All right. Good evening everyone. Call this uh July 27th meeting of the Township Provotion Planning Board to order. Nicole, can you take a roll call, please? >> Here. >> Here. >> Here.
>> Here. >> Here. >> Here. >> Mr. Mr. >> Here >> here. Please rise for to the flag. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic
for it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [clears throat] >> The notice requirements of the open public meeting law for this meeting have been satisfied. had a copy of the notice having been sent to the Asbury Park Press and the coaster and filed in the
office of the township clerk. Uh emergency notice, there are emergency exits through the back over there and then right up here we hear to your left, which is our right. No smoking, please. No vaping. Uh no new cases will be started after 10 p.m. No new testimony taken after 10:30 p.m. In addition, the
applicant will be limited to 45 minutes of testimony. All meetings will be video and audio taped and shown on the Township of Oceanceans's community cable channel 77 on FiOS and is it 77 on cable vision? We need to check that. Okay.
Both on both 77. Amazing. All cell phones, please turn them off. Uh if you have to make a call, please exit the room uh and take your call outside. First, we have resolutions for adoption. Um
we have uh we have them in groups based on who can vote on them. So first off we have uh 238 Highwood LLC which is 238 Highwood block route 25 Highwood Road block 25 lot 128 in the R4 zone. We have
Ralph Cohen 251 Howard Avenue block 9 lot 52 James Goat uh 716 Corles Avenue block 76.01 01 lot 2. Uh, and it's also 720 Cors Avenue. Um,
then Abraham and Margaret Moseri, 491 South Edge Drive, block 60 76, lot two. Um, which was a denial. Do I have someone to offer? >> Mr. I'll offer.
>> I'll second. Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. Then we have Rising Treetops 111 Mammoth Road, block 17, lot one in the R4 zone. I'll offer second
>> here. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Then we have Bank of America uh Route 35 southbound Sunset Avenue and Valley Road block 187 lots one uh 10.01
and five in the C3 zone and and the >> and I was here for that. I'll offer again. >> I'll second. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. Okay. Planning board minutes.
Mr. Defilia was here for all of these, just so you know. Uh, June 23rd, uh, 2025, July 28th, 2025, October 27th. Oh, sorry. We should just do June 23rd, 2025.
>> I'll make that motion. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. July 28th, 2025 and October 27th, 2025. >> I'll make that motion. >> I'll second it. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> August 25th, uh, 2025. September 29th, 2025. >> Mr. Vice Chairman, Mr. Mr. >> I'll make the motion. I'll second,
>> Mr. Yes. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> Mr. >> Yes. >> December 29th, 2025. >> Mr. Mr. >> I'll make the motion >> and I'll second. >> Mr. >> Yes.
>> Mr. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Board of adjustment minutes. We always would come second, wouldn't we? June 28th, 2025. No, sorry. June 18th, 2025. I'll offer
>> second. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> July 17th, 2025. >> Mr. Mr. >> I will offer again >> second. >> Yep. >> Yes.
>> Yes. >> September 29th, 2025. And >> I will offer again. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. [snorts]
Uh next up, cases that are going to be carried this evening. Uh Township of Ocean 1313 South Roller Road, also known as block 142, lot 36 on the township tax map in the I1 zone. uh request to be
carried to Thursday, August 20th, 2026 without further notice. There any objections to that? All right. Hearing none, uh the uh if you're here for the application for the township provotion 1313 South Roller Road, that will not be heard this
evening. That'll be carried to Thursday, August 20th, 2026 without further notice. It'll take place in this room at this time. Um, Abraham Benitar, 517 Laurel Avenue, block 16, oh, sorry,
block 68, lot six in the R5 zone. Uh, requested to be carried to the Thursday, August 20th, 2026 meeting without further notice. Um, do you have any comments on that? >> Do we want to renounce that one? >> Yeah, I think we want >> I think it's been carried so many times.
>> How many times has it been carried? Do you have it off top of your head? >> Close to four. >> Four times. >> Yes. Okay. All in favor of re requiring renoticing. >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay. So, uh,
so the if you're here for the Abraham Benitar 517 Laurel Avenue hearing, uh, that's going to be carried to Thursday, August 20 20th, 2026. There will be a notice, uh, going out, but it will be heard on August 20th in this room at that at this time. Bioinvestment Group
Bio Investment Group LLC 702-706 West Park Avenue block 33.13 lots 28 30 and 31 in the T1 zone and 12 Klein Street uh block 33.13 lot 5 in the R4
zone uh requesting to be carried to Thursday August 20th. >> Believe that should be reed as well. >> Anyone else agree? Okay. All in favor for requiring renotice. >> Any opposed?
Okay. Hearing none that this Bioinvestment Group uh LLC which is at 702706 West Park Avenue will not be heard this evening. It's going to be heard August 20th in this room at this time. There will be new notice going out. Uh, finally, Albert Mayan, 255
Delaware Avenue, block 25, lot 107 in the R4 zone. That is going to be carried to August 20th, 2026 due to defective noticing. Um, does that mean that the notices have gone out and or there there
will be new ones going out? >> Not within 10 days. So, neighbor the next day. >> Okay. So, are they proposing to renotice?
>> Okay. Um, is anyone here for 255 Delaware Avenue? Does anyone object? This is the first time uh re not it's carrying to the 20th of August without read notice. Okay. So 255 Delaware Avenue block 20 25 in the
10 lot 107 in the R4 zone will be carried to August 20th 2026. The meeting will take place in this room at this time. There will not be further notice. Okay. On to Orchard Plaza redevelopment plan.
Um, Anthony John, where did we leave off? >> So, Mr. Chairman, we're at the point where uh this board having had the opportunity to fully review the development plan uh can take action by voting on whether or not and it's it's a
straightforward whether or not it's consistent with plan or not consistent. [snorts] If you find that it's consistent, that's the vote. We will memorialize that in a resolution. If you find there are inconsistencies then you can make recommendations which would be
included in the uh resolution i.e. the report uh back to the township council advising them as to the inconsistencies you found and how you think they could be rectified. Also, as a catchall, the board has the authority to address any
other matters that it believes uh are >> okay. So, um I guess we could discuss whether or not, you know, after our review of the repeal of the plan if we, you know, how we feel about it. Uh we had a the ability to ask questions at
the prior meeting. We had the ability to make comments at the prior meeting. Um there may be folks here that are here to discuss this. Uh I think we can give some leeway and and and offer you the opportunity to make some comments um if you so wish. Uh before we do that uh I
think I just wanted to highlight for the most part I see this I don't know I maybe talk to one or you but um by uh you know for the most part the breed of plan does follow the master plan at least the goals of the master plan. Obviously there are deviations but that's kind of how redevelopment plans
go. Um there's one thing that I would highlight uh and that would be the height um allowances. Uh I think the benefits of this strong board uh being in place now, a joint board, this plan is going to come back to us. Whether it go to a zoning board in the past or the planning board in the past, um the site
plan is going to have to come back to this board for review. Uh and I think we should take full advantage of that. uh instead of allowing just a blanket um six stories. Uh again, obviously there was some conditions placed on that, but I think it would be great for us to, you
know, hold that responsibility to be able to look at the actual plan before making a decision on how wise it is to go to the six stories in certain circumstances. So what I would say is to offer allow for four stories 48 ft where up to six stories or 70 ft may be approved by the planning board uh upon a
demonstration of enhanced architectural design um massing mitigation and community benefit. I think uh it's a good opportunity to protect ourselves, protect the interest of general public uh by keeping that final okay um sometime in the future when we get to
actually see what we're looking at. Anybody else have any comments at this time? We could open up to the public. >> Mr. Chairman, I just have one more thing to add. Thinking long and hard on this in terms of transportation and the goals
of the master plan involving redevelopment and circulation. I think this plan is consistent if the transportation elements surrounding circulation are included is written. It's in good faith argument that they
will attempt to do that, but I'm not sure that it would work without it. I mean, there's a reason that the shopping plaza is empty today and a lot of it has to do with circulation. So, um, my thought is that it is consistent with a recommendation to the board to the
council that it be contingent on the circulation being as described in the best case scenario. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think some of us may be envisioning that um all this would have to have to take place in order for all
this stuff to happen. Um and so to make that clearer I think could be a very good idea and I think we get buy in from our local elected officials to help make those things happen with the state the county. >> Are you saying you want to see the transportation plan before we move
forward? No, I'm saying that it would be that I think it's consistent with the master plan contingent on the installation of the extra traffic elements that actually happening, not just maybe that would be nice. That has to happen for it to be consistent. >> Right. I I agree. I say eliminating that
word that they they inserted. >> So, Frank, we want to make sure that um a big building doesn't come before us and say, "Well, we tried to get a traffic light and we tried to get all this access, but they said no." And so, now this is what it is. You guys already said okay to all these other elements, right? Is that a fair rest statement?
Okay. >> Yeah. >> Any other comments at this time? We could open up for the public. >> I would also like to suggest that we maintain the impervious coverage as it currently exists and does not get increased. I think uh increasing the
impervious coverage would goes against what the town's trying to do right now, which is lower impervious coverage in specific zones. So it it looking for 80% and I think the site is zoned for 75%. >> But I think the current coverage is
exceeding that. >> But why not why are we not trying to make things better versus keeping it the way it is? >> Especially in light of all the flooding. Why not just >> I think I misunderstood you Anthony to maintain existing conditions. >> No, maintain the required 7 the zone.
It's zoned for 75% right now. That's what's allowed. >> Yeah. Okay. So maintain the actual ordinance that's ordinance there not what's there. Good then I agree with that. Yeah. Sorry. I apologize. >> And so if they were to come up with a plan and they needed 78%
then and that's going to be coming to us anyway. >> Yeah. Right. We have to figure out how to cut those >> 3%. >> 3%. >> Okay. Anybody have any other uh suggestions or comments right now? I feel it's good to say some of these things out loud. If if members want to
com the public want to make comments, they could at least understand where we what we're thinking already. >> I mean, I agree with the height restrictions that we that you suggested to. I think that's a great idea. I mean, approving six stories or seven stories is not um something we should do right now.
>> Are there things you're thinking that would or that come to mind for you that would allow them to make it six stories or >> Yeah, I mean I I could totally imagine um a situation where some something on a sixth floor could be fantastic for the
town. Um, I I definitely wouldn't want to take it off the table, but I feel like that we should It's good to be able to see what it is before we say, "Okay." >> Thank you. >> Maybe a killer restaurant. >> I'm thinking a pool,
>> you know, maybe a a pool >> bar, right? Okay. >> Thanks to traffic. >> Yeah. I just I wouldn't want to tie anybody's hands. Uh, and I don't want to tie our hands. >> Right. >> Fair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, do any members of the public they'd like to make comments on this uh redevelopment
plan? >> Can I see a show of hands? How many folks would we like to make comments? >> Just one, two. >> Sure. Yeah. >> You know, do I have a time limit? You don't have a time limit, but I do
recognize you already made comments at the last meeting. So I >> But since we don't have that many people looking to to talk tonight, >> do I need to raise my hand? >> Good morning, ma'am. Can you state your name? >> Good morning. >> I mean, good. Good evening, ma'am. Can you state your name and spell for the
record? >> Alex Hayes. Alix Hayes. >> And you reside in the township of uh Ocean. >> I do. >> Thank you. I swear you >> uh do you swear the testimony you're about to give is truth, the whole truth
will help you God. >> Yes. >> Let me just get my notes. Sorry, it's not going this way. Um I have a number of questions, so I'm going to try to mentally um squish them down so I don't ask as many as I would
like to. Um, I do want to state on record that there were nine minutes that were um, approved at the start of this meeting and at least three of those dealt with the ocean I mean Orchard Plaza development
and this town has not been privy to a lot of what the planning board and the board of adjustment has been doing over the last year because minutes have not been made public which by law are required and it has taken over 365 days for some minutes dealing dealing with
this exact topic that many in this room might have liked to have known about more than me posting on a social media page. The plans this has been public for some time, but nobody knew about it because there were no minutes and some videos were also not up when you exactly
discussed Orchard Plaza. So, that's a huge disappointment, but I'm glad to see some minutes got approved tonight even after 14 months or more. Um, someone brought up online that this is area sustained some of the worst
flooding that we've have we've ever seen. You know, the July 4th flooding, Highway 35 was 3 ft underwater. You know, BJ's roof we all know collapsed. This is literally in that space between West Park and Deal where you are um considering adding
six stories um and 330 plus apartments. [snorts] Uh in the Coaster article, it was mentioned that approving this would help solve the town's storm water, the town's storm water drainage. So, I'm just
curious how this exact project could help the town's storm water drainage as was um positioned in the Coaster article. >> Oh, is this like the school board where I just ask questions and nobody answers? >> This is this is people making comments
on the on the application at this point. It's not even application. It's the redevelopment plan. So if you if you question whether or not it will so I think you can just make that comment. Um the the people that were here that were talking about it they did that last
month or um my case in point nobody knew that that meeting last week um was uh even happening. So since topology was here and I asked some questions and I posted online there's been tons more questions. Um, in my opinion, it's clear that this
does not meet the master plan. If you all are eligible to deny exemptions, they're asking for 70 ft. It's 45 ft. If I'm not correct, if I'm correct, Mr. Higgins, for commercial
is 45 >> doesn't address height. So, if it doesn't address height, then I don't understand how you all are tasked with trying to have a limit on height when you're supposed to see if this plan aligns with the master plan. They they
don't seem Congress. >> Respectfully, the board's role in this matter with respect to this development is just reviewing what the township council has passed and determining whether or not it's consistent or not consistent with the master plan. They're
not making any rulings that are substantive as to whether or not this will ultimately pass. They're only giving their recommendations as to whether it's consistent or not consistent to the township council. Ultimately, it's the township council that will determine whether or not to
move forward with it. >> But as you discussed earlier, this board can say they want things changed in the redevelopment plan that was proposed and they can make amendments. You said that at the start of this meeting. >> They can make proposed amendments that
the township council does not need to accept or adopt. They can reject them. >> Of course, and as I stated in the last meeting, the township council has never in five years changed anything that you all put forth. So if you put forth a cap
on 45 feet, 60 feet, four stories, 50 feet, the township council has never gone against what the planning and board of adjustment has um profered up. I'll keep going, I guess. never gone against or never agreed with your
>> never gone against like so whatever the planning board and the board of adjustment has has put forth to the town council in the seven years or so that I've been paying attention to meetings I have never seen the council say well we got the answer from the planning board and we're going to tweak this one part
because we don't like what the planning board said so in my opinion you all have the authority to place some limitations via amendments like you said is that the correct Um, >> no. Again,
words matter. This board cannot put any sort of limitations on the township council. The township council has full autonomy and authority to reject any proposed amendments or comments made by >> I get it. But they can propose amendments.
>> Yes, but you keep saying they can they can adopt them. >> Propose. Sorry. So, my secondary questions will be at the town council meeting at the next chance. Um, sorry,
I'm going to my traffic thing. Um, I don't understand, um, as a as a taxpayer, somebody who lives within those two streets between West Park and and deal, I don't understand how you cannot put in a mandatory traffic study like you guys were just talking about.
Let's make sure if they come with an actual development plan, why can't they make an amendment to force a traffic study now before you all vote on this? like why are you not seeing the impact um from the police what a traffic study
would mean for 700 a thousand more cars every day. Why is that? >> Is there a chance that a site plan comes to us without a traffic study with it? >> Okay. >> Wow. Okay. Um Hold on one second. I'm curious if there are going to be any pilot considerations
for the developer. Taxpayers in Ocean Township have made it clear that they don't like pilot agreements. So is there any way that can be part of the amendment that any future redevelopment will not include a pilot arrangement and that is payment in le of
taxes? Okay, I guess you guys aren't answering me. Um, I'd like to know if this development plan has been revised um more than one version. The public has only seen drawings, renderings from what I posted, you know, on um Ocean Township
News and Events. I'm wondering if there were several reiterations that you all have had in your possession um since at least May of 2025 that everybody in I'm sorry, not everybody, the planning board folks who are now part of this land use board. Um, I'd like to know how many
reiterations of this you all have been privy to. Um, let's see. Um, there were over 600 comments on social media. I hope some of you saw some of them and I hope that's why some
people are here tonight. Um I I I think it goes without question that had I or somebody what I don't care who it was did not post the plans that the township um council and the planning board has known about for other meetings
but was never made public because minutes weren't up some YouTube videos weren't up. Um did you all read some of the 600 comments from residents? Did you all get emails from residents? And are you taking those concerns into
consideration? >> I don't think we're allowed to get emails. >> Well, your emails aren't public even though you're a public board. >> Yeah. No, I I think um I'm not sure we can get lobbyed on things. Can we? >> No. And again, I mean, I I hate to beat
a dead horse, but this board is here to determine whether or not this plan is consistent with the master plan, the redevelopment plan is consistent. They're they're not making any substantive determinations whatsoever. And your questions
respectfully are delving into you're requesting substantive information that's probably more appropriate for a different body. You know what body that is? What is the um height restrictions in the master plan for commercial versus
residential versus mixed use? >> No discussions in the master plan about building. >> So you would want or the ordinances. >> So if there are no restrictions on on building height and this is asking for up to 70 ft.
>> The master plan is a broadbased planning document. It is not an ordinance. The zoning ordinance has specific height recommendations and that's left left up to the governing body when they adopt the zoning ordinance. The master plan
does not get into that. >> I have a follow-up question for the attorney. If the town council um pushed this through to the planning board and gave 45 days for the planning board to do an investigation and come back with their approval or their decision on this
redevelopment plan. There was one planning board um meeting that was cancelled because there was not a quorum which means what five people couldn't agree to come to that one. So you all never had a chance to meet when members of you all were
part of the planning board. So why does the town council not have to send this to the land use board for a 45day review? >> Because it was it was already submitted >> to the planning board. This is not the planning board.
>> Understood. But it is the uh successor board to the planning board. These members have now had this plan. they've had the opportunity to review it. And again, I have to reiterate, they're only looking at it for consistency or inconsistency with the master plan. It
is not they're not making any substantive determinations. They are not saying this is a good plan. They're not saying this is a bad plan. All they are saying is, is it consistent with the master plan? And if it's not, they could very well find that. I'm not here to advocate one way or the other. If it's
not, we will draft a resolution, send it back to township council and say these are the items of your redevelopment plan that are not consistent with the master plan and these are our suggestions for how they should be revised. >> And Anthony, you know, I would take a small issue of what you said because you said we're not going to be making
substantive decisions, but our recommend I think the recommendation that we do not go to six stories automatically. you go to four only which is the current set you know the current allowance and it has to come back to us to go to higher I think that's substantive I think if we require the transportation circulation
stuff to actually be in the plan I think that's pretty substantive if we roll back uh even beyond you know lower than 80% peruse coverage to 75 I think we're making some substantive changes here and it's not a rubber stamp either way >> yeah my and my verbiage is probably
incorrect on that point because >> no I know what you're saying but at the same I don't want somebody to misinterpret it to think that we're not actually doing anything right now because we are making changes >> um that I think are important. >> Miss Hayes, can I make a recommendation?
>> If I I know you have many concerns and you want them all heard and I understand you want them all heard. I think your best approach right now would be to enumerate them. Just go through them like a list so we can list them out. everyone will hear your concerns because
the way you're doing it now, you're asking for responses which we can't give. It would be so much more helpful if you could list your concerns so we know what they are. >> I thought I was being a little clear
with that. I thought the town um in their outrage online was being clear. Um I don't think the town has storm water drainage um capabilities for a project of this nature. I think even 75% impervious cover is way too much. You're
asking for a lake in between West Park and Deal in a huge flash flooding alert. Um, >> can I say something? Right now, you probably have 90% coverage there. >> So, you're going down to 75. >> Not to mention the storm water
management regulations are much stricter now than what when the building was built. So that's how it's going to improve. I'm not a licensed engineer, but I'm an engineer and I do know that the regulations are much stricter now than where they were when the building was
built. And I defer to Mr. Matlock what what he thinks, too. But whatever we whatever gets built there is going to improve the drainage. Is it going to solve the problem? No, it's not going to solve the problem. Is it going to help? It's gonna help because it's in
increasing the amount of flow that you're getting in that area. >> Without studies, I respectfully disagree that it's going to help. I I can't imagine that an apartment complex was 330. I can't I can't imagine. >> You disagree that the regulations aren't
stricter now than when they were built? >> Um, >> do you know that? >> No, I don't I don't know that. But you could also make it 45%. >> Mr. Matlac, the engineer. Are they more strict now than when the building is built? >> Yes. >> I mean, this Okay, so you can disagree
all you want, but these are facts. >> But you could also make it 60%, couldn't you? You could make it 45%. If you chose to tear up the parking lot and >> put grass, >> right?
>> We can't make it anything. We can only recommend that the council >> suggests that >> I I know you guys are at a diff you're at a difficult precipice because I get what the attorney is trying to say and I get what you all are trying to say that you can't make the council do anything.
But how you respond to this is how council is going to approve or not approve it because they've never changed it. Um I'm kind of at an impass. I feel like my voice shouldn't be the only one. Um, and that's that's I'm hoping some other people might feel the [snorts]
need to come up. Um, I I I think um my final I guess comment is going to be um that Topology has worked with this property developer before. Topology last week at this meeting said we don't know who the
developer is going to be. they could come up with some kind of a um whatchamacallit a architect's rendering for example. Um I think town people are worried that if you do not put stricter restrictions
like the Mr. Fuller those three or so that you even talked about um that some developer is going to come in and do where's the picture? You know the six stories with the four and then the six. Um, I can only implore you all to um
[clears throat] not only do what's in um the master plan, what you think how it I guess aligns with the master plan, but how um the town folk, the residents, the taxpayers want to see this property developed
cuz I'll remind you that the town has been in complete and utter silence in this whole process. I guess that's it. Thanks. Thank you. >> Anyone else like to make some comments? >> Good evening.
>> Good evening. Could you state uh your name and spell for the record? >> Rob. A c e r r a. And where do you reside? >> Oh, Kirsten. >> And um before you begin, I just want to let you know that for the record, you're appearing tonight as a member of the
public. Is that correct? >> Sure. >> And the board will note that your comments are being received in your individual capacity. >> Sure. >> Not on behalf of the township council. >> Sure. >> And your testimony will be considered by the board on the same basis as any other member of the public. >> Sure. >> No greater or lesser weight.
>> Sure. >> With that, you may proceed after I swear you. >> Sure. raising my hand. Do >> you swear affirm to tell that your testimony the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Just a couple of questions on
process. Um I respect what the planning board has to do tonight. I understand that they need to uh make the determination whether or not this current application meets substantially meets the master plan.
Let let me let me get the uh correct ver verbage. >> Thank you. >> It's um it's simply consistent or inconsistent with the master plan. No, there's no qualifier. >> Got it. Thank you. So, I'm good with that. I get it. And I don't know if
everybody does understand that. I What I'm more curious about is what happens next. So after the planning board approves or doesn't it either comes back to the council or well it comes back either way with a approval or a disapproval if you will. What's the next
step? >> So so there is no there's no approval or disapproval. It's >> consistent or inconsistent. >> A report which is a essentially it's a resolution in practice >> telling the uh council is it consistent or not consistent.
>> Correct. If it's not consistent, then they get to explain what the inconsistencies are and they give recommendations as to how to make it consistent. >> Correct? >> Okay. Then what? >> Then it goes back to the township council and the township council has the opportunity to either adopt the
recommendations, reject it, or abstain and not not take it into account. >> Then what? >> And then the township council is ultimately the legislative body which will determine whether or not this is passed. What gets passed?
>> The redevelopment plan. >> Then what? Let's assume we pass the re Let's assume the council passes the redevelopment plan. Then what? >> Then it gets memorialized by township
council as um as as law of the township. >> Then what? I'm being I'm serious. I'd like to understand the process. So now that the redevelopment plan has been approved, what's the next step? Then again it becomes the ordinance and then
you will have uh entities bidding to be able to contract upon the site. >> Okay. And that proc then the planning board would then hear those applications from >> I see. Okay. Yeah. >> Thank you. I'm sorry. I didn't I don't wanted to get you here. Come on. [laughter] >> I wanted to get them through that piece
to understand it. Okay. >> If you know the answer, come on. I wasn't sure because honestly [laughter] at the last meeting I heard three different answers from three different professionals. So that's [clears throat] why I'm asking. >> Yeah. Once a developer uh selected the developer will have to come back for site
>> site plan. Okay. So traffic studies site uh excuse me normal application process. >> Correct. >> I'm done. Thank you so much. Have a great night. >> Thank you. Thank you. Hello. >> Hello. >> Could you state your name and spell your
name for the record? >> It's Graceanne Telerico. G R A C E N E T A L A R I O. >> Uh, and where do you reside, Miss Terico? >> In Wayside. >> And I'm going to give you the um same spiel that I just gave. Um, before you
begin before you begin, for the record, you're appearing tonight as a member of the public. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> All right. And the board will note that your comments are being received in your individual capacity, not on behalf of the township council, and your testimony will be considered by the board on the same basis as any other member of the
public. >> I understand. >> All right. And no greater or lesser weight. With that, uh, you can raise your right hand and I'll you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth is nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. I just have one question
actually because I had other questions but they were answered by other people. Um my question because I'm newer to the council the master plan versus ordinances. So I understand that the ordinances for the
height is 45 ft but for the master plan is more broad. So you're saying it can be however tall that the applicant is wishing to get approved and who approves that? >> Okay. The master plan is not an ordinance.
>> No, I understand that >> based recommendation. So when somebody comes in with an application, they have to comply with the ordinance. >> Okay. >> Not unless it's a use variance, they don't have to comply with the message. But according to this this application,
it's asking for what is that 25 more feet. >> Whether it's inconsistent with the master plan and there's nothing in the master plan that talks about height. So it can't be inconsistent with the master plan if the master plan doesn't describe the height. >> And I understand that. But why would it
not be looked up for an inconsistency with the ordinance since the ordinance is the law? >> It has nothing to do with the ordinance. It's the master. So who would approve the height then? Would they give recommendations this board >> body
when they look at the redevelopment plan and approve the redevelopment? >> Okay. So if the planning board land use board here tonight comes back with a recommendation and I want to thank you all for your comments and they're actually very good recommendations. So I
do want to appreciate and and let you know that I appreciate that. Um but again to go back to this master plan versus ordinances I mean I think that as the public and residents and myself right I would like to know why wouldn't
we bring the ordinances into this and say hey this is our ordinance right now 45 ft so why are we looking at 70 ft and what would be the recommendation >> because because the master plan doesn't talk about height
>> hey Jim if if I Could could I ask your question slightly differently answer >> please because you you understand >> the question is is more what is up with a redevelopment plan and why are why are there suggestions that impact ordinances >> correct
>> in that? Yes. >> Okay. Can you can you explain that a little more like what the redevelopment plan is when you use it and all those types of things >> because this is a place in need of redevelopment. >> A specific plan for a site for a number of sites depending upon how large area
is and when that is adopted that becomes part of the zoning ordinance >> for that for that specific spot. And the state municipal land use law requires that the zoning ordinance be consistent with the master plan unless a super
majority of the council votes to adopt an ordinance that's not consistent. >> So that's super important though I would think. Right. That that's super important what you're saying. >> Well yeah that's why it's like this. >> But but the master plan again does not
talk about building heights. So the height could be 20 ft or 200 ft and it wouldn't be inconsistent with the master plan because it's not dealt with in the master plan. >> Okay. So, this is this is good for information for all of us though because
>> the one specific thing in the master plan that talks about this site in this area and I think it's important for everybody to understand that. Let me just find it here. I have the master plan on my computer
is getting there. Here we go. It is recommended that consideration be given to modifying the existing C2 zone between Deal Road and West Park Avenue to allow mixed commercial and
residential uses with the ultimate goal of creating a walkable mixeduse area. Okay, >> that's one specific recommendation which this this redevelopment plan is geared towards implementing that aspect of the master plan. There are some general as
as Ed talked about there are some general purposes in the master plan and talk about making sure that the transportation routes streets >> can handle the traffic that type of thing which is why you would have a traffic study.
>> Okay. So I think it's super important though to recognize that there's a difference though between the master plan and the existing ordinances. So when it comes back to council and we hear well the professionals on the planning board recommended you know that
it's in accordance with the master plan it may not be in accordance with the ordinances. So, that's super important though for me because I'm new and I um I recognize that there is a big difference between being in accordance with the
master plan versus being accordance with the ordinances. So, I do implore you to recommend, you know, what you are recommending because I think it's super important. And historically, redevelopment plans very frequently are very different than the zoning that's
the underlying zoning for that redevelopment area. But it doesn't necessarily has to be, >> right? And when it comes back, the recommendation, if it's in accordance with the master plan, doesn't mean that six stories is what this board agreed to. It's just that it's in accordance
with the measure >> recommendations to the governing body. >> The governing body is not bound by those recommendations. >> Good to know. Thank you very much. And thank you all. I appreciate it. >> Can we just Jim, I have a question for you just as a followup to put a bow on
this to a point you just made that the redevelopment plans are frequently different from the underlying zoning. Why? >> Why? >> Why? >> Because the I can't give you a specific answer. I give you my
>> So, let me here's what I understand it to be and you can tell me if I'm on the ball or not. My understanding is that the reason we're doing redevelopment is because the underlying zoning means that the economic viability of the site in question is no longer feasible. Given the zoning in place, we need better zoning to make it workable again.
>> Basically, you need better zoning to make it workable again. Economically viable probably that kind of has to be an element, but but all land development has to be economically viable. But basically the redevelopment plans can be normally not normally but
frequently different than the underlying zoning significantly different because the underlying zoning isn't working. It clearly isn't working. If the area is is dilapidated or an area in need of redevelopment, there's a reason for
that. It's usually because the underlying zoning isn't working for that area. >> Thank you. >> Any more comments from the public? Going once, going twice. Okay, we'll close the public hearing from part of this. Does anybody have any
other comments from members of the board? Professionals, you have anything? Uh, okay. So, if I kept score correctly, um, let's just do a quick straw pull. Number one was uh the height keeps
keeping it at four stories 48 feet allowing up to six stories 70 feet upon planning board approval. Um basically making whatever developer takes us over earn more stories uh beyond four. Do we have general agreement to that? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Um the next one was uh transportation plan. Um how would you describe that again? I would say the recommended changes regarding an intersection on 35 in connection to other streets in the area be a requirement not a good faith
effort. >> How does that differ? >> You could word it shall be instead of >> legally you would say shall be and not >> but how does that differ from a traffic study? >> Traffic wholly unrelated traffic study they're going to have to do anyways. But this is saying that if they can't put a
light on there, then >> you're looking for a specific light and traffic improvements. >> Yes. Traffic improvements to affectuate the circulation goals of the master plan. >> Does it have to require a light or could it require like the there's a feeder street in the rear? I know that uh is
being considered. >> I don't want to to hamstring any actions taken too much. shot. But >> personally, I think that if they can't get to 35 that I don't think it's going to work. >> Okay. >> But I could be wrong. >> So they they can't get
>> if they can't get to 35 north and south. >> Oh, north and south >> from there. Sorry. Then it's not going to work. >> Correct. I agree. >> Okay. Um and then the impervious coverage, um currently it's 100% I believe is what the plan says.
>> 80%. >> Yeah. No. No, no, the existing condition I think the plan says 100 or practically 100 whatever or essentially whatever word used um the plan says 80% uh the suggestions to go down to 75%. >> I think that >> is that what the do we can we get
clarification? Do you happen to know what the >> what? >> Yeah, the the existing zoning doesn't have an impervious coverage requirement. What it does have says that 75% of the area of the site
that or sorry 25% of the area of the site that does not have environmental restrictions such as wet lanes, wetlands, flood planes and so on. >> 25% of the balance of the site has to be landscaped. So it will be 75% of the
balance of the site. I don't think I don't know if there are any environmental constraints on this. >> Just going to ask you that. Are there any? >> So would be would be the 75% could be. >> All right. So, Mr. D Janeiro, your recommend your suggestion is we go to
that standard. >> Why don't we drop it to 70 because they're going to push no matter what. >> So, I mean, what I'm just referring to is, and in section F number seven, it says impervious coverage maximum 80%. I was suggesting we take that down to 75,
but if we want to go to 70, I'd be even more in favor of it. Frankly, >> make it 70. And then that perhaps gives wiggle room if they want to increase it 2 or 3%. If you start at 75, they're just going to keep pushing the envelope and push that ceiling.
>> Yes, sir. >> Um, just for members of the public, the audio recording is picking up everyone chatter and chattering in the back and it's hard to hear of the board. So, if we could just refrain from from chatter for now so the board we can actually
hear these comments when it's live, please. Okay. >> And again, these are recommendations, right? >> That's true. Okay. Do we have agreement on 70?
>> Yeah. Okay. All right. So, Anthony, you got all those? >> Yeah. I'll watch the video. >> Okay. [laughter] >> You got them. Okay. All right. Right. So, do we have a motion to report back to the town council with these
recommendations um besides the besides these recommendations that the plan read plan is consistent with the master plan? >> I'll make a positive motion that it's consistent with the master plan. >> Second, >> yes.
>> Mr. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much everyone. Next up we have Kelly Miller and Kristen Keller.
83 Park Boulevard, Lock 85, lot 23 in the R5 zone. Hello. Come on up. >> How's it going? >> Very good. We'll give a minute for folks who wish to leave to leave without worrying about making noise.
Okay, Miss Miller, Miss Keller, good evening. >> If you could see Anthony over here, be sworn in. >> Uh, first I'm going to mark some exhibits uh into the record and then I'll swear you. >> Sure. >> All right. All right. So, uh, for the
record, we're going to have exhibit A1 is the variance application. Exhibit A2 will be survey of property prepared by Charles Serante PE dated January 17th, 2017. And exhibit A3, architectural plans
prepared by Thomas F. Lavin dated February 16, 2026 and revised through June 15, 2026. Then the board exhibits will be exhibit B1, the zoning officer's report dated July 8th, 2026. Exhibit B2,
board planners report, dated July 22nd, 2026. And finally, exhibit B3, board engineers report, dated June 22nd, 2026. >> Can you state your full name for the record?
>> Uh, Kelly Miller. K E L L Y M I L L E R. >> Are you an owner of the property? Uh, can you raise your right hand? >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, >> you can proceed.
>> Um, so we're just looking to put on a second story edition where I think pre-existing non-conforming by roughly. Um, that's that's really it. >> Um, do you want to have Mr. Right.
laugh. I'm sorry. Um, yeah. [laughter] >> Are you gonna have him uh walk through anything or >> Sure. >> You don't have to. I mean, >> okay. Just where you can swear you in. >> Can you state your name and spell for
the record? >> Thomas Lavin. L A V I N. >> And your business address, sir? >> 3430 Sunset A. >> And do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give means the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Okay. Um
the house is located at the corner of Park Boulevard and Roman Main Parkway faces Dave Douch Park. Uh it has existing nonconformities of the front yard on both streets. Um the house is built that way. Uh they're proposing to add a second floor. It's a
It's a one-story ranch and they're proposing to add the second floor over the over the existing structure and then adding a small covered patio on the back of the uh property. Uh the patio covered patio does not increase the sideyard
setback for Roma. Um, >> the covered patio is actually smaller than the existing deck. That's >> Yes, there's an exist a large existing deck that's being removed >> and replaced with the smaller covered patio to give them more yard space. They have
a little girl. They need some room for the playtime. Uh existing house drawing P1.1 consists of a living room, kitchen, garage, and then a regular size bedroom
and two smaller bedrooms. Um this is the wood deck that would be removed. Um so basically, you know, with with the couple and their daughter, the rooms are are pretty tight back here. So, they'd
like to create by adding the second floor, they can move the bedrooms up there, uh, P1.2. So, downstairs will become a more open living room, kitchen area. They're expanding the kitchen. The two smaller bedrooms becoming a dining room. They'll
keep the one bed bigger bedroom down there as a guest room or whatever. Um, and then upstairs they'll be able to create two bedrooms with a playroom for their daughter and a study. And then the covered, like I said, the
covered patio is a little smaller than than the deck that's currently there. um the drawing the drawings P21 and P22 show the the house as it exists and the
new everything will be replaced because we're adding a full second floor. So the roof's going to be all new, new new shingles, all the siding will be redone so it's consistent. Uh that's basically it. So that that second floor floor is
straight up above the existing >> go straight up. The setbacks are remaining the same. >> There's no increase, right? No increase on any of the setbacks. >> Building coverage is being increased by a little over 2% but the impervious coverage is actually being reduced by
it's like almost >> and there's still they're still within >> no additional bedrooms, right? That's an important >> doesn't trigger any increase >> below. >> So there's no trigger to increase parking or anything. >> No, but there is plenty of parking.
There's there's a threec car uh driveway plus the one car for the garage. So there's more than enough for what's there what's being added. >> My only other comments are that there's a shed that's nonconforming the rear
yard. So if that's ever changed or or removed, it should be and replaced. It should be compliant with the setbacks or have come back to the board. And the other one would be that the siding for the addition existing
building be compatible. >> Probably going to do that, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The whole the whole house will be resided so it's all one. Anyone have any questions? >> Do any members of the public have any
questions or comments on this? Okay, we'll close the public hearing. >> Make a motion. >> I'll make a motion and a positive. >> Oh, sorry, Ben. my report. I had a couple of comments that
>> Okay. Thank you for pointing that out. >> That's okay. Right. >> Questions? >> Yes. basic details and just some notes to be put on during construction to ensure that construction is properly
contained. >> We'll we'll make sure they're added to the drawings. >> A lot of the conditions on getting a permit as well, right? >> Hopefully. Okay. >> Okay. Now, do we have a motion? >> I'll I'll make a motion in the positive
after second. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Next we have Greg and Janice Canio,
>> 46 Lynn Drive, block 1.02, 02 lot 97. >> First of all, did I pronounce your name correctly? >> Correctly. Yes. >> All right. >> Welcome. >> By all means, have a seat. You're making me nervous. >> The chairs are tied together. >> Oh, yeah. They're all locked together.
>> They're all tied together. [laughter] The ones in the back should be good. >> Okay. >> Anthony, you want to mark in the packet? >> All right. Uh, so I'll start by marking the exhibits. The applicant's exhibits.
Exhibit A1, variance application. Exhibit A2, a color photo and color rendering showing existing versus proposed improvements. and exhibit A3, architectural plan prepared by Fortunado Architecture, dated January 29th, 2026.
The board exhibits will be exhibit B1, zoning officers report, dated July 8th, 2026. Exhibit B2, board engineers report, dated June 22nd, 2026. Exhibit B3, board engineers report, dated July
22nd, 2026. and exhibit B4, the board planner report [clears throat] dated July 22nd, 2026. Which one of you two or both will be offering testimony? >> Okay. Can you raise your right? Well, state your name and spell for the
record, please. >> It's Greg G. Last name Sansia. C I A N C I L. >> Do you swear affirm the test? Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to truth? The whole truth is nothing but the truth.
Well, the current condition of the steps are the original steps. It's four concrete, four steps to the front door. They're crumbling. So, what we want to do is obviously replace it. But apparently, our current steps are no longer in compliance. So, therefore, the variance. So, as we're going to do,
we're going to increase the square footage of steps to go wider and come out and add a quart. That's basically the whole reason for this meeting, I guess, because now we're changing the footage. And this is our builder. >> So I don't know if you want. Yeah. [laughter] So me swearing.
>> What? >> You might not need to. >> I don't think you might. You really might not. You'll be fine. Hey Jim, any any comments? >> The only comment I have is that basically it's it's consistent with the intent of the master plan where the court does extend out a little bit from the house. It provides shelter for
people that are standing at the door waiting to get into the house. So I I don't have a big problem, but the the only comment I do have is that the architect the original architectural plan and the revised architectural plan has the same exact date. So the revised
plan should be revised to show a date later than the original plan. So somebody's looking at the file in the future, they know which plan is the one that was approved. >> Architects >> aritects
>> Mr. Matt, >> I don't have any engineering comments. >> Okay, >> this is a very difficult one. >> Do anybody anyone has questions? >> No questions. >> No questions. >> No questions. >> I think all they needed to do is show the pictures. I think that did it.
>> This guy standing there like that is like [laughter] sweating. Um >> Oh, you didn't see the picture. >> Like, is this what you're doing? I could show [laughter] you. Not that we have. >> It's been a while. >> All right. Does any me do me any members of the public have any questions or
comments on this application? >> All right. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing portion of the hearing. Um, do we have a motion? >> I'd like to move for second. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Yes.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you very much. Have a great evening. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Lastly, we have the Park at Ocean Condominium Association Incorporated,
block 33, lot 19.03, 03 Deal Avenue in the C7 zone. >> Attorney for the applicant, Mr. Jeffrey Beekman's. >> Good evening. Jeffrey Beman, the Beman Law Firm. I represent the applicant on this application. This is a continuation
from the May planning board meeting. Um, and it is an application for a minor an amendment to the prior U preliminary final site plan. Uh, which I think Mr. um Higgins has identified as a minor site plan.
>> That's correct. Correct. >> I will state for the record obviously we have a new board, right? We have a lot of new members. Yes. >> Uh I think everyone has uh listened, right? All the voting members this evening have listened to the first hearing and have signed something to the
fact that they have listened. Okay. Anything else we need to do on that? >> No, >> I think that suffices. >> One other thing. Uh unless you have objection, Mr. I'm going to remark the exhibits from last time because we have superseding
professionals reports and updated plans. So, I think it makes sense that we update with three. >> Well, uh, my notes indicate that we were at A6 as far as the applicants exhibit exhibits and we're at B9 as far as the
board's exhibits. Yeah, my packet reflects exhibit A5 for African exhibits and B10 for border >> and >> I listen I actually listened to the tape today. >> Okay. [laughter] >> Well, I was saying I was going to remark
them for today's hearing based on >> just for the record. Yeah. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. Sure. >> You you don't understand where I'm coming from. Okay. >> All right. So, exhibit A1 will be the site plan application. Exhibit A2 will be memorandum prepared by the Beakman Law Firm dated July 1st, 2026. Exhibit
A3 will be the colored rendering of a proposed deck dated June 7th, 2024. Exhibit A4 will be utility auilt survey by Bowman Consulting Limited dated July 31st, 2023. And exhibit A5 will be typical deck foundation plan details and
notes prepared by Collier's Engineering and Design dated June 26, 2026. For the board exhibits, we have exhibit B1, zoning offers, zoning officers report, dated July 16th, 2026. Exhibit B2, board planners report, dated July
22nd, 2026. [clears throat] Exhibit B3, board engineers report, dated July 17, 2026. Exhibit B4, memorandum from code enforcement, dated April 16, 2026. Exhibit B5, memorandum from Department of Public Works, dated April 16, 2026.
Exhibit B6, Fire Marshals Report, dated April 27th, 2026. Exhibit [clears throat] B7, Traffic Safety Bureau report, dated April 17, 2026. Exhibit B8, crime prevention unit report, dated April 17, 2026. Exhibit
B9, Flood Risk Notification Report, prepared by NJD, dated October 22nd, 2024. an exhibit B10 prior planning board resolution dated October 28th, 2019.
>> And for the record, at the last meeting, there was also an area aerial exhibit that was marked as A6. That was my A6. Um, just a brief background of the application. As I indicated, we were here uh for the May meeting of the
planning board. Um coming back here cuz there were some requests from the board members to provide some additional details regarding the deck footings specifically for building three on the site as well as uh for two of the units on building two on the site. All of the
other units um do not have any issues as far as uh the underground storm water retention system and that was the question of the board. Uh and as indicated is an application for a minor site plan uh with these amendments. Uh in in essence what the applicant is looking for and I just wanted to clarify
the agenda item. The applicant is looking for the alternative uh for each of the units to either have a deck or have a patio. And uh the size of the um proposed deck and patio would be 11 ft deep by 22 1/2 ft wide. Uh approximately
247.5 square ft uh as indicated at the last meeting. Um I have here uh Mark Lascavage who was sworn in at the last meeting. He is our board our applicant uh both engineer and planner for the application.
>> Sir, can you state your name and spell for the record, please? >> Sure. Mark Lascavage. L C A V A G E. >> Could you raise your right hand? >> You swear affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I did.
>> Mr. beacon were you doing here? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, so Mr. SC Lascavage, you were accepted by the board at the last meeting uh as both engineer planning. >> I was. Yes. >> Um and have your licenses changed since the last meeting? >> No, they have not. >> Still current and in effect. >> Still current and in effect.
>> I would continue to offer uh Mr. Scavenage as an expert. Certainly. Thank you. Um so you you've been tasked and and colleagers have been tasked to provide some updates to the plans to provide some footing detail. you could just go over with the board uh the plan that you have provided which I guess we
should probably identify that as A7 because that was not marked yet. >> Can you just describe exhibit A7? >> That's the exhibit you have up there. Correct. >> That's correct. So the plan is a the typical deck foundation plan detail and
notes and it's dated June 26th, 2026. And if you could just go over what that plan is describing, Mark. >> Yes. And this this came out of um concerns uh from the board's engineer uh
and the board members uh with the potential effect of uh the proposed deck on building three on the storm water management system. Uh so to illustrate that uh we have the uh typical
foundation plan that we created. Uh this is specific to the end unit but it would apply to all the units in building 3. And what you could see uh is the dashed area is the extent of an underground um
recharge system which consists of um perforated pipes and stone and the concern is that the deck um would impact um that system. Uh so hearing the
concerns um and talking with our structural engineers, we came up with this plan. Uh and the plan is uh that we would have to have um peered foundations that would be put in uh adjacent to the
storm water system uh but not into the storm water system and that the deck uh a portion of the deck would can the lever over the top of that storm water system. so it wouldn't impact it. Uh what you see on the right of the page is
the complete design of that footing which you can see um is a a 24-in pier that would be augured in with a sauna tube uh with a steel rebar cage and a
concrete pier. And that um footing has been designed uh to take the load uh from that uh the deck which is proposed at 11 by 22 1/2 ft. Uh and with that post and the moment around it uh that
will resist um the the loads that are being put on it by the cantal levered part of the deck. So this could exist um over that system and and not impact it from a structural standpoint.
And we had talked uh actually there was testimony at the last meeting as well that um there would be restrictions as well as uh a amendments to the master deed addressing any of the concerns that the board had as well as the board's plan. Is that accurate?
>> Uh that's correct. >> Okay. Um, so that would address the fact that if in the future uh there's [clears throat] any um improvements to the stormwater system, repairs to the stormwater system or replacements that can be done. >> That's correct.
>> And and how would that generally be done from a construct a structural standpoint? >> Uh it depends on what the the actual um issue is. If it was a [clears throat] a complete collapse of the system, they would actually they
might have to take down the deck um to make those repairs and that you know the homeowners in that building, they understand that that is a possibility um and that they would bear the cost of uh putting that deck back in place if that
was the case. And this is something that happens often times when there's uh infrastructure over in infrastructure in the communities all over the the state. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Um and then from the standpoint of the depth of the footing, how does that
compare to the pipes? >> So specifically, um our structural engineer has designed it so that the footing will extend to the bottom of the storm water management system. Therefore, all the bearing pressure uh
from the deck that's transferred to that foundation will not impact um laterally onto that storm water system. >> All right. And as far as that storm water system's concerned, it's not directly next to the pipe. Is that accurate?
No, there's a a 10-in gap where there is um there will be stone uh and that the pier will exist just outside of what is filter fabric that wraps around that system >> and that's existing on the system today. >> That's correct. >> And when this design was made, you
identified um the depth of the existing system. >> That's correct. We use the uh the latest asbuilt uh for that system. >> Okay. Um, and just going through Mr. Matlac's
letter, uh, he's got seven items here. Um, as far as the existing downspouts, you don't believe there's any issues, uh, impact with the existing downspouts? >> No, I don't. >> Okay. Um, and then as far as patios, can
you explain I if a homeowner decided to put a patio instead of a deck in, how does that work? >> So, the the patio would actually have less of an impact on the stormwater system. Uh, and and based on that comment, we we did prepare another
exhibit just so the board could see what a patio would look like in a cross-section uh compared to the deck. So, I guess I would introduce that as uh A8. Is it >> uh it would be a correct? >> Do you have that?
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And Mark, this exhibit is in direct response to the comment in the review letter. Is that accurate? >> That's accurate. It actually um addresses item two and six of Mr.
Matle's letter. >> Okay. And if you could just describe both the patio situation as well as the step situation. >> Sure. So first I'll just go to the plan view which was very similar uh to the one in the typical foundation detail. Uh
the only difference is uh I did add in um the existing steps so that you could see that the existing steps would remain uh and the if we were in a patio uh situation where that was the choice of
the homeowner and the patio would go to the extent of where the deck is shown here and would still exist. And then uh as shown, if the deck was the choice, then the the steps from coming down from
uh the deck uh would be over the top of the uh storm water system. Uh but there would only be a 5- in concrete pad there. So there would still be separation to the storm water system and it wouldn't impact it.
And then if you could just describe the patio as well on the right side of that draw. >> Correct. On the bottom right uh this would be a rep representation of what a patio would look like. This would be through the cross-section of where the existing steps would be. U but that's
roughly uh what you would be looking at uh from a u dimension size. >> And in general patio over infrastructure is no different than a sidewalk over infrastructure. Correct. >> Correct. the the loads uh would not not
affect the storm water system. >> Um and there's a comment I'm going to skip to number five reference note number one references an asbuilt survey dated January 29 or last revised January 29
2025. Can you just respond to that comment? >> Uh yes. So um when we actually uh started preparing the typical foundation plan um we found a later asbuilt than the one that we originally submitted with the application and of course that
being the most the latest and the most accurate. That's the one we use to prepare uh the design for the typical foundation uh and we have submitted that to the board. Uh but uh of course that
that's a a new survey. I do have uh the survey here if the board would like to look at it. But the there's no appreciable changes. The only changes on the plan that we've seen where there was a couple changes in invert elevations
that really were taken into account in the design. Anyway, >> um and then as far as comment, I believe we identified comment number four already as far as the offset of uh the stone trench. I think you addressed that. Um and number seven, there's a
comment specifically with building number two, units 121 and 123, and that was the decision by those units would be to keep the depth at 10 feet. Um any issues with making the modifications to the plan if there were an approval?
>> None at all. No. Okay. And I can represent I I have spoken to those unit owners and they're okay with they they were previously approved with a 10 x10 deck. They're looking for a 10 x 22 deck. So their depth would remain the same of what was approved previously. Um the only other comments I have uh are
related to there's just a discrepancy in uh Miss Mayor's letter and Mr. Higgins letter and that is whether buildings um 11 and 12 on the west side of the of the site whether they require variance or
not. We have noticed for purposes of this application a variance. Um whether it's required or not I don't think it's it's material from the standpoint of noticing but if it's required obviously we have asked for that. Uh and there has been test testimony on that previously
at the last hearing. Can you clear that up? >> Can you clear that up? >> I don't think variances are necessary for >> Okay. I think we might have a number of questions. If I could start with Mr. Matlac and then we'll take questions from the board.
>> Sure. Um, can you address number four regarding how the foundations for the decks are going to be installed without the um Sorry. Sure. >> Without impacting the storm system.
>> Yes, absolutely. Uh so they will be soil augured in place to minimize the u disturbance to exactly the width needed uh for the sonnet tube to go in. Um it's a common practice when doing uh this
type of foundation. and we can add a note to the plans to make sure that that's the method of construction used. >> You're not concerned you're going to cut the fabric with that? >> If they did, then they'd have to repair it. You know, in the end, it it's, you
know, it is close. Um, >> I don't know how you repair it, though. >> I have a clarification, too. Sure. Can you talk about that 10inch minimum off the off the uh the new footing for the deck? Because when I'm looking at the existing plan, it looks like the
existing storm lines are a lot further away from the houses. So that's is that a 10-in minimum because to me it seems like they're going to be further away than that. So the distance >> So th this was the design plan that was put into play. Uh I believe that the 10
in is accurate. >> No, what I'm saying is that's a 10 inch minimum. Looking at your plan here, the existing plan, I think they're going to be further away from that than 10 in. They're not even going to be near 10 in. So that just
the 10 inches that you're talking about is the distance from the pipe to the foundation of the the deck. >> The buildings are going to be further than that >> from the pipe. I just again I don't see how you're going to construct that without
impacting the recharge trench. >> I did look at the soil logs. It's it's very much clay type soil. and um doing a soil auger. The only other thing that they could do to even make it better would be to have a a vacuum excavator.
Um I guess we can we could stipulate that. >> Yeah. The so the the concern with the what we're all kind of discussing here is if you u damage the fabric that surrounds the stone trench, it'll allow
fine particles to get in there and basically clog up the the um clean stone that's in that that stone trench. So basically you lose uh volume where you can store water in in the event of a storm. So protecting that that um storm
water system underground drainage system is very important to have a functioning system. Um otherwise there could be problems which could lead to uh you know maintenance that would require removal of decks things like that >> and the least amount of disturbance
there the better. Right. >> Right. And you're not >> So right now what's being shown is zero in from the the stone trench to the um foundation for the for the decks >> and and the >> and that was that was where my comment
came from of you know how is that going to be protected? Um obviously it's not constructed in the field with perfect like straight lines. So I feel like some some type of uh investigation before construction would would definitely be
necessary to find the the edge of of where that that is. >> We we do have the notes. The the other thing anticipating that this may be a problem. I did talk to our structural engineer and he did look at the the pier foundation which right now is a 24 in
and he said we can go down to an 18 in which would give us more separation. >> Mr. Matlock, can you refer to the D um flood risk report for me? I I have a question.
>> Sure. >> I just want to make sure I'm interpreting this correctly. that this subject property has um different areas on it. Correct. It's
located in a special flooding hazard area. Yeah. >> And then moderate risk as well. Right. >> Right. the the overall site of DM35 is in the has portions of the site that are in the flood hazard area,
>> right? >> Um the that the majority of that is is towards the north of the site uh where the the stream is. >> Okay. And on the bottom, it just it reads that
coastal and inland areas may experience significant flooding now and in the near future, including in places that were not previously known to flood. Um, and it just elaborates on that a
lot. So, I I don't understand why we would even want to consider increasing the the patio space if if we have such concerns about flooding, especially here.
>> Well, allow me to address that. So, this this is I put in a block in a lot. I actually am the one that provided this document. I put in a block and a lot. It gives you the entire block and lot. This entire block and lot is the entire original corner property from Deal Road and 35.
>> I'm so glad you said that because I was gonna ask was this from D or is this >> this is just from D and it's a generalized anytime I print a report that talks about the AE zone. It has that same exact language that you're talking about. But as as Mr. Matl indicated the um there is a buffer area
that we can't go into. We're not going into here. We're we're well away from that buffer area. It was actually part of the original application. >> So, hang on. Following up on that, part of the This is not the first time that we've talked about storm water on the site. They had to come back for an
amended site plan on storm water. Someone had memories of this because they've had to fix this stormwater system on this site before someone anyone. >> So, I I was not the board engineer when this application came before the planning board. Uh the original
application the the ifications to the storm water system that happened during construction were not to this particular recharge basin. >> Okay. But given that other and you just
pointed out the clay on site, it's had some struggles with storm water infrastructure. The extra I'm ballparking here, Ben. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm guessing 7,500 extra square feet of impervious coverage, right?
51 decks by 147 extra feet. 100 square foot to 247 square foot. >> That sounds about right. I >> Is the storm water system as designed capable of handling that extra? I know it's not a lot, but cumulative impact
adds up. >> It's we we haven't seen that. there there hasn't been any anything submitted um that is like a revised drainage report for the entire uh development. Um I don't know that
that is particularly necessary in this case because uh the original plans did approve decks for the majority of these units. So the changes that are being proposed are dimminimous.
Can I ask a question to follow up on that? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> What you just said that the decks were approved for the majority of the project. Do you know why they weren't approved for I think it was building Was it building three that they were not originally approved and now you're looking for approval?
>> Building three did not have decks. That's right. >> And now you're asking for approval. >> We are. >> Do we know why they did not ask for them in the first place? >> Because they needed variances. I'm assuming >> because now they need
>> Yeah. Sorry. Sorry. [clears throat] >> That location >> they would have required setback variances from the perimeter and my recollection is that's the reason they weren't approved. I mean that's part of
>> discussion before the board at that time with moving the units further from the library track. So the units removed further library track building three was only about 25 ft from
the perimeter. So the foot 10 deck would have required setbacks. >> I mean that's something that that I was going to bring out that hasn't been addressed like what's the positive criteria for >> having these decks versus >> when they weren't approved originally. If if you uh listened to the tapes on
the last hearing, I gave ext extensive testimony to that and Mr. Higgins agreed with my testimony on that. >> I apologize. I don't recall because because it goes go to so many meetings during a month. I just don't recall the specifics of that.
>> So, can can I follow up on that because I want to make sure we're talking about the the same testimony you gave. This was where you were talking about the meaningful private outdoor space, decentralized recreation space, and no on-site amenity areas. >> Correct. >> Correct. Why doesn't the site have
on-site amenity areas? >> I can't speak to the original. >> Well, I can because I was on the board at the time. There were no on-site amenity areas. that was pitched to the board as one of the reasons to approve the configuration of town houses as
designed. There were supposed to be fewer amenities. It was supposed to be more compact and the rationale was that Joe PA was right next door. They didn't need on-site amenities because they had the biggest recreation parcel in the
entire town right there immediately adjacent. So, as someone who was on the board at the time, your testimony saying that no on-site amenity areas, one of the reasons that we should approve the decks doesn't really jive with me since one of the reasons that we were inclined
to approve it was that there were going to be no on-site amenity areas in the original application. So, I I'm having a hard time explaining these rationalizing these two competing thoughts. I I stick by my testimony and you have 51 residents who
wanted the decks and [snorts] part of the reason is they wanted an area to have a grill and to have an area where they can entertain. To me, that's an on-site amenity and it's not afforded to them with a clubhouse in it as a
traditional development. So, I stand by that testimony >> for the buildings uh two and three in question. the numbers here, the different units. I think they're all affected by the drainage pipe and the variance that we need. Are we talking decks for all of them? Because we keep
using it kind of interchangeable, but your letter, Mr. Beckman, it it says decks, but do we have a consensus from the homeowners? Are they so >> all looking for decks or the testimony last at the last hearing is consistent today? And yes, they would like decks.
But we un we understood making this application in the first place. Uh we went through this with the with the um uh homeowners and the decision was to give them an op option of either putting decks or patios if they chose to do the
patios. One of the reasons for that was because of the very reason that we're talking about tonight specifically relate related to buildings two and three and that is the footings associated with the with the pipe. Uh testimony is that we believe that the footings can uh be put in there uh it
can be put in there without uh detriment or damage to the underground drainage system um and that there are ways to do this without interfering with that. >> So question for you Mr. Matlock. If a homeowner chooses to go with a patio,
let's just say in building three there and say they're all going to do there's going to be soil disruption, you know, they're going to have to typically bring out soil, bring in rock. Is there any issues with the discharge system with all that disturbance going on? I know we're focusing on, you know, the
footings, but in in your professional opinion, you know, if say they're all going to go to patios now, I mean, we're >> um meaning the actual construction of the >> actual construction because there I mean it typically you have to go down so far they have to bring in different types of
so stones maybe sand to build that back up. So >> I feel like we're I don't know we're asking for different things here and trying to wrap my head around that like if we're being exclusive here on patios or being exclusive on specifically these two buildings you know where there is an
issue with discharge. I know we're talking about specifically the decks, but I I would like to know more if we go to a patio, is it going to cause bigger problems or is it less problems? I I don't know. >> So, Mark, do you have a a detail or
cross-section of the patio? >> Yeah, it we think the typical patio here would be about seven inches deep, including the sand underneath it and the the actual paper block. >> And what's the depth from the surface to the recharge? So it it varies, but it
it's usually eight to two and a half feet, I believe, is the range. >> So the construction of the a patio would not touch the system. >> Correct. >> So >> So if you're going down seven inches, but if it's in areas of 8 in, there's
only one inch in between. Did I hear that correctly? >> That's correct. Yeah. >> And that's to the top of >> That's to the top of the filter with the fabric and everything. So it it wouldn't disturb it um >> by in that case. Sure. By one inch. Um
you still have how much stone is on top of the pipes? >> Um let me see. >> Used to be about six inches. >> Yeah. I mean it it wouldn't reach the >> wouldn't reach it >> wouldn't reach it
>> during construction. >> I have a question. Um the decks and patios now going to allow the homeowners to choose which one they want. Right. And right now what is there currently is everybody have a deck? >> Nobody has anything right now.
>> Okay. So, so when the construction was uh built, the developer did not they only uh provided the stairs off the the rear. >> But the rest of the the rest of the complex though, they all have decks. >> No, no, >> no. There are no there are no decks today. They were approved at the
original uh hearing. They were approved except for building three. >> Okay. >> They all have steps down. >> They all have steps down today, >> right? They have steps coming down. That's what I see. >> That's right. That's it. No, there are no decks today. >> And they have small patios, right? All the other ones >> they have concrete patios. Nothing.
>> They have nothing. >> They just have steps off the building there. >> Yeah. I think it's just steps in. >> I I don't walk the entire site, but I walk most >> except building three. >> That's also all the other ones have a 10 by 10. >> No, they're allowed. >> They're allowed. They're allowed. Nobody has correct. Nobody. Nobody has a deck
today. If somebody decides to go with the patio, um would that be made out of concrete pavers? What What type of material would be used for that? >> Pavers. pavers. >> It would be a uh we would stipulate that would be a purgous PA system. Okay.
>> And that's that's what uh Mark has designed as well. >> Have any of the homeowners uh expressed concern about not being uniform with the rest of the project? Some having patios, some having decks? >> No. There the the uh association will uh
create a uniformity policy. That's been the intention all along uh as part of this application. And quite honestly, the decks that were approved, there's nothing in the in in the governing documents now indicating what that uniformity is. So the association has to do that anyway when when it comes to the
decks that were already approved. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Matt. Like the filter fabric is at the bottom of the trench, but then it also turns vertically. >> It wraps the entire trench. >> Wraps the entire thing. So that's an
important point that that that zero inch is literally the filter. And to your point, the excavator probably didn't. It's not a perfectly straight line, but the piles or the peers are proposed to literally touch the filter fabric. So I I'm having a hard time understanding how
that I mean to Mr. Tierro's point, no one's going to be able to dig that hole and not mess with the filter fabric. >> You're not sending anybody down in a twoft hole to look to see if the fabric was damaged either, >> which it it is going to be compromised. it is going to breach the system. You are going to end up with with soil
getting into into the recharge basin. So I I don't understand how you could propose that it is literally touching it without affecting it. >> I mean even if you're six inches away, I'd be concerned that you're going to damage it because there's no way you're >> and then you can know >> 100%. A follow-up question and I maybe
this is more like for a geotechnical engineer but like is the actual operation of that basin over time does that undermine appear like that because of its proximity to moisture the actual recharge itself like I don't know if that's something structural
engineer or geotech would have to evaluate >> um it I I don't know that it would necessarily undermine it undermining mean means like soil would be eroded away. Um I I wouldn't anticipate that
would be the case. >> Okay. >> Uh but I'm not a geotech. Um >> you could get additional settlement. >> I don't know if that falls under the the building department's perview or not.
>> Okay. Probably. Yeah. Okay. >> Another question also. So, we talked about um the uh um just in case there's an emergency, they have to get into um the system, they have to remove the deck or the patio. Is that correct?
>> As needed. Yes. >> As needed. And is that is that something that I'm going to go to the professionals for this one. Is that normal on most projects that you need to remove either a deck or a patio to get to the water system? Well, if if there
was a need to excavate that area, then they would have to be if they wouldn't go in there for roofs and maintenance to >> right >> to excavate that. But if if something were to happen that they needed to repair something or or do something like
that, then then yes. >> Um >> Mark, I don't know if it's shown on the plan. What is the the actual distance of the overhang over the uh rechares? You're talking about from the pier out? >> Yeah. Like how how far is the patio?
>> It would be about 5T. >> Thank you. I want to make an analogy. Can you tell me if this is right? If you have a home and there's an easement for a large storm drain across your property,
um you would try to avoid putting a big patio or pool on top of where that easement is because if they have to come in and fix that sewer pipe, you have to go under the pool or rip up the patio,
right? Is this the >> it's analogous to that? >> It's very similar. Um a a pool almost certainly would not be allowed to be constructed on top. >> Understood. But
>> right, um a a patio, you know, we would be talking about the same thing that the town could at any point come and rip it up. Uh same with a shed or a fence. Um, so that is is what we're talking about.
>> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any more questions from the board? >> I just have one for our engineer. Would it do you see any concerns putting a patio over the drainage or the the recharge system for the for building three only?
So, I um from an engineering standpoint, I don't believe a patio is going to negatively impact the drainage system. Uh I have a little more concern about the the decks
with the foundations that are constructed right next to it. uh whether whether or not the board wants to approve that knowing what we've talked about that they could be subject to removal if if needed uh to to maintain the [clears throat] system.
That's that's up to to you. >> A patio would have to remove too, right? >> A patio would have to be removed, >> right? So just like the example, >> right? That's you wouldn't buy a home and put a on top
of that drainage pipe. You you would put it in another place. >> But I was thinking more of like the easement if he if they had to be moved, >> right? But it just >> still it still have to be >> find a better way is is all I keep thinking. >> Are the existing there was you made a
comment about the existing uh downspouts and leader drain collection system not being impacted by the decks. How are they how are they what do they do now? Are they tied into a system or they just dump under? >> Some dump to grade and some come into a
parallel system that uh would be under the deck but not impacted by the deck because the deck would be uh going into the building and the the collection pipe is actually under the ground there and then connects outside the limits of
where the decks would be. So we did look at that Any more questions? Any questions from the public on this application? Any comments from the public on this application?
[snorts] >> Come on over, sir. >> Can I just have a a minute, Mr. Chair? >> He's one of them. >> He says yes. [laughter] I know he's looking at me. >> Mr. Vice Chair, >> in all seriousness, two minutes because you're almost at your 45 minutes.
>> Yes. Thank apologize. Look at >> Okay, we are back. No one is left. >> Thank you for your >> Hold on. Hold on one second. You have to start the recording. [laughter] >> Okay, we're back. The entire board is still here. No one left. >> Thank you for your indulgence. Um uh so
I I just wanted to on the record. So Mark, you you talked about a vacuum uh system. If you can explain how that works. >> That's correct. So instead of um an augur where you're auguring down and bringing up the soil, a vacuum excavator actually goes in and sucks the soil out.
So there's there's almost no chance of the disturbance um of of the filter fabric in that case. And I think that along with the fact that we're reducing the pier to an 18 inch. So that will give three to four
inches of separation from that and then having a stipulation that will locate uh the system, you know, before they start the excavation on the peers. I I think that will adequately address the board's concerns.
>> Mr. Sure. Can I ask another question? >> I was going to ask what Mr. M, do you have a um response to that? >> Yeah. So, I I agree that um an 18inch foundation if that can be uh designed to work that that would provide a little
bit a little bit of separation uh between the underground system and the excavation and the um pier. uh and a a vacuum excavation would be a
I guess a safer way to excavate without uh impacting the stormwater system. Um and I I agree. I think that we still do need to see uh test pits in the field to
locate the exact edge of the system so that they know exactly where it is when they're they're digging or vacuumating for these. What's the soil again? You said it's clay. >> Yeah, it's like a a K2 soil. So, it does have a higher clay content.
>> Yeah, vacuum truck doesn't work with clay. It's because it's it retains water and it won't it won't pull it out. You need to pressure jet it then and then you're back to disturbing the the silt fabric. >> Well, I think it's still a K2. So, I
think I think they can do an a vacuum excavator for this. >> Mr. I'm not sure if I like it's for you or or the applicant, but who owns the discharge system and who's responsible for the maintenance of the
>> I believe that's part of the governing documents and the association is responsible for that. >> They're responsible and they own it and it's they they >> I believe so. I >> I don't know if the our profession >> I can't guarantee that, but I do believe so. >> I believe it's owned by the HOA. I'm not
100% sure, but I believe that's >> it's not the townships or I I don't think it's tied to the township system. >> Uh no, I because it's it's there's no easement on on the site, >> correct? >> Right. >> So, it would be likely owned by the the
HOA and that would be discussed in the master de >> and generally there's a maintenance manual that is also recorded uh in the county clerk's office uh identifying the obligations basins, they have to be cleaned once a year, >> right? That's right.
>> Yes. There there's an operation and maintenance manual for every basin or underground infiltration system on the site. >> And Ben, who checks that those uh maintenance manuals are being followed? >> I believe the uh township code
enforcement officer, >> but it ultimately the township is responsible for that. the township >> responsible to uh check that they are being followed but it's the responsibility of the the owner of the system to actually do that
work. >> Jim, do you have any comments on anything that's not been said already? Yeah, >> I'm looking at um and I apologize if this went over at the prior meeting, but um you talk about uh the if if all the units had have been approved for larger
decks, the building coverage, what the building coverage would be. Um >> yeah, I put that in if you know if all the units were approved and you look at the entire track, which is the commercial track as well as the townhouse track that there would
probably still be a minor site plan. But at the same time, if they were to amend the application to do that, it would probably mean renoticing and coming back for another hearing, which probably I don't think they want to do. I threw it out there
as as an option for them, but obviously here tonight. >> Okay. >> I I have one more thing. Um my comment number three uh about a master deed amendment uh would be required to address the responsibility uh the deck
that a deck or a patio is removed um that would be necessary to make sure that the homeowners through their the master deed for the HOA um it's documented that they are responsible to replace anything that's
removed in order to assist [snorts] >> and we did addressed that that that would be a requirement and and quite honestly before I even submitted my application, I had that conversation with the homeowners association and said that's going to be something that you're going to have to do if you have an
approval here because uh there's the possibility that those decks or patios may have to be uh temporarily uh relocated until uh any work is done on on that. Um uh so
as far as the application goes, you know, the application as as we have it right now, we're proposing at what we propose as far as both decks or patios depending on what the homeowner uh requested to do. If the board really is inclined to not want decks on unit
three, uh or I'm sorry, building three, um please let me know because we would just ask to be allowed to have patios. But if the board's inclined to allow that and obviously the building department is going to have to review everything. The
building department is going to have to make sure everything's done. Those test pits are going to have to be done. and we've stipulated to do everything that we need to do to ensure that the filter fabric and rock uh and the um system is not is is protected while the construction uh goes in for for any
decks. We do not believe for patios that that is a necessary uh uh requirement other than to ensure that we don't uh anyone doesn't go too low in those areas where you might have a shallower um uh depth to the top of the filter fabric. Um, but it it sounds like from what Mr.
Lcavage has identified in the field that that should not be a problem for substantially all of any patio that might be installed on the site. >> Okay. So, if we're keeping score, we have to we have to decide whether we're going to approve amendments to the site
plan, right? And then for buildings two and three because of their setbacks we'd be granting variances in those cases >> only building. >> Oh just building three not building two right. >> Uh so building three has the setbacks to
the perimeter. Building two has a setback to adjoining structures with the um uh the library site. A and I would point out that one of those adjoining structures is not conforming with the setback on that site according to your
ordinance. And if it were, we would be compliant. It wouldn't be an issue. >> Okay. >> And not all of building two is affected by >> No, it's So yeah, >> building two the system is much further away than what we have on building
three. >> Building two doesn't require setbacks either for the >> That's correct. >> That's correct. But isn't the and the recharge system or the discharge system is only on the northern part of building two? It's not all the way down the entire thing.
>> And and when those are constructed, those will be constructed uh with the footings far enough away. We're not talking about what we've been talking about tonight. Building three is really the only building that has that issue. So building so building two those footings are going to be far enough away
that we're not going to be within you know uh an inch or two >> and the deck won't overhang the >> the deck the deck may overhang but it's not uh Mark do you know what the distance is from building those used >> so on on building two the recharge system is 10 ft off of the back
>> and and and that building was already approved for 10ft decks and and this that's that's the building that we have indicated that um they will be 10 foot decks. >> There might be a slight overhang, but it's not going to be what we're talking about with building three >> and it it's only a setback variance if
it's a deck. Right. If it's a patio, that's not >> on building three. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Sorry. I think you might reiterate again they're you're reducing what was originally requested from 11 ft
to 10t. >> That's right. That's right. If if they're going to install decks patio, they would still ask for the 11 ft deck. They're asking for 10 ft. >> Okay. >> And I'm going to ask if we go to
>> it's it's 11 by 22 and a half. >> If we go to Mr. If we go back, this is where I get confused. If we go back to 11, is it just 11 ft or 11 and 1/2 ft? >> It's 11 ft deep by 22 and 1/2. >> If we go back to 11 ft, do they need a variance for the library for building
two? >> No. >> No, they don't need it. Okay. >> Um, I think we do. >> I think we do. >> Requested. Yeah. So the >> but you want to go back to a patio. If you go to a patio.
>> Well, all right. Let Mark, can you just pick up that plan right there? >> So the shaded two units on the southern end of building two and the northern end of building one, those are the two we're talking about that has the setbacks to
the adjacent structures. >> They don't have they don't have a a >> What are you talking about? got to set back to an adjacent structure. >> So Mark, if you can explain what the ordinance talks about as far as distance between adjoining structures on another
site. >> Yeah. So the the library site is next door to library to community center. Um >> I'm just not aware of that provision or that's why I'm asking. >> Yeah, it was it it was a requirement for a setback from the adjacent property
building and structure. So on unit 113 uh with the proposed deck. That would be 96.7 feet off of the community center building where 100 ft is required.
And then um from unit 111 with the proposed deck, uh that would be 71.4 4 ft off of the parking lot which was considered a structure where 75 ft is required. So it's a an adjac it's the
setback for for the building to the adjacent property structure and building. >> So as far as the uh what's the northern unit number uh on building one? >> Uh 111. So, as far as 111 to the parking
lot, that's what I was talking about. The parking lot's not compliant with the setback. If it were compliant with the setback, we would actually be compliant with that that restriction. Um, as far as the building just to the north of that, the south end of building 2. Um, that's that little bumpout of the
library. Um, and whether we have 10 foot or 11 foot deck, right now this is showing 11 foot, we still need a variance for that. and and it wasn't identified in the original application. >> Do they were approved for 10 foot decks? >> They were approved for 10 10 by 10
decks. We're asking for those two units on building two. We're asking for 10 by 22 and a half. >> So they will be no closer >> than what >> to the library than what was approved. Kind of that should be the headline for that. >> But they don't but they don't have the variance. It's not those two that have
the variance. It's those two that are shaded. The decks comply with the setback to the perimeter. They don't they don't comply to the adjacent structure distance. >> What is the set back to the adjacent parking area? It's not the building [clears throat] is the parking area, right? >> Correct.
>> Correct. >> What is it? >> 71.4, >> right? >> So, the plan was approved. The library was there at the time, >> correct? >> And now that's a cleanup. >> I I guess it's a cleanup. I don't know. I didn't see it in the resolution, so I
assume it wasn't identified. Whether there was a change in the ordinance, I don't know, but we've identified it and we've noticed it. >> Well, is it the it's 96.7 ft to the bottom of stairs right now?
>> That's correct. >> So, it's that that would be 3.3 ft. Maybe that is like kind of the width of the stairs because originally was only approved with 10 x 10 patio. So, originally it could have complied and
and this is now encroaching closer to the the library building. >> Just to be clear, the the 10x10 decks did not show any stairs. So, I think Mr. Matlick could probably hit it on the head. Okay. Well, I'm clear.
[laughter] Um, all right. So, should we have some discussion on what we're thinking here? There's three ele there's elements of this. I don't know if everybody's going to agree on how to go with each thing,
right? >> Maybe start with the paper patio for building three because I think that I mean they're offering that seems like he's okay with it, right? >> Yeah, I would be more comfortable with a PA patio uh for building three as
opposed to uh the deck because of the foundation execution. >> Okay. >> Can you point out building three on that for me, please? >> See the two little red dots? >> The red >> that not the red dot. The other one.
That's why I wish Sorry, that's three. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Is that something we could agree on? >> I think so. I I just have a question and this is more of a building question for the I guess the three or four steps, whatever it is to get down to the ground level. I'm saying you're going to need
some steps coming up the house even for a patio going down. Please don't do you need footers for those. >> I believe there was a detail shown for that. Right. >> Right. Right. So, so those steps are already existing. They come down to the grass >> or I mean I guess they come down to a
patio or like a a platform, but it's a 3x3 standard platform, >> but we don't need they're already there. We're not digging down further. >> There's no more post going into the ground. The bottom of the step, >> right? That's right. That's where I think >> that's right. Yeah. These aren't concrete steps. >> I have to say I I don't know that I
agree with that. Putting pavers over an existing storm line >> that needs to be maintained or used. We we don't do it in we've never done it in this town over an easement or anything. I don't suggest we do it today. >> I agree 100%. I I think it should stay
the way it was approved originally. >> I mean, there's and to me there's Listen, there's there's reasons why they didn't approve it originally. >> Correct. >> They was specifically left out of those properties and and I don't think we should go back on it at this point.
>> I agree. And I want to jump on that. None of these have been built. This isn't a situation where someone has walked out their back door and said, "Wow, this 10 x10 deck that I have built is just not enough. I cannot live with this. I need something bigger." There's nothing there now. So, what is the the
push to to expand beyond what was originally approved after many hours of arduous discussion with the original board that approved this back in October of 2019? dimminimous impact or not on flooding. I just think you keep adding up
dimminimous impact after dimminimous impact and you have a very large significant impact. >> I'm in agreement. >> Does anybody see any part of this application they want to uh advance? No,
I'd like to make a resolution for a >> motion >> mo motion for a negative resolution. Is that >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> I'll second. >> Yes, >> Mr.
>> For negative. >> Negative. Yes, >> Mr. Dane. >> Yes, >> Mr. D. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chamora. >> Yes, >> Miss Litman. >> Yes, >> Mr. Manell. >> Yes,
>> Vice Chairman Palutes. >> Yes, >> Chairman. >> Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Okay, see we have no other business. Our next regularly scheduled planning board meeting is August 20th,
2026. Motion to adjurnn. >> Motion to journ. Make a >> motion. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? >> Thank you everyone. Have a good night.