All right, everyone. You ready? All right. Good evening. This is a regular meeting of the Montlair Township Zoning Board of Adjustment for uh August 19th, 2025. Not August 20th.
20th. Okay. Yeah, I skipped a date there. Um, notice has been given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by posting a copy of the notice on the first floor of the municipal building and sending a copy to the Montlair Times, Star Ledger, and Herald News.
This is a public hearing in which any member of the public is welcome to attend. The meeting agenda is available on the Montlair Township website, as is a link to the township's YouTube channel, where the hearing can be viewed live or after the fact. The hearing is
also being televised on channel 34. So, uh I think our first item is roll call. Chair Harrison here. Vice Chair McCulla here. Mr. Cfield uh told me that he was not
going to be able to make it. Mr. Church here. Uh Miss Harris is excused. Mr. Moore. Mr. Simon here. Mr. Vieiraa is excused. Uh, Miss Grant is excused. Mr. Griffith
here. And Mr. Cruz here. Okay. We have one hearing being postponed. 292 Orange Road. Kesha Owens. Uh, this application is being carried until our
September 17th meeting. So, if anyone is here for that application, that's when that will be heard. There'll be no further notice. We have the minutes of the July 23rd meeting. I just have a couple of
changes. On page two, line 44. I would delete the words the adjacent. So, it just reads privacy from Brookdale Park. And then on page three, condition three, I had intended that just to be a
thoughtful recommendation to them rather than a requirement. And unless other members of the board want to require those features and or lack of features in the fence design, I just assume delete that.
I think we discussed it, but I don't think we made it. discussed it and but I my my thought at least was as a suggestion to them to that's right we discussed it rather than requiring them okay so suggest deleting condition three
anyone else with any changes to those minutes if not someone want to move approval with those changes Mr. Chairman, I move the uh approval of the minutes with the changes noted. Is there a second? Second.
All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Say no. Any abstensions? Abstain. Then we have the resolution for the property at two Woodmont Road. The same change with deleting condition three.
Anyone else with any changes to that resolution? Who's eligible to vote on that? Um, Mr. Harrison, Mr. McCulla, Mr. Church,
and that's it. Someone want to of the eligible people move that resolution? I I'll move the resolution, Mr. Chairman. With that change? With that change? Yes. Is there a second? Second. All in favor say I. I.
Any opposed? Any abstensions? Stay. Stay. Okay. And then we have the resolution for the property on Vera Place. I don't have any changes to that resolution. Does anyone else have any changes? Not wanted. Is there a second?
Second. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Thank first application is that of Neil Briskman and Kathleen Danahoo for property at one Christopher Court.
This is an application for a variance to permit the installation of a generator in the Christopher Street front yard. The property is in the R11 family zone district and is designated on the township tax maps as lot 43.01 901 in block 4513.
A variance is requested from Monontlair code section 347-34B to permit a generator in the front yard between the dwelling and the street. Uh are taxes paid and is the notice in order? Uh yes, the taxes are paid and the
notice is in order. Do we have applicants come forward? Okay. While they're getting seated, I'm going to ask Miss Tally, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth in the matters that we're going to hear tonight before the board? Yes, I do.
Just state your name and position with the township. Uh Janice Tally, I'm the director of planning for Montlair Township and I'm a licensed professional planner. Thank you. And I would ask that the applicants, would you both raise your right hands? Do you swear to tell the truth of the matter pending before the board?
I do. Would you give us your names and addresses? Neilman. Thank you. Okay. Are your microphones on? Yeah. The the little green light must there. That's better. Sorry. Okay. You want to tell us what you're doing and why?
Sure. We're looking to install a backup whole house generator powered by gas. Um the uh only yard where we have an ability to place such a a device is uh since we're
corner loted and we don't really have any back space. The entire rear of our house is occupied by the garage up until the point where you get to the rear of the property. So the only place we can put it in is that yard that runs onto
Christopher Street. Um, so it's uh it's a s it's it's sort of our sideyard, but from point of view of you folks, it would serve as a front yard as well. Um, and that's basically it. It's a uh whole
house generator. It would sit, it's about 2 feet high. It would sit on a platform and uh it has to be set 5 ft from the house because it's going to be sitting underneath a window.
Um and we've located it in between the place where both the gas meter and the electrical go. Yes. Thank you. Um, first first of all, would you tell us um are there other areas specifically that
you looked at where this generator could be located on your property potentially? So, our property has a shared driveway. So on that side of the house, it would be there there are the uh air conditioning units, but there's nothing
we could put in that wouldn't be basically up against the property line midway on the driveway. Mhm. And then in the rear of the house, you basically behind the house, you have a small alleyway and then the garage and then about 3 ft of space behind the
garage and then you're at the property line of the house on Christopher Street. So basically there is no other place that physically you could put it much less in compliance with avoiding property lines.
So the location that you're proposing is is a location that you determined or that your contractor determined or contractor we brought in somebody to tell us whether this would be feasible and this was the spot that he chose
based on the proximity to those uh the gas and the electrical and this would be uh placed on a concrete platform of some sort. Yes. Is there currently a platform? There is not. Where it currently where it would sit, there is currently a shrub
and we would have to remove the shrub uh and then the platform would go there right where the shrub is. And would this sit further into the yard than the shrubbery that you currently have?
From from what my measurements, it would basically extend out to the front of where that shrub goes. If you sort of look at where the branches come up, it would go out no further than that. What What about uh visibility to the
street? Um, in terms of that location, so the property has uh trees on the Christopher Street side, pines, and then it has uh arbor videp on the
Christopher Court side and that's outside of the fence. And then on the inside of the fence, there are cherry laurels. So, it's planted pretty densely. Mhm. Um there are places where and I've sent some photographs where you can sort of
peer in and sort of potentially get a view of it, but it would be difficult. Um and in cases where even it's that thin, it's mostly because, for example, we've been in the house a year, one of the cherry laurels has had died. So
there are places where we're hoping the foliage comes back and thickens out. Do do you anticipate that from the perspective of neighbors that they would have any objection to the location
of this generator just in terms of visibility? I I don't think so. I don't think there's anybody who's got a clear view of it. Um we've spoken to the person across the street on Christopher Court. He's aware of it. He doesn't have a problem. And I
don't think there's any visibility from the Christopher Street side because you have to look across the street up a burm through the trees and cherry laurels. It's a pretty big distance. And then the house next to us that's on
Christopher Street, they don't have a clear view of it at all. What What about uh the the noise from the generator itself when it's activated? What do you anticipate? So, first of all, what we've been instructed is that you have to run it the test
period at fixed times during the day when the test period is run. And we're fine with that. Um, what I've been told is that that particular model generator generates about 67 dB. And so, it sounds like these are quieter than what I'd
heard of in the past. 67. My search on online indicated that that's less than uh not just less well less than a lawn mower but less than a vacuum cleaner comparable to the AI or uh to a dishwasher.
So you you've not heard the sound of I mean you've not gone to other places to hear what the sound of a generator I I have on occasion heard other people's generators. U my understanding is that the technology has improved. And are there other generators in your
neighborhood as far as you know? Not that I'm aware of. Uh I do believe at least one of our neighbors would like to put one in. We can talk to them about it, but I don't know what their situation is. So, um, I noticed that the
historical preservation commission looked at this project and they didn't really have objection except for the fact that they proposed that there be a 4ft tall fence constructed around it of natural materials. Would you speak
to that in terms of what how you understand that and what are your feelings about that? Is that something that you want to do or willing to do or have concerns about? We would have concerns about doing that uh largely because so anything that
surrounds the generator has to be set 2 feet away from it on all sides. So it would extend quite a bit into our yard and uh it wasn't clear to me whether their concern was primarily about how it
would look or with the issue of noise. Um, so I'm not quite sure what problem they were trying to solve. Um, four feet is high to shield a the generator. It would put it well above the height and it would, in my judgment, not look very
good. So, we'd be reluctant to do something. I'd prefer to solve the problem if there is one by additional plantings. uh either around the perimeter of the yard or if we need to have something adjacent to the generator, I'd rather
have it something like plantings or a hedge or something to shield the view and not at a height of 4 feet. So, how how how close could you put plantings around a generator?
My saying is that anything has to be 2 feet. So away from the whether it's a fence or it's or it's a planting of some sort to shield. Yes. So you'd be going further into the yard regardless. Either way, you're you're going further into the yard.
Unless we solve it by putting more plantings around the perimeter, meaning the yard itself. Meaning around Yeah. Okay. On I guess primarily on Christopher Court is what you're talking about primarily. Correct. Correct. Um, and then and then you're saying then you wouldn't
necessarily need to have any plantings around the generator itself. Not to make it less visible. Certainly. Did the Did the commission speak about the kind of materials for a fence? It just said a natural fence. My
understanding of that, I'm not an expert, is that that means wood or stone of some kind. I see. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No questions. Mr. Yes. Yes. Hello. Good evening. Um, so,
uh, when you mentioned that you had spoken to your neighbors on Christopher Court, uh, you were referring to the ones across the street on, uh, to and for Christopher Court. Yes. And that and you said that their thoughts on the project were so we didn't speak to four. We've only spoken to two three next door to us.
And and what were the what were their sentiments? They're fine. Okay. And you also mentioned that like uh since it looks like it's about 23 feet away from Christopher Court that you wouldn't be against putting like, you know, shrubs or bushes along Christopher Court to
Not at all. Actually, there's a tree there that we have to take down and so I would like to replace it with something to provide more screening where that used to be. Okay. Um, no further questions. Thank you.
Yes. Um, who's the manufacturer of this generator? It's Generrack. Gener. And it's only used for emergencies, right? is doesn't and it has to go on how many times to to charge itself.
My understanding is that it has to be test. It has to test itself for 10 minutes once a week. Yeah, I know they go on at least once a week. Um so, uh you're willing to did they tell
you how high the platform will be? They did not give me a measurement on that. Okay. But it'll be off the ground. It'll be it it won't get on soft ground. Okay. Correct. Um and
uh when they when these things are servicing themselves, they are noisy. Uh, I have one across the street from me and I hear it every Monday at when I'm around at 1:00
and it goes on for a half hour to 45 minutes to generate itself. Now, they're they're further away. Their gener is further away from the house than yours will be, though. They're
across the driveway in in a garage by a garage. So, um, but you're saying that this one that you purchased is modern or excuse me, uh, more current. Yes.
Model. So, they've What we were told was that it has to run for 10 minutes. Okay. Well, this guy runs his for a half hour. Um, okay. I I'm just con I'm not concerned, but I I think your idea of
shrubbery is the best idea rather than a fence. Um because that whole area is shrubbery. Everybody seems to have a lot of shrubbery around there. So I think it would just blend into the uh
uh atmosphere. Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Um good evening. You said it was located under a window. It's in front of a window. Uh about it has to be five feet away from any window. Do you know the height of the
window? Um, it's a first floor window. I didn't measure it. If I think it'll be Well, it'll be well below the window. The window starts maybe at about 4t up, maybe 5t up. So, if you had to put the fence, you
basically be looking at the back of the fence from the house if you're looking out that window. I do I I actually don't know whether the requirement would include fence running along the pl the uh side facing the house. No, but even on the far side, you
basically be looking at the We'd be looking at a 4 foot fence out of the window. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Um I have a generator. If you want to know who has a generator in your neighborhood, next time the
power goes out, go outside and listen and you'll know who has one. Guy across the street from me has a generator. My generator happens to be exercise once a week for 30 minutes. Wish I had yours.
Um, it's a little noisy. We did have a one time when the power was out for two days where I had this generator. the uh carbon monoxide alarms went off in the basement of the house and
everybody had to evacuate and the winds were blowing the exhaust against the side of the house and the carbon monoxide was low and there's this leaky door in the crawl space that let the carbon monoxide into the basement of the house over time. Now, the level was
still way below anything that would uh threaten anyone, but it wasn't pleasant for uh those who were at the home at the time to get up and get out. So, you have a window very close to this. That's not great. Do you have a basement window
close to this? There's a window well in the area. Yeah. So, the I believe that the carbon monoxide is heavier and goes down. So, it's the basement that's more susceptible probably. Um, so I I explain
that uh just because that's the perspective that I have. Uh, and so that's going to generate some of the thoughts that I'm going to share. Um, I would suggest that you consider moving it more than 5T away from your house because the farther away it is,
the more diffuse the exhaust will get. Um, I don't think it'll make it any less noisy, but I think the exhaust is a significant issue. Um, I find 23 ft to Christopher Court to be
relatively short distance. I'm unsympathetic to the contractor's desire to put it directly adjacent to the electrical box. It's just it's just a little bit more buried conduit. Um, I would suggest that you might put it 30 or 35 ft away from that street and say
40t off of Christopher Street. So, you're pulling it away from the house. You're pulling it back from both streets, not just one, as a as a thought. Um, but all of those are thoughts. I don't I don't have more to add. Thank
you. Okay. Let let me I've I'm trying to understand your property line and hence the responsibility for the plantings along
Christopher Street. So you have a metal fence well inside of the trees and shrubbery that's between the sidewalk and the fence. Do you And I'm trying to figure out from your survey where that falls. I mean the
survey shows a bunch of trees on your property. Um but you know visually being out there it looks like some of that burn is in the right of way and hence not
your responsibility and most of you know I'm trying just trying to get a sense of where we can put screening you know there are some gaps now where you can look in um and what makes sense I
you the noise ordinance, you know, the limit 65. So, while 67 is probably better than some older ones. Now, generators, emergency generators are exempt from the noise ordinance, but
it's, you know, it will be noisy. And I guess um I want you to be able to test it as required, but I don't want you to test it more often or longer than that's than
required. And I'm struggling between what Mr. Church and Mr. Griffith both referring to 30 minutes testing and you're saying you were told that yours just requires a 10 minutes and that's a big difference once a week
listening for 10 minutes and you know as you know a lot of people are working at home these days and you know so to go back um you know I had the same concern Mr. Griffith did in terms of the
proximity to Christopher Court and um just trying to reduce the noise impacts. It seemed to me that being further back would make more sense. Um
I you know I don't know how best to do that but my is it correct your your contractor suggested to have it closest to where the electric line into the house goes. Um yes
did he discuss at all how he was going to tie into the existing electric line? Not in the basement. Well, the the where the where the electrical line comes out is right there. And so that runs right down into
the basement and that's where the surface is. But I didn't get any. Okay. But it but would I'm assuming the line from the generator to the house would be built underground. Oh yes. It's it's underground. Yeah. Well, that's important to know.
Yes. No, it's it's it's it's underground, but it doesn't have a long way to go to get to the side of the house where it goes in. But it I suspect in terms of cost, whether it's going 5t, 10 feet, 20 feet
is going to be a nominal difference. Yeah. Once once you start burying conduit, it's not, you know, they'll charge you by the lineal foot, but I don't think that that's going to change of the day. Yes, they will charge you more. You know, that's that's true. But it's going to be a per foot cost, but
it's not going to be $1,000 a foot cost. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, I think there's also a gas line, is there not? H There is. There's a gas line as well. It's natural gas, right? Yes. Okay.
Um Yeah. And my wife's noting that the gas that the gas is closer to the Christopher Court section. The electric is the one that's more back from the Christopher Court side of the house.
That's where it says GM. That's where the gas meter is, right? Yes. And the gas the existing gas line to the house is coming off of Christopher Street. Yes, I believe so. But he's probably going to take it from
the gas in the house already. He's not. So, he's going to go into the house, tap into the gas line, and bring it out to the generator. So, it's already metered. Right. Correct. Okay. I'm just trying to get a sense of where the line is versus running the electrical line is what I'm
I think the the uh I think both can run either way. He can bring it straight into the basement and run horizontally in the basement also. If if you're if you know I don't know what your basement's finished. I don't know how you're it's not it's not. Yeah.
Poured concrete but not finished. Yeah. That's that's the other alternative. He either buries it outside and takes it straight in. So it's right at the electric panel or he takes it straight into the house and runs it to the electric panel inside the basement. It's probably cheaper for him to do run
more inside, but again I I don't think these are significant cost issues. I would have to speak to How do you feel about the proximity of the generator to your home considering the comments about carbon monoxide? I'm most concerned honestly about the
proximity to the window well rather than to the window itself. So I think that would some be something I'd want to talk to the contractor about. I want to be I've been trying to be sensitive honestly to the question of locating it so that it's not near anyone's home.
Not near what? Anyone's home. Yeah. So this is somewhat central where it is supposed to be right now is somewhat centrally located between our neighbor on the Christopher Street side and our neighbor across the street on
Christopher Court. So it's by my estimate about 70 feet each direction from both of those. So I was trying one reason I mean I didn't propose the site the contractor did but one reason I was sort of okay with it is it seemed to be
central with respect to our neighbor to the neighbors to the neighbor's house. You should count yourself too. I Yeah. And I I mean I hadn't thought about the carbon monoxide issue and that's a concern that that's the that's
the big thing that you've raised that makes me think maybe we need to move it. Yeah. Um, I would prefer to move it honestly along the wall rather than further out into the yard. Um, just because it can become again obtrusive.
I'm trying to get a sense from your drawing, you know, the the electrical meter is midway between the two window wells. Yes. And is that where he's proposing to proposing to put it right in between the
electrical meter and the gas meter. You should have both of those. But that that is then placing it right near that one window. Well, absolutely. Um, just seems placing it
lined up with the electrical meter is putting it back. I'm trying to understand your proposed dimension not seeming to fully match up with where things are located. But that or it's really placing it right next to
where that window well is. Yes. Okay. And by the way, I the only thing I added that's all the survey. I just added the box for the generator. Understand? Any other questions for members of the board? Are there any
members of the audience who either have questions or statements or anything you want to say about this application? Anything further either of you want to add before we discuss and vote on the application? Don't think so.
Start discussion with Mr. McCulla. Yes. Uh Mr. Chairman, I think I'm I'm in support of the application and in terms of the the placement. Um, well, first of all, let me say that I think that
the applicant is is suggesting moving a a bush or planting in favor of the location of the of the generator, the platform. um and is indicated
um and indicated that um they intend to or are willing to do additional plantings along the fence in order to minimize the visibility. Um perhaps also there could be uh a a bush that is somewhat comparable
to what they're removing um on the Christopher Court side of the generator. that also would eliminate or curtail visibility to the street. Might also provide some natural um shielding in terms of noise. I don't
know for those of you that have generators whether or not plantings have much of an impact or not. I don't know. Um but um um if there if there is a way to shift it a little bit further towards
um the neighbor on Christopher Street. I wouldn't be I wouldn't object to that, but I wouldn't re from my vantage point, I wouldn't require it. So I'm I'm in support of the application,
Mr. Cruz. Um, I'm in support of the application, I think, with some uh some plantings to provide a screen for Christopher Court. Not sure the height of the plantings, but between that and uh moving the generator perhaps adjacent to the uh electrical meter that kind of
splits the difference between the window wells. And outside of those two changes, I'm in support of the application. Mr. Church, I'm in support of the application. Okay, Mr. Simon, I'm also in support. Uh, I think we
should just make the 23 ft a minimum requirement. Any distances they feel necessary beyond that is okay with me. And, um, as long as there's no clear line of sight from the Christopher Court to the generator um, and you would shield it appropriately.
Mr. Griffiths. Uh I still feel uncomfortable with the 23 ft to the It's not just the acoustics, it's also also the visibility and presence of it. And despite the fact that you may shield it with greenery, it's not always there. Things happen.
Stuff gets visible. Um, I'd prefer that it be 30 feet from Christopher Court instead of 23 and that the location could be 5 to 10 feet away from your building as you see fit.
Um, and that gives you some flexibility to move it away from your home and negotiate some plantings around it in a way that works is a suggestion of mine. Uh other than that u and even without that I support the support the
ask. Okay. Um okay. I I'm also in favor. I think um you know I think they're practical realities based on where the house is located on the property in relationship to the easterly property
line where the garage and the house are in relationship to the southerntherly property line makes it the Christopher Street front yard is the only viable location for for it. I think with the qu
conditions I'm going to do in a second, um this will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment to the zone plan. Uh, I think the conditions are that the generator only be used in emergency
circumstances, that testing be the minimum required by the manufacturer, um, that um, there be evergreen landscaping that would be at least 4 feet high that would screen it. I'll leave it to you where
you put it. I mean, obviously it can't be next to the generator, but whether you want to do it along near the street or near the generator and that it should be set back at least 30 ft from Christopher um court. Any other discussion among
board members and if not someone want to make a motion? I I do have a question. Moving it back 30 ft. I'm think I'm okay with it as long as the contractor can do it. So, that's the one thing I' I' I'd have to I'd have to confirm with them
that they can do it. They can do it. I'm just say some nasty board made you do it that way and he's stuck with it. And if he says he can't do it, you should
talk to another contractor cuz uh maybe he's trying to take advantage of the circumstance financially. I don't know. It's not. Okay. Someone would want to make a motion or second motion. I guess we're at
uh Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to uh approve the application with the conditions uh mentioned. Uh is there a second? Second. All in favor say I. I.
I. I. Any opposed? Any abstensions? Thank you. Thank you. Next application is that of Yol Bergenick and Sasha Abass for property at 88 South Mountain Avenue. This is an
application to construct a tennis court or an all corpus court in the rear of the property. Property that's located in the RO mountainside zone is designated on the township tax maps as block 204 lot 17. Applicants applied for a variance of Monontlair code section
347-20B to permit impervious coverage of 43.4% whereas the ordinance provides for a maximum coverage of 35%. Our taxes paid is the notice in order. Yes. Uh taxes are current and the notice
is is sufficient. Okay. Mr. Trembulac want to give your appearance and proceed. Good evening uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Alan Tremulac appearing on behalf of the applicants uh Yoel Borgganick and Shashana Bas Bass. Um
clients are the owners of the property at uh 88 South Mountain Avenue which is a large uh lot over one and a half acres located in the R-O Mountainside zone. I
should note that there was an error in the planning memorandum which indicated the property was in the R1 zone. I I think it's the first error I've seen Zanna make since she's been here. But I think it's important to note that uh
because um under uh section 347-31 of the zoning ordinance, uh tennis courts and uh uh platform tennis courts are permitted expressly permitted as accessory uses in the RO zone. uh
provided uh there's a determination that there's adequate screening screening from adjoining residential properties. Um my client, we're here because my clients would like to um construct a
athletic court um in the very rear of their deep lot. Um, we the plans that are before you indicate compliance with setback requirements and all other zoning
requirements applicable to the proposed athletic courts except one uh which is um impervious coverage. We're we're seeking a variance uh from this board to permit pvious coverage of 43.4% 4%
whereas the maximum permitted under the zoning ordinance is 35%. So again it's a single variance application. Um two witnesses. My first witness who's sitting to my right uh is
uh Ben Crowder, the project uh engineer. So I announced he'd be sworn. Would you raise your right hand? You swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board. I do. State your name and address. Is Ben Crowder. Last name is spelled C R O W G E R. Business address is 30 Garber
Square, Ridgwood, New Jersey 07450. Mr. Crowder, um, can you uh share with the board your educational background and professional qualifications? Yes, I'm a principal with uh the civil engineering firm Bowler. Uh, I run our
Northern New Jersey operation in the Rididgewood, New Jersey office. A bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering from the University of Pittsburgh. 16 years of sight civil design experience in the industry. Licensed professional engineer in the state of New Jersey as well as New York
and Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, offer him as an expert in the field of professional uh professional engineering, civil engineering. Will we accept him? Thank you. Um, all right, Ben, you prepared the the plans for this um
proposed facility? I did. Okay. Why don't you just um discuss the plans with the board and exactly what's being proposed? I don't know. Do you need Is it okay? Is it okay to stand if I talk loud? You need to take your microphone. Do you need the uh You're not going to
use the laptop. You brought your board. Okay. Is that good view for all board members? Okay. Um if if I need to mark this, let me know. Uh Chairman Harrison, this this is an exact copy of what we've submitted. Okay.
What you have is our demolition and site layout plan. uh at the bottom right hand corner of that plan shows the approximate 1.57 acre uh property with the application that's within that RO mountainside zone. We're really situated
more toward the rear or the western portion of the site that exists today, which is largely just a uh grass slope in the back of the property behind the existing uh carriage house and garage as well as the the principal building. What you don't see on this plan is there's
about a 40 foot grade change just from the rear back of that existing house up to the western or the rear property line. And what we're proposing in this area is an all sports court. And when we say all sports court, um it's it's your
typical hardcourt, tennis court, uh material in that. We're calling it an all sports court just to accommodate things like a tennis court, pickle ball, potentially a half court, a basketball area in the backyard or rear yard of this property. We've positioned it
entirely within the required setbacks um to the rear yard which is 10 ft. Around this all sports court is a 10-ft high fence. Uh that is a provision that is required when we are um that 10 feet away from the property is a 10-ft fence
is required. And then what we're also proposing to do within that 10 ft there are some mature trees in that area but also supplementing and enhancing that buffer uh within that that rear yard space. Um in particular um the variance
as we had described is limited to imperous coverage. We're about 33.0 04% today. 35 is permitted. With about the 7200 square f foot all sports court, it's about 60 by 120. Uh we get to
43.4%. Certainly as I look at this impervious coverage to me as a civil engineer means how are you handling storm water and drainage? One thing I want to, you know, indicate for for this board is I have been working on this applicant's
property for probably 8 to nine years at this point. And as recent as 3 to four years ago, we actually designed a storm water system just on the applicant's interest, not associated with improvements to the property because there was a significant amount of
off-site drainage area from the western and adjacent properties coming in to this property just given the topography of the slope from Lloyd down to uh South Mountain Avenue. there were rivers channelized flow entering the property
flooding the carriage house flooding his house. Uh so what we did is you know on on his cost um implemented and designed a storm water drainage system around the perimeter of the site to collect and convey drainage area coming into the
property. And what we actually did in the front yard uh around in between the circular driveway from South Mountain Avenue is we put in a very extensive underground detention basin. So all that water was now being captured, routed to that detention basin and then controlled
discharge to South Mountain Avenue and uh the township system. Whereas prior to that, not only the on-site conditions were a problem, but it was just running straight down that slope right into the street. So a lot of storm water controls put in outside of any type of design
intent for the property. Thereby the 7200 square ft. What our intent to do there is is once that uh sports court platform and uh facility is designed is to tie that into that infrastructure that the applicant has already installed
on the property. One thing that's important to do to note here just as it relates to impervious coverage, it's not as it's not like just paving the backyard. This is actually because of the slope. It will be on some elevated raised platform in some areas. It's going to be kind of worked into the
slope. So effectively what these quartz do is they have some limited pitch on the surface. You then collect it and then it can actually fall right down into the underlying, you know, grass area that's there, the existing slope and a lot of the swailes that we had designed originally when we put in a lot
of these improvements to help mitigate a lot of the upstream uh drainage area. Couple other things just to note for the board. Facility is not intended to have lights. You know, we would, you know, accept that as a condition. No lights. This is daytime use only for the site.
Um so these activities function of physical fitness for for the applicant daytime hours. Um and that concludes really my my direct if there's anything else you could answer. Couple of follow-up questions. I mean you talked about the um drainage
improvements that you've designed and were previously installed. Uh are those existing facilities adequate to accommodate the additional runoff that would be that would result from this facility in the rear? Yeah, because there was really an
indeterminant amount of uh offsite drainage area coming into the property. We overdesigned a lot of those pipes in the drainage facility that's underground on the applicant's front yard. So adding 7200 square f feet, I'm I'm very confident, you know, I could provide any
type of calculation to support uh that this facility would easily be handled with what he put in on the property. And you understand that if the application is approved that when permits are applied for that there would be an engineering review by the town engineer.
Yes, absolutely. And do you agree to comply with whatever comments and requirements he might have? Yes. regarding drainage and storm water. Correct. Okay. And have you taken a look at the Montlair's storm water ordinance
um as it relates to or to determine whether whether it applies to this application? Yes. So based on the Montlair storm water ordinance, we are not a major development. We're a minor development. major development being classified in your ordinance as greater than a half acre of disturbance or a quarter acre of
motor vehicle surface or impervious coverage. We're 7,200 square ft and our limit of disturbance is just about a quarter of an acre. So we by definition are not major but certainly you know once this all sports court is designed any type of provision applicable to your
minor development criteria we would we would comply with. Um, all right. And, um, I think from my review of the plans, there would some trees would need to be removed to accommodate the Yeah, there there's some limited grading
on right along where the the the fence line and the edge of that all sports court would be. Our intent is to replace those and then supplement, you know, adequate screening in that 10 ft within the rear yard. Okay. And it goes without saying that the the applicant would have to comply
with the requirements of the tree removal ordinance. Yes. Right. What what about screening because there is a requirement that there be adequate screening around the the proposed court shielded from adjacent neighbors. Yeah. So what uh what we're proposing in
lie of some of the additional trees and things that are already existing around the property is is the screening along the rear yard but also wrapping it around the southern end of the facility and the northern end. And what we can also do within that 10-ft fence, uh,
which I actually think shields the the activity and what's going on there, is actually put in a like a mesh, uh, lining through the fence. So, you know, you you wouldn't physically be able to see through the three sides of that facility.
Specifically, are are um what's being proposed in terms of the the screening bar? Oh, it would be a it would be an allseason evergreen screen. Yes, correct. Year round. What height?
Usually usually those go in around 8 to 12 feet in height. You know, we would select some high growing uh evergreen trees. You know, there are a lot of species where you'll get one to two feet in height. Um just by nature of what you're what you're selecting. Okay.
Um no further questions, Mr. Chair. Yes. Thank you. Uh I think I have a variety variety of questions, Mr. Crowder. So, okay. They may not necessarily be in any particular order, but I'm ready. Okay. So, let me begin. First of all, in
terms of the dimensions of the court, um would you say that this is a typical size court or is it slightly larger than one would normally find or I mean what's being proposed here? Yeah. So your your typical tennis court, you know, that would be set up for
doubles that you would see is about 78 feet long and 36 feet wide. That's just line to line within the court. But what you like to do is at least on on the ends add another 12 feet in width on both sides. So that's how we go from 36
to uh 60 on the width. And then uh similarly on the depth provide a little bit more. So we went from the 76 to the the 120. So that's a good do my math another 20 22 feet on the back end. So
when when you look at this at the dimensions of this court um and you're looking at the because you said you've been working with this property over nearly a decade almost eight years. Yes. Uh so um I mean
it's a it's a very sizable um primary building. Uh and then there's a uh I I guess well there's a like a pool house or whatever. Then there's a patio. I mean are you looking at this court as being
comparable in dimension to other facilities on the property itself? Is that a factor in terms of how you sort of look at that? Um we try to locate it. You know, if you look at the position of this, we're trying to centralize it north to south on the property and then, you know, to
the rear where you actually have, you know, some some buffer more toward the west. We're trying to hold that that 10 ft there. The slope is is a challenge with regard to the site. You've got a 40 foot foot grade change. Um, but holistically trying to look at that, you
know, as one complying with your your zoning ordinance and then two, making sure that since we're slightly over that impervious that we can we have provisions to handle drainage. Okay. Um, so I I would call myself a
novice in terms of uh working on a project like this. Uh but uh my my sense is that uh in order to accomplish this um it would require pretty substantial excavation. What we're going to what what we're
proposing to do is kind of integrate this platform into the slope. So there'll be a little excavation on the western end where you're on their high side and then on this eastern side you're actually going to probably have some some concrete supports where it's
it's more of a platform nature. So what we're trying to do is what we had spent a lot of time on 3 to four years ago with the drainage facility of this site is we also created a lot of uh and you can actually see them at times on the aerials. We put a lot of drainage swells
in. So, as a lot of the water was coming into this property, we wanted to catch it mids slope so it didn't run down to the applicant's pool house and his his actual home. So, as we put this facility in, I don't want to mess with that. I want to keep those swailes there and then incorporate
how we're going to handle that actual surface of that court in that facility as well. So, if you actually were on the east side of this sports court and you were looking west, you could actually see underneath that platform and you'd still have your your
landscaped lawn area. It's not going to be a very open deep cut into that hill. So, if you were looking if you were looking up at this from the streetscape, you would not see an open area underneath this court. That's what
you're saying. Uh, if could you could state if you were if you were standing at on on South South Mountain Avenue itself looking up at this court, you would would you be able to see this court at all? It it's hard to tell. You've got your
principal structure and your your carriage house with your twocar garage from South Mountain Avenue. I don't I don't think you're going to have a vantage point up to be able to look under what I'm what I'm talking about just with the structure itself. But would you be able to see the
structure? Be able to see the structure. Yes, you'd be able to see the structure. So you would And you're saying that in terms of the the part of the court that would be elevated on some kind of pillars would be facing the house
itself, not facing the would be facing the house to the east to the east. So, some of it would be concealed by the carriage house, but some of it would not be concealed by the carriage house. Some not by Yeah. the carriage house or the principal structure as you work all
the way down to South Mountain Avenue. I mean, it's a long long narrow property there. So, there's quite a distance from South Mountain to, you know, the back of the site and this runs almost the close close to
the entire width of the of the back of the yard. Really? Uh we're we're keeping probably I got to mention so we have about 20 to 25 feet from the north and south property lines
and on the south side there already is a line of trees or something. Yeah, both both property lines do have some some intermittent trees. I don't think it's like a full right screen through there. And that's why we're going to supplement on both the
south, north, and west with appropriate allseason evergreens. Mhm. Around this. So, in terms of the excavation, what would it take in order to be able to do that in this location?
Um, you're going to have a lot of probably small small equipment in there. It's not going to be anything significant. I don't you know what we're trying to do is basically push this platform into the slope versus excavating and then dropping in the platform. So that is
really to minimize we have a very wellstabilized slope there today. And I also don't want to compromise all the drainage work that we did with the swailes that are in that backyard today because that was very important. If we all of a sudden we compromise that and we go back to what was there before a
ton of money was spent on storm water. it it defeats the purpose. So that's why we were kind of considering this platform intent. And so we would not be talking about having a a number of trucks removing. No, no, no, no. Absolutely not. Okay. Nope.
All right. Then you talked about having a 10-ft fence that would uh be along the perimeter of of this uh all four sides, right? Okay. And and why 10 ft? Uh 10 feet is what the ordinance permits. I I like that height just because, you know, if you have a tennis
ball, you know, you're you're playing a tennis match, you want a little bit more height just so, you know, on the on the back back lines, you don't have balls bouncing out right through there. And you're and you're confident that that this fencing would not be quite
that visible to the neighbors. uh you'll you would see the fence in some capacity, but we're going to what we're going to try to do even at day one is put in evergreen trees to screen that and also commit to putting in a uh mesh
on the fence itself so you can't see through on those three sides. Mhm. And no lighting at all. No lighting. So they so that the the owner doesn't anticipate that even in the fall and the
winter and early spring when you know it's still kind of dark and early evening they're not going to utilize this. No. No. That's their intent. No. Um the carriage house that is in front of this is that is that being used for
residential purposes? Uh yeah, there is a there is a residential piece above that garage that's that's utilized. So would this have any impact on on that on the residence that is are they are they renting that to someone or that's
I don't I don't know the answer but we might we could certainly answer that for you for our family's exclusive use. If you're going to come up and answer the question you have to be sworn in. So yeah, obviously would would you raise your right hand?
Do you swear to tell the truth in the matter pending before the board? I do. State your name and address. You all board unit 88 South Mountain Avenue. So would you just repeat what you just said before? We utilize the carriage house for our family's purposes.
It's not rented out. No, it's not rented out. Okay. And there there would not be any intent in terms of the future to to rent it out. No, that's not your intent. And this would be uh I guess aluminum fencing. Is that what you're talking
about? Or uh it's it's proposed as more of a a chain link fence. Yeah. But we would run the mesh screening through it. Um there is a there is a a walkway that uh leads up from the carriage house. Um
well yeah I think sort of leads somewhat up into that area is Yeah. So, right behind the the pool house area of the the main structure, there is u stepping stones that come up the hill uh to get you to the upper side of the carriage house. And the intent
would be to continue that walkway uh to a to a gate on the eastern side that would get you access into the uh sports area. So, that would be basically would be the same kind of walkway that you currently are utilizing in terms of design.
Yeah, correct. Yep. to get up to that slope. Do you do you think that the the the mesh would help curtail the sound of tennis balls being hit back and forth? I mean, I I just kind of wonder just in
terms of the the neighbors, you know, whether or not they would be susceptible to hearing the activity that is taking place on the court. I don't, you know, my professional opinion, I don't think the mesh is going to do any type of sound attenuation. We usually put that in to screen screening
mechanism of something you just don't want to look at like a construction site. Is there anything that can be done to the surface of the of this court that would help curtail? I don't know all the specifics. I don't design the sports courts, but there are
just, you know, like a basketball court and things. There are sound attenuation pieces that can be incorporated into these platforms. But usually it's a it's a concrete slab with an acrylic top on it. Your traditional surface that you see at the US Open
for tennis. I guess my last my last question is um you said that um I mean there will be some cutting into the hill uh in order to facilitate this. So uh are you going to are you proposing uh any kind of like a stone wall where
you've cut into the hill in order to to deal with erosion or is it just the plantings that you're intending to do? Yeah. So what what what would like right now there's no wall contemplated on that that top side or the western side and the intent there is when that water
comes into our property from the adjacent properties and it's a lot we still want to capture that via a swale before it runs right onto the the sports court. So you'll see in the grading plan that we submitted, we're still implementing a swale in that area to capture the water routed around the
sports court and then integrating that platform into the into the slope. Final design might have a little bit of a a cut or like a little landscape seat wall right there just so the platform is, you know, not, you know, floating around.
Um, but we do want to make sure one for all the work that's already happened on the property that we're still have storm water controls with all the runoff coming in today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are my questions for now.
Yes. Hello. Good evening. Good evening. Um, so my first uh I'm trying to get a sense of the of the timeline in terms of when some of these improvements were made in in light of uh July 2023. July um So I guess my first question would be so I'm seeing that in the survey that there
it's seems like a partial survey. So when it comes to the uh rear yard topography did you get that from USGS LAR? Did you get that from a different surveyor? Uh this the asbuilt of the of the survey was done post all
of our uh drainage improvements back there. The front of the property is we kind of merged two surveys. So, the the backyard is is more accurate because that's where we needed to, you know, design this this area. Okay. And uh when were the drainage
improvements uh done? I'm going to say Yoel may know a little bit better. I'm going to say 20 2022 2023 entirely finished up. Okay. Um and when it comes to
um like since the you know the D you know in the last couple years they provided the BMPs and all of that uh lovely stuff. Uh what would your comments what would your comments be in this design with regard to you know green
infrastructure quality quantity etc. Yeah. So, uh what what's good about uh what we did in 2022 2023 is it is an underground smallcale detention infiltration facility. So, it's it's largely your
quantity control because and your quality because all the water that we're capturing is coming across landscape surfaces getting captured and then held in that area. So if I looked at it even to your minor development criteria in the township which we're going to agree
to, you know, provide compliance to I I still think it it holds true with capturing the the 7200 square ft. So uh so so then so all this is then is going to be I see there's a there's one dry well and then you have the uh underground basin. Has the underground
basin in the front yard already been uh built or Yes. Oh, absolutely. And it's infiltration. It's detention and infiltration. It's um if you can I like to describe it, it's called an R tank system. So, if you can picture the
large like milk crates that you see uh it's a lot of stacked milk crates that are that are wrapped. Uh it just gives you a lot of volume underground. Okay. And uh when this was installed, did you do uh like soil testing and uh we did addition we did borings in the
front yard? Correct. Do you uh recall like the the hydraologic soil group or the conductivity, the permeability? Um I can tell you we didn't need infiltration in our design intent. That was just above and beyond. We were using
it mostly for quantity. Uh just to grab all this water that was coming into the driveways running down the South Mountain Avenue. We it was more of a quantity measure. So, it was more so to to deal with the problem at the time, which was the was was the flooding of of the property.
Yes. There it was really an intent of and I I mention all the time, it's almost like putting a commercial storm water facility on a residential property because there was so much runoff coming in, right? Um just because like I was I was double checking for for major development and um one of the things
that 7 colon 8 was saying that if if anything that's been disturbed more than an acre since unfortunately like 2004 you know I I think the green infrastructure is is uh is a little bit much but I guess where I'm coming from it is really more so just the quantity
reductions just those existing pre-construction post construction uh quantity reductions. I know the minor development standard is is uh uh not as not as intensive, but I guess where I'm coming from is like as long as the quantity reductions are being met. Uh
that would be my line of questioning if you will. Yeah, I'm I'm confident just with the design of what we had done back in 2022 2023 that the 7200 square ft is still going to satisfy that intent.
So what you would be capturing from the 7200 square ft that uh reduction is going to satisfy the 75 80 50 um well that's one mechanism I'm going
to say curve under curve the pre-to postdevelopment hydrographs so any point in time making sure that that runoff rate does not exceed what's there today. So what we have working in our favor with these courts is all these swailes in the backyard that we can discharge
slowly run that water to the systems. Okay. So so at this point you could certainly affirm that um the overall site runoff from what it was in the pre-existing conditions is going to be reduced. Oh yes yes very much so. Um but at this
time whether it meets the 50 75 80 that would require like a report or further analysis. Yeah, I would I'd run through those calculations and choose one of those two methodologies in the storm water rags. Okay, to do that and that's certainly as as we had
indicated we're going to have I'm sure have an engineering review when this thing gets designed we go in for permit things like that that we're going to have to demonstrate that compliance. Okay. Um, okay. Yeah. So then in Yeah. So the the
the tur like the main basin or whatever, there's there's not going to be anything underneath the court. It's all going to be routed to the the basin in the front yard. Correct. Okay. Correct. Um, and then I guess the last thing would just be um any like any comments you
might have on like green infrastructure. specific to the storm water rags. Yeah, I'm going to say a lot of what we did uh pertaining to the swailes directly aligns with some of that green infrastructure non-structural
strategies. So instead of having a ton of pipe here, I want to rely on the swailes that are on those existing slopes. Okay. Uh I think those are all my questions for now. Thank you, sir. Mr. church. Uh, you stated that the 10-ft fence,
if I heard you correctly, would be a chain link fence. That's correct. Um, how big? Small. Uh, I would say it would mimic what you see, you know, in in tennis court parks,
things like that. You know, small enough mesh goes through. And the mesh goes through. Correct. And that'll be visible from the street or not from the street. I think with the grade change of South Mountain Avenue all the way to the back of the property. I I think I can't say
that you're not going to be able to see it. I mean that you got a significant grade change there. Okay. And the the the mesh you use is going to be what? Black mesh. probably I would think it would be comparable to like a a dark green something that that
integrates with, you know, the evergreen plantings that we put in. Okay, that's all the questions I have. Thank you, Mr. S. Hi. Exc mentioned that the pro approximate dimensions of a tennis court
is 36x78 or something to that effect. Correct. So, does the court really need to have such a large buffer to make it 60 by 120? Would you be opposed to reducing that buffer zone somewhat? The the width, I think, is very common
to have 12 feet on each side. So, that's just, you know, width outside of your your doubles lines, your double side lines. The depth, we're at 120 to 78. So, you're 42 maybe a little bit. Uh,
but you do like to have a little bit more depth there just as you're playing tennis. It depends like you're asking for a variance for coverage. So, I would think to minimize the effect. So, um, I would consider a smaller dimension at least.
If I'll I'll go back to just standard court depths and see if there's a variation and if we can adjust it by a couple feet on each end, that' be something be willing willing to do. Every foot would matter. Um, and in terms of the placement, uh, I you're within the the parameters of 10 ft, but
you're right against that line. Considering the size of the property, wouldn't it be would you consider moving it closer so it's not so close to the property line where it's going to have a a more impact on your on your neighbors
if it's right up against the edge? There there's probably a little bit of flexibility. What what's occurring though as you get closer to that carriage house, the slope really picks off picks up. Um, so we were trying to put it up more toward a lot of the
middle slope areas where we had already instituted swailes so that that that structure and I'm I'm back on my board. If you can kind of imagine it, you can you can see the swale here. It's almost falling in the middle of where we're placing this. And that's to help with whatever the final drainage intent of
that surface is that it can go right to that that swale. Again, it's just a consideration cuz because if you're putting a fence in construction, any little variance in your construction might impede on that 10ft limitation. So just
to give yourself a little bit more room and have some extra consideration for the neighbors. Understood. No questions to the Mr. Griffith. Hi. Hi. C 801 shows I believe the elevations of the
top of the court of the grade. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. And if my math serves me correctly, it means that assuming north is up, then that would be the east elevation faces the street.
Correct. East elevation faces south. Mount A faces south. Okay. That thing there to the right of the page. To the right of the page. To the right of the page is the street. Correct. To the east. Yes. And that edge of your
tennis court is 15 and foot foot 15 and a half feet high on the upper right hand corner. Uh that grade, correct? And 11 foot and 1/2 ft high on the right hand corner. Correct. Bottom right. Yes.
That's a sizable structure, right? I mean above grade. If I'm all walking down the street and I look up at the yard, it's a 15 foot high wall of something. Correct. the it's the platform nature of integrating this into the existing
topography. Yes. Is this an accessory structure and are you complying with the requirements of an accessory structure? I don't know. I mean at 15 ft high it's more than a tennis court in my opinion.
It it's it's it's an accessory use permitted in the RO zone. Most tennis courts are flat, not built on a steep ridge. So, it's an maybe it's an exception. Um, so I I I concern I'm
concerned about that height. Okay, we'll start there. Let's keep going. On the opposite side, the tennis court is in essence raised above the adjacent grade. And I believe that that's that's done purposely in order to keep the water running
underneath it and to make use of the swailes that you have already designed and installed underneath the tennis court. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Um, did you consider dropping the tennis court, say 5t,
putting a retaining wall on the left hand side with mass with drainage that would bring it around the tennis court so you don't get the dirt and everything else on your tennis court and you reduce the height of it facing the street and the water. You already have drains up
there on the corners, right? You could pipe that water straight to your drains there. Uh, no. I I it's it's a great it's a great idea. The the sport court without a final design of that platform. The intent is to integrate that
within the the upper slope and the lower slope. I don't want this thing just sticking up, you know. to some of the comments earlier. You know, I could see a small landscape wall on that that upper side of the court just so that the overall platform itself drops down. The
most important thing though is making sure that that water for the use of that sport court, but more importantly for this property is still getting captured for what's coming into the site. So, as long as I can make those grades work and route around, Mr. Griffith to your
comments that that is entirely what we're going to do. I understand and appreciate the intent. Um I question what has happened in order to realize it. I think the 15t high structural platform in the backyard is
is unusual. Uh and as far as I can understand, all I see are lines and talk about concrete. uh which I think it would have to be in order to be solid enough and provide the foundation that you have to put in. Uh I
can't have any perception as to what it really does look like. Um you talked about the storage retention storm water retention tank that you've already installed. Correct. You said that uh you felt that the size of that storm water retention tank would
be large enough to cover What would be shed by this solid surface that you're installing? Yes. And how do you do what's the math on that? Do you have calculations on that that we could can you tell us the size
of the tank? Can you can you show us the calculations that show the runoff from the solid surface so that we could have the opportunity to understand and agree with the math? Yeah, absolutely. So that that basin just just to clarify for the record and
all this infrastructure was put in to help with the off-site drainage area coming into the property. So what we did is, you know, determined what that off-site drainage area was at the time, oversized those some of those conveyance pipes, and we added a factor of safety
into the the the quantity capacity of that underground site facility so that any future improvements, you know, we could utilize that instead of having some other storm water intent that had to tie directly down to South Mountain Avenue. So what I'll agree to and I've
noted this is that I would certainly provide all the supporting calculations to demonstrate that that 7200 square ft can be handled and conveyed down to that existing basin from that report that the storage retention tank is adequately sized.
Yes. Okay. And it holds the water and slowly slowly releases it. How how is it built? What kind of design is it? Uh, so as I was kind of describing earlier, if you can kind of think of um an excavated hole, you've
got a a filter fabric wrap in the hole and then it's a bunch of making it very simple, but it's a bunch of stacked milk crates. Yes. Uh through there and then it's back filled on top. Bunch of drainage uh filtration. Correct. The walls are per are pvious as well.
the holds the water and the water and you get a lot of volume in there because there's a lot of open space in in those crates. Mhm. Through there. Um the mesh. Yes. Uh good answer. No acoustic but
meaningful acoustic. The mesh concerns me. So the the 10-ft um uh fence I assume it's like a chainlink fence, right? Yes. Visibly open. And this has been this is acceptable. The mesh when you put it on it, I I see that
as a thing that goes both ways. So it could be desirable because nobody wants to watch you play tennis. Mhm. Andor you don't want people watching you play tennis or it could be undesirable because it makes that 10-ft high fence now look more massive and
present 24 hours a day. Um, so if we were to approve the idea of having the mesh, I would suggest that it be uh, you know, taken down if required by any of your neighbors as a visible
problem. Yeah, we our preference. We just thought that was an enhancement, but if it is going to be not in favor either by a resident or anyone on this board, we won't put it in. I would put it up because my tennis game is as as good as my golf game. So,
okay. Uh those are my questions. Thank you. Um Mr. Chairman, I just have one question and this relates to what Mr. Griffith had said. The one requirement in our
ordinance is that this be completely shielded from other residential properties. And I'm really really concerned about your ability to shield this platform which rises 15 feet from the ground on the
north side and 11 and 1/2 ft from the ground on the south side upon which you're going to put a 10-ft fence. You've provided no information as to how either the existing landscaping or any proposed landscaping will shield
essentially a 25- foot tall structure from the neighbor to the north or a 22 1/2 ft structure from the neighbors to the south. How are you going to do that? And can I I just amazed that there's nothing to
show how that can be accomplished. Yeah. So, what we're going to, as I was kind of indicating, we're we're showing tenative grades of this platform, but as I've heard feedback from the board, recessing that platform down and working it into the slope so that you don't have
an 11 and a 15t reveal on those two critical corners will help bring that total height down. And what we're committing to, and I'm I'm glad to provide a landscape plan, is on all three sides, provide allseason evergreen trees. Uh I recommend just for
survivability that those go in at 10 to 12 feet and we'll choose species that grow one to two feet per year. Okay. Um so that that ultimately you're going to get that that screen through there. And for the fence, we wanted to
incorporate the mesh just to help you know the activity. But if that's you know non desirable or it needs to be removed, we can certainly take that out of But you'll still see the fence. You would still see the fence. Let me follow up with what Miss Tally
did. I was getting there anyway, but the keeping with the existing design and not lowering it. Um the and at the
southeastern corner you're looking at a 15 ft difference from the existing grade to the platform. Is that correct? Existing grade to the platform. Yes. Okay. And then you're going to have a
10-ft fence on top of next to next to the platform. So, it's going to be 25 ft above the existing grade. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. Um, the question I have is I don't see any
way that that could be screened from the property on Molford Lane that at the end of the culdeac, the western most of the two on the culdesac in any realistic fashion. I
um so we dropped the platform. Okay. But Janice got me a little out of sequence with the questions. That's okay. I was aching to it's a No, I mean that's the correct point to make is you're you know
and several board members have made it that the um the but let let me go back to where I was going to start because that'll get us back there. But my understanding
of the drainage improvements you installed is the property owner was having problems with storm water from the property and from the properties to the west coming down and was probably impacting the garage caris house in the main building. You designed a storm
water system to divert it around the house and put it into a facility in the front of the property to eliminate the problems they were having. Is that correct? Correct. The what you're showing is existing swailes that are now going to be under the tennis court.
Correct. Part of that did you do any excavation for those or at at the time? Yeah. Yes. Okay. Yes. Those are all put in both there there's actually two. There's one along the western property line. There's one about halfway down.
Right. Okay. So, but the headwaters, for one of a better term, of those two swailes are underneath where the court is going. Is that correct? Uh, the one on the western property line is we're we're kind of shifting it up a
little closer so it grabs it before it runs onto the court. The one that's middle slope remains as is underneath the platform. Okay. And are those those are currently vegetated? I assume. Yes. Okay. So, the one that will be under the
court and even if you lower the court, it's still going to be under the court. Um there's not going to be remaining vegetation there. Is that correct? Because this is going to be it's going to be totally shaded. Yeah, correct. And under that vegetation though is a perforated pipe um with uh
like in a stone trench. So the intent is that that swale is giving a little bit of surface water runoff, but as it gets in the ground, it's getting into that pipe. Okay. I guess my my concern is if this ceases to be vegetated and as you
testified, there's going to be there's still going to be a fair amount of storm water runoff coming from this property and the adjacent property. How are you going to control erosion of that area? So, one, you can you could stabilize
that slope underneath with like a juke mat or some type of erosion mat. If if if the design of the sport court isn't conducive to that drainage dropping into that swale, we have the ability to tie into one of the the perimeter structures around the the north or the south
property line directly with a pipe. the with the current design there would be a limited amount of excavation required um where you're going there's a little
pocket of 140 foot 140 foot slope um that's underneath the rear of the court that will have to be lowered in the little bit where the existing 140 foot to do that what are you going to do with this soil that's excavated resp-spread and recontour on on that
existing slope. Okay. The if you but if you lowered the court there would then be required a significant amount of excavation. Correct. If we lowered the court. Yeah. The lower we put that platform the more cut into that slope. Yes.
I assume you haven't look considered the extent to which the property could accommodate or whether you'd have to remove it. The the platform could certainly be lowered. It's going to be a lot of more earth moving around. We can't cut into that slope 10 15 feet. There'd be
nowhere for it to go. Okay. And going back to the the question of the height. I mean there is not quite the same extent but you have a
similar situation on the northeast corner a couple feet less but you're still the fence is still going to be over 20 feet above the existing grade. Correct. That is correct. Um
the you know I I guess I I just have a tremendous concern as other board members have expressed that we're not looking at a tennis court as you know we've had other tennis courts on flat surfaces and and this is going to be
something very much taller. Um, okay. Other questions for members of the board from Mr. Cruz? Uh, yeah, just a couple more. Um, so, uh, when some of these improvements were done back in 2022, 2023, was an ASB
built ever commissioned for the the improvements? Uh, yes, it was. Um, I I take it that I mean, was that part that wasn't part of the submitted uh documents? No, we were we were just because these improvements were mostly
focused on the back portion of the site. We had just gotten updated information back there. Okay. For that. Um and then I think my my my last question would just be because I was just double checking. Um the ordinance mentions that half an acre or more disturbed since the past like you know
like 20 years or something like that collectively like counts towards uh the criteria for a major development. So, um I was just curious what your like position or professional opinion would be as to why this this is a minor development in in spite of that um
disturbance. If they're looking at the cumulative aspect of that and we are deemed a major development, we're still going to be able to comply with that major development criteria because all of the storm water improvements that we put in on the property were just an ASIS
need by the owner, right, to do, not necessitated by improvements. So, I'm I'm I'm confident that if it was treated that way or the engineer at time of building permit said the same thing, we could support that as well. Okay. So then just like little things where it
would just be like taking the on the north side just like tying those leaders into the infiltration basin as well if like you had to do something like that that would be a doable thing. Yes. Okay. All right. Uh thank you. Are there any members of the audience
who have questions for this witness? And this is just an opportunity to ask questions. There will be a later opportunity to say this is the most wonderful or most awful project you've ever seen. But this is just to ask questions of this witness. Yes. And come forward and give your name and
address. Sure. Yeah. Russell Penalis, 80 South Mountain. Okay. Make sure the green light is on. Can you say your name one more time? It's Russell Penalis. I My address is 80 South Mountain. Could you spell your last name, please?
P I N I L I S. Press it again. Press the light on now. Oh, it looked like it was on. You want me to go again? Sorry about that. It's uh Russell Pinolis. It's P I N I L I S and I live at 80 South Mountain, which is actually
confusingly next door to 88 South Mountain on on the board there. Can you just show us where the steps to get up into the court will be? How how will someone get onto the court? Yeah, the the intent is there's already
stone that's put in behind the existing pool house that walks up really your steepest part of that slope to the upper area of the carriage house. The intent is from the carriage house area. It would it would come straight west to a gate and up to that platform.
So So the steps are there? The stone steps are there. What stone steps? I'm sorry. You said there were stone steps that go up from the carriage house. Is that right? Is that what you just testified? From from the pool house, they go up up the slope to the carriage house, the top
side of the carriage house. Okay. From there, no, there there's some older smaller concrete stairs, but there's no steps yet up that slope. Right. So, how would you get up to into the court? Yeah, it' be the it'd be the same. We we'd have stepping stones that get up to that.
Okay. And have you included those in the imperous coverage? Um, yeah. that there was a factor built in for that. Can you just show us that on the on the screen cuz I don't see any steps on the screen. No, I So there's existing steps here. We basically took that area, extended that
forward assuming that there was a staircase andor steps to get up to that final platform elevation and that's included in you're testifying that that's included in the 44% impervious cover. 43.4%. Yes. Okay. But it's not shown on the plan. I'm sorry.
Yeah, that that's not on the plan. I I understand we build in some allowances like that just so that we're we're stepping up and accounting for those future pieces that come in to the plan. I'm sorry. So in what is in the plan? What's the impervious coverage that you
have included in the plan? I don't have I don't have that number. I just have the final number of what it would be with the steps in. Okay. So you've calculated that notwithstanding that it's not in the plan. Correct. Yes. Now, you you testified that you've been
working for the applicant, I think you've said a few different numbers. You said eight years, nine years, and less than eight years. How long you've been doing work on this property? Uh, since 2017. 2017 was the first project you did. Yes. And what project was that?
Uh, assessing all of the flooding and drainage issues that were coming into Yo's house. What what other projects have been done on this property? Uh a circular driveway was put in. Um there's been some uh patio work on the
southsoutheastern corner of the existing house. Uh all the drainage improvements that I described around the perimeter and swailes. Um some some paving, some work in the back to assist with drainage between the house and the carriage house. And was
there a large addition that that included a pool? Uh, yes, but that predated May. Okay. So, so how much impervious coverage did the driveway take up? I don't have those exact numbers.
I can tell you that under existing conditions, we're at 33.04%. Oh, we're at 33.04%. Under existing conditions today. Yes. Okay. And and so can you just tell me what the nature of the configuration of
the property that requires exceeding the 35% imperous coverage? I don't understand the question. Well, in order to get a variance, the law requires that the nature or configuration of the property
requires exceeding the impervious coverage. So, how does the nature or configuration of the property require to go over 35%. Or is it just something that they want to do?
I I think it's a it's a it's an activity and amenity for uh the family on on the property as a permitted use in the RO zone. Well, it's not a permitted Well, it's not a permitted building. It's a permitted use, but it's not a permitted building. I would argue. That's what we have to decide. I don't think it's a building. It's a
use. Okay. So, so what percentage? Sorry, I I don't remember. What percentage you say we're going to? 43.4%. Okay. And I think you said earlier it was a small increase. Plus or minus 7200 ft.
Yeah. What What is the percentage increase over the permitted imperous coverage? 8 8.4%. No, that's 8.4 percentage points. What's the percentage increase? Oh, uh I'm I think it would be 24%, but
I'm not testifying. You are 24% be a 24% increase. I'm not sure I follow that. How what do you mean by 24% increase? Well, if you're permitted 35% and you're going to 43%, that's that's 24% more.
Okay. Yeah. Fair. So that So you testified before that it was a small increase. Are you characterizing a 24% increase over the permitted amount as small in your professional experience? I'm looking at 7,200 square feet of imperous surface as whether you look at
storm water regulations or you look at just that general size and area as it relates to what I'll do as a civil engineer for storm water as dimminimous impervious coverage. So, you're testifying that a 24%
increase over the permitted impervious coverage is dimminimous in your professional opinion. I'm saying the size of the pavement or the That's not the question I asked. No, I'm not saying that dimminimous is a 24% overrun from 35%. Would you would you testify that that's
significant with relating to the 35%? We're we're going up to 8% of the property. So, is that significant in your professional opinion? Is that significant? Is that a significant increase in
impervious coverage? No, I'm looking at the area. In your career, how many times have you testified and gotten variances for
increases in impervious coverage of 24% or larger? several times. Three. I don't I don't have a number. So, you don't know?
A half a dozen that I can think of. Commercial parking lot. And how long? Oh, for commercial parking lots. How many times have you done it for residential areas? Um, I don't have any. So it's so so in your experience, you've never seen this large of an increase over the impervance
coverage for a residential neighborhood. No, I haven't. I have nothing further. Thank you. Are there any other members of the audience who have questions for this witness? Good evening. My name is Kenneth Tram. I
live at 24 and I own 24 Mulford Lane Monontlair. And first before I ask questions, I would like to deal with a preliminary matter. Um, I believe that
there's a jurisdictional defect in this application that hasn't been addressed and I just like to address that to the board. Specifically, it deals with the notice. The notice in this case to
the homeowners within 200 feet uh indicated that there was an application being made for the installation of a tennis court. What we've heard tonight and what is in the plans that are
submitted is that this is an application for an all sports court. And we did hear testimony that it might be used for pickle pickle ball although there was a suggestion perhaps for a halfcourt basketball but I don't know why it
wouldn't be fullcourt basketball. Uh so I submit that what is and then if you look at the Montlair code the in the this is the RO mountainside zone
and What is permitted as an ancillary use or accessory use, excuse me, are tennis courts and I'm just trying to find the exact wording,
platform tennis courts, uh, tennis courts and platform tennis courts subject to plenty more determination of the adequacy of screening and it goes on from there. So I would first submit that
this is not properly before this board because this really is a requirement for a use application because it is not a tennis court because it clearly is being built as a platform and and so
therefore I submit it's not a tennis court and not within the purview of this jur and it needs to be rem. It's the right board regardless because we would do it either way. Mr. Trimbleac, do you want to respond on the notice issue? Well, I mean, you know, technically he's
correct. Um, you know, we're proposing something that's tennis and beyond. Um, I mean, look, I defer to um Mr. Sullivan. I mean, if you I'm happy to renotice the application. We're just going to be back here again. Um
well in response to that neighbors are here if well there are some neighbors here but if people read a notice that says tennis court in one's mind a tennis court we all think of uh in common parliament as something that's on the ground as
several of the members have talked about. So a a homeowner and there are many within 200 feet. There are only four of them here tonight. There may be people who got this impression got the impression from this notice that what
was being built is a standard tennis court, not an all sports court. And and an all sports court is far different. We've already heard that they're planning, you know, perhaps pickle ball. That's not tennis. Basketball is not
tennis. So I I would submit it it does to be need to be renoticed because people who are not here tonight have not necessarily been given the appropriate notice that they should have been given. So that's my preliminary statement. I don't know if the board
wants to act on that at this moment. Add to the issue before Mr. Sullivan opines I'm sorry I'm having difficulty hearing it. Okay. To add to the issue before Mr. Sullivan gives his view.
I actually have a more fundamental issue. Definition of height of fence wall retaining wall vertical distance of the from the natural grade of the base of the fence. The
nothing in the notice dealt with the height of the fence. The testimony dealt with the fence is going to be much more than 10 ft. parts of it much more than 10 feet above the natural grade. And I will now turn it over to Mr.
Sullivan whether the two issues raise in the notice issue. Yeah, I mean strictly on the tennis court issue, I think, you know, it's it's a close call, but I think it substantially complies with it, but once you factor in the fence height, I think that out of an abundance of caution, I
would say we should renotice that just so that we don't run into that. It's not so much jurisdictional as Mr. as the chairman said this this application no matter what they're doing is coming here not to the planning board. So it's in the right board but perhaps that's the
better course of action is to just renotice it and eliminate that as an issue. I I I agree because there are people here as well you're you're you're that's conjecture on your part. You don't know that. Okay. So there are certain people here. We don't know if there would be other people.
No, that's true. That's true. That's why not this has to be appropriate. I also think the applicant may want to look at revising the plan um before they if in fact they're coming back to address some of the issues that
have come up by questions from the board members and from the public thus far. Yeah. And I think in the interest of and you'll get since they have to renotice you'll get another opportunity of giving the applicant guidance as to they've
heard the board's concerns but um you know any questions you have which will probably I don't want you again saying you oppose the application or love the application but questions you have might give them additional guidance
on revisions they're making to the plans. So, you want me to ask questions tonight as well? Yeah. Okay, that's fine. I'd be happy to. [Music] So, Mr. Crowder, where Oh, I need to be sworn in or not?
You're only asking questions, so you don't need to be sworn in for that. That's fine. Uh, Mr. Crowder, you've testified at various points in time about uh prior work that was done for storm water
runoff issues. Yet there's nothing in your plan that's been submit. Nothing that's been submitted to this board has any figures whatsoever to substantiate what you said that you think that the plat what was
put in will uh carry or or take care of the runoff that is caused by this imperous surface. Is that correct that there are no such figures? Yeah, I have not submitted anything. Correct. So, how would how would a board
possibly make a determination at this stage whether or not it's adequate without having any figures? I think it it's it's it's twofold. One, I'm I'm committing to any type of
condition of approval that we would provide these calculations. And certainly before this goes in front to the building department for any type of permit, it's going to go through an engineering review as well. I also have to get soil conservation district approval uh for our soil disturbance.
All three of those steps will be reviewing the calculations except without having the figures on an evening like such as this or when it's renoticed if if uh neighbors wish to be heard and have wish to have an expert. There's no way of cross-examining your
determination that you've told this board without having those figures in front of us. And you're talking about getting an approval and then subsequently substantiating it. Is that correct? There would be check check checkpoints on behalf of the town and agencies to
make sure that my calculations are consistent with what I've but residents wouldn't have an opportunity such as one tonight to question your testimony in that that regard because there's nothing here other than your testimony that you did this and that's what it says
technically that's correct. Yes. And what exactly did you well you've testified a little while ago that you put in some extra for
uh addition in your calculations some extra for imperous coverage items that aren't on your plan. Is that correct? All we've provision included a provision for is if you could draw a small rectangle from this existing deadend
staircase. right over to the platform. We had done that because largely the sport court is not something I'm going to design it. It would go to a third party to design and incorporate. Okay. And and so you don't know based upon the
design that might occur in the future whether there'll be more impervious coverage items that are not included in the 43.4% 4% meaning more steps, wider steps. You don't know anything about that, do you? Because it hasn't been designed yet.
That That's correct. That's why I build in those those provisions of running, you know, those additional areas right up to the the sport court. But what if the homeowner applicant put in after getting approved put in more
steps or wider steps? It's going to change the impervious coverage issues. Correct. to yes it would change right but but right now we have nothing to go on to tell us what that I I think I think you've made your point
Mr. Crowder, the the correct answer is going to be when the plan's revised, you're going to provide sufficient calculations to put the public on notice as to how exactly how you got to those numbers. Yes. Okay. Now, have you um
have you uh ever design been involved with a platform tennis court in the past? Not the design of one. No. Do you know anything about the dimensions of a platform tennis court? No. Is a Have you ever seen a platform tennis court?
Yes. And based on your observations, are platform tennis courts smaller in size than tennis courts that are for doubles tennis?
I I don't have an opinion on that. I don't know. So, we also testified that and I've heard testimony about there being various columns uh at the four corners of the
proposed platform. Correct. There there could Yes. In the final design, well, okay. In the current design, they I think go from like 3 feet to as much as 15 ft. Is that correct? Relative to height. Yes, we were talking about the height height of the columns.
That's correct. What else is going to support this 120 ft span between the southern part of the platform and the northern part of the platform? So, you'll follow my
question? I do. And I don't have an answer for you because those are done by a third party that specializes in platform tennis court design. So it's possible that there might need to be more columns. Correct. Oh, absolutely.
And more columns that are underneath the platform to support the platform are going to create more impervious coverage, are they not? No, because they already fall within the large rectangle that I have on the plan that I've assumed is 100% impervious. I I agree with that. You're right.
You're absolutely right. But it is going to have an those columns will have an impact on the way the water is dispersed, will it not? Because there'll be less ability for the swelles to capture the water-
which are covered by these additional columns. I don't think I don't think that's necessarily true because one of the the provisions that we're doing in the revised design is the most important swale on this property is the one that is adjacent to the western property
line. But your calculations didn't include those other columns. it that may the the columns that may need to be placed underneath the uh platform with regard to what your calc your calculations that your
system that we don't know about that you put in year that was put in years ago th those calculations are solely based on the additive impervious coverage of that sports court okay surface not necessarily where a column is or how many there are underneath
All right. Now, you you said there was an asbuilt done in 2022 or 2023. I don't know the exact year, but after a lot of these improvements as we were doing the various pieces on the property, we were always obtaining
updated surveys. But does what does what has been presented to this board accurately describe the conditions today? Because I I've noticed it's based
upon various surveys at various points in time and it's difficult for me to ascertain whether or not it actually reflects an asbuilt condition. Yeah. Yes. Because as we were going through there's there's asbuilt information in the front, there's
asbuilt information in the back. They're across different surveys as these improvements were occurring. So we utilize that as as a uh call it a blended asbuilt of those conditions for the property as it relates to assessing impervious.
Okay. And are you aware of the fact that this is in a steep slope section of the RO zone? Uh yes, there's steep slopes and is it is it correct or is it your understanding that this board cannot
grant an approval until there's been an engineering review of the plan? I'm not aware of that. Has there been an engineering review of this plan? I have not received one.
I have no further questions. Are there any other members of the audience who have questions for this witness? Come forward. It's not a question. It's just more of a comment. No, it's not. This isn't really the time for comments. This is time for questions.
Are there any other members of the audience who have questions for this witness? Okay, let me give you a little more guidance. Um, one, I think it would be helpful for the
board for there to be an engineering review of the applications. I I agree. I was going to request it candidly rather than just saying, well, there'll be an engineering review down the road. um to um
as I think we have pointed out and members of the public having the path to the court shown will be helpful because sure I don't know what assumptions you made about its width length but clearly it's
going to have to go to the back of the court so the gates going to have to be there not 10 feet off the ground in the front So that's a longer path and just have that shown and show it, you know, 3 ft wide, whatever it's going to be.
Um, so we know that and we can see where the gate is. Um, I um, you know, um, I don't know any other board members have any other comments as to information they would like to see.
Mr. Griffith, I'd like to see section I'd like to see a structural engineered architect and landscaper. Um, so we understand what it is you're actually going to build. Um, I think it will be a concrete structure and you'll have a structural engineer that'll do
it. I don't think it's going to be done by a tennis platform guy. Um, and that will help us to see it. there's insufficient information for us to be able to intelligently review this and
have an opinion. Um, I don't have a positive opinion based on just the dimensional information I'm seeing and the size of it. But if you do want to present it, you have to show us what it looks like. Uh, and uh, all due respect to civil engineer, that's not what he
does. uh and so that information is missing and is necessary for us to provide an intelligent review. I think the 15 ft above grade is
not acceptable. I don't understand. It's it's a monumental thing in the backyard. It's basically just a big concrete structure up there with some raw earth underneath it draining. Doesn't make any sense to me. If you really want to do it, put a stepped retaining walls in the
backyard. Drain it. You'll have a 10-ft stepped retaining wall in the backyard. Put a planter around the front of it. Put natural stone in the planter and arborite in the planter. So, you screen it with landscape. Come in with a serious proposal. And if you really want
to turn some heads and get people to pay attention and have grease the tracks for positive review, put uh put some water underneath it that collect the water at the back and put the retention basin underneath the court
and then you're hitting all of the all of the buttons that have been me mentioned tonight. That's just a casual suggestion. I'm not a not ever not putting that down as requirements, but the difference between what I'm looking
at and what I think you need to do is significant. And I'm trying to give you a good idea as to what that difference is. Um, I'd also like to see what alternate size of positions are considered and what those calculations come out to to see what the so we can see the
difference in scale of the project and possibilities. Good point. Uh, yes. And then just for me it was just like, you know, I don't know what type of like boot and substratum there is in the front yard or what the groundwater recharge is looking like. Uh
I've seen some jobs in like Newark or Plainsfield where they're a bit more robust with the green infrastructure and like you know when I was in one of those like D uh classes or whatever you know the the inevitable D audit is going to happen you know eventually and so just like you know maybe putting in a couple
like GIMTDs for the quality and um uh just having a little bit more information like like at this stage I understand a lot can be done in compliance but like at this stage for me like for my calming effect would just kind of be like just to know that the quantity is being met given the history of like the the disturbance, you know,
just showing that for the proposed improvement and obviously, you know, taking some extra measures for the height in the screening, I think would be uh good recommendations. And you know, there should be a landscaping plan. So rather than just a we're going to put in a bunch of evergreens.
Sure. Okay. So, when do you think you'll I mean, we don't have to announce anything because you're renoticing, but just so we have a sense of I'm thinking October. I don't think we'd possibly be back in September if the
board even has, you know. Okay. Just so members of the public know, they're going to have to renotice. They'll be getting new 200 foot notice. Um the you know they have to have the plans in
at least 10 days in advance. They have to mail the tricky part of the statute is they have to mail the notice 10 days in advance. Doesn't mean you're getting it 10 days in advance. It means you're getting it less than 10 days in advance. So uh they do have to do
Allan. I'm assuming you you're still going to do newspaper notice. Yes. So there will be newspaper notice which you can actually find online if you put in the right words. Um you'll be able to find that besides looking for
small legal ads. So that has to appear 10 days in advance. So starting about two weeks before start go it's New Jersey Press Association has a website that all legal notices appear and if you put as keywords Monontlair Bo board of
adjustment and either this address or the name of the applicant it should pop up once it appears but it will have to appear 10 days in advance so you know when they're showing up and when you should come in and look at the revised plans or just show up 10 days in advance
and the plan should be here. Is that sufficient lead time for the plan to be submitted and our and the engineer to review it also? Well, we require 10 we usually require two weeks in advance. So, the October meeting is October 15th. We would really want to have any changed plans by the
end of September so that we have time to review everything. That's that's what we'll be targeting the meeting. Yeah. So, it's either the October 15th meeting. If you don't meet that, then our next meeting is November 5th.
So for members of the public, end of September, you start calling the planning office and see they have plans. Don't make a nuisance of yourself and call have all of you call. Um but try and figure out a way of communicating to say
plans are there. Anything else? Okay. Oh, Mr. Trump, I could give us an extension of time to we'll say the end of November in light of the notice issue, but yes, through the end of November. Sure.
Motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor say I. I know. I'm going to benefit. So, because they have to notice
um it's still a continuation of this. So, I still have to get the certification one. Yes. Yes. Yep. Okay. Just want to make sure. In order to be able to vote. Yeah. Okay. Vote
right. and not getting reached. I didn't see it. Nobody.