##VIDEO ID:d1LczHLscBE## okay y thank you good evening everyone I'd like to call to order the January 28th meeting of the Hillsdale B planning and LS board to order we'll begin with the open public meeting statement read by our deputy secretary Tanya filed by the Pledge of Allegiance this meeting is being held in accordance with the open public meetings act the notice of this meeting was published in newspapers according to law and time and place of this meeting have been posted in a prominent location in burrow Hall please stand for the pledge of Alle IED Al to the FL of the United States of America stand naice thank you Tanya I just want to announce that unfortunately we our video systems working tonight we are recording the meeting all audio so we will have an audio recording of tonight's hearing thank you and our first item of business is to uh administer Al of office to our newest member Mr star Kip alterate one term expiring December 2026 welcome and our mayor shine where you in you want out not mandatory I start I start you sol swear SAR that I will support the Constitution that I will support the Constitution State of New Jersey the state of New Jersey and that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the say and I will bear true faith and to the same and the governments established in the United States and the governments established in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people I do Solly swear I do swear that I will Faithfully that I will Faithfully imp partially and justly imp partially and justly perform all the duties perform all the duties of the office of the planning board of the office of the planning board alternate one alternate one to the 2-year term to the 2-year term of December 31st 2026 ending December 2 December 31st 2026 to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability thank you Mr hip we're happy to have you here and you get the the seat number one for tonight thank you may and now we'll have a roll call for our full board by deputy secretary chairwoman Cas here Vice chair Reen secretary Raymond Mr alter here Mr fredman here Mr greed here Dr Weinberg here Mr H here Council leaan shuk here mayor shinfield here thank you Tanya at this time I'll open the meeting to the public and this is for any items or issues other than those that are listed on our agenda this evening or that may become come before the board on another evening is there anyone that would like to address the board at this time seeing none I'll close the meeting to the public and we have resolutions this evening for our professionals and for our our board officers should we do these individually um you can do them all once well first we'll first do our officers of our board that's chairperson Mar Kates Vice person Vice chairperson Steven Leen secretary Scott Raymond okay motion thank you may second Dr Weinberg okay chairman mes yes m Mr alter yes Mr fredman yes Mr greef yes Dr Weinberg yes Council leaz and Chim yes mayor Shinu yes motion's passed thank you and we'll move on to professionals um there's one typo that Tanya corrected for board engineer CP the year is 2025 that was corrected from 2024 can be these together okay so we will have a motion for our professional resolutions all at once as well motion there he is whatever okay chairman M yes Mr alter yes Mr Freedman yes Mr gree yes Dr Weinberg yes Mr uh sorry Council onim yes and mayor sh yes thank you all thank you Chris thank you Mark y to have you um Mr Raymond's not make it toight he just okay thank you okay now we have some invoices Chris's office number of invoices totaling $2,761 25 cents please review and when you're ready any comments if not motion motion May sheld okay chair Keats yes Mr alter yes Mr fredman yes Mr greed yes Dr Weinberg yes Mr hit yes Council leuk yes may Shinu yes motion's passed thank you moving on to Burgess Associates one bill tolling $77 50 cents do I have a motion motion that and then and alter chairman K yes Mr alter yes Mr Freedman yes Mr GRE yes Dr Weinberg yes Mr H yes Council leaz on chimu yes mayor Shinu yes motion's passed thank you two en voices from CSG law telling $19 s please review and I'll take a motion motion Mr alter second mayor shank chairman M yes Mr alter yes Mr Freedman yes Mr gree yes Dr Weinberg yes Mr hip yes Council Le onuk yes mayor shinfield yes motion is passed thank you we'll move on now to approval of our last meeting minutes that's January 9th 2025 please reval and when you're ready I'll take a motion motion May shinfield chair M yes Mr alter yes Mr Freedman yes Mr GRE yes Dr Weinberg yes Council Le andu yes mayor shinfield yes motion's passed thank you everyone okay we will move on to our hearing tonight that's pz 1024 block 902 L 1068 sadw Drive tet Investments LLC this is for deck imperious coverage welcome good even can you just speak into I don't want to turn but you may want to do the reconation for us because it can be fast okay the board is the board okay with that I'm fine with that are you okay waiting for a very brief we have a very brief um item okay okay thank you I we appreciate your patience so we're going to take another be problem yes [Music] better thank you everybody um so we will switch the order for this evening and we'll first do pz22 24 block 1517 L 1332 riverville Street Michael and Frank Canter existing patio retaining walls and outdoor kitchen and Pur coverage patio and kitchen setback hi welcome hi thank you good evening Bo my name is Adam caser I'm here in place of Joe Marinello who is here for the last app location you sp last Sure it's c a s n r I'm from Mr Mar's firm I'm familiar with the application uh this was uh denied so we're here on a motion for reconsideration um be it not on fulls siiz paper I do have uh the revised plans we're looking at if the board would like to copy yes the board would like copy Chris you haven't seen this yet right you haven't seen everybody that yeah out's mean there's no change the last page of the uh attack yeah thank you thank you just a smaller version yeah just smaller version so it is uh slightly cut off at the top but the important part is on the upper left corner under uh the number 44 you'll see there's a uh rectangle with a dotted line next to a rectangle with a solid black line that solid black line uh is a new location for the outdoor kitchen so it's being moved in uh about 2 ft and up about uh another 5 or so feet uh for a total of 7 and 1/2 ft so this would be the new location um we're here obviously because we think it's a good application um we're asking that the board uh reconsider uh the denial you know our our clients uh um made a mistake originally but they did make some efforts okay it with their neighbors they want to make good use of the property uh we think it's a good application and so we ask that the board uh reconsider and of course we'll take any questions how far is it from the from the steps uh from the steps from the steps to the back it's it's about for the just for the start of the uh uh you know you you're talking about from the step to the back of the house yes I believe that's 5 ft and you know if we if it gets pulled any closer it's going to be almost no we don't want it closer we want right right yeah so right now where it is it's uh pretty well hidden from view from the front of the street uh so you know it's close enough where in the winter they can go out and not have to go too too far if they're using it to cook um but it's uh pulled back enough that you know they won't be uh seen from from the street weren't worried about it being seen as much as it was too close to the house for safety and too close to the neighbors for safety right absolutely and that's that's why if you look at the uh the solid black rectangle we we wanted to move it back just a little more so I apologize I think it's it's 7 and A2 and then we pulled it in uh another 2 ft Mark can you advise that are we free just ask questions like how proceed so it's a discretionary decision to reconsider the application have that discretion until you adopt the resolution um we've talked about this application quite a bit already and we we asked Mr Marin's office to have a rise plan prepared so you can see it and you just need to take a vote whether you're going to agree to reconsider the application or not and if you decide not to then I'll prepare a resolution of denial and if you decide to reconsider we will have a subsequent public hearing on public notice can I ask a question how different is it from their last proposal well maybe Chris can you could speak to changes that you see from well they they originally had a they originally had from The Proposal we didn't accept how much different is this was not the original but there when they came in for the hearing the second one for the second hearing they came in for a second hearing and they made a proposal they made a final proposal that we did not accept how different is this new proposal I I have it in my notes it was 7 ft from the property line and 2T from the home so now it's 5 ft from the house and 7 and A2 from the property and when they were here last time they were requesting three variances and they're still requesting three still the Vari Pao same VAR same number of Varan yeah we still need the variances the magnitude of the side variance is is low right so we brought it in a little bit we brought it further away from the home and you know we're really here because they want to do right by the board they want to do right by their neighbors um so you know that they're they're looking for uh for reconsideration on this application yeah and just to remind the board all this is is is it's a reconsideration so if you'll hear it and if you like it you can vote for it and if you don't like it you can vote against it so is this subjective to the board to decide if this is substantial enough change is this up to we're not at the r judicata stage because we have not R right no I know but I don't think that the board's never had a reconsideration so I think we're a little confused about what you what standard dict what standard would dictate that's what I'm saying it's a little sub this is a discretionary decision for you okay um it's not quite like being in court where you file a motion for reconsideration you tell the judge you totally missed the law Miss how you misses you or um these are new facts that we were unaware of at the time we were arguing those are valid reasons for reconsideration um it's not quite that because we haven't actually ruled because we haven't adopted resolution which would also divest you jurisdiction so it really is a discretionary decision to rear my opinion this application is different enough from the one that you denied my opinion that if you adopt a resolution of denial you just going F the same application but it's in front you right now and you're going to be deciding this four months from now instead of three months from now so my advice is reconsideration so we reconsideration that means they coming back back with this plan and they're going to make their pitch then based on the facts but if you came back if we deny you came back would that be res jado well then you would first have to decide if res jado applies or not that would be a decision the board has to make if you decid that it did apply then we would just dismiss the application decided it didn't apply then you hear the application so whether it's different or not different enough or not is a fat sensitive decision that you don't have to make right now so I wouldn't even think about it so we can't hear recommendations on anything like that right now you could because that would be helpful if there's something here you want change I think we want to tell Council that so when he comes here he doesn't have to here it then and then change and come back again yeah I we want if we're going to even reconsider it we want this as close to what we want as possible that that was the concern last so I would just ask every member if there's anything they want change to tell Adam and Adam will put it in his notes I think we should be very clear and specific about I have a question yeah um do they intend to change any the impervious coverage uh there it's actually uh slightly less impervious coverage since it's been uh moving away more from the property line so I think we are 5.03% over say that again I think we're 5.03% over we're at 35.035683 more of so that changed right the grill is no longer part of that it's now on top of capstones so it's not much less because of the area of the growth that's exactly right yeah it's been the impervious coverage has been reduced with the applic uh I'm sorry with the plan that I gave you okay thank you okay I would be in favor of reconsidering this of taking it back up rather than make look at the process again I would be in favor of reconsidering it also I have a question sure yes are there any like utility connections to this kitchen it's just the the gas line gas yeah that was our concern distance to the neighbor wasn't there electricity done also that was not to a fridge that was below to yes that's right and they were not inspected at the time which was one of our will they be inspected yeah of course we'll you know we'll we'll they're going have to move it anyway so permits any any uh approvals that that we need to make sure everything's up guess my father question is has it been thought to like rotate it you you could rotate at 90° and you would get the offset from the property line to the north and house yeah AB absolutely um this location is preferable for the for the applicants to keep the space open in the backyard it's better for the use to allow them to entertain use whatever whatever they need it for uh that was considered but you know as for the location that's in now if the board were to reconsider uh I think you know the uh the applicants Prof Prof would would speak on on that location why that works I I'd like to see that considered as well I think we'd like to see I'd like to see more you know more efforts to get in line with lowering the variances y that's very important to us um yeah you look like you want to say something before any questions um I was just a little confused so if we go forward with the re uh what's it called reconation um later there could be a question of whether or not it was ra judicata after but my understanding is if we're saying we're reconsidering it then we're saying it's different enough from the original no we haven't had the resolution yet if you adopt the resolution denying the applicate I got then their choices are either file a new application or go to court if they file a new application then you have to decide is it different enough that it's a new application it's that's a fact senstive decision that you have to you has to be sign okay um Janetta can you speak speak in the mic yes I have question but the last time that they were here um didn't we tell them that we wanted them to make these modifications and that's why they did this and came back today with this newly moved kitchen now there's 7 and A2 ft where I think before they were I think they were two they were seven before they were seven I thought they were two before originally they were originally very close yeah they already moved it in and also moved it out so didn't we tell them to do that last time so now they're here again with what we told them to do and now we're going to maybe tell them to do something else again people voted different ways Janette everyone advised differently some people voted no even with the changes so I think everybody's advising on why they had an issue with it so they can the attorney can take it back to their lawyer and hear the full board's response because he wants to have the another if he come to back that the outcome would be different is what I'm hearing mam chair yes can somebody just tell me the the regulation that it's supposed to be 10 ft and it's going to be 7 and 1/2 and the other one from the house how far is is it supposed to be it's press 10 and it's only going to be five MH I mean is that within safety limits U um I don't know the uh the the setback for the accessory item is do safety just just open air ET was 10 foot you know accessory could have been a shed this case it's a fil in barbecue catch it that up there you in your house so you have to consider whether or not the size of the lot allow is want this sort of VAR and the ordinance treats a shed the same way that it treats an outdoor kitchen item so got to consider that too right any other questions or recommendations just V yes a motion to reconsider okay so if there's no other questions at this time entertain a motion um for the board to reconsider this application I'll make the motion to reconsider based on these New Dimensions I I'll second the motion I don't know if it's based upon these things but I I'll second so just confirm I'm calling everybody that was on the application right so Mr hip was not here when this application took place yeah I would have everybody who voted on the application vote on Mr alter yes Mr fredman no um I believe um it was yeah I moving at 6 in is is not reasonable I believe for the comments that were made at the time let just if I can just for the record you know we we are here just for the reconsideration to see if the board will hear if that's a substantial enough enough change he heard that he understand okay thank you Mr GRE yes Dr Weinberg I have a problem I'm new to the boys so I'm I'm telling you and they know that I try and help the community as opposed to the town I try to weigh both sides this was a very egregious act that was done and uh we really did expect you to come back today with a little more uh a little further back 6 in is is not what we expected how however in favor of the the client they spent the fortune on lawyers and uh you I think for that reason to protect them I think I'm going to vote yes thank you Council ANUK yes mayor shinfield yes chairman M yeah I mean this is a board we're looking at hardship issues generally we know this is not a hardship issue this is uh we could look at this as an improvement for a resident um I would have liked to see more more efforts to get in line with what the board is concerned about I'm going to vote Yes but I'm hoping that's strongly what we see I would like to see further changes next time we hear this thank you I also would like to and the professionals see what they can do yes please strongly urge them to consider that I will thank you so let's let's pick a date so that um it's could be that's far enough out so that the applicant can March 13 March 13th we didn't think you'd be ready by February 13th it's too soon so then we have to push you to March 13 that's on March 13th you said yes at 7:30 it's a Thursday great thank you board for your time yeah thank you for your understanding appreciate it absolutely okay thank you everyone we'll now hear our CC 1024 block 902 L Lot 10 68 Saddlewood Drive touch Investments LLC Jack impervious coverage thank you for your patience we appreciate that he has not learned yeah kind of new welcome I don't know why I my okay yes please present uh FR J B for the applicant cetra investing LLC the after is the owner of property at 68 saddle Drive in the burrow which is block 902 10 the property in the R5 residential Zone uh the purchas property uh en closed on title on June 1 2022 improvements at that time consisted of a single family Residence at the time of the purchase the impervious coverage on the property was 38.1% which exceeded the maximum uh permitted by your ordinance of 30% following the closing of title the applicant submitted uh plans for interior Renovations of the existing Welling and replacement of the deck in the near lard of the property uh permits were issued for those Renovations uh the applicant was not aware uh until the renovations were completed the home had been sold and he replied to the final co uh that the permiss issue did not include the replacement of the deck uh which have been shown in the plans that have been submitted building department those plans have been signed off and approved by the building department uh but there was an error someplace along the way uh that the perit did not includ the deck the appli subsequently applied for the permit replacement of the deck which had already been constructed on the property uh due to the existing non-conformity for inous coverage a variance is required uh the new deck as it's been constructed uh the new deck is is a little bit smaller than the previous deck uh in cious coverage has been reduced from the 38.1% to 37.3% which again exceeds the uh 30% from the ordinance and we're requesting bar coverage I had with me this evening uh haraka he's the managing member of the applicant okay thank you so much please raise your right hand please raise your right hand ra your we're going to swear we're going to swear you in do you speak English sir yeah do you swear or affirm the testimony about to give us the truth the whole truth nothing about the truth s you yeah okay put your hand down put your hand down are you having trouble hearing me no no English is not exp first okay that's fine I sometimes people can't hear me that's bring the microphone close yeah we just I had a client once with a hearing a that didn't work and the judge said to him do you understand and he said no he said my hearod doesn't work so I'm sensitive yeah um sir spell your name so I can get in my notes my name is s s e r i a k o v s e r i a k o v and how do you spell your first name d m i t r i i d m i t r i i d m i t r i okay all right and you've been scor all right go uh Mr sharaka uh you're the managing member of the applicant Petra investment poliy is that correct and you purchased the property at 68 s Drive is that correct y um and the property Clos title on June 13th 2022 correct uh when you purchased the property it was improved the single family dwellings yes correct I'm going to show you one more to surve A1 show you was marked as A1 to survey of property that was prepared by lak surveying dated June 1st 2022 uh this survey was prepared on behalf of the county of purchase property and does this survey accurately ref the improvements on the property the time of purchase yes and the property does the survey does show the property at the time the co Is You by the count the time that you purchased the property was a certificate of occupancy issued to you yes and that was secured by the by the sellers of the property is that correct yeah show you what's been Mark as A2 you recognize that AIC that was issu yes what's the date of uh the date of the C was May 23rd 2026 and subsequent to your purchase of the property would you submit plans for the renovation of the existing dwelling yes and do those imp plans include replacement of Deb yes uh the original plans that were submitted we've had [Music] one yep I'm going to show you plans that have now as three you confirm to the board that these were the plans that were submitted and approved by the building department yes and looking at page one of these plans as it show the sign offs by building electric pluming andru official yes correct page for of these plans uh does show the proposed uh de constructed the the property is that correct yes and the deck that was constructed is it consistent with these plans yes was there a Time come when you uh discovered or learned that the permiss that have been issue to you uh did not include the the deck that had been constructed yes and did that happened when you to final after the renovations were completed is that correct yes at the time that you purchased the property the impervious coverage exceeded the 30% maximum allowed in the ordinance is that correct yes at the time to purchase that coverage was actually 38.1% is that correct I do know uh B I'm going to show you what's been this is an division that your architect care this is a and your architect confirmed in his zoning data that the uh TR at the time you purchase was 38.9% but when I purchased it I didn't know about this coverage is because C I I think that's Council what's the date of the architect Char uh the uh architect RIS 6 original date is 628 23 it was revised on 12 124 thank you the new deck that was constructed is slightly smaller than the fire deck was correct and you're asking the board to Grant a variance for impervious coverage to allow that new deck remain constructed thank you Chris yes I see you m would you like to comment no comment no you have a report though I have a report yes rep anything you want to bring to the board's attention just with the attorney's presentation so yes it's it's a simply Pur coverage appliation after after it is what is Deb was constructed so so the initial debt was constructed obviously prior to this man's purchase of it um but they did it without the town ever knowing because they would have needed a variance that they never never applied for that never was extended when the property was sold it was never even revealed to anybody is that what would look at that's yes yeah cuz a surveyor that would do a would do a survey for a bank say yeah wouldn't care about imperious coverage he would care about you know giving it to the bank to show the house existed a lot right so that's how it all started in the beginning yeah there was a little diff there was a difference between the engineers plan and The Architects plan and the I believe there was had an error in his original zoning Char yeah that was so I kind of threw the building department off when they saw they want the building department was looking at the zoning table not the drawing so much the zoning table had a mistake in it so they said fine it looks great you know wouldn't build what you want to do but at the asilt stage they realized it was a mistake it was a mistake that's what happen so the previous owner the all right simple a simp did the did the did the town engineer whoever signs it you said they have a signed copy of uh yeah we've submitted that to the board uh with our original application all the Departments signed off on the plan before the permits so we did permit the town did permit it uh the town approved the plans but what we found out in to the co was the commit only include the interior my Cent was not aware of that the deck was on the plan cood everything was approved and they came back and said they hadn't issued the permit for to De and that's why everything was done inspections all along the way and question for the deck has revealed in perious coverage uh variance that's required now that's why we're here tonight okay Dan go ahead just so this surve here this was that's the condition purchase the property so this survey was done purchaser yes I I order that on they done the surve they that's yes we just submitted that we can see what was able to purchase it the new deck is shown on the plans that we submitted that that deck was REM and de was conru [Music] Yeah question yes so let's just have we'll go in some bit of order um Ed yes um I want you to clarify something to me you said that the impervious covant was 38.1 upon purchase correct yes and it's now 37.3 correct that's shown on A4 but your your chart your table chart says the proposed is 35.6 the original plans cre architect error he submitted a new plan in December which has the correct num so the correct number is 37.3 that correct number is 37.3 yes so quite honestly I could care less about the debt you know I was I was actually owner at the property yesterday and um I walked around the property my concern is with the abundance of impervious coverage between the driveway the C semicircular driveway the two driveways down the sides of the house one to uh a canopy covered on one side uh the walkway leading to uh the entrance to the house which is kind of wide and in the backyard will walkway as well so I'd be looking for some way to reduce that I think this is a pretty high number 373 were existing house and the town did is you allowing those right but that doesn't mean you can't make some amends I understand I mean we're here to discuss that variance from previous coverage yes that is another issue so i' been looking to see some improvements on the approv C I think it's quite big it's quite a lot from 7.3% but it is coming down from 38.1% I me that's what it was when purch so this this de is an improvement over right it is an improvement but it's still 7.3% higher than the ordinance I'm I'm willing to be flexible with 7.2% perious coverage you know flooding has become a major issue in this town water storm water uh is something we consider now more seriously than we've ever done before and uh heardly coverage I think Mr sh can testify there's been no flooding issue okay that's okay Mr Green the one thing I just like to point out to the board too is that my Cent acted in good faith he submitted his plans he had this deck there know he did everything properly with permiss and approvals wasn't discovered until the very end that uh building department had not included the deck in the plans by that time the property already been sold to a buyer who expects these improvements to be there that's what they're paying for they've been very patient waiting for us to get through this approval process we have a buyer who is anticipating getting the house as it's been constructed as the plans shown that were again signed off by the by the building department in the very beginning before these Renovations were done you had the board had the building department to raise these issues he could have changed his entire plan uh it would have been a different house being sold and the buyer wouldn't know the difference but for a buyer to now accept that you have to start removing things that they expect to have there um is a little difficult so you have a bu right now we have a bu our bu here this evening hoping that we're able to move this Mr B do you have some photographs of the deck by any chance do I have any photographs of the have yeah I didn't bring the rest of my as well this um this deck is uh has a little slap between the the boards that you step on like I'm looking for a closeup photograph deck is that between yeah sure sure yeah so your definition of impervious coverage U is is this it shall include all the square footage under the definition of building coverage plus driveways Decks that do not allow rain water to be directly absorbed into the ground patio sidewalks walkways Etc so if if this deck has gaps between the slacks so that water can slide through it and hit the dirt underneath it and go into the ground this may not be impervious cage that is the way it's constructed yeah we do but we give a 50% discount open SL you don't get it isn't a free still what is there a different ordinance that says that or yeah look for yes it's it's in the it's in the ordinance yeah 50% was it was 50% considered in calculating 30 yes it was considered so if it wasn't it would be much you're correct yes okay what what was the construction of the prior deck same the prior deck it also have slats okay yeah is there a slap under the de just under the and also um I see you're including the pool in your impious calculation Chris long is in the pool not purpose I don't think it's excluded have to check that that this is also bu ground yes concrete what give me a minut Jen did you want to say something yes we wanted to ask a question before we keep going along because I'm stuck absolutely um we were discussing that when the property was bought it was bought with say 30 almost 38% 30 right but now we're saying it will be 35 37 will be 37 now yes oh so slightly so what is this 35 it says here that in at the time of closing was 35.6 what what number is this the original plans that we had uh you engineered term that our architect had made a mistake and we corrected that so this is just that's a mistake so now we're at 38 down to 37 okay that's what I was trying to just make sure I got y absolutely thank you can I ask plans the plans survey from June 1st 2022 shows a slate walk and in the renovation plans states that the walk will be removed that remove yes remove does that impact the imperious coverage calculation and if so by how much Chris did you did you catch that was that was already considered I think think you considered it something else I think that's already been considered go home should make sure doesn't Chris is just checking that is there any stor water handling equipment on the property now any drainage pits seage pits system gutters yes yes yes gutters are we're just checking our engineer's calculations to make sure he considered all the is the house in the flood zone no no no so the deck was moved to the east yeah and you said that there's third underneath the deck so they there separate concrete footings where the frame of the deck WS on yes yeah okay but the everything in the middle is just there yeah so in Hillsdale we don't consider the water surface of the pool just the decking around the pool it's what there's two different place to look so I want to just check on the definition 475 he's got 475 ft in the in his computations for that so that would is that account for in that number or we have to adjust it we have to adjust it yes to adjust that 34.6 I will see in a second yeah he's checking that and also the you can do that too if you want my calculator's in my in my car so I don't have this is my phone may you weren't in the notice on for this right cuz I know you live on that street you you weren't noticed for this right I was not neither was my neighbor yeah I just want to make sure two Saddlewood our two Saddlewood members are eligible to vote on this you live on the street not I know I just wanted I'm just double checking It's a Long Street okay is there any other professional here today our architect not be here this evening but you can still ask a question yeah something else coming up um so I guess you guys can adjust the calculations to take out the uh down um I see this CH here is that fixed no can it was an old deck now it's new so taking out the pool water drops in 2.7% that helps a little bit so what about sth question about the you said there's two walkways there I see in impervious calculations in a box it says existing walks 34 9 ft I that's the walk on the side is that the walk on the side yeah that's what I calculated it to be yeah there's like a okay Mr I I see is there is there there's a big over here see on the [Music] side is that is that calculation yes that's that's in the existing building that's in the calculation okay so taking out the water you're down to 34.6% okay thank you for your patience while we apologize we should have picked that up ourselves but nuances okay devil in the devil's in the weeds okay board any other questions or comments so oh by 4.6% just uh one last question you you indicated that in connection with obtaining the co at that point you were advised that you needed a permit for the de correct that's correct prior to that time did had anybody affirmatively represented that you did not need a permit for the deck he believed he had to permit for the deck if you look at the plans that were submitted they includ include that the the removal of the existing deck and the construction of the new deck and they were all signed off okay um it was a surprise in fact I made a number of phone calls you're all very surprised by what happen thank you any other questions no want okay if the board is ready then we'll take a motion so can I just clarify then so now we're here looking at a variance of 34.6 not 37 or 37 but 34.6 okay so the yeah 30% is permitted 34.6% that's proposed and that's less than was was existing at the time the original transaction right was over 3 and a half% anded were you looking for the applicant to do more or looking for you looking for anything else from the applicant okay yeah no okay so B I'm ask if anyone's ready to make a motion make a motion to approve okay Mr G Dan Mr alter uh 34.6% is better than what I thought um and I know you put a lot into the project the house is a beautiful house so I'll say yes thank Mr fredman yes Mr GRE yes Dr Weinberg I think we we are partially so I will absolutely say yes Mr h yes council is on shingu yes mayor shinefield yes chairwoman Keith yes thank youy congratulations [Music] good luck to you and welcome yes welcome to Hillsdale we're happy to have you get permits for everything yes you hear how we you put a new ride in the closet oh great thank you so much thank you yes good to have you NE thank you for your time okay we have a bit more business tonight board we have two mayor and Council ref FS versus ordinance 255 I don't I don't know they're pretty powerful oh they're good I need them what's your prescription 222 you know I'm sorry I don't know there's so long okay I just want to make sure we're talking about it's the resolution is for the well I guess we can go in whatever order that's so the first we have one for the steep slope no one for the so we're moving on to Mayor C referrals if you can board members get that out and can someone just ver ify for me which number is listed 2025 and which is uh 20 2506 that's not 25 is the Redevelopment plan that is Redevelopment thank you so much is the Redevelopment yes so um Mark so so on the Redevelopment plan a couple things one I conflicted myself out of this so I'm not going to give you any specific advice on this I'm going to give you some general legal advice uh look at what the governing body sent to you it's very clear the governing body accepted and rejected some of the recommendations that you made in uh November last year that's their prerogative um you now have to decide what you want to do you're obligated under the law to report back to the governing body within 45 days of the referral um any consistency or inconsistency um you could if you wanted to just write back to them and say we gave you our confence last year those are our confence and then the Govern bed them so uh that's all the advice I'm really comfortable giving you the conflict issue um if you want more in depth advice my suggestion can call Miss cetta to come back get more inv well I'm curious if our mayor and Le philon I was a little it's a little um dense it was a little hard looking through it to see when you said exactly what recommendations were taken and which weren't um maybe the mayor can help us out I'm trying to I'm you know off the top of my head I can't remember everything that was in there we talking and I'm not even sure what we're talking about in revelop we talking about the structure that was built that was recommended with respect to the Self Storage yes right yes so so they they decided so we as a governing body said that we would allow the height to go up and we would allow the theous coverage yeah for the side to go up um with the idea of best use because the alternate the alternative basically what the feeling of the board was we talking through this was that um in order for the developer to make this work financially they needed these these these these changes because we sort of viewed and say if it's not going to be this it's going to be something else and from our perspective we looked at it and we said this is going to cause the least disruption in the area it's going to have the least impact on traffic it's going to have the least impact on our on our resources as a whole in the community and uh so that's why the decision was made that it was made would you agree with that J uh perfectly said okay I can't believe I said any but that's that was that was the rationale for why yes why Council voted the way that they did corre so only members who are here and present for that vote would be um voting okay so Mark's suggestion was that we I'm actually looking at my phone because it's so big but that we sort of reiterate what we suggested last time why would you have any different recommendations today yeah and it's not really appropriate to add anything at that time at this time you wanted to why well I'm just saying what the board is allow isn't isn't allowed permitted to do that you report back the statute says basally you can report back on anything yeah I just want to make sure the board read it and you know they're comfortable with our recommendations and are comfortable voting on Sunday in a letter as suggested by our attorney any thoughts any anyone we spent a lot of times talking about it yeah you know I know he's my neighbor but I'm not happy that uh the mayor council didn't listen to our suggestions yeah and I would recommend that we send it back strongly that we advise that I agree with Mr Wonder um I don't know why they didn't have this on the original plans if they were so inclined to be after the profit raising the height of the self once they saw it was an easy Mark I think they came back and they said okay let's go for more and um I feel like we taking advantage of quite honestly and I don't know why I'm looking at you I mean for the council I don't vote I agree this is the only place I vote by the way I I don't get to vote on mayor and counsel so I vote here so you know we do have the option that we have 45 days to return comments we could bring in an attorney we could discuss it further and we could take more time to write a letter of response rather than just sending what we said before I personally feel we'll be wasting expenses because we know what the council is going to do anyway they're going to accept what they want to accept and reject what they want to reject no matter what we do so I go through the extra cost of another of attorneys and our time um you know we've been on this for two years already so more I agree with that and again you know I'm glad that at least the mayor and Council took our recommendation that at least listen to it I understand in the past everything that came out of here was just put aside and never even discussed so I'm I'm happy that they did it and I hope they continue to listen to us but I I I think I agree with that that it's going to be a waste of time and money weren there concerns from neighboring properties about the height people I I I don't want to get into okay those specific things considering that we could do there there are other factors that I wouldn't want to wouldn't feel comfortable talking about no concession procedurally um so this already came in front of the board you guys and then you sent something back to the council that we looked at and now you're back here with it to do what with it again today it's basically we're acknowledging that you the council chose not chose not to take our suggestions and we have to basically just solidify that we're aware of that it sounds like that's all we're doing no so so the Redevelopment or this is General legal advice not advice on this yes the the way that an ordinance or a Redevelopment ordinance Redevelopment plan gets adopted this the Redevelopment plan it gets referred from the governing body to the planning board you have 45 days to review and offer comment back to the governing body you don't have to do anything you can literally do nothing wait for 45 days to go by then the Gover body can do whatever it wants to do and that would be that well not in hone okay so that's that's one option you have when it's an ordinance a land use ordinance you have 35 days to to respond back to the governing body um in this case or in a case where comments go back to the governing body and the governing body amends the plan it has to come back to the board for review again because it's different than the plan that the comments run before there has to be this two-step process and this back and forth can keep going on as long as the governing body keeps making changes based on the comments that the planning board is making so you had in this instance you have round one if the governing body listened to the board they made changes to the Redevelopment plan not all of the changes that you wanted but they made changes because they made changes it starts to process again has to come back to you for reviewing that that's where you are now and it's due for adoption right now February 11th by the council correct we saw it said that's what it said in the didn't yeah I mean that maybe I don't know if that's 45 days that can't that can't possibly 40 be for more than 45 days from the referral so like if you wanted to wait on this you could and I they would have to kick off that adoption but I'm not sure what you're saying that we made changes so there was something originally that came in front of you and you made recommendations and sent it back to us we read it and we did we did not make changes yes we did what change did we CH I'm a little confused because I I just feel like there should be some clarification you know based on the exhibits that are provided I think of the recommendations that were raised by the planning board if I'm reading this correctly recommendations that were raised by the planning board almost all of them were accepted except for item four which was the vehicle access points I think everything else was taken by the council considered and revised accordingly and the only change regarding vehicle access points is that the planning board recommended that vehicle access points be limited to one um for the Self Storage uh no that's for 1209 which is the isn't that for the the the lot that they're moving to across the street wasn't that I was mentioning something about the bus depot that's a different the recommendation from the council which profession kind of as a traffic engineer makes to me is that currently that lot I guess is just one open curb cut and it's being Consolidated and delineated into two curb cuts which is a pretty substantial improvement from what it is now so to limit to one access point is you know while that might be the best case scenario this seems pretty acceptable other than that like I said the seven items were all updated or revised and accounted for in the plan so I think it seems like they took our recommendations in I think you're correct but there were board comments that didn't make it into a recommendation that that's I think that's what people are going back to here like the height was a big problem but it it was it was there was a question about why didn't make it into a recommendation by a member here whether that we could re we we we had a concern about the hype but that doesn't mean it was a recommendation that they lower the height we didn't specify that exactly so I think that's what people are we're going back to here which we really can't do anything about that at this point right so basically are we are we debating about one or two access points now no I don't think anybody's debating no no I'm saying if that's it's that's the one point of differentiation no that's just a point that that we right we didn't accept correct right that's what I'm so so but that's what I'm yes so we accepted everything but the conversation about the height and whatnot way to the original comments that came from here yeah from what I'm hearing I I don't think that anyone is asking the council to reconsider our recommendation to to change our recommendations or do more with it I think there's just this is our only time to comment and there's a general frustration that the height wasn't considered but that it is not relevant at this time I would agree that's what I that's what I hear members saying that it's very hard to enthusiastically say you know yes we we we're down with yes but so just for clarity but the height wasn't part of your recommendations it was a comment questions it was a comment it was a comment on the record that that the board made so as a group you did not list it we couldn't do anything about it right because it was already part of the we can't we can't recommend to do it lower all we could do was comment on that so I think the board has now expressed again how which what we would have liked to see and at this point do if we don't need to discuss it further and we're okay with where we stand we can authorize this the letter as as our attorney suggested so we make a motion to do that okay so is there a motion to do that motion okay second second so did you get who that was uh that was Mr fredman okay thank you okay Mr alter can you just repeat what the motion is the motion is that we um the board agrees with the action of preparing a letter to the council that states our uh that we have received the comments of the council we've received the final plan and um we continue to offer I don't lawyer can't comment here that we that we reoffer our same comments to the board okay yes sorry that wasn't too El eloquently stated can't change anything so okay I'm sorry Mr alter you said yes okay Mr fedman yes Mr greed yes Dr Weinberg Council yes mayor shinfield obain yeah actually like I would be voting yes you should send a letter back to the so you can up so I just go up stain chionship okay and Cher yes and what we can do is our attorney T will prepare the letter if we need to consult with Alon or different attorney we'll do that we'll have the board see it and we'll see if perhaps we can we are allowed to add a comment if we would like to add a comment specifically about the height I believe we can so that's okay with the board that's what we'll do we'll have make sure everybody sees that before it goes on well within the 45 days okay thank you so those are both there's two here I'm looking it's 97 pages so Bor I'm looking to actually I can't find the an ordinance 2526 I think she said one was already passed and I'm looking at the email right now cuz we don't have it in the packets cuz it's so big right H yeah yeah there that's too much to out we're just looking for let me know I didn't see okay so board um Mark will be right back but uh we're looking for 2526 which I can't fine it's listed in our agenda send to our I have it you do have it yeah I don't have a hard copy but I have you know in in which which email email um I want to say Tanya sent it on as like a followup email oh after she sent it on the package yeah I didn't include it cuz I had a link and there was yeah was that the one that was like it was on the same day yes exactly that's why I didn't print that that out okay well everybody should find yeah so you were smart to bring the computer I'm on my little phone here if I remember correctly that was about 50 pages long that's why some pred out 9 yeah the link will take you uh yeah I see the one yeah cuz they were too L to like emails what is the date of this email that we're looking for I'm looking for it now looking through Den's stuff what I'm looking through it now I want to find out the date so I can find out I think Tanya sent it on the 23rd at 6:43 p.m. thank you the 23rd the 23rd and it's T's email below that there's an email from Denise C to Tanya from the 15th at 1128 a.m. and there's a link for 256 256 did you say the ordinance is 2566 she said they should go because I questioned right it this is something I was sharing or why she was saying this and she said they should go to the board to review the one was already introduced and reviewed but the financial part was changed yes so should affect anything this is the question that I had and uh well can't speak for the attorney um about why we're receiving this I think we have to send it back to you but the the there was a dispute over I think the the was the pilot payment yes right so there was we settled with with the developer um on actually the amount and it was just all that ended up happening was it was a delayed the payment was delayed but the amount was the same okay so this is something the board was never part of which was the financial the financial agreement they didn't want to pay they said this the town hadn't done certain things it started to be it started to look like it was going to be litigation the two sides got together and they just ended up changing the timing of the payment right so this has nothing to do with board commentary in fact it's something the board probably should not be commenting on we're talking about the second resolution which was for the just the financial changing the fees changing the fee dates the fee dates the Fe the fees remain the same it was just a matter of when they would make the payments that's I don't even think that's a land use consideration yeah so I think the mayor saying that Denise thought we have to see it because it's part of the Redevelopment plan but it's not something we would advise on so it doesn't doesn't we don't probably don't need to I would just write a letter back that says we have no comma okay okay what do we care that's got nothing to do with consistency with the master plan yeah usually we don't in the past we haven't not no we don't we see comment about that okay so I need a motion for that as well so we've been advised for uh ordinance 2506 that the board will prepare a letter stating no comment and response to the email do I have a motion motion at alter second okay Dr Weinberg thank you Mr alter yes Mr fredman yes Mr gree yes Dr Weinberg yes Council Le anduk obain mayor sha yes Cher yes thank you okay um discussion items I just want to remind there's a few members that haven't yet done their mandated storm water training if you're new we're not pushing rushing you to do but there's some other members that still need to attend so um T how do they sign up they just have to W watch the uh watch the videos and let me know that they watched it okay thank you can is that where can't find those I can resend it to you I I think one of the first emails I sent it to you everything should be in there if you don't have it let me know and I'll resend it to you okay and actually um I'm sorry you're you did you say you were a traffic engine what is your background yes track engineer all right got some good shortcuts around town yeah you're shortcuts you supposed to use the proper roadways for Sal one p that was a good response guys probably local roads are for locals okay I have no other items for discussion T anything I'm forgetting do I have anything I just want to I just want to remind let everybody know today we have a special meeting for affordable housing um thank you Meredith for participating in our little subcommittee I guess um we had from DCA a number of 220 and there are numbers that go into calculations of that demographics available Land Based on the available land adjustment we made uh we went from 220 to 171 that's what we're going to be submitting to the state that does does not mean that's our RDP that does not take into account the actually developable land that isn't in a flood zone or any other limitation to it but that's where we are now and the next date we've got is um probably in June realistically um in which we'll be coming assuming that we don't get challenged in the next 30 days we'll be coming back we to to to the planning board then and start talking about what that number is and realistically how the new numbers fit into what our plans are going to be here yeah and I also say in our meetings that Darlene was very eager to um fill in the planning board and come before us and discuss the plan she's will when do those units have to be realized we have a decade okay so but but you know there's so many moving pieces um you know a developer is going to take a 4:1 ratio on purchase and only a 15% if it's going to be a rental and how you calculate that and then there's something called your aspirational number which is supposed to be 25% of your number um but we don't know if that's based on your RDP if it's based upon the windshield number that the DCA calculated or if it's the W windshield number that we've calculated and that number can be anywhere from additional 60 units to an additional two units and and if you ask anybody from the state they will give you a different answer so we don't we we don't have guidance on that yet so all we can do is work on our RDP number from basically using the the 171 as a starting point anything else chis I have I said anything wrong on that or last same exact discussion okay exact same discussion [Music] sorry who is phenomenal and I can't say her Praises she come before us here um she really sort of guided us through and walked us through this process um and as I said in the meeting today on Zoom um I have dealt with a lot of other Mayors and talking to them and how they put this plan together and what they were doing and I thrilled with the product that we put forward as far as the mapping and the justification for a drop in 49 units we really Justified it um so I'm very comfortable with where we are right now in the decade who knows what's going to happen well fortunately as Chris knows we were proactive for years before as a planning board and putting aside and keeping up with what we thought was coming down the pipe so yeah thank you may for that update appreciate it okay uh I'll open the meeting one more time to the public anyone here who would like to address the board seeing that I'll close the meeting to the public our next turn will be th Thursday February 133 2025 7:30 at the Federal Hall do I have a motion to adourn oh motion thank you everyone yeah