Have a roll call, please. >> Allison Canfield >> here. >> Michael Cohen >> here. >> Jorge Master Petro >> here. >> Deborah Neves >> here. >> Frank Sakamandi >> here. >> Michael Zion >> here. >> Jonathan Baxter >> here. >> Sergey Sipsto >> here.
>> Vice Chair Serini BJ >> here. >> Chair Gustin Hard >> here. I'd like to make a motion to reopen the public meeting. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed?
Motion passes unanimously. Uh, next order of business is ordinance 2725-25, math plan consistency of review. Um this we're the proposed ordinance is amending and supplementing the township of Melbourne development regulations and
zoning ordinance article 5 design and performance standards DRZ 525.3 storm and water control. Mr. War could please te us up. Certainly, as board is well aware, whenever a zoning or land use ordinance
is introduced prior to adoption by the governing body uh in that interim period is referred to our planning board uh for a master plan consistency review uh and then we refer back to a report back to the government body uh whether the
ordinance is inconsistent or not inconsistent with the master plan. uh which then leads to uh their ability to proceed uh with a second reading of public hearing and potentially ultimate adoption of the ordinance. Uh so as
always we have an outstanding memo uh from topology Mr. Pedo and uh his colleague who is here today to speak to it as far as the consistency with the master plan. So there may as I understand it be some other questions
and concerns that be raised by uh with respect to the ordinance itself. We do have the ability to throw recommendations. We can make recommendations along with our finding. Uh so with that I'll uh and your permission uh turn it over to our
planner. >> Hi everyone. Um yeah so it's a storm water control ordinance but that does live within your DRZ code. So that's why we're here tonight. As um council here has explained, it's uh part of the ML and the regulations that be here for
master plan consistency and that's pretty much the purpose. Um and pretty much every master plan always wants better storm water, including yours. And so, uh, this in review of your 2018 master plan and any re-examinations, uh,
we produced a memo that has a series of page numbers and objectives that, you know, speak to better quality of storm water management. We very much like resilience planning here in New Jersey. And so that's the purposes of this and advancing those objectives. And so this
memo pretty much summizes we find it consistent. So, >> and that's your November 26 memo. Yes. >> It doubles the current requirements for Yes.
>> I had one question. How much of a burden is doubling the requirements? Do you know engineering? Well, um, we looked at this obviously not from a consistency perspective, but from a
perspective of this being implemented and what that means um, for development and for reviews and so on. Um, and I recognize I think it's beneficial to tie
it to the state regulations. Um, there are some instances in here where it refers to specific sections of the state regulations which can be problematic because the state does um on occasion
change if you reference 1.6 well what is now 1.6 now becomes 1.7 or something like that. So I think there's some >> uh one way around that is as amended. >> Yeah. The language as amended
afterwards. >> Correct. Or just to say in accordance with the you know if 1.6 is dealing with definitions and say in accordance with the definitions of 78 you know it it's more administrative
than substance. doubling the volume um would and I understand reasons and purpose for that of having
additional storage on site. I mean it if you have an underground system let me step back. You have a surface base and it has a volume of um
I want to come up with a reasonable number 10,000 cubic feet. So it's 3 ft deep and uh 50, you know, generally 50 foot square.
You now have something that is either um 50 by 100 and 3 ft deep or it's some multiple of that to get to that amount of storage. Um the other thing
is not having been involved in this is the reason why is it double why is it not 50% why is it not something else is that you want that volume to be effective
with the rest of the volume if you say um I I want to have twice as my volume and somebody adds it at the higher elevation Well, then that is only helping the larger storms. It's not helping the
smaller storms, but it just says you have to double the volume, not how you double the volume. At least our reading of this ordinance. So, it would make the storage systems twice as large
in volume. I mean, that that is what it says. Whatever volume you come up with to meet the requirements of various elements, the 210 and 100year storm for current rainfall amounts, future
rainfall amounts, you have to have twice as much volume. Uh for that, >> this is for commercial projects only. This doesn't apply to single family residential homes.
I I look to Steve on that. Um >> it doesn't really >> because residential is governed by the RSIs which >> has an exemption
>> or is RSIS excuse me that are not preempted by >> right >> it's applicable to what >> non-residential major developments and redevelopment projects and aspects So potential major developments we do on
projects that are not preempted by RSIs. So >> so it would apply to a mixeduse development where you have retail or commercial and residential. So it would apply to that because RSIS has
a carveout that says if you cannot distinguish between the residential portion and the re and the commercial portion then it the RSIS standards don't apply. >> So I have a question. This wasn't ran by
you before it came. I was asked to review this as part in my role as a planning engineer. >> So who wrote this organiz I I don't know >> probably Martha she did the last update
when changed. >> Yeah it had to go it has to go to the state for approval. I don't know if we did that already or >> I thought we did. >> I thought we did. So I think they approved it. This is going >> this has been something that we've been working on for quite some time. You know, with all the new commercial
developments, you know, they should be able to figure out a way to accommodate it. But when you said mixed use doesn't include 100% residential buildings like >> if it's 100% residential then the
residential site improvement standards govern and within the RSIS when it talks about storm water it basically just says you must comply with the state's storm water regulations. So
a multifamily what goes by RSIS a five you know a 10 unit apartment building goes by RSIS >> correct anything that is 100% residential now if you have a parcel where the
residential is say on this part of the track and you have a retail building on this part of the track you could end up because they are separate you could that the residential portion
would have would comply with RSIs even though it's on one track. It's a little bit of a gray area, but that commercial building would then fall under this. >> Most of our mo coming like the ones that have just been built like the heart, they're retail on
the bottom. So therefore, >> right, >> it would be >> most times mixed use is truly mixed use. You have retail in the first floor or commercial in the first floor and residential business. Yeah. So this this applies also for predeveloped sites like
for example if we have a parking lot which is 100% developed and now there is a mixeduse building. This ordinance apply for those sites. It would apply that you would follow the procedures to determine depending on the
specific parameters of that site whether you need detention you need to provide storm water management or not because EP usually when you have 100% large coverage for example existing parking lots and now a new building is
coming there you don't have to do any storm water management study I propose but some municipalities are asking for that. Even the EP said you don't have to some municipalities
are including that in their ordinance. >> It on the surface you know it seems like well if you have a a parking lot 100% impervious and you're going to build a multif family a mixeduse buildings. >> Yeah. and you're not going to you're
going to take out some of that impervious coverage. It seems logical that no, I wouldn't have to do it. >> Yeah, >> we have found um in that certain circumstances, say the front part of that site drains to
the street, the back part of the site drains to the back, it is not necessarily that black and white. You have to look at it and the design engineer has to evaluate each of the drainage areas because it is based
on u the drainage area not the site as a whole. If it all drains out to the street or all drains to the back, yeah, it pretty much is 99% of the time you're not going to have to do water quality.
You're not going to have to do reductions. Um and certainly you don't have to do groundwater recharge. groundwater recharge in Milbour um is most times not something you have to
deal with unless you have certain circumstances in my opinion where you have a wooded area a naturally wooded area that does not meet the exclusion set forth
in the rules under a PA1. Now, is it possible for a town, I know this ordinance still doesn't do it. Would there be a way for us to pass ordinance that applies to 100% like highdensity housing buildings? So, it's like a four-story apartment. There's no
commercial on the first floor. Is there a way we can force increased storm water retention on those type of projects? >> I don't know that we could preempt RSIS, in other words, or or or >> um go beyond it its requirements. I I
think to go beyond what RSIS requires requires a a special I forget the specific term. There are waiverss there are special standards that RSIS incorporates for
certain areas. Um >> but we can go beyond we cannot go below to that but we can go >> the RSIS was developed in 1997 when it was codified was to set
this is the standard you cannot exceed that standard unless the essentially DCA says they'll allow specific standards I think Harding Township has special standards. It comes
up so rarely. I never, you know, nobody has the book anymore. It's all online, but it's in the the appendices at the back. There are specific waiverss that are reviewed by the site improvement advisory board um which are then have to
be accepted by uh I think it's the commissioner of the DCA but you it sets maximum limits um because before RSIS every town had a different standard.
This town says roads >> only had to be 28 ft wide. this town said they had to be 34 feet wide. Um, and you know, the RSIs put it all into one standard.
>> So, going back to the question that Frank did, can we incorporate multif family and I don't know about four stories or about 20 apart units something. Sounds like we
would have to go to the state and get special prevention and maybe that's something we should pursue because we're a town floods and >> for an ordinance or for each specific case. >> I I I didn't get this far into the the
details of No, no, it's fine. These are great questions. I know in Newark they make you and I believe it's well I think it's for every project but there's very few
all residential projects in Newark they're either industrial u or they're mixed use also has a problem with flooding they make you treat the site they don't care that it's 100% impervious Today
they tell you that you must assume that the existing conditions are a meta. Basically what it was in the 1600s before New York got built because obviously if you treat the existing
conditions as a meadow your runoff is like this and you put something on it and now it's like this. So you have to deal with that. It makes it difficult, but it also because where do you put
storm water? You're going to have to put it underground. I mean, >> you know, for the most part, which is inconsistent with what the state regulations are. Um, unless it will
infiltrate into the ground. Um, so it's a balancing act because, you know, I mean, they make it, we make it work somehow. Um, and uh, but I did not really look into
that kind of a specific scenario, but they do it. >> I want to look into as a supplemental ordinance. >> Doer can do it. And I think also does
that you have always to consider like it's undeveloped. >> I I I'm not sure that that's the case. Um I have a we're working for Chick-fil-A on their site in the middle
of Route 22. Um, we had to do detention not because the town required it, but because there's actually a stream that runs underneath that property. We had to go to D and get a flood hazard permit and we also had to deal with DOT. Um, and
this is one of those cases where I think we were reducing the amount of impervious, but because a portion of the site went to the westbound lanes, a portion of the site went to the eastbound lane, and a port site went right into the culvert, it was not that simple.
>> Um, it but I don't believe that they required us to treat it as if >> it was something otherwise, >> right? No, we go whatever we can do to help. We have also problem in our
downtown >> in our town, not downtown. So, whatever we can improve, >> right? The other thing I would suggest that you consider is this is for major development. This is for a quarter acre
of new impervious that has been created cumulatively since I think it's February of 2004. I know it's 2004. I think it's February. Um, or disturbs more than an acre. I'm sure you have a lot of sites. Your
halfacre parking lot that you want to redevelop isn't covered by this. It is not a major development. Um, I'm also the board engineer in South Orange. I want to bring this up to them as well because we get a lot of sites
that don't fall under major development. So, what do you do? Um, you know, some towns have standards for minor development. Um, one that comes to mind because I
have a project there is Burnersville. It's very structured. This is what you have to do. Um, and I think that helps cover and sets a parameter for what do you do for a site that does not fit into
this. >> This one is only for >> major development, >> right? >> Which on the major development said the the language of the repeal and replace the replace part. Uh, there's no page numbers. when you hit
the replace part towards the end. >> Yeah. >> Uh the uh uh paragraph A2, the purpose references major developments as define uh and then it says below in section two, Roman numeral 2.
>> Well, that was one of my comments. >> There was no section. >> Yeah, I think it means section B. >> There's Roman numerals that are used instead of >> instead of letters. solids and sight, but is the definition of major
development in there? >> The quarter acre and the uh >> it's it's in the >> it's in seven colon 8, >> right? >> I I know that for >> Yeah, that Yeah, but I'm guess Yeah. And then there's another Yeah. Well, as you see, there's other in D. It says for
exemptions this standard C section 4 A2 below. Again, it's referencing things that don't coincide with what currently. >> Yeah, it's it's using Roman numerals and there are no Roman numerals.
That's again kind of a a >> I don't know if it was >> formatting, right? I guess is the question. >> Yeah. Um >> by whoever did it. >> Yeah. >> I'm not sure who wrote it. I don't know if it was topology or it was
>> Can I ask Could we have him reook at this and just Yeah. >> before we vote on it because I don't feel comfortable with >> First of all, should we be adding minor and major on the same ordinance?
>> We have to come up with two separate ordinances, but we should do that. >> I think we should make a recommendation that we do that put it through the zoning code examination >> because we don't approve or disapprove things. >> Yeah. I think >> it appears as if the master plan
consistency issue is not an issue. >> Uh but the actual >> substance of the ordinance might be something that the board wishes to make recommendations regarding uh and uh because while we have two members of the
governing body here, it was the governing body as a whole that referred it to us as required since it was introduced. So I guess technically our role would be a is it consistent with the master plan not consist b what are
recommendations now we may maybe the governing body would give us a little longer to make those recommendations so the professionals can help and perhaps uh >> so >> we can revisit this >> and if we did that I would have to start from scratch.
>> Not necessarily. It depends on ultimately what this board is going to come back to the governing body. >> Uh if we don't go if we don't do the second meeting at the next meeting then it's a different township committee and ordinances cannot be carried over
>> start over January. >> We have to start over from the beginning. >> What we could do is we could pass it and then let's >> get do what we always do to pass it but let's fix it but let's let's actually let's fix it. So the recommendation that we make should be not only go back and
fix it and have it reviewed by someone other than the person that wrote it and do another recommend another ordinance for minor >> minor. Yeah, I agree with that. >> So we're fixing them on >> then Michael and I will make sure in
January we >> starting these things that we have stacking up. >> Corrective word. Yeah. >> So, we don't want to get into the as amended or the issues with the section numbers and all that kind of stuff, but just >> just say it's not inconsistent.
>> Uh we recommend >> because if you get into that then the lawyer there will say that it has to be you know it's changed and we you know we can't do it >> and we can recommend to have another one. >> Yes. just figure out
>> consider I would say consider including Mayor just so you're not boxed in >> direct it to >> and direct it to our new >> engineer to write the new one >> right >> and just another question uh technical question >> yes sir >> uh I didn't read the whole thing in its
entirety in detail like like Jonathan did uh as far as doubling the capacity >> I didn't >> you didn't that was just there >> I ran it up this time >> oh I read that part >> okay it's in there doubling So then >> you should have said yeah
>> is it more effective to limit the outflow rather than try to mess with the capacity because that would affect the capacity >> well inherently right >> is it linear or not >> it's not necessarily linear guess that's
a very very good point by constricting the rate of runoff that's permitted. You will effectively increase the storage because if you say I can
dump out a gallon of water, you know, I I to if I take that same gallon of water, but I say I can only allow it to trickle out to as water is coming in, I need something a bigger container in which to
hold that in to only allow that trickle to go out, you know. So yes, effectively and what at what point does that effectively get you to twice the storage is beyond my
capabilities. I have staff that can kind of figure that out. Um, and we need to have a a much more I had my chief engineer go through this. Um, and he gave me a three-page memo on the things
those kind of things. Um, and that was one of his points. And that's the other point of having that storage. If you just say twice the amount of storage, okay, well, I need to meet reductions
and I'm going to have a system for that. I can double the amount of storage, but it's all up at a higher level, which means that it does nothing for the smaller, more frequent storms, which can sometimes be more problematic
than a 100red-year storm. Because a 100red-year storm, you know, a single site is going, you know, an acre site in a 100 acre drainage area
has a very small incremental impact. But with smaller storms, it can have a larger impact um because of how the hydraology of the drainage area will work. So it's better to have
that additional storage at all levels and that can be maybe better handled by changing the um the reductions. Um I also u want to look look at
in that circumstance we can if you agree we can look at how does Newark impose. >> Oh absolutely. >> Okay. Yes. >> Um that criteria on there because that's going to help in that. Okay. You don't
get a pass because you're redeveloping a site that's already fully or mostly impervious. Your goal is accordance with the master plan is to
reduce the impact of flooding on this community. Um, and that means that you have to correct the ills of the past. Uh, which is what a lot of the stormwater rules really are about. You know, we're doing these things because
when I started this business, you didn't have to do that. Um, so that's what I meant beyond code because the DP doesn't say that, but we can have that in our ordinance. I think we think maybe we have to get that.
>> Well, clearly for mixed use and for and for non-residential developments, you have the state storm water standards are a base.
>> The D is not ever going to tell you that you can't do something more. >> Yes. Um, but it's different with 100% residential because now you have to comply and Steve
can look at this as to you know how do you manage that within the context of of the RSIs which specifically states that you must comply with these criteria. >> Sarah, I have a question for you then.
So what is in the works? I know I know the Woodmont development I don't I don't know is that are they planning retail on the first floor or is that 100% residential >> that's a good question I don't
no woodmont by by the watered >> yeah no I don't have those specifics right now but I can get them >> well because the question is I want you know if because I I don't know how far away they are from being complete but I would want to see a stronger ordinance
on the books because the ordinance on the books when they become complete is what rules and I'd rather have this one that's stronger than the one we have now. Well, so >> just to be clear and ju just before you say this, just for the record, I am recused from that matter.
Woodmont is a client of mine, so I I am conflicted out >> for that. So >> I I am not participating in that conversation as it relates to Woodmark um because we'll all get in trouble. Or will there be any conversation regarding
the Woodmont? Because the time of submission or time of application rule uh is such that the ordinance in effect at the time an application is submitted
uh not at the time an application is deemed complete which is later in the process. Right? is what legally governs uh as being operative for the board to consider. Hence, >> right, >> they need to discuss any
>> applications that have already been submitted. >> But for things that haven't yet happened >> in the future, >> it may happen in the next 10 years, but round forward. >> Exactly. I think we should make a recommendation that the TC
get either either the planning word engineer or another qualified outside consultant to help develop a comprehensive ordinance that goes above and beyond >> yes >> what we have here in the meantime we'll
determine this is consistent and >> done I think the right way as you say but it should be governed by you know how much is actually coming out of So >> whether you need to double or triple or quadruple to make that happen, that's that's the right thing. >> Yeah. Again, this ordinary is fine now. >> Yeah, this is fine. It's a good start.
>> Let's do it. It's okay with the metro plan. So demonstration. >> It's fine except for the the you know the typos that you know point to sections that don't exist. But you know, >> we're working on it. >> That's
easy. >> So then I >> So then I think what we're looking we do have a resolution uh in anticipation. I don't have the introduction date on this ordinance. So Sarah will get it and fill it in. Um but otherwise uh it states
that the board found the ordinance not inconsistent with the township's master plan and unless I'm told otherwise we will add uh however the board recommends that comma post adoption comma the
township committee consider uh an ordinance I'm sorry a corrective ordinance uh if we want I use that terminal supplemental >> a supplemental idea good because I like that better. I wrote that and then uh a
supplemental ordinance to be drafted uh by the town uh I'm sorry to be draft uh to be drafted by the current planning board engineer or another outside engineering consultant.
and that Dutch professional I'm sorry no and and and the TC I'm sorry that the township committee that's what uh consider for same among other things the establishment of storm water management
standards for quote minor developments end quote as well period >> is that Okay. >> Okay. So, that is the resolution uh before the board for a motion. Second, a roll call to adopt.
>> We have a motion. >> So, take one. >> Roll call vote, please. >> Allison Campfield, >> yes. >> Michael Cohen, >> yes. >> Or Master Petro, >> yes. >> Deborah Neas, >> yes.
>> Frank Sakandi, >> yes. >> Michael Zion, >> yes. Vice Chair Serini DJ. >> Yes. >> Chair Gaston Parker. >> Yes. >> Jonathan Baxter. >> Yes. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.
>> All in favor? >> All opposed.