Makes sense. I uh call to order the regular Oh, you're check everybody but you, right? Yeah. Um I call to order the regular meeting of the township of Morris Planning Board for May 5th, 19 or
2025. Metro, it's going to be a long night. The legal notice required in accordance with the open public meetings act has been satisfied and a statement certifying the same will be executed. Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of
allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Uh, Sonia, could you call the
role? Mr. Alleso here. Order here. Mr. Flowers here. Mr. Rabbit here. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Benois here. Mr. Here. Mr. Here. Mr. B
here. Here. Mr. Here. here. Okay. Our first order of business is we have a resolution appointing uh our new planning board uh engineer Joe Buch who
was rejoining us replacing uh well trying to replace I'll say Jim Slater. We're glad glad to have him. So we have a resolution uh uh for engine for services for engineering consult for for Joe and firm to uh to be our board um
engineer. Um any comment questions? I'll move that. We have a second. Second. Um any discussion? I think this is a roll call as it's a resolution. So you call the role senator. Mr. Alto.
Yes. It's in order. Yes. Mr. Flowers. Yes. Mr. Ravage. Yes. Welcome, Joe. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Welcome, Joe. Glad to have
you. Look forward to working with you. Um, Whoops. And next on the agenda is the uh consideration for approval of the minutes from our January 13th meeting. Are there any comments,
corrections to the minutes? I'd like to make a motion that we accept the minutes as drafted. Got a second. Second. All in favor? I. Okay, I have minutes approved. Thank you, son Sonia, once again for putting those together.
Appreciate that. Okay, then moving on to the first of the two. No, we have resolution first of all from our from the last meeting. Um, Mr. It wasn't me. I sw Nope, it's not me.
I think so. Is this picking me up? Hello. Yes. Okay, we're good. Yes. All right, board members. So, this was the uh application 257 Mount Kimell LLC. This was uh if you'll recall property located at lot two within block 51 or 5401 also known as 257 Mount Kimell
Avenue very apt named uh property and applicant here. They were seeking approval to develop four single family residential lots and create two lots that would be open space for the township. There were a number of bolt variances mostly for retaining wall height uh all for retaining wall heights and then uh four design waivers for
sleep steep I'm sorry three design waiverss for steep slope disturbance u I believe it was I think it's an 8 to1 decision if I'm recalling correctly let me just go back to notes should be the beginning of the decision session apologies it was
One more page. My apologies. It's on. Yep. It was an 8 to1 vote. Um, yeah, that's it in a nutshell. If any was if anyone has any questions or revisions, please let me know. Mr. Chairman, I have a comment. Yes. Um, one of the things I commented on during the hearing is
that the there were no architectural drawings and this is a historic district. And I don't remember exactly what the response was, but it wasn't memorialized in this resolution. And further when I went when I left here
I thought well that's an historic district and if we're going to leave the historic designs the architectural designs in historic district to whomever in the future I feel like our board's giving up
its authority giving up its power. I kind of want how the rest of the board members feel about it because it's our master plan and we've designated that as historic district. We're the only board with
authority to grant yay or nay on the design standards because the other members of the staff or or the historic commission don't have the authority to require one way or another. And it
seemed to me afterwards that that I was perfectly fine with with all the variances, but it seemed to me that there should have been a request at least to see the the the proposed
architectural drawings. The proposed architectural drawings in the old application when there were 11 units and was reduced. I have a copy of those. They're very contemporary. There's nothing historic about them. They were nice, but
they were contemporary drawing. And so it it just seems to me that if it's our master plan and we've designated that historic district and it's something that we want to cherish as part of our history for the township that perhaps we should not have given
up that component of the application and asked them to come back with some design um architectural design that that at least attempts to be sensitive to the
historic district that's in a master plan. So, I was wondering if any other board members had any thoughts on that or concerns because it it's not in the minutes at all and I did discuss it and then we it just fell by the wayside. It just didn't
seem right to me. Mr. Chairman, yes. Um I think that the next stage is where you would see architectural design. This that what we approved was not a specific site plan for building homes. So it
wasn't it wasn't something that we were talking about or voting on in that stage. But when they do come in for development on those sites, you will see renderings of the homes and that through our TCC, we could um make sure they
understand the historic nature of the area and expectations on the part of the board. So, I think I think you're you're I'm not disagreeing with your comment. I just think there may be a little premature in terms of the process. I think that was part of the discussion now that you mentioned it, but it's not
going to come before us. Right. No, it's going to go before the staff or the historic committee. So, Mr. Chairman, just a quick question for our legal council. So, we've approved the application. Do we have the ability to retread? I I
believe so, Mr. Alleso. And I did review the tape of this hearing and I don't recall there being any mention of a specific condition requiring. There was no condition with that. Exactly. It was in the It's in the ordinance. It was acknowledged that it's in the ordinance. I would say if the ordinance requires that that these these uh homes have to
meet some kind of specific architectural standards, I don't believe they could wave that unless they sought a variance or some other form of relief. So, shouldn't that be the zoning officer that's the back stop for that? So, when they put in their application for a building permit, the uh zoning officer before he grants permission for the
zoning piece of that, he would check to see that it meets an architectural standard that the planner and maybe the engineer have collectively put together. Yeah. If those standards are in the ordinance then yeah I would you know presumably I think that's where your protection I'm sorry there are but there are two issues here. One is the
standards in the ordinance for architectural design. The other is the historic component and so we really have no enforcement powers on this application
over either one of those. Well, but you're relying on our zoning officer to enforce that. Is the zoning officer is is I asking too much of the zoning officer and if what goes in isn't historic or doesn't really meet some
architectural standards which in the ordinance is there any is there any um I mean I'm not disagreeing with you but I I mean you can't have history in a brand new building. It it it could only be an architectural standard at that point. There is no history. There's no historic
value because there was there's nothing they're not when we look at restoration hardware. There's a historic building and we've asked them to mimic some of that history in the redesign, mimic some of that history in the new buildings. There's no buildings here. So, the only
thing they're going to rely on is the general area and those are where the architectural standards would kick in in my opinion. I'm not trying to dis disagree with you, but yeah, I don't know. I think we're stretching up a stretch of the building between No, I appreciate Especially with B levels
across the street. I mean, there's no history across the street, Ed. Not at all. It's not a neighborhood that's a historic. Somebody designated a historic, but in reality, the home and maybe we should take away the designation. Well, maybe that's for the master plan review and okay, down the
road. I just wanted to express my my concern there because I going forward if there's a historic district um it's not clear who enforces any kind
of historic sympa sympathetic design um or architectural design. We don't have an we don't have an architect on staff to to do that. So, um, but I want to throw because if if nobody else has a concern about it, I'm not I'm not going
to worry about it, but I just wanted to express my concern. I have a concern about it, but I think it's limited what we can do at this point. I mean, we the resolution has has passed. The approval was made. Uh but we could look at what the ordinance says and we could see what
uh specifically is required in the ordinance and we could as an advisory matter we could ask the the township staff to put procedures in place perhaps consulting with the historic preservation commission about what what
they think but again it would be advisory on their part right because again it was just an application for a subdivision we approved the lots right without any specific. Well, I would guess, you know, I got to say it's up to the zoning
officer or the zoning board if they seek any variances individually when they decide to develop the lots. Then then maybe there's, you know, then you on the board of adjustment has some say there. But at this point, you know, or even down the road, you know, a subdivision
in a hor historical district, can you can we attach conditions on that? You know, I don't know. It's a good question. I just say in other towns, um, if if a new building is going in that's not sort of
a designated historic site, it could still go to the historic preservation commission for review so that there's some level of oversight as to what's going in to is to make sure it's sympathetic. My reading of the existing ordinance doesn't permit it. It's
basically the historic preservation commission only has purview over the actual contributing historic sites. So that would be something that would have to be sort of a policy issue. um you know going forward if you wanted to include sort of
non-contributing this would be sort of non-contributing buildings in a historic district because they're brand new and you know do you want to make or do you want to allow the ability to uh give oversight to the historic preservation commission for building permits in in
that district I would on new construction on new construction new construction I would want to at least give them an advisory role but I'm not sure that ordinance permits that now it sounds like it doesn't. I don't think it does. Okay. In a quick trying to skim, I
didn't see anything is looking up as well. So, okay, I'm good. Thank you. I wanted to have this discussion. I'm glad that we did. I have a couple of more comments on this. Mine are much more trivial than than Mr. Ben. So,
um, one was the roll call, um, is hasn't been put in on page 23. It doesn't show how the votes were. Were made on the agenda. Okay. It does say that the vote was 8 to1. I was trying to remember who the no vote was.
I think I the stood on the agenda. Okay. Okay. Mr. Barrett, Mr. Barrett, I'm sorry. Bill Barrett. Bill. Barrett. Yeah. I think he was the only not Then on page six, I hope not too many people hate me
for this. On page six, uh item number six, um the language says the applicant's proposal proscribes for the construction of a multitude of retaining walls. I don't think proscribes is the right word. Prescribes means forbids. I think it should say the applicant's
proposal calls for the construction of a multitude of retaining walls. And then in item number seven on the same page there's the same language that page on page eight
um near the bottom it names the roadway calls it prudent court. I don't think that's right. I think it's I I don't remember what the name of this road supposed to be. Prudent way.
What is it? Prudent way. Prudent way. Prudent. Prudent. Prudent way. Do you remember? Prudent spelled just like this. Like the word. No, it's not prudent. No. Right. You mind? Yes. Yeah. No, please.
So, um didn't expect to speak to speak tonight, but thank you. um was prudence way and that was an HPC recommendation. Oh wow. Prudence way. No to change prudence. Prudence without a recommendation of your historic
preservation group. I don't remember the history of it but it does. Well prudence with a C because that was prudent town. Prudin was without it's the name of the prudent. Yeah. Prudin way. Yeah. P R U D I believe. If you all leave a state a placeholder there I'll check and get
back to Mr. War. back. Okay, that'd be great. I'm sensitive to this because for years I've been on the street naming subcommittee, but I've never named any street. One day I did have that question, but I
wanted to name it. Yeah, I I confess it. Okay. And then my final one is on page 13, the very first line. Uh this is continued. The sentence is continued from the page before. It says, 13 uh sorry page 12 excuse me it says
improvement in light of the regarding that would be necessary to construct same I have no idea what that what that is is what some something was wrong there improvements should be improvements in light of
in light of what of regrading that's what it should be okay oh okay that makes sense Oh, maybe I should put that. All right, that was Yeah, George make a motion that we have accept
changes. I second. We have a roll call. Mr. Ala. Yes, Mr. Flowers. Yes, Mr. Rabbit. Yes, Murphy. Yes, Mr. Ben. Yes,
Mr. Quillin. Yes, Mr. Yes, okay. Okay, moving on to Public hearings. We have uh two applications tonight. First one being PB0725. Would you introduce that for us?
Yes. This is PB 07-25 Red Bull Arena Inc. for an amended site plan with this is block 9101, lots 4 and 5, 101-103 Columbia Road in the oil zone.
applicant proposed the installation of a camera and antenna system around the field. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I'll just point out I did review the the applicant's notice here for tonight's hearing. I did I do deem it to be sufficient in terms of both its content
and timeliness of service. It was sent by certified mail to owners property within 200 feet of the subject property on April 21st of this year and then also published in the daily record on April 23rd, 2025. both more than uh 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing. So thus in my legal opinion the board has the jurisdiction to hear and decide the
case. Okay, I'll turn it over to Council if he wants to give an intro. Nick Rassopi, speaking of the mic, Nick, Nick Riopi from Riker Danzig representing tonight the applicant Red
Bull Arena, Inc. So we're back and uh I think it's like the Hotel California. You can come, but you may never leave. But but tonight we're excited to be back because uh tonight uh we are here to put the final
touches really great project. We we believe we are here to put the final touches on this and it's been it's been a really long and rewarding journey for me and for uh my clients. We started with even before this planning but with
a public outreach and public meeting at the Weston November 2021 and we we did everything you could do in a land use application. We amended the GDP. We amended the zoning. We had many many meetings to get the initial
preliminary and final site plan and then we amended that site plan. And tonight we are here um really to put the final piece of this puzzle together and that is the technology um and another amended site plan. But
the technology we're talking about and you'll hear more about this is cameras and antennas. Cameras to record the players on the fields for game planning, player development, and many other things.
antennas to collect the players biometric data. This is not something they used when I played sports, but apparently this is what they use. Now, now this this technology is really critical and essential to the purpose,
the use and the performance of the practice facility operation. uh you cannot you can obviously this day and age you cannot have a state-of-the-art worldclass practice facility like the one we are currently
building without this technology. So I'm not going to explain it and without further delay I'm going to introduce our professionals um to describe for you the specific details where they're going, what they do um etc. Rich Barington uh our
engineer from WSP will describe really the details of our application should there be any operational questions that Rich for some reason can't answer. John Amarosa who's been project manager from day one is here uh as the Red Bull's
project consultant to answer any questions and we also have the esteemed Michael Tobia. So, if if there is any uh planning questions at all, Michael is here to answer those. Um, we'll only call them if the if the board has
questions about those areas. So, Rich, why don't we get you sworn in and get started? You want to swear them all in just so we don't have to stop and and our board professionals also. At least you'll get sworn in, Mike. If you uh three of you plus the two board professionals could please raise
your right hands. You're all doing that. Do you all swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to provide will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Great. Thank you all so much. Back to you, counselor. Okay. Rich, would you give uh the board the benefit of your um experience and your
credentials and whether or not you've been accepted by this board as an expert in the past? My name is Richard Barington. I'm a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey and in New York. Uh as far as this application, I've also been accepted as an expert. I provided
the testimony for the original approval in 2023. I also provided the testimony for the first amendment in 2024. Um, and it provided a testimony to other boards and other counties in the state of New Jersey. We ask that he
accepted. We will accept. Yeah. Please, please proceed. Could I just get Mr. Barington's uh his firm and his business address, please? Uh, WSPUSA, Inc. and we're located at 350 Mount Kemell Avenue. Morristown, New Jersey.
Thank you. Your license is current in good standing. Yes. All right. Great. Thank you so much. Please proceed. Rich, would you give uh the board a description of our application tonight? Yes. Thanks, Nick. Um so, building off of what Nick said, um we're here today
to talk about essentially the uh data analytics player tracking system. Uh, Miss Nick mentioned, this is something that all pro sports teams are doing, football, baseball, soccer. Uh, this is akin to what you've probably seen on any NFL game where they're they're talking
about yards after catch, they're talking about acceleration, similar to what you see on any baseball game when you're you hear terms like exit velocity, spin rate. Um, so this is essentially a a player tracking data analytic system um for our
site. Now what's special about this site is the Red Bulls have been they do have a team in place who does um data analytics. They have a team in place who does this for their academy for their team currently now at Red Bull Arena. They do this currently at the existing
facility. Um the system that they're working with now is really driven by their global soccer group. So essentially this the system we're going to talk about tonight is an improvement of what's in place. It's the benefit of lessons learned from things at the arena, from things at the current
training facility, uh, and from lessons learned from overall at other locations in in Germany and other locations overseas. So, what I wanted to do was talk about in terms of the presentation, I broke it into three pieces. I wanted to give you a general system overview to
the components, a little bit about that, then I'll talk about the specific design that we have for our site. Um, and lastly, I'll wrap it up to try to tie together how everything we talked about fits within the zoning and the variances that we're requesting tonight. Um, so
coming back, what is data analytics? Essentially, it's a professional sports development tool. Um, used for collection of vast amounts of data. Data used to improve player performance, team performance, player
identification, a lot of purposes. it it's collecting data and there is a team that processes this data and they're looking for certain things. They're finding a lot of neat ways to use it. Um the system we're going to talk about tonight has two components. Uh as Mr.
Rasiopi mentioned, there is a camera system. So there are cameras both fixed view cameras, pan, tilt, zoom cameras used for a variety of purposes. The second piece of the player tracking system is a essentially what we're going
to call an anchor system. Nick called it an antenna anchor. Um it's essentially a GPS system that tracks different player biometrics. Each player wears within a small vest a sensor that then speaks via
GPS technology to these various antenna located around the perimeter of the site. Everything from our cameras, everything from our I'll call them anchors is essentially hardwired back to the main principal building. So, regarding the cameras, let
me share screen and pull up the first exhibit. And Rich, is this is this a plan that was submitted or is this was this this will be a new exhibit? Okay. So, why don't you tell us you know you prepared it and describe it so that we could get
it. that needs a battery. Okay. Is that up? Here we go. Here we go. Okay. This so briefly describe this exhibit whether
you prepared it. Uh what you know this has to So we're calling this exhibit A1. It's essentially the the overall site plan with the various cameras and anchors um shown on the site. Um it's use different colors to
represent different things which I'll talk through. uh different shapes to represent different things. Uh one other note, the the circles and the squares shown here are not to scale. Um so it's I'll talk about the exact sizes of things as we go through. Okay. And is
that dated today or is that a different? Uh there's no date on it. File is dated today. Okay. Okay. So, go starting with the cameras. Okay. And just cameras are going to be used as I said there will be both wide angle panorama cameras for tracking on
the field. Um looking at individuals formations. Uh there'll also be pan tilt zoom cameras which are really for focusing on individual players, soccer balls, uh individual things that can zoom in and out. Um the typical camera what we shown we did put it in the plan
set the largest camera we have is roughly 14 in high by 9 with a 9 in diameter. All cameras are proposed on camera poles. All the camera poles are 46 feet high. There will be nothing higher than 46 ft. There will be most in
most cases multiple cameras on a pole. There are different configurations too as I'll talk about. Some some poles will have more cameras than other just because of how they're located. I'll talk about that when we go through a typical field. An anchor system. Okay,
an anchor system or is the antennas that what Nick called them. Essentially, these are small GPS boxes roughly 6 in by 9 in. Um these will be installed along the perimeter. Um, they'll be installed 16 ft high. In some cases,
they'll be installed on new poles. In most cases, they'll be installed on existing netting posts, existing buildings, and in some cases, they'll be installed on, we'll call them, extensions on top of an existing fence. We have 10-ft fencing throughout the
perimeter of the site. So, in some cases where we don't have a high post, uh there would be a six-foot fence post extension in order to get the anchor up to the proper height. Really, as we mentioned, the data from the anchors is used to assess
player fitness and complement the 3D video. Okay. Supporting infrastructure. Okay. As I mentioned before, the system besides the cameras, the anchors requires infrastructure. We're talking new poles either 46 foot high or 16 foot
high depending on the situation and how they're used. Additionally, everything is going to be hardwired. So there will be underground communications duck bank, communications handholes, everything that ties that all back to building A. Last
thing, there will be I'll say small communications boxes throughout the on poles to facilitate that infrastructure being hardwired back to the building. Okay. So, starting going working off the legend. Um, looking at the zoom in on
the legend. So, primarily the intent here was that circles are the anchors. Okay? Anywhere you see a yellow circle, it's an anchor being mounted to an existing net post and an existing light pole, an existing fence. And you're using anchor
and antenna interchangeably interchangeably. Correct. Okay. Triangle. Yellow triangle is essentially again because it's yellow, it's an anchor that on an existing building that's being constructed.
Um the red is new. So where you see a red circle, that is a new 16 ft pole. Okay. Regards to cameras, they are the rectangles. So essentially the yellow rectangle is camera locations on an
existing athletic light pole. Um that's really one location over at Field 5, which I'll talk about. Um the pink rectangles are essentially new 46T poles. Okay. And the last symbol on here
is essentially a green circle which is the areas where we're we identified a setback variance which I'll talk a little bit more about coverage. Okay. So essentially where where are these systems installed? So essentially the the full player
tracking system which is cameras, anchors is installed on fields one, two, three, four which is essentially the bottom four fields. It's also installed on fields six, seven, and eight. Okay, eight being
the the competition pitch that we spoke about before. Um field five is a special case. Field five is what we would term a limited tracking system where only four camera locations mounted specifically to the athletic lighting posts. So for
field five, there are no new poles in or at field five itself. Uh there's no system for field 7A. Field 7A was essentially the field north of field seven which was the half field, but
there's no player tracking system there. A few notes about how this operates. Essentially, we are looking to operate the system for training sessions. Uh we're looking to operate the system also on games. So, any type of game on field
8, the system would be turned on. The system is functional day or night, but it does not require any additional lighting. Um, essentially it's whatever daylight conditions are there, whatever if the lights are on for practice at night, then it it may be operational for
that. Um, a few other notes about this. Uh, the cameras themselves, they will record um, but the cameras are essentially visible and the data from them is visible to the data
analytics team only. Um, and it does have the option to essentially alter out or block out areas that because it is smart video, you can block out or I think the term that the technical experts used was pixelate. So if if there's an area you don't want to see in
the background, that can be pixelated out so that it's only recording the onfield activity. Um, general will be pixelated will be pixelated out. Correct. Okay, that's general system. So moving into the specific system and talking about how the poles are laid
out, how the anchors are laid out. If I use for example, I'll start and use essentially field two as an example. Um, in terms of camera poles, essentially each field has four
camera poles. two at the midfield locations looking in, two behind goal looking in as well. So essentially you're you're getting all of field two from these four locations, the two midfields and the two end lines. There
would be multiple cameras on midline, possibly goal line in order to get coverage of the whole field. Field one. Also of note, Field One has an extra pole in order to get the coverage provided on the goalie pitch over in this
area. The the C the poles themselves, they're 46ft poles. Uh right now we're looking at round tapered poles extending up to 46 ft. There would be a small bracket at the top of the pole uh to allow the the cameras to mount to those. the locations for the most part, the
endline locations have all been brought onto the interior of the perimeter fence. Just a reminder to everybody, the perimeter, the se southern perimeter of fields 1 2 3 4 um pretty much the entire facility is essentially a 10-ft chain
link fence um which has netting that goes up to an elevation of 30 ft above the fields. So the the line here pretty much the line behind these fields is a 30- foot high line, a perimeter of netting and
fence. Uh and those the posts the camera poles of what we talked about doing was bringing them interior to the site. Um, that's how the camera works out typically per field in terms of the anchors. And again, red being new
poles, yellow being anchored onto existing structures. Those are all installed at 16t height. So in this case, you can see an array of red dots along the perimeter. The spacing of the anchors, the height of
the anchors is all essentially manufacturer recommended from lessons learned. Certainly with with antennas and with this type of thing, the the more you have, the better the better feed you get, the better the system works. So the the spacing of these, the
height of these is based on lessons learned at other facilities. Um, in this case you can see essentially one, two, three, four, five, 516 foot poles. Just a reminder to everybody too that the the length of the soccer fields
themselves are from inline to endline are roughly 360 ft. So, while on this picture it looks like a lot of dots, in reality it's a really big site and uh 16T poles spaced at 40 to 60 ft really
isn't that cluttered out there. Um, but it is necessary to get the coverage that's needed u for the facility. As we mentioned before, I'll go back to field five because field five was a special case. Um, limited camera.
The athletic lighting poles, just a reminder here, are 80 foot high. Um, so the cameras installed on these poles would again be roughly 46. Uh, again, this field five is a little bit challenging because there is going to be different types of play there. As you
can see from the way this one is laid out, there could be up four smalls size fields. The size of the field is also designed for two 9V9 fields and it also can be striped to be an 11 v11 field just like field six. So we're while we
do have camera coverage there, we're not doing the same type of things that we're doing on the other fields, but it does give us some flexibility for player analytics for some of the younger teams and folks that are using those fields. And refresh my memory, the yellow
rectangles are on existing correct light bulbs and the pink ones are the the new 46. Okay. Correct. In terms of numbers, um total there's 25 new camera
poles. Uh there's also four locations on the existing light poles. In terms of the anchor system, there's 36 new anchor poles. Um but there are 44 I'll say anchor locations that are on existing either on existing light poles. Um this
is a location here near field eight and seven where we're able to mount these because we do have pedestrian street lighting there. So those are able to be mounted there. So even with the anchor poles the majority of those are being mounted on existing infrastructure.
Um, I mentioned the anchors, the spacing for them. The spacing is manufacturer designed um, based on lessons learned. So, moving into the zoning, the zoning piece of the whole thing. Before you get there, um, maybe you're going to speak about it later about the diameter
of like a 16 inch a 16 foot pole, right? So, what what we did is we did add into the plan package essentially a 16 foot pole is roughly 4 inch diameter. Um, we're looking for those to be painted black, similar to the other net
posting on net posts on site. The 46 foot poles are going to be around 8 in. We're looking at either a round tapered pole, which would be a little bit narrower at the top, um, or it could be a straight eight inches up the entire distance. Um, so these
are fairly small things that you will see them from a distance. Um, but again, it's not a whole lot different in terms of diameter than the the 30- foot net posts that we have out there. Um, the 16 foot the diameter of the 16T poles isn't
a whole lot. It's actually narrower than the street lights we have, which are 5 in x 5 in. Um, so they're it's not bulky at all. It's not significant. Um they are fair. It's light infrastructure and the large majority of the new
poles the large majority I mean I know there's a few but the large majority are interior to the site. Correct. And the max height of the main building is 46 or higher. Right. 46 feet or a little higher. The main building is
close to 50 feet with the parapet on top. Um, so the the 46 foot poles would technically be the top would be below that that top parapit elevation. So, thank you. Okay. Okay. In terms of the zoning, how this
fits because it is it's not a typical use. Um, but we we're looking at all these polls essentially is an incidental use to the athletic training use. Um, there was a very specific athletic training use that was spelled out in the O40 PUB zone. Um, so we're looking at as
incidental to that use and thus allowable. Uh, with regards to height measurements, um, there's a few things to to go over in terms of how we looked at it. The zone permits principal buildings up to 50 ft. The zone also
permits light poles up to 90 ft. Um, noting that even of our athletic poles, only two are at 90. The majority are at 80. Um, it also permitted a single indoor field building up to 65 and it permitted netting and net post up to 30
ft. There is no specific accessory structure height requirement in this zone. Our interpretation of the zoning was that the poles would be allowed up to 50 foot consistent with being an incidental use. So that was how we interpreted the use. We did identify
I'll say sideyard setbacks. uh we wanted to take a conservative approach with this especially with the anchors understanding that even though that the net posts the netting was is approved it's allowable at those locations we did recognize that putting even a small GPS
may slightly change how that's being used that structure so we are requesting variances for those anchor locations where the netting was in the setback with a conservative assumption that gee this could be treated a little bit differently at this point so let's let's request the variance for those anchors.
With respect to the anchors that violate the setback, you are not adding any new poles. These are just anchors that are on existing poles. Correct. They're either on existing poles or they're going to have fence post extensions on
an existing fence post to elevate that elevation up to 16, which would be six feet above the top of the chain link, but still basically within the line of the netting. And the netting is up to 30 feet tall.
Okay. So, if I can ask a point of clarification, none of the new proposed poles are within the required setback anchors. There's one camera pole that might be in the setback. There is one camera pole that is within the setback. Um, essentially that we're requesting
171 ft. The setback requirement on that side is 175 ft. the setback for structures on this side is essentially greater than what the setback was for the on the two residential sides. Um the the reason for this is essentially we've
we've moved the pole inside the interior. Uh to move it any any further away would essentially encroach on the playing field. Can you point out that pole? I mean, I don't know if everybody can see it, but just to make sure
they Chris and others know where it is. It's the So, it's the pink rectangle right in the middle. Pink rectangle behind the goal on the south side of field one. Um, adjacent to Prescott Drive. So, one more time, how far what's the setback distance?
171 ft versus 175. And on the other side of Prescott, it faces course. Yeah. I mean, yeah, that's it. Um there were two with the set back on
the Yes. Okay. Also on the to to the right or to the left on this this view also anchor post on the Yeah. Yeah. I'll Oh, you have that. Okay. You want to show that? Well, let me finish with these. Yep. So, as Nick mentioned, this
one is it's pretty close to the setback. We're requesting four feet at this location. Um, additionally, the rest of the variance is being requested are for anchors. Um, a majority of these anchors are installed directly on a net post. For example, if I go to the corner here,
um, there's definitely a corn a net post at this corner. So this would be essentially just a new device anchored with a small bracket on top on a 30-ft pole. Others the spacing at 16 at 16 ft
16 foot pole. Correct. Other locations the spacing of the netting doesn't always it's not consistent with what the anchor spacing needs. So that's really the reason for why the the extensions are on the fence post at most locations.
Um this is another location. It's a corner post. So we we know it's there. These likely the other ones are pretty much they'll have extensions onto existing fence posts. Moving around to the other two variances. These are both again on
corner posts. So they are they're installed on the existing net post on the corner. It would be a new small bracket on a 30-foot post with but they are within the setback area. So again, we're taking a conservative approach with the
anchors. Just go through. In total, what we ended up with was the one variance for the camera pole behind field one. And in terms of the anchors, there was a total of 10 variances um for the um for the anchor. I'll say
anchor extensions, anchor brackets. Are you able to quantify those for us? Like each one the the eight the variance varies from 126 to 174. I can tell you the two on
the uh west side of field four. Those are the two we're looking at. The two we're looking at right now are 113 feet and 121 ft. The setback on that side is 125 ft as well versus 175 on the
Prescott side. Wait, did you get that? Understood. So, we have two that are respectively 113 and 121 proposed 125 is required for both. Correct. Correct. Okay. So, that's two out of eight or two out of 10. Correct. Okay. And as we go,
I'm sure. Yes. Well, do you want to go through the other? I think we probably need it for Okay. I hate to make No, no, no. The minimum is 126 in the corner. Yeah, I don't have these measured off
the rest of them. That varies from 126 at the corner up to basically 174. There's two at 174. Those are that's all where 175 correct Mr. Chair. Yes. Can I
ask slow this down just a few of us are lost. Okay. Right. So, where we're at right now is we're putting in looks like 10 anchor poles that are outside of the required setback, one camera pole that's
outside of the required, but an anchor is an antenna. No, I understand. It's that simple. I mean, that's we're talking about like 11 poles that don't fit. No, we're not putting in a pole. The camera is on a new pole. the the setback for the
anchors is on top of it's either mounted directly to a 30- foot pole or it already exists or we're treating it like it's new structure because the zoning was specifically that that was essentially a
net post. We want to be conservative because we're saying conservative that someone could say that it's another use because there's now a an antenna on a post that exists. It's essentially exacerbating an existing non-performing
condition. So like if think about it like this a house could you speak into the mic so we can hear you please? For example, if you have a singlestory home and it's required to have a 10-ft setback and it has a five foot setback. If you put a second story on same footprint, you need another variance to
permit that setback because now you're putting more building mass within the required setback. Does that make sense? Extreme, but yes. Okay. Well, that's that's the anchor sounds a lot smaller, right? Nevertheless, they're being conservative and requesting anyway. But you understand the principle, but but
that's true. That's the technical requirement. That's why we're asking for them. But of all the setbacks, there's only one new pole in the setback and that's the camera pole which is 171 ft
away from pre from the setback when we're at 175 is required. Setback. I just it was getting confusing when we started talking about it sounded like you were putting 10 new poles and they were right too close to the railroad track. So, yes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. uh uh well whether and how many of those you see well on certainly on that to the south of this the picture I don't know which drawing south is uh um the antenna
are all below the height of th that that whole end have the nets right correct the nets are along the entire perimeter um so everywhere so along that side the only thing that would extend above the existing nets is the two camera poles or
the two cameras at that end. One, yeah, two camera poles at the end of fields. Well, actually the the four fields, right, would be higher than the at 46 ft. The cameras would be higher than the nets. Correct. Okay. But the antenna poles would all be actually below you
would be below the height of the existing nets. Correct. Okay. I got a clarification. the the the nets are 30 feet above the height of the fence below it. The total height is 30. Total height is 30. So it would be 20 ft
above the fence, the top of the fence. And below Prescott is the golf course, correct? I mean below on your south of Prescott is is the golf course. Correct. So yeah, South. Okay. Thank Thank you for clarifying that. Okay.
That's yeah, that's what I had, Nick. Unless there's more questions or Yeah, I this relates back to something that I think you said early on and it's not about cameras or nets or or anchors. You said field seven, you were not putting
any um any cameras or or whatnot. Did I hear that right? Field 7A. Field 7, which is the half field north of field seven. Okay. So I because I was looking at field seven. Yeah. Okay. 7 A. Yes.
Thank you. Mr. Can I ask? Yes. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify as it is confusing. Um so all the camera poles are new, right? They're not going on. Those are all new. 25 new poles. Camera poles that
are 30 whatever number of feet high. 46. 46 feet high. Okay. Now, the anchor poles, are those, we should interpret those like antennas. Is that what anchor poles are? Or it's a regular pole almost like you would put a street light on.
It's um 4 inch diameter. Goes up 16 ft. Uh but there'll be a little box. Let me get the the box is the antenna. Got it. Okay. So, there's pole just a regular thing by 9 in. um 36 new anchor poles
and then 46 additional boxes on existing poles. Is that correct? Existing poles, buildings. Right. Right. Right. Whatever you wherever you can put them. Correct. Okay. So, the total of these little boxes which are a lot. Yeah. Sure. But more than half of them, like you said,
46 of them are on existing structures. Yes. And then there there's a a creation of 36 16 ft poles for putting the boxes on. Yes. In areas where you don't have structure to do that on. Yes. Okay.
Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. I have a question. I'm curious about why you didn't include this in an earlier portion of your application. why you didn't come to us with this originally or in the second round. We had a placeholder in the original application.
Um but at the time the I'll say there wasn't a recommendation from the global soccer unit in terms of what direction we were moving. So if you I mean if you did go back and look at the original application, there were various locations with poles and infrastructure
identified as as camera poles. Um it's just the the details weren't there to to get it to the point where it was it was ready to seek final approval. But Go ahead. Yeah. And I I'll say one more thing about that because I was talking I was talking directly to Jim Slate about
this and and so we were trying to make this system as efficient as possible. um if if there were a um higher polls initially, but the system had not been
um finally analyzed. So, we didn't want to present some and Jim didn't want us to present something that wasn't fully baked and had higher polls than we needed um until we had it uh until we had it down. And it wasn't until recently after a lot of hard work with
from with from Rich and John Amarosa behind me with his uh Austrian counterparts that they really were able to get the specifics and specifications of the system. But that work helped because it brought down the height of some of those polls considerably. Okay,
that sounds good. Yeah. Um, I I wondered whether it had to do with choosing between alternative technologies and different kinds of systems, different vendors, and how how permanent this particular solution may be. I mean, in three years, are you going to want
something different? It seems possible. I I I'm not using that as an argument to say we should not approve what you're proposing here. I'm asking the question because I'm curious. There's a fair amount of infrastructure here. Um so
I you want to yeah sure you're you're actually I'm sworn in. Sworn in. Yeah. So um ultimately yes technology does go forward and the main reason why we didn't have something previously is that our global group had not settled on what
they wanted to roll out worldwide. They have settled on that now. They've made arrangements or made deals with certain companies uh one for the camera system and one for the antenna system, the anchor system. Those technologies really won't change. The the method of
collection will not change. The software and everything else that goes along with it probably will. But the the methodology of gathering the data is not going to change. that that'll be I mean there's uh you know it started out just you know
when when I played high school football they had one camera on top of the press box recording the game. Well they realized that wasn't enough. So then you start adding more. So that's really where where this came down to and as Nick indicated we had a lot of back and forth with our sporting group and
headquarters to rightsize this. um they they were really I I won't say going overboard but you know they wanted more data more data so more more antennas more higher cameras uh locations and we we got it down to to what we were you
know very comfortable with and know that it'll give us the information that they're looking for okay very good thank you I'm sorry sir John Rosa right John Amarosa M osa business address please uh
1207 Reading Avenue, Kate May, New Jersey 08204. Thank you, sir. Mr. A couple other questions. I don't know if you're done with your testimony. Um, yes, we cut you off. Okay. So, so I'm I'm concerned a little bit about privacy. So, there's a whole bunch of
people that live in the area, right? And there's cameras all over the place and somebody's out cooking and maybe has too many cocktails. I don't know. But point is where how can I be assured that the neighbors will be won't be losing their privacy? Yes.
And second second is a followup question. You had said that the um cameras were all hardwired. So I'm assuming there's no fre radio frequency. So somebody's not going to be able to steal these biometrics. Okay. So that's to protect the players. The the
biometrics is is is uh transmitted but it's encrypted. So it's all encrypted data. and nothing that uh um from the you know they wear a monitoring device on on their body that basically is simply uh tracking heart rate, respiration
rate, body temperature, movement, uh acceleration, total distance traveled, how many time you know all of that as well as positioning but all of that is sent over encrypted uh so there's like two questions number one is I'm concerned about the cameras spying on me
but I'm also concerned about radio frequency I don't EMFs, all that stuff. I don't know if it's true, but we hear about it all the time. It it works off of the GPS system that's in your phone. So, it's no different than than what you have uh um you know, carrying around in your pocket. And how do you protect the privacy? The privacy with the cameras
with as Rich mentioned that, you know, because these are all digital cameras and it's all software generated video, uh the cameras can be digitally altered to black out anything that's outside the field of play. Matter of fact, they do that quite a bit because you know you're
when a camera a digital camera is recording data everything in that view like right now anything that's behind us is being recorded as well. So that's just extra bits of data that are extraneous and don't are not necessary. So they try to cut it down to just to cover the field of play. Who's they? the
the video analytics people that that set up the system and that's what we So there's there's there's actual you're actually are filming the neighbor next door but somebody is then digitally going in there and cutting it out. No, the camera is digitally. So if if you have a do you have a Ring camera at all?
I I have zero technology. I know how to use my phone. It works very similar to a Ring camera. You can pick out a section of the background and delete it. It won't ahead of time. It won't record it. it won't record it. You could permanently set it so that it won't
record that information. And that's what they would do. And it it would actually be blacked out on on the when they play it back. That's what we would do. That's what we would do. I keep saying they, but that I mean that's that's what we would certify. We would certify that. Okay. So, I don't want to go down to the dark web, but like So, is there anybody
that checks to make sure what you say you're doing you're doing? Like, is it a government thing? Is it a planning? Like, who's checking to make sure you really do black it out? You can check. You can check. But we we don't want it because any extraneous data is bad for us. So well
it it just it takes a I'm sure space is money space is money. Yeah. I just I wanted to make people feel comfortable that they're not going to be so so so two two things to to to notice as Rich indicated the cameras are panoramic cameras or PTZs and they can they the
panoramic cameras will just view the field. So there's unlikely that and even beyond the field if they're viewing beyond the field that's the area that they would black out from recording. So it won't even record anything in there. It'll only record what's on the field. The same thing with the PTZs. PTZs will
be altered so that they can't move other than the field of view of the field and they can't turn around and look at the audience. They can only look at this field of view. They could be they will be digitally locked. So they can do that. And the second part is that the
video feeds and the other data is only available to the video analytics team. There's not anybody else that can get into it. It's all very proprietary, very it's on a completely separate system from any other networks that were in the building. It's not even on the security
network. So security guards can't even uh you know look at it or anything like that. It's just solely for the the video analytics team. Thank you. Any other questions? Any questions from the
comments from the profession board professionals? Liz? No. No. No. Okay. Any questions of this witness, these witnesses from the public? Okay. Please step up. Name and address. Good evening. Lee Goldberg, 10 Arrowhead
Road. Um, just curious, what is the the average weight of one of the cameras? Like 10 pounds, four pounds, a pound? I I would say somewhere between 5 and 10 pounds. 5 and 10 pounds. And is there
any concern at all given the height going up there? And they're they're I guess rated once they're on the polls for I mean that area does get very windy. Is there any concern with any wind or what they're rated for in terms of staying up, especially if they're affixed to an already existing pole? The
poles, the brackets are going to be designed for I think it's 110 mph um wind plus gusts that go with 100 that's per the building code. Okay, great. Thanks for in in addition, the the cameras do have a security lanyard to
back to the pole so that something happens with the bracket, the camera won't fall. It won't still stay attached to the pole. Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Um I have a couple a question um along Prescott Road. I don't know if you can zoom in on on that part of the uh the drawing.
Yes. So those green circles there along Prescott in between the green. Yeah. If you could just go down a little to the green circles, I think. Yeah. So, right in there. So, the the black circles in between the
yellow circles are those those are the existing poles for the netting or is that it? It could be. It's a line style. It's not that the square is that just it's a style that there is a fence and net there. So, it's not Okay. So, right. So there is existing there's
there's currently netting poles that are in place. Where are they represented on this drawing? Are those the green yellow? They're not. They're not. Well, the individual poles are not, but the line represents where the line of the fence is and the line of poles. And so
the yellow the individual poles are not showing up. The individual poles are not showing. The yellow circles are intended to be those are anchors that will be installed either on an existing net post or on an extension to an existing fence
post. So the existing posts that are there now may have an extension put on them. Yes. And that's what the Okay. So, and the way those are so once those are those two units are joined together or married together in some way from an engineering
construction perspective, they're rated for 110 mph winds. Correct. The net the net posts were designed for 110. The uh the fence was designed for 110. Uh drawings calcs were provided to the building department for those that construction. Yes. Okay. Thank you. And
then I mean my my only concern is the long press got there because the um is there any with the the space and the distance if one of those poles were to go over once you put the extensions on them with the cameras is there any chance they could fall into Prescott Road where you do have a lot of traffic
there is are they so far back off of Prescott that even if they were to topple it wouldn't sort of go on to Prescott or they're pretty far set back and I I would say they'd have to hypothetically if something happened it would have to go through the net, then go through a line of landscaping, then
cover another I'm going to say 50 plus feet. Okay. Um, in the case of field one and two, Prescott is But just if they fell over, it would just fall over, but they're not going to reach the the road. No. Okay. Yeah. Thank you for clarifying that. Um, and then the last question is,
have you designed any um I think Mr. Alessa was concerned about the neighbors privacy. Um, I'm concerned just a little bit about what the the neighbors viewscape might be or their viewshed might change. Do you have any renderings or drawings with all of these additional polls on what folks that live there,
especially on the top behind Stockton, what their view their viewshed or how their view might actually change in terms of the numerous additional poles or I don't think we see a change to the viewshed um just because again it's 46 foot poles
and the building is 50. Um, I'm certain if you walked along Stockton long enough and you you tried to find a certain angle and you you looked hard enough between the the burm the trees, you could probably see it. But at the end of the day, it's you're going to have to
want to go find them to go see them. But but from the from the home, you don't believe that unless you're really like going up to the burm and trying to look for them, you're going to see them. Is that your testimony? That is
building blocks of view, right? The building blocks of view. And then from the opposite side of the tract up by where the Conro is, there's a I think four acres of a flat field that's been sort of given to the township for future use. Would that viewshed change at all in terms of number of poles or anything
that you might see? You're talking near the train tracks, correct? There's a big wide open expand. I mean, you can you can see the 80 foot poles there now. I mean, so I mean that that's certainly a view change to to residents. I'm just wondering, you'd have to you'd have to really look for it because again, you'd
have to see through that line of trees and keeping in mind that those athletic poles are at 80 and 90 ft. These are at 46. So I know the viewshed you're talking about, but you're going to you're going to have to see through that tree line uh to get these. And keep in mind the top of these the 46T poles,
we're saying 8 in, but a round tapered option is five inches at top. So, you're going to have to really have excellent vision, binoculars or and or look just trying to get a sense of the scale of it. That's all. Okay. Thank you
for answering. Appreciate it. Any other questions from the public on this for this witness, these witnesses? Okay. We have we have nothing further. Nothing. Okay. Nothing further unless the board has any questions.
Any other questions? I'd like to make a motion we approve the application as presented. Oops. Mr. Public comments. Oh, that's right. We have that was public questions. Now we have to have public comment. All right. Any comments on this application from the public? Thank you, Chris.
Uh hearing none, we'll close public comment section s session. So I'll remake the motion that we approve this application as uh presented this evening. I'll second. Would would you guys like me to summarize what's Yes, please summarize. Just so we everyone
knows uh the applicant here is seeking amended uh preliminary and final major site plan approval. U several variances uh one for the uh we're treating this as an accessory structure. Well, I guess some sort of All right. For the setback for
the camera pole, um they're proposing 171 feet where 175 ft is required. Um two of the antenna poles would be positioned respectively 113 and 121 ft from the sideyard setback line where 125
ft is required. And then eight poles, also antenna poles, would be positioned ranging from 126 to 174 feet where 175 ft is required. As far as conditions go, I don't think I saw anything in the TCC report that would really apply here
because they provided that exhibit. Um the environmental commission did I'd have this on my desk. Uh we got a memo from them today. Um they offered no recommendations. Um, as far as things that were offered or stipulated to during the hearing, the only thing I captured was the condition, this was
offered by the applicant, that the uh cameras would only, let me just go back to it. They would pixelate any uh non-playfield activity. And I guess I don't know who else would review that, but I would suppose the uh the board or the township engineering department, I
guess, prior to final a final CO. Yeah, we're gonna be looking for that in a resolution that someone has the right to validate what they're testing to. Right. Joe, do you feel comfortable looking at those cameras? We'll look at that through a zoning function of the zoning officer in my department of engineering.
Okay. Right. And uh I think that's it. Unless I'm leaving something out, please remind me. Well, I think that captured everything. Sounds right. So, you okay? So go ahead with your motion still stands as my
motion and the second. Okay. Did you call the role then? Mr. Allesa. Yes. Yes. Mr. Flowers. Yes. Mr. Rabbit. Yes. Murphy. Yes.
Yes. Mr. Quillin. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. We're going to miss you, Nick. With all that great data, we're expecting the Red Bulls to really be
extremely successful. When can I say nothing for I'm not May I take a few second break? Yes. Yes. Please take a break here for a few minutes. That's okay.
Back on. So, yes. I guess let's call the role just for uh make sure since we're back here here. Flowers here. Mr. Rabbit still here.
I'm here too. Mr. I'm here. Mr. Here Mr. here. Mr. Le here. And I Okay, then moving on to the uh second public hearing tonight.
PBO425. Sonia, would you introduce that for us? Kevin, this is PBO4-25 Spring Brook Country Club for a site plan with variance. This is block 5801 and 582, lots and Spring Brooks in
the OSBU zone. applicant proposed the construction house addition and improvement to the existing patio terrace with other related improvements. And Mr. Chairman, before I throw it over to applicants council, I'll just mention for the record, I did have an opportunity to review the notice of
tonight's hearing found it to be sufficient in terms of both its content and timeliness of service. It was sent by certified mail to owners of property within 200 feet of the subject property between April 11th and April 21st and also published in the daily record on April 11th, both more than 10 days in advance of tonight's hearing. to the board's jurisdiction to hear and decide
the case in my humble legal opinion. So throw it over to Mr. Cali. Let him get no such thing as a humble legal. Yeah, I guess not. Hey, Mr. Chairman, members, nice to see everybody. Larry Cali on behalf of the applicant Spring Brook Country Club. Appreciate being here tonight. Um Mr.
Chairman, as always, we would like to briefly frame what we hope to do here this evening, what brings us to the board for this site plan review. I'll introduce you to our witness deck and what you're going to hear this evening. We think we'll be relatively straightforward with our application. There's not all that many moving parts of this project. This board knows this site very well. We've been here on
numerous prior site plan applications before the board. Most recently, about a little over two years ago, we were here before this board for an approval for improvements. And thematically with the club, um there's betterment opportunities. The club is able to improve the site for its current
membership. Uh and the applicant, you know, often finds their way to this board for a site plan review as we do tonight. Um, for the record briefly, Mr. Chairman and members, the site is the um, multiple lots of the country club, which is about 163 acres, give or take,
sitewide. We're in the OSGU zone. And the improvements tonight are not changing anything about the use of the site. The site's a country club today. It's going to be that tomorrow. The site membership is not changing. Uh, we are not growing. We are just giving more accommodations and amenities to our
existing membership. And those include a few things. Um, it includes a nominal expansion to the clubhouse. Our project architect will walk you through that after with the elevations and the floor plan loop of that expansion of the clubhouse. We are improving beyond the clubhouse as well.
Patio areas, deck areas. Very nice appointments just beyond the club areas for the existing members to have options and alternatives to go into different areas of the facility. pretty much in the center of the site for the most part where this all this development is happening for those patio and terrace
areas for the members of the club. Uh it brings us here for a few reasons. One is it triggers preliminary and final major site plan review. There's a couple of nuance bulk variances that go along with it. Most notably, it relates to parking. Every time we're here for this club or Morris County golf, whatever country club, we always have parking
requirements because the sites are large. Uh the parking fields are normally relatively limited because we don't want to park more than we need to, but the clubouses and the other structures trigger the demand for parking and our delta ends up being big. What we have versus what we need under the code here. There's no change in
parking being proposed. Now there's no new members as I explained. However, the expansion of the clubhouse uh brings with it an increased delta of the parking demand. So our off streetet parking requirement has always been out of whack with this property numerically code versus what we have. And that's going to be the same tomorrow if this
were approved by the board. Uh parking stall size, retaining wall height, some limited relief, all within the confines of the existing country club property with no change in use proposed, but it brings with it some bulk relief. So tonight, Mr. Chair and members, you're going to hear from three different folks, three different experts. Our
first will be Mr. Byra. He's a civil engineer from Bowler Engineering. Bowler's the scrier of record of the site plans that everyone on the board has on file tonight. We'll introduce two exhibits. uh perhaps um more throughout the balance of the testimony, but Mr. Bart will introduce a few exhibits to sort of zone in on the areas of
improvement so we can illustrate a little better for the board besides the black and white copies what we're going to do here by way of this improvement. We've got our project architect with us. We've got limited improvements at the clubhouse, but Mr. Buckley's office was key to a lot of this development and the vision of this development. So, our
second witness will be our project architect, Mr. Buckley. And then although I class the variances as limited in nuance, they're variances nonetheless. This board needs to hear variance testimony. We think so. Paul Ricky the project planner will be here to testify as to the variances. Paul was
with us during the prior application as well. And we had some limited bulk relief for the tennis huts during the 2023 application. So very familiar with the project and the property as well. We hope to be relatively expeditious, Mr. Chairman, tonight. We'll answer all the questions you folks may have and your staff. Uh, but that's essentially what
we're going to do tonight. And if I could add one thing, we all miss Jim and Dave, but Mr. Bch is fantastic. You know, they say water seeks its own level. It's an engineer. So, you found a great board and a great board found you. So, it's very good to see you in that chair as much as we miss
Jim and Dave. And I realize you don't get to vote tonight. So, it's Yeah. Okay. Well, uh, do you want to swear the witnesses all all in at this time and our professionals? Sure. We'll have three. Then we'll qualify them as we go, Mr. Chair. Yes. See, and then we
Yeah, it's right. Sounds good. Okay. So, yeah, we're getting all you guys and uh Liz and Joe. Oh, sorry. I couldn't see your arm. If all five of you swear, affirm the testimony you're about to provide me the truth. The whole truth. Tell me about the truth. So, hope you got great.
Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, our first witness, Mr. Chairman, members, will be Robert Byra. He is the civil engineer of record from Bowler Engineering. Um Bob if you would uh well we for the benefit of the board uh just put your name on the record state your last name and provide an address please. Certainly
Robert Bra B is in boy y a from Bulward Engineering address 30 Garver Square Ridgewood New Jersey. Uh for the benefit of the board your background and credentials in the field of civil engineering. Certainly I have a bachelor's of science and a masterers of science in civil engineering from NJIT.
Um, I've been licensed as a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey since 2009 and this is the first opportunity I have had before your board and my license is is in good standing. You have testified for other land use boards. Yes, I have not about 30 or so
more land use boards throughout the state. Okay. I Yeah, I'll accept the qualifications. Please proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Bob, you heard my profit to the board as to what brings us here for this enhancement to the club property tonight. if you would walk the board through the areas that we're improving, what we have there today,
what we propose to be developed there tomorrow, and then we can start discussing the limited relief that we've got along the way. Certainly, and if you're going to go to an exhibit, we we'll mark it as you get there. I think you might be right. It's like the annoying. Okay.
If you could just so certainly we'll mark this as as A1. It's the first of I think what might be two exhibits from Mr. Byer's deck. Um this the co site plan March 19, 2025. So the first exhibit A1 is an aerial exhibit that's
dated that's dated April 30th, 2025. It's not in the back. And just referring the board to the left side of the screen, this is an aerial exhibit of the property in question. The yellow outline is the uh limits of the country club. If
we zoom in to the center of the property, you will see a red square. This is identifying the subject area of the proposed improvements on lot one. Um the proposed improvements are approximately 450 ft away from the
closest property owner. To the right side of the figure is an enlargement of the same aerial exhibit. This time focusing in on the existing uh clubhouse area. The red outline that's shown on the right hand
side of the screen is the approximate limits of the improvement. Uh in the center of the screen is the existing clubhouse area. The area to the left or to the west of the clubhouse is a sloped um existing uh grass area that has a
grade of about 25%. And further down on the left hand side is an existing um cartway uh asphalt cart. I will now refer to exhibit A2. Exhibit A2 is the same landscape and
site plans that are part of the planning board application document. However, it has been rendered with coloring just to amplify the illustration of the application. In addition, in the background, you will see the aerial exhibit shown on the prior exhibit is
also shown just for full illustrative purposes. Just to be clear, exhibit A2 is titled site plan with a revision date of March 19th, 2025. In the light gray area towards the center of the screen, you will see the
outline of the existing clubhouse area. To the top left or to the northwest corner, you will see a dark screened area. This is the approximate 1300 square foot addition that is um being constructed as part of the of the
improvements. To the bottom left of that area, you will see a lighter screened area. This is a uh elevated terrace or an upper terrace. Um the architect will discuss further detail about this terrace area. however, will be covered
and will have a finish of um porcelain tile. And then to the left of the addition and the upper terrace is a lower terrace. This is shown in the lighter um say beige color. This upper or excuse me, this
lower terrace is um held back from the existing grade by a proposed retaining wall. This starts along the norly portion of the building and in a counterclockwise direction uh traverses around where the proposed limits are.
This retaining wall varies in height um starting at 3 feet on the northerly northerly portion of the addition. Um has a maximum height of about 8.9 feet at the center of um the wall and then tapering back down between 3 to five
feet along the subway part. You'll notice here on the exhibit you see three bulging areas. Uh these are fireplaces that are going to be constructed on the lower terrace that are going to be facing inward to the clubhouse
area. Directly down hill or down gradient of the retaining wall. You will see an illustration of uh various shrubbery and trees that are going to be planted as part of the improvements. Um, two trees will be removed from the property and based on the ordinance only
one replacement tree is required. However, the applicant is going to be constructing and installing eight trees altogether. In addition, there's a variety of about 170 different types of shrubs that are going to be planted throughout. In addition to the um to the
addition, there's going to be some minor uh driveway improvements on the south side of the property. The applicant is proposing to widen the existing 15 foot wide driveway to about 20 feet wide. The purpose of that is just to improve the
truck turning maneuvers and efficiency of dropping materials off to the lower level of the clubhouse. And just going back to um where the landscape and the wall area is, we will be proposing, excuse me, two
three- foot high boulder style walls that I'm circling on the uh exhibit. They're shown in brown. Uh these are to mimic the existing boulder style walls that are along the existing cartwway path. And the remainder of the area that's shown in light green, this will
be the restoration of the grass area that gets disturbed as part of construction. It'll be restored in kind to be um to be grass. As Mr. Calli stated at the onset, we are requesting uh three variances as part of the application. Uh just again
to go on record um there are 627 parking spaces required by ordinance where we are proposing to maintain the existing 264 spaces. We are requesting relief in the bar or in the ordinance where a maximum
of a 4ft high retaining wall is permitted. However, at the highest point along midline of the clubhouse, we are proposing 8.9 ft. And um as part of the uh project, we
are disturbing approximately 7,200 square ft of some of the steep area um on this hillside, which is necessary for the purposes of construction. Um however, we are um disturbing it. So we are requesting some relief for that
temporary disturbance. However, that disturbance will be restored um and stable uh at the completion of construction. As part of all these improvements with um we will be removing portions of the existing patio that's
there. And with the addition of the addition, the terrace improvements and sidewalk widening, there will be an increase of about 7,400 square ft of imperous area. That will be managed by the uh construction of a new um 10 foot
wide, excuse me, 10 foot diameter drywall in the southwest corner of the existing building. then of circling uh and surrounded by uh the the proposed trees that are there. This will manage a majority of the runoff coming from the
imperous area. And as stated before, because the clubhouse sits higher in elevation and runs down gradient towards the cart path, it continues down gradient even further to an existing pond on site. So any storm water that's not captured within the drywall system
will run directly into the pond. And because of where this uh these improvements are situated in the middle of the property, as I stated, 450 ft away, any type of additional runoff is going to be dimminimous and will not have any direct impact to any of the
neighbors. And that's the conclusion of my direct testimony. I welcome any questions. Thank you. Questions? No, I just want to say thank you for that presentation because I was having difficulty conceptualizing the project just from the plan. So that was very
helpful. Um, one question, how high is the uh the existing boulder retaining wall that's right in front that's essentially being replaced that would holds up now what would be the lower, you know, which will be the lower terrace, but it it sits anywhere between
3 to 5t high. Oh, okay. because it looks higher than that. Uh when you stand down below and look up, the difference between the base of the wall and above looks higher than than the three fairly above five feet. So everything but am I correct? You know,
yeah, I had a little difficulty just looking at the plans, but you like me to zoom in? No, no. I just just as as general it appears to me that well there's the slight clubhouse extension that actually is enlarging that there which is now which is going out to what
is now a terrace area. Right. That's correct. And then the the terrace adjacent to that is right now where there's what kind of an awning over the lower terrace that's being a permanent structure to cover and being a structural so you can actually access
that which now it's just kind of an awning and the lower terrace is kind of basically the area that is now above that boulder wall the very low grade kind or you know slight slope um between
there and that rock wall and it's expended north and extended north and south. But that's kind of you've Yes, that's you've made a permanent roof over the over what's now a terrace and that terrace has just expanded out forward a little bit into what is now a planted area and relatively flattered area above
the existing container. Is that correct in my my interpretation of the drawings? Yes, thank you. Yes, the site panel agree that um you know there was a lot to look at in that
uh that engineering a site plan. Um but is part of this also inclusive of new or improved walkways or stairways or is that just a misinterpretation that I have looking at? You are you are correct
and I did breeze over that along the Norway portion of the property and I will zoom in just for the benefit of the board. You can see that there's a combination of ex existing and new stairways because of the transition in the elevations.
Um this is a ramp to provide ADA access to the uh to the lower um patio area. As I continue uh again in a southerntherly direction, you'll see another set of stairs transitioning up to the upper
terrace area from the lower terrace area. Another set of architectural style um stairs uh leading again from the lower to the upper. And then there's a grand stairway uh leading from the lower
terrace area downward towards the existing driveway area. I I one more question on the uh you mentioned the increasing the impervious surface and the drainage uh you know is some increase and there is an existing dry well and draining system this is an
expansion of that right that's correct I'll zoom in slightly again to the southerntherly portion of the drawings um there is an existing dry well on the sly side of the uh where the proposed driveway improvements are the lighter
white area with the manhole designated as D. Uh this is where the proposed 10 foot diameter drywall will be constructed. There will be an interconnection between the two. So essentially it's acting as a much larger drywall system.
And I guess I would just ask the engineer if the storm water management plan is presented is adequate to cover that. That looks pretty good to me. Yeah. What do I know? You're essentially pending a prior system with additional storage for that contributo. Okay. And
again, as you said, even any overflow, well, it's it anything is always drained down into those ponds and that doesn't change. So, right. Okay. Any other questions? I have a quick question. Yes, Mr. Rabbits. I'm not I'm not sure U. Bob. Yes. if you're the the
right person to address this or it'll come later on. I didn't see anything here with regard to um uh green any kind of green infrastructure uh whether it be additional EV parking
spaces. I think one of your um documents said that there was no you have two uh parking spaces now for uh shared by for one charger. Um, has any thought been given to, you know, you know, going full electric, some possibly solar on the
roof while you're doing all these renovations? I'll split that up because the term green is very broad. Yes. Um, so the dry well system is a form of a green infrastructure under the NJP regulations
for storm water. In regards to the parking area, there are two existing EV parking spaces. My understanding there's four there's there's but there's four there there are four EB ready spaces um
meaning that the conduit is constructed underground and should the country club elect to install additional they can do so um and I cannot comment on anything with the solar okay it's good to know that there's some infrastructure for
additional EV charging stations the country is is is moving quickly toward that tipping point where um people are really are concerned about their their carbon footprint. So, this is it's it's good to know that you'll have that ready uh when you deem it necessary. As for
solar, I guess is is anybody I'm going to listen to tonight gonna be able to address as long as you're changing the structure to adding any kind of solar architect can can give you his thoughts, but but it's not part of the programming for this project, but our architect can can certainly speak to it conceptually,
maybe perspectively moving forward, but but it wasn't part of this current proposal, any type of solar uh implementation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions, comments? Yes, sir. Just a couple kind of picking up on the EV
thing. I think it was the environmental commission said you guys might need somebody mentioned that you might need a variance for the lack of any EV charging stations. I don't know if that's for uh for Mr. Byer to weigh in on or Mr. Reachi. Um also there was another variance Mr. Cali mentioned at the beginning I didn't hear. Um regarding
the parking stall dimensions. I just want to understand what relief is necessary. Yeah. So parking still dimensions. I think the township probably still has the 10 by 20 requirement and we've got existing on-site like most most properties do in a township 9 by 18 existing. That's that's a no change situation. So there
is relief for that. Right. Understood. It's the same. The codes are changed. Yeah. I thought we changed I know it was talked about for years. Yeah. No, we changed it. Everybody needed it. Right. Right. I remember. Yeah.
I still notice for it just anyway. It reminds me of the good old days. Yeah. And there's Yeah. And there's no change in any parking on this one. And then this application, right? The only change that Okay. It's just give you a little better radius for that turn on
the going up to the surface area there. I guess is that change is the only little widening I guess. Yeah. The on item one of um the document received March 2616 does say a variance to permit
193 off streetet parking stalls whereas 305 are required. So are you asking for a new variance for parking? We we do those are not exactly the numbers um but we are because the the delta is increasing now because of the expansion
of the clubhouse technically. So our requirement is going up. There's a zero there's a net change of zero as far as what we're proposing on site. What's there today is the same number that's going to be there tomorrow. Okay. But the requirement technically increases because of the volume of square footage of the space. Yes. So so we technically
need a variance for off street park. So you're not expecting to increase your membership? We are not to you know to dominate it. Okay. Yeah. Every club has their charter. They've got their their caps of maximums of what can be, you know, allowed by way of membership that there is no um growth anticipated nor is that
the goal of this project. This is for existing membership. Don't anticipate any more vehicles. Okay. We do not No, not not through this project. Anything clarify on our council's comment regarding the electric vehicles that environmental commission site
review referenced um for electric vehicle parking. There's no reference to whether EV parking is included, but because a variance is needed for the parking, they were recommending compliance with the township's parking EV parking ordinance. So, as we track
through that, right, EV is triggered by an addition of 25 or more, that's your threshold. So, everything under 25 or more new at the time of application is exempt from adding additional EV parking requirements. So when you look at EV
parking, you wouldn't look at your total parking count and then assess it against the grid of of the EV structure in the ordinance. Um so we are in a condition of an exempt application under EV standards. Oh okay. Um and as they noted
right the increase of the delta on total parking because of the additional square footage in the building is creating the variance discussion but it's all for existing parking. Yes. Thank you. There was no direct recommendation for additional e
and then just to close the loop. We don't need the park with salt dimension. Correct. Right. Okay. That ordinance was changed a while ago. Okay. Just trying to keep score here. Finally. Um this one's a little bit easier. The uh disturbance of of the slopes 25% or greater. I think that's a design waiver
as opposed to right. Okay. Just want to just make sure you have and th those would be man-made slopes right from original construction. They're not existing native. Um yes, they are man-made in the existing condition. Yeah, that's all I
have. Anything else? Any questions of from the public of this witness? Yes, please. Yep. Yeah. Well, no. Either one. Hi, Wansky. I'm at 17 Exit Lane. Um, I
live off the 17th hole. Uh, currently our property backs up against runoff from the 17th hole. We're about 15 feet from the from the runoff. the the slope of the runoff has been is has increased to about six feet now. I'm losing my backyard, so I'm wondering if there's
any consideration for that as part of this program. I just want to make sure I I understand you're somewhere in this vicinity here on exit. I'm at the at the end of exit. Yeah. Okay. I believe this property is more
than uh I believe it in fact I I believe it's more than uh 2,000 feet away from where the proposed improvements are. So my professional opinion that um what is being uh done here is not going to have
any detrimental impact of any type of additional storm water runoff uh from the property and is not going to create or exasperate any other existing condition that's on exit. So that would be an issue to bring up with the township. I guess if you have
an issue with the, you know, effect of their property on yours, it's not subject to this application. Okay. It's clearly out of bounds. Under a different venue. Oh, yeah. Right. It would be, sir, real quick. I'm sorry. Your last name, please. One more time. Paul Shansky. You spell that for me. O L
S H N S K I. Okay. Um, also you did give a little bit of testimony there. you're making some statements. So if just mind I just got to swear again. Do you swear affirm the testimony you provided to me continue to provide and I is the truth was the truth and will continue to be the truth. So I hope you got it. Yes.
Okay. I think we got Thanks. Thank you. Any other questions from the public? Okay. Seeing none want to move on to the Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Byron. Our project architect, Mr. Chairman,
members, we'll bring up now Buckley. Thank you, Ian. You were sworn in. Uh, if you could just for the record, state your name, spell your last name, and provide a business address. Uh, my name is Ian Buckley. Last name is spelled uh B U C K L E Y. Excuse me, we can't
hear. I'm sorry. We got two conversations going on in the back. Yeah. Could you could you step outside or Thank you. Ian, the benefit of your background and credentials, please. Uh I am a licensed
architect in the state of Rhode Island. Uh currently seeking reciprocity in the state of New Jersey right now. Um you testified before. This would be my first time actually. plans prepared by your office under your direction in concert with a licensed architect in the
state of New Jersey and that document was certified and sent to the township that that was in fact the case. Is that right? That is correct. So we're in a limbo right now with Mr. Buckley where he's awaiting reciprocity for his New Jersey license. He is a licensed architect. He prepared the plans. I had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Warner about this about a week ago. Okay. And
Steve said um they prepared by him but someone who's a New Jersey licensed architect. I said absolutely. We submitted a letter in on behalf of the firm um that that was in fact the case. So Mr. Buckley is hopeful to walk the board through the architectural plans tonight that he was involved with designing notwithstanding the fact that
he's awaiting his final license. Sounds reasonable to me. Yeah. Okay. Yes, please go ahead. Thank you. And I'm sorry, real quick. Business address and his firm. I think we got Yeah. name of the firm is JBD JGA Design and Architecture and the address is 700
School Street Unit 2 in Pucket, Rhode Island, uh 02860. Thank you. So, you had an opportunity to hear Bob's direct testimony walking the board around the site uh and you heard some of the questions from the members of the board involved in the design. if you
wouldn't mind please and please use the benefit of of the rendering as you see fit and your plans if you could walk the board through the scope of the improvements to the clubhouse and the associated areas please. Uh yeah, so I'm going to walk you through I think Robert did a really good
job, but I'm just going to walk you through some of the program and then uh maybe comment further on some of the questions that I heard uh during his testimony. And for now, Mr. Chairman, members, these are the filed plans you'll be looking at. So we're not going to mark these. These are the same sets that the boards have has on file
already. Yeah. So, I'll go I'll go somewhat quickly because I do think Robert covered on it pretty uh you know pretty completely. Uh we are doing a small addition to the um to the clubhouse.
That addition is in this area over here. It encompasses a indooroutdoor bar. Um the major part of this addition is really the expansion of the lower terraces. Um I think it was explained uh you know pretty completely earlier. We
are taking away um the temporary awning structure and and putting a you know um you know covered roof a more temporary structure over that and then expanding the terrace out from out from there. Um, on the interior of the
building, we are doing, you know, a fairly substantial renovation to the inside of the structure, including their uh grill room. Uh, this was a lounge. It's it's becoming part of their bar now as well, and then a complete renovation of both their locker rooms,
um, and their kitchen on the lower level, too. Um, as well as the the the restrooms that are associated with each of those locker rooms. Can you stick it to the microphone so we can hear Could you just highlight the actual
addition the the I think I can. Yes. Yeah. So the actual okay addition is that space there and the rest of is basically expansion of what was the terrace and things that were there. Yeah. The rest is an
expansion from the building, but none of it is uh enclosed with exterior walls, so it wouldn't technically be considered an addition. Uh this covered terrace, I think, as as you had mentioned, really is taking the place of the temporary awning structure that is there currently. And then uh this lower
terrace is expanding out from that. Um the edge of which is approximately in line with where their existing uh you know, stone block wall is. I'm sorry, I still didn't quite follow. So where is the addition? It's to the right of the diagram. The upper right is
this rectangle right here. You can see that is the top of the sheet the west direction. That might have to orient everybody. Correct. Yep. The top of the sheet is the west is the uh west side of the building. Okay. What's the approximate size of that? The approximate size of the addition is
about uh 1300 square feet. Okay. Thank you. Uh touch. I'm sorry. That's plus the terrace. The 1300 is just the uh the addition that is enclosed by exterior walls. Correct. Okay. Yep.
Um expanding on some of the questions uh that were brought up. Um we are improving circulation. Um, as Robert had mentioned on the north side of our plans here, uh, we are com, you know, creating a or building a, um,
an ADA ramp, uh, to code to gain access to that lower terrace. Um, we are also expanding the egress, uh, site stairs that they have on the on the south side of the elevation. Uh those sight stairs exist now
currently, but we're widening them to help increase um uh for egress. Uh they also have adjacent to those a exterior metal pan stair that is existing but in I wouldn't say uh uh disrepair but we
are rebuilding that. So it'll be a new new structure. And then up on the main level, the improvements on the main level are are really just following the improvements on the lower level. Um, we are creating we are expanding their
decks up on the main level and those are expanding out uh in the same uh distance as the structure below. Um, So, I'm going to highlight just some areas now. So, that area there, that is a completely new
deck. And then this area as well is an expansion to the deck. Below that is is what they have existing. Again here, this is the metal pan stair that we are rebuilding to make it um a new condition and and help with their
egress off of these decks as well. Um as well as rebuilding this stair on the opposite side of the deck again to uh help with egress off of that that that deck platform. Um I did want to comment on one thing back on the lower level too.
Um drainage was uh talked about and I think one thing that we didn't mention uh we're capturing most of the water in the storm in the storm water u management system that we've designed and we we talked about um whatever is not captured in there would drain down
uh towards the pond. We have designed a slot drain along the entire perimeter of the terrace. Uh so in my in my opinion we'd be catching you know a a good amount of the water that is falling falling on these heart new hardscapes.
Um the other thing that was mentioned was some sustainability measures. Um you know we haven't done we haven't considered uh any heavy-handed measures like uh solar up on the roof. Uh but we have done some simpler uh sol solutions.
We're incorporating low flush plumbing fixtures throughout the building. So that will save on um the overall water consumption by a significant amount over the long term of the of the structure. Uh the club is also going through an energy program to update uh their
mechanical systems to make them more efficient, which again will really, you know, uh help over the long term. Uh they are also upgrading all of their windows and doors throughout the building, even in areas that are not directly affected. um by this project.
Uh the building was built in the 90s and those windows are and doors or I'm sorry um 90s or 80s 90s. The bu the building was built in the 90s. So the windows and doors are from that era. Um you know upgrading the windows and doors will improve the glass, improve the
insulation, improve the UV protection. Um again um making it so that those mechanical systems don't have to work as hard to heat and cool the space. So I I think those are all solutions that uh would fall under the sustainable effort. Uh the last exhibit that I will show you
is just a rendering looking from I'm sorry if you could help me looking from the street. Um this would be northwest viewing southeast. Yeah. So rendering northwest looking southeast. We'll mark this as A3. It's a colored
rendering. What's today's date? Today's date. Yes. Tonight. Yes. This is a rendering really looking at well, it's the rear of the building, but um the if you're on the course, it's the
front of the building and it it encompasses the majority of of the work that we're doing uh especially on the exterior of the building. Um if you can follow my my cursor, you're kind of here seeing the lower terrace uh with its retaining wall. uh some of the the fire
pits that we're we're showing on the exterior wall of that glass railings running along the edge. Uh the upper terrace here with uh wood stained columns, the indoor outdoor bar, the upper deck areas,
uh metal roof over above that. We're also doing some improvements to the exterior, adding some additional trim, and rehabbing uh the uh tutor nature of of the existing building that was there. And with that, I really uh close my testimony and would open it up to
questions. Any questions? I'm just going to say the building looks beautiful. Thank you. That's that's I agree. Yeah, Mr. Cohen. Uh I have a couple of basic questions again about the expansion of the footprint of the building. So the the
um the new lower terrace um extends forward over the um forward over the slope. So that if you go back to the the last slide that you had up, if
the if I look at the columns that support the uh the upper terrace, the do those columns approximately um are they approximately at the extent
of the current lower terrace? Yeah, I would say I would say that cor is correct. If you're familiar with the site, um these lines, this line of columns here are approximately at the edge of the existing retaining wall that they have on site currently. It's been extended north and south a little bit,
right? Yeah. Yeah, I would say that's correct. Yeah. In the center, it's about where that center portion is of the existing terrace. Yeah. And if you take one of the columns at the center and you move toward the ex toward the border, sorry, I'm having trouble expressing
myself. toward toward the um edge of the new lower terrace. How far would that I think that's how wide is the is the new lower terrace. Yeah, I I understand the question. Um so approximately this distance I I think is approximately 12
ft. Okay, I'm trying to um reconcile the idea that the current wall is 5T but the new wall needs to be almost 9 ft. And the slope is 25%. So there's an
increase in the height of the wall of 4T. We we anticip I think we anticipate this this out uh exterior wall the first wall that you're seeing here uh to be around around 8t. Okay. So
3 feet and the slope is 25%. So that sounds about right. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Anything from our professionals? No.
Any questions from the public for this witness? I'm sorry. Could I ask a question just to Yeah. On the environmental commission. One thing. Um, is there any lighting proposed? Oh, thank you. There is some lighting proposed on the exterior of the building. Um, there's no
up lighting. The lighting that is proposed on the exterior of the building uh is sconces on the columns. It would be a warm light. Um not a lot of lumens. Uh really don't see it having um too much of an impact. Uh there's also some
some low um just pin lights low on the retaining wall to illuminate um kind of wash wash the wall downwards. Um there's also lights up underneath the ceilings of the the deck and terraces
area and terrace areas. Again, uh just directing that down onto the dining spaces. Okay. Um there's no, you know, uh large scale uh flood lights or anything of that nature. Would you say all the lighting is going to be dark sky
compliant? I cannot I cannot say that. Um but uh understanding the the nature of of what dark sky uh looks for I I do think these lights would fall into it but they are not classified as that. Would you stipulate to it that it will
be? We would other thing from the environmental commission we wanted to address was the u I guess there were three I should have asked your engineer. I apologize. There were three possibly invasive plant species that were proposed. They just wanted you to swap those out with
non-invasive native species, not that aren't on the do not have plant list. You guys that uh they did already, I believe. Yeah. Yes. So, there was a response letter prepared by our office submitted and and those comments were addressed. My apologies. I didn't
realize. Okay. So, that's already taken care of. Um you guys are providing more than what you need to with the tree replacement. Uh, we got the dark sky, so that's good. Okay. Yeah. To comment on that, we we we'll definitely we can reselect if that's a um Yeah, no issues on that.
Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Okay. Anything else? Okay. You move on to your I guess you have the Oh, questioning. Mr. Chair, I asked for public questioning and there was
none, but commentary. Oh, that's at the end. Thank you. Final witness, chairman and members, our project planner, Mr. Paul Ricky. Uh, good evening everyone. Um, for the record, my name is Paul Ricky,
RICCI. My business address is 177 Mammoth Avenue, Atlantic Highlands, New Jersey. Um, work under Ricky Planning LLC. Um, I'm a licensed professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been licensed since the year 2000. I'm
also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I'm a I'm a planning consultant in I guess six communities, I guess, currently eight possibly based on how you define it. Um, I've testified throughout the state. I've been qualified in in over 250
towns. I' I've testified in front of this board a few times and before the Springbook Country Club on its last project as well. Yeah. Yeah. Please proceed. We'll qualifications. Um I thought the the previous witnesses
did an excellent job of of setting up this application. Um I think it's clear that the proposal is is modest at at best here. Um and associated with that the variances that we are seeking. I'm just reiterating them again for the
record. Um the the parking variance is it it appears to be 627 spaces are required where 264 are existing and that proposed 1300 ft addition is what's exacerbating that
condition. Um to permit it a retaining wall with a maximum height of 8.6 ft. that wall uh does vary where 4T is permitted between the street line and the closest point of the principal building. And I'll provide some
testimony of the setbacks to the nearest roads, but because Spring Brook Road and Mount Kemell Avenue are technically um this is considered the front yard on those roads, that's what's creating that variance. And I believe Miss Laney said
it's a design waiver associated with the steep slope disturbance. Um approximately 0.16 acres or 7,233 square ft in slopes that are 25% or greater are proposed to be disturbed.
And I know that the board engineer commented this and I will reaffirm that these are these aren't virgin lands. These are already disturbed areas that were created as part of the development of the country club. Uh quickly, um the
property is in your OSGU zone. There are no specific lot size, lot depth or setback requirements for the zone. And in the schedule it says that essentially gives the planning board um it says I'll just read it. Because of the wide
diversity and nature of uses permitted in the zone, no specific area, bulk and yard requirements are provided. The planning board in reviewing any site plan for uses proposed in this zone shall use generally accepted planning standards to minimize the impact on
surrounding de development to ensure adequate circulation protection, ecological environmental elements and shall approve only those plans designed to carry out the general intent of this zone. Uh from from my perspective as a planner, I I saw this project as a
general reinvestment into an existing longstanding country club in town and one that would not result in a dramatic alteration to the character of the area. Uh as a result of it, I saw this as the club making a re reinvestment to retain
its its vibrancy. Um regarding the retaining wall, um you heard from Mr. Cali that this site is in excess of of 160 acres. The clubhouse particularly in the area where the retaining wall is proposed is well removed from property
lines. Just quickly in in in Google Earth I estimated the distance. Um, and the proposed walls approximately or at least 750 ft from Springbook Road and approximately 1,250 ft from Mount Kimell
Road. Um, um, and and again, because the OSGU zone has no standards, this is an underlying standard that's in the zone that's been applied here. It it's my opinion as a planner that in this area of the site
that's so well removed from roadways is generally part of a the building envelope and it's you would expect building heights in this area of the site to be uh uh excuse me 35 ft uh or greater. So where that while we are seeking this variance it's appropriately
located the location of this 8.6 6 foot wall. And you saw on the plans and you can see on the partially on the architectural elevations currently shown uh on the screen right now that substantial legis legislation vegetation
is proposed in front of that wall. I I think the site engineers said 170 or so plantings and there's additional perennials and other landscaping as well that will help soften any impact if anyone can really see that wall from that far away from the roadway. So we
believe that despite the variance it results in in sound land use uh planning re regarding the steep slopes again this is a man-made um condition associated with the constru construction of the golf course. Uh for that reason uh it's
my planning opinion that we will not be impacting critical resources which the ordinance was designed to protect um and that the disturbance of these slopes that were man-made associated with this development uh is reasonable in this context. You heard from the site
engineer um that these areas that are being disturbed are designed to limit soil loss, erosion and storm water runoff through the dry well. Uh again, I mentioned the landscaping, so there's no reason to anticipate any negative impact associated with it. The off- streetet
parking is triggered again by that 1300 plus or minus square foot addition. Um you heard previous testimony that membership is not designed to be changed. Uh this is really just an amenity area within the club, the bar, indooroutdoor bar area. So there's I
think the one board member hit the nail on the head. there's no reason to anticipate additional need for parking as a result of this change. So we are respectfully requesting that variance for that reason alone. And again because membership is not being changed as a
result of this there should be no or there will be no substantial negative impact. And then and quickly um your master plan um objectives this advances at least one preservation and enhancement of historic sites and recreational facilities for public
enjoyment which was specifically stated in your master plan. So for these reasons this application u meets uh several purposes of this millennial law. Advancing your master plan promotes the general welfare purpose A. I believe it provides sufficient space for
recreational uses in order to meet New Jersey citizens. That's purpose G. And I also believe this is purpose M would be advanced which results in the efficient use of land accordingly meeting the positive criteria. Regarding the negative criteria, um I believe the
variance can be granted without a substantial detriment to the public good uh in your zone plan. Uh again, these are small, excuse me, small changes uh to a longstanding private country club on an oversized lot. Um just to put it
in perspective, in the zone plan, um in your B11 zone, you have lot widths of industrial properties is is now at 75 ft. In your I21 zone, uh 125 ft uh in the B11, a sideyard setback of of 10
feet and the like. So, significantly more intensive development is anticipated in your zone plan, much closer to residential properties. Um, and again, it's my opinion that the reinvestment in this club facility would benefit the public rather than be a
detriment from it. And for these reasons, I believe this project results in sound landous planning as it's an excellent application for variance relief. Thank you, Paul. Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Alleso. Yeah, I have a
question. I guess it's really not so much for Mr. Riggy, but really maybe for some planning board members that have been here in the past or maybe for our planner. First question is is do you agree with everything Mr. Ricky said about why the variances should be
granted? Well, I think what what is critical actually, which is what he stated, which is we you've had this deficiency of parking for a long time. And so what they're proposing now they're
representing they're not expanding their membership. They're not going to be accommodating more cars. So I think that that actually yes, that's a very good uh rationale for why that parking variance should be granted. So the question I really I guess I'm wrestling with is it
sounds like there's almost 370 space difference between and I understand that this is they've added 1500 ft. It kicks in another three spaces but the question is is we've granted this variance over the years.
Why is there is it is it a is the rule just kind of silly? It's a country club. They're not going to have more than 300 people there. So they don't need more than 300 spaces. Why is there 570? I guess I'm asking that opinion. I don't Linda's been here probably long. I've probably been here longer than
anybody. Um I don't recall ever seeing um significant parking issues. I live very close to Spring Brook and have neighbors who are members. Um but uh I know you have events from time to time, but even with that, you know, we're not
seeing a lot of overflow parking issues. So, and and when the members come, they come, they play, and they may hang around for a while, and then they go. So, there's a lot of there's a lot of turnover with that. What's inherent in the in the calculation that creates it to be so high? It's x number of spaces
per 100 square feet. That's so like the locker room is part of that square feet. Yeah. Everything is part Yeah. So, it's it's it's like a it it it's almost like the calculation doesn't really apply if you think That's what I'm wrestling with. It's like 570
spaces. You've got 286 wide. So, you get the women's and the men's locker room and you know, yada yada yada. That doesn't count into the amount of traffic or parking that you're going to have in and out of that site. Thank you. Just very quickly anecdotally, Mr. Leo, I see
this all the time with one of my medical clients represent national dialysis clinic and most codes don't anticipate that use, right? Most codes have a doctor's office generate this demand or a hospital that demand. Our clinics have like 10 patients that will come in day over day and it's almost like chemotherapy. They can't drive when they leave. They're exhausted, right? So,
they're getting rides home. So, we have 10 to 15 patients in here. We need about 10 or 12 parking spaces between employees and the patients that maybe try to drive. You go to any given town in New Jersey, the local code when you do the math, we need a hundred spaces somehow. And we have to explain we really need maybe a dozen, you know, but
now you need a hundred. Well, we don't. We don't. The code says we do, but that there's a disconnect between the metrics sometimes. I think Mr. Ricky hit it as well when he said, you know, the zone doesn't really contemplate a lot of bulk standards because it's such a varied zone in the OSGU and there are a lot of large properties. So, we fall into that little nuance category here of of no
man's land of a use that generates this requirement, but we don't have it. Well, why don't you have it? We really don't need it. So, there's a disconnect. And that's, you know, you landed on it very well with your your thought. Thank you. Yeah. I'm just in general not a big fan of parking standards, parking minimums.
um except because I think that the businesses and owners have a a pretty good idea what they need to function. Um the problem comes when there is overflow parking and it affects you know the areas around it and that that can be a real issue. Uh that's not really the
case here. I mean there you know they're not overflow parking is on the you know just as Murphy says is it doesn't really happen. know and the the existing neighborhoods and streets are so far away that it isn't an effect. So I have no problems with the fact that this is
carried on and in this case is you know entirely justified. Yeah. I just wanted to get my arms around it. No I no I said when when you hear a 570 and got 260 and somebody will say how'd you vote for us through a line. You know if we needed more parking for our membership
we'd be running in here asking for more parking spaces. We'd be the first one in here saying we need it. Please give us give us the coverage variance. Give us whatever relief we need. So the interests are very much aligned in that respect between the applicant and the township. I think also um this is pretty
there are several country clubs I can think of right off the top of my head have this same situation. There's not a lot of parking because there's limited membership. And again like if there's a wedding or whatever, they work all that out ahead of time. Um but yeah, no pretty much
they're not big parking lots. No, they have enough for Morris County Golf. Right. Exactly. Country clubs, resorts, right? So, you'll see this up if any of you are familiar with up in Hardon, Crystal Springs resorts, right? That's a
scenario where you have some competing interestes of those uses compiling on top of each other. So, we have we have the standards um are closer to being met in need at times. Whereas something like this, when we have programming for the
course, the use of the facility for its members, and then you have an event, that event is being offset by the the membership acknowledging that they're they're giving their course up for the day. They're giving their club up for a certain amount of time. So, it's an
operational need really, and it's controlled. Like you said, any overflow is on site in areas that only affect them, right? I mean it's also sorry just to my two cents also parking standards tend to uh park for the worst case scenario which
is you know like Christmas Eve or something like at a shopping center and it it's usually way more than you need on a regular basis which there are reasons for it but it it it usually doesn't make sense on a dayto-day. Yeah.
Okay. Any other questions? Nope. Any anything else from the board professionals? Any questions from the of the public from the public of this witness? Okay, seeing none. Um, do you kind of
want to summarize where we are here? Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Um, real quick though, any comments or unless you want to you want to sum you have anything else to say? Very brief. I want to thank the board again for your time tonight as always getting us on the agenda. Thank you very much Sonia for that and then the staff review leading up to this. We
very much appreciate it. Um no very simple straightforward applications. Mr. Chair members you asked perfect questions. I know the board understands this project very well. The one thing I will say is if the board were to act favorably on this application you know thematic with the applicant's goal of betterment for this property is they're ready to file for building permits. So
we don't want to be presumptuous and just dump them in the building department without advising this board. But the applicant would like to at least submit for building permits ahead of resolution adoption, realizing they wouldn't issue from the building department until the resolution is in place. But again, we don't want to assume that the board would know that or
think that. So um just another request tonight that the board um um essentially be amendable to our request to do that and the building department will do what they will with the permit documents if and when they're ready if this board acted favorably. But beyond that, Mr. Chair and members, just want to thank you folks again for your time and it's
nice to see everybody tonight. The applicant would be proceeding at its own risk if it were to apply permits prior to resolution adoption in the event there's an appeal of some sort. Right. Absolutely. Okay. I'm just I see it fairly often, Mr. Ch. We've done that a couple times. Yeah.
Okay. Trying to ask for any members of the public have comments? Yes, sir. N okay. Members of the public with comments? Okay. So, as I understand it, this is the relief being sought. The applicant is requesting preliminary and I'm sorry, amended preliminary and final major site
plan approval. Uh, two variances. One for the total number of off- streetet parking stalls. They're required with this addition to provide 627 parking stalls. They're proposing an existing addition of 264. Um, next variance is for retaining wall height. 4T is the maximum permitted. I heard two different numbers
tonight. 8.9 and 8.6. Which one are you guys requesting? 8.9. 8.9. 8.9. Okay, thank you. Gotcha. Proposing 8.9. Uh the one design waiver for the disturbance of slopes 25% or greater. Uh any disturbance of those
slopes is prohibited. They're proposing uh to disturb 5.07% or 7,233 square ft. Uh as far as conditions go, I think everything in the TCC report was satisfied that was uh to provide steep slope disturbance analysis and a tree removal and replacement
analysis. Uh the only other condition I noted would be that any proposed exterior lighting would be dark sky compliant and I oh bear with me one moment. Let me just double check. Oh and the only other caveat
would be that the applicant would be uh permitted to file for permits prior to resolution approval at at its own risk and that's it. Okay. Do I have a I move that we approve the application. Is there a second? Second.
Any comment, discussion for the vote? Could you call a role? Yes. Yes. Mr. Flowers? Yes. Rabbit? Yes. And
good luck. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Ben. Yes, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. You too. Yeah. No, they've got it. We're waiting for it to go off, but it doesn't not just the
carbon monoxide. Oh yeah, the rest of them are hardwired into Okay. I thought like Fritz or something. Okay. I'm going to be here. So, a couple other matters before we
adjourn here. No, no. One is we have the we talked about this in the last meeting with the resolution uh authorizing a uh study as to whether property um is in need of redevelopment. Um I think we have that resolution before us
was pointed out. Uh Chris, you want to bring us up to speed on that? Yeah, absolutely, Mr. Chairman. So, I think you guys are probably familiar with this general process. I know Forest Township has a number of these, you know, redevelopment areas. Um, this is concerning property uh block 1901, lots
and 1.01. I guess the uh the township committee wants you guys to appoint Liz to conduct a study of this particular property to decide whether or not it's an area uh that should be designated as a non condemnation redevelopment area.
Um I would think Liz could probably give you some more specifics on that. I'm not too familiar with the ins and outs of the particular property, but I'm sorry to put you on the spot, Elizabeth, but um now I just mentioned, you know, this is, you know, procedurally speaking, you guys would direct her office to to conduct the study. Then, you know, depending on the results of of the
study, at which point the board would have to pull the public hearing to, you know, make the determination whether or not it should be an area, a non condemnation area in need of redevelopment. I'm pronouncing it the right way. And then tangential committee has to then vote on it as well. So that's kind of the 30,000 foot view of
the process, right? So what's our the projected timeline for this? No, I um I very soon. Yes, I know. That's that's why that's why I wanted to think it's due um sorry a week from this Friday. So
um I mean due I have to get it done. Um so I I believe then it would come to this board, right? And but it has to be noticed because not with the map and um then
uh pres you know assuming that this board or that I my report and and this board agrees and recommends it uh to be an area in need of redevelopment then you make that recommendation to the governing body.
So we are looking for this for to have the report and to vote on it. Uh June the second I believe right the day. Okay. So just remember that.
Okay. Uh so do we have to vote on this or Yes. What you're voting on is authorizing authorizing them to do the study. I thought we already did this, but no, we didn't have the resolution at hand, right? So, we're
just crossing the tees and dotting the eyes. So, can I I'll make a motion for that. Yes, Mr. I'll make a motion that we approve the resolution to authorize our planner to take on this study. Second. That's a resolution. So, I guess that's
a roll call. Mr. Alissa. Yes. Yes. Mr. Flowers. Yes. Mr. Rabbit. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mr. Yes. Yes. Yes.
Anything from the uh legislative committee? No, we're working on some things but not yet not not ready to bring forth. We have to kill you. Oh, okay. Okay. And then the the the the last item on other matters was the board of adjustment uh annual report for 2024
that was in the package. I think you saw that. Um any comments on that? My my only question for them and you I'll ask you Mr. Binois and so is that you know it's a pretty straightforward listing of what was done. Um, you know, sometimes
it would might see recommendations or things you might like to see the planning board address in the master plan or um or you know, uh, you know, push or suggest to the the governing body on changes to the ordinances or
zoning or something. And we did talk about that. Okay. And several times and the board didn't have any such recommendations. I do have one question. Why do you still have a pending application from 2020
singular? Yes, that's still on because they were supposed to submit information and they have not submitted that. Is is this cellular tower or something? Yes. Okay. Okay. So, we'll just note that we did receive we did receive the annual report as as required as required. So, can I
ask a question? Yeah. The So, don't applications get rejected if additional information is Yeah, I would think you would get rid of it off your agenda if they're not responsive. The board would have to uh have to recommend that they be
dismissed. There you have your action. I like that. They would be able to just refile. So, right, they just continuously deem them incomplete. Doesn't the start until they complete. Okay, we could probably do that.
Okay. Uh, I guess I make a motion we just formally I have to ask for public comments. Okay. Okay. Now, Joe, now Joe, would you make a motion we second? All All in favor? Okay.
We're journed.