for November 25th 2024 the legal notice required in accordance with the open public meeting acts has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be executed please join me in the allegiance to the flag of the United
States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation God indivisible liy and justice for all the Santiago roll call please we're going do the office or roll
call do the call First oh we we going to swear in a new member too right so we do that first yeah do that first all right so what do we have so Mr tackenberg Miss Simmons and M polara to be sworn would you just come
up please congregate in that corner over there D all together I hope you guys practice better have it memorized yeah all right so if you would you can raise your right hands please and repeat after me when I get to the part about
M so the uh hope of Allegiance I do solemnly swear I do Solly swear that I will support the Constitution of of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constition of the state of New Jersey and I will bear faith and
allegiance to the same and I will bear faith and aliance to the same and to the governments established in the United States and to the government establish in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people so help me God the official hope
of office I do solemnly swear I do that I will Faithfully I will faithfully impartially impartially and justly perform and justly perform all the duties of the office of the board of adjustment all the duties of the board of adjustment regular mate M according
to the best of my ability [Applause] okay yes Mr chairman Mr Goldberg here Mr tractenberg here Mr Schuster here Mr benoir here Mr here Mr Woodford here miss Simmons here
miss POA Mr Hansen here miss Keller here Mr ol I'm here and Santiago here I miss anybody uh next matter is consideration for approval of the October 28th 2024 um
minutes any comments on the minutes if not I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes motion to approve the minutes have a second second okay all in favor any opposed motion
carries next we have several resolutions the first one being ba-1 14-23 Mr oler thank you Mr chairman this is a memorializing resolution with respect to an application filed by eslock acquisition LLC who apply to the
board uh for preliminary and final major site plan and preliminary major subdivision approval and variance relief and connection with the construction of uh ultimately 13 single family homes with Associated site improvements for property located in the OSG Zone known
as lot one block 5801 commonly known as nine Springbrook Road there was um a D1 VAR two D1 variances and a D5 variants associated with the application and for the reasons that are set forth in the application it
was conditionally granted um there were several conditions in addition to our normal conditions um 37 conditions and all I'm not going to unless you want me to read them all out I think the board had an opportunity to uh to review the
resolution so if there any board comments we can revie that okay board members any comments on uh proposed resolution if not I'll entertain a motion to approve the resolution move we approve thank you do I have a second a
second all right Miss Santiago roll call Mr goldbert yes Mr tractenberg yes Mr Schuster yes Mr benois yes Mr Kramer yes
Mr Woodford yes so move next resolution is ba-1 14-24 Mr oler thank you another memorializing resolution with respect to an application filed by Shannon and Marshall lusso um the applicants appli to the
board for permission to modify an existing non-conforming dwelling by constructing a one-story Edition requiring side yard variance relief combined sidey yard relief and the expansion of the non-conforming structure um properties located at 81
Chimney Ridge Drive and for the reasons set forth in the resolution the application was conditionally granted with our standard conditions and one additional condition indicating that the existing shed May remain in its current location however upon replacement it
shall be relocated to a permitted area or the property owner shall return to the board for an appropriate varant relief okay board members any comments questions about the proposed resolution if not I'll entertain a motion I'm mooving thank you do have a
second second thank you Mr tackenberg Mr Santiago Mr Goldberg yes Mr tractenberg yes M Simmons yes Mr benois yes Mr Kramer yes Mr Woodford yes so move okay
next we're going to move on to our public hearing M Simmons would you please join us up here and we're going to go out of order we're going to take ba-1 15-24 first
okay Miss Santiago yes Mr chairman our next application is ba-15 d24 Italia durang block 3907 lot 7 153 Western
Avenue in the r87 zone for section c applicant proposes to enclose the existing open porch on the rear of the house and construct a second story Edition within existing setbacks the applicant will also seek variance relief for the the expansion of the existing
non-conforming structure and to maintain the existing Garage in its current location thank you and have M SW in yes you're both going to testify I assume right I'm I'm the engineer
okay okay yeah we'll get to that but would you both please stand Raise Your Right hands you solemly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you got and then just one at a time just names for the record
please I'm Nicholas n your last name Colona Colona can you spell that c o l o n n a okay and are you going to testify first yeah
okay so would you just review for the board your professional background education as well sure I'm a a New Jersey licensed structural engineer you want me to sit down to sure you can sit down so I'm New Jersey licensed structural engineer I'm also a uh Home
Improvement contractor um I've been uh licensed for uh about 2008 I believe um I have a bachelor's degree in architectural engineering I have a master's degree in structural engineering and uh I've been doing lots
of uh additions renovation in the area your licenses are intact they are thank you well accept you as an engineer um please proceed okay yes so so what we're asking for here um they they have a small deck on the rear of their home I
don't the drawing uh in front of you but if you would look at the uh drawing n two there's a little zoning drawing on the top of the drawing there and we show in colored in red if they have colored copies um there's a an existing deck a
little portch from the back of the house there they want to uh essentially take that in as part of the house it is a total of 73 Square ft which we're converting from the porch to a part of the uh enclosed part of the main home and then on top of that we're going to
build a a second floor that just comes out flush with the back wall um so we're currently over the total amount of Allowed perious by uh by 356 square feet which is 4.5%
um we obviously have a a small lot here we're uh our lot's only 50 ft wide one a typical lot is 75 ft wide obviously contributing greatly to our our shortfall of of our sidey yard setback in the impious
coverage um go to the next page we have the elevations to go to page el1 you will see that in the front proposed elevation there's no no Visible Changes there's no changes being done in the front of the house on the right side
there is a slight change just to the second floor and the roof line which is just to make it all continuous so it's just squaring out the back of the house the left the left proposed elevation there's just a small change by boxing out that corner and then the rear obviously the whole rear face will be
new but is still in the same general shape as the general house was um take a quick look at one that just shows the uh the proposed basement where we have the uh the small continuation of the foundation in the uh rear left corner it's labeled as a
storage room that's all that that new addition will be page L2 that's the first floor and you see that we're just squaring off the dining room to allow the kitchen and dining room to become a nice open continuous space to uh to give them the room that they need for their uh close
kitchen and still have the flow out to their nice backyard and then finally page L3 you will see that the upstairs rear bedroom get extended a little bit and it allows them to have a very small but tasteful onsweet
bathroom so not really asking for a whole lot inside just a little bit more space and uh that's pretty much it okay couple of questions so in your uh N2 you say that
the existing lot is 78 7,854 square feet Yes and required is 11,250 so it's about 30% undersized yes uh okay and um second thing I noted
is that in the um uh in the survey uh if you're looking at the house uh side of the house closest to the sideline where it says 6.2 at the front of the house and it goes towards the rear it says
5.8 so that's coming closer to the property line and yet at the application it says 5.8 when you close it all out shouldn't it be something like 5'6 or 55 or 54 just so they we don't have a one inch or two inch encroachment over the
Set uh allowable setback um correct the the sidey yard line and the house line are slowly converging As you move backwards so you're right it would be a within a few inches of that it might be be two inches less because we're talking about an eight foot difference there as
far as uh right going back so yeah you are corrected is likely closer to 5 point uh 5.7 or 5.6 feet why don't we make it 5.4 and we don't have to worry about it would that be okay that if that's that that's I I don't want You'
have to come back and say oh we're an inch over sure that's that works everybody in agreement with that all right and the existing garage that's not going to re remain there is that correct yes that would be ideal it's a it's a nice size garage have a
lot of have children with some good stuff to store back there and to rebuild that obviously you know that that would be tough to get any kind of garage in the property if that ever came down right so board members would you have any objection to a condition that the garage can remain where it is um
violating the setback lines but if the garage for any reason is destroyed or taken down then you'd have to come back either to get a variance or move it agreed yeah that makes sense that's good okay agreed uh board members any other
questions no other questions anything to add no good answer okay so um board members any comments seems pretty straightforward to me wait I got to go back up does any member of
the public have any questions of the engineer seeing none hearing none close the public portion Bo memb pretty straightforward uh it's a uh the lot's hampered by its size and uh what they're
doing if the lot was of normal size what they're doing is not at a at a range it all not out of the norm okay any members of the public wish to weigh in on this application any hearing none now we can I thought we did that already we asked
that they wanted questions I say if they want to make comments I'm getting ahead of myself um so any other uh comment from the board if not I'll entertain a motion move that we approve okay do have a second second and this is as modified
correct got to say yes yes with the condition with respect to the barage okay Miss Santiago roll call Mr Goldberg yes Mr tractenberg yes Miss Simmons yes
Mr Schuster yes Mr Ben yes Mr Kramer yes Mr wer yes so move good let them know y good luck I'll have a resolution for you at the next meeting okay okay next matter is ba1
12-24 Sago yes Mr chairman next next application is ba-1 12-24 OSB andj order of St Benedict of New Jersey St Mary Del Barton application lot 4501 lot 2011 230 mum
Road the osdu zone for section c and d you could use this microphone okay applicant proposes to construct a new student Life Center with other related improvements a variance is required for the height of the
structure all right can I have your parents Mr Newar good evening board members my name is Martin numar rber Newman I represent the applicant and might would ask permission
to be seated if that's okay sure sure um just for the record so any member of the public would know my son graduated from Del Barton in 2007 but I don't it will not interfere with my ability judge so you could hear the application and be impartial yes Mr Newark have any
objection to the chairman continuing on the application you have any objection to the chairman continuing thank you any member of the public have any objection seeing none hearing none continue put share yeah I just one right you make the
[Applause] seat thank you very much Mr chairman uh board members let me first present you with a opening statement to give you overview of what this presentation is going to consist of uh this is an application on behalf of the order of St
benedic which most of you know as the Delbarton School the school's located on 165 Acres on the southernly side of the mendum road its street address is 230 menum Road it has no residential neighbors to the South to the east or to
the West its neighbors to the north are separated from the campus by the menum road and as will be demonstrated by the development proposed will be located near the center of the campus more than 15t 1500 feet away from the mendum road
uh the project for which approval is sought will allow for the construction of a new 126,000 square foot Student Life Center it will include a new gymnasium as well as a new kitchen and dining area as well as some additional amenities all of which will be described
to you by the project engineer I'm sorry the project architect Steven aludo it will also include an additional 79 parking spaces the Student Life Center will replace an existing outm motive gymnasium the development of the Student
Life Center will not result in an increase in the student body which has been relatively constant for the past several years that between 635 and 645 students in grades 7 through 12 over the years several approvals for the
development of the depart Delbarton School have been processed through the planning board because until 2020 the zoning ordinance treated the school as a permitted use in the OSG Zone District site plan approval and variances if necessary were therefore processed
through the planning board in 2020 the zoning ordinance was amended to designate the school as a permitted conditional use with specific bulk or dimensional standards with two exceptions the proposed development meets all of the bulk or dimensional requirements in the new ordinance the
exception are the height of the building and the number of stories in the building because those standards are not met the application for site plan approval with the required Val variances are solely within your jurisdiction the ordinance limits the
height of buildings in the OSG Zone to 2.5 stories and 35 ft the proposed student life building using the ordinance methodology for determining the height will be 45 ft high and will consist of four stories as we be
demonstrated by the evidence that will be presented although the new structure will be 45 ft tall it will replace a building that is just slightly shorter than that proposed building as will also be demonstrated by the evidence that will be presented by reason of the fact
that the highest elevation of the proposed new building will face a portion of the adjacent County Park that consists of densed forests the excess height will have no visual impact on adjacent Park property the witnesses that will be presented will will be
Andrew Smith who was the project engineer Steve aludo who was the project architect John MCD who was the project planner the the the PCC and the environmental commission have presented
the board with uh reports I'm not sure Mr chairman just exactly how you want those to be presented um before I call my Witnesses is that something that you we could have uh the board engineer can um Can summarize the TCC report for us
and if necessary I know Kate wasn't there but I'm sure she's familiar with it as well all right so before you do that though would you two both stand Raise Your Right hands if we're going to get testimony by you you somly swear that the testimony you will give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help we that and just
for the record names please Kate Dave Hanson assistant B engineer and board engineer thank you okay the TCC met on August 15 and with what uh was already stated U
the first paragraph of the TCC report basically outlines that the New Life Center will house the gems pool Bowen alley squash court dining wall and the parking garage and as part of this construction the existing pool and gym
building will be demolished as part of The Proposal uh it also stated that um this project is fully conforming with the exception of the height which uh exceeds the 35 ft uh height and two and a half stories so
it's D3 variance uh for four stories not the two and a half stories under the conditional use standards um going on further the TCC uh requested the following number
one the applicant noted that the proposed project will not increase the student population the water or sewer usage is not expected to significantly increase because the majority of the current use exists on this on the site
uh we did look over the sewer uh report the sewer calculations and that is a true statement that the increase is uh is not um dramatic and it doesn't raise an eyebrow to us item number two in the report a
waiver is requested for steep slope disturbance the percentage of steep slopes specific to the project is to be provided as part of the testimony the applicant notes the majority of the steep slopes in the area were disturbed by previous construction and manmade and
that is a true statement uh variance is required for retaining walls that exceed 6 ft that's just the statement uh we also requested that the proposed parking be striped with hair
pins or a variance is to be requested for that the overall site parking requirements is to be provided under testimony but the the statement that was made about 72 additional parking
spaces the storm water management report storm water maintenance plan were reviewed by myself and found to be in conformance with the requirements I had no comments on that um we also required that all the
lighting be dark sky compliant I believe that sounds of plans all proposed Landscaping is to be in conformance with the DOA plant list and that is also true they did not put any additional kuna plant uh plantings on there and they
were proposing the relocate generator and propos a new generator and they submitted the noise reports which we found acceptable and we deemed it uh uh conditionally complete subject to
those items being uh revised on the site plan which they did thanks Dave may I comment chair sure okay the uh and I know that we submitted in written form responses to the TCC report
as just as Mr Hansen just outlined I just want to make it clear uh that with respect to the request that the parking be striped we have agreed to do that uh with respect to the uh the dark sky request we have agreed to do that with
respect to the request that the Landscaping be in Conformity with do not plant requirements we have agreed to that and uh we have also agreed that we would comply with all noise requirements and I think Mr Mr Hansen just indicated that he was
satisfied with the report that was submitted by the project engineer so uh we're not going to present testimony on that uh if the board and the board's attorney feel it's appropriate to include in the resolution of approval if
in fact you approve this application to have the dark sky and the not plant and those items that we've agreed to included as conditions in the approval that of course would be acceptable to the applicant and and that's how we've done it in the past and it would just be
a condition of any approval correct yeah correct and I'm not sure how the environmental commission report is presented to the board I know that it has been presented and I'm sure circulated to the board and I I know that we did on November 8th submit
written respon with respect to that report and again I don't know how uh the board would like to proceed with respect to the presentation of that report or our comments with respect to it you know I think your engineer can just um comment
on fine'll it'll go down the list and uh so that everybody knows we have we have agreed with all the requests suggestions and requirements of the environmental commission um we also got a report from the fir folks and they submitted some
requests and we have agreed in writing uh to all of those requests and Mr chairman uh and councel that can be included in the condition of approval if it's approved and that's acceptable to the the applicant so I think that is all
that we need to do preliminarily and with no further Ado and with your permission I would call Mr Andrew Smith who is the project engineer okay Mr Smith would you please stand I see you are would you raise your right hand
you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God and your name again for the record please and would you just review your educational background and professional background with the board please yes I'm project
manager engineering Environmental Services I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering in the University of Delaware I've been practicing Land Development engineering for a little over seven years now and I currently licensed in the I offer the gentleman and expert in
the field of civil engineering so you're he's accepted thank you all right excuse me Mr Smith do you have some exhibits that you'd like to go over with the board Excuse me yes you need that microphone you just press the button at
the bottom sorry we're testing your engineering degree age right now yeah no just hold it for a second hold it you have to hold it for a second [Laughter]
no it is sounded like just hello hello there you go can you hear me try this again okay proceed all right so as Marty alluded to
um I'm going to be presenting on a project that will take place on the Del bar campus um so to start this is exhibit one so is that in our package is that this sheet that's in our package uh that is a
similar plan but that is not this exact so then we're going to Mark been marked up but we're marking it applicants one I think yeah it be A1 A1 okay and just for the record describe A1 please so the exhibit is essentially an aerial image
of the existing Del Barton campus for the the record how large is the campus uh the property is approximately 165 acres in total can you Orient the board with respect to its location uh in relation to Road and some other landmarks that
they might be familiar with yeah so the the property is formerly known as block 4501 lot 2.01 um as noted in the mor Township of Mor tax map uh and orienting ourselves uh on the exhibit the property situated
um with menum road to the north Sugarloaf road to the South an adjacent lot lot two to the East and then the Lewis Morris Park which is on lot 202 uh to the west and then just to draw your attention so that is the overall
property of the main Delbarton campus and then highlighted I'm I'm gonna interrupt you and ask you to point to those different areas so the board will know exactly where you're talking about and what you're talking about first show them where the Lewis Mars Park uh so
leou Morris Park is at the top of your screen uh which is cardinal direction West and the property to this to the bottom of the screen that's the East that's the easterly direction correct what is that uh it's an adjacent property that's wooded um is that county
park is that County Land uh I believe it is yes and to the north to the North or page right is mendum Road and to the South or page left is Sugarloaf Road and is that adjacent to the the national park that
we all know yes all right let me not interrupt you thank you so um as I mentioned the property or the excuse me the development boundary is shown in yellow on exhibit one and
now I'm going to transition to exhibit two which is a uh zoomed in view essentially of the existing conditions of the development area situated on the property I want you to point out on that exhibit where the proposed new gymnasium
is proposed yes so it's in the yellow development boundary uh situated in the central western portion or or page top and can you tell us approximately how far that is from the menum road uh it's
an excess of 1500 lineal feet I'm gonna again try not to interrupt you I can't promise anything go ahead no promises all right so transitioning to Exhibit 2 which again as I mentioned is
a zoomed in aerial view of the project area uh what you'll see here is again outlined in yellow is the project boundary which is comprised of approximately 6.2 Acres uh again the yellow area represents the limit of disturbance and then situated within the
project boundary is the existing Abbott Brian Clark gymnasium uh the existing outdoor swimming pool existing senior lot and then the surrounding portions of the campus so in a similar light I'm now going to transition the slide or exhibit
three which represents um the same boundary with a rendering of what we intend to develop on the site so situated um within the footprint of the previous previously shown uh
gymnasium in tan is the proposed Student Life Center which has an accurate footprint of approximately 79,000 Square F feet uh the building description and use will be further described by Steve but just a note um below the Western portion
or the top half of the building orienting yourself to the page is structured parking below the usable space of uh the quote unquote gym um as you'll see directly south and north of the building are entrances to level
one and level two of the structured parking as well as some reconfiguration of the existing circulation Road as the current configuration is impacted by the building footprint um so what is shown here is the circulation Road running parallel with the shared property line
with Lewis Morris Park and then in addition we are adding and completing a a circulation road on the back side of the building or page bottom or cardinal direction East um to provide again adequate circulation throughout the campus as well as
sufficient fire access around the perimeter of the building so and now speaking of parking the I did mention that there was two levels of structured parking there's also seven additional spaces directly south at the level two entrance which is
shown uh on the screen for a total net gain of 75 spaces so the more Township ordinance requires two and a half spaces per classroom Translating that to the campus there's a requirement for 125 spaces across the
campus um with this proposed development the campus total will will exceed 650 total spaces um so there's sufficient parking on the campus and a similar light tied to parking we are proposing nine parallel Bus Parking stalls five of which are
situated directly west uh along the relocated or reine Loop Road um for uh sufficient access and circulation and parking for buses in the event that they need to uh pick up or drop off students at the proposed Student Life
Center and the and so that is um five of the nine and then there are four of the nine located adjacent to Trinity Hall uh so further north of the proposed development um situated adjacent to the existing visitor and uh teacher parking lot so in the circuit parking area we're
proposing four additional bus parallel Bus Parking stalls so that that is the general site devel I'll now touch on the the Landscape and Lighting that'll enhance the development before we get to that Andrew to the west of the property line
you have a heavy yellow line what does that represent so that is the limit of disturbance um representative representative of the anticipated storm piping upgrade to upsize a storm water
pipe um which currently exists on the county park and you've been working with the county an engineer on that work that out between the two yeah so we confirm the existence of uh an access maintenance and drainage easement that the school has in or the that benefits
the school uh on the county park property you have an exhibit that chose the relationship of the new uh Student Life Center to the you portions of the Le I do can we see that uh we
can so Mar did that's A4 yes oh it's Mark as ex5 but we're jumping around well it's sheet ex5 sheet ex5 correct okay so A4 is sheet ex5
yes and you're going to describe what that is please so yes this is an exhibit we prepared which um starts to introduce the building height topic uh and essentially what this exhibit shows is the distances of our proposed
development both horizontally and elevationally to adjacent public spaces which are mainly situated within Lewis Morris Park um so as you can see the closest of the public spaces is approximately 400 ft um in horizontal
distance with an elevation elevation change of minus 32 feet so situated lower than the proposed development um which is noted here on the exhibit as old army parking um and the the distances and elevation change are greater as you you
know trans start to make your way around the exhibit looking at uh the other noted public spaces what about the other the other dimensions that you've got shown on that Trang
the other dimensions to other public spaces you walk the board through those yes so to Deer Run parking which is another uh Park parking lot is approximately 750 horizontal feet with an elevation change of minus 88 feet
meaning it's situated 88 feet lower than the proposed uh development or structure you have D Meadow field which is near the same elevation 12 ft higher uh but is also two 2,200 plus feet away
from the proposed building and then you have mum Overlook which is 90 ft at elevation 90 ft plus and then is approximately 1,700 feet or greater in distance and would it be accurate to say that the intervening land of the park is
all heavily forested yeah so the the existing land cover um over those distances is consistent with Woods um and heavily vegetated are you able to tell the board whether anyone using those public spaces
would be able to see this project was built despite the baring that we're asking for uh so we don't anticipate visual impacts based on the construction uh changing from the existing condition I interrupted you can I just uh ask a question since we're going through these
distances and everything right now well I've got it on my mind sure um you said the old army um parking is that adjacent to the uh the dog park that's there uh there's a there's two parking lots down there there's one that leads
to the there's a road that comes off uh to the left as you go up from uh vendum road and it goes to dog park and there's also some army vehicles parked on an upper lot is that the lot you're you are exactly right Mr okay all
right I was out there yesterday so was I okay continue all right so I'm going to rewind a bit now um so I hit on most of the site development discussion points I will just close the loop on site development with the fact that um as I mentioned
earlier the site circulation road is needed to be relocated closer to the park property as it is in conflict with the proposed building footprint uh in a similar light the existing utility Mains on campus run under that uh circulation Road and therefore with the relocation
of the road we will be relocating the existing utility Mains and from there we will then service the new building with water gas uh and the overhead electric will service the proposed building as Marty had introduced
earlier um we are proposing a backup generator for the building and then we're also relocating the backup generator which Services the Steven science Wing uh both of which will comply with local and state noise ordinance for uh noise throws on
adjacent properties so I'm now going to transition to EX4 which I guess would be A5 and what this rendering shows is the proposed storm water management features that we are anticip or proposing as
related to uh our propos development so I shown in green uh or excuse me so as a result of the development um as I mentioned earlier there are 6.2 acres of land disturbance which uh coupled with the
fact that we have a 08 acre or 08 acre increase in impervious coverage we then trigger local and state store monor management requirements um however I will note although we have a 08 acre increase in impervious we are reducing by 0.2 Acres the vehicular impervious
threshold which is a benefit right off the bat to water quality runoff um in any light we are required to meet local and state storm water management requirements and therefore we are proposing two bio retention basins which are colored in
green one directly west of the proposed building and one directly south of the proposed building in the footprint of the existing outdoor pool and then two subsurface uh storm water management basins which are shown in blue are
located uh below the road section within the footprint of circulation roads so with the installation of these four storm water management facilities we can then meet the local and state requirements for storm water uh quantity quality and also achieve the groundwater
recharge requirements based on the uh project disturbance and land cover and now lastly note although not required at the time of submission and design uh we did anticipate the pending change with the increased storm water depths which
is now in effect and the project has been designed to comply with that um recent recent change in storm water regulations and now I will transition this is A6 which is a rendering of the proposed development this is looking standing in
the quad looking at the new development and this will be the segue into the architectural testimony which you will hear from Steve unless there are any questions at the moment for me aside from the number of storage and the overall height of the building which brings us to the zoning board as opposed
to the planning board we do need c variant relief with respect to a retaining do we not yes that's would you address that please Mr Newark when you're asking questions could you speak closer to the microphon to get picked up by the
recording okay so to address the question the the answer is yes um the township ordinance does not allow for walls or fences in excess of six feet in in height when located in rare sidey
yards um so we are proposing a wall with a maximum height of 10 feet the the wall elevation varies but at its peak it's 10 ft in height and we are proposing this along the relocated Loop Road between the common property line between the Delbarton School and the Lewis Morris
Park the reason being one is to provide adequate circulation around the site not only for site circulation cars and buses but for fire access as well uh and additionally it's to limit disturbance and vegetation disturbance tree disturbance tree clearing uh on the park
property with the could could the project go forward with a with a retaining well it was only six feet what would happen if that had to be had to be the roadway configuration slopes and elevations would not be sufficient um to provide circulation
around the building or campus in your opinion is this a better planning approach to uh the use of that particular area yes go to the 10 ft as opposed to the to maintain adequate circulation both for um campus use and
fire access it is uh required now we also require some relief with respect to steep slopes do we not that's correct can you tell the board about that and why you think we're entitled to that relief so there are steep slopes
represented um or there steep slopes on the within the subject boundary mainly located within the footprint of our proposed building some of which are situated within the realignment footprint of the circulation
Road um so the disturbances are required to either construct adequate circulation or uh to construct the proposed footprint um of our building based on our geotechnical investigations that we contuct it both for structural and storm water
purposes um it is our opinion that the subsurface conditions in these Footprints are resulting of past construction on the campus therefore they're man-made uh and essentially construction spoils we don't feel that they're naturally occurring and the disturbances won't uh create
um uh a negative impact for runoff associated with the disturbances in your opinion for those reasons is that relief warranted yes I have nothing further thank you so um I'm sorry forgive me I do have
something you have the you have the U environmental report available to you yes and your response to it yes could you tell the board the issues that were raised by the tech by
the environmental commission and uh your favorable response to each of them so I I guess I'll raise there were several comments made made by the Town Township environmental commission uh in general we took no exception to any of the comments we will um propose a a
fully conforming planting scheme with the New Jersey do not plant list we will propose a fully conforming planting scheme uh with Native species and we will meet or exceed the solar capacity which is on the existing
gymnasium on the proposed building I think that highlights the main concerns of of the environmental commission so just to sum it up with respect to each of the requests suggestions or requirements of tech of the environmental commission the applicant is prepared to to go go along with them
all yes we will fully comply with the recommendations and the resolution of approval of the board sees fit to approve this application uh can include those as conditions correct thank now now I have no further question so the new uh circulatory Road
is going to be where the uh you refer to it as the senior lot yes I believe that's generally used for senior student parking but it's uh the park there's two parking lots there's one it's a circular or semicircular and the other one is a
drivein drive out lot that uh is further down the hill from the proposed building is that correct or the existing building yes okay and the part of the steep slopes is the um slope between the existing circulatory Road and the senior
lot yes and that's a major part of the 25% slope yes okay and you said um you said that uh the
building would hard I want to say your exact words you said hardly be visible from the uh uh military parking I don't anticipate any uh visual impacts beyond
what exists today okay so how would the roof of the proposed building line up with the roof of Trinity Hall as far as being hike differential so um we have an exhibit that that'll detail that fully which
which Steve will present I don't know the architect will deal with that okay yeah we have a we have a very nice rendering which details uh the Peak elevations I just want to like uh when I went there I went to the site on Sunday and I went down leis Mars and I
said I went down to the dog park I could see if you really squinted uh Trinity Hall uh from the area right where the those two parking the road coming in divides and it starts going down a slope towards the dog park
right at that location if you stop before you get to the end of the parking lot you can see Trinity Hall well barely um and this is with obviously no uh leaves on the trees uh most people would be looking where they're going as
opposed to looking up I could also see a portion of the existing building just by just a tiny bit you had to know it was there in order to see it um we had the same experience you and I
okay so I just want to make sure that that does how much more of an increase invisibility it is to that a lot because I don't believe there's any Trails uh in Lewis Mars between the proposed building and the
dog parking lot all the trails are uh further west and uh correct okay yeah so further on in the presentation c will present an exhibit which will show the uh the peak elevations of existing and and new buildings okay board members any
other questions just verify for me you're looking for one additional foot to what's already there so so the new one shouldn't be that much more obtrusive than what you saw well one foot no it's not well I
think you're gonna I think you're going to hear from the architect precisely what you're looking for yeah because it's going to be moved forward so it's closer to the slope but height Wise height wise yeah any other question I have a question a question
regarding your statement on the parking I make sure I understood that um I thought you said that the amount of parking required by ordinance is related to the number of classrooms which would give 160 some parking spaces whereas
this will increase it to over 600 is that did I hear that correctly so the total campus parking will be increased to a total value of 651 we're not proposing 6 50 new spaces I understand so the the township ordinance
so dearden is a both a middle school and a high school middle school I believe is one and a half spaces per classroom uh High School is two and a half spaces per classroom that that I believe is the ordinance the township ordinance so if you conservatively assume the entire school is a high school it'll produce a
higher parking count requirement which at 50 classrooms I I believe was the the number the total comes to 125 required spaces we are increasing parking by 75 total spaces but for a net or a total on the
campus of 651 so is the 150 or so parking spaces a minimum or a maximum what I'm trying to get out is it it's a minimum it's a minimum the ordinance requires the minimum and we have an exess of the minimum uh far excess to provide
adequate parking for there's no maximum not to my knowledge okay thank you okay any other board members with questions any members of the public with questions seeing none hearing none close the public portion next witness please
thank you Mr aludo please thank you you uh raise your right hand please you somly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but truth so I do and your name please Steven aludo s p h n a l uo t t
o Mr Ludo would you give the board the benefit of your credentials in the field of architecture I am a uh licensed architect in the state of New Jersey I have been maintained a professional lure in architecture for close to 38 years have you appeared before the
boards in this municipality previously yes I offer the gentleman is an expert in the field of architecture he's accepted thank you Mr Ludo you have some exhibits that you'd like to uh use yes show the board
what yes I will uh if I may I'll begin with uh exhibit ex6 uh which Andrew referenced as a rendering uh this rendering depicts A View From the campus main academic core of the campus quadrangle and is in the
same same placement as the existing building so in terms of uh the campus uh planning this is a uh A fitting placement of the building to enclose that outdoor space an important part of
the campus uh continuing on with exhibit ex7 and you this was submitted uh this is the main level of the building uh as was pointed out earlier uh this is a four-level building
uh the Student Life Center uh it contains uh a series of uh athletic facilities indoor athletic facilities that I will walk you through uh in addition to that it contains the main dining facility for the campus the
current dining facility is located uh in the basement of the Abbey and uh its size and condition uh is proved to be inadequate for uh current day operations this new d facility will allow for two
lunch seatings as opposed to the three lunch seatings that need to occur in the current facility uh the building also provides uh enhanced Recreation and wellness facilities for the students so the the purpose of this building uh is
as much about Student Life holistically as it is about competitive inter Scholastic Athletics uh this is the main level that is accessed uh from the the main entry from the from the campus quadrangle and uh on the upper portion
uh of the plan we see the main high school gym a middle school gym on the other end of this Wing uh with the support locker room facilities and and coaches facilities uh on that side there is a gallery uh which is a
glorified term for the lobby for the building that provides pre function uh access access uh to all of these facilities and on the other side of that or the lower portion of the plan uh we see at the entry the new dining
facility we see squash courts located uh here in the center with green and then a natatorium with a pool facility with an Olympic siiz swimming pool and the requisite support and locker room facilities for that pool structure I
might point out that operationally and logistically this project is proposed to be constructed in two phases uh such that the existing gym which essentially occurs more or less under the footprint of this lower wing can
remain operational while the northern Wing or the the bring on the upper portion of the plan is constructed to provide two new basketball facilities uh two new basketball courts the existing gym also uh we had conducted feasibility
studies the size of the uh gymnasiums in this building is inadequate um does not meet current day standards in addition the support facilities are in a very old building that is not uh has accessibility issues uh and and uh
logistically uh is not feasible to renovate so not withstanding the existing gym will stay up while phase one shown on the upper portion of this exhibit which is ex8 essentially ex7 but now showing the phasing line of phase
one to phase 2 on the upper right hand corner of this plan you could see the footprint of the existing science uh Pavilion and I would go back to exhibit ex6 because you can see the science building here uh the corner of it and
it's shown relative uh to its height and massing uh similar in terms of its view from the quadrangle I'll now go to exhibit ex9 ex9 is the upper level the second level above the main level of the
building and uh because of the the volume required for the gymnasiums and the natatorium and squash the white areas in these plans are essentially two twostory high spaces to accommodate those activities the dining uh room has
an upper level that will be designated for faculty dining uh other additional support space for the kitchen and then on the upper level between the two gymnasiums will be a wellness uh Center for General use by
the general population and student body uh of the school and on this upper level we have a a small viewing area that looks down into the pool area now we're going to go below the level because below the main level
uh or two levels of parking this is the first level below the main level in which we have 76 uh parking spaces which are on a structured parking deck that occurs below the two gymnasiums and then
essentially uh in the basement or below the uh the the main level of of phase two uh we have a bowling alley again uh for for student wellness uh and activity along with some storage space and the
mechanical equipment that serves the the pool facility can I me ask you a question sure the parking area consists of 70 how many spaces uh 76 on 76 spaces will that
interfere or involve any imperious will will it increase the inappropriate surface of the of the property uh relative to uh site calculations no because this is above this is elevated parking this is an elevated parking deck and I I would point out as Andrew
indicated earlier because of the way that the grading uh ends up the the the elevations of the grade this uh upper level deck is at the same level of the entry and drop off to the science Pavilion so there's no ramp or or uh or
or warped slab required for this parking structure this will be accessible at grade from the North End of the building and then moving below that uh we have another level of parking however this is technically parking at grade
this is on grade parking below uh the building uh so when you refer to this building as a four-story building uh what's pointing out here is this this first story or first level of the building is actually at grade there are small components of buil structures to
allow for exiting out of the building via staircases and a pump room for the fire suppression system and some other services for the building uh similarly to the upper level access vehicular access to this atg grade parking from
the south end of the building will be at grade again so no uh ramping is necessary I'll now move on to the exterior of the building and uh shown here on exhibit
ex12 are uh two uh elevations the top elevation or the North this is the elevation uh that is dimensionally uh accurate of the same view that you saw in the rendering previously uh the building is proposed
to be in context with the existing buildings on campus which are some are brick uh Stone and uh a series of of of large uh glazing systems windows on the building so what's what's shown in in
close to Red here uh would be the brick the large uh grayer tan expanses that would be a an architectural panel uh this is a modern system that emulates uh stone similar to the uh science Pavilion
however given the volume of of the spaces uh this provides for a far more energy efficient construction for these envelopes to provide a more effici uh envelope uh operationally for for the
school the elevation below that is the west elevation and I'll I'll I'll reference this again in a few minutes this is the elevation that was in question prior uh to that that is seen from views from the west and you can see
here uh where where the the the two large uh masses here shown in Gray those are the gymnasium areas gymnasium areas and Bel below that we see the two levels uh of parking so this is the only elevation where all of that is
exposed uh given the way the grades work out on here that faces the park this faces the park correct to the West this is the view if you're looking East from the park this is the elevation you would see and we will get back to that in a
few minutes uh but first I would like to show you the South elevation so this is a an elevation that would be taken longitudinally through the site and you could see see here as Andrew Well the laser pointer doesn't work on a screen
uh the retaining wall up at the top right of this elevation that is where uh the the grade increases so there's a very very low profile uh portion of the building here but that's where that retaining wall will need to occur to
provide uh circulation around the building and as the grade comes down you can again see the view from the south of the two levels of parking uh with the gymnasium above it the elevation below that is in fact the East Elevation this
might be referred to as the back of the building or that which faces uh The Abbey up the hill and this is really the service end of the building with the exception of the dining area that has views out to the existing Italian
Gardens and uh the final exhibit uh that I'll refer to is ex14 and this is where we've taken a portion of that the entirety of that west elevation and you can see here which is
dotted uh on superimposed over this elevation is the profile of the existing gymnasium those red Dash Lin the red dashed lines yes correct so uh to go through some of the numbers if we take uh according to ordinance calculations
on average grade uh the to be exact here our average grade datm was taken at 52.2 feet above sea level and that provided the datum for calculating a
building height that is just below 45 fet actually it's 44 feet 10 in versus the ordinance requirement of a calculated 35 uh foot height what's important though is refer to that datum
and the entry level of the building uh which we will match that of the existing gymnasium because of course as this is is utilized during the Opera the construction of phase one the height of uh of the proposed building would be
37 Feet 6 in above the main level whereas the existing building gymnasium is 36 feet and 6 in so the new building is in terms of a pedestrian view is one foot
taller than the existing building uh as it sits today below that on exhibit uh 14 you can see a full elevation that from the right to left shows the proposed student Life Center a slight Gap where the drop
off occurs for the science building and access to the north of the garage you see the science Pavilion Trinity Hall which is a three-story structure and then uh the library building at the North End of This elevation so you could
see here uh as dimensionally correct along with the proposed elevations uh in the proposed uh design that we are essentially uh one foot higher than the existing gym
and and very close in fact lower than some of the uh the elevator uh Towers on Trinity but I you you get the uh the relation here of that entire elevation looking East from the park to the
West do you have anything else to add to it that completes Tes was when when you were asked to undertake this uh this project uh we told that it was an anticipation of any change in the
student body no none whatsoever no change it's simply to accommodate the existing number of students that have there now and have been there for a while that is correct thank you
welcome board members any questions yes Mr have a question yes when you when you think about the pool it's now going to be an indoor pool and um when I looked at that first um the first floor plan I didn't see the the
pool mechanical room but you said that that's a level below it will be below correct okay all right and then in the event that um we have to dump the pool for cleaning or what have you where is the water where is that water going to be
going the I qualified to answer that but presumably it would defer to Andrew is that well okay for the record Andrew I'll respond in the event we needed to we'd get a clean water discharge permit and dump the pool
accordingly okay to where um wherever we have permission to dump it with the approved uh clean water discharge permit do we know if that's been done before with the outdoor pool whether they've dumped it to clean clean
it and then refill it I do not okay Mr Ludo you may or may not know this and you kind of suggested that maybe you don't but given my experience with a pool the pool waterers never replaced it's recirculated I was going to mention that in in my experience with other
similar facilities I'm not aware of the pool having to be emptied do we know do we know what kind of pool is it is it going to be a bromine or a chlorine pool or uh that's not determined at this point but I'm I'm fairly confident that that the school would elect to have the
most environmentally yeah responsible and maintainable uh system that's available it's potentially possible you know I've worked at an campus where we've had a pool and not often did we have to dump it but occasionally we had to dump it
and we switched chemicals to minimize that so that's important but it would be helpful to know exactly where that water is going to go on the drain yeah yeah gy pool gets
drained gy pool gets drained every year the outdoor pool must get drained every year they do the outdoor pool the existing outdoor pool must get drained every year the pools in town only get drawn down halfway yeah right and then they get covered right and in the
springtime they turn the hydren on and they F back but it's not out of out of the realm for pools large pools to be drained pick atin drains yeah yeah I don't know where we dump or where we pump to on the gy and the uh
streer streer streer P I don't know where they get them well we better figure that out Mr Hansen whether he knows I think that marown bears has has a pool do I don't know it does
yes but this is out of ourie that's out of our purview I would say that but that's I'll let I'll let andw to it if he wants to but I think that's one of the purposes of that permit via njde is when there is a uh or whoever the permit from is when there is
some kind of like an emergency situation you don't always have a plan to deal with that much water so they try to so that's that's why they follow their directions in case it does happen sure well the the resolution of approval can contain a condition that we would do it
in a way that is environmental appropriate and consistent with any rule of any agency we certainly do that I have I have not Ed the pool in my house for 25 years it evaporates then you
circuit okay any other questions from board members Mr Hansen any questions any questions members of the public any questions seeing none hearing none close the public portion all right next that
brings us to uh Mr McDon John would you raise your right hand please do you Solly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so got yes I do thank you Mr McDon would you give the board the benefit of your credentials in the field of
planning sure hi there everyone um again John McDon for the record I'm a licensed professional planner here in the state of New Jersey that license is current it's in good standing I get to testify throughout the state on a nightly basis I've been here many times as well I'm
also certified aicp that's a national certification as well uh both of which are current and in good standing thank you I offer the gentleman as a expert in the field of plan accepted I just want to let you know Mr Newark Just for future occasions we have
amended our bylaws so that uh any reports from professional planners should be submitted at least seven days in advance but we'll make an exception because his application was already pending that aware that okay good idea yeah
thanks you may proceed thank you Marty did you want to lead me off or just Dive Right In no you can Dive Right In okay um Mr chairman I think we're going to get on the screen here some photos that we actually took today so you're going to get some as close to real time as
possible photographs of the site in the bird's eye so you you'll get a 3D perspective so for the record are they is there more than one there record is going to be four pages they're St together right so that four
page group of photos would be a15 yes okay and are you able to put those on the screen I think we're getting there Steve are you able to put so well it looks like everybody has A5 again these are drone photographs that were taken of the subject property this
afternoon um the first sheet of a15 is going to be a view of the site looking to the East and I put a little a little yellow thank you Steve a little yellow arrow in there where the proposed Improvement is going to be you heard through Andrew's testimony we're
dealing with a pocket of about six acres on a 65 165 acre campus here so we're dealing with a very small portion of the campus again somewhat of an infill development um that is going to leave the majority
and the core of the campus intact this is going to and certainly is intended to enhance the academic mission of the school um you've heard about the enhancements through Steve's testimony the overall enhancement of Wellness the dining environment um the overall
upgrades of the facility as well within a pocket that as you heard through council at the outset is 1,500 feet away from mendum Road and part of Del Barton's continued commitment to provide for um an enhanced educational environment for the students in the and
the staff who go here uh you can see the Fieldhouse building that was the W building that came in uh as part of the recreation improvements as well the athletic improvements and now this relates to the I'll say the academic of the campus as well again remote
essentially from anything including the park as well which would be in the foreground from this particular Vantage Point we've got Separation by vegetation by grade and of course um horizontal separation as
well that's the first sheet second sheet is just sort of a pant Panther Northeast again giving a sense of the mass and scale of the buildings as well again you've got Trinity Hall immediately to the left which will be the the dominant feature the taller
feature as you just saw through Steve's exhibit uh then where this proposed building is going you also get a sense from this vantage point of where the grade starts to drop off from the inner Ring Road to the student parking lot on the lower level as well we're dealing
with a with a grassy area here not a substantially treed area uh so to the extent that the applicant is asking the board to move on relief for steep slopes you can see that this is not going to be an area where there's excessive earthw work or tree clearing to effectuate what
the applicant is looking to do and this is a view looking back towards the park again you get a sense of what the applicant is doing here is working with a rugged terrain on the uphill side we would have another wise conforming view in terms of the overall height the number of stories it's on the
downhill side when we start to drop down as you saw through Steve's elevations where that uh relief kicks in for four stories and the height that rises up to slightly above the buildings that are there presently again you get a sense of the reverse view of what you see from
the park that goes towards what the chair was saying earlier of how difficult it is to see from the park up the hill towards these buildings as well and then finally you get a view that yours truly actually took I don't fly the Drone but I did take this
picture from the ground again to show how the grade drops from the particular uh building location and how the applicant is working with the terrain here to retrofit the building um into the land form that's there we're going to pull the building closer to fill this
surface parking lot um that will effectuate the need for a wall on the downhill side uh as you heard through Andrew's testimony again it's going to be on the downhill side on the park side which will optimize and maximize tree pre preservation or impact on the low
side uh create safe circulation and avoid the redundancy of a parking area that spills off of a Ring Road uh this is going to be one concentrated flow which we think goes towards the planning goal for the free flow of
traffic just take you back to the beginning to underscore uh again the minimal if any impact that this application is going to have uh as with all variance applications we're going to look at both the positive and the
negative criteria we are here in the OSG open space government use District uh where private schools are permitted conditional use subject to eight conditions they're all dimensional in nature and this application
substantially complies with all of them but for the height the overall loot coverage complies the overall building coverage complies well below what is allowed on a a massive campus um the setbacks on all sides comply as well so
the applicant's not asking for Relief relative to the overall size of the building in terms of its coverage and the position of the building with respect to setbacks uh in terms of the positive criteria again we're dealing here with the test under Coventry Square which is
a more relaxed test than this board May ordinarily hear when you're dealing with the medich test for a wholly prohibited use this is a permitted use in the in the zone as a as a private school uh dealing with grades 7 through 12 and we're looking at on the positive side
here again the use per se is not at question it's a question of the or the focus is on the conditions and purposes behind those height controls which we all know or light and air controls this is not going to create a building that
is imposing or obtrusive in the overall context of the landscape as you saw through all of the Visual Evidence that's been given to you by the witnesses before me in terms of the positive criteria I'm looking at multiple purposes of zoning that are
Advanced here including purpose a the promotion of the general welfare um enhancing a Community Asset enhancing the living environment all of those improvements that you heard both architecturally and Engineering wise that will improve the overall campus
with what the applicant is doing modernizing um and upgrading the Student Center that all goes towards adding value and quantity quality rather uh to a Community Asset likewise purpose G the planning goal for a variety of uses in
appropriate locations this is an appropriate location because the use is there and it's just an upgrade of that which is already manifested on the campus likewise purpose eye I'll take you back to Steve's exhibits that you just saw uh this is going to beautify
the overall campus environment a nice attractive modern building again that will add value and quality that goes towards purpose a I'm sorry purpose I under the land use law as promotion of a desirable visual environment
and then lastly purpose m in the land use law is our planning goal for efficient use of land this is an infill or retrofit of previously developed land on this campus again we think that the applicant is moving this in a positive direction in that as well with respect
to the negative criteria we're going look first at the height here um again the relief is for 47.5 Ft being the height of the building where 35 ft would be the maximum allowed that's part of your D3 conditional use
uh relief that the applicant is seeking likewise on the downhill side We rise to four stories where 2.5 would be the maximum allowed visually the building will be only 3.7 feet at its peak relative to the existing building well
below that tree line that you see engulfing the entire campus um on both the uphill and the downhill side uh functionally the upgrades are intended serve the current population and as you've heard over and over again this is not intended to increase the student
population but serve the population that's that's there and then we're going to look at the purposes of height control that would come out of the the gro case there's some interplay here between this Coventry Square case of which pertains to conditional use relief
and also for height relief as articulated in the gro case where we look at the purposes of height control and whether any of those are violated number one this is not going to create an imposing structure that is going to block Scenic views will create negative
shadow effects on on any homes or any residences um they're so remote we're dealing with a pocket here so we think that aspect of the Grasso test is met um also again for all of the reasons given we're not creating a structure that's
going to overpower the area uh visually or otherwise the added height does not generate a population that will seed the carrying capacity of the land water sewer parking traffic are all within the carrying
capacity of the land uh notwithstanding this additional Building height and then lastly this additional height does not give this property an unfair height Advantage with respect to other properties we're not raising the building up to create runoff on on other
properties again that's all part of the plan here uh that Andrew has put before you so we're not redirecting runoff um so again visually or functionally there'll be no impacts of a substantially adverse nature here um on the positive side the board may also
give difference to the fact that we are dealing with a school uh where we dealing with a use variance we'll be looking at a a use that automatically serves or satisfies the positive criteria as an inherently beneficial use not withstanding that we think the
positives for the and I've just given you uh substantially outweigh any of the negatives the lower category of relief are those two c variances number one for the slope relief which would relate to that grassy pocket again that you see
from the uphill Ring Road to the lower parking lot the site is going to be stabilized in accordance with sound and Engineering practices which will meet the planning intent behind steep slope control and then lastly as I said that wall is going to extend right at the
property line just beyond this tree line that you see in the park it's not going to be visually imposing it's remote from people you heard that there's no trails nearby that this will create a visual nuisance or or uh in otherwise otherwise
unsightly structure um with that we believe that the benefits of the application as a whole would carry down from the D relief to the C relief as well um and based on all the visual ual evidence before you relief in the sea regard can be granted without any
substantially adverse impacts taking it all together the project is going to enhance the educational environment of a Community Asset uh there's really relatively minor relief here that will certainly have minimal if any impacts on
the surrounding area with that based on all of the testimony I believe the statutory criteria for Relief are met and approval is warranted let me let me ask you this uh Tom until 2020 the zoning ordinance in the
township designated this area as OSU and permitted churches and Municipal facilities as well as schools but it also permitted residential development isn't that correct it did now in 2020 the governing body saw fit to
change the ordinance to designate the area or to in with respect to the OSG Zone District it inserted bulk or dimensional requirements that didn't exist before that is correct and in in terms of it
not existing before the prior ordinance allowed many uses in the OSG Zone but it had Zero Dimensional or bulk standards isn't that right that is correct and that's you ever see that any place else rarely if ever and that gave the
planning board tremendous amount of discretion with respect to how they approached uh the bulk requirements I remember that with the Fieldhouse for sure in 2020 the governing body saw fit to change that would it be fair to say that
with respect to the height standard that's been implanted in the osdu zone District that the purpose of it was to protect against governmental or school or uh houses of
worship being so high next to residential development uh is to overpower them and be uh not consistent with good planning having a tall building next to a residential development isn't that would would that be a fair to say that that was the
intent of that I I think that would be a fair assessment of the legislative intent yes and in terms of this particular proposal there's no residence that's ever going to be seeing any of this isn't that correct not in the near future that's for sure
is that why when you get right down to it that the variance is appropriate that's the bottom line yes thank you board members any questions any questions any questions I I would just not you know to get um
we're just speak they're just speaking about the intent of the ordinance and when this um when this was recommended this change was recommended in the 2017 re-examination report which was to provide conditional use standards for um both schools and houses of worship in
several zones including OSG so when the um when when um our office was working on those what we did is we really looked at you know what school the typical Heights of schools within the township because really as as was the case then
and as is now um this the campus did have buildings higher than that but it remained an out it was an outlier then it was an outlier now and so um you know the the goal was really to just make sure that it stayed um consistent within the most of most of the schools that are
were existing in the township so this is a case where it was rendered non-conforming by that standard and that's why they're before this board tonight seeking the D3 um but you know I think the testimony that's been presented has uh you know really has approached that in from the context of
the D3 variant and you're really looking at whether the site can accommodate the additional height um and whether there's any conditions that could be imposed if not um but I think in this case um you know I I agree with the testimony generally that that's been presented um
so I think you know it's up to the board to determine if they have any further issue that's right okay good all right um given that board members any other questions members of the public any
questions if not I'll close the public portion Mr Hansen you have any questions okay thank you any other Witnesses we do not unless the board has some questions that could be answered by others we we think that's the presentation that we'd like
to submit to the board okay well having been to the site uh having from the public oh is any comments from the members of the public thank you seeing none hearing none close the public portion uh from my point of view the
impact will be minimum if any um unless you know exactly where you're looking you will never see this building from anywhere on uh in Lewis Mars Park uh I've been down that Hill from Delbarton all the way down to those parking lots I
walked down there walked back up not this weekend but another times so I know it I'm looking at uh and I knew exactly where to look at and you can only see it from like this 10 foot window basically at that dog park so that uh the impact
would be minimal uh it would certainly uh benefit the general welfare it's a needed upgrade for the school uh it is basically in line with the existing structures on the building and the only reason uh these variances are needed is
because of the uh slopes and the uh Topography of the area and therefore I would be always in favor of approving this uh application but I'm welcome to hear from other uh board members Mr chairman I'd like to say one thing Mr
alot referenced The Field House application that was before the planning board just a new market I remember I think it was about 15 sessions and there was loads and loads of people from the public objectors and as we can see there
were none here tonight so I think in general we don't need to worry too much about what the the the public concerns might be because there's no one else from the public here um and and to me just like with that application because I'm on
both the planning board as well as Board of judment um the school is an important asset to the township and we think that Improvement like that um will keep the School competitive will keep the school
um from thinking about can we continue to live here uh I think it's an important asset that we continue to support to the extent that we can and having been there yesterday and saw the Improvement of the the the the field house and the field and all the work
that was done to get approval from the planning board u i was very pleased with what I saw so like the chairman say I'm not support of this application thank you anybody else with anything to add if not I'll entertain a motion I'll make the motion uh make the
motion to to approve I I want to say I appreciate all of the responses to all the comments from the TCC the environmental commission that we had all in front of us beforehand and that answered a lot of our questions I don't know if there are specific conditions
that we need to put a part of this I can summarize the conditions that we talked about today they were um mostly referenced in the reports which the applicant agreed to comply with there would be U lights would be dark side comp client they'll follow the Do Not
plant list they'll stripe the parking lot um comply with the fire chief's report comply with the environmental commission's report um obtain proper permits uh for draining the pool if that becomes necessary I think that was that was it
those were all that I can remember I'll make the motion those condition I have a second second thank you Miss Santiago roll call Mr Goldberg yes Mr tractenberg yes
Miss Simmons yes Mr Schuster yes Mr benois yes Mr Kramer yes Mr wer yes so Mo well thank you very much have a wonderful Thanksgiving you too and Marty if you would uh have the
transcript sent well when that's ready I appreciate it thank you early me oh yes it's two weeks I was gonna say we're starting early so we can get through it starting two so we can get out all right we have any applications
for the next meeting we have two we have one we have two we have next decemberth we have um two little ones and I think the small two small ones and then we have a 40
spring oh we do let me see oh have that yes again same application or new one so we have one application okay any other any other business if not I'll entertain a motion to adjourn motion Jerry second all in
favor