uh welcome to the folks who are um sitting on on the meeting as attendees uh we have not formally begun the meeting yet um we're having a connection issue um and so thank you for your patience um I'll read the opening statement as soon as our uh as soon as our panel up here is complete we're waiting for our land use attorney Mr Mueller e he for people who are in the attendees room there are 14 um people attending the meeting um who are not panelists uh meaning not members of the board or the board's professionals or applicants and Witnesses um and we are up here's Mr Mueller just wait to make sure that he's got his camera and mic working and then I'll read the opening statement great okay good evening and welcome this is a regular meeting of the Princeton planning board on Thursday March 21st 2024 pursuant to section 13 of the open public meetings act adequate notice of the time and place of this meeting has been given by prominently posting the resolution of regularly scheduled meetings of the planning board of Princeton for February 2024 through January 2025 a copy was filed with the clerk of Princeton on January 8th 2024 legal notice on the adoption of said resolution was published in the January 12 2024 edition of the Princeton packet notice of this meeting also has been posted to the municipal website Princeton nj.gov calendar notice that all regular and special meetings of the Princeton planning board will be held electronically via Zoom was transmitted to the Princeton packet and the times and was filed with the clerk of Princeton on Tuesday January 17th 2023 please note that this meeting is being recorded during hearings on applications for development members of the public will have an opportunity to comment and ask questions questions may be asked after an applicant's Witnesses have testified public comment is heard by the board after an applicant's Representatives have finished their presentations that have been questioned by board members and staff those wishing to comment orally should virtually raise your hand by clicking on the reactions button or the rais hand icon at the bottom of your Zoom screen or if participating by phone by pressing star nine oral comments will be taken in the order in which hands were raised we ask with respect that members of the public express your views in three minutes or less the countdown clock will be used to help speakers keep track of time and speakers who exceed three minutes will be interrupted inappropriate public comment containing obscenity hate speech or relating to matters not before the board will be muted will you call the role Carrie certainly Mr bodimer President Mr miss capoli here Mr Cohen Mr Macwan here miss Nuka here Mr odonnell Miss Pearl here miss saxs here Mr T here Miss Wilson Anderson here Mrs Wilson here where Corum thank you uh announcements any announcements from staff or from members of the board uh seeing none I'll move on to subcommittee reports we had a site plan subcommittee meeting did we not um yes okay do we have a report from them I think David hi Justin I saw that you turned on your camera um do I have a report from the site plan subcommittee and David is the chair I think and he's not with us tonight uh no the last site plan uh subcommittee meeting was on March 6th uh I believe back about that one the standing one wasn't we didn't have one yesterday because March 6 we had one so the next one be the mid April one all right great good um resolution of approval we have um a resolution related to litigation um and payment to the law offices or or engagement of the law offices of Mueller Bailey PC um the litigation is Princeton Coalition for responsible development Inc the Municipality of Princeton planning board and mayor and Council of M of the municipality of Princeton um are there any questions about this resolution um or comments and if neither would someone like to move it um I'll move for approval thanks Miss capazo is there a second second thank you Jack Taylor um uh roll call please Mr bodimer yes Miss capoli yes Mr mcgaan yes Miss Nuka yes Miss pearlmutter yes Miss Sachs yes Mr Taylor yes Miss Wilson Anderson yes Mrs Wilson yes motion carried thank you um next next up we have an application Morino and Marlin I Odell minor subdivision on site plan with variances this is at 469 Ying street block 7202 lot 13 this is file number P 2322 d255 mspm um M oh thank you Mr Muller yes the board has jurisdiction with with respect to the application that had been filed and which is the subject of the reports now um I was told by staff that they the applicant might be tonight submitting um some modification modifications to that if it's a substantial Amendment to the application which had been reviewed by the staff and was a subject and is a subject of the reports then they're going to have to re notice on that um they could either withdraw if that's the case and the board would have to make that judgment and obviously there'd have to be some discussion as to what they are as to whether they're substantial they would either have to withdraw file a new application or as a way of not requiring to resubmit all the the paperwork they' submitted before it's just we could accept jurisdiction um but not hear it and uh basically hear it after the board uh staff has had an opportunity to prepare the um reports on theie IED application so those are two of the Alternatives we have um so that's where we are on that so I I I we should accept jurisdiction but only for the application which is now before the board okay the application that was received uh some time ago and about which the our professionals have prepared their memos exactly yeah okay thank you y um and and we'll um as you referenced in the course of our discussion have um you you know talk through and get guidance about what it mean what substantial changes might mean if they are described uh by uh by anyone who testifies tonight yeah okay probably we I assume this I don't even know Justin has the staff seen anything other than the original application uh we have not okay okay um that is not the applicant did submit something on Tuesday very late in the evening uh and we put it online uh so that will be presented this evening but it was not reviewed by staff if if it's since there's been a lot of discussion on it Ryan Ked for the applicant I'd happy to just represent that there is a bucket of six Vari es uh related to very specific design issues in the building fenestration and the height of one of those buildings will'll simply be representing and showing how those design issues can be solved they're extremely minor um that was what the those reference were uh window locations essentially and the way that one of the adus was measured for height those variances can be very easily and minorly eliminated uh we we're not proposing anything different beyond anything like that okay um Mia sax I'm sorry Jerry could you just go over again what you described I I I'm not clear on what what the situation is yeah that' be helpful well so we have the application which was originally filed and was a subject of the reports by the by the professional staff that you have copies of now Carrie just mentioned that something was submitted late in the day on Tuesday and that proposed modifications which would I guess I gather eliminate six of the variances um the question then becomes is that a substantial Amendment to the original approval if it is it has to be the the revisions have to be not Ren noticed and one of two things can be done if the board determines that they're substantial and it doesn't matter whether they they're beneficial to the community or not um the board could the applicant can either withdraw the application but then they'd have to resubmit all that start from day day one resubmit all of the paperwork they had previously submitted which is substantial or they we could take jurisdiction um they could and and basically um not not here tonight and um extend the time for decision we would find out from them whether this well I guess they've now submitted all the all the material give the professional staff an opportunity to do reports on the modifications and um and hear it at that point well that seems like a no-brainer I don't know why we proceed with hearing an application tonight that the staff haven't even reviewed and which is seems to be legally precarious and I would like to urge the applicant to go with the lot course that seems a much more prudent course than us spending the entire evening on something which is ultimately legally speculative and it's going to get us into a a a an even more complicated position on an already complicated application yeah I I may um with with with apologies to all um when this project was deemed complete um several variances that staff had not noticed in the first several rounds of reviews from something that was filed quite a long time ago um and and frankly we are the most trivial and and minor in nature and I I'll I I don't want to speak for your your planner but a series of sidewall fenestration variances in the design of the houses uh the type of variances that this board would uh discuss back and forth or discover during the course of any one of its meetings on almost any application um we're simply representing that having heard about these after the meeting was scheduled we represented that we could very easily adjust the window locations uh to solve those H and and the change that is being discussed here or that we would be showing you would essentially be the representation that uh the window locations uh for the houses could be adjusted uh slightly to not violate Princeton's neighborhood character sidewall window fenestration requirement um so I just want to be clear that that's what we're talking about this is not a major change in any way to the project if we wanted to I'm I'm only concerned that the this application has been filed for you know quite a long time ago um and uh I I'm it it sounds like there's a thought that these are drastic major changes to uh a a project and not the the type that wouldn't just come up live during the meeting uh we just happen to have figured out how to solve them in advance um just in defense you're representing that that um any changes uh to what was reviewed by our Professionals in your view are not substantial correct Mr Muller well you know we don't know because we really haven't seen them has seen them but nobody nobody on the board has seen them yeah okay uh Mr Macwan uh I had a question about their variances whether there going to be be some of the variances that would be reduced or whatever in this and some and I haven't heard anything to you know you know in the representations that have been made to say that there aren't so it's it seems to me it's more than just the windows well yeah no they're they're they're not suggesting that they're erasing all the variances but some some number of them but no we haven't heard any testimony yet at all so um I so I don't want start talking about specific variances until we but wouldn't that be part of something that staff might want to consider well things there things that were in the staff report that um had some question about the about the number of variances that that were being proposed and whether they could be reduced and I'm and and I'm just wondering whether staff would also you know the other reason why they should go through staff is so if in fact there's some proposal on on changing I'll call changing or reducing the variances that staff should be able to comment on those too I agree Alvin yeah I I I think it's a point well taken Mr Lesco do you um what are your thoughts Justin let me S you in yeah you swear affirm the testimony about to give will be the truth I do so want toir from what it sounds like the ones that uh staff in the engineering and Zoning report uh said could be eliminated are not actually the ones that are potentially being eliminated here um so without knowing exactly what they are I can't say for sure whether they're trivial or not I think of the ones being asked for the what Mr Kennedy had mentioned are the least concerning from a review perspective uh because these are ones about Windows on the side of a building not necessarily about the placement of buildings and what that might do to trees or or storm water management or anything like that um so I think those are the least concerning if it truly uh are the ones just about you know essentially the the walls on the side of the building okay so what what I'm hearing you say is that what is that is basically agreeing with Mr Kennedy that the uh the variances they propos to eliminate tonight through testimony uh are not significant but the ones the variances that they still request are quite significant I'm trying I I I mean we've heard from two board members and and Mr Taylor has his hand raised as well um that uh it does not make sense for the board to to hear this tonight if there are going to be you know significant changes and um so uh let me hear what you let me hear what you have to say Mr Taylor you have your hand up and give me a chance to think a little bit just some general comments from my perspective to set tone we've just completed a very effective very successful Master planning process and within the community the issues that came to mind and were most what shall we say emotionally fervently in detailed discussed had to do with density and this is this year since the plan was approved the very first project that focuses on density and so from my perspective having everything about this discussion at Peak with appropriate background and review by staff is extremely important because it illustrates this very important but controversial R vision of the master plan the role of density so from my point of view I want to be comfortable and perhaps Justin you and staff are the only ones who can make us comfortable do we have adequate background this is important at this time and at this place that we do it in a balanced professional kind of way that's number one number two for Jerry it's not clear to me in the normal course of legal standards what substantial in fact means yeah it's it's very judgmental and you have to look at the application as a whole and you have to look at what the proposed changes and if they um maybe significant is a good way of putting it if they significantly modify the plan um then it would be substantial but it but it's very judgmental and it's really not defate and Mr Kennedy has said a couple of times that what they're talking about is not substantial but that is going to that you know we won't know until we hear from him whether our own whether we agree with that assessment that's what I'm struggling with and um Mr bodimer and then miss Nuka and then miss rter Nat's trying to unmute himself and having trouble he says go ahead uh Miss Nuka thank you uh chair Wilson um if I understand correctly the question is at hand is whether the changes that were submitted today uh constitute substantial changes I mean if nothing had been submitted today would we go ahead with hearing during this proposal yes we would I I I guess I don't think was today I think was submitted end of day late end of day Tuesday um and if it wasn't submitted we'd certainly be going ahead with this and making a judgment as to the variances that were proposed the the site plan um and and all in the context I I should emphasize that there's a lot of there's a lot of variances here and when we get to this point whatever variances are remaining the board's going to have to make a judgment as to whether is this really more akin to rezoning and just as what happened on hbert is the court said you've gone beyond your Authority and jurisdiction because basically you free zone property so we're gonna eventually have to address that issue um but we're not at that point now so I think the question is would it make sense for us to hear the proposal as was submitted as of Monday and ignore what was submitted yesterday would that make sense could we ask the applicant to just answer that simple question we could do we could do that um there's no no legal problem with doing the only problem is we'd have we'd then be reviewing an application with the applicant has just told us through their attorney um they're modifying correct but presumably they might have to modify it anyway yeah right so they would be submitting modifications next week okay thank you thank you pie Freddy Pearl mutter and then Mr Kennedy um I understand the the point that the council is making that this these are minor changes but I think until our professionals have a chance to actually look at the writing see what's truly being proposed I am not comfortable with saying yes I I you know I think his his interpretation is probably a fair interpretation but I think our people our Council and our um planners have to have a chance to actually look at the changes it's a complicated application if you're taking it you know it's not just a a matter of getting rid of numbers of um variances it's also a matter of what they are and I understand that moving Windows is not the same as doing some other things but until you actually look at what that what's actually proposed I don't see how you can really judge at this point yeah um thank you Freddy um Mr Kennedy you have your hand up and and we've heard from a from what I consider a critical mass of board members who are very skeptical about hearing this tonight um e even un with the understanding that um what you submitted earlier this week you believe to be uh not substantial in terms of um changes uh there there were a number of concerns raised in in the background memos we've all read including one from the arborist and the uh casting serious doubt on the ability to save a bunch of trees Etc um I don't mean to take your time why don't you go ahead and speak mad Cher thank you and I'm going to start with the arborist because I think that's highlights exactly why um an applicant needs to be able to present uh and respond to reports and to testimonies so we actually received the Arbus report today um and I would um very much expect that had we gone forward or if we go forward that we would address those concerns and and quote modify the plan and discussion with you in the uh normal back and forth ways that um a board and an applicant do on every one of your applicants applications what we submitted exhibits those exhibits through charts and drawings show how we will address the comments that were made by the staff reports I understand this being uh interpreted as a new plan I understand that and there's a a a spectrum back and forth of of what constitutes a new plan is something that should be 10 days in advance perhaps or reviewed by staff and we are absolutely happy to work with that I I don't want to um um throw a roadblock in any of those processes my goal in in perhaps discussing this further is to be clear that we see that there are three buckets of variances here one bucket was I would say discovered by staff quite late after we um not late but after um we already uh were scheduled for this hearing and we figured out how to address I believe uh I don't want to put words in Mr leco mouth but those are the bucket of the five sidewall fenestration variances and the height of one of the adus um our response and plan to that is essentially we'll address that and we're not going to ask for those variances because those are easy things to change the next bucket of variances are the ones that were the subject of the concept review uh more than a year ago that's six variances that essentially go to the the question of whether the adus should be in front of the main houses um we are asking for those variances but would be also to be quite honest with you um the home applicant homeowner would be okay with reversing those eliminating those six rances we didn't present a plan for that that's not what we submitted in our exhibits but I'll tell you right now and we would if we proceeded that we would be willing to do that so the only concern I really have is to delay the discussion of what the board would like to see because if it is those six variances related to putting the adus in front of the homes um we'd like to hear that and address those perhaps as a as a plan for you and staff to see rather than wait another couple of weeks to do that to have that discussion um and then uh do that process again so I this is almost just a preview of the flexibility of this applicant that I I would like to start sooner than later because that the the piece that I think is being discussed um and and I'm not really sure what exactly has been interpreted as the new plan but if it's our exhibits and our representation that the sidewall fenestration variances could be addressed um you know shame on us for putting that in a presentation or saying that upfront we would have just said it tonight that you know we don't need those variances um uh and and rather than explain it more thoroughly through through exhibits I think that's what we're discussing and and when it comes to what our presentation will say is that there are three if you add up to 16 variances and Mr Muller is correct at some point you know it's it it's a lot and you have that Humbert situation um six of those variances will tell you immediately that are unnecessary and we would not be pursuing another six of those variances we could still do a 2unit with 2 Adu project with the with as your planner has suggested flipping them U removing another six variances leaving just the width and lot area variances we would be okay with that I'm not looking for some kind of concession here but that will be Brian it seems like you're you're going You're proceeding to discuss the application when we haven't even decided whether we're going to hear the application and I I I'm uncomfortable with that I just want to say I I I very much appreciate that um I'm I'm what I am saying though is that the real discussion that we will have may result in these plan changes and I I'm I'm confused why this minor suggestion is is resulting in US resubmitting plans um if that's what the board chooses so thanks Mr Kennedy Mr bodimer and then miax and Justin Lesco I had just wanted to say that I agreed with uh Mr Taylor's comments and um and also was uncomfortable making a judgment about what's substantial or not on the Fly that was it okay Mia I was just gonna say that I agreed with uh Miss Pearl mutter's comments that um you know we we need a solid foundation um to the point about Humbert I think we learned that if we're hearing a complicated application it needs to be on a solid foundation a solid Legal Foundation um um and uh I I think we have heard clearly from our attorney that we are not on a solid Legal Foundation tonight um and I continue to feel very uncomfortable thank you um Justin thank you madam chair um I don't want to contradict what we are hearing from the board now but I I do want to point out uh just this last meeting of the board was kind of an illustrative one of how uh an application can begin uh the board can express their concerns and then it could be carried uh for a redesign rather than a a design on the Fly um if that is what the board would you know prefer to do or signal to the applicant or you know the board always has the choice of of you know making a motion themselves so I do want to you know toss that out there uh especially since we haven't actually seen what the changes are so I'm sorry I I didn't really follow what exactly you're tossing out there uh essentially that the the application can begin like usual um and follow the path of last time with uh the 375 tune application uh and if it becomes clear that there are going to be major changes at that point you know the applicant can say we're going to come back with with new drawings uh if that's you know their choice rather than redesigning on the Fly rather than prejudge it maybe open the application hear it and then make a judgment yeah open the application hear the um the applicant's testimony and make a judgment at that time whether to ask the applicant to go back and like Mr Muller said whether it's substantial and can be approved as is whether you know the board intends to uh Motion One Way or Another uh or the applicant chooses to to withdraw based on the advice that they're that they're hearing from the board at that time it might be more appropriate yeah um well I hear you and I [Music] um I am just not comfortable going ahead when so many of our board members are very concerned about doing so um and I think that this is um you know partly because of the number of variances on the table here uh with or without the ones that are might be erased um you know that are considered minor and also um uh you know based on the [Music] um well just the the yeah the the the complexity in a number of ways and um I know I note Ryan Mr uh Ryan Kennedy that you you said you had just gotten the um the arborists uh memo today but he was repeating a lot of what was also said by Mr Dober milsky um which was a memo that you would have gotten some time ago um so I would ask that [Music] um that you and I I recognize um Mr and Mrs IOD Deli that this must be um very frustrating uh and exasperating for you as applicants and as residents and um and I regret um that but I do think that it's really important that the board have [Music] um an opportunity to review memos prepared that reflect the exact plan that you want to um move ahead with and not um have to make decisions on the spur of the moment tonight about what whether something is substantial or not and not have the benefit of um uh of our professionals you know time to consult with each other and um you know take time to consider those very questions so um I I would ask that we um establish a date um if possible uh to come back [Music] um if uh Mr Kennedy you can tell us you and your professionals can tell us when you would be able to have revised site plans um submitted M I guess it would help us because I'm not even sure what we would be submitting to understand what staff or Mr Muller is believes that we what what is it that we submitted that is different that is is it the representation that we would be able to avoid these variances is it our exhibits I'm I'm actually in order to change something I think I need to First understand what the interpretation is that we submitted or changed um because as far as I'm concerned while there there was an email back and forth with the land use engineer about whether we should submit new plans um uh we didn't do that and so I I know we represented in our exhibits that we would be able to avoid these Varian but I'm I'm before we set a new date or a new course I I guess I'm confused as to what has changed or or what the basis for the expectation or of of change is actually so that we could perhaps address that I I don't want to get into a loop of um new dates and not submitting what frankly may be needed because I'm not quite sure what what is well we're we're we're not trying to um create a moving Target at all we're trying to give you an opportunity to submit a plan that represents what you want to do rather than a plan that's been looked at that does not represent what you want to do um at least not in full Mr leco uh thank you madam chair and that's a that's a good point uh Ryan also kind of brought up a good point the applicant emailed to see if they could submit new site plans within the 10-day period that we need them we said no you can't do that I don't believe they ever followed up with new site plans so as of right now all they followed up with was their PowerPoint exhibit uh so there still is one one set of drawings um there's not you know choose option A or option b uh at this time um but you know the point remains if they are looking to change it uh then you know the only option on the table is not actually what they're looking to change to so again I'll say I'm not sure how this came up or what triggered this we we in in reaching out in advance to let staff and everyone know that we would be able to address the changes we suggested that we could submit new plans I didn't think that was necessary and that was what the exchange was um the changes were talking about would not involve new site plans or subdivision plans so again I'm I'm I'm afraid that we're going to get into some kind of loop of of notices and expense for this applicant and not quite understand why or how to get out of it um and I I know it's this is a difficult thing to do live here but I I I'm I'm reluctant to to set a new date and not know how we're going to satisfy or get to that date frankly so can we let staff handle that with you directly after this hearing because I think the extent of what we can handle as a board is setting another date Mr Bridger I saw your hand go up briefly did you intend to make a comment Derek I've seen Derek Bridger is trying to connect to audio and are you waiting to comment Mr Bridger on yeah I was I'm trying to um technical difficulties excuse me that's all right we can't see you yet can you activate your camera and be sworn in by Mr meller there we go hand is up do SAR testimony about to give it be the truth yes I do just one um just for the record staff's report is based on the application that was deemed complete um the applicant hasn't changed that plan they've what they've submitted for the board's consideration and staff's consideration is how they would address eliminating some of the more minor variances but in terms of the application being rewed tonight it's the application that's been deemed complete um all the reports from the arborist the planner myself and Dan Weissman um the landscape consultant um Dan Dober milsky are all based on the report that was submitted and has been deemed complete so I mean you could look at this is just when we had sprb meetings oftentimes applicants would come in and you know try to jump ahead and say these are conditions that spra thought were issues we're trying to address those but the only legal reason thing we can do tonight if the board agrees is review the application has been deemed complete the stuff that was submitted after that was more an attempt to address variances um in the in the staff's reports so that's my two cents but nothing really changed I mean the application has been deemed complete as the one that's all the the memos are based on so we could review that tonight and uh then the applicant can address how they would deal with the variances once they done thanks thanks DK pauka uh thank you so it it seems like the staff are uh perhaps um saying that we could move forward with reviewing this application as it was submitted tonight and I would um you know while I understand the comments of Mr Taylor and Mr bimer uh I would suggest that may be possible to review the application without necessarily arriving at a decision on all points this evening and some issues can be referred back to staff uh thank you Mr Macwan I'll read directly from one of the reports as previously stated the applican has signaled their intent to revise the site plan to remove some of the those vences staff has not yet received those plans and if the review prove to be significant or if they may cause additional variances they should have a chance to review them and revise them um in our memos before the board comes to a decision so there's still going to be an issue of whether they're they're substantial or not still I'm going to be asked to make that that type of decision I can't take the representation from from you know I can't take the the representation from the applicant that they're not that's that's that's that's a that's a board decision right right yeah so yes um I I believe what you're saying is is correct that if we hear it tonight it'll be up to the board to decide whether any um changes that the applicant signals they're willing to make are substantial as Mr Muller said in the beginning even if those changes are considered beneficial to the public and to the plan even if those changes make the plan better um Freddy pearlmutter uh I still remain concerned about the fact that having not seen the entire application it may have been complete deemed complete on Monday but who really know I I know the council is not going like this but I I see him shaking his head but who you know yes it's just Windows now as far as we know but we haven't read it yet our people haven't had a chance to really review it yet and I want to be clear that the application that we're actually reviewing now is the current complete application and I don't think we've had a chance to do that yet our staff hasn't had a chance to do that yet we have verbal representations and I you presuming the council's representations are correct but they're still Council representations they're not act papers which somebody has gone through and made a real determination on and that makes me very uncomfortable well just to be clear the the application was deemed complete way before this past monday it was deemed complete before the um before the professionals uh our staff um prepared their memos um and that is what the applicant is asking us to look at tonight is the plan that was deemed complete um last month or early this month um and that all of the memos that we have are um um responding to but they haven't responded to everything yet because they haven't seen everything yet is my understanding no well the later stuff that was put in has not been reviewed yet I I guess I'm wrong no that that's correct the the applicant submitted something that was responsive to as I understand it responsive to our professionals memos um earlier this week the applicant was told they could not submit a revised plan within 10 days before the meeting which is correct that's our process we don't accept plans that late with a with that rapid a turnaround time for uh for our professionals so um if we hear go ahead go ahead Derek not me oh sorry no it was me again I I'm just saying that um the fact that they didn't have 10 days to submit the revised plans is unfortunate but it it's when they submitted it I don't you know it's hard I can't really judge based on what we're saying so far as to how serious this is yeah frankly I really can't I I um I know we're talking windows I know that's not that big a deal but I'd feel much better if our professionals had had a chance to really review everything it's just yeah okay thank thank you go ahead Jerry I take from Mr Kennedy's representations that in that first bucket it's not just windows but it's the height of one of the U edus I'll say the extent of what we've committed and would propose is essentially taking that memo and circling and saying we would we would be able to to to fix this and that is what we're when we're talking about revised plans it is the unfortunate mistake we seem to have made by telling staff in advance that we felt that we could address those those items and shame on us for for having that conversation but ultimately that's what we are talking about the our exhibits and our representation to staff that we'd like to work with them and we don't think we need these variances um we asked for them we noticed them we think we could support them and justify them the only plan we've submitted has them in it um but since then in the wonderful working relationship that we have with your staff and I will say this till I'm blew in the face we're very lucky to have the people that you have working with you and they're are excellent to work with and um we talk to them and let them know that um we we got your memo here the many meeting date has already been set we think we can address these uh sounds like it's best not to do new plans because that sets this cycle here because we don't even know if for all we know that uh the board would like the original window whatever the issue is um and and and I I feel like we're at this point because we went out of our way to say in advance that we could address these things and discuss them um we haven't sent in new plans there's no new project or configuration um I I 100% understand the concern but it without knowing the impetus or what start this concern into motion it's hard to have this discussion and all I can say is that we submitted a plan that was deemed complete a meeting date was set we got a series of memos that listed variances we reached out to staff and said gosh good work here guys and we love working with you some of these variances we we'll talk about how we don't need or we can remove um and have exhibits that essentially say that to the nature of here's where the Varian is we've circled it we have a picture of a bucket and talk about it that way that that's the nature of this plan they are visual ex exhibits to explain how we would address those comments uh they're somehow being elevated into a submission and I understand of course the desire and need for staff to review plans when they are submitted But ultimately our representation that we can address things is not a plan and I I I I I guess we could get a memo back from staff that says thank you for saying that you might be able to address these we look forward to seeing it I'm not sure what that back and forth would be um but I just need to make absolutely clear um I think as Mr Bridger said that we've submitted something that I will refer to as a plan because it has it is a site plan and subdivision plan nothing in there has changed since completion we have not submitted anything different we received the staff memo that lists a bunch of variances variances that were not pointed out before and yeah got good catch but we don't expect to need them and I guess shame on us for waiting until for not waiting until tonight when we presented it to say that we could address those that's the only difference I can I can see here between what was submitted and what we're talking about and again with apologies I I'm I'm I'm only interested in in and trying to preserve the the effort that went into this evening because there will be subsi of things that you'll see and it's very likely if not just possible but likely that you will see the plan and say we have different subsi of things as a board would like to see and we will be doing this anyway so I'm just going out of my way attempt doing avoid doing that twice one set of plans that I don't even know what the difference is to show what I'll say trivial but things we haven't even really requested and then a subsid of revision potentially based on what your comments are which we likely will be doing after you see and hear the presentation so again with I don't I don't mean to be um uh obtuse here about about this process but I just want to make sure we get out of it at some point and if it's not tonight I just need to make sure we have the guidance to understand what it would be when we get to it eventually so thank you Mr leco and then miss Nuka uh thank you madam chair I was going to say uh a few similar things to that of just to be clear uh the applicant submitted one set of plans uh they said they were going to submit another and we said no that's when I wrote my memo anticipating the one that Alvin read anticipating that we would get that second set of plans we never did so right now there's still only one set of plans and an exhibit that they submitted early which you know they're not required to do um and is essentially what they would be saying on the record anyway uh in the due course of a meeting so still one set of plans it's not like there's a second set waiting on deck that we just haven't reviewed yet or or couldn't get out within the 10 days that never happened and CH you know it's possible that would never change and we wouldn't even have memos to to to write anything on Miss Nuka uh thank you um I think the applicant and the staff have made a strong case uh it seems that the applicant has not submitted a revised plan we're being asked to discuss the plan that was submitted uh looking at the website and how these documents were uploaded on February 26th we've had time to review them if the applicant has kind of previewed some of the issues that could come up and has answers prepared I would be happy to hear them I think the applicant has made a good faith effort to try to work with the municipality and is attempting to work with our board to move forward on this application and uh I think it would be good to recognize that thank you um with the understanding um that this board has made clear that it's not going to make decisions on the Fly tonight about what is substantial or not and that you can have no expectation that the board is going to make a final decision tonight um I'm inclined to with the board's um consent um hear your presentation on the plan that we received that was deemed complete and that you [Music] um and excuse me and that uh our professionals responded to and wrote memos about um now if at any point in the evening um a board member Flags something and says this is a um big problem for me this aspect of the plan and I you know and I'm just signaling that I don't expect to go until 11 o'clock and [Music] um you know um and here here every last uh element of this but I think that if you are presenting the plan that was um that was received and deemed complete um and just signal what it is that you know which um variances you expect will um Can can be addressed I'm willing to hear that and I I see Mia's got her hand up I'm sure that her view has not changed on this and I I don't want to keep um you know going around and around in in circles on this I just um concerned about the fairness of uh not reviewing something that is um that has been deemed complete and has been in our hands for for this period of time Mia sax I understand where you're coming from py but as one of the longest serving members on the planning board I know that and we want to do right by the applicants and I know when we are starting on Shaky Ground that it never bodess well for us and we end up doing neither the applicant nor ourselves any favors by short changing or starting on Shaky Ground especially with such a complex complicated application we all have limited time and when we start off on an uncertain from an from an on Shaky Ground we end up creating additional complications that often become legal and cost the municipality money and I um am very uncomfortable with this um I don't and I'm I'm further aggravated by the fact that so many board members have expressed their discomfort and nevertheless we have been pushed by the applicants attorney to proceed with something that we have said that we are uncomfortable with and that has created a a less than ideal climate for hearing this application which I think also should be taken into consideration very fair points um and I I realize I've just been on skates with this and so I I apologize for my own um and we've indecisiveness that we started out feel like you know we're looking at splitting the baby or whatever is the sort of horrible um illusion um I'm sorry just wanted to say that we started out hearing from our board's attorney who has um guided us very aptly in the past that he had concerns I take that seriously um and I you know yeah I sorry Louise I just I just want to add that this didn't come out of nowhere this was the introduction from our from the board's attorney which you know set the table yeah um okay well um Mr Kennedy and applicants um this board is not comfortable hearing this tonight and and I I understand this this um for you this seems like miscommunication um but this is a unique application it is um it is really important that we know with certainty exactly what you are asking for and that staff have an opportunity to um to review it carefully and give us their best guidance uh on that and um um and I it it we just are not there yet uh and I I don't know uh what else to say I'm I'm sorry again with my my own you know sense of um ambivalence uh about hearing this tonight but I'm I certainly don't feel certain enough of my I don't feel certain that moving ahead is the right thing to do and I'm in inclined to agree with the as I described it earlier a critical mass of our own board members who are uncomfortable with it um at this point um given the signals that things will will change so I would ask that you communicate with um with staff about um what they want and need to see before you come back and that we work on a date that is as that um moves us forward without this sense of um uncertainty Justin did you okay I can represent that we would the thing that we were thinking of changing uh would be revised architectural plans and we'd be happy to resubmit those in in in short order frankly in the next uh couple of days or or or week frankly um if if that helps with setting a date and and review times for for staff certainly that would be the extent of what we would be um submitting um and and could have that in that time frame um if there's any chance that a date could be picked tonight since we did notice for all of these variances um already okay Mr alesco uh so this application times out on uh April 18th we're pretty full up until then it's possible we could have a special meeting on April 7th if the board would consent to that uh as well as the applicant uh and all the professionals if not we would need uh an extension probably until at least May 16th that would be the next next regular meeting date um do you mean April 11 did you say April 7th he did did yeah I meant 11th excuse me 11th uhuh um uh can board members quickly check your calendars and see if that date works and the other part of that too would be uh any any changes that the applicant would like to make we would need 10 days before so we would need them by um the 28th actually of next week uh with the 29th off we actually anticipating compliance things these are these are not big changes in the document so we we were would be able to do that okay may I just confirm hi this is moving on the architect that what we're resubmitting is not the site plan it's just architectural revised plans to remove the Windows where to what we were trying to describe and we can submit that tomorrow I I leave it to the um to our professionals to determine exactly what it is that they need for you to submit if that's all the changes that they're making that would be it okay essentially whatever they're changing I'm sorry did did you ask us about the 11th Louise I I I missed what you were you you asked us to look at our calendars and I've got my calendar but now I can't remember you April yeah April 11th I can make that date yep I could make that okay I'm seeing other heads would that be at the 7 pm time yes okay I can do that thank you good for me okay thank you very much um and uh that was um quite a long conversation without moving forward but I think it was worth having and I appreciate everyone's patience and we will see mad before before you end since we have picked a date I I I I I hate to be the the hour of administrative discussion but if we could if you could take your a stick yeah um this is being carried to April 11 there will not be any further notice okay many thanks okay um so the um we'll need everything in Hand by a week from today uh at the latest and um those will be posted on the website so will be available for public um view whatever we receive and any uh memos that are generated by staff responding to them will also be posted right right just and everyone okay okay um anything else any other business all right um thank you thanks for your patience um we will see you on the 11th thank you do we need a motion Lou I I I think so Mia and dve David is gone so David's absence y have the honors Natt go ahead I I wouldn't uh I wouldn't want to replace David I screwed up the I screwed up the form of the motion but I last time but I I move we adjourn is that sufficient that's it is there a second second all in favor I I right see you next time thanks again