All right. All right. Good evening. This is a spe This is a special meeting of Livingston's planning board and notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the open public meetings act. >> Mr. Ratner
>> here. >> Mr. Diner >> here. >> Miss F. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Mr. Duffford >> here. >> Miss Bishnu >> here. >> Miss Connor >> here. >> Vice Chair Santo >> here. >> Chairman Fernandez >> here. >> We have a quorum. Mr. Reber and Mr.
Batani are not present this evening. We have our board attorney, board planner and assistant township engineer. >> Thanks Jack. If you can call the first matter. That matter is a continued from June 16,
2026 for preliminary and final site plan for block 100 lot 3.01 630 route 10 application number 2022-9-PFSP. an amendment for Spectrum Spectrum 360 LLC.
>> Thank you. And uh welcome back. >> Hi, good evening everyone. John Wescala. It's my pleasure to be here tonight on behalf of Spectrum 360. Uh this is an application with respect to Spectrum 360's uh new uh lower school uh which is
located at 630 West Mount Pleasant Avenue. Properties identified as block 100, lot 3.01. Uh we are looking to have this school open and operational for the new school year by September 1st of this year. Uh board may recall we received
preliminary and final site plan approval with respect to uh this school project back in 2022. Um we actually came before the minor site plan committee uh with a perimeter fencing plan back in 2024 which was
approved at heights of of four feet and five feet. Our administrators very concerned with respect to that and that's why we filed this amended application seeking approval for a six-foot decorative fence around the entire perimeter basically in in lie of
those 4 foot uh the 4-oot fencing. Uh you heard testimony uh back on June 16th from uh the uh Spectrum 360's uh executive director Ken Berger uh as well as Brian Conway who's our project uh
landscape architect designer of the fence as well as our professional planner. uh the board had some reservations um and some concerns uh largely because I don't think we had sufficient exhibits to show the nature and extent of landscaping that was
proposed. Uh actually originally part of the uh the the uh minor site plan committee approval uh and I think he wanted to see better exhibits to understand you know what's going on out here. Uh we are proposing an open you know that that black aluminum type
fence. Actually I think it's probably the identical six foot high fence that you see when you drive down Route 10 past the Eisenhower uh corporate offices uh where I think it's I'm not sure who's in there. Verizon the Verizon building. Um the
only difference being we're actually proposing landscaping in front of the fencing rather than behind the fencing. So, uh, with that, I think I'd just like to recall Brian Conway. Uh, he's made a revised submittal that went in, uh, a couple of weeks ago. Uh, and we've got
some exhibits and so forth, and we're going to show you what it's going to look like. Uh, and you have a better understanding of what's being proposed and why it's being proposed. I'll remind Mr. Conway, he's still under oath. And I assume your licenses. You were
qualified last month. Everything is still in good standing. >> Everything's good. Thank you. >> Nothing has happened between now. >> No, sir. Great. >> Um, I'm just going to go through my entire testimony because I tried to
abbreviate a little bit last time and I think that's maybe some of the trouble too. So, if there's a little bit of repetition, I apologize, but I just wanted to go through methodically kind of what we're doing and how we're approaching this. So I'm here tonight discuss to discuss the amended site plan and security fencing for the Spectrum
360 a school for special needs students. The school is at the old Katherine Gibbs building on the corner of Oakner Parkway and West Mount Pleasant Avenue. We brought the original site plan application before the planning board and received approval on May 17, 2022.
In 2024, the school administration asked for additional fencing to enhance school uh student security and a minor site plan application was made which included 5 foot high fencing around the perimeter of the parking lot on the west mount avenue side of the building, westmount
pleasant side of the building and the exit doors on Oaker Parkway. The minor site plan committee approved the plan on September 5th, 2024 with the requirement to reduce the height of the fence around the parking lot to 4 feet and increase the size of the plantings.
The school renovation project is now in full swing with the school scheduled to open in September. The administration and staff have been out to the site during construction and have reaffirmed their concerns about student safety. The school administration has asked me to
revisit the security fencing to increase the height of all fencing to six feet to help to protect the vulnerable students. The increase in height is necessary to prevent an aloping student from straying into traffic and give slow them down and give caregivers time to respond. This
will provide additional protection for both the students and the motoring public. So, what I have up on the screen right now is drawing A1 from this um amended uh site plan application.
>> So, just while you're on that, you're you're calling this exhibit A1. Is this >> No, it's drawing A1. I'm sorry. >> Drawing. Okay. It was it was part of the package, the same drawing that you folks have in your package with a revision date of um July 8th, 2026.
I'm just going to zoom in on the plan part of it a little bit closer so we could have a discussion. So, um as I mentioned before, we have two previous applications and approval. We have the site plan application and we have the minor um application. The um fence
around the employee parking lot which is on the western side, northwestern side is a 6ft high chain link fence that was part of the original approval. We're not modifying that. We're just I'm just mentioning it so we have a discussion about all of the fencing on site. So the
six foot high chain link fence around the employee parking lot on the northwest corner is part of the original approval. Not changing just to have a discussion about all the fencing on site. Um the next area that we had as part of our original approval was the playground
fencing. The playground fencing the original site plan approval it was approved as a 5ft high chain link fence. What we're proposing to do is to change it to a six-ft high fence and as requested at the last meeting we are going to have it match we're proposing
to have it match the balance of decorative site the decorative fencing on site to be an aluminum picket fence to match everything else. So, those were the two fences that were part of the original submission that the the one is unchanged. The playground
would like to increase it to a height of six feet and make it a decorative fence. Now, for the minor site plan application, what we did was we um had an application for the parking lot and the entrance drive along uh West Mount
Pleasant Avenue. And what our original proposal was to have a 5ft high fence around that parking lot. What was approved was a 4ft high fence. And we're seeking to have that be a sixft high fence also. again. So if a student were to get out of the building, it would
give the faculty a chance to uh respond to try to retrieve them without them getting out onto the roadway. Um in addition to the so the um the minor site plan approved the fence along the east side of the parking lot, along the south side of the parking lot, and
along the west side of the parking lot. What what we're also seeking to do is to connect that fence from that ending point to the building and to provide manual gates there. The idea is that there would be a security guard in a car
or monitoring that that could keep the gates closed or open the gates as needed for people to come in and out. So that's this the third fence. The fourth one are the um fences around the doors on Oakner Parkway. This was also a
part of our minor site plan application. And what we had proposed um for the minor site plan application were 5 foot high fences with a gate facing away from Oak Parkway. We'll provide um an they're going to be outward opening and we'll
provide an emergency um opening device for the gate so somebody could push it and open the gate. Again, the idea is to try to give the stu give this the if a student were to get loose, it's to try to give the faculty and staff enough time to retrieve them before they get
away. Um, so that f those fences were approved at 5t high and again we'd like to have them be six feet high for the enhanced security. There was one other fence that we're adding that I don't believe requires any
variance approval, but we're having we're here for the amended site plan. So, we're going to talk about it also. And it's the fencing that goes across the entrance drives. So, um the idea would be that the fence would be open during drop off and after this the drop
off was complete. The fences could be manually closed across the drop off lanes and the entrance to the drop off and then they would be opened up um when the school was emptying so that they could be um um you know allow free access for the vehicles in and out.
Um, one of the things that we are um, we talked about at the last meeting was that when school is not in session, all of the fences, all of the gates will be open completely. So, there's free access to and from the site. And for the automatic gate which is um at the um
southwest corner of the building, we we would anticipate that that would be an automatic opening gate from people leaving and from people entering in vehicles, but it would not be um open for pedestrians so that a student couldn't activate it.
so that if there was if there was some type of an emergency during school hours, um the fire department or the the ambulance would be able to get in to take care of that emergency from either route 10 or from um Oakner Parkway. >> You have to queue on 10 to get into the
gate. >> I'm sorry. >> Do you have to queue on route 10 to get through the gate? >> The gate is The gate is very far off off Route 10. The gate is at the corner of the building. >> I see it. And again, the idea is that >> those are crosswalks that that you're
showing on the >> correct. Okay. Got it. >> The idea is that the gates are going to be open until all the staff is there. >> Got it. >> And then after staff is there, then the gates can be closed and then they could function in that capacity.
>> Good. So, there was some um conversation about um the buffering for the playground fence that was part of the original application. So, these drawings are the original approved site plan drawings um
that were uh completed for resolution compliance. Should we mark it as an exhibit or is it okay because they were already um approved? I just have a >> Okay, so it the whole package would be a A1. >> Yeah, just explain what it is. How many
sheets? >> Um I have to zoom in. >> So it's 21 looks like 21 sheets maybe 20 22 sheets and um the revision is um revised for resolution compliance with a
date of April 11th, 2023. And I'm just going to go to the um the landscape plan just so we could have a quick look at the buffering around the playground fence area. It's it's sheet number 14 of that set.
So what I have up on the screen now um on the right side is the entry drive with the trees along the entry drive. The playgrounds um are in the center and then along the Oakner Parkway side which is at the eastern side or the lower part of the sheet we have street trees to
supplement they're going to be London plane trees which are going to match the other London plane trees along Oakner Parkway and then we have a row of evergreen trees along the fence um providing a buffer for the fence as well as some separation from the road for the
play area. It should also be noted that the elevation of the play area is about 7 feet lower than seven or eight feet lower than the elevation of the street at the entry drive. So, it's quite a bit lower. The fence is also going to be much lower than street grade.
So, I'm back to um the submitt this the um the submission package that you folks have from this um last submitted for the same date of July July 8th. And I'm going to go to the um sheet A2 which is amended site plan um and the landscape
plan. So, one of the issues that we had um that wasn't anticipated was JCPNL um came in to relocate the poles which was a requirement for the Canterly Place project and the uh Route 10 widening and the intersections improvements. They
removed all the trees in the front of the property and they relocated the poles. And the relocation of the poles prohibited us from putting the London plane trees that we had originally anticipated for street trees along West Mount Pleasant Avenue. So what we did is
we changed to a tree that would be well suited to be able to grow underneath the power lines and in and around the utilities that exist in the area. Those are the colar Sergeant cherry trees. So along the fence and I'm going to I'm
going to get into some more detail with the um with the um elevations and the renderings afterwards, but I just want to explain it on the plan now and then we'll go to that afterwards. So I'll start on the western side. So, if you if you look at the um where my
cursor is kind of in the top center of the screen, that's our sign. If you remember, um the sign for Canerly Place is on the corner of Oakner Parkway and West Mount Pleasant. So, we were we were forced to relocate our sign um near our
entrance drive. That was part of the original application. And a part and parcel of what we're doing here is the planting on that corner of the fence is a low juniper so that we can maintain visibility to our sign. Uh there was a lot of concern when we did the original
application about having people be able to see the sign in time to be able to turn into our driveway. So the buffer planting starts about um 20 feet in from there to keep the line of sight open to the sign. And then from there we have a
a rhythm of boxwood plants that are I believe 30 to 36 inch tall at planting. And then we go to a group of junipers which are 6 to 7 feet at planting. And then we go back to boxwoods. And then we go back to the juniper. So it's there's
some variation in height. And where the boxwoods are with the lower height that's where we have the um column sergeant cherry trees which are generally a lower branch tree. So the idea is that we have about 50% of the fence um screened by the upright juniper
trees and the other 50% is screened to a height of about 3 ft and then with the lower branch trees it's kind of catching it on both ends. I think it's really important that we have visibility to the school building um from the site um from the roadway so people can see that the
school's there especially given our challenges from signage from a signage perspective. Um at the ends of the parking lot on the um the west end as well as on the east end we have additional plantings um hedges and um some other evergreen
plantings. Um, we also on the Oakner Parkway side, as requested at the last meeting, um, I gave this a lot of thought and a lot of consideration. And sometimes in my mind's eye, if you're trying to screen
something, just putting a an evergreen hedge around it cause more attention to it and makes it makes it look worse. So, what what I I I I went through a lot of different scenarios, and what I came up with is what you see on the screen before you is I pulled the plantings
away from the fence and created landscape islands in the lawn between the building and the sidewalk so that they're able to buffer the fencing as well as have an attractive look and feel to them and not just be a row of evergreen trees around a fence. So, I
did that for all four of the doors along um Opener Parkway. So, I'm going to go to the um renderings and the elevations where we could start to get a feel for. So, I'll go to the the renderings first. I think that that tells the best story.
So, this is a view from kind of the center of the street um from the Oakner Parkway and West Mount Pleasant Avenue. Um and you could see the the building in the background. the um London plane trees along Oakner Parkway. You can see
the cherry trees in the foreground in front of the fence, the upright junipers, the boxwood, and then what we also did is we added a layer of perennials in front of all the evergreens to help provide some seasonal interest and make it a little bit um of
a nicer a nicer look and feel. >> What will be the height of the tallest planting? >> The tallest plantings would be the cherry. >> Sorry, Andy. Yep. >> The cherry trees are probably going to be 12 to 14t tall. >> Okay. >> The junipers are 6 to7s. The box was are 30 to 36.
>> Thank you. >> So, I'm going to go to the um rendering from the other point of view. And this is where you can see our sign um as well as a sign on the building. I just wanted to for the sake of um accuracy say that
the signs are not necessarily what they're supposed to be. They're just a graphic representation at this point, but I wanted to include some level of detail so that it was clear that they were the signs and they're the right size. The text on them is not yet complete.
So, this is this is from the um west looking east. It's kind of standing what would be in the middle of Route 10 looking, but it was a nice way to see again um how the the trees and um shrubs buffer the fence across the whole frontage. And the only area where the
fence has any real visibility is that area right in front of the sign where we need to keep um some visibility open to be able to see the sign. >> You think that'll be sad or grass? >> There there's going to be a low juniper in front of it. >> No grass in front of >> Yeah, it be grass.
>> I don't know if it's going to be sod or seed. >> Okay. What's the distance between the sidewalk and the fence or the beginning of the parking lot, which is pretty much one and the same.
So, it it varies. It looks like at its closest point, it's probably about 12 feet. >> 12 feet. And then the sidewalk is what, three or four? >> The sidewalk is probably four four feet. They got 16 feet literally from the street to the beginning of the fence and then
you got a parking lot. >> Yeah. If I had a paper drawing, I'd put a scale on it, but it's >> a PDF. It's a little >> Also, in your picture, again, understand that renderings depict what make it look prettier. But, um, if those trees are going to be of the size you're talking
about, the sign on the building is a waste. You're not going to see it through those trees except when the leaves are gone. Um, >> you already got the approval for the sign, so it's not an issue. But I just, if that's what you're going to do, is that what you want to do?
>> That's one of the reasons why I wanted to make sure that we had both of these vantage points. So the um, junipers that are shown are they're probably shown a little bit bigger than six to sevens. They might be shown at 7 to eights. I was taking Mr. Ratner's advice to not show them much bigger than planting
size. >> It's 20 years later. >> Yeah, it's not 20 years later. They're six to sevens is what's going in and they're shown just over the fence. So, they're probably a couple of years uh past, but I think that there's still going to be good visibility of the building coming westbound on Route 10 as
well as um eastbound on Route 10 also. So, that's why we we did those two vantage points. They're not the the the trees that are being planted around the parking lot, the junipers, are not going to get much taller than probably 15 feet ultimately.
So then I just wanted to also show I prepared some elevations measured to scale. So there's no artistic um license here. So the the fence is 6 feet tall. The evergreen trees are probably
shown 7 to eight. 6 to 7 is what we have. The um evergreen shrubs are about 3 feet tall. We have them going in at 30 to 36. So, I think it's a pretty accurate to scale. You could get a a a good feel for what that's going to look like across the front.
And then if you um look at the other um elevation, this is what we're doing for the um Oakner Parkway door areas. So, we have um skip laurels in the center and ink berry on the sides again with a row of perennials around them. So, we're
providing some softening, some buffering, but not necessarily just a a soldiered hedge around those doors. And I felt that that was really the best way to approach this. Um, the other thing that you have to remember is for most of the building along Oakner Parkway, the
London plane trees along the street are very large and they they almost extend to the building. So, there's that area is almost always in shade. And so anything that we're doing there with the fencing and stuff, there's not going to be that stark contrast of, you know,
light and dark. It's already a little bit lower than the street. And with the trees there, it's giving you a little bit of a buffer already. >> The size of the fence that is going to be on that side of the building facing opener. Um, that hasn't changed. That that was always going to be 6 foot.
>> What we had approved from the minor what we had approved from the minor 6T, >> we would like six feet for all the fencing. That's what we're asking. >> I'm trying to understand the difference. I I want to finish your landscape. >> Okay. So, that's I think pretty much
everything that I have on landscape. Would like to have some conversation and questions. >> Have you Let me ask you, did you have the opportunity to review the um the uh engineering planning reports? >> Yes, sir. I have. >> We have any issue complying with any of the comments? >> So, I mean, if you want to go by them
item by item, but no, I don't. >> Uh we don't need to go by item by item. if you just are in agreement with all conditions uh or suggestions. >> Okay. >> So, initially there was a lot of objection
when we were before the minor site plan with regard to fencing on the front of the property. Um, and again, other than the Horizon building or whoever the major tenant is on that building right now, um, there is no fencing on any property and most of
the properties are way set back. You don't even see the parking lot. This one has a parking lot front and center right on the street. Um, so there was obviously concern about that when when we granted the approval. We had granted it with a forefoot
because the testimony that came before us was that was to keep the children and clearly um an important point and nobody wants to jeopardize the health and welfare and safety of the children that are in the school. Um but I'm trying to
understand the difference between four feet and six feet. Um, unless this is going to be a lot older children that can climb over the top of a fence after they've gotten out of the building and across the parking lot. >> Is it is it all right if we call Mr. B
up just to address that? You need to get up to the microphone. >> There's a mic right there. >> That's all right. This is working. So, >> and you're still under oath as well. >> Yes. Yes. Nothing's changed in my life except this building is but so so um
after we went through all of that quite honestly uh as the principal and the assistant principal and the other staff came to the building they were and they've had a number of experiences that I mentioned last time where we've had where we are now in Verona we've had children run all the way down from where
we are down to Bloomfield Avenue and have crossed the road and they said we have got to increase the size of this fence. We have ninth graders in that building that are quite tall. They're as tall as I am. And we have got to put every legal fire approved barrier to
slow them down that we can. We're planning to buy we're planning to have security guards monitoring on the outside if they even do broach those fences because some of them might be able to know how to open it, others will not. And in addition to that, I mentioned last time we spent thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars on on
cameras. We're doing everything we can because the biggest vulnerability for us is the distance between the front of the building and Route 10 and the speed with which cars are coming down there. We had a board member who had a terrible accident on Route 10 recently just over there. So, we are really concerned. And
so, that's what changed from the time we had the conversation, me, the CEO guy, uh, and then I go back to the troops and they're like, "Wait a minute, wait a minute. This is super dangerous. We now have kids that are really tall. We're seeing them running down the road. We
really need a taller fence. We really need a taller fence. >> What is the size of the fence that you have in Verona? >> It's that's the problem. It's it's it's it's lower and it's not working. And they're easily scaling those fences. >> When you say lower, what is >> 4T 4T >> and it's not working at all.
>> So, they're just jumping over the four. >> They sure are super fast and they're really fast. Which is also why in this building we're doing something different. We're going to have security guards posted outside. So if they do breach the fence, we will have a final line of defense, which is the security
outside the building. >> Have you suggested electricity in the fence? >> That's a kid. That's a joke. >> I know. >> He didn't say that. >> I said it, but I'm kidding. >> Yeah. Yeah. No, no, no.
>> You don't understand that. >> So that's that's the context. what happened since we we last met and we talked about this. >> Thank you. >> So the only other question that I have again is concern is to the visibility from the front of the street. That's an
enormously busy street. a granted understand the reason for the six feet fence and um but not seeing it and not seeing the top of it is for me personally something that as I drive up Route 10 literally from Livingston all
the way up to Paripin fortunately there's more green than there is especially on that side not so much on the on the on the southern side there's a lot of cars and parking in the front. I know we've spent a lot of time trying to avoid that. There's cars going
to be parked there, but what can we do to try to not to see as much of them beyond what you're doing right now? >> I I really worked hard to come up with a plan that I thought was was um buffering the fence sufficiently as well as an
attractive solution. That's really what I I worked. >> Is this going to be um irrigation throughout it? I would assume so >> because I would hate to see all of this and then have it die in 15 minutes. >> Agree. It's a big investment obviously
just in the landscaping. So Mr. Burgerer had said affirmative uh relative to irrigation. I've been before this board enough to understand a lot of the concerns and u you know at the minor site plan if you remember we had good conversation about
this and you know we took what we did what we agreed to there and we we changed it to add in the taller um junipers to provide some solid buffer for parts of the fence um and then dropping down to lower lower plantings where the um cherries are going to be
because if we were to put the evergreen trees along the whole length of the fence I think it would obscure the view into the building and I think it would be counterproductive. >> Thank you. >> Are there any other questions for the board? >> Yeah, I have a question. Um, you're
gating once the school is in session and something happens. How do the gates open? They open automatically in the fire alarm. Are they tied to the fire alarm system? How do emergency services get onto the property? the the gate, the automatic gate is going to have some
kind of a ground loop or automatic opener for any vehicle approaching it from either direction. >> Okay. All right. The other thing, the vegetation on the egress doors on the opener side, how close is that vegetation going to be to the edge of that gate? >> It's it's it's not near it. Oh,
>> it's not? >> No, there's no there's no obstruction from somebody walking I could show you on the plan. There's no obstruction from somebody walking out um the gate. So the gate is on the right side looking at it and the plantings are in front of it. >> Okay.
>> So they'd be able to go out. The whole idea what we were trying to do is even if somebody were to get out the gate that they'd be heading away from Route 10. That was the goal. >> The other thing the existing trees in Oakner Parkway, they're going to be taken down or remain. >> No, they're going to remain. >> They are. Okay.
If you if you look at the plan, the um dark circles that you can see on this screen right now are proposed and then the um the circles with the circle in the center that are shaded, those are the existing trees that are all going to remain. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mr. Chairman, I think we we need to just hear a little bit of uh planning testimony because I don't believe we covered that at the last meeting. So, we're seeking um amendment site plan approval and var variance relief for fence height in the front yards of a
non-residential district. To recap, the changes to the fence plan will provide an added level of safety for the Spectrum 360 students. The plane the change in height to 6 feet along West Mount Pleasant Avenue and Oaker Parkway will be mitigated by the enhanced
plantings that are proposed. Additional fences are proposed to secure parking lots and access drives which are lower profile areas with decreased visibility from the street. The fencing will also help the motoring public by containing the students and thereby um preventing
possible accidents. What we're seeking is a C variance. The variance is a C2 or flexible C variance. Under the municip municipal land use law 405C2, a C2 variance does not require
demonstration of a hardship. The board can find that the proposed plan with deviations represent a better planning alternative than a conforming plan to meet the positive criteria, including that the purposes of the m municipal land use law would be advanced by a
deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements and that the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. So, we'll talk about the negative criteria. No variance or other relief can be granted without showing that such variance can be granted without
substantial de detriment to the public good and it will not substantially impair the intent or purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. This application modifies the approved site plan and minor site plan by
increasing the heights of the previous previously approved fences from 4T or 5T to 6 ft and additional fencing and gates to secure parking lots and drives. These proposed changes to the fence are minor and further mitigated by enhanced
landscaping. The proposed fences that are visible from the street are decorative and greater than 50% open. The proposed variances will cause no substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and
zoning ordinance. Under NJ405D7C2, municipal board is empowered to grant a variance in an application or appeal as it relates to a specific piece of property where the purposes of the municipal land you saw would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance
and where the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. So for the purposes of the act the m municipal land use law 40 col 55d2 that would be advanced by this variance I
have a few of them. Uh the first one I would say would be a to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of lands in a matter that will pro promote the public health safety morals and general welfare. It's important to note that
this is a special needs school and the variance relief sought is to protect its vulnerable students thereby protecting the general welfare by preventing accidents and b to secure from fire, flood, panic and other natural or man-made disasters. The variance relief
will serve to protect the students and the motoring public by preventing the eloping students from straying onto the roadway. Also G to prevent suffic s to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural,
residential, commercial, industrial uses and open space both public and private according to the respectable environmental requirements order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens. And this will meet the needs of the Spectrum 360 students by helping protect
them um from the busy roadway. And then I to promote desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements. The changes made in the variance sought are part of a comprehensive landscape and site plan which will protect the students and be
an attractive part of the township roadside landscape. In closing, it's my opinion that the board can approve this amended site plan and grant the requested variance without negatively impacting the the master plan, township zoning, and with no detriment to public good. I believe the
benefits of protecting the student safety and the Monik public substantially outweigh any detriment. Um, that's the end of my planning testimony. Be happy to answer any questions. Any me any questions from the board?
Seeing none, >> we have nothing further. Chairman, >> so just to uh any members of the public have any questions for these witnesses after their testimony? Seeing none, uh any members of the public uh want to make a sworn statement for or against the application?
Seeing none, just wanted to do our eyes and cross our tees. >> Nothing further. Chairman, >> thank you very much. >> We appreciate the board's consideration in this regard. Um so with that uh absent uh any objection and absent any motion for
continuence the evidentary record is closed and no further testimony or evidence shall be heard or received. So um any comments questions by the board? >> Yeah, I'm comfortable with the revised land
staffing plan. um further to our conversation at the last meeting. I think it's probably if it happens the way it's depicted here um will make it more comfortable in terms of of the view
from Route 10. And uh so I would move to approve this uh motion. >> Make a motion. >> Yeah, I'll second and I'll uh join. I thank uh Spectrum 360 for their efforts and um I think the picture is worth a thousand words. we had that last meeting. We might have got done last
meeting, but it uh went a long way to show that I think it'll look fine and I think um I'm convinced you met the C2 standard clearly the benefits of protecting the students outweigh any detriment. Uh so I second >> anything further. I just as a as an
additional comment and echoing what Barry had said as well is that um I appreciate the benefit of the additional landscaping to help soften what that is and for the purposes of precedent. I think we should be clear in the
resolution that we're agreeing to the height of that fence in that location for the purposes of security of keeping children in, not keeping people out. Um, you know, I think you've heard from the
board, you know, none of us want to see, you know, fencing up and down Route 10. Uh but I think uh you know the manner in which you've done this um certainly you know you know makes it uh you know visually better but even more importantly I think you know necessary for the protection of the kids. Uh the
last thing we you know any of us want to see is somebody somebody getting hurt. >> Um >> yeah you're the professional. You're telling us that's what you need for safety. I think that's >> paramount. >> So we had a motion in a second Jackie. Uh but before I just the uh I just want
to refer to Roco. He called out two conditions one and seven in his memo dated July 14th, 2026. I want to make sure you're okay with that. >> I know we were okay with everything, but >> it's just number seven is the site plan sheet should include a signature block
for the board if granted. Number one is the site plan denote that all fences shall be black in color greater than 50%. You know, so I'm going to include those two then in whatever >> Yep. is voted on. Okay. M >> Mr. Chairman, can I can I make also a recommendation for condition in terms of
any landscaping dies within the first year it's replaced in in same condition. >> Mhm. >> Very good. >> Mr. Ratner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lewis. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Duffford. >> Yes. Miss Wishnu in place of member Reber. >> Yes. >> Miss Scana in place of member Diner. >> Yes. Member Diners. >> He missed the first meeting. >> Mr. Senola. >> Yes.
>> Chairman Fernandez. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Thank you very much everybody. Really appreciate everyone. Motion was best to second was by >> Welcome to town. >> They're already in town. been here for a while.
>> Not like this. >> Thank you. I don't even know why I brought that in. shoulder. Yeah. That's funny. The next the next matter scheduled for this evening is minus subdivision with
variances for block 4804 lot 14 56 Bernett Street application number 2026-44-m BVV 56 Bernett LLC located in the R4 zone. >> Thank you Jackie. Welcome.
Good evening. Diana McGovern from the law firm of Gasho and Pamako on behalf of the applicant 56 Bernett Street LLC. Um tonight uh my client 56 Bernett LLC is the owner of 56 Bernett Street which is located in the R4 residential zone.
We are seeking to demolish the existing old house, subdivide the property, which is currently 22,46 square ft or divide it into two 12,962 square ft. Um, but when we get with the
125 uh ft of the right of way, it it ends up being 6,482 square feet per lot. uh where 9,375 square ft um is required. The proposed
houses would con conform to all of the other bulk standards. And since the planner issued his report, which is June 8th, 2026, the window well, which had protruded into the sideyard, we've moved that to the rear. So we have no >> So that variance isn't required either.
>> Sorry, >> that variance isn't required either then. We're no longer required. >> It's it's Yeah. So, we only have the one and that's for the undersized lot square footage. We >> So, C3 is no longer uh so there's no variance for C3. It's just the C5. >> C5.
>> Yes. Yes. Um and we are we'll stipulate that we will meet all the other bulk um requirements for the zone setbacks >> as a condition, size, and everything. >> As a condition, yes. Okay. Um we're
we're not seeking to make it a large house. It's just this is just what we're left with in terms of your ordinance the way it reads. Um tonight I have um we proposed to do the subdivision by deed. >> So that's on the record. And I also note
that the Essex County Planning Board issued their approval uh which you have June 10th, 2026. That's already been provided to the board. Tonight I have two witnesses. Camille Wizakowski. He's the managing member of 56 Bernett Street LLC. And uh we also have Charlie
Baldanza who is a licensed architect and a planner for this evening. >> Thank you. >> Um I would like to call my first witness, Mr. Rosikowski. >> Council, if you could have all all your witnesses come up. I want to swear I want to swear everybody in including the board professionals all at once. >> Great.
>> Okay. So if everybody raise your right hand, you swear affirm that the testimony you're going to provide in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. And I said I said proceeding, but I should have said hearing. >> I do. I do. >> Okay. And again, just can you say and spell your name for the record, please?
>> Sure. Camille Wizakowski. K A M I L W Y R Z Y K O W S K I. >> And um Charles Baldanza. Last name is uh B A L D A N ZA. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Uh, Camille, um, you you're the managing member of 56 Bernett LLC? >> Yes. >> And are you the owner of the property? >> Yes. >> What is currently on the property? >> Uh, currently it's a um single family
home that's been abandoned for uh the past seven plus years. Um, it's in really poor shape. Um, it's overfilled with debris. Um we had a um an asbestous survey done. It's filled with asbestous
that's we need to get remediated. Um and actually when my asbestous surveyor went in, he got attacked by three raccoons inside. So we had to have those un you know taken out. Um so it's really poor shape. Arguably, I think it's probably
you I've done a lot of work in town and I think it's probably the worst house in in town at this at this point. >> Okay. And what do you propose to do? Um, I propose to demolish the the the property and um subdivide the property
into two to fit the surrounding um properties on that street and um build two brand new homes that would um you know be uh in line with what is currently being built on that street. >> I know that there's some new
construction going on across the street. Um, is it the proposed uh the homes would be in keeping in terms of the size similar in size to what's going on across the street? >> Yes. >> Okay. I don't know if the board members have been by, but I did take a picture
if you'd like to refresh your memory as to what's going on across the street. I'm happy to >> have that up. >> Yeah, >> Mark, this is A1. A2. I just thought we were going to go in the order of testimony, but that's fine. We'll do this A2.
A1 will be the fine. >> Uh, Camille, we don't have any architectural plans yet, but what would be your um proposed number of bedrooms, if you have a an idea on that? >> It would be between four and five bedrooms. >> All right. And then would you we've
already stipulated we're going to conform to the habitable floor area and habitable floor area ratio. Correct. >> Yes. >> So whatever is required under the ordinance that would be what you'd be planning on building. >> Yes. >> And um a pull down attic because I know that's important here. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Um now did do you I know you've had the opportunity to review the planners report and the engineers report. Is there anything in those reports that um would give you pause? Are you willing to commit and and a have as a condition any of the recommendations by either the board
engineer or the board planner? Board planner was June 8th, 2026 and the board engineer was June 2nd, 2026. >> Yes, all the conditions are acceptable. >> Okay. Now, I do know there's a neighbor here and he has some concerns. He's lot
18 and you did have some communication with him. Um are in terms of the back area um there's trees. There's a lot of trees. What's your plan in terms of the trees on the property? >> Um well, my plan is to keep as many of
the trees as possible. We are proposing to remove some of the trees in the front uh that are within the building envelope. Um, we will clear out some of the brush within the, you know, the center of the yard to create a grass
soded backyard, but the trees that are on the perimeter of the of the property, we intend to keep. Um, if we have to clear out some of the thorns and some of the, you know, uh, unnecessary brush, we will do so, um, to clean it up and make
it really look really nice. But we're not looking to um you know take down any mature trees on the perimeter of the property. >> This is a very deep lot and a lot of the trees are are out the back. Those for the most part will probably remain. >> Yes.
>> And um I I guess if there's any additional planting required by the board, we we would be willing to add anything that the board might suggest. >> Yes. >> Okay. I don't think I have any more questions for you. Are you building the houses across the street, John?
>> No, I am not. >> Any other questions? >> Well, the proposal on the on the uh the size of the houses is basically to the max of what's allowed, >> what's permitted. Um, but you're also
asking for a 30% reduction in the in the allowable for the variance. It's a 30% off of actually a little bit more than 30% variance from what's allowed. We >> we're still providing uh square footage the lots because it's a very deep lot
and it meets the the width requirements. It's the the right of way um issue. Our lots are still in terms of square footage, actual square footage, um, >> yeah, they're going to be close to 11,277
square ft. >> Just the way it's measured, 125 ft from the >> right because of that, it it it throws us off, but we have a lot of square footage. It's an oversized lot, very deep. Um, and we meet the sideyard set, we will meet the sideyard setbacks and
the front yard setback. It's just because of that unusual provision that you all have here. >> The way we measure. >> Yeah. >> Because while the zone requires 9,735, we and we have 11 over 11,000. We don't
come up with that based upon that calculation. But we do have my I do have my planner here to hopefully justify that. So, if we could call our next witness. >> First, let me Is there any members of the public that have any questions for
this witness regarding his testimony? >> Any questions yet? >> Okay. Thank you. Okay. You also have an opportunity at the end to make a comment and then also you have the right to uh ask questions of the next witness as
well. Thank Thank you. Okay. All right. Um, Charlie, we're you're here testifying just a little bit about as an architect, right? Because we don't really have plans, but mostly as a planner. >> Correct. And engineer.
>> And an engineer. That's right. Charlie has we're wearing three hats tonight. So, let's um go through Could you just give the board you've been here before, but could you give your your qualifications in terms of are you a licensed >> engineer in the state of New Jersey? >> Yes, I'm a licensed engineer um
architect and planner. Um my license are in good standing and um I've had the uh opportunity to appear before this board previously. >> I'd offer Mr. Baldens as an expert in the area of engineering, architecture, and planning. Engineering Architecture and Planning three. Yes.
>> Um are there any questions from the board? Any objections? >> Seeing none, uh the board uh accepts you as an expert in those three areas. >> Okay. So, um Charlie, why don't we start with um the location of the property and
and describe the existing site. >> Okay. Um so, as as um discussed, uh we're at 56 Bernett. Um, block 4804, lot 14. We have a 22,46
square f foot lot. Uh, which is obviously quite a bit greater than the 9375 square foot required in the zone. Um, property fronts on Bernett. It's on the north side. We're in the R4 zone. It's a single family use, which is
permitted in the zone. Um, unusually deep lot. We've uh I shouldn't even say unusually deep. The the standard lot size in the R4 zone is um is 125 by 75.
So we have 216 and 212 foot depth. Very slightly irregular. So you can see it's it's substantially greater than um what's required in the in the zone. The existing home according to tax records you heard about this you know the condition of it. It was built in
1925. Um perhaps oh let me mention while I have the so we're looking at the uh existing conditions and demolition plan. So we have the existing home which is about roughly in the center of the property.
There's a couple other outuildings uh which we obviously uh were intending to demolish and you could also see the trees. There's there's many trees around the perimeter. There's a few trees that are closer to the house. We showed the ones that we're going to um proposing to
to take down uh with the red X's. Um the and and you know, of course, um we're proposing to uh follow the tree ordinance and and do the proper replacement for the trees, but we're really only cutting the ones that are uh you know, close to the existing house in
the building footprint. Um and that's what we're planning on doing. Now, um I'm going to also I'm going to put up now the exhibit that we handed out, which is very simply the tax map sheet 48 with the property um illustrated on
it here. Um so, let me zoom in a little bit to the neighborhood because I think this is gives a very good idea here. Okay. All right. I always have trouble with this program here. It's different than the one I have
in my office. Okay. Okay. So, the site is it's lot number 14 and we have 105 foot width on our existing lot. Um you can see the other properties in the neighborhood on Bernett and the adjoining streets. Um the majority of
the um of the lots are roughly 50 feet. Um so so our lot stands out as one of the few um you know conforming or above performing lots in the neighborhood. Most of the lots are the
50 ft um area which I'm going to get into a minute but I do want to talk about um we we spoke about the uh the variances that are needed. So that so the two variances that we need are the um are
one on each lot which is basically for the 125 foot is the area within the 125 ft um uh a feet of the of the front right ofway. So, our our lots are going
to be uh 6479.9 and 6482.1. That's measured from the 125 ft. Um, however, our proposed lot areas are going to be 11,128.5
and 11,277.5. So we are going to be um significantly larger than the minimum lot size that are that are required. So those are the two bulk variances, one on each lot for the proposed lots. Um
let me >> and how does that compare to the others in in terms of square footage? >> Okay, I'm going to talk about that. the um >> I'm taking that order. >> The the the the lots in the immediate neighborhood while we're looking at this
tax map um that don't meet that 125 uh5 foot uh area uh criteria is substantial. So, um, I reviewed the Essex County tax assessment records for all of the lots
in the neighborhood, you know, coming down, um, I think it's Harrison Avenue, East Harrison, Bernett, and then on East Hobart, so on both sides of of Bernett and compared to the lots, um, and you know, I compared the dimensions comp uh, against that requirement
um, of 24 nearby R4 lots that I was able to evaluate. So, of 24 lots, 22, so that's I think that's greater than 90% failed to meet the minimum lot area required within the 12 uh 5 ft of the
rightaway line. So, 19 of the 24 lots or roughly 3/4 fall short of the 9375 minimum square foot even without applying the 120 foot uh measurement. So, um really the only ones that seem to
comply, you know, obviously I didn't do a detailed uh um you know, uh look at any surveys or anything, but you know, the the ones that seem to really only comply were on uh uh some of the corner lots and uh some of the some unusually shaped large lots in the neighborhood.
Um and just about everything else is uh under 70 feet uh wide and 65 you can see 50s are very common and then immediately next to us we have uh basically 50 feet 49.39
then 50.16 and 50.14 widths. So our proposed lot width um is going to be is going to be um um 52.5. So, we are we are right in there with
the uh majority of the houses on the street. Um let me put up the subdivision plans and now we can see the proposed condition that we're talking about. We are proposing to um basically divide the
property essentially in half and um we're going to build um two completely conforming houses uh that conform with all the other bulk requirements of the zone. Front yard setback, sideyard setback, rear yard setback, habitable
floor area ratio, building height. um the entire um the entire zoning chart. We are compliant on all of that and um we we as um Camille discussed we we we
have not prepared um architectural plans. Um we were um we are showing these as uh you know basically a concept um that could be done and um um you heard about the number. We're going to
we're planning on four to five bedrooms um but but whatever the case may be we are going to comply with uh all the bulk standards and uh that are applicable in the R4 zone. >> What about the existing and proposed grading and drainage on the site? Okay,
we're not planning on changing the drainage pattern. The drainage pattern, you know, basically runs uh gently from the uh from the north down to um to Bernett. We're not planning on changing the uh grading patterns to any great
extent. We're conducting the roof water into underground leader drains that will discharge away from the homes uh and away from the neighboring properties. We're going to comply with all applicable codes and requirements determined by the township professionals uh including the storm water management
lot surface uh drainage ordinance. Um, and I I'll also add that we um uh from my point of view as um engineer and architect, I don't see any reason why we can't comply with all of the um issues and conditions raised in the uh
both the planning letter and the uh and the engineering letter. >> Does the master plan make any reference to this area? >> Yeah. Well, first of all, uh I think as as as a board knows, uh this is there this is a sort of a small little piece
of the R4's district. Um so it's a little bit of an unusual part of it. So now this the master plan did recognize in general the R4 district, but it also called out this um the Bernett Street um neighborhood specifically and talked about how many
um you know non-conforming lots lot um lots are in the area and um it did talk about the setback requirements in the um in the neighborhood. But um what I what I thought was interesting was that it
specifically called out this neighborhood as as not having uh many uh um conforming lots. Um so I mean it certainly doesn't affect like an awareness on the township's part that the zoning standards in this in in
this neighborhood are are definitely um unusual you know compared to uh the rest of town. >> Okay. with respect to this project. Um uh can you give the the board the um the
reasons why this would just be justified under a C2 criteria? I don't know if >> Yeah. >> Yeah, absolutely. Um okay. So getting into the into the uh planning and the and the and the um justifications for the variance. Um
under the C2 bulk variances um as a board knows uh we need to establish the conditions um you know that are um that were established in the uh especially in the Calfman case and and the other case law.
It has to relate to a specific piece of property. Purposes of the MLUL um have to be advanced by the deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement. The variance has to be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. The benefits of the deviation substantially out outweigh any detriment
and the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning plan zoning ordinance. So just going through those specific piece of property. Uh we discussed how this proposal relates specifically to the characteristics of the subject property.
We have an unusually deep lot. Um 216 to 222 feet in depth where 125 is really the standard. The granting of the requested variances really don't affect any other properties at all. Purposes of the MLUL. Um there's
certainly three in particular that I think are furthered. Uh that's purpose A to encourage the municipal action. I won't read it all. The general welfare um the proposed lots uh uh uh are going to be the 11,277.5
and 1128.5 respectively are more than 15% larger to address a comment that was brought up before there. So that's more than 15% larger in total than the 9375 square foot R4 minimum. Uh and most clo
more more closely resemble or more closely conforming to the R4 zoning district lot size than the existing oversized single lot. Purpose E is to promote and establish the establishment of appropriate population densities and
concentrations that will contribute to the well-beings of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions preservation of the environment. So the R4 district calls for the 9375 square ft, which means that our the intention was that a property of this size, 22,46
square foot, should support two single family homes. It wasn't meant to be one large lot because it's so much bigger than um what the zone uh envisioned of the 9375. So to me, in my opinion, the proposed
two single family homes are therefore more closely conforming to the zone plan than the existing single lot. The two resulting lots will conform an overall area and are only marginally insufficient with regard to the 125 ft rightway situation. Okay. And then
finally, purpose I, which is to promote a desirable visitor environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. So, we're proposing two modern homes that meet the needs of today's population on two lots that more closely match the existing
neighborhood in size and more closely comply with the intent. So, I think we are certainly creating a much more desirable visual environment and and we're definitely using creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement in the uh
proposed subdivision um of the property. So, let's talk about the public good. Uh the public good in this case is the immediate residential neighborhood. I think we can uh say that the variances can be granted without any substantial detriment to the public good. They're
going to the houses are going to resemble the other homes in the immediate neighborhood. They're otherwise fully conforming with the bulk requirements um despite not having that 9375 ft within 125 ft of the rightway. Um
as reflected on the neighborhood tax exhibit, the overwhelming majority of the surrounding R4 lots already share the same characteristic in lot size. So granting the variance does not introduce anything unusual or foreign into the character of the neighborhood. It simply
allows the subject property to be developed consistent with the prevailing lot pattern already established around it. So moving to the benefits and detriments, the benefit to the public good from the proposed development again is the creation of two new modern homes
on two lots in conformance with the zone plan on rather than one oversized lot. Um, the roof drainage is going to be directed into underground piping, discharge away from neighboring properties. The site will be graded appropriately. Uh, again, I I really believe the
neighborhood will will benefit from the attractive contemporary architectural design, and the new homes will be built to the latest building codes, including current energy efficiency standards. And therefore, there's no substantial detriments to the public good from the approval of the proposal.
So let me also talk about the last leg of the requirements for the C2 the intent of purposes of the zoning regulations and master plan. Uh I mentioned how the master plan does talk about the Bernett neighborhood. Let's say there will be no substantial
detriment to the zoning regulations and master plan. I looked at some of the goals of the master plan of 2018. Three of them to preserve and enhance the primarily residential character of the community. two to balance is to maintain a balance of residential
business and public uses and three to preserve and improve the quality of life. The replacement of this existing one uh 1925 dwelling with two new modern homes for the benefit and enjoyment of its current and future residents is consistent with all three goals of the master plan and the proposed improvement
will fact advance the goals and recommendations of the master plan. Therefore, these bulk variances can be granted without substantially impairing the intent or purposes of the master plan. So quite simply in con in conclusion in my professional planning
opinion there's no substantial detriment to the zone regulations and the and for the re and for these reasons and my entire testimony the board um con can get grant these variances uh for the
minimum lot area within 125 ft of the rightway um as the benefits substantially outweigh any possible detriments. I have Yeah. Shocking. I have a question. So, what we're approving, so we're clear. It's
not a house. >> We're just approving a subdivision. The ultimate house. You're going to have to submit an application to the planning board. So, the window well question really is of no issue. >> Well, >> for us, >> and we're not approving that. No, but we
are going to say there's going to be no required variances and it it's not submitted back to the planning board once >> you don't need a site plan on a single family home. So, it would go into the building department. It would go into the building department and it would be all up to them. >> If in fact what you're showing on here
with the window well, which was brought out by the our our planner >> was to be shown, you would have to go to the zoning board to get an approval or change that. >> Right. This board is not approving that. Correct. We're just approving the
subdivision lines. Correct. I just want us to be clear. >> Yeah. But the applicant has agreed to conditions to comply with all the R4 zoning requirements and not go to the zoning board. >> In which case, then that would come out. >> Correct. >> Okay. And as long as that's what's going to be in the resolution. Okay. Right.
>> Working with the building department to make sure that we are complying with all of those requirements. Thank. >> Any other questions from the board? Questions from the public as to this witness? >> Well, we
>> you can come up to the up the microphone name and address, please. >> My name is Lou Paleo. I'm at 25 East Hobart Gap Road. >> How do you spell that? >> How do you spell your last name? >> P U L E O. >> Thank you. Um I'm lot number 18 which
would be at the end of the property. So after discussing with them and what they were going to do um pretty much satisfied. I my only concern was some kind of buffer zone. There are a lot of trees as long as the trees stay there. >> So I guess your question is what what
are you doing with the trees that are there? I think is really what the question is. >> Okay. Oh >> yeah I can answer that. >> Both of you want to do it? Go ahead. Yeah, I I'll start because um I can answer the question. First of all, I just want to um show you, sir. This is your property is is 18. So, you're to
the to the rear, you know, obviously to the very far back of the of of our property. Um fronting on you front on East Hobart Gap Road. So, you're in the extreme rear of our subdivision. So then if you were to look on our on our
proposed subdivision plan where the hand is is um is this gentleman's lot. So he backs up to the rear of our property. Um my understanding that what um the builder is planning on doing is this is
labeled on the um survey as heavily wooded. So, we were gonna, this was the testimony, and I'm sure um Camille could amplify it, but what I heard from Camille was uh he was going to not cut any trees down in the rear of his property. He was going to, this is where
he was discussing, he was going to clean up the brush. He was going to take care of the undergrowth and uh in general clean up the area, but uh leave the trees in this in this rear area um near this gentleman's uh property. So, could
we get a rep as to how far off the property line? I'm not going to take the trees down. >> Uh, I'm not planning on taking any trees down along the perimeter of that property. >> 35t. They wanted to mention like 6 ft around
the property line. A specific number is what the board is suggesting. >> I'm not planning on taking any mature trees down in that rear yard. The heavily, you know, wooded lot as per that surveyor. I mean, they could not get in because there is thorns, there's
underbrush, it's just a a hot mess back there. So, they couldn't get back there at all. So, it's categorized as heavily wooded. I'd like to keep all the mature trees. Um, there's no point of me to cut down the tree, pay somebody to cut it
down, then have to replant it, and it just it just doesn't make any sense to me. Um, I like to keep trees, you know. I I have a lot on um on Bennington facing to St. Paul. We didn't cut any trees down in the back that we want to do. It's a full wooded lot. You know,
we're keeping all the trees there as well. So, um I don't want to cut any trees down that I don't have to. I mean, we're going to look at trees that are potentially dead or unhealthy and and and or you know, a professional tells
me, hey, this tree has to come down, then those trees will come down. But the healthy trees that are all around, we're not I don't want to cut any of them down. >> So, you will get the trees checked for health. >> Absolutely. I do that on every single project that I have in town.
>> Okay. >> If we look, you see how you have this right here on the Can we represent the cutting? >> I'm not going to go any of them. >> Okay. So, if we look at the survey, um the the subdivision survey here, you can
see there's an outline, and I'll I'll show the gentleman uh in a second. It says 30 foot rear yard setback. Anything behind that? My client is is that is that a fair statement to say that those trees are
not going to be touched? Any any tree that fits that definition? If it's scrub, brush, >> he won't remove any live Healthy tree. No healthy tree. I think it's a 35 foot setback >> that past that 35t set back >> that that's that's what we were looking for.
>> That's the dimension. So I'm going to show >> I looked at that. >> So this area, >> you're welcome to remove all the scrub and >> underbrush. >> Maybe get some deer in there. They'll eat it pretty quick.
>> You want to put that in resolution? I'm sure they're coming across the street, >> right? One one other comment with regard I'm sorry. Finished his >> You have any other questions? >> What they want to do? Leave the perimeter trees just clean out some of that underbrush that's there and that's
>> that's fine. >> That's what it looks like that's happening. >> Okay. >> Any other questions? >> They can put up I don't know, maybe some shrubs or something some whatever some small things, but I think for the most part I'm okay with what they're what they're planning on. Thanks for coming out.
>> Thank you. All right. >> Thank you. Any questions? And thank you. >> Again, the lot to the the north I which
>> yeah, if you're looking at the lot, the one on the right um from Bernett, the one clo that doesn't have the houses backing up to it. Um, again, my only concern was, and I want to dictate, but I just ask consideration when you're
cleaning those areas, any beneficial landscaping along that line that you might do because I understand the volume of this of the new house is going to be fairly substantial, similar to what's across the street. Um, and the house
that's currently to the right is one of the older homes that are much smaller and just to soften the impact consideration. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> Seeing none, um, anything further? >> We have nothing else. Thank you. Uh any um uh members of the public wish to make a sworn statement for or against the application? >> Seeing none, >> uh any closing remarks?
>> No, I think that uh we've proposed we're just subdividing it. We're going to comply with all the other bulk variances and I think the testimony is clear that this um I I we believe that it satisfies the C2 criteria as stated by our planning expert. >> Uh thank you. So, with that, the uh
evidentary record is closed. Uh any members of the board like to uh make a motion for against the application. >> Um yeah, I'll I'll make the motion. I'm satisfied they've met the C2 criteria. This is a neighborhood we've dealt with before. Uh you look at the map and virtually every lot there is the size
these lots will be. So, uh and and to get rid of an old what sounds like a very uh dangerous almost house that's there. Um, I I'm going to move in favor of the application and particularly recognizing their voluntary agreement to stay within the uh the all the bulk
requirements, the R4 zone. >> I'll second. Um, and I also appreciate the applicant staying within the the building requirements. >> Mr. Lewis, >> yes. >> Miss Fos, >> yes. >> Mr. Ratner, >> yes.
>> Mr. Diner, >> yes. Mr. Duffford, >> yes. >> Miss Whis for absent member Reber, >> yes. >> Miss Conc for absent member Batani, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Santo, >> yes. >> Chairman Fernandez, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries.
>> Thank you. And uh that's it for this evening. If I can have a motion to adjourn. >> Thank you. >> I have a minor subdivision, >> council. Do you have a business card?