[Music] [Music] Okay. [Music] [Music] [Music]
That's why, Jackie. That's why I was waiting on you. Mr. Chairman, we're ready. All right. Good evening. This is a special meeting of Livingston's planning board. Notice of this meeting has been published in accordance with the open
public meetings act. Mr. Ratner here. Mr. Reber here. Mr. Diner. Yes. Mr. Lewis here. Mr. Duffford here. Mr. Batani here. Miss Bishnu here. Miss Connor here.
Chairman Fernandez here. Uh, member Fos and Vice Chair Senola are now present. We do have our board attorney, township engineer, and planner consultant. Thank you. Uh, Jackie, if you can please
uh call the first matter. That matter, Mr. chairman is a continued matter for block 2100 lot lot 6162 and 63 for 51 and49 Overlook Road application number 2025-11-
MSUBV Alta Asset Management LLC Uh thank you. We have actually two hearings on for tonight. We have um the um uh 51 and 49 overlook and we also
have uh 45 um South Livingston Avenue. So I want to just go through the general procedures for tonight's hearings. Um I'm assuming most people here tonight are not here for uh Overlook. Uh but I do want to go through it for both hearings. Um so um the the outcome of
tonight's hearings can be either an approval of the application as presented, approval with conditions or denial of the approval. We may need more than sessions uh more than one session for tonight's meetings. Uh and the applicant is represent both applicants
are represented by attorneys who are explaining their applications. Uh the applicant's attorney will call one or more witnesses to give sworn testimony in support of the application. Members of the board may ask witness questions, and when the attorney for the applicant has no more questions for a witness,
interested parties, in favor of or in opposition to the application, may question the witness about that witness's testimony. When all the applicants witnesses have testified, if there is an entity or group formally appearing as a party in support of or in opposition to the
application, that party may call witnesses. When all the witnesses of all the parties have been heard, members of the public may give sworn statements for or against the application. When reaching this decision, the board may only consider sworn testimony and evidence introduced as part of the
record. Uh the applicant must always establish that the proposed development is consistent with the township zoning ordinance that applies to the site that the applicant wishes to develop. In addition to sight specific ordinances, there are other provision of the township ordinances and regulations that
may be applicable. Again, the applicant must meet those requirements. Uh so for the first application uh for 5149 Overlook Road, is there anyone here other than the applicant that wants to enter formal appearance?
Yes, professional planner here on behalf of AY Strauss, Rosemary Stone Dowy for 42 Overlook across the street, the Hakua family. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are you Are you But you're not an attorney.
No, I'm a professional planner, right? Okay. So So you're So you're appearing on behalf of a resident. Okay, great. All right. Uh thank you. you're uh welcome to enter your appearance and uh make your opening statement. Thank you. Uh Diana McGovern from the
law firm of Gashio and Pomaco on behalf of Asset Management. We're back. We were in front of the board on June 12th with a proposal to raise both houses on what was three lots and do a three lot
subdivision. But we listened to the comments of the board and the neighbors and I think we're back here with a better plan. Um we are requesting that the lot line be moved to create two large lots um and to build two one
family homes which are actually uh larger in square footage than the zone allows which is one of our variances. We have two variances that we would require. Um the lots that we are proposing, lot 62.01
would be 3 35,023.8 square ft with a house that would be 5,520 square ft and that would be lot 49, the first one on the culde-sac using the existing driveway that's already there.
And then um this is a little bit of a different uh situation because we have a permanent easement for the back lot where which for that property which would be lot 6101. That uh square footage we're proposing
would be 38,567.5 ft with a 5,800 square foot uh home on it. That's number 51. Um, what is odd about this block is on one side of the street is an R1 with an R2 overlay. So,
these size homes are pretty much the rule uh and in in permitted. But on our side of the street, it's R3, which doesn't allow houses greater than 3500 square feet, even though most of the houses on that side of the street are in
excess of the 3500 square uh square feet. So, I have two witnesses tonight. Uh, Mr. Wizakowski, Camille Wizakowski, the managing member of Alta Asset, and Charles Bald Danza, our expert. He wears three hats. He's a an architect, a an
engineer, and a planner licensed in the state of New Jersey in all three of those areas. So, we are requesting minor subdivision approval for two lots and bulk variances for um maximum habitable floor area for each house and maximum
front yard because of the topography where the houses would be set back. Note is we are not requesting a habitable floor area ratio. We far and away uh have so much property that we don't even come close to to that. Now, one of the homes does not face a
public street. Correct. That's correct. Correct. So you'll need a variance for that as well. Uh well, yes, for both of them because of the front yard uh situation. So the setbacks plus plus that other one as well. Yes. Yes. Where we have an existing easement, a perpetual easement that
we've provided to the board. Um so we were the last time and I we did were working off of Mr. Wizakowski was going through and we're going to call Camille back. I did supply to the board um the chart. You had asked for a chart. Uh, I
did provide copies. I think you handed them all out. Okay, great. We'll mark that uh A1. Perfect. Okay, Camille is uh we're going to start with you and um I think we're going to work off this chart um so that the board members can have a good idea
of uh what we're proposing. Okay. Okay. All right. So, Camille, um we covered the last time you're the contract purchaser. Do we need to swear him in again or is he still sworn? Okay. Just want to make sure you acknowledge that you were under oath. Yes.
Okay. So, the last time we went through that you're the contract purchaser and that currently there's two homes on the property that are are situated in such that that they're set back way far um due to the topography. Um, now what have we done and what how we've
have we changed the application based upon neighbor concerns and in response to what we were listening to from the board. How how has the plan changed? Um, so the plan changed that we are no longer seeking to keep the uh three tax
lots as they were drawn on the tax map and we would do a lot line adjustment to create two larger lots as you mentioned and we are proposing two larger homes that are in line with the surrounding neighborhood. Okay. Um, so
why don't we describe what's what is what is anticipated with the proposed homes? how many bedrooms um and the like. And well, you know what? Let's start with the the area and comparing it to the surrounding areas. Maybe you can use the tax map and then we can go
through I think page three of the handout that we gave. Sure. To go through um do you want to do you want to point to the lots as you're describing them and the board can follow? Pull them up. Yes, please. Okay. So to make it easier for the
board, we'll put page four of the handout up on the screen and then this is the tax map. Well, no, we're getting there. He's getting there. The date of these plans that we
submitted. I'm sorry. Let me get that. for the record while he's finding that. July 1st of 25. Yes. Yeah. SP1, SP3.
Okay. All right. So now this this would be what we see on page four of the handout, but we're going to go through from page three. If you could point we have the site up. Yes. Could you take us through the sizes of
the lots in in the immediate vicinity and the um habitable floor area ratios um that we've discerned from the tax records? Should we mark this as exhibit A2? I don't think we have a colorized version of this. You can mark this 82.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, right next door is lot 64, which is 43 overlook. That lot is 19,880 square ft. Um, the home on it is 3,337
square ft off of the tax record. Next door to that is lot 65 37 Overlook. The lot size is 24,441 square ft. The home is 5,559 square ft.
Um then we have lot 67 which is 35 overlook. The lot size is 27,671 square feet and a home habitable floor area is 4,188 square ft.
Then we're going to go over to this one is 69 um which is 59 overlook. That is one of the other remaining homes. Uh that lot is 39,330 ft and that is a um similar home in size
to what we are in contract to purchase. And that home remains at 2,123 square ft. We're moving on to lot 68.03 03 over here. That lot is 25,264
square ft. The home is 5,828 square ft. Moving forward, we have lot 68.04. Uh the lot size is 27,74 square ft. The tax record shows that the house is 8,374
square ft. Although from looking at it and just sort of a uh an eye test on it from the street level, it seems that the topography is going back a little bit and there may be an above ground basement that's being added to that habitable floor area. So my assumption is that that house is equal in size to
68.03. So I would assume it being closer to 5,800 square ft and that that tax a you referring to what's on the tax records as habitable floor area. It refers to it as building square footage. Do you know if it includes basements and garages?
Well, um that's a great question and I don't have that confirmation. Although, if you go on the street and you look at the houses, for example, how um you know, lot number 64 is 3,337
ft as the building square feet on the tax record. If you were to take away the twocar garage in the basement, the house would be probably 1,500 ft². And that's just an inaccurate assumption. Well, what about just the garage? Uh, that would be about 450 ft. Even that, you know, the houses are
Yeah. I just want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples. So, you're giving us for for your comparative your habitable floor area is net of garage, net of basements. It's um not net of basement. It includes the basement. Does not include the basement.
That's what I mean. It's net of basement. Does not include the basement. Right. Uh but it does include garages up to beyond 450 square feet which is the town uh ordinance item. Um and then we're moving over here 68.04
I'm sorry 68.05. Uh that lot is 28,749 ft. That house is 5,000 square ft off the habitable floor area. And then we have lot 30 uh 68.06 06 which is uh 6 uh
25,03 square ft and the home is 5,155 ft. Okay. So now if you could describe the anticipated proposed homes. Um uh we don't have any draft architectural
plans but could you describe the use of materials and how they'll be integrated? how how they'll look in comparison to the other homes. Sure. Um, in terms of the exterior design, we will really take into consideration the surrounding homes,
which have much more of a stucco facade with stone accents, which is what we're going to maintain in developing our homes. Um, I've done a number of projects in town and you know a lot of the building materials we use in the R4, R3 and R2 zones is a lot of hardy plank
board siding with Bort and Batton which I think is beautiful but I don't necessarily think it may fit into this particular neighborhood. So we're going to do our best to uh maintain that from the exterior. Okay. And how many bedrooms are do you anticipate neutral? Um, so on the first
as you walk in into the first floor, we're going to have a a one-bedroom on the first floor with an ensuite for um any sort of um guests or parents uh that may be more uh elderly that can utilize that type of ensuite. We'll have a
formal dining room, um, formal living room, open area for, um, living, family area, and then an office for the stay-at-home family. Uh, I'm sorry, work from home family. And then upstairs, we're going to have five bedrooms and
five bathrooms um, available. Okay. And how about parking? What size garage? And we will have a threecar garages in each one of the homes. Okay. And are you going to be doing the development and construction of the new homes? Yes. Um, now I know the neighbors were
concerned about how the construction was going to proceed. What do you anticipate how you would access the property for construction? Um, assuming you'd be working with the building department within those restrictions. What is the plan? Sure. So, we would have a two the plan
would be twofold. Um, first we have um access off of Sunset Road and the rear of the property which is at the top of the topography of the property. So there's no um slopes that would be um
any um you know runoff or anything like that. So we'd like to utilize that access point if possible. And secondly, we would like to access the point uh the driveway off of 49 overlook which is in the culdesac and not in the easement. So
we would uh minimize any effects on the neighboring homes. Um and the number of trees I know we're going to follow uh the tree ordinance in the town, but are you is there a plan to keep a lot of the trees um that are already existing on the property? Yes,
we'd like to keep as uh the trees in the front between the driveways and on the front slopes. We would not disturb those whatsoever. Uh we would need to remove several trees where the footprints of the homes would be. But um in order to
keep um you know the uh the slopes intact, we would not be disturbing any of the trees in the front. Okay. Um then uh would you understand that any future activity if there was another variance that popped up you'd have to come back in front of the board
for review? Correct. Absolutely. Okay. Um and now with respect to the homes, do they do they comply with the um the habitable floor area ratio in terms of the size of the homes to the size of the
property and this neighborhood in terms of those comparison? Uh yes. um we would certainly comply with that and we'd be on the lower end of how floor area ratio um in relation to this neighborhood. Okay. Uh I have no more questions but
the board members probably do have any questions for I just wanted to ask you uh both the homes that you're proposing the entrance will be through the eastment. No, no. Um, there would be the existing
access points that currently exist. 49 Overlook currently ties into Overlook Drive, which is on the end of the culdeac. And 51 Overlook uses the access easement that's dedicated to 51 and 59
Overlook. Both of these houses after assuming the subdivision is approved are still going to be in the R3. Correct. Yes. And if they were in the adjacent zone, would they still require
the variances or would they meet? Uh they would meet on buildability. I'm not sure if the front setback would meet BA because the topography we have the houses are set back more than um 60 ft
from from the from the front and so that may require variance but if they were in the R1 we would not require any habitable floor area variance. So that would not habitable floor air would not be required. That is correct. And the difference between where you are is across the street. Uh if the board
wants to refresh their memory, I do have a picture which which might help you. Um which I can hand up. The driveway already all the way on the left. It's the driveway that would remain the easement. You can see here and then you can see a piece of the house across the street that starts the other zone. So I
don't know whether I can mark that as A3. We'll mark that as A3. I actually have two copies of it. So, how come I have three? I have a lot of copies.
I don't know if you want to mark one and then You mentioned the habit of floor ratio is going to be less what so what correct so our uh the hab between five and 30% right sure so our proposed habable floor area
ratio is going to be 15.76 on lot 62.01 and 15.04 on 61.01 and that's on uh page three of the table on the bottom.
I have a quick question. Um, the access to the one lot is through the existing 40 foot wide access and utility easement. Who owns the utility easement? Are there utilities in the easement currently?
Um, the owner is 59 Overlook. Um, and there is a um um perpetual uh granted access through the deed on that. And I'm not aware of what
utilities may be under that. Maybe Charlie can refer to that. There is a fire hydrant there marked on the access to um 51 overlook right there. Um I can confirm that the power lines are
overhead. Um, you know, there may be gas underground, but I'm not certain of that. I'm I'm looking at the e the deed in the eman. I'm not seeing who. Let me look through that. 59. So, do you know what's the paved width of
the cartway in the Eastman is? Yes, I have a photo of that. Um, I I believe it was right around 28 ft. Rather, I'm just looking at it with the way it's depicted on the plan. And if you look at the 17 foot width on the driveway, it
seems that it's scaled smaller than that. I need to I need to I'm I'd have to double check on that, unfortunately. You need the plan. No, we have a copy of Sorry, I have that.
It's the Sorry, I was wrong. the the the easement currently sits at 180 inches. That is uh 15 feet wide. It's 15 feet. Correct. 15 feet. Council, if you need another copy of the deed, I can
I would ask if we had our fire official look at that because typically 15 ft's the minimum for emergency vehicles. This is the Yeah, the easement's 40 feet, but there's a 15t cartwway for access. We should probably have 20 ft.
Yeah, that's what I was looking. It scales less than the 17t width of the driveway. So, it would have to be paved wider. That would be a condition. I Yes. Yeah. That's up to the board. Yes.
Mr. Valerio, did you want another copy of the easement? De has it been submitted? We already submitted it. Yes. Okay. Although you have another house. Well, we the easement describes it as
I think it's 20 ft more than that. It's I can show you guys on the map if it would be helpful. So over here we have 69 overlook uh lot 69 and lot 61 which is the one we're purchasing. This is the access
easement all the way down. This driveway is 180 in all the way down and then our driveway pops off right over here into this site. So, um it's about halfway down the easement is our access point
and then as you go further down is the the driveway to this house continues onward here. And then there's a paper street in between these that doesn't exist. Is there anything prohibiting you from from widening that the paved area to 20
ft? But just to be clear, are we talking about widening it to where the two driveways branch out? You're not going to wide the end of that pack, right? Yeah. To the end of that point. To the end of the point. to the point where the two come together. Yeah. I'm looking at the the survey that was
provided with the easement and it's showing a 40 foot wide access utility easement. Um I see that. So I I think that based upon the description that if we have to widen it, we would have permission because that's
what the easement we could go up to. So if it's supposed to be 20 foot wide and we have to do the paving for that, we can do that based upon what we have uh rights to. So that would be
Thank you, Craig. This this Okay, so I don't know if there's any other J Andrew. Any other any other concerns, questions right now? You also mentioned in your in in the engineers memo that was was there a
discrepancy on lot sizes? Has that been resolved? Let me just Yeah, let me just pull that out. Also, I think that that was resolved in this iteration of the plan. All right. You know, if not, they'll
just make it a condition that uh you know, to require that whatever be clarified be clarified. There any other members? Any questions from the board? Any questions from the public as to this
witness, as to his testimony? And uh name and address for the record. Dowry 136 routes in East Handover. Uh Dowy Planning Development Professional Planner. Uh yeah. Yeah. Got it.
Do U G H E R T Y D O U G H E R T Y. Uh for purposes um just kind of in uh in order from testimony, we talked about preserving as much landscaping as possible. Um when we talk about uh the
trees and so forth, I want to just make a clear distinction particularly on lot uh 62 proposed lot 6201. It's nearly a 30 foot difference in elevation from the the ement and the property across from the easement. The height just for the
board's where of what a building can be in the zone is 35 ft. So the the base of the floor of that property, that proposed building would essentially be a two-story detach and then you have that structure as well. So I think for purposes of landscape and preserving the
trees, some kind of um uh preservation of large mature trees, count on that and and any plan going forward to ensure that those trees and vegetation down at the driveway uh the bottlenecks of the driveway, the aprons, egress and and and the easement, something along the lines
of what kind of um landscaping would otherwise I know we talk about preserving, but trees die, they mature, you know, um older age, they they die off. Is the question preserving and or replacing if need be? Again, because that that home is already
30 ft higher in elevation plus a 35 ft home on top of that. It's it's it's quite u visual. And then the second conversation here is about the expansion of the easement. Can we just get clarity when we talk about expanding that easement that it's on the other side on on the on the applicant side of of the
easement and not on on the adjacent side? So, if they're expanding, it's on their side. Mhm. We can get clarity on that. Yes, clarity on that is confirmed. Appreciate it. Thank you. And in regards to the trees, yeah, yeah, you have an answer for the landscaping question. Yeah, the answer to the landscaping
question is that uh we do not plan on removing any mature trees outside the building footprint uh if possible. Is there any plans to andor replace if down the road? Can we can we have that as a condition to ensure that large mature trees will be at the foot of the
driveway given the sheer elevation? I don't know how we could agree because Mr. Wizakowski isn't going to live there. It's the intent is to sell it. So, I mean, yes, you could put a condition on, but I don't know how you can require someone to haul in a mature
tree that's already 40t tall uh to that. That's really um asking a lot. I mean you can I think a an appropriate condition is if a mature tree dies that something be planted in kind with the idea that something would grow that tall eventually. But how do you require
something was there is there a type of buffering that would uh be satisfactory? I I think the the general sense native trees uh evergreen trees year round trees would be um the ideal suitable um just from a screening standpoint because at at the peak of this house would be nearly 60 ft in the air higher um from
from grade down there. But to the uh the council's point, I'm not saying or recommending to bring in a mature tree of 60 plus feet. But if a mreat mature tree does die, we're not replacing a twoft, you know, tree. We're we're bringing something in of of hardiness
that's going to get to that point maybe in, you know, keeping some kind of condition for for landscaping down there. So the screening is a big concern. my my recollection of of prior testimony before this board from other experts and please correct me. you know, planting a
mature trees, you know, they they tend not to have the same uh uh survival rate certainly and I don't is recommend bringing in a 60 foot or 50 foot tree, you know, for the sake of but like to preserve any mature trees and then if there's a plan to um ensure mature trees
or trees of vertical height would would constantly be there. If a say mature tree does go down, is there plans to replace or conditions to keep veg screening at that at that grade? I mean, I'll just jump in with a comment with regard to what you're saying is
that I mean, think one of the things that perhaps the board certainly can do is require more than adequate protection for those trees during any of the construction period, hopefully to secure their
survival through the construction and the new building. Um, again, trying to replace andor determine a tree that is currently I have no idea how old, but probably 30
or 40 years old at this point. Um, to replace it is not typically something that I've seen us ever do on the board. If the tree is not touched, if a tree comes down andor they haven't done anything to
protect the trees during the course of construction that they've done damage to them that have caused them to come down, then I think we could add some language um to require something to be placed back in their in itsstead. But under
ordinary conditions, if a tree is not touched and is appropriately protected, then um I mean, how long a guarantee are you looking to have? Well, that that's that's the caveat, right? You know, when we have like storm water management systems and dry wells, you know, it's it's in the deed to maintain and you know, make sure they're
operating efficiently, functionally, uh you know, so there isn't any overflows and back and adverse effects. If some language could be put in there that mature trees have to be at the at at the easement, I think that's kind of what we're looking for. I don't see how you can do that. If 10 years from now lightning strikes and kills one of the big trees,
you know, I think that that's replacing a tree that can be mature a tree. Let's say it's an oak tree. We could replace it with a small oak tree, but we can't go hauling in a 60oot oak tree. No, I don't anticipate anyone to do that. So, the thing I mean, you know, you know, for how long of a period are we talking about? Yeah.
You know, you know, this house is going to be sold and you're going to have new owners there. And, you know, I don't know what I don't think it's reasonable to expect the the builder to keep coming back for 20, 30 years to replace trees. Yeah, I don't I don't think that's reasonable. Not the attorney. Just raising up that
there's a 30 30 foot incline and then there's going to be another 35 ft house on top of that just looking down and beering down and there's mature trees there. I think if we can preserve and enhance that that's that's the request, you know. I I think if you you have to preserve it during as as Mr. Diner mentioned to preserve it during the
course of construction and if there's you know if they die sometime shortly thereafter, that's one thing. Then we we're talking about expanding that easement to meet that 40 ft and it's going in the direction of where these trees are. So we would not be touching any of those trees like that easement to expand it to
20 ft an extra 5T. We have more than enough buffer on that side. I think there's about another 12 to 15 foot buffer until that top the topography really escalates upwards. So I can confirm on the record that we would not divi damage any trees by expanding that
easement whatsoever. Okay. Is is that sufficient for you? Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Ridiculous. Okay. Anything.
Uh any other questions? Uh and any other questions from the public? Seeing none, if you can call your next witness. Thank you. I'd like to call Charles Baldanza, please. I I did not. I do. Charlie. Um, yeah.
Give us your full name and probably your last name for the record. Yes. My name is Charles. middle initial L. Baldanza B A L D A N ZA. Thank you. Okay. Charlie, could you give the board your um occupations?
Yes. I'm a um I'm a um registered architect, professional engineer, and professional planner licensed in the state of New Jersey. Okay. Um with respect to your uh architectural um degree, where did you receive that? Oh, yeah. I I have a master's of um
master of architecture uh from NJIT and I've had my uh own design firm since uh 2014 and my licenses are are in good standing in New Jersey. In New Jersey. Okay. Now, with respect to engineering, um what uh where were you where was your degree from for
Well, that that that's all uh together with the master of architecture. And are you a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey? I am. And is your engineering license in good standing? It is. Okay. And finally, you're a professional planner. I am. All right. And um is your license in
good standing with the state of New Jersey? Yeah, that one is too. Have you testified previously before zoning and planning boards? Uh yes, throughout New Jersey. And I know you testified in front of the Livingston zoning board. Have you ever been in front of this board? Um
yeah. Yeah, I I I did. Yes, I had the pleasure of uh appearing before this board before. Okay. Um and I'd offer Mr. Bald Danza as an expert in the field of engineering, architecture, and planning. Any questions or objections from the board? Uh hearing none, uh the board
accepts him as an expert in architecture, engineering, and planning. Okay. Mr. Baldanza, did you prepare the engineering site uh plan for this proposed project? Uh yes, I did. Okay. And that's dated July 1, 2025. That's the uh latest revision is is
that. Okay. Could you go through for the board briefly um because I know they have uh other if we could go through briefly um what what the the plan is and what the existing plan was and how um how we're
we'd like the property to be uh lot lines to be moved. Yes. Um I'd like to start with uh sheet SP3. Let me just zoom out a little bit here. See how to drive this thing here. Okay. So, this is my sheet SP2. This is
the existing conditions plan. And a few things I'd like to highlight for the board and and for everyone is the condition of the existing houses. We have two existing houses. So, we've gotten over the the fact that, you know, we have three lots as as Camille
mentioned. We we realized that the two lots on the left of the screen have merged. So, we have two houses on two existing houses on two existing lots. Okay. And I'd like to focus on the orientation of the houses. As you can see, uh, from
the topo lines, we have the driveways. We have the one driveway coming off of overlook as described, and the other driveway comes off of the easement, the access easement going up. Uh, we have um some steep topography that obviously was dealt with at the time when they built
these homes. I believe they were from the 1920s as far as we can tell from the tax records. Um, they were built there. You see the houses are not particularly oriented towards the easement. Uh this house in fact seems to be facing um you know facing away from the easement. The
front door I believe is over here. Um but you have two very good driveways. They they deal with the contours pretty well. And uh and obviously they've been there uh as fixtures in the neighborhood for uh for many many years. Um I'd also like to point out if you can follow my
cursor um this is the property line as it is now if we disregard that other lot. So we have kind of an eccentric uh shaped property line dividing the two. Certainly if you looked at this as one property uh you wouldn't you wouldn't plan out uh
orienting the houses this in these directions and you certainly wouldn't draw a lot line where this existing lot line is. um you know you would um well I'll show you the way you would do it. If if you if you uh look at our sheet uh
SP1 we have proposed drawing a line much more down the middle of the uh two properties. So we're rationalizing uh the configuration of the two lots and
um actually we are uh proposing two lots that are very similar in size. Um and I should also point out just as a technical matter the point of origin of this lot line here uh in in the southeast is right where the lot line is
now. But what we've done is we've um we've straightened it out and then um and ensured that this driveway, this driveway, if I go back quickly to the SP2 was very close, if you can see where my cursor is, the the existing driveway,
which we intend to keep, was almost right on that property line. And um so so for that reason we wanted to push this over and and and and and rationalize uh that lot line. Um
so so so again from an engineering point of view um the main focus we have here as you can see from the uh um layout is that we're keeping these um almost the entirety of these driveways. the there's some proposed
area here and there's a proposed area here where we're just uh uh putting it to the access to the to the to the garages, but essentially what we're doing is we're keeping these uh driveways in exactly the position where they are now
today. Um, and we're also turning the houses so that they that they to match really every other house on the on on the street and pretty much every house on most streets with it where they face the right of way so they so we're
orienting them towards the right of way and and and the access point. Okay. What about the topography of this property? Okay. Well, let me go to sheet SP3. That's the grading plan. And again you have to uh keep in mind that what we did we did not prepare architectural plans
these are theoretical envelopes that that that if the application is looked upon favorably obviously we will you know further develop. So the grading plan as you can see um we're confronted with the topography
that we had and by keeping these existing driveways we're able this uh red dash line depicts the area that we're going to be um uh disturbing the area that needs to be disturbed to build these homes. And I think importantly
what we're doing is between overlook and the easement and then the front of the houses we're leaving this topography. So and and and you know uh there was a lot of discussion about the trees before. So we have no intention of
disturbing these trees and the um the topography that's in between overlook and the front of this house and the easement and the front of this house. Um so so so we think that's a very um advantageous design and we think that'll
um I I mean it's great on a lot of levels. It's great because we have to do less disturbance, land disturbance and um we also think it'll it'll help preserve the existing character um of the neighborhood. What about storm water? Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to Oh, no, no, absolutely. storm water
management in terms of I know there might you know if you're up high in your building where will the what what are your plans with that? Yes. Well well there's some things um that I want to point out about storm water. What we proposed to do we haven't
provided a drainage plan but spoiler alert what the drainage plan is going to have on it is going to have um and what we're proposing to do is to have um full seepage pits. So Cishfit sized so that they would take on um you know all of
the um all the runoff from the roof and um so so we'd be putting currently there's no uh storm water um there's no known storm water uh devices or or or anything on the property but but we are going to be putting in seepage pits and
as far as I'll also stress as far as soil erosion we we intend to apply to the um to the soil district to the Hudson Essex Pac soil district and um uh we work with them on on many projects and with this applicant we've worked on
many projects and we intend to uh show the uh correct tree protection uh soil stabilation stabilization measures and uh I have to say they've they've they don't let let anybody get away with too much so um
you know I'm confident that that that we're going to comply and and I also want to say about the grading I think an important point is that the um we're maintaining the existing drainage patterns. So, we're sort of at the crest of the hill here. From the the front, of
course, the grade is going to continue to slope down towards the easement and away then away from overlook. And in the rear, what we've tried to do is gently grade it. So, we a we keep the water off each other. So, we want to keep the the
the two proposed homes from having a water issue with each other. So, we've graded it towards towards the the north, so up and away from overlook and then down the slope that's there. So, both of these properties are going to grade
towards the north, away from each other and and away from the neighbors. So, we've we've been conscious to uh maintain the existing drainage patterns um and and really make sure that uh that there's no adverse effect on any uh any
of the um adjoining properties. So, the rear yard grading will continue to go towards uh the wooded area, not down towards the neighbors or the easement area uh below. Correct. That's absolutely correct. Okay. Now, um I think that
That is I think we went through the planners report I think we touched on. Was there anything in the in the reports that we got from the engineer or the planner that we haven't addressed? Yes. Um two things come to mind. One is it was brought up about the lot area and yeah, we did have a few between the
surveyor and the survey and I won't throw any of anyone under the bus, but we but we did have a couple uh things and there was a um about the lot size and there was that uh little triangle existing lot and I think that's what threw a couple of the numbers off but we
do have um uh in my opinion we have the uh the uh lot area nailed down. So I believe that that uh issue um is not an issue. And um also one of uh
the uh engineering letter was from the when we were here the previous time um I don't believe there was a a new one issued and one of the issues that came up was was was you know uh retaining walls and we've designed it so that the retaining walls um you know are are the
uh well beyond the minimum distance from the property line. they don't cross the property line. So, a few things like that have been brought up and and we did address them. And what what about retaining wall height? Um, we are compliant as far as I know with uh as far as the height uh of the
retaining walls. Um, do you know what the tallest? Yeah. What is the tallest retaining wall you're proposing? Um, off the top of my head, I'm going to say six feet. I think we stayed under the six feet. Anything over four feet, I
believe, requires fall prevention. Yes. Yes, we would. We would we we we realize that that we would have to provide that. And I should also say that again, we're not um we're proposing this as a preliminary design just to show that it could be done. you know, if if
the property is approved and we fully develop the plans, we we would um have have the walls engineered, you know, shop drawings with the correct and we would work with the town engineer, you know, uh to make sure that we're compliant uh within with within, right? Anything up to six anything up to
six feet is fine. Six feet and above requires a variance. Yes. Um then anything over four feet requires fall protection. So if you're so if you're under six feet, I'm just asking really for variance purposes. So So you're up to six feet, not exceeding. Correct. Yes. So, can I ask you a question? I've heard Janelle twice say that this is
preliminary, but you know, the lots are kind of very specific in terms of retaining wall placement, retaining wall height, which is driven by the topography and the footprint. Um, do you envision any scenario where these footprints or these square footages of
the buildings would be altered? Um, if they're altered, they would be they would be smaller. So, this is this is the biggest they would be. Yeah. And I'm asking you like are these the footprints? Uh yes. Okay. So, so if there's a condition that these are the footprints, these are the square footages, I think we'd want to
know that because that drives all your grading, that drives all your retaining walls. Um with respect to the seat pitch pits, have you done any geotechnical work? Are the soils conducive for seat pitch pits up there? Um I would say that um if the board were to look favorably, you know, we would we
would work with um you know uh uh the engineer to make sure that the uh um the soils are you know are the uh are you know have the correct percolation. Uh I don't I don't have any reason to believe they're not but but you know obviously we would make that a condition that that
you know Yeah. because quite frankly I don't see a plan B. So yeah. Well, it's part of the application. You'll get a lot surface drainage permit for each of the lots and then at that time you would show your compliance with the township's drainage ordinance. So you don't necessarily need to put in a seepage pit. You could propose other
drainage methods in case the the seepage pit, you know, the soils weren't conducive to it. Correct. Thank you. Janette, would a condition of approval being to comply with your July 7th memo be sufficient? Yes. To cover uh you know cover this? Yes. Okay.
Okay. Um and sorry there was testimony before regarding the characterization of the neighborhood. Do you just in terms of the table that was submitted, do you agree with the apples apples are are those the the HFAs that were proposed for the existing houses that the
habitable floor area or do you know if that differs based on the tax cards? Um I heard the testimony too. I mean I I reviewed the chart. Um, I just want to make sure we're comparing apples to apples in terms of square footage because the tax card may not
necessarily count square footage the way the ordinance does. Your your representation of habitable floor era is pursuant to the ordinance calculation. Correct. Uh, yes, mine is. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Uh, let's talk about putting your planning hat on.
Okay. Okay. Sure. And could you go through the variances that are are requested here? Okay. Um yes, my understanding is that we have um we have a total of four variances. Um we
have two variances on each lot. So we have um requested variances are for the maximum front yard setback where this um uh 60 feet is allowed. Um, and we have
121 ft on uh the one lot. And we have um hold on a second here. We have um uh maximum front yard we have uh 67.7. Uh so so those are two variances and the
other two variances are for the habitable floor area. Give us which lot each of those refers to. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So uh lot 61.02 we are requesting um maximum front yard is 67.7
ft and lot uh 61.01 we are requesting 121.0T where where uh 60 feet is allowed on both. What was the first lot number?
Uh so the first lot I said was 62.01. That's right. That would be the first one that has the driveway onto the culdesac. So on that you're asking for 7.7 foot variance. Correct. Correct. And on the other one you're asking for 61 ft variance.
Correct. Okay. And the other variances we're asking for one on each lot. We're asking for maximum habitable floor area not ratio the maximum habitable floor area
uh on lot 62.01. 1, we're asking for uh 5,520. And on lot 61.01, we're asking for 5,800. On both of them, 3,520
is the allowed. And I think there's one more variance. Uh on 6101, uh does not front along a dedicated public street. So I think you need a variance for that as well. um that may be the case uh if if the board
were to uh determine that we need that variance. Uh I know it wasn't in the planning letter. Um I will say if if we do I'll defer to the lawyers, but that that would be an existing condition to a certain extent because the lot already does exist. I would say let's play it safe and get
it anyway or request it anyway. Just put the proofs on the record. Okay. If you're expanding an existing non-conforming condition, you need a variance. Well, Are we are we expanding? Okay. It's We're not expanding it. We're using
the same exact entrance. So, it's it's pre-existing. Are you expanding? Aren't you expanding the size of the house? True. Okay. So, we're going to cover that as a C one or two, however. I guess C2 most Oh, very good. Then we can do that. Um
so now that we've established that so the site let's talk about the suitability of a site for the project. This site is very well suited for the project uh for the proposed application. Um we already have two existing single family homes. So we know that the single
family homes can function well in the site. They're they're they're clearly um the uh um allowed use in the zone. Um it's a single family residential district. the proposed homes would be similar to the other homes in a neighborhood and were able to comply
with uh the majority of the bulk requirements that have zone with the exception of the requested variances. Um so um let's talk let's take the max the front the front yard um maximum front yard
that we exceed. How would you uh characterize that type of variance? It's a C1 or C2. Okay. Or both. I'm going to start I'm going to start with that as a C1 variance. I think it counts as a C1 and C2. But let's let's talk about that as far as a C1 variance.
I'm just going to zoom out a little on the um thing here so we can see it. So looking at sheet S2, you can see where the houses are already set back and you can see the topo that we're dealing
with. So as everyone on the board knows and and all of us know the uh the MLUL allows for the granting of a C1 variance if we have uh uh where we can show peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional undue hardship upon
the applicant arising out of out of the exceptional narrowness shallowness and shape of a property or by reason of exceptionable topographic conditions or physical features uniquely expecting a specific piece of property. property. Um, I won't go through C because I'm
going to focus on B, which is we have a very unique situation here with the topography, the existing driveways, and um, clearly the only place that the houses could be placed are where we propose them. This house is slightly
closer than what we proposed, but because it's at this angle, this pre-existing angle here is a little bit closer. But to really use this driveway, we need the house to be just a few feet back. That's why we need the variance on lot 61 point uh uh 62.01.
What we're proposing on on on the other lot, um 60 61.01, we're not going any further back than what's there. That's 121 ft and we're we're keeping what's there. So uh not to dwell too much on it but I think for the
two variances for the setback I think we we we certainly are justified uh by reason of exceptional topographical conditions and physical features on the lot. Uh that being said I'm going to move to
um well I should also mention before you move on can you go through the negative criteria on that on the C1? Yeah. Yeah I could. I don't I don't see any um detriment to the um to the public good by the fact that we're setting the
houses back where we're proposing because of the um the um the layout of the existing homes and because I don't believe that you could quite frankly as an engineer I don't know how you would
lay these houses out where you would have them only set back 60 feet because I think you would create a much greater disturbance to the slope area between the front yard and the easement and the front yard and overlook if you were to uh maintain that
uh um to that to that requirement to not have the house further than 60 ft back. So I think it would be extremely detrimental if if we were to be held to that uh standard. Okay.
And um I also point out really under C1 actually I should say now that we're considering a variance for the uh not having the lot on the rightway or or expanding it um it's an by reason of an extraordinary exceptional situation
uniquely affecting a specific piece of property and the structures lawfully existing thereon. That's that's C of C1. That's that's certainly a justification for why we we are coming in off that access easement. So I think that also
falls under C1. Um now the other variances in terms of C2 which uh are there any special reasons that justify granting that relief? Yeah, I think there are and in fact I think all of the variances
can be justified under the C2. Um so as as as the board and everyone knows the um the intent of the C2 amendment in 1984 would liberalize the powers of the uh planning boards and zoning boards acting on C variance of applications has
to relate to a specific piece of property. This certainly is a specific piece of property and a unique piece of property. Uh the purpose of the MLUL need to be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance. The variance can be granted without a substantial
detriment to the public good. The benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment and the variance can be not can be the variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. So going through
that, I said, you know, and and and certainly clear that this is a very unique piece of property and and this only pertains to this unusual piece of property with uh the two older homes and the unusual shape and the uh large size
for the zone and the and the topography. Uh let's talk about the purposes of the MLUL. Um purpose a to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use of development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote the public health safety morals and general general
welfare. Uh rationalizing these two existing lots and the construction of two new modern homes uh would put these properties much more closely conforming to the size and configuration of existing homes in the neighborhood. uh purpose E to promote the
establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that would contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions and preservation of the environment. There already two homes on a subject property, and that's what we're proposing, two two new homes, and the
result would be uh uh again rationally shaped lots that have homes that are more closely resemble the others in a neighborhood. Um, purpose I is to promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement.
Well, I believe that in my professional planning op, my professional opinion in general that developing the properties with these two new homes the way that we proposed is really good civic design because we're reusing we're reutilizing
that existing those existing driveways that are there. We are um increasing. We're allowed to have a 10-foot sideyard setback in the R3 zone. We're we're maintaining 15 at a minimum. We're we're actually more than
15. I think we're 17. I'm going to zoom in. I forgot now. We Yeah, we have 17.7 16.3. So, we're more than We're allowed 10 on this property adjacent to lot 64. We're We're fif we're I labeled this as
54.7. We're actually 43 to this point. Obviously, that's closer. I discovered that when I was reviewing today, but nevertheless, what I'm saying is we have a 10 yard setback. We're staying so far away from the neighbors. Uh in a zone,
there's a 40 foot rear yard setback. We're back 100 from here. I know this is just the woods and everything, but we're also back we're also back 62.3 feet um on this other house. So, we're we're
we're able to um to really exceed the bulk requirements. So again, I I I think what we're by rationalizing these lots and or and and creating these new homes, we're really uh furthering that purpose of uh using creative development
techniques and good civic design and arrangement. Um the public good, let's talk about that. Public good in this case is described as uh the immediate residential neighborhood. Um these viruses can be granted without substantial detriment to the public
good. the new homes will more closely resemble the size of the majority of the homes in the immediate neighborhood. Um they're going to use the existing driveways. I keep saying that. Um we've been uh receptive to a lot of the comments that um the neighbors have
brought up and and and and um certainly um we want to be good neighbors and and and I think that we are. Um let's talk about the benefits and detriments. Um the benefit to the public good from this proposed development and the granting the
variances um in creating these two new modern homes um um are you know definitely definitely positive. Although we're asking for a variance from the uh 3 uh uh 520 uh
habitable floor area limit. Um we're proposing the 15.76 and 15.01% 01% on both of the lots on lots 62.01 and uh 61.01.
We're exceeding the minimum required. Again, I went through the setbacks. We're um the roof drainage. We talked about the drainage, the underground piping and seepage pits that we're going to be putting in. Uh so the neighbor and the neighborhood's certainly going to benefit from the attractive
architectural design. Uh the new homes are going to replace the older homes that were built in 1920s that are outdated. Uh they're going to be built to the latest building codes and new energy efficiency standards. Um you heard that we're not proposing to remove any mature trees uh beyond the footprint
of our proposed buildings. Um so I think in regards to the to the to the public good and the impact to our neighbors, I think it's it it it's it's very minimal. And in fact, I I think it's much more positive than uh negative. Uh so
therefore, there are no detriments to the public good by the approval of this proposal. If the variance is granted, do you think the proposed use would impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan? No. No, not at all. Because the goals of the master plan of uh the limit master
plan in section two are to preserve and enhance the primarily residential character of the community. That's one. Number two is to maintain a balance of residential, business, and public uses. And three is to preserve and improve the quality of life. So the replacement of
these circa 1920 era dwellings with two new modern single family homes for the benefit and enjoyment of its current and future residents is consistent with all three goals in the master plan. And since we're complying with the F HFA ratio by such sub substantial margin,
21% is I should emphasize 21% is allowed in the uh R3 zone and we have 15 15 in and change and 15 in and change. So less than 16. I suspect it was never the intention of R3 zoning uh that we'd have lots that we do. That's why that's
that's the main factor that we just can't comply with that um you know that uh it seems inappropriate to try to uh limit us to that uh to that number. The proposed improvement will fact advance the goals and recommendations of master plan and these uh again these both can
be granted without uh substantially impairing intent and purposes. Thank you. Board may have questions. I have no more questions. Thank you. Any questions for members to the public as to his testimony
for purposes of engineering where I know we haven't done soil testing uh to see if the soil is even permeable for the seepish pits. Um given topography of this property, um where would you propose any storm water
management controls to be located on the property? I know we haven't gotten there. Okay. I I'm going to propose that they go in the rear yard because uh again, we just don't we're preserving so much of the front yard that our goal is to is to
just leave this area alone. And uh I wouldn't want to disturb any more just to put in a seepage pit. So so we would run everything um you know to you know towards the rear. Now if the soil is not permeable or to regulations for for the seepage pit,
what other as an engineer control devices do you have in your tool belt um your toolbox uh to combat storm water management and and those kind of controls? Well um I mean there's several methods that that that we could use. again. Um
the um I mean you have to remember in in in this area and I do have quite a bit of experience working in this area. Um we've we've very rarely ran into uh conditions where where we weren't able to have a good perk. So So right off the
bat, I'm not super concerned about that. But for for whatever reason, especially if there was some rock or something, I mean, we're not we're we're certainly not in a in in a situation where we're where I where I anticipate having uh saturated soil. So, I think it would be more of a condition where um we could
have some rock, but what we would do is probably spread out the system and have more of a of a surface system like Coltech, a Colt brand uh system, which which doesn't go as deep into the ground and spreads the area. So it gives us more of an area that uh so we can get
that perk rate and and utilize that over a larger area. And that would also be to the rear of the of the buildings in the backyard. Yeah. Yeah. I mean even I mean that would even be more so because we just have less room to uh you know to uh uh in the front we we definitely don't want
to exceed the um the proposed uh limited disturbance that we've shown here on a plan. Great. And then for purposes of the overall site itself, I I agree with your testimony that it's a very unique site and there's a hardship that exists because the grade is substantially uh uh
steep u by its character. But for purposes of the the building itself, it is in the R3. We're comparing it to the R1 by scale and visual to be in continuity, if you will, the neighborhood. These homes are nearly 30 something feet in the air. The continuity is is going to be hard to
tell. I think in the visual will be a lot larger than it than than what we're what the reality would be on paper for purposes of the site given its steep topography and the slopes and the fact that it is in the R3 we're asking and these lots are large but they're not
buildable by scale that's why they're so large you can't build on the steep slopes what you have here is probably realistically the the max you can put on that site as as you were testifying it to but given a good vast majority of the site is unbuildable with the sheer size of it. I understand as a planner and the
land use given the lot is larger, the building footprint could be larger, the impervious coverage could be larger, but all of this is compacted into one key area. So when we talk about a larger home on a site that's relatively steep in nature, I think from an engineering standpoint and for certainty for the
surrounding residents, especially those downhill, that the storm water management, whether during construction and and and after be confined to the rear and that and and that the best, if not overengineering practices could be had on that site to ensure because these
are going to be larger homes than what's historically been there and the site is substantially steep. deep in nature. Can we ensure that the engineering on this site isn't just the bare minimum, but it's adequate to the size of these homes
given the limited area because we don't have this property as a flat plane to absorb all that. If there is an issue, it's running down the hill. Um, well, yeah, I think to answer your question, I absolutely can guarantee that. And I and I'll tell you why. because because we're not necessarily
required to put a seage bin in at all, you know, from uh if you p if you purely looked at the uh Livingston ordinances, we're what what the applicant is offering to do is to is to commit that he's going to put seage pits in. They are going to be
sized based on the homes that we're proposing. So, they're they're they're going to be based on the roof area of the of the proposed buildings. And of course, we're going to go through all the correct procedures, but but yeah, so so I think that very fact and as you
also heard from my testimony, um we definitely intend to have the storm water management facilities to be placed to the rear of the homes. So um I think that that in itself uh perfect ensures what you're asking. Yeah, we just want to ensure that
whatever runoff if any if ever do come and if there is a crazy storm like we had last night and these systems were overwhelmed that this is as furthest removed from those slopes coming downhill as possible. So I think that's the overall under underlining the intent here and then for purposes of the
disturbance area circling back to the conversation how do you preserve that if there's a creative solution let's just say a 10-ft buffer at the I don't know whether that I don't think that's for tonight's I mean we don't for language yeah for purposes of preserving those trees we have engineering that
would you know we we have to have compliance with the engineering memo which requires him to comply with all the storm water management rules but there is no site plan application right now but I'm saying for purposes of the conversation about the trees in at the easement. Um, in many applications, if if you bought a residential commercial,
there's a buffer and that buffer saying something along the lines of something down there be well-maintained with trees of species that grow in mature heights. This isn't a commercial setting. I used it as an example. It's not a site plan review because that doesn't apply to this.
Yeah. She's using as an example. How do we ensure language to keep trees at at that easement? She's using that as example. Well, again, that gets into the question for how long and you know, just well-maintained, you know, buffer at the E. Yeah, but but you you know, you're imposing obligation on on or or you're
requesting an obligation on somebody who's going to develop the site, turn over to a homeowner, and then is this, you know, an obligation that runs with the land forever that the right the builder has to come back for? I don't think that's reasonable. Yeah, we're asking for relief related to the habitable floor area as well when we
talking about the size of the home and in that regard. So I you know we have a fairly large home on on you know a fairly steep incline you know by purposes of of of the the mechanisms of control to regulate the scale size and massing we we have larger homes being
proposed on a steep incline with no guarantees of visual intrusion. I think the representation that you've gotten was that um they're not going to you know impact any mature trees outside of the right and we had a dialogue about how do we write something in there or how did something do that I just used the
example of you know we have buffers and that language in ordinances or resolutions I'm sorry this buffer is to be wellmaintained and preserved as as a buffer if there was a an an interest that I think that might be I mean we can certainly ask them to you know to maintain a buffer at the you know when
when you know at the time during construction when they sell it but But I think to maintain it forever I think is unreasonable and don't you? Well then we it go back to the the purpose of the MLUL advancing purpose desirable visual environment is looking at basically a castle on a hill a
desirable visual environment. I mean that's subjective in nature what you deem as a desirable versus not. But the truth of the matter is people live at the bottom of this hill. They have to look up and see this every day and that privacy as well. And there are species that can be okay. Do you have any more questions for this witness? No that's it. just a storm water
management to get some kind of continuity where the the location was going to be. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Can we add just a condition of approval that the storm water management measures be installed in the rear yards? Yeah, sure.
Yes. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any further? I have no other witnesses. Well, thank you. Um, any members of the public wish to make sworn statements for or against the application? Hi, my name is Monty Hoku. I have a
question. Can can you spell that? Uh, MAN AI. Okay. H U KO. Thank you. Um, I have a question about process. Um, oh, you have a question for the witness. Okay. Uh no about process about uh how
the approval works. Um may I ask that question? You can tell me if it's appropriate or not. Um so we h our attorney um was here last time today. She was supposed to be here. She had a medical emergency. Um is it possible I know she had emailed um yesterday as
well with some questions to council here. Uh we didn't get a response yet. Is it possible at all for her to review tonight's um discussion uh on the recording and see if she has any objections because there were a few things added in terms
of the an additional variance which was not discussed before the easement is being well that's really not the I mean I just wanted I don't know so I'm just asking there's really not the process I mean we'll I'll ask the board whether they're ready to vote on the application if they are they'll vote on you know the board
the board will vote on it tonight and then you subject to a, you know, putting a memorializing resolution together. Okay. So, this there's no uh chance for her because she had an emergency. If the board doesn't want to vote on it tonight, that's really up to the up to the board. If the board is ready to vote on the application tonight, they'll vote the application.
So, that's the process. All right. I just wanted to check that. Thank you. Did we get her address, Rudy? Address is 42 Overlook Road. Thank you. uh she was kind enough to try to send her son who is a planner to support us for tonight but I it made me uncomfortable some of the new things
that were added. Um and then I just wanted to say I believe that the area and so if you're going to give some testimony you want to can you swear sorry swear will be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do. Thank you.
Um, I've heard that the area I again I I'm not a soil expert. I don't know. I have been told that the area up there behind the houses is quite rocky. Um, I think I heard someone had to put a pool in. They had to take out all the rocks in order to put the pool in. I don't
know anything factually. This is just something I've heard. So, just something to bring up. I think you already asked that they comply with all the regulations of the sew of the drainage, but just something I wanted to mention. Yeah, I think what you heard the representation certainly from the applicant and uh you know we have an you know a very good engineering department
which will be you know reviewing um you know you know all the calculations and uh the submissions to make sure that they comply with all the storm water management rules. Okay. So so that you know will be looked at carefully. One one of the things I think I know it's important to engineering, it's important to uh you know to to to
us the governing body is uh you know you don't want to create a condition that you know creates uh water you know any any type of uh problem for your neighbors including you know you know water where where you may not have had that problem in the past. So it's it's a concern that's uh always on on everybody's mind.
I appreciate that. Thank you. Sure thing. Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Eric Saxs. I'm 43 Overlook Road. I believe it's lot 64, which is if you're facing the the site, it's the lot to the left. First name is
Eric E R I C. Last name is Saxs. S is as in Sam. A cs as in Sam. You want to should I just proceed with my questions or uh well you have questions do you have
questions for the witness or I just have general because well I'm not sure the procedure so I'm up here kind of asking what the next steps are because I do have some questions about what was presented tonight some concerns so I don't know if now's the time so if you want to make a public statement for or against the application this is the perfect uh
perfect time um if you can swear in the witness Raise your right hand, please. You swear the testimony here will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. So, my first question is, uh, the
landscaping to the left of the retaining wall that was on the map there. Is a retaining wall looks like you plan to put up between the new home and my home. If I can point to it. here. Okay.
So, where I was just pointing, that's a retaining wall and then my lot would be adjacent to it, lot 64. And there's a lot of trees and natural landscape that shield uh and and provide privacy between my house and the house next door. So, I was just curious if all of
that would remain intact to the left of that wall. Yes, that would not be disturbed as much as possible. Amazing. Um, the widening of the driveway is a concern a little bit because that would now would start to encroach toward my house. Obviously,
it's still that property, but that is a little bit of a concern in terms of parking cars on the street in front of my house um and things like that. So, I just want the board to be aware that as that driveway is expanded, it does encroach
toward my property. Doesn't mean it is property. The driveway that's of the house right next to you is not what's being expanded. It's the one at the end that goes It's the one where the easement is. Yes. So, the other the driveway right next to me stays the same. That's correct. My apologies. Um, another minor concern
is we are a little close to 280, so there is some noise that comes through from the highway and the and the the natural landscape and the trees and so forth do provide some some sound buffer. So, the a concern even though I understand there's a going to be an
attempt to conserve as many trees as possible, drainage is a concern, visual appeal is a concern, and noise is also a bit of a concern. Um because I do feel like that that the trees and the forest and there's actually a park behind this site which I don't know the name of the
park exactly, but it's protected land where there's trails. It's an official part of the Livingston park system that's right behind this project. So I would also just like to make the board aware of the presence of that park and that that not be infringed upon or disturbed. Yeah, that certainly wouldn't be impacted.
Okay. Um what else Manasi was saying? Um, I did put in a pool and there was a tremendous It cost me an absolute fortune to excavate literal boulders. It's a mountain. I'm not sure if there's an appreciation for
the how elevated this site is, but there it's it's literally a mountain. So there you're going to encounter, even if you haven't before elsewhere in Livingston, you will encounter a ton of rocks, major boulders. So I, you know, that's just an FYI because I went through it myself. So
take that for for what it's worth in terms of of drainage. Um, there was a comment about beautifying the neighborhood and so forth. I think one of the nice things about our culdeac is the fact that the the homes that are present now are actually hidden. You
really can't even see them from the street at all. And so there's just beautiful natural landscape, lots of trees. It's almost like a forest uh at the end of the culdeac. So, I'm not so sure that taking that away and putting up two large houses is going to enhance
the aesthetics. I don't know that would detract from it, but I think it's important to understand the natural landscape that exists and that that would definitely be a significant disturbance to the overall presentation of that culde-sac as it as it is now. Um, so again, you can take that for for
what it's worth. On a similar note, again just to emphasize the topography, my house is one of the smaller houses on these lots because I'm part of this zone as well. I think the house is 3500 square ft roughly.
If you look at my house on the hill, it looks massive and it is not a it's not a very large home. It's it's a fraction of the size of some of these other homes. And so it the house does present differently than its actual size. So I
also think the board needs to be mindful of that given just how high these homes are going to be. Um, and I think, well, one other question was, and I think I know the answer, but if these variances are granted to allow
much larger homes to exist within this zone, is it possible for the whole zone to then be reszoned so that if I want to add a I only have a two-car garage. I would love a third garage, but I know I can't put one in based on the zone that
I'm in. I'd like to make a bigger master bathroom. I know I can't because of the zone that I'm in. If these zones are granted, these variances are granted. I think the answer would be well, tough luck. You'd have to apply for your own variances,
but would it be possible to just then change the entire zone? I don't know the answer to that question. Well, that would uh you know, certainly number one would be apply for variance if you wanted to you know exceed the R3 zone. Number one. Number two, um you know, it's something that the governing body can always look at. Uh we always
have a member of the uh town council on this uh uh on this board and they can, you know, go back and discuss it with the other um you know, members of the uh uh town council whether it makes sense to, you know, change the zone. Um thank you.
You know, we may or may not, but yeah, that's not something for for for this board. Okay. Um so I appreciate the consideration. The last thing I'm going to say and then I I I've taken up enough of your time is just to emphasize or try to um maybe clarify what what my neighbor Manasi was saying is she
retained counsel and her council can't be here tonight and consequently there's a level of discomfort um moving forward with the application at least in a final form given the fact that her council has not been able to review all the
information. So I again I know it's at your discretion but there is a certain level of discomfort given the fact that she is without representation this evening due to a medical emergency. So take that for what it's worth. I thank you for your time.
Okay. Uh Miss Stone Miss Dy Stone was sent as soon as we sent the plans to the board I sent a copy to Miss Dy Stone. I had a conversation with her yesterday to go through the four points that she had concern with. spoke with my client, went
through it with the planner, and we have addressed those. So, um, so, so what you're saying is whatever concerns she has, you address. We addressed and our testimony is here, and nothing is different. As an officer of the court, I'm representing that. I mean, it's a hearsay conversation,
obviously, I'm providing you with, but she was given the revised plans. Uh, she asked me four different points. I left her a detailed message. I didn't realize she wasn't in the office today, but then her son was here and I went through them with him as well and they were covered
on the record here today. So, um, if she was here, I'm going to say this, nothing would have been changed in terms of the testimony that we presented because it did did um uh did the points that you addressed, did they satisfy her
concerns? Well, because I didn't get to talk to her. I got to talk to her son. I I can tell you the four points. They wanted to make sure construction access was off of Sunset. And I said, my client said, and he said it on the record here, we are going to make every effort to do it that way. Um, better understanding of how
many trees in the front would be lost. We went through that what where that was what was going to be coming down. Uh, they would like to see the a house designer know about what materials were going to be used and my client did testify to that. And I did show her son
there is a a general rendering. last time we were here, you didn't want to see it, so I didn't bring it up this time, but it was shown. And uh last was um the drainage system in the back because they were concerned if the the backyard is made to be usable that the drainage wouldn't go flowing down the
driveway. And as was testified here, we are going to put in seepage pits or whatever the appropriate drainage is so that any backyard uh changes are going to not be flowing towards the full desac.
So those were the four four type four concerns that she discussed with me yesterday that were covered with the planner who was here on their behalf and which were testified to here before this board. Okay. Thank you. Um,
a question for the I mean based on the testimony of one of the residents in the neighborhood, obviously the area has a lot of rock in it. Do you anticipate the need for blasting at any time during
the course of what you're doing or the foundations going to fit within the confines of what's there today? So, I'd like to answer that. Um, upon going under contract on this property, I spoke with the current owners and we did
discuss the pool that went in next door and the method of excavation that happened and there was no blasting to my knowledge that happened over there. So, um, we've dealt with rock. I've dealt with, um, a redevelopment in Homeell
recently where we had to clear, um, an acre and a half, over 100 trees, and go through half of a mountain and put in 13t retaining walls. And we did, we used a CAT 320 excavator and we went right
through the rock over there. We did not need to blast. So just from my personal experience and looking at the site over there and knowing that a pool went in uh that is, you know, five, six feet deep,
which is um you know, based on where our basements are going to be and our our our garages are going to be above grade. So we're not really disturbing that side. You know, the the driveways are already uh below grade. So my professional
opinion is that no there will not be uh any sort of blasting necessary. Okay. And I know that there was a question with I can just confirm that there was no blast. Okay. That about tree removal. We already talked about tree removal in the
front and that those are not going to be touched. But as part of the requirement for any tree removal, a tree removal permit has to be obtained from the municipality. And there's some pretty strict rules that pertain to that that
also offer some additional protection for the residents around you. They just can't indiscriminately come down and take all the trees down. Uh any other comments? U sworn testimony from the public. Uh hearing none. Uh any closing statements?
I'll just be brief. Um we are here for five variances, two for each house and then a third one for where we um don't have a street access. We are creating uh two very large lots from uh some odd
kind of oddly shaped very large lots to begin with and are in keeping with the style as the testimony has been pro profered with the culdeac. um keeping it beautiful. Um it is our position that we
uh satisfy at least the uh front yard setback due to a hardship C1, but also C2 variances uh apply here. We've met that criteria under purposes A, E, and I. and that uh based upon the zone plan
and the references and the master plan that this is an a a wonderful project for this neighborhood and that there will not be any negative effects. In fact, uh the proposal will create two new homes that are uh in keeping with
all the most recent codes and we'll be addressing any uh drainage issues and actually improving it there. So with that I would um request that the board grant our application. Partings haven't had an opportunity to uh make closing statements and appears that the chair that the applicant all
interested persons and the board members have had reasonable opportunity be heard that the evidentiary record of this hearing ought to be closed. Absent objection and in the absence of any motions for a continuence the evidentiary record is closed and no further testimony or evidence shall be received. So the board members shall now
have the opportunity to state their views uh on this application. Um, anybody need to want to make any any comments? Richard goes in. I I I mean, nobody likes change and everybody likes everything to stay the way it is,
but um I think based on the applicant's um presentation, um their interest in maintaining as much of the site as they're able to do, keeping the natural terrain the best they can considering what it is. Um
prohibiting the use of the land um for development is in my opinion not appropriate. and as long as it's done in accordance with all of the testimony that was done here this evening. Um and um working with the engineering
department and the comments from our planner um that um I think the houses being proposed fit into the neighborhood. Um, I would also suggest a coming to the because your comment was
very pointed in I don't think this area should stay zone the way it is either and that I think if you came to the town council or sent a a letter to the town council to consider a change of the area in here, I think that that's a very
reasonable request and I think it's something that they would consider. Um, all of that said, I I think that the proposal as presented is reasonable and that I would be in favor of it. Are you making a motion to approve? I would be happy to do so with all of
the um variances being um presented and um spoken about and whatever conditions that we have in there. um primarily um ensuring that we
agree to the issues of that are set forth in the engineering report. Yeah. So what what I have is the front yard setbacks um the uh maximum habitable floor area. Uh the home not uh one of the homes not fronting on a public street. Um some of the conditions
are the retaining walls not to exceed six feet. Compliance with the engineering letter. uh all the mature trees uh to be uh uh you know to be maintained. Uh the increase in the easement road to 20 ft toward uh the
applicant's property. Uh best efforts not to remove any mature trees outside of the footprint. Um the drainage in the rear of the yards and I think uh the rest we can pick up from the record if I missed anything. Is there anything that I missed? I think the only other one was we were
going to keep the footprint the way it was. Keeping right. Thank you. Yeah, they proposed for area will not be changed or correct. Not I'll second it and understand that. Um I think the original application was
for three homes just the last meeting. So we could have had three homes here. So I think putting two homes here uh you you meet you know the lot size it's ginormous. or the house fits. Um there's no real negative effect to to the
community. So I think uh everything Richard said uh I would I'll second the motion and I would like to just just add on to that. Appreciate you adjusting from three lots to two. As a result it does create tremendous amount of big lot
sizes. um understandable that there is a part of topology which is mountain but also I hear consistently that you're uh looking to preserve the greenery around it. So that's the appreciated part of it. So and thank you for adjusting
and Jackie you want to take a role? Yeah Mr. Chairman uh alternate one wish new is going to be voting in place of absent member vice chairman Senola and alternate member Connor will vote for absent member Foss.
Great. Thanks, Mr. Diner. Well, I'm not eligible to vote because I wasn't here for the first hearing and I did not have an opportunity to review the recording. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. It was a different application first hearing.
All right, Mr. Diner. Yes. Play it safe. Play it safe. Mr. Reber, is that a yes? Mr. What's your vote? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ratner. Yes, Mr. Duffford. I was not here for the first hearing
either. You not present? Did not um watch the tape. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Batani. Yes, Miss Bishnu. Yes.
Miss Kana, yes. Chairman Fernandez, yes. Thank you. Motion carries. Okay, with that, thank you. Thank you for your comments from the public. They were very helpful in uh uh getting to a u you know, a better resolution. So, thank you for that. Uh we appreciate it. Um and thank you. And we're going to take a little bit of a break before we move on
to our next application. I'm ready to die. Mr. Chairman, we're back on the record at 9:38 p.m. Thank you, Jackie. So if you can call the next matter, please.
The next matter being considered this evening is a lot merger for application number 2025-39-LM block 3700 lots 30 28 29 and 30 and application number 2025-40-PFSPV for9-43
and 45 South Livingston Avenue 45 partners Urban Renewal LLC Uh thank Thank you very much, uh, Jackie. And, uh, I've already gone through earlier the process, uh, uh, the manner in which these hearings move forward. I'm not going to go through
that, uh, uh, statement again, unless anybody has any questions about it. Happy to go through it once again. Uh, but you know what we refer to, uh, would you like me to do it, Mr. Diner? I don't remember what you said. Uh, what's commonly referred to uh, in
the community as a Bottle King project. Uh just so everybody's clear on on what we uh uh what what this application is. Um so uh why don't we why don't we get started. So if you like to uh absolutely welcome and uh make your opening statement that'd be great.
So great to be here tonight. My name is Derek Orth from Inglino Taylor. I'm here on behalf of the applicant 45 partners Urban Renewal LLC. It's great to be here with you you all in beautiful Livingston this evening. I know it's getting a little bit of, you know, a little late in the evening. So, uh, I'm going to pep
it up a little bit, bring a little bit of energy here, and, uh, we're looking to, uh, at least get through hopefully if we can, one witness this evening. We do have two here for the board's consideration. So, so that means you will not be starting with traffic. We are not starting with traffic. Okay. We are not We intend to start with
civil. We do have our landscape architect here as well, should be should we be so lucky to get that far. So, just just for timing, we'll go to uh, you know, 10:30. Um, you know, but if you have a witness that's finishing up at, you know, 10:20, we're not going to have you start somebody new, you know.
No, fully understood and appreciated. And I just want to thank the board for uh considering our application this evening. We do appreciate you all the time and attention which you have given this uh which the town has and just for the members of the public, we don't expect this to be finished today. Uh we are starting the application tonight. Uh we are starting
a little bit late because there was another application before this. Uh but uh this will, you know, we'll announce the continuation date uh when we get uh to the end. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm going to do uh a little bit longer of an opening statement to kind of set the context in which this application comes before the board. This
is a redevelopment project, so it is somewhat different than other applications that the board hears on a monthly or bimonthly basis. So again, the property that is subject to the application is known as 45 South Livingston Avenue. That's block 3700, lots 28, 29, and 30. And Mr. Chairman,
as you noted, it's the Bottle King site uh that everyone here knows and is very familiar with. Uh the property is located in and subject to the use, bulk, and design requirements and standards of the 45 South Livingston Avenue district redevelopment plan. Now, consistent with
that redevelopment plan, we are proposing and we are requesting uh that the board grant preliminary and final major site plan approval for a mixeduse development also including an application for lot merger which is being heard along with this for 226
residential units including a 15% inclusionary housing set aside. uh unique about that is part of the affordable set aside for this proposed community include supportive housing units for adults with developmental and/or intellectual disabilities which
is a severely uh underserved population in the state of New Jersey and it's truly one of the worthy um parts of this application. I think it's unique. Uh we are also proposing approximately just under 20,000 square feet of retail space. That's about 19,650.
and of course related site improvements, parking, landscaping, lighting, storm water facilities and other improvements which will be described in greater detail by our professionals. Uh this application, as the board is aware, uh was not put together on a whim. It is
the culmination of years of collaboration between the applicant, the township, the township's professionals, and this board. Uh the property, as you may know, back in 2020 was studied by the township to determine if it met these statutory criteria to be
designated as an area in need of redevelopment. Uh your board professional, Beacon Planning, prepared a report and presented its recommendations to the board at a public hearing in 2021. The board determined at that time that the property met the criteria to be so designated and
transmitted those recommendations to the governing body. The governing body adopted a resolution declaring the property as a non-condination area in need of redevelopment about a week thereafter on on or about February 22nd, 2021. Uh for the next 2 and 1/2 years,
the applicant, the board uh and the uh township professionals collaborated and worked on a appropriate redevelopment plan for the site. As you may recall, I'm sure the public here will recall, there were many public forums, uh, where the proposal for this site was
discussed, presented, and evaluated by both the public, members of the township, uh, governing body and the town's professionals. Many concerns were discussed and raised, and modifications to the plans to address those concerns were undertaken uh, by the governing
body. Those two and a half years of collaborative and thoughtful efforts ultimately resulted in the adoption of the redevelopment plan for the subject property which was done on or about by way of ordinance 19-2023
on November 27th, 2023. So in short, this redevelopment plan and all of its use, bulk and design standards have been thoroughly reviewed and vetted well prior to the filing of this land use application. The applicant has also consistent with the local housing and
redevelopment law been designated and has entered into a redevelopment agreement uh which governs the construction subject to the board's approval and the approval of the outside agencies which are necessary for the site to move forward. So it subjects the
project to all of the standards and requirements in that redevelopment agreement. Um, also I should note the project is also included as a component of uh, Livingston's fourth round affordable housing plan which was of course mandated by the state and also
assist the township in meeting its constitutional Mount Laurel obligation. As I mentioned earlier, uh uniquely some of the affordable units in this community, uh will be supportive housing for adults with uh developmental and/or intellectual disabilities, uh which I
noted is unfortunately one of the most underserved populations here in the state of New Jersey. And we're going to provide some testimony when we get to the architecture plans at a later meeting in that regard. So, u I took a little bit of time here to present the context of this application because it's, you know, something unique. It's a
redevelopment project that has, you know, seen many iterations over the past several years. It has been long planned for. It has been thoughtfully designed by both the township and the applicant. And by its very nature, it accomplishes many of the goals um in the township's
master plan, including the revitaliz revitalization, that's a hard word to say, when it's 9:30 at night, revitalization of a site which has been declared as an area in need of redevelopment. It provides affordable housing. uh and it also promotes economic growth. Uh as we indicated uh
in our notice, we do not uh currently contemplate nor do we anticipate any deviations, variances or waiver relief from any of the use, bulk or design criteria in the redevelopment plan. And we may have some issues to work out there with the board professionals in
that regard. Uh but we believe we have addressed a and presented a plan which is consistent with all of the requirements in the redevelopment plan. So with that in mind, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I have at least one witness here for the board's consideration this evening. That's Mr.
Sam Walli of Dynamic Engineering. He is our civil engineer and he will start us off once he is sworn in with an overview of existing conditions. Moving on to proposed um going forward, we do have landscape architecture, we have traffic, and we also have our architectural close
out when we get to that point. Not for this evening. Okay. So, uh, without further ado, unless there's any questions. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I would request that my witness be sworn in and we can get started. Raise your right hand, sir. If you swear the testimony you give in this matter
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Please give us your full name and spell your last name. Full name is Sam Wallally. Last name is W A L I. Okay. And uh before I uh qualify you as an expert, I just want to confirm we
have received and reviewed the engineering review of April 29th, 2025, the lot merger review of May 1st, 2025, the planning review of May 7th, the traffic review of May 1st, the fire division letter of May 6th, the environmental commission review of May
8th, and we also had a uh separate memo from Water and Sewer Department. Correct. That's correct. Okay. So, Mr. Wally, uh, briefly, uh, please provide the board with an overview of your professional qualifications, confirming that your license is in good standing in effect in
the state of New Jersey, and give us a handful of towns in which you have been accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering. Absolutely. I am a licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey. License is in good standing and current. I graduated from NGIT with a bachelor of
science and civil engineering. I'm a project manager at Dynamic Engineering. I've testified before various boards including Summit Union, Homeell, uh, Lynden and HLlett most recently and I have over seven years of experience as a site civil engineer. Thank you, Sam. Uh, with that, Mr.
Chairman, I would profer him as an expert in the field of civil engineering. Any questions or objections? Any questions or objections from the board? Uh, thank you. You're accepted uh by the board as an expert in civil engineering. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Sam, why don't you move over to the uh laptop? We
do have one exhibit from Sam this evening to present to the board. My understanding is it is a colorized and rendered site plan uh which is not part of the submission packet. So it would be an exhibit uh once it is put on screen and we move it into the record as such.
Yes. Just wanted to make a quick note uh even before getting into the uh color the colorized rendering um I did want to bring up the aerial map just to discuss the existing conditions. Um, this aerial map exhibit is dated July 15, 2025. Uh,
scale of 1 inch equals 100 feet. Uh, north pointing to the left hand side of the sheet. Um, and is very similar to the, uh, aerial map that was included within the site plan package. Um, this is actually just repurposed for the purpose of this uh, hearing as an
exhibit. Okay. Present. Mr. Chairman, we'd like to have this marked as A1, if we may. Colorized rendering. Uh, is there This is an aerial aerial exhibit. Yes. This is an aerial map exhibit. The colorized rendering will be subsequent. Okay. Sam, why don't you, when you're
ready, why don't you take us through existing conditions? Absolutely. Uh, the site is located at 45 South Livingston Avenue, uh, County Road, uh, 527, and is identified as block 3700, lots 28, 29, and 30. The site is
outlined in red at the center of the screen and is within the 45 South Livingston Avenue district redevelopment area. The site is approximately 6.4 acres in size. Uh just quickly going through the surrounding uses. To the
south we have the Valley Bank residential dwellings to the southeast. Um Ardan Road and the B1 zone beyond. To the west is South Livingston Avenue. uh and commercial uh commercial properties uh within the B and B1 zone. To the
north are commercial uses as well. Uh East Mount Pleasant Avenue and the LTC zone beyond. To the east are single family residential dwellings. Uh the Sherbrook Parkway and uh the R4 zone.
Uh wanted to note that the majority of the existing uh property is developed with two commercial retail buildings associated uh site improvements included um such as pave parking, walkways, uh lighting, landscaping um etc. Just
typical standard um commercial development improvements. Uh in addition, there are three existing driveway curb cuts um along South Livingston Avenue. uh also did want to note that there is cross access between all three of these lots um under
existing conditions for uh pedestrian circulation. Uh in addition, the site generally in terms of grading, the site generally slopes downward from the north to the south um with storm water runoff being collected by a series of on-site
inlets uh which is then conveyed into the storm water uh conveyance system within the South Livingston Avenue rightway. Uh that's just a very brief overview of the existing conditions and as you go just um Sam as you go through your proposed conditions we did
submit an omnibus response letter to all of the board professional reports uh when you reach a point where there's something you want to discuss in particular uh just make a note of that uh so the board professionals can keep track of that as well. Sure thing. Yeah. Assuming no further
questions are uh on the existing conditions, I did want to bring up the proposed conditions with the site plan rendering. So this site plan rendering is dated July 15th, 2025. Scale of 1 in equals 30 ft north pointing to the left hand side.
Um and this was not previously submitted before the board. So we would like to mark this as exhibit A2. Which sheet of the uh site plan is that? Uh this was not previously submitted but uh this is essentially a colorized version of uh I believe it was sheet six
of the site plan. It would be the actual site plan sheet itself. I'll just confirm that for you right now too. Yes, sheet six of the site plan. So, this is essentially just a colorized version of sheet six of the site plan that was submitted before the board with
the landscaping superimposed. Okay, so getting into the proposed site conditions, uh applicant is proposing a five-story mixeduse building with a two-story underground parking garage, which is a permitted use within the redevelopment plan. Uh this consists of
226 dwelling units and 19,650 ft of retail. The proposed development is intended to uh is intended to be completed in a single phase during construction with a timeline of approximately two and a half years. Uh also proposing to consolidate lots 28,
29, and 30 as part of this development um which was submitted as a lot merger application to the township engineering office. The project complies with all bulk setback requirements outlined in the redevelopment plan. Um quickly just running through the bulk requirements um
to demonstrate compliance. The minimum lot area uh is required to be 6 acres. The existing and proposed development will consist of 6.40 acres. Uh minimum street frontage along South Livingston
Avenue, 550 ft is required whereas 724.2 ft is existing and proposed. Uh as for the minimum front yard setback, uh 0 feet is permitted. Uh whereas 16.8 ft is existing and 2.7 ft
is proposed. uh the average front yard setback which was a question that came up during uh I believe the planning review letter um five feet the proposed average front yard setback is uh calculated to be 7.8 ft
uh minimum sideyard setback to adjacent commercial developments uh of 40 ft is required under existing conditions it's actually an existing non-conformity with 37.8 8 ft existing. Um, and this was brought into compliance uh with 71.3 ft
proposed for sideyards to adjacent commercial properties. Sideyard to non-commercial adjacent properties. Uh 50 ft required uh in the redevelopment zone and 109.5 ft is proposed.
Uh as for the minimum rear yard setback for the parking garage uh 80 ft would be required whereas 80 ft is proposed. The residential building for the rear yard setback 100t is required whereas 100t is proposed. Uh maximum building height of
60 ft is permitted where 60 ft is being proposed. As for building coverage uh we are permitted up to 60% and 40.2% 2% is proposed which is also compliant. As for impervious coverage, uh we are
permitted up to 90% within uh the redevelopment plan and 84.17% is proposed which is a slight increase from the 76.7% that's existing but nonetheless still compliant. Uh, as for the parking setbacks as well,
um, parking setbacks range from zero feet up to 28 feet depending on the property line we're looking at. Um, so between South Livingston Avenue, the southern property line, eastern and northern property lines. Uh, again, we do conform and comply with those requirements as well.
Moving into parking, we are proposing 9 foot by 18 foot parking spaces uh which is compliant with the RSIS requirements referenced in the redevelopment plan. Uh there are a total of 481 parking spaces
required once taking credit for the proposed EV spaces. There are 500 parking spaces total proposed which includes 158 parking spaces and 80 electrical vehicle parking spaces. Uh of that 500 spaces, it is comprised of 310
spaces within the garage with 190 spaces in uh on surface level parking. Uh in addition, there are three loading and refuge pickup areas proposed. Um these are scattered uh throughout the site. Uh one being at the northern uh
facade of the building where the cursor is pointing now. Um the next being at the southeastern corner uh and the last being uh adjacent to the special needs and retail uh portion at the western
southwestern side of the site. As for access and circulation, uh we're proposing two full movement driveways along South Livingston Avenue for site access with a boulevard entrance for the uh motor court entrance uh at the center
of the site for a total of three driveways. Um we are also proposing 24 foot wide drive aisles around the perimeter of the site for full movement circulation uh which again conforms with the township requirements. Uh, additional testimony will be provided in regards to
the circulation and the uh, comments from the traffic consultant by the traffic engineer at a later hearing. Moving into grading, the proposed grades follow the existing uh, slopes to the greatest extent possible. So as noted previously under existing conditions
site does slope from north to south um consistently throughout and that grade was essentially followed uh as part of the proposed design. Uh in addition the site was designed for ADA compliance. So ADA accessible walkways, landings, ramps
are provided throughout the site to provide accessibility um along the frontage as well as the retail spaces as well. As for signage uh site signage specifically, we are proposing one
freestanding monument sign uh at the motorcore entrance uh at the center of the site. Um that sign is proposed to be 24 square feet with a height of sign height of 4 feet. Uh
as for landscape and lighting, uh did want to note that there are a total of 165 trees being removed with 98 trees being proposed. Uh that deficit will be covered as part of the township tree fund and tree removal permit. Uh
additional testimony on the proposed landscaping will also be provided by the landscape architect. Uh site is proposing to maintain a 28 foot buffer along the rear. Uh that would be the eastern property line uh for the residential neighbors um to
maintain the existing vegetation uh which again will be discussed in more testimony by the landscape architect. As for lighting, we are proposing 44 polemounted decorative LED fixtures. Uh the proposed poles are uh going to be 14
feet in height uh for the mounting height of the light fixture whereas 18 feet maximum is permitted which also does comply. Uh we're also proposing 68 decorative building mounted fixtures to illuminate the pedestrian areas as well. Uh did
want to note that there is minimum light spinage on the adjacent commercial properties. However, there is no light spillage being proposed along the residential lot lines uh to the souththeast as well as to the east um of
the site. Uh and overall the lighting is designed to be compliant with the township requirements and also provides adequate site lighting for safety, security, and minimizing uh off-site glare. Moving into drainage. The proposed project is
classified as a major development and has been designed to comply with the requirements outlined in NJAC78. Uh overall the proposed development improves storm water quality, water quantity and groundwater recharge when compared to the existing conditions and
that's being done through the use of two proposed smallcale infiltration basins that are underground uh at the eastern and southern pavement areas. uh as pre-treatment before runoff works its way into these two basins. Uh there are three filter manufactured treatment
devices being proposed to pre-treat the runoff before it's conveyed into the infiltration basins. In addition, uh the drainage design also does conform with the green infrastructure requirements outlined in NJAC78. did want to note that our office
received the review letter from the township engineers office and has already provided responses uh specifically to the drainage questions they had um which we feel uh were satisfied and addressed. Um but obviously uh we'll work with the
township engineers office to um finalize any other comments or concerns that come up along the way during the review. Uh as for utilities, we're proposing gas, electric, water, and sanitary connections uh made directly into the existing services within South Livingston Avenue. Um our office did
review a review memo from the water and sewer consultant, and we will work with their office to make sure that we uh address any of the concerns or comments they have as part of uh resolution compliance. Okay. Uh Mr. Wallley, uh you heard my
opening statement. Is it your opinion that the application as submitted is consistent and compliant with all of the requirements in the redevelopment plan? Yes. And you have designed the site drainage and storm water infrastructure
consistent with D requirements. Correct. That's correct. Are there any other outside agency approvals uh that we need to obtain in connection with this project and have you taken them into consideration in your design? Yeah, it's a great question. Uh we would
be required to have approvals from Essex County Planning Board as well as the Hudson Essex Pay um soil conservation district and submissions to both those agencies have been made but we are uh still undergoing review and we'll uh satisfy any comments as they come up
and and as this board I'm sure is aware Essex County typically doesn't take any action on a an application until the local board takes action on it. Um, so we can certainly uh stipulate two conditions of approval uh should the board act favorably on this application at a later date. Other than that, I had
no further questions for Mr. Wall on direct and I tender him over to the board and the board's professionals. You did mention traffic circulation. The traffic circulation questions will be for your traffic engineer. Yes, they will. Okay. Um, are there questions from
members of the board? Just a couple clarifying questions. Um I think you mentioned something about driveways. How many driveways you mentioned in and out of Livingston Avenue? So we're proposing three driveways. Two are going to be full movement. Uh so that's going to be on the northern side.
If you can see the cursor as well as uh the southern corner and the third driveway is this boulevard entrance that's essentially a oneway in and one way out. Okay. Thank you. Uh also you mentioned uh trees uh and I know there is a
landscaping uh testimony we'll have but you mentioned the numbers uh cutting down more than planting uh was that was a discrepancy that just like it's it struck me. Uh can you mention those numbers again? Yeah. So the total it's also in the site
plan on the tree removal plan for reference. Um so total trees being uh proposed to be demolished or removed is 165 whereas 98 trees are proposed on the uh landscape arch plants. Uh I did want to note too that um like any other tree
removal uh that it that would require a tree removal permit um in addition to payment into the tree replacement fund with the township. Okay. Noted. And I think we will have uh council will have an specialist uh landscaping
chance for a review of all this numbers and discrepancies on that. Yes. Um and one final number is uh I'm trying to understand is retail spots. Uh in your overall numbers you mentioned amount of retail space or spots or can
you please describe that again? Uh the breakdown there's a total of 19,650 square feet of retail. Um as for the actual breakout of how many retail spaces, I I think it's a question that's going to be covered in architecture. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Yeah, just one other question in terms of your outside agency reviews. Um you didn't mention treatment works or Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. I'm assuming those D permits will either have either been applied for or will be. You're correct. We will need a treatment works
approval as well as well as um the BWSC. So that will be provided. Okay. I had a few questions before you go on. Um you mentioned that you had incorporated green infrastructure into your stormwater management. Can you just
kind of provide some more details on the green infrastructure you incorporated? Yeah, absolutely. So like I mentioned previously, we have two proposed underground small-cale infiltration basins. small-cale infiltration basins are considered as green infrastructure um per NJDP. Uh in addition to that as
pre-treatment uh before any runoff makes its way into uh the underground basins they will be um collected through three uh filter systems which are also uh certified as green infrastructure by NJP as well.
And I thought you mentioned something about a green roof at one point or having did I make that up? Uh I think there was a comment from the environmental commission regarding a green roof. Um the current design as it stands with the two smallcale infiltration basins along with the
provided pre-treatment already does comply with the township as well as NJD requirements. Um I did want to note and I think it's going to be testified to a little bit further in more detail that the uh amenity area is going to be vegetated and planted over. So it will
have vegetation. Um but NJP does have specific uh requirements for what they would consider as a best management practice, a green roof. Um so it won't necessarily follow those guidelines just because again we already do comply with storm water management from that regard.
But um the amenity areas for the uh courtyard that's going to be rooftop above the podium for the garage will be vegetated. Yeah. Thank you. Um, you mentioned that there was minimal light spillage over to the
adjacent commercial property. Can you just detail for the board what the what you mean by minimal? Yeah, absolutely. I can get the exact numbers and pull up this plan. Just reference just reference what sheet of the uh plan
set you're looking at when you go through the numbers. Thank you. Okay, so this is going to be the lighting plan which is sheet 10 of the site plans that were submitted. So there are some instances um just because there is very close proximity uh
to the proposed curb line to the property line um where we have a couple light fixtures that are uh forward throwing. However, just the nature of the actual uh way the light gets modeled in. Um why don't you just identify which property line you're speaking about? Yeah. So, specifically looking at the
northern property line right now, um there are a handful of light fixtures uh to in between um the proposed curb line along the north and the property line uh that is adjacent to the commercial
development. Um on the lefth hand side of the plan uh there are there is an instance uh which I'm looking at the plan right now where the highest point along the property line is 1.8 foot candles. Um but that does
fairly quickly diminish um as you work our way into the adjacent commercial development. Um last question or one of the last questions. Did you conduct soil test pits for the storm water management? Yes, we did. Okay. And um I didn't have a chance to
look. Did you label those locations on the revised plants? Yes, those are labeled on the revised range plan. And now really last question, and I don't know if you'll be able to answer it or not. Um do you know if there's any construction signage or sales trailers proposed?
There is actually. Um so that was actually also incorporated into the site plan set. Um specifically on Can you maybe bring uh if you can bring that up just to show the board where the the locations are? Absolutely.
Construction and it's um it's a construction trailer, not a not a sales trailer, I think. Okay. Yeah. So, there won't be any sales trailer or rental trail. Are they rental units or they are they are Yes.
So, this is going to be on sheet 11 just for reference of Okay. Just to clarify, this is the existing the submitted set that was submitted to the board. Just identify the sheet you're referring to. Yeah, absolutely. So, this is the soil erosion sediment control plan uh sheet
11 of the plan set that was submitted to the board. Uh there is a proposed uh trailer location uh at the southern uh side of the sheet which would be I guess you can say adjacent to the bank parking.
is that it's labeled as temporary sales trailer, but it's a construction trailer. Okay, that's the one though, right? Yes, that's correct. That should be clarified to say construction trailer. Yes, we'll make sure that's revised. Yes.
And then you're proposing fencing all around the site during construction. six foot high fencing just uh there's a combination of fencing being proposed between uh silt fencing for instance as required by sedd. Yeah.
In addition to um construction fencing as well. And does the construction fencing is it going to go all the way around the site uh including the frontage on South Livingston Avenue? Yes. And how high is the fencing?
Uh the fencing I believe was six feet. I can double check the construction detail as well. Currently 8 ft for the construction fencing. How tall? 8t. Is it also going to have canvas?
There's currently none proposed. So, it's just going to be open fencing along the entire front of the property. You'd like to see screening on the uh temporary if you would like to see if the board would like to see temporary screening on the uh construction fencing, we can accommodate that.
Yeah, we we typically I think we typically prefer that. Yes. And if it's uh you know canvas and it starts getting ripped up, it's needs to be replaced. That's no problem. Okay. Absolutely. I don't have any more questions. Thank you. Thank you. Just continuing along with what the
engineer talked about. Um understanding that this is an incredibly busy street um with lots and lots of activity going on both residential and commercial um and traffic.
Besides the fencing, is there also going to be, and I think you were talking about this, the hay bales andor other along the front to stop any kind of uh erosion and dirt from coming out onto the street and the sidewalks?
Absolutely. Yes. uh we're going to end up uh having to provide all that for the HP SED and we're going to prepare a design that will conform and is approved by their office and areas th those areas predominant
predominantly the main sidewalks along that street to be clean nightly during construction. Yeah, I think that's a standard practice for a road like this. Um, while I'm up,
there's a number of items in the Environmental Commission's report. One being addressing and monitoring air quality during demolition and construction. Again, understanding you have a lot of residents immediately surrounding this area. Is that something that's going to be done?
Yeah, we can certainly provide the uh air quality monitoring. Um, let me pull up that specific comment letter. If it's going to be done just so that it's submitted to the engineering department for their review during the course of this
so that to the your satisfaction. And we also do have Uh I did reference uh in my opening that the uh applicant has entered into a redevelopment agreement with the township and there is a requirement for progress meetings and status meetings throughout the construction of the project uh which is
a contractual obligation at the request of the township professionals uh and we also have uh an obligation to maintain the site in an orderly fashion throughout the uh construction process as well. Okay. Um,
but the the air quality during demolition, I don't know if you finished that response. I think you were looking. I don't know if you got the answer you wanted to give. No. Uh, absolutely. Yeah. Excuse me. Absolutely. Yes, we would agree to provide that.
Okay. And provide that to the engineering department. Absolutely. Okay. Um, I think we may have discussed this at the track, but I don't remember the answer anymore. if you've done any investigation. Some of these buildings have been around for a long time and if there's any asbestous within the
interiors of any of the buildings that are coming down and to ensure that that's handled. Yeah, it's going to be part as part of the that's going to be handled as part of the demolition approval. um the location of a generator on the site,
which I know was agreed to to be. Can you just show on the plan where that's going to be? Uh so there's no generators uh on the actual site level. Uh I believe that's going to be a rooftop uh item, but we do have uh
some electrical transformers, but we have a rooftop generator on the architectural plants. Correct. Which will be You're putting a rooftop generator. Correct. And what fuel are we using for that? We'll get the answer to that be. I don't
think this witness is able to testify to it, but it'll be the architect. But it would be You have any issues? Natural gas, I believe, is what I'm being told. Huh? Natural gas. It'll be natural gas. Yes. Okay. Um and obviously the screening and the
sound testing of that to to meet whatever the codes are. Again, residents around the immediate area. Typically we, you know, there would be an emergency testing perhaps or just a a weekly testing during, you know, daytime hours. uh the board could impose some
sort of time period when we could conduct those tests and we'd have to comply with the decibel requirements at the property line which is another standard condition and we'd be happy to stipulate to that. Uh I just want to jump in one real quick on
the fencing and particularly along South Livingston Avenue given where the buildings are going to be built. Is the entire sidewalk going to be out of commission? And if so, I don't it seems it seems to me almost inevitable you're going to have to take the whole sidewalk and just want to ensure that there's
some plan in place to direct pedestrians to go wherever they got to go across the street or do you think you're going to be able to leave any of that sidewalk accessible? Uh the sidewalk is proposed to be replaced. Um so in terms of the fencing inside or outside while it's under construction,
is there going to be a walkable sidewalk on that side of the road? So, we're we're gonna we have to coordinate also with Essex County on that item because it's a county road, but there will be uh we'll coordinate with the county and also with the board on a pedestrian
safety plan. Okay. Uh for pedestrian traffic during construction, my guess is it's not going to be available. So, before we finish, you'll have an answer to that that will be on the record of what we're talking Not tonight, but Okay.
Um, I got some more questions. The parking layouts, is that something that's going to be dealt with by you or by someone different or an expansion of what we're talking about now? I know there would have had been discussion
about um the EV stations and where they are and moving them to the front by the entrances. Um, and I know there's some questions from the fire department in their memos. And I, you know, I know time is I don't want to cut it short, but I also
want to make sure that the memos that we talked about that you have are addressed and that we have answers to them on the record for the board here, not just um, you know, that you have them and that and that they've been
reviewed. And I know we went over a lot of these at the track as well. We did. Um I just want to make sure that those issues get on the board. Um yeah, that's the problem. The parking certainly will be addressed by the architect. Um Sam, if there's, you know,
we do have some exterior parking that's shown there, which is part of the civil set. So, uh certainly any questions about that, uh the engineer could speak to uh but the majority of the area totally enclosed. Is it open? How does that happen? Mhm.
So, let's I would suggest this to defer that to the architect then because we're going to go into the inside of the building and that's the EV stations. Is that going to be with you? Uh I will note that there are 27 EV stations at the rear of the site. Um so that would be at the eastern face of the
building with the remainder um which I think would be 53 EV spaces within the garage. So obviously the ones that are outside are not an issue because those are easy for the fire department to get to the location of the ones in the
garage. They had requested try to get as close to an entrance as possible so that they don't have to go attempt to get inside if one of those, god forbid, catch on fire. No, the the the point is well taken and I believe we did make um plan revisions
in that regard. Okay. That would be uh addressed by the architect on his affirmative testimony though. Yeah, certainly. That's mine for right now. Um, so a lot of the fire department's memo then should be addressed toward the architect. Is that what what you're
saying? Yes. the HVAC um uh the the type of sprinkler system the um you know how are the uh different areas of the complex access in case of emergency ventilation system uh knock uh
knock boxes um uh any flame producing devices on uh in any of the common areas that would be for the architect. Yes. and we'll certainly put that testimony on the record. Uh but the
the good thing is in almost all instances of comments in the reports, the our response from the applicant has been that we'll comply and we'll coordinate with all the comments. You just like to get it all on the record and that's no problem at all. Happy to do that, too. Any other questions?
Just one last one and I think engineering touched on it or you may have touched on it briefly as well. um that uh water and sewer and I believe there was a report by M McDonald who was hired by the board. Yes. Um is there any specific comments pertaining to that or
whatever comments they had basically going to be complied with? Uh those comments are going to be complied with. uh they were essentially just asking for um minor design changes in terms of the construction details that were on the plans or a different
alternative layout where we're punching in for the sanitary sewer was things of that nature. So those comments are intended to be complied with. Thank you. I would just add with regard to MMA's comments, um one of their comments is that you TB and clean the downstream
sewers. Um I always recommend do it sooner than later. you know, um it tends to get in the way of applicants getting their TWWA permit signed. So, just something to keep in mind. Schedule that sooner than later. Yeah, I appreciate the note.
Any other member questions from the board? Um are there any questions from the public as to this witness? Uh, not seeing any. Okay. Um, so it's
10:25. Uh, we're not going to start a new witness now. Um, thank you. I thank you for your time. 10:30 and we appreciate accommodating us at this hour. U, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask uh if we may carry this on the
record to the next available meeting date so as to not have to notice again. Correct. So, so, uh, Jackie, what's our next uh, date? Mr. Chairman, the board can confirm Tuesday, August 5th at 7:30. Okay. So, this matter will be continued
to Tuesday, August 5th, beginning at 7:30. Uh, no further notice uh, will be required. This is the public's notice as to the next meeting. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. We appreciate your time this evening. Okay. Thank you.
I have all your questions. Don't worry, I had them out before you.