We are on the air. >> Great. >> Calling to order the meeting of the planning board for Long Hill Township. This is a special meeting hearing uh on the date of November 12th, >> 2025 at 7:30.
Uh, welcome everyone and I'm going to turn it over to Madame Secretary to read our announcements. >> Yes. I'm sorry. I'm trying to figure out how to get the meeting off shortly. I'll figure that out. >> Okay. Number number one, call to order
and statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meeting or hearing has been provided by posting a copy of the public meeting or hearing dates on the municipal bulletin board and website, by sending a copy to the Echo Sentinel newspaper, and by filing a copy with the municipal clerk. Number two, standard board procedures. Any meeting or hearing
conducted by the board is a quasi judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and decorum appropriate to a judicial meeting or hearing must be maintained at all times. Number three, meeting cutoff.
Announcement is made that as a matter of procedure, it is the intention of the planning board not to continue any matter past 10:30 p.m. at any regular or special meeting or hearing of the board unless a motion is passed by the members then present to extend the meeting or hearing to a later specified cutoff
time. Number four, electronic devices. All in attendance are asked to mute cell phones or any electronic devices as to not interrupt the proceedings. Number five, pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. >> Roll call. Miss Still >> Mr. Hanss >> here. >> Committeeman Lavender >> present.
>> Mr. Lavario >> here. Miss Ojins >> here. >> Mr. Alpala >> here. >> Vice Chairman Jones >> present. >> Chairman Richardson >> here. Chairman, we have a quorum. >> Great. Thank you. Uh before we begin, I just wanted to first acknowledge why we're having this
uh hearing on uh Wednesday evening was uh to steer clear of Veterans Day. Uh I think we uh all owe a huge debt of gratitude to all of the veterans uh who serve and have served and uh it really
should be something that we acknowledge every day. Uh but yesterday was Veteran Day and I just wanted to uh make that acknowledgement. So >> Hurrah. >> Yes. Ura. Thank you. >> You're here. >> Uh first up uh was to uh go over meeting
minutes and we're going to push that. Uh we've kind of gotten backed up and um our secretary has pledged to get these done for our next meeting which gives us more time for our application. So, uh,
maybe the applicant could come forward and we could commence the application. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. We'll, uh, not to cut off council real quick. Just I'll just point out so everybody knows what we're looking at here. This is, uh, the application of 275283 Main Avenue, application number 2516P, Grasso
Holdings LLC. They're here for minor subdivision approval, as well as preliminary and final major site plan approval and variance relief. Uh, another thing I'll point out for the record, I did review their notice. everything uh was uh properly ser everything was properly done. So the board has the jurisdiction to hear and
decide the case. With that, I'll throw it over to Council, Mr. Skullik to uh his introduction. >> Thank you, Chairman. Nice to see you. >> Nice to see you. >> Appreciate it. As you know, I'm representing Graasso Holdings. We're here for minor subdivision approval as well as preliminary and final site plan.
For the record, it's block 11511, lots, two, and three, commonly known as 275-283 Main Avenue. As Miss Leaney pointed out, uh we're in a new newly titled zone, the
SV Sterling Village zone, formerly the B-15 uh business zone. And our proposal calls for the existing three family structure that's on the corner of Union Street and Main Avenue to remain. So, we're asking
that that building is going to remain. It's going to have its own parking lot. Uh, and we're proposing two new structures, each two stories with ground floor commercial. So each of those two buildings, ground floor
commercial, about 3,200 square feet on each of the ground floor with 3,000 square feet rentable. So there's some corridors and some uh some staircases. Mr. Lzaf is going to go over that. On the second floor of each of those
structures, we're proposing two residential units, each about 1,500 square feet each. So, you got these two buildings, let's call them 3,200, 3,3200, and they're going to go up two stories, commercial first floor, residential,
second floor. We're proposing a new common parking lot with 18 spaces to serve those two mixeduse buildings. No variances with parking. No variances. The subdivision is what I'll call a lot
line adjustment since we have three lots right now and we're going to end up with three lots, but we're moving the lot lines around a little bit. As I think you're all aware, there's a little bit of a history because we originally filed the application and it had some density
variances. So, we were over at the board of adjustment. in its wisdom uh in the last couple of weeks, the town council uh the governing body uh changed that. I'm sure they referred the ordinance over here
for your review. So the density variances were removed. Those were the only Dvariances. So therefore, the jurisdiction shifted back. So congratulations. >> Well, lucky you to come before both boards. >> Yes. Well, we only we get to do one
board, one-stop shopping. So we're here. So the uh governing body said we want the planning board to have the application uh or you know at least change the ordinance broadly and our application then shifted because the Dvarian the one where the board of
adjustment has exclusive jurisdiction um uh has gone away. So we do have some bulk variances. Uh we'll certainly go uh through those in the waiverss and provide the design uh rationale. We believe overall they're modest. We have Miss Lehane's November 6 letter. We'll
address most of those issues in our uh testimony. We have Mr. Vuich's uh letter as well. As I mentioned, we have Mike Lonzafama. I think most of you know him. Uh so he's going to do the civil testimony and the planning. But what I'm going to try to do because I think it
makes sense. We'll put him on for the civil. It's going to touch on the variances. Then we'll put our architect on for very you know fairly limited 10 15 minutes and then we'll put Mr. Lanza back for the planning as uh usually the planner comes last and is sort of
bringing everything together. So Mr. Lzafama we're going to try it and be a little bifurcated. It might not be perfect. He may touch on some variances during the civil side. Uh but we'll uh we'll see how that works. My client Lou Graasso is here if you have any
questions about operations or uh tenants or things like that. Uh he's available. I'm not intending um to call him. One thing, chairman, signage, we have not proposed any >> uh at this time. So there's no variances. We'll have to either live
with what's there or come back. But you know, it's a it's a project that's in development. We don't have a signage uh package uh before you. So, we have the ordinance, we'll comply or Mr. Graasso, he thinks he can comply, but if he wants to come back and he needs relief, uh you
know, that'll be for some later date. But of course, the review letters asked about that. So, I thought I'd raise that up front and sort of take it off the table. So, uh with that, chairman, we'll call Mike Lonzafama if that's okay. >> That's great. >> Yeah. How about why don't we swear every get our board professionals, all your
witnesses. We'll do everybody at once. Save some time. >> We'll swear Mr. Graco in too just in case. So this way we got it taken care of. Lou, so you're going to come up and Lisa, you're going to come up. >> Okay. >> And we're going to swear everybody in first. This way we we have it out of the way. >> Excellent. Can all five of you raise your right hands for me? All five of you
swear for that. The testimony provided with the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. That's all you got. >> I do. >> Great. And uh Mr. School, another question. Do you have any exhibits you'll be introducing tonight? Mike, you have some colored exhibits which are not part of You want to call those out for us sort of all at once at the beginning, Mike? >> Yeah.
>> And just, you know, A1, A2, so Chris can mark those. >> Exactly. Easier to do it. >> This way we can try to move along a little bit. >> Exactly. >> Pull out the site plan. It's the same drawing that you have in your planet. However, we put some color to it to help
distinguish the elements of the project. >> So that's A1. So that'll be A1. might colorize sheet six >> coloriz what's what's the date on that is it we're just going to give that today's date >> May 12th >> okay >> and then we have
version of the landscape plan which is sheet number n >> that'll be exhibit A2 That'll be a >> Okay. So, just those two. >> Just those two. >> Okay. Excellent. Thank you. >> Okay. Michael, do you have uh any
qualifications where this board could find that you're an expert in engineering and planning? >> Could you let them know what those qualifications are? >> Sure. I'm a licensed professional engineer. >> You could sit down. You guys could sit down.
>> I'm a licensed professional engineer planner licensed in the state of New Jersey. I'm a principal with Incorporated 258 Main Street Mil New Jersey. I've been liced as a professional land surveyor and engineer since 1984 and as a professional planner
since 1985 Bachelor of Science degree in civil environmental engineering testified before numerous boards throughout the state was your engineer for a while and
>> welcome back chairman I'd submit Mr. Lonza Farmer is an expert in engineering and planning tonight. >> Any objections? >> My mic check's mine. >> Mine's working. like everybody else.
>> We're out of batteries already. >> Mine hasn't yet >> hold. Oh, we sure? >> I know. >> Um, >> this one's working. >> Yeah. >> Has a problem. Well, she Well, we're getting the mic situation set up. Could you um just move the easel back a few
feet and then members of the public if you guys want to see the plans you're welcome to come up and take a look. >> These plans aren't secret so you can come up and view them at any time. You're not disrupting anybody by coming and I don't think Mike will be intimidated.
>> Move the chair. >> Oh yeah. >> Wants to come up. >> That's the plan. It's like the one they got in the hotel room if you can all see that. That's uh what I currently have up on the easel is
sheet number three in your plan set which is the existing condition uh survey of the property. >> Mike, why don't you move that up a little bit? I don't >> you guys got it? You all got it? >> I think everybody got our own. >> We're good. >> That's the uh the plan set May 12th to
25. So, as as uh Mr. Scaldnik pointed out, the property in question is block 11511, block one, two, and three. Uh they're located on the corner of Union Street, which is on the left side of the
exhibit. Main Avenue runs along the bottom of the exhibit. North is to your left, south is to your right. Um you can see the three lots that currently exist. lot three, two, and one. Um they are all 50 by 200 foot lots for a total land
area of 30,000 square feet. Um uh surrounding uh the site um is uh there's a commercial uh use immediately to the south. Uh to the east there's a um landscape contractor's yard. Even though
it's in the R4 residential zone, it is a commercial use. There is a single family residential lot that exists immediately to the southeast. Uh across Main Avenue, there's a variety of uh commercial retail spaces with a number of uh
apartments upstairs and a few uh single family and multifamily homes. Um the uh the property itself uh is relatively flat. Um there's a slight grade differential from southwest to
northeast. Um and the property is not obviously impacted by wetlands or steep slopes. However, it is impacted uh by the flood hazard area of the safe river. Um so prior to coming to this board, before we even thought about making an
application to the municipality, we thought it would be prudent to go to the D. So, we made an application for uh the two lots, the two lots that are going to be redeveloped. Uh since the existing uh
structure on uh lot three to the north uh is not going to be modified, we did not need a permit uh for that parcel. So, we did secure permits that will allow the mixeduse type development that we're proposing uh along with the uh
surface parking lot that proposing at the rear of the property. Uh, currently on the site, there's an existing three family structure uh on lot three, a twocar garage located off of Union Street. There's a gravel parking area
that tenants tend to use off of Union Street. Um, on the center, lot two, uh, there's a single, uh, twocar garage located pretty far back from Main Avenue. Apparently, There was a structure there at one time that has
been since torn down. Um there's a series of paved areas uh around that garage and there's an existing driveway on lot one uh immediately to the north of the existing 1600 square foot commercial building uh on that parcel
and access to the garage is made from that driveway. So there's an expansive pavement that exists uh to the east of the uh existing building. Um what we are proposing to do uh is the
first step in the process is to reconfigure the lots. Um turning to sheet four which is the minor subdivision flat. What we're proposing to do is take a 40, excuse me, an 80 by
50 foot piece off of the rear of lot three and append it to lot two. So lot two would become an L-shaped parcel. Um lot one would remain unchanged. Um the
lot area that would result uh post subdivision for lot three would be 6,000 square feet. Lot what we've called as proposed lot 2.01 would actually be 14,000 square ft. I think erroneously we
had indicated it as 1350. Um during the design process we were playing with the extent that we were going to subdivide it and we never updated that area. But the proposal is to take a 80 by 50 foot parcel which is
4,000 square feet append it to lot two gives us 14,000 square ft and lot one would remain unchanged at 10,000 square ft. Uh no variances are required to uh perfect the subdivision uh as part of
the subdivision process. And because we're going to be using um a common parking area in the rear of lots two and uh one and two. Um, we're going to have
a cross access easement and uh shared parking agreement as well as shared utility easements that would run uh along the extent of the rear of the properties. So, this would be perfected by deed. Uh, we would prepare the
necessary deeds uh at the county courthouse uh to perfect the subdivision. Once the subdivision was perfected, the existing structures on the property, the two garages as well as the commercial building uh along Main Avenue
at 283 would be demolished uh to make way for the proposed site plan. She >> 81 >> um has been colorized and what this shows is the full extent
of the development that we are proposing. Um you can see that the new configuration of lot what we're calling 2.01 uh would have access off of Union uh street. Um there would be a single
structure that would be located along Main Avenue. Uh it has a front porch area that would be set back approximately 6 and 1/2 ft uh from the rightway. The building footprint is approximately 44 by 73 feet in size. Uh
there are canopies that would cover the front and back porches to give the structure some character. You'll hear from the architect about the aesthetics of the building and how that enhances the design. Um the buildings are set
back three feet from each of the side property lines. That's one of the variances that we are seeking as you know uh under your ordinance. The setback would be zero if it was a commercial use and it would be uh 10 ft
if it's a residential use. Now if you notice um the building on lot uh one uh is adjacent to a commercial uh use in a commercial zone. So that setback actually is compliant at 3 ft. The
variance that we are seeking is the separation between the two proposed structures on our own property as well as the setback for the two uh buildings, the mixeduse building and the existing free family. The existing free family is
currently about 3.2 ft off the property line. So that uh is an existing non-conforming condition that would be continued. And as if you notice the um The majority of the building, the mass of the building is actually towards the
back end of the lot. So, it is really open space. So, some adequate light air and open space uh for that structure as well as the uh residential units. Uh above on lot three, there would be a uh
gravel parking area that we would continue. That gravel parking area measures about 30 by 30. So you can adequately fit uh three cars in that area. Three cars is what's required for the three family structure.
>> Mike, uh on those spaces, Miss Lehaney asked whether they could be dimensioned. We could add the dimensions there to show that they >> I think what she was asking the words in your mouth, but I believe what she was asking is there adequate room for the
cars. What they're also requesting is under the ordinance there supposed to be surface with striping. We'd rather leave the existing gravel area as it is. It's been that way for decades. Um, and it
works well. Um, in my mind, especially in the flood plane area, why add more impervious surface? If we need a design waiver, I think that we have the appropriate proofs to support that design waiver. And um I believe that
fact that in the flood plane would rather leave gravel rather than for tenants that become accustomed to parking in that area so they know where they should be at any >> It's really an existing condition.
Is that fair characterization? >> That is correct. >> Mike, uh Miss Lehaney pointed out this issue with uh the maximum floor area of the building is 3,000. You show our entire building to be 3,200, but that's
the footprint. Can you just talk about that briefly? >> Well, yes, the uh the building footprint itself is about 3200 ft. 32 I think to be exact. Um but on that first level, that would be um the retail space.
There's going to be two staircases, one on either side that bring you up to the apartments above. So the net floor area that we're going to be left with would be approximately 3,000 square feet. >> Okay. So it's sort of our position that we comply or very very close to
compliance with the 3,000 square foot limitation because that's the amount of rentable commercial space. >> That's my understanding. Yes. >> Okay. Um so we were talking about parking uh parking for uh the two buildings which
are identical in size and and program uh retail on the first floor to two bedroom apartments above um would uh you would have a requirement um of approximately
uh 16 spaces for the retail space and uh eight cars for the um the apartments above. Um however, under your ordinance, you're uh being in the Sterling Village area in close proximity to the train
station, you're you reduce um the required parking area by uh parking number parking spaces uh by 50%. So therefore uh the required number of parking spaces we calculate out to be 23
if you include the spaces for the family uh structure as well. Um what we are proposing is that part of the parking area uh 18 parking surface parking spaces would be 9 by8 spaces with twoft
overhang. So they're compliant with your ordinance. Your ordinance is 9 by19. However, if you have the overhang, you can reduce it down to 18, which is what we've done. Um we have a single handicap spot located in the rear. And we've also
added two EV charging stations uh at either side of the parking area. So we're allowed to get a credit of one for one uh with regard to uh the number required number of parking spaces. So
that brings us down to 21. So the 18 we have in the back plus the three that we have on the uh lot three uh brings us to the required excuse me lot one. brings me up to the required number of
parking spaces of 21. Um, we also have a sidewalk system. This sidewalk would be six feet wide uh as required by your ordinance. >> Can Excuse me. While you're talking about, if I might, while you're talking about parking, can I just double check something with you?
>> Yeah, sure. >> On the existing building lot three, the parking at the back there, how does can I just make sure the access to that? How is that access to the parking going to be off the street or through the parking lot? >> The this parking area be
>> No, the green bit where you put your mouse back >> where where we >> existing lot three >> existing lot three existing lot three >> the back the parking >> would be directly off of Union Street. >> So it comes straight off of Union still. So you're not changing that. That's
going to stay as is gravel. >> That's the intention. That's we're not proposing to change that design concept. >> Yeah. It's just not um it's not clear on your diagram. >> Okay. >> Because it says parking is a looks more like the green bit.
>> Well, that that's actually on this this green area here which is uh grass pavers. Uh that's actually part of lot 2.01. >> That's a green area. >> The dark the darker green actually grass
pavers um and elements that we tried to create an area where if need be you could you could put other things in that area if you had to I don't know picnic tables things of that sort could be placed on that area without getting it
problematic >> but it's not intended for parking >> it's not it's not part of the parking lot >> it's not intended to be parking either >> right because it's not clear from the to be honest that point >> decrease the impervious and so the
intent there is to provide a stable surface that is green >> and reduce the impervious coverage >> instead of building a patio >> right so in instead of the the user of that dwelling then coming back and asking for a patio and putting in
>> a large concrete patio you have a somewhat improved surface right the the the PA systems that you could stand on you could put structures on you're going to put a patio table out. It could >> be like a picnic table or a fire pit or something like that. >> Your grill or something like that rather
than being on a soft grass material, >> right? My my my concern there is that could also be used for a trailer >> or other wheeled vehicles that may not be motorized. So, someone might want to park a trailer on there. I don't want to see a trailer on there.
>> Agreed. If it's green space used for living um for recreational spaces, which I think the intent, >> yes, >> that's what I'd like it to stay. I would not want to see people parking trailers on that. >> Can we put a little fence there? Like a little
>> a little lattice fence >> like on the edge. You're saying on the edge of the parking area to the to the rear. >> There's not going to be a curb cut there. >> Right. Right. >> Right. No curb cut, but we want to But it's next to the gravel. >> Yep. >> It's next to the gravel lot.
>> If you look across the way on Union, you can see people parked in the woods there. >> I know that's private property over there. >> I appreciate that. >> I guess right now it's all flat. You can park anywhere along. No. >> So, it's pretty easy to do.
>> So, are you going to curb cut it? >> What you call it? I can throw this out there. We can make it >> Mike. We'll we'll have a break at some point. You got any quick ideas on that? But >> my client >> apparently under misconception. He
thought that that area was going to be part of this. >> It's not. >> So that's going to be part of the new lot >> or the added Lshape >> for the apartments. Yeah.
>> Correct. >> I I was going to suggest if the board's amendable, if the applicants amendable, >> just stating no parking would be permitted on that grass paper area of of vehicles or trailers of any sort, >> I believe that's zoning to to enforce that.
>> Yes. >> Carries out the intent, >> right? Yep. Exactly. >> Right. Thank you. That's basically the the outdoor patio space for the apartments above. Right. >> Yep. >> Right. >> So, if I can continue for a second then while we're talking about it. So, what's
the curb line on the on the prop on lot three? What's the curb against Union? Right now, there's no curb, right? There's no path. There's no sidewalk. >> No, there's a curb about halfway up. >> Not much of a curve. >> Does the curb return into the >> No, no, no. Right. I think
>> what was your prop what's existing and what were you proposing? What's the difference? >> Let's go back to the survey >> because right now there's not not much of a curb >> right along all along here. This is this is open continuous edge of pavement from
from where the garage is all the way down to where the fence is and this whole gravel area is being utilized for parking by the >> which is fine. So, how are you going to change that? Are you going to put some curve in now? I'm thinking partly with
that patio area. >> Your intention to leave it uncurbly going to put curve returns at the entrance. We're going to leave this as it currently exists. >> Well, that's what I was wondering. Yes. to be honest.
>> Yeah, I'd like to see the curb there >> just to prevent people from doing exactly what you're saying, Tom. >> To that to that point then I'd like to see his curb there. >> Yeah, take it take it to the >> So, make it more of a private personal area as opposed to potential driving. Yeah,
>> that'd be helpful. Thank you. >> Yeah, because that's be going west you have Belgium block. Yeah. >> When you go at the end of the um the gravel, it's Belgium block in front of that garage and extends down that that
uh into the neighborhood, >> right? The driveway the parking area concrete doesn't matter if the roadway to the west is all granite block
to keep that right. Beautiful. >> Okay. Thank you. So consistent hands, please. So then we'll we'll continue a depressed curb along the existing gravel to the concrete curb. >> We weren't going to I was proposing to
terminate curb at the new boundary line >> between the two properties >> and 2.0. >> So will that be the only >> asking me to extend it? I think again to deter >> what we think might happen
>> with potential parking or something going on there. If there's no >> where the gravel >> I'm going to go with a point of clarity would have to get in there. >> That would be >> I'm going to go with a point of clarity here from the corner of Maine and Union Street. It is a it's concrete correct
all the way down to the gravel >> where the gravel lot is. Mhm. >> After the gravel lot, you'll have a gravel lot for lot three. >> That'll be cut because that's going to be now start the new portion of lot two, right? That's where the Belgian block should go all the way to where it turns
into the parking lot. >> What about the opening? >> I would prefer you go depressed curb so that we hold the road together in the future and we paved we mill and we pave to that edge and we don't influence the gravel. Just um just clarification
though, there's no concrete curve there. That's timber. >> I'm looking at it. >> It's timber >> down here. >> So I don't know if that's relevant, but >> just a curb that's all the way to the
>> Oh, if we're talking about something that has to be constructed, >> it is timber. >> Timber is a lot different than a curb, which requires a foundation. >> I think we get concrete. Look at the depressed concrete where that timber line ends. That takes
it all the way to where the end of the new end of the gravel, right? The new end of the gravel >> where then they have the green um >> here, >> the green space, which becomes lot two. And that they can turn Belgian block. >> Yeah. Just as a point of reference,
looking at the Google map, where does the green space begin? Is it as you head um north on Union? Is it sort of like halfway up that gravel line? >> You see like there's three lines on that wooden fence. >> Yep. >> I'm thinking it's that third line where
the where the the the jeep and the and the >> small four-door when it is nosed in. I'm thinking that's where the line is. >> Okay. And and if that's supposed to be green space, why is there paving there? >> Well, they're calling it green space
there. It's not solid pavers because it's allowing grass to grow through. So when if I'm using pavers, it's that's the wrong example. I think >> it isn't the purpose to park on those. >> Well, no, it would be like typically use it as a fire lane uh around to circulate around a large building that needs
access to the rear or something or but it it grows through so you don't see it. And in this scenario, it allows for a a non not fully impervious surface to be in the area where you might put a grill, you might put a table, >> a recreational space,
>> right? as the recreational space so that you're not in when you're in a flood throne area you may have wet wet soils in those areas commonly >> so not leaving your you know your patio equipment out onto wet >> mud mud >> so it's being used as parking now but
won't be in the future >> correct correct >> that way >> to the board's discretion on the curb limit >> I am comfortable with
from the corner running in past the the proposed gravel parking for existing lot three remaining edge of curb noting that there's a railroad tie curb on the on the road >> to the to the point that when we as the
township do milling and paving on Union we can have somebody address proper curbing there and then would provide the depressed curb to match to where they're showing on their plan. >> Yeah, I mean the the curbing that's there unfortunately.
>> Great for pointing that out is railroad tight. It's not compliant. It's not really ours. It probably went in with the home and has been legacy. We would then address that when we mill and pave the road. >> When you say address it, you' replace >> Yeah, we would set curb curb >> at at we continue the concrete curb from
the corner at Maine. bring that down and then we'll go with our own depressed curb across that driveway to hold our roadway together and protect the road we've paved. >> So, >> so we can come out from that driveway with the curb return and tie in like you said at the property line.
>> Okay. >> We as a township can address that lot three >> reconfigured lot. >> So, you're going to handle the curb. >> Yeah. I mean, it would be at a later date when we paved the road. It'll be on my list with DPW as far as defined. There's some sewer work that has to be done there as well
if you could see that. >> Right. Right. So, we're going to be into that curb anyway with resetting that creek and everything else. >> What you do on a curb around that green space, the proposed pavers, right? >> Yeah. I think as you were saying, you would you would bring the curb return
down and tie it to >> you you'd end it at the edge of the property line, which is which then prevents anybody from going up into that grass area off the street. >> Thank you. And then you have the curb in the parking lot that prevents you from jumping in. And then the stipulation for
the zoning officer. >> Yep. That's good. Thank you for that. >> Moving on. >> Welcome back. >> We have a walkway system that's proposed to bring um the individuals that park in
that area, residents, as well as uh potential customers to the retail space. Uh up a ramp system uh that come up to an elevated platform that runs between the buildings to gain access to the the front entrance to the buildings. There
are several side entry doors as well incorporated into design. The reason for that is because of the flood plane. Uh as you know the state of New Jersey has decided to elevate the flood elevation from what it was several years ago
because we're using a state adopted study. We had to add two feet. So that required us to elevate the building significantly from the streetscape on main avenue. That's why we have these staircases here. Uh but there's flood
vents all around the sides of the rear of the building that allow flood waters to move freely. And there's about a three and a half to four foot crawl space under the building that would uh accommodate the flood waters in the field so that there's zero net fill as a
result. design of the project. So, there's still flood storage capacity available on the property. Um, uh, the design calls for a refu area in the southeast corner, uh, of the project that would be sufficient for recycling
as well as trash removal. Um, truck could pull it in, pick up and pull out deliveries. We don't have a dedicated delivery space because the tenant spaces are so small. Um, however, small UPS
type trucks um small delivery vans could easily utilize the parking stalls uh at the back of the property uh to make their quick deliveries. Um Uber, Eats, things of that sort can can use the
parking area uh as well. Um the the design uh concept. Um we have LED light fixtures proposed around the perimeter of the parking lot. Uh there'll be four fixtures and then we
have a number of fixtures that will illuminate uh the walkways and we have some wall mounted fixtures between the two buildings to illuminate that elevated platform between uh the two buildings. Um our design calls for a
um one foot candle maintained average in the design. Your ordinance says that the maintained average for a parking lot is to be point4. Um we don't feel that that is adequate. Um most IEES standards are uh
closer to trying to do a maintained average of one. Um, we have uh done very well with the LED light fixtures in creating a good max to min ratio. In this case, I believe it's about uh 2 and a half to one, which is very good. So,
you don't have any hot spots. And the LED fixtures are dimmable. So after hours the lighting could be reduced in the parking lot after 10:30 to uh 50% of what the level would be but
I understand we need a design wer for that because we do exceed uh the point4 candle maintained average and the 2 uh maintained average after 10:30. So I believe we need a design waiver for
that and in my opinion that is certainly a safety issue and I think that having the proper illumination is critical uh for a use such as this where you have residents that might be coming home late from work and want to be able to safely
negotiate um the back parking area and the walk itself. >> Good. Could I just ask double check with Liz the point4 is that more in commercial areas as opposed to residential use? >> Would you know that? >> I don't I think point4 is probably more
in residential. Right. >> Your your ordinance says average. That's unusual. It's usually point4 minimum. >> Yes. >> I agreed personally. I'm supportive of the the
waiver in that I would I would agree 08 to one is what I'm more comfortable with >> to provide a more of a minimum in a parking area that's then providing direct access >> a building um especially in commercial
spaces and then and then on top of that so the opportunity then to dim it as you said after 10:30 about 50% that would bring us down closer to our design standard and our ordinance which I think we need to re-evaluate >> and address but it would it would
provide still a factor of an implement implement an opportunity for safety for the residents that are coming home after those hours. >> Yeah, makes sense. >> So being in that 0.5 range after hours and then you know up comfortably over one as for an average throughout the
parking lot is appropriate earlier in the day. I mean, we're we're obviously in this town very concerned about the night sky, etc. Are you going to testify in regards to the type of fixtures that are going to be used? Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. Thank you, M. >> Do you mind if I Sorry to all the
questions. Um the park while we're on parking, >> would there be designated parking spots for residents? >> Yeah, we we plan on um assigning parking to the res. So those ones may be the ones closest to the buildings I presume >> and that's where the lighting may be a bit more sensitive at some
>> sometimes. >> Yeah, definitely do that. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. >> So just wanted to quickly review um some of the uh standards in in the zone and identify some of the variances that we
are seeking. So, um, in the the new SV, uh, Sterling Village zone, it's really the same basic, uh, fulk standards as the former P15 zone. Uh, minimum 5,000 square foot lot area. We obviously
comply with that 6,000 being the smallest on lot 3.01. Um, 50 foot minimum width, which we have. minimum floor area ratio of 650 uh square feet on the ground floor. We have 3200.
Um the minimum building order is 20 ft. Uh our building is going to be 44t wide. Um the maximum building height is 35 ft. We are going to be compliant with that. It's a twotory structure that would not
exceed 35 ft. um maximum front yard set back at 10 ft. We're compliant at the uh 6 and a half to the porch. We're actually we are 12 and a half to uh the building itself to the porch area. We got six and a half uh and the reason for
that is the staircase uh that we need to elevate the building. Um the minimum sideyard, this is where uh we need a variance uh zero or 10 ft is the requirement. Um we're proposing three feet.
>> That's a really internal to this project. >> That's correct. >> Right. So to to this >> well the area where where it's not internal to the project is to the south where we would be compliant because this is a commercial use and the sex back could be zero. >> Okay. So the to the extent there's a
harm from not complying it's really to to our clients buildings >> that's >> itself there any the main harm at least would beh that we're imposing on ourselves, >> right? >> Which sort of don't sort the questions.
It does beg the question then why do you not conform if to your buildings? Why can you not build? >> We'll get to that architecture after the architect testifies and I'll be back. >> Okay. >> Kind of make justification for that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Um the rear yard setback the requirement
is 25 ft. Obviously we will exceed that and about 115 ft. Um building coverage. Um we have 35% building coverage allowed. Um on the lot uh one we
actually need a small variance. Um the building coverage would be 37.4%. That actually calculates out to only about 274 square ft. And the reason for that is part of the aesthetics of the building. The canopies that we're proposing at the
rear and the front of the building cause us to go over because this lot is 10,000 square ft. They're identical buildings, but this lot is compliant because we have a larger lot area. Um the lot coverage, uh the requirement
is 65%. Um lot one it would be non-compliant at 69%. Um lot 2.01 would be non-compliant at 66.76%
and lot 3.01 one would be compliant at 61.85%. Now, I'd like to point out when you when you average the three lots together calculates out to 65%. And actually, under uh the difference between the
existing imperous areas and gravel areas and the proposed were actually 2,800 square feet less impervious than what exists on the property today. So, I believe that's um real positive as part
of uh the overall development of the project. Um maximum floor area ratio is 100% as permitted. We're clearly less than that and compliant. Um uh I had maximum uh residential density that's no
longer metric within your ordinance. Um and the buffer requirement of 10 ft. Um, according to your ordinance, um, the buffer, the the R4 zone that exists to the east and the one lot that exists to
the south are in the residential zone. Um, this parcel is not a residential use. However, this parcel is a commercial use. We have three feet proposed along the parking area. Along the south side, we have in excess of 10 ft where
the parking stalls are. We have a little notch that allows for easier maneuverability coming out of the last parking stalls and that's about six feet off the line. >> So pretty minor on that. That that setback is to uh actual residences I
think right >> to a residential user zone. >> Residential user zone. Oh, okay. I thought it was just residential. >> So running through that, I think we've identified uh what the variances are. I'd like to on a little bit to uh
landscape plan since I think that's important to um justification of the buffer varants that we are seeking and I think the intent of the ordinance and demonstrate that by
reviewing what we call now uh as exhibit A2 which is sheet number nine the landscape plan with the date of May 12th, 2025. Um, as you can see from the exhibit, um,
there is an extensive amount of landscaping being proposed uh, along the perimeter of the project. Uh, we have a series of uh, 48 evergreen trees consisting of emerald green arborite 7
to 8 feet high at planting. Um we also have um some holly trees proposed uh along uh the the rear property lines and along the backs of the building. Um we have two red maples and two honeyloust
proposed to uh provide shade uh along the back area of the site. Um there are lawn panels uh immediately uh to the rear of the building as well as a number of uh shrubs and plantings. There's over
80 shrubs being proposed and 38 perennials of grasses uh to provide for uh a nice streetscape uh sidewalk. You have the staircase and then you'll have plantings along either side of the
staircases and along foundation plantings along the back of the building. Um your ordinance requires that 5% of the uh rear parking area uh provide um landscaping. Um
you don't count the buffering along the perimeter, but what I did count was portions of these islands where the trees are here. These are existing trees. Um those total in excess of 5%. So in my mind, I believe that's compant.
I ask for confirmation of that. If we need to introduce um a landscaped island in the center here, we can do that. Just shift that parking over slightly and create a little landscaped island there with an additional tree. Uh if we need
to make that stand >> the um the refu area itself, I wanted to mention currently we're showing it as a chamberling fence with slats. We're going to amend the plan to be consistent with your ordinance to be a masonary
enclosure with self latching gate in his uh review. >> We can eliminate that design waiver. >> So we would eliminate uh that design wreific. >> Mike, there was one waiver for polemounted fixtures being set back.
Yeah, the the one fixture here, we're going to set them back to two feet so that they'll be set the proper separation. So, eliminate those two design waiverss that was identified. So, modify the plan to be compant with regard to that.
Um, uh, the lighting itself. Okay. lighting plan sheet number eight in your plan set. Um the type of light that um
we are proposing uh the Sun Valley light fixture you can see it has a decorative uh top but it hasn't the light is tucked up into the decorative portion of the light fixture so that there's no see any
direct light uh as a result. And using the LED fixture, you can really well control the lighting levels and where they go. And you can see from the pointto-oint numbers that we've provided uh on the plan that there's zero
spillage except for some very very minor uh and along the uh side property lines of less than a foot candle that would have any impact. Um That's to an existing commercial business. >> Yeah, this is to the to the commercial
the landscapers contractors are there that will be impacted. Uh you can see we have uh two E fixtures and three E fixtures I'm sorry and a D fixture and they're uh the lighting
levels and the lighting standards are indicated um in the lighting schedule. Um, and you can see from the description, we have what our average is at the different areas, the parking lot,
um, the ramp area, uh, the front porch as well as the rear porch. And you can see the lighting levels on average are all about one to one and a half foot candles. Um, the max to min ratio, which is very, very important uh,
in developing a lighting plan so you don't have parking area. >> So, um, >> can I can I ask a question? >> Yes, sir. >> On on the the height of each of those four poles.
>> Yes, it's indicated they're they're all set at 18 ft, excuse me, 8 foot mounting height. Uh, is the C fixture. The D and E fixtures are Yes. 18. Could you just point out on the plan
where the 18 foot pictures are 18 foot picture here >> just kind of surround the parking area with those fixtures and they're they're directed away from the joining properties. So the light
levels are it's illuminating the area in front of this is an E fixture. E fixture fixture. And Mike, with this type of light, what kind of arc do you have in regards to down versus up? How much up lighting
would there be? >> You have you have nearly zero light. >> Okay. >> Everything is directed down. >> So like in 180° for the most part down. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> It's known as dark sky compliant. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. Yeah. These are these are
state-of-the-art LED light fixtures. We've used them on a number of residential mixed use projects. They work very very well. >> Um I believe that's all I have with regard to the site plan civil aspect.
>> I think we covered everything almost all of it in the review. >> I have your engineers review memo. We don't have any issues with complying with anything that you asked for in that review memo. Um, and I believe I've addressed Let me see if I
>> just found something. There's >> a provision in the ordinance uh limits the um the mounting height of lighting in parking areas to 15 ft. >> So, we'll have to amend that. >> 15.
>> Okay. Thank you for those because 18 seemed pretty high to me. >> Okay. So we'll drop we'll drop them down to 15. Okay. >> And then at at 15 you're comfortable with the spread of lighting. >> Have to take a look. We may we may have to re reposition some of them. >> Sure.
>> And if we have to add one more to add one more, but we'll maintain those lighting levels that I've testified to. Okay. >> And we'll bring the height down. >> Yeah. There's no lights there today, right? >> No. >> Right. So one thing goes through my mind
quickly. Is the piece that backs onto the resident to the southeast? >> Yeah. Is there can you is there modifications that could be thought of for that piece for lighting? So it doesn't project I know it's going to
project internally. I get that. But still 15 ft is pretty high. >> Well, we could look at maybe repositioning this picture. >> Could we could you look maybe we have a picture here, here, here, and here at the drive.
>> Yeah. Pairs opposite each other as opposed to at the end. >> That would be better. >> Encourage you to do anything to minimize impacts on any residential. >> Right. So, in terms of Chris draft in a condition, you'd be uh willing to work with the board engineer on the final
positioning of the lights with a emphasis on uh minimizing impacts on the neighboring residents. >> Yes, sir. >> Thank you. writing it down as we speak. >> Are there any additional questions that board professionals have for
>> We lost the board. >> We're in the middle of the hearing. I don't want to prejudice the applicant if we have a board member missing. >> Take a two minute break. >> Yeah, we can take a >> Why don't we take a five minute break? >> Okay, we're gonna Okay. >> Thank you.
Okay, we're back on the air. >> Okay, I think we're back. You were done with your testimony, Mr. >> Do you have anything to add? >> Okay, are we doing the barrier? Ask >> the barrier. email. >> Oh, there was a a concern raised by some
of the board members about the grass paver area that it be protected in some way from anybody inadvertently driving into >> we were going to add the curb, >> right? >> Would the board feel better if we eliminate it?
>> No, no, no, no. I like outdoor area, so get me. But because it's there's no commercial trucking Humphre is opposite. >> Yeah. It could be very easy somebody reverses and comes over the patio over the curb in somebody having their Sunday off whatever on the patio. So we talked
about boulders or something just something aesthetic but >> something landscape tree. >> Yeah. How about something you already have two trees there? >> Ask a tree's fine bold foc >> and stick it in the middle. >> Yeah. Just a couple things like that just to make it because you can
understand if if I'm sitting there. >> Terrible. >> Just reposition the one tree. So perfect. >> So >> final tree placement to be uh >> just termin. >> Yeah. >> Made in consultation with the
>> word planner. >> Engineer. >> Yeah, we go with the engineer. She likes to defer to me. >> This is a professional who knows how to delegate. >> Unless unless you want to make it at the discretion of Humphre across the street. >> I see resolutions when eight people need to see the review.
>> No, no. We try to consolidate it to as much on my plate as possible. Um, we appreciate that. >> So, we'll stick on landscaping just >> the the hammerhead as we call it at the end where the K turns happen. >> There's Right. There's a nice break in
the the type of landscaping and and in that hammerhead area you're proposing a shrub >> here. Well, here are the arborite. They're seven to eight foot high. Yes. About eight of them there. So, that's the headlights. >> Okay. So down the driveway so they don't
shine into the res. >> Okay. So so the species selected at the in that corridor right there in the aisle is specific to providing headlight blockage. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Not >> and then >> and deer resistant. >> I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> Sorry. Deer resistant because some of
those can be like candy. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Evergreen. >> Yeah. providing screen. >> So just just uh hitting the the parking area, you're again testified that you're
going to maintain it as gravel >> in the parking the back parking area. >> No, no, no. This this area could be paid. >> Gotcha. So the only gravel will be the existing >> parking spaces associated with the family house. >> Gotcha. That's the only area.
>> Gotcha. Okay. I just want I wasn't clear on that. >> And that >> Yeah. Go ahead. That's something that through your flood hazard area permit process was endorsed by D and really more recommended to remain >> correct. They they wanted us to implement some green infrastructure
to grab the parking area patio area those elements that D wanted us to incorporate into the design. >> And and so was a drainage plan developed there? Did you review? >> Yeah, we did a storm water management
report. Um actually reducing the impervious coverage by 2,800 square ft. So we did an analysis for two and 10ear storm showed that there's no increase in peak normal rates as a result of that. Uh we have a collection system. We have
two inlets in this panel. These lawn panels are going to be slightly depressed so they'll almost function like small rain gardens. Um and then it's piped out uh driveway area and then back down to
the existing collection system >> and and that so that system one is entirely private. >> Um so then would run through our municipal street in Eastman area >> and then on top of that just for the
board's understanding the this is a minor development not a major. Our minor standard is few inches of runoff for the increase in runoff >> on a site like this where they're decreasing, >> right? They've already de facto met that. >> But what they're what they're
demonstrating in their storm water report is that in a two and 10year storm condition. >> They're ensuring that there is no increase in any of that impact. So, they've gone above and beyond our minor standard on what I would call like a hybrid minor to major standard, a mid-
major standard for those football fans out there. Um, just to to ensure that in those greater storms and that's that's part of, correct me if I'm wrong, reinforcing um to to D
the improvements in the flood plane are appropriate. >> That's correct. >> Right. So we get the benefit of storm water management from the D's review so to speak. >> Great. Thank you. >> And that's all I had. >> Yeah. Good. >> You want to move on to the architectural
>> chairman? Yeah. Did you want to open to the public on the or hold it? >> You had mentioned that it was a fairly brief I would just assume. Let's get through your professional testimony and then we'll open it up for questions. >> Okay. Terrific. Okay. >> We've been asking a lot of questions as
we've been. We're going to call Lisa Walter, our architect, for some fairly limited testimony. Lisa, I understand you're still under oath from earlier tonight. >> I do. >> And can you provide your professional qualifications? >> Um, I am a licensed architect in uh New York and New Jersey. Um, I'm a graduate
of Syracuse School of Architecture and I've been licensed since 1984. >> And I've I've testified before other local boards. I haven't been before this one, but been I've testified before other local
towns. >> Okay. And you've been recognized as an expert in architecture by those boards. Chairman, I'd submit Lisa as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Great. >> Thank you. Welcome. >> Okay. Lisa, can you provide a brief overview and then we'll talk about some of the issues in the review letter if
you would? >> Okay. So um our proposal is for two um modern but shingle style buildings which are mirror images of each other. Um this style works nicely in a suburban village
setting. It fits well with both residential and professional or commercial uses. Um there's a shingle style building across the street which um is well liked and we were actually directed to take a look at it. Um
Um that's the basic style that um I designed the building with. Um there is a shared a shared walkway in the front um in the back and between the properties provides um a connection between the street, the buildings, the
lawn areas and the parking. You saw some of that on the site plan um that um that Mike had showed. Um the idea is to these two buildings like the
um together like the sum is um greater the the whole is greater than the sum of the parts like um it wasn't not to look like two buildings that just happen to be the same but to kind of work together and the landscape and the walkways and
the landscaping and the stairs all kind of I think um do that. Um since the buildings as you know are required to be raised I provided generous steps with planted areas in between them from the
you can see here. Um the base is going to be stone. Um >> and what sheet are you on? And this is the this is the plans. And if you just call out your your sheet number two and the second floor sections and then
um Right. And that's the plan set that was revised. Oh, I'm sorry. Not revised. Dated November 11th, 2024. >> Exactly. >> Okay. Thank you. So in the front um of the building from the street side we have steps that you
know that lead up to a plaza and that between the two buildings and in between the two buildings is a connecting um passageway that leads to the parking lot. from the parking lot which would be
looking at this elevation. Um you would see that planed there's um a gentle attractive ramp that leads from the parking build
and I thought this was a particularly nice concept because instead of having an accessible ramp like having a stair and some place and then like a prominent fancy stair and then someplace having this big accessible ramp. This doesn't
scream accessible ramp. It's just a nice gentle slope walkway that everybody could use and it that way there's no like duplication. Um there's stairs in the front and that's the street where but if people are coming and they need to use a ramp, they would typically be
parking in the parking lot anyway. Everybody coming from parking will have this nice um ramp to walk up and you can see in the landscape plan there's planting along it and there's some lighting along it. So I think that will be actually quite nice and it kind of joins the two buildings as kind of a
hole. Um we roof um the parts of the walkways that are right in front of the building. So there's an overhang over here, you know, once you go up the steps in here and the same and it kind of creates this like porch like feeling
which is very typical. It's a typical element of shingle style buildings. It's it's pretty you know um well loved like you know the porch look. Um it goes both with residences and you know village type of professional and commercial
offices. Um so has a really nice look. It creates some depth, some movement, some scale to keep the building from looking like just like a blend box. Um um they're also very functional. Um they're they're a nice transition space
between the interior and exterior for the users. Um it will serve them well in in weather if you're ever trying to open the door or open or close your umbrella and all of that. Um it provides a nice So,
I think you know the style building. >> Lisa, Miss Leaney pointed out that we showed a metal roofing along the roof overhang. Are we sticking with that or do you think we can modify that? >> Yeah. So, I'll I'll
um to give the building some more visual interest and scale, we plan to use a variety of materials on the facades. The base level is stone and it's interpersed with some like probably faux wood trelluses. Um they'll look like wood but
they'll be trelluses, you know, nicely um spaced out um to break up the stone and um that's because of the flood vents and all of that. They have a functional reason, but I think they actually will help break it up and look nice. Um stone
is always, you know, kind of a nice material to use. Um the walls are going to be two different patterns style in the middle of the table triangular piece and then some vertical
on the sides of it. So, um the drawing actually the print turned out the printing is a little bit heavy-handed, but um it'll be more it'll be a little more subtle in real life, but it'll be it's um the facade is not the idea is not to have this be a box in the
building even though they're small and we want to utilize, you know, the area that we have, but by breaking up different lines, different materials, I think it gives it some scale, some interest doesn't feel like, you know, a
Um we are planning to use typical shingles on the upper roofs. I have proposed um as you had mentioned metal roofing on the lower parts and this overhang in the front and this one in the back. Um I just thought it's a nice
look. It's again it's breaking up the materials. It's not it's kind of um a typical thing. If you drive around, you'll see a lot of this mix of materials and I think it's it happens to be attractive. Um, metal roofs are also um good good for like long-term
maintenance, etc. So, I don't see I so I understand we need a design labor to get that. I don't think it's this is like a make or break thing. If we can get the design um waiver, we probably would try for that, but we're not opposed to
changing it to a standard asphalt roof and matching the upper part either. It's not, you know, again, the reason was to kind of create some interest with some different but compatible materials. >> There's an aesthetic.
I personally think there's an aesthetic and we're also trying to build the to be it's this is a mixeduse building. It's both a residence and commercial and we want it to look nice but but but but
actually look like a mixeduse building because you want to it adds I think as looking like we don't want to hide the the commercial or professional uses because that adds life to to the street. Um so the metal roofing I think kind of
goes along with that and I also would tie it to the railings. So, we need railings because we're raised up ground. So, um I thought the railings and the metal roof might be something we coordinate in color and something like that. The the metal roof is not large.
The other roof is much is mostly >> So, it's like a touch. >> It's a small part. >> It's a small part. That's a >> It's a technicality. The the I don't think it's a big deal. >> It's fine to point it out. you had asked about it, so I'm just I'm defending it. But yeah, like we're
>> I don't think you'd want a bright red metal. You want subtle tone metal? >> I think Yeah. Yeah. I don't think Well, personally, I probably wouldn't go for any bright red. So, yeah. No. And I, as I said, I think we would coordinate it probably with the railing. So, the metals would be like one color, you
know, probably a neutral color. >> Speak speaking of roofs. >> Yes, please. >> Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. Uh, I'm not opposed to the metal roof. Obviously, we'll make sure it's a color that's aesthetically pleasing. Um, but from a functionality perspective, when snow is
on that, I'm thinking it's sliding off towards the street or towards the parking lot the way they're both sloped. So, what would you use or what would be the mitigator to ensure that snow isn't falling down on anyone walking up the steps or coming up the ramp in the back?
>> I mean, I haven't gotten that far in the design. more of a technical detail, but I think we probably would have some kind of gutters. I mean, there are, you know, ways of preventing that. As I said, it's not, and I can do some more research to prevent that. >> I definitely want, again, I'm not
opposed to the metal roof. I just know that snow and ice on that has a tendency to slide off unless you put some kind of fan blocker or something to keep that from happening or it's heated so it's melting off into a ra something. I could just see that that would for me would be a potential problem that would need to
be addressed. >> Speak speaking of roofs, I have a question. Where is the access to the attic? >> Oh, so I did not indicate the access to the attic. Um, >> but because actually it's not going to be a finished attic. We will have some
um access to it. We're gonna we're thinking of putting the um HBAC equipment up there and and providing some just pull down hatches that for storage. Um, so I neglected to to show where it was going to go.
>> So, so it would be through the bedroom. It would be through the the the the resident the apartment access only. >> I think if it's not a problem that I haven't foreseen. I thought it would be nice for the apartments to have access. I mean, they they'll have to share it with the other tenants or maybe it gets
broken up. you know, that that um be I guess up to the landlord, but but um I I think it'd be nice because it's a lot of, you know, it's a nice amount of storage space and since this this building will won't have a basement, um I think why not use it
and you know, use what's not. >> So, I would think that each um there's a utility room in each of the units, so probably a good location. Um, you know, I'm just speaking without >> that much, you know, thought. Um, but
there's utility rooms that's in the center of all the apartments. That would probably be a great spot for a fold down stair fits in there because, you know, they don't look that attractive in the ceiling. So, we'll put everything there. Um, that's a possibility.
>> What about furnace and water heater? And I don't see a chimney or anything for vents. Um that's only because this is a schematic level design and >> conceptual okay >> conceptual design and you know
>> where do you anticipate it being >> to I mean I think it could be nice uh maybe a compartment so probably it would have to be maybe you know the one thing about the mirror images, you can do one on one side and one on the other side and it'll
be a nice composition. Um, so and it could and also if we do a chimney um depending on you know cost and other factors I think it might be nice to tie it in the stone that they're using at the base that so the chimney could become attractive feature.
>> There was a comment about the side walls and some festration. Yes, I'm um Okay. >> Okay. I'm I'm encouraging you to try to move along to the extent you can. >> Okay. Okay. Um Yeah. So, um you uh so
Liz had mentioned in review that I had shown these and I have to agree that they're kind of bland, just long walls. Um and um they won't be seen in their entirety because they'll be covered. Quite a bit of it will be covered by um you know the neighboring buildings.
However, um I have no problem at all with adding some windows at the upper level and it'll actually they actually will work nicely in the apartments because there's the center of this part is actually some hallway space in the apartments and I think some attractive
windows will be very nice and you know I can look into maybe some other decorative elements and I said I would run them by >> but that's only one building though, right? >> On both. >> Why both sides?
>> Because one side is um so this is the side from the this is the side elevation where the threebedroom house is going to stay. That's the >> right. So half of that will be exposed. The rest of it >> of this will be exposed.
>> Only half of it the back end half and the other building goes against the commercial. >> The other one goes against the commercial building. So you won't see the pretty much the the bottom of it but but >> you mean it's higher than the next door neighbor building is the height side of
it. >> So so you will see the upper part. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying. >> So I as I said I don't have any problem with the windows and they work on the inside as well. So so I think you know >> it's fine. >> There's going to be laundry areas that
was a mention. >> I guess I'm being pushed along getting the to get off the stage. >> We want you to cover everything, but we gota >> Okay. So, I I mean I can move on. >> Do you want me? So, the I think the
floor plan of the apartments worked out really nicely. Um there's there's bedrooms that face the street and um the living area faces the back. So, of course, there's a lawn
area, but and beyond the lawn area is the parking. So, you enter the living area has a nice island. I think it'll be a very nice design. It has pantry along there's a little bit of a long and
perfectly we're going to add windows to that. So, I think that would be very nice. It takes you there's a bathroom there's a laundry room off of it to everybody's laundry room and beyond the laundry room's utility room. There's a full bathroom and then at the back there's smaller bedroom.
The primary bedroom has its own bathroom. So, um I think they worked out really nicely. One thing that was a little challenging is that the property is long and you know long narrow lots. So, to
get the two bedroom um these bedrooms are not particularly wide. The smaller one is only 910 and um you know the larger the primary bedroom is wide. So, they're not wide. I tried to give them a little more depth. They're
not large. Um, but there was no looking orienting the other way doesn't work at all. So, um, I think this is the right way to do it. Um, one of the reasons that we need variance on the on the setback on the side
otherwise we would really have to be very difficult. to work out this layout. >> It's all a balance. You got to get a reasonable layout to have a nice apartment. >> Complying presents some difficulties. Uh
>> a certain way. It is long. So, you want to be able to use that, but you don't want to. So, so, so to add another layer of a challenge, I noticed that we're talking four apartments there across. We see that there's each has an individual
entrance up the steps. Where do you perceive the egress or fire escape will be for the second floor? Because I don't see that here. I didn't know that they have egress windows. >> So it'll be egress windows and it's
expected that they go out the windows. >> So these bedrooms have >> Yeah. >> Obviously have to meet all code. >> Yeah. >> So obviously it's going to go to a fire official for >> Yeah. Okay. So, as long as it meets the
fire officials codes and standards for his up second floor apartment, I'm fine with that. >> Mr. Moscow will be all over it. >> Thank you, >> I have a quick question on the front elevation. I'm a little confused on uh
your plan A-2. Uh if you look at the front elevation the in between the two structures >> why does that railing not continue I are people going between the buildings they
can >> yes people won't go into the buildings >> but they won't come up to a rail because it seems like that's a safety >> issue that's in the front >> on the
in the frames. This is the front of you know also again when you're doing drawings and conceptual drawings you keep you change your change things as you're going along and maybe at one point I was going to have you
also have stairs there and I eliminated that. >> Right. So, so the so you would be approaching this from the rear to get in between the buildings or up the steps. Would you be able to go left or right? >> So, yeah. So, I'm assuming like the back
there's no real back and front of this building. You can see that the back is really just like a front. So, it depends again like we don't have the tenants yet. So, you might just And the apartments you access from the back. These are the doors to the So, there's
four doors to the apartment. So, that makes it easy. If you're if you live there, you park in the parking lot. You walk up this very gentle, as I said, pretty ramp. Um, you enter into whichever, you know, one, two, three, four. Um, if you're coming to one of the shop, maybe it'll be a shop, maybe it'll
be, you know, a professional office or a doctor's office. Again, if you're coming from the parking lot, you come, you come up the ramp, you go into onto this um closet, and you go into these doors. Um, if you're coming from the street, you go
in on the other side. Um, so >> I mean, >> so there won't be any entrance into the retail spaces from the corridor between the buildings. There might again I haven't laid out those because we don't have tenants maybe know what so so there
might be there might be some >> potentially could be access from any of those from the front the back or the inner corridor >> or maybe all of them you know I think it kind of show depends on who's renting you know who rents it and you know if
there's no renter and we go ahead and design it you know I'll do >> I get it it's a concept >> it's a concept thank you So I just have if I might two just two two design questions and one >> let me do the last question first. >> Mailboxes where would they be?
>> That's a detail. I don't know but they could either be I guess I think I have to see what the mail the post office wants. There could be a central location >> for all all tenants in retail one central location. in the front or the back, whatever.
>> To be honest, I haven't given it. >> Okay, just something to consider. >> Just a couple of design points. Um, at the front, why did you go with blank glass windows there? >> Yeah. >> Again, it's just a conceptual design. If
they're going to be I thought if they're going to be some kind of retail use, then people like to see a lot of glass. It doesn't mean that they I mean I could have some more. >> Could I just encourage you to look at the building across the row where you've got some of the design that's the building across the street?
>> Yeah. >> Has the sort of more of a enclave, however you want to call it. >> Just could I ask you to consider replicating that? >> I can certainly consider >> it looks too to me looks modern >> too modern for me. That's just personal.
And my other design point on the entrances of the back Right. To the the four I get the ones by the ramp, the ones in the middle. That's fine. Those two entrances in the middle. >> Those two are fine. Right. You come up the ramp, you go straight into your your
your accommodation. >> The ones on the either side. >> Is there any reason why you can't have a direct access there has steps going into that? >> I don't know if I want to be a resident and walk in. >> I don't think that would be a problem because
>> you understand what I'm saying. res windows on their hallway will actually have bigger views. Why would I mean so you just walk past you know an attractive it's just as if you lived on a street you know you know a slightly
more area you walk past a few stores as long as I think this is pretty I I can't see I mean obviously that's the logical place in the building for the stairs because they don't they don't um they're on the on the >> Let me just clarify my question at the
the rever rear the glass at the rear leads to the retail area. Correct. >> In the middle. >> Let me just put on the plan to make sure that I'm answering your question. >> Yeah. >> So, at the rear on the >> If you go back to the other diagram,
sorry. >> Well, this shows it. >> No, I don't care about that for a moment. >> Right. That where your finger is, right? Go there. Go to the left. That glass goes to the left. That glass, right? That >> range of glass. >> That's all the retail.
>> Well, again, we know who the tenants are yet. So, it's maybe retail, they may be medical offices, >> whatever. It's all glass there proposed. My only point is I personally, if I was a tenant, >> I want direct access. I'm making a
suggestion. >> The doors on either end have stairs coming out or those directly down. So, you're not going up the ramp and having to go past all the reset, whatever's in in this area here. >> But that means you have to change this. >> Oh, yeah. Oh, I get that.
>> I get that. I'm >> trying to get your sofa. >> Well, basically things like >> you can also come in from the front. I mean, this is >> how can you come in from the front if you're re if you're residential >> if I go get my 3 ft to go up here. >> Take that back.
>> I I I just It's just a suggestion. Okay. >> Just a straight shot. >> You're talking about a straight shot. >> I I want I want I just want to feel that's my path into my own accommodation. I don't want to have to go past the retita. This is just a action. >> You understand?
>> One step here, one step. >> Senator Van's here. >> I'm just saying steps here is is is not suggesting that's a it's a a planning board. You know, there's no variance. He's say look, would you take
it into consideration? >> He's offering his professional opinion of being a DIY guy. >> I I understand the point. >> The only drawback I would see to that would be people who are accessing the commercial from the back
>> might be tempted to use the staircasing. >> Then put a fence then put a little rail in between the two and block it off. >> But then you lose access. You can't use the ramp middle if you >> wear designs.
>> Yes. >> Any other questions here? Is that >> Yes, please. Can the retail space be bifrocated or is it that orientated so that shopping mall
>> orientation down the middle >> you could even open up windows between the two >> shop to shop across >> it's actually rather inviting
>> and that means the geometry of the >> dwellings has to be more than you know it can be more than >> subject to market conditions. >> Yeah, you know this is a way it gives flexibility so you get the first
>> I think the board appreciates the tenants are going to want to move in pretty quickly. So this is not >> you know we're not building a target here that's four years in development. The building's got to be a tenants going to come and they want to move in. >> So it's not >> you know I think my client would love to
pre lease these a year in advance but I don't think that's happen. Well, that that was my concern too with the size of the retail of 3,200 each. And I mean, >> our master plan does say that we're we're >> they're not actually seeing less need
for retail space than that. That way, actually round it up. They're actually a little bit smaller and it includes the stair. And by the way, because I showed this, I kind of regretted on my way here. I was thinking I should have showed some like bathrooms and the
utility stuff. This is looking like this is all retail space, but that's because >> it's an open canvas >> because I left it as an open space for some ways to show the flexibility, but actually it's deceiving because this space will not be that big because it's definitely going to we're definitely
going to have restrooms in each space and you're definitely going to have some utility and some you know storage. >> So, it's not going to be this big open space, but yes, it can be divided um into separate spaces necessarily. Maybe this is a question more for the
applicant, but what if the retail doesn't work out? Is there a contingency plan to bring in residential? >> Unfortunately, due to >> Wait, sir, please come on. >> Sir, if you just you understand you're still on the road. Could you tell say
your name? >> Blue. >> And you're the principal of the LLC. >> Okay. >> Um, and Joe could testify to this and so could Mike. Unfortunately, with the new flood rules of the state, I cannot turn these into residential. >> If I could, we'd be having a completely
different discussion right now. >> But due to that, I'm stuck with commercial either retail or professional. >> So, the the residential density of the property is really driven by the flood hazard area rules because you have free and clear access requirements in and out
of the the unit. So, while you have single families on this block that may be at a first floor elevation, it's different. They're grandfathered in from prior rules. New construction would not permit the residentials on the first floor and be habitable to get an
FHA permit. So, you wouldn't be able to satisfy D >> regardless of how high you would raise it off the ground level. You'd have to make it higher. >> You have to be really high. >> The reason why there's two buildings instead of one, just to verify that do that is because you can only do two
apartments per building. >> Still subdivided from god knows when. >> So that's why we put two buildings in so I get four apartments. Otherwise to do this project with just two apartments there's no income. >> So that's why I made mirror images if
you were wondering why. That's fine. Thank you. >> My only my only concern too is that we've had a lot of discussion about empty storefronts and the concern for empty storefronts and um we actually have in the master plan that uh empty
vacant storefronts exist throughout commercial areas and now we're adding um to large commercial areas. But I understand that that you are um you know you're >> you have to follow the flood rules.
>> Can I ask you have a current tenant? >> What's your plan? >> I have a current tenant in um the property to right. >> It's a hair salon, >> right? >> I am I haven't negotiated anything. I'm
hoping that they stay. They're interested in taking half of >> one of these spaces. Um, so I think I can work that out with them. >> Yeah. So you already kind of have possibly until >> possibly one quarter of four. >> Yeah, I have a quarter. They're looking
for roughly what they have downtro and everything else. >> I have a question and this would be towards our board engineer. >> Yes. um considerations of sewage capacity. Does that matter now? >> Uh so so it
New Jersey American Water has just lifted voluntary ban. Um they they are they will review and and as in my outside agency section um they will the applicant will
submit to them for connection application and go through that coordination but it would be my understanding that they'll be able to satisfy American water on sewage demand >> based on what we're planning to build out right now. The the additional
sanitary surplus flow is projected at about 890 gallons per day additional and water demand is only about00. >> Okay. >> And you've started those conversations. >> Joe, any other question? Mike, did you want to bring us on home? Did you have
any? >> So Joe, the same question for you. >> Okay. The ramp's in the back of the building. >> Yes. >> Right. So ADA, any of those sort of things, if they bifrocate the building between front and back, >> could that be an issue with the ramp location if you have the front
>> unit that only has front retailer unit that only has steps going up, right? >> Well, so the so the access >> you can access the front of the building from the rear. >> So that that will go all the way up as well. >> Yes. the corridor between. So the the
the ramp comes up and is ADA compliant. So it has a landing in the middle >> y >> to for two sections to not be over a maximum run >> y >> with uh guy uh rails on both sides. Brings you up to the architectural railing around >> the rear and the front and then you have
the corridor in the middle so you can get in and out of any building ADA accessible any entry point. >> Great. Uh would this be a time for me to bring up some historical preservation concerns >> before we get into the planner? I I suppose that might be the best time.
>> Okay. architectural just from our master plan of 2023 um with design standards in relation to our historic preservation plan element uh under 7.3D distinctive stylistic features or
examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize older structures and which may pre often detate de predate rather the mass production of building material should be retained whenever possible. I understand these are older
buildings. Um my concern is the um personally the beautiful art deco work on the building that will be demolished. >> One second. I got it. >> Which one? Just one. >> Gave them to you. All four of them.
>> Just just that one or >> Well, I gave you four. >> So, let's just We got to make sure we're doing everything properly here. Um, as I understand it, uh, Miss August brought to my attention, there's four photographs she would like to introduce in evidence. Mr. Let me know if you >> just want to call one exhibit be one. It
would be four. >> I think maybe two exhibits because I think one is not of the building. It's of something else. >> Right. I think I think four of these. No, >> three. >> So, well, Mark is again, let me know if you object. Exhibit B1
would be the collection of three photographs. Uh, I believe that depict the existing building a lot one. >> Okay. >> Right. >> These were taken by Missagn. >> Okay. And you took those just so we have it. >> They're dated. >> Yes.
>> You took the photos? >> I took them. >> Yeah. Yeah. Taken by Miss Oggins on October 27, 2025. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, this will be >> I could make this a fun thing, but I guess I'll pass this around if anybody wants to see. Just one more quote also from the historic preservation plan
element >> and I think this is important to note because these are older buildings. Consideration shall be given to detrimental impact and the financial hardship on the applicant affected by the application of the historic
preservation standards and promoting less expensive alternatives when undertaking an alteration, improvement, rehabilitation, restoration of the structure. Obviously, the buildings are going to be demolished um once this
art deco metal work is destroyed. It's gone forever. >> I would like to see that preserved, either sold or archived or used within the the building, but that's probably not possible, but at least somewhere in
the township. >> Um, this this is art deco metal work from the 1920s and 30s. >> Once it's gone, it's gone. We'll never see it again. >> I want it preserved somehow >> and not put in a dumpster. Okay, before
we wait for it, Pam, this other doc, this other photograph. >> Yeah, that's just for you or whomever, just to give you an idea of that's art. >> Can you explain what this is so we can enter it as an exhibit? >> Right. That's from a theater in Los Angeles. It's an example of classic art
deco, vertical metal work with curved features. >> Okay. And this is uh >> it's got it's written down. >> Where did you get this image from? >> Uh internet. >> Okay. from the internet. >> Well, I got it from art deco laa.org. >> art deco laa.com.
>> art deco la from Los Angeles.org. >> Okay. And uh this depicts something taken in 1941, the Wilton Theater. >> Uh yes. Well, I don't know if that's when it was taken, but that's when the building was built. >> Okay. Um any objection to this one, Mr.
Skull Nik2? having attended concerts at the Wilter Theater when I was in law school. I'm from Par Symphony, but I went to >> What are the chances of that? >> And by coincidence, I saw somebody, a guy named Warren Zeon. >> Oh, who knows that guy. >> Park,
>> but who was just inducted Saturday night into Rock and Roll Hall of Fame at the Will Turn Theater. >> Wow. >> Circa 87. I have no objection. said to that exhibit. >> For the record, that's the longest yes
I've ever heard. >> But I've been to the well turning my memories given Warren Zon. For the record, that was the longest yes performer. >> Your council is too young to even know who Warren Zeon is. >> Uh I don't think so.
>> I have a I have a I have a question on this. Wouldn't the normal course be to send this kind of material to salvage? >> Is there's a market for this? >> Just I was going to address because I kind of agree there are some really nice details here. However, I also do
appreciate in the code that that it understands that there's financial implications and that this building would not really you couldn't really design um financial um a building that made sense financially around this. Um
and if you saw the inside of this, it doesn't it doesn't it doesn't match the the facade that it does have. So, I would be happy to try to incorporate it. If not, make sure I can put that it gets saved during demolition and those artifacts could be sold because I happen to agree that they're really pretty.
>> One quick thought I had, but I can't guar, you know, design takes some time and it's not something you talk through, but like you have to work it out on paper. My quick thought was maybe during the maybe through the passageway like it might be cool to have some artifacts, >> you know? So like as you're walking
through because I don't I right now can't see how they don't I I I will definitely look at it, but I appreciate that the code isn't requiring it and that we can't find, you know, a
reasonable way that enhances the new building, then we're going to make sure they get >> and as long as it makes architectural sense. I don't think we're trying to say now redesign around this, but your pronouncement about trying to incorporate it is
>> Yeah. So I also I agree that they're very pretty and that um it's worth saving. So I I agree 100% with what you said. Um I will look at incorporating it. I'm not sure that Paul >> Thank you for
that during demolition that get >> I'll give you my free DIY opinion. >> Another opinion >> free on the back. You see the back on the back >> the the first level there. Go up where your finger is. Up. No. On the first.
Yeah. That balcony on the back. The balcony in the middle. Right in the middle. >> There you go. The perfect spot for those. >> Well, the I don't know the right way. >> This is the planning part, not the architect.
>> Professional. >> Sometimes they could work well together. I don't have a problem looking into it. be >> I don't want to give a design answer. >> Quite honestly, all I'm looking for is that it not be destroyed. >> And I think we want to and I think we
want to have our historic preservation advisory committee >> uh Deb coordinate this. >> I was just I was just trying to look I I remember I don't remember seeing this property listed on the HVAC list. >> I couldn't find it. >> We couldn't find it either.
But I think we could still given the the the history here at least advisable for them to document >> photo like they've done before >> like we've done before. >> They they could photo archive it so that we have it preserved on record. >> Well, I would say that'd be a condition
of approval with the board to say for the applicant has to contact the Hback. >> Okay, perfect. >> Can I can I throw out a potential condition related to this? uh applicant would make a good faith best effort to preserve and integrate the art deco portions of the existing building on lot one into the proposed buildings or if
not feasible uh the applicant would salvage those items and also approach the HBAC to give them an opportunity to archive same. Does that make sense? >> Photo archive photo archive the building before demolition >> or you could use it somewhere else. >> Sounds fine to me.
>> I think the door is is a reproduction. I don't think the door is of any historical value. So, it's probably you're talking about these >> the metal work. >> The metal work. Exactly. >> I mean, the stone work is beautiful, too, but that would be too much to ask for. >> Yeah. >> It'd be hard to save. So, just the metal
work on the upper and lower of the window. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Have a uh calling back uh uh to do some sort of wrapup comments. you've touched on the rationale for most of the variances in the relief, but you could sort of put it all together for us in a few minutes,
that'd be appreciated. >> Sure. um as in preparation for this obviously you know the master plan and I'd just like to point out one of the visions of master plan is to um
uh have a distinct vibrant mixeduse village centers that will feature an enticing welcoming pedestrian realm with attractive architecture, public spaces and streetscapes and provide for a variety of shopping, dining,
entertainment and services with local characteristics. So, I think that's what we've tried to achieve here. Um, I think the architect has has done a nice job in developing the plan. Uh, trying to keep uh in mind the context of the
neighborhood and and the area immediately surrounding it. And, uh, obviously the town passing their revised ordinance, the uh, Sterling Village ordinance. um they saw the wisdom in
trying to get pedestrian traffic into an area where you have some suffering retail. You have to get feet on the ground. You have to get customers there. And the best way to do that is have them live there. And and that's the whole idea of of what we are proposing. And
that's what Lubec brought to me uh about two years ago now. Been about two years in the making between trying to develop a plan and the the approval. So having said that showing that what we are trying to do is advance a major goal of
the ma of the new master plan. So the variances we are seeking um the first one is a three-foot buffer uh from the parking area to the adjoining property to the east. um that is uh an existing
uh commercial development that has existed there for many many years. It's a solid fence along the line and as part of the development plan we are enhancing the landscaping that you see all along
that common boundary. The um the proposal is to plant the uh 7 foot high arboring all along that line so that it shields and protects that. So we meet the intent in my mind of
providing an appropriate buffer. Similarly uh along that southern line adjacent to the property owners uh that immediately to to our south um the area where the parking are do exceed the 10
foot setback requirement. It's only where we have the little bump out for maneuverability where we get down to about six feet. And here's again we have the 7 foot high arboring that will provide for uh an enhanced screen and
provide the appropriate uh separation uh between those properties. Um the so in my mind I believe that could be granted as a 2 varants that the benefits outweigh the detriments the advancement of the goals of the master
plan to create a mixeduse type development with appropriate parking. We don't need a parking variance. That's important to uh understand. Um the second variance we're seeking is for lot
coverage on lots one and 2.01. um 65% is permitted and keep in mind that when you factor in the entire property, the entire three lots are are we're actually complying at 65% and that
we are reducing the existing imperous coverage by over 2800 square ft. So again, in my mind, this is a C2 variance. The benefits outweighing the detriments that the advancement of the goals and objectives of the master plan
are being executed. And here and we're seeing an opportunity to reduce uh impervious coverage and come closer into compliance, although technically it doesn't happen uh exactly that way on
the individual lots. Um the uh other variance that we're seeking is for building coverage. Um and that's on uh lot one. And that's because what we're trying to do is create uh two buildings that are
mirror images of each other as the architect pointed out. But also um the reason that we're over on coverage, we're we're over by about 274 square feet. Well, it's the awnings and the coverings that we're proposing along
the back and front. And in my mind, that is certainly an aesthetic element that enhances the architecture. So in my mind, I believe that also could be granted as a C2 variance where the benefits outweigh the detriments that um
providing uh an aesthetically appealing building uh would outweigh uh the 274 square foot um overage that we have uh with regard to building coverage. And it's not like we're adding to square
footage. It's not livable space. It's an artic an artistic element uh of the architecture. Um finally we have the three-foot sideyard setback. Um along the far southern side there's no
variance required here. This is a commercial use and commercial zone. So that setback could be zero. We have the three foot separation there. Um we have three feet and three feet on either side of the building along the common boundary.
lot 2.01 and lot one and then we have the three foot set back to lot 3.01 and then the existing structure itself is already non-compliant at 3.24. Um so as the architect pointed out she
had a real challenge in trying to create the appropriate size uh apartments uh on the upper level. And to be able to do that, she had to make the building as wide as reasonably possible to allow for the creation of two apartments in each
building. And and the goal is to get, as I said earlier, the pedestrian traffic onto the street uh so that they can frequent the retail uses and restaurants uh that exist along that corridor of Main Avenue. So in my mind again uh I
believe that the advancement of the goals and objectives of the master plan to enhance the Sterling Village downtown area by having mixed use development that that variance also could be granted without a significant detriment to the public good or the intent purpose zone
plan as Mr. Stley pointed out um it's interior to the site. We're not impacting the property owners as a result of varants that uh we are seeking. So I I believe we advance some of the goals of the municipal land use
law by promoting the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons in neighborhoods and the community uh to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of residential
and commercial uses. Um I believe that um we're also providing an aesthetic element uh with regard to the building and the beautifification of the streetscape. Um and again the building in my mind is is a a real enhancement to
the downtown area. You have these underutilized properties that you're bringing on board uh providing for uh development that is approvable by the D. that was a huge hurdle to overcome.
So again, uh I believe that this these variances that we're seeking could be granted without any detriment to the public good for the intended purpose of the zone plan. with regard to several of the minor design uh waiverss that we're
asking for with regard to lighting, the metal roof uh elements. Uh again, I I think um some of those things are simply um the ordinance not being worded properly with regard to the lighting. I
think the lighting is going to be beneficial to the community and to the people that are going to live and work there. Um and again, the metal roofing I elements that really enhances the architecture and we can certainly work out the detail.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> That concludes for us chairman. >> Good. >> Quick question, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. >> Uh two things, Mr. Lens. Um fence height. You guys are going to comply with that? I know that was fence.
>> Okay. potential variance and then uh design waiverss. I know we briefly touched on the parking area at the beginning of your testimony. >> Um you're complying with with that part portion of the ordinance ordinance as well. >> That's the 5% landscaping in the parking area. >> I think it was the dimensional standards
like the parking >> like the the dimensions of the parking spaces. I know that was flag. >> No. Oh, that that's on that's on. We testified that that area to We would ask for a continuation of the
existing condition that we would ask for design that we do not have to pave that or scrape it that we just use it as >> I there was something in my letter about the twoft overhang and I think there was testimony that they're actually providing it. >> We are. >> Yes. So that that may be the
dimensional. >> Okay. So that one >> and a nine the 9 by8 space is a industry standard. Our code is a little longer. So the overhang provides to comply with our code and provide the industry standard. >> Okay. So, they comply with it. They
don't need the waiver for that's what that's my question. >> Yep. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so, you do need a waiver, however, for not paving. >> Correct. >> For just those three stalls. I've got three. So, I just got to make sure got to keep score. That's 3.0.
Okay. I'll summarize all the variances at the end before the board uh meets. So just uh >> yeah um yeah would like to invite now the public to ask any questions specifically on the testimony. Please come up introduce yourself. Your name
and your your address, please. >> My name is Chris Tonit. and live at 286 Essex Street for the property that is that puts the uh property to the south or to the south of And I just have a couple questions. uh the dumpster
position. Uh would it be possible to put that at the entrance of the of the driveway only because of uh concerns that we have with with uh insects, smells, uh there rodents in the area,
foxes, and that type of thing. There are children. I'm just there are children in in both yards uh our yard and next door to us and uh so there's a concern there. >> So just to clarify you're uh can you point out on the map what you're
proposing? >> Yeah. Yeah. We're here and here and Yeah, we can do that. >> And the lighting, we are concerned about
lighting coming into our backyard. >> And so I don't quite understand. You talk about candles that have candles and I'm not quite sure. >> We have we have a light fixture proposed here as the board pointed out. I have them too high. So we're going to
reconigure them. Take from here and place fixtures on either side. further away from >> and direct it away, right? And direct it away from your res. And the other question was the
love the idea of the evaposed on either side. The variety get they're like big bushes. very bushy and they tend to be ever. Yeah. So they can they can get pretty large. So they'll provide a good check with
>> uh you know and uh comments later. >> Okay. Great. Thank you. Yeah. >> I'm sorry. Not skip florals. >> Skip florals. >> Skip florals. >> But they're evergreen. >> Yes. as well.
Any any other uh questions from the uh public >> at this time? >> Okay. >> Any testimony? >> Yeah. >> Public comment. >> Yep. I think we're now How do you want to move this? >> We should do
>> We're done with the questions. >> Yeah. Public comment now, Mr. >> So, why don't you come back? >> State up. >> Yeah. >> Okay, sir. I do have to swear at you again, though. >> Oh, yeah. >> Yep. Okay. Do you swear or affirm the the testimony you're about to provide if any over the truth? The whole truth. Nothing but the truth. So hope you got
>> I do. >> Okay. And you're still Chris Con? >> I still am. >> 286 Essex Street. >> Yes, sir. >> Could you spell your last name? Could you spell your last name for me? >> A N T. >> One more time. >> C O N A A N T. >> Okay. Gotcha. Thank you, sir. Please. >> So, I just like to thank Lou for
cleaning up that property. It was uh been a mess and an eyesore and he's done a nice job with it and we're very appreciative of what what he's done. We look forward to the improvements. So, thank you, Luke. >> Well, there you go.
>> You can come back again any other time. Any >> otherairman? Any other members of the public? >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Pam, you got something? >> Uh, yeah. public's has nothing else. um signage. Would it be possible to have
signage directing um commercial users to that there is parking around the corner on Union Avenue? Driving down Main Avenue, if you see those businesses and there's no
parking available on the street, how would you know that there's a lot behind the building with an entrance off Union Avenue? I know myself, I've driven down Main Avenue, there's been no parking available, and then when I go back, just
incidentally, oh, behind the uh uh consignment shop, there's parking there. I never knew that. >> Yeah, we can we can put some kind of signage out here at the front of the building that indicates parking to the rear. Also, what I never mentioned is we
are actually increasing the number of parking spots as far as eliminating driving, >> right? >> And the second is, would it be helpful, I imagine it would be a dumpster in this enclosed area? >> Yeah, >> to put a lid on that. >> Oh, yeah.
>> Yeah, it will be litted. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah, you're good. P. >> That's it. Thank you. >> Technically, Mr. Chairman, any further public questions or comments about the testimony you just said? >> Nope. Okay. No one has anything else I can summarize and we
>> Yes, please. >> You guys are good, Mr. Yes. Nothing further. Okay. Fantastic. >> Okay. So, the applicant, as I understand it, if I'm getting anything wrong, please correct me, seeking minor subdivision approval and preliminary and final major site plan approval. Several variances. I'll start with those
pertaining to lot one. Sideyard setback 3 ft proposed where 10 is the minimum required. Uh, next is building coverage ratio. Uh, 37.4% proposed where 35% is the max permitted. Next is lot coverage ratio 69% proposed where 65% is the max
permitted. Residential buffer 6 feet proposed where 10 feet is the minimum required. Moving on to proposed lot 2.01 sideyard setback 3 ft proposed where 10 ft is required as a minimum. Uh lot coverage ratio 66.76% proposed for 65% as the max permitted.
Residential buffer 3T proposed for 10 feet is the minimum required. Finally proposed lot 3.01 3.2 2 ft proposed on the residential buffer where 10 ft is the minimum required. I think that's it for variances. Not seeing any objections. So I'll we'll move on. Next
is the design waiverss being sought. One is for the average parking area illumination. 1.0F foot handles is proposed where 0.4 is the uh required level there. Then the uh oh use of metal panels in the roof overhangs where aluminum siding, metal
panels and mirrored glass surfaces are normally prohibited in all buildings. And then uh third waiver being for the lack of paving of the parking area on lot 3.01. I think that's it as far as relief goes. If I'm getting anything wrong, please let me know. Not hearing
any objections. I see >> correct. >> Metal roofing. >> Okay, fair enough. >> Yeah, I'll make sure it's reflected. Um, and then I think you guys indicated while we have the architect here, you'd be complying with the uh the other architectural standards referenced in
her in Liz's memo. That's the uh about the sides of the building with uh the side elevation appearance, horizontal facade appearance and use of plank walls. You also eliminated the waiver for the polemounted fixtures and uh you're going to have a compliant uh enclosure for the recycling and trash
area. No f no fence site. The storefr areas are 3,000 square feet, right? Not 3 >> commercial space. >> Okay, gotcha. Just double checking. Okay, so that's it as far as relief goes into the conditions stipulations. >> Uh there were numerous uh I'll start
with the easiest one. They agreed to comply with everything in board engineer Joe Buch's memo dated November 12th, 2025. Uh let me go through my notes here to get all the other ones. One second. Okay. Uh in no particular order, uh no
parking on the grass paver area on lot uh 2.01 1 for of vehicles or trailers. Uh the applicant shall install belgent block curbing along uh Union to match the northern boundary of the uh grass pa
area on lot 2.01. Applicant will provide depressed concrete curb cuts for the gravel parking area on 3.01. >> No. >> Yeah, I think >> we've removed that one. >> Okay, scratch that. >> The town would do the curving. Gotcha.
Okay. >> The road improvement. >> No problem. >> We'll address that with our next road improvement on Union. >> Okay. Just making sure. >> That's how we go through it. >> Uh the applicant will dim the parking area lights at 10:30 p.m. to 50%. The applicant will have designated parking
spaces for the apartment residents. >> Joe's memo already. Uh applicant will make a good faith best effort to relocate the southeasterly most lighting fixture to minimize impact on adjacent neighboring properties. Ultimately subject to the review approval of the board engineer.
Next applicant shall work with the board engineer to relocate uh the tree along the northly property line to deter vehicles from entering the green pa area. On uh 2.01 applicant will use deer resistant tree species. Applicant will implement
measures to prevent snow from falling off of the metal roof overhangs. Ultimately subject to the review and approval of the board engineer. Volunteer for that one too, Joe. Applicant will add windows to the upper floors andor other decorative elements to comply with uh ordinance sections
152.1E and 152.1.2A and B. Uh ultimately subject to the review and approval of the board planner. That's deal with the architectural elements we I just discussed a second ago. Uh what else? There's more. Uh applicants make a good faith best effort
to uh preserve and integrate the metal art deco portions of the existing building on lot one into the proposed building or if not feasible to salvage them and the applicant will also approach the HPAC to give them an opportunity to photo archive that building prior to demolition
is a mouthful. applicant will relocate the refu area to the northern end of the parking lot and the applicant will install signage along the main avenue frontage to indicate uh parking in the rear of the site. And I think that's it. I'm leaving something out. Please let me know.
>> So from my outside agency approvals, I mentioned that any conditions of the FHA permits >> would be appropriate to mention in our conditions. you know, just to reflect in our conditions the permit as opposed to
referencing to my letter where it gets buried in record. >> Gotcha. So reflect. I'll make sure >> that just specifically because it's it speaks to free and clear access for the residentials and and access to the building. >> Okay. Gotcha. Okay.
>> All right. I think that's it. >> Thank you. What I'd like to do now is just do a quick lightning round uh with some perspectives from the board that they would like to offer. Please keep it brief and if it's been said, you don't
need to say it again. >> Howdy, do you want to start? Do you have any comments on this application? >> Nope, I'm good. >> Good. Teresa, >> no, I'm good. Thank you for the presentation, >> Mr. Jones. Um I think it's an improvement and I
appreciate the presentation by the um applicant as well as the professionals. So uh thank you very much for bringing that to the board. >> Thank you. >> Other than my professional DIY opinions which I'll add conditions extra.
>> No, I I I I echo everything for people. I think it's a good improvement to the property and and the town downtown. You're doing the right thing. So for me, thank you for bringing it forward. >> No, I don't have >> just piggybacking on David's comment.
Thank you for bringing up with my obsession with uh art deco >> and I think this will be an improvement to Main Avenue. >> Great, Scott. >> Looks good. Thank you. >> Thank you again. Excellent job. >> Appreciate the uh the presentation
>> and uh the improvements. So >> good. So I think we can move to a motion. >> Yep. >> Is there a motion to approve this uh application? >> Second. >> That's subject to all the conditions. >> Subject. >> Just got to be quick.
>> Sorry. >> Who is the second? Mr. >> Scott. Lavender. Okay. Miss Dill. >> Yes. >> Committeeman Lavender. >> Yes. >> Mr. Hans. >> Yes. >> Mr. Lavario. >> Yes. >> Miss Ojins. >> Yes. >> Mr. Opela. Yes, >> Vice Chairman Jones.
>> Congratulations. Yes, >> Chairman Richardson. >> Thank you for your time. >> Good job. >> Good job. >> Okay, we have a couple of quick items. >> Let's see what happens. Ready? Watch this.
>> Hang in there. It's hard. >> Yeah, it's all the same thing to me. >> I don't know. When you get them out of the way at the beginning, it's kind of nice. >> I got my fun out of the way. I went to a Devil's game on Monday night. >> You went to what? >> Devil's game on
Rangers game >> tonight. I mean that's their home. They just won seven to three or something. >> Maybe they >> might have been Huh. >> Does he have tickets or he just gets
>> his brother got tickets? >> Didn't take him just tickets. >> Mr. Excuse me. >> We have a We have a couple of other business items. If you could play the pan, >> everybody get out of the room.
>> Get out of the room. >> We don't care where you go, but you can't stay here. >> Can we come back? >> We still have work. >> Thank you. >> It's nice to see you, Mike. >> Uh, okay. So, we are into item on old
business. Uh, and this is uh in connection with ordinance work. Um, Liz, maybe you could provide a little bit of a summary and a backdrop as to where we are with the houses of worship. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Hold on. U, folks, we we still have uh we still have work to
do. So, I'm sorry. I got to put you out in the hallway. >> I'm sorry. Who has the photos that Pam submitted for the >> I think he took them. >> No, I think the architect had them. Yeah, >> they they I don't know if the lawyer had it. >> Lisa, did did you do you have the photos
of the facade? >> I think >> we just wanted to make sure we had a complete We don't have copies of that. So, we'll get those to you, >> Deb. If not, I can reproduce them. >> No, it should. >> No, Rick should bring them back. >> Does Rick have
>> I think it was >> great. Yeah, give them the D. Yeah, perfect. >> Okay, please. >> All right. Okay. Very, very quickly. So, um Chris had reviewed our draft ordinance. He took his legal eye to it.
He and I met um and have worked out all the issues. And so, we now think we have a draft house of worship ordinance that Chris I think circulated earlier today. I'm sure you know people didn't have an opportunity to look at it, but if you want to take a look at it, couple
things. Um just to highlight is there is and this is actually another recommendation in the master plan is that we have as a conditional use public utilities and public uses and something like that >> institutional uses >> and it it's it's like the worst conditional use standards I've ever
seen. You could even call them conditionals. >> And um so we as part of this we're we have to sort of reconfigure that just to be consistent with the houses of worship, but we suggest that that be a next ordinance revision because it's
just I mean it's it's ridiculous. It's just ridiculous. >> Sorry, Mr. Chair. This is part of the dominoes, right? When you fix one thing, you have to then something else shows itself and then we have to address that. So that's part of the house cleaning and is again it's going to be the gift that never stops giving. Uh but can can was
that the issues that you had with the >> No. So the >> Okay. And maybe issues is not the right word, but how what needed to be addressed >> in the which one? >> In the draft that we >> Oh, in the houses of worship. What needed to be addressed is that just to go a macro level for a second is
right is every town you have these churches or houses of worship that have been there for decades and they were prezoning or whatever and they don't you know they're on small lots. It's all very haphazard. And so when you try to do regulations for houses of worship,
it's a little bit of a balance between really sort of not wanting to be too ownorous on existing facilities, but not wanting to, you know, it's really kind of for the future. It's really for somebody showing up. You don't want them to think, well, they have 5,000 square
foot lot. Why can't we, you know, in a in a single family residential? So that was something that Chris and I discussed because, you know, just to make sure that he and I agreed and we did agree that we think there's sort of a compromise. So the minimum >> and we have some of that pre
pre-existing um because we have some old places of worship that have been well established for quite some time because we have five different hamlets here, >> right? So, um that's what you see and I think addressing those to give the right parameters for new uh um houses of
worship is the right thing to do, >> right? So, >> especially when they're in the middle of a residential area, right? We don't want to >> shun people, but we want to make sure that it's addressed accordingly, >> right? And and it's more uh for modern >> modern stand people drive,
>> for example, things like that, right? People need a place to park. This is if they're going to build a new building. >> If if somebody were to show up in town and say or Yes. and then said, you know, we want to establish a a house of worship here. >> So like if they were going to move into an industrial building, >> right?
>> Right. Like this doesn't apply. This is >> No, it it does. Yes, it does. >> Uniformal across all zones. >> It's across all zones. But >> that's where I was just making sure that understood >> because I think what we're trying to ensure is we don't have street site parking for instance, right? into the
neighborhood. Now that now >> while we want people to worship, you we have to be respectful of the people that live there in the area, right? So that's kind of the balance that we were that you were uh >> right >> addressing, >> right? Okay. >> And the lot size is is, you know, one
acre for if it's a single building. And you know, Chris pointed out, well, a few of the existing ones are not one acre, but I think we kind of got to the being on the same page, which is >> that's fine that there are some here who that are not an acre, but anybody in the
future, we want them to be at least an acre. >> Yeah. >> So, >> okay, they're existing nonconformities. >> Exactly. >> Kind of balance their planning argument when they come in for improvements to those properties. >> Yeah. The other thing just to note, and you guys know this on the ordinance
review committee, but as part of a safeguard against our LOPA, the religious land use and institutionalized persons, >> you Thank you. >> Good. Just rolled right off. >> I know because it's jails and church. Um
but anyway, so um but in any event, sorry, totally sidetracked. Um >> protections on our >> Oh, what the hell was I thinking? Oh, right. So, we treat houses of worship the same as we treat places of assembly, which is the same as we treat uh
schools. And that's just so you see that in there. Why are we talking about these three things all in this house worship ordinance, but it's it's to uh sort of what's the right word where you uh not discriminate, not be arbitrary, capriccious, or whatever. >> Exactly. Well, yeah. And if I could just
take back off take the burden off Liz for a second to uh you know to chime in here. So, if you guys read my memo, there's basically four points that you need to, you know, be aware of when you're drafting any kind of religious, you know, land use regulation, right? Uh, you can't substantially burden the
exercise of religion. You know, I'm just really quick going to hit on, you know, everything that we're proposing here. I don't see anything, at least in my opinion, that is substantially burdening the exercise of religion. For example, if you were to like increase the minimum lot size to like 20 acres or something like astronomically, there's argument to
be made that's a substantial burden. you're not where you going to find 28. >> Um second uh you can't totally exclude religious assemblies or unreasonably limit them here. We're not doing that by virtue of creating an ordinance that allows them specifically created under
conditional use standards but nevertheless uh you can't discriminate between different types of religions. We're not doing that and we're not and this is kind of on Liz's point which you just brought up uh you can't discriminate between relig religious and other types of uses meaning that rel religious uses need to be treated at
least as well as non-religious uses. So by you know let's lumping um houses of worship places of worship along with places of assembly and even public and private schools. We're holding them all to very similar standards if not substantially similar
standards. We avoid that pitfall as well. So long and short of it, I think with the way it's drafted, everything's good. It checks out. You know, I, you know, can't 100% guarantee anything, but I fairly confident this would survive any kind of legal challenge. There's nothing in here that pops out to me that's incredibly >> and somebody can always get a variance,
you know. I mean, so >> Right. >> All right. So, I think our homework committee will be to review this draft with that backdrop. And >> uh Liz, what do we have on the docket? Can >> I just make one comment about having reviewed this? That's good.
>> Can I make one comment? We we do um it looks like we're keeping in public utilities. Um >> this is this is what I was saying at the beginning, which is that's a little bit more of a larger project, but it needs to be addressed. Um because that the standards in there are like if the
planning board feels like it, >> you know, I think it's a question of whether >> we we you know, I think the board would like to make some progress on this. So I think the idea is to just take care of it this to the extent that we're going to change the houses of worship ordinance that we're going to have to revisit public utilities
>> later on. Can you just give me an example of what a public utility would be? >> Well, um it's a good question. A >> I got a go ahead. >> Natural gas regulator station >> or pump station. >> Pump station, >> a transfer station or whatever.
>> Yeah, like an electrical substation or something like that. Typically, it's it's like a principal use of a property for some kind of utility. doesn't seem real for I understand. >> Yeah. I mean one thing and attribute >> this is another good one. >> Another we could bring up is is um standards
with regard to you know we and we've dealt with this >> when uh the water company comes in and says you know you need a hot box and there are these bright silver like six foot tall things. So we could provide some regulations for things like that which is not a principal use but it's
it's something that you should probably have some something on the >> ide how to screen those appropriately. I've seen those before. >> Okay. So I'd like to be prepared by our next meeting if we can squeeze it in >> uh to
vote to push this along. Yeah. >> Any comments that we might bring back as a board? >> Yeah. Just take a look at the draft I sent out if you guys agree with it. Right. >> You know, good. If not, let me know ahead of time and maybe Chris and I can take another crack at it. >> Yeah, it is helpful to send some comments ahead of time. Why don't you
funnel them to Chris >> or actually better yet, funnel them to Deb so that we don't get into a quorum issue with uh making comments through email. >> Okay. >> Well, I mean, if you're sending it to the board attorney, that's fine, too. Whatever. >> Yeah. Don't include the rest of the board.
>> Just don't that that's the key one. >> Just don't include any other board members. Send it directly to Perfect. Uh and then we have a carry >> application that we're going to finish the Indian run. >> So we had a lot of materials that were
distributed kind of late. So we should have had plenty of time now to review those materials before the the next uh hearing. >> So the the architect had made comments that they were thinking about making
some changes, but you haven't seen anything from >> No. If they do, it'll be on testimony and as an exhibit most likely. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> We haven't seen anything. And I think Are they at the 10day right now? >> No. Yeah. >> 25th. >> 25th. >> Oh, the 25th. >> The 25th,
>> right? Isn't that right? It's Tuesday the 25th. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, 13 days. >> Yeah. >> Oh, that's right. Three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10. >> 10 days. Saturday. >> Yeah. They have by Friday to basically get me any changes if they want it. And
we we carried them by voice announcement to the third. Okay. Good. >> And I will have coverage that night. I won't be a bill. >> Okay. >> Who do you send if you're ask by chance?
>> No. >> Okay. I know. >> Not likely. >> Okay. >> Not a little too far away. >> Uh any old business? Any other business? If not, is there a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. Get out of here. >> Yeah.
>> All right.