WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=-_US9B3-fKA

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: -_US9B3-fKA):
- 00:00:05: Meeting Call to Order, Roll Call, Excusal
- 00:02:34: Approval of Minutes and Divine Mercy Resolution
- 00:04:32: Motion to Authorize Closed Session for Legal Discussion
- 00:05:57: Open Session Resumes; Appel Variance Discussion
- 00:07:26: Flemington Family Partnership: Nissan/Toyota Dealership Application
- 00:16:39: Witness Swearing-in: Ryan McCarthy and Michael Baradesco
- 00:19:13: Board Explains Public Comment Procedure for Hearing
- 00:21:48: Baradesco Qualifications and Photo Simulation Methodology Explanation
- 00:34:43: Board Questions Baradesco About Visual Representation Accuracy
- 00:51:18: Public Question: About aerial views as a suggestion
- 00:59:15: Public Question: Resident Concerned Why Expert Not Needed
- 01:01:33: Public Question: About berm already off of 202
- 01:02:53: Salama, B.: Asks About Rear Perspective View
- 01:03:15: Testimony and Clarification on Grading and Simulations
- 01:07:39: Engineer Ouch Addresses Simulation Height Accurancy Discussion
- 01:10:14: Ouch Details Plan Revisions to Reduce Impact; Tree Canopy Discussion
- 01:15:57: Site Grading, Parking Spaces, Steep Slope Impacts
- 01:20:25: Stack Parking Signage, Steep Slopes, and Storm Water Regulations
- 01:30:12: Driveway Access, Grading, and Tree Canopy Limits
- 01:35:04: Engineering Discusses Two to One Steep Slope
- 01:36:57: The Landscaping, Lighting and Site Improvements
- 01:39:58: Discussion Regarding The Heat in the Room
- 01:40:32: Parking Islands and Canopy Requirements
- 01:50:54: Discussion on Adjourn and Call Back the Meeting
- 01:51:18: Continued Discussion Tree Placement & Limited Space
- 01:53:37: Revised Lighting Plan and Illumination Ratio
- 01:59:10: Review Previous Request for Balloon Site Line View, Discuss
- 02:05:09: Review Site Lighting is Reduced From Dust to Dawn
- 02:10:22: Is Current Toyota Building an I-Sore?
- 02:11:57: Exterior Lighting on Windows is Clarified
- 02:15:15: Signage Information Update
- 02:16:54: Discussion on Traffic Engineers Report
- 02:18:19: Discussion on General Comments
- 02:21:52: Setting August 20th as a Date
- 02:26:46: Motion to Adjourn to New August 20th Date


Part: 1

1
00:00:05.359 --> 00:00:24.000
The Saturday night before Easter. >> Okay. The meeting started. >> What is the recording started? >> Yes. >> Okay. Calling to order the zoning board of adjustment Ren Township regular meeting April 16, 2026. Notice of meeting. A notice requirements of the open public

2
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:42.480
meetings act has been satisfied by the placing of a notice of this meeting on the bulletin board at the municipal building filing same with the township clerk and transmitting same to the courier news and the star ledger. Roll call please. >> Chairwoman Miss Cynthia Schaefer

3
00:00:42.480 --> 00:00:59.520
>> here vice chair Mr. Sudamchi here. >> Mr. Steve Farcio present. Is this working? President >> Mr. Mr. Randy Block >> here. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero >> here. >> Okay, I'm going to fix that.

4
00:00:59.520 --> 00:01:15.840
>> Miss Lindsay Cooper, she has asked to be excused. Miss Lorett Cina >> here. >> Miss Donna Drews >> here. >> Mr. James Miller, he's currently not here, but we will announce when he shows up. Board professionals, board attorney, Mr. John Dill, >> here. >> Township planner Mr. Jeffrey Fagarella

5
00:01:15.840 --> 00:01:31.680
>> here. >> On behalf of township engineer, Mr. Aesh Dari, we have Mr. Ryan McCarthy >> here. >> Traffic consultant Mr. J. Troutman >> here. >> Board planner Miss Jessica Caldwell. And we have conflict landscape architect Mr. Timothy. And I always let him say his

6
00:01:31.680 --> 00:01:47.200
name. >> Hold on. Gary. >> You'll be saying that to a microphone. >> Well, I asked him. We can call him Tim tonight. >> Okay. Tim. Oh, and for the record at 7:04, Mr. James Miller has arrived.

7
00:01:47.200 --> 00:02:02.880
Hello, good friend. Okay. Can I get a motion to excuse uh Lindsay Cruel Bangal? >> So moved. Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Mr. Sodomy. >> Yes.

8
00:02:02.880 --> 00:02:17.680
>> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Laura Cina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Drews. >> Oh, yes. I was getting moving. I was getting the

9
00:02:17.680 --> 00:02:34.480
phone number >> gonna announce it. >> Okay, moving on to comments and announcements. Hearing none. Distribution of correspondence. We have uh >> you want to go into close session now. You want to do the meetings and the resolution first?

10
00:02:34.480 --> 00:02:50.000
>> Let's do the minutes resolution first. >> Okay. We have uh Ryarden Township Board Adjustment meeting minutes from October 2nd, 2025, 7 p.m. Can I get a motion to approve? So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call.

11
00:02:50.000 --> 00:03:07.200
>> Okay. Hold on. Random. >> Chairwoman. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair. Mr. Suadami. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. Jim Ferrero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Catina. >> Yes.

12
00:03:07.200 --> 00:03:23.360
>> Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. >> Okay. Moving on for the resolutions for this evening. Raran Township Port Adjustment Divine Mercy Healing Center 31 Britain Drive block 15 lot 15 application number BOA-13-2025

13
00:03:23.360 --> 00:03:39.280
resolution memorializing one interpretation of the proposed retreat center is not a house of worship so it is not a conditionally permitted use of the property and two denial of certification that the proposed retreat center use is in continuence of a

14
00:03:39.280 --> 00:03:59.200
lawfully created pre-existing non-conforming use resolution number 2025-26 version 2026-03-30- version 3. Can I get a motion to approve? And it's got to be Donna Drews, Lorett.

15
00:03:59.200 --> 00:04:17.120
>> You want to do it? >> Lindsay or myself? So moved. >> Second. >> Can I get a roll call, but can we spell my name correctly? >> Thank you. Chairwoman, Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina, >> yes.

16
00:04:17.120 --> 00:04:32.479
>> And Miss Donna Jur. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Moving on to going back to the distribute correspondence. >> Okay. So, I have a a closed motion to authorize a closed session. Whereas NJSA

17
00:04:32.479 --> 00:04:50.320
10 col4-212 the open public meetings act authorizes this board to exclude public from that portion of a meeting at which this board discusses certain matters whereas the board is about to discuss such matters specifically attorney client privileged

18
00:04:50.320 --> 00:05:06.960
advice and a litigation update on the Fington 202 properties LLC litigate in accordance with litigation.

19
00:05:06.960 --> 00:05:24.160
Knock off the end of that sentence. Whereas the board relief the public should be excluded from those discussions. Now therefore be resolved by the reverent board of government on April 16, 2026. The board now will move to close session to discuss matters of to discuss a an attorney client

20
00:05:24.160 --> 00:05:42.720
privileged matter. Someone wanted to say so moved. >> So moved. >> I move I move it. >> Second it. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> And a roll call. Chairwoman Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Mr. Sodomi.

21
00:05:42.720 --> 00:05:57.919
>> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> Mr. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Mr. James. Oh, excuse me. Mr. Jim Fero. >> Yes. >> Miss Lorett Cina. >> Yes. >> And Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. Uh, no. You guys don't have to leave. No, you don't have to leave.

22
00:05:57.919 --> 00:06:13.680
>> We're going. We're leaving. >> There's too many of you. >> There's too many. >> Okay. Okay. Uh just for everybody in the audience, the board is going into a close session. Again, this is just for the board to discuss. It may take 10 or

23
00:06:13.680 --> 00:06:30.319
15 minutes. >> 10 minutes. >> Okay. So, everything will be on hold for now. >> There's just an up. We're just discussing our own matters. But the board will come back in about 10 to 15 minutes and then we will resume the rest

24
00:06:30.319 --> 00:06:55.120
of the meeting. >> Okay. >> Making a motion to close the close and open the open. >> So move. >> So move. James, you can have it. >> Okay. I'll second. Do we need a vote?

25
00:06:55.120 --> 00:07:11.039
Roll call. Roll call. >> Chairwoman. Miss Cynthia Schaefer. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair, Mr. Osami. >> Yes. >> Mr. Randy Block. >> Yes. >> M. Steve Farcio. >> Yes. >> Miss Laura Cina. >> Yes. >> Miss Donna Drews. >> Yes. Mr. James Miller. >> Yes.

26
00:07:11.039 --> 00:07:26.080
>> Okay. Moving on for the applications for this evening. The first application BOA case number 25-2024. Applicant Matthew Appeal. Location lot 79.10 10 lot 12 24 M way application for

27
00:07:26.080 --> 00:07:42.319
a C variance for garage structure within 15 ft setback for accessory structures abandonment request. >> Oh yeah on this one my advice is I I just been looking at this and rather than out of the box say

28
00:07:42.319 --> 00:07:59.440
okay he's abandoning the approval make a motion to nullify it. I think what we should do is I think the board should either authorize and direct the board secretary or Jeff to reach out to him in writing, Mr.

29
00:07:59.440 --> 00:08:16.080
Appel, because this is what his letter says, and it's a little confusing. He says, "Last spring, I was looking to build a dec. I filed most of the paperwork. I received permission for a variance and

30
00:08:16.080 --> 00:08:33.360
this is my editorial comments. The board adopted resolution 2025-04 which memorialized the grant of a C2 variance to allow the construction of a detached twocar garage within the sideyard setback area. He says, "Unfortunately, due to unforeseen

31
00:08:33.360 --> 00:08:49.120
expenses, I can no longer move forward with this project." Then he says, "Please consider this to be my formal notice to your board." Period. Notice of what? I thought it was abandonment. But then look at the next sentence. If the permitting process for

32
00:08:49.120 --> 00:09:05.839
my new shed requires it, I would ask that my previous approval for a variance be used. So maybe he's suggesting he wants to have a shed instead of the detached garage. I would like to thank everyone involved in the township. They've been very helpful throughout the process. So here

33
00:09:05.839 --> 00:09:21.200
are the issues and the problems and why I think the board should direct either Taylor or Jeff to reach out to this guy in writing say okay listen number one that approval of 202504

34
00:09:21.200 --> 00:09:37.600
it the it's run out so no m if you want to use this for something else number one you're going to need an extension number two why don't you send in a plan and show us what you propose if you're proposing a shed. Now, Ella shaking her head. Go ahead.

35
00:09:37.600 --> 00:09:53.519
>> I don't believe he needs time extension. He did file the zoning permit. He did get approval and he did get the building permits, but that's when he stopped, >> right? But he didn't build. Is he he didn't build? Did did he build within the year of getting the permit or not? >> No, but it was it's hasn't been a year

36
00:09:53.519 --> 00:10:10.160
yet. >> Okay. So, the approval has has not run out. So, I suggest reaching out and say, "Okay, send us the a revised plan of what you propose to do instead of the detached garage." If he wants to put a shed, for all we know, maybe it doesn't even encroach into the sideyard. If it

37
00:10:10.160 --> 00:10:26.399
does encroach into the sideyard, but it's smaller than the garage, then maybe he comes back on a letter and you just say, "Yes, or no, you revised the resolution." But before nullifying anything, why don't we see what the the

38
00:10:26.399 --> 00:10:41.440
guy has in mind? What his proposal is? That's my suggestion. >> Okay, Jeff, can you >> I have no issue with that. That makes sense. >> Okay. >> What do you think? >> Have you spoken to the guy? >> Yeah, I've helped him the ever since he got approval.

39
00:10:41.440 --> 00:10:56.959
>> Do you have any idea of what the shed that he wants to do is? No, but I think from my understanding, every time I've spoken with him, he would rather at this point just have a shed where it would just be a zoning permit approved administratively

40
00:10:56.959 --> 00:11:12.959
>> and it would comply. >> Yeah. >> So, if it complies, um, then we can just let this thing run out on its own course or nullify it. But why don't you have him submit first?

41
00:11:12.959 --> 00:11:31.279
You know, god forbid the guy needs a variance for that shed and this thing hasn't run out. It might save the board a lot of time. That's my suggestion. >> I agree because we've also had instances where by accident sheds have been put

42
00:11:31.279 --> 00:11:47.120
>> right >> in the wrong place. So, it would be nice to see his revised plan to make sure that he's yes, he's doing exactly what he wants. If he if the revised plan doesn't need any variance and it just needs a zoning permit. >> Wonderful. >> Yep. Okay. So, we're not doing anything

43
00:11:47.120 --> 00:12:02.880
this evening. Well, we're going to direct Jeff. >> Who's going to who's going to reach out to the guy? >> Do you have a relationship with him? >> Yeah. He's a really cool guy. >> Okay. There you go. >> Okay. So, in writing. Okay. Just so we have a record of it. >> Let's stay. >> Okay. Can you just restate for the

44
00:12:02.880 --> 00:12:18.560
record exactly what I'm saying? >> Yeah. You're going to reach out to him and say, "Listen, we want you to submit a plan showing what size shed and where you propose to locate it. Once we see that, we'll know

45
00:12:18.560 --> 00:12:35.760
if it qualifies for a zoning permit or if it needs any variance relief. And if it needs variance relief, we'll then kick it to the board attorney to figure out what to do about. Hopefully all it needs is a zoning permit because it complies with everything and then

46
00:12:35.760 --> 00:12:51.279
he's happy and we're happy. >> Right. Does he have to go back to his engineer to get that plan revised or can he just draw on the plan where the >> No. No. >> Okay. >> We're going to >> a sketch. We need to sketch where it's going to be.

47
00:12:51.279 --> 00:13:07.360
>> Yeah. Listen, teller knows what to get from them. >> Okay. Okay. >> The size and the location. >> Yes. >> And what the setbacks are. >> Yep. Okay. >> All right. Moving on to the next application for this evening. BOA case number 02-2023. Applicant is Flemington Family

48
00:13:07.360 --> 00:13:24.240
Partnership LLC. Location block 72.23 lots 31 and 31.01 324 and 328 highway 202 application preliminary and final site plan with Dvarian and both variance for a proposed

49
00:13:24.240 --> 00:13:39.760
dealership. Good evening. Good evening, Madam Chairwoman, members of the board. Carrick Kazinski of G of Gallaros Kazinski and Line here tonight representing the applicant. Uh we haven't been here for a little while, so I'll just do a brief little recap for

50
00:13:39.760 --> 00:13:55.920
you. Uh the properties are located at 324 and 328 Highway 202. Those are known as block 72.23, lots 31.01 and 31. Uh, we are looking to relocate our

51
00:13:55.920 --> 00:14:12.720
existing Nissan and Toyota dealerships from their current locations on Route 3120 to the subject property. Lot 31 will contain the two dealerships and lot 3101 will contain the access driveway to

52
00:14:12.720 --> 00:14:29.519
serve both of those lots. The relief that we are have requested by way of the application involves two D1 use variances for various structures on the adjacent property. Conditional use variance approval relative to the

53
00:14:29.519 --> 00:14:45.440
dealerships as well as bulk variances and design waiverss as outlined in the reports of your board professionals. We've been before you a couple times on this application. Yeah, just for the record, this thing started February 6, 2025.

54
00:14:45.440 --> 00:15:01.839
Then it continued on April 3, 2025, and then it continued on July 17, 2025. That is correct. And after the July meeting, the board had a number of concerns. And over the past months, we

55
00:15:01.839 --> 00:15:16.639
have worked to revise our plans and gather some additional evidence and documentation for you that we are hopeful will address those concerns. The most recent set of plans that you have before you and your professionals this

56
00:15:16.639 --> 00:15:33.360
evening are engineering drawings revised through January 26, 2026. So you say engineering drawings, these are site plans, >> correct? And our architectural drawings that are revised through January 25, 2026.

57
00:15:33.360 --> 00:15:50.560
Just want to note at the outset that as a result of the work that we've done over the past couple months, we have minimized many of our requests for relief and we have been able to completely eliminate the need for any relief relative to the tree canopy which

58
00:15:50.560 --> 00:16:07.759
we know is a very big concern of the board not only with regard to this application but other applications as well. We are also prepared in connection with our presentation tonight to address the latest technical review letters submitted by your professionals to the

59
00:16:07.759 --> 00:16:24.079
extent that we do not agree with any recommendations or requests within them. I have four witnesses here with me tonight. I have our engineer Kelly Ouch who will testify as to the revised engineering drawings. I have our

60
00:16:24.079 --> 00:16:39.440
architect, James Necker, again who will testify as to the architectural drawings. I have Michael Beridesco, who I'm going to call first because I would like to introduce to the board the exhibits that you see around the room today. >> How do you spell his last name?

61
00:16:39.440 --> 00:17:00.639
>> B E R A R D as in dog. E S O. and he prepared and will testify as to the photo simulation exhibits that are in the room. They've also been submitted electronically and I have handouts for the board as well. So, you can see as we

62
00:17:00.639 --> 00:17:16.000
go through the testimony concerning the revised drawings exactly what this is going to look like should the board approve the application. >> And you also have Gary Dean and Jim Kyle, right? >> Uh, next Jim Kyle. And I also have our

63
00:17:16.000 --> 00:17:32.880
traffic engineer here this evening to the extent the board would like to hear traffic engineering testimony. We have reviewed the traffic engineer's latest report and we are prepared to address and comply with each one of those items. >> The reason I ask is because I swore in

64
00:17:32.880 --> 00:17:50.640
on February 6 Tony Giani who testified twice already. Kelly Ouch who testified twice already. I swore in James Nectar. I swore in Gary Dean. I swore in Jim Kyle. Obviously, I haven't sworn in. Michael, how do you spell pronounce his last name? >> Faradesco.

65
00:17:50.640 --> 00:18:07.919
>> Veridesco. So, we'll have to swear him in. On the board side, Jessica Caldwell has been sworn. Jay Troutman's been sworn. Jeff Vakarella has been sworn. I'm going to call him Tim. >> Pronounce your last name one more time. >> Yeah, Tim. I swore him in. And I swore

66
00:18:07.919 --> 00:18:24.880
in Rakesh Dari, but he's now Ryan McCarthy's here in his place. So, I have to swear in Ryan and Michael. So, can Ryan and Michael please stand up? Both you raise your right hand. Do both of you swear the testimony you're given in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.

67
00:18:24.880 --> 00:18:40.080
Okay. Identify yourself for the record. >> Michael Baresco. Yes. >> And do you have any professional um qualification or anything that I put down like or you just >> I think that's part of my testimony, but >> Okay. Well, and then Ryan, you're one of the board's engineering experts,

68
00:18:40.080 --> 00:18:57.840
correct? You're a PE. Are those photos he's got distributed throughout the room, are they also electronic so that it can be shown on the TV? >> Thank you. And before you start anything else, I would like to know for the record, Mr. Jim Fero is not here

69
00:18:57.840 --> 00:19:13.679
anymore. He will not be present for this hearing. And we also have um Steve Farcio, he was not present at the July 17th meeting. He has listened to the tape recording and he is eligible to vote on the the application tonight if one does take place.

70
00:19:13.679 --> 00:19:29.840
>> Great. Thank you very much. >> And let's please remember to speak into the microphones. >> Please. No offense, Tim. I'm looking at you. >> Repeat that microphone. >> We didn't hear you. What' you say, >> Tim? Speak it to the microphone.

71
00:19:29.840 --> 00:19:50.480
>> Okay. Okay. So, unless the board has any questions, I'd like to call Mr. Baradesco. >> The only other thing I would say is uh there's obviously uh individuals in the audience. Um do we want to just give them a brief of what

72
00:19:50.480 --> 00:20:06.880
>> Yes. So how the board operates is the applicant presents its witnesses witness by witness and after each witness testifies then the board members ask questions the board chair will ask any of the

73
00:20:06.880 --> 00:20:21.440
board professionals if they have any questions. Then the board chair will ask members from the public they have any questions. Anyone has questions for a witness comes up to that microphone over there. You state your name, identify yourself, you know where you're from, and then you ask any questions. This

74
00:20:21.440 --> 00:20:36.720
part has questions only, witness by witness at the very end of the application when they're done with all their witnesses. Then the board chair will ask if members of the public want to present any evidence or, you know,

75
00:20:36.720 --> 00:20:53.200
state your opinions or whatever at which time I will swear you in. you will give your comments or whatever your feelings on the application under oath and then the applicant or the board or the board professionals pay you. So

76
00:20:53.200 --> 00:21:10.720
that's what happens. So I doubt very much we're going to get to the point where they're going to be finished tonight. So I I think what you're going to see tonight is you're going to see witnesses testifying and you're going to have the opportunity to whatever witnesses testify you'll have the opportunity to have in place. Then I

77
00:21:10.720 --> 00:21:26.159
predict that the hearing is going to be continued to a future meeting which will be announced. >> Did I miss anything? >> No, thank you. Actually, do you have extras of these? >> Yes. >> If you don't mind, if you >> if the public wants any,

78
00:21:26.159 --> 00:21:41.799
>> right? Remember the public? >> You're more than welcome to look one of these. So you don't >> And honestly, no offense guys, why don't you just move that over there and then if they want to go up as well? >> Yeah, it's a good idea. microw

79
00:21:48.880 --> 00:22:07.760
the lighting here is so bad the board can't really see up there anyway >> and they have the ones in front of them so I just wanted to cover all bases >> okay I have over there on the Thanks.

80
00:22:07.760 --> 00:22:23.840
>> Thank you. >> Now, the whatever's on the big boards, that's going to be the monstrative evidence. We're not marking that in. What you submitted on the 11 by 17, that's going to be an exhibit. And we

81
00:22:23.840 --> 00:22:39.760
are up to >> we're on A9. So, want to do it collectively or >> Well, I think what we should do is each of the pictures should be an exhibit. So A9, 10, 11, and 12. So when she goes through, you'll tell us. I assume the

82
00:22:39.760 --> 00:22:58.799
first page, the top will be A9, the bottom will be A10. The second page, the top will be A11, the bottom will be A12. >> Works for me. >> Okay. Then you'll give a description so we can our court reporter can >> put something in the record about. >> Mr. Bardesco, could you provide the

83
00:22:58.799 --> 00:23:14.400
board with the benefit of your education experience? Yes. Uh have a BFA lobby degree in design from the >> sir. Move that microphone closer to >> Yeah. We're not hearing. You're going too fast also. >> Okay. >> Nice and slow. Get your words close to

84
00:23:14.400 --> 00:23:29.360
that closer than that. >> Or raise your voice like I do. How's that? >> Much better. >> Okay. >> Uh I have a BFA come Loudy degree from the Maryland Institute College of Art. Okay. What is a BSA? >> BS. >> Bachelor of Fine Arts.

85
00:23:29.360 --> 00:23:47.679
>> BSA. Okay. Okay. >> I uh opened my studio in 1972, creating architectural uh visualizations continually since that date. I've taught rendering, perspective, and 3D visualization at the Maryland Institute

86
00:23:47.679 --> 00:24:03.840
College of Art and the Visual Arts Center of New Jersey. And I've created thousands of photographic simulations that have been presented to zoning and planning boards in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. Have you testified before boards in the state of New Jersey with regard to this?

87
00:24:03.840 --> 00:24:18.159
>> Yes. >> And have you ever been qualified as an expert in this field before any boards? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, what field is this exactly? >> It's an architectural rendering and creation of photo simulations,

88
00:24:18.159 --> 00:24:34.559
architectural visualization. I'm hired by architects and developers and engineers to create visual images of the projects that they're involved with. >> Okay. And which boards have accepted you as an expert in this field? >> Oh my god. Uh I don't have a list of

89
00:24:34.559 --> 00:24:49.679
them. There's been a bunch. >> Do you remember any in the state of New Jersey? >> Uh I can't. I I my work has been in thousands of boards, but I I honestly don't. >> When's the last time you were in front of a board? >> Maybe four or five years ago. Um I I

90
00:24:49.679 --> 00:25:05.919
don't get called in front of boards that often. My work usually speaks for itself. >> Yeah. Don't you normally you do this for an architect and the architect comes in >> and to be honest he did tell me that but knowing the board and the professional I thought it was best that he be here to testify as to his own presentation.

91
00:25:05.919 --> 00:25:21.200
>> Correct. But just think can you so how many times how many times have you testified in front of a board about this versus you probably done a thousand things for architects. How many times have you come in before a board to testify about this?

92
00:25:21.200 --> 00:25:38.880
I would say probably 10 times in my career. >> Okay. And when did you start your when did your career start? >> 1974. >> Okay. Um, explain what you do. For example, take A9, which I assume is A9 a photograph

93
00:25:38.880 --> 00:25:53.760
that accurately represents the property at the time the photograph was taken. >> Yes. Okay. >> What date was that photo taken? >> That photo was taken on uh March 3rd, 2026. at approximately 2:30 to 3:30 p.m.

94
00:25:53.760 --> 00:26:09.360
>> Okay. Now, photo A10, I assume, is a photo simulation where you superimposed the proposed building as constructed as proposed over the photograph. >> That's correct.

95
00:26:09.360 --> 00:26:26.320
>> So, now explain to the board how you did that. >> Okay. The process is basically once we've chosen the photographs we're going to use as the existing conditions photograph, I save those as a digital file. I then

96
00:26:26.320 --> 00:26:42.159
use a program called Lightwave to create a 3D model of the proposed development. >> Okay. Now, when you use Lightwave, what do you load into it? Do you what do you load into Lightwave to for it to make a 3D model of what's been

97
00:26:42.159 --> 00:26:57.840
proposed on drawings that are Yes. >> two dimensional? >> Yes. I I load the site plan and I load the architectural drawings into uh the program. >> And just for the record, the engineering and architectural drawings that you loaded are the latest revisions of those

98
00:26:57.840 --> 00:27:14.000
plans that the board has before them tonight. >> That's correct. Uh once I have the plans in there, I can construct an actual scale, a three-dimensional model of the proposed development. Uh the dimensions on that three-dimensional model are entered as

99
00:27:14.000 --> 00:27:30.960
actual dimensions. In other words, if the building is 26 ft high, I can enter on in the model that I'm building a 26ft dimension for that as well as all the other dimensions on the site plan and building. So if if the board wanted, I'm not saying they will, you could have a

100
00:27:30.960 --> 00:27:46.799
the software program could be depicted on the screen and show a 3D model with it moving from all different angles. Correct. >> Theoretically, um I do all that movement in the studio because when I once I have the 3D model built and that also

101
00:27:46.799 --> 00:28:03.120
includes the grading for things and so on, I include in that 3D 3D model what I call markers. Markers are are elements that show on the either the survey or the site plan or sometimes on an aerial photograph uh existing elements on the

102
00:28:03.120 --> 00:28:20.880
site. Then when I have the photograph as a digital image in the program, I can float the 3D model over that photograph and move the camera position in the computer around and line up all those markers with the markers that are in the photograph. And when everything lines

103
00:28:20.880 --> 00:28:38.559
up, I know that the photograph and the camera position are the same. >> And then that results in a two-dimensional computer simulation reflected in exhibit A10. >> Yes. >> So A10. >> Once I have that, I render that as a

104
00:28:38.559 --> 00:28:54.159
three-dimensional image. I also at that point can include textures and materials and so on uh that are proposed for the building. I drop that into the photograph in a a program called Lightwave and I'm able to retouch out

105
00:28:54.159 --> 00:29:11.679
the markers and add in landscaping and other uh details and retouch the overall photograph until it becomes basically an after image of what's proposed for that site. The intent is to have a before and after situation uh that's shows the

106
00:29:11.679 --> 00:29:35.279
existing site as it is and shows the uh proposed development as realistically as possible. >> John, he's testifying. Can I accept him as a >> Well, that's what I'm So, what I'm trying to figure out is we the board had

107
00:29:35.279 --> 00:29:52.480
the admissibility of photo simulations in one of the solar applications from 2012. And the board asked me to do a memo on that and I did and I have a copy of it

108
00:29:52.480 --> 00:30:09.120
with me. I in my my grip sheet notebook I keep, you know, issues that I mean this thing hasn't come up since 2012, but I just to quickly read my 2012 highlights. I'll be right with you. Hold on. Wait. This is what I said. In order for

109
00:30:09.120 --> 00:30:26.240
documents and things as distinguished from testimony to be accepted into evidence, there generally must be a witness to authenticate them. Now, the witness does not have to be an expert. So, you do not, in my opinion, you do not have to accept him as an expert in

110
00:30:26.240 --> 00:30:45.840
architectural rendering and creation of architectural simulations to admit >> okay, >> his photographs. But what you have to hear from him is you need the requirement of authentication as a condition procedent

111
00:30:45.840 --> 00:31:01.919
to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter is what it what the proponent claims. So what they are saying is exhibit A10 is what the site

112
00:31:01.919 --> 00:31:17.360
>> in A9 would look like with the building as proposed on the site plans and architectural drawings. The person uh authentication of a photo is easy. The person who took the photo can testify what he or she took and that the photo depicts an accurate representation of

113
00:31:17.360 --> 00:31:32.320
what the photo purports to represent. There's a case on that and he already did that with A9. testimony uh testimony by the person who took the photo is not required to authenticate the photographic image because someone can have personal

114
00:31:32.320 --> 00:31:48.559
knowledge that the image is an accurate reproduction of what it purports to represent. What we're dealing with here is a photo simulation is not photographic evidence. It is an illustrious illustrative evidence. In other words, a photo simulation seeks to

115
00:31:48.559 --> 00:32:04.080
demonstrate or illustrate some matter relevant to the case which does not currently exist but must be determined or illustrated so it can it because it cannot be photographed until it comes into existence. Whether illustrative evidence will be admitted ordinarily

116
00:32:04.080 --> 00:32:19.519
turns on whether the evidence proposed for admission sufficiently demonstrates or illustrates whatever it is designed to demonstrate or illustrate. So I said I analogized the the illustrative photo simulations to computerenerated images

117
00:32:19.519 --> 00:32:34.240
with respect to which there is case law on point. There's a pellet division case called Rod versus Rarid and Radiology Associates reported at 373 NJ super 154. It's an appellet division 2004 case. And

118
00:32:34.240 --> 00:32:49.760
on page 169, the court held that the use of computerenerated images as evidence requires a more detailed foundation than required for photos taken due to the reliability problems arising from computerenerated exhibits and the

119
00:32:49.760 --> 00:33:05.039
processes by which they are created. As such, the court held there must be testimony by a person with some degree of expertise. Doesn't have to be an expert >> who has sufficient knowledge to be examined and cross-examined about the functioning of the computer that

120
00:33:05.039 --> 00:33:22.080
generated the image. So, it's your call. I believe I've asked him the correct questions to >> make you know it's admission it's admissibility determination on A10.

121
00:33:22.080 --> 00:33:39.279
We'll ask them the same thing. Go to exhibit A1. That's the photograph you took. >> And can we just say for the record A9 and A10 refer to viewpoints from Route 202 looking southwest. So A9 is the existing

122
00:33:39.279 --> 00:33:53.919
conditions view from Route 202 looking southwest and A10 is the proposed development which is the simulated image view from Route 202 looking southwest. Correct?

123
00:33:53.919 --> 00:34:10.240
>> So we're going to now look at A1 which says it's an existing conditions view from Route 202 looking east. And can you tell us did you take that photo? >> I did. Did you take it also on March 3, 2026? >> I did. >> Did you take it between the hours of 2:30 and 3 p.m.?

124
00:34:10.240 --> 00:34:26.079
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, that photo >> 3 or 3:30? >> 3:30. >> 3:30. 2:30. 3:30. >> Yep. So, that photo, even though you took it yourself, you still that accurately represents the conditions at the time. Correct. >> That's That's correct.

125
00:34:26.079 --> 00:34:43.280
>> And I your testimony about exhibit A12 would be similar. You created A12 as a proposed development simulation view from Route 202 looking east in the same manner that you created exhibit A10. Is that correct?

126
00:34:43.280 --> 00:34:59.200
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, you guys shoot a fire away if you have any other questions. But >> I do. >> Uh just curiosity, did you take any simulations or pictures from the back? >> I did not. >> The neighborhood. >> I did not this time.

127
00:34:59.200 --> 00:35:14.560
what the implications are. Can >> Can we just get the admissibility of these in first? Then you can ask. >> Yeah. I don't have any questions on that. I just want to be >> I just want to clarify something. Um so for A10. Okay. >> Yes.

128
00:35:14.560 --> 00:35:29.760
>> Okay. You were talking about the points and how you created it. the the the plan says and Ryan I'm gonna correct you if wrong there is 18 feet

129
00:35:29.760 --> 00:35:47.040
from the road to the top. >> Yes, more or less. >> And I just want to confirm that I can't myself say that that looks like 18 ft. >> Yeah, we we were just sitting here just looking at it. So the one thing that I had a question about So if you look at

130
00:35:47.040 --> 00:36:02.880
the this is exhibit A9 and A10. Yes. If you look at the sign that's in the median on 202 and you look at roughly the distance between the bottom of that sign and then the existing grade that's shown in photo A9 that to me appears to

131
00:36:02.880 --> 00:36:18.400
be the same distance between the bottom of the sign and then the exist or I guess the proposed grade on A10. So is it the is it supposed to be the same camera angle between A9 and A10 or is there a variation? >> Yeah, it's absolutely the same camera angle.

132
00:36:18.400 --> 00:36:34.640
>> Okay. And is does that take into consideration that the site is more or less looking at the existing grade? It's about 10 feet higher than the existing grade from the picture in A9 >> the uh parking area for the proposed it's I think it's more than that actually. I don't have the plan in front of me but I believe it's

133
00:36:34.640 --> 00:36:51.440
>> it ranges from about 12 to maybe 15 feet something like that. I'm not sure. I'd have to look at the plans to remember how I did that. >> So then why if you look >> it looks the same to me. It looks the same. That That's >> Okay. So, we should first qualify as

134
00:36:51.440 --> 00:37:07.119
expert, John, and then ask we're moving on. Okay. >> All right. Well, can I ask that he be though and have the board render a determination as to that issue? >> Does the board believe he has expertise in creating >> the simulation? Okay. Yes. Yes. >> Okay.

135
00:37:07.119 --> 00:37:24.000
>> I I couldn't do this. >> My here's here's my question, sir. Um, and I think you already answered it, but this is something that you you have a computer program that generates this. >> Yes. Okay. >> A couple of programs actually. >> All right. And and it's software. What kind of software do you use?

136
00:37:24.000 --> 00:37:38.480
>> The program is called Lightwave that I do the 3D modeling in. >> Okay. >> And the rendering. And then the uh program where I superimpose and and retouch the photographs is Photoshop. >> It's called Yeah. Photoshop. Okay. Right. >> Yes.

137
00:37:38.480 --> 00:37:55.440
>> Okay. So it's So what's I'm not defending you, okay? I'm not I'm just saying in my mind I'm sitting here saying, "Okay, the top picture, no sidewalk. That's where we are today." Okay. Um the bottom picture, the sightes

138
00:37:55.440 --> 00:38:10.240
pushed back. The parking lot, correct me if I'm wrong, is 50 ft. >> So that the existing I would I'm going to use an approximate. So the existing grade on 202 is roughly looking at the plan, this is the last grade we have is

139
00:38:10.240 --> 00:38:28.240
elevation 138. And then the elevation between the two buildings at the front part of the parking lot is elevation 15 >> 160 >> 152 is existing currently today and then it's proposed to be at 160.

140
00:38:28.240 --> 00:38:45.280
So in other words, Ryan's question is >> is the existing grade the same as the proposed grade? No. >> Because if the answer is no, why if you look at it, does it look like the existing grade is the same as the proposed grade? That's the question in a nutshell, >> which has Ryan and some board members

141
00:38:45.280 --> 00:39:02.240
thinking, does this really accurately reflect I think there's there's a couple things going on there. For one thing, there's plantings that are at the top of that burm on the uh proposed which tends to obscure where that that uh point is. Also, there's perspective

142
00:39:02.240 --> 00:39:18.800
involved. And as the site is deeper into the uh uh uh image, it actually drops because you're looking from an area that's down at this southbound shoulder of 202. You're looking up and then the site is dropping over the down behind

143
00:39:18.800 --> 00:39:35.359
the back in a sense of the slope. Does you follow what I mean? >> Could you do me a favor and uh I I'm having a hard time believing that the the bottom view adequately represents visually the 10 to 12 feet of

144
00:39:35.359 --> 00:39:52.240
fill. Even if you take that sign that Ryan referenced and go to the DOT striping and measure up to your embankment, it's identical in both pictures. And we know there's 10 ft of fill.

145
00:39:52.240 --> 00:40:06.160
>> All right? >> So 10 ft's a lot. Some places it's 16 to 18 feet of fill. So >> I guess how h how would you explain that

146
00:40:06.160 --> 00:40:22.720
the slope and the fill may not appear to be adequately represented. I think like I said before it has to do with if you if you envision a slope comes up and then does that at the top

147
00:40:22.720 --> 00:40:39.280
and so it's as you're filling >> the slope is coming up from 202 comes up >> and then it's flat >> and then it's it flattens out and the fill is happening at this point. So you're looking up the slope. Is that f does that make sense? >> No, the fill is happening right from the

148
00:40:39.280 --> 00:40:56.079
bottom of the grade all the way up according to the grading plan. If what you're saying was true, >> if what you're saying is true, I don't think you'd be able to see the tires of the cars hitting the ground in your image.

149
00:40:56.079 --> 00:41:14.079
>> I think that um well, okay, I'll accept that. I I'll accept that as as a criticism. I when I laid this out, this is the way that it laid out. Um, but it it it's uh

150
00:41:14.079 --> 00:41:29.520
I think it's an accurate representation of what's going to happen at that site. >> Well, so you don't feel bad. In other case, the board made them go back twice and >> I've been there. >> Redo the images. >> I've been there. >> Yeah. >> So, you can beat me up all you want. I,

151
00:41:29.520 --> 00:41:44.240
you know, part of what I do here. So, don't don't worry about that. So, >> yeah. The other concern I have and Ryan your input would be helpful if we're talking about uh a slope that was

152
00:41:44.240 --> 00:42:00.720
what before the existing condition the slope is maybe 40%. I don't know. I didn't just scale it, but when I scaled the existing condition now, it looks like it's a a 3 to1 slope. It's a 32% slope. It's it's significantly steeper. And those

153
00:42:00.720 --> 00:42:16.160
>> visually they they look like the same. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, I keep thinking, well, he's further back. You know, in my mind, they are a lot further back than the original p the original picture. So >> I think one other thing just as as another frame of reference and we can

154
00:42:16.160 --> 00:42:30.960
certainly request that we get a revised um rendering looking at the on the left side you can see the guy wire that comes down from the utility poles the little yellow line that's here >> that's also at the same angle and it looks like it's at the same height too

155
00:42:30.960 --> 00:42:48.160
but that would again have to be roughly 10 feet taller than what that should be. So you would I would imagine that that would be at a different angle. Well, and as we talked prior to the meeting, I was asking about slope and and at some point you re you're

156
00:42:48.160 --> 00:43:04.480
recommending an additional retaining wall and >> Yeah. kind of in this general area where it gets a little bit closer to >> that's in your report. >> Yes. >> So you were saying because of the slope. >> Mhm. >> So Ryan, um

157
00:43:04.480 --> 00:43:19.760
what's your name, sir? >> Oh, Michael. Michael mentioned about the field issue that's behind and that's why do you agree with that because then visually I can see that >> I think I can understand it from the perspective but I'm just having a hard

158
00:43:19.760 --> 00:43:36.160
time visualizing it just from the the same reference that we have like to me I would imagine that if the grade is 10t higher than existing right along the front kind of where the cars are going to be parked that distance from the bottom of that sign to the rate that's

159
00:43:36.160 --> 00:43:51.280
shown in both pictures should be different or I would I would imagine that it would be different. So may maybe I'm incorrect but I I think we would want maybe some just to certify or that that to be the case. >> How do you answer that? >> Good.

160
00:43:51.280 --> 00:44:07.760
>> Well, the obvious thing is uh for me to recheck it if I made a mistake. Um also I think we have what I have to look at very carefully and what we need to look at very carefully again if the slope is coming up at what

161
00:44:07.760 --> 00:44:22.480
point do we start the parking you have the existing slope if the parking is back here and it's going 10 ft up I wish I had something I could draw with um let me try to do it this way if if you're going up a slope looking at it from from

162
00:44:22.480 --> 00:44:39.440
lower on the road and it's further back where that comes over the top. It would It's like you're looking up a roof. Have you ever looked at a building where you look up the roof and the roof seems like it's this big. You know, it's it's wide, but you're looking perspective wise up that angle. >> So, I'd have to check and see exactly

163
00:44:39.440 --> 00:44:57.040
where that break is. Um I did it when I when I created these originally, I did that, but I would recommend I go back and I look at it again to see if maybe I maybe I made a mistake. It happens. Okay. So, so I'm going to reference to page. So in the site plan page nine.

164
00:44:57.040 --> 00:45:12.720
Okay. That's what I keep looking at. It's it's the >> And I could be reading it wrong. So that's why I'm asking you, Ryan. It's 19 18 ft >> is going to be the new slope.

165
00:45:12.720 --> 00:45:29.920
And then you're going to put a building of 28 or 32 feet high >> on top of that. >> Yeah. I think. And >> is it possible in in because I've never used the software before. Is it is it possible to show dimensions in your in

166
00:45:29.920 --> 00:45:46.800
your renderings just confirm the elevations? >> Yeah. >> Qualified. Yes. >> Exactly. What the the board in that in that solar color case for case they asked that dimensions be uh also inserted on the simulation. Well, would

167
00:45:46.800 --> 00:46:03.599
it also be helpful if we had a perspective picture looking along the highway? If we were standing in where the proposed, for example, where the proposed sidewalk was or closely to it,

168
00:46:03.599 --> 00:46:19.839
>> then you could tell if the fill is being represented and the how the building's looking up on top of, you know, I think the the perspective the way it is now is just difficult. it's not answering a lot of the questions that the board has had about

169
00:46:19.839 --> 00:46:37.680
visibility and landscaping and lighting and those types of issues, >> right? >> Um because it, you know, if in in my opinion and it's just an opinion, but in looking at this when you start measuring

170
00:46:37.680 --> 00:46:54.400
it looks like the same on the top and the bottom. >> Yeah. From what I've read on the reports in the site plan, I I just it and I'm not an expert. Yeah, >> I'm an IT person. I don't know, you know, it just doesn't >> sit. I don't I can't figure it out. >> Okay.

171
00:46:54.400 --> 00:47:09.760
>> So, whatever you can do to help us. >> All right. Let me I again, it's depending on my clients what they you know. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I'll go back and I can recheck this. >> Yeah. So, so again, I I drove by the site today. I drove by the your other site and I'm sitting there saying,

172
00:47:09.760 --> 00:47:27.680
"Okay, from the from the street, it's 18 feet slope and then 32 feet high because I was concerned about your sign." Okay. And being so high up. So again, I'm just It's not just sitting I can't figure it out. So whatever your client and you can

173
00:47:27.680 --> 00:47:42.480
figure out to help us. >> No, remember add dimensions. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Dimensions when I said qualified. Yes. is that we're dealing with perspective images. >> So in a perspective, there's nowhere I can take a ruler and lay it on on the

174
00:47:42.480 --> 00:47:59.280
the the the image. In the 3D program, I can certainly put in dimensions. They're going to change all the way down. >> Can you bring it? Can you show the thing in 3D then? Instead of two dimension, >> you stick it onto a uh a thumb drive and

175
00:47:59.280 --> 00:48:15.520
put it into the computer and let it play. It's It's similar to a um a PowerPoint. It's going to be a 3D PowerPoint. You have that ability. You have a laptop that can plug into our system. >> I think I can do it in a way that would

176
00:48:15.520 --> 00:48:31.760
explain it. I think what you're asking would not help as much as you think. >> Well, you just said that you could do dimensions in 3D, but you can't do it in 2D. >> No, no. Let me let me try let me qualify that. It won't be the scale, right? Weird. A a 3D image, a perspective image

177
00:48:31.760 --> 00:48:48.960
is in scale in individual areas, but the scale changes all the way through the image. That's that's what I'm trying to explain. In other words, as things get further away, they get smaller. When you go up the slope, in this case, and then flat, and there's buildings back there, the buildings when you look at it from a

178
00:48:48.960 --> 00:49:05.359
lower viewpoint are actually the further back they go, they start to smaller and smaller because they're sinking below. >> Yep. you know, yeah, you're looking up this way and the buildings are back here. So, >> so there's nowhere I can take a ruler on a on a flat image like this and I lay it on there. >> Ryan, you have any suggestions?

179
00:49:05.359 --> 00:49:22.720
>> Uh, I'm a lawyer, an engineer. >> I think I think what you're referring to is that's that's okay. Is there a way for you to show though what the elevation is in the 3D model and then have that displayed for us to look at? So, I understand it wouldn't be too scale because you're further away, but

180
00:49:22.720 --> 00:49:38.640
you would look and it says elevation >> 159 and then top of building at 170 or 160, whatever it is. Would can is that possible to do? >> Yeah. And I could also there's a couple of things I could do uh to help explain what's going on. Um I can show things in

181
00:49:38.640 --> 00:49:53.440
perspective. I have scale out here and then show it in perspective going back and then we can follow those lines back. Also, a section view would help too. Yeah, >> we could do a section from 202 with the slope going up everything else. >> So that would be another way to do it.

182
00:49:53.440 --> 00:50:10.160
>> Here's one other observation if I may. >> You look at the power line, you know the hole there on the right hand side. >> Yes. >> If the chairperson the way she described it 18 plus whatever,

183
00:50:10.160 --> 00:50:28.079
>> you would think that in the next >> on which one are we looking at on 810? >> Yeah. You see the power line here >> the pole? >> Yes. >> And if not if it's the fact that it's going to be 18 plus

184
00:50:28.079 --> 00:50:43.839
building. >> Uh what I would what I tell you there is that we have the power lines which are probably quick estimate on my part. >> Yeah. But I'm just let me finish. >> Yeah. But >> I'm not an expert on these things but visually >> I would have thought that the building

185
00:50:43.839 --> 00:51:00.800
would be much higher. Well, again, what am I missing? >> If you look at the trees beyond the power lines, those trees back there are probably 50 feet high. >> Mhm. >> Give or take. >> Okay. So, 50. >> And that's a guess again. They could be

186
00:51:00.800 --> 00:51:17.760
65, they could be 30. >> So, so like it would be 18 plus what? You can do easy math for us. Maybe >> I could do a a section. >> Yeah. like saying that okay today the slope is whatever the height is plus the

187
00:51:17.760 --> 00:51:34.800
trees tomorrow 18 ft plus the height of the buildings what is it what's the difference >> right >> because right now because we are not calculating it right visually it's not looking right maybe you're right >> if you do that simple math maybe it will

188
00:51:34.800 --> 00:51:50.559
help us >> and also now ask them the other question you had >> yes thank you While you are doing that, can we request that you also do from the back because a lot of neighbors here and we would like

189
00:51:50.559 --> 00:52:08.240
to understand what's going on. I do do respect that there's a canopy but if the building is taller than that or the towers or lights are taller then it will be an issue. So we need to understand that. >> Okay. >> Here here's one concern. >> That's my client. >> Here's one concern that I want to raise.

190
00:52:08.240 --> 00:52:23.440
I I agree with everything that everyone said and I I do agree that this has to be changed. I think the point though, just so I'm clear, the point is for you to basically show us and give us an idea of what this is going to look like,

191
00:52:23.440 --> 00:52:38.880
right? Because I couldn't I couldn't do that. I I mean, I'm I'm probably the worst person when it comes to trying to like design things. So, that was the point of this. Correct. Okay. So, I think we all have to understand and I I think it's good that he'll come back and

192
00:52:38.880 --> 00:52:53.680
I guess you're going to be able to show us the dimensions. That would be great. But just understand when he comes back, he's not it's not going to be like, "Oh, man. Okay, now it's exactly the way it's going to look." Cuz it you can't do it. It's impossible for him to do that, >> right? >> Yeah.

193
00:52:53.680 --> 00:53:09.839
>> Your job is to show us, hey, and to the people in in the in the uh pews out there is that, hey, this is what this is going to look like, >> right? we don't we're not going to have this monstrosity. This is what it's going to look like. And I think that's the point. I do agree though that the

194
00:53:09.839 --> 00:53:24.640
way it is right now, it doesn't look like the elevation is where it is. But I do think that if you can make those changes, I think it will be beneficial for all of us to see it. >> Yeah. Because a as we read the report, >> right, >> you know, and I sit there and I wrote

195
00:53:24.640 --> 00:53:40.720
down my concerns. Oh, this these signs are going to be 159 feet in the air. Uh so then I again went past your current one saying okay this thing's going to look much so we are trying to make judgments to ask questions and I agree the rendering is is is very good

196
00:53:40.720 --> 00:53:56.559
>> that's perfect >> I just need to be able to understand >> how it syncs with the plan >> okay no and I I I think he is more than qualified to do this whether he has to be an expert or not I have no idea >> does not have to be an expert I think

197
00:53:56.559 --> 00:54:12.640
he's more than expertise to do uncomfortable in making a finding that the two simulations accurately corrected what it would look like. >> Agreed. Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. I have some I'll talk to my

198
00:54:12.640 --> 00:54:29.359
clients or some suggestions I have to help clarify make sure that some of these things are right. Um >> but it's it it's going to require some some other involvement of people. Um in other words, basically very simply >> that's okay. We'll we'll go back. We'll

199
00:54:29.359 --> 00:54:44.480
take a look. We'll see what the client wants. >> The imagination is all understand. >> The key points the board is concerned the height of the signs because the variances in the relief, the the landscaping and the impacts and that.

200
00:54:44.480 --> 00:55:02.480
>> Yeah. And just to give car an idea, my concern was I was going to ask if the signs could be lower because they seemed extremely high because of the slope and everything. So now I need I want to make a good judgment and not change your plan if it's not

201
00:55:02.480 --> 00:55:18.240
necessary. But in reading the report that's where things now I'm now I'm confused. So that's where the challenges understood. Yeah, we've heard. So um >> we're going to do our best to put some dimensions on the documents, see what we

202
00:55:18.240 --> 00:55:34.240
can do by way of a 3D viewing. uh look at viewpoints from both the rear and along the >> eastight crosssection. >> They want crosssections with sight lines. >> Yep. Well, I'll get to that. That's next. But you also >> I suggest that you put these exhibits

203
00:55:34.240 --> 00:55:50.720
away. We we don't admit them. We admit the uh A9 and A11, the photographs. We don't admit A10 and A12 yet. They're just marked for identification. Put them away. keep on going with your case but without using these until A10 and A12 get advanced.

204
00:55:50.720 --> 00:56:05.040
>> Okay. So now so now >> can I just finish the list? I just want to make sure I I get everything. So we talked about the crosssections, we talked about the rear uh Miss Drews also wanted along the highway. So I guess the south uh crosssection.

205
00:56:05.040 --> 00:56:22.000
>> Okay. Okay. So along your cross-section of each section looking straight on and looking down again. I just want to make sure when we come back again there wasn't something that didn't I think what we keep saying is we need to be able to say if we're standing along the roadway

206
00:56:22.000 --> 00:56:38.559
>> what is all that visually going to look like >> and and totally understand but when we say along the roadway so if I'm standing here >> we're looking at it directly this way like you're on the same side and you're driving towards it or are you okay with the visuals from the opposite side of

207
00:56:38.559 --> 00:56:54.480
the street on the same side would be more informative Oh, right. Standing on the sidewalk. Yeah, that's Lorett. That's right. That's what I had said before. >> I got one other question. Um, with respect to your design here, I It's the first page. What is that? A

208
00:56:54.480 --> 00:57:10.400
>> A9. Okay. Yeah. >> You see where it says uh service? >> Mhm. >> I didn't look at the plan yet, but is that >> That's A10. The bottom >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. A10. I'm sorry. At the bottom, you see where it says service? That's not going to be the

209
00:57:10.400 --> 00:57:25.520
extent of the service building, right? That can't be. >> That's just the intake. >> The intake. Where? Okay. But where is the service? >> In the back. >> In the back. Okay. All right. >> In the back. >> Got it. Just make it sure.

210
00:57:25.520 --> 00:57:47.200
>> Okay. So, Tara, you >> car you good? Uh, yes. I just want to make you want to go through the list, but we could just make sure that we understand we have their list and then we could figure out how to make that happen. >> Yeah. What uh there's a many things on this list. Um

211
00:57:47.200 --> 00:58:03.440
I think almost to the point where it might be confusing. I I I would rather the cross-section idea is good. The shot from the same side of the street is fine. Um but there's some other things in here. the the 3D model that we are trying to to move around and that that

212
00:58:03.440 --> 00:58:18.880
gets to be a little bit >> right >> uh complex. Uh I think we can do it with less images and still make you comfortable. >> Yeah. I mean if if you if the perspective is better instead of from the sidewalk, not that I suggest this on a record or anything, but if you need to

213
00:58:18.880 --> 00:58:34.880
stand in the in the DOT median, >> well that's that's where that's where we get into the uh >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's always an issue. Um, yeah, >> I've done it from a moving car. Um, I've never been happy with those images because you're shooting through a windshield and there's traffic and

214
00:58:34.880 --> 00:58:50.480
you're also become a a hazard >> and uh I've gotten in trouble. >> People do walk along that road. So, I hate to say that. >> And walking down the medium is kind of scary, too. >> Yeah. So, that's whatever whatever >> shoulder or the other >> perspective, you know, but you get our

215
00:58:50.480 --> 00:59:06.559
point. It's like we need to be able to see along the roadway in some type of a cross-section. >> Okay. Um >> let me see what I can do. There's a couple >> the back. Sorry from the back. That's Yeah, that's that's

216
00:59:06.559 --> 00:59:21.760
>> And then we'll also address Steve's question about the service area. >> That's just a That's just a pull up. >> Yeah, the AR I think the architect >> Oh, in the back. In the back. Yeah, >> the architect will explain that. Maybe. I'm not even going to say I think the Well, it's up to them. >> We'll get to that.

217
00:59:21.760 --> 00:59:38.960
>> Okay. So, now that we are here, we did tell the public that they were going to be able to ask questions, but it sounds like this testimony is going to be redone, >> right? I don't know if we want to take not finished his testimony.

218
00:59:38.960 --> 00:59:54.319
He's got to come back. So there, unless anyone on the public has any more technical questions about how he put the exhibit together, if you have technical questions about how he put the exhibit together, come on up. But if it's not a

219
00:59:54.319 --> 01:00:13.680
technical question, he's got to redo the exhibits. The board has not the board has not accepted them. I you got to come up to the mic if you want to speak. >> You identify yourself for the record. >> Jackie Peterson. Jackie part of U the Normandy Court Clemington South area.

220
01:00:13.680 --> 01:00:29.520
How about just an aerial view as well as a suggestion so we can see what it looks like over the top? How far back it's going to affect our property? >> We have that. >> What think about that? Yep. >> Well, is is there an aerial view already or not? >> In the inite

221
01:00:29.520 --> 01:00:43.920
>> in the site. >> Who are you asking? >> Anyone on your team? We believe there's an aerial an aerial view in the site plan drawings identified as drawing what? What does it say? >> It's drawing 8B

222
01:00:43.920 --> 01:01:01.119
of the 37 sheets of plans. Have you been into the office at all to look at the say plans? >> This is >> Well, no. If you would like I was going to John, I was going to wait until the break and put a copy or two in the back. >> Okay. We're going to put a copy of the plans. You'll see they already have an

223
01:01:01.119 --> 01:01:15.920
area. >> Any other technical questions for this witness? A technical question. Come on up. I first my name is Mike Adams. I'm a resident of Conquered Ridge. Uh we're very close to this proposed project

224
01:01:15.920 --> 01:01:32.960
that's being planned and discussed. Um my my one maybe this is not technical. >> This is a question for this witness. Technical questions on his exhibits only. That's all at this point. >> Oh, that's all I can do. I was just curious why he doesn't have to be an expert. >> No. >> Oh, okay. I can answer that because

225
01:01:32.960 --> 01:01:49.520
that's what the case law says. He has he needs expertise in creating the image. He doesn't have to be an expert. >> Okay. >> So the board the board was satisfied that it had expertise in creating the image. They were not satisfied that the two simulated images accurately

226
01:01:49.520 --> 01:02:06.240
reflected what this was actually going to look like. That's why they sent them back to the drawing board. >> Okay. It is what it is. Thank you. Um and I did want to compliment the board because I think you're asking some very important questions. >> Don't compliment me. Don't compliment them yet. Just this not

227
01:02:06.240 --> 01:02:22.559
yet. Um >> will I believe this is technical. There's a BM that's currently there with the trees at the top of the BM off of 202. >> The slogan. >> It goes up and then it comes down. We look right behind that. I'm obviously

228
01:02:22.559 --> 01:02:38.319
concerned with property values. Will >> that's not going to be a question. >> That's not for him. >> Okay. Um that was more of a comment than a question. >> Can't be. You cannot make comment at this point. >> Okay. So do with this. So >> I understand but with me I I'm trying to be but it's just questions. You'll have

229
01:02:38.319 --> 01:02:53.760
the opportunity to make comments when they're all done. >> Will construction go above that? >> He's not qualified to answer that. All he did was put an image together. That's going to be for their engine. >> There are other witnesses. Engineer architect engineer. The engineer will could answer.

230
01:02:53.760 --> 01:03:15.200
>> We'll see where we get see where we get to. It's taking a lot longer than we thought. Just this one. Thanks. >> Yeah, sure. Ma, >> I'm I'm Barbara Salma, 1413 Normandy Court. >> How do you pronounce your How do you spell your last name? >> S A L A M A

231
01:03:15.200 --> 01:03:31.119
>> 13 Normandy. This whole project is right in my front. >> Hold on. Do you have questions? Technical questions for this witness. >> Setting the stage. >> You can't set the stage. You can't You can't set the stage. know if we can see a view from the back with perspective.

232
01:03:31.119 --> 01:03:47.280
>> The board already asked for that and the board already told him to do that. >> So that will give the perspective. >> That's what the board asked him and they told him to do that. Yep. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Sure. >> Any other technical questions for this witness? Hearing none, why don't you go

233
01:03:47.280 --> 01:04:07.119
to your next witness? >> I'd like to call Kelly Ouch, our engineer. >> Thanks. >> Yep. Mr. As such, you remain under oath. Correct. >> Correct. >> Now, you're the applicant's engineering expert. Correct. >> Correct.

234
01:04:07.119 --> 01:04:23.760
>> You're the guy that people in the public with questions about the Burm and any of the site aspects are going to ask. Listen to what he says very carefully. If he refers to these documents that he's showing here, they're also on the

235
01:04:23.760 --> 01:04:39.680
back on the table. He'll tell you the page he's on and you can look at it closely. >> Yeah, we got to put them on the table back there so everyone has the opportunity to look at it. >> Okay. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> It's okay. Uh, Kelly, before we get started on the plan changes, um, I think

236
01:04:39.680 --> 01:04:55.680
you had some comments or some answers for the board concerning uh, the photo sims and the >> Yeah, I just want to try to clarify something that was brought up and Rul, you were kind of focused on this 18 ft.

237
01:04:55.680 --> 01:05:11.760
The center of the site is not raising 18 feet. >> The center of the site is raising two to three feet. >> Two to three. Good. >> Right. It's just along the edge of the property that's getting that additional fill. And that's because we got to, for lack of a better term, and we'll get into the grading or we have got into

238
01:05:11.760 --> 01:05:28.640
grading previously, have to create more of a flat area within the center of the property to house the structures and the parking. So you're you're when you grade a project or a property, you take an elevation in the center and grade away from it. And that's what we're doing to

239
01:05:28.640 --> 01:05:44.880
tie into the elevations at the road. So yes, along the frontage there is some fill and that fill is up to 18 feet, but the overall property is not being raised 18 feet. >> Yeah. >> And I think that >> along with you're questioning at least the way I heard it was that you're

240
01:05:44.880 --> 01:06:01.359
saying >> it's 18 feet plus that for the height of the building and that's not necessarily the case. >> What is it just just real quick? I I so I agree that you would generally go from the center of the site and grade out, but that's not the only way to grade

241
01:06:01.359 --> 01:06:17.119
out. And I know there's going to be a lot of field that has to come into the site where you could do a cut fill analysis to try to use what's on site to lower everything. Are you going to stipulate that's how they're going to do the still? >> And I'll get into because if you're not going to stipulate to that,

242
01:06:17.119 --> 01:06:33.359
>> but I just wanted to clarify mainly that the center of the site because that's what I heard at least from what you were asking was it sounded like you were saying the building's going to be 18t higher and then the 30t height and that's not necessarily. >> So what is I totally understand what

243
01:06:33.359 --> 01:06:50.400
you're saying. just said it's like 3 to 4 feet in the center of the site is where that building height elevation is being raised. So if it's I'll get the elevation now the existing center of the properties at an elevation of 157 the proposed finished ruler elevation of

244
01:06:50.400 --> 01:07:06.960
the buildings which is on again on sheet nine which you brought up is 162.5 so 4t high. >> Okay. So Ryan, does this make sense? >> Yeah. No, that's right. Then that's that's the way that the plan is and it

245
01:07:06.960 --> 01:07:23.760
it was more just there are multiple ways to create light. That's why. >> So then the question is the trees >> right now the visualization is how high they are. So just give us a comparison the trees here >> building is going to bring it wherever it is under the trees over the trees.

246
01:07:23.760 --> 01:07:39.280
>> Correct. And I I'll defer to Michael on the revised >> that's so thank you. Well, let let me ask you then. You you looked at these pictures, right? >> Correct. >> Are you do you think that the bottom one is accurately depicting what it's going

247
01:07:39.280 --> 01:07:55.839
to look like heightwise? >> Uh I think the structure itself, the building. Yes. >> Okay. What? Okay. What What about the uh the burm there? >> You're talking the slope coming up. >> The slope. Um, I'm not I I don't make those, but it does to to Ryan's point

248
01:07:55.839 --> 01:08:11.440
there, it does seem like it probably would be a little steeper and maybe a little higher, >> right? >> But I do think that the building elevation is accurate. >> Okay. Based on what do you say? Do you think the building elevation is accurate just internally between the different sections of the building or how would

249
01:08:11.440 --> 01:08:27.199
how it would be seen from where the picture was taken? >> How it will be se seen from where the picture was taken in an overall perspective in that space? >> Okay. And and what is the basis for your opinion that it seems accurate >> based on the existing elevation on the property and the finished floor

250
01:08:27.199 --> 01:08:43.279
elevation of the proposed buildings and then the total height per the architectural buildings that that change in elevation s seems to line up pretty close to where those wires are on the road and that elevation wise is pretty accurate.

251
01:08:43.279 --> 01:08:58.319
>> Okay, >> I'll see. >> Thank you. >> Yep. And again just for those who have not had a chance to look at it, we are talking about >> A9 >> A9 we are talking about from the street to the parking edge is 50 ft. Obviously

252
01:08:58.319 --> 01:09:13.679
there's there's from the parking edge to the building is further. So it's >> that's A10. A9 is existing. A1 existence. A10 is proposed development simulation. A12 is proposed >> talking about page nine. >> So page nine

253
01:09:13.679 --> 01:09:29.920
again. So, so just so you know for those who might not have looked at it, it's again from the street to the parking lot is 50 ft from the parking lot to the building. I don't know what those but again the building's pushed back and it's 32 feet high. So

254
01:09:29.920 --> 01:09:55.440
>> it's about it's about 150 ft. >> Thank you. >> Okay, we continue. Got it. >> All right. >> All right. >> Sorry about that. No, >> it's just a lot for everybody to understand. Okay.

255
01:09:55.440 --> 01:10:14.719
Okay. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> Okay. >> Good. >> All right. So, Kelly, the board's looking at plans latest revised January 26, 2026. Is that correct? That's correct. >> Okay. Why don't you go through the

256
01:10:14.719 --> 01:10:31.760
revision slowly for the board and uh let them have any commentary or questions. >> Sure. So, >> Kelly, before you before you do that, you I thought I saw a letter submitted by you. Did I not with the plans? >> Yes. >> What's the date on your letter? Because

257
01:10:31.760 --> 01:10:47.280
it I believe I >> It was your letter, right? Okay. >> I told them two letter. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. There it is. January 26th.

258
01:10:47.280 --> 01:11:02.480
>> Yeah. >> So, is what you're about to testify to basically on this two-page letter? >> Uh, yes. >> Why don't you use this as an outline? Then everyone has it in front of them. And

259
01:11:02.480 --> 01:11:18.719
>> thank you. >> All right. So, at the last hearing in July of last year, we heard the concerns from the board on the tree canopy removal, uh, specifically being over the 55%

260
01:11:18.719 --> 01:11:35.600
allowance. Since then, we went back to the drawing board and we've revised the the site layout and some of the building footprint to minimize the sight disturbance and maintain uh the tree canopy uh within a compliant state. Uh

261
01:11:35.600 --> 01:11:51.520
and by doing that the Toyota building uh which is the building on the uh western portion of the property or the left side of sheet 8 is the Toyota structure. That building footprint reduced from 33,287

262
01:11:51.520 --> 01:12:06.400
square ft to now being proposed at 28,449 ft. So significant reduction in footprint. The Nissan building on the right hand side remains unchanged for the eastern portion of the property. Uh

263
01:12:06.400 --> 01:12:23.440
due to that reduction in footprint area, the floor area ratio on the overall property changed. And there was a note or a couple comments about a minor discrepancy between the architectural floor area and the floor area ratio noted on the engineering plans or our

264
01:12:23.440 --> 01:12:40.000
plans. The architect's number is correct. It's 12.24% 24% where we had 12.35. Um, but that's a reduction from 14.39 which was previously proposed. >> And that was a comment that was raised in the board engineer and landscape architects letter and I believe the

265
01:12:40.000 --> 01:12:56.880
township planners letter as well. Correct. >> Correct. And just to to close the loop, the the total floor area on the Toyota building is 31,449 square ft and the total floor area of the Nissan building is 25,610

266
01:12:56.880 --> 01:13:17.520
square ft. >> Hey, can you give me that one more time? And is that is that shown is that on the letter somewhere? >> It's not on the letter. That's updated from reviewing the memos this past week. Okay, I got it. It's on the the bottom

267
01:13:17.520 --> 01:13:40.719
of the first page of Jay Troutman's April 13th review memo. That's what you just testified to, correct? >> Correct. Uh so the building heights uh and the setback distances from the the public rightway remain consistent with what was previously proposed and are still

268
01:13:40.719 --> 01:13:57.280
compliant. Uh Toyota height is 30 ft and the Nissan height is 28.07 ft. Uh tree canopy. So on sheet seven of 37 which is up on the easel over here beard

269
01:13:57.280 --> 01:14:13.600
we illustrate the revised tree canopy and limit of disturbance which is now focused on the central portion of the property. We've eliminated eliminating the tree canopy along this southern portion specifically in game. So by

270
01:14:13.600 --> 01:14:30.719
doing that we are now uh proposing to only remove 51.4% 4% of the tree canopy where 55% max is allowed. So we >> Can you repeat that so everyone hears that? >> Correct. >> You eliminating the elimination? >> Yes. We were previously proposing to

271
01:14:30.719 --> 01:14:48.159
eliminate tree canopy along this southwestern portion of the property >> in in what percentage? >> Uh was the prior proposal? >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, overall the prior proposed uh tree canopy removal on the property was 64.21%. 21%.

272
01:14:48.159 --> 01:15:04.880
It is now proposed at 51.4% where 55% tax is is allowed. So we are compliant and under the allowed limit. >> Uh >> just one thing just for the benefit of the neighbors again can you explain

273
01:15:04.880 --> 01:15:20.480
where the removal is going to be even if it's 50%. >> Right. So that that the the southern portion of the property or the property nearest to Concord Ridge community is not being disturbed is remaining. So any trees basically from the midpoint of the

274
01:15:20.480 --> 01:15:38.159
property south would remain intact. Now there is that existing easement overhead wires and um power lines running through that has an opening and there's an easement associated with that. So we can't further plant or do anything within that opening. But that portion of

275
01:15:38.159 --> 01:15:57.199
the property would remain untouched as part of this proposal. >> Um, as part of the redesign on the site and a reduction in footprints, we have a reduction in parking proposed. Uh, we went from >> Did we go through the impervious reduction?

276
01:15:57.199 --> 01:16:12.080
>> Thank you. We did not. Uh, the impervious uh, coverage was also reduced. It was previously proposed at 48.81%. uh it has been reduced down to 42.4%. Um and again that is compliant with the

277
01:16:12.080 --> 01:16:31.440
hard surface coverage max for the zone including the uh lot averaging number of the >> and what is the the allowable impervious coverage percentage. >> The allowable is 50.49%

278
01:16:31.440 --> 01:16:50.239
based on the adjustment with the slow time property. So even the previous iteration was compliant. >> Uh parking we were previously proposing 471 spaces we have reduced it down to

279
01:16:50.239 --> 01:17:05.760
441 spaces. Uh >> Kelly a question with the parking um because it's inclusive of your ADA and EV. Um, so is the 441 physical spaces or is that the

280
01:17:05.760 --> 01:17:20.480
>> total parking with the EV credits? >> It's physical spaces. >> Okay. >> And what is the minimum required by ordinance? >> So the requirement by ordinance based on the employees, the showroom square

281
01:17:20.480 --> 01:17:37.040
footage and the service base proposed is 279 spaces. And I know that >> and we are proposing as parking 279 spaces. There's an additional 162 spaces that are dedicated as display and

282
01:17:37.040 --> 01:17:57.840
storage which are not regulated by the ordinance. >> Yeah. Is that correct that the display storage is not regulated by the ordinance? Not >> there is a percentage of the site.

283
01:17:57.840 --> 01:18:14.080
Jeffrey speak to that microphone. >> Okay. >> There's a percentage of the site which is regulated but the amount of display storage is not required. >> It may not be more than 50% of the the parking area or the site is car storage

284
01:18:14.080 --> 01:18:30.640
and we are compliant with that. >> What do you know what percentage you're at? I do not know what percentage we're at exactly, but uh we are less than 50% of the parking area on the property just based on physical number of parking spots and square footage.

285
01:18:30.640 --> 01:19:14.560
>> The requirements again. Can someone just look up the ordinance? Just read it to me. So it's from the conditional use standards section 296-159 uh e new motor vehicle agencies under

286
01:19:14.560 --> 01:19:34.239
Four. >> The area devoted to outside display of new and used cars, machinery, or equipment shall not exceed the area of the principal or main building or 50% of the total lot area, whichever is greater. It goes on to other requirements, but

287
01:19:34.239 --> 01:19:54.480
this is this is the May portion. He said the less than 50% of the lot area is dedicated to display. Is that correct? >> Correct. Okay, I'm good. Okay. Uh, previously we

288
01:19:54.480 --> 01:20:09.199
were proposing stacked parking along the southern portion of the property. That was four cars deep. We've reduced that now down to three cars deep. and uh the stacked two on the southern portion are

289
01:20:09.199 --> 01:20:25.360
all dedicated as display and car storage. So there's not a lot of concern of uh visitors coming and getting parked in. But to alleviate any concerns both in the back and in the front, we have agreed to work with the township

290
01:20:25.360 --> 01:20:40.960
engineer on markings and signage in those areas to dedicate or to confirm that it's car storage and not public parking areas. >> Can I ask a question about this parking? >> Mhm. I did see in the report that the

291
01:20:40.960 --> 01:20:56.480
parking dimensions were different than the standards by inches or >> think >> it was it was regarding the driveway aisle width. I don't believe >> drive aisle width. Okay. I'm sorry. Go

292
01:20:56.480 --> 01:21:13.600
ahead. We'll come back to that. Thank you. >> Well, we can talk about it. So the drive aisle width for a two-way um two-way access point is 25 ft in the ordinance. The southern portion of the Toyota building has an a or an eyewidth

293
01:21:13.600 --> 01:21:29.760
of 24.4, but it's due to proposed bards along the edge of the building that are protecting the service base. >> The actual dimension to the actual structure is 25 ft. So, it's it's where you're measuring from

294
01:21:29.760 --> 01:21:44.960
>> and and and just another thing just to point out is that typically the standard is 24 ft for two-way parking with 90° parking adjacent to it. So, we don't have a concern with it. It's just that that's the way that it's written in the ordinance and that it's in this particular section. It requires a

295
01:21:44.960 --> 01:22:06.480
variance for it. There's there's other parts where it requires a waiver, but this part was in the actual zoning ordinance. So, >> thank you. Yeah. So, steep slope impacts. Um, again, refer >> anything else about the tree removal um canopy. I mean, we've indicated that

296
01:22:06.480 --> 01:22:20.960
we're now compliant. We put on the record what the reduction is. Uh, anything else? And we and the fact that the Concord Ridge landscaping and and tree canopy remains preserved. Anything else with regard to that issue? >> I think we're that that's consistent.

297
01:22:20.960 --> 01:22:36.560
uh proposed removal and um disturbance along lot 31.01 where the driveway access is remains consistent. That hasn't changed as part of this adjusted plan.

298
01:22:36.560 --> 01:22:54.960
Steep slope impacts. Um where where is steep slope on your letter? Is it January 26th letter somewhere? Uh It might. No, it's not in that letter. >> Okay. So, they're going nice and slow here.

299
01:22:54.960 --> 01:23:11.520
>> Yes. >> Uh, so the slope regulations are from 0 to 12% slope, 13 to 19% slope, and 20% and greater are the the categories in the ordinance.

300
01:23:11.520 --> 01:23:28.320
um from 0 to 12 the hard surface that's permitted within the zone is consistent with what's allowed in the overall zoning. So for the B2 zone it's 55%. From 13 >> just to stop there quickly for one second and address one of the comments

301
01:23:28.320 --> 01:23:44.560
in the environmental commission's report. Uh there was reference to that the applicant will be exceeding and I'm referring to the report dated March 19. I'm sorry March 17. uh they will be exceeding the maximum and allowable impervious surface for the 0 to 12%

302
01:23:44.560 --> 01:24:02.639
slope range. So that statement is incorrect. >> Yeah, that's incorrect. >> So give 0 to 12 allows in this zone up to 55%. What percentage are you at? >> Yeah, so I I was getting there. Um 0 to 12 allows up to 55%. We're at 45.64%

303
01:24:02.639 --> 01:24:18.880
proposed. We were previously proposing 51.54. >> Okay. So >> 13 to 19% allows what? >> On the on the plan you had 45.66. So I just want to make sure. Is it 64 or 66? I know we're talked splitting hairs, but I just want to make sure.

304
01:24:18.880 --> 01:24:35.840
>> I have 64. Maybe I >> It's on sheet five in the bottom right hand corner because >> when issues come up like this in the past, if I put what he said in the resolution, then it ends up causing a problem because something else is on the plan. So let's use the figure on the plan. If you want to correct that, you

305
01:24:35.840 --> 01:24:50.960
can. >> They still comply. Anyway, >> yeah, I understand. But let's just be accurate about it. The plan they're proposing shows 45.66, not 45.64, right? >> That's correct. >> We're going with 45.66. 13 to 19%. The ordinance allows what?

306
01:24:50.960 --> 01:25:08.400
>> Half of what the overall is. So 55% is down to 27 a.5%. >> Okay. And where are you at? >> We are proposing 31.75%. So we are exceeding we're not applying but we've reduced it significantly where we were previously proposing 54.5%.

307
01:25:08.400 --> 01:25:32.080
>> Okay. >> And then 20% greater allows what? >> No hard surface permitted. >> We were we were previously proposing 12.1% and we are now down to 1.93%. And how what changes were made that

308
01:25:32.080 --> 01:25:48.880
allowed you to reduce >> so >> these >> these steep slope encroachments. It has to do with the proposed limit of disturbance and specifically not removing the tree canopy along the

309
01:25:48.880 --> 01:26:07.120
southern portion of property along the southwest corner where there's a significant area of steep slopes that were previously being disturbed. >> So it had a double benefit. >> Correct. So, while we're with the environmental thing, how would you respond to the last

310
01:26:07.120 --> 01:26:23.280
paragraph there? >> What what does it Can someone read that please? >> Yeah. >> So, this is attached to Jeff's memo dated what? >> Uh March uh 15. >> The report is uh environmental

311
01:26:23.280 --> 01:26:39.920
commission report is 317. March 17, >> 2026. >> Yeah. So >> do you want to just read that first what it says? >> So they will be exceeding the maximum allowable impervious surface for zero to

312
01:26:39.920 --> 01:26:57.679
12% which we've noted is not correct uh and range more significantly in 13 to 19%. They will also be creating imperous coverages on slopes greater than 20%. This is not allowed and no variance should be given. So I think what we've

313
01:26:57.679 --> 01:27:14.480
given testimony to previously and have been further bolstering is the property is constrained environmentally. There's only so many areas that we can develop on the property specifically due to the deed restriction of where the driveway

314
01:27:14.480 --> 01:27:31.199
access for the two properties has to occur um through a uh court order when the properties are subdivided. So we have to build the driveway and come through this area and then to develop the property and uh grade the property

315
01:27:31.199 --> 01:27:45.520
to build any type of development there will be slope impacts and the way the ordinance is written is it's hard surface on those slope impacts. It's not just the impacts to the slope. So while the overall improvements here are well

316
01:27:45.520 --> 01:28:04.000
under 55% max in the B2 zone, the 0 to 12 is well under the 55%. It's those two minor um 13 and 13 to 19 and greater than 20 that were exceeded. And the the 20 is really just a minor area

317
01:28:04.000 --> 01:28:21.440
associated with the grading percentage. And the 13 to 19 is another very small area associated with the road coming into the property on the left portion. >> Yeah. My question was since you've made these improvements. >> Yes. >> After this report was done, how do you

318
01:28:21.440 --> 01:28:36.960
respond to the last paragraph? >> I think that's what I was just >> Yeah. But if you can just read that and then read it too. >> I did just read it. >> No, no. I'm talking about in general. >> Oh, >> the massive reconfiguration. So yeah,

319
01:28:36.960 --> 01:28:52.400
well I I'll start at the top here that the first question or first comment they have was the applicant still needs to obtain a freshwater wetland permit. The applicant has obtained a freshwater wetland permit. They've have obtained a flood hazard area permit and the D under those applications reviewed the storm

320
01:28:52.400 --> 01:29:08.159
water management for the property. So the storm water has been reviewed by the state and has been found to be compliant state and this testimony has already been given. These permits have been part of the record and filed with the board. Um, so for the first item, that's null and void. And I think that ties into the

321
01:29:08.159 --> 01:29:24.000
last item. >> You're not saying it's null and void. You're saying it's wrong. >> It's wrong. It is. >> It is correct. It's wrong. The last item where it asks about overbuilding and prone to flooding and adding these additional items. The state has found through the D through their review of

322
01:29:24.000 --> 01:29:40.000
the storm water management design for the property that we will not have any flooding impacts. >> That's what I want to do here. >> Yes. >> Because of your storm water management. Do you agree with that? >> I I do to the extent that um I think we're just waiting for revised some revised storm order calculations and an

323
01:29:40.000 --> 01:29:56.080
on andm manual to just and certify now with the revised layout that it still meets that. But yeah, they certainly have to meet D requirements. And I think the method they're using is the one where you you actually reduce the rate of runoff from your site. So the idea is that you're going to be making it better

324
01:29:56.080 --> 01:30:12.000
for off-site um flooding concerns because you're now capturing a lot of that what's on the site. So even even in a wooded condition, it's actually better if somebody is developing a wooded condition because you have to take that into consideration for what the existing was and basically nothing is leaving the

325
01:30:12.000 --> 01:30:29.520
site. So now even with putting in all the pavement and everything else, they have to reduce what the wooded condition was before. >> So it's going to be better than what it is today. >> Yes, correct. Okay, >> Kelly, one more question. Um, does the provision of the proposed master plan roadway area, does that impact the

326
01:30:29.520 --> 01:30:46.480
developability of the site and impact the fact that you need to disturb uh some of those other sloped areas? >> Yeah. Again, so the overall property, as I've kind of testified to multiple times, is extremely constrained. There's wet wings and flood hazard areas in the

327
01:30:46.480 --> 01:31:02.960
back. There's a conservation easement along this southern property boundary. there's the utility easement and overhead wires coming through the property. So that really only leaves this portion of the property available to the master plan road. Uh and they've

328
01:31:02.960 --> 01:31:21.360
agreed to give that 50 foot wide easement through this portion of the property. Um but that is also driving the location of the development and the disturbance associated with SER >> grading. We've kind of talked about grading. Uh I

329
01:31:21.360 --> 01:31:54.080
guess I'll bring it up. I mean, unless the board's comfortable with what they've heard so far, we've learned the record sheet 9 of 37. Uh, so I did just speak to previously

330
01:31:54.080 --> 01:32:09.199
the grading with regards to the finished floor and the center of the property. Um, but more so just kind of explaining the grading changes that have happened from the previous uh site layout for what we're proposing today. And really

331
01:32:09.199 --> 01:32:24.639
the significant changes breeding wise are really along the southern portion of the property. Again, we're we're eliminating disturbing this the further portion of the southwest and uh pulling back the parking display area associated

332
01:32:24.639 --> 01:32:42.080
with that to help limit the amount of grading and maintain as much tree canopy while providing that um master plan road. We're proposing a modular block retaining wall at southern boundary to limit the amount of grading. So there's a approximately 4 foot high retaining

333
01:32:42.080 --> 01:32:58.080
wall composed on the southern portion and then it comes along the eastern portion of parking area. So the interior pier remains unchanged from the previous generation or parking or grading designs. It's the southern portion

334
01:32:58.080 --> 01:33:15.120
that's just been tied up tight with a retaining wall along the south and eastern portion again to uh limit the amount of disturbance proposed. we maintain as much of the tree canopy as possible. The grading along the frontage is still

335
01:33:15.120 --> 01:33:32.159
proposed at 3 to one. I know there was some comments uh I think it was in the engineering and landscape portion. I think it came up in testimony from uh questioning on the slope in front. We've had it as 3 to one all along. We think visually and aesthetically that's the

336
01:33:32.159 --> 01:33:49.520
right um solution and it's been reviewed by soil conservation. They think it'll be stable. They've issued a permit. Um we don't think building a wall necessarily in the front here aesthetically works from Route 202.

337
01:33:49.520 --> 01:34:06.159
You're going to see a gigantic modular buck wall driving down the road as opposed to a grass slope going up to the property. And just for the board's edification, I'm sorry, just real quick on what he's referring to is item 36 on page six of 10 of the board engineer and

338
01:34:06.159 --> 01:34:30.480
landscape architects report um dated April 14th. >> What page is that? >> Uh six. >> Item number what? >> 36. So what you're saying, Kelly, that there there is no two to one slope on there. I mean, those kind I mean, I know it's a

339
01:34:30.480 --> 01:34:47.040
small scale, but it looks like they're pretty tight. >> It is very tight. I'm not saying it's not. It is. We did design it at 3:1 and it was reviewed by So Conservation District, and we I mean, we can place erosion control matting if needed to help stabilize it. Um,

340
01:34:47.040 --> 01:35:04.719
>> it's what what are we saying about comment 36? We're saying we're not proposing a retaining wall. >> Yeah. Ryan, what's your uh So, and this again, I know it's I know it's just we're looking at scales. Um the scale that I have between the 143 and the 144

341
01:35:04.719 --> 01:35:21.760
contour. And this is a long 202 kind of in that top right portion of the site. It scales out at two feet between those two. So, if you look in there, there's a few where it kind of pinches down. If we can just revise the grading to get it to work, I think there's enough room where if maybe you stretch out the other

342
01:35:21.760 --> 01:35:37.520
grading that goes a little bit farther down 202, it looks like there might be enough room, but just the way it's visually depicted now, there are some areas where it is 2 to1. Most of it looks like it's 3 to one, but there's a few where it kind of >> So you want you're suggesting item 36 be

343
01:35:37.520 --> 01:35:53.360
>> if they change to say revise grading to maintain 301 slope to avoid having to put a retaining wall in. Yeah. >> Is that acceptable? That's acceptable. >> But there but that there's a correlary relationship to the landscaping comments. >> Yeah.

344
01:35:53.360 --> 01:36:09.600
>> Yeah. We'll get there. >> Okay. >> So, that condition may change. John, I think >> you want to address that now or you want to address it? >> Well, I'll just Next on my list is storm water. I did go through. We're compliant. D's found it compliant. As

345
01:36:09.600 --> 01:36:25.679
Ryan noted, there's some minor cleanup things that we have to provide to them. We would continue to do that as a storm would be required and will do it as a condition of approval. Um but the storm water management for all intents and purposes is compliant with the state requirements and local requirements. Any

346
01:36:25.679 --> 01:36:41.040
maintenance manual would be provided. Um, >> I noted here, we basically just said it, but if there was any creating, drainage and storm water kind of technical items that are listed in that memo, which is really items with the exception of 36

347
01:36:41.040 --> 01:36:57.600
that we just noted like 28 through 50s, which are really the grading, drainage, and storm water. We would work with Ryan's office to kind of satisfy those items as needed. and utility connections remain consistent with previous design

348
01:36:57.600 --> 01:37:12.960
adjusted for layout. Correct. >> That is 100% correct. >> So now you're into landscape landscape. >> Since we're on that section my report just very quickly, >> uh two quick things you can >> this section of your report starts what page? What item? >> I'm just going to give you the the two

349
01:37:12.960 --> 01:37:28.719
items that I'm referring. Okay. So on our report dated April 14th, 2026 on page six, item number 38, just noting that that's going to be a condition. It's just regarding the covert detail, who's going to be responsible for for

350
01:37:28.719 --> 01:37:44.400
providing a design for it. >> Um, and then for item number 48 on page seven, >> 48 on page seven. So there's some site improvements that are proposed in the drainage easements and I just wanted to see if you could provide some testimony about what the restrictions are on

351
01:37:44.400 --> 01:37:59.800
those. >> Yeah. So we we have provided previous testimony to that regard and the the easement that's being impacted is a drainage easement and we are proposing a drainage structure in the drainage easement.

352
01:37:59.840 --> 01:38:15.600
>> Uh I think there's so there's I have three drainage easements on site. One of them is now buried under the parking. There's another one in the bottom right hand corner that has the wall. And there's the one kind of near the top left side where the access road comes in.

353
01:38:15.600 --> 01:38:32.000
>> And these were all filed as part of a previous site plan on the property that never got constructed. >> Okay. Um so is what do we do about that? Yeah. Do they need to be vacated or they should vacate? >> Yeah. And we would take that. So that's

354
01:38:32.000 --> 01:38:48.400
going to be between that if there's an approval that would be a condition to vacate the unused >> drainage ements >> drainage easements and that's through the township committee right >> well it depends who the easements >> well who are the ements

355
01:38:48.400 --> 01:39:16.239
>> yeah who who's the benefit do we know who the ement benefits have them >> yeah it does say yeah sorry benefit Those are noted on sheet three of the the plan set. >> All right. On to landscaping, lighting,

356
01:39:16.239 --> 01:39:41.920
and site improvements. The only >> I don't know. >> Rita, do you need a break? >> See? >> Okay. >> You want We have a fan over there. >> It's freaking real hot in here.

357
01:39:41.920 --> 01:39:58.480
>> Out there. >> Anybody have to switch to the AC or what? >> Excellent. >> Right. We get AC or we >> choose >> AC. Picked the wrong one. >> Last year.

358
01:39:58.480 --> 01:40:14.719
>> Well, is there a uh thermostat somewhere? >> Do not touch it. >> It's computer. >> Don't touch it. >> Computerized. They're not allowed. They They have cap over it. They can't manually. >> Okay. So, in the past, we did have a large fan available. Is that no longer available?

359
01:40:14.719 --> 01:40:32.239
>> Yes, there's a huge fan right there. You won't be able to hear anybody. That's >> that's even better. >> No, it's >> all right, let's continue. >> I I just >> I have the landscaping plan up for the record. It's sheet 13 of 37 of the set.

360
01:40:32.239 --> 01:40:47.119
Um again, so at the last hearing, we we heard the concern with the parking islands not having enough parking and not having enough green space within the parking lot. So in the redesign of the site layout, we tried to find areas

361
01:40:47.119 --> 01:41:04.000
where we could beef up and uh provide larger than normal parking islands throughout the property. Uh specifically we have a large parking island along the front edge in the north, a large parking island along the uh southern border of

362
01:41:04.000 --> 01:41:19.600
the retaining wall and car storage area and then a large median area with um that is vegetated with canopy trees in the middle of the tube structures. So we

363
01:41:19.600 --> 01:41:41.199
believe we're breaking this up generally uh in with it the intent of the ordinance. Um and we have sheet 13A which is a new sheet which demonstrates through colors here

364
01:41:41.199 --> 01:41:58.000
uh compliance with the ordinance for the uh parking lot canopy requirements on a uh area basis. The overall one to eight parking on a physical location has not

365
01:41:58.000 --> 01:42:14.320
been provided and we still need relief from that part of the design exception. But the overall areas of the parking islands and the amount of canopy trees provided is compliant with the ordinance. >> So if I recall from the last hearing uh

366
01:42:14.320 --> 01:42:31.040
and this is for you Tim that this is a better solution than breaking it down. The issue is always the requirements for one island per eight parking spaces and the problem with that is that the islands don't contain enough soil volume to support the trees. So the

367
01:42:31.040 --> 01:42:48.320
recommendation was to you know double up make bigger islands so you would increase the chances of tree surviving and that's that's what they've done. Now what what Kelly also said is know if you do the eight one one one island one tree island for eight spaces you you have I

368
01:42:48.320 --> 01:43:04.159
don't know what is it 55 trees or something like that. >> So what he done he he's actually got the required number of trees just spaced them in bigger islands and other areas around so he complies with that. It's just the way he's going to need is he doesn't have one island every

369
01:43:04.159 --> 01:43:19.760
>> he's got the number of trees but the distribution needs an exception. Yeah, just to clarify though, the our ordinance requires one tree every 40 feet for along street frontage. >> That's a different different >> Oh, you're doing the Okay. You're just

370
01:43:19.760 --> 01:43:35.520
doing the landscape islands now. Okay. So, you're Well, you conferred you complied with the ordinances and >> and this is a better team. That was your recommendation. >> Yeah, this is a better approach. >> Vision. There was a comment that Tim

371
01:43:35.520 --> 01:44:05.840
brought up about street or tree canopies one for 40 that we do not >> let's talk about what comment that is and which page. >> Yeah, >> it is 60. >> Yeah, I believe it's 51. It doesn't say that the requirement of the 40s, but but

372
01:44:05.840 --> 01:44:38.960
what what >> it might be in uh Jeff's Jeff's father. Well, there was somebody. So there are a lot of issues here with landscaping and all that. Do you agree with all those? What is on the >> we the the street trees along the

373
01:44:38.960 --> 01:44:54.239
fronted we would comply. We would >> just we can just go line by line from 51. What what don't you agree? >> Excuse me. What are you agreeing to? You're going to >> I'm asking >> Yeah. Hold on. Can we just let them do We found that that one item. So let's let's

374
01:44:54.239 --> 01:45:11.320
>> Where is that item? Item 41 on page six of Jeff's report of April 15. >> No, that's that's >> No, no, no, >> no. That's the one that Okay. Sorry. >> We're looking for a reference to street trees 40 foot apart.

375
01:45:11.760 --> 01:45:35.280
>> Yeah, I saw I didn't read it. Well, the bottom line is that the ordinance require there is an ordinance that requires street trees spaced at 40 ft on the center. >> No. >> And what this plan proposes is street or shade trees at

376
01:45:35.280 --> 01:45:50.400
>> Got it. >> Oh, where where is my fault because I moved it in the letter. It's on page three. It's under the waiver section. It is comment. >> Ah, hold on. All right. So, page three, item >> item number

377
01:45:50.400 --> 01:46:05.840
>> six. >> Six. >> There we go. Yes. There we go. >> Thanks. >> All right. Go ahead, Kelly. >> So, the intent will be to revise the landscaping to provide that spacing along the frontage to comply with.

378
01:46:05.840 --> 01:46:20.800
>> So, you will no longer need a design way. >> Correct. >> So, just to clarify, are you talking along the street or along the parking lot? along the street >> along 202 >> along 202 you're talking about >> adjacent to the proposed sidewalk.

379
01:46:20.800 --> 01:46:38.080
>> Okay. Now to Mr. Jar's question, Dom's question, excuse me. Um, >> you I guess we're going to ask Wait, wait. Okay. Sorry question. >> Yeah, I I later down in my comment section, I have an issue with the 3 to one slopes and down by the street.

380
01:46:38.080 --> 01:46:53.920
That's really kind of steep. So if if we have to so we on the slopes we've uh successfully planted and have details of plantings on 31 slopes but if we're talking specifically around right along

381
01:46:53.920 --> 01:47:11.600
the adjacent area um the adjacent area of the street trees along the uh sidewalk. We could cut into that and put little like timber knee walls. Yeah. to to cut in those areas but not as not an excessive retaining

382
01:47:11.600 --> 01:47:28.000
wall around the entire range. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean that works because like to read further my comments. Yeah. You know the root balls almost 3 ft wide when you got 3 to one slope. >> Right. Right. >> So yeah, we would comply and we can we can manipulate that and I think we would work with your office on the actual

383
01:47:28.000 --> 01:47:43.280
final solution. >> So that's for street trees along 202. >> But you Kim, you had concerns about the balls up top >> adjacent to the parking lot. they're in the same. So, so my recommendation wasn't to have a retaining wall along

384
01:47:43.280 --> 01:47:59.040
the street was at the bottom of the the curb face. Maybe drop that down and you could flatten it slope out. >> Yeah. So, you're saying have an exposed curb face on the back side? >> No, just a modular block with the edge of your parking lot curve. Just have

385
01:47:59.040 --> 01:48:16.400
modular block retaining. Well, we have the the stone storage for the porest bidden systems in that area and it gets a little tough to design it right along the edge of >> 10 feet out. So then you have >> but then moderate slope on the curb the

386
01:48:16.400 --> 01:48:32.960
retaining >> right but then the height of the wall is going to get excessive really quickly because it's a three to one slope. So, as we go out 10 ft, it the height of the walls, we're not going to be able to maintain a 4ft high wall. >> Well, in 10 ft, you're dropping it three

387
01:48:32.960 --> 01:48:48.000
three feet, >> right? >> So, if you have a three-foot retaining wall, you basically have a level grade from the from the curve to the top of the wall, right? >> Yeah. But then the b the the toe of the the wall has to be built and that's right on that same slope that's going

388
01:48:48.000 --> 01:49:03.280
right back down to 3 to one. So it doesn't eliminate the flow concern that they had or at least that I heard. >> Then I guess that gets back to the question like how you going to plant those >> large trees in a 3 to1 smoke.

389
01:49:03.280 --> 01:49:18.960
>> Yeah. Again, we have details that we can provide and there's already an agreement uh in place for the two-year maintenance and performance and going above and beyond that um that the trees have to establish and survive and live. But

390
01:49:18.960 --> 01:49:36.080
Kelly, I'm you know it. I'm just having a hard time understanding. You're saying you're going to put a tree in with a what size root ball? >> 34 inch, I believe. >> 34 inch. And you only have slopes going down like this and you're going to put a big tree here and it's

391
01:49:36.080 --> 01:49:52.000
going to be sticking out of the soil. >> Correct. >> That's not proper arborultural practices, is it? >> No. I I think he's saying he's put little mini retaining. >> Yeah. like little timber walls around these things >> up top along the parking lot. >> On the high side

392
01:49:52.000 --> 01:50:07.920
>> on the high side along the parking lot >> to make a flat area where the trees are. >> But you have a whole planting bed along there. >> Yeah. The main concern is the big trees and shrubs. They could you could do that on a three to one slope. Trees, you know, with a big,

393
01:50:07.920 --> 01:50:23.840
>> you know, root ball is a different story. >> Story >> think just to to speed it up maybe. Since we're going to be coming back anyway, if you can provide the detail us to us for the next hearing so that way we can discuss.

394
01:50:23.840 --> 01:50:54.320
>> Yes, we can do that. >> Okay. Can that be in the simulation drawings? No. Yeah. >> Whatever. >> Yeah, we can put it in. >> Okay. >> I just asked.

395
01:50:54.320 --> 01:51:18.880
>> 10:00. Everything's fine. Keep on going. >> Yeah. >> Can we go to the last show? >> Yeah. >> All right. We'll take a five minute break. Don't put on stage. calling the meeting back to order.

396
01:51:18.880 --> 01:51:33.920
>> Thank you, Madam Chair. If I could, um I don't know if there's any members of the public that are planning on leaving before we're done, but since one of the issues tonight has been trying to get viewpoints from the rear, one of the things we may need is contact

397
01:51:33.920 --> 01:51:50.239
information in order to be able to take viewpoints from those properties. Um, so if we we can get provided with that. >> Put it this way. If anyone wants a viewpoint taken from their >> Okay. So,

398
01:51:50.239 --> 01:52:11.440
>> well, where are the the other people left? >> Right. Go ahead. >> All right. I'm sorry. I was just trying to get us over. >> I do want to get to lighting before we leave tonight. Sure. Good thought. But >> yeah, >> they left.

399
01:52:11.440 --> 01:52:29.280
>> We can look at our 200 foot list. Okay, >> we'll get to the lighting in a second, but no problem. Finish up. >> So, uh, on the previous layout, we had a true replacement requirement at 2,815

400
01:52:29.280 --> 01:52:47.280
in. by adjusting the layout and limiting some of the removal our replacement numbers down to 2,677 in. Uh, and we would love to place those trees on the property, but as I've kind of alluded to that the rear of the

401
01:52:47.280 --> 01:53:03.760
property is the only area we could and it's environmentally constrained and constrained with the overhead wires and the easement. So really the only area that's not constrained with the master plan road and existing tree canopy that's remaining here on the left and

402
01:53:03.760 --> 01:53:20.960
existing tree canopy here on the right and the opening of the utility easement is this triangular portion where we are putting some replacement trees but those are the only ones we can fit on the property. So we will, you know, provide and work with the township on the

403
01:53:20.960 --> 01:53:37.920
additional replacement trees offsite wherever they want them and or pay into the the fund. >> Okay. >> Lighting sheet 16. Uh so the lighting has been revised uh from the previous iteration

404
01:53:37.920 --> 01:53:54.239
uh with basically one goal in mind and that was to get down to the 4:1 average to minimum illumination ratio ratio within the parking area and the the parking lot layout locations for the lighting is now compliant with that 4:1

405
01:53:54.239 --> 01:54:11.040
max rate average to min ratio. >> Okay. Jane, you wanted to ask some questions or do you want me to? >> Oh, it doesn't matter. Um, one thing I was one thing I was interested in is, you know, in terms of landscaping and lighting is maybe if we could get it

406
01:54:11.040 --> 01:54:27.679
doesn't necessarily have to be uh like a, you know, a 3D rendering, but we we've gotten them before on planning board and board of adjustment as a profile view maybe of if we see the the proposed buildings, the residences in the back and the buffering and the landscaping and the lighting as

407
01:54:27.679 --> 01:54:43.599
proposed, it might help us. >> A sight line. You want a sight line drawing from the rear. >> Thank you. That's and in the front too because >> right >> we we have provided that previously. >> Okay. >> Where is that? >> It was an exhibit that was introduced

408
01:54:43.599 --> 01:55:00.560
>> exhibits or hearings ago. >> All right. You keep on going. I got all the exhibits. I'll find it. >> It's not updated with the new >> It has not been revised since the the plan has changed. Right. >> That is correct. >> So why don't we have provided, >> right? So why don't you revise revise it since the plan has changed and submit it

409
01:55:00.560 --> 01:55:16.719
as an exhibit. There's a rear sight line exhibit exhibit A4 dated April 3, 2025. And so if you could update that to reflect the revisions and you'll have it be a new exhibit number obviously, >> right? And I I just want to make sure

410
01:55:16.719 --> 01:55:33.679
the board we're on the same page because when I previously introduced that exhibit, it seemed like the board wasn't satisfied with what I was proposing. If I reintroduce it, it's going to look very similar just with the revised layout, and I want it to be acceptable. Here,

411
01:55:33.679 --> 01:56:15.119
take a look. This is >> What date was that exhibit enter into evidence? 4:30 2025. >> Okay, I'm going to check my notes for that date and see what the board said. >> Yeah, that's that's why we went and got Mike.

412
01:56:15.119 --> 01:56:30.880
>> No, it's not that. That's a sight line. It's a sight line from the rear. That's not nothing to do with Mike. What Mike put in. What's the date on that three? Check my notes. what I said about that. >> So I need to take your >> Yeah. Yes.

413
01:56:30.880 --> 01:56:47.920
>> Okay. So show you ma'am >> here. This is what the board said. This is from my notes on 43. >> Uh A4 is rear sight line exhibit. The board said it's missing sight and we

414
01:56:47.920 --> 01:57:09.280
need tree. Trouble leaving my hand. tree. >> It's your handwriting. >> I don't know. I may have notes from that. >> Yes. Boom.

415
01:57:09.280 --> 01:57:26.239
Yeah. So, they wanted added to that what they were just it didn't have was missing one a sight line and it needed the trees added. That's what my notes said. When is your >> website

416
01:57:26.239 --> 01:57:43.040
>> missing the site time and you need new trees to add it to reflected or not the board didn't feel they accurate >> well the thing is now changes now we need more trees there I don't think it's

417
01:57:43.040 --> 01:57:59.440
individual >> which was helpful >> but we've had it would be one where each house we had a sight line. >> That's what >> But that's but but that wait there's only that only looks like there's three >> three houses >> and I will say that that sighteline

418
01:57:59.440 --> 01:58:15.040
exhibit was taken from the closest house >> to the property or to the to the structures. This one >> in looking I have it marked as exhibit 8A but um I think part of the comment was

419
01:58:15.040 --> 01:58:31.440
the trees look like uh redwoods from they don't look like trees that are probably typically there. They seem to be gigantic sequoas or something. So if it's more you know if they're red cedars then put red cedars

420
01:58:31.440 --> 01:58:45.920
in there. And I'm not trying to put words in anybody's mouth, but >> the the feedback I think I got at that last hearing was we need to have pictures from there and it was like go knock on doors and go inside and I said I'm not doing that. >> This was an updated

421
01:58:45.920 --> 01:59:10.000
>> 88 was an updated >> 717. >> This is the photo taken from the Heritage Court base of North. This is the closest house. This picture >> that that was the closest house and I was standing within the culde-sac looking back because it was public right away. I wasn't going >> All right. Let me ask question. This is

422
01:59:10.000 --> 01:59:26.239
a general question. You've done it before. >> We have had a applicant uh raise a balloon to the height of the building. >> Just so right. This was the >> this was the billboard application.

423
01:59:26.239 --> 01:59:41.360
>> Well, there was a >> interstate inter interstate advertising. Yeah. Yes. >> And and Catalyst, the two >> Yes. >> The the two billboards. >> Yes. >> They raised a um right the catalyst did

424
01:59:41.360 --> 01:59:56.719
a balloon and Interstate did a uh >> Jeffrey >> a forklift >> that microphone. So what what >> Interstate did a Interstate did a forklift to the height of where the bowboard was going to be and then Catalyst did a balloon as to where it was going to be and they they also had

425
01:59:56.719 --> 02:00:13.040
did vone drone footage thing on it. So what the the actual picture was taken reflecting what you would see we the board could see the the orange dot now in ra in Clinton Township when they had a

426
02:00:13.040 --> 02:00:28.239
billboard and I'm not suggesting that you guys do this but they actually because their computer simulation was rejected three times and the board basically didn't believe it at all. They actually came in with a crane and they

427
02:00:28.239 --> 02:00:45.280
put a frame, you know, the size of a billboard up there and then they got a a very accurate depiction of what the thing was going to look like. >> Let's talk through this because I think a good visual of a simple balloon to the height of the tallest balloon, which is a 32

428
02:00:45.280 --> 02:01:01.199
>> 30t >> plus whatever the grading fill on the site is >> was four. Well, yeah, we're talking about the the finish elevation. >> Yes. And if we do it in the now in the summer with the trees,

429
02:01:01.199 --> 02:01:17.760
>> you'd get the best results from the properties of what they're going to s. >> Well, you're seeing it now before leaf out >> right now. >> Be the most impact. It would have to happen now. >> Either it has to happen now before all the leaves come on or you'd have to wait till the leaves fall off.

430
02:01:17.760 --> 02:01:34.480
>> But do it ASAP. I >> I don't know if it's possible. I I I don't know the answer. >> We hear you. We'll look into that. >> Okay. We've done it with the billboard. We've done it with the tower, >> but I I didn't want to just recreate something that I already gave you and then have you not accept it.

431
02:01:34.480 --> 02:01:56.400
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> Just that simple visualization, right? Got it. >> Okay. Lighting. >> Lighting. >> All right. Uh, I think lighting I'm I'm done with lighting. So,

432
02:01:56.400 --> 02:02:13.760
>> you might not be, but I would say >> what did he say so far? >> That basically we revised it to match or meet the be compliant with the 4:1 average to men ratio within parking areas and everything else is consistent

433
02:02:13.760 --> 02:02:29.280
with what we previously proposed. So visually the lighting, how far is it going to show? I don't care whether it's at the back, front, just the whole neighborhood. >> Again, I I know the neighbors have all left or most of them.

434
02:02:29.280 --> 02:02:45.760
>> It's again to the rear of the property, there is no spillage. Uh if you're looking at this plan, the property line here, there's no spillage beyond like where the master plan. Can you refer to page

435
02:02:45.760 --> 02:03:08.840
16? >> That's what I'm looking at. Yeah. Sorry, >> that is what you're looking at. Okay. >> Yes. >> All right. I didn't see Oh, I have it. Okay. >> So, if you're measuring Let's see this Gale microphone, my friend.

436
02:03:13.920 --> 02:03:31.040
You took the microphone. >> From the rear of the proposed retaining wall, 50 ft back into where the plant road is is where the last spillage of light would be proposed. So beyond that 50 ft, there's no light spreading out towards

437
02:03:31.040 --> 02:03:46.320
the residential properties. >> So it's all on our properties >> in the southern portion. Correct. The only light spillage that exceeds the ordinance is along the common property line with the drive and we're asking for

438
02:03:46.320 --> 02:04:05.599
variance relief, but this lot is party of the application. >> How about with uh 202? >> Sorry. >> On the other side of 202. >> Yeah. Likewise, >> that goes out 25 ft from the edge of the

439
02:04:05.599 --> 02:04:21.760
parking lot. So basically, as Ryan noted, the parking lot is 50 ft from the road. So halfway between the road is where that light dies uh off the parking lot. So visually, there's no glare going to the roadway. Uh if you're driving down the road and you look up, you'll

440
02:04:21.760 --> 02:04:38.320
see the light, but it's not pointing down on the road. >> So it doesn't even get to calls, for example, whatever the mall is across. >> Sorry. The lighting will not cross the highway and it's not going to go to the mall which is >> the light will not even reach the

441
02:04:38.320 --> 02:04:53.520
roadway. It's 25 ft short of the the road. >> But if there's um as a condition you'll as Ryan put in his memo you'll have to do a night light test. >> Yes. >> If there's problem though I understand

442
02:04:53.520 --> 02:05:09.840
the spillage of the downward light >> Yeah. is not going to be in the road, but there could be glare from the lights. I mean, >> yeah. And we we're proposing shields on the lights to help reduce any glare and obstruct the actual view of the light source as you're driving down.

443
02:05:09.840 --> 02:05:25.119
>> I'm not saying you can't cannot, but we're doing what we can. Okay. and what the manufacturers provide. Okay. To >> guess um >> Ryan, if I don't know what number it is in your report um

444
02:05:25.119 --> 02:05:42.639
with the night there, there is a condition that the light will be reduced on site. >> Yeah. And we >> I guess I'd like more specifics about what lighting level and what times. So, there's a there's a note on the plan

445
02:05:42.639 --> 02:05:58.719
before I get yelled at. There's a note on the plan. Uh, it says, "Light shall be on a timer and on from dust to dawn. Light shall be dimmed to 20 to 25% during non-b businessiness hours and times of no business operations. >> Okay. >> And Kelly, just just so that way I'm

446
02:05:58.719 --> 02:06:15.920
it's 20 to 25% of the maximum brightness. >> So, it's it's roughly a quarter of what it'll be in normal business operations. >> Okay. Okay. So, they'll be reduced to 25%. >> And I guess just just a one more clarifying question just to make sure we're good. So, the lighting levels that

447
02:06:15.920 --> 02:06:32.800
are shown on this plan are with the full intensity that's proposed and that it would be likely significantly less if we're doing it at about 20 to 25%. >> After business hours and when there's nothing going on, correct? >> Okay. And the condition that would be a

448
02:06:32.800 --> 02:06:48.000
condition of the of approval. It's noted on the plans and if there's a problem with the light test, the applicant has to fix whatever glare, for example, is identified. Correct. >> Yeah. And if if if they can't comply with the light spillage, which is

449
02:06:48.000 --> 02:07:04.480
basically what we would be tied to. If they can't comply with the light spillage, they would have to come back to the board to request a variance for that. >> Hey, what note number on what sheet is this note we're talking about? >> It is note number two. on sheet number

450
02:07:04.480 --> 02:07:24.639
16, >> but it's also a note in your review letter. >> Yes. And just to add to that, there note three below it is what I testified to just before, Donna, on the light shields. >> Okay, good. And just to clarify, Kelly,

451
02:07:24.639 --> 02:07:40.000
I believe it's >> the current site for Toyota. >> I could be wrong. The building itself has lights. We're not doing >> It's almost looks like >> there are proposed building mounted

452
02:07:40.000 --> 02:07:57.760
lights on the the side and rear, but not on the front edge of the building. >> Okay. So, I and I could have this wrong. Um I I it's been a while. One of the buildings that you go by at night looks like it's completely lit up. It looks

453
02:07:57.760 --> 02:08:14.320
like the cubes are are the the building cubes are all bright lights. >> The interior. >> No, on the outside of >> No. So, yeah, we have LED lights that are downward shielded and facing down. It's not flood lights facing out, >> right? >> On the building mounted.

454
02:08:14.320 --> 02:08:28.480
>> Okay. >> Okay. >> Did Did you say those lights though are at the rear of the building? >> There's I I misspoke. There are a couple lights on along the front edge of the building and then on the sides and the rear. And the rear

455
02:08:28.480 --> 02:08:44.719
is back here to light this portion of the drive aisle and parking area. >> I mean, I'm assuming you're going to want lights in the front. I don't I don't know. >> There are there's lights here and then there's polemounted lights going on in the front.

456
02:08:44.719 --> 02:09:01.520
>> Why would you need lights in the back? You need lights in the back because lights the parking area and the the access. >> We're I'm talking about the hours of >> Yeah, but delivery in the falls gets dark at 4:30. >> No, no, no. I'm not talking about that time. I'm talking about like, you know,

457
02:09:01.520 --> 02:09:17.199
>> midnight, >> 2 o'clock in the morning. >> Yeah, we just talked about how that's reduced. >> It's reduced, but it's reduced in the back as well. >> Everywhere on the property. >> Yeah. Right. So that's part >> I'm still concerned about the front now. >> Okay.

458
02:09:17.199 --> 02:09:33.679
>> Is it going to look like the way it's looking right now with the Toyota building? I think it's the Toyota one where you can go anytime and it's always light up. >> It looks like gigantic ice cubes that are lit up from the inside. Yeah. >> Yeah. No, >> the interior lighting or the exterior. >> It doesn't matter. I don't want to be

459
02:09:33.679 --> 02:09:50.159
technical. It just gives you the illumination of the building signage. That's what we're talking. >> The whole building. >> Whole building. >> I'm outside. >> I'm pretty sure I'm pretty sure it's the Toyota building now. But Mike, I don't have a giant concern over that because I

460
02:09:50.159 --> 02:10:06.159
think you want that. >> Uh from from a neighborhood, >> but it's not No, no, no. >> 11:00 at night. >> No, he's talking I'm talking about the front of the building. >> Yeah. I don't want that at night. >> No, you don't want that whole thing. I mean, looks you go down and you see it on 202 and it's >> Yeah, but where's that? I mean, that light's not going to be it's going to be

461
02:10:06.159 --> 02:10:22.800
going into calls or >> drive by at like 10 o'clock at night. >> I do I >> and and it looks like it's uh >> Yeah, but I All right. >> It sticks out versus the other one. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Kelly, I guess I guess um to go back. We

462
02:10:22.800 --> 02:10:38.320
kind of bounced around on the engineers report there. Some things that I'd like to just have some additional clarification on. >> No. Are you done with lighting? Okay. Sorry, >> let's close that one. >> Um because just remember they said if

463
02:10:38.320 --> 02:10:54.960
they don't object to any particular comments in the report, they would accept it as a condition. >> Yes. >> Okay. So they said that. So if you see a comment in there, >> okay, >> that's what they said. It's sometimes it's better to leave it that way than to

464
02:10:54.960 --> 02:11:09.440
if you know what I mean. >> Okay. And a 15minute warning. >> Thank you. So since you guys are going to come back, would you mind maybe taking a picture today or whatever of >> exist existing building

465
02:11:09.440 --> 02:11:26.000
>> the existing building at night thing? Take a picture of >> and that way we can understand the >> Yeah. I'm assuming it's going to be a regular building with lighting behind the word Toyota. >> Yeah. I don't want to mix apples and or building like building interior lighting versus sight lighting. I know what

466
02:11:26.000 --> 02:11:41.679
you're saying, but I there's differences. It's an architect that'll talk. >> I mean, according to the Hold on. Hold on. >> Twitter's having a hard time. Hold on. There's too many side conversations. Please don't put that on the record reading. I mean, according to the

467
02:11:41.679 --> 02:11:56.960
display that your visual expert provided, it doesn't look like it because it's all glass in the front >> of the structure >> of the structure. And that is the model, >> correct? And there's there's little LED wall packs that are going to be where

468
02:11:56.960 --> 02:12:13.679
there's not windows above those facing down. >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry. I brought it. I >> I still need clarification. >> What I'm trying to clarify here is what my model is showing is the exterior lighting. It's glass windows. I'm not modeling the interior light.

469
02:12:13.679 --> 02:12:29.760
>> Right. So, just so you understand, there are other, for example, the Clinton Township Board of Adjustment just imposed a condition. They were huge glass panels up at about 18 to 26 feet high on a big building and they imposed

470
02:12:29.760 --> 02:12:47.360
a condition either to put out um you know huge commercialgrade window shades so the light doesn't spill out >> at at night or to do something else. >> And that's what we would request.

471
02:12:47.360 --> 02:13:03.040
So that because you're going to get if you have the lights on in the building for advertising purposes, that's might what that might be what you want. But what the board is trying to avoid is having, you know, the highlight interior >> at night when the building's not open.

472
02:13:03.040 --> 02:13:18.320
And we're not talking about you can have security lighting, but security lighting doesn't have to be the the bright lights. >> But if if it's after hours, the interior lights are going to be off. >> No, >> not the No, that's the issue. >> I'm saying that's the >> No. Well, I'm talking sight lighting gets that gets I don't know about

473
02:13:18.320 --> 02:13:33.520
interior. I'm not speaking to you. Yeah. Can I >> unless you put a you could put a condition saying they only can have security lighting on in the inside and not you know lighting has to be off when the when the building's closed but not listen I'm not testifying but a lot of automobile dealerships leave their

474
02:13:33.520 --> 02:13:48.400
lights on in the inside so people driving by at night can see the cars that are displayed on the inside. >> Yeah. I I don't think that's what they're saying, but obviously I don't know if this is for you, Kelly, or not,

475
02:13:48.400 --> 02:14:03.360
but I I don't think it's going to look Well, I could be wrong. I I'm not hearing that this is going to be what the issue is with the current Toyota place, but I got to tell you, I don't have a problem with that because it's facing out to the road.

476
02:14:03.360 --> 02:14:19.760
The dealership is there. Obviously, um you know, it it is a benefit to our township to have it there. And I don't have any problem with the light. I don't want it to be like a giant eyesore, but I I don't have any problem with these lights being on, especially if they're facing the road. I have zero issue with

477
02:14:19.760 --> 02:14:36.159
that. So, I have an issue >> from a neighborhood and looking at what the entire township is. >> Yeah. >> So, what I would ask is the way you guys have done like 25% or whatever, give it a thought. >> Okay. Just think about that image even

478
02:14:36.159 --> 02:14:53.119
on two or two. I don't want to create 22 down. That's what I'm saying. >> I hear you. I can't speak to the interior of the structure. It's architectural and nature. >> Yeah, we'll we'll we'll talk to the appropriate people. >> I think u Mr. Drill has some suggestions. Please take that. My

479
02:14:53.119 --> 02:15:15.040
concern is I don't want another 22. >> I I hear you >> in town. >> Hey, Kelly, where are you on this 10-minute warning? I I can run through this quick. >> Yeah, keep up. >> All right. The only other thing I have for direct here and then I think Karen

480
02:15:15.040 --> 02:15:32.159
and I have a couple back and forths, but the ground signage, the Nissan sign remains unchanged. The Toyota sign has moved. >> Wait, hold up. Signage is not on your uh >> on my memo. >> Better. >> All right. So, I got to talk slow for you. >> Yep. >> All right. Toyota sign used to be along

481
02:15:32.159 --> 02:15:49.119
the western portion of the composed parking lot. We are now proposing it uh adjacent to or near that large landscape island that we're proposing in the middle of the two properties. By moving that uh light, we've actually

482
02:15:49.119 --> 02:16:04.000
kind of reduced >> that light or the sign. >> Sorry, I said that last time here too. >> I know >> specifically I said that exact same thing. That sign uh the elevation where it's being mounted is actually lower than what we were previously proposing.

483
02:16:04.000 --> 02:16:20.159
So where it was previously measured as 32.96 ft, it will now be 32 feet. Uh but again, the Nissan sign remains unchanged and that's the height or that's the sign that's 42.15 ft above the curb elevation

484
02:16:20.159 --> 02:16:38.559
as measured per the ordinance. That's the last direct thing I missed. >> Okay. Um so let's go through the review letters to the extent that we need to. Um starting with the I think we

485
02:16:38.559 --> 02:16:54.639
addressed the traffic engineers letter. We've agreed to make those revisions that are outlined um in his letter. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then I think there was one remaining >> or no all his are addressed.

486
02:16:54.639 --> 02:17:11.920
Seven 7 through 11 I had >> correct >> six impact at the >> sorry >> yeah we would agree to make that a a condition of approval as well. So 6 to 11 >> will be conditions

487
02:17:11.920 --> 02:17:31.359
>> 6 to 11. Okay. >> I guess >> April 13th. >> Yeah, we'd like I'd like to know what those numbers are and what you would be proposing. >> We pro >> that's provided

488
02:17:31.359 --> 02:17:47.840
>> this. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> To satisfy that concern. So you would agree as a condition that the truck hauling plan would prohibit trucks exiting the site that

489
02:17:47.840 --> 02:18:05.200
wanted to head south that they will follow the left on Vorhees left at Wawwa and go back down to the circle. >> Yeah. Well, what we're agreeing to is the traffic control plan that's issued in there the contractors would have to

490
02:18:05.200 --> 02:18:19.280
follow. >> Okay. So they if they did not they would be in violation. >> So they would be prohibited from exiting the site, making a right on Borhees Corner Road, going down to Old York Road, making a right and following that

491
02:18:19.280 --> 02:18:35.439
to 202, which is a traffic pattern that the trucks are using illegally already in our township. >> If that is what is in that report that's been submitted, >> is it or is it not? So >> it's not. it it's not what they're calling for, but I I'm asking the

492
02:18:35.439 --> 02:18:52.960
applicant if they would agree that that would be added that they're prohibited. We will look into that for the next meeting because I think we'd have to discuss that and see if it's not. We are willing to agree to what's included in there to the extent it's not. I >> want a couple minutes to

493
02:18:52.960 --> 02:19:07.920
>> Okay. Can you just tell us please exactly what that is again? >> I'll I'll prepare a truck routing condition for you. >> That's excellent. Jay's gonna prepare a truck mounting condition along the lines you said >> so that they couldn't do that because

494
02:19:07.920 --> 02:19:25.359
the township's having excessive problems with truck traffic and commuter traffic >> that is what they need >> yes I do I I would argue that >> go to the next issue J air conditioning he's going to send it to you with CC to us and you'll respond yes

495
02:19:25.359 --> 02:19:41.519
>> yeah I know what the plan says but I want I want the truckers to know they're not allowed Understood. And maybe Jay could look at uh sheet A2 of that report because I think that pretty much outlines exactly what she's talking about. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh so that takes care

496
02:19:41.519 --> 02:19:58.160
of Jay's report. Um Okay. Going back to the letter of the board engineer and tra and landscape architect. >> So that is the April 14th, >> correct? >> Yes.

497
02:19:58.160 --> 02:20:15.200
Okay. We agree that the variances and all of the waiverss that are outlined therein are required with the exception of waiver number six on sheet three. Is that correct? >> Um I think we have number six and then number seven is another one that we're asking for compliance with.

498
02:20:15.200 --> 02:20:32.640
>> Um well I'm saying we need them all but for six. >> Yeah, we're revising to eliminate six. >> Yeah, I'm I'm saying it's six and seven. >> Oh, >> okay. Yeah. Yes, that's correct. >> Okay. Um, number nine, we were there's

499
02:20:32.640 --> 02:20:49.520
there's quite a bit of landscaping waiverss that are required that are listed on the site plan. I think we were just looking for I don't know if we want to put it on the record tonight, but just something to think about for for the next um I don't know if we want to just put it all on the record as referred to sheet. I think it's 15. Um,

500
02:20:49.520 --> 02:21:05.280
or if we want to list out each individual one, but one for for John. >> Put it this way. my position at Northern Dench that they the general comments they're all becoming conditions unless the applications need.

501
02:21:05.280 --> 02:21:21.439
>> No, it's it's waivers that they're requesting that we didn't necessarily have any concerns about, but there's I think there's like 15 or 20 waivers particularly just to landscaping that are not in our report. >> Um, somebody has to listen.

502
02:21:21.439 --> 02:21:37.120
>> Okay. So, or I think what you're saying is to say or as outlined on sheet 15, which does >> sheet 15. They do outline, >> but the board who's going to put that >> Yeah. >> in the record. >> Okay. >> We will do it via memo back from the board.

503
02:21:37.120 --> 02:21:52.000
>> Yeah. Back to the boarding all the professionals checking. >> Is that include all the variances in waivers? Just landscape. >> You know what? Do a letter all the variances in waver. Sure.

504
02:21:52.000 --> 02:22:13.280
>> Yeah, Jim Kyle can use that discussion. >> I have another question. Um I don't know if we've covered it or we're going to cover next time, but in the fire marshals report item five. >> Yes. Yes. >> So I would ready to speak to that. It's

505
02:22:13.280 --> 02:22:29.520
on our list of questions here. >> Go ahead. Why don't we go there? >> Yeah. So we >> didn't finish. So they're going to make you all the way to request item six and seven are going to comply but all the general comments are any of the general comments that

506
02:22:29.520 --> 02:22:44.640
take 70. Now I know items for example item 38 is having to be addition 36 is going to be addition >> item 24 was going to be testimony.

507
02:22:44.640 --> 02:23:01.520
>> Yeah. And item 24 was going to be a testimony and we need testimony on item 21. >> I can quickly run through if you want for things. >> Yes. >> You have testimony is fine, but are there any

508
02:23:01.520 --> 02:23:19.040
general comments that will become condition objectives? Next time we run through the areas, are there any general comments? Number 11 through 79

509
02:23:19.040 --> 02:23:38.319
>> 78 >> actually 78 you object to any general comments on numbers 11 through moving >> I think just to the extent of the previous testimony with regards to the extent and the scope of the retaining

510
02:23:38.319 --> 02:23:56.000
wall that we've worked with uh Well, there's a few different references to it. So, it's 53 is one. >> My suggestion is 958 pick up next time. >> Yep. >> Okay. What is next time? >> Great question. Oh, first of all, how

511
02:23:56.000 --> 02:24:11.120
much time do I need? >> Oh, well, hold up. We're already booking into July, so that's where you look. >> Oh, okay. So, we'll tell you. >> You have enough time. Okay. So, what kind of dates are we looking at?

512
02:24:11.120 --> 02:24:41.240
Available. >> We have July 16th. And if that doesn't work, you're looking at August 13th or August 27th. What's your preference?

513
02:24:45.120 --> 02:25:08.680
>> I can't do the 16th of July. >> What were the next ones? The 7-16. And then you're looking at No, I'm sorry. Oops. I was reading the wrong ones. Excuse me. You're looking at August 6th or August 20th. But it's still 7:16.

514
02:25:09.359 --> 02:25:58.240
>> July 16th is still Yeah. Yep. 86 >> and then the 21day rule. So, but I mean that's a good month. Do you guys have a preference for hearing date opinion? >> You have a decision yet?

515
02:25:58.240 --> 02:26:25.200
>> I'm looking at it. I got two of those weeks I'm not available. So, I'm trying to see how I can work it out. So, I am So, just please give me one second. >> Okay. >> Either 86 or 8:20. >> LA, you're late for both. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, I guess we'll do 86.

516
02:26:25.200 --> 02:26:44.600
>> Okay. So, the hearing in this matter is continued to August 6, 2026. Can I I'm sorry. Can you hold on one second? >> Whatever date it is, there will be no further need for notice. No need for further news.

517
02:26:46.640 --> 02:27:02.240
>> August 6. They're going to confirm. Hold on. I already wrote it down. Me, too. 10:01. >> 101. I put my bed away. But we'll take we'll take the 20th. So,

518
02:27:02.240 --> 02:27:19.200
>> okay. The hearing in this matters continued to August 20th, 2026. If that's the case, our extension, I believe, went >> You're going to need another one. >> Our extension went to September 30th. So, I'm thinking now we got to get an extension to November 30th.

519
02:27:19.200 --> 02:27:36.080
>> That's fine. >> Okay. If I can just make one request, a couple of these ancillary review letters were dated from February, March, and we just got them yesterday. So if any prior reports come in, if we could just get

520
02:27:36.080 --> 02:27:53.520
them a little earlier. So to Mr. Dom's point, the fire engineers, the last item wanted us to look at an emergency access issue. We could have come prepared for that had we gotten his report in February. So, if I don't know if they could copy us, if that would be easier

521
02:27:53.520 --> 02:28:11.200
for them, but whatever we could do, we would greatly appreciate that. >> I have no comment. Um, don't put this on the record. >> I have no comment. >> Fair request. >> We typically all reviews

522
02:28:11.200 --> 02:28:27.040
get get submitted the Friday. has always been the case, but if there's any others, we can try and include them or if fire marshal can work with them on specific issues, that's not a problem. >> Okay.

523
02:28:27.040 --> 02:28:47.760
All right. >> I didn't hear us getting a copy, but that's >> Well, well, someone making a motion. >> Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait, whoa, wait. Did you grant the time extension? I have to be sure >> to November 30th. I heard her say it and

524
02:28:47.760 --> 02:29:02.240
I believe it's going to be in the transcript, too. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Make a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? I. Good night.