uh amend that condition to allow Jay to
have the uh flexibility to have that meeting with the applicant uh with their professionals to incorporate the other people and the concerns that we've talked about that as well. Um and then the issues uh condition I I saw it as condition seven
and 42 which is the architectural changes um that uh again if the board feels comfortable uh making making those changes which would have been subject to review by the board's professionals and resolution compliance anyway um then
then that's that doesn't really require any other plan changes. I think the most significant one um that I'm hearing from the board's concerns uh would be uh the issue of the basins and uh that would be the most significant site plan change
that you're looking at. But is is there a me is there a mechanism like the the concept of whether we insist on a public hearing before they can get on that can we allow the other ones or what do we that is up to the board. You could allow
all of them. You could allow one of them. You could allow none of them. And you could require public hearing on everything. Certainly at we would memorialize this in a resolution that would come after the fact. Would that be after public hearing or or whenever
depending on which way you go. Um but you have you have the flexibility. I mean replete throughout this resolution is the ability to say if there's a change the board can determine whether it has to come back for a minute or not. So um you you clearly have the ability
to do that. Um and so we can allow them to continue with the other items but say if if a sticking point for us say is the basins we can say you have to we you have to come back with that one item and everything else can continue. Correct.
Right. That's an option we've got like it doesn't have to be the whole can't have to hold everything up to that. Yep. And because it specifically does say in the condition itself that uh this board can determine if they're to come back for a minute. Okay.
Well, how does anybody feel about that? Does anybody have any queries or comments on that kind of idea or any of the aspects that we've talked about? I'd like to. Yeah. No, please take a picture. Stop sharing the screen so we can get we
can see people better. Yeah, thank you. I I'm good with everything except the basin. I I feel um there was nothing to preclude them when they came before us to say if we got this, we were going to
do the bio retention, this is what it would look like and if we had to go the other option, this is what it would have looked like. And um I just think the landscaping makes a big difference. And I'm not comfortable
myself going with a retention basin where it's very vague on what the landscaping is going to look like, especially by the park. It seemed like along Route 12, they were willing to put landscaping where you wouldn't see it. But I think the park's going to be a lot
harder and um it will look very different than what we approved um where it looked more natural. So they could have come with two options and said if we got this we're going to do this or and we could have approved both
based on their testing. So for me I'd like to see a site plan. That's my view. Okay. Thanks Dennis. Anybody else? I'm going to go with some trust in Dennis just I'm in agreement with Dennis. Um and I
think one way to resolve it I don't know require um renderings to see what it would look like and what their option can be. Okay. It look presentable and I think if we're going for the public hearing option, I think that will probably help move that
along and give you residents a you know a better understanding of what it would look like only or all just on just the basis just in the basement. Okay. Okay. I agree on a public hearing just for
basian. Okay. But certainly before everything else that's fine. I just have that understanding that right we we're doing things you know how I transparency out
discussion. Well, that's number. Thank you. But I can barely hear that. That's okay. Um, you all understand that there possibly zero choice, but public has a right to see it because I don't want to have them come back to me in two
years and say, "What happened?" I was there and that was not what was approved. So, I think they have a right to weigh in um even if there's no no choice and I would like to do it sooner rather than later if we get them on the agenda as soon as possible within the parameters
of public notice. I'd like to absolutely require checklist for and getting a landscaping design as well so we can see what this landscape design and renderance.
Well, we can we can talk with car about that about what we said, but yeah, take that. I Eric on that note just just for clarification purposes if we did this on public notice with another resolution compliance issue understanding that
you know I I don't I don't want to your checklist is exhaustive and it's going to require a a lot of time and work to go through that again when we're limiting our focus to the coming
back with the amendment in one corner I didn't I I didn't see a separate one for an amended site plan. That's all I'm saying. I I I You're amending the plan. It was previously deemed to be complete. Okay. The board granted the first time around or whatever
and how it's going to look. Understood. Just wanted to see how narrow we can keep that. Very very Can I ask you guys a question? Ah, we're trying I'm trying to have all the board have their stay first, please. Um,
Jeff, so I agree with everything that everyone said. Here's the problem is that um we're going to have there's no good there's not a good there's not a good solution here, I don't think. Um because it's not to me it's not about a
solution. It's about transparency. No, no, no. Brown. Yeah. And and and I think that that's the I think that's that's where I'm if if we're asking the narrow question,
Cara, of would my vote have changed if the condition was changed to the way that the applicant is requesting requesting it then I don't know the answer to that question with what we have in front of us because what
for everything? No, no, just for the Okay, just for the just for the bench because because the because what we had given to us tonight was we can move a tree, we can do this, it might look like that, you know, D and it
hasn't been and it didn't have the details. So, so if um so I I can't answer honestly the question like would my vote have changed because there hasn't been enough presented tonight on the on the alternative that is being
suggested. Um and and and so it may very well be that like what they design is going to have to be what's going to have to be because that's just what engineering wise has to happen. Um, but it's kind of a hard like I'm asking like
the the legal question of like if if we are the board has the ability to request an amendment if there's something that would have affected the vote and I don't know how to answer that question with what was given to us. So that's the answer to the question,
right? because you also wouldn't be able to approve what they're asking without greater detail the what they're asking by way of an amendment. So So if that's the case then then then yeah then then we need to have as
expeditiously and as complete as possible then I would say we need to have it for just you know what the fee structure looks like for an amendment. I I also have to be concerned about special before you get into some details
please. And the answer to that is no. And if I can just follow on Jeff from your point. Um the weather I just want to remind every I I I I'm really strongly remembering
that what really gets me with this is we didn't want we we were very nervous to trust that we wouldn't have the soil testing done before we gave the act. And a large part of our vote and a large part I feel of my
vote yes on that in that situation without having a head and being given the trust to the applicant that they would undertake those that process correctly was that we had the trust that they
would do it and they and and that I seem to remember part of the discussion was was that if the soil Testing that came back notwithstanding they didn't even include Mr. Clerico as with the resolution required
if it they had to come back they would change the site plan they would have to change the design of the site plan and they and that they took that risk on and yet now they said we don't want to change it because because it can't be any other way I know the way it is is based on the soil so I totally
understand the engineering but in terms of my change and and and and Mr. could you get characterized correctly like my my concern at the time what I raised on record was are you going to have to move buildings around I was more I was mo I was very
concerned that the soil testing would rel would would lead the situation where there would have to be a substantial change to the flow of the site position of the buildings the alignment of the roads all those other kinds of things and what we're hearing tonight is that no actually they can accomplish those
site plan elements in the in the existing footprint. It's just the design of the the bases themselves that is that that that that's going to have to change because of what the difference in time kind time kinds of bases there. So I I
which is where I'm like right but you're going on layout and time frame whereas other people have already said they're concerned about the actual basic and again I'm not I I I'm inclined based on what car just said I'm inclined to say that we need to have the public hearing. I just
you know I have no problems with anything else. It's just it's just on this issue. Okay. I mean agreed. I appreciate that like nothing necessarily needs to change with footprint, but like I saw what I agreed to last time and I have the same
hesitancy here is that like I I don't know if I would change. I don't know because I I don't know like I don't see it fortunately. Um and I do wish there was a little more representation from the public that would but that's something that's different.
But it's mostly that like you know I would love to have a definitive answer right now but I just don't know is how I feel personally. Yeah. At least have the right to see a full answer in anything we're approving and we haven't seen it. I think that's unreasonable
right John. I mean the only trim thing is the landscape change to the base. I mean, at the end of the day, Brown Street wants to see their flooding issues resolved, right? How you get there from a public hearing versus you meeting with them on a
regular basis, I would assume, through the construction process. I I guess that's I mean, I I think if if I wouldn't want to see all these other things being held up while we wait for a public hearing to talk about landscaping when we should get this road,
you go back to your D anyway, but I say we can before it just happened. Can you can you sign off and then kick this down the road once D approves then go back to and then what are we asking for? Are we just asking for a landscape
change plan or should be very specific on what that amendment is? I mean well the amendment is going to be the plan the revised plan with a basin and whatever. But just the placement of the trees and whether we're going to change the finish
that we can do that soon, right? But we're not holding anything. You just want to bring in champion. Do you have any I want to make sure every all the board have got some input. I'm not I'm not inclined to have them
come back for another public hearing. Okay. I don't I don't want landscaping around there. It's easier maintenance for public works. All right. Thank you. Um and then Melissa, um I'm in agreement with everything as
well as agreeing with everybody at the basins. Sorry, Mike. From the environmental commission standpoint, losing the biobasins is kind of a hit. So, I think the environmental commission would like to see an upgraded landscaping plan with some green areas. Maybe we can
compromise since it is going to be a, you know, more work for DPW, but I think we would like to see greenery somewhere. I think the other sticking point to Beth's point before is the board would
need to grant a waiver exception from the requirement of the redevelopment plan which is well within your curview to do but before it was substantially similar to the bio retention basins that
were required and this would be an addic relief right that I don't see as much as I hate to say it based on a lot of what I'm hearing I think that's a consideration that has to so that would be done later at the
hearing once D approves the well that can be done they don't have they don't have to wait to get D they can take the exact same approach that they have now they're more than welcome to do that that's their decision you can't require them to do otherwise
that's a good reminder that it's not just about whether we want more trees it's the We have to grant that relief. There's two. So that that for me means it's like there's two reasons to have to do that process, get it done properly and get it correct. Are we allowed to grant that relief without a public hearing? No. No.
So then that answers the question the question. So we can we can grant the other four things that So can you say what might be a possible? So what I would say is you want a motion to amend conditions
and I'm getting all-encompassing here. 5e 1 9 28 7 and 42 which essentially are all of the ones that we talked about in the manner that I said before. Um and then we would require the
applicant to come back for a public hearing to show amended plans to the board regarding the redesigned basins. Um those are conditions 12 and 31 along with a landscape design and whatever
else the board feels and I I I would say that we can certainly look at the requirements for amended site plan and and to see because this is very limited to this one issue. So you know we can certainly see what
the ordinance requires and doesn't require at that point but that's the only it would be for that limited issue only be more ad hoc right at that point you would do you put in the conditions of what would be completeness at that point based on would we decide that in the
like it's more ad hoc right there amendment which is it's amendment to a plan yeah it's amendment to a plan I mean so you know it's it's there and I in here too to find there's a condition in here condition 42 I think it is
essentially says that the project shall be constructed in accordance with all testimony of the applicant and the application documents in addition the information except as otherwise set forth so they're asking to construct something that's different than what was approved technically that
would be an amended plan but we can call it a a revision to condition 42 and we're now making a change to one of the plans or some of the plans to incorporate these changes. That that's what I was going to suggest. Can we do this at the same process that
we're doing tonight except on public notice with an appropriate plan set to show you what the redesign we can do it that way. So we could mention those two conditions. Correct. Would we mention the condition of the in the redevelopment agreement that Beth had mentioned that we would that would be
part of the public act. Okay. I make that motion. Okay, we have a motion. Do I have a second? I can say. Thank you. So, a vote yes is to allow all the four
items we discussed to go ahead as we discussed in this meeting and the soil tested. So item 12 1231 we'll incorporate 42 in there because that's the one that we'll be changing to amend plans to show this
and the relevant clause the redevelopment we have to put that in whatever that was from there for a public which for my champions um position is that we don't have a choice you have to do a public yeah so
all right good Charlie, we have second meeting. We have a motion in a second. The mayor and Hannah. Okay. No, I know. Uh, mayor. Miss Wesman. Yes.
Councilor, yes. Mr. Campion, no. Miss Wingle, yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr.
Yes. I'm sorry that it throws me off when that's motion. Never seen that. That throws me. Sorry. Yes. So
motion All right. Thank you. Um, you'll have to notice and have to work on notice periods and work out the notice. Yeah. Do we know when the next meeting?
We have one on the April 27. August 26th September 9th September 16, you know, August 26 is I don't know if I get the notice though. Multiple public hearings on the
We can't do it that night. I don't I mean I think we got we have a terribly full agenda, but we haven't got I mean we have to go here. We're going to cook. So, we've got Wellington Circle reality is
last notice the 26th. I thought they only did it today. I think maybe there's not. There is not an application. It's the same thing that we just did this time. Not you. Close your attention. How much notice does it make?
It's 10 days which gives me three days which is possible but look y'all can notice and we've done that good solution. Um, is there I mean they have to get
you know what they are pretty much. I presume they're pretty much done. We only need the plans for the face. But the plans have to be available for the public to look at 10 days. So that three days that's you that's on y'all. If you can do it.
Thank goodness it's not for me. No on you. That's it. We have to thank for notice because I had we had one person phone up and begging. Yes, please. All right. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Have a great week on
the agenda. I missed an item. Um and I know my champion lives this week early. So um I needed to turn over uh my range report to my champions for the planning board. So, um, you're doing that now. Mike, you're on.
You have the flow. Michael, mayor, can you repeat that? I couldn't hear you. You have the flow for the regarding the issue we talked about at the DPW meeting that I said you brought up with the planning board and I said, I'm just turning over to you. Oh, under our storm water permit, which we
received uh two years ago, our new one, we have to re-examine our storm water ordinances, which myself and Terry Vote from RVE will be looking it over and present it to the public works committee
and then we'll be contacting the planning board. And what will you need us to do, Mike? Uh if there's any changes to our ordinance, we'll present them to you to the board.
Okay. Just keep me updated about which one you'll want to come to next week. Um yeah, it should be done by the end of the year. Okay, sounds good. Something good to do for Christmas. Perfect. Thanks, mate. Thank you.
You're welcome. All right, let's move along. Yeah, we've got another polo discussion discussion about the zoning ordinance from the government body. Um
we've sent that through um the ordinance was issued by the governing body day officially, right? You sent it to us today. So car is going to fill us in on what we need to do now because for people that haven't done this before but we also even if you have done this before this
is slightly different because it just because it was because it was generated by the governor is the same is the same the same but the extent of the board's review may be a little bit different because it didn't originate with us what you're saying so
a lot of times the board will draft ordinances send them to the mayor and council for consideration. Um, and that's where it starts. Uh, here this ordinance this time around. I mean, I I guess
technically it originated with the planning board, but the changes originated council. So, this is really the first time that the board is seeing these changes, but the procedure is no different. The ordinance is adopted on first reading by the council, which they
did last night. Uh it is then recommended after first reading that it be referred to the planning board. The planning board has 35 days 35 35. Two people have told me 35 and two October 8th because I thought it was 45.
Yeah. I mean I just I I had I remember you and I thought it was 45. I didn't have in front of me so I don't tell me it was 35 as well. So it let if you let me find it, I'll find the ordinance again. But what I had sent was
35. Regardless, our plan is to be well within the correct with what we're doing. Yep. And what happens is you're going to review that ordinance for consistency with your master plan. Um Beth will look at it as well and give you uh your uh or
or the the thought process behind what the master plan says behind whether or not this is consistent. Um and then the board makes its findings based upon its review and based upon that the board can find substantial consistency,
substantial inconsistency and in addition with either one of those can also make recommendations back to council. Uh goes back to council. council then um has to address the recommendations
and if it is changed in any way they have to reintroduce the ordinance before they go to second reading. Um also if there are any recommendations that this board makes that council does not want to follow, they have to put on the record the reasons why they're not
following those recommendations and that then becomes part of the record as well. So that's the process, right? Um, while you guys talk about that, I'm gonna find the What I just want to add to that is, um, we will be doing that process. We will
be doing our consistency review meeting on the 9th September. So, any people will be here. Um, before that date, we will be receiving a report from um, Kis's office for uh, conflict issues. Um
Jim uh Kyle has agreed to do the report for us. And so he'll be issuing a report. We'll see that as soon as we can. Um the subcommittee will talk to him a little bit to help him along with that process also. Um and he will be issuing a report which will be the one
that we will review. So everyone will receive that and look at that when we get it. Look at the master plan. You're ready for a discussion. It's 35. It's confirmed. expected by that's okay.
All right. Prior to the adoption of a development regulation revision or amendment there to the planning board shall make and transmit to the governing body within 35 days after referral a report including identification. Okay. 40 40 call 55D.
55D is the whole. Yeah. Know I'm looking to see if it's 32. 32 or six. Any questions on that? Yeah, I couldn't open the document that was set on the 23rd. It just it failed to open. So, I tried to open it because I knew what
it was, but I do the ordinance. It was in DLCX format, but it was also in track changes. So, my nothing in the MAC. I just sent the new one out this morning. this morning, the one that we
introduced. Well, we had one previously, but the one that was actually introduced went out this came out to us all this morning. So, the 9th of the 9th is when plenty of time um because we've got lots of things going on now, got moving parts. If we have to move that on to 9, we're still
within our 35 days. So, we will have time if there are severe questions or issues like that. All right. I think if that's all anybody needs to know. If you have any more questions, you can contact any of the people that you want to contact. Not
fair enough. All right. Um Okay, that's So, we're putting that on which one? 999. And that's the that's the meeting that's on and off week. So everyone make sure you've got it in your calendar because I know I usually have mine on second and fourth but make sure that's in your calendar correct.
Um all right so that's I know I wrote discussion but that all the discussion that's what it kind of lets us know. All right moving on to item nine chair items. I like camping but we did that already. The only thing I want to add is I asked Melissa um to chair the or PB
ordinance rules committee that we never quite got going. So, she's going to do that and be in touch with you. Okay. Um, she has my notes. I'm just recognizing that I I can't do it. So, I can't. So, I'm I'm I'm seing chair to her and she's going to make
sure that happens. It's It's not that difficult. Then, they'll be bringing that to us at some point when they've done their work. Uh, hopefully that won't take too long. Um, anybody else have anything they want to raise other than going I I just have one item. I was wondering if Cara had anything related to the
circle. Anything new with the sign on the circle that No, I don't. I have nothing. Absolutely nothing. Okay. Okay. Well, put that back on the list. I mean,
my Well, I was going to ask about that, too, but then I was asking about Milliey's. What's going on? I know it came up with council. So, no, nobody on council had a clue, right? and Robin Litus from SCP had no clue and she's the one person who should have known.
So, um, so she was told by the trusty liaison she Oh, it's okay over there. I do want to add something back in. Um, Dennis, you can report and Melissa can. Um, on the zoning ordinance, um,
we're going to incorporate, uh, the HPC comments a little bit into our report. I'm just letting everyone know. We're going to have them, um, come in through our process and the environmental because um,
council yesterday said that they didn't want to hear from you, but I think we do. They didn't say no, one person. Well, they they can they can discount HBC because they can do that, but they cannot discount the environmental commission. They have extremely broad authority under the statute.
They have the right to weigh in on this. Right. Absolutely. So, they're going to kind correct me if I'm wrong, Cara. I think they both have the right to weigh in on it if they exist, but neither is binding, at least as much as the planning board is. Correct. We can add it into I figured we
could add it into our report and send it all to council in one go if we wish, but I just wanted to let HBC know because if you listened to the meeting last night, it sounded like you weren't going to be included, but it's in the ordinance covers a historic district. So therefore, your viewpoint should be
um and will be requested and required, please. We'll have it after the August 20th meeting. We'll get it to the planning board. Thank you very much. All right. So, back on to the um item 10. The bills. I didn't We didn't Did we see any bills? No bills to audit. Let's move straight
along. I saw Yeah, there were a bunch. Did I do Oh, they were in the docket. We used to get them separately. It threw me off. Bills. Second. It said the packet. I looked through it.
All right. So, I didn't look at them. So, but anyway, like we So, we have a motion. Second. Yeah. From DHS and a second from Whitesman. audit. Yeah, it's just an audit. It's not approved. Yeah. Do we have to do a roll?
There was only two. No on that one. Sorry. Okay. Mr. Josh. Yes. Yes. Mayor Carol. Yes. Council Councilwoman Fisor. Yes. Mr. Campion. Abstain. That's right.
Miss Wingsel. Yes. Mr. Show. Yes. Mr. Schwinger. Yes. I already said talk. Thank you. All right. Item 12, executive session is not needed, I assume. Thank you. Um item
13, a motion to adjourn. Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. Take care. Just need a motion. I think this sure. Yes.