Red. That's right. Oh, it's only Yes. cuz it's red. Good evening everybody. Thank you for coming to the Milbourne Township Planning Board meeting. In accordance with section five of the open public
meetings act, chapter 231, public law 1975, be advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the bulletin board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a list of the three meeting date the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at the
Milbour Board of Education Center building at 7:30 p.m. on May 7th. Roll call, please. Cory Miller, here. Allison Campfield here. Michael Cohen here. Frank Sagamondi here. Jorge Mastro
Pietro here. Michael Zion here. Jonathan Baxter here. Sergey Systoff here. Gaston Halberg here. Before we get started this evening, we have a little bit of housekeeping. We have two sets of meeting minutes to approve. Did everybody have a chance to
go over those? for the meeting minutes uh from March 5th. Um I think we had two comments and the one was Thank you. One was changing Mr. Vishio to Mr. Lavine. It was the wrong
name. Okay, sounds good. I think the other was just filling in a name for the second of the adjournment. I think it was it went to Corey. Um, do I have a motion to approve the minutes of March 5th, 2025?
So move. Second. Second. All in favor? And we also have to approve the minutes of March 12th. Uh, 19th. I think they were the n I think they were the 19th. 19. Okay. I'm sorry. March 19th.
Were there any comments from anyone? did not. Nope. I make a motion to approve the minutes from March 19th, 2025. Do I have a second? All in favor? I. Motion
approved. Um, next order of business, we have a capital project review. Um, and we'll have a presentation from the township of Milbour. I'm not sure exactly who's giving it. you don't mind stepping up,
please? Well, why don't you give us Hello. Hello. Hello. That's better. Good. Okay. Thank you. So, may I begin? All right. So, um I'm sorry that some of you have to crane your neck to
see this. Um, I'd like to start by quickly summarizing the main categories of uh sort of objectives that we had when we were retained first a couple years ago to get started on the project.
The Milbourne Town Hall uh Laura will give you a history of its construction a little bit later, but I just want to mention that there were a lot of issues with the building, functional issues, uh accessibility issues. parts of it were not in compliance with the Americans
with Disabilities Act. There were security issues. There are organizational issues where people have trouble sort of finding their way around the building. There are many aspects of it that don't comply with current uh codes and standards. As Rick will
mention when he talks about the site plan, there are flooding issues in the area. Uh there was uh detailed analysis made of the building in terms of contamination and it's currently closed as you know they were in this building
for the meeting tonight because the they vacated town hall and that's in order to prepare it for asbestous and lead remediation which are going to be happening in the next few weeks. There are also issues with not enough meeting rooms. There are issues with the uh
condition of the building's historic fabric. And then there are there was the goal to move the municipal court out of the police building AC from the across the street. And finally to comply with the town ordinance that this project achieve at least a lead silver
classification for sustainability. So there are a lot of aspects here that we had to deal with, some of which are sort of um potentially in conflict with one another. So it was a puzzle to get it all worked out. So with that, I'd
like to turn it over to Laura who will talk a little bit about the history of the building. I am also a registered architect in the state of New Jersey. My uh education is also a uh my master's degree in architecture, a certificate in historic
preservation and have focused on that um for the last 28 years. Uh this building has act is actually uh already a sequence of additions. the uh Milbour Avenue side with the three
arches that you're familiar with was the original firehouse. Um it was then added to um on both the east and west sides that parking lot side that you now enter from and then on the opposite side there was a small addition done that was uh
house the police for a while. uh after the building had a fire in it in 1956, they then renovated the building and they infilled the piece between those two additions. Um so there's multiple phases of work done here. So you can see
the pink is the original. Uh the pink in the back was the hose tower which is now subsumed in the building. The two green um sections, so the pink is 1880s. The two green sections came shortly thereafter and then the orange section
is a um 19 post 1950s uh addition that was an infill in between. So adding to this building is the norm to accommodate what the needs of the municipality are. So these plans show uh our general
intentions. The red dashed line indicates the interface between the uh existing building which is in the lower portion of the plan and the proposed addition which is the upper portion. On the right side on the first floor you see where it says existing east
entrance. That's the entrance that comes off the parking lot that I'm sure you're all familiar with. As part of our plan, we're going to create a new entrance on the west for the public and a new entrance on the north for the staff. So, as you know, now the entrance is at the
north side of the existing building. We're essentially moving it about 75 ft further north towards Essex Street. Uh, so about I guess about ago we went before the historic preservation commission and uh talked about our
intentions and they had a series of comments. This is these are the drawings among the drawings we showed them on the east elevation which is the second elevation from the top here. We had proposed to extend a continuous roof
extending the gable all the way to the north. north being to the right in the east elevation and um on the south elevation which is the next one down. We have proposed to in the arched windows which were the old garage doors when it was a
firehouse. We had proposed to essentially recreate them as they are. And then um the historic preservation commission oh and also I'm sorry on the west the top elevation here we had proposed to
raise the cornice of the left half of the existing portion of the west elevation to bring it in line with the cornice of the other half. The historic preservation commission asked us to keep that cornis dropped and preserve the
hose tower and on the east side to try to find a way to visually break the roof between the the existing building towards Milbour Avenue and the addition on the right. And then in this in the uh south elevation, they asked if we
could try to find a way to um open up the garage doors more to what they originally looked like. And so this these are the revised and also rendered elevations which uh show you how we've
responded to those requests. So on the east elevation uh the second one from the top we've broken the two uh roofs and created a narrow break of glass between the existing building and the addition on
the south elevation. The third one from the top on the left we have opened up the garage doors and I'll ask more in a few minutes to explain the source of those shapes. And then on the west elevation on the top, we were
asked if we could add some openings into the courtroom which is upper left there. And we're sort of limited in what sort of openings we can create because uh because it's becoming a courtroom as well as the meeting room, we are subject
to the restrictions of the state's administrative office of the courts which doesn't permit windows at eye level into a for the security of the judge. And so we put some high windows here to uh to get some more
light in there. So Laura, if you want to talk about this history a little bit. So given the discussions we had with the historic preservation commission, I went back to um quite a few postcards from different phases in time uh of the front
of this building when it was a firehouse. And you can see the firehouse doors there in three different iterations as well as what the windows were like above them. So, uh, rather than copy what we have now, um, we, uh,
have put, um, windows in the top that are just like the ones that were there originally and then taken the windows on the bottom and the arches and used the rhythm and the patterns from the historic photos to kind of recreate a
window wall because it's obviously not going to be a firehouse door anymore. That sort of hearkens back to what it once used to look like. And just so you all know, the the function in the rearranged uh building that will be behind those three arched
windows is a large workroom for the zoning, planning, and engineering department. So now I'll ask Rick to take over to talk about the Yeah. Oh, here on the east elevation. Yeah. So,
um there was a preference to make it clearer that where the existing building ended and the new building began rather than having a continuous roof that that made it look like it was all one piece.
Well, part of the issue the answer is yes, but also the the US Department of Interiors has standards for adding to historic buildings. And
there's often this balance of trying to make it look like it's you're not trying to make it look like it was all there once. trying to make it clear what was original and what was added. Laura can speak more about that if you want if you
have any followup questions about that. Could I could I just ask you to speak into the microphones because we're getting um comments? That's fine. Sure. Y Okay. If there are any other questions about historic
issues, Laura will answer them later. Okay. So, you mentioned the standard for the design standard for new additions uh in all buildings. One of the standards is very clear that the new addition has
to be different from the old. Has to be harmonious of course, mass, color, materials, all of that. But also it says that any new building has to be part of their own type. You cannot imitate what
is old because when you imitate the old, it will be different because techniques are different. materials are different. So I may be wrong on this. So I'm sorry if I'm wrong on this. You can explain this to us. But I was wondering
how this addition that you I understand that you made the difference between the cornis now but it still looks the old building. So if I don't know the history of the building, it seems old. So how
you interpretate this? Maybe I misinterpretating this, but um yeah. So that's that's one of my questions. So some of this you can't get in elevations this small, right? We have to bring you more details
regarding um brick detailing, right? The historic buildings are very specific. You have a brick coin detail and a brick patterning in the uh in the brick face. This brick face will be different. It is going to again hopefully be harmonious
in color but our detailing will be called out differently. So it will be clear and it's of its time period because one is will be distinct from the other especially I mean this building especially the bricks are
handmade bricks and the difference can produce that even in the quantity when you try to stack them up and count them they they they will not line up in the same way. So based on that now if we see the first
elevation where the top where we see behind that is the court. Now you are changing completely the pattern. Before it was solid windows massing and windows and now you have those vertical lines. you are changing
also the corners for a different element even though you keep the same align but now it's different so how that integrate with the I know this is not a historic building because it's not
part of our historic landmark building but it's an old building so how that's integrate the new here and the old over there on the facade which is alone So also I understand that there is no windows there because it's the court.
So I was wondering why also you put the court where we have the town hall plaza where we have people there is a place where people in summer beautiful play people hang out there. So now we are going to have that wall instead to have
a more active facade. So, how was your development on the design based on the interaction between the public space and the building inside and the facades? Well, I I know that there are also I
mean part of the discussions we've had that there are sort of bigger plans also for the area. Right. Right now you have a parking lot across the way. There's been some discussion does that turn more into some kind of a formal park? Right now we've been charged with only this one piece. Milburn owns several pieces
all the way around it and there is some greater vision for it. Um what we were trying to do is to make on this side an accessible welcoming entrance for uh people to come in pedestrians from this
side where it'll be mostly car traffic and people who park from the other side. So, but going back to my question, why do you put the court that has to be safe there where we have a facade and not somewhere else in the middle of the
building somewhere where because I understand that you can't have windows tight that the court is going to end up towards one wall or the other. You can't it there's not enough space to take the court put it in the middle of building on this site and on this lot.
Sorry, I'm going to keep going. Uh, so also you mentioned that you h how you are envisioning the welcoming to this building. You mentioned that there is this courting wall or storefront
there. Let me give you a 3D view because you'll actually be able to see it better. Okay. Oh, perfect. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I'm sorry. Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, I'll ask Rick to talk about the site plan, then we'll show you some
additional pictures that hopefully will answer some of your questions. Okay. My name is Richard Ad, Frank Hair Associates. practicing not quite as long as Eli but 35 years so couple years
um I am a professor professional engineer my license is current so we are looking at the site so this site actually comprises four lots u which includes the parking lot across
the street the town hall property the little the road itself and the public parking lot to the east. This drawing north is up. So the whole parcel is
um again very hard to define what the property is. If you see on this plan, we've decided to find the site for the purposes of this project as the heavy black line around there. That's about 20 just a hair under 28,000 square feet.
So on the site right now down arrow. Yeah. Okay. So on the site right now is an exist obviously the existing town hall. An existing 1100 story 1100 foot onetory building that's going to get demolished. Some walks and
seating areas. Um obviously you have parking lot across the street. public parking lot that remains as well as Town Hall Plaza. Um the blue line that runs across the middle of the site is the newly
enhanced NJD flood elevation line. So that is elevation 132 and a half. So you'll see that the flood line places the site out the new building area outside the flood plane. However, the existing building still falls within
those and that has gone through D and verify that elevation. The plan is to remove access to the basement as part of this project and seal and seal the windows and stairs on the lower half of the site. Um,
leaving only the northerly most stair of the basement which will be limited to access and maintenance. Um so basically basement will be abandoned. Um utilities will be removed from the basement elevated. Um we'll maintain a fire
system in the basement. So we'll have we'll add a fire fire suppression system to the basement. Pumps that were in the basement will be enhanced but basically the basement will be be abandoned assuming D lets us do this. Um the
finish for the building is above the flat elevation itself. However, below the the existing building is above the flood elevation but just below the elevation with the extra foot of freeboard on it. And mind you in reality
just for reference the existing flood elevation just barely touches the corner of this building. Historically the building doesn't get inundated even your Um, however, D has decided that we're
taking all our flood elevations, adding two either two feet or three feet to it, and that gives us this line. This is the D state plus 2T, which gets us to 132 that's generated
off. So, from standpoint, building does go on the other side of the site as Mr. showed. We have a new plaza that's going in to create the entrance on the west side of the site. So, we have a new plaza going in
here, some stairs up, walkways, planters up on the plaza level. We have a handicap ramp that comes up that provides for an entrance and that gives us our entrance to the building. We have planters that run around the outside of the building. And
then we have a walkway that continues around the building. Sidewalk and stairs going up to street or um and then we have the open space here that will continue. And I believe we're going to
ultimately remove parking spaces that uses for their vehicles to expand that green space. a little better that way. From a grading and drainage perspective, we are going to take the
roof leaders and put them up into the uh open space and create an underground detention system there under that grass area. We are reconnecting the storm sewers that currently run through that area around the system in town
plaza. Site lighting relatively simple. Town hall is pretty well lit. we put in a couple years ago. Um, we're just going to provide some lighting on the face of the building just in it to differentiate the facade. Um, and
lighting around the building to provide lighting on the walkway. Majority of the lighting will be existing and stay as it is. No changes are proposed for lighting on the existing rendering. This is a schematic
of what we're expecting for landscaping. Along those planters, we'll have a combination of flowering trees, evergreens, and siduous shrubbery. The trees will be flowering trees and nonflowering trees that will break up the facade. So, that solid
brick wall we were looking at before portion of the building will have some vegetation to break it up. um for vegetation planters where we remove the area and the stairs. We'll replant those as well. That's pretty
much the site. Again, building occupies the majority of the site. Not a lot of exciting stuff happening. So we'll show you a few slides that try to give you a sense of three
dimensions. So this is showing the lower side facing south. This is better. Trees along just suggest landscape determinat solar array.
shows right there's a large piece with historic preservation someone express unprecedent stories high directly across the
street is substantially longer and taller. So just perspective Also come to order. So I hope Can I keep going with my questions? Yes, please.
Can I just ask you to hold the microphone if if you can hold it because they're having the live stream is not picking you up real well. So, the trees along Town Hall Plaza are existing. The one on the on the sidewalk, are those
existing? the street. So there is one existing right in front of the entrance. Yes. So as soon as you come down from the tube, you have the tree. Yes. So I don't want to be complicated. Uh and you are the expert here. We are a resident
here. Um, and I'm happy that this is happening because we we know that we need a better town hall and it's hard for me. I am an architect to to separate that and
because you know you may like I may not like but this is very subceptive. So whatever I like maybe you don't like or whatever you like. So I'm sorry I don't want to be disrespectful for this. I just I have my concerns about this. So you mentioned that or somebody mentioned
the welcoming through the main entrance. So I want to understand how is welcome because first we just saw that we have a tree in front of the entrance. That's for me and I may be
wrong is not welcome. My other concern that I have there that you show us in the facade along the the courthouse you have those vertical lines
but the windows there. So I want to understand the pattern that you are using why you have that separation and the windows that you have there on the second level which is not the second level. I know it's only one double high
space are different. So they don't go all the way to those vertical lines. Sometimes you have two, sometimes you have one and sometimes you don't have anyone. So the narrow vertical lines you see data across
Oh, that. Okay. So, that's not brick, correct? Those are pairs of Okay. Okay. So, and why the windows are doesn't respect that width those windows
see why they have different they don't follow the same width than those glass see here are smaller than the two here one Yes. copy the spirit
of wanted to look like it wasn't so different even though it's very different window short Okay. Yeah. Um I mean, so just looking at it, it does look like it came down from a spaceship. Um you know, no offense, but
it it just doesn't seem to fit in uh with the aesthetic. And I understand that it should be different. Um, but I'm concerned that it's not different enough. So, you know, when I've seen historic buildings, uh,
especially municipal buildings, oftentimes you'll see they have the old brick buildings and then the new additions are, you know, made of glass or a different material altogether. We don't really see that going on here. Um, the windows, while I now understand why
you did it, it just doesn't look right. and the vertical lines with the glass block. Aren't Aren't there other ways to do secure windows? I mean, there's ballistic glass. You could do frosted ballistic glass. Aren't there other options other than having to do, you know, that that heavy glass block?
That's a very good question. So, yes, there are ballistic glasses. They're very expensive. We've done buildings. We did a building in Jersey City with ballistic very, very expensive. The other challenge here which I
mentioned earlier is that the town ordinance requires this building to meet silver and the major I don't know how many are
program but a large part of the essentially achieving lead certification is energy conservation. Unfortunately, this side of the building faces to west, which is the worst possible exposure for a glass facade
because late afternoon sun, especially in the summer and so to make this out of glass would be expensive and I don't think we would achieve required certifications if we
did that. It would be so costly because it's facing west is There's nothing in the way right now. It's just an empty parking lot across the street. So, we were also challenged
there. We would love to make this, but it's it won't work in terms of the energy requirements. Um, and you know, there's no windows on the bottom obviously for the security reasons, but you could have done windows there if you use ballistic glass. And
probably the price of ballistic glass for a window versus the entire side of the building is is quite a bit different. So that might be within the realm of, you know, acceptability, right? Well, so you know, on the old building, you have windows on the first floor. If you had windows with proper
ballistic glass, uh, on the newer part of the building, that would allow you to have a more normal style window, would it not? Yeah. Although again, the more glass we put, the more points we lose in our calculations. We're already
deal with even though we're improving it performance still is not ever going to be as good as a new building because it was never built for that purpose. We are trying to fight this flight and get our
lead certification. Can we we see the you have a 3D elevation because I think you have trees there, right? Yeah. So is the idea with the trees, it's going to break up that big correct like facade there. The
windows would be hidden behind them anyway if they were there. That's correct. Yeah. I mean it seems like you're making some major compromises with the design of a building that we're going to have for decades to come. You know, in order to achieve lead certification, number
one. Number two, there's probably other mechanisms you could use to achieve that lead certification. Are there not? There's, you know, could do a better job of insulating the old structure since you're gutting it anyway. We're insulating. We're insulating
tremendously all the windows. We're doing everything we can to take your comments under. Thank you. So what you are doing for certification what are the different point that you are getting here to get a whole range of no I want to know
how you're planning to get through a combination through a combination of energy conservation water conservation what's called green power is going to invest
in contracts to buy renewable generated power. We're going to take advantage of the fact that we're close to mass transit because train station is less than half mile away.
We're going to use recycled materials materials with lower body energy, locally sourced materials, low emitting materials like paints that don't have volatile organic
compounds. said we have to get 50 credits in order to achieve this and it's very difficult. We've done other several buildings. This one is absolutely most
challenging because of difficulties existing conditions. So, how big is the addition? My recollection is the existing building is just under 20,000 square feet and the
addition is about I think about 900. Yeah. And also something much of the addition on the second floor is a storage area for everything that's coming out of the basement. basement.
So do you know how much square and the estimate at that time was around 14 million was it not something? Um, sorry. What was that? 14 million. Um, so why why was the decision
made to have the court on on that side of the building? You know, if you have to have a side of the building that's going to be kind of ugly, why not have that on the parking lot side? So, uh, in order to move the court from the
police department, we're not just moving the court room, but also moving the violations that comes with it. In addition, as Mr. Ad mentioned, we're replacing all the infrastructure, plumbing, HBC,
electrical, much of existing basement. We had to find a place to put all that. And so in the upper right corner, we got the mechanical room and the electrical room. Plus, we're replacing all the bathrooms in the building because none of them meet
requirements. So, we determined that it was most effective, cost effective to build all the new plumbing infrastructure in the addition. So, if you look up there, just above the red line red line several bathrooms, small
bathrooms. Those are public bathrooms. So, so it's not like the things that are on the first floor that are other than the courtroom are things that you would want to move over to that west side. I don't know if you want to put the
bathrooms or the mechanical rooms or the violations which is quite small. So, This was a a conscious decision that it was better to put the courtroom out there
especially because it's going to be used on a different schedule on a different schedule from the rest of the building so that people can come in use it during evening for a meeting like this one without having to go through the rest of
is currently that doesn't explain why you can't I mean you have a hallway down the center right you've got the court on one side and you've got other stuff on the other side. Why couldn't that just be a mirror image? Well, again, if you mirror an image,
right? This back corner here is hidden behind the neighboring houses. So, although this leadation I'm looking at here. We want to do something for environment. I don't believe so much
but for example the offices when we talk about natural light natural ventilation I see the offices here doesn't have windows. See the there is a corridor here very windows and the office inside.
So it's not something that you were looking at that when designing the layout to make most of the offices as much light to avoid to use the artificial lights all the time. Yeah.
Yeah. You know people are working here. So everyology in violations look out and on the second floor as you can see most of We have
many arband question alternative designs for something doesn't look like Maybe also when it comes to the light, can you leverage the roof and maybe move the panels to the other side of the building and actually let sunlight?
Well, we do have the possibility of putting some skylights in, but we're also dealing with limitations of the existing. There aren't too many existing and we went through numerous
designs and given all the things we're trying to balance this I have a question. Um it's mentioned uh a courtyard. I hear that a couple of times. Can you just show me where the courtyard is for the public space? Yeah,
if you look on the left hand west come up a few stairs about 20 ft deep and 30t east and Can you show the 3D rendering of that space? It's not
huge. It also from the court room. So if there's an event like this on a nice even Okay. Um, also I agree with uh the brick and the secretary of standards does say
that they should look different than the old building and certainly I'm understanding or I'm hearing not understanding the different brick styles. Uh but it makes this building look extremely heavy and kind
of mimicking what the historic building is and what it you know the materials of it. Also my understanding from the secretary of standards is using a different material distinguishing the old and the
new but also the architectural elements carrying some of the architectural elements from the old building and incorporating them somehow in this new material building or completely going I think like Frank said the complete
opposite and making it a very contemporary modern uh looking building to distinguish the two separations. Now certainly from 1800 to 1900 then to slipping in that little sliver in
between the two they did let's just say they did their job right and it was all brick and they tried to follow the exact same thing. But reality is we're looking at the actual firehouse itself. And the
firehouse is really now just used. I don't even think it's being used at all. Is it the doors? Um they're not functional or just one of them is with the stairwell. Is that correct? Are you talking about front entrance? Yes. Well,
no, not it's the original front. The Yeah. Do you mean the arch openings? No, the the two doors, right? So, the left one will continue as one.
Okay. So when I read the Secretary of Standards, the way it reads to me, and I'm not the architect, but basically is that what elements did you pick up from
this building besides just the windows and the brick for the new building? So as you can see in this, we took the dimensions and the elevation of the corners
and turn it into simplify as just simple whereas the existing building I think most people think of as having a small
flat and obviously use West and also the east and on the north. Um, can we go back just to the plaza if that's okay and the measurements of what the the historic building which was a
schoolhouse and the new building off of that the length of that is large but it is divided. there is a a gap kind of in between and and that this I have to tend to agree is
like one massive brick building with few elements here and there and I also have a question and I think we brought that up in all fairness uh so the public knows you came in front
of historic preservation and we gave some comments and certainly some of them as you mentioned were um were changed. You you changed some of this, but at the same time, and so let's go back to this.
They're they look like completely two different buildings, even though they are brick, which not sure what that thinking was, but the fact is that they do look like two separate buildings where if you look at the rendering, it's
just one long brick building. whether the brick's slightly off, younger brick, older brick, pattern, whatever it is. Um, so I do have a problem with that. And I gave all the commissioners
um our recommendations and also the history of this property too in a packet. So I hope you have time to look at that. Um and also the secretary of standards which I did not add to this.
Um but I do think that this is missing something. The other piece is glass block. Glass block was probably at its height in the 1970s whatever there has to me there has to be a better way of
bringing light in um to that space. Um, and we made that recommendation, too. We're also in the process right now on the TC of actually designating this as a historic building. So, I really do think
that we should take serious consideration to the recommendations that were made by the HPC. U because looking through them, I think, you know, a lot of them make sense. Um you know it it seems seems like this needs to undergo
some further tweaks and revisions. Um I I know that uh that feedback was also provided to the business administrator as well by by a smaller number of us. Um, I I I think I think we can do better for a building that we're going to have
for decades and decades to come. Um, and to be fair, you know, I I believe that while you may have had many internal revisions, I don't think the public got to see those. I know the township committee didn't get to see those. So, it seems like those were created uh in a vacuum. Uh and considering this is a
public building, a public project, um you know, I I I think that we should have had an opportunity to to see those revisions. Uh and you know, right now we're we're being asked, you know, to approve something here that you know, if we look at uh the report from Graham,
you know, there's there's some things about this building that are just not consistent with the master plan. Um and we probably should get into that. Um, but to me, this this just doesn't seem like a a final finished product that
should be in front of us. Um, I think there's more work that needs to be done. I think the the overall look looks good. It's very heavy industrial kind of feel almost like a factory edition. And just
because they're trees on the side, they I understand maybe it's because of the softening theological certain that was part of maybe if there's a way to make it more let's say the second floor or something
that maybe that's a continuation of the uh that structure that just makes it more welcoming as opposed to something that's very industrial. Are we going to have an opportunity to hear from Graham? I know he prepared a memo. Absolutely. Can I I want to ask a
couple questions myself. Um, so I I do agree with most of the comments and I'm going to have to defer the HPC and TCO as far as sign goes. My designer, uh, I do feel like our township building should be the epitome of what our ordinances depict
and what we expect from other applicants that you hear the planning board. Um, and just to run through several of the things that we always ask different applicants, especially in the business districts, are are we going to have any
type of charging stations implemented with this new building? So, we are they are not currently planned because we're not doing any parking. So, this is just the building. We certainly if the governing
body wanted that that would be an option but again if you saw how we defined the site it doesn't touch any of the park right okay and uh also on on the parking is I know we're sort of segregating out the second leg of the entrance from
Essex Street or actually it's an exit is that going to be somehow dealt with or is it just going to be continue to be a sore thumb on the plot it is not again not part of this project not part of the scope
Okay. Um, some of the, uh, mechanical equipment, I notice the AC units on the original building, they're left on the drawings and nothing is marked to be removed. Will all that equipment be stay? All the all the equipment that's
on the ground will be removed. Will be removed. Okay. And will any landscaping be done around the old building to match the the new one? I think I mentioned, but we'll we'll infill the landscaping. Some of that landscaping is very mature, so it'll probably look different. Um,
unless we decided to rip it all out. Okay. And I think you had mentioned that the uh it's noted as a a management basin. You said that though. That's going to be underground
storage. So, you just have a lawn on top. Correct. Okay. and the utilities coming into the facility. I didn't see anywhere on here where where do they enter the building and where are they coming from? I believe if you look at C4
um which of course on the left side anyhow um if you see it on the left side of the building on the bottom in very in microscopic uh text on your screen on your on your paper there we
have water coming in on the left side going back Avenue. We have sewer going. We have a new sewer line going out on the right side. Um, no gas proposed. No gas proposed. Okay. Uh, what about electrical? Will the electrical be underground or remain open? Electric
will be underground. Generator will be located at the site. Okay. The side. All right. Across the street. That's excellent. Interesting. Yep. gets it away from the building, which is
honestly very beneficial. Okay. All right. Yeah. And I I uh Yeah. The only other comment that I had was some natural light as well. I don't know what we could do about the lead certification, but I think bringing more natural light into the buildings uh would be beneficial to everybody,
especially the people that work there. So that's uh all of my comments. If nobody else has any more comments, Graham, would you quick question? Sure. As part of this project, we did look at alternate sites. We looked at some other sites in this general area. We also
looked at re relocating this on DPW site and wound up back here based on guidance. Just put that out there. Wasn't done mean that wasn't done, you know, without giving the city. So the
what was considered. Can I ask about that? So why at the end why at the end it was decided to keep the building here and not to follow the master plan that's a chest to move
the the town hall somewhere else. So the investor plan talks about relocating municipal building in terms of a relocation plan that doesn't exist. Uh so sorry redevelopment plan talks about relocate relocating town hall through a redevelopment plan. It doesn't was never
we don't have it yet. Yes. So you can't follow what's in the which what was in your last reexamination of your Okay. So what was the conclusion? Why it was better to keep the building here and not to move it whatever somewhere else at least in
part money. the the alternative locations were either very intrusive into into a block of usable land for other for better purposes or significantly different costs. So you you did a report
and who saw that report? The TC who saw the report about moving the building or not moving the building? There was a report. Uh not not that I saw but it may have it may have existed. So, uh, you know, additionally, the the
master plan does say that municipal projects like this should potentially be used as an opportunity for larger redevelopment uh in the downtown. And I think that uh Mr. Pedo's letter actually
makes uh a note about that. um you know specifically 3A leverage municipally owned properties like the municipal building and DPW site as part of a larger redevelopment or reuse scheme. Um, you know, to to me it seems like this is
being done in in a vacuum. And, you know, I I know other aspects of the master plan had said to um, you know, have have it so that the parking uh, where we currently have the parking lot at the side, you know, that's that's a big gap between the building and I think
the master plan had envisioned sort of filling in those gaps. Why was the addition not, you know, maybe put out towards the parking lot side as opposed to the back to the east side or to the uh to the east?
We were asked to try to fit the building. Yes. So, it seems like you were given a set of guidelines and parameters um you know to to stay within and I don't know where those came from. Um, I can I can guess that they they came from uh the business administrator
because they didn't come from the township committee. And you know the other things like you're we're making design decisions based on you know lead certification etc. I don't know where that requirement came from. That's not something that we voted for. The ordinance
says we did a study which I believe building to the west and we did a reported decided we didn't decide not to that that that to be fair that was to
look at putting the building on a separate lot that we already potentially had plans for in flux. What I'm asking is, you know, why not take the parking lot that already exists and expand that way as opposed to going back? Was that
considered? Because it seems like that would be more consistent with the master plan in terms of not having parking, you know, right up on that main street there. Would you like to go over your report very quickly?
Questions more. has encouraging this preservation of this potentially historic structure. Uh goal six of the master plan develop and implement strategies to address townwide sustainability resiliency and to adapt to global climate change. Objective 6.03 evaluate and improve township's
infrastructure as appropriate. Um the project proposes and I appreciate this evening's presentation kind of clarifies I say filling the town hall basement but uh as indicated by the architect this evening uh the basement will be vacated and storage removed from that location um which will fortify the facility from
flood inundation um as as the building is partially located within flood plane um and such an effort will improve the township's infrastructure create a more resilient facility not subject to inundation and loss of records that are currently stored in the basement um and then moving on 2018 master plan.
The matrix of plan recommendations on pages uh M-1 through M-11 of the plan leverage municipally owned properties like the municipal building and DPW site as part of a larger redevelopment reuse scheme for the downtown area. Um and my comment is the proposed plan for town hall will redevelop and expand the
subject building only on the site while the master plan recommends leveraging municipal building sites for a larger redevelopment or reuse scheme in the downtown area. The proposed improvements here are not part of a larger recommended area for redevelopment. As such, the project as proposed may not be consistent with this
recommendation. Uh consider relocating uh the bu the municipal building as part of an overall downtown vision redevelopment strategy. The proposed plan for the town hall. My comment is uh the proposed plan for the town hall will maintain the existing location within the downtown. However, this recommendation suggests a potential to consider uh relocating the building uh
which we just heard some commentary on uh and is unclear uh if such considerations were made. However, we did just hear representations made that such alternative locations were considered. Um, so with with regard to this, the project may or may not be consistent. Uh, should should evaluate
that. Um, the next one is promoted corporation of public spaces when considering new construction buildings. Um, I know that the proposed addition to the rear of the existing town hall will include a new public courtyard uh, which was indicated to be about 20 ft by 30 ft as represented by the architect this evening. Um, at the proposed public
entrance to the expanded building, Rose courtyard will have those two planting areas and a small courtyard space. Um in accordance with this recommendation that proposed project will incorporate a new public space in construction of the of the civic building. Um and finally I do have a a
section related to um the surf preservation element of the master plan which was adopted in August of 2023. Um I identified two goals um which would be related to this uh proposed project. The first is goal number one to advance preservation of community character through identification designation and
stewardship of its historically and or architecturally significant resources. Um section 6.1.2 two of the historic preservation element again as I mentioned identifies town hall building as potentially within the downtown historic district which should be considered for local designation and as
such the retention and restoration of the building under um under the project plan will maintain the potential historic building for future uh designation here with township and goal number four to revitalize Melbourne's commercial districts by encouraging the maintenance rehabilitation and adaptive
reuse of older structures and promoting high contextual design standards umvious obviously There's been some discussion on design, but I focus mostly on retention and renovation of potentially historic building on the site is consistent with this goal as it will maintain rehabilitation and adaptively reuse uh structure within the downtown
commercial district. And finally, just in summary, um given that we do have a variety of consistent or not consistent um uh portions of master plan, um my recommendation is for the board to consider them on balance uh in advance of making a recommendation. And you're
also uh under section 31 power. Any other recommendations governing body regarding this project? Happy questions. Sorry, yes, I have a question. Um definition of
uh public spaces. Is there a clear definition of that? um like a an entrance or a 20 by by 30 which I'm assuming includes the handicap ramp and other things. Is
that the definition of public threshold size? Are you asking? Yes. I would say you know I'm not aware of one specifically from a planning perspective of a minimum size threshold for public space. Um, as indicated on the plans, there is a proposed public
coryard area that will front onto the larger town hall plaza space. Um, so, you know, just in my evaluation of this, it feels like it's an extension or kind of an expansion of the existing town hall plaza into the building, creating kind of a courtyard welcoming area. I mean, certainly up to the board's jurisdiction as to whether you feel that
that is sufficient as far as a provision of a public gathering space or space consistently. Thank you. Sure. question. Thank you. Okay. Uh I would like to open it up to the board for discussion as to whether
or not we find the plans of presentation uh the new capital project Milbour town hall renovation project uh either consistent or I guess not inconsistent or inconsistent with the master plan.
So if I may just to be clear also there's a uh the entitlement to make recommendations as Mr. mention. Yeah. So, um I was thinking about this for a while since I I was looking at these
plans. Um I agree with with him about sometimes can be consistent, sometimes is inconsistent. The for me the two most important things about the master plan is uh the master plan is trying to make
our downtown more walkable, more livable. And I don't feel that this this design helped to incorporate that
the courtyard even though it's 20 by 30 and there is no real dimension how it should be but it's the design of the space that makes people to wants to be there or just to walk and get into the building.
And I feel that this courtyard is just the entrance of the building. It's not a place. It's not a continuation of the town hall plaza. In summer we have so many people there. I don't see how people are going to be hanging out there on the steps sitting. If we go to many
public buildings, we see beautiful steps. People are sitting on the steps. Here is just an stop to get into. So my recommendation will be try to design the space a little more thinking about the public how they can interact with the public. The streetscape is something
that we mention almost well everybody who was talking here to have that wall the brick wall doesn't feel inviting for people to be there. So my suggestion would be to review that area especially that area
because it's the town hall plaza where people in summer hang out. Um I'd like to say uh just recommendation. Um what I've noticed here is how can you just build a building and not know you
know eventually where the cars are going to be parked or EV or how the next lot's going to look or, you know, it's to me it's it's very difficult. I I agree with the courtyard, too. To me, a courtyard
is a walkable space or somebody reads a book in it or they're walking by and they find some soul in that area and it's a public space. That's the way I define a courtyard. Right or wrong, it's not written. Um, I want to make it clear
that money is important here and and I agree with that, but how can you truly make a decision if you don't know what's going to happen around it? So, I'd like uh to challenge or ask the TC to take
some of that into consideration, too. What is the long-term plan? because I agree with Frank that this is just in a vacuum and we're just, you know, about the building and I think it's more than that. I think it it should be looked at
and I agree that this should be one of the most important buildings in our community and that's my recommendation. I I agree with the comments that Jorge
and and Allison made. Um, you know, this is going to be an expensive project. This is going to be something we're going to have for a very long time. Um, right now, the addition looks more like a warehouse than than it does um, you
know, a municipal building. I just think that we can do better. And, uh, I think that there are some ideas that were were brought up and and There are some specifics that were mentioned tonight. My recommendation would be that we send
this back to the architects, have them incorporate the feedback that they've heard here, uh, and then come back before us so that we can make a determination because right now there's plenty of elements on here that are not consistent with the master plan. Uh, and
I think that, you know, if we move forward with this as is, we're we're just settling. And, uh, that's a missed opportunity to potentially, um, you know, follow the master plan in in in in a better way. And, you know, maybe this
should be the start of a revitalization or or um a redevelopment of that area as the master plan had envisioned. um you know when this was first brought to the TC the um the thing that troubled me was that we got one answer and I
remember saying I would like to see some alternatives and there were people in the audience who told me I should just trust the architect um and I didn't get any support from the other four members of the TC at the time although I see that may have changed um so I agree we
should be looking at alternatives to incor we we've made a lot of suggest suggestions tonight and you we're not going to be able to come up with a building that meets all of them. But what we can do is see some alternatives that meet a couple here, some here, you know, whatever. So that we actually have
the ability to do some kind of see what the trade-offs are, see what's better, that kind of thing. So I I think I agree. I think uh we need to see something some other things to to see uh the feedback incorporated and I think
based on the fact that you know a lot of this design happened in in a vacuum and without um a lot of oversight um you know I I feel strongly that we should make sure that whatever revisions come back do come before this board uh because we
don't want to have simply five TC members you know deciding on the one plan that was was put in front of them. I I think there's collective expertise here. Um so it'd be my recommendation that we um you know make the recommendation that changes be made and
it come back before this board. I I agree with pretty much everything that's been said so far. I would add one thing to what Michael said. I'm I appreciate that there's a sort of a tension between the new building being a complete break from the old building
versus a continuation of the old building. And what I don't I'm not an architect, so I don't have a good way to picture what the different alternatives are. I mean, just in terms of design, are there examples out there that we could see? I would love to see examples of this is a really good example of
where they kind of continued the old design. And maybe this one is too. I'm just ignorant. I'm not an architect. So, you know, where they continued the old design or one where they made a complete break with the old design. And if we're spending this much money, we can go to town if we want, make something completely modern and radical or do we
want to stick but with what we have. But I'd love to see, you know, several different ways of doing this have actually been done in practice that people consider to be, you know, really good examples of how to do it. Well, I want to touch on something. So, everyone's talking about design. I'd
like to sort of step back and take a sort of a more rudimentary question and then something um that that was in Graham's report is that the you know this board is supposed to see if something is not inconsistent with the master plan. One of the things that's
essential in in the 2018 master plan is this idea that hey, let's take a look to see what downtown buildings that are owned by the municipality can be maybe reworked or or properties that are redone to revitalize the
downtown. I've heard that there seemingly was at least some investigation into that before making a decision. And I'd like to know more about that investigation to make sure that a wholesome review was done because obviously there was a decision saying,
"Okay, it's too expensive to move or do anything. We're going to do it on this land." To make a decision from the planning board, I'd like to hear more about that report that was done so that we can make sure that we're we're acting within accordance of the master plan, not something that would be inconsistent
or not inconsistent with the master plan. and having the benefit of being on the TC. I do know that when the alternative was mentioned, it was it was basically just, oh well, we're thinking of this site. Here are the functions we'd add. Here's the price tag. It didn't get into
any sort of design, any of the other elements as to whether it would fit in better. Um, so I I again I I think more work is is necessary and uh you know I don't really think that there were a lot of viable
alternatives considered. I think that more thought needs to be put into investigating uh whether you know this in its current form is is the best way to go or whether there are other options that you know may utilize this site or perhaps other sites.
Um, I'd like to answer your question, Jonathan, and certainly uh there are books out there. They show uh even uh you know, buildings that are half falling down and how they've incorporated something very modern and
beautiful to them. Um maybe Jorge knows another reference. Uh to me it's exciting to see um an old building being being in historic preservation and see what they can do with that. And again,
we're not against something very modern and and attached to a historic building. Um so I wanted to make that clear. There are resources out there, certainly books online. Uh pull up some of the the
greatest architectural preservation of historic properties. They're quite interesting. Some of them are really off the top. Uh I don't know that anyone would appreciate some of it, but um but it's being done all the time. And in all
my travels, I see it a lot. Uh even in the Midwest I see hospitals taking historic houses and adding on huge beautiful buildings attached to it. Um so it's out there. So to take a look at
that I would highly recommend. Now, from historic preservation, I would be a miss not to mention this, but Short Hills Milbour uh was built with really caring about the properties, whether it's Taylor Park, whether it was this
particular building. Famous architects really took the time to really make something grand and beautiful. And I think it's time we step back and start to do that. whether we utilize the historic building or not. Um, again, I
will reiterate that I think this should be one of the most important buildings in our town and I think it should last for 200 years and must be proud of it. Excellent. on the on the design aspect of things. I I would also like to know a
little bit more about the green infrastructure sustainability aspects of it to make sure that it is matching up with the master plan and that we are again I'm use the word epitome of what we're looking for in the master plan. I know we touched on it very briefly. Um
we didn't get into detail but I would love to see the checklist the sustainability checklist that we have people fill out. uh and also want to know the details of the building. Um sort of in the same house as uh as Jorge
and that leads is very nice, but there is more to it than just getting that lead certification. Um and I hope we can do better than what I heard tonight. So with that being
said, I think we have a lot of not consistencies that we need to handle. Maybe I could tell before tee it up for the board to make have it based on deliberation. Just a reminder. Thank you. Just a
reminder that I should push the button. Uh thank you. Uh just a reminder that uh section 31 uh uh requires the 45day referral from the governing body to the planning board uh to uh make its
consistency finding and make any recommendations uh in light of the deliberations. Uh certainly the I expect the board's going to want to make that finding and make those recommendations uh even assuming uh that the
recommendation one or recommendation may be that the board wants it to come back to the board. Um so uh so we uh do want to exercise our responsibility in that regard or else the 45 days will expire
uh and there is no obligation uh well for for the governing body even to consider recommendations uh because they wouldn't have been made. So uh in light thereof I anticipate someone's going to make a motion a second. There'll be a roll call vote uh and uh
that motion will include whether it's uh found to be consistent or inconsistent with the master plan and uh at least a good shot at what the recommendations are, including if one of them is that the board wishes the uh project review to come
back to it. So I I would propose I'm not going to make the motion. I'll propose the motion first. I I think the motion um might be something along the lines of it is not consistent with the master plan and we
make a recommendation that the feedback uh from tonight be uh incorporated uh into some some revisions and the information we requested be provided. and as a recommendation that it come
back before this board before it proceeds. So I I I don't know the proper legal way to to word that but there's with at least a couple of alternative design. Yes, I think so. Um
and and I and I think we should also make the recommendation that this go back before the historic preservation committee as well. uh given the historic nature of the building and given the fact that we are in the process of designating uh the building as well
on on the alternative designs. It seems like most of the objections are with respect to the exterior rather than the interior. So we don't necessarily need full-blown like complete plans just but renderings would be very helpful. Yeah.
sum that upg we'll well that's right and and no no specific legal terms but we have the gist of it and and uh I think we can memorialize it and certainly the board will have an opportunity to review to see if we memorialized it accurately.
Mike is on but it's nowhere near me. Uh the the the um so uh uh if Councilman uh Sakamandi wishes to make that proposal a motion, we can have a second. Uh so I I I propose um Oh, I think you've already
made it. I just Is it a motion? That is a motion. Okay, I'll second the motion. Okay, we have a second from the chair and a roll call vote. Cory Biller, I agree with the motion. Allison Campfield, yes. Michael Cohen,
yes. Jorge Mastro Pietro, yes. I agree with that. Frank Seagment, yes. Michael Zion, yeah, I agree. Jonathan Baxter, yes. Sergey Sivto, yes. Gaston Halpert, yes.
Unanimous. Thank you very much everyone for giving us the presentation. was much appreciated and I'd like to take a fivem minute recess while everybody changes positions and we get a chance to kind of change gears in our head up here.
Appreciate it. Thanks. See you back at 10 or 910. Oh, thank you. Oh, that's Thank you. You're a lifesaver. I think I was here last night, too. It's got to be in the picture. And the
microphone needs to be held directly that we couldn't nobody could hear anybody. No, no, we changed. They changed the mic. Oh, they changed it. But you have to speak directly. It's a slide. It's a slide. But Oh, so it's never turned on. I don't think they
picked up that either. No, the one that was here. It doesn't work. You don't know. Oh, this is a new mic. This is the original. That was the original one. Oh, so now we know. Now we know. Alex was texting me. I'm like
Eileen, could you please do a quick roll call to make sure we're roll back? Corey Biller here. Allison Canfield here. Michael Cohen here. Frank Sagamande here. Jorge Master, Michael Zion here, Jonathan Baxter, Sergey ST
here, Gaston Halper here. All right, before we start with the next line of business, application 24003, I would like to remind everybody that we're in a quasi courtroom uh setting and we expect that type of
decorum throughout the entire process. Please be respectful of everybody speaking. Please make sure your cell phones are off. Any conversations you feel you need to have, please exit the room. Close the doors so we can't hear you. It's greatly appreciated. Thank
you, Mr. Lavine. Just one, just one caveat. Please leave the door open. It's an open public meeting, so please don't close the door. Otherwise, I concur with everything the chair said. And when it's comes time for John to testify, how's that going to work?
I think it keeps turning off just like the other one. Hello. Yeah, this one seems to be working a bit better. Should I get to air guitar, too? Can I do that? You guys are in for a treat. Is that any better?
Um, so, uh, good evening. Uh when we last uh left you um we had uh told the board that we would uh submit revised plans that incorporated a number of comments uh a number of uh things that we had indicated that we would do by way
of plan revisions. Um we also uh in the intervening time have been trying desperately to obtain and finalize and submit um soil testing uh results which is also something that we told the board we would do. We uh nobody is more
frustrated than the applicant. I can assure you that those aren't already in. Um they're almost done. It's been uh a struggle. Our plans are in. Uh we'll explain to you how we revised the plans, are thinking in revising the plans. We certainly do intend to submit those soil
uh tests which should be ready any day now. Um, we're aware of the preliminary results and we can explain how those preliminary results are consistent with our design uh intention in in revising the plans. We will be submitting those
um uh for the boards and for your consultants uh review uh to confirm that uh those those actual field results are are consistent and would support um the design the redesign that that's shown on the plans. Um those plans have been
submitted. We had the benefit of some uh follow-up review memos um from the board's consultants and I think as an initial matter what uh we should do is uh review with the board the details of those uh revisions what they are reply to uh comments and questions in the uh
professionals reports. Um the other thing is we were under the impression that we would not have the ability technologically to project the plans. So, we've gone totally old school and have a tripod and a mounted board. Um, I've tried desperately to see if there's
anybody in the crowd that had a laptop that they could use. It came up empty. So, um, we have mounted plans. I understand it'll be difficult for the board and certainly the members of the public to see those. I apologize for that. Uh, unless anybody else has any other bright ideas. Uh, that's kind of
the way we're going to have to go as though it was circa 1993. A quick question if I may on that one. But I suspect the board members have the plans at least. Are you intending to put some exhibits up that are different than the plans or are they the plans themselves?
They're just the plans themselves, right? They're just the plans themselves. Okay. So, it may be not to take anything away from the board, but it may be that they can be shown that way more than this way if we have copies. Uh, all right. Unless there are any other questions for me, I'd like to uh
recall John front. Would you like to place him under oath again, Mr. corner or shall we just remind him that he remains remains under oath? You've been just reminded as such, Mr. Ferrante. And uh Mr. Fonte, you're a licensed civil engineer in the state of New Jersey. Yes. License still current? Yes. Um all
right. So before we get started, do you in fact have what what we do have in terms of a visual exhibit? I have my uh old school tripod. And again, I think the idea will Yeah.
Yeah, please don't block the uh board too much, but there may be a vote to block me, but that's a All right, John. So, we're also going to have to do a bit of a duet here. Um, I want to leave.
Oh. Um, so first, just for a, can you identify the um plans by title and the last revision date, please? Yes. The the plans that I'm going to present tonight are revision E dated April 26, 2025.
Now, you made a number of revisions in a kind of falling under a number of different categories. Uh let's start with um there was a a concern about the um turning one of the turning templates in particular that we had shared with the
board and the garbage truck and its egress from the site. So as an initial matter, did you uh undertake some plan revisions to address the um turning movement of a garbage truck uh exiting the site onto Old Shore? Yes, thank you.
Yes, we did. And uh to uh facilitate the review, we we separated the fire truck template with the wastist truck template so it's easier to see. Uh, revision D had them both superimposed with each other and it was difficult to see, but we did make a revision and I I believe
the the comments that were made were that uh the waste truck turning right on road going to encroach on the northbound lane of traffic and uh we we modified
that so we don't have the encroach. So to be more specific about the about the the modifications, did that require a shift of that egress driveway on Old School Road? We shifted slightly north, but uh we
uh we have it in line with the exiting lane uh coming from Parker uh coming uh west out of there so that the the uh driveway is in line with that lane.
again for the board. I think there was testimony and uh I think the public uh as well as the traffic consultant wanted to line those lanes. to to help in case the waist truck u
sort of uh would wander. Uh we made a curve south of the driveway, a mountable curve to facilitate that uh right hand turn. under existing conditions are plans identified some existing utility
poles in that area. Correct. Correct. And in order to uh facilitate this exiting movement uh do those utility poles have to be moved we uh by shifting uh we were able to uh what there's two utility poles there. One pole will have
to be moved utility pole and one will can remain. So you say move where is it going to be moved? It uh it really depends on the utility company, but we would believe that it would be moved north of the drop of the new driver, but still on on the subject property or in
the right way in the right in the right way. Same side of the road. Yeah. Um so this kind of utility p is that relatively commonly is that relatively commonly done by uh applicants um reaching out to the utility company and
coordinating a a relocation on site of their existing poles. Yes, absolutely. Um, so with a shift in the in the location of the driveway, you've only described 10 ft. Does that require modification of the of the site distance
depictions that we previously shown on the plans? We've we've uh modified them slightly, but not enough to to create a major change from what was shown previously, but but they have been revised. Yes. And they're consistent with the new driveway. Correct.
Um also with regard to turning movements in vehicular uh circulation, there was a recommendation that um the forge traffic consultant made with regard to a curb radius in the area of the trash enclosure internal to the to the site. Is that correct? That's
correct. And could you describe that just the nature of that revision that was recommended? the the angle the objection was that the angle was too sharp and it could have impacted the vehicles backing out of the space and so
we soften the radius to make that issue go away. Um now another kind of general area was live coverage and you'll recall that kind of during the course of our of our proceedings you had provided prior testimony and shared with the board um
an exhibit applicants exhibit A8 uh that had a kind of detailed lot coverage chart. Is that correct? That's correct. So, you've described uh some changes to the uh to the site so far and you'll describe a few others. Um did those uh
require um re-examination and recalculation of those lot coverage numbers? Yeah, we recalculate again to uh refresh everyone's memory this has evolved from the
original submission. A lot of comments were made by the board by the board professionals. So this revision E basically uh brings all those changes that were that were presented via exhibits to to a
to a condition where all represented on our plan as well as live coverage. That was always a a big uh item of discussion. uh to make sure that all the uh impervious areas were covered such as
I think the last time we I was here there was a comment regarding the encroachment asphalt on the intersection of falsehore hills and parts road and we uh we indicated via exhibit that that
was going to be included and now it has been documented with revision. Now you mentioned um impervious coverage and as Mr. Pedto had pointed out to us during the course of the proceedings that the actual formal definition of lock coverage is slightly more expansive than
that and then it also includes uh accessory structures. Do you recall that? I yes absolutely uh one of in particular one of the because it was a new one that we had proposed uh was a 900 square foot uh play area. Correct. And do those lot coverage calculations
include that that play area? Correct. Yes. Uh we had also uh again in response to questions and request for information um indicated on the plans uh the location of a of a potential hot box. Correct. Correct. And generally
speaking, where is that located on plan? It's on the north northeast corner of the building. All as you again to refresh everyone's memory, all the utilities come into the building from Grove. Do they come in underground
or above ground? Underground. Correct. And the the uh water lines are usually dictated by New Jersey American Water and New Jersey American Water has standards from the Titan point where the tap is made and their detail. They have
a standard detail that if you're in the neighborhood of 100 ft, they may require a hot box. We have uh located an underground uh metering pit and uh and valving uh so that we would not have a
an above ground unsightly hot. So that if you could just for those who may not be familiar hotbox what exactly is that? A hot box is uh is is a is a colloial term that means whenever you have water and you have all the valving that are above
grade because of our severe winters the that enclosure is heated. Um so uh you also uh indicated in your transmitter letter that you submitted along with the plans um some of the
um parking spaces on site had been relocated. Is that correct? Yes. Could you just uh basically describe those correct? Summarize the relocation. Yeah. The what we did was locating and optimizing the parking stalls. We uh it
was our attempt to create additional impervious to reduce impervious coverage to give us uh a buffer. So currently based on what we're presenting we have a 334 foot square foot buffer in the
coverage. Sorry I hate to use the words just for clarification. Are you talking about margin below the maximum coverage number? That's correct. Not some other. Um so uh by doing that did the proposed number of parking spaces change? No. And
did any of those um the size of them you know reduce below uh any any applicable dimensional requirements? No. Um, so shifting gears just a little bit in terms of one of the other things that were revised on these plants was grading
in circumstance. Correct. There were minor grade changes. Now you had indicated that um that you recalculated building height. Um had there been any changes at all to the proposed uh you know facade or physical structure of the
building itself? No. So why would there be why would you undertake a a recalculation building? There were minor grade changes that uh was so again uh the the allowable building
height is calculated based on the average grade. So based on that we recalculated the average grade which is 31.8T and we're allowed two story 32 feet. So we're under so that made we
made that minor change in the quality. Um and and so that still complies and I should have just to sum up before I should have asked you this. So after the uh recalculations that that you did, what is the total proposed lot coverage number that uh the plans now show? Yes.
Total is again 35% of the lot area. We're allowed 50,664.6 and we're providing we're showing under drawing is 50,330 and that's the margin that we
have that I discussed previously of 3334.6 ft. Um so storm water is another general area of uh of revision. So there's been a a a redesign of the
storm water management system. Correct. That's correct. So there's been a lot of discussion and one of the main reasons u in terms of verifying the actual class classification of the soil type on site
as opposed to relying on mapping or assumptions which one main area but another was um seasonal high water table whether there is one and what the height of it is. Correct. Correct. So um you were redesigning these plans kind of in
a parallel track with obtaining additional soil sampling. Correct. That is correct. And those results were not in hand when you revised the plans. Correct. Right. The we the plan had to be submitted 10 days before and the geotechnical work on the site happened
last week. So in order to achieve that you have to make a certain assumption uh kind of a worst case scenario assumption if you will. what the seasonal high water table actually is. Correct. So what we did was in revising the plans, I guess everyone recalls, there was a lot
of discussion on the seasonal high water table which was based on the five warnings that we initially did on the project and regarding where the modeling was and so forth. So based on that, we decided in revising the drawings and considering that we wouldn't have had
the geotechnical report in time to make the plan submission, we decided to uh assume a uh a uh seasonal water table that is elevated in relation to the existing grade. So we we designed based
assuming that the seasonal outward table is 2 feet below the ex the the existing grade and so we redesigned our system to be a shallower underground system uh so that uh again so that the the issue of
uh whether the underground storage system is uh below the water table is uh eliminated. Uh, so John, just to back up for a second. Um, you said assume it was two feet. How did you come up with that number? Was that just kind of randomly
selected or what was it based on? Based on the Yes, the boring that we we had performed where the the model these are previous previous ones that we had done up to that
point the D and you had the results back. All of those analysis those were formed the basis of the updated storm water management report that had been submitted several weeks before for revision. Yes. And u
the let's say the additional data even as the objectives engineer indicated uh that the DP whenever you don't there's not sufficient amount of soil data you have to assume that the
seasonal highway table is at the highest point. modeling that you observe on the site even and that's what we assume. Yeah, there's been has been a lot of back and forth as to modeling that was observed in the soil samples and the
extent to which that definitively establishes the uh the seasonal high water table. It's been our contention throughout that that's one of several but it's not dispositive of the correct correct but that's the level where the modeling was
observed on some of not all. Not all. Um, okay. So, you had said that uh as a result of that uh that requires what essentially keeping the storm water system underground
but making it shallower and then broader. Is that correct? So, the volume that you have to retain you either uh the volume is created by uh length width times depth. So based on that the
the prior design we had a deeper system which reduced the uh the length and width of the aerial plan horizontally. So with this system we had to go with a with a wider system and but a much shallower
system. But in essence the the net result is the requirement for storm water management that uh the BP imposes on a site such as this is still being met. the revision B plan has met those requirements and so does this plan. Yes.
Um so again, so the the the updated on-site testing has been performed. We're still waiting to get the formal written uh results from that back. Correct. Correct. Have you had the opportunity to reach out to try to get at least a
preliminary indication uh as to what those results are showing? Yeah, we've been literally uh pressing them daily. So, the last time we spoke was before I left the office to come here tonight and they were able to share with me some of the
results and the results are from our perspective are much more are positive in that the season water table is a lot is lower much lower than the assumption of two feet. And uh so we Now with that
data assuming that the final report is consistent uh we are we can we have to make a decision whether we want to value engineer the system to uh reduce uh his footprint aerial footprint. Uh but at
least the data is is favorable and uh uh and we'll obviously the the when we revise the storm water management report that data will be incorporated and shared with the board uh the board's
engineer Martha as well as the the public. Um so the the preliminary results uh support the accuracy of u of your underlying assumptions in designing this this shadow wider system.
It validates our rev so that well they're both consistent and that they meet the storm water management requirement for the site. Um so there had also been a fair amount of
discussion about the proposed we had characterized it as a rain garden uh that run ran along the southern boundary of the e restaurant out to short hills road. I think your summary of the changes indicated that that has been replaced. Is that correct? That is correct. What has that been replaced
with? Well, we went with a storm water management unit, a structured unit similar to the one we have in the upper lot. So, and it's it's designed for for water quality and uh we've chose to remove the
the rain garden though. I like the rain garden, but I think there was a lot of comments about the rain garden. So, we just decided to remove it and go with a structured device. And the structured device still complies with the, you
know, the ZMP requirements, correct? And again, you said it's essentially the same type of device that was already being used on site just for the upper lot. Correct. So it's similar underground. Correct. Correct. Um so we had indicated and again this is
one of the things that we had explained that we would do was um prior to act eliminating rain guard we had also eliminated some retaining walls. Are those are those still eliminated? not be incorporated into the
plan. Correct. And we had indicated that because of that that would there would be a modification of the grading in that area. Correct. Correct. And is that one of the grading adjustments um that was incorporated into these revised plans? Yes. Um you had also indicated John that
under drains had been added underneath the pavement and Is that correct? So what why is that? I mean how what's the purpose of those and how they function? Yes. So the the as far as the
the sand filter and the and the grass whale west of the upper lock. Pardon me. Sorry I can't see everybody. I can't see who's talking. But please let's have some respect for everybody up here. We're trying to listen. very difficult
when people are having conversations back in the audience. Thank you. Yeah. Again, for the board, there was a lot of discussion regarding at least the claim that the the sand the sand filter was encroaching on the 25 foot set back
even though the sand filter is underground. Uh so we removed that uh obstru let's call it obstruction with that encroachment. So we reduced the sand filter size to so that it does not
approach under 25er. And in doing that we what we decided was to uh to uh have an under drain system and design sand filter grass swale as a green infrastructure
which was designed as well to primarily for water quality and then as far and water quantity the water will be conveyed to the upper lot storm water management use of the facility. So that that was one of the changes that we made
for the center. Um with regard to uh landscaping um have we uh provided additional um landscape materials on the western and southern
portions of the site? Yes. And what type of plantings are there? We in the prior version we had primarily evergreen with some deciduous uh but now because of all the
testimony concern with visual impact from neighbors to the west. We went with a complete line of evergreens that on the western side of the property and continued on to the southern to the
southern side. And what is what is the spacing on those plantings? I think I believe 5 foot. Um so as we've um undergone plan revisions during the course of the proceedings we've updated the
u the tree count and the tree uh replacement requirements. So uh with this further uh revision to the landscaping plan did those numbers require adjusting as well? Yes. And so uh what is the current as we
calculated a tree replacement requirement? So figure two u has a table of all the existing trees and uh that table also notes uh which trees are to be removed uh and which
trees are to be replaced. And if you recall the the old the the prior version of the landscaping plan uh had a note removed that was incorrect. It should have said to be removed. So we made that correction. And we also uh took
advantage of the uh the ordinance as a requirement that if if an existing tree is in is is in the footprint of future construction for the project that that tree removal does does not count. So
we've noted that which fall within the uh the zone allowed not reduction but the uh reduction in providing additional trees to replace a tree that's count. So in essence so figure B now
has we summarized 127 trees that need to be replaced based on the the formula that the ordinance has and we're providing So we're we have a a positive 38 additional trees that we're providing
and a lot of those trees are the evergreens to the western side that I spoke of pursuant to those same um standards that you referred to earlier. Do they also contemplate that um dead or
diseased trees do they're removed do not generate a replacement requirement? Correct. at that time. And as part of uh prior reviews of our plans, the uh the forester had identified um up to four trees that she recommended
be removed because they were dead or dying poor health. Correct. So do these updated calculations like that as well? Yes. Does that uh pretty much cover the uh revisions that you made that are reflected in E? Yeah, that just point
out the figure five if I may. connection turned at the border. Figure five was added to provide additional detail on the underground storm water management system. So we provided the crosssections
that were lack. So what we did was if I may for the board I like to turn it because what we did was it's not well visible to the drawings that you have. So I highlighted the uh existing grade in
blue. The final grade is obviously you can see the final grade. I apologize. of turn around from the other side. So we we're showing the existing grade in blue, the assumed as indicated before the water table, the
seasonal high water table in yellow. And what you see, we also added tonight uh based on the the varable uh data we received from the soil geotechnical company. The red shows where the actual
uh seasonal high water table is. So you can see that the season the actual seasonal water table in red is well below the uh the redesigned shallower storm water management system. Both the uh the top
part is a cross-section north south on the upper lot stormwater management. the uh the section on at the bottom uh on bottom of our sheet is a is a east west section across the upper uh stormwater
management as well as the lower storm water management. Uh what's important here is that the even with the uh with the redesigned shallower system, even with the assumed worst condition of a seasonal high water table, the system meets the meets the requirement.
There is one small area you see here on the on the lower lot storm water management that uh shows that the bottom of the stom management based on the assumed 2 feet below grade seasonal high water table would be about a foot below
the uh the uh the seasonal high water table. But with the with the final data, we're we're well above that requirement and complying with any applicable separation standards that are uh that are required to be met under the storm
water reg. Correct. I don't have any further I'm sorry before you leave that Mr. Chairman if I may. the uh if I understood you correctly on figure five rev E that there was some information that was added perhaps in red with
respect to the seasonal high water table this evening. Yes. Okay. So I'm going to assume that that page this is where the attorney gets very technical and procedural. The the the uh that page is different than what was previously provided to the board. Correct. The
balance of the plans that you referred to, are they exactly the same as what was previously provided to the board? Exactly the same other than I've I made the color I understood. That's what I gleaned from your testimony. So uh just
to be uh hyper vigilant uh and not hyperventilate. We will uh uh mark that uh a whatever exhibit is next. I think we're up to Thank you, Eileen. for identification is A1 with today's
date and also just for so the coloring correct me if I'm wrong which is just kind of freehand highlighter correct correct yeah I think it was just the red coloring that was new correct Mr. Fante correct okay so hopefully the record's clear now and we have that exhibit so it is different than what was previously
submitted nothing wrong with that just the technicality of marking it as an exhibit as opposed to not Mr. Mr. Chairman can I show to show the please and then I'll I'll show it to the public
as well just so again as I indicated that we added the crosssection to clarify the the snowboard management system so it was shown on the drawing but not very visible the exist the existing grade in
blue we assume the seasonal water table I added at least the verbal information that was provided to me by this geotechnical company in red which is the actual seasonal high table and what the
the red dots are is where the so the test was located so that it's dimensionally correct that I'm show apologize for the low tech presentation. So, uh, as I've been explaining, uh, figure
five has the we added cross-sections to clarify what the snowboard management system was. What we've done was the drawing showed the existing grade which is highlighted in in blue and the assumed seasonal high water table in
yellow and based on the the information that we received. In red is the uh the actual seasonal high water table that the geotechnical engineering company that did the field work uh found. And so the
the section at the top of the drawing is uh across the uh north south of the upper lot stormwater management unit. The cross-section at the bottom of the sheet figure five is uh was drawn across
the top stormwater management across the bottom so that we pick up the the stormwater management system at the upper lot as well as the lower lot. And u obviously the the uh the yellow uh uh assumes uh
seasonal water table had the system in the lower lot in this in this corner slightly uh within the uh the water table. Uh but as you can see with the new information we'll
be we're well below that. We fully intend to again any day now you continue to They promised me that it should be available by we fully intend to get and we'll package that up and pull that into
in essence they uh they did quite of quite of a investigation. did they dug n test bits across the site and all that information and they performed the infiltration test as well as required by
the by chapter 12 of the BMP so it's it'll be quite comprehensive report that share with the board thank you m I don't have any more questions for Mr. With the chair's permission, I apologize for going first. Uh, but I just had a
couple of quick questions if I may. The the April 28, 2025 cover letter that was submitted with Mr. Fanty's revised uh E Rev Eyee uh uh provisions. Uh I think a lot of it was testified to, but am I correct to assume that Mr. Fanti that uh
uh all of these items on pages 1, two, and three were revisions that were made and that uh you're representing were made on these plans. Correct. As as they appear on the April 28 memoir. Okay. And I don't know if uh uh I don't want to steal Mr. Ped or Miss
Callahan's thunder, but was somebody going inclant going to address their newer newest reports that were rendered in light of uh as I understand it the revised plans. Uh Mr. Pedto is May 6 and Miss Front
Miss I'm sorry, Miss Callahan her report is May five. Um just in terms of efficiency, Mr. Chair, in preparing your questions, we went through with reference to both transmitt letter as well as Mr. Ped's kind of
itemization of the revisions that had been made and also looking at their their reports tried to answer their questions. Maybe it would make to turn it over to M. Callahan and Mr. Ped and to the extent we haven't addressed their questions, they could with reference to
their own reports follow up with us. Reasonable. Mr. Pedro, would you like to go first? Are there any questions that you have that Mr. Fonte maybe did not address? Martha, do you have any questions, man?
I didn't hear my Maybe it'll work. Okay. Um, good evening, uh, Mr. Bronte. Thank you. Um just I think most significantly with respect to my my updated report that I submitted um is uh my notation that there is a design waiver that is
required of the application uh with respect to DRZ 516.3 um which stipulates conformance with the requirements set forth in 609.3. Um I was wondering if you could just provide testimony to the the relief you know that may be required or um you know what the um with respect to that section and
then in furtherance to that um is uh 516.8 eight, which speaks to landscaping requirements. It's a much more narrative section. There are no real dimensional standards within there, but it speaks about landscaping treatments. I was wondering if you could just address those uh and testimony uh to support that.
Mr. P, I think that does require testimony, but I was planning on providing testimony through witnesses. Can I say I didn't agree with it? Um that was That was the main question that I had regarding my report. So, but thank you
for your testimony. like to open up the uh questioning to the board. Billy. Yeah, I have I have a question about the drainage system. Um so the the new wider shallower drainage system was based on the assumption of that that
twoft. Um and you had mentioned so so first question I guess and if you if if the new system complies with the assumed two foot then in
theory unless the report came back with a more shallow which was not anticipated then that sort of addresses the concerns. Now you mentioned then today though upon hearing the actual feedback or the
actual report that there might be some value engineering. Can you explain what you meant by value engineering and more specifically can we just come up with an agreement as to what depth that system is so that we can try to move on from this issue.
The what we meant by value engineering is once we have the final data, we we have the the ability and the option to optimize the system from a uh cost perspective because the the current
design the shallower design requires a much larger pvious pavement which is more expensive than regular paving. Uh and uh it is based on my experience uh you uh it's more optimal to to dig
slightly deeper then uh spread the the system the wider plus the system the wider the system it'll be more costly. So so for our client's benefit we would value engineer. Uh but is that is that a typical step in in any kind of a
construction project from between approval and field installation? Correct. And will these updated test results enable us to to determine whether that's an opportunity or not? What those correct what those levels would be? Correct. And uh again, but we
have to meet all the D requirements and and as well as the ordinance for storm water management. All the reductions have to be met, the separation distances. The system, if you recall, we made the decision for it to not to infiltrate based on the soil conditions
that we had in the past. We based on the boot series uh and the and the soil boring that we have done that the infiltration for the site does does not uh is not loss logical. Although the geotechnical
engineer on his infiltration test as indicated that uh but and the site yes the site uh has some of the borings show that we may be able to so we'll make that
decision once we have all the data so is it it correct that as of as we sit here tonight we don't know definitively how wide or low that that water system is going to be quite quite yet. Correct. Well, correct in that I owe it to my
client to do the value engineering. Okay. But the next revision of the storm of the storm water report will uh will indicate what the final dimensions are. Okay. Thank you. And just can we move now to this sort of the the topic of the
buffer? I understand from your reports that you're now going to have a uh revised fencing and moving it back and having plantings and and moving the the water system that was under there. C can you just give more detail sort of so
what the height of the trees things like that because I know that's a big concern are six feet shown on the drawing that were evergreens that we're proposing the fence we again the fencing there's an existing fence that we have stipulated during meetings that it would
be repaired and replaced needed. So the fence is staying on where we're proposing a fence to stay. We're not moving a fence five feet into the buffer. Uh but uh the trees will be in front of the fence depending which
perspective you have. So from from the perspective of the adjoining property owner, the trees will be behind the fence. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Ju just to follow up on that
question. Um does that does the height of the tree include the ball? Excuse me. Does it does the height of the tree include the ball? Oh, that's the exposed portion. The exposed portion will be six feet. Okay. Thanks. I'll start with the buffer.
Um it's great that you've added the trees and I presume they're going to grow a lot higher than six feet is the plan. Yeah. uh the I mean one of the things that prompted a lot of these changes was reference back to 609.3. Um we don't have to decide you
know the final question here as to whether it applies word for word but one thing that still concerns me is uh 609.3 C says in the remaining buffer area a solid and continuous landscape screen shall be planted and properly maintained to conceal the parking area. So, conceal
the parking area, eliminate the glare of automobile lights throughout the year, and screen the building from the abuing residential areas. Looking at the plans now, I don't think that's going to happen given the height of the parking lot above at least the residential area on the west and probably to the south, too, because
you've got a strip of car parks on the westand side, western side, and another like seven to 10 on the southern side pointing at neighboring properties that I believe sit lower than that parking lot. And hence, you know, a car coming in is the headlights are going to shine
over the top of those trees for an awful long time. Has there been any consideration given to planting something much closer to the car park in front of where the trees pull in so that we could actually satisfy this requirement of eliminating the glare of the automobile lights throughout the
year or a fence even there or something? Because I don't think as it stands you could satisfy this requirement. The the requirement is to uh is to plant evergreens and have a solid fence. We do have a solid fence. We have the
evergreens. So we believe we meet the and then also when you look at the grains where the car is parked in relation to where the fence is. The headlights will be will be blocked because you know sort of the headlight is typically about 3 ft above above the
ground. Now do you have onsite and So we could actually indicate what those elevations are. We we don't we do not have topography off our property, but we do have it on our
property. The the existing grade on the western side at 3 326 and down at the uh at the bottom of
the western side is 3 I read this correctly 3 315 314 that's the exist The the parking lot has been has been
uh the final grade of the parking lot starting the northern park. That's under the assumption that the car is pulling in perpendicular, right? But it's not. It's pulling in. It's coming in heading
southwards and then it's turning westwards. So, it's going through a 90° arc with the headlights. So they're sweeping from the southwestern corner to the western side. So you are sweeping from higher up, right? So the cars are are the driveway is north south. So the
cars coming into the the parking lot will be facing south, right? And when they turn, they'll be turning west. So as they're turning the based on the topography that we have the the fence the solid fence will block
the the lights as well as the the plantings. So well but no it won't that's what I'm getting concerned that's meeting the requirement of the buffer. I hear what you're saying. I'm just going to give an example though. So, for example, if I'm pulling in south and pulling into say
the third parking lot from the southern end on the western side, it's marked as 319 ft. And the lights are going to sweep across the southwestern corner, which is, as you just said, is 313 ft.
So, that's a 6 foot difference, which is the height of the fence. In other words, the the beam of those lights is at the height of the top of the fence. Yes. You see what I'm saying? The driveway coming from the southern from the the southern side along the east
west that that grade is is is 320 which is about 4 ft above the uh the uh elevation at the at the top. Right? So it's going to the lights as you turn right the top of that fence if we assume
it's six feet. Okay. Is going to be about the same height as the car lights. In fact, the car lights will be the height of the car above that. I don't want to be argumentative, but the 320 plus a light that's about 3 ft above
323 and uh so we so the grade there is at 317 + 6 is 323. So we're slightly but the fence directly to the west of that parking lot. Right. But that's what I'm what I'm talking about. the fact
that the car starts facing south with its lights on. As it turns to the west, its lights will sweep from the south to the west. Understood. And hence across the top of the fence at the southern end of the property, southwestern end of the property. That's what I'm talking about.
Yes. And at that point, your statement is correct. Okay. Can you go can you describe what's the uh the current fence that's there and why was the decision made to maintain the uh the current fence instead of putting something else? The fence is a
uh is a wood solid fence and the uh the decision to uh repair the existing fence was made by So if there's a deficiency in height are you able to remediate or make it higher or conserve?
based on the uh the board members commentary a higher fence do that but the trees will grow eventually eventually like three years five years from now three years those those upper bodies grow tend to
grow pretty quickly to be fair I I don't think we're supposed to decide things based on how they will be eventually uh we're we're supposed to look at the information, the plans that are in front of us, and it sounds like at the moment the plan does not meet the requirements
to fully shield the headlights. But the way the way we always read the uh that requirement, if we were to design parking lots so that as cars change direction and sweep and uh the the beam
of the car is uh can be say can be as indicated by the board member uh all the all the presentations I've done to boards and which is our hunds parking lot design it's always the light as the it's
pulling in the space and that's the standard we always we always use and and uh but the way we read that that buffer requirement first I mean if I may just
off the cuff is that I know the our attorney indicated that that would be discussed but we don't read it that way that the 609.3 is a requirement for us my personal can I add another question
then I'll finish so I had another question about the storm order so it seems that in order to meet the depth uh requirements you're actually ra raising the grade by up to about seven feet in certain places is that correct well the grade has been raised before
because of uh to avoid that issue with storm water management. The grade are the grades that we uh we designed so that the the difference don't forget the site is uh heavily slope from the north to the south. So to to to mitigate the
the slope of the property, we had to re regrade the parking lot. So that drove the decision of the grades of the parking lot, not necessarily the Okay, understood. Yeah. And and then the the topographical lines are with reference
to the redesign grade, not the original grade. Is that correct? The topography on the this map here that we're talking the the proposed grades. Yeah, the proposed grades. Yes. Okay. Sorry. These ones are the proposed grades or this is the existing grades. Well, we show both
the the proposed grades are solid lines and figure two is existing. So hold on. If I'm looking, just help me understand here. If I'm looking at figure three here, the dotted lines are existing grades or proposed grades.
Approach madam. The the the uh gray light shaded topography is is the existing grid and the solid lines are the proposed grid. Okay. Does that ne potentially because
you're flattening this out, does that affect even our previous discussion about how because we were we were referring to the existing grade because we were looking at the dotted gray lines here when we were discussing where exactly would the headlights be. But it sounds like the the car park itself may be higher, right? No, what I indicated the way we
graded the site. So, if you notice the existing grades at the property line, the the gray uh the gray uh the gray uh topography. Mhm. As soon as we we from the edge of the the new parking lot, as
soon as we uh we we we start to regrade in a western direction, we we quickly intersect the existing grade so that we minimize the the amount of uh disruption to that part of the site. So, so I guess
what I don't understand is do these dotted line these dotted grade lines do not though reflect the final grade of these parking spots or they do well the underneath is the existing grade is there that's what the those are that topography shows the solid lines is the
proposed grade which is different than the existing grade right but it's higher than the existing grade or not oh the solid line I see what we're saying okay it is higher right okay so we were you were referring to the solid lines in our discussion, not the gray lines. Okay, got it. I got one more question. Sorry
guys. This is more of a bookkeeping question on the zoning data. You've listed the minimum buffer to adjacent residents. This is on figure one rev e minimum buffer to adjacent residents and minimum parking setback. You've listed
both as 31.4 ft. But if I look at the plan, the northwest corner I don't think is 31.4 ft. I mean, if I follow the setback line, which is a 25 ft line, and I look
at the northwestern corner of the parking lot, it looks to be maybe one foot further than that. So, say 26 ft. It's Yes. I'm sorry. Is this was that for the residential buffer or parking set? Well,
of the both. No, for minimum buffer to adjacent residents was 31.4. Minimum parking set back was 31.4. I got that. But my reference here is to the parking. That's what I was saying. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah. Yeah. And the answer was that it
was only 26. Yeah. Well, I I I asked the question. I don't know what the answer is. I thought I heard the answer. Confirm your question. I just I couldn't keep track of what which one of the two it was. Well, the uh I'm putting the scale
on that corner. I'm looking at the corner of the northernmost parking space on the western side. Yeah, I'm I can show you exactly what I'm pointing to. Right. To the uh to the property line. That dimension is 20 28 ft. 28 ft. Okay.
That the parking setback 31.4 is changing at 28 ft. Correct. Correct. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. I have a couple questions. Um start with the the hot box. Emergency
power. Is that electrical or gas power? That it's not something I worked on as far as emergency power. Okay. Uh well, how how does it stay warm if the electricity goes out and it's freezing outside? Well, typically hot
boxes are have a a electric heater. Uh in our case, we've located it underground. So, the need heating as if it was above ground. It's less but even uh it's my experience of the ones that I've done that even
underground uh utility boxes uh will require it's better to provide some heat from the from the building from the building and is there is there going to be a generator or something associated with the heat from the building or or just gas? A generator was proposed.
Okay. So, no generator. Okay. heat from the building. What happens in the power? So, he said uh heat from the building. If it's gas, gas heat, then they run some type of piping or air out there. Is that correct? I'm
sorry. I'm speculating. I was saying what happens and I didn't understand what happens in a power outage in that case. Well, in a power outage, the the depend obviously if it's a a long power outage, we've had them as long as a week in this town. water water lines as as
long as you we all know as long as it's the water is moving keep the faucets open it will not freeze. The fact that it's underground is less of an issue if it was an above ground metering pit. Less of an issue, but what you know?
Well, it's an issue again. It's the when, how long is the power outage? An underground utility box will not will not freeze in a in in any normal power outage.
But again, we all know even on our in apartments that you uh when the weather freezes heavily, you keep you let the water drip so it doesn't freeze. So that's one solution. Whether an emergency generator will be will be
designed, that's not uh we're not prop we're not proposing one. Okay. Uh, second question is back to storm water. I was looking at the drawings and I believe the on the old drawings the outlet pipe was 2 in and
now it's 4 in. Is that correct? the uh the the pipe connecting the storm water retention system or storage system to the s sanitary line or the no the storm water and sanitary sorry storm water to
the storm water line. How big is the outlet? Right. So what we have to for to do storm water management and to be able to reduce the uh the flow out of the property to below the pre-development. What we do is we have a
uh in the in the storm water management underground system it's called an orifice which is a smaller uh opening that allows a a small amount of water coming out of the stormware management unit and as the water builds
up behind it and builds up above the the system eventually that water will overflow. We have an overflow meter and so sizing of that system is is has to be based on reducing the total water that's
coming out of the system but to below what it would it would be in a pre-development scenario. So we have the 50 75 and 80% reductions that's required and we meet that uh in fact uh we meet that
uh consistently. Okay. And did did the size of that orifice change? Y I I should I should know it. The orifice is a 4 inch line and it it varies. For example, on
the uh on the third compartment of the upper lot, it's 2 and a half inches. So uh we've we vary it so that so that overall the in the flood routing calculations the amount of water that's
coming out of the from the storm water management system is lower than the pre-development. So the the size of the orifice is what we use to control the flow. Okay. So even though it increase from two to four then it's still meeting you're still meeting the required
reduction. Absolutely. Okay. And on same on that note uh the objector's uh engineer had noted or made a comment that the capacity of the storm water retention system might be smaller than what it
should be because I believe a class D runoff was used instead of a lower runoff. Was that comment taken into account in this new storm water system? Yes, we uh we we made that correction. So we used a hydraological group C which
is the Bin series and uh and this the geotechnical report will also comment uh provide data to substantiate the hydraological soil group uh and confirm whether the boon series that we are
allowed to use because it's available is is the correct one or that it's it's a different one. Okay, very good. Um on the sand filter there are
perforated pipes that are if underground drainage perforated pipes leading to the main drain. Uh is is there a waiver required by the D for that or Okay, just checking. I'm sorry. What was the answer? No.
All right. That's all the questions I have. Anybody else? I just wanted to clarify. So, if there's a prolong outage um aside from the water electricity wise, is there any redundancies or anything in place? I I didn't design the
building, so I can't I can't ask that question. The architect will probably Graham, I just I actually have a question for you. In your latest report, it it now says that there is a design waiver required um for for failure to comply with with
6093 DRZ 6093, which I think is different from a prior opinion you had. Can you clarify that? in my remarks at the last meeting. Uh when I kind of summarized my you know initial position regarding the um
application of the 25 buffer with respect to standards and design of the final revised plan. I was able to evalate even Okay. Thank you.
All right. I believe uh Miss Dory, are you in the audience? Yep. Would you like to cross-examine the witness based on this testimony only though? Share with you. Thanks. Um, so forgive me. I just have
some notes I'm going to run through. Um, Nicole Tory and Connell Foley on behalf of sustainable development for Milbourne Township. Um, so Mr. Ferrante, uh, you indicated you, uh, would be doing some value engineering of the
storm water system and and you had a a revision D of your plans. You had a revision E of your plans. So, would there be a revision F of your plans that would be submitted to the board before the next meeting? Okay. Right. Okay. And so, you really do need
all this soil testing to confirm the size and scope of your storm water system. Correct. based on preliminary datess, but I suspect that a lot of these changes, frankly, will done during compiance. Okay. But with respect to compliance
with the township storm water requirements which is in incorporates the state standards, it requires a storm water management report. Right. Right. And the soil testing. Correct. So all of that hasn't been submitted to the board yet and it would be submitted before the next meeting. Correct. And any changes
that are necessitated as a result of that soil testing that confirms whether this system will work will be revised in the plans so that the board can act on a compliant storm water system. Is that correct? Correct. All we need to do is confirm
the assumptions. Um, you also testified earlier that you had to revise some of the sight lines. Uh, were those submitted to the board yet or are those going to be? Um, and with regard to the the change in landscaping in the buffer area, um, you previously testified
you're not a landscape architect, correct? Okay. So, who made the decision to change the landscaping and, uh, where to place the the plantings for this revision? Big concern. So we decided to comply. Okay. And so was the placement of the
the evergreens decided by you or someone else from your office or I mean how is it decided? Okay. Okay. And and in making that decision on where to place the landscaping within the uh buffer area, did you re review
section 609.3 regarding buffers and the requirements in there? Yes, we did. Okay. And was an attempt made to meet the requirements of section 609.3 as far as Well, let's just take some of the
requirements of 609.3 individually. Um, one of them is to have a continuous a contiguous um buffer area with residential property lines of uniform width. Um, and then a six foot high
stockade or other wood fence and a dense evergreen planting within the buffer area. very familiar. Okay. But there was uh testim there was testimony provided by the applicant's engineer and there was also a request for additional testimony in the planner
report as to um why uh the applicant couldn't meet the requirements of 609.3 to support a design waiver. So I'm trying to understand is Mr. Ferrante going to be making that testimony or is there another witness that will be designed
analysis parking lot right so in essence what that analysis says that any parking lot in this town whether it's in any zone 609 commercial residential require buffer
and the question to the board are all parking lots in the town that have been approved have 50 foot buffers. I do not know the answer to that. Okay. But just going back to my question, was an attempt made to try to comply with the requirements of 609.3
when you were redesigning the buffer area? specifically the requirement for a 6- foot high stockade fence um that's uh set back five feet from the property lines um in order to pres uh provide screening u and particularly to
eliminate the glare of automobile headlights. Did you consider the placement perhaps of an additional fence or based on the exchange we had the board member moving that fence into the buffer
that different than having a fence on the property as far as buffering. Well, during the testimony, um I think from the questioning from Mr. Baxter, you admitted that there were certain areas where the headlight when you were turning cars that the headlight glare
would reach over the elevation of the existing stockade fence. fence in that scenario. And what about if you put a a sixoot stockade fence or any fencing um right next to the parking area? Wouldn't that block the glare of headlights? Not in the
scenario. The grade being higher on that driveway, the lights will be hanging above the fence. Uh could I I know I'm not Can I answer that? Sure. I I disagree that that the point is when the fence is because of the elevation dropped from the boundary of the parking
lot to the existing prop the property line with the neighbor that's what's causing the problem. So if the fence was shifted to the boundary of the parking lot, it'd be six feet high. And unless your car lights were over six feet more or less, you wouldn't be shining above that. But the again as the light sweep
so by moving a fence closer to the edge of the parking lot. Well, imagine you imagine you have a six foot high fence around both the western and the southern edge of the parking lot. That's what I'm conceiving. Right. Okay. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah. Mr. Ultimately, it's our
position. Ultimately, it's our position that we don't require a waiver from that standard and we will make that argument at the appropriate time. It doesn't come through Mr. Ferrante. Alternatively, if the board ultimately decides that yes, it does apply and you need to comply with it, we would seek a waiver. The
board will either grant that waiver or deny that waiver. But, uh, pursuing 20 minutes of questioning, did you consider this? Are you aware of the ordinance? Do you know what it says? Do you know this section? Have you thought about this? What about that? This is what we're proposing. This is what's before the board. and uh discussing hypothetical
alternatives. I would suggest that this multi-month stage of the process is not particularly helpful. Respond to that, please. There's been several iterations of the plans. They've been constantly changing over the course of the hearings, including in the buffer
area. So, you know, compliance with the buffer requirements, uh, if there is a design waiver, which the board's planner is stating that there are at least more than one design waivers related to this buffer requirement based on these plans that have been submitted, um, you know, some some witness is going to have to
provide the basis for that design waiver. And if it's not Mr. Ferrante, then who will it be? Okay. And but he's the only one here tonight though. So, are you able to provide the testimony? Not with regard to the buffer. Okay, I
gave my opinion. Okay, thank you. Okay, so no other uh iteration of the fencing was considered when the applicant was redesigning the buffer area for this submission. The plans are what we're presenting tonight. Um, and with regard to the plantings in
the buffer area, I believe those are the thuja green giants. Is that right? And uh when do you expect that those uh plants would be how many years would it take from planting for those to actually provide some kind of screening for
headlight glare? Yes, please. I'd like to open up questioning to the members of the public and please keep questioning to the line of testimony this evening. Just a few questions. Can you explain
Why? Is this the first site plan that includes accessory use of the playground? I believe I don't have it here with me tonight. Revision D have
the is from January 23rd. It's your testimony that includes the accessories. I believe I don't have the drawing in front of me so I'm going by. All right. So,
Mr. Phelp, next question. We heard the answer. page three there's a side correct it was reduced from the other drawings can you tell us the length and
the height that it was reduced the height of the geometry but the idea I'm showing you from here before you took out your ruler can you tell us the length yes I can I can do a
Well, let me clarify your question. You want to know the length first and then you said the height. I'm sorry. I haven't gometry. No, neither have I in a long time. The again to refresh everybody's memory,
the sidewalk that he's referring to was requested, I believe, by the board or one of the board professionals and we provided that that sidewalk. And just to cl For our record, you're not talking about the sidewalk along Old Shore Hill.
You're talking about it's interior to the sidewalk sidewalk that connects the the rightway sidewalk to the property. Street. Initially, when we first proposed that sidewalk, we made it 4T wide and then we
reduced it to 3. What's the length? Length is 110. That's it. Thank you, Mr. Fel. Anyone else from the public with questions? Mberry, you need the mic. Yeah.
Did you make any changes to the lighting plan as part of We move the pole along the driveway. Uh what I'm seeing is the light in the northwest corner. I'm looking at
the density cloud var. Does that have any significance? Does that indicate that more like again for I'm referring to figure E which is our lighting plan and your
question was on the north northwest side. Well, I'll answer that question. The we are required at the property line to meet the township and we do that. So you
see 41 41 41 but those values are at the surface. So because of the solid fencing it doesn't Mr. Chairman, if I may, we there was an
affirmative statement made in one of Callahan's prior that she had reviewed the lighting plan and compar asked and answered. So that proves it was valid. Please state your name. My name is
Natalia and my surname is A S H I R A and I resided 24 and during the previous hearings um we the danger of the new proposed playground to the kids on our roads uh
on Park Road and Park Circle jointly We have probably around 25 30 kids and a lot of them are under the age of 60 years old. So the playground is currently will be visible from our road to kids
and refused to provide the cover to the playground. So the question is did you make any changes to cover that playground? To answer your question, we are providing a fence around the
playground. So, so the children not associated with the with the center cannot go in the playground. They would have to hop the fence see through or not see through
Mr. This was not part of his testimony. If Mr. Chair, Ma'am, he No, we know it was an objection to the question based on it being outside the scope of his direct testimony today, which was a a a
uh instruction that the chair gave. So, in fairness to our chair, uh he has to address the objection by Mr. Lavine before you can continue. Yes. Unfortunately, I think he did not testify to any type of screening around
the playground today or anything to do with the playground other than that it's an accessory structure. You mentioned the playground in your district. Okay. Perhaps can you rephrase it, Mr. Fe. Is there any type of other screening that would shield the playground from
Old Short Hills Road? Well, uh, short of a solid fence, which typical playground fence, you don't want them solid because you want to be able to see each other, right? Understood. So that nothing beyond that in between
there and Short Hills Road. Well, we have also a lot if you look at the landscaping, it is somewhat screened from uh from uh across Short Hills Road by all the climate out there. I would
like to return back to the plan because I see that the playground is right in front of this driveway, our driveway will visible to our children. Ma'am, ma'am, as you ma'am, it has to be a question. Remember, at this point, do you play
is if you're standing on the driveway exiting the property and looking to west, you see the But there are there are we are providing there's a lot of existing trees there as well as we're proposing a lot of screen.
Are you taking down not in that area? Do you agree that the playground will be visible to the children and the bar? Yes. Do you agree that will be an attraction and a danger
to our children who will be running across roads and potentially with the roaring of that. Do you see the danger? Well, I see danger danger everywhere. I have children. Do you feel the danger in this
particular case? Again, it's an hypothetical case and wait, Mr. Chair. Ma'am, ma'am, the the the passion is is is admirable, but you have to let him answer the question. It
has to be a question, then an answer, then a question, then an answer. As a six-year-old running loose on Park Road, crossing all of road, I got to believe that that's not a typical scenario that we have to design for.
I'm a I'm a father and a grandfather. to the park at 6 p.m. on the summer nightmare. Where don't you think this has gone long enough? I I do. I actually have one question on that. Uh on one of the
exhibits, there's a crosswalk shown to Park Road. Is that intended to be requested by the county to put a crosswalk there? There's an existing crosswalk. There is an existing one. Okay. All right. Just checking. In fact, the only sidewalk in the area are on
Park Road. Okay. And as well as road, but the crosswalk is an existent. Are you aware that cars nor that's a question? We're talking about the playground.
I think I think we understand what you're trying to make that it it there may be need for be a need for screening, but we'll get that. Thank you. Well, I mean, we would not object to
adding additional screening to block the drive. Absolutely not. Um just just a quick um clarifying question. So there will be at some point an opportunity for the public to provide testimony. Absolutely. Public comment.
Absolutely. So if there's things that they want to bring up based on previous testimony or any other part of this process, they're welcome to do so then. Right. So if it's not germanine to to tonight, they can save it and and bring it up then. Correct. Absolutely. I I
believe the chair's uh admonitions are are because there's repeat testimony from different witnesses and you can't go back each time to the beginning. Uh cross-examination is only appropriate and legal uh to be based on the new
information provided by each witness. However, the public comment when you're under oath to testify to make the points that you may wish to try to make by way of questioning and you may be making them by way of questioning, but you'll have an opportunity to make them again
uh when you're under oath comment uh making public comment and you can go all the way back to the beginning. There's no limitation uh uh uh as far as your public comments uh with respect to the testimony of the witnesses. any evidence uh that anybody raised at any point
during the hearing, you can address in your comments. We certainly understand that and respect that part of the process and would like nothing more than to get that under. Yes, Miss Best and give your name again, please. Oh, hi
Christine Best. Is it Can you hear me? Thanks. Good evening, sir. Hello. Okay, just a couple quick questions from one of the engineers in the audience. Um I wanted to find out
um was the hot box because it's I believe well you can confirm if it's a concrete structure included in the lot coverage. Okay. It was included in the lot coverage. Okay. Um was the new mechanical um like uh I guess um what is
the word I'm looking filtering boxes included in the lock coverage as well? Yeah. Yeah. You have new It looks like you have new mechanical filtering boxes on your drawings. Yeah. Yeah. With they they were okay. Um and then I wanted to
ask you in terms of your roof equipment, is everything still on the roof and you guys are still going with that? Okay. And you don't. And so the architect didn't go over what the lot
coverage would be if you had to pull it down off the roof. Okay. Um, one more second. Also, um can you advise me what ponding is and whether it's something on an existing property
um 5 days after rainfall if that would be something that would concern you as to the relative risk of where the water table may be? And I mean at what point would you be concerned? How many days after like a one inch rainstorm would you be
concerned that that would be very problematic in terms of digging? opportunity for how much how many uh square footage would you consider localized? I mean, I'm just I'm just curious.
Okay. Uhhuh. Are you aware that there's been some significant ponding occurring on the property for up to five days after a rainstorm? Yes. Okay. Are you aware that they they filled that
in? I I was done. So, thank you. Anyways, um the the last question I had is in terms of lighting um you you know you talked about the light candles, the foot candles um on the property, particularly the the cap
family's property and um so I mean you consider that to be light trespass by dark sky standards which is just a organiz an organization. It's not like it's not a law. Um, but light trust pass means many other things. And I just can
I can I give an example to sort of illustrate? So, if there's like five lights over there and the foot candles over here are not really making illuminating this space that I'm looking down on at my feet, but I'm looking out my bedroom window, okay? Okay. And I'm
pulling my blinds and I see those lights reflecting into my house and casting shadows. That's also considered light trespass. And have you have you distinguished like are they
going to see lights? Because when they look out their house, they're going to see a ton of lights. So it's it's not like looking out at a dark open field any longer. It's looking out. And I just wanted to see, you know, would you
reconsider? Correct. Right. Are you aware though that Milurn Township's code officer doesn't consider that to be the standard? At least when he came out to my house and I made a complaint about a neighbor whose house looked like a Best Buy store and they
were required to actually take their light light candles I mean their light um intensity down. They were required to put on a timer and they were also required to change it to 2200 Kelvin. So, I just was wondering if you were aware that that actually happened in
this township as part of Miss Bass, can you please keep it to questions? So, that's a question. Well, there was a lot there was a lot of explanation that you'll have plenty of time to do when we get the comments. I understand. I'm sorry. Okay. Um, could you answer that and then I'm done. Thank you. And thank
you, Gaston. I'm not aware of that particular case but for that reason right the I think you should make these last 11:00. Mr. Chair, given given the time is now
112 Avenue. Are we okay? Mr. War, can I close this door? As long as we have one open, I'm okay. Three feet on the floor. We take we take open public meeting literally
very literally is reasonably possible. No definitely miss pastor just for the sake of time you will be the last one. Hopefully the question is not too long. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. Thank you. Very quickly, can I see have
a show of hands of how many people still need to ask Mr. Fante questions about this line of testimony? Just one. We'll continue that one for next time. One one now. Okay. It's up to the board if they wanted to make a motion for another five or 10 minutes. Um so just
for the benefit of everyone in the audience at the next meeting um assuming we take care of this question tonight what is what is next up? Is it public comment or is there going to be another uh this is your last on direct or
continued direct? Yeah, last last with us on continued direct with the standing understanding that we've had that yeah we can always the the then the next step I apologize for stepping over everybody but but the next step then presumably
would be to proceed with public and I believe Mr. Feld may be questioning you first. We'd love for that process to get started. Board okay with going one more one more
question. Okay. Thank you. Motion second and all in favor of another five to 10 to get the one question and one question. Thank you. All right. Take a moment. Thank you. Mr. Warner has some
clarifications. Yeah, just just a couple of items. First of all, u my understanding is that uh Mr. Levine, Mr. Feld has made uh some submissions of documents that he intends to use as exhibits uh in his presentation as I
understand it. I believe you've received those uh uh in order to expedite the process. Uh is it fair to assume and you tell me if I'm incorrect uh that you have no objection to his submission of those items as exhibits that he's
already submitted to your attention uh and so that he so that those can be distributed to the board members uh without objection and he can proceed with his presentation uh presumably uh at the next meeting. Yes, I have received those. I reviewed them and and
do not make an objection to including them as part of, you know, the O series of exhibits. Okay. Thank you. And uh I don't know that we've gotten any other exhibits in advance from uh uh uh members of the public, but uh but but
but if any other members of the public uh do have any, we can address them at that time. I know he had numerous exhibits meaning more than a couple and uh so I wanted to make sure we were able to move efficiently. So
appreciate that. The other item for the uh certainly for for a very important item uh we do not have an extension of time to act beyond tomorrow if I recall correctly. uh we uh in order uh to continue this application without the board having to take alternative
uh uh processes uh which I would advise them to do if necessary. I'll find out in a moment. Uh does the applicant extend the time to act for the board at least beyond the date of the next meeting consist yeah consistent with our past my understanding is the next
meeting is in two weeks from now. Is that correct? I'm going to I consistent with as we've done throughout yesterday's consent to an extension. Um, and I have a question. You know, I understand the board is is certainly sensitive to continuing beyond
reasonably late hour. Understandably so. Um, and I honestly answer to this question. If we were to the board were to make a sunshine notice, would it be possible to start the next meeting an hour earlier as opposed to an hour
later? The bottom line is it's up to the uh the regular scheduled meeting is for that regular scheduled time. The uh if the board wishes to do a special meeting or to uh uh change the hours of a regular meeting so as to make it a
special meeting, uh I guess two things would have to happen. One, well that determination would have to be made tonight in order for us to carry to the appropriate time. Just not date, place, and time. Uh, and two, then that would have to be sunshine noticed. Uh, so it's
up to the board. I I would have concerns with that. Um, you know, I don't know what everyone's work schedule is. Certainly members of the public, um, you know, those that work in the city, probably 7:30 is the earliest they can get here. Um, I I just
don't think we should be changing things on the fly like that. Um, I would recommend that we keep our regularly scheduled time. I agree. I think it's fair to the members of the public to to keep it scheduled. Making it earlier is actually, I think, more difficult than
going later. So, everybody else comments. Okay. And then then for the record, the obvious the board has indulged uh uh with special meetings in the past and also uh gone over our time limit if you will uh on on
occasions including this evening. So but uh thank you. So I think uh if there's nothing further uh Mr. chairman, then I can make that formal announcement uh that we're carrying the matter without
further notice to May 21. Eileen 7:30 p.m. right here, this same new venue for us, uh at least for the time being with new batteries. Right. And without
further notice, so all good. All right, we'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor. All in favor. That's right. I Allos. No. Motion pass.