Evening everybody here with I call the zoning board the Highland Park zoning board meeting to order at 2 at 7:34 7:32 and um
okay we supposed to do now we supposed to pledge to allegiance United States of America and to the stands one nation indivisible and justice for all [Music]
meetings will be livereamed via Zoom. Public comments will be allowed for general board matters including applications for development. Members of of the public would who wish to ask questions, present testimony or present witness and applications for development
must be present and in person at the location in at the location indicated to view or listen to the meeting electronically. Please follow these instruction instructions. So the meeting was called to order. Not yet. We need to what we need to do is to swear in a number of of members.
Uh and those of you uh that are going to be sworn in if you would be standing and all. All of us. Yeah. Exactly. If you'll raise your right hand and repeat after me. Everybody. Not everybody. No, you're you're good. You're good. Uh
okay. Uh repeat after me. I and then state your names. I will do solemnly swear or affirm solemnly swear or that I will support the Constitution of the United States. I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New
Jersey. Constitution of the State of New Jersey and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same and to the governments established in the United States. and government established in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people
under the people and that I will faithfully that I will faithfully impartially and justly perform and justly perform all of the duties all the duties of the office all of the office of the zoning board member zoning board member according to the best of my ability
according to the best of my ability now what I'm going to do is pass out uh if you would I've already uh acknowledged but if you all sign and then pass them over to now you can. [Music]
So the meeting was called to order in accordance with the open public meetings act. Notice of this meeting was provided to the whole news tribute, the Star Ledger and the Highland Heartpanet on February 3rd, 2025 and was posted on the
borrow website at www.hhpbro.com and on the bulletin board at borrowall in 222 South Avenue, Kyler Park, New Jersey. Thank you. And has remained continuously posted as required by law. Fire exits are to the left and to the
right of console chambers and please speak into the microphone. And just a note actually like a personal note for for the applicants we are not all new. Just change positions like I've been on this board for 20 years and just
now we can be changed. So actually now you call the right. Yes, Mr. present. Mr. Dickson, Mr. Peza here. Mr. Hoffer here. Mr. Holtz.
Miss Corbin here. Miss Leslie here. Mr. Roer. Present. Mr. Vining. Present. Mr. Walsh. Yes. Mr. Winfrey. Miss M. Wash. Miss Mr. I'm so sorry.
Mr. Winfrey, Mr. Thomas present. Chris Crosanza here. Mr. Bruce Croj here. And then Council Member Hail the first agenda item is the hearing of new
cases. Uh there is also the way uh the agenda is set up is if there is comments from the public but not related to any application that's on the agenda. If there are any comments now we need there's any comments now anything that is not related to correct and seeing none we can close
that. Thank you. Now we get to uh hearing of new cases which is the applicant is GSA GSH Incorporated and the location is 22 220 Southport
Avenue block 2901 lots 29 and 30 and the docker number Z24-01 and it's request for minor subdivisions C and D variances and request for waiver of submission requirements. Council, when you're ready, can you
identify yourself, please? Yes, sir. Sandy Glacio of Wendell's Marks Lane and Mittenorf here representing the applicant Gsh Inc. Thank you, Chris. I because I think that there has
been a number of discussions recommended the application that yes I'm not going to go through various reports but I think the last report has indicated that position correct the second dated June 17 2025
section 2 uh given the silk project by the application submission I recommended that the forward grant request is Okay. Is there any questions of the if not chair I would request a motion to deem
the application request. So I place a motion to deem application complete. Is there a second? Yeah. Mr. Yes, Miss Corby.
Miss Leslie, Mr. Rocker, I'll stay as well. Mr. Vining, yes. Miss Walsh. Yes. So, yes.
Yes. Is that everybody? Everybody. Yes. Okay. I got you. Good. Excellent. Very good. All right. Thank you. I just make a brief opening
statement. Uh we have provided notice at this hearing pursuant to the municipal land use law and submitted an affidavit of service of notice to the board. The applicant GSH Inc. also known as Garden State Home provides lowcost housing and support services. Uh applicant is the
owner of the subject property at 220 South 4th Avenue designated as block 2901 lots 29 and 30 which is located in the RA single family zoning district of the burrow contains an existing dwelling with three affordable units.
Uh under the bulk standards that apply to the RA district, the two existing lots are undersized with respect to minimum lot area. Because they are under common ownership, the lots are considered to be merged under the law. Accordingly, the applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject property in
order to create a new lot and construct a new two family home there with two affordable units. The new dwelling will be occupied by low-income veterans. I have three witnesses tonight. I'm going to call my first witness, Michael Goldstein, our civil engineer.
Unfortunately, it looks like we only have the one microphone, so we're gonna have to share. We'll go back and forth. It'll be fine. All right. Sir, do you swear to affirm the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth? So, help you go. I do. Would you be kind to state your name last name and give us the location of your offices, please?
Michael Goldstein. G O L D S T E I N. I'm employed at Van Clee Engineering. My office is at 1705 Route 37 East in Tom's River. Thank you very much. Okay, Mr. Goldstein, you're licensed as a professional engineer by the state of
New Jersey and your license is currently in good standing. It is. So, we welcome you having your witness in Thank you. Sure. Uh, and your firm prepared the survey plot plan subdivision plan for the
application being heard tonight. I Oh, good. Thank you very much. Extra extra microphone. Good. Uh, and you have prepared uh testimony uh for the board concerning the application. I have.
Can you provide that testimony, please? I will. I see you have a number of exhibits. Are those exhibits just blowups of what was submitted or are they modified? So I have three exhibits that are the plans that are part of your application
package and I have one that is not that is not. So we'll mark the one that is not right now is A1 it looks like it is a uh a rendered aerial presumably of the site. That's correct. Aerial view prepared by
me Michael Goldstein dated September 29 2025. Very good. Thank you. That'll be one. So, the site in question is known as 220 South 4th Avenue uh park lot 2901, lots 29 and 30. Uh the site is located
between Harbor Place and Better Street. The existing site contains a 2 and a half story, threeunit dwelling, and it also contains a detached garage in the rear of the site. uh driveway is presently provided on the north side of
the site uh between these two existing buildings that leads to an attached garage in the back of site. This is just a 24 by 36 version of the plot plan that is last revised 8525
and that's that was already submitted as correct. Yes. Sorry. So, the southerntherly portion of the property is presently vacant, and we are proposing a duplex in this portion of the site. Uh, as our council previously
noted, the the site contains two lots, lot 29 and lot 30, but under the merger doctrine, they've been consolidated for tax purposes. We're proposing a subdivision uh to create a new property line. It's not in the exact location of
the existing common property line between lots 29 and 30. Um it's a it's a different property line and that's mainly to help with the fireproofing standard between the side of your building and the property line. Um, we
ultimately defer to tax assessor for designation of lot numbers, but to avoid confusion with existing lots 2930, it's recommended that they rename the lots 2901 and 301, but ultimately we defer the tax assessor on how they want to
assign the new lots. Uh, so the footprint of our proposed structure is 65 ft by 18 ft. Uh there's a porch on the east side of the site and there's a walkway connecting from the porch into
the driveway. Uh we have our driveway on the opposite side of the site on the southerntherly property line. So we're proposing a new driveway entrance, a 10-ft driveway. Excuse me. I just have to note that Mr. Hall has arrived at 7:45.
Sorry. Uh so we have a 10-ft driveway leading to the rear of the site. Uh we're proposing to provide two angled parking spots in the rear of the site. Let me proposing two angle parking spaces in
the rear of the site. Um, concerning roof runoff, we're proposing a dry well that's also going to be located in the rear of the site. Uh, we performed test pits. We found that there was adequate adequate solar conditions in order to infiltrate roof runoff. So, generally
the roof runoff is going to enter into the drywill and runoff in the driveway is going to either run to the rear of the site or to the front of the site pretty much mimicking existing drainage conditions. Um the site is uh requesting
relief for the number of required parking spaces under RSIs. Uh but we are proposing to provide one parking space per unit. Um, additionally, and per the board planner's recommendation, the
existing detached garage on lot 30, lot 301, the existing lot with the the three unit dwelling is proposed to be demolished. And we're proposing to provide parking in the rear of the site um where the detached garage was. So,
we're proposing three new parking spaces on existing lot 30. Presently, we have the parking lot set 2.4 feet off of that rear property line. Um, per the board planner's recommendation, we have no objection to moving it to 3 ft.
Ultimately, we just shift the parking about 6 feet, about half a foot closer to the house. Uh, we do have ballards proposed between the house and that parking area to protect the house to make sure that uh any backing out cars aren't going to uh hit the house. The
bottlings are placed 5 feet on center. Um the bill code door that's also in the rear yard is to be removed so that it can accommodate that new drive-in area. Uh with respect to water and sewer, public water and public sewer is available on the street. Uh on my plan
right here, we have our water connection and our sewer connection. Uh road opening was brought up in the board engineers review letter. uh we actually have no objection to paving between the furthest extents of the trenches and all the way to the center line of the road.
So instead of just trenching out the 3 ft on either side of the utility, we'll go to the center line of the road to the furthest extent so it's one clean patch, not too salty just in an effort to beautify the area. Um, we're also
proposing the the concrete apron and the concrete sidewalk and any any concrete that's damaged during construction is going to be removed and replaced to make sure that this is a a good-looking site at the end of construction. Uh, we have no objection to those being conditions
of approval if the board acts favorably. Uh we also um per the board planner's recommendation uh included um what I think is a pretty comprehensive landscaping plan. Uh we have a combination of shade trees,
evergreen trees, and lowline shrubs in the front yard. Uh we have sugar maples, uh white oaks, Carolina silver bells, and then in addition now that that driveway on existing lot 30 is going to have a three-foot buffer. So, I'm
talking about the northwest side of the site. Uh, we have we have no objection to proposing evergreens um between that parking area and the rear property line to, you know, prevent any headlights that are driving in that
driveway from shining into the neighbor's backyard. Can I just clarify one thing? Why seem to suggest that the lot on your plan is on the top. Is that is that lot 29? Are you referring to lot 30 or am I just mistaken? I I may have misspoke before. Lot 29 is
the northerly lot. Lot 30 is the southerntherly lot. I just wanted to clarify that 30 is the currently what you consider empty lot. Correct. Thank you. Um, so with respect to sewer service, uh, per New Jersey
administrative code 714-23, each threebedroom dwelling unit has a projected flow of 300 gallons per day. So a total of 600 gallons per day is the projected increase into the sewer on Highland Park. I I don't expect that to
be a capacity issue, but any approval will be contingent on receiving um you know final approval from the from the burough water sewer authority. So, we uh there was also comments concerning the driveway apron servicing
the existing northerly house. Um the existing driveway is narrow. That's an existing condition that we're not proposing to modify at 7 and 1/2 ft. Um ideally, it should be 10 ft like the driveway that we're proposing here. Um there, as far as the driveway apron
goes, even though the driveway is under size, the apron is what a typical length apron would be. Um, and I and I would request that that condition stays the same, that we're not modifying the driveway apron in to match the driveway,
just so that even though vehicles are turning into a narrow driveway, they have the extra vehicle turn path to be able to maneuver themselves in and straighten it out. As far as the concrete sidewalk between the landing um
of the existing house and the sidewalk, we're we're happy to comply with uh any recommendations that the board planner has. Uh I I would encourage the board to have it remain as concrete just because everything is concrete out there. But if there's an area that uh pavers would be
appropriate, we have no objection to complying with the with those recommendations from the board. Uh with that said, that's uh this is, you know, a duplex containing two units uh on the existing vacant lot. Uh from
an engineering perspective, it it functions very similar to a single family home. Um I don't think that there's going to be adverse impacts with respect to drainage. And I think the the front of it is going to look, frankly, better than it does now, just with all the new landscaping that we're putting in. I think it's going to be a very um
big improvement to the area. your testimony. I have from Can I ask you a question? Yeah. Um, my sister owns a property um on Harbor Place which is perhaps 100
yards from this property. Am I still eligible to review this? Well, but your sister is not within the 200 foot. She is. She is. So, now did she receive notice? She did. And um I have to ask this these
questions and I apologize, but it is necessary. Um you you have a a relationship with your sister? I do. And do you end up uh in provide her with advice with regard to her property and uh uh matters involving her
finances etc? I do. I would request therefore that you step up. Thank you. Now is there anybody else that ends up having a conflict? Is now the time to ask a question about
this presentation or In just a second, let's let's the board members ask some questions. There will be an opportunity to ask questions of this witness by members of the public immediately after the board finishes. Okay. Thank you. Before you could, could you just tell us who the additional witnesses will be so
we can determine if we want to ask questions now? We we will have to complete that application presentation first. We just want to know who the additional who might be giving additional testimony. I'm sure you the answer is yes. Council, do you mind providing if
if you want don't want to know the names? You're gonna have the names eventually what what the disciplines are involved. I I do not mind giving the names. Uh we have Lewis Deluchia, principal of the applicant and Nicholas Graviano, who's our planner, to provide the planning testimony.
There you go. Okay. Any other questions? You would continue your testimony. No, we have no other testimony. You not the next. Oh, do we have a special question for No, I think I think we need to open it up public at this point in time. Uh, and
again, right now, this is only for questions of this witness. Uh, if you have comments or concerns, either positive or negative, they will be held at the completion of the applicant's testimony, which will include not only this witness, but also the other two witnesses. And with that, young lady, if
you have a question, no, this young lady, we need to get you up here so Yeah, you take that. I don't care which mic you take. All right. If you don't mind, if you mind speaking, where do I stand? Here. Wherever you'd like. You need to state your name and your address and spell your last name, please.
Okay. My name is Lisa Yuber. Last name. Us Boy E. My address is 218 South 4th Avenue on the first floor. I'm a tenant in a um it's a two family building and the landlord lives upstairs. Oh, you didn't
have to give us all that, but you have. But that's who I am and that's that's why I'm here. So, my question to you is I heard you mentioning um bushes or things that could help mitigate what would now be traffic coming down this driveway that really as a resident
who's lived there for four years, it's really not a thing right now. And you mentioned bushes, but on the 218 side there's there's like literally nothing. It's like we have next to 218
a strip about this wide on our property and then immediately is the driveway next to that and then we have our backyard and like my bedroom back. So I just I want to understand where the bushes would be. Thank you. Uh do you can you explain in further
detail what the and I'll use the term landscaping proposal that you have uh that may mitigate uh and I think you said traffic but I suspect what you're really talking about is the lights from the cars that are coming from uh the main road to the back of the property. Yeah. Lights or noises of vehicles and
things like that. So that's my question if you wouldn't mind. My my plan is right here. Which which property is 28? Is that to the south or to the north? If you're looking at the house from the street to the right. To the right. So it would be to the north.
To the north. Show me where the building. Ma'am, ma'am, if you don't mind, you can have a you want to sit down, please. Well, I can't. Well, I understand. But right now, you'll have an opportunity to ask questions and comments later.
So, it sounds like if you're standing on South Fourth Avenue looking at our house, it's to the right of our house, which would be it's page up or north on my plan. So, predominantly there's not really any changes to what the existing
conditions are compared to what we're proposing. The the main difference on this lot is that we're demolishing that detached garage in the rear of the site and just paving it so that we get three parking spaces. So this is the garage. This is the if you can see garage.
So then this is our building. Yes. Okay. So there is nothing to mitigate lights and windows and stuff to our building because we're here. So the there's an existing driveway there now. Yes.
And the driveway is proposed to remain. Yes. The only difference between what's there now and what's proposed is that this detached garage is going to remain. The the landscaping I'm referring to is mainly in front of both of the of the existing building and the proposed
building. We're not proposing any landscaping on the northerly property one. Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Any other questions? Yes, ma'am. If you'll take that mic, state your name, spell your last name and your address, please. My name is Carla Yanni. Last name Yan N
and I. I like the 334 summit place. Okay. Okay. So, um I have a couple of questions and if I'm asking a question that's outside the scope of this, somebody will tell somebody will tell me. Okay. So, the first could you put up the aerial view please?
The first show is relevant to this. So, the to talk about the rear of the lot and to say that the water runoff will run toward the rear of the lot. I think we need to point out here this is not a Hold on. As I said to you earlier and to
all the members of the public, this is an opportunity to I'm asking him a question. I haven't heard a question yet. Okay, I'm ready. When you say it runs to the back of the lot, I want you to be aware that the back this is not a typical arrangement where one backyard
leads to another backyard. This backyard leads to my question and my backyard. So when you talk about headlights, they're going into my kitchen. So it's not a typical scenario when you say back of the loft. Ma'am, the question more about the
runoff to the back of the loft. Tell me more. Could you please tell me more about the runoff at the back of the immediately runs into my backyard in my basement? That's the part that I'm unclear about. What is can you tell us
more about the engineering you've asked for among your among the 29 variances one of them is maximum impervious coverage it by the town is 40% you're asking for 73.99%.
That's a very big increase. So the question is what is the what is the effort that you have made with regard to the question of dream which is what I think the questioner is is fundamentally asking. So we I think that the plot plan would be a helpful
exhibit. So I understand that existing drainage conditions uh a portion of the lot drains to the front of the property, it drains to South Fourth Avenue and a portion of it drains to the rear of the
property. So what we propose to avoid adverse impacts to our surrounding areas and to maintain existing drain patterns is propose a subsurface infiltration basin or a dry well that's
going to be sized to capture and infiltrate the runoff from the roof. We provided soil testing to show that that infiltration subsurface infiltration basin should work as designed and intended.
The the portion of the of the lot that's flowing into your backyard is there's a there's a break point on the driveway where a portion of it and that and that break line matches what the existing break line is of the property right now.
So, so the the the the driveway drains to the front of the of the of the street and the remaining portion of it drains overland to the rear of the property. We we do
have a grass area between the the edge of the pavement and the common property line in question. And to preempt um any concerns, I don't think that our client would have any objection to proposing
additional landscaping in that back portion of the site to mitigate any type of headlights that are coming from the new driveway that's being proposed. And I think that grass area is going to capture, receive, and generally
infiltrate a lot of the storm water that is being created of the new impervious surface. Do you have another question? Yes, I do. A question. And if you don't mind, if you don't mind, you need to take the mic. Yep.
No problem. So, of the So, the new construction, the house, the two two building, two unit construction and the driveway um will cover 70% of the land. How much
of that is is is it all impervious? I mean, it's not at all compar is it comparative to the current amount of runoff if you're going to cover almost the entire plot with building and driveway. Thank you for that question.
So, the existing lot doesn't have impervious coverage. The roof area and pavement is considered fully impervious surface. grass. The the grass would be the portion of the property that isn't contained by the
building or the driveway. I I think that there was a question about um lot 30 and and what's going to be done? Well, the I think the essence of the question is are you mitigating the entirety of uh the uh extra runoff
that's going to be occurring as a result of the the structures that are going to be on block 30? And if so, is that going to be done by the drywalls or is there something else that needs to be done? So, the the drywall has been submitted
and reviewed, and I'm happy to work with the board engineer to satisfy any further concerns. As far as the driveway goes, uh, a portion of it flows to the street, a portion of it flows to the back. if there's additional drainage measures uh in the rear of the property
that the the that we can propose whether it's another yard inlet with some perforated pipe to to capture any runoff in the driveway. I I don't think you'd have any objections proposing that uh to to reduce any impact to the rear of the site.
Is there enough room in the rear of the of the site on block 30 to be able to do additional uh mitigation? I think that we could propose an additional system in this area. I would just request that we don't uh need to provide any additional
soil borings. We we have two soil test pits, you know, in the immediate vicinity. Uh I have no objection to doing, you know, just so that the record's clear, you're talking about on lot 30 on, I guess what we call the northerly portion of lot 30 near the near the rear of the property.
That's correct. Okay. Any other questions, ma'am? Um, oh, yes. Get the mic. Why don't you keep the mic until you're done? Just a point of clarification. Um, you
mentioned the ballards toward Now, were those at the side of the driveway or to the back of the driveway? And then you mentioned three feet from the rear of the lot. That was an increase from 2 four. Four. Excellent. Okay. So, um my
question is, is there enough space if you are able to do additional landscaping to prevent adverse impacts on the immediately adjacent land? So, my land is exactly adjacent to this. It happens to be on Summit Place, but it
abuts both of these properties. Is there enough space? Three feet doesn't seem like enough space to do the kind of landscape screening that I would hope for. No, I'm done. Just one quick question, ma'am. Yes. Is your lot behind these lots? Is that what
you're saying? Yes. My lot right here. There's no road in between. Got it. It completely abuts both of these. Understood. Thank you very much. [Music] There was one more question in the audience.
No, no, no. I don't think he's answered this question. Okay. So, That's we we we previously had the parking lot designed to be 2.4 feet off of that rear common property line. We
increased it to 3 feet uh in order to provide landscaping. What I would generally recommend is is that if we're planting, you know, green giant, you know, evergreen trees that are going to be six to eight feet tall at mature height and they're going to be green all
year round, not just during certain seasons. um that we space them at one and a half feet off center. And this is my personal opinion, I prefer when the the trees are staggered. I don't like when they're in a perfectly
straight line. I prefer to have them off center from each other. So, so yes, I I do think that if we're spacing the trees staggered one and a half ft on center that it will adequately buffer, you know, headlights from a residential
neighborhood going into into that property. Additionally, I don't think we would have any objection to proposing sixoot fencing um along the rear property line if that was something desirable for uh for this resident. Any
other questions? I would ask that you not participate. Excuse me. No. No. That I I understand you have a question, but you are also a board member and therefore But I'm not participating.
But you're it's it is my opinion that when you end up stepping down, you are stepping down and therefore you should not be participating in the matter. If you if you want somebody else to ask a question uh on your behalf, that's fine. But I would ask that you not participate.
Thank you. Is there any other uh Yes, sir. Ask a question for me. Yeah. You need to get the mic and then identify yourself by stating your name. Oh, I would like to know if they've done a percolation test. Uh just more quietly in the back. Jumbos 48 Sky View Terrace
Park. Could you spell your last name? Sure. P is in Peter. O L O S. Um sir, just a couple of general questions for you. I assume that Oh, can you repeat the address, please? I'm sorry. We did not get the address. Oh, I'm sorry. 48 Sky View Terrace in
Park. I assume in your experience you build a lot of homes and engineering design. Oh, I'm sorry. No, no, we can sh You can take Oh, I'll take share the mic. I I prepared the site plans for many
single family homes and duplexes. Um, could you reiterate what the width of the driveway is? I believe you said it was seven and a half ft. The existing driveway as it currently today is 7 and a half ft on the
northerly lot, lot 29. And that's proposed to remain. And the driveway that you're proposing is how wide? 10 feet. And why is it 10 why is 10 foot selected? So 10 feet is a typical width of a driveway. Uh
just for comparison, a parking space per residential site improvement standards is 9 by8. So 10 ft is so that you have a little extra room on either side of the car while you're driving. A typical highway lane that you would see on the freeway uh is 12 feet. So 10 feet is is
typical for a driveway. And will 10 ft be a sufficient space for the two cars that are pulling in and having to park uh on a diagonal to be able to safely back out. So it's very it is not a
desirable situation for cars to back out onto South Fourth Avenue, but that is a very common element of vehicles in this neighborhood. If you if you look at most of the streets and most of the houses in the neighborhood, they do have to back out into South Fourth
Avenue just due to the the width of the driveways. And you believe the 10 foot that you've designed will provide sufficient safety for those people to be able to properly back out. I do. That's good. In that light, what is the safety factor for someone who's
trying to back out of a driveway that's 25% narrower than the 10 foot you recommend? So, this driveway, I think you're referring to lot 29. That's correct. You indicated it's a seven and a half foot driveway. You were proposing three additional spaces in the
back, which obviously signals a rather heavy use. It's actually 33% more than you're proposing with a 10ft wide driveway. So, my question to you is what's the safety factor for the three individuals parking in the backing down a 7 and 1/2t 50 foot long driveway? So,
originally there was a detached garage there and it wasn't necessarily used for parking, but it had the ability to provide parking. So, I don't think that we're necessarily adding or intensifying the use. Uh the the use is a three unit
dwelling that's proposed to remain three units. And when we remove this driveway, we actually added a key slot right here. That's what I call it. And this is a 24 foot idle, which is a typical width that you would see in a commercial plaza. So
these cars actually have the ability to back out and perform a K turn to pull out forward on the narrower driveway. And you indicated the balls are being installed. Is that correct? And the purpose of the BG is to protect what? The house. So we have the driveway uh we
have the 9 by8 spaces and then we have a 24 foot drive aisle and then we have three ballards proposed along the back of the house between the driveway and the house to make sure that no one backs into it by accident. So would you say that the intensity of
the use is the one of the reasons why you're requiring balance bers to install? No, I don't think that the intensity of the use is changing. It's a three-unit building now and we're proposing to keep it a three-unit building and and frankly
the reason that we're proposing the three spaces in lie of the detached garage is from the recommendation of the planner to provide sufficient off- streetet parking for the tenants of that use. In other homes that you indicated you have experience in design, do you
normally put ballards on the property to protect the home from someone driving up their driveway? Depends on the situation. Is that customary is my question. It was appropriate in this case. This is that's specific. I'm asking in a general sense as a designer and engineer. Do you normally My question is
is would you normally install Ballards in a design for a single family home or duplex in a normal situation? Is that customary? Question. Yes. Where appropriate. Okay. You want to answer the question? It's okay. That's not the question. The question is, is it customary? I think
that's you're a professional. You should give a professional opinion. Is it customary to do that? I think it's appropriate, you know, on a typical house, you may have a driveway pulling into a garage where you can have ballards protecting the driveway from the house, but yes, I would say it's
customary to protect structures from drive. I I understand why ballers are installed, but the question, and it's okay, you don't have to answer the question. The question simply was to the board just to just to note that it's not being answered is is are boers normally installed in the typical residential
setting for the design of I think the answer is no but I'm not the professional as you are so we'll we'll leave that where it is for the moment. Could you tell me the distance please between the uh outermost portion of the existing house on 29 and what the distance would be to the adjoining fence
line for the adjoining property at 224 South. That's to the south. That's correct. So, we have a 10.2 foot setback from the house to that common property line. The question, are you aware that there's
a fence line in the eastment along that property? So, the there is a 5-ft access easement that is on the property in question. And the access easement is, and I I'll defer to council on this, but I believe that the access easement is
written a way that improvements on this lot can't inhibit the access onto lot 31. Uh we're proposing a driveway and the pavements are going to connect to the existing pavers. So
the the our driveway does not prevent access of the neighborhood property to access their site. Great. Do you can you show on the diagram where the fence is for? Sure. So I have the existing conditions plan in the top corner. And here's the
five foot access eastment. So it's removed on my plot plan because it's proposed to be removed. So but it's supposed to be removed. No, the fence that exists in the east, how can that be removed?
Because the east property owner, you're just going to remove the fence as part of your design and not put it into your plan and discuss that. The the fence is on my client's property in question. It's part of the ease. That was
the fence isn't part of the It's a one question. Sure. I'm just trying to understand. I'm sorry, council. I'm just trying to understand there's an existing I understand what you're doing. All I'm asking is that when you ask a question, give them a chance to answer and then ask your next question. That's all.
So the fence isn't part of the easement. It's an access. So the fence was put there and the property has been vacant for a number of years. So there was no objection to the fence. Now that
improvements are being proposed and the fence inhibits our access into the property, it's being proposed to be removed. Okay. So, and maybe you don't know the answer to this. I can understand a question to your council. Are you saying today for the record that the fence
that's installed is illegal? It's it's not an illegal fence. The fence simply exists on our property and is proposed to be removed. exists on your property but is part of the adjoining property owner's ement. Correct. It's I would not say that the fence is
tied to the easement. The fence exists within the easement but the easement does not protect the right for the fence to exist in that spot. But so that's one thing that I think we need clarity on, right? Is what the rights are the joint property owner visa the easement to determine whether or not you have the right to actually remove or not. Is that
a fair question? I defer to council on. Okay, that's fair and we can have that answer. Um, so in the event that the fence is removed as you propose or whether it is stays or moves or not, are you proposing the driveway would run right along the current fence line that
exists there? You want to answer that? I just wanted to I just wanted to let you know that we can you know the property owner to the north is willing to to sit down and discuss these issues with you to come to a an agreement uh if you'd like to to sit down after the time is over.
Wait, excuse me. Excuse me. Um just for the clearance because we are supposed to make like finally the board will make a decision that is fair and legal for everybody. So, uh, could we just make this not as we talk about it afterwards?
Just let's finish this and make it clear inside this room what you're what you're actually doing. So, I'm I'm honestly I have to understand I have to say I'm not so really clear about the history of this fence myself. local property. So off fence, but um we probably like with
the help of the council may uh more clear understand if what is the current easement, how is the fence linked to that easement and what will the impact of the neighboring property owner of removing the fence and what is the
possible impact? Um will that easement continue to exist or are you accessing you're requesting a wave of the easement? I understand right now and what will be the impact of the for the neighboring property owner council you had mentioned that you said
that the property owner to the north is willing to talk to you that may be true but this is really not relevant because we're dealing with the property owner to the south no I meant my client would be willing to talk to him
meaning that the owner of 29 well yeah I I think that the chair is adequately and more adequately express what what rights uh you know your your engineer has indicated that that fence is not part of any requirement of the
easement. Uh this gentleman is saying how we know that I'm assuming that you have some proof with regard to the easement and if you haven't submitted that it might be helpful to provide that information. Uh we did submit the easement to the board along with the deed. Now now it's become a question. Yeah. So
you might want to highlight that uh in terms of where that uh where that easement is and what it may say in relation to the fence. I you know I don't know. I mean I'm suspecting it's but but we don't know that until we actually
and then the question the secondary question is whether or not the uh secondary question is whether or not uh there is going to be an impact on that access easement affecting the southernly property owner. So that may be the
secondary question that needs to be answered. Yes. Uh if the board wouldn't mind, we get to have a recess so I can pull out the uh the deed in question. And yeah, I suspect you don't have it just like that. Not just like that. Council like me just have two more quick questions. This
uh if if you want to continue on and uh it's unrelated to the fine this issue. Keep on going. Thank you. Um could you just you mentioned that the current dwelling has three apartments in it, correct? Three units. Yes. You know how many bedrooms are in total
in that house? I don't, but ownership could provide testimony to that later in the in the presentation. Okay. And the two units that you're proposing have how many bedrooms? Each unit has three bedrooms and our architect planner can provide testimony to to that fact. Also,
someone I guess you don't know how many bedrooms are in the current I I don't have how many units or how many bedrooms are available this year, but we we do have that information available. I thought you did a sewer flow study that didn't tell you does that just tell you by bathrooms or by bedroom sewer flow study.
So what I did was estimate the sewer flow from the proposed unit into the new system. So the way that that calculation is done is that it assumes that a duplex with three bedrooms provides 300 gallons per day.
Two units provide 600 gallons per day. So I estimated this flow. I could estimate this flow as well, but it's an existing service into the system. It's not a a new connection that would be subject to review and approval by the burough sewer water authority.
True. I just think it would be informative for the board to understand the complete impact of the overall site development of existing conditions versus those proposed with respect to that infrastructure. So that may be your position, but why don't you continue on with questions rather than commentary?
That's fair. Happy to do so. Um, last item I wanted to ask you about is you mentioned the apron. Is there is that used for parking currently the apron and the right ofway? No, I don't not to my knowledge. If it if it is, it shouldn't be. Parking
should be contained fully within the site limits. And and I think there was a question before also what one of the reasons that we can't use this drive aisle for additional parking is because both spots rely on its common access.
And since these units would be under separate ownership, one unit can't block the other unit in. So that's why we have the two spots designated in the back of the site for both to access. Going back to my uh original comment about and just
calling upon your experience in this as well. Hopefully the response is is you know a little bit more clear or defined in in a normal situation when you're constructing a residential home. Um is a
dry well usually something that's designed as a part of that? Yes, it is today. Yes. Okay. And why is the drywall being proposed here? It is. Why is it being proposed?
At the recommendation of the board engineer. And do you know why? You may not be able to speak to the board, but is it because of concerns about the runoff from the additional development and the previous coverage? When you compare
pre-existing storm water runoff to post-development storm water runoff, it's a function of surface cover. So pvious versus impervious. So yes, there will be an increase of runoff because we're
proposing more impervious surface than there was previously. A way that we reduce that impact to surrounding areas is by proposing BMP, storm water infrastructure and grading the site accordingly. So we
designed the drywill based on RSIS standards which we did soil testing for. We found that it was sufficiently infiltrating into the into the ground. We did a percolation test to confirm that. And we also um
we also have no objection to providing the additional storm water infrastructure to address any concerns from the rear property owner. Okay. And you did do a park test, you said? Yes, that's been submitted to the board. It's on the plan right here. Okay. Wonderful. Last question for you.
Um with respect to the you have the two angle parking spaces in the year, correct? That's correct. So, just to recap a couple of the highlights of this, I just want to make sure I'm accurate. I'm asking the question if I'm being accurate. We have ballers that are being
installed in the back to protect the building. Correct. Yes. There are three spaces being put in along the northernmost side of the property that need to access and regress through the 7 and 1/2t drive. Right. Correct.
That's right. And then you have two additional spaces that you're proposing on the southerntherly side along 10 foot as you indicated a more standard size driveway. Correct? That's right. And you mentioned RSIS is my last question. What's the RSIS standard for
threebedroom apartment respective apartment? I believe it's two spaces and I think it's 2.2 the top of my head. So according to RSIS standards, there should be a minimum of four and a half to five probably five
spaces for this dwelling and you're proposing two. That's that's correct. We requested um relief from RSIS standards. Okay. As part of this application, it's all the questions I have. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
And maybe um just to just to respond uh maybe the thing to do is to go through the questions of the public of your witness and then we'll take a short break so you can end up getting what you need. That's fine with me. Okay. Thank you. Sir, if you come up uh again, we need to
get you on the mic. If you'd be kind enough to state your name, spell your last name and your address. Don Stern. Ser 317 Summit Flex. Morin, did you get that? Yes. Okay. And I wanted to ask you if you have,
if you don't mind, could you speak up because you threw your mask on your mask off? That's better. Okay. Um, have you considered the possibility of runoff from the roof going into the Highland Park sewer
system uh as opposed to just impervious surface? What? When you say sewer system, you mean storm sewer, not the storm sewer. So, I don't believe that there's an inlet uh in front of our site to tie into the
most desirable situation when grading a property is to direct everything to the street. That that is just a a principle that we try to abide by when we're grading a site. Unfortunately,
we have to build with the land and not on it. We can't force water to go where it isn't already going. So, as much as we can adjust the grading to direct everything to South Fourth Avenue, which would eventually drain
into the storm sewer system, a portion of it has to go to the backyard because it was going back there already. Um the alternative would be building the site up, you know, building a retaining wall around the perimeter of the site and
forcing everything to go to the front, which isn't it's it's not good design practice to build a three or four foot wall under side and rear property line. Uh it it's that that's not gener. We try
to design efficiently uh to to fit the land. Can can the driveway be graded in such a way that it does drain onto into south forth and into the storm sewage system? Uh because you were saying some of it would go that way and some of it
would go toward the back. And is there a way of grading the driveway such as that more of it would go toward? I I think that we can propose um I think we can propose curving around
the rear perimeter of our parking area so that everything as much as feasible is draining towards the street. I I I think we can accommodate that in our design. But then but then you have to don't you have to then uh re re change the
grading? The mere fact that you have curving uh is going to potentially stop it. But to to get it to go uh from the back to the front, the curbing is not going to do that. You have to do some regrading to be able to We would we would So, we'd have to the
great the the curb would function as a gutter where storm water would hit the pavement. It would flow over land to hit the curb and then the curb would direct the storm water as a gutter to where we intended to. So yes, we would it would
have to be a combination of curb to capture the water so it doesn't run off the pavement onto the grass and grading to direct it to where we need it to. So there would be some how much of of a grade differential you're talking couple of inches, couple of feet.
So when you're designing a a gutter um you said at the bottom of curve rate here and 50 feet down you set a bottom of curve rate. generally want to have at least a half a percent. Um, which would be 0.5 feet 6 in over a 100 foot difference.
And that's what you're talking about here. Yes. Um, can you just just to follow up on that on your plan for um log 29? You have a yard drain, a hazard drain, too. That's an existing yard drain. Uh, I I I
I don't know where it goes. So that would be helpful to know. I'm just saying it would be very helpful to know where the strains do. There's one more question from the public. Very short. Uh Carlani 334 summit place. Just a
quick question following up on the percolation test. Um, can you um explain I I think I understand how the well works, but I'm not convinc If you could answer how the drainage if it comes off
of the roof where that goes in the in the case of a storm. And I'm also um if you could explain about the percolation test and how it works because I just know from my experience our backyard is a big hunk of
rock. It's not you know it's not very perky. Thank you. Sorry that wasn't worded very well but it's not very can I can I repeat that phrase myself? Not very your yard is not very perky. I just like the phrase just yeah grading toward our backyard is
completely understood. So the way our subsurface infiltration basin works is that your different roof lines are going to direct runoff, storm water runoff into the gutters. The gutters are going
to transport that water to a vertical roof leader. That vertical roof leader is going to run down the house and then it's going to go underground. And then once it goes underground, it's going to be conveyed with 6 inch pipe at a
minimum half a percent slope into this storm water trench. And what this storm water trench is, it's a three, in this case, it's a 3 foot wide by 2 ft tall. So for reference, this is 3 ft x 2t. And
it's going to have a 12in pipe right in the middle of it. And it's going to be 12 ft long. So the storm water that's collected from the roof from the gutters gets transported down into this infiltration basin. And this basin is going to store
the water in the pipe and it's going to flow into the bed of clean stone through the perforations in the pipe and infiltrate into the ground. The soil testing we did was in the location of our proposed system and we had
infiltration numbers of 2.4 in per hour and 4.8 in per hour and I believe that would be C classified as either K2 or K3 soil. Uh so when you're doing your infiltration tests, you generally take
that number and you divide it by half and as long as that design rate compared to the tested rate is greater than 1 in per hour, the soils are considered to be suitable for infiltration. So, so we are talking just for us to
understand um so we're talking about a regular storm event and have you made any calculations cuz storms are growing like about a really heavy storm like 100 year or 500 year storm. So the state has very specific standards
for storm water development that's considered a major storm water development. And what a major storm water development is is an is a development that proposes one quarter acre of new impervious area or one acre
total of disturbance. The lot that we have in question is 4600 square ft which is less than a quarter acre. So statutoily we're not considered a major storm water development and we're not held to those
state standards. When you're when you're talking about specific storm events, the major storm water development would say that you need to meet the quantity reduction criteria for the 2, 10, and 100year storm. In this case, we're not held to
that standard because we're not a major storm water development. In this case, what we use is the RSIS standard for proposing one linear foot of this trench for every
100 square ft of roof area. So you're telling just for me to understand. So you're telling us that uh you're not looking into any major storms because you're not required to because this is just a small property, right? because we're not a major storm
water developer. The thing is that in this situation with the neighborhood situation, it will be majorly impactful for the neighboring property, right? So that's kind of what we as a as a board as a zoning board are concerned about. What's the impact of the neighbors of this development and
therefore it's a concern. So it will be helpful to understand what is the um what will be the impact on the neighboring property for uh for a major storm. Even if you're not required to standard wise, I'm not sure if something wrong,
but for the operation, you know, there there's there's some issues here that you're raising. Uh if they are not required under the statute under the the state statute to meet a major storm standard, but they are meeting the RSIS
standard. U there may be a valid position that they will take and I'll defer. I'm not going to make the case on behalf of the outer, but I I just suggest that there are standards that have to be met and if they don't meet the standards,
uh they're going to have to either seek a variance from that or a waiver from that. Uh here they seem to be telling you that in fact, and we'll hear from uh from Bruce uh as to whether or not what uh this gentleman is saying as an engineer, okay, is in fact accurate. and
then we'll get a better idea as to where where you can go with the information that you're looking for. All right, good. One last question. Hold on. There may be other persons that have questions and maybe not.
No. Well, yeah. Well, take the other mic. Let the engineer engineer mic. Um, just a quick question. you mentioned about the RSIS standards. The RSIS standards that you're um indicating you
would follow for storm drainage. Just curiously, is that the same RSIS standards that you just determine you don't need to follow with respect to parking? So RSIS, the residential site improvement standards is sites criteria
for both parking and for for infrastructure. So you intend to follow it for storm infrastructure but don't intend to follow it for the parking. Our planner is going to provide you know the necessary relief to show why the you know we were not substantially
detrimenting anything. I didn't ask that question. I'm saying are you following said you're following? He's answered that question. He's answered that question. They are not council. Can I can I interrupt you a second? No, sir. No you can't. I can't. He's answered the question. You asked the question as to whether or not they are meeting the standard for student.
I didn't hear a yes or no. And well, I thought I heard him say I didn't hear that. Maybe you could repeat it and then I'll stand corrected. Okay. The RSIS standards, do you are you meeting it for for drainage but not meeting it for parking is my question. It's a yes or a no. Yes,
that's the answer. Now I got the answer. Thank you very much. Yeah, when you put in I'm sorry I don't have all the plants in front of me and it's a little bit far away over there. I don't know if you're going to come back for
another date if it's possible to have a second uh set for this side of the room. You go. Thanks. I I just wanted to ask if there was consideration of consolidating and just using one drive. So, we we did receive that
recommendation. And the reason that we didn't design this with one driveway is that if we were we would end up needing a we would end up needing a cross access
easement between the two properties. And generally when you're subdividing land um or proposing development of any nature, you you want to design it in a way so that you don't need to rely on someone else's property to
to access your own property. Um you know in the future 20 30 years from now that cross access eastman is going to exist whether our client owns the property or not. So generally we we try to avoid
designing properties that need to rely on easements in order to function. The same way that you could put a sewer easement through your property and now you can never touch that portion of your property. You try to keep those things in the right of way as as much as practical. So that that was the reason
that we thought that the common driveway that needed to rely on a crossaxis easement wasn't desirable in the situation. So you did think about it. We did. So, so how much imperous structure uh how how much diff additional pvious
would be there if you only had one driveway say going down the middle and pulled up those other driveways. So, it would be it'd be a trade-off and and I don't I don't have the number exactly in front of me. Not notwithstanding what he was trying to say, why don't you continue with your
answer as an engineer? You would be decreasing the the driveway in one of the locations, but you'd be increasing it in the back of the site. Uh so with regards to the brake line of the property, I think
there would be more impervious area in the rear of the site as opposed to being more balanced towards the front and rear of the site. So, I think you'd be increasing impervious area in the backyard, creating more parking area where there currently isn't, even if you're eliminating one of these
driveways um at the front half of the property. I don't I don't have the exact number, but I I think it would be comparable in impervious coverage. And how would the how would the alternative uh impervious coverage in the rear affect drainage and drainage not drainage calculations, but drainage
infrastructure, if at all? We we we didn't design that and in in order for me to adequately I I I don't know how to grade the site that I haven't designed yet. Okay. So, does your um proposed application require an additional curb
cut for the new driveway? It does. It needs a new curb cut on the Southerntherly property side. So, that will also be heating up an additional parking space that's off street from the from the block. I believe we're going to be able to get
one I pro probably one space in between the driveways and there's probably one space being eliminated as a result of the new driveway. Just to be fair, I I'll just say I went there three different times and there
was I I was surprised because I thought that parking would be a premium there and there were spots on the street uh each of the three times I went there. So, I'll just share that in general. Sure. But that's not a that's not a parking study, of course. Um, it's just a a
observation lay observation. Um, okay. I'm sorry if anyone else. Oh. Oh, maybe you're the wrong one to ask. So, this is a 100% affordable project. Not the right one to ask. Yes, it is.
uh what's appearing in the data description. It's my understanding and and maybe this will be clarified. It is it is not a 100% affordable project under the color regulations. It's under different regulations. Am I correct about that or is it I I want to get a clarification on
that because I did talk to our planner. I want to get your take on that. It's under the uh jurisdiction of the county program using f some federal funds. So the the proposed dwelling is not subject to the uh uniform housing
affordability controls. It's one of the exempt programs that are exempt from that. So they have their own their own criteria for the for the new. So therefore in effect what what that really means is that the bureau is not in a position to be able to take credit for these additional affordable.
Don't know the answer to that question. I'm reasonably certain that that I am. What what is the period of affordability? It depends upon the circumstance. 30-year restriction. It's now up to 40 years for um No, no, I'm messing with their their actual
Oh, their doing a 30-year 30 years because they're using national trust fund funds from the federal government and their requirement is 30 years, right? So, to the extent we might give you uh let's just see some kind of break
because it's an all affordable project if it is an all affordable project. um that ends in 30 years, right? And and we're still left with sort of a messy construction that maybe we're giving you because we're we're we're
uh sympathetic to affordable applications. Uh what happens after 30 years? It's just going to be a regular apartment. It could be the restrict who knows the restrictions could be renewed. Um it
could go it could fall if they were renewed it would fall under the U-Hack regulations and be regulated for there uh and then you do a new deed restriction for another for another period. But that's not guaranteed and that's over in the future.
It's not guaranteed. No. under this um what Richard was speaking with you about whatever the alternative toa that you're working with the feds on um does it allow a municipality to um
the same rights that mellas have under the uh hack uh procedures to to essentially uh the answer in my opinion is no other words I don't think based upon what I just heard from council I don't think
that these allegations qualify for affordable credits uh on behalf of the uh bureau with regard to the co there's not I I use the term color there's no color anymore under the affordable housing regulations
that's no have I researched that no but I think that they have specific regulations that are very strict and uh if these uh these are for veterans which is obviously a very good Uh but it turns out that uh and
council's right. It is not unusual. I expect that it is not uh it is a situation where municipalities will end up seeking to get renewals of the restrictions after they're terminated. Could that happen here? It could. Is it guaranteed? No. Uh but is it likely that
the burrows are going to take advantage of these uh five units as a credit to their affordable housing obligation? It doesn't sound to me as though that's going to be the case. And uh and councelor, I want to correct my answer. Yes.
Yeah. Yes. The uh the bureau would receive credits for these new units because they're administered by DCA. So, all right. Well, if you could just verify that, that's kind of important, I think. Yes. All right. Thank you. when you said that there was there are different regulations under your program
versus the and again I hate to use the term COA but you know what I'm talking about under the affordable housing regulations uh that that are now in place or soon to be in place uh it would be helpful to know and so try to verify that the bureau would be in a position
to take credit for uh affordable housing under its oblig affordable housing obligation as opposed to a situation where they could not right and I can I can look for uh the citation to where that would show the credits. Thank you very much. Could I ask one other question? Does a
proposed construction meet the adaptability requirements for portable housing? I want to defer to architect on that. Yeah, I I think that may be something that maybe he's going to be able to
answer that, maybe not. Today, are they two town houses or is it a first floor and a second floor? first floor and second floor. So, how would somebody in wheelchair be able to occupy the second floor? I'm going to defer to the architect on the Okay. ADA accessibility.
Okay. Any other questions? Questions for the public or the board? Thank you, sir. Uh we had asked before if we could have be a uh Sure. a brief recess. It's up to the board.
Yes. Like uh like five minutes. Is that good enough? 10. Uh 10 minutes. 10 minutes. 10 minutes. Okay. We So we uh rejoin at 9:00. Thank you. [Music]
All right. Um, welcome back everybody. So, actually speaking of my colleagues on the board, it's already 9:00 and we would like to continue until 10 and see if we can have enough clearance uh for all the open questions that we
have right now. And you would like to continue with the experts uh from the board to follow with that witness and then come probably when they are satisfied with the answers and have the next witness speak. [Music]
recap. We're asking questions at the end here. Yeah, sure. And if you don't mind taking the mic. Thank you. Did you get the audio? You're not in it now. Okay. I'm going to ask questions for the
of the engineer. Uh so during your testimony, you indicated that you be willing to shift as condition approval the parking lot on lot number 29. I believe it is 0.6 feet to get a minimum 3 foot. Yes, that's correct. And you've
only put in evergreen landscaping. Um I heard one and a half foot. Yes, that's correct. Everything is more important condition or consideration here. Agree to work with you on the final
landscaping plan and uh along with consultation with the change advisory committee. I would recommend um I heard testimony that about a fence. Can you just reiterate or clarify for my memory where that proposed fence would be located? We we
don't have a fence proposed right now. When we were answering questions of the owner of lot 54 uh regarding buffering and landscaping, we we advised that if it was desirable, we could put a sixoot
fence up along the rear property line, which would be on the west. Uh I'm not sure if that's a desirable situation or whether the landscaping is sufficient. And uh you know, we we're happy to work with the the owner either
way. I I suppose my reaction to that would be ultimately up to the board to decide that but I think on behalf of the board I would welcome the neighbors feedback on that. My question regarding the fence and the landscaping is do we have any mechanisms to protect them from
the motor vehicles. My memo had recommended wheel stops. We we have no objection to wheel stops putting being put in. uh you know essentially we don't want the the vehicles overhanging beyond the edge of
the the parking area. So the wheel stops would have the the vehicle stop from overhanging beyond the parking area. uh a as we were in our recess. I I think it's also uh
ve very possible to curb the parking area in the rear of the site and to contain the runoff from the blacktop to go completely onto Southport Avenue. So, I
think that there is a way to adjust the grading uh to prevent that new impervious surface from going to the rear of the site to the front of the site. From my initial evaluation, I think I can grade the site. Um if necessary, we we can put in, you
know, inlets with pop-up emitters to to pipe it there if necessary. Uh was there any consideration for this? I don't think this is my memo, but perhaps converting some of the park spaces, if not all of them, to gravel
and leave the paved area for the dry with respect to storm water runoff. Yes. So when we talk about storm water runoff, you have impervious surfaces that typically have a curve number of 98. And the the very simple way of
explaining curve numbers is that the higher the curve number, the more runoff there is. So a curve number of 98 means that this isn't exact, but 98% of the water that hits that surface is going to flow downstream. So pavement buildings
have a 98 curve number. Uh gravel would have an 85 curve number and then the grass area may have a you know a 50 or 60 curve number. So as far as reducing storm water runoff,
yes, slightly. the the D would consider gravel a motor vehicle impervious surface. Uh it would it would the D would treat it similarly to asphalt from a from a maintenance standpoint. It's not really desirable on a lot of this
size to have gravel just because you're you're going to have to maintain it. It's going to be subject to, you know, falling out. Uh you know, it's not as stable of a surface as pavement is. And and I think with the uh with the curve around that pavement area and really
containing that runoff from the from the driveway and getting into the street, I I think that alleviates some of the concerns with respect to storm water runoff. I'm sorry to interrupt. Could you do me a favor? Could you move closer to him so we get you on camera because you're too far away. The camera only gets him or
doesn't get you like that. Sure. We'd love to have you on camera. Love to be on camera. Uh so I guess the answer is no. No problem. We we would request that all the parking area remains asphalt.
Uh the two label TP1 TP-2 they're seepage pits. They're proposed on lot 30. Is that correct? So TP1 and TP2 are test pits. I'm sorry. So those are the physical
locations that our geotechnical engineer performed a soil analysis on our site. Can you clarify where the seage based? So we're proposing a subsurface infiltration basin in the location that
test pit one and test fit two were performed and there's a rectangle surrounding that test pit. That's the the footprint of that subsurface infiltration basin. So that is meant to receive the roof
leaders of the proposed defense. Yes. And what about any infiltration measures for the existing family? Same proposed were there's none existing to my knowledge and none is proposed.
Sorry, I heard uh actually appreciate uh the board member Rothberg bringing up the asking a question about an alternative driveway arrangement. My memorandum from June 17, 2025, at least for purposes of record
indicated that we during I guess we can call technical assistance design review offered three different options uh with the centralized driveway being just one of them. So is it from your experience that a shared driveway is
not typical of a single two family? Um I I would agree it's not typical. It's not necessarily uncommon. It's they're cross access easements on multiple different properties. But when I as a designer, we
try to lay out sites to limit the need of one site accessing another. Especially since that this is these aren't two single family dwellings with two units. You know, there's uh three units in the existing building and a
duplex in the proposed building. So, you don't want to concentrate that traffic into one driveway. It'd be better suited over two different driveways. Not that it can't be done, it's just general design criteria. That's how we try to accommodate design.
So, you're telling us that the board um planner suggested something that would significantly reduce improvement surface. Would you say, but it's like you you didn't do you didn't consider this because it is not done or maybe
unpleasant for the future if you want to sell it off or something because because this made it would be a difference. I'm asking because a number of our questions you're raising are about permanent surfaces. Certainly the neighbors are raising about permanent surfaces and uh
so is there a chance that you could prove to us that this is not a proper use and that we should consider this when granting variances that you're requesting? Sure. So, as far as three different locations, sorry.
Um, we have the 7 and 1/2t wide driveway. It's an existing condition and we're not proposing to change it, but as it was noted, it's it's not the typical width of a driveway and it wouldn't be
my recommendation to direct more traffic into the this driveway. Um, as far as putting a driveway in between the buildings, there's a utility pole there. Can a utility pole be moved? Yes. But typically, if we can design with the
lane, not on top of it, and not have to relocate infrastructure to accommodate our design, we try to avoid it. Um, the third design, putting the 10- foot, um, putting all the traffic through the southerntherly driveway. Uh it's like I
as I mentioned, we we have five units that are accessing these two lots. Spreading it out over two driveways as opposed to one concentrated driveway, I think is a better use of the land. Um generally speaking, although it's an
undersized lot, one lot, one driveway, two lots, two driveways. Okay. Thank you. uh regarding the subly driveway that's proposed uh what is immediately adjacent to the cell uh and an existing driveway. So from the
street what would you see between two the the driveways are going to be adjacent to each other. There's a small there's a small strip between the existing apron to the south and our proposed apron to um servicing the
southern lot. So you know what the setback is from the southern lot line of subject property to the building to the south? Uh 10.2. Oh, that's on your property, but to the building on the south.
I I don't have that exactly. It looks to be This is an estimate, but less than 10 ft. Maybe similar at 10 ft. Yeah, it looks like it could be eight or nine feet. Uh so what you're proposing
is to repave part of the easement and ultimately there'll be about 18 ft of pavement between buildings. No grass strip. Agreed. Um I heard a comment about I appreciate the turnaround space that allows people
to turn around on block number 29 and exit uh towards south. Why was that arrangement not considered for? We we just simply don't have the space
to accommodate that. Um essentially we would need we we the existing lot is proposed to be 37 ft whereas proposed when I say existing lot I mean lot 29 and lot 30 is 31 ft. So that that
additional six feet helps with that driveway. So you can't fit two heading spaces in the rear line just like the other property spaces with 31.67 ft you need 18 ft of pavement uh not counting any buffer that you
might want to create. Uh I think part of the justification of the concept I was considering 7.4 in the memorandum was to create a condition where people can back out but don't have to back out onto South Florida. I I I
I'm looking at it. I think it's a feasible solution. You know typically we have a 9 foot wide spot and a 5 foot key slot. So 9 18 uh 23 and we have a 31T wide. I think I think it could be
accommodated especially if we created a buffer. You know, we have you know 23 versus 31 that's 8 ft to put a 4ft buffer on either sideyard. I I once I start sketching it there may
be something you need but [Music] and just to finish off a storm water. Sorry, I'm stealing a thunder boost, but uh not if not having a gravel parking spaces, but you are providing at least a
three-foot buffer with every landscaping. Could there be consideration for expanding the buffer to 5T or more? Given that I heard you say that 24 foot drive is typically a commercial drive width, sounds like we can get away with
22 feet, maybe 20 feet for residential. I think there's room to increase that profit further and perhaps consider a rain garden at the head of the park spaces. When you say the the rain garden would be in the rear in the rear propert
say five or six foot. Right. Okay. Got it. I'm looking for ways to try to mitigate the issues of storm water management doesn't qualify for major development. Um there's a concern is an environmental commission letter uh as well as some neighbors have come to me who know much
more about these issues. So, as far as the 24 foot aisle goes, yes, it's a typical two-way aisle, commercial space for commercial. For commercial, right? And and I and I get that this is
residential, but the the 24 ft doesn't just serve for two-way traffic. It serves to allow a vehicles backing out to perform a K turn without multiple points to their K. So, yes, 20 ft is more than sufficient.
You're not going to have two-way traffic going in at the driveway. Um, you know, if someone's pulling in, whoever's pulling in is going to have the precedence and whoever's in the back of the lot is going to have to wait until they pull out. Um, I think what may end up happening is can a 22 foot Iowa be
accommodated? Yes. Uh, we and you just bigger vehicles may have to do multiple points in order to get out of that parking lot. Um, and I think it I as an engineer, I'd rather have the proper width turnaround
area behind the 9 by18 space. Um, and have the three foot buffer which we're providing. Uh, but but we're open to recommendations from the board if that's something important. 5T is important. We could take it we could find some somewhere to make up the the two feet.
So to be clear, you would prefer hidden parking spaces with turnaround space in that. Yes. Torque for for this lot really enough is three foot really enough for well they're typically spaced you know
three feet on center. I I said one and a half feet as a dense grouping but three feet is that's between them but they get wide right. Well, the idea is that the the arm length of the of the trees overlap
each other to provide that full wall of coverage. Like if you have spacing, then it doesn't provide the intended buffer, but we could we could space it more or less based on the your your professional
recommendations. My opinion is 3 spacing is good to create a green wall. The concern is the depth and and we have we're proposing 3 ft in in that area. There's a discussion about 5.
Yes. Can I um ask a question about this? So earlier you said that the residents in the existing buildings don't use the driveway today.
on lot 30. Yeah. Lot 29. Lot 29. Lot 29. Lot 29. I I would rather have ownership give testimony to the specific use. I I don't know if every tenant has a vehicle, but
it's my understanding that there there's a bus station in the area. I think a there's a grocery market in the area. Um there is more pedestrian traffic. Um it is a suitable walking area. So, I I don't know exactly how many tenants have cars um or what friends and families
have cars, but it's it's Was there any consideration to reducing the number of parking spaces to create more surface area? So, we're we're already
under parked. RSIS says that we're supposed to provide the two about spaces per each unit and we're proposing one per unit. Um so yes, we could provide less but then we'd
be requesting a greater relief from the parking standard. clear on the uh parking. I think it was as of August or September of 2024. I believe the minimum parking standards that we're all familiar with became max.
Um in the three family building, it's not a detach single or two family subject to garden apartment parking requirements. I believe it's 5.9 parking spaces required. Two exist presently, three are proposed, one for each unit. Um I say 5.9 because my understanding
and I think I put in the report uh there's a one threebedroom unit because two bedroom units a one bedroom u I guess we'll get confirmation on that what's proposed are two threebedroom
apartments for purposes of RSI it's single really well really it's two single family dwellings department three parking spaces as our three bedrooms require two parking spaces each total for it. So the maximum
that can be required by the board for that matter is going to be 9.9 parking spaces. That's the maximum. It used to be the minimum. Um but it's up to the board to accept the lower parking standard. So
we're already lower. I actually asked one parking space station put in on lot number 29. Um but to that point uh who will be giving testimony regarding uh whether the these alternative department standards should be approved
our our planner is going to provide planning testimony. I think that's it for engineering question. Sorry. Um, in the lot number 30 proposed duplex, there's a proposed AC unit.
We we showed it and we're not exactly sure what the heating HVAC for the buildings are going to be, whether it's central air or mini splits um or an alternative form. If there ends up being a second one, we'll show a second one on
the plan. Okay. I think one of them may end up being located in the attic or the roof area. Okay, I have questions. How you doing?
I got some questions regarding primarily the storm water management is my concern. U my item number six speaks to that need in a general sense is the applicant should take all measures necessary to prevent storm water runoff
from negatively impacting the adjacent properties. What we've heard so far from the neighbors as well as from yourself is there is a good chance that the increase in runoff could have a negative impact. There's a couple things I'd like to
bring up regarding that. I know you did a perk test, but I don't think we have calculations that demonstrate the size of the infiltration basins based on the runoff and the per. Did you submit anything? I don't believe I have it. So,
our detail is based on an RSIS detail that doesn't rely on a specific storm event. uh does it's not based on two 1000year storm event based on a function of what area
is contributo to whatever basin we're designing. It's an RSIS standard that states that uh two linear feet of recharge trench which is the detail that's summarized shall be provided for every 100 square feet of building area.
So that's that the calculation is within the RSIS detail. If there's a different storm event that you'd like the new roof recharge designed to, I'm I'm happy to accommodate. I I don't know if there's
anything in the Burough ordinance that necessarily requires residential improvements to propose a drywill of a certain size. I I'm not I'm not familiar with any specific plot plan standards. Um so I think it would just
be at the board's jurisdiction about what storm, but I'd be curious if other single family homes in town were held to a specific standard or new new houses need to propose a drywall of a certain size. So let's start off with the the RSIs.
You earlier gave testimony that this is not a major development. Am I correct? That's correct. So under the burrow ordinance, if it's not a major development under the D reg, if it's not a major development, it then you go down to the burrow ordinance, not
to the RSIs, but to the burrow ordinance. And the burrow, as I recall, adopted the more stringent of the two uh ordinance model ordinances that could be adopted and comply with the
I'm going to ask you when we come back with revised plans to look into the burrow ordinance and specifically design these improvements to comply with that. In answer to your question, we always try to get a connection to a storm
sewer. And if people do a base, if if they can't do that, then we very often will ask for a base, some sort of storm water management system. And that's on houses, not where the driveways running into the
backyard and has parking in the back. So, this is actually more than just a residential dwelling in terms of storm and weather management. And then in reviewing the architectural plans, and I realize you're not the architect, but as it relates to the storm water management, looking at the roof, it
would appear that the gutters that will run from along the two sides of the house. And it's very possible that those gutters could be pitched in a manner to dup or more closely duplicate the overland flow patterns that exist
today rather than pushing all of that water to the back to a basin which over time might choke or under a serious rain event like some of the storms we've had in Highland Park and cause flood just even with the curbs they're overflow and wind up in other people's property. So,
I'm asking that you take a closer look at what we just talked about and come back to the board with something that addresses this. Does it close your questions? Any other questions from the uh board members at the moment? So we would be ready to hear the
testimony of your second expert or actually the the the document that you were looking for. Yes, I uh I have a copy of the uh the easement believe submitted to the board. Um with respect to the fence, I'm just
going to read directly from the document. Um the grantee which is the owner of the property to the south 31 uh lot 31 31
granted at sle cost and expense shall reinstall a new chain link fence at a height of 4 feet and obtain at their cost and expense such permits as may be necessary to complete such reinstallation.
So, in my reading of that, the the fence is owned by the applicant and not by the neighboring property owner and that the neighboring property owner was required to reinstall it as part of obtaining this the easement from the
prior owner. I'm sure you submitted that, but could you uh do me a favor and resubmit that just I will s if not to the board generally to me. Yes. And I can look at the whole the whole document. Absolutely. So that clarifies that for the moment.
Correct. So if we don't have any more questions to the engineer then do we want to invite the Yeah. Then my next witness uh would be Lewis Delucia and uh he's a principal of
the applicant. I'll call him up. Um, what do we have? Who lost the other bike? We don't have I think it's over in the professionals. So, you swear affirm the testimony that you're about to hear will be the truth. So, help me go. I do. Would you be kind to state your name,
your last name, and the location of your office, please? My name is Lewis D. Luchia. It's D E L U CIA and my office is located at 141 Ran Avenue, Highland Park. Thank you. You can have a seat if you want or you
can you can stand. It's up to your be careful the chair. Uh how are you associated with the applicant sir? So I'm the founder and executive director of Garden State Home also known as GSH Inc. and are doing business as
name is Garden State Home. And can you describe uh the nature of uh the Garden State Home business? Yeah, we're a nonprofit organization registered with IRS of the 501c3. We're founded in 2007. And where is your office located? It's
it's located on the main street in 141 Ren Avenue above the Muse Salon. And and that's in Highland Park. That is in Hal Park. Okay. And uh you along with the application, you provided a narrative explanation of the affordable housing programs that apply
to both the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling. Correct. Yes. I'm just going to ask you to to summarize um some of the features of those programs. Um can you describe the affordable housing program that applies to the existing dwelling on lot 29?
Yeah, the existing dwelling is a three family building with it's affordable housing for income eligible families that are earning 30% of AMI or less. And we purchased that property and with assistance from the Middle Sex County
Housing First Capital Fund. Okay. And uh how many uh bedrooms are in each unit of that dwelling? Yeah, the property has three apartments and it consists of a three-bedroom, a two-bedroom, and a one-bedroom apartment. And uh do you also provide support
services or counseling uh to the tenants? We do. And is that provided on-site or at your office? That's provided off-site at the office. And is the existing uh dwelling deed restricted? It is de restricted. Okay. And you know how long it is? It's 15 years.
Okay. And you know when that would would expire? Probably in about 12 to 13 years, I would think. Okay. And do you know if any of the uh the tenants in that um dwelling have vehicles?
My understanding is that none of the tenants have a vehicle, but we just moved in a new uh new single mom with her her children in. Um I'm I'm pretty certain that she does not have a vehicle. And can you uh describe the affordable housing program that will apply to the
new drawing? Yeah, we plan to uh to construct a two family home consisting of two three-bedroom apartments for veterans who are income eligible. also 30% of the area median income. Okay. And we we would utilize the National
Housing Trust Fund from DCA to purchase that property in conjunction with the Middle Sex County Housing First Capital Fund. Okay. Do you know whether the uh burrow would receive uh so-called COA credits for the new units? Yeah, DC actually
took control of that process and it is my understanding and I had to uh speak to Francis behind me who's an expert in this that that Highland Park would indeed receive credits for the two units and also um
it's our understanding that they would receive bonus credits because of the population serving veterans. Okay. And will the new dwelling also be de-restricted? It would be and because of the state funding from DCA, it has a 30-year deed restriction. Okay.
Under under the new ranks, it's my understanding that that what used to be 30 is now 40. Do you know if that would app but do you know if that applies to this property if it applies in terms of how many years it's being restricted?
Yeah. 40 versus 30. I believe with this program specifically, it's still 30 years. Yes. is uh the national trust fund funded projects are uh still exempt from the UAC regulations. So they would be
exempt from the 40-year requirement. Can you briefly uh describe how tenants are referred referred to you and qualified uh to be located in in in this property? Yes. So uh tenants are are referred to Garden State Home through the
coordinated assessment system which is operated by coming home of Middle Sex County. So we will get referrals based on uh families meeting the eligibility. So being a veteran household and gross income at 30% or less that referral will
come to Garden State Home from coming home and we will meet with the family you know face to face. We will do their income verification uh also their veteran verification and then we prepare their documents their application to DCA for the project based voucher. That's
another great aspect of this program is that it comes with two project based vouchers. So it's it's affordable and sustainable for the 30-year duration and most likely would be renewed for another 30-year by DCA. But I don't think the program's been around long enough for us to know what exactly happens at at that
time. But it's it's written as a grant loan agreement. So if you don't comply, you'll owe the money essentially. So you must comply with the the terms of Gre the DCA. They put the deed restriction there. And it's our understanding that that would be extended again.
Okay. And um just explain why uh you wanted to locate this housing in Highland Park. So, I graduated from Ruckers and the reason I did was because I moved to Highland Park from New Brunswick to get away from uh the 10 guys I was sharing a
house with. And that's good enough for you. Yeah. And I and doing that I u eventually bought a house there in 2012. I had two children in Highland Park and raised my family in that house. We Garden State Home has expanded our
business over the last 18 years. Our main office is in Highland Park. We employ over 20 people and we also own, you know, two other properties. Those are the uh only questions I have. Thank you, sir. The only thing I missed and I apologize otherwise I wasn't paying attention. I
was trying to write other things. You indicated that the existing house has three units. I didn't catch the number of bedrooms per unit. You could just redo that. Sure. Yes. Three bedrooms, two bedrooms, and one bedroom units. Thank you.
Any questions for any member? Could you I'm sorry. So the current um yeah the current the current volume has three units of the 13ear program left.
Yeah. Yeah, it was originally a deed restricted for 15 years and I'm I'm pretty sure that was executed like two and a half to three years ago. So that would be the balance of the the restrictions the need restrictions. So effectively for that 15 years is a
commitment to work within the framework of the supportable housing program for that particular project. We have the funding that we used assisted and and that was the program requirements and and so it's actually financially dependent on that program to make it
work. No, it was a it was it was part of a acquisition. Uh it was assistance with the with purchasing the property. So the the program works by collect by collecting rents from the clients. the tenants pay
rent or they have vouchers from DCA that assist with the fair market rent and then it's it's affordable because the families only pay 30% of their income towards the rent and the rest is subsidized by the DCA voucher. So the tenants rent is subsidized by the
program in that particular project. Uh we only received the middle six county housing first capital fund which is different than the national housing trust fund. The national housing trust fund is really from the state DCA administered it. So the nomenclature is a little
tricky but we we proposed to use DCA national housing trust fund and the housing first capital fund for the proposed building which comes with projectbased vouchers. Three years ago when we purchased the pre-existing building, the three-unit building, we only use the county funds
and they do not come with project based vouchers. So we have to assist the eligible tenants in securing vouchers which make the project affordable and sustainable. Okay. So there's the existing dwelling and its programs and then there's a new
building which could be under a different program. There's going to be we propose to to build a new two family And it would also use the same funding, the housing first capital fund and addition to acquire the property and build it. Yeah. Yeah. To pay for all this, all
these um professionals, all the construction, all the soft cost, the carrying costs, it's very expensive. Okay. So, there's a different support for building it versus operating it, maintaining it. Yes. Yeah, the the programs that that we
mentioned, those are for the acquisition and the soft cost for development of the project and then the the operation and the the maint maintenance of the project is done through the the just collecting the rent like another landlord for the special population. And is it if they offer a renewal, is it
mandatory or it's optional? At 30 years at the 15 years and the 30 years. Yeah, the the 30 years I don't think anyone's really sure because the program hasn't been around that long. Yeah. But it's I've been told by people who are
a little closer to to the DCA commissioners that the grant loan agreement will just be renewed for like another 30 years is my understanding. And the only people that can rent there are people that qualify under the criteria of the program. Yeah. So we set it we established the
population that we want to serve which is veteran households and that meet the income eligibility. So so we can rely on the fact that that's the program for the duration of that. Absolutely.
Yes. Mr. Do the terms of the program require you to maintain ownership or are you allowed to transfer ownership to tenants? I'm not sure if I understand the question. We transfer ownership to the tenants.
You took advantage of either federal or state or county money to to get the start, right? Yeah. And so for the existing project is a 15-year commitment that 30 or 40 for this other uh uh building you're going to build.
Um is there likelihood that during the terms of the affordable um obligations that they could be sold to the tenants for owner occupancy? I I don't think that's a likely outcome.
We would think that would entail um me looking at the mortgage agreement and the grant loan agreement from DCA and then condom minimizing the property and and and going that route. For some reason, some of the testimony I thought that these were going to be sold. Oh, no. These are this the intention
here is complete like rental for the 30-year duration and we anticipate renewing that for another 30 years. And yes, yeah, the property is subject to a deed restriction that would prevent it being operated in any way other than
pursuant to the program's requirements, right? For the 30-year period, right? Yes. And and so I just apologize for that question, but why do you have um so you're making this two different properties? Because they they're running into two different programs, but you you
will be the owner for both properties for a long time. That's what you antic. Yeah. Garden State Home will will own and operate it. Um, in the past for for liability mitigation, we create like an LLC to hold to hold the entity and
Garden State Home is a sole member of that that entity. So that that is something that just for us to understand because the the testimony just to put in the relationship to the testimony of the engineer was saying in case there's two different owners. So that's why there is not one driveway.
But you are telling us now that it's most likely you are the single owner for a long time. So we would need to think about it when we think about the arguments about the two drivers. Correct? I'm just trying to get it just trying to understand it will speak to the
Yeah. You may you may have um two separate legal entities be the owners of each property, but you would control Yeah. both. Correct. Yeah. So GSA Inc. would be the sole member of both both entities and a
shared driver. I think the engineer spoke to that. I'm really it's a business question. It's two unrelated owners. It's harder it's harder to get coordination and cooperation. But here you control both. you'll hold control of both cities. It's
a feasible business arrangement. Just a a straight question. I'm getting a little confused in this discussion. Are we messing up the are we looking at owner versus resident really? because the issue of shared driveways for the
people who live there, the fact that you are the owner of both isn't as relevant as the fact that different families are sharing the driveway. So, so I just want to I just want you to clarify that is the is are we talking about the resident issue
or are we talking about the ownership as the issue? Is that question for me or the or anyone who can answer it? I I think the point we were talking about these alternative configurations and one of them had a shared driveway
and it's a valid point. It was two unrelated owners was requiring more coordination or cooperation around unrelated residents not own. So so the question is if I understand your question correctly is uh at the moment we have one driveway for three
cars and one driveway for two cars and these are used by the tenants. Right. Right. The tenants are the issue. Yeah. And another issue. So then when what we are discussing is the question if you have one driveway for five cars. So then is that a bit so then what we
have to think about is that a much bigger question like when you either come home or go shopping or go to work or whatever is that more if you coordinate if five car owners have to coordinate one driveway or three have to coordinate on driveway that's kind of but it is the tenants. It's a tendance
but the the the but the but however the argument of the engineer was as far as I understood it to say maybe it's a different owner in future and that's why we need to cl like owner of the different properties and so now we understand it's going to be one owner of the properties in the long run I think
that's that's I I think I think to respond best I can is that you're correct and so are you different issues versus a typical lawyer answer sort of uh the fact of the matter is that from a business viewpoint, you're right, it
probably makes it a little easier. From a tenant viewpoint, I suspect you're right, it makes it a little harder. Yeah. So, that's really these are two different issues that you're you're both dealing with from a different point of view. So, I wanted I want to clarify that that's the reality.
You know, your point is well taken from a business viewpoint, but from a from a tenant viewpoint, uh it's it's a different issue altogether. They could care less at that point who owns it five years, 10 years, 30 years down the road. Question is how is it maneuverable for them as is suggested,
right? How do they get in and out on a regular basis? And it doesn't matter that you guys that they have different cars and go out at different times, but there's other factors here, right? It could affect the impervious coverage, right? Um
well, you're right. I'm not I'm not speaking. I just wanted to clarify that you know that I understand what your point is is that there was that argument and that may that argument may be less effective. The question becomes the livability of the
tenants under that one one driveway scenario. And yes, you're right. It's well the Chris is saying that there is a possibility of reducing the amount of purchase coverage. Their engineer is saying that it's about a wash. Now that
has to be looked at a little bit further and I think that there was a request by Bruce to say maybe you can analyze that for the next meeting. All right. Yep. I'm hoping what I'm saying makes things clearer, not
and hopefully there's not an outstanding question for the witness because we can take the next question if if the board's ready. Um my understanding that property has merged consists of one three family
buildings, six bedrooms, two parking spaces by virtue of a twocar garage. It's pairing. Say that. Say that again. There's a two-car garage which provides two parking spaces for the existing dwelling. Okay. Yes.
Building rather. So, it's my understanding. Sounds like that's been working for all these years. Has it not? Yes. there. They don't have cars. Yeah. Our tenants don't have cars typically. Your current tenants don't have cars. Yeah, I believe that's
And that's historically been the case for the most part. And do you anticipate how long has that been the situation since you own the property or is this a recent group of tenants? What is it? Can you We We have We We operate supportive housing programs across the state. Um,
we served over 3,000 clients last year. I can say, you know, as with my personal experience of operating the organization for the last 18 years, that most people earning less than 30% of the area me income do not have the the household income to
purchase a car, to register a car, to fuel the car up, and to pay for car insurance. Yeah. I'm not asking why. I'm asking do are there any tenants in the right now? I believe there are no tenants that that have a vehicle in the three family at all and that has been the case for a pretty significant amount
of time. Yeah. And are you anticipating that case? I cannot I don't really know who's going to be moving in there with or without a car, but I know that with your request to remove the the garage. We decided to do that to to maximize the potential
parking on that property, the three spaces, right? Part of that was thinking ahead because obviously we have no control over the expiration of the 15-year lease uh restriction because concern I
have as I think everyone well knows who are the tenants after the expiration of the restriction. I think it's rhetorical. Yeah. But so the point is there may be something about your um
applicants eligibility criteria that make them less likely to own cars, but when the deed restrictions for affordability end, it could be anybody, right? And frankly, you could sell the whole kitten kaboodleoodle to somebody
next year if you wanted to, right? Not without penalty because it is deed restricted for 15 years and then the other property for 30 years and we've been around for 18 years and our goal is to house people who need it who who meet that income eligibility.
So, so my concern, I think what Chris is saying is if we allow something to be built, it's likely to outlast any current restrictions, right? And then what happens? Did we allow something because of compassion for
affordable uh disabled veterans community that maybe should not apply to general uh occup that's that's our conundrum here is granting all these things if it doesn't
last forever right it's uh that's my concern I guess to find a solution as most planners try to do look look both sides of the story. So I guess my question as a condition approval would you be willing to de as a conditional extended be restriction through the same program
and if that program is not available would you be willing to be restricted through you have regulations four years I don't think this board has the authority to impose that condition because you know it may be contrary to the
existing regulations and and extending deed restrictions under u is the providence of the council and not this board. That's why I asked, are you willing to offer as a condition of approval? I'm saying that you don't have the ability to impose it as a condition
whether we agree to it or not. You mean enforce? Well, you may you may have some legal basis for that. That's that's as far as I'll go right now. But the question becomes whether or not if your if tell you if your client is willing to agree
to a a condition. U I I think that that the board has the right if the client acknowledges the uh fact that they are going to abide by a condition then that becomes a valid condition of approval in my opinion.
Understood council. I guess the other question is um and I I suspect the uh there. We'll talk about this. If you end up having a property that ends up having u
what what right now is five parking spaces and 12 years down the road or or whatever uh it becomes undead restricted. What is the likelihood of a of a market renter coming in to say, "Oh,
this is a perfect apartment for me, but there, you know, and I've got my two cars and my three kids and you know, is that a likely scenario under these circumstances or does it become somewhat given the circumstance a self-fulfilling uh restriction whether or not it's
restriction or otherwise?" I don't know the answer to that. I think both apply the devil's advocate is that could happen but generally speaking and this is something I use all the time for planning applications for rebound plans that these tend to be self-regulated. Tenants who have cars won't come to a
complex that don't have apartment spaces. So it is self-regulated to a certain extent. Why have the park spaces at all? What happens after 15 and 30 years? Well, you're I think I think it's fair
to say yes to say well because his experience is that generally there have not been people with cars. Uh he hasn't said under his 18 years of experience none of his tenants on the 3,000 that he's helped which is admirable. None of
them have had no cars. think there's a need I think from a planning viewpoint and I would question any planner that says no car no parking fire required as a rational statement that have some opportunity to talk to
them by way of question. So, um, I think the need for some, uh, parking is is absolutely appropriate and I think Chris's attempt to try to get that and and Bruce's attempt to try to get that additional parking is is is appropriate under the circumstances. Now the
question that is fully ultimately before the board among other things is the request for the deviation from the parking valid along with the questions that have already been raised is that you know is there sufficient consideration with regard to mitigation of storm work those are two separate
questions there may be others that you but we haven't gotten there probably another meeting to think about it one more question the housing for veterans for this opposed to family. Do you anticipate any need to provide for accessibility? I couldn't agree with the question. Uh
do you anticipate the need to provide for accessible housing uh for the veterans? I think the the design took that in consideration for for the first floor being close to the ground. But uh as the plans that exist now are
are compliant with the DCA program. Okay. questions. So, is there no further questions? Are there any further questions for this business? I don't think we open up the public yet, did we?
I have not. Well, no, we haven't. We haven't opened up to the public. And I note based upon the chair's the chair's comments that um it is now two minutes to 10. Or if there are questions, maybe extend it just for questions to for this
witness by the members of the public. And if there are not, maybe this would be a good time to Sorry, I had one other question. Okay. I'm sorry. Um I've been on this board for a while. Um trying to remember the um the conversion of the church on South Third.
Is that one of your applications? No, that's uh another partner agency, the Reformed Church of Highland Park, and they use similar funding sources and I believe through that they also got credits for the town. Yes, I remember that case. Yeah,
I remember in that case we we ended up um excusing all the off street parking I think and and and and created a new curb cut in front of the building uh to allow more parking there on was that Magnolia
Magnoria but it was it's true there was no that has no and but you remember that very long conversations we had about parking and transportation and uh so that house that project has no as far as we call No pocket. But I'm sorry. I was only asking because
we had I think that project worked out very well for the community and I I was going to give you an extra bonus because of that. So is there any comment? No, not sorry. Question. So could you please use the microphone?
We do need to get you on the mic otherwise we we won't be able to hear you. We need to record you. Hi Am I Am I on? Am I on? It doesn't sound like I'm on, but do that at the bottom. At the bottom
there's a button. Maybe push up that little clear button. There we go. Okay, there you go. Um, so I have questions and you said you're L. Yes, we spoke in August. Oh, could you please repeat your name for My name is Lisa Uber.
Okay. Um, but the questions will not be understandable to the people here tonight without comments and so I can explain the situation and why I'm asking the questions. So I will ask you, do you want me to wait until the next meeting?
Because I know I'm sure I brought I brought speaking points. They're very quick. Fair enough. And I'm sure that they're going to you're going to be given the opportunity to do those speaking points. I'm sure that uh you'll be here in the next meeting. Absolutely. So, why don't we just hold those
and if you don't mind and I and maybe you and I uh if you're willing, you will stay for a few minutes afterward figure out whether it's appropriate to do this by way of questions of this witness and or either alone and or
having questions of this witness and then having given you the opportunity when appropriate to clarify all of those questions. It can be done, but we'll have to talk about it. Okay. All right. That sounds good. Thank you very much. And hold on to your papers. Don't lose those thoughts. Don't
leave it on. Leave it on. Just u one more there. One more question from the There you go. I just have one more question. [Music] And the existing dwelling is not correct, sir. That's correct. Could the existing dwelling be utilized
for veterans as well? that wasn't the uh the application and the intention. So, I'm not sure of the process to change that with the county funding source. I would I would have to get back to you on that, but that that's not what they didn't answer. Oh, the answer is no. She's from the
county. So, you have no right to be able to put you cannot put into the existing housing. So, if a veteran applies, you have to live there. Well, hold on. Hold on. Excuse me. Uh, your questions are perfectly valid. Your answers,
unfortunately, are not because we don't know who you are. You're a lovely woman, I'm sure, but that doesn't make you a witness as of this point. So, what we can do again, can I ask you, these are good questions. Can I ask you to hold those questions for the next time? If
this young lady is going to testify, that would be the time to maybe ask those questions. Thank you very much for your understanding. Don't don't give her that. She's not a witness. I don't have any more questions. All right. So, on that note, I think
it's I will uh make a motion to adjourn the meeting. Second. Well, yeah. Not a date problem. I'm sorry. You want to carry? Yeah. I I'll get to that. Okay. You can stick to the engineer. Well, you'll do pretty good with that
time yourself. No, I can do uh this matter what I don't have. What I was going to say is I don't I didn't so I don't have what's the next meeting. Is it on the agenda? Actually, it's on the previous um on the
previous minutes. Do you have previous minutes? No. In any event, this meeting will be carried without further notice until uh the meeting of uh October 27 27.
Thank you. October 27th, 2025 at 7:30 at this location. No further notice will be provided. All that really simply means, ladies and gentlemen, is that you will be here in one month at 7:30. You will not get any other notice. We look forward to your presence here as you
were then at that time as you were. Thank you very much. We are not done. Sorry. The board is not done. The board is not done. So that but but you're done. We're done. Thank you. We still have to approve the minutes of
the last meeting. How we do that? We want to find out who it my announcement is. [Music] Okay. Um Mr. Mad we are not done. We are not done. You have to like one of the things of uh that we always have to
look at the meetings from the last meeting and have to review them and have to um approve them. However, the board has significantly changed since the last meeting. So I think it is
uh Min, Mr. Rock, were you there? You okay? Um, so I will make a motion to approve the minutes. I want to do the roll call.
Yes, Mr. Yes, Mr. Right. Right. Well, actually I couldn't say Mr. Roer. Okay, I did not take he only those
three. Okay, fine. No, we are journed. Thank you. Have a good night.