in >> accordance with the open public meetings. >> You take the role, please. >> Mr. Ratner, >> here. >> Mr. Reber >> here. >> Miss F >> here. >> Mr. Lewis >> here. >> Mr. Duffford >> here. Miss Connor
>> here. >> Chairman Fernandez. >> Thank you. Yes. Here. >> All right. Mr. Diner, Mr. Banani, Miss Wish, and Vice Chair Santo present. We do have our attorney, assistant township engineer, and our
planner. We have a quorum. Mr. Chairman. >> Uh, thank you. If you can please call the first matter. That matter that is scheduled for this evening is preliminary and final site plan with variances. An amendment for block 61000 lot 57 South Orange Avenue application
number 2024-74-P and amendment for Cam Camelot Associates LP. >> Uh thank you. And just to review the uh general procedure for tonight's hearing, um the applicant is represented by an attorney who will explain the application. 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 the 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's an entity or group formally appearing as a party in support of or in opposition to the application, uh that party may call witnesses. and when all the witnesses uh of all parties have been heard, members of the public may give sworn statements for or against the
application. So, welcome. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening to you and board members, professionals, members of the public. My name is Johnny here from the law firm of Taylor.
>> How's that? Okay. uh from English Taylor representing the applicant Camelan Associates LP, owner of the subject site, which is lot 5 in block 61000 on the official t tax map at the township of Livingston and otherwise known as 70
South Orange Avenue. As the board will recall, you granted preliminary and final site plan approval for the subject project with variance relief by resolution unanimously adopted by the board on October 21, 2025. The project consists of 223 units of
multifamily housing plus one additional on-site superintendence unit for a total of 223 total units, 45 of which units are dedicated to satisfying a portion of Livingston's affordable housing requirement. You may also recall that
this project is in the R5Q overlay zone and is part of Livingston's third round housing element and fair share plan. The variance relief granted by the board was for the size of the parking spaces on the site and permits all parking spaces to have a depth of 18 feet without
overhang which is a variance from the figures of township code section 170-3. Additionally, the board granted a waiver from the submission of environmental impact statement since the subject property is currently substantially developed and the proposed building will
not deviate substantially from the size of the existing building. Tonight's amended application does not does not seek to change the number of units, nor does it seek to change the affordable housing component. All the applicant is requesting is to reduce the building
footprint of the building while maintaining the number of units and the mix of market rate and affordable units. Additionally, the applicant seeks to reduce the number of parking spaces located under the building and increase
the surface parking area, resulting in a slight net increase in parking for the project. We have two witnesses for this evening, Mr. Chairman. The first is the project engineer, Peter Mskoff from Casey and Keller. >> Tell his last name, please.
>> Mis KOV. Uh, Peter works with Mike Lanzafama, who could not attend tonight's hearing. Uh, you'll also hear testimony from the applicant's architect, Jack Ragger, RA R A K E R. Um, we have received two
comment letters in connection with this amended application. Uh, the first was from the Livingston Engineering Department dated March 26 of 2026. Uh, the second is from Beacon dated March 31 of 2026. Um, and we can address those comments uh
at at the appropriate time. We want to get into testimony first. So, Mr. Chairman, without further ado, I'd like to call Mr. Peter >> Mkoff. My practice is that I swear in all the witnesses right now so I don't forget to do it later. >> You got it. Let's swear them all in. >> And the board experts, too. Can everyone
please stand up? >> Can everyone Can everyone please stand up? Raise your right hand. I'm going to start over here. Go right around the semicircle. Identify yourself for the record. >> Jack Breaker. >> Okay. And you are a RA >> architect. Yes. >> Peter Biscoff. >> And you're a PE.
>> Yes. >> Barbara Allen. >> You're a PP. >> Correct. >> Bro, PE >> P. Okay. Up. >> Everyone swear or affirm that the testimony you're going to give in this application will be the truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> I do.
>> Okay. Perfect. >> You guys are scared. Okay. You ready, Peter? >> Okay. >> All right. So, um, let me just qualify Mr. Mskov first. Um, just if you can just briefly describe your professional
background, your educational background, and any licenses that you possess. >> Sure. Um, I am a civil engineer with Casey and Keller of Milbour, New Jersey. Um, I've been practicing site engineering uh with CNK and Michael Lanzafama for the past 13 years. Um, I
have a civil engineering degree from Ruckers, uh, New Brunswick. Can you guys hear me? >> Uh, and I hold a professional engineers uh, license in the state of New Jersey. That's current. >> And you've appeared before boards. >> Tilt that microphone up a little. >> Tilt it up. >> Tilt your microphone up a little.
>> There you go. >> Okay. better. >> You've appeared and been accepted as an expert witness in the area of civil engineering from other boards in New Jersey. >> I have. >> Well, Mr. Chairman, uh, respectfully, we submit Mr. Mskov as an expert in civil engineering.
>> Any any questions from the board or any objections? Uh, the board accepts you as an expert in civil engineering. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moff, if you could just kindly walk the board through the uh the changes uh in this amended application.
>> Sure. If I could open up the planes. Um so Casey and Keller was uh worked on the original approval and also worked on this amended application. Um I'm familiar with the submitted application uh all the associated reports and I visited the site on several occasions.
Uh the project site as mentioned by uh Mr. Anglicino is located at 70 South Orange Avenue and is designated as tax Lot 5 block 6100 in the Livingston Township tax maps. Uh the proposed development rece received initial
preliminary and final site plan approval granted on September 2nd, 2025 and memorialized on October 7th, 2025 to construct a 223 multifamily residential development with ground level garage and surface parking spaces with associated
site improvements. We were working on resolution compliance uh when the client proposed an alternate design to reduce the building's footprint. The proposed amendments to the application only relate to the modifications to the building footprint
and site revisions to accommodate the same um overall minimal in nature. Um no changes to the demolition plan. I'd like to bring up a rendering of the site plan. Is this an exhibit or was this package?
So, this will be A1. >> You guys have a hard copy. >> You guys have a hard copy or a digital copy of this exhibit for the board's file? >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah, we have >> I could send it uh to everybody. I don't think they have it yet. >> It's not color. Let me just take a look. >> Yeah. So, it looks like the one that the
board has. >> Yeah, that's not colorized. >> So, can you email that to the board to uh to Jackie? colorized copy and that's A1 and give a description in the lower right hand corner. What does it say? Last revised date. >> A1 is
>> 225 2026. It's the same as the site plan. Uh last provision. >> Okay. And what's the name of this plan? Exhibit A1 is named what? >> Uh it's just a site plan that's with colors. >> What does it say on it? >> Site plan. >> It says site plan. Okay. That's page four
of the site plan, I believe. >> Page five. >> Okay. Site plan sheet five. >> Last revised 225 2026 color rendered. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. See sheet five.
Okay. Um, as you can see, the um the building setbacks for the front yard and the western um side of the property. Uh sideyards remain exactly the same as the approved
plans. Uh the rear yard slightly increases due to the shorter uh building length. >> I think you have a >> Yeah. >> problem there on the screen. You turn around. You have to hit okay on >> There you go. We're all set. >> Got it.
Uh the main uh setback that changes is the easterly uh property line where it increases to 126 ft 34 ft um instead of the original 108.36.
Um the reduced building footprint results in building coverage that uh reduces from 132 131 ft to 127 698 ft. a reduction of 4,433
ft of building coverage. Um, minor changes have been made to the site parking configuration to accommodate the smaller building while maintaining the same overall impervious coverage for the site. Um, a minimal
increase of 50 square ft to 172437 ft is proposed and still compliant with the Livingston ordinance. Um, if I zoom in here a little bit, an additional
Why is it? An additional row of 90 degree parking stalls were added here where the where the previous building used to be. Um, and changes to the fire access on the westerly side modified for the new building location. Those are the two
main uh site uh configuration changes. Um uh as Jack Raker, the architect will attest, the reduced building still contains the same overall amount of units, 223. However, minor changes have been made to the unit mix. Um so the proposed
building now contains 48 onebedrooms, 151 twobedrooms, 24 threebedrooms. As a result, the parking demand has been updated accordingly. 439 spaces are required now per RSIs. Uh minus a 1 one
EV bonus of 24 spaces. That totals out to 415 spaces required. >> And how many are provided? >> Uh we are providing a total of 416 spaces. We had a typo on our site plan
where we thought we had 344 garage stalls. We actually have 342. Um so with 342 garage spaces and 74 surface spaces, uh we provide 416 spaces uh in the improve in the amended
improvements. Um a majority of the previous approved application is being maintained and complies with the resolution of approval from September of last year. Uh the current design continues to utilize 9 by18 stalls and similar to the previous
approved application. Uh also similar the visitor parking will be um accommodated with the 74 exterior parking spaces and a cordoned off section of the garage in this area for
38 spaces to comply with the RSI standards of uh visitor parking stalls where 112 are required. Sorry. >> Um there's uh per ADA standards, nine are
required. Uh we're proposing 11 >> dead weight. >> Aha. >> I've been telling him he's been ignoring me. >> I I I think on one of the plants you had 14 handicap I mean uh handicap spaces. So you have
>> Okay. I I think more of them were inside the garage. So when we shortened the the building, I believe we lost some um handicaps as well. >> Yeah. Still compliant. >> Sorry. >> Still compliant. >> Yes. >> Um if we look at the grading plan, um
minor changes. Wait, am I on there yet? All the uh access doors into the building for both exterior and interior parking areas continue to meet barrierfree access for the development. Uh no significant changes have been made to the overall storm water management system for the development and it
continues to meet New Jersey regulations and best best management practices and it's still compliant for 2050 projected storms. Um, no significant changes have been made to the proposed development utility connections. Uh, minor increases to
sewer and water flows due to the change in unit mix. Sewer flows increase 450 gallons per day. Uh, and water flows increased by 210 gallons per day. Uh, it's a minimal amount of increase.
If we go to the lighting plan, the lighting plan was also updated uh to accommodate the smaller building and site plan changes. Um changes are minimal. Um three additional wall-mounted fixtures were provided
along this building wall here and one fewer polemounted fixture along the parking uh areas. All the changes are minimal and synonymous and no and compatible with the design parameters of the approved plan.
If we look at the landscape plan, same same thing. It was revised to accommodate the smaller building and site changes. Uh no changes to tree replacement requirements. One additional tree was added and three additional shrubs.
Um, these changes are minimal and synonymous with the original application in terms of planting design and quantity. If I look at this, I have a comparison of where the new building is. This is I don't know if we should consider this another exhibit or not.
>> Does have this in its in its package. >> Not colorized, right? >> Uh, it's not colorized. It just has both the old site plan and the new site plan kind of >> overlaid. So let's let's march exhibit A2 and can you tell us what this exhibit is called? Lower right hand corner what
sheet and last revised date. >> Uh it's also the site plan. >> Okay. Site plan sheet what? >> Sheet five O2526 same date. >> So we have two exhibits same
identification of them. We uh this is the exhibit we sent to the D to show them the difference uh in our FHA in uh general permit. >> Okay. So, we're going to call this one the NJD site plan G5. Okay. >> Color rendered with the last revised
date of 225 2026. Um yeah, we we've been working with the state to update the uh D FHA individual permit and updated wetlands transition area and we will provide copies of the same to the board for >> What did the color rendering show?
>> Um so the red outline is the new building and here it shows we're not modifying any of the uh flood hazard areas. We're not changing. The only changes are to the drive here in the front in yellow.
>> Okay. So, the red's remaining the same shows remains the same and the yellow >> is the new building changes and the yellow is the changes. Correct. >> Um, and the applicant will satisfy and comply with any outstanding comments from the engineers review memo uh and
any outstanding comments from Livingston water and sewer. Um, if you like the the original application, I don't uh see why um that opinion should change. >> No further questions for the witness. Mr. Chairman, turn it back to you and
the board and board professionals and the public for any questions that uh y'all may have. >> Can you just go through uh there was slight change in the bedroom mix, the number of one bedrooms down? >> Uh yeah, I believe Jack might be able to handle that uh difference between the
unit mixes. I just brought it up for from a parking demand perspective. Um I not sure I think there's some more twobs now. >> Um and I guess about the distribution of the affordables throughout the
>> be for the architect as well. Mr. Yeah. And >> microphone, >> sorry. Um, signage some of the planet report about the uh sign the planetary report signage um
deed restrictions on the dens and on the superintendent. That's somebody else. >> So, chairman, did you bring that up? Um, the the deed restrictions were were sort of new. they were not uh included or referenced in any way in the original
approval. Um I I guess you know we'd like to politely push back on that a little bit. Um from the perspective of the superintendent um there's two problems that causes for us. Number one, if we were to de-restrict a particular unit, um we
don't know who the superintendent is going to be or what their family needs might be. So, we may have a super that has a onebedroom at some point in the future. We may have a super that gets a two-bedroom. Um, the other >> you could you could just have a deed restriction on the property that says
one unit has to be for the superintendent and it doesn't designate. >> Yeah. It is the other complication with that is today this is a rental building uh entirely and we would in there's no plans to change that but none of us can
predict what the future may be. uh at some point if there would be a conversion of the building from apartments to condominiums for example that would pose a problem the affordable units are rentals and those are going to be deed restricted as rentals that will
never change um >> but that but that problem could also be overcome by putting a provision in the deed restriction I've done this not in this particular set of facts but where if a deed restriction once it's recorded the case law says only a court can
relieve you from but not the planning board but I have put a a provision in the Destriction saying that the planning board can give relief from the deed restriction and then you could put in whatever terms you want. For example, if you're saying
if in the future the it goes from rental to sale then when you come to the planning board you come back to the planning board to seek to lift that deed restriction. So that's how to get around that objection. Well, the other issue that we have is we have to deal with
lenders. And I I got to tell you, and I speak from some experience on this, any deed restrictions that are over and above affordable housing are just going to create an enormous uh unnecessary in our view challenging
complication. We are not objecting to uh uh to having a superintendence unit. That's going to be clear. It's in the resolution. It's a It's an obligation. >> So So what's the concern about just having it deed restricted then if that's what you're going to do? the the deed restriction is because of of the issues
that I just outlined and because in terms of dealing with lenders um deed restrictions are just everybody has an opinion and I I just don't want to be in a position where we've got to come back to the board because I've got a lender who wants different language in a deed
restriction or a lender who just has a problem with a deed restriction and and that is a a real practical concern that we have with regard ard to a deed restriction and there really is no in our opinion there's really no need for
it. Um it is in the resolution. We're not at all disputing that the resolution is a public document. It the deed restriction is not going to make >> you know what the problem with that is Aldridge versus Schwarz is a 1992 appellet division decision down at the
Jersey Shore. They had a condition and a resolution. Then a new buyer came in claimed, you know, there's no way to that they're not they're not obligated and there's no um index of restrictions in approval resolutions. And Aldridge
versus Schwarz uh 258 NJ Super 300 between pages 308 and 310, the appellet division actually recommends that approval conditions be recorded in a deed so future owners are made aware of them. That's the only way to put a future owner on notice is to have a deed
restriction. They're not required to look in the resolution. Mr. Chairman, have we ever put made a deed restrictions for just affordable in all the units and all the projects we have? >> Have we? I don't think we have. We >> I had deep restrictions. >> I that I don't know.
>> That's up to the board. I'm >> I don't I don't know if we have to hand tie them. We We've never done it before and they're >> You know, you have the zoning boards under the restrictions. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. Our zoning the zoning board does deed restrictions. >> Well, no. I mean that's I mean certainly
we do deed restrictions in various circumstances. I'm talking I think what Mr. Reber is referring to Dr. Reber uh is whether we deed restrictions just for an individual superintendent's unit which I don't think that would ever be before the board of adjustment because that would inevitably be a site plan for
large multif family project. I'm just and and I I guess I'd ask Barbara because it was your comment I think that started this. What is is there a concern that from an enforcement standpoint the teeth in the resolution are insufficient or is it about >> It is about notification
>> for somebody a future buyer of the entire building. >> Yeah. Um I will say it was actually incorporated into our first review letter as well. >> Okay. And then I guess we didn't notice it or nobody didn't pick it up. Okay.
Yeah, I I mean, look, I I don't want to get into a debate with John about the case, but certainly um the the resolution is a public document. So, I I think it's >> you have a published case saying that is not on not required to to search for
>> I'm not going to argue the case with you, but I think that the statement that that it's not available to the public for review is just >> I didn't say that. The court said that because >> No, I I understand that. I mean, look, I it's going to cause us
a problem with deed restrictions are going to cause us problems with financing. And that is >> Can you explain that? How is that going to cause problems with financing? >> Because lenders just don't want to lend when there's deed restrictions. And every lawyer who represents a lender is going to have an opinion about what a
deed restriction should say or shouldn't say. and it just creates in our opinion uh an unnecessary burden on on the on the applicant here. Uh the the restrictions are clear. They're going to be spelled out in the resolution. The
applicant is agreeing uh that a unit will be occupied by the superintendent. We don't know which unit it's going to be. It may change over time with the superintendence, but that is absolutely a condition of approval that this applicant will live with and by virtue
of the resolution will be binding on future application on future owners. So, I mean, otherwise, I just don't want the hardship of having to come back here and getting in the middle of negotiating deed restriction language with with lenders. That that's really what it
comes down to. It just creates a hardship. >> Um, a question. Would it be different if they had to record a copy of the resolution with the deed? >> If you you know what, if you record a copy of the resolution with the deed,
that would that would put future owners on notice. That's that's a way another way of doing it. I don't know if you're going to want the whole resol. That's up to you. We could we we could I don't see any reason why we couldn't publish or or record a copy of the resolution uh and
make that a a matter of public record from a title perspective. >> We we have no problem doing that. I think that's a excellent practical suggestion. >> Yeah, I think that would address the concern. Um, and I guess the same comment, Mr.
Chairman, would would hold true for the dens as well. Although the applicant would offer that in the event uh that the uh property were to be converted at some point in the future,
um then at that point, if you wanted to, we could agree to a deed restriction on the dens. Otherwise, I think it's the same same kind of comment. We would just copy. >> Well, if the if the resolution is going to be recorded, you just record the resolution. >> Yeah, we'll just record the res. >> You don't put any stipulations on it. If you going to do deer restrictions, you
put the stipulations on and that the board can relieve it and all that. But if you can record the uh resolution, just record it. >> We'll record the resolution. >> That'll take care of the problem or the the issue of the problem. Um >> Barb, do you have questions from your uh
review letter that um should be covered? Um, I believe you raised a question of where are you putting the generators? >> So, we're going to hear testimony from the architect on that. Everything else in the review letter is fine. There were two points that you've asked for testimony on which Mr. Raker is going to
provide. >> Yeah, I think the uh the generators and also the bicycle storage room. You had a question about that being >> it's by the fire access. Yeah, the transformers there with the generator. It's only for emergency purposes.
>> But I said Mr. Raker is going to provide testimony on both of those points. >> I just have a question. Can you hold up? The the discussion is obviously the affordable units, those are going to be recorded as a a deed restriction for the
affordable unit. >> Absolutely. As required by law. Correct. 100%. >> I just have one. >> Hello. Can you hear me? >> I have one question. >> Can't hear you. >> Can't hear you. Um it was it was more I don't know if
it's more for the architect but um comment number eight um and and it goes back to you made a comment before about interior parking being partially for visitor >> um how do you delineate visitor parking inside from I guess um
>> I believe we'll put up some kind of cordonoff way to cordon off the um visitor parking area Um, comment eight, was that the one about the um >> the driveway on the drive aisle? >> Yeah. And so I again that goes back to I don't know how you're separating your
visitor parking within the garage from um the unit the parking stalls for the residents. >> Yeah, it's for Jack. >> That might be for Mr. Raker. We'll address that. >> Perfect question. >> Thanks. But we did look at your other comment of uh potentially moving the dry
vial away from the building wall and it's possible >> just to keep it, you know, in line with the other drys. Perfect. Thank you. >> Do you have any other qu any other questions from your report, Raal? >> No. Uh everything else was addressed. I'm good. Thank you.
>> Uh any questions from the board? Are there any members of the public for questions uh for this witness about this witness's testimony? Seeing none. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I'd like to call up Mr. Jack Raker.
>> And Mr. Raker, I see you've already been sworn. Uh, is your, uh, architectural license still in full force and effect? >> It is. >> Have there been any changes in your professional qualifications since the last time you were accepted by the
board? >> Other than a few months of experience. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We offer Mr. Raker as an expert in the area of architecture. >> Just for the record, you were accepted by the board in the underlying application as an expert in architecture. Correct. >> Yes.
There any questions from the board, comments, concerns? Thank you. The board will accept you as an expert in architecture. >> Okay. And uh Mr. Raker, if you could please provide the uh board with testimony with regard to the architectural uh revisions that have been made from the previous application.
>> Sure. I'm going to focus my testimony on the changes. Um just going to bring this down a little bit. So, and again, you're looking at an exhibit that is rotated from the engineers exhibit. It's a little bit uh it's rotated 90 degrees. Livingston Avenue was uh
>> those are in the board's files. Correct. >> What you have up on the screen is in the board files. >> Correct. All of the exhibits I'm showing you tonight are in the board's files. Nothing new, nothing new added color or anything. Okay. >> So, what you're seeing is South Livingston Avenue is is to the bottom of
the sheet versus where the engineers was rotated. >> But where's the north arrow? >> Uh there is not a north arrow on this on this sheet. >> Where would it be? Uh, it would be pointing to the right, correct? To the point down,
down, down and to the right would be the north arrow. >> So, what we did was we took the building and we sort of squeezed it about 16 ft um in in this direction and that took some square footage out of the building. And we had some units, some areas in the
building, lots of extra amenity. We had some open spaces on the ground floor if you remember. We had terraces on the fourth floor and we removed some units to squeeze the building down and then we infilled all of those interstitial spaces. But everything else about the
building has remained unchanged reduced a little bit of the amenity area um but we've kept all the program just shrink all those spaces just a little bit. >> So this is just like value engineering but the building assess remains the same with what it contains.
>> Exactly. Exactly. I'm going to go over some of the changes. The unit unit mix did shuffle a little bit. Building height is the same um the same 65 ft uh same 22 dwelling units with the one uh superintendent unit. And we have 178
market rate with the 45 affordable. The the affordable mix remains the same at 9 1's, 272s, and 9 threes. And so the the we have two types of onebedrooms, a onebedroom and a one-bedroom den. The one-bedrooms were
reduced from 27 units down to 25. And then the one-bedroom dens were reduced from 29 units down to 23. And then the two bedrooms increased from 84 up to 94. The two-bedroom dens.
>> Is that on a chart somewhere in the >> It is on a cover sheet of my of my architectural set. >> Okay. >> And then the three bedrooms remain the same. So again, same entry location. We do have a bike storage area that did reduce slightly in size, but not by much.
>> You said the three bedrooms remain the same, >> correct? >> Uh um thought they 26 to 24 >> 26. >> Okay. So there were >> uh the current project unit mix on the cover sheet had 24 three-bedroom units. Can
>> I just zoom in here? How do you do that? >> Right click and zoom. >> Yeah. The prior application approved 26. I thought this one was 24.2. Why is it not? There we go.
>> Oh, I'm sorry. 20 24. That's correct. 24. >> Okay. >> So, that's a a total of 222 dwelling units with one superintendent unit. So again, >> same amenities down in this lower right hand corner. We have the bike storage
area. We have the pet wash. Uh same access locations as previously shown. Um we did add a little bit of parking. We reduced the lobby space a little bit. We had some amenity space in the lobby that was redundant to something upstairs. So, we added some parking. Um, lower right
hand corner. >> The resolution of approval from October 21. Just see here. >> What page is that on? >> Never mind. I was looking at the forables. >> Yeah,
>> there's a chart on the bottom of page nine on that resolution. John. >> Yeah, that's what I'm looking at >> for for total project on three bedrooms. It says 26. >> Thanks. 17 for the market and nine for the
affordable. We we have 24 currently. >> How many are the affordable? The affordable are the the ones that are going to be subject to >> correct. So we have nine we have nine 27 and nine. So nine onebs, 27 twos, and
nine threes >> for the affordables. So, the affordables have stayed the same and you just dropped off two, three bedrooms from the market rate units. That's what you're saying. >> Correct. >> And where where did those two three bedrooms go? We just want to make sure
that the math adds up. >> They they were removed from the from the unit count. I said if if the board has no problem with them knocking off two three bedrooms from I understand but we have the same number of units >> same number of units 220.
>> So if we lose two threebedroom market rate units >> we picked up two somewhere else. >> Well that's what I'm asking is where do we pick up we have we have 10 extra two bedrooms less onebs it's all in barber report. >> So we've picked those up in two bedrooms two bedroom units. Correct. Okay. Got
it. So again at the amenity level at the next level up um I don't know if you remember but there was an expanded amenity level here we were there was able to you were able to walk from one side of the amenity to the other since we reduced the building removed stacks of units we replaced those areas we uh
inserted units into those locations so you can't travel without going through the building now for one amenity area, one outdoor amenity area to the other. Um, but again, we have nice package of amenity spaces. Um, the same program as
we had before, just slightly reduced in size. >> And, you know, we had pet spa, bike storage, um, we had uh, uh, utility, moveins, indoor and outdoor amenity spaces, lounge, co-work, fitness, all of
those. Uh we also have a there's another spa location. So there's plenty of amenity in this building. >> There it is. >> Um same as before. Trash is handled the same as way. Shoots down through the garage down and then managed by um
management. Uh the only thing about the roof plan that's slightly different is we used to have proposed a roof area amenity area on the roof. We've removed that amenity area as well. As far as aesthetics, the building
remains substantially the same. Um, you'd have to really uh take a look through to find any real differences. We did remove some balconet railings. We removed uh a couple of bay windows. Um, but other than that, the same quality
materials uh the same form proportions uh that the previous building had. This is a view from South Livingston. >> Another view from South Livingston from the other direction. >> And then a view of that entry courtyard.
>> If there any other questions, let me know. Um completes my testimony. just if you can address Barbara's comments. I think he did in some degree, but just want to make sure she's okay and the board's okay with the testimony with regard to the bike storage room and
and a requirement to store electric bikes, batteries in a fires safe environment. >> So, one of the things we're lucky to have this podium uh construction, which means that first level's all concrete type 1A construction. So, it's concrete
walls, concrete ceiling floors, and that's where the bike storage room is. So, we will allow ebikes to be stored. We'll put some charging in there. Um, but it is in a fully enclosed type 1A construction environment. >> Okay. >> Just like the >> be willing to put in the lease
agreements that ebikes have to be stored and charged in the bicycle storage room. >> That's a good idea. >> Yes, absolutely. We just don't want residents pulling them up. And then >> we already >> I believe we already had that in the pre in the prior resolution. >> Okay. And and by the way, just for the
record, too, we we will we do confirm the continued acceptance and compliance with all the prior conditions of of approval. Um and then uh Jack, if you can also just discuss I was doing some math, so maybe you did it. the uh proposed
locations of the emergency generators for the pump station and the residential development. >> Sure. So to the right hand corner of the building where the fire access is for the garage just behind there we have a generator and a transformer specific
>> and the generator >> and that's approximately how large you'll think the generator will be or do you are you thinking something larger? >> I'm going to guess we haven't engineered it. maybe six feet by eight feet. >> Okay. But you have enough >> plenty of space and and if you look at
the uh landscape plan, it's screened. >> Okay. >> What will the generator cover? >> H >> what does the generator cover? >> Uh it'll cover emergency uh like elevators and and and any type of lighting that is required.
>> It will cover heat and not air conditioning for the individual units. >> Not not heat for the units. No, not air conditioning for the units, but it may do common spaces and then some common charging. So, if you need to charge your phone, if you lose some power, you can go down and and get your phone charged.
>> I think it's also going to power your pump station though, correct? >> Oh, yeah. We have a We do have a Yeah, we're going to have to power some of the pump stations. Absolutely. And then Jack, if you could address Rocco's comment there number eight in his report
um with regard to um separating out the visitor parking. >> Oh, that's right. So, all visitors will be directed to go to the lobby. We have that entry courtyard area. So, all visitors will be directed to go there. They will be directed then to park in
the outdoor spaces, but if they need access to the garage, they'll be provided access to the garage and shown where to go. >> I gota So there's no separate visitor park. >> We're not separating with gates or anything. We're going to it's all going to be fully managed. >> Okay. And then my only other comment was again if you zoom into that garage
entrance there and and it's just for consideration, you know, it's up to you when you look at um that drive aisle up against the wall. This one here and >> it how it zigzags here. >> It's behind that. Uh, >> you got you got something up there. Jack, turn around there. Just put Okay.
>> I don't have control over that though. >> There you go. >> Thank you. Okay. >> So, so if you zoom if you zoom down a little bit. >> So, it's this one right here. >> Correct. Yeah. And if you if you zoom the page down a little bit, uh, other direction. So, you have that drive val there. Would it make sense to line it up, right? and then put parking up
against the wall and make otherwise you have a kind of like a you know an awkward like bend in there. >> That that's correct and the engineer actually did a quick layout to test it and we can we can accommodate that >> and again that's just I'm making that comment and suggestion internally for yourselves because it's within the
garage um but just a thought you know that's why I want to bring that up. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. We also include in the prior resolution about working with academy for their uh main has that been you know when does that
>> discussion takes take place? >> Not yet. Okay. So too early for that. And what's with the the the locations of the affordables throughout the property? >> Has that changed at all yet? >> It it hasn't changed at all. The
locations that were shown were in the same location. >> Be spread out throughout the >> They're throughout the entire project. The three bedrooms are where the market rate threebs are. They're on these inside corners in the front. the um you know the the one-bedroom mark uh
affordables are in these inside corners throughout the project and uh the two bedrooms are >> but they're delineating throughout the plan and they're not changing from what was prior approved >> and what what's the plan to keep people
from using the dens as bedrooms >> you just typically and we can ask management but typically they're deed restricted they're told at the time they lease And then there are inspections um that that are done on these units. >> So they are usually deed restricted
then. >> No no I heard >> in the least it's it's not >> I mean least restricted >> least least restricted. >> All right Jack Jack the relief pitch are coming in. Um there
there will be reference to that restriction in the lease. We've agreed to that. that'll be a condition of approval. Um there will be periodic inspections for maintenance and the like which is very typical in these types of
of buildings and uh so if there is anyone breaking the the rules with regard to that we'll pick it up in the lease inspections in the maintenance inspections I should say. And I think one of the comments in one of the review letters was you know the signage the
colors of the you know the just talk about what the the signage colors were what they're going going to look like. >> Um we we haven't fully designed the colors of the signage but we'll know we'll comply with the size requirements. We we our intention is to put them over the I believe I have an exhibit also in
my uh set here. Having trouble there. There's an exhibit here of a blowup of the signage. The the colors, we're not sure yet. Likely be cutout letters, be back lit in some way so that you'll be
able to see them in the evening. >> Uh I think there might also be there's a monument sign at the entrance. Correct. >> Uh yes. >> And is that entrance signalized? >> Yes. >> So you just have to be aware of what
colors you're using. the bird at the township doesn't permit, you know, red, yellow >> within a certain distance from a light. >> Okay, we we'll we'll comply. >> Rock, you have any other questions uh or anything that needs to be dealt with
from your review letters? >> Uh, not at this time. >> Thank you, Roco. Anything from from you? >> No, I'm good. Thank you. >> Any questions from the board? Seeing none, any questions from the public uh for this witness as to his
testimony. Seeing none, thank you, >> chairman. I don't want to stand in the way of the board members getting home earlier tonight than uh than they than they and getting home any
later than they have to. So, uh just want to say that we thank you for your time and attention. Just before I say just to cover all our bases, any members of the public want to make sworn statements for or against the application? Seeing none, go ahead. I'm sorry. >> Just want to thank the board for your time and attention to this amended application. Also thank the board
professionals as well. >> Just to be clear, there are no variances, no exceptions, no waiverss or anything that are required for the amended approval. They anything any other relief was granted in the initial approval. Correct. >> Correct. >> That is 100% correct. for the benefit of
the board. The test is on a site plan application if >> the test on a site plan application is if the application complies with all ordinance requirements, the board must grant approval. So if the amended application doesn't
require any variances or exceptions just saying so the parties having had an opportunity to make closing statements it appears to the chair and the applicant all and all injured persons and board members have had reasonable opportunity to be heard and the evidentary record of this
hearing ought to be closed. Absent objection and in the absence of any motion for a continuence. Evidentiary record is closed. No further testimony or evidence shall be heard or received. So the board members now have an opportunity to state and discuss their views.
>> Anybody? >> Seems pretty straightforward. I think it meets all the prior criteria. I don't see any reason to not approve it. >> So I'll make a motion to approve >> with the subject to the conditions that we've discussed today. And um with the
um >> I took notes >> I'm sure >> I took notes copious copious notes >> and um uh also recording the resolution with the deed in lie of uh putting the restriction as specific >> and that's going to be the initial resolution and this resolution granting
the amended approval >> both. >> I'll second that motion. >> Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, uh, Miss Connor is going to be voting in place of absent member Diner. >> Thank you. >> Is yours, >> Mr. Lewis? >> Yes,
>> Miss F. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ratner, >> yes. >> Mr. Reaver, >> yes. >> Mr. Duffford, >> yes. >> Miss Connor, >> yes. >> Chairman Fernandez, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion carries.
>> Okay. Thank you. With that, uh, nothing further. If I can have a motion to adjurnn. have to go home. Michael, >> I heard a motion. Thank you.