I'd like to call to order the uh regular meeting of the Mars Township Board of Adjustment for October 27th, 2025. A legal notice required in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act has been satisfied and a statement certifying same will be executed. Please join me in
the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay. Miss Santiago, roll call.
>> Yes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Goldberg >> here. >> Mr. Trackenberg >> here. >> Mr. Williams, >> here. >> Mr. Schustster >> here. >> Mr. Benois >> here. >> Mr. Kramer >> here. >> Miss Polaro. >> Miss Simmons >> here. >> Mr. Woodford >> here. >> Mr. Roller
>> here. >> Mr. Voch >> here. Miss Keller here, >> Mr. Fishinger >> here, >> and Santiago here. >> All right. First matter of business is several resolutions. The first one being BA-17-23. Uh, Mr. Oler.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh this is a memorializing resolution with respect to the application filed by Michael Ewing on property at 40 Springbrook Road who applied to the board uh for bulk variance relief to permit the construction of a garage addition to
widen the garage and to construct a vertical addition to add a second floor above that garage uh to an existing single family dwelling. Um the application itself was modified several times during the course of the hearings and um for the reasons that are set
forth in the resolution that application as amended was ultimately denied. >> All right. Board members, have you read the resolution? Uh any questions? Any comments? Uh if not, I'll have a motion um by four members.
>> There's only four members. He's has to be either Mr. Goldberg, Mr. Trackenberg, or Mr. Bunwa. >> I'll move that. >> Okay. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right. Miss Santiago. Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jackberg.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Benois. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodford? >> Yes. >> So move. >> Okay. The uh next resolution also memorializing resolution with respect to the application that was filed by um
Burke and Megan Burke for property at 8 Shepard Place who applied to the board for permission to construct in addition to their existing garage uh which required front yard setback relief. for the reasons that are set forth in the resolution that application was granted
with our standard conditions. >> All right. Any comments and questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion. >> I move that we approve resolution. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Who is this? >> Schustster. >> Schustster.
>> M. Santiago. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chapenburg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams. Yes. >> Mr. Schustster. >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wood.
>> Yes. >> So move. >> Okay. The next one also memorializing resolution with respect to the application filed by Daniel Faulner for property at 29 Bennington Road. uh who applied to the board for permission to modify an existing non-conforming
dwelling by constructing a second story addition over an existing one-story section of their dwelling requiring sideyard setback relief. Um and for the reasons set forth in the resolution that application was conditionally granted with our standard conditions.
>> Okay. Board members, any questions, comments? If not, I'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to approve. >> Thank you. Second. >> Thank you, M. Santiago. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Straenberg. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Williams. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schustster. >> Yes. >> Mr. Benis. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodbury. >> Yes. >> So move. >> Okay. And the next one is a memorializing resolution with respect to
the application filed by SK Mount Kemell LLC at 350 Mount Kebell Avenue. Um the applicant had previously received preliminary and final site plan approval and they had requested um an extension
of that approval through uh October 25th of 2026 and that application or request was granted. >> Okay. Do I uh do we have to vote on this? >> Yep. But any comments? If not, we'll
entertain a motion. >> I'll move. >> Thank you, Mr. Cher. Mr. Santiago. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> M Sharkenberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams. >> Yes. >> Mr. Schustster. >> Yes. >> Mr. Binois. >> Yes.
>> Mr. Kramer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Woodford. >> Yes. >> So move. >> Okay. Next, we move into our public hearings. The first being BA-17-25. >> Uh oh. I'm sorry. We're going to back up for a second. We're going to do the um
design. Yeah, it's under other business, >> but um designation of telecommunications consultant, Mr. >> Right. So, there's a the resolution before you is to appoint uh Peter Lup as the board's telecommunications
consultant for any matters that might come before the board in that regard. >> Right. Any comments, questions? Do we need a um a roll call on this or just a voice vote? >> It's a resolution. So, yes. >> Okay. If not any comments, I'll entertain a
motion to approve. >> I'll move that. >> Thank you. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss Santiago. Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg? >> Yes. >> Mr. Williams? >> Yes. >> Mr. Schustster? >> Yes. >> Mr. Benois? >> Yes. >> Mr. Kramer? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Woodford? >> Yes. >> So move. That's all of them. >> All right. Now we can get into the public hearings. First public hearing is BA-17-25. Pamela Pierce, Miss Santiago. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Second, my agenda. What's my agenda? The first application is BHA-1725 Pamela Pierce, block 7303, lot 3, 380 South Street in the RA15 zone for section C. Applicant proposes a twocar
garage with a second story addition, creating a sideyard setback of 4.36 ft where 20 ft is required and a front yard setback of 24.4 4 feet where 50 ft is required. Applicant will also request a variance for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Can you press the button on that microphone until it turns green? The light would turn green. >> The light is up here. It's around the neck. >> It's around the neck. >> Yeah. But it hasn't turned green.
>> Just press and hold. >> You had it right there. You go. >> Okay. >> All right. Are you Miss Pierce? >> Yes, I am. >> And with you is >> my engineer and my architect are here to help present plants. >> Okay. So, why don't we both stand and
all three stand? You do better. >> Yep. And we'll just swear everybody in. Yes, you're here. Okay. Okay. Hands are raised. You solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So,
help you God. And on your side, would you just one at a time state your names for the record, please? >> Harrison would >> Okay. John Lions. >> Harrison, would you spell your last name for me?
>> Sure. B as in Bravo. A R A N Y. >> And John, your last name, >> L Y O S. >> All right. And just also for the record, our professionals, would you just state your names for the record, please? >> Joe B, board.
>> Pete Keller, board consultant. >> And Joe Fishinger, board's traffic engine. >> Great. Thank you, everyone. Make yourself comfortable. >> And who's going to go first? >> I guess I'll just give you a little overview of what uh the story is, I
guess. Um, I purchased the house in February, which if you're familiar with the property was, uh, derelict, vacant for six to seven years. I've been a lifelong uh, well, I was born and raised in Mars Township. Um, was widowed. I lived in Hunter County for many years
and moved back to the area um, hoping that my daughter who was living in Chicago would be coming back to the area. So, purchased the house with the idea that before I had grandchildren, hopefully they would be coming back to town. So, uh that's the thought that I'll be renovating the home for her and
her husband, newly married, um to move into um upon completion. So, the my engineer and architect will present the details of the plan, but essentially I'm hoping to keep the charm of the home. Um, I was a history major
in school. Um, and I think that the charm of the house is uh, lovely. I would like to keep that, maintain that. And, um, I'm just excited for the project hopefully. >> Okay. >> All right.
Board members, any questions? Members of the public, any questions? Close the public portion. Okay. >> Harrison, you could use the wireless microphone if you need to. Okay. >> Is it on? >> Okay. Press the button in the bottom. >> No. No. Press it.
>> Press the button in the bottom. >> The bottom. >> Is it in the bottom? Press and hold. >> Hello. There we go. >> All right. Uh do you need to swear me in like my professional testimony or anything? >> Consider yourself under oath, but would
you just review your qualifications with the board, please? >> Sure. Um I received my bachelor's of science and engineering from Ruckers University. I I currently have my uh professional engineering license in the state of New Jersey. It is current and in good standing. I've been practicing
engineering for over 10 years. Uh I've appeared before multiple boards across New Jersey, including this one a few a few times, two or three times. Um and yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. You'll be accepted as an engineer. >> Thank you.
>> So, just to give you a background of where we are located in the town, the address is 380 South SE South Street, block 7303, lot 3. Um, and the plans that I'm presenting today are dated uh July 18th, 2025 for reference. Um, the
property is located fronting on South Street. Um, is also County Road 601 across from Pear Street directly across South Second Street. We are located in the RA15 zone. Um, and directly behind the property is the John W. Ginty Recreation Park. There's ball fields,
tennis courts there, and surrounding the property is other residential uses. And uh diagonally ac across the street is a commercial property. I believe that's uh for lease or rent right now. Um the existing site slopes from South South Street to the back to the back and uh
currently contains a 2 and 1 half story dwelling with a small garage and a driveway um off of South Street. Um there currently is some vegetation in the backyard, some trees. We do not plan to remove any trees. Um uh we do plan to
remove the existing garage that's there. Um build a new new garage, twocar garage with uh two and a half stories above to match the existing roof line. Uh which the architect will get into more. Uh we will we want to expand the curb drive.
Figure two. >> Figure two shows existing conditions on the left side of the plan with items to be removed outlined in red. And to the right of the plan is our proposed conditions. As you can see, the proposed garage shaded in gray. It does contain a overhang which is counted into building
coverage. Um the town anything 2T or more and overhang counts for building coverage. We have accounted for that. Um around the garage we are planning to build uh build a small retaining wall no more than >> it's going off.
>> I'll just use this. Uh we are using as I said before we are constructing a small retaining wall no more than 4 feet in height around the garage just to help with existing grades of the neighbor um as well as the driveway grades uh that we're proposing. Um and as far as
imperous coverage and building coverage goes, um we are compliant with building coverage, impervious coverage and building height. What we are seeking are two variances for front yard setback uh where 50 ft is required and we are proposing 24.42 but that is the existing
structure which we are not touching. So that's a pre-existing non-conforming variance. Um the second variance is a sard setback uh where 20 feet is required and we're proposing 4.36 feet which is the existing house. The
addition of the garage will be a 4.56 ft setback. So that's also a variance. However, the existing house is more close to the property line than the new garage will be. >> I'm sorry. What's the garage at again? >> The garage will be 4.56 ft. So in our
plans we list both. So 4.36 if this is currently existing is the worst case. 4.56 is the garage. Um the building height uh measured from average grade around the building um as well as 20 ft off of the building itself. That's how
the building height was measured and as I said before we are compliant with that. Um in regards to storm water management the project is not considered a major development. Therefore, we are complying with the requirements for a lock grading plan which is uh you have to retain or hold three inches of
rainfall over the additional impervious coverage that you are proposing. So that comes to 177.25 cubic feet that were required to detain or retain on site. And we are proposing a storm check uh storm storm tech
chamber system which is essentially an arched uh pipe that will infiltrate into the ground and that is providing 197 cubic feet of storage. So we are complying with the stormwater requirements for a lock grading plan. Um
and then I I wanted to speak on there was a comment um I believe from the engineer to prepare an exhibit or it was requested of us to prepare an exhibit with showing the flood hazard area and any you know wetlands or anything that were around the property. And I just wanted to state that we did pull out a a
flood hazard area on our title sheet which was the previously effective map from 1981. And um since then FEMA has adopted uh preliminary maps dating back to February 2016 which to my knowledge
have just been become effective in August of 2025. So very recently. And so we prepared an exhibit which is shown on the screen for you today. I can also it highlighted >> working now. Okay. >> We have a hard copy of that.
>> I have um a single large large copy. I don't have any handouts. Um, >> okay. I just wanted for the file. We're going to mark that one. Okay. >> Here's a copy. >> So, just for the record, this one will be A1 with today's date. It's entitled
Environmentally Sensitive Areas Exhibit. Okay. So what we've prepared is again the uh the current property and the proposed conditions situated on the left side. Um and what's shown here is the proposed conditions over top existing conditions and there's a purple line
shown at the bottom of the screen. Uh not that's identified as a contour an elevation and that's um the preliminary FEMA 100-year flood elevation. Um now this the which is also identified as the base flood elevation. Um the state of
New Jersey um what they do is to get to the design flood elevation they add 3 ft on top of that and that becomes your new flood hazard elevation. So the the line shown in red at the top of the screen that is the additional three feet. Um
and um it's just showing essentially the limit of the flood hazard area based on the preliminary flood hazard maps provided by FEMA. Um I I um reviewed the DP uh maps, the FEMA maps, the Morris County panels, and um
that is the most recent map that has been provided. Although, as I said before, it hasn't been uh effective. There are effective maps that have been released in August 2025. However, I'm not sure if just the municipalities received them, but I wasn't able to find them online, the uh officially adopted
new map of August 2025. So, we're showing uh what we believe to be uh the most accurate based on what's available online. Um and I just wanted to say that the elevations that were generated or calculated are taken from um online
databases and resources that the D and FEMA have conducted which provide cross-sectional elevations of the stream bed and um with that with during their flood studies, they've come to these elevations that have been provided. However, they are draft noted as a draft elevation.
Um, these are products of the Lanica brook that are from behind the property. They go back beyond the blow the ball fields. Um, and as you can see in the top right map, our property is located at the top left of the uh of the screen. Uh, it's a little hard to see, but the
area shaded in blue is essentially that 100redyear flood elevation from FEMA, not plus the 3T. So that is identified as the purple line as you can see on the right hand side. Um you can see how uh the Lanica brook in the middle borders
that and um the foot hazard elevation varies you know depending on topography and flood flow and whatnot as you go down the stream. Um the map on the bottom right it was asked of us to show any potential wetlands in the area. That's a map from um the D geo web which
maps uh wetlands from 2020 on and that is shown as the wetland area in the blue which looks like you know water or lakes that's actually the wetlands they've identified in their their database. So we're far away from any wetlands. Um and
just going back to the flood hazard. Um what we what we want want to do is you know just verify with what we're showing that the effective maps are accurate to what we are showing here. Um and we would we will be seeking or we want to have a discussion with the D and seeking
uh to how to obtain a permit because our our proposed garage as well as part of our driveway and some of our retaining wall is located within that flood hazard area. So, in order to get, you know, it approved, it would be a condition of approval that we would go speak to the DP, get a verification, and um most
likely get a general permit number 12, which is a or sorry, permit by rule number 12, which is the construction of an addition to a lawfully existing habitable building. Um, the one thing we wanted to discuss with them is a the garage um is being proposed not for a h
a habitable space. It's for the storage of the vehicles only. And uh within the permit, you know, they're they're requiring you to set your your finished floor elevation at a certain elevation above the flood hazard elevation. Um and what we wanted to discuss with them, you
know, is that this this garage is only intended for vehicle use. It's not a habitable space. It's not technically the finished floor elevation of the building. The floors above are the finished floor of the main principal structure and residence. So we wanted to argue that although the garage is within
the flood hazard area, we would propose something like flood h uh floodgates, you know, openings within the garage itself, so that water can freely enter and leave and wouldn't displace any flood water that way. Um but we would argue that it's not a habitable space, therefore doesn't need to meet the um
elevation required above the design flood elevation. Um, and that's what I where I really wanted to end with with the flood hazard uh exhibit and how it's impacting our property. So we'll turn to me.
>> So I think what you've heard described is um very much so a good faith effort to help identify what the current standards are with mapping that um was originally from the 80s. And most
recently, many of you might remember about 10 12 years ago, FEMA had gone through a process of getting to preliminary maps that were never adopted and made final. In the last few years, the what we we were just referencing of
the the effective date in August is that mapping product finally coming to us. However, there were for the county of more specifically other counties had recently been gone through this process. In our county, uh there was a correction where there were certain errors
identified in mapping panels that affected communities surrounding us. It doesn't appear that our MAP panel was affected, but there is some continued um lack of clarity as to how
the government shutdown affected FEMA's adoption of those maps. And so while they are intended to be effective as of August, I don't believe they've been fully codified, for lack of a better term, at the federal level. Um I think
the efforts by the applicant and their engineer and testimony um are a good faith effort to ensure that whatever is done here meets a current standard. Um and it will help us with their efforts understand at the construction
code permit level if there are certain requirements to the building such as um you know freely passive openings in in the non-habitable space that would be appropriate. The uh re related to that would be that a
permit by rule is an approach that it somewhat to what it sounds like. You have you obtain a permit because you're entitled to it because you meet certain conditions. It's like conditional use in our code. You meet certain conditions
and you fit within that box. So you're essentially entitled to give yourself the permit. And if you go along that route without meeting with D, your interpretation is is the interpretation. I think the good faith effort to talk to
D in a preapp meeting allows that if there is a misunderstanding of those regulatory areas and the elevations, it gives the us all an opportunity to make sure it's built correctly. Okay. Um, and I think that it being a garage non-habitable on the first floor allows
us um a certain understanding that what they're proposing is appropriate at this location in this edge of the flood plane, so to speak. >> Right. And they are right at the edge of the flood plane. >> Yes. So the the flood plane as proposed in the current mapping by FEMA is I
believe it's roughly 285. What's the elevation? >> It's 283.8 is 100 year. So 33.8 to 4. >> You would then add from the the three feet. Now you used to always add one foot to get from FEMA to D
>> after the inland flood protection rules a couple of years ago and with the NJP pack rules, right? You you increase that to three feet. So you added two feet on top. That's the difference between kind of that purple line and the red line you see in their exhibit. that's adding to
the the state standard and that's where the structure is now involved in that flood plane discussion as opposed to just what would have been areas of very minor grading in the yard um are now you know inclusive to the structure and I think the approach that
they're taking for permit by rule is an applicable approach it's permittable that way and going to D to reinforce it is only kind of the best practice by us all >> okay >> um so moving on from a highly technical
flood plane side of things. Um I did have a question regarding the setbacks. So on on the side that is let's see the south side of the property, the
south side yard. Um I I did follow your existing 4.36 setback and then a proposed setback that's slightly larger than that. So exacerbating that existing nonconformity with more massing in the
sideyard is is the variance they're seeking there. But the opposite sideyard um if you could just clarify where that measurement is taken from for the combined Sure. >> I I believe our code requires you look
at the stairs and the landing. Just >> Yeah. Let me We do have a setback to the landing. I just want to double check that. That was the sum of both numbers here. >> Okay. >> 59. [Applause]
I I'm actually it doesn't it doesn't add up based on what's shown. So, >> right. So I it was >> potentially we needed to add variance for the for both combined if it didn't meet the 50
>> and I just wanted to be able to offer that to you to get it from the board now as opposed to be correct if some other >> it's about 52 to the corner of that uh >> to the corner landing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So then the combined will be over the 50 with the single side being at 50 plus.
>> So we only need to do the one. >> So we only need the one. I just wanted to clarify that for us. >> Great. >> And might as well speak to the storm water, right? So the approach that's been taken, >> yes, >> compliant with our lock rating requirements for minor development, >> right?
>> Um so we typically would then still take a lock rating permit as the township after this >> so that we track that approval cleanly in engineering with paperwork as opposed to as part of this approval. Right? But uh it is already designed so that it is
essentially a um administrative process of affirming what we have here in front of us and then moving it on through prior approvals to construction. >> Okay. So we're good there. >> Yes. >> Board members, any questions of the witness? Are you done? >> Well, I just wanted to say one more
thing regarding the the flood plane. The back of our property is about as close to 500 ft away from the stream itself, just to give you perspective of how far away it is. And you know, so we're outside most likely. I don't want to say for sure, but given the distance that we are from the stream, we're most
definitely outside of the 25 foot from top of bank and out of the repairing zone. Even with a 300t repairing zone, we just have 200 ft more room to work with. So those are other factors that are very restrictive when it comes to flood hazard permits. You can't be within 25 ft of the top of bank of the
stream. And if you're a repairarian zone, there's a lot more requirements you need to do, which we're out of. So, I just wanted to just state that as well. >> Yeah, it pushes us out to the outer edge of the 100red-year flood plan as opposed to somewhere that there might be other permitting implications that D
identifies. I'm confident in that approach as well. >> So, you've got both you've got all the ball field between you and the stream. >> Yes, >> potentially. >> And the fire department. Yeah, >> we'll feel it before they do. Yeah.
>> Okay. Board members, any questions? Members of the public, any questions? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Can you come up? Uh, oh, that mic. Is that microphone? >> Yes. He just he just replaced the batteries. >> Can we have your name, please?
>> My name is >> So, I'm sorry, but would you spell your last name, please? >> So, harm. Hm. >> And my last name is Janusa. G N USA >> and your question >> your address
>> 386 South Street. So I guess we're on the south side. I'm guessing I don't I'm not an engineer. Um I just have a concern uh regarding >> questions only at this point. >> Uh you'll be able to speak. So,
number one, uh, we took a look at the plans online and I I guess from what we can see, the garage is staying facing the way it already is. >> Is that correct? And just going further back. >> Yes. The footprint's gotten larger towards the back of the property.
>> So, our major concern for me is water. So, that area in between the houses gets very wet. So, we're not sure what taking away that um you know the the land there that that is
not built on, right? And the driveway is not paved, >> right? >> So, once if the driveway is going to be paved and once there's more building, what is that going to do to the water between our properties, which is right on the line there? That that's our biggest concern. Um
>> yeah, so to speak, I can speak to that. Um, so you're you're located on on this side of the property, correct? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, with the increase in in the garage, >> the other side, >> we're um
>> toward toward >> toward >> Okay. So, with the increase in previous coverage, um the storm water system that we're providing now wasn't there before. So, we're providing underground storage for any storm water runoff for the
additional increase in the garage size and pavement. Um, so what's there now won't be it'll be improved because we're capturing water and we're storing it whereas before it was just flowing wherever it wanted to wanted to off of the house, you know, onto grade. Um, and
we have the entire garage is being collected by a roof leader system. So, that's being contained as well as the retaining wall will have a drainage pipe as well. So anything that falls beyond within the retaining wall will be captured and and sent um down the site where it naturally would go. Um
additionally with that the retaining wall is capturing water essentially as well. So if we had removed the retaining wall all of that water would just flow you know essentially offsite into someone else's property. The retaining wall is capturing that water with the drain pipe and releasing it you know where it should be going. So when I
speak to that, we're providing storm water management where it never existed before. So therefore, the runoff onto other people's properties shouldn't get any worse. It shouldn't be negative negatively impacted um you know, with the improvements that are being proposed. >> One more. Are you So I'm assuming the
driveway will be paved where it's not now. >> It's it's going to be uh gravel gravel driveway. So it's not >> Okay. Then then >> which helps with rain water, too. Yeah. That was my my biggest concern was was the water because it is a concern in >> it's a low area that part of the street
it's like the lowest >> and in between our houses is low >> your house is like the lowest part so every time >> Yeah. All I can say is we're we're complying with what we have to do to retain it. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. >> All right. So Joe, would we retain that
as a condition that the driveway would stay as gravel >> from a runoff calculation? It it it's the same gravel or impervious is treated as impervious coverage and generating the amount of runoff that they're still offsetting.
>> So if they were to pave it, then they've already mitigated for paving it. Um >> the gravel provides some additional opportunity for the water to infiltrate in the short term. And if they consider it a pavement, they've already mitigated for it. >> It's shown on the plan as gravel though,
so >> that change. >> So yeah, if they were to decide to pave it later, we wouldn't need to increase the the drywall system to accommodate that. It just be kind of a net.
>> Okay. Okay. Great. Okay. >> Any other members of the public with questions or this witness? If not, close the public portion for next witness, please. >> Yes. Call up the architect. Did you want to review qualifications? >> Yes. Would you please review your
qualifications with the board, please? >> Sure. Uh my name is John Lions. Uh my firm is Lions McConnell, which is at 27 Deart Street, Marstown. Uh I have a masters in architecture from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, and I'm licensed in the state of New Jersey since 2008. And it's
>> Yeah, my license is current. I testified in front of a number of boards in New Jersey, including this board. >> Thank you. We'll accept you as an expert in architecture. >> Thank you. Uh the drawings that we will review are the same drawings you have in front of you. No, no changes have been made to the plans. U I'd like to start by
reviewing drawing A1.0. A1.0. And and on all of the architectural drawings, they will be all of the floor plan drawings, you'll have the existing on your left and the proposed on the right. the existing plan of the house and and we're looking on a 1.0 at the basement
plans. We have the existing basement here shown and we have an a garage off the back of the house. We're uh proposing to remove that garage and add a new garage, a new twocar garage at the rear. Uh similar location, just larger
garage. Um this uh storage piece will stay and everything the massing of the front of the home stays as is. Moving now to drawing A1.1, which is our first floor plan. On the left side, you can see the
existing first floor plan of the home. The main block of the home is a 26 ft plus or minus by 26T rectangle square here. And then there's a sun room off the right of that. Uh and existing the you can see now here below is the garage
that we will be removing. What we're proposing is to keep that main block as is. This is the front door of the home shown here. You go into the front door of the home. There's a stair hall, living room, office to the front right.
Then you go into a kitchen, the kitchen and the proposed family room. There is a half bath and there is a uh dinette breakfast room area. This the breakfast room Mary will have an entry off here uh with steps masonry steps going down to grade off the right side of the home.
>> That's towards the driveway. Is that correct? >> Correct. Uh yeah. So uh South Street is here running here and the driveway will come along the right side of the home and down to the garage uh underneath in the back. >> Okay. >> Moving now to drawing A1.2 which are the second floor plans existing and
proposed. Um, on the I'll move right to the proposed second floor plan. Uh, we have in the main block of the home, you get to the top of the stairs, we'll have a we're going to move a laundry room. The current laundry room is in the basement. We're going to move that up to the second floor of the home. And then you will have um uh one bedroom. You'll have
two bedrooms with a shared bath. And in the rear, you'll have a third uh primary suite with a bedroom, bath, and closets. The existing home is three bedrooms, one bath on the second floor. The proposal will be three bedrooms, two baths on the second floor.
Moving to drawing A1.3. There is an access there is a stair to an accessible attic. Um, it's existing. The only change we're proposing there is we're reconfiguring the stair for the second floor. So, there'll be a new stair to the attic. And we're proposing a dormer on the front of the home that you'll see in the elevations. Um, gives a little
more head height in the attic, but it also looks nice on the front of the home. We'll we'll look at that in the front elevation, uh, which we're going to move to next. Moving to drawing a 2.0. So, on on these drawings, you're going to we're going to go from existing to proposed, top down.
So, this is the existing front elevation of the home, and this is our proposed. As you can see, there aren't dramatic changes where you're going to see from South Street other than we're proposing a dormer in the attic space. And uh these are our steps on the right side of the home.
We're also we're changing the windows on the second floor here to allow for our new that's becoming a bathroom. It was like a second floor sun porch. So that's going to become a bathroom. So we're going to have one window versus the two. Looking at the right side elevation, this is existing and proposed. This is
our right side. These are our steps that'll go into that breakfast room. And these are our garage doors. So the our driveway will come down. We have garage doors here. These are windows in the family room. And then up above, this is the primary bedroom.
So that is looking at our uh drawing A2.0. Moving now to A2.1. Looking at the home from the rear. This is the existing rear elevation. the existing garage and bumpout are to be removed. This is the new proposed
addition which you can see the uh these are windows in the family room looking out to the back of the property. Uh this is the retaining wall that Harrison mentioned and these are this is the these are the new steps on the on the on that side the southern side of the home. Looking at the left side, here's our
existing left side elevation and proposed. This is our new addition. Uh we step down the roof as you move back towards the back. This is we stepped this roof down. Um, and this is the proposed uh primary bath. And these are the family room windows on that side.
Uh, just to reiterate, we have um two variances. One is for the existing sideyard which we are um we are matching or we're at 4.56 for the which is the back corner of the garage that's at that 4.56 and the front yard setback. The
front yard setback of the home is about is about is really through the main body of the existing home. It's 50 ft and we're at 20 we're at 24 in the front and this is about 26 feet. So you're about here with your your front yard set back. U there are series of homes right there on South Street that are set pretty
close to the street. Um, but, uh, what I do want to point out is that the home we're proposing is dramatically undersized for what is allowed on the property. Uh, the the allowable building coverage is 20%. And we're at 7.9. So, we're below half,
somewhat substantially below half. And the allowable coverage is 45% and we're at 16.1. So, what the home we're proposing is not too big of a home. and we're not covering too much of property. What
we're dealing with is a hardship for where the existing home sits on the property as it stands as it was built. Um it's located existing non-conforming in the front and sideyard setbacks, but how with our additions, we're encroaching no closer uh no closer. Um the building
coverage and the impervious coverage, as we said, are dramatically below what is allowed. Um, and for these reasons we've stated, we feel the relief granted will be without substantial detriment to the public good will not substantially impair the intent of the zoning ordinance. I'd be happy to answer any
questions from the board. >> Sure. Um, is there any proposed use for the attic other than storage? >> There's no proposed. >> Yeah, just storage. >> Okay. And from my looking at the drawings, more of the addition is in the
actual within the actual setback lines in the house itself as it exists. >> Very similar. >> Yes. Yeah. Because there's there's other than the dormer on the front, there's no additions in the front yard. >> Right. Okay. >> Board members, any other questions?
>> No. >> Members of the public, any questions of this witness? If not, close the public portion. Anything else? >> Board professionals. Anything?
>> Any member of the public wants to make any statement on this application? Seeing none, hearing none, close the public portion. >> Yes. >> I didn't mean to. >> Do you have a question? >> Yeah. I just going to ask him was there
any additional lighting that was going to be on the property at all? >> I can show you the we have a we have a roof over the garage door. So that'll be down lighting. So we're not proposing any any sconces or anything that would be shining towards the neighbor. There would be lights that
shine straight down. >> Thank you. Uh at the uh we also have a little roof over the sideboards down like >> Okay. All right. So board members, any comments, questions? If not, I'll
entertain any kind of motion. I I feel like this application is you you couldn't put an addition on this house uh more in keeping with the house itself and given the setback lines that exist that probably 80% of the
existing house is outside setback lines more of the addition within the setback lines than out of it. So, uh, think it's a good, uh, good proposal and I'd be in favor of it, but I'd solicit any other opinions. >> I I agree with you, Mr. Chair. I also
like that the applicant took into consideration the water um, made preparations for it for any additional water that comes out with the neighbors and what have you. So I would also be in favor and actually if there's no other comment I'll make a
motion that we approve this with the um with any uh restrictions that we may >> would we make it conditional on D approval or >> we it's one of our standard conditions. >> Okay. >> All right. >> I'll second his motion.
>> All right. Roll call. >> Mr. Goldberg. >> Yes. >> Mr. Trackenberg. >> Yes. Mr. Williams, >> yes. >> Mr. Schustster, >> yes. >> Mr. Benois, >> yes. >> Mr. Kramer, >> yes. >> Mr. Warter, >> yes. >> So move.
>> Okay. >> So, I'll have that resolution for you at the next meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> This is this goes to you. Next we have the continuation on BA-04-25 uh 383 South Street LLC.
>> Yes, Mr. Chairman. This is continuation of July 28th, 2025 and August 25th, 2025 public hearings. Applicant proposes modifications and improvements to the existing garden. Applicant proposes to
utilize a portion of the building space for small events, functions as well as coffee stand with associated seating. >> Good evening, council. Can we have your appearance, please? >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Nice to see everybody. For the record, Larry Tally on behalf of the
applicant. Um, we don't have much of a direct presentation tonight, Mr. Chairman, board members, as I think you folks know, um, very limited. We might do a recall of Mr. Toby after. I think tonight is going to be, uh, the applicant relenting for the objector to put on their case. And chief, I would
just like to put one thing on the record first before we commence that, Mr. Chairman, uh, if I might, which is, you know, we started this application almost 100 days ago before the board. The board's been helping the application move, I think, at an very appropriate speed, but it was about, you know, I did the math short while ago, 63 days ago.
We were last here, and it was 63 days for the objector to issue a planning report. We got it tonight. Um, I think that that could sometimes be a delay and folks are busy here. I know it's a strategy with an objection, right? That's sort of chapter one. >> Didn't we in uh implement a rule that
you're supposed to have those uh any planning report in 10 days in advance? So they give out all parties an opportunity to review it. >> I think the board did and um you know so you know but all that said uh and I'll leave it to the board whether or not to let that be entered into the record for this evening's purposes for the
objector's case and chief but uh from our perspective you know our request is that you know we present um the objector's case with a respect for expediency of the process. We expect the objector to process their case efficiently. Uh it took us you know let's say 20 minutes for our traffic
engineer to testify. Their consultant shouldn't be three hours. I think anything like that would be outside the course of normal practices. So our ask is that they do so uh in a bonafide efficient manner this evening and our limited um testimony might be a recall of Mr. Tobia and then we intend to sum up. Mr. Chairman, time permitted.
>> Okay. Um do we have a copy of the report? >> Yes, it was sent by email today. >> Oh, I didn't see it. >> Yeah, it was a little later around uh 4:30 or so. Yeah, >> I was I was cooking dinner.
>> You can have my coffee if you like. >> You want to go make some copies? >> Does everybody Does everybody else get it? >> I got it. >> I got it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> It's not terribly wrong long. I mean, I think we can get through it pretty quickly and rather than
>> say we don't want to hear the testimony, I think we want to move it. Okay. >> And it's a short report. Okay. All right. So, we going to still put on the objectors. >> Yeah. At this point, our direct case rest, Mr. Chairman, again, I I again, I
have Michael Tobia with me. No other witnesses. They all concluded uh their testimony and cross-examination. So, Michael might be up for a limited recall, but that will be after whatever objectors intend to present. So, we you know, we make the floor available to to any challengers to the case at this time with your permission, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Sir,
>> so Mr. Rosenbach. >> Yes. >> Why don't you step up to the microphone, please? This one. >> That works. Sure. >> And just your appearance, please. >> Sure. Uh, my name is Phil Rosenbach. I'm
from a law firm, Burman Rosenbach LLC in Bernardsville. Uh, by the way, I represent two objectors, uh, John Weisserber and Eric Fierra. There is, I know, at least one other objector here tonight who I do not represent, who I don't speak for, and will not be questioning.
>> Right. So, let me just I just want to be sure because you know, anyone that you represent, you'll be asking questions for, >> of course, for me. Um although I think there's no questions left since we're we're done with witnesses on that side.
So you have Mr. um and Mrs. is it Gerber? >> Weber it I believe it'll be only only Mr. Weiss Gerber from from >> and and another neighbor Eric Vieiraa. >> Okay. And and your email had or something I saw said Guy Benarren.
>> Uh he will not be testifying. He he's my client but he will not be testifying. >> Okay. Okay. So, we're going to hear testimony from John Wesenberger and Eric Vieiraa >> as well. >> Okay.
as well as a civil engineer named Mark Krisbet, a wetland scientist named Darren Ler, an acoustical engineer named Jack Zabura, and the planner who has already been referenced named Alexander Mlan. And I
assure you, uh, we've had no, uh, interest or intent to prejudice the applicant or delay things. Uh, we all just got hired. >> Okay. Well, let's bring your first guy up, then. Uh, let's call, uh, John Meister.
>> Eric, you're going to come up and do a computer. >> He could use this microphone over here, too. >> Okay. I can carry so >> that one. >> Okay. >> Oh, he's good.
>> Um, this gentleman here is trying to put everything on the screen. >> Okay. So, why doesn't he sit right behind Mr. Toby in that corner? Does that work? Unless you'd rather that table, you can stay there. because I'm fine here as long as
>> Okay, that's fine. That's fine. >> Is he going to testify? He's going to need the microphone. >> No, he's going to testify. He's just putting things up on the screen. >> Oh, for Mr. White. Okay. >> All right. Although this is Mr. V. He will be the second neighbor who testif
Okay. Thank you. This one. Oh, one. >> I don't know. Let's find out. >> I'm not sure if that's the order it's going in at. >> You could share it over there. the only one I know. >> Uh, good evening. Uh, my name is John
Weissgarber. I'm a resident and property owner. >> So, Mr. Weiss Garerber, would you raise >> Okay. >> Mr. Weiss Garber, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth? Who told truth and nothing but the truth?
>> I do. >> And again, just uh state your name, spell your last name for it, please. >> John Weisserber. W I S G E R B E R >> and your address. >> 20 Prospect Place,
Morristown. >> Okay. >> Okay. Will I proceed? >> Yes, sir. Thank you. >> All right. And is this microphone working? Yes. I hope so. >> I can't tell from here. >> Me either. >> All right. Okay. >> Okay. So, Mr. Weissber, you've just
given your address and as a starting point, uh, we have a picture up on the screen and I'm not sure board how you want us to do these. >> You've handed us two sheets. One's black and white and one is this other color
sheet of aerials. Are you referring to the aerials first? here. Um, you there should be a package I believe that you got. >> That one's not in there. Hold on. >> Two pages.
>> Yeah, >> I'm just getting to if I'm marking these separately or what. So, I just want to mark these, right? Yeah. So, >> we're going to talk about the color areas first, then I'll mark it open. We are talking about the one for the moment
the one colored aerial that is up on the screen. >> Okay. So, since this is stapled, do you want this 01 to be a two-page exhibit and we can talk about >> Mr. Oler? I I think it'll just be easier to take it apart and we'll mark them separately in the >> So, we're going to mark that first
thing. They have up on the screen. The aerial of the property is 01. >> That'll be fine. >> And in the bottom right corner, it says OE. Um, I'm sorry. OXE-03.1. That's the one, right? >> Yes. And that was my my client's um
optimistic self-marking of these as exhibits. >> Okay. So, that is exhibit 01 with today's date. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Wer. Let's go forward. First of all, um can you explain to the board what this is a
picture of and also um where you live on this picture? Uh 20 Prospect Place is the brown roofed house at the lower left corner of the screen. >> So if I were to go here and point to the screen or if you point to the screen
>> right here. >> All right. It's the one with with the car in front. >> Yes. >> All right. And and can you describe where that is in relation to the applicant site then? >> We are um about
150 ft from the end of Prospect Place. Prospect Place is a dead end street that abuts the uh site of South Street Gardens. >> Right. And in fact, you're you're on a dead end street, correct? >> That's correct. >> And so, how does one get to Prospect Place if if if one wants to?
>> Mr. Chair, before we continue, can we authenticate these aerials, these drones, who took the drone shots and what their dates are? >> Sure. And when they were taken. >> Sure. Can you do that? >> Sure. Could could you could you this is this uh drone shot that is the color picture is from August 18th
>> and who took the picture? >> Oh gosh. >> The name of the company >> I don't remember his name tell the truth. >> All right. But um are you able to tell us that this accurately represents the property? >> Yes. >> As of August 18th?
>> Correct. Great. >> And and pardon me, I just don't know. Do I uh move formally move exhibits into evidence? >> Can you use the microphone? Thank you. >> Do I formally move exhibits into evidence? >> Let's do that when you're done with all
your exhibits. >> That'll be fine. We'll accept them. >> All right. >> All right. So, uh I was asking you, Mr. Oysber, how you get to Prospect Place. >> Uh from South Street, you enter on Sand Hill Road and then you make a left. The first left is Prospect Place.
>> And Prospect Place is a dead end. >> Correct. >> And and so the street stubs, if I may may use that, toward toward the applicant's property, >> correct? >> All right. But it doesn't extend into the applicant's property or the street extending on the side of the applicant's
property. >> It doesn't intersect with Pear Street. >> All right. Now, could How long have you lived at your present location? I bought the property in 1975 and built my home in 1976. >> And could you in a in a general sense
describe the property I'm sorry, describe your neighborhood in terms of how noisy it is in a general sense. >> It's a very quiet neighborhood. >> Do do you hear South Street traffic? >> No. >> Do you hear Route 287 traffic? >> Not Not that much. We hear it as like a
steady drone 287. Uh there there's the office building where the school used to be. Do you hear noise from there? >> No. >> Uh now from 1975 on until recently uh when Glendale Florest was in operation,
what noise did you hear from Glendale Forest? >> Um Buzzy Rose cutting the grass once in a while. That was the only noise we heard. >> Okay. I've mentioned the uh the the school/off
building uh and I've mentioned the florest uh and am I correct that the office building is actually in a different zone? >> Yes, it's in the OSGU zone. >> So, so if we so it's so in a sense it's part of the neighborhood but it's not in
the zone. So, if we carve that out and we leave the florist, the applicant right now, uh, aside from the applicant, are you aware of other commercial uses in this zone? >> None.
>> Is is there anything within uh a quarter mile that you're aware of in in this zone that you would call commercial >> within the RF5? No. Now, do you have personal knowledge about the history of Glendale Farms?
>> Uh, yes, I do. >> Can you share that? >> 50 years that I've lived there alongside Glendale. >> All right. Is there an another exhibit that you wish to use? >> I'd like to discuss, you know, kind of the history of Glendale and where they come from. >> Farms.
Okay. Okay. Uh, we've put up what I will mark as O2. And could you just describe what it is and and where first of all, where does it come from? Where where does it where does this come from? This comes from a program called historic aerials
that I prescribe to. Basically, it's uh aerial survey photos that have been taken as early as uh 1917 to the present. >> When you say you subscribe to it, you mean as a hobby or do you mean as part of your profession? >> I use it as part of my profession.
>> And what is your profession by the way? >> I'm a consultant. >> What type of consultant? >> Engineering consultant for building systems and planning. And is this uh so so so this system that you subscribe to is something that you you're very accustomed to? >> Yes.
>> All right. And does this photograph have a date? >> This is 1963. >> Before it's No, no, it's not before my time. I was born in 1948. >> Before your time on the street. >> Uh before my time on the street. Yes.
>> All right. Uh it's it's a it's a partial shot of Mars County 1963. >> And what have you highlighted on this photograph? >> As some people may be aware, this area was a a rose growing area. Many rose
farms and Mars County and particularly Madison had a large concentration of of rose growers. So what this this aerial indicates is as of 1963 out of the 50 original rose growers, how
many were still remaining in 1963? And these are these are farms that I'm very familiar with because I grew up in this area. So I'm very familiar with every one of these sites. Uh, and if I may, uh, you'll see Glendale in the upper
leftand corner, Lexington Gardens, which used to occupy the Southgate site, and a and before Lexington Gardens, it was actually a dairy farm. Then as we proceed down uh, South Street and we get to Hickory Tree, we have a
large site that was called Rose Farms. It was one of the largest farms in the area, which is now the Hickory Square Shopping Center. Next to Rose Farms Green Houses, we have Hy Green Houses, which was a smaller business actually
closed in 1999. They were the last survivor in the actual rose growing industry. Then adjacent to those on Lanica Way is Faro Green Houses who was my uncle Andre uh great uncle Andre. And then over on
Shunpike we have Sedano Green Houses, which was my uncle Vincenzo. And then as we proceed down the Shunpike, we get to where the current Chadam Township school resides, which is used to be Rosika Green Houses. And
further down Lanica, we had one of the original lum green houses. Further up on on um towards the center of Madison, we had two more lum greenhouse sites. And then up where the Madison High School is on Ridgedale Avenue, we had the Ridgale green houses. He was very these were
very large rose growing farms. They were part of the industry that gives Madison its name, the Rose City. Right. Mr. >> Chairman, are we are we going to start focy at this point, but Memory Lane is great and this is interesting, but are we going to start focusing on the subject property and the application and their challenge to it?
>> So, he's asking what's the relevance of having so many in 1963. >> Well, my next question was going to be about Glendale Farms. Oh. Because to answer this council's question in a sort of technical way, we we disbelieve that this is a in any respect a continuation
of a non-conforming use. This was a farm. This was not a garden center. And unless those happened to be identical, we are now putting in evidence that this was a farm. >> Yeah. I mean, that's fine. They could have gotten there 3,000 words ago in our opinion. And we're just paying attention to the clock and the time here. I
realize they've got a full witness deck that was thrown upon my client within the past few days. We just want again efficiency is sort of our mantra of the evening. We would like them to be more efficient about this process which is a very wellestablished process. >> It is established. I agree. And I'm doing what I'm supposed to do. And if
council wants to take over my case, which I wouldn't allow him to do, he could do it more quickly. >> Okay. Let's move it out. Okay. >> All right. Let's let's focus on Glendale Farms. Okay. >> To to your knowledge, what was the business of Glendale Farms?
Glendale was incorporated in 1917 as a rose farm and greenhouse. It continued in business over a period of almost 100 years. And the next slide actually shows again from historic
aerial photography the Rosedale the Glendale site as it existed in 1931. Okay. Well, let's stop. Let's first we're going to mark it as 03. All right. And where do these photographs come from? >> Historic aerial photography. The logo is
actually in the upper right corner of the >> the same source that you've described before. Yes. >> And the same source that you use professionally. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Is that historical.com? >> Yes. >> All right. And so now that you've done that, you have a series of 12
photographs. >> Yes. >> And each one has a date. >> These are the Glendale. >> And I think it should be pretty obvious what they are, but can you describe how the dates relate to the photographs? >> Uh 1931 is the earliest published photo and we moved to 1957. You'll notice in
the photo you'll see what's a large structure toward the back of the property. That was the original grow. That was a 200ft greenhouse that used to exist on the back of that property. And that greenhouse existed through 63. And then in 1970, you'll notice it gets kind of skimpy looking. That's because all
the glass was gone by that time. It was just a relic standing there of a frame. And then you'll see in 1979, it's a green field. That's because that original grow was torn down. And that black roof structure that you see there is now what is being proposed for the
venue center, indoor venue. That was actually Bucky Rose's apartment that he occupied uh until he left the town. Uh 1987, again, the site has not changed at all. 1991, still open green fields with
a cluster of buildings in the center. 1997, open green fields. You'll see a couple fabric green houses that were added in the front. Uh but still, front yard is all open field. Backyard is all open field. 2002 same conditions. You
see the fabric green houses do change a little bit over over time but essentially the site does not change from year to year 20 uh 2007 again open fields couple of structures in the center. So up until 2017, which
is the latest aerial photography that's available on this website, the site has not changed from the way it looked in 1931, except that the large growhouse has been replaced by a small apartment. >> And during the time that you've lived on
Prospect Place, or perhaps even otherwise when you were in the neighborhood, did you do business, if I may use that expression, at Glendel Farms? Uh, Henry Rose supplied the flowers for our wedding in 1968 and it cost me 175 bucks. >> And otherwise, did you did you buy
things at the farm or not? >> Uh, flowers mostly. >> There was nothing else to pie. >> Well, that's my that's my question. Was there anything else to buy? >> Flowers. That was all they sold. Is there anything else that you can tell the board pertinent to the history of
Glendale Farms or or are you done? >> Uh, I'm done except, you know, for for the 50 years that I've lived on Prospect Place. Glendale was this kind of innocuous property that didn't make noise, didn't have bright lights, no traffic. There were never
more five than five or six cars ever on that site the 50 years that I lived here. >> How did you find out about the present application? >> Uh you do live within 200 feet. >> Yeah, I was notified eventually.
>> Well, what do you mean by eventually? >> Uh we were on vacation uh beginning of July from the 4th to the 17th. And when I returned from vacation, we went through the mail and I found an
envelope, registered envelopes, stamped, uh, delivered on July the 8th, and the envelope was empty. It was a certified empty envelope. >> And what did you do with that certified empty envelope? >> I saw that it came from Cali Law Firm.
So, I contacted the law firm to find out what I was supposed to receive. And the girl was very apologetic and she said that it was a notice for a public hearing. Uh and I requested that she at least email me the notice so I knew what
I was dealing with. So um that was on the 14th of July. Uh that day my brother-in-law passed away suddenly. So we were kind of uh consumed by funeral arrangements and services for the next week to 10 days. So, I never saw that
particular email until I got back to my office and that was on the 28th of July. And >> that was two days after the first hearing in this application. >> Yes. So, I never got to visit or attend
the uh first application, but I did download the video and and watch the three hours of testimony that took place during that first meeting. So, I heard the planning testimony, the architect's testimony, the engineers testimony, the traffic consultant didn't show up till
the next meeting, but we heard, you know, quite a bit of testimony. At least I was able to absorb what took place. >> Now, you understand that this application uh is calling for the expansion of a garden center, right?
>> Uh I don't believe it's a garden center, but >> All right. >> Well, can let's just keep it. >> Yeah. the opinion draw. Just keep it uh moving, please. >> And and and and the addition of something called a coffee shop. >> Yes. >> This application calls for that. Yes.
>> And something called an event center. >> Yes. >> And uh could you tell the board, I think they know, but tell the board whether you support or oppose this application. >> I'm absolutely opposed to the application. >> And I would like you to explain why. So
let's start with the garden center. Why do you expose why do you oppose the expansion of the garden center? >> It's a a significantly more dense use of that property. Uh for the 50 years that we've lived there, it's it's been an open space. Never any traffic, never any
noise, never any lights, never any anything that obstructed our way of life on 20 at 20 Prospect Place. Uh, so adding these types of uses to that property is going to >> Well, I'm going to ask you about the other uses, but right now I'm I'm asking
you to focus just on the garden center aspect. >> The garden center aspect is probably the least intrusive uh except for the amount of traffic that it's going to generate, the amount of noise it's going to generate. We hear,
you know, we hear tractors running in the middle of the night uh already. uh bright lights on at 4:30 in the morning, trucks coming in and out of the site. That's what we're experiencing already. So certainly we don't uh favor this type of an operation in a in a neighborhood
that's been a quiet, peaceful place for us for the last 50 years. >> Right. If I may, let's go back. Can we go back to Can we go back to 01? >> 01. The first exhibit >> still here. No, >> the aerial.
>> Okay. So, when you've been talking about lights, uh, can you use this exhibit 01, uh, and and we've already pointed out where your house is and we know where the applicant's property is. >> Can you describe for the board what lights you're talking about?
>> They're flood lights on the front of that gray building, the event building. >> All right. So, >> that actually shine right up Prospect Place. All right. >> So, you are talking about >> Oops. >> The large Bring it down.
>> Bring it down. >> Okay. >> It's the event building. >> All right. And the event building is the is the the peak building. >> No, for that one right there. There flood lights on the front of that building. >> And which way and which way do those flood lights >> They aim right up Prospect Place and
there are no trees to obstruct it because you already tore all the trees down. Well, let's talk about that. Uh, what are you what are you describing when you say they tore the trees down? Well, there used to be a lot of um mature trees along the pair street right
away all the way to the back of the Southgate property. It was trees. Now, you know, we could never see from Prospect Place into Glendale because it was a stand of trees on the end of Prospect. They're gone now. Now there's some cattails and some other low
vegetation here and we can clearly see all the buildings and the lights on the front of those buildings shine right up Prospect Place. Now another >> before we continue testimony from our civil engineer indicating that no tree removal. So I'm not >> You're right. I I remember that. So I'm
just wondering was it I I you you had no testimony about tree removal. >> Uh so >> I know what they testified to but >> Okay. Can you >> Can you identify who removed the trees? >> I No, I don't know who removed the
trees. All I know there's piles piles of logs at the back of the site. >> When were they removed? >> Since uh I would say since June or July >> since in the last few months. >> Yes. >> And this picture was taken August 18th,
you said. So, can you point to where you think the trees were removed? both sides >> and we'll describe it. >> There's a stand of trees that used to be here. There's one of them that's not there anymore, but there were there's there were trees in the at the end of
Prospect that at least blocked the view or any of light intrusion coming up Prospect Place. And at the rear at the rear at the rear at the rear of the property, we're looking at your neighbor's property here. So, I'm trying to get an idea where the
trees you claim were removed. >> This one's gone. >> Point up the street to begin with. >> These trees back here on this site has all been since this picture was taken. This site has all been cleared in the back. So, from our backyard, we have a clear shot back here.
>> But, but we're you're being asked about the trees between you and the flood lights. >> These trees here, they're not there anymore. So what you're okay so what you're saying is this picture that is before the board 01 01 is not current
conditions of course >> well okay maybe of course not to you now so could you explain to the board then how is no longer current that is the board was looking at this and sees trees you are saying they're not there anymore what's gone
the trees at the end of prospecting No. >> Okay. >> All right. Um, I'd like to direct your attention to another aspect of this application, which is the uh I think what's described as a coffee shop. Uh,
do you object to the coffee shop? >> Yes. >> Right. Why do you object to the coffee shop? >> Because it's going to become a destination for people traveling down South Street. I mean, what happens now is all the employees of Atlantic Healthcare get off at the exit of 287. They make a right turn and they head down
>> for traffic at this point. And I don't think we >> Well, he he he lives in the area. He's seen the traffic. We've we've allowed neighbors to talk about traffic and the flows of traffic that might not be apparent to a traffic engineer because they see it every day. So, it would allow
>> And Mr. Woodward, may I say, it's not so much the traffic that he's talking about because the traffic isn't going to affect Prospect. He's talking about >> I understand we can move on. >> All right, keep going then. >> Okay, so the the employees of of Atlantic Healthcare that travel down
South Street to get to their offices travel right past the Glendale site. The the previous stop used to be Palmer's uh sandwich shop. >> Oh, Richie's Deli. I remember when Palmer owned it. Okay. Richie's Deli, >> which has since closed. So, there's no
place to stop for a cup of coffee between the exit on 287. >> Aren't there coffee shops in their buildings? >> I I don't know what's in their buildings. >> There are. >> Somebody was recently there. >> Okay. >> So, I'm What I'm My objection is we're
creating a a coffee shop destination. Okay. That's going to become a public stop off. Well, >> before before we before we Wasn't there hours on the coffee shop? >> There were, Mr. Chairman. >> And what were the hours? >> 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. No branding, no
advertising for the coffee shop. Accommodation for people. >> Yeah. >> Are you going to prevent the public from arriving in this coffee shop? >> No. There, as far as I know, no. >> There's not going to be anything out there that says coffee shop. No sign.
you know, they'd have to be coming into Glendale, the nursery somewhere else, and find out there's they serve coffee there. >> Well, >> but it wouldn't be able to accommodate any kind of uh uh from what I can see the plans, it wouldn't be able to accommodate any volume. >> It's 20 seats. It's the size of a
Starbucks. >> Well, okay. >> That's what's in their report. >> And and and the concern >> Well, don't we just have the witness talk, we can sum up later on. Fair enough. >> So, it's a 20 seat coffee shop that serves pastries or whatever other
prepared foods you can buy in a coffee shop. So, it's a Starbucks. >> It is not a Starbucks. >> Okay. Let's just You don't have to classify it. Just describe it. >> Okay. And another aspect of the application is what's called an event
space. >> Yes. >> Uh do you have an objection to the event space? Uh we object to the the the event space again because of the uh noise it's going to create. Uh
>> by the way, pardon me when you say noise it's going to create. Uh is the event space already in operation? >> Oh, it's Yes, it's in operation. >> It is not in operation, Mr. Chairman. >> Well, there's events. >> The council can say whatever he wants. He can
>> Okay, let's just just set the ground rules. He can testify. Your witnesses can rebut, but he can testify and you can cross-examine, >> right? >> So, let's keep it uh the way it's supposed to work. >> There have been events. >> And could you >> And can you Did you keep any diary of
when these events occurred? >> Uh I know approximately the dates. >> We have a video. >> We have a video events. >> Okay, we'll get to that. But uh I just asked a question. Do you have the diary? >> I don't I don't have a diary of the dates. The first time uh I was we
weren't even in town. Eric uh let me know that there was something going on. It was a an evening event. Probably 7:30, 8:00 at night. Lights, noise, music, loud music, public address. So I don't know what kind of a party it
was. Well, let's focus on Well, you didn't hear that. So let him testify to it and you move on. >> Right. I would I'd like you to focus on what you've experienced yourself. Have you experienced any events at the site? >> Yes. >> All right. How many? >> At least two.
>> All right. And were these events during the day or at night or what? >> Evening. >> Evening stretching until what time? >> Uh till 1000 p.m. >> And were these on the weekdays or week night? Uh weekends.
>> I believe one was a Friday night and another was a Saturday night. Right. And I've been using the word events, but let's not use that abstract word. And could you tell me what you experienced on these two occasions coming from that property?
>> Barry White singing the last dance at the top of his lungs. >> Just one song. >> That's the one I heard that annoyed me the most. >> Did you hear others? >> There was just constant music, people talking very loudly, public address
announcements, right? Could you hear announcements from from By the way, were you at your house? >> Yes. >> And could So you could hear the music from your house? >> Yes. >> Were you indoors or outdoors? >> Out I was in and out because when we first heard it, we stepped outside and
that's when you really hear it. >> Could you Could you hear it from indoors? >> Yes. >> Now, you've mentioned public announcements. Are you talking like like a DJ or or what? Well, some kind of an MC introducing people and uh clapping and loud talking and laughing.
>> Could you hear the MC? >> Yes. >> Was it like like a a a drone, a a den, or could you hear words? You >> could actually hear the words, the announcements themselves. >> You could hear the DJ's announcements. >> Yes. >> All right. And this is what's already happening.
>> Yes. All right. And and and so now and what I I interrupted your testimony because because you were talking about what was going to happen. I asked you about what's already happened. Now let's talk about what's going to happen. You have any reason to believe that what's going to happen is going to be any different? >> Uh I can only anticipate that it'll be
worse and more often. Their website is advertising this business already. They're probably booking parties. Just go just go on their website and take a look.
Now, Mr. Weissber, as part of your preparation for, have you taken a look at the compar the comparable sites that were brought to the attention of the board?
>> Uh, yes, I have. We didn't give them these exhibits yet. No. Oh, they don't they don't have these yet. Okay. Not up here. How about I'm going to give them to Okay. Thank you. Okay, let's Do we have one of these?
>> Yeah, we're going to get one. >> So, Mr. Rosenbach, what was just handed out, we're going to mark as 04? Yes. Right. And you'll have him explain what that is. >> That's exactly right. >> Thank you. M >> on the screen. Okay, good. >> Okay. Uh we may have handed them all away. So Mr. Oler, could you please mark
yours as 04? >> I have it. >> All right. Thank you. All right. So So Mr. Weissber, you have on the screen what's been identified as 04. And these are pictures of six sites. And how is it that these six sites happen to
be in this exhibit you prepared? Uh the applicants planner report actually named a total of five locations that had business operations very similar to what's proposed for South Street Gardens.
uh to the extent that they were going to basically duplicate the type of services that are provided at these other locations and that these other locations were comparable in their sighting and the activities type of business that is
conducted. But you you have six pictures. The center picture with the red highlight is actually South Street Gardens. >> So what was handed out is two pages. >> Yes. The first page is actually aerial shots. And then underneath each of those
aerial shots, you'll see the hours of operation, the type of business that's conducted there, whether they have restaurant provisions, whether they have whether they host private parties, whether they serve alcohol. And it's very easy to obtain this. All you have
to do is log on to those web addresses that I've put on the bottom of each of those pictures, and you can see for yourself. These are the these are the sites that were given as example sites for the type of business that's going to be conducted at South Street Gardens.
And you'll notice that the the first site terrain at Styers, this was one of the recommended sites. It's in a commercial zone surrounded by commercial buildings. It's hours of operation. Even though they're similar to uh South
Street Gardens, they don't do a lot of the things that are proposed at South Street Gardens. And as you go through each of the sites, you'll see J&M Home and Garden Center, which is located on Main Street in Madison. It's a commercial zone.
The black shed. >> Backing up on J&M Home and Garden. Doesn't the rear of it um uh have houses along was it uh Kings Road?
>> Behind behind uh J&M is Waverly Place which is a commercial street. >> No, it's Kings Road. >> Oh, Kings Road. That Waverly's in between, but Kings Road is back there. Yes. >> And that's residential. Correct. >> It's downtown. I don't know whether whether you distinguish between
residential and commercial in a downtown zone. >> There's obviously there's apartments. There's a probably residential. There's probably dwelling units within the area, but it's it's Main Street in Madison. You got storefronts with apartments on >> I'm talking behind it behind um the rear
of a J&M Home Garden. >> I don't tell you the truth. I don't know what's back there. >> Okay. >> The black shed is the next example business. And you can see that's out in the country surrounded by corn fields.
Lera Gardens >> uh is located on Union Boulevard in Totoa. Union Boulevard in Totoa is an industrial zone in the burrow of Totoa next to the PC River or the Hackinack River.
And then the last site is the Herbery at Bear Creek. That's the only one that's kind of in a rural setting and it has a couple look like single family homes. I don't know if they're related to that property or if they are actually independently
owned. To get a better picture, I think of this the area that these properties are in. If we go to the next slide, Eric, >> and could we uh Mr. I don't know if you want to call 04 A and B. So I I just I marked it 04 consisting of two sheets.
One of two and two of two >> like I said. All right. >> That's the sights. >> Just one of two and two of all four, right? Four. >> Yes. Should be another one after that.
It's only one page. just >> I'm sorry it's not in our our videos. It is in the exhibit that I handed to you though this >> borrow somebody's page too so so we can testify to it. Thank you so much. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chester.
>> Okay. So, we apparently we can put it on the screen, but if you go to your your second page. Yeah, the second page is actually the exact same sites, but an actual aerial view of the of the neighborhoods that they're located in. So, it's a it's a larger view.
>> It's a larger field of view of the same site. And you'll see again uh the terrain at Styers is in a commercial zone or almost an industrial zone. J&M Home Centers. I don't see Waverly Place or anything residential very close to
the back of that site because the back barn has a very large stand of trees behind it. Uh the black shed again as I mentioned before is is a wide open uh country space, corn fields.
Lera Gardens on Toa Boulevard is uh is a almost like a a spot zone site because on the on the zoning map for Totoabura, it's it's considered a restricted industrial use. South Street Gardens, of course, we know
what that neighborhood looks like. Um it's basically surrounded by residents as on three sides. And then we have the uh stand of trees between the the farm and uh South and Southgate Parkway. And then we have the 48 acre Southgate for
site behind us. And the Herbury at Bear Creek again uh it's uh it's in the suburbs. It doesn't have any homes immediately next to it, but it does have some across the street. Oh, you found it.
>> All right. If you have anything further you want to say about about these pictures on this exhibit, >> I would say that most of these are very appropriate for their locations and the business that they conduct is appropriate for their locations. How many more do you want to use?
>> Uh, we don't have to do my wetland stuff if you don't. Okay, we'll skip to Atlanta. Is there anything left for you? >> That's pretty much it. Okay. Um, I just have a u what I believe is a final question for you, Mr. Weissber.
Let's imagine hypothetically that where Glendale Florest was was right now just vacant land. Nothing there. All right. Uh, how would you feel about somebody putting an event space on
that vacant land? >> I would oppose it >> for the reasons you've already said. >> Absolutely. >> All right. I have no further questions of this witness. >> Okay. >> Mr. Cali, >> very few questions. Um, Mr. Weiss, just
a few things to confirm for the record. You are not a licensed professional planner, traffic consultant, acoustic engineer. Is that right? >> Nope. Okay. In your travels uh in connection with your challenges to my client's project,
have you ever trespassed onto my client's property, that is visit their property for purposes other than purchasing an item whether or not their business was open? >> I have never set foot on that property for as long as it has been existence. Can
>> you confirm? >> So you haven't been on there back in the 70s or what? >> Oh, no. I'm I'm talking about as long as it's been owned by South Street. >> Okay. Not in existence. Okay, I understand. Um, what were the dates of the alleged events that took place?
>> I don't I can't remember exactly the >> How many How many individual people did you observe during those events? That cannot recall the dates. >> I didn't go to the events. I only observed from my front yard what I could
see. But I can see a lot of people a lot of and hear a lot of noise and see a lot of lights. >> So you can see a lot of people. >> Yes. >> Approximately >> I would say probably 10 12 people. That's a lot. Okay. >> How many vehicles did you observe? >> Probably a dozen.
>> Okay. >> Can you confirm that the alleged tree removal that you've indicated was on my client's property was in fact tree removal from my client's property, or is that just your best guess? It's from that property.
>> You know that, sir? >> I know for certain. >> I know for certain, sir. >> Because there are piles of logs in the back of the lot from trees that have been removed. >> That was firewood there. >> That's not firewood. Those are those are eight and 10 foot lengths of tree trunks that are probably a 10 to 12 inch. >> There was one process for firewood.
Okay. No, thank you, sir. >> I I I object to council testifying. >> Yeah, don't testify. Just ask questions. You can put you can put your client back on for rebuttal, but you can't testify. I >> It's It's got no value in the record either, Mr. Chairman. It's it's an observation. It's it's one of >> Well, that's okay. Let's move on. Let's
move on. >> He's not just Let's move on. >> Well, he's doing the questioning. >> Okay. Ask more qu any more questions? >> No, not for me, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
>> members of the public. Members of the public, any questions of this witness? >> Members of the board, any questions of this witness? >> I have a couple questions. The events that you say witnessed, were they in the event space or out on the property? >> They were outside.
>> Okay. So, >> in the event space, >> now I have a question. So, are you inferring or expecting that noise inside an event space would be the same as what may have happened out among the plants?
>> Uh, with my limited experience in sound, I would say that if it was inside, it would certainly not be as loud as it is outside. >> Any other board members with questions? >> Mr. chairman. Yes. Um I'm trying to understand the purpose of going back a
100red years and all these photos. I commend you for having this nice area of view. I I do notice that from 31 to 70 that house in the back whatever you want to call degraded.
So I would presume and maybe you would agree with me that the function of that facility changed over years. >> Yes, it did. >> Okay. So are you saying that
>> the function of the entire facility can no longer change? >> May I explain why that disappeared that building? >> No, no, no, no. I'm just saying it disappeared. >> I understand your question. And now from 1979
to 2017, you're saying there hasn't been any change, >> right? >> And are you saying that that because there was no functional change on the site, it shouldn't be permitted to have functional change?
>> Are you asking for a legal position? I'm trying to understand why he's making this comparison for a hundred years like that somehow I can't see where it's relevant to this application. >> Can I explain why it's relevant? >> Yes. >> The business did not change. The model
changed. Okay. They grew the roses from the turn of the century till the 60s early 70s. Okay. Our government changed the the tariff rules for imported flowers from South America and Mexico. So the local growers couldn't compete
anymore because of the foreign flowers that were flowing into this country. So the growers stopped growing. Henry Rose stopped growing roses in his greenhouse because it was cheaper to import them from Venezuela and Mexico. So he didn't need the growhouse anymore because he
had to stay competitive. So he bought imported flowers to sell instead of growing themself. >> Okay. Thank you. So he had to change his model. current business model for current business just the way you buy a new business you're going to might change a
model to represent the current business structures of current business society hy was the only rose grower that tried to stick it out growing his own flowers and he closed up in 1999 >> right and as our as our planner will
testify because you're asking a perfectly good question but as our planner will testify there are legal limits on what changes are allowed for non-conforming uses. I'll I'll I'll wait. I'll let when we get to our planner, we'll get there. >> Okay, good.
>> But that's the point. They're legal limits. >> Um I I guess that's that's fine for me. No, thank you. >> Any other questions of this witness, board professionals? Any questions? >> No.
>> Okay. Should we take a break right now between witnesses? >> Yeah, we're going to take a fivem minute break between witnesses. Back in five. 18 Prospect Place. >> And And where does 18 Pro You're
Where does 18 Prospect compare to uh Mr. Weiss Gerver's property? >> Um right next door. >> So you're one door further away from the applicant. >> I'm one door further away from the applicant. Correct. How long have you lived at your house? >> 10 years. >> All right.
Um, and can you very quickly uh describe the neighborhood in terms of how noisy or quiet it has been until the recent past? >> Until the past over the past 10 years, it's been silent. I mean, so quiet, um,
dark, calm, peaceful. We had a great neighborhood of neighbors that liked each other and it was very peaceful and nice and things had very drastically changed over the course of the past year.
>> Where where do you stand pro or con on the present application? >> 100% con. >> All right. And and why is that? >> Because I feel like well from right from the start I feel like they basically fooled everybody. They came in on a farce that they were going to be a garden center. And it's not about the
garden center at all. It's all about the events. They want to make money through these events, okay? Uh I've asked them directly several times, okay? And Michael Breuan himself told me, "Oh, we're going to just have, you know, wreath making classes, blah blah blah." As of a month ago, if you went on their
website, you could book all kinds of events from bridal showers to weddings to anything you wanted. As of now, ever since, okay, they've modified their website and apparently the next thing they have is a community yoga class. Okay, that I'm sorry, forgive me, but they're shady. They're constantly
changing their business model. Okay, they're liars. I have seen them firsthand. I've seen who they are and what their true colors are, and they're not good for this neighborhood. They've actually destroyed our neighborhood in a very short period of time. They might have come across with a pretty facade and pretty little things, but everything
they were doing in the background was really ugly and dirty. >> Now, I want to ask you one aspect of your neighborhood that I did not ask Mr. We ro quite frankly because I forgot to. >> Okay. >> Um and I know you're you're not an engineer. >> No. >> But could you describe in a general
sense whether there's a water problem in the neighborhood? >> There has absolutely been a water problem in our neighborhood since the day that I moved in. We back up to significant wetlands. Okay. Um I myself uh have had to pay close to $100,000
just to do drainage from my property to flow to the back of the wetlands away from my house. So I didn't have standing water. Um and so these guys come along and all of a sudden it just seems interesting that you know I went through all this trouble to make sure that
everything was properly properly drained. And at our last meeting I directly asked you Cali was anything done to to mitigate any of the water to the rising flood table that we have in our area and you said to me no nothing. So, how is that not going to impact all
the homes around us when I already have two sump pumps, okay, that I didn't even have to have initially when I moved in? But little by little, the flood plane keeps rising. >> All right, let's let's talk about a subject that did come up with which is the subject of events or parties at the
site. Now, have you yourself experienced or witnessed one of these one or more of these events? >> Yes, I have. How many? >> Uh about three. Initially, I ignored them, okay? Because I was sure that it was one of their grand openings and I
did not think that that kind of party would be on a consistent basis. When I stood before you guys last time, we were talking about an indoor event space and I was against that. I had no idea and and never even thought about the fact that that indoor space is going to melt
outside. People want to go outside, smoke, whatever. And the taste that I've gotten of their courtyard, okay, and where their event space is outside, it's like an amplifier directly to our homes. And I'd like to show that in this video that I'd like to show in front of us.
>> I would like you to show video because I think this is extremely important for everybody. >> When was this? When was this video? >> September 13th. >> Pardon? >> September 13th. >> And And who took this video? >> I did. >> And I don't want you to show it yet. Could you first tell the board where you
are while this video is being taken? >> I'm walking up South Street. Okay. Uh away from my home. I'm walking up South Street. >> Say starting sort of at the office building. >> I'm starting at the office building. Okay. Walking up South Street to Pear Street. And I'm about to make a right on
Pear Street. Okay. What I would like you guys to pay close attention to because I think this is extremely important. Okay. At first when I was going around speaking to different people on South Street, I was very surprised that so many people weren't more concerned about the noise than I was. >> Let's not talk about what people there
are. You can't tell about other people's responses. You can only talk about yourself. >> What I'd like you to do then is is to tee up the video. And >> what I would like to request please is for everybody to just stay quiet during this video because a massive shift happens. Okay? It goes from very quiet.
You'd be very shocked. Okay. to what me and John Weiss Gerber, okay, and her husband are hearing in full force, okay, that the people on South Street are not hearing. >> So my suggestion is start the video and then when that shift happens, just stop
the video, okay, and say, "Here it is." >> Okay. >> And by the way, before you start, >> have during the time that you were taking this video, did you mechanically do anything to alter the volume? >> No, I did not. I would never do that. I kept it 100% clear and just went down
the street and I even turned in different directions that you'll see. So, I have a very clear understanding why we don't have more support from our own neighbors and I hope that you'll see exactly. >> No editorials about the neighbors. Just show the video. >> All right. Why don't you start?
>> Are you sure the sound is on, Sonia? >> He turned his sound. Yeah, but he told me to mute my device. >> He told me that I needed to mute my device and then once I shared it with the screen, >> you can hear me.
>> So, I want to hear the video that I'm playing through there. And that's what I was trying to get this guy to help me with. >> Did he help you with it? >> He said to me that it would share immediately. He sent me a new invite. >> So, maybe I need to undo that. >> We got our technical staff coming up.
>> All right. Why don't you wait? Okay. By the way, >> the box you have to click >> to share sounds. >> I always forget. >> You're doing a share screen, right? >> Excuse me. >> Are you doing a share screen?
>> Yes, I am. >> Okay. So, you click the box. You have to click the box that says share silent. >> Share silent surely. Right. That's what we did before. Share sound. Optimize for video sharing. Share.
That's what you told me to do. And there's no sound. So, that's a problem. And forgive me, Sonia. That's why I was here three different times trying to make sure that I had this down because I I know how important this is. I've been suggested the option of having the
witness just stay quiet and having the sound come through the computer and it'll get picked up by his microphone if if we have to. >> Whatever works. >> Mr. Rosenbach, while they're working on that, I just wanted to say that we're
going to mark this as05, right? And we don't have a copy of it for our record. email. >> I'll get it to you in a Dropbox. I'm not sure that it's emailable. I don't know how large it is, but I suspect it's not emailable. >> All right.
>> That's I'll I'll get your information later. >> Yes. All right. >> I sent you an email earlier today when I got your planners report. >> Right. That's true. Right. In fact, you had sent one last week. So that's why you're getting the feedback. Do you think
a mic turn off the sound? Maybe. >> Should we try to do that? Should I just try to play it on here from a distance? >> Let's see what happens. >> Okay. >> Obviously. >> Yes.
>> Can we turn this? >> No, it's from his computer. He has to log out of the >> Okay. So, log out of the Zoom. So, >> okay. >> If you stop share >> Oh, here you
>> if you stop the share and then restart the shift. So, how do I stop the Stop. >> Okay, the video. Here it is. Here. So that's
exactly what I was showing. >> So what do I do? >> Yeah. [Laughter] >> Sounds like Atlas three eye trying to talk to Earth. There's no
It's not the sound of the sound. Do you see why I came here last week? >> Well, let me suggest something else if I may. >> So, how >> help me? >> Okay. Help me.
>> So, I'm going here to stop share. >> Okay. Close this out. >> Lap webinar. Okay. >> Yeah. There you go. >> Okay. Now, what? And now just go open up your your video in um >> it should just play on your computer and
put on the microphone so you won't be able to see the video but we'll be able to hear it. >> All right because this was going to be my suggestion. And it's really get like a real second best which is to show the video without sound just so
you can see where he was and then for him to play the sound and we can identify where this sound for the video where the sound cues up. It's not as good but at least it allows >> turn the laptop around so we can see the video. >> Can I come closer to you guys so you
guys can see it properly because it's it's >> Yeah, but not too close. Send the video to our >> Do you have it in a flash drive? >> Wait, if you >> Yeah. >> Tell me what you guys want me to do. I'm asking you for help. I don't know.
>> Obviously, I came in here twice. >> Eric, do you have that video on a flash drive? >> I did not put it on a flash drive. No, I have it on my phone. I have it on my computer. I can >> I can email it to you guys right now if you want. What about the See if I could put it in a flash drive. Can I put in a
flash drive? >> Okay. I'm working on that right now. >> I I'd like to make a different suggestion. >> I don't think I need a flash drive. >> Yes. >> I was just going to suggest that. Why don't we do a different witness while he's working out how to do the video because that's the substance of his
testimony, right? >> Once we're done with the video. >> Okay. So, I'm sending >> All right. So, reserve all crossexamination. >> All right. Move on. I'm sure. But >> okay.
>> Okay. So, we got to wait for Sonia to get back now. >> Then he has my slides. >> Is that here? >> Our computer back sort of. >> Yes. Can you do Can you help him?
>> All right. May I Can I proceed, Mr. Chairman? >> Uh, we have to wait till >> I'll be waiting for the board secretary and the member to walk back in. >> I think they went to go help the tech. >> Just tell them we're moving on. >> Right now, >> passing out another drawing. Oh,
>> drugs of some kind. >> All I need is an email address. That's part of my email. more. >> Okay, >> that's where all the trees went. >> Oh, you got one, too. >> I think six
or Did you get a copy? Okay. >> I'm glad you got a good work in your relationship. [Music] >> Okay. Who's your next witness? >> Next witness is Mark Chris, a professional
Chisvet. >> Chisvet, a professional engineer. So, Mr. Chisvet, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you'll give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Would you state your full name for the
record, please? >> Mark M A R K Chisvet, C H I S V T. >> And would you review your uh qualifications with the board, please? >> Yes. I'm I'm a licensed civil engineer,
been licensed in the state of New Jersey since 1982. My license my license is still active. Um, and I um I am the founder and president of Chisvet Engineering. Been in business for 10 years as Chisvet Engineering. Um, and
I've been specializing at Chisvet Engineering, specializing in land development, uh, and civil engineering site plan development. Um, and I've over 40 years experience in that regard. I've testified as a an expert witness in probably half the communities in
northern New Jersey, uh, and several in this county and I've, my recollection is correct. I've even testified not in front of this board, but on one of the planning board in in Mars Township in the past. >> We'll accept you as an expert in civil engineering. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um, unfortunately because we're working on the video, the slides are not on the on the wall. They're on the screens, but I believe you have handouts of exhibits that I have prepared. There's three sheets in total.
>> So, we're going to mark that, Mr. Rosenbach, as 06. >> Yes. Six, seven, and eight. >> Six, seven, and eight. Or just collectively as one. >> Oh, well, they're different, >> right? But they're all C1, two, >> C1, two, and three, right? >> So we'll keep >> the set is 06.
>> That's fine. >> Consisting of three sheets. >> Okay. >> Okay. So Mr. Chisvet, at at at my request, uh, have you prepared yourself to testify as an engineer on behalf of the objectors with regard to this
application? >> Yes, I have. >> And we've gone, the board has taken you through your credentials. Could you tell the board what you have done in order to render an opinion in this matter? >> Yes. My my focus was on the um imperous
areas and the storm water management requirements of the proposed project. And so what did you do to educate yourself? >> Well, the first thing I did was um confirm the measurements of the imperous areas that were on the applicant site
plans. Um and as you see on the drawing C17 [Music] >> Okay. Okay. You're referring to C1, >> right? So I'm referring to drawing C1 which is copy of the applicant's uh site plan their sheet three of six uh their
proposed grading plan. Uh this this um is modified by me by just outlining the two areas of this uh site. U you see there are outlines in both blue and orange. Uh the blue outlines the
proposed uh gravel parking areas. Um the applicant has indicated that there are some gravel areas that they proposed to remove. What is shown here is what will remain as the proposed condition based on their plan. It doesn't include the
areas of gravel that they had proposed to remove. Um the orange basically outlines all the other imperous areas. It's a combination of buildings, some concrete, pa areas, a brick path. Uh so
th that's all in orange. Um I do have rounded to the nearest 100 square f feet the areas of both of those. Um and I have no contention about the areas. I my my my uh calculations confirm that the
overall areas that are shown on the applicants plans for impervious are are reasonably accurate. Um I didn't break it down as much as they had. I just was looking at the big picture. Um, >> so that's C1. >> That's C1.
>> All right. Then let's please turn to C2. >> Now C2, >> and by the way, you identify what C1 was. It's it's their plan. What What is C2? >> So C2 is is an the background is an aerial image taken from the New Jersey
D's GIS website. The what they call NJ the new NJ geo web. Um it's an area it's an aerial of this of this property. Um in orange you see >> before you describe it I want to ask you one more foundation question which is
this type of picture from this website. Is this something that you customarily rely on in in your profession as an engineer? >> Yes I do. I I use it quite often >> and and to your knowledge so do other engineers. Yes. >> Uh do you know what uh when this photo was taken?
>> Yes. according to the according to the GIS information and it says at the bottom right of this sheet this is a 2020 uh imagery. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm not sure of the month. That's all it says on the on the GIS website. >> You see it's green,
>> right? So So um what you see in in orange are the property lines. Um and they're actually part of the GIS. Uh I didn't I didn't add those lines. Uh they're there. I did I did trace the subject property in blue in the darker
blue but in the lighter blue in is the same exact area that was shown on C1 just superimposed onto this aerial map and the area in orange is exactly the same area that was shown on C1 and just again superimposed on this map. I quil
your attention to the area that's proposed it the proposed parking the proposed gravel parking the area that's in blue towards the the west or left portion of the property. And as you can see in this aerial image in the background there's no gravel. There's
trees and there's grass. It's all lawn. There's no gravel. This is n this is 2020. Now, the applicant is has uh asserted in their plans that they're making a they're actually reducing the amount of impervious area by removing
some of the existing gravel parking. Well, what I'm saying is that that may be true as what was there at the beginning of this year, but it's not true as to what was there in 2020. U and and significance of that is the storm
water regulations. And I I can quote from the Mars Township Ordinance 18-21, their stormwater control ordinance under the definition of major development. It has two bullets as to what defines a
major development. The first one is disturbance of one or more acres of land since February 2nd, 2004. We're not disturbing. It is not proposed to disturb an acre on this on this project. So it doesn't qualify under
that. Under bullet two, however, it says the creation of one quarter acre or more of new impervious surface since February 2nd, 2004. And that's the catch right there. It's not how much impervious area
they're going to remove as part of the project this year or in the next several months. It's what has been incrementally added since 2004. And as you can see from this aerial, even from 2020,
there's approximately 23,600 square feet of imperous area compared to what's proposed. That's an increase. That's >> Let's let me do some translation here. >> Sure. >> How much since 2020
is will be new impervious coverage since 2020? >> 27,980 square feet or 0 64 acres. >> When I said I wanted to do a translation, what the ordinance 1821 says, it talks about one quarter acre or more. So,
what's one quarter of an acre? >> One quarter of an acre would be about 10,000 square ft. As I said, this is 64 acres, almost 2/3 of an acre. And so, by definition, this is a major development. >> And what is the consequence or a
consequence of this being a major development? Being a major development, they're required to meet storm water regulations for both the reduction of quantity and the treatment of qual for quality treatment because a large portion of this impervious area that's
being added is motor vehicle surface. So not only do they need to provide detention for the two, 10, and 100year design storms, they would also need to provide water quality treatment for for the one-year storm. In your review of
the application, have you seen a uh any sort of storm water management program? >> There is nothing on the proposed plans that I have seen. Um are you able uh in your with your expertise and and experience as an
engineer to say in a general sense what the consequence what consequence would be expected in terms of water flow when this type of imperous coverage is added and there is no storm water system? Well, because there's no system to mitigate the
increase in runoff because of because of the increase in impervious area, there will be an increase in runoff both in a peak flow and in von total volume. And and that's very important as well because the peak flow is important
because it if if there's an increase in peak runoff, it can compromise storm system downstream uh stream flows as well. But um as Mr. Wise Gerber had indicated uh his property tends to pond
uh when they get heavy rains and and I've seen this in the past because I've known Mr. Wise Gerber for many years in the rear of his property and and the properties along Prospect uh place that their their properties do pond when it
rains heavily and and that that uh ponding is interconnected with the wetlands that um are immediately adjacent to the subject property. So they may not look like they're they're they're they're connected, but when
there's enough ponding, it it is connected. And if you can just imagine two puddles of water, one puddle of water is independent from the other. And if you add water to one puddle or drain one of the puddles, it doesn't impact the other one. But if those puddles grow
enough so that they connect to each other, even if it's just a ribbon of water that connects the two puddles, they act as one system. And so you add water to one puddle, it does move into the other one. So the additional runoff that would go into the wetlands area
because they have not done any mitigation for the increase in impervious will during heavy rainfalls when there is ponding it will back into the rears of the properties of those of of those properties along Prospect Place.
>> Um I don't want to show this to the to the board. just want to show it to you just based on what you're just testifying to. Does does this set of photographs and maps help you to explain what you're talking about to the board? >> Uh uh the second sheet you can see u
numerous photos of the inundation that takes place in the woods that are behind. >> What are we looking at there? >> Okay, put it up. >> Okay, this is in the package that was originally prepared by Mr. Weiss Gerber in Mr. roller sheet OE X-4.
>> Did we mark this already? >> No, we're going to mark it now. Okay. So, we're up to >> 07. >> Okay. >> What sheet number? >> Yeah. >> What sheet number is that again, please? >> I'm sorry. What's that? >> He's handing it out now.
>> Oh, you're handing it out now. >> Yes, it's it's OEX-00.2. Yeah, that's marked as 07. >> So, just for the purpose of describing what 07 is, can you just put that in the record, please?
>> Yeah, go ahead. >> These are these are photographs of uh the areas behind the properties on along Prospect Place uh that are inundated. Uh you can see significant ponding. The the
tree trunks are submerged. Um You have to explain the red arrows. What what what does it mean for a photograph to link to a red arrow? >> So, sorry before you get to that, Mr. Rosenbach. This is a two-page exhibit >> or are we just talking about that first?
>> I think we're only talking about >> the I think we're only talking about the second page. If if we use the first one, Mr. Eler, I'll let you know. But right now, it's just the second page. >> So, the first page is not marked and not used yet. >> Not used yet. >> Okay. And so the second page of what he
just put handed out which I see oex0000.2 that is 07 today's date. Now I'm going okay and those are photos of the rear yards
of properties along where? Well, I didn't take these photos, but these photos have arrows that are shown where the photos are taking place, and they are actually photos uh that are on the I guess that's the Wesley side of
Whitney. >> Mr. Weisser took these photographs and he could authenticate. >> Why don't Why don't we jump them in to do that? >> All right, then. Please come come back up to the stand. >> In order to allow this witness to testify to these photos,
um could you take a look at what's been marked as 07? >> Yes. >> Is this an exhibit that you prepared? >> Yes. >> And are these photographs that you took? >> Yes. >> And are these red arrows that you placed? >> Yes. >> So now, having done all that, could you explain to the board what these
photographs and red arrows signify? Uh, this is a walk in the woods after a rainstorm and the arrows. >> Is there a date? Do you know? >> I don't remember the date. It was in the fall. I know that cuz the leaves are off the trees. >> Fall of what year?
>> 2016. >> Yeah, 2016. This was from another >> January 2016. >> All right. >> This was actually an exhibit that I had prepared for the Southgate. for application which is the 85 48 acres
of wetlands that are behind us and I actually presented this to the board in 2016 planning. >> Yes. >> Okay. So again, so these are pictures you've taken and they show ponding or pooling at the sites where the arrows
lead to. >> Yes. This is all along the Whitney Avenue right away. Whitney Avenue is a paper street that actually runs across the back of all of our properties. It's a street that runs parallel to Prospect. It was never built. It's a legal paper road. And these photos are all taken
along the Whitney Avenue right away. And you can see some of the photos are actually shots from the woods to the back of our houses. So you can actually see the water in our backyards. >> And by the way, just to situate us a little more down toward the bottom there's Pear Street. >> Correct. So, am I correct that your
house is two lots away from Pear Street? Correct. >> It has two arrows going into your lot from the right hand margin. >> Correct. Yeah. The house with the conservatory is mine. You can see the water is actually creeping up into the backyard. And the photo below that is
actually a what I found out is actually a blue water stream that flows through there that actually overflows whenever there's a heavy rain. That's actually the a drainage ditch that actually overflows because it's being overburdened by all the runoff
from the surrounding sites. >> Okay. Thank you. That was that's that was good. Thank you so much. Now, if I may go back to you, with this document having been authenticated and explained for us, um, can you describe how this
'07 uh, interplays with the findings you have made based on your own engineering determinations? Well, like I said, the the the photographs here document that there is inundation that stretches from
the rears of the properties on Prospect Place to the wetlands that are immediately adjacent and downstream of the subject site. And so that any additional runoff from the subject site going into those wetlands would impact
uh the properties that are along Prospect Place. When this when this ponding condition occurs, regardless of whether this ponding condition occurs, it is still required by municipal ordinance from for storm water
management to take place on this project because it is a project. It is a major development. And if I can ask a question, forgive me if it sounds simplistic and naive. What what would be the purpose of the storm water management system? >> The purpose of the storm water management system is to detain and red
to detain the runoff so that the peak runoffs are reduced and also uh to reduce some of the volume of the runoff from the subject site. >> Right. Yeah. You also has a a prong that requires water quality treatment for
motor surface areas which would be the the gravel parking areas. >> Now you already mentioned or the board noted that there is a C1 and a C2 and a C3. >> There is. >> Uh so could you please uh address C3?
C3 is a um an aerial image taken uh recently in August of this year. Um it was taken by drone by a company called Visionaire X Designs of East Hanover. And what I've done on this drawing is um
I've taken area takeoff of the uh actual existing gravel areas and impervious areas that are that were on the site as of uh the date of this photograph. Uh, and I will note that there are
considerable amounts of additional gravel areas, impervious areas uh, on this site on both the easterly and westerly portions of the property that go beyond the proposed gravel areas that
are shown on the applicant's proposed site plans. You >> mean on C1? >> On C1. So on C1, you can see a uh rectangular gravel area that's to the west of the property, but it doesn't go anywhere
near as far to the south or to the west as it does on C3. On C1, you can see a proposed Vic brick path, which is just a winding narrow path uh along the easterly end of the property. But as you
can see in the aerial photograph, there's a network of walkways and that are outlined in orange. And then there are also it's a considerable amount of gravel that has been added to the site. Whereas the original
>> You mean the gravel that is the outline of this area to the east? >> Yes. Outlined in blue labeled 10,300 square ft. Constructed walks labeled in orange 2,200 ft. That's what I measure
from this aerial photograph. The uh plan from the applicant their brick path was 1,600 square feet. So, it's 600 square f feet less of brick path, but they have no gravel on that side of the site. Their
plan says lawn area, and you can see clearly from this aerial image that what is there at at least what was there on August of this year was considerably more gravel and that doesn't that wasn't on the plan. >> So, so, so we have basically plus 10,000
square ft just from the upper right corner of C3. >> That's correct. And is there any other plus on on on this site? >> Well, the the gravel area on the westerly side is 32,800 whereas the proposed plan was 26,300.
At the lower left corner of the same exhibit, there's a summation of the impervious areas for the three different plans. one the existing imperous area per the 2020 aerial 23,100 square feet to propose according to the
site plans 51,080 square ft and what I measure from this plan 70,000 square feet >> so let me ask you this you you you already pointed out to the board the increase since 2020 let's ignore that for the moment and let's just look at
the increase from their site plan to what's actually on the Doesn't doesn't that increase by itself trigger the storm water manage man management requirements? It's more than a quarter acre compared to >> I mean what's what C1 when we compare C1 to C2
>> it's approximately 20 it's 19,000 square feet moreial than what they are proposing on their plan >> almost a half acre by itself. >> Okay. But but it's not on their plans. >> No.
>> All right. Uh did did you make any further determinations uh in order to make this presentation to the board? >> No, this is this was this is what my uh observations are. >> That's another way of saying have I missed anything or do I have no further questions?
>> I don't believe you missed anything. >> All right, I have no further questions. Okay, Mr. Cali. >> Yes, I have some for Mr. >> Yes. Um, so regarding exhibit
06, let's go to sheet C1. >> Pardon me. >> She of C1 of exhibit 06. Sorry. >> Right. >> So the plants that I'm looking at looks remarkably like the Steuart Engineering
site plan. At least a a trim down sheet of it. Is that what I'm looking at? >> It is exactly that plan. I just outlined it. >> Where is the credit for the source material on this? It looks as though the only signature block I see is yours. I see a date, a preparation. Should there be a source material identifying here that this is not your plan set?
>> I I always add that to this exhibit. I I said that in my as soon as I started my testimony, I I acknowledge that this is a copy of the applicant site plan. >> But as a scriven of record, you're required to populate that onto here. Are you not? >> I don't believe No, I'm not I'm passing
this off as my answer question. And now we're going to move on. >> I I disagree. I I'm I'm not I'm not proposing this as my proposed site plan. >> The word proposed is riddled all over sheet C1. >> We're being argumentative. Let's get a substantive question out there.
>> Um I think it's a engineering required, Mr. Chairman, and we're going to look into that. Um >> does it change the fact? Do you have an objection to the actual what he's done on the plan? Well, I have objection was calculations. So, you've you've opined about changes in impervious coverage on
the property. Um, were you on my client's property? >> No, >> you were not on my client's property. >> No, I never got past the right ofway. I didn't trespass. I went as far as the rightway on Paris Street. >> Okay. Um, are you aware there's cameras all over the property?
>> I didn't pay attention to >> But you're confirming you didn't trespass. >> I did not. That's we got on the record. That's fine. Um, did you have the benefit of any underlying CAD material or did you just utilize what I'll call superficial site plans to populate your data to opine as to coverage changes?
>> I utilize AutoCAD to prepare these exhibits. >> Okay. So, you had the underlying plans of Mr. Stewart in CAD or No, >> no, I did not have them in CAD. I had them as PDF plans and I I brought them in to scale. >> Are you aware of the coverage delta that's proposed on the instant
application? I understand that the the application shows a reduction >> in an amount of approximately 4,000 or 5,000 square feet. >> That's right. About 4,400. Okay. Um the aerial the second sheet of Euro6. It's
dated 2020. Are you aware of whether or not the applicant owned the property during the time period of that aerial? >> I'm not aware of that. Doesn't matter. >> Could you produce an aerial from 2024 perhaps? I guess I could find one from Google.
>> It doesn't really matter. >> Well, that's not my question. >> How about the proposed conditions? Is it an improvement over existing site conditions? >> Depends on what you call existing. >> It's a simple objective question. >> Existing is existing. >> It no existing.
>> Existing is what we walk out there today. >> That's an existing condition. I would say the the plans as proposed show less impervious than what is out there today. But that doesn't mean what is out there today was lawfully placed.
>> As far as the storm water management, >> he's not here as a planner. He's not planning as to negative or positive. >> I'm asking the delta of impervious coverage. It's >> No, you're asking if there's an improvement of coverage. >> Yeah, we we asked the Delta question about 10 questions ago. Let's Did you answer
>> He answered that. >> He answered that. So, let's move on. Yeah. To the next question. >> The January 16 January 2016 photos that your colleague brought up presented as 07 and then you started testifying to you. Are you aware of any specific anomalous conditions that may have been
underlying the high water table occurring in January of 2016? I don't I don't I wasn't paying attention to how much rainfall came to to create that. >> Well, you know, an exhibit was presented showing a significant rainfall and how
there is storm water issues on the site, which was the basis of underlying your testimony. Would it have been prudent to review whether or not that January 2016 rainfall depicted on these photos was anomalous or typical >> as an first of all, it's not the basis
of my testimony. The basis of my testimony is simple. Since 2004, there has there is proposed based on the proposed plan an increase in more than a quarter acre of imperous area rendering this project
a major development under the definition of the stormwater rules. Regardless of whether there's ponding or whether those properties adjacent to it are connected to that ponding doesn't matter. It's still the responsibility applicant to
meet the storm water rules and that means that they need to permit that that the I got you sir >> reductions and you wait you asked the question you let him let him finish >> they don't like the answer you still got to listen >> fine we've heard it Mr. Chair, I'm just trying to speed up. >> Well, no, no, no. You asked the
question, he was answering. >> Sorry. >> We're already ruled in your favor. Be quiet. >> It's momentum. >> Are you done, sir? >> All right, I'm done. >> So, my question you did not answer was as a civil engineer, as a you know, >> just don't just ask the question for you
to determine whether or not those photos were taken during anomalous conditions or not. Would that have been relevant? I don't know what you call anomalous conditions. A heavy rainfall. Is that an anomalous condition? >> I think so. >> Well, then I assume this was taken place
following an anomalous condition. That doesn't mean a 100redyear design storm is anomalous condition. But that's still a requirement of the applicant to design a stormwater management system for a 100year design storm. >> I was asking about the prudence of your review and preparation for this evening.
I got my answer. Thank you, sir. >> Okay. Any other questions? >> No. Thank you. >> Members of the public, any questions of this witness for professionals? The analysis that you did on lot
coverage in Delta. Uh C 2 and C3 of the plan references a 2020 aerial as the existing condition. Do you have a 2004
aerial that can also be analyzed for the cumulative impact relative to the definition? >> I don't have one. I could probably research that. >> Wait a minute. Don't we have one somewhere up here? >> What? So, so exhibit 03
entered earlier included a 2002 exhibit which seems to show some site changes between 2002 and 2020 and also the prior dating back to the 30 showing significant changes throughout
the property. So I just curious if there are other available areials to you and that could be provided to the board for that further understanding of the major development definition.
>> I have not done an analysis of a 2004 uh condition to answer your question. But I will point out that these stormwater regulations require you to
assume an existing condition is open meadow unless you can demonstrate that for the past five continuous years there's been some other treatment to that piece of property. >> You would take the most conservative hydraologic approach within the five
years. Not that it's established four or five consecutive years is the interpretation of the regulation. So the most conservative being the least amount of impervious >> in your last five year back. So, but it's possible that >> to to establish the definition
as a cumulative increase of a quarter acre, it's by definition in our township code and state and Jack 7A that it's quarter acre
cumulative increase since 2004. So I'm your analysis was provided from 2020 till today and I just want to understand if there is a reference point to day zero of 2004 that you analyzed and could provide to supplement your
testimony. >> Not at this time. >> Okay. >> I do think on 03 and there aerial photos that show the uh >> there is an aerial photo from 20027. Right. And so
to the benefit of their analysis, I understand what's been provided from 2020 till today, >> right? >> But to the benefit of the applicant is only fair of the objector to also look at 2004 to 2020 to see if there were any improvements that are lawfully existing
during that time that count towards existing total impervious coverage that would keep the threshold under the major development standard. as a minor development. >> Okay. >> And for the board's ability to understand that, I think it's important
that we look at the full 20 years to the date that's in the definition. >> Okay. >> Now, I'm going to have to ask Mr. Oler, whose burden of proof is it to establish that? >> The gentleman standing at the microphone, the objectors making that
claim. So I think if >> and the reason I bring up the discussion is that it it was their prior testimony with their other expert that there was uh it's this is a living site that there's been disturbance throughout the
site. Things were built before 2004 that are not relevant to the major developments discussion but particularly in those portions of the site and then removed from the site reveitated. it's here in their their positions and I just want clarity for the board to be
able to understand the major development threshold from 2004 until today that if if we're going to look at the most in the least intense aerial as the existing condition condition perhaps compared to
the proposed then we also have to consider any other version between there that may give the benefit the applicant of the position that stated through their engineer who's not present tonight. >> I'm sorry. Was there a question that you >> No, no, I was just
>> No, I was providing some additional background for myself >> inite for the board before we >> accept the position to be fact. >> Right. So we what we need is like what what are the conditions in 2004
>> going forward to find out whether we have to go through the uh >> major uh development meet the major >> there were lawfully existing improvements at the in that span of 2004 to 2020 that are documented they they go to the
the total on the site >> right >> which would reduce the total net impervious in the in the compar comparison >> Sonia would uh any development on that site in those years be in the concert files >> I would have to
>> right but I mean the the the engineering department should have those it's agreed >> we can look into it further but that's reason I'm asking the objector looked at that area on this if I may >> I'm getting an echo now turn your volume
off back there. >> It's already been referenced to 03 and 03 at the bottom has pictures from 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017. And they're small. I admit they're small and it would probably be helpful to use a magnifying glass to look at them. >> Well, you can always get them enlarged.
>> What's that? >> You can always get the photos enlarged, >> right? But even looking at them now, it looks like there's really no change. And so what the hypothesis is then like on June one there's a lot of impervious coverage and on June two they knock it down.
>> I mean we can't possibly show day by day by day by day by day. >> But what we can show is 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017. And it sure looks like there isn't much of a difference. And that's why I asked for clarity in
your testimony and in available records because to compel me to agree with his position as an engineer, I need to be able to certify that since 2004 to 2020, there were not lawfully existing
improvements that maintain this as a minor development. And so I'm asking is it your testimony that you do not have those available to you? >> No. But I'll tell you what, >> and I will tell the board that at this time I cannot confirm their position
until I do further research. >> Okay. And I have a comment on that as well. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were done. >> No, I'll let you speak. >> Okay. I have a comment on that because I suspect the board is not voting on this tonight. >> Oh, that's a very good assumption. Well,
I hate to leave I hate to be presump you to find the to find the burden on that, not me. >> Well, then you only She's trying to take all this down. You got to have you got to have pity on the court. >> All right. And I I don't know as a matter of law who has the burden, who
doesn't have the burden. I don't think we do, but I'll I'll accept the position at least for the sake of argument. And so, we will see what we can do. And for instance, I will make an Oprah request for every single building permit that took place on this property from 2004 to
the present as an example. We'll do what we can, >> right? >> Okay. Um so you're going to be putting this uh this witness back on the witness stand for for further testimony. Correct.
>> Based upon what your research shows. >> Sounds like it. >> It does sound like it. Um, and it sounds like uh everybody needs to do some homework. Uh, correct. You want to do you're you want to have to re you're going to have to research it.
>> I will. >> And I assume your engineer is going to research it. >> So, is this a good stopping point? >> Well, maybe a good stopping point for this witness, but maybe we can get the video on. >> Love to email Sonia. Sonia, did you
receive my email? Well, I don't have email on this laptop. Sorry. It goes to my It goes to my desktop. >> Okay. So, let's try again. I guess >> I'm sorry. I'm not a regular usually. >> I usually end at 10:00.
>> Can I make a suggestion? Having been on board for many years. Let's not kill more time. If you're going to do the video, whenever the next session is, we will have it teed up. Exactly. Right. and and and what what we have left by the way because that's only about two or three minutes for that
witness plus cross cross examination and then I have my acoustic engineers and I have my planner >> right >> and then I'm done. >> Okay. >> If there's time for the acoustic engineer tonight I know his acoustic engineer. He's very efficient in my opinion. He's a very good witness. I don't know how much time you need for
acoustic studies with no raw data. Perhaps we can just spend some tonight. This way you can conclude at the next meeting with your planner and your other client witness. Uh, I I don't think we're going to finish it by 10:00 and I want him to have the have on the record the video that the board is going to see.
>> Okay, >> that's a fair request, I think. >> Yeah, >> only if we were going to finish with him, we would stay late to finish him, but >> I don't see a difference. I'm just not sure the acoustic value of the videos that I follow by >> well
>> well but this cross examination the representation is he's not going to finish in 10 minutes no matter what. So >> so and and by the way just so that the board is not the acoustic engineer is not going to be making acoustical determinations based
on video a computer model to hear the video. >> Okay. But so I think we're going to be finished wrapping up tonight. What? So Sonia, when is the next time we can meet?
I think it's our December meeting. >> December 8th. >> December 8th. [Music] So when we resume, we will start with questions for the public from Mr. Chisvet and then from the board. >> Well, when we resume, we're going to
have hopefully we'll have um the engineer conclude his testimony >> and cross examination. Okay. Right. >> And then he's not done yet. He's not done yet. He's not done yet. And just so everybody knows, I just sold you last week.
>> Well, yeah. So, there's going to be a bit of a change on the board after the December meeting. Our board secretary of 25 plus years. >> Yes. >> Is retiring. >> Retiring. >> So, we'd like to get a decision before
that. Okay. I think the extra I mean the planner might be a little longer but the acoustic engineer is going to be 15 20 minutes at the most. >> Okay. >> The planner depending on so close examination >> I don't think will go more than 40 minutes at the most.
>> And the engineer has just some pick up >> and we have the whole night. >> Yeah, we have the whole night. We're the only one once >> December 8th right >> right now. >> Okay. I'll make the announcement in a second. I'm just minutes.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Speak up. >> Excuse me. Can you come use the microphone, please? Thank you. >> December. >> I am sure I can't say anything. No, your
name. >> She's an applicant representative. >> Miss Brew. >> She's part of our applicant team. >> Oh, >> okay. >> Why >> don't you ask your question to Larry and we'll see.
There was a question about the planners report being submitted and and our back and forth Mr. chairman where you said you think there's a rule that's got to be submitted 10 days out. >> So we have 10 days. >> We'll have plenty of time. >> Okay. So for purposes of the public,
this meeting is being adjourned. It will continue in this room on December 8th at 700 p.m. There'll be no further notices from the applicant. >> Until then, folks, happy Thanksgiving. >> You too. >> You too, Larry. >> Okay. Board members, any other matters
need to be discussed? We don't have anything to discuss. >> We need to talk to >> Oh, the calendar. Oh, >> got five minutes to do it. >> The calendar review. >> We need the calendar review >> cuz Mr. Charges overtime after 10.
>> Yeah, you double >> after what? >> Time and a half. >> Well, so do I. >> You get double when you go and get >> Yeah. Look at you. How did you get that deal? >> That was the right line.
>> Yeah, right. >> You won't be >> I'll be here at 76, >> June 22nd. July 27th. September September on September 28th. I'll be home over
20. >> We ready? >> Okay. >> Okay. Any comments on any comments on the proposed dates? Any objections? Any >> I have review all the dates here like every year I do I compare to any
holidays or anything. I believe May is the one that I have to switch because of Memorial Day. >> That's early. >> So that's early. >> And December is always the second Monday of the of the
>> and the Jewish holidays or >> I checked all the holidays, Jewish holidays and everything. >> Okay. >> The May 18th is moved forward to that date. >> The May meeting is moved to the third
Monday. instead of the 4th >> and that's the 18th >> that and it would be May the 18th. Yes. >> Okay. October 26th is my birthday. So I will come if you have a cake. >> Listen. >> Well, I will not be here. You have to answer that to the next secretary.
>> I have to come back. My brother's birthday. >> You'll have to ask him. >> The next >> You'll have to ask the other person. >> I'll have that guy take a video and send it to you. >> Oh, okay. Sounds good. So, we're one day. >> No, we're good.
>> Okay. All right. You good? >> All right. This will be back at the January meeting for adoption. Okay. I just wanted to confirm the dates with you guys. Okay. >> So, I have a question. Sorry. But since the last one of these we looked at, right, had the January 26th
meeting on it already like you have the January 27 meeting. Right. >> Right. Right. >> Are you going to be here for that January meeting? I will not be here for the January meeting. It >> was on the schedule. >> I'll be here, guys. >> So, just come in and watch,
>> right? >> A special trip for January. >> I'll think about it. >> Have to pass an ordinance together here, right? >> Okay. Any other matters? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> All opposed.
>> Damn right. Opposed. >> Meeting adjourned. >> Oh my god. 10 of four.