We're all set. >> Okay. Good evening. >> We're all set, Jackie. Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> May May I have your attention, please? May I have your attention, please? >> Sam can't hear you.
>> He can't hear you. >> I know. >> This is a regular meeting of Livingston's planning board and notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the open public meetings act. >> Mr. Ratner, >> Mr. Diner,
>> Miss Fast, >> yes. Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Mr. Duffford, Mr. Batani >> here, >> Miss Wishnu >> here, >> Mrs. Senola >> here, >> chairman Fernandez >> here. >> Mr. Reber and Miss Connor are not
present. We do have our assistant township engineer and our township planner. >> Thank you. And uh if you can please call the first matter. It's a proposed amendment to housing element and fair share plan and related
addendum to the land use plan element of the 2018 master plan. >> Uh thank you. Uh this uh portion of this evening's meeting is a public hearing on the proposed amendment to the township's housing element and fair share plan uh
and the related addendum to the land use uh element of the 2018 master plan which is going to be considered tonight for adoption. The purpose of tonight's hearing is to receive public comment on the proposed amendment. The amendment addresses revisions to the township's housing element and fair share plan and
associated spending plan and establishes a framework for satisfying and enforcing the township's affordable housing obligations pursuant to uh New Jersey Supreme Court's Mount Laurel doctrine and New Jersey Fair Housing Act. There will first be a presentation of the
draft amendment from the township's professional planner. Following that presentation, the planning board will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments. The board will then open the hearing to the public for comment. After all public comments have been received and the public portion of the hearing is closed, the board will
discuss the proposed amendment. If the board determines that no revisions are necessary, then we'll consider a motion to adopt the proposed amendment to the housing element and fair share plan and the related uh spending plan. So at this time I would ask the township
professional planner to please uh introduce themselves or himself Mark and present the proposed amendment. >> Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes Mark Lencer with topology township planner and affordable housing planner. Um, and before I get into the weeds of all the
methodology and nuance of this document, the scope of this amendment uh does not modify any of the compliance mechanisms or projects that are proposed for compliance for the fourth round uh and only results in methodological changes that result from the township's settlement or mediation agreement rather
uh that resulted uh from four challenges uh or rather four developer challenges as well as the fair housing center that submitted challenges in response to uh the original adoption of this housing element and fair share plan that was submitted prior to the deadline uh of August 31st for challenges uh with the
original housing plan being adopted prior to June 31st in compliance with state statute and those timelines. This amended housing plan is the culmination for this body uh ahead of the March 15th implementation deadline uh established by statute.
So to get into the scope of those amendments, uh again I want to highlight that this is a methodological eth uh exercise that resulted from negotiation and mediation between the township and the fair share housing center as part of this process and there are uh two or
three main elements of uh that constitute those amendments within this document. one uh we amended uh the vacant land adjustment analysis in collaboration with the fairer housing center that involved two different
components. One was that one of the challenging uh properties at 204 to 210 Payic Avenue was considered towards uh the vacant land adjustment as providing realistic development potential providing 12 uh units to that respect as
well. We re-examined all properties originally included in the vacant land adjustment applying uh standards from the residential site improvement standards. The state propagates um using their density uh assessments dependent
on cartways and level of service of roads to assess properties at a higher density than the presumptive six units per dwelling acre resulting in an increase of the realistic development potential uh from 13 to 40.5.
At at that point that value modifies all the other calculations that we do to get to our adjusted obligation. And further to the second element of this of these scope of the amendments, uh we had to align our methodology uh as part of the mediation with fair share
housing centers position. Uh most importantly uh our apply methodology with the original document did not uh believe an unmet need to exist in the fourth round which fair share housing centers uh maintains uh to exist as part
of obligations and practice in the fourth round. So the compliance mechanisms are resorted uh to provide for this 25% of the unmet need being provided for uh by redevelopment projects.
Lastly, um as this body just reviewed, some of those appendices uh for implementation of the affordable housing plan, the appendices are uh replaced, revised, and brought up to date. Um as is required by the administrative directive 14-24 that all implementing
documents, ordinances, resolutions must be appended to the housing plan. That includes inclusion of the latest model or from the NGDCA for affordable housing and development fees as well as an updated spending plan, affirmative marketing plan, affordable affordability assistance manual, uh, and the latest
documentation for, uh, all the implementation projects that are included in the amended housing plan. The other highlights to highlight from the amended plan. Again, there are no
changes to proposed projects to uh achieve compliance, but the resulting methodology uh revisions and negotiations have reduced our surplus credits going into the fifth round from
uh by 19.5 units or credits rather. uh and we retain a 91 credit surplus that we can apply to the fifth round as negotiated through the mediation agreement and I want to highlight for this body that that is a very unique condition that I am not aware of any
other municipality in the state having surplus credits that they can carry forward let alone to that degree. Uh so ultimately with the increase in the RDP and the renegotiated methodology uh that is a decrease from the original um
amount of surplus units that we had calculated by 19.5 down to uh 91 surplus credits carrying forward. Otherwise uh I'll pause for questions at this point. So I'm just looking at
um I don't know might be page 28 of the report. Um so our present need under the fourth round through the work done by both um uh the town manager, the council, the town attorney planner um or our fourth round need is is zero. Is
that right? >> So that was a set or we concurred with NGDCA calculations that were uh distributed um as a model at this point some two years ago. Um that's based on deficient housing conditions, substandard um housing units that would
need to be re rehabilitated which determined a present need of zero. Yes. >> And then if you just I wasn't following quite the numbers on on your table 21 on our um prospective need. >> Yes. And admittedly it's it's very opaque given that this is the result of
two different methodologies meeting and mediation. Um which ultimately there's two components of this given this we have the realistic development potential sites um which include some prior round three sites um applying different projects based on that on that mediation
session um being applied to or to address the RDP that 40.5 number that I mentioned and to that we provide 127 units um against our uh total obligation
prospecting obligation of 430 units. Uh the mediation agreement specifies therefore an unmet need of 299 units, 25% of which must be addressed via projects um that are likely to redevelop and redevelopment projects rather. Uh
and to that point, three projects are identified to achieve that. 45 South uh Livingston Avenue, the Breite View project at 321 South Livingston Avenue, and 70 South Orange Avenue. a project that has yet to be constructed from the third round. Those provide 92 units um
well in excess of 25% of 299, which would be roughly 70 uh five or so um units. >> Now, how do you get to the 299? I just what was the math to get there? >> Um excuse me. So, that would be we have
the 430 total obligation and then we have 127. Um, yes, which I admittedly those numbers may not line up, but >> that got us to 303. That's why I was >> Yes, correct. I I I did identify that as well myself uh earlier this evening, but
nonetheless um that is the number set satisfied or set aside by the mediation agreement and regardless if it's a few numbers off, we have more than enough. >> I'm just trying to understand what's going I get it now. >> Certainly. >> Okay. Um any uh Barry I know that you work you
and Kon have you worked on on this. I don't know whether you have any questions or anything to >> I I don't have any questions but um I certainly would like to to thank Mr. Lincer and all topology for their efforts township attorney uh Caner and the entire mayor and council. Um I I think the the residents were well
served. council was way ahead of this and and as part of the third round settlement generated all those surplus credits also included some of the other projects we were able to uh not only completely satisfy the fourth round but actually still have leftover surplus credits to carry to the fifth round in
10 years um and and with no new projects that people hadn't already heard about. So, this included uh the units at the mall that were already previously disclosed, but we were able to get those pushed into the fourth round for credit, the Westminster Hotel project over there. So, it's uh I think just a great
credit to to our professionals and the mayor and council uh for the foresight and I certainly a lot of my colleagues in other towns did not have it quite that easy. So, thank you >> and thank you, Mr. Chair. So, yeah, I agree with with and I'll just second
what uh Barry just said. Uh thank you to Topology and and Mark yourself and and everybody at at topology. A lot of great work by by those professionals, the township attorney as well. Uh and no less credit to this planning board as well. There's a lot of partnership going
on uh in terms of not just having it approved on the on the piece of paper, but also making sure that the projects are seamless into our communities. So that is is is a whole lot of partnership around Barry to you and and the township uh you know employees and the management
as well. Uh great work across the board and as you said Mark it is not uh sort of a it is absolutely a unique situation where not many towns if if there is any that carries this many credits to the fifth round. So so it's a unique
uniquely advantageous position to be in. So thank you. Thank you chair. >> Thank you. Uh are there any more questions or comments from the board? Uh seeing none, are there uh now we'll open the floor to public comment. Is there anybody um that would like to come
up and speak on this particular matter? Uh you can please might come up to the microphone, name and address and make your comments. Seeing none, uh we will close the public comment portion of the hearing. Um and uh with that uh if there are no further
comments or questions from the board, if I can have a motion uh to adopt the amendment to the master plan as presented. >> Motion. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. I missed that. Who gave the motion?
>> Thought it was uh Kaitton. >> Thank you. Mr. Batani. >> Yes. >> Mr. Santo, >> yes. >> Mr. Ratner, >> yes. >> Mr. Diner, >> Miss Fos, >> yes. >> Mr. Lewis, >> yes. >> Mr. Duffford,
>> yes. >> Miss Rishnu, >> yes. >> Chairman Fernandez, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Mark, thank you very much. Thanks to apology and thank you for everybody that participated um in uh you know putting this together
and uh with that uh we will move on with uh the next item on our agenda. The next matter scheduled for this evening is a continued matter for preliminary and final site plan with variances continued from January 6, 2026 for block 1407 lot 11 66 West Mount
Pleasant Avenue application number 2025-88- PFSPV Somerset Regal Bank. >> Thank you. Oh, welcome back. Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much. Um, it's always a
pleasure to be here. Um, hopefully this will be as well. Um anyway, um Susan Rubé from the law firm of Brock Iller. Um here tonight, um we are this is our second hearing. The applicant is Somerset Regal Bank. We were here uh on
um January 6th and I believe it was January 6th and um there were a number of issues that the board wanted us to clarify in connection with the um the parking and the access. So, we're here tonight to do that. Um just briefly
again the property is 1.35 acres in size. It is um occupied by a building. Um there is a bank on the first floor and I think um to my right is is um Mr. Orbach and I believe he testified last time that there with regard to what the
other uses are um on the second and third floor. >> Second floor. >> Second floor. Um so we're proposing to add a canopy structure with a drive up drivein out that is accessory to the bank use. Um and there um along with
some directional signs on the on the canopy. We're seeking site plan and C variance approvals and we did not um have testimony from our planner last time. Sean Moransky is here and he will be um testifying as to what those
variances are and the support for them. Uh okay. So we were as I noted we were here on January 6th and the commer uh we commenced prepar uh presentation of the application with Mr. Orbach and um Fred
Stewart who is our site engineer. Um and Mr. Arbach testified that the on the reasons for the in the re on the reasons for and um emphasized customer service and convenience and that the proposed
location is the best one um and really the only one to be able to to be constructed on the site. It's easy in easy out. We're using the parking spaces that are closest to the building, which is also um a value for safety and
security. Mr. Stewart, the site engineer, briefly he also testified. He described the existing building and the conditions on site and what is being proposed. And he stated that the canopy structure is being added to the parking spaces that are closest to the building
as Mr. Orbach had testified and that the number of parking spaces will total on the property will not be reduced. Um as I as I mentioned the board had a number of questions primarily as to how
the um access would be how how the the vehicles would access the drive up. And there were some comments um about potential stacking of vehicles that are waiting to access the drive up. And there were also questions about overall
parking numbers and access to the site. We submitted revised plans um that were uh prepared by Mr. Stewart and when he comes up to testify um he will present those. Um our planner, as I noted, did not testify at the prior hearing and he
will be testifying this evening. Um, so I just wanted to introduce Mr. Orbach again. Um, he's still David, you're still under oath. You were sworn last time. He's still under oath. >> Is there any witnesses here tonight that weren't here last time?
>> Uh, I don't believe Mr. Moransky was sworn because he didn't testify. He will be >> whichever. >> Okay, let me just do it now. Swear. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to provide in
this hearing is the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state and spell your uh name for the record. >> Sean S moronsky. M O R O N S K I. >> Thank you. Thank you.
>> And Mr. Stewart was I believe also one last time. Um so David, you were here last time. just just to sort of set the table here, provide the board with a brief review of the operations of the bank, how and why the location for the drive up was chosen and the benefits of
this drive up and the vacuum system. >> Sure. Uh glad to be back again. Thank you very much. Uh just to recap from what I said last time, um we're full service commercial bank. We operate six days a week. Monday to Friday our full days. Saturday half a day till 12:30.
Sundays we are closed. Um we share a parking lot with the pizza store and next door. There are about 91 spots there. 90 are required by code. And uh right now our customers uh don't have access to a drive up or a drive-thru.
They have to come in and out of the bank like uh any normal person would go through a through a building. Uh the reason why we choose choosing a drive up so to speak uh if you recall you'd be pulling into the spot doing your transaction on their canopy and then
backing out. No different than what people do now when they pull into the parking spot only instead of getting out of their car they'd be doing it through the through the pneumatic tube. Uh the reason why we chose that is because uh over the years I was at a prior bank in that location before Valley. Uh Valley
never had a drive up there. in order to put a drive up in that parking lo parking uh facility would be extremely disruptive to all the other parking spots there because of the way that it's laid out in the cross easement with the other uh business. So therefore over the
years we were trying to figure out a way to come up with a different scenario that would be both beneficial to the bank and to the our customers primarily to our customers and that's how we came up with this drive up scenario and we chose the location that we for the for the drive up being the two spots closest
to the building because again that would be probably the most ideal spot for the customers to access and have the because you have to put the transactions as I'm sure most of you have used the driveups uh goes through the tube and you have to wait for it to go in and out of the
build of the of the tube uh in the bank to go back and forth. So, choosing the the location closest to the building made the most sense. So, that's just a recap of why we uh why we did that, but to give you an idea or answer some questions that uh well, I guess you could ask me the questions that they
ask. So the board had also asked for information that would help everyone to understand the impact the drive up activities might have on the driveway and the parking based on existing activities at the park. So it's my understanding that um you were able to
get an accurate parking count on a day when you would expect the greatest number >> correct of um parking spaces to be used. So why don't you tell the board there? >> Right. So just to before that I mean our our bank occupies the entire first floor uh and on the second floor there's a
couple of um therapists ranging in very various different fields but there's a few uh look few uh spaces that are vacant. I went outside on probably one of our busier days. Uh some of our employees work from home on some days during the week. So I didn't want to take account on those days because I
wanted to get an accurate count as to what was going on. So >> the worst case >> the worst case scenario. So I there was a day where Thursdays are typically the day when all our employees are are in house and not working from home and I went out on a Thursday and counted
towards lunchtime before lunchtime. So people were not out and we actually had a closing that day. So we had uh additional vehicles in the in the parking lot that accessing the bank that typically would not be there when we don't have a loan closing. We had about 40 plus cars in the parking lot. uh even
if you went up to 50 or 60 uh which I I can't even imagine it's ever been that full. That day that I counted was probably one of the fuller days that I've that I recall recently. And uh we'd still have uh plenty of spots left over um for parking throughout the parking
lot. As I mentioned, n there are 91 spots there. 90 are required by code. So, even if you had we had 40 plus that day, even if you got up to 50 or 55, you'd still have plenty of spots left over. >> And and what was remind what's the total number of spaces that are available? I
think they're 91 throughout the whole parking lot for access in our building and and the cross easement with the uh with Pisetta and Oteka, but they're parking typically their customers park along the uh the driveway
side uh and then immediately behind them. They're not a lot more they don't really go further back than that. >> Are they So they're not close to your entrance? >> No. >> So there's really no overlap. >> There's no overlap. cars park along the the drive up the driveway accessing off
of route 10 and then immediately behind uh the restaurant which would be further up north Mitchell. So, so one of the other questions I think or one of the other issues that the board asked us to look at was um the the through the course the number of transactions that
are in that are undertaken at the um at the bank um in order to kind of gauge on a normal I guess on a normal day how many people would be coming and going and therefore parking in the parking lot. Was that something that you were able to do?
>> Yeah. So rather than sit in the branch and count people, I I we have tellers there that are there on a constant basis on Saturdays. They said the most customers they get is maybe seven or eight throughout from uh throughout the three hours, three and a half hours that they're there. So that's not even an
issue. They told me and they've been there for years that the the highest volume days are Fridays and Mondays. Uh so on Fridays and Mondays they did a count and they estimate that about 30 people came in to access uh the bank on
those days throughout the course of a 8 hour day so to speak. Uh whereas on Tuesdays to Thursdays it doesn't even come close to that amount. So we thought that that was by just counting those two days would be the most accurate way of doing it. >> Person drove in one of his or his or her
own vehicle. there would be 30 vehicles over the course of the whole day. >> That's assuming that everybody that came in actually wanted to use a drive up. A lot of our customers are are older and want to walk into the bank and actually do the transaction face to face. So
regardless of putting the the drive up there, we would it's not like all 30 of those people throughout the course of the day would use the drive up. That's just on a worst case scenario. If you assumed that everybody would magically say, "Okay, I'm never coming into the bank." That they would use the drive up. you'd still have 30 a maximum of 30
throughout the course of a eight hour day. >> I don't have any other questions for for Mr. Orbach. Certainly the board >> any members of the board have u any additional questions back
>> I understand the concern the need and the desire why you want to have it still struggling with how how this is taking place and >> well that's our next >> so the That's your engineer is still
here. Bring him up next. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, you're welcome. And I think he'll address some of the other concerns that everybody had the other night. So, >> yeah, we we I wanted to have Mr. Orbach first because he's the representative of of the bank and then also we you we had asked you had asked that we present some
additional information um that only he has. So that's why we hopefully he answered >> your questions with that um and how it would affect the actual transactions. Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. We appreciate it. Are there any members of the public that have any
uh questions for this witness as to his testimony? >> Thanks, David. Good job. >> Seeing none, then we we can move on. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um and Mr. Stewart is here, so we can bring him up.
Yeah, that's why I sit here. >> So, Mr. Stewart, you you're still sworn, correct? You understand that? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. And just for the board, just introduce yourself again, please. >> Fred Stewart, professional engineer and land surveyor. I did the plans for this project.
>> So, Mr. Stuart, you were here last time and you heard the >> qualifying. >> Yes, correct. >> Anything else? Okay. Um, Mr. Stewart, you were um you were here obviously at the last meeting and you heard some of
the concerns about the stacking and the access and how, you know, basically how was the parking lot going to work? So, what did you do after that? Then you have I see you have a drawing up on the screen. So, if you can explain uh just go over what it was that you that you
looked at and and what what you've come up with to address the board's concerns. >> Sure. And hearing and listening to the board at the last meeting, we came up with several revisions to the plan regarding the circulation and parking on the site and some um some access issues
to the uh to the to the teller area that we're proposing here. Um, and also we did uh have some emails back and forth with your uh board engineer regarding this project and some of his recommendations we also considered and placed on the plan as well. Uh, I'll
just go over those revisions and show you what we have completed here. I'm going to be referring to my plans which are revised to 2926 of which the board should have a copy. I believe it was a second revision if I remember correctly.
Okay. Um, so basically as you enter from Mount Pleasant A, you're coming along the building and entering the site, entering the main parking area, you can make a lefthand turn, which is normal situation today. And then we decided to put an arrow, a directional arrow to
make a right-hand turn only, which is right in this section here. Let me just zoom in a little bit more. I think that'll probably help. So, right as you go in the access, >> right as you go in the access, you make a left at the rear corner of the building to the main uh parking area for
the bank area. Uh we have a right turn only arrow being proposed to make a right-hand turn to go down the one drive aisle. Uh and in doing that, we are proposing a oneway directly ahead. We're changing that from a two-way to a oneway. And that's what this crosshatch
area does right here in this section that limits access in that area and basically closes it off allowing just oneway traffic through the site uh or through this one bank area of stalls. So as you make that right hand turn to go
down the drive aisle as you come to the head of that drive aisle we have another lefthand turn arrow uh for the drive up to direct people toward the drive up. As you make that lefthand turn, that now becomes a oneway. So, there's a one-way
arrow, directional arrow right in this section here, continuing across the back to another drive up arrow, which makes a left-hand turn. Basically, the only way you can go anyway. Uh, coming down that aisle, which is now going to be proposed, which is now proposed as a
one-way aisle. And as you come up that aisle, you approach the teller area, the two stalls, and right before that, we have a cross-hatched area stating no stopping or standing, which this way when somebody does pull into or underneath the canopy in either one of
those stalls, they do have the ability to back out without anybody obstructing their their uh their maneuvering, you know, to exit the site. Uh this way if there is any um staging it'll happen behind that crosshatch area again
allowing the vehicles to back out properly and continue around the oneway area out the exit onto Mount Pleasant or North Mitchell. >> Just just let me interrupt you for one second. So, is it is it also um the the
parking spaces that are next to the drive up and the hatching? Are those are are are those designated as employee spaces? >> That's correct. Those stalls >> the reason for that >> those stalls are designated as employee
only. There's five stalls. The first five next to the uh canopy area are designated as employee only. This way it limits the um the movement out of in and out of those stalls to often to off hours basically when the employees are
arriving or going home when the canopy is not open >> without that and that and the purpose of that is that in the in the event that there were any stacking they would not be affecting um any customers parking going in and out. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay.
>> Yes. So in doing this we also had uh several other addition uh revisions to the plan. Um we placed some ballers and let me go to our fourth sheet to the blow up area
to detail area. There we go. Blown up a little bit here so everybody can see. Uh a couple ballards at the head of each one of those uh parking stalls for the teller area. Uh this will protect anybody from overdriv or
overextending into the uh landscaped area beyond the curb. And we also added the um direction of the roof leaders coming off the canopy. Now, I don't if you recall, but we had a
small island in here that is being landscaped, and that's where we're going to direct the runoff from the canopy. We're just going to have the roof leaders basically drain into that area. This way on top of watering the plants, it also help absorb it into the ground. This was once all paved. Now it's going
to be a landscaped area. There's a couple more revisions here uh within the engineers report, your board engineers report also. He was uh concerned about the uh existing storm water conveying system. I did note on
the plan that that system is currently the inlet within the parking area closest to our canopy is debris filled. We'll have that maintained properly and cleaned out. Uh this way it'll function normally. And that's the revisions to the plans.
>> So let me let me ask you if I can if we can go back um to the one way. Um you've got the one way. What's the benefit of that in your opinion and why why was that important to you to do? >> Well, that that would be important um one because we have these angled stalls
across the uh that would be the westerly boundary line. Uh that would help direct them out the exit properly rather than have them trying to basically buck the parking area and go the opposite way. Uh that that's one reason uh which was a
concern of the boards. Uh the other one is just to allow uh free flow around the uh teller area. Say if somebody does back out uh and they they they basically heading out and there is some stacking there, they have the ability to have
what we call a bypass lane, go around that uh striped or hatched area where there's no parking or standing and use that as the bypass and exit out properly out onto Mount Pleasant. have. >> So, you believe that this is a a safe
>> a safe and organized way to direct traffic, not only to park, but also to go to the the drive up. >> That's correct. This is a a better organized parking area to include this drive up situation. And also, these lanes, just so the board knows, these
lanes are at 12t in width. The main aisle here is still at 24 ft. Uh, so the hatched area is at 12 and the bypass area is also at 12 feet wide. >> I I think that the um the board planner
had a revision to her report and I think you may have just addressed that. Um >> I know on page two mentioned about the the aisle wits which I just reviewed. >> Right. Good. Okay.
And there's any other Um item 15 on page three, she mentions that the architectural sheet incorporated into the minor site plan is illegible. A separate legible copy of the architectural plan should be
provided. Do you What is that referring to? >> Well, that's referring to the one sheet that reflects the architectural plans which I believe the board did receive um which is which I do have a copy here. I should bring that up. >> All right. Is that something that we can we can revise? >> We'll revise that accordingly. Yeah. Not
a problem. >> Okay. Okay. I think that was it. Um and and she also talks about it on page six in terms of the uh the one-way circulation. Um which you've explained what the reason
is for that. So, and she mentions wheel stops are noted at the parking stalls and you believe that that's a as well as an additional um safety and organizational uh benefit. >> Yes, that's correct.
>> Th those uh wheel stops are existing. They they are in place right now. >> All right. Do they >> that that would be these I believe right in the middle of the uh >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because of the signage that's there. That's why the the wheel stops stops are in place.
>> Okay. All right. >> Okay. Any anything else you want to add? >> No, that should do it. >> Okay. I think so. All right. Then I'll open to questions from the board. Of course, >> from the board >> and the professional >> for this witness. >> Yes.
>> Let me just clarify, please. If there are two cars under the shed, >> a queue up for somebody else that wants to go in would be to the right of the hatched area. >> That's correct.
>> So they can block cars trying to exit a parking place if it happens that way. >> That's why we have employee parking in these stalls right here. >> Oh, that's employee along that strip. >> That's correct. >> Oh, yes. And we only have, as you heard,
30 total transactions per day at the most. >> I hope you do more. >> I I hope so, too. But yes, >> he said these are employee because this will be a lineup. Well, on both sides. >> Are you done with your question, sir? >> Yes.
>> Then I'll jump in. your parking requirement for this building right now you're there's no you you meet the code >> that's correct we have >> you have any extra parking >> one there's 91 stalls existing on site
90 is calculation >> as a planner and an engineer might it be simpler to ask for a variance and do this as a regular drive-thru in lie of what you're proposing, which has more pitfalls
associated with it than I can think about. >> Where would it go? >> Um, as an engineer, this seems practical to me. um to propose something like this rather than uh provide a full um I guess
you can say canopy within the middle of a drive aisle which would then eliminate like you're stating several parking several more parking stalls is that >> so I don't think that would be feasible and I I believe why ask for a variance if you don't need one and our planner
could probably give more testimony to that question >> I don't want to put you on the spot eyeballing it. How would you do that? How many spaces do you think we would we would lose? You don't want to I I I >> there could be the question,
>> right? A number of different scenarios you can place on this site for a drive-thru, but it would eliminate a number of parking stalls. >> And this is this is a good option. It's it's closest to the bank. Um and like you heard earlier testimony that any
other um area on the site would be further away for for a canopy of some sort which means more problems because of the the tube system that they would have more problems or more possibility of having a problem of getting the canisters stuck within the tubing. So
that's always a problem too. >> Okay. Uh I I know I had asked this last time, but uh that you know about other places that have used this similar type process and I thought the the testimony was that maybe one. >> I know of one, but I'm sure there's many
more, but I I personally know of one. >> Is that also is that a bank? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, yeah, I didn't wasn't here for the first hearing, but I did have an opportunity to review the uh recording and I I think what struck me is and I understand obviously you don't want to
ask for variances, but I think the gentleman testified you, somebody looked at it, you might lose like eight parking spaces and you had one surplus, so technically you need a variance of seven, which is less than 10%. And I also understood the parking lots usually like 30% empty. So, I didn't understand
like to me, I think I'd be more inclined to give the seven space variance and have a normal drive-thru than because it didn't seem like you needed 91 spots anyway. >> I just Well, without being a planner, I mean, if you and I don't know how many spots you'd lose, but you'd have similar
stacking issues with the if the concern with is stacking now, you'll still have stacking before. So even though if you lose and we we did a study years ago with another bank and it's not eight spots, you'd probably lose way more than that and then you'd still have stacking issues on wherever you put that drive up
and then you so you still end up with the same problem on on the stacking concern. Plus you'd lose maybe 8 10 12 spots on top of that. So if the concern is still stacking, you'd have that same concern regardless. And why mess up when
you only have one surplus? Why ask for possibly losing 10 to 12 other spots if you could do it without it? And like I said, and like my prior testimony was, people are still backing in and out of those two spots right now to do to get in and out of the bank. If anything, the
drive up makes it go quicker because they don't have to stop and get out. And if people if it's raining or inclement weather and people want to park closest to the bank, they're going to wait in their car. Right now, people are parking right in front of the paved area and idling their cars or having someone wait in there if they're elderly because they
don't want to we don't want to even walk from the the bank designated spots. So, if you could avoid that by having a drive up and have them pull in and do the transaction that way, that seems like a easier scenario to solve. It's it's probably not a fair question
to ask, but I'll ask it anyway. Um, you know, what would I mean, if you were to put just a regular drive-thru, you know, what would the traffic flow look like? Or would you have to would you have to redesign the entire parking lot? >> Probably redesign the entire parking lot
because of the placement of the canopy within that area. would you know you still have to have some sort of um not only to small amount of stacking it's not like it used to be and also for a bypass lane and the like. So you would lose I I would say a substantial amount
of parking stalls. I mean like I said there's a numerous ways you can do this. Um, and and one would be to run the aisles along the I'm sorry, I'm pointing where my finger is. Here we This is better. Possibly run or put a canopy out
here for drive up. Um, but then you're losing all these stalls because you have the approach coming in for two lanes. Then you have a bypass lane, which would be this aisle. But basically, this whole bank of stalls could be eliminated just from doing something like that, which then would be a 15, you know, stall
variance. And that's just one option that off the top of my head. It's not even like a final design. It's just like a little concept that I just came up with. But that that's what you would be faced with. Something along those lines. >> And even if you put it way at the rear, you still think you'd be losing that
many spots. >> It would be the same type of situation because then we have even if you place it way back in the back end, which wouldn't to me wouldn't be feasible because of the run of the the tubing itself. that that's quite a distance um
in order to have that travel and I'm sure there would be maintenance headaches with that. Um I personally had got stuck in one once and it was just right next to the building, you know. So, um but yeah, even if you had something back here, you still would lose like this whole bank of stalls
because of the canopy bypass lane or maybe two bypass lanes and this would be a oneway as well. So, so again, we're just, you know, coming up with these ideas, but to me, this seems the most feasible and um I would say probably not
as obtrusive to the site just to have two stalls with a canopy act as your teller uh drive up and that's it. And this is just during hours of the bank. This is not an ATM. There's a walk up ATM in in here. And this is just for convenience of having someone who
doesn't want to get out of their car for any type of purpose or reason and just to use this teller area and that's it. And as stated, this is a this actually becomes a quicker turnaround for the customer because they drive up, they
don't have to walk into the bank, wait in the line or anything like that. They just drive up, do their transaction, and leave. Are are we asking for any variances for this application? >> Uh
>> the sign the sign is why we're here. Correct. >> The signs that's it which >> our planner will be reviewing. >> Right. And we'll have our next witness >> discuss that. >> I believe there are also variances associated with the setback of the canopy. >> Oh that's with the right. Okay.
>> That's what I'm trying to find. Get out of there. >> Any other questions? >> Um, so just >> Yeah, I I I have a question. On your traffic flow here where you come in your main driveway, you're making a left and you're showing an arrow to go right. Correct.
>> Correct. Right into section. >> If you look opposite that on your same aisle coming out as an exit, you have a point an arrow to the only entrance coming in. I'm not sure I located that on the plan.
Can you state that again? >> You have your main entrance coming in >> right here. Okay. >> You're making a left-hand turn. See your arrow and you're going down that aisle. >> Yep. >> You make a right turn down the aisle. >> Right. Now, in that same aisle, if you look just about anybody coming out that
aisle, you're directing them with an arrow to the only entrance in. >> That's a two-way entrance. That's a entrance and an exit >> right here. >> So, one one of the aisles is
>> over here. >> So, you're going to bring that up towards that hashed line parking area. >> No, this one right here, this this aisle here is a two-way aisle. >> Okay. And it's currently two-way and it's
going to remain as two-way. So if you come in here and you park in this area, you can back out and go out this aisle as well. >> Right. Right there. Stop right there. Your arrow shows going in to where the car is coming in. >> That's two-way. >> All right. >> It's an in and out. That's a 20 That's
probably more than 24 ft. >> All right. >> Um but yes, that's a two-way access there. There any other questions? >> Yeah, just quick quick clarifying question actually. Um let me understand the volumes and I I understand you know
on the board side and as well as I think generally there is a concern on the backout >> uh nature of the drive-thru >> which is not very normal as yourself said you have you know one example not many >> so to address that I want to understand a little bit more maybe more
specifically on the total number of uh expected transactions here is what I heard so far uh you have drive up ATM which is different which is not as part of this. The canopy and the um the ATM
there are sorry the the uh the drive-thru outlets are only for teller. So can you give me an example of what is the volume you're expecting? What kind of transactions you're expecting? Um how we can see that this
is really a low volume um you know transaction area. >> Okay. Um that yes So, so we tried to address that by having Mr. Orbach testify. Um, if that's not clear. Um, I mean I I we can have him clarify any any
of that. I think >> so. I heard 30 >> 30 transactions in one. >> So 30 is 30 transactions. >> Uh 30 transactions including ATM. Mr. charg what what I was >> the bank has a lot of transactions by
online banking and and check scanning and deposit by mobile and all that stuff we were just saying on the high the highest volume days of Fridays and Mondays people that actually walk into the bank to to conduct a transaction throughout the day so that's what I was referring to >> what is the number of transactions in
that area is about 30 >> in the branch correct >> okay and even less volume >> for the drive for the drive-thru >> even less for the drive-thru you think >> I'm making the assumption that a bunch of those uh individuals will not come
into the branch and will actually use the drive up. And I'm also making the assumption that there are a lot of people that whether they're on a cash heavy business so they can't put it in the tube, they still have to come into the bank and use the other designated banks only parking spots. There are people that don't like drive ups, they
still want to touch go face to face with people and still come into the branch. So I can't say that of the 30 I doubt I I find it highly unlikely that 30 all 30 would use the the tube and all 30 would stop coming into the bank. >> Yeah. The reason for my asking the
question is uh the concern is about backing out different nature of of the AT of the the drive-thru. >> The idea is what are we talking about to give a perspective of the number of transactions number of in and out which is why you asked that question. So I
think this helps. It's 30 max inside which can be reduced over here. It could be less than 30 even far more less than 30 using that. >> Correct. And and just to be clear the 30 was over the course of an 8 hour day 9 hour day actually 8 and a half to five
not all at one shot. So >> thank you. >> If you divided that up by the minutes and hours >> easy. Thank you. >> Thank you. Sir, >> I just want to clarify something. I
think you said that the required number of parking spaces by ordinance was 92 >> 90 and that includes the restaurant. >> Uh no, that includes just our site alone. I know there's access easement
which is the cross easement. >> It's I don't believe it's for parking. >> It's just the uh access easement is on either property >> where According to your diagram, I think there's I count 91 or whatever spaces.
>> That's how many we have on site. Yes. >> Right. But the restaurant I I know has spaces along the uh driveway, but aren't any of these back spaces allocated for restaurant use?
In other words, seems to me that would increase the required number of spaces if the restaurant's included. I mean to my to my knowledge I mean first of all the restaurant has parking spaces all along >> seven spaces. Yes.
>> I don't know that's that's restaurant only >> to my knowledge. I don't know how many of these are restaurant only spots but this is where when I've seen people access the restaurant this is where they tend to park. >> Yeah I agree with you. Except if I count
the number of spaces on this uh blueprint drawing, I count 90 91 >> which is pretty the whole parking area. >> Okay. >> And you just indicated that restaurant people would park in some of those spaces
>> in these spaces. >> Well, that's seven spaces. >> Yeah. >> Um David, let me ask you a question. But do >> that restaurant is not on the property. Correct. >> It's two to my again to my knowledge it's two separate tax lots. Right. I I
am aware that there is a some type of easement cross easement between both buildings. I'm not I believe it's for I don't know if it's for parking lot or for a definitely access because obviously both access from both route 10 and north Mitchell but
>> but I haven't reviewed the the act the easement in years to see what what else that entails >> but it's not part of the building and the banking and the other enterprises that are on the second floor. No, >> it's a separate >> separate building
>> building. It's a separate structure. You have it by easement. they have it by easement. Um I I understand the gentleman's query is that is do we need to have more spaces and should we be asking for a use variant straight that should we be asking for a a parking
variance? I I think that's where we're going with that. Correct. So I I would say no because it's not it's not a related it's not a related um use. It's uh perhaps it's something that we need to look at to can it be um can it be
declined and can it be stopped um if if in fact this board was nervous about whether there was enough parking and whether we needed to get a use a variance for the number of parking spaces. Um there's also a timing issue even if we needed to provide the parking
for the the restaurant use. there's a timing issue in terms of when they're high when when they're most busy and when there's when they're not. And I think the testimony has been that there are empty spaces. Um I mean what we were trying to do was give the board some
assurance that there that the stacking issue was dealt with. um that the number of transactions that generate the um the use um then people going into the um using the the drive up that we've
satisfied that that's can be that those that those things can be accommodated. Just I just thought lastly on the parking I mean I've been in that building for for several years now it's almost at Regal Bank and years ago at when Norcrown Bank was there and Valley
Bank was there half their uh tenency was was vacant so it doesn't even count in terms of use but at the height of of the Norcrown days when the whole building was full and Pisetta was still there I've never ever seen that parking lot full. I've never seen all 90 spots full.
The only time I've seen the 90 spots full is on a Sunday when the owners of of uh of the building allowed for the parking to be used for a function somewhere else. But never during business hours have I ever seen that parking lot full.
>> Yeah, he we will be presenting him. >> Before we move on, our professionals have any questions. >> Any other questions from >> any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public for this witness as to his testimony? Right. Seeing none, why don't we call
our next witness? >> Yes. Thank you. Sean Moransky is our pler. Plug this in. >> The orange one. >> The blue one. >> The blue one. Thank you. >> Yes. Okay.
>> Right. Not parking. Okay. >> Okay. I'm just uh opening up my drive. All right. Making sure I'm on. Okay. Uh, good evening all. uh to prepare for my
planning testimony. Um I visited the site and the surrounding area. I reviewed uh the plans, the correspondence from your professionals, including the most recent from your engineer and your planner's correspondence dated February 27th, 2026.
Um reviewed the relevant sections of your zoning ordinance and your master plan. um the specific relief uh that we're requesting, all of which are C variances, and these are noted consistent with your planner's most
recent letter. Um there's a variance um chapter 170-87E2B that no accessory building, in this case being the canopy, shall be closer to the principal building or to any abuing property line than the height of the
accessory building. The canopy height is 11 ft. Um the distance is as close as 7.2 feet to the principal building and 6.9 ft um to the lot line. We also need a variance uh chapter 1709C
accessory signs. In this case, this is the sign that is on the canopy uh must face a street or a canopy fascia. The proposed canopy sign faces the internal parking lot. And the final one is
170-90C6. One sign permitted at the building rear. The canopy sign results in an additional sign. And I do believe that each of these variances can be granted under the C2 criteria where the overall benefits of
what's being proposed as was outlined um by our by our engineer and the details explained by our client my client um outweigh the concerns that might be related to the variances that we're seeking. In terms of the accessory
building setback, um the the proposed uh canopy is in really make sure I have zoom out a bit here. Okay. So, circling the area around uh the canopy, it's in an area that I
believe does the least amount of disturbance to the site while providing while providing the service that the bank is seeking to do. Provide another option for customers who want to come to the bank but may not necessarily want to
go in the building to conduct to conduct their business. It's the closest area to the building with minimum disturbance. And as was also noticed as part of the improvements, um they're going to be replacing some paved area with some landscaped area on the side between the
building and the pavement and also along the um along the property along the property line. Um the distance between the bank building, it ranges from 7.2 2 feet closer to the lot line goes out to
12 feet um 12 feet from the uh from the building as you get closer to the to the drive aisle. So only about 6 ft of the canopy is into the setback and with regards to the uh building setback from
the neighboring lot line that building is a ne is a is a commercial building and it's the rear parking area of it. I know it's not active right now. And I'm going to show a photo because your planner had requested photos of
um the area around the canopy. Um this is a photo these two cars that I'm pointing to are where the canopy would be and beyond that you see the commercial building and where the um where the lot line is.
>> So So Sean, I just need to interrupt you for a second. These are not part of our our records currently. Correct. So we do we need to mark these. >> Correct. >> I are these additional from the >> Yeah, I think they are.
>> Yeah. I don't know where we're at. >> Yeah. I don't know to start with something else then. I don't know. Did we mark something? I don't have a note on >> transcript. >> All right. So, this will be
>> Yeah, I don't think >> actually I have a total of six in this package, but right now I'm only showing the first two. >> Okay. So, it's going to be uh A1 through six,
which is a series of photographs of the uh current conditions. >> Yes. conditions. Little less snow hopefully. >> So, this is the view from uh the other side of the property. Um and it shows,
you know, you have a relatively small small setback. It's a little less than 5t from the parking from where our lot is and probably less from this from this lot area. So that's the conditions uh that we have and that was that was
requested um by the planner. Um and I do believe that overall what's being proposed the canopy in combination with the improvements around uh removing some of the pavement for some landscaping uh the drainage uh that the
engineer talked about um is certainly an improvement in that regard. With regards to the signage, um this is about the canopy signage that's oriented to the parking lot. That sign is 6.7 square feet. Um the purpose of that to
face the parking lot is to provide efficient identification for the canopy um from the interior of the parking lot. Um, the sign size basically it's it's effective for the parking lot only and its purpose is to
find the drive-in lane and offer um sufficient identification uh for the vehicles on the site and that goes in concert with having that additional sign that we need for the canopy.
Uh we satisfy several purposes of zoning uh promoting the health, safety, and general welfare. The variance relief allows for an expansion of service options. The drive-in lane without significant disturbance, preserving the number of parking spaces. These spaces
are there already. They would be used. The difference is in the case of these two particular spaces, it gives a customer an opportunity to have the service right there at that time. uh purpose G providing sufficient space
in appropriate locations for a variety of uses. Um the variance relief enhances the existing bank bank use where it's permitted and it does it with a minimum of disturbance which I think is significantly important
and in terms of encouraging uh designer transportation to promotes free flow of traffic. what our engineer proposed really it provides a more efficient um route not just for the stacking lanes but also for the parking lot overall.
And he pointed out as you look at the northern parking spaces their angles it certainly is more efficient for them to be accessed from a one-way uh parking lane than it would be from from two lanes. And also, as he noted, it's 24 ft
wide, which provides 12 feet for the 12T for the no stopping or standing area and an additional 12 ft to bypass that stopping and standing area. And it also makes the area near the entrance a one-way sign. So it really the the
canopy in terms of its actual usage there's sufficient room for circulation and I believe it it overall improves the circulation of this area of the parking lot and the parking lot overall there's in terms of the negative criteria there's no substantial
detriment to the public good um as was previously noted the busiest days are Monday and Friday uh you're talking about 30 customers if if it goes up at most if it goes up to 40 um there's still plenty of parking
spaces and remember this is done over a 9-hour day Monday through Friday on Saturday it's three hours they're not open on Sunday and the canopy setback is is minimal with half of the setback from the
building at least 10 ft and the sideyard setback of the canopy is greater than the existing uh principal building. You know, this isn't like a lot of the buildings you see on Livingston Avenue where you might have two pathways on each side of the building. Um it was
built with a very narrow setback. So, that really limits options certainly on the side of of the building. You know, you might even see in an older bank building uh where they might be able to punch a hole in the side of the wall and create a drive-through lane. You don't
have that here because you have one one lane which is the access for both the office, the bank and the neighbor and then the other which the other uh setback which is less than 5t wide.
Um as I know it the driving lane is in the same as the parking except that it provides service at the parking space. You'd pull in out of it just as with any parking space. The lighting is recessed under the canopy. So any potential concerns about lighting
I do believe are addressed in terms of the type of lighting. Uh the reduced lot coverage, the low-level landscaping improves it a little bit around uh the canopy without removing any parking spaces and the canopy sign has a very specific
purpose within the parking lot for more efficient ID. I also think the pavement markings including the hatching and the drive up lane directional arrows they facilitate more more efficient traffic flow and that these two drive-in stations
drive up stations open during business hours can handle the activities based on the number of transactions that are counted each day. And to the point of concern about um well could you do a
traditional drive-in as we might see it I I think it would be significantly disruptive in terms of the number of parking spaces in terms of the circulation. What's being proposed here is to enhance the bank services with
minimal disruption to the site and I think from planning perspective I think that's definitely a positive. It's a significant positive. And when you start reducing parking spaces for the drive-thru, when what's being proposed
can efficiently provide the same type of service, it's a little different. Um, little less conventional than a typical drive-thru, but it also takes up significantly less space. and with the hatching area, the one-way uh drive
aisle, and that you have five parking spaces that are limited to employees, which means there's going to be limited movement of those cars. You're not going to have the constant in and out you would have of customers. I think all that minimizes the potential in terms of
con conflicting conflicting movements. There's no substantial impairment to the zoning ordinance or the zone plan. This is a permitted use. The canopy improvement is with minimal disturbance and I believe minimal setback impact.
And your 2018 master plan goal number two uh to maintain a balance of residential, business, and public uses. Uh the required relief allows for service improvement to customers with the additional signage on the canopy having minimal impact is actually a
positive for identification purposes. And I don't believe there are any uh substantial impacts related to the sign area or anything associated with the canopy lightning light lighting sorry disturbance and so forth. So for the reasons I've outlined um request you
grant the variances. Thank you. Any questions from >> so the canopy >> the canopy is a variance both because it's the closeness to the building and
the closeness to the property line. >> Correct. So, Barbara, if they were to move the canopy out towards the middle of the parking lot and take up a couple of spots and take the sign off of it, they could do this as of right.
>> Correct. But they would intrude into their own park drive bottles. >> I'm not suggesting it. I'm just trying to figure out how our ordinance works. hard to argue that it's not better off in the corner where it is than out in
the middle of the parking lot. >> And with minimal disturbance, any other questions from the board? Seeing none, uh any questions from members of the public? uh for this witness as to his testimony.
Anything from our professionals. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sorry. Uh so that concludes our presentation. Um I would like if the board does not have any more questions of the witnesses, I would like to just
give a brief um reaction to some of the comments and and and >> just just maybe to check off any any members of the public have any question uh want to make any sworn statements for against the application. Okay, seeing none, just wanted to cover that. >> Um great. Thank you. So so as Mr. Santo
indicated we are here for the var we're here for variances for the sign and the setback and we recognize after we were here at the first meeting that there were concerns about access and stacking and um as as our witnesses have indicated the um the revised
flow plan is actually in our opinion is is safer for access onto the site um and and making its way through the site um whether or not the whether or not the the kiosk is or the the the um the
structure is there. Um the one-way access is safer. It makes more sense and the stacking issue has been dealt with. Um the usage is very limited. I think that was hopefully made pretty clear by uh Mr. Orbach's testimony that the usage
would be certainly manageable, much more manageable than than I think than maybe there were concerns about. um it's it's would be very low given the statistics about the number of of um transactions that actually occur at the bank and not
all of them would be going to these fac to the to the um to the facility. Um I would ask that the board approve it. It's it's um an overall improvement to the site um to the access and to the to the safety really of of the of the
persons driving through the site. Um there was something that was raised about um whether people from another lot were being parked were parked on there. I would say that that's really not a relevant consideration. There's nothing official that's designating that. I mean
people I I'm sure we've all parked on someone else's property when we've gone into another building or a restaurant. Um it's not something that is is really predominant with this application. and um there's excess parking perhaps so
people take advantage of it. I I think it's a red herring if that's something that's that the board is is looking at. Um uh I would thank you know Mr. Mr. Moransky for for pointing out that um the access is safer and that um we we
believe we have addressed all the concerns with the access and the stacking um possibility that the board raised previously and we would um ask that the board approved the application for the variances for the sign and the
signs and the setback. Thank you. >> Thank you. Now the parties having had an opportunity to make closing a closing statement and appears to the chair that the applicant all injured persons and the board members have had reasonable opportunity to be heard that the evidentiary record of this hearing ought
to be closed. Absent objection and in the absence of a motion for continuence. The evidentiary record is closed and no further testimony or evidence shall be heard or received. So now really turning it over to the board for their thoughts.
as everybody's looking over their notes. >> Mhm. Well, the parking we they you know they have have 91 90 are required. So I think that's really not >> Yeah. But I'd like to know if there's an agreement that exists with the
restaurant in terms of using part of those spaces which may require more than 91 if the restaurant's using it. Which may require more than 91 if the restaurant's using it. Uh and therefore
a variance. I don't know if there's an agreement. I'd love to know what it says. >> Other thoughts on the application? >> I agree with Mr. Santo. I think this is
a more desirable outcome than what they could do under the circumstances. >> Did I say you did now? My biggest concern was the curing of the background and I think you cured that with the employee parking. I think that
was that was really got over the hump because now we don't have to worry about that. And well, I definitely don't think this is the best idea. I don't own a bank. I don't run a bank. Our ordinance does not require you to have to pull through a drive-thru. Maybe we'd like that the way
it reads, but it's not how it reads. And so rather than have them come back with it in the middle of the parking lot over in the corner, I think is a safer place. And um I think the testimony about let's call it 40 people on a Friday. If half
use the the new drive-thru or drive-in uh and it's a 9h hour day, that's two an hour. Just not seeing an enormous impact. Um and you know I think the bank has um indicated that you know it's a
benefit to their business. It's a benefit to the customers who are our residents. So again not perfect but um I would vote in favor. >> Yeah. I mean I thought I thought Mr. drawbacks. Your testimony was important uh just as the the the number of
transactions and you know all the work that you did with our professionals and you know with with with traffic flow and you know the concerns that we had at the first hearing uh just you know the pulling in the pulling out you know you know you know the public parking there
that might have cars queued there um you know it's not uh you know again it's it's not you know a traditional type of drive-thru, but certainly based upon, you know, the, you know, the potential number of transactions, you know,
leaving that only as employee parking, you know, changing to a to a oneway to avoid that, you know, any, you know, possible mix up on cars coming in and out. Um, you know, I'm certainly, you know, while I think I think the board had, you know, much more trouble with it
at the first hearing, um, I think a lot of the concerns, uh, you know, have been addressed. >> Yeah, I agree with you, Mr. Chair, just one additional thing. Uh I think the chair also alluded to that from last time to this time, we saw a lot of
improvements. The no parking area, no parking zone that made it clear that if you're backing out, you're not having anybody stop there. The oneway adjustments, the curve that makes it no entry sort of, you know, make it that enforces the oneway. These are some very
good improvements and I think those were addressed. So, thank you for making those changes. Thank you. >> And I think you've also addressed the uh you know the C2 variances that uh that you were requesting as well. I don't know if anybody has any further thoughts on that. Um you know if there's no
further discussion, can we have um a motion in a second? >> Can I just get a clarification? So on the PL on the board's planners report, she called out conditions um it's item 13 on page two and three. item 15 on
page three and item 6B on page 10. And I just ha has uh and I'm going to ask Barbara, have the plans been updated to include those setbacks? And if not, is that a condition that you still want? >> Uh
>> or we can just say that can we just comply with them? as long as the resolution. >> Yeah, I don't >> Yeah. >> Yeah, we would. Yeah, we just, you know, incorporate any of those open items as uh, you know,
>> that's fine. I'm getting the nod that they've either been been dealt they've either been complied with or that we would agree to that as >> either have complied or will comply. >> I'm sorry. We can we have or we will. >> Correct. Thank you. >> We need a motion and a second.
>> I'll move it on the conditions that we just discussed. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Jackie. >> Thank you. Uh I think we need to get um hear from Mr. Diner if he watched the uh tape from the January 6 meeting to be
able to participate. Did you want did Did you go back and watch the tape as well? I think you said you did. >> I did. >> Yeah. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Santo. >> Yes. >> Miss Faz. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ratner. >> Yes. >> Mr. Diner.
>> No. >> Mr. Lewis. >> Yes. >> Mr. Duffford. >> Yes. >> Mr. Batani. >> Yes. >> Miss Wnew. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you, Chairman Fernandez.
>> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you very much. Thank you for coming back. Thank you for making all the changes and working with our professionals. >> Uh we appreciate that very much. >> Um >> five minutes. >> Five minutes. Um
>> a hard five. >> And uh I am I am recused on this next matter. So we will uh Mr. San will then take over. and be and and be and be done by 9:30. >> Yes, sir.
Yeah. What's that? official. >> I heard I heard a no from you. I'm hoping you're not It's been a rough winter, too. Oh, really? Really? Are you moving?
>> Just stink. >> You've seen You've seen too much. >> Yeah, I don't blame you. The next matter the next matter scheduled for this evening is an amendment for application number 2023-37-pfsp
and 2023-36-m for block 3100 lot 56 321 South Livingston Avenue Bright View Senior Living Livingston Development LLC See >> councelor. Thank you chairman Sanola. Uh my name is Michael Le Perry. I am a partner with
Mandalon Barrett. I'm council to the applicant Brightite View Senior Living Development LLC. We are here this evening seeking amended preliminary and final major site plan approval and minor subdivision slash uh lot line adjustment
approval for the uh approved senior living facility located at 321 South Livingston A and it is located in the 321 South Livingington A district redevelopment area. The applicant uh is the designated redeveloper of the site
and it previously approve I'm sorry previously received from this board approval to redevelop the existing YMCA facility into an independent and assisted living facility that includes 150 rooms and 175 beds. The facility
will be uh a four-story building of approximately 170,000 gross square feet with some common area amenities. Um, and it will be age restricted to individuals over the age of 62. The amended application that we are here for tonight
is to seek approval to change the site circulation pattern and some site adjustments to parking and landscape design. There's also some other minor building uh changes that we believe are more administrative changes in nature, but we'll discuss them tonight briefly
uh so that we can provide an explanation as to why we are making the changes and to address any questions or concerns of this board. The uh minor subdivision and lot line adjustment is to just reaffirm the prior approval with the new changes that are being made to the site to the
extent that they have any impact on the area that is to be merged uh with lot 56. Um the original the original application uh previously obtained four deviations that were very minor from the
redevelopment plan. We are not seeking any deviations as part of this application tonight. It's just again trying to reorganize a little bit of the site circulation on the site. Uh and we'll explain that in detail with our uh professional testimony. Um my witnesses
this evening, I have our project engineer Jackie Girardano from Dynamic Engineering. We have our architects uh Adam Wagner and Satia Cheney from Market Square Architects. And to the extent that there are any questions of the applicant, we have members of the
applicant here this evening as well. We have Mr. Arun Suresh Kumar and Ms. Maria Miller. Um I don't know that we're going to I'm not going to put them on unless there's some questions. So unless there's any questions of the board, we'll get to our uh applicant or professional testimony.
>> Council, can I just have you have all of your witnesses >> I'm sorry. Uh all of your witnesses uh be sworn in and as well as the um the board professionals as well. If everybody could raise your right hand, do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this
hearing is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Just please state your name and spell it for the record, please. Each of you has been sworn in. >> Jackie Jordano. J A C K I E G I O R D A
N O. >> Sautia Cheni. S O T H E A C H E Anyway, >> uh Barbara Allen, uh okay, >> Adam Wagner, ADA M. W A G N E R
>> uh Roco Maruchi >> Maria Miller. M A R I A M I L L E Rview Development. >> Arun Suresh. A R U N S U R E S H. >> Proceed. >> Yes. >> Thank you. My first witness is uh Miss Jackie Gordano with Dynamic Engineering.
Uh Miss Gordono, you've been sworn. Can you please provide the board briefly with your professional qualifications and the status of your professional lensures? >> Absolutely. So, Jaclyn Drewano, I'm a principal with Dynamic Engineering Consultants. I have my bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering from
Penn State University and my master's degree in civil engineering from NJIT. And I'm a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. Your license is a current. >> That's correct. >> I would then offer Mrs. Gordono as a professional engineer. >> Anybody from the board have any questions?
>> Well, acceptance. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Jackie. If you could please just uh >> I'm just going to move over to >> Yes. pull up your plan and walk us through some of the changes to the site um that are different from what was previously approved.
>> Absolutely. >> Can you hear me? Yes. >> Try to zoom in. So, what I have up here, I think we can mark exhibit A1. It is a site plan rendering of the submitted site plan prepared by our
office with the date Hold on. I think it pulled up. Just want to confirm it's today's date. >> Oh no. >> Is it loading? Looks like it needs a minute.
respond. >> What you're going to show us is in the packet. >> It's a colorized version of the site plan sheet. It's like sheet four. >> Trust me. Paint a picture. >> No problem. >> Sorry for that. >> Paper never likes to load.
>> So, just to orient the board, north will be to the top of the page that's in front of you. And hopefully I can open this with South Livingston Avenue running north and south to the west of the page. I'm sure you're familiar with the site, you know, in connection with
this building that we're in today. Um, as Mr. Leari mentioned, we received our prior site plan approval uh for site plan and minor subdivision back in May 21st, 2024, which was memorialized in June 18, 2024. And we are seeking
amended preliminary and final site plan and minor subdivision approval for the project. Um, just to note, there are no changes to the minor subdivision that was previously approved and all proposed changes are in compliance with the adopted redevelopment plan and township ordinance as was mentioned. There's no
additional variances or waiverss required due to the subject changes. So, getting into it, generally speaking, the site plan layout was refined in coordination with the construction level architectural drawings, which we'll hear a little bit more about. um and in doing so able to improve site circulation for
employees and visitors by implementing a two-way site circulation throughout the site. I'm just going to carefully zoom in here. So, previously what was approved was a one-way counterclockwise circulation
across the site. Um there was a full movement or I mean sorry there was parking up in the front here um in order to accommodate better operation of the site and working with the applicant and their operations team. The ability to provide two-way circulation provides huge benefits operationally and if there
is a way to make up that room to provide that two-way circulation that was the goal here. Um so what we were able to do without making any changes to the driveways along the county um South Livingston Avenue, the county roadway, uh we're able to widen the driveways to
24 ft wide and provide full sight circulation around the site. In doing so, we had to remove the upfront parking area that was in the front yard and reaclimated those parking spaces along the the side and rear of the facility.
Uh, I do want to note that the Porter Cochair will still operate in this one-way orientation. That access drive is 18 ft wide. Um, in accordance with the township requirements. Uh, this is an improved design for visitors who will no longer need to
circulate along around the entire facility in order to exit onto South Livingston Avenue. And to speak a little bit more about the truck circulation, there will not be any changes to the operation as far as delivery vehicles and for emergency
vehicles. Um, but I think as the traffic engineer had noted in their review letter, if the opportunity becomes more convenient for them, the refuge vehicle may enter onto the site via the northernmost driveway,
accommodate the trash or recycling facilities back out and then exit back out onto the same driveway. Um, but there is room for them to continue to utilize the full-sight circulation if that's the better maneuvering for them. Um, and then we can agree to provide updated templates if required by the
traffic engineer. >> So, the way you did this was you took all the parking off the north side of the building and relocated it >> on the west side. Yeah. Right in front along South Livingston Avenue. We took there was head-on parking spaces here and then we the way that we were able to
maneuver it throughout the site. It's accommodated both on the rear. We extended a little bit on the back side here. Um in total you have a net one more parking space. So previously there was 101 parking spaces. Now there's 102 parking spaces. >> You took parking out of the front yard.
>> That's correct. >> Right. >> And the building didn't get any closer to living. >> It did not. It still complies with all building setbacks. >> It only It took us two years, but we remembered those comments from the last time about how much you hated and we
were we've been planning for for two years, but we got there. >> It took you a while, but >> Yeah. Yeah. Better late than never. >> Yeah. So, in addition to that, because we moved from the parking round be because we reconfigured the circulation aisles, we had to adjust the sidewalk
and ADA accessible routes accordingly. Um, so those were some minimal adjustments. I believe the engineer did make a comment which we evaluated uh to provide some additional connectivity down uh south towards the municipal lot. Um, but I do want to point out there is presently proposed connectivity here
with our very important pedestrian circulation loop which does take us out to the right of way and provides that connection to the existing sidewalk. There is nice pavers um and sidewalk walkway in front of the building. Um so we did not we are not looking to propose
additional sidewalk across um our parking lot and to to the to the existing um parking spaces that are on the municipal lot. We do not see that as a benefit for our application. Um
but the sidewalk has been updated based off of the relocation of of the parking areas. So, just on that point, there's a couple of really um nice trees on the sidewalk in front of the Y. We talked about those last time. Are we trying to preserve those?
>> Yeah, there are a number of trees and certainly there's some mature trees here and we are planning to submit a tree removal permanent application as a condition of approval. We're not changing any um aspect of what's being proposed as what was previously
approved. So, we will be preserving some of the existing mature trees. I think this is one of the the larger trees we were able to save and we were manipulating the existing sidewalk to weave around it to save as much vegetation as possible. Um, but we're not making any changes what was
previously approved in that regard. >> Are you ch are you going to rip up the the big improvement sidewalk and repour or are you going to work around that? The majority of the sidewalk along South Livingston Avenue will be reconstructed.
>> And you'll reconstruct it in the style of the business improvement district that's out there now. >> Yes. >> Which isn't it's I mean it's concrete with shoulder course and it's not exactly. >> Yeah. We wanted to match and have a nice aesthetic along our front end. >> Okay. Good.
Besides that, the there are no changes to the proposed signage. To answer the question from the board's planner letter, the length of the sign that we're indicating on our plans does include the pillar. So that length does comply with the redevelopment plan and there is no building mounted signage
proposed with the project. Um so as a result of all the proposed site changes, we did have to adjust the the grading, the drainage, storm water, landscaping and lighting um with some minimal impacts um to be adjusted to accommodate these changes. But there's
no changes in the design intent which was previously approved and presented represented to the board and no additional variances or waiverss required. As we I noted previously, these changes have also been submitted to the NJD for a modification of the previously issued flood hazard area
permits and that was reviewed including the storm water and a permit modification approval was issued in December of last year. >> When you went back, were you subject to the new rules? >> No, we were we're grandfathered because of our site plan. the amendment
>> as it relates to the new rules. We do we are implementing green infrastructure that was part of the project. >> I'm just interested >> asking for a friend. >> It's a development. >> Yeah. >> So, you know, in summary, we reviewed
the professional review letters that included letters from the board engineer, the board planner, board traffic engineer, the fire official, and otherwise as detailed in my testimony. We don't take any exception to complying with the comments in in those letters as a condition of approval. Um I believe
that the result of the proposed changes is an ultimate benefit and the design will continue to provide safe and efficient access to and from the site. So otherwise that concludes my my testimony from a site design perspective. So if you have any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
>> I just have one. So the impervious doesn't increase. There is a slight increase of imperous coverage. It's about 1,00 1,058 square feet. It's noted on our site plan documents. So, the drainage design has been updated to accommodate
that. I believe the percentage goes specifically to 70.4% to the previously approved 69.9% um which is still well under the 75% permitted. >> So, the increase is that pushing the curb line out or is it interior to the
site? some islands or whatever that were. >> It it's it's associated with widening the a access drives to 24 feet wide. >> I don't have anything else. Anybody else have any questions? Roco, any questions? >> No, I just can you just um clarify about
any EV stalls on the site? Yes. So, there still will be four proposed electric vehicle charging stations which is required per the state statute. Um, but I will note that these will be constructed with the project. They're not going to be make ready which is
permitted by the, you know, state statute. >> Is there a requirement for handicap to have a EV stall? >> There is a requirement to have a van accessible space. So, we'll make sure that that's clearly noted on our plans. >> Okay, perfect. And then I'll just add that um the water department is
reviewing the plans. They will get um comments out related to you know water distribution and stuff like that along with the fire department. So we'll work with them. >> Yes. And we we got the letter from M McDonald as well and we're we're working through reviewing that and making sure that we can address their comments so
that we can move forward with our TWWA and BWSC permits. But I I but the water department, they'll also have some comments as far as like, you know, connections, specific connections and where they want it. So, we'll make sure we get that to you. >> Okay. Appreciate it.
report. Uh they asked for um he asked for a turning template for a WV WB50 delivery truck. Is that you okay with that as a condition of approval? >> Yes, that that was submitted with our >> It was submitted already. >> It was submitted with our application. >> Okay. I'm sorry. So, this is an older
report. >> Yeah. And and we can agree to address, you know, all the comments in that letter. >> Okay. >> One quick question. Um, so 151 units, 170 beds. Is that what we said? >> I think 150 and 175.
>> Okay. So, same neighborh did the did the client give you any indication of how many cars they think would actually be parked there from residents at that number? >> Is it a half a car per unit? I mean, they have experience. So, I'm just wondering. I know RSIS probably has its
own senior housing parking. I I know we did discuss this at the last hearing uh and I think we went into into depth about uh the number of parking spaces that were required and we I think satisfied ourselves that it was sufficient and the board but I don't remember the the exact uh testimony but
we are adding one spot as a result of this amended application. >> Right. I'm not suggesting that there's not enough. I'm just interested in how you're probably overparked if I had to bet. >> Yes. Because I'm sure that the assistant living none of them have cars. So then you're down to whatever the independent
living are. How many of them may or may not. >> Anything else? Seeing none, next witness. Thank you, Jackie. Our next witness, um, we have a little bit of a combo, uh, tag
team, maybe we'll call it. We have our two architects. Um, and the reason we have two, uh, Adam Wagner is, uh, the architect that is licensed in New Jersey. He's able to testify if the board prefers, but the project, uh, I
guess the lead was Satia Cheney. So, um, under Mr. Wagner's guidance, we would prefer to have Mrs. Cheney testify because she really has more of the day-to-day knowledge of the building. >> I think we'd prefer her. >> Thank you. >> Not the first.
Sorry to keep you out till 10:00. >> Thank you, Miss Cheney. You've been sworn and um if you could just come forward and provide the board with some of your professional qualifications.
>> I'm Sopia. I'm with Market Square Architects. Um, I graduated from Wentworth Institute of Technology with an architectural engineering degree. Um, I've worked with Marcus Square for six years. Um, I have
a license in um, I have an architectural license in New Hampshire, hence why Adam Wagner is here. >> And have you testified before boards in the past? >> I have testified in boards in the past.
not um New Jersey. I was here with uh Rob Harbison who is an architect at Marcus Square. >> Okay. Uh well, I would ask that she be qualified as a an architecture in the field. Uh and also if you qualify, I
recommend Mr. Wagner to uh advise this board if his licenses are current in New Jersey as well. >> I don't think we need Mr. Wagner on this. Okay. >> Are you good in New Hampshire? Is your license still good? Yes. My license is good in New Hampshire. >> Anybody have any more questions? Seeing
none, we'll accept it. >> Thank you. Sorry for the, you know, inconvenience. I just wanted to make sure that we had all our in case this board was had any issues. >> Miss Cheney, thank you. Um, can you please walk us through your
plan that was submitted and explain to the board some of the changes that were being made from the uh, previously approved plan? I cannot hear you but I think the microphone is on. >> Can you hear me now? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Um so the natural progression of design um there are some minor changes. the intent, the layout, the design uh is the same as what was presented and approved.
Um we have some minor changes um with everything more developed. We have more units uh working with uh more units developed, working with our engineers. Um walls shifted a little bit here and
there. Um, we actually reduced the square the gross square footage by 2,300 square foot. Um, we did add uh the building footprint a little bit. It's
about 47 square foot added total. Um, so I wanted to go through the changes that um may impact a little bit more. Um, let's see. Zoom.
Everything you're showing us is in the packet, right? We don't need to mark anything. >> Yes, this is in what you have. Um, where's the Zoom? >> Thank you. In the floor plan, we added balconies in
this corner. Um, and we added the this walking interior walking loop here. This is the our memory care wing. We connected the two wings so that they're able to utilize the loop in the winter
time and not have to go outside. Um, in the prior submission, the fence and the retaining wall was back here. Um, so this is only one story. >> Where's one story? I'm sorry. >> The little connecting.
>> So from this grid line >> below to this grid line. >> Got it. I'll go through the elevation. The plans really didn't change much. >> Yeah.
So, just to be clear, there's a reduction of 2,300 square f feet of the overall building and an additional 47 square feet to the footprint, which in on a building 170,000 ft², it's like I said, a
sort of an administrative change, but we wanted to explain it to everybody. >> Where did the footprint go? It's just from um designing and um just detailing more of the units and the spaces we need for mechanical. We just
shrunk a little bit of each thing and it it just added up because it's um each floor. It affects each floor. So I want to go to South Livingston Avenue.
And that is the west elevation. Um the biggest change in the west elevation, we had a coupa at the the scable at the street elevation. Um we
moved it to the front entry to give it more prominence. >> Um >> what plan is that? I'm >> sorry, there's the number on it. Uh, A2 0. >> What is the number? >> A2000.
>> A2. 0 West elevation. >> West elevation three. >> So can you tell us again the the change that you made? >> Yes. Uh so the Koopa originally was in
this location at the front gable. We moved it to the front entrance and then um we actually enhance this elevation by bringing in more brick facade in that center gable.
Anything else? >> Um, you can see in the distance here, um, we had a tower, a brick tower in that corner. We
shifted the, uh, focal point to the wing on the other side. You can still see it from the street side. Um, we wanted to reduce a little bit of the clutter in this area at the front entrance and you can't really see that anyways because we
have the port crocher and the vestibule there as well. Um, so we wanted to simplify that corner, that inside corner. And then we have added a balcony, two-story balcony. What's the next change?
>> Yep. So, if I move up Same sheet. >> Same sheet. Uh detail one front entry uh is the south elevation. Um the little extent is parallel here.
Here's the port koscher. This is the front entry with the koopa. So we wanted this a little more prominence. And then this corner with the brick tower had shifted to the center of this
wing. >> And there behind the portico share there was a reference to I guess making the lobby two stories. Is that what we're seeing kind of right behind that? >> That that's an interior. >> It's not exterior. >> Is it open two stories or >> it's open two stories on the interior?
the next same elevation um further back. So this is where we have the threetory um portion to the left of grid 5. Uh to the right of grid 5 we have the fourstory. Um originally it was the
mansart roof. um we felt like it was a little out of place and we wanted to um complement the three-story building here so it ties the whole building together.
Um by doing that we remove the mansart and put in gables and hip roofs here and that increase the building height from um it was originally
sorry 56 feet 9 and 58 from the average grade to the highest point of the roof. Um and then now it's uh 58 ft. >> So >> it is still under the um zoning.
>> The redevelopment plan allows for >> 60 ft. >> So we're still under the required height and we're not seeking any deviations from the redevelopment plan. Is that correct? >> Correct. That also helps with um when we have
mechanical equipment laid out. Um that gives us a little bit more screening of the mechanical roof because the roof well sits in behind this roof. There's a roof well behind there. So we have six feet to screen the mechanical
units. So, did the mansard come down below the fourth story window? Is that I can't remember what it looked like. >> Yes, it uh roughly two or three feet above the fourth floor. So, right where probably where the window sill is.
>> And we try to break up the elevation a little bit by breaking up the material um so it's not so massive. Are there any other changes? Yes. The east elevation, same sheet. This is the added walking loop. The one story is the gray
portion connecting the two wings. And that was previously a retaining wall. >> It was previously a retaining wall and an 8 foot fence. >> And then we added a few a balcony sack on each side of the gable.
And that was a design choice. I think that looks nice. >> So that's basically to close in the memory care courtyard. >> That is that is enclosing the memory care courtyard >> instead of a fence. It's a >> connector >> connector. Makes sense.
>> Yeah, it does. Uh the only comment I would have um just for the board's consideration with the western elevation along Livingston Avenue uh when the plan was originally when the plan was delegates that the building should be oriented towards the roadway frontage and so it was caddy
cornered uh which the board found um which granted a deviation for. Uh the only consideration was that that wall didn't look like a sideyard like a side building elevation and so uh it's up to your discussion as to whether moving the
copala or any other architectural features um were considered for that elevation. I just bring that up for a note for you to you to consider. So, we kept the um we have a canopy over
the egress steer door to make it feel a little bit more like an entrance and we kept the walkway um on the right side as well that leads to the front entrance door. Do you have any other any additional
changes of uh significance? >> I don't. Um this is just a very developed plan now that it's for construction. Um so we have our materials. Um this these are the
materials we have. Um, these are the colors that we picked um with bright view. >> I know it's contingent on when the Y is done, but when do you figure you'll start?
>> I don't know if we have date. Do you know when the date is? >> Sure. I think the Y will be done end of this year and as soon as we get a building permit, we'll be ready to go. bring demolition in the spring. Why is supposed to be up by December?
>> We can just blame the Y on any delays on this one. >> It's a plan, >> but they're uh I saw I drove by today. They're moving along pretty pretty aggressively. >> Yeah, to tough few weeks for sure with the weather, but >> yeah, >> I did have one question on the very first sheet that you showed us, which is
the overall first floor plan. It's all the way up at the top and it's just random question but um right there I think it's on that one. >> Yep. >> Yeah. Just out of curious stop right there. What is that like circled red
thing in the middle? Is that of some significance or Yeah. What is that? >> That was left over from a construction. Okay. Drawing. Uh >> I'm looking at the >> DCA had comments. Okay. Good. Good enough. >> Good enough. Thanks.
And just to verify, I know there's a limit on memory care units >> in the there's a limit on the number of memory care units, I believe. >> Yes. >> And you'll >> we have an increase uh 26, I believe. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It was a condition of approval the
first time that we would comply with all of the um uh the matrix for memory care assisted and independent and we will continue that. >> Okay, great. Sophia, do you have anything else? >> Um, I just want to quickly show
the roof well and in case and this is why we increase the the height for that. So, we can hide there's multiple uh RTUs um and make up
your unit in this roof well here. That's what the height increase or whatever. >> Yeah. >> Is that all? Okay, that's all of the testimony we have for our architect. >> Does anybody have any more questions for the architect >> professionals?
>> Thank you. >> Anybody from the public have any questions for the architect? >> Nobody from the public. Andy, >> speak up. >> Speak up. >> Well, I >> it's not time for public comment.
Question. >> He sees a lot of applications, so I think we should all value his opinion. >> I don't have any additional witnesses. >> I don't have any additional witnesses. Um we didn't bring a planner because we don't have any additional deviations.
Again, these are very minor changes that are being sought and uh we believe that it's a huge benefit to the operations and to the site and we also think the changes to the architecture are aesthetic improvements. Um so with that, uh we have nothing further, but we would
ask that this board, uh consider and grant the application because we think it's going to be an improvement. >> Great. So, we've heard from the witnesses. There's no public here. Does anybody have any questions or want to say anything about the application? >> Yeah, I mean, I don't have any
questions, but I think um number one, I think it's great overall. You got the full circulation. I was never wild about the one way to begin with. Uh and then the added benefit of eliminating the front yard parking that we didn't like to begin with. It was win-win all the way around. I love the uh connection for
the dementia unit to give them year round walking loop. Having had parents that were in dementia units, it's it's it's a great feature. So, overall, and the architectural changes were fine with me. So, I certainly support it. >> Anyone else?
>> Yeah, I agree. I think these are all very positive changes. Thank you for your hard work on this. >> Yep. I think getting rid of the front yard parking is great. I think it's going to be a real curb appeal boost for the project. So,
good work on that. Um, does anybody have a motion? >> I'll move with the with conditions of the tree removal permit that the new sidewalk will match the existing that one EV handicap will be handicapped spot. And
Rocco, you pulled you you asked said you asked questions about 7, eight, and nine in your report, but is three, four, is four, five, and six, 11, 12, and 13 no longer conditions or items that you want addressed
>> or have they've already been addressed? >> No, some of them some of them should be addressed also. >> Okay, which ones? We need to call them out and get get the applicants >> additional uh dimensions. >> I'm sorry, what? >> Number four. >> Item number four. >> Yeah. Um, >> do you have the report for any account? >> Yeah, four. That's fine. Four is a
condition. Okay. >> Four, five. >> Yes. >> Um Um I think they nine is related to the sewer. >> So >> uh yes, you talked about that already, but what about um 11, 12 or 13?
>> Um and then just a copy. They said they had a a reapproval of D. So just a copy of that. It's fine. That's number um 12. That's it. >> That's it. >> Just want to um the sidewalk to match
existing bid spec. >> Okay. So, uh the chairman asked that um the condition be that the new sidewalk match existing bid spec. That's not exactly how he said it. So, I want to >> change that.
>> Uh Jackie, that's fine, right? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay, Mr. Lewis. Yes, >> Mr. Ratner. >> Yes, >> Mr. Diner. >> Yes, >> Miss Fast. >> Yes, >> Mr. Batani. >> Yes,
>> Miss Vishnu. >> Yes, >> Chairman Senola. >> Yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. We really appreciate it. Have a great night. >> You too. >> With that, we stand adjourned. >> Where's David, sir?
>> Where's David Holland? He He's sick of driving from Baltimore. >> I will.