WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=1HY3Js5Toic

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: 1HY3Js5Toic):
- 00:04:14: Meeting Call to Order, Roll Call, Agenda Overview
- 00:06:23: Approval of Minutes from March Meetings
- 00:08:10: Executive Session for Pending Litigation Discussion
- 00:10:00: Lighthearted Conversation During Executive Session Break
- 00:42:23: Reopen Session, Ordinance 2748-26 Master Plan Review
- 00:45:34: Building Height Ordinance Consistency Review and Discussion
- 00:52:32: Motion and Vote on Ordinance 2748-26 Consistency
- 00:53:23: Application 26004: 249 Milburn Ave - Introduction
- 00:57:04: Jurisdictional and Swearing-in of Witnesses
- 00:58:10: Engineer's Testimony on Setback Deviations and Variances
- 01:07:18: Board Questions to Engineer Regarding Deviation Details
- 01:25:36: Review and Stipulations to Professional Reports
- 01:31:44: Discussion of Conrail Access Easement Issue
- 01:36:26: Discussion with Fire Official, Facade Thickness Changes
- 01:39:13: Proposed Pedestrian Safety Improvements as Condition
- 01:41:42: Public Comment - Matthews Regarding Variance Request
- 01:43:00: Planning Expert Testimony on Variance Justification
- 01:46:32: Board Comments and Analysis of Variance Request
- 01:49:08: Discussion About Site Plan and Zoning in 2023
- 01:49:53: Public Comment - Matthews Against the Variances
- 01:51:47: Applicant Rebuttal, Board Discussion of Next Steps
- 01:52:52: Board Discussion on Failures, and Support for Affordable Housing
- 02:00:35: Motion to Approve Variances with Stipulated Conditions
- 02:03:39: Adjournment


Part: 1

1
00:04:14.480 --> 00:04:30.240
Welcome everyone to the Milurn Township Planning Board meeting in accordance with section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, public law 1975. Be advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the Bolton board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a

2
00:04:30.240 --> 00:04:46.800
list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would be take place at Milburn Board of Education Education Center building at 7:30 p.m. on May 20th, 2026. May I have a roll call, please? >> Jonathan Baxter, Allison Canfield, Michael Cohen,

3
00:04:46.800 --> 00:05:03.120
>> here master pro >> here. >> Deborah Nevice Frank Sakamandi >> here. Michael Zion >> here. >> Vice Chair Sweeney BJ >> here. >> Chair Gston Habert >> here. >> Sus >> here. >> Chris Hinrich >> here.

4
00:05:03.120 --> 00:05:19.520
>> We have a quorum. >> All right. Good evening everybody. Uh we do have a full agenda tonight. There have been a couple versions circulating. I just wanted to clarify that the final version and it was made to make sure that we do get through everything on

5
00:05:19.520 --> 00:05:33.360
time even if we have to extend a little bit and finish everything up but we intend to finish everything tonight. Uh we'll start off with the housekeeping approval of minutes. Uh then we'll go into executive session if chooses to do

6
00:05:33.360 --> 00:05:51.280
so. I will next go to uh uh new business I guess ordinance uh 2748-26 and then with your patience we'll finally get into application 26004 >> Mr. Jim, if I may just say just for

7
00:05:51.280 --> 00:06:06.160
clarification purposes for everyone, the agenda, it's items themselves have not changed, frankly, was the order uh that that that did change just to be clear. And the ordinance that we'll be doing, that's a master plan consistency. We'll

8
00:06:06.160 --> 00:06:23.600
do not public hearing just a minute, not just, but a a a master plan consistency. So, that clarification was checked. All right. Thank you very much. Um, so let's start off with the approval of minutes. Did everybody receive the

9
00:06:23.600 --> 00:06:44.240
March 4th, 2026 regular meeting minutes? Anybody have any questions or comments on? I will make a motion to adopt the regular meeting minutes for March 4th, 2026. Do I have a second? >> All in favor?

10
00:06:44.240 --> 00:07:01.680
>> All opposed? Full attendance. abstensions. Motion passes. Uh on to the next set of meeting minutes, regular meeting minutes for March 18th, 2026. Did everybody receive the minutes? And

11
00:07:01.680 --> 00:07:17.360
are there any questions? No. No questions uh being asked. I'll make a motion to approve and adopt the minutes for March 18th, 2026. Do I have a second? A second.

12
00:07:17.360 --> 00:07:33.840
All in favor? >> All opposed. Please note the abstensions. So I think I'll say about passes on the final set of minutes. The

13
00:07:33.840 --> 00:07:51.599
executive session for March 18, 2026. Did everybody receive them? And does anybody have any questions? No questions being asked. I'll make a motion to approve and adopt the minutes for the executive session for March 18th, 2026. Do I have a second? A

14
00:07:51.599 --> 00:08:10.879
second. >> All in favor? >> I. All opposed. >> One extension. Uh motion passes. Okay. On to the next order of business. We have an executive session uh in which we're

15
00:08:10.879 --> 00:08:26.879
going to discuss pending litigation for the high center for living Judaism incorporated or INC uh versus the township of Milburn, New Jersey. Township of Milbour, New Jersey planning board. And we will also be discussing uh litigation concerning the fourth round

16
00:08:26.879 --> 00:08:44.240
of affordable housing. Steve, can we see us up? Certainly, Mr. Chairman, happy to do so. Uh we have a resolution that's advised for the acceptance of the public meeting meetings act uh for certain matters including under 12B7 of that act

17
00:08:44.240 --> 00:09:00.880
uh the public uh uh may be excluded from pending litigation matters which the chairman noted the high center for living Judaism and the appointment of housing a declaratory judgment action it's anticipated that deliberations conducted in close session will be

18
00:09:00.880 --> 00:09:17.040
disclosed to the public upon on termination of planning board that the public interest will no longer be served by such confidentiality and the resolution shall take effect immediately. So as with all resolutions, if we could have a motion, second, and a roll call vote, please.

19
00:09:17.040 --> 00:09:33.200
I'll make a motion to go into executive session. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Michael Cohen, >> yes. >> Courtney Master Petro, >> yes. >> Frank Sakamandi, >> yes. >> Michael Zion, >> yes. Vice Chair Swinni BJ. >> Yes. >> Chair Dustin Hopper.

20
00:09:33.200 --> 00:10:00.279
>> Yes. >> Fin. >> Yes. >> Chris Hrix. Passes. >> I believe we will be departing but we will be returning shortly. Uh that's going to be conclude the executive session. That's

21
00:10:13.519 --> 00:10:32.079
the transcriber. I've seen you covered other hearings for me before. >> A lot of >> Yeah, I know. >> I do this for a living. You know who you kind of look like? >> Look like the mayor of >> mayor.

22
00:10:32.079 --> 00:10:57.399
>> Are you the mayor? >> I am not. But >> maybe the new one. Yes. I was going to say the mayor of Bridgewwater. Mayor of Bridgewwater. like Michael now I'm interested

23
00:10:59.200 --> 00:11:20.240
a little >> can't and you >> I don't think that's that's a comical Yeah, that's I don't think that's a bad thing. >> I've been called a lot of things. My wife Jonathan

24
00:11:20.240 --> 00:11:44.800
>> Gas switch up the job. >> Really? >> See, I guess. >> It's hard for me to say because I actually have a twin brother. >> Oh, do you really? >> I do. So people always like, "Oh, you guys look alike." I'm like, "No,

25
00:11:44.800 --> 00:12:04.399
>> I don't see any of it." So >> you guys or fraternal >> fraternal, but everybody says we look a lot alike. >> I don't see it, but >> probably you guys see it in each other. >> Yeah. The same problem with my sister.

26
00:12:04.399 --> 00:12:56.079
>> Everybody's like, "Oh, you guys look so much alike." >> But you don't see it, right? >> What do you mean? >> Right. Right. female and a male. >> And we were both like, "Oh my god, I get it. I'm not saying I had the answer. I'm not

27
00:12:56.079 --> 00:13:20.680
saying doing nothing is the answer. >> When I worked in a Fairfield 10 years ago, I think his hair was not white, >> but they see it like a little bit, right? >> I'll take your word for it. >> Yes. which is the only

28
00:13:34.320 --> 00:14:56.560
discussion That's what she says about the ability. Yeah, you're not functioning. It's our downtown way to sensibly say you can do it while building a

29
00:14:56.880 --> 00:15:12.160
maintain that >> way to compensate for it is >> yeah I live in Westwood there's a lot of streams issues that's right >> yeah so

30
00:15:12.160 --> 00:16:12.160
occasionally buying properts to the cost as you know Fair enough. have to be exist all that stuff while it all sudden

31
00:16:12.160 --> 00:17:01.079
I have a half million scary mortgages like it just you some house. Did you hear that? Did you hear that? Excited.

32
00:17:36.240 --> 00:18:20.840
Cross of 1980 came up out of nowhere. Nobody ever had a golden voice a sense of one hit album one other song. >> Never heard After that >> no

33
00:18:20.960 --> 00:18:58.039
music I just you know obviously everyone anyone of our knows those two songs >> you're not as old as me. I didn't want to send this. >> I wanted to give you a look. 15.

34
00:19:08.480 --> 00:20:09.280
>> What do you think the residuals are on those two? I don't know what Well, I would imagine again I think probably >> I had a friend music. any cooler.

35
00:20:09.280 --> 00:20:25.679
Even cooler to be a classic. >> I played in a uh a death metal band. >> Hell yeah. >> Did you really Did you make that up? >> No, I did. I just grew up in rural Pennsylvania. >> Was trying to make my way. I've been

36
00:20:25.679 --> 00:20:41.840
very sleep. I got to show you a picture of me. Oh my gosh. Death battle. >> Yes. You're having the death metal a year. >> Uh that would have been >> 14 15. Yeah. No, it would have been 15 through 17. Uh, age is 15%.

37
00:20:41.840 --> 00:20:58.520
>> Yeah. >> Okay. 2015 to 2017. >> No. Oh, no. That would have been 2005. I was trying to find my was trying to find my >> 2020. I got out of >> 39.

38
00:21:00.080 --> 00:21:23.039
>> Yeah. High school 2005. I went from a small >> five people eighth grade class to a high school of 3,000 kids. >> Just was that >> so going from five to 3,000 was

39
00:21:23.039 --> 00:21:38.480
>> Yes. So it was social. >> That's a big social to get into. That's not >> I did not have the developed skills. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Not like that.

40
00:21:38.480 --> 00:22:10.240
>> Well, so the kid who sat in front of me was in a death metal pad. I bought a uh you know a couple of I bought a death metal bel >> I had a 51. No. So I never progressed beyond I got a sheeper bucker. I never

41
00:22:10.240 --> 00:22:32.720
progressed. I got a uh got a summer job. Wow. I was 13 14 >> and uh I bought a 50 watt Marshall lamp >> exactly and played in this horrible band. We did

42
00:22:32.720 --> 00:22:50.880
a show we did a show at Penn State picture. It's never shown. It's definitely we did >> paint white >> and your wife saw this before after this

43
00:22:50.880 --> 00:23:30.840
picture >> with black teardrops. >> She's wear not interested. It was just a horrible hor showed up including my father and the other two may have been the other two guys parents

44
00:23:31.600 --> 00:24:04.320
>> when you say a pen are we talking or a school >> oh they didn't They just let us use their for free. Gosh. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I get it. >> Yeah. I had to get far away

45
00:24:04.320 --> 00:24:21.360
to get out to the big city. >> Where is it in like Minneapolis or I don't know. No, it's 45 minutes south of it's in northern Minnesota James. I lived in an apartment above the bank

46
00:24:21.360 --> 00:24:43.520
where the Jesse James gang had their it's the penult but uh every year they have to colle James festival >> which took place below where we live

47
00:24:43.520 --> 00:24:57.919
like we're in the heart of party >> we're in the heart of the party you I think to celebrate celebrate they would have because we live there we could put two chairs out the front of the door come out of the bank >> always got your guns they're robbing the

48
00:24:57.919 --> 00:25:22.880
bank we'd say all and >> that part that part felt >> because you don't do this >> one% Yeah. >> Northfield, Minnesota. >> What was the other sample off

49
00:25:22.880 --> 00:25:52.480
>> across the lake? Cross the river. The train track. >> Yeah. >> No, I got my degree and I came back with guys tonight but I couldn't

50
00:25:52.480 --> 00:26:09.120
I couldn't afford going to school New Yorkers >> got some money from school job whatever >> your first job >> at law school yeah clerkship from San

51
00:26:09.120 --> 00:26:57.520
Judge Morris and then went a job that's how I met We tried a couple pieces in a small >> mind attorney. He's got life issues.

52
00:26:57.520 --> 00:27:55.760
>> Who is that? West three days. >> Yeah. >> Johnson my dad. There's something your church or community whatever

53
00:27:55.760 --> 00:29:52.640
you want to completely Es the ser it's I just met a guy the other day. He was talking about he took up the guitar later in life and uh I made a

54
00:29:52.640 --> 00:30:08.720
mistake. What was that? It's like I played the bass and he said the reason being play the bass unless you have a group you know like because the bass is keeping rhythm you have to have at least another couple you know a person or a couple

55
00:30:08.720 --> 00:30:24.559
people playing it got very hard because I fig later in life I didn't have like a group of guys that I play very regularly so it was like difficult to just play on my own and I was like why didn't that why didn't you just teach yourself to play acoustic what's some other option

56
00:30:24.559 --> 00:31:04.880
that would have been smart I was just lazy and like I kind of like took it. I was like >> yeah to me like play acoustic guitar. >> Do you still play it also? >> We even all your instruments if you don't

57
00:31:04.880 --> 00:31:38.279
have anything >> I had my first base somewhere like is it like mounted somewhere in a room or is it like in a backup closet That's my work. >> She thought she thought it was funny.

58
00:31:44.240 --> 00:32:00.919
>> He failed that freshman year. experts because you spent 12 hours a day with the guitar. >> Yeah. Like if you spent half the energy that you spent learning guitar learning on learning learning

59
00:32:06.000 --> 00:32:42.039
for the year back. >> I mean, he had just a listen to me kind of like talent very very antisocial. like hang

60
00:32:50.000 --> 00:33:14.080
people. So, I'm quiet. This was scary. side by side like this work out my chair in three days. >> That's the only thing you say every

61
00:33:14.080 --> 00:34:07.039
night. The people What they can watch me? No. way that I can still get back close enough, right?

62
00:34:07.039 --> 00:34:26.720
>> Well, and I imagine what you're there to imagine how radically different schools evolution in the last >> time. Yeah, man.

63
00:34:26.720 --> 00:34:50.560
>> I started with civil engineering. After the first year, I switched into the engineering dark metal guy. >> Not very good. I just I mean my now not that time frame but my younger brother went to Lafayette, I went to Milberg, my wife

64
00:34:50.560 --> 00:35:07.040
and I just look like how some of those Lehap Valley schools changed. Lots of schools have, but those are the ones that I know best and it's got to place. Yeah. Yeah. >> Google

65
00:35:07.040 --> 00:35:40.720
where what happened to this? Where is >> Yeah, that used to be the trailer park. Where's that building? >> Well, and I mean then you get it, but like what did it cost when you went there? like grand >> or they're something's gonna have to change, right?

66
00:35:40.720 --> 00:36:09.240
>> Something's change. >> What's the What's the that proposition or you just don't want bigger school. I didn't merged any other professor. They just absorbed NJC

67
00:36:09.920 --> 00:37:22.480
but you know like It's just this place. Okay. Boston I don't disagree. I actually >> Oh, so we have one >> for a senior in high school. So we're in

68
00:37:22.480 --> 00:37:39.040
a similar I have one junior gonna be a senior in college next year and one who's a senior in high school this year got to be a freshman in college next year. I feel like that experience very well for kids but kids who are like smart they could have gotten into like good I

69
00:37:39.040 --> 00:38:11.760
but they're like I love Texas It's horrible. How do you look at No, you shouldn't go to South Carolina weather. >> All right. Stay here. Go to New Hampshire. That's what you should do. >> Actually, you know what? We should all

70
00:38:11.760 --> 00:38:26.079
go like I was just talking to a dad. His oldest is the age of our youngest. So, it's just different perspectives. He's older in life, but his oldest kid is young and he's got a boy and girl and he's a lot

71
00:38:26.079 --> 00:38:46.079
of time and he's like, like I said to talking about they're only seven his or his oldest friends. I'm like with I was like seriously I don't know if I man like me my wife and daughter I don't

72
00:38:46.079 --> 00:39:13.280
know how I'll just be there with him >> go somewhere he wants to get away how far would it have to be before you become a regular He's gonna be a senior next year.

73
00:39:13.280 --> 00:39:31.359
>> And you said older. >> Yeah. My um my son actually was getting recruited by a little bit. >> Oh, that's funny. >> But he's not he doesn't want to go to small school have fun. He's looking at

74
00:39:31.359 --> 00:39:55.440
or Yeah, maybe >> I our oldest got recruited to play baseball in college. You didn't I was like I don't think so. um playing sport.

75
00:39:55.440 --> 00:40:17.400
You really have to like >> but you don't really but like you just have to be careful >> you love it. You love coaches, you love people, >> but it does give you a

76
00:40:17.920 --> 00:40:50.400
couple social >> Oh, okay. I know what literally like across. >> Yeah. That's exactly what my son and it's the exact same thing. They're

77
00:40:50.400 --> 00:41:17.240
not there aren't even basically like a friend. Yeah. >> And then it's like they're friendly others. That's what the social which there's nothing wrong. which has

78
00:41:20.480 --> 00:42:18.119
experienc enough. It's not for you. You know, have access 22 years old. Sister's going to find something. I'm just seeing guys from >> town

79
00:42:23.359 --> 00:45:14.160
parking lot took a break. So like 30 seconds each other, you know, another like Hey, that was I think Stand up. Make a motion to reopen the open session. Do I have a second? A second.

80
00:45:14.160 --> 00:45:34.880
All in favor? I. All >> oppose. Motion passes. Please let the record reflect we have our entire quorum back. All eight board members. Yes. >> Excellent. All right. Our next order of business is the master plan consistency

81
00:45:34.880 --> 00:45:54.240
review of ordinance 2748-26. Um it's an ordinance to amend and supplement the township of Melbourne's development regulations and zoning ordinance for building height. Miss Beck, could you please uh guide us through the planner memo and whatever

82
00:45:54.240 --> 00:46:10.079
else needs to be done for the ordinance? >> Um, Miss McMillan. >> Oh, that's okay. >> McMillan, I apologize. >> Okay. I'm not here often, but glad to be back. >> Yep. So, this is a routine master plan consistency review. This board, I know,

83
00:46:10.079 --> 00:46:26.480
has done it because I first time I've personally done with this board. Uh so it's ordinance uh number 2748-26. It was introduced by your governing body on April 21st uh per the municipal land use law. You now review it for master

84
00:46:26.480 --> 00:46:47.599
plan consistency and make your recommendation back to that. >> By the way, if anyone's wondering we're winning. So this is more of a administrative ordinance I call where it amends two of your definitions. Definition of story

85
00:46:47.599 --> 00:47:03.520
path and then the definition of building height. And in uh amending your definition of building height. It's what used to categorize within the definition a couple standards. It's actually creating a whole new section in your

86
00:47:03.520 --> 00:47:19.200
ordinance of building height standards. So, it's getting a little more narrow from my read of it of the definitions and then creating a whole new section ordinance about how to regulate building type. Uh, this is done, I believe, largely in line with New Jersey D, the

87
00:47:19.200 --> 00:47:35.359
resilient environment and landscape, also known as real. It's a set of rules and uh the genesis of this ordinance really is around reducing flood damage in flood prone areas and bending those heights on a administrative level. Um we

88
00:47:35.359 --> 00:47:51.440
issued a memo from our office stated April 23rd 2026 that kind of goes through what the ordinance existing issues are the summary and then relationships to master plan pretty much uh it's very much consistent with the

89
00:47:51.440 --> 00:48:08.400
master plan you have a goal one which talks about serving the character Melbourne in doing that this uh puts extra regulation in the height to to help do Then you have a couple of objectives which talks about development occurring

90
00:48:08.400 --> 00:48:24.559
at appropriate scale. Again, this is all about a height definition. And then you have a goal six which sticks a little more into sustainability and resiliency. And so that's a big driving force of this ordinance really related to flood

91
00:48:24.559 --> 00:48:40.720
regulations and standards and climate change like that. Can you remind me which one is the the change is the new height is considered about floor level. Is that the the new revolution? >> Yeah. And

92
00:48:40.720 --> 00:48:57.040
>> is one foot or two foot or two? >> So maybe the easiest way to do this is um should I just like read what's being stricken out of the building height and what's being added? >> Yeah, you can. So building height the definition today

93
00:48:57.040 --> 00:49:13.119
it reads the vertical distance from the average ground elevation around the foundation of the building's highest point. The average ground elevation shall be calculated by measuring the elevation at 10 ft or 10 foot intervals around the perimeter of the foundation. That's saying it. What's being stricken

94
00:49:13.119 --> 00:49:29.520
out is the part that used to say when measuring to the highest point of the building the following building elements shall be excluded. And then it was a long list. I'm not going to read the whole list that is going to be completely reworked in a section in your your main ordinance. But what's also

95
00:49:29.520 --> 00:49:45.680
being added to this ordinance definition is uh new language that says for any lot or structure required by applicable federal or state flood regulations to be elevated. The average ground elevation shall be the designed foot flood elevation as determined in accordance

96
00:49:45.680 --> 00:50:02.319
with the New Jersey uniform construction code and JD flood hazard area control act rules applicable FEMA flood mapping and best available flood hazard data and then it says CDRZ a couple section and then >> so because I I know that many

97
00:50:02.319 --> 00:50:18.520
municipalities say about the flood elevation plus one or plus two in our case it's just the flood elevation From there we are taking the height of the building or we need to consider this extra foot whatever

98
00:50:29.440 --> 00:50:44.640
>> I'm going to be able to answer that question. Um the state uh mandated report revision to play rules uh It's fuial meaning non-title. It's four feet. I mean, three feet on

99
00:50:44.640 --> 00:51:01.200
existing 100 year flood. >> Three feet above the >> three feet above the published elevation. >> Okay. >> If it's title, it's four feet. >> So here it would be >> it's up here. It's blue. So it'll be 3 ft. >> 3 ft. Okay. Okay.

100
00:51:01.200 --> 00:51:16.000
>> Way better than that. >> So is that we say that in the code or we don't say that? >> That's actually statewide. That's an amendment performed by the state. So, >> so we don't have to. >> So, you can add it to the code, but it's already within the >> Okay.

101
00:51:16.000 --> 00:51:39.680
>> the resiliency standard the state implement. >> So, that's really information I think this board should find in the master plan. And as the board's familiar with the chair's permission based on the uh opinion of our planner

102
00:51:39.680 --> 00:51:55.760
uh you may find that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan. We have drafted and provided our solution uh provided that again it was introduced April 21 intense to adopt on second reading at public hearing the

103
00:51:55.760 --> 00:52:12.240
ordinance on May sorry on uh at a later date uh and um but uh uh after this evening but we have our obligation to master plan consistency review uh the new

104
00:52:12.240 --> 00:52:29.960
ordinance. Uh so if you do find that it's not inconsistent, you can go right to a motion second and roll call vote on adopting the resolution as drafted finding this ordinance not inconsistent with the master plan ordinance 27486.

105
00:52:32.160 --> 00:52:52.319
There any other questions from Miss McMillan? All right. I will make a motion to find ordinance 2748-26 not inconsistent with the master plan and also to adopt the resolution as

106
00:52:52.319 --> 00:53:09.599
Steve has stated. Do I have a second? Let's see. Roll call vote, please. >> Michael Cohen, >> yes. >> Jorge Master Petro, >> yes. >> Frank Sakamandi, >> yes. Michael Zion, >> yesto. >> Yes. >> Chris Hinrich,

107
00:53:09.599 --> 00:53:23.680
>> yes. >> Vice Chair DJ, >> yes. >> Gassenhacker, >> yes. >> Passes unanimously. >> Okay. On to the application for this evening.

108
00:53:23.680 --> 00:53:42.319
Uh it's application 26004. Amendment to approve maker site plan associated variances for any Milburn Partners LLC 249 Milburn AB block 705 block the representation we have

109
00:53:42.319 --> 00:53:59.119
>> Yes Mr. chairman. Uh, good evening. My name is Derek Bor. >> You're being picked up already. >> I'm being picked up. >> Uh, you can ask my wife. She's never had a problem with me speaking too loudly, so I don't anticipate an issue here this evening. Uh, my name is Derek from the

110
00:53:59.119 --> 00:54:15.839
law firm of England Taylor. It's a pleasure to be in front of you this evening. Uh, but thank you for uh, for being us here in your education center. I understand there's renovations going on at the mal building. We do look forward to seeing them completed and appearing on future applications, not

111
00:54:15.839 --> 00:54:33.760
this one. Uh for the for uh chairman, as you indicated, we're here on an amended application for Andy Melbourne's partners. As you indicated, the subject properties 249 Melbourne Avenue. This is block 75 block one on your tax map is located in your RMF-H4

112
00:54:33.760 --> 00:54:51.599
zone. As many members on this board, I see some familiar faces here. We'll recall uh this is an application that was subject to uh intense scrutiny and review in 2023 as part of application for 149 uh inclusionary unit apartment

113
00:54:51.599 --> 00:55:07.760
community. Uh the board approved this application in December of 2023. Uh we're here tonight seeking your approval uh for amended preliminary final major site plan and also minor variance relief. Typically when I make this

114
00:55:07.760 --> 00:55:25.200
application to a board uh I'm requesting or is requesting some major modification to a project. That is not the case here today. Uh we're coming back to you humbly uh Mr. chairman, members of the board because we have a deviation from the approved conditions uh that the

115
00:55:25.200 --> 00:55:40.559
board imposed as part of the setback standards and we modified them uh incorrectly in the field. Uh there are two locations of our building footprint which deviate slightly from what uh this board has previously approved. They are

116
00:55:40.559 --> 00:55:56.000
what I will describe uh in a non-technical sense minor. My engineer will testify to discover those deviations. But essentially, we have if you're looking at the project plan northeast and also plan northwest, we have a stretch of the building wall

117
00:55:56.000 --> 00:56:13.760
which slightly exceeds the permitted building setback. Those variations uh which range anywhere from approximately 10 uh inches to a foot and a half in various locations of building uh trigger bulk various relief and also requires to

118
00:56:13.760 --> 00:56:30.160
come back to you again humbly seeking your approval for amended limitary final major site plan. As you know of course the project is under construction. We have the building shell constructed. we are prepared to proceed with the internal uh complete uh completion of

119
00:56:30.160 --> 00:56:48.240
the building and of course this is variance relief that we need to come back to the board to seek your approval on. So uh with that said I have no further introduction. I have two witnesses Mr. chairman for the board's consideration this evening that includes my project engineer John Dasinto of Lang

120
00:56:48.240 --> 00:57:04.240
Engineering and I also do have our project planner uh Greg Woodruff also of Lang Engineering and those are the two witnesses I have to present to all of you as there any questions Mr. Chairman or anything you'd like me to address before we commence >> not at the moment but Mr. Warner could

121
00:57:04.240 --> 00:57:19.920
you please yes happy to address the predicate issues Mr. Chair, thank you. Uh, first and foremost, jurisdiction always. So, I did have an opportunity to review the notice. Found the content to be sufficient. Found the notice to be timely served. Uh, certified mail on May

122
00:57:19.920 --> 00:57:36.720
7th, uh, May 8th published uh, with the ledger uh, on by eligible online news publication. If I recall, our new our new our new verbiage for notice. Uh both of those

123
00:57:36.720 --> 00:57:52.960
dates are at least 10 days prior to the table. So the board does, in my opinion, have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application this evening. And with the chair's permission, I'm happy to swear in both applicants, intended witnesses, as well as both our board professionals,

124
00:57:52.960 --> 00:58:10.640
our engineer, and planner. They will all raise their right hand. All four of you swear to God or heard the testimony you're about to give is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Good. Thank you all four. Back to you. Mr. Please uh call your first expert.

125
00:58:10.640 --> 00:58:26.960
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I first pull in John Dinto Engineering. Uh John has been sworn in and recognized as a witness before this board, but nevertheless uh Oh, there you are. Okay. >> If you would just briefly uh give the

126
00:58:26.960 --> 00:58:42.319
board the benefit of your professional qualifications confirming your license is in good standing effect. Sure. Uh name is Johno, project manager at Lang Engineering. The bachelor's degree in civil engineering

127
00:58:42.319 --> 00:58:58.799
university in 1994. Been working at Lang since 1998 license since 1999 and my license and as mentioned I testified previous and the and the civil plans that were submitted in connecting with this

128
00:58:58.799 --> 00:59:13.839
application were prepared under direision or by you yourself. Correct. Correct, Mr. Chairman. I would proper him as that expert in the field of civil engineering. >> We accept him as a an expert in the field of civil engineering. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Uh and John, just before we get started,

129
00:59:13.839 --> 00:59:30.680
just confirm uh and also Mr. Chairman, just so I know for the record, we did receive a report of the board planner, the board engineer, the fire official, and uh the board forester as well. I believe that's the scope of the professional review submitted in connection with this application.

130
00:59:31.760 --> 00:59:49.280
Very good. Thank you. Okay, John, take us through what it is that we're proposing, how we got where we are, and uh what we're asking of the board this evening. >> Okay. Um so, as we've discussed, receiving amended cycle approval with two new variances on this property that

131
00:59:49.280 --> 01:00:07.040
was previously approved by the board. Uh both of those are related to setbacks. One is Es Street, the other is the eastern property line. So upon review of a foundation survey prepared by our office on behalf of the developer,

132
01:00:07.040 --> 01:00:24.160
it was noted by the building department that some of the foundation elements appear to encroach into the setback. Uh we did a thorough dig into everything that we had from the design drawings as well as the as build. Uh

133
01:00:24.160 --> 01:00:39.920
what happened is essentially the architect while finalizing their wall section there were some deviations to account for a brick facade that was approved by the board. Um,

134
01:00:39.920 --> 01:00:55.280
in the instance of sharing drawings and updating files, it appears that the building grew slightly talking about 6 in where the brick facade was added on and then there were

135
01:00:55.280 --> 01:01:11.119
obviously some minor changes that have minor adjustments or shifts in the layout of the building that occurred during construction. Um so going to the step back requirements, these are a little more complicated than

136
01:01:11.119 --> 01:01:27.440
most projects um on Essex Street, which obviously you all know is over here on the west side. >> And I'm sorry, just for the record, you're referring to >> Sorry, I am referring to the cyclone drawing CS 101. It is last revised March

137
01:01:27.440 --> 01:01:44.160
19th, 2026. This is the application going to do the absolute package. Okay. And not colorized or change whatsoever. >> Thank you. Okay. So, Essex Street has a 10 foot minimum step requirement

138
01:01:44.160 --> 01:02:01.680
with two exceptions. um 170 ft of the length of the building along Essex Street is allowed to encroach to within 5 ft of the rightway and 70 ft of the building is allowed to encroach to within 2 ft of the rightway

139
01:02:01.680 --> 01:02:18.319
on the eastern property line which is against the existing retail and their parking lot. There's also a 10- foot minimum setback requirement that has a allowance of 105 ft of the building may enclose to within 3 ft of

140
01:02:18.319 --> 01:02:33.119
the property line. That's directly from the ordinance. Uh when we applied for this project, the minimum setback at Essex Street was 2 feet

141
01:02:33.119 --> 01:02:48.960
basically right at this corner. I just for the record at this Can you speak directly? >> Sorry. There would be the northwest portion of the building. Um it's essentially the middle jog of the building on that side.

142
01:02:48.960 --> 01:03:04.799
So that was a minimum of 2 ft during the application and the hearing. on the eastern side, the north, just shy of the northeast column or just south of the northeast column, there's a little step in the

143
01:03:04.799 --> 01:03:22.240
building that was at 3.1 ft. So, both of those were compliant. Obviously, um with this amended application, we are requesting a minimum setback of 1.2 2 ft

144
01:03:22.240 --> 01:03:39.280
that occurs in the first corner of the building closest to Essex Street in the northwest corner. So, right at this location, uh we also have a minor encroachment at the

145
01:03:39.280 --> 01:03:54.319
very northwest corner where we're at 1.9 ft. So, where this 1.2 2 foot setback request is happening which is again8 ft roughly 10 in beyond the 2T allowed.

146
01:03:54.319 --> 01:04:11.200
This occurs for a length of only 4.6 ft because this is a sort of the corner of the building only about 4.6 which fixed feet parallel to the property lines actually makes that enclosure down in the north or southwest corner

147
01:04:11.200 --> 01:04:28.400
where we have the 1.9 ft that's about 1 in beyond the 2T required setback that occurs for a length of 2 ft or 3 in so almost unnoticeable um in addition I had mentioned

148
01:04:28.400 --> 01:04:43.760
the exceptions to the 10-ft setback where we can have 185 ft approaching beyond the 10ft setback or sorry we can have 170 with the changes on this facade and the enlargement I guess with the

149
01:04:43.760 --> 01:04:59.359
brick face we have 185.2 feet of the building that encroaches past it approaches into the 10 5T setback. Um the next step back is the 5 foot to

150
01:04:59.359 --> 01:05:15.760
the twoft. We only have 50.3 ft of the building approaching into that portion where 70 is permitted. So there's no variance on that over the northwest corner. Again, this was a required we are requesting a twoft

151
01:05:15.760 --> 01:05:33.440
minimum setback. Um that occurs in the very northeast of the building. Uh this is 1 ft beyond the permissionable 3 ft and occurs for a length of 4.5 ft in this back corner in

152
01:05:33.440 --> 01:05:48.160
the back of the parking lot along the rails. >> Sorry, you say 4.5 ft. >> It's 4.5 ft long. Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> Um we also have where we were allowed to have up to 105 ft extend between the 10

153
01:05:48.160 --> 01:06:03.920
foot and 5 foot setback. We have we have a request for 112.3 of the building length. Um no burn frontage remains in compliance

154
01:06:03.920 --> 01:06:18.319
that is required to have a 10-ft setback. The minimum setback is 10 feet and Milburn because of this curve Milburn is measured from this corner 250 ft to right before the curve.

155
01:06:18.319 --> 01:06:33.680
So that whole facade remains completely in compliance. And then on the back side the required step back was one foot. Um the building exceeds that we have a minimum of 2.3. So we are still

156
01:06:33.680 --> 01:06:48.720
maintaining. Um that essentially summarizes the testimony and the variances we're requesting. >> A few things if I may. Sure. Uh M no other changes to the site plan. Correct. Correct.

157
01:06:48.720 --> 01:07:04.960
>> Um, no modifications to any component of the building. Correct. Other than what you just testified to. >> Correct. >> We're not increasing the size of any units. Correct. >> Nope. >> We're not making the building any bigger other than these minor deviations for the building. Correct. >> Correct. >> We're not adding any more units.

158
01:07:04.960 --> 01:07:18.480
Correct. Correct. >> We're not increasing the building height. Correct. >> Correct. We're addressing an issue that occurred. We're seeking uh your approval for that. Um, I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. I tend to come back to you in

159
01:07:18.480 --> 01:07:34.559
the board for any questions. Thank you. >> Question for a question. So it will be easier for us to understand if you can mark on the plants the difference between the new and the old. I always think that you have to treat as like

160
01:07:34.559 --> 01:07:49.760
elementary to understand everything because you talk about so many numbers. >> I was going to say it's a lot. >> It's very complicated. But my question so that would be nice for next time. Uh so he asked you if there was no more

161
01:07:49.760 --> 01:08:04.640
square footage of the building. >> Correct. >> There is because you are making >> a bigger >> none of the units have been made any bigger. >> No no the unit >> the building footprint overall >> the building is bigger. The footprint is bigger. Correct.

162
01:08:04.640 --> 01:08:20.960
>> It would be slightly bigger. >> How much bigger? Can you tell me if how much bigger is the building now? Off the top of my head, I do not know the answer, but based on the numbers along this facade, we're looking at uh about 300 ft of

163
01:08:20.960 --> 01:08:36.159
frontage and roughly 10 in of exceedence. So, you're talking about 300 square ft >> per floor. No, just on the outer perimeter level

164
01:08:36.159 --> 01:08:54.159
300 300 square ft right out per floor >> that would have fourtory building. So you have 1200 >> so it would carry up to all the floors. >> So you have 1200 square ft >> right the

165
01:08:54.159 --> 01:09:11.199
ordinance does not have an requirement. No, but I just because the attorney was getting bigger the building the building is bigger. >> I'm not sure that that math is correct. We'll double check that. But >> that's okay. It's close. Never mind. It doesn't have to be accurate. It's close

166
01:09:11.199 --> 01:09:28.000
enough. So you and we are talking about only one side of the >> correct >> much bigger is the building. >> Milurn did not change. So that facade is essentially exactly where it was when we got the original approval. There was

167
01:09:28.000 --> 01:09:43.520
also a bit of a rotation that occurred in some of the building which is why what would have been a 6 in brick face actually ends up being an 8 to 10 inch encroachment. Uh so again if I go at

168
01:09:43.520 --> 01:10:01.840
most with this side with the tan here this encroachment with this one foot in the very northeast corner that I spoke about that actually is fully a result of a column design. Originally the column was in the building

169
01:10:01.840 --> 01:10:17.760
at some point it came and shifted outside and then it rotated. >> I understand >> which one is not a typical tolerance in any contraction. One foot is much more than the tolerance mistake that we consider in contraction. Right.

170
01:10:17.760 --> 01:10:34.239
>> Yes. Again >> a few >> like it like a field change. >> Yeah. It's a it's a big change. So what do you realize about this this mistake because that wasn't >> the the the foundation was essentially

171
01:10:34.239 --> 01:10:49.360
complete. >> Framing had started we were asked by the developer to do an asill of the foundation. >> We prepared that they submitted it to the building department and that's when the building department raised their

172
01:10:49.360 --> 01:11:05.120
hand and said I think there might be an issue. So since the moment that you realized that there was a mistake, the construction was keep going on. You didn't stop the construction before to get approved yet. >> There was no stopping the construction is my understanding.

173
01:11:05.120 --> 01:11:21.840
>> But to correct the framing had already >> a big portion of the framing was up when this was discovered. >> I don't want to say the whole footprint was done, but portions were two stories up or two were gone. >> But after that, after you saw the

174
01:11:21.840 --> 01:11:37.120
Mistake can be made always there are mistakes I'm not there was a mistake there was a mistake from our town that they didn't review this before so I understand that but once the mistake was found my question is you didn't stop the construction on that side you keep going with

175
01:11:37.120 --> 01:11:54.719
>> they were not required to stop by the building >> there was discussions with the building officials >> they are the ones who suggested or actually essentially required us to verify what the numbers and come back for amended approval

176
01:11:54.719 --> 01:12:11.360
but they agreed because they were minor they felt it okay to continue construction >> so the risk that to keep going on the construction before to come here and we can say no it is approved now we have to demolish so they took the risk to do that >> well we we I would say

177
01:12:11.360 --> 01:12:27.280
>> it's not going to happen >> right the once the building department was notified uh and the Construction was stopped once we filed the application. Uh >> okay I'm sorry >> developer was allowed to proceed

178
01:12:27.280 --> 01:12:43.840
internally now foundation had been my understanding is the foundation had not been set at that point the error was there u I also want to correct one other thing I don't believe it's 300 square feet going back to that I think it's about three square feet per floor uh on

179
01:12:43.840 --> 01:13:01.760
an average that has been incorrectly added to the building >> just to to give it to to give to give you some sense of context okay >> we had my professional duke some math on his feet here, but I just wanted to give you that. Okay, I'll sit back down.

180
01:13:01.760 --> 01:13:16.719
>> I I have a little >> clear hasn't added any square footage to any of the rooms, right? >> Strictly the outside massing exterior materials etc. >> Yes, that is yes, that is correct. And

181
01:13:16.719 --> 01:13:30.960
also park aviation is where the parking garage is. That has nothing to do with as well. Yes. So, >> no sorry you say that the deviation here in the

182
01:13:30.960 --> 01:13:52.640
>> D I'm back there's two >> the question was and I believe it's or they're asking us to confirm are we adding anything to the size of the units as a result of the field issue? >> No. So you keep the interior finished wall

183
01:13:52.640 --> 01:14:10.120
where it was it was designed. >> The main issue here was coordination with the architect and the outer perimeter of the building. They incorporated the brick ledge and the brick facade

184
01:14:10.800 --> 01:14:26.159
during the resolution compliance that ex bumped out further than the building limit that we had shown on the plans. So, so their their exterior wall didn't our plans that we had submitted with the

185
01:14:26.159 --> 01:14:43.840
steps didn't account for the brick face. >> So, you change it. >> No, it's I get your question. Where is the extra square footage going? Right. Is it in the wall, John? Is it in the wall? It went from the wall went from 6 in.

186
01:14:43.840 --> 01:14:58.719
>> Yes. 12 in. The exterior wall thickness would have gone from six inches of framing and sheeting to 6 in plus a gap and a brick. >> So you have a 6 in gap between

187
01:14:58.719 --> 01:15:16.280
>> No more the gap is like 1 in but the brick is 3 to 4 in. So >> it count for the width of the brick. It's essentially yeah, you know, we had this as the facade.

188
01:15:16.320 --> 01:15:33.280
They put in a brick ledge and then built brick up. So the the exterior wall that we were thinking of was stopped at this line. It was missed that when they sent later files there

189
01:15:33.280 --> 01:15:50.080
was a brick facade in front of that that technically bumped the building into that setback. So the wall isn't it the units are no different than what was previously shown. It was a coordination issue with that thickening

190
01:15:50.080 --> 01:16:05.760
of the exterior of the wall. What's I'm sorry that's too complic I I so I know how to do this and I don't see how that happens because somewhere that six inches have to go and it's going

191
01:16:05.760 --> 01:16:21.360
inside the apartment or somewhere because when you present this in 2023 it was already a brick building. >> Yes. So how the construction detail changed only in one section of the building and not in the full building? >> The section

192
01:16:21.360 --> 01:16:36.560
the section of the building that the architect was sharing with us apparently didn't include the brick shell and the brick facade. So, we were using an outline that was missing that when they included it,

193
01:16:36.560 --> 01:16:53.640
we didn't realize it and that it had bumped some of the side pieces of the building out 6 in. So, they were essentially working with the framing as their outer edge of the building. Then they added the 6 in.

194
01:16:54.000 --> 01:17:09.600
>> That's okay. Doesn't make sense, but that's okay. for the pause like what actually happened like what did the architect like why did he screw it up what actually >> there was a it's a coordination issue so when so typically what happens the

195
01:17:09.600 --> 01:17:24.400
architect will give us a footprint we will bring it in and we will define the outer line of the building during the site approval process we work with what they had given us during resolution compliance preparation of our resolution compliance

196
01:17:24.400 --> 01:17:41.760
plans there were several iterations with minor adjustments that were being done between the architect and the owner to comply with the approval approved resolution you know where they I know there were some discussions about units

197
01:17:41.760 --> 01:17:58.640
and facades they didn't change any setback well it didn't it wasn't intended to change anything we during that process from approval to submission resolution compliance We had several versions of architectural

198
01:17:58.640 --> 01:18:15.600
plans in our bias that we had used to update the building. Apparently, when the last update came, we didn't realize that there had we were hope there weren't really any changes. Didn't realize that this exterior wall thickened.

199
01:18:15.600 --> 01:18:31.520
So we didn't we had matched the building and actually on the resolution compliance drawings we had a dimension in this corner that was 3 ft but the leaders from the property line extended

200
01:18:31.520 --> 01:18:48.400
over and into the building. And similarly on this corner we had a 2.8T 8 foot dimension that went from the property line but encroached into the foot that was missed as Derek said you know humbly we missed

201
01:18:48.400 --> 01:19:06.159
it and anyone else that looked at these plans sign off on them also missed it the building department didn't realize it because you know they're looking for plans so this you know again we're humbly asking for this approval because

202
01:19:06.159 --> 01:19:24.000
there was one they might have mistaken that does unfortunately sometimes things happen in the field. This is a little bit different. You know a lot of times there are instances where buildings will encroach into setbacks just because there was a layout error and something

203
01:19:24.000 --> 01:19:39.040
got rotated. We didn't have a significant layout error. Almost everything lined up. is really that thickness of the exterior wall and the addition of the brick face that we missed in the last architecture plan

204
01:19:39.040 --> 01:19:55.600
that what is likely anything else happening as a result deviations that >> nothing else will happen on this building that would require any sort of variance because we did a full perimeter survey

205
01:19:55.600 --> 01:20:11.600
of the outer rip ledge to verify what was encroaching in the setback and what we needed the variances for application checked >> and that actually that ad was submitted as part of the application that is what

206
01:20:11.600 --> 01:20:27.280
defined this building and is what we used to verify any setback that I defined for this corner this corner and then the increase from 170 ft in

207
01:20:27.280 --> 01:20:44.280
So no more there's no other issues that could come up at this point because of the fact that the foundation of the building everything going vertical they won't be the building's not changeable

208
01:20:47.840 --> 01:21:11.280
that perimeter is essentially Any other questions from the board? >> Did you have mentioned uh did we address the memos with this witness or >> not yet? >> Okay. We're not with his direct yet. >> Okay. So, um

209
01:21:11.280 --> 01:21:29.760
>> can I go one more question? the facade around the entire building increased in thickness and it just happened that the rest of the facade around the building did not or was not close enough to the limit of the uh

210
01:21:29.760 --> 01:21:46.640
>> the boundary to exceed it correct the deviations you know one thing is important to point out the increase of the building along this facade of Milward Avenue we're still in compliance to 10 ft over here. The minimum that we

211
01:21:46.640 --> 01:22:01.679
had on the plans when we got the approval was 10.1. So that really, you know, it may have bumped out an inch, but it didn't end up encroaching. >> But why didn't it bump out the other?

212
01:22:01.679 --> 01:22:18.000
>> That's the part I'm not 100% sure because of all the different files. But it did like we measured all the you know measured everything field surveyed it to get the actual corners and it all it fit

213
01:22:18.000 --> 01:22:34.000
the big the big portion was you know obviously this this brick face on here along here did bump out this deviation of 1.9 ft I guess 1.2 two and then again on this side is really the column.

214
01:22:34.000 --> 01:22:48.480
>> You mentioned that the building also rotates and it's >> we believe we believe that there was a tiny rotation because again as I mentioned the brick ledge is approximately 6 in

215
01:22:48.480 --> 01:23:07.880
in this location the the change is closer to 10 in. So we think there was a little bit of a rotation in column life imperceptible but enough that once you build this deviation became a little

216
01:23:17.600 --> 01:23:34.639
lines is that where >> so happen when they do the foundation construction And typical thing to do is they'll do column line layouts. So those column lines get laid out. They're tied into the known property corners. Keep

217
01:23:34.639 --> 01:23:51.120
everything as consistent as perfect as what's on the draws. Uh then most of the dimen you know most of the setting of the foundation is measured off those lines. So you know say you have a column line running north

218
01:23:51.120 --> 01:24:07.199
south of the sheep. They'll get the dimensions to each of the corners of the foundation and measure off, you know, two column lines to nail that location down and then build. So they took that information from the architectural drawings, >> right?

219
01:24:07.199 --> 01:24:25.239
>> Which were wrong. So it's not that they messed up in the field, it's that the drawings they were working off of were just wrong, right? >> I think it's a combination of both. It's hard to pinpoint which one had a big risk.

220
01:24:27.920 --> 01:24:44.480
Obviously, you know, be honest. If we had caught this at the resolution compliance prior to the resolution compliance, we would have had to look at this and figure out how to make it go well. We missed it. It was missed during all the

221
01:24:44.480 --> 01:25:00.400
reviews for the final sign off and unfortunately carried through to construction where we have foundations of a lot of framing when it was realized. >> So are the townships officials and engineers didn't catch this during the

222
01:25:00.400 --> 01:25:16.480
final because >> nobody did. So I have to say yes. I don't want to I don't want to point a finger at anybody, but there were a lot of people that were reviewing and signing off on this resolution points. Not trying to take the blame away from

223
01:25:16.480 --> 01:25:36.880
our site for the uh you review the board professional reports, correct? Yes, we have one from consultants, Mr. Providing that pull that out. Do you have any comments or or issues with that report?

224
01:25:36.880 --> 01:25:54.800
>> No. >> You also got a report from topology dated May 15, 2026. Correct. >> Correct. >> Copy that report. >> I'll do you have any responses to the items raised in that report. We go to the uh

225
01:25:54.800 --> 01:26:10.480
planning comments. You think was go to com all the conditions of the prior approval uh but for how the board may the board will hopefully approve this application

226
01:26:10.480 --> 01:26:26.800
remain in full important effect. Um stipulation one uh stipulation two is just comment uh Mr. Dento has testified to all of these setback deficiencies and it's also joined his plans. That's comment number two. Uh comment three,

227
01:26:26.800 --> 01:26:44.040
there's a question regarding our ability to screen under condition 17 from the original resolution. Can you confirm we can still screen as required by the board? to the extent permissible by JCPL for example

228
01:26:45.679 --> 01:27:00.639
intends to stream that transformer because had to be testified in 2023 but uh while it is in the front yard it's not something they want to prominently display. So the transformer

229
01:27:00.639 --> 01:27:16.560
is up here in this northwest corner. So the intent is to provide as much screening as is allowed by JCP. Now there are restrictions to proximity and where they have to access it though. Okay, we're going to screen. Uh number four

230
01:27:16.560 --> 01:27:32.159
is not a comment that's just a statement. Uh and number five, there was a question as to the vacation of existing easements as the board may require or recall really work I did with the township uh attorney and the township engineer we prepare various and

231
01:27:32.159 --> 01:27:48.560
the vacation of various on the property. Um some of those John please confirm we are not we do not physically modify any of the eastments for water sewers etc in terms of usage. No.

232
01:27:48.560 --> 01:28:04.320
>> Okay. From a legal perspective, there is some work, Mr. Chairman, that the the attorneys will have to do because we may need to modify the meets and bounds of the easement exhibit uh that is connected with those easements. So, for

233
01:28:04.320 --> 01:28:21.199
example, if we had it on the meets and bounds at whatever the location was, it may need to be slightly modified. not thinking about >> on that side of the property. >> The easement is for the storm the town storm water easement through the property. There was an existing line

234
01:28:21.199 --> 01:28:37.360
running through the property that got relocated to the perimeter and the easement essentially followed. I'm going to verify if there's any deviations there. >> Are there any other repercussions? I

235
01:28:37.360 --> 01:28:52.400
know it sticks out for or whatever, but not going to interfere with anything with the pipe, doesn't impact the storm water flow, any of that. >> And obviously, but that's not going to be obvious. So, you're going to confirm all necessary uh modifications to these

236
01:28:52.400 --> 01:29:10.159
related documents as a result of this modification. Should the application be approved uh will be made by council and and the engineers. Correct. >> That's correct. subject to review and approval of township of Bandor board attorney and township of Bandor

237
01:29:10.159 --> 01:29:26.159
board engineer. Yes. Thank you. Okay. There was also a memorandum question on the is that entirely on this parcel? >> Yes. Is this a storm shore pipeline there? >> Yes.

238
01:29:26.159 --> 01:29:45.199
>> You know what side? Off the top of my head, it's 24 at the top and I believe it switches to 30 down at the south end and then it turns and it's parallel to Miland

239
01:29:45.199 --> 01:30:02.000
as two parallel 18 in and then ties into a new system that we built crossing Avenue >> and there's no ement on the property. >> Not that I'm aware of. Yeah. >> Did it extend? >> Yeah.

240
01:30:02.000 --> 01:30:17.679
>> Oh, the dog house dog house manhole. >> Good. Correct. >> But there is but there is an ement on the joint property for that same. Are you sure on this property here? >> I >> Yes. >> Yes. The the adjacent property owner has already executed the the priority

241
01:30:17.679 --> 01:30:33.280
easement which was a condition of approval of the original application. That's good because you showed two feet off the property line 24T. >> Yes. >> It wouldn't have survived the footings. >> Okay.

242
01:30:33.280 --> 01:30:49.520
>> That would it would have broke during construction. >> At this northern portion, it was found that the existing pipe actually cut through the adjacent properties corner as it went through the site. So that pipe was essentially connected to the same. The dog house was put in and

243
01:30:49.520 --> 01:31:07.760
that new pipe was run down. Yes. We also have a report from the board forester sorry the town forester uh support may recall we did get uh approval to slightly modify the planting distance of the street trees as part of the original application. Uh obviously

244
01:31:07.760 --> 01:31:26.000
note that there's nothing to really respond to in this uh report. We're not seeking to reduce any of the street tree plantings or any other plantings on the site for this application. almost. >> That's all the questions I had uh for

245
01:31:26.000 --> 01:31:44.000
Miss Witness, you have any questions? >> I have one more. >> Yes. >> The access dishonor is that has that ever been

246
01:31:44.000 --> 01:32:15.600
in any of the sightings? That was the one on the one in the northwest. >> There was no existing. Do we get the >> I know we're going to get the answer from this witness, but we get the

247
01:32:15.600 --> 01:32:31.760
question and the answer again. There's a lot of noise going on. >> Okay. Well, my my question is being that Conrail has been using this area to access their rear property. >> The rear? >> Yes. Their property on >> into the rail.

248
01:32:31.760 --> 01:32:48.080
>> This is a maintenance driveway for Conrail exiting onto Essex Street. That access has been well over 30 years old that I can tell without doing much research just going through the Google Earth historical maps. But technically

249
01:32:48.080 --> 01:33:03.280
that's prescriptive easement. It should be codified. They're doing an easement map along here. That ement should be codified. Not just permission, but a true easement for access

250
01:33:03.280 --> 01:33:19.120
street property. It's been there for if I see it 30 years probably been there for 50 years. >> I'm I'm reticent. I understand what uh Mr. says. Title doesn't show Conman here. They've never requested it. I'm

251
01:33:19.120 --> 01:33:35.840
reticent to stipulate to give them a real property right. Uh >> this access we did do >> I assume we did. >> Yeah. the proposed grass paver so that it wouldn't if if they use this access it wouldn't destroy the landscaping

252
01:33:35.840 --> 01:33:52.560
there. But what I'm saying is they've been using that probably like I said if they had been open and continued over 20 to 30 years prescriptive ement they have rights can't they can't because there's been a curb cut there 30 years there's

253
01:33:52.560 --> 01:34:08.239
been an apron there for 30 years that was asphalt is that as >> I don't think that was asphalt >> it shows up on Google as asphalt before this building was constructed.

254
01:34:08.239 --> 01:34:26.239
>> I thought it was gravel looked like >> maybe it was at one time and never done. >> So if there's easements being vi because it's been there >> they're just not here. I mean it's a

255
01:34:26.239 --> 01:34:42.080
legal question as to whether I understand what the what the board engineer is saying. I just don't come in to an application. board didn't require it. Giving someone who's not here, who's been noticed of the application, who's been well aware of the construction of a project, who has a flag out there every

256
01:34:42.080 --> 01:34:58.560
day, never requested this. I'm not eager to give them that legal easement. Um, and I'm not so sure if the board wants us to anyway. Uh, >> it's up to the board to

257
01:34:58.560 --> 01:35:13.600
>> technically the town can't give it. Only a judge or this board can request it. >> At least v Burnersville is the case. We do not have

258
01:35:13.600 --> 01:35:28.960
that authority to require it. uh parties meaning on rail and the applicants from the order can agree to it or court can impose it. We could if we wanted to ask them to pursue it.

259
01:35:28.960 --> 01:35:45.679
Um I'll leave it back in back in there. I've just bounced it back to the board. >> That transit request easement will will provide it to a reasonable degree. And in defense Conrail is extremely

260
01:35:45.679 --> 01:36:05.159
difficult. They don't they don't answer the phone to put it bluntly con small office building in Oculus somewhere. So they are honoring the access wants to pursue it.

261
01:36:06.480 --> 01:36:26.159
But again, this may have been should have been raised in a big beginning that that is their main access and their high power lines, their attention lines are all the same. >> Okay. So, I have one other witness. Uh, Mr. Chairman, if you like to open up to

262
01:36:26.159 --> 01:36:41.120
the public for any questions of this witness. >> Yes. If all the board members and other professionals are done, I just wanted to make sure we covered all the reports because I thought we have a fire official report and we police

263
01:36:41.120 --> 01:36:57.679
uh fire official May 13 police made 12. We're not saying that they're well the fire official certainly has. >> Yes. Don, could you address that? >> Um, it's my understanding that the applicant has no

264
01:36:57.679 --> 01:37:14.800
>> stipulate to compliance with these I don't want to use the term usual, but they'll be usual. So, I just use the term requirements that the fire >> consistent with what was argued. >> So, so they're stipulating to that and the police

265
01:37:14.800 --> 01:37:30.719
>> no concern. So, I we're good there. >> Uh, but thank you, Mr. Chair. If I ask I want I would like to ask one more question. Um do you agree with everything said about facade increasing everything else staying the same?

266
01:37:30.719 --> 01:37:46.080
>> This is a tough this is a difficult building if you had to lay this building. Now there's nothing square about. >> Yeah. >> So what does happen is AutoCAD files are transferred from architects to engineers

267
01:37:46.080 --> 01:38:03.199
from engineers to land surveyors. Then at certain projects the land surveyor stake out pin all the footings. Certain projects the mason does them themselves. There's a litany of things that could have happened. either the mason was

268
01:38:03.199 --> 01:38:20.480
doing a layout not a surveyor maybe surveyor there's a skew to the building so something happened and it's a difficult building this is definitely not a box these things do happen this is not the first encounter I had with situations

269
01:38:20.480 --> 01:38:38.239
such as this must have numerous times because I'm also a lancer so we we do have this issue sometimes we import architectural documents ments that are not correct or do not meet the envelope placed by the

270
01:38:38.239 --> 01:38:55.119
engineer on a site plan. Sometimes the architect takes the envelope from the engineer works with it. Sometimes is some somebody expands too far. So something happened here because the buildings also rotate. It's just not the brick. The building's a little rotated.

271
01:38:55.119 --> 01:39:13.119
So something happened. It may have been the mason. the iron the iron workers on this one. There are two other couple of questions about there were some requests possibility of closing these

272
01:39:13.119 --> 01:39:29.600
pedestrian crosswalks >> that we could do it now. >> Yeah. So the way I see it, an error has occurred and you guys are humbly coming before

273
01:39:29.600 --> 01:39:47.440
us. Um, but I feel like we ought to get something out of this mistake. And one thing that I think would be beneficial to the town and and to the the property itself be to address a pedestrian safety issue caused by two crosswalks. So,

274
01:39:47.440 --> 01:40:03.760
there's one right there and then there's one that's off. It's not on the map there, but um it's two feet down. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Um, so it's come to our attention that those crosswalks are very dangerous for people crossing because there's four

275
01:40:03.760 --> 01:40:20.239
lanes of traffic. Uh, people would have to be crossing and we would prefer those not exist because then people could safely cross at Wyoming where there's a light or they could safely cross up closer to

276
01:40:20.239 --> 01:40:36.480
>> yes intersection where we have. So, I think the ask would be to have you guys remove the curb cutouts and put proper curving in place there. Uh, and

277
01:40:36.480 --> 01:40:51.679
then you would have to uh grind down the the pavement and fix it so that we don't have the uh the crosswalk lines and do that on >> on both sides >> and you know the curving on both sides.

278
01:40:51.679 --> 01:41:08.400
Um, just as you guys are out there in a way professionals, I think that would be a nice thing you guys to do for the town would also benefit the residents that live there to make a safer situation. Um, I think that would be something you

279
01:41:08.400 --> 01:41:25.119
guys could do to help atone for the mistakes that were made. >> That's very good question. Fairly put. Thank you very much. Yeah, that makes sense. >> Yes, one of the county road county road,

280
01:41:25.119 --> 01:41:42.320
but we do believe more than those crosswalks uh be eliminated. But yes, we would so stipulate we'll go to the county, get the approval for that and we'll take care of that sole cost and expense.

281
01:41:42.320 --> 01:42:05.440
Got it. That being said, are there any questions from the public? should come up and give name and address, please. And and these are just questions now of the witness based on his test. >> Yep. J Matthews, 16 MR Avenue. What

282
01:42:05.440 --> 01:42:21.360
would be the I don't know if you're the correct witness or not, but what would prevent the correction of this or or can it be corrected without the variances or exceptions that you're asking? It would be a tumous

283
01:42:21.360 --> 01:42:35.760
undertaking that would require tearing down portions of the building, tearing out portions of the foundation and reconstructing which is very would be very expensive at this point

284
01:42:35.760 --> 01:43:00.400
>> but also extend the construction of this project significantly. >> Yeah. to be a significant extension of destruction disruption that occurred from home. >> Any other questions for the public? >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you.

285
01:43:00.400 --> 01:43:17.159
>> Yeah, that was riveting. I have one more. One more. All right. My last and final witness is Greg Woodbrook. He's our planner. He's going to speak briefly briefly on the uh groups. Uh what >> did you

286
01:43:18.159 --> 01:43:34.400
uh Greg your professional licenses are in good standing effective state New Jersey professional planner. Correct. You have testified before this board and many other boards in the state. >> Definitely boards in many other boards in the state. I believe this board uh but definitely many other boards in the state. Mr. >> Chairman, unless you'd like to hear

287
01:43:34.400 --> 01:43:50.400
more, I proper him as an expert in field professional planning. licensed are all still current. >> All current principal in the firm been a planner for many years. >> Excellent. Thank you. We find you acceptable as professional matter. >> Appreciate it. Uh so again, hint taken. I I'll try to be brief. Uh obviously

288
01:43:50.400 --> 01:44:05.920
we've had quite a bit of discussion about what what the situation is from a planning proof perspective. Um you know, I think the two issues that we have really fall into the category of just being sort of like an impractical, you know, that a hardship issue here with

289
01:44:05.920 --> 01:44:23.600
what happened. It was unintentional. Um it was a coordination issue. It was uh again not intended. We are here you know trying to make it right. Um relative to some of the purposes of of the zoning again I think all of what in the

290
01:44:23.600 --> 01:44:40.719
beginning the first application still remains. Specifically uh the project will activate this site uh will allow for the affordable housing units that will come as part of it. Um, and I think I was actually just at the site again tonight. I would say just from an

291
01:44:40.719 --> 01:44:57.520
overall downtown planning perspective, it looks like it's going to be quite an attractive component of downtown Milburn uh when it's finished. Uh, relative to some of the negative criteria, in my opinion, there's no substantial detriment to the public good. Uh, we heard about, you know, the inches and

292
01:44:57.520 --> 01:45:14.400
small uh deviations in that. No sight triangles are impacted, no widths of sidewalks, like those other public things that might be related to some of those uh deviations into a setback occur. Um the deviation in the uh corner

293
01:45:14.400 --> 01:45:29.040
closest the parking deck issue. The column is, you know, a parking deck in the very rear of the site. You know, essentially would not be viewed by hardly anyone of the public except for maybe the person who's using that space. uh that is most clear in that parking

294
01:45:29.040 --> 01:45:45.600
lot relative to uh the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. Uh in my opinion, there's no substantial impairment to the intent. The intent was for the project that we have here. The approval was granted. These are very minor deviations that again were accidental in nature and

295
01:45:45.600 --> 01:46:01.679
we are here trying to make the the numbers correct on the approval. So I don't see any impairment to the intent of the zone plan or the zoning. In my opinion, uh the deviations meet proof standard and and could be granted. >> And we're also improving uh as the mayor

296
01:46:01.679 --> 01:46:18.080
mentioned, we've stipulated to improving uh the street part of the building. >> Correct. Yes. Which is you know will be sort of an additional balance in here to uh to balance out the request for

297
01:46:18.080 --> 01:46:32.960
I have no further questions. Mr. Chairman board have any questions for Mr. I just said one if if no one else does including our planner. >> I must have had more of a comment that I'd rather hear this be a C2 varian kind

298
01:46:32.960 --> 01:46:49.600
of hard to stomach this as a hardship C1 created >> but but I think we did and the witness will answer but I think I did hear >> I was trying to walk the line of both. I you know some people react negatively when you put it under both but agreed the benefit here in that the project results is what I was trying to get at

299
01:46:49.600 --> 01:47:05.679
with you know the original intent of the approval still remains versus you know these minor uh distance deviations even if we were to isolate this aspect from the balance of the project which you don't do under the coffin warrant case which because you look at the entirety

300
01:47:05.679 --> 01:47:23.280
of the case right but uh and the and whether it's a better planning alternative with affordable housing etc but Even if we were to just isolate this and even if we were to presumably say well the hardship might have been self-created uh and polar in part uh I think we did

301
01:47:23.280 --> 01:47:40.639
hear the C2 positive or negative criteria at least I did um and but I would ask uh that with as I think your council just said with the pedestrian safety aspect of it uh even if we were to isolate

302
01:47:40.639 --> 01:47:56.719
this these two variances is from the balance of the application would be your opinion that the benefits outweigh the substantially outweigh the detriments and the same testimony on the two problems. Yes. >> So isolated or in conjunction with the

303
01:47:56.719 --> 01:48:14.560
balance of the project as under your your your opinion is the same. >> That's a yes. >> Yes. Sorry. Sorry. I didn't want to be Yes. I thought you were you were confirming yes as I >> No. No. No. I don't testify. I'm asking. >> No. No. and I said yes I didn't

304
01:48:14.560 --> 01:48:29.440
those were my questions >> was there any variances in the original application >> this was a overlay and I know that there was probably zoning at that time >> I would have to double check

305
01:48:29.440 --> 01:48:50.960
>> you know I'm sorry I have I didn't draft it I wasn't here but I >> don't think Was it wa? >> Yeah, I think it was written so that the zoning was written so that the building was a variance.

306
01:48:50.960 --> 01:49:08.239
It was either a waiver or >> I'm sorry. We had >> Oh, sorry. >> competing our plan was >> I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be sorry. >> No, no, recognizing these affordable housing overlays get very much drafted in a way that's to a site plan and this was not site plan in 2023. So, this

307
01:49:08.239 --> 01:49:24.880
these these variances Should this have been the site plan, maybe it would have been viewed differently at that time and dropped it or >> want to know if we had a variance for the shade tree space anymore and that that was the only var. >> Yes.

308
01:49:24.880 --> 01:49:53.360
>> Yes, it was. >> Question answer. Any questions for the public? All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Sounds good. All right. Does anyone from the public have any comments about the

309
01:49:53.360 --> 01:50:18.159
application? >> Just please give us your name and address again for the record. >> Yep. Jane Matthews 216 Avenue is 260. It's directly right across the street. >> Thank you, Mr. M. Can you please raise your right hand so that your comments have the weight of testimony?

310
01:50:18.159 --> 01:50:33.360
>> Do you swear to God or refund the testimony about to give truth the whole truth and nothing but good? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Please proceed with chair's permission. >> Yep. Absolutely. So, I understand that the uh the applicant's trying to seek two variances.

311
01:50:33.360 --> 01:50:49.199
I want to address the suggestion in the application that is justified that allows afford that purely for the affordable housing. Obviously, it was a mistake. I think that uh I agree with I don't know your name what you said that

312
01:50:49.199 --> 01:51:04.800
the town should get something or we should get something favorable for us. I think that would be a benefit. I know I do know the traffic is pretty bad there on Milurn Avenue. I do think it was a significant mistake. I think the testimony that was given I don't fully

313
01:51:04.800 --> 01:51:21.280
follow it 100% how a mistake can happen like this. Uh but again mistakes do happen. Uh that being said I do think the variance should be denied given that the mistake was made and uh and not supportive of it at least right now.

314
01:51:21.280 --> 01:51:47.760
Thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to comment? I I thank the board and just for clarification that the chair I believe just closed the the public comment portion and is allowing you to explain. >> Thank you. I'll be short. I I thank Mr.

315
01:51:47.760 --> 01:52:03.679
Chairman, members of the board of professionals for hearing us this evening, considering this application. Again, we come here humbly before you uh to correct something which we identified in the field. We're also looking to make an improvement uh for public health safety along the frontage uh as as way

316
01:52:03.679 --> 01:52:18.800
of atonement for what occurred in connection with the construction of the building. As board heard from my professionals and also uh from the board engineer these types of things happen regularly shaped the building. Uh the deviations that we presented from our

317
01:52:18.800 --> 01:52:34.719
professionals are minor in nature. uh we're not done with any market benefits. Uh and I think that's a critical point here. We provided the professional testimony uh in connection with the bulk varies relief and again um we humbly ask

318
01:52:34.719 --> 01:52:52.480
you to grant this application subject to the conditions which were stipulated to and identified by us and by the board actually review the application. Thank you for hearing us this evening. Shim if you want I can try to tee it up for the board as I understand

319
01:52:52.480 --> 01:53:12.719
discussion. Yeah. I can do it before the perspective after or not at all whatever you so few observations also for the benefit of the public. Um, you know, this is obviously very disappointing

320
01:53:12.719 --> 01:53:29.840
that it got to this point that, you know, it's disappointing that mistakes were made and I'm disappointed that the mistakes were not. Um, you know, I think that the township um should have detected this sooner. Uh,

321
01:53:29.840 --> 01:53:47.760
and that's something that we uh are working on addressing. uh we have a different engineer now. Uh we also have changed the process such that in the future the foundation will be inspected

322
01:53:47.760 --> 01:54:02.960
before any further work can be commenced. Um that being said you know there are multiple layers where failures occurred. township professionals, they'll detect deviation, the the builders uh and those working on

323
01:54:02.960 --> 01:54:18.960
the building failed to detect deviation until after the fact. Um so that's that's disappointing. That's something that we should make sure doesn't happen again uh by being more cautious on the side of the township and

324
01:54:18.960 --> 01:54:35.280
being more careful in how we inspect these things and when we inspect them. Um, that being said, the fact that there's an affordable housing component to this makes it very difficult for us as a town to, you know, to deny because

325
01:54:35.280 --> 01:54:50.880
what would inevitably happen is that we would be taken to court and the courts most likely would side with the affordable housing developer because that's just how it works in the state of New Jersey. So, I don't think is really

326
01:54:50.880 --> 01:55:06.639
an option for us to say go back and tear out the foundation and move it. Um, if there weren't an affordable housing component to this, then that might be an option. Um, and if that were the case, I

327
01:55:06.639 --> 01:55:22.000
would pursue that option. But that not being the case. Um, you know, I I think we're sort of limited in our options here, it's it happened. these things happen. I'm

328
01:55:22.000 --> 01:55:38.480
afraid they didn't and uh we should make sure they don't happen in the future. But we have to deal with what is in front of us. That's why I'm probably leaning towards in also taking into account the fact that they're willing to make those

329
01:55:38.480 --> 01:55:54.400
pedestrian safety improvements. um I'm leaning towards areas. >> I I would just say, you know, I think part of the other issue is,

330
01:55:54.400 --> 01:56:11.520
you know, as we said, the ordinance was written to to match the building, which is usually not how these things or the buildings are usually designed to match a pre-existing ordinance. So if it if the building wasn't maxed out to to the ultimate setback so that we could be two

331
01:56:11.520 --> 01:56:28.080
feet, it was exactly two feet. So there was no margin for error just as there was no error on the government avenue side. If that had been done to the entire perimeter, we wouldn't be in this situation. There would have been some contingency to allow for a small deviation like this. Of course, that's

332
01:56:28.080 --> 01:56:44.960
not where we are. you know, could have, should have, could have. You know, again, I'm happy to hear that we will at least get some pedestrian safety improvements out of this. And what uh what the mayor said about affordable housing is clearly accurate. I mean, we, you know, again, that's the kind of

333
01:56:44.960 --> 01:57:02.159
project it is, we have much less ramifications. So, I'm leading sort of direction. >> Yeah. I mean, to be clear, so the public is aware, we had to change our local zoning in order to accommodate this building. The zoning was basically designed for the building and had this

334
01:57:02.159 --> 01:57:17.760
been the original set of plans, it probably would have been approved then. Uh so I don't know that it would have made much of a difference. Um, that being said, you know, I'm disappointed

335
01:57:17.760 --> 01:57:37.679
and uh we're going to work to rectify the issues on the township side that allowed this to get as far as it did. Um, but I mean I think this was in front of us. >> Yeah. I want to say also maybe this is

336
01:57:37.679 --> 01:57:54.639
more for us. I feel like sometimes when applicants come to our world they don't come here with all information because the mistake like the war section should be resolved before doing here. So we know that or you know when you are here that what you

337
01:57:54.639 --> 01:58:11.679
are proposing you are going to be able to be but I see many applications they can without enough information like thinking that who cares about mil and they can without enough information. So that that was

338
01:58:11.679 --> 01:58:27.440
always disappointing for them to see as I said before when you come here and show the difference. I would like to see that on the plans. I would like to see what was approved and what is the the difference not just with numbers on the air like I would like to know how much

339
01:58:27.440 --> 01:58:44.719
square footage is the difference and I don't have that information I understand we need to do this because this is a component of the affordable housing I also appreciate and I want to say thank you to developer that they are going to consider to do a pedestrian safety we we are advocating for this in our town so I

340
01:58:44.719 --> 01:59:07.760
appreciate that but one foot or two or one food and sunset is not a small it's a big and the coordination should happen before to before this it's tough to go after everyone I was going to say almost exactly what he said I'm an engineer worked in industrial

341
01:59:07.760 --> 01:59:24.960
complexes uh and yeah when we we measure stuff we pinpoint it right down to the inch or two so to have it off by a put may not seem like a lot to a lot of people, but it is a significant mistake. Um, that being said, I know there's

342
01:59:24.960 --> 01:59:40.880
still some other places where things grew and the courtyard got a little smaller. Um, so I guess that was part of a facade as well. I really do hope that none of nothing was done to increase the size of the footprints of the units.

343
01:59:40.880 --> 01:59:56.960
If it was, it would be uh when I was thinking about this application, uh it would have been nice if it did increase to get uh another affordable unit or whatever the size of the increase of the footprint of the entire building,

344
01:59:56.960 --> 02:00:13.520
whatever that amounted to. I know that's not going to happen, but um it would be great if it would have happened. And I do appreciate everybody or the applicant also working with us on the crosswalks. I think that's very important. I'm a big component of uh pedestrian safety and I

345
02:00:13.520 --> 02:00:35.000
do think that's going to improve the safety on that street a lot and uh yes I will be uh granting the variances or voting for granting the variances to any other items up for discussion.

346
02:00:35.280 --> 02:00:52.800
Could you read that for us? >> Yeah, absolutely. And I apologize for being a little too eager and uh and jumping into it earlier, but uh as I understand it uh we have an amended preliminary and final major site plan uh as well as two bulk variances before us.

347
02:00:52.800 --> 02:01:08.000
uh the building setback deviations to Essex Street as described in detail visa v the deviation and the length of lengths of the deviation uh as well as the building set back to the eastern

348
02:01:08.000 --> 02:01:23.920
right of way or property line uh uh saying the magnitude of the deviation and the length of the deviations. Uh that is all the relief being sought by the applicant. If it is a motion to

349
02:01:23.920 --> 02:01:39.040
grant the approval, I will assume unless I am told otherwise that it's with all the conditions stipulated to buy or on behalf of the applicant, including but not limited to the items contained in the engineers report, the planners

350
02:01:39.040 --> 02:01:54.880
report, the forers report, the fire officials report. Uh and the police department had no comment. Um I believe that covers all the reports uh as well as

351
02:01:54.880 --> 02:02:11.840
the uh pedestrian safety condition with respect to the crosswalks, new curbing, sidewalks, etc. being subject to the county approve uh county's approval uh at the sole cost and expense of the

352
02:02:11.840 --> 02:02:30.159
applicant uh developer. Um, I'm going to assume unless I'm told otherwise also that uh the board is not uh requiring uh the applicant to obtain or attempt to

353
02:02:30.159 --> 02:02:45.360
obtain a formalized uh uh easement with what may be a prescriptive easement through the conra access way there. Um but again that would be my assumption unless I'm told

354
02:02:45.360 --> 02:03:06.159
otherwise based on the discussions and I think that is everything but I'm always open to being corrected. Okay. I I will make a motion to grant the variances and all the conditions

355
02:03:06.159 --> 02:03:22.960
that Steve just ran through. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. Please. >> Michael Cohen, >> yes. >> Master Petro, >> yes. >> Frank Zakamandi, >> yes. >> Michael Zion, >> yes. >> Sergey,

356
02:03:22.960 --> 02:03:39.800
>> yes. >> Chris Hinrich, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Sweeney BJ, >> yes. >> Chair Goner, >> yes. >> Chairman, mayor, members, the board, I thank you for your time and consideration this come back.

357
02:03:39.920 --> 02:03:59.639
>> Yes. or business to adjourn. Second. >> All in favor? All >> thank you.