Planning B will come to order this 11th day of February. The time is 7:04 p.m. Adequate notices meeting has been posted to the Burough Hall. File with Burough Clerk and mail to the iceberg press on the tour of her times. Roll call please.
>> Mayor Portman absent. Shauna Ebangs present. Christina Bonitakus >> present. >> You need to turn on your mic. present. >> Dia Manuso >> here. >> Lewis Dementoto >> here. >> Barbara Boz absent. Megan Massie
>> here. >> Here. >> Wilson BBE >> here. >> It's Hernandez absent. Frederick Stone >> here. >> Thank you. And Brian Farnigan >> here. >> Okay. We have the meeting minutes of
January 28th. If anyone has any questions, additions, revisions, etc. If not, would someone please make a motion? >> Accept the minutes. >> We have a second. >> Who Wilson?
>> Yep. >> All in favor? >> Staying as I was not here. Then we have the resolution of approval for 170 Broad Street block 104 lots 14 and 15. Could someone make a motion for that? >> A motion to approve.
>> Second. >> A vote on that. Roll call or >> All in favor? >> I abstain. Okay. We have 183 Doctor's James Parker Boulevard, block 90 lot 1201. This continuation, the improvements include a
subdivision of the property, two detached two family dwellings, parking, drainage, lighting, landscaping, and additional improvements to the property. Mr. McKenna, welcome. >> Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Please excuse my uh voice, a little
horse, but um I'll do my best. Um, as Mr. Chairman and members of the board, as you know, we were here um not long ago and uh we had a really I thought it was a very helpful and
interesting session where we had uh a lot of discussion. We listened to comments from the board and attempted to incorporate as much as we could and listened to the suggestions that board
members had and uh made some amendments to not just the uh engineering plans but also the architectural plans and uh with the impeccable timing of Mr. O'Neal. Uh we'll probably call him first uh to
address the architectural issues and then uh call on Mr. Gerudo to deal with the engineering issues. >> Right. Before you do that, let me just mark in the following. It's I pressed it. Sorry.
>> All right. So, um I have the following additional exhibits to mark in. Exhibit A10 is the revised uh site plan. Exhibit A1 are the revised architectural plans. Exhibit A12 is the revised storm management report. And exhibit A13
is the installation operations and maintenance manual. Is the revised layout dated 119? >> It is. >> Okay. >> Go right ahead, Mr. McKenna. It's your show. >> Yes. And I apologize. Thank you, Shauna.
Uh, we're also going to mark in the second engineering letter and review letter, which we're going to mark in as exhibit B2 as in board two. >> Do you want me to put it up? >> Oh, please. >> Ed, use that microphone, please.
If you're not close to it, we won't hear anything. >> There you go. >> Yes, we as based on the comments that were made last meeting, we made architecturally a change to the um
penistration pattern on the front building, the building closest to Dr. James Parker Boulevard. And we um that also necessitated a slight change on the one of the side elevations.
So uh if we go down, keep down keep going, please keep going, please keep going, please. >> So we're talking about the building that's to the to the right on the screen. And again, there should be a new
elevation, which is probably the last sheet, I'm going to guess. Nope, that's it. One back, please. Uh, yeah, next one. There you go. So, this is the elevation that we altered. So, there were comments about the
windows, these four windows. So, we basically took this window and used it as a template to make these two the same. These are in the laundry room and the powder room. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Should I'm not sure. Is that all right today? >> Okay. I didn't read. No, no, you're
right. You're right. I didn't think about it because I can't see the screens this way. So, anyway, so these are now um these three are the same. And this one's slightly smaller and it has to do with because this is in a bedroom and so we want to be able to furnish under it. So this these two match and then these
three match. And then the other thing we did was we took this metal roof idea and brought it over the opening. Now the door is set back a few feet, but there was a desire to have it articulated here. And Sean, if you scroll down a
little bit, I think that there you go. You see this roof that was there before continues and wraps the corner and that articulates that void which is the covered part for you know being in the rain or obviously the snow to get to the
door which is here. So those were really the the um the revisions based on the comments and we put the trees in in the other drawing that would show approximately where those trees are located which would be on the street
there. the street trees and that their their spacing is about this, you know, within a foot or two. And so there's and then the driveway is here that drives into the site. So again, by taking and turning the building to the side, we we
decreased the size of its profile to make it more in keeping with some of the houses along Dr. Sparker Boulevard. And as we talked before, we said that the pitched roofs, um, lap siding and things are pretty much all over the street. So, we think we're blending in as much as we
can. This element is a velvet ear, which again we spoke about last time. And that's a passive solar device. So, what this does is this is it the units split in it. And so this lets light into the core of the building, which is what a
Belvadier did in the houses in this area when the house got to be more square than rectangular. And then these windows are all operable. So what happens in a nice spring day if it's 70 something degrees out, you don't have to turn the air conditioning on. If you open these windows and you open these, it creates
what's called the flume effect. So the air will go out, exit, and there'll be a natural convective current inside which will make the house more comfortable. And again that is an old an old you know device that's reused for
contemporary uh applications >> and also and I think in um the engineers letter there was a question as to whether the attic or andor basement were going to have uh living space. Correct.
uh not initially although they are they are done to accommodate that if that's something that eventually wants to happen and then they have to come back here the physical ability to do it is there. So, in the basement there's a a legal egress window and the stair is a
legal egress stair. And then in the attic, the attic is one-third the size of the uh the floor below. So, it can act as a half story, but there's no intention at the moment to finish them. >> So, are we going to agree to then to a deed restriction making clear that if
it's ever to be occupied, they need to come back to this board? Is that what because you're you're saying now you're not intending to occupy them? >> Yeah, I I excuse me. I I would assume that that the board would want us to come back. Um and and we would agree
agree to that condition. >> That's the basement and the >> right and we have a a drawing up. Sean, if you could go to the please go any other direction, so to say there. No. Yeah, that's so this is the
um this is the attic and then on one of the other sheets the basement is the basement >> and the floor plan evidence is the basement but it's not it's not a finished basement.
>> Right. Right. >> And this is both buildings, right? >> Yeah, they're same. They're the same floor plans. >> Making sure. >> Yeah. >> Um yeah, there it is right here. So even though there's a bathroom there, the bathroom is really there as a future
thing. You know, something wants to be done in the future. So the plumbing will be there, >> but for now it's just going to be mechanicals and uh storage. >> Yeah. And then the bathroom will just have the the plumbing stubs, if you will. So again, if they converted, they
wouldn't have to excavate the base. >> That's the basement. >> That's the basement right here. Yeah. And these wells here that you see, those are the where the egress windows would be. Oh, there there was one other comment in the planners letter if I could address. >> Yeah, sure. >> Um about the the physical look of the
buildings. They talked about having the buildings look more different. And my position is that they will always look different because of their orientation. They'll never look the same. you you'll have to make a real effort to look at them and look the same. The distance
between them and the orientation, uh, nobody's ever going to know. And that and that's the reason why they're oriented the way they are. We had other configurations, but the idea was that they won't look the same. >> Are there any questions for Mr. O'Neal?
>> And Mr. Chairman will know for the record there are there is like as as of as as at last meeting there is no one here from the public so we don't need to open up to the public every single time. If someone does come we'll make that a note.
>> Jackie are you okay with there's lots of continuing comments in your most recent letter. Is there anything there that you don't feel satisfied about? I believe they would be handled by the engineer instead of Mr. O'Neal, but I don't know if Dan had any more as the
board planner had questions. >> I uh don't believe that I well actually yes. Uh I can we clarify some um uh of the numbers in the plan. I think there's some discrepancies uh between the two plans and the the t
data tables about the height of the building as well as the um habitable floor area. Are we able to get >> Yeah, the architectural plans are the correct ones. We we'll I'll ask Mr. Gerrio to adjust his drawings as
required. >> Okay. Um >> and and just so you know, uh there was written submission of that and that has been filed and sent in. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Um and I I'm sorry, maybe I maybe I
missed this. If uh uh regarding the the bathroom in the basement, >> what is the intention of uh putting the fixtures in there if not? Although you just put the what they call the stubs, which are the pipes that would go into the into the um slab, but you don't put the fixture in. That way, if eventually
you want to do it, then you you don't need to do the heavy plumbing work of ripping up the slab and all that. >> It's just going to be rough plumbing to start. >> Yes. That going to be finished, >> correct? and the fact that I actually knew the term rough flamingo.
>> I was congratulating you that good. Um the if if not used for bathroom uh purposes, what what other uh uses would that sorry uh if if not used for bathroom
fixtures, what other purposes would the rough plumbing >> storage >> as it well no for the the plumbing itself? Like is it is it suitable for other purposes? Is that separate from what would be used for like a washer washer? >> Oh, no. It's different. They're not the same. >> It's different. >> Yeah. That the plumbing for a washer
dryer is different than for a bedroom. >> Okay. And and I'm asking this because I I I typically would discourage um full bathrooms in a basement because they kind of I've seen instances where that
kind of uh attracts people to misuse the basement as a accessory apartment. Um, so that's just that's the reason I'm asking these questions >> and that's and that's exactly why it's designed the way that it is. So it can't be used. Uh, unless the fixtures
>> unless well unless or until we come back and ask the board for permission or I shouldn't say wait any the inhabitants >> to make it to make it live. >> That that's the only question I have right now. >> Sure. >> Anyone from the board have any other
questions for Mr. O'Neal >> well off the top of my head what the tree ordinance states what number is it 6 where is it where is it in Jackie's letter based on the tree removal proposed 12
replacement trees of three uh 3-in cal 3 f feet no 3-in caliber are required replacement trees are proposed but do not meet the replacement requirement the plan shall be revised to provide the minimum number of replacement trees what what so what's the question they have to so
exactly what it says here. >> That that the trees with caliper. >> So the size of the tree. >> No, it's it's the size of the tree. It's not always 12 trees. You have to take how big the current tree is and then
that is calculated. It looks like they're rem how many trees are they removing? I I don't know the answer to that. Jackie, do you know? >> Mr. Mr. has that >> is that an engineering question that we should hold off on until the engineer testifies?
>> Makes sense. >> Okay. So, we'll get we'll get to that. Mr. there. >> Any other questions from uh >> I would I would just say that um in response to uh the architectural changes
um I I appreciate the the changes that were made. Um last time we met uh my concern was um the orientation of the building was such that a sort of side elevation sideyard
elevation was fronting the street and um I my opinion is that I I think it was addressed. I'm I'm satisfied with that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Um, >> I guess I I guess my question is why not
just put in the bathroom or not put in the bathroom because it seems like you're just like waiting to then put the bathroom in. So, either just make the decision just like don't have a bathroom in the basement or have a bathroom in the
basement. I I think >> because then you have to come back to the board or code enforcement comes knocking on your door wondering why someone's living in the basement. >> Yeah. The the for construction purposes if you're if if that day were to ever
arise itself you you have to do it while you're building the building. You don't want to go back afterwards and tear up the basement to do it. We don't anticipate as as Mr. O'Neal said it it'll just be
stubbed and you won't be able to use it unless you get permits and >> No, I know. So, why not just do the full bathroom to use it? >> My clients are willing to do the bathroom. We we thought it was of the board's opinion
>> not to do it. >> Well, I think our as our planner just said, he discourages it. I I the the I think what the concern is and I don't want to speak to the whole board, but I think what Miss Massiey's concern is is you're creating it's an it's almost an attractive nuisance within the house
that okay, the stuff that it's there. The the piping's there. So, it's it's like an a future owner or or just it's just going to do it regardless whether a deed restriction or not. And then it's up to code enforcement to find out that it's been done. So, it's almost there like calling please put us in, please
put please put it in. And I think that's what the concern is. So either just say you're going to do it and let the board tell you they don't want it or and the planner is advised against doing it or don't put the stubs in so we don't have
to run into that inevitable situation >> or the alternative would be to provide egress. Right. >> Well, they've built it to provide egress already. >> Right. Right. >> They have this they have the stairs and the and the the window wells. So, >> oh, >> how many bedrooms are there upstairs? >> Three.
>> Three. Three. >> Well, >> you actually don't want the egress and the bathroom because then it is even more tempting to turn it into an apartment. >> Yeah. I mean, it's kind of tiring that we have so many people living in in so many houses in town.
>> Sure. And the bathroom in the basement adds to like a whole another family could live down there depending um well you know again I understand where you're coming from but there's no separate entry to the basement
>> with it. Well that that in the past. >> Well no I that's what I mean I understand but I you know I understand Mr. I guess I guess the fear is if they install and I'm not saying these people your clients would but a future owner if
someone was inclined to illegally install the bathroom without coming in back to the board they're not going to care whether there's egress or not egress that's there because they're already doing something that's illegal. So would your clients and and I don't want to speak on behalf of the board if
it's but based upon what the chairman just said based upon what Miss Massie just said would your clients agree just to remove the that that bathroom from the plans altogether? It's not if they're not intending to do it don't install it. >> I would favor that approach. >> Okay.
Of course you can, but it's a lot of work and it's rarely done right. >> You've got to get the you've got to get the sewage line out. >> No. >> And the time to do it if you're going to do it when you build house because it's so much easier to do.
>> You don't have to step up a platform. >> Mr. McKenna, do you want to take a minute and talk to your clients? >> I think we have an answer. >> Oh, you do? Okay. Yeah. Thanks. >> It's kind of a compromise. >> You want? >> Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Well, was what if it was a half bed? So, it would just be
a toilet and a sink. Therefore, it wouldn't be adequate to have an apartment down there because you wouldn't have a tub or a shower. >> That's better. >> I didn't hear that. I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. Can Can you hear me? >> Oh,
do you need me to repeat myself? I'm sorry. >> I'm I'm I'm okay with a half. >> Just for my own clarity, what is the ultimate limiting factor here? Is it uh the extra square footage. If like if if the egress is satisfactory and there's a
bathroom in the basement and they wanted to use the basement or a bedroom that's part of that house, it does that kick it over a certain amount of square footage or like what's the limiting factor here? >> Egress is the biggest factor >> and if they >> they're solving for that when they're
building the house, >> right? >> So, could someone live down there? Yes. From a fire code standpoint, they've got the egress. That's the most important thing, >> right? >> Um, but without a full bath, >> you know, it's not a great place to
live. >> Sure. >> You don't have a shower. >> Sure. >> But, um, somebody would do it. >> Join a gym and go shower there. >> We've seen it. >> Seen it. We have code enforcement where again not saying that your uh the
applicant will do it but we've seen it where new buyers go in and they convert any space the smallest of closets into an apartment unit. Um and there's no bathroom or anything like that but they
converted a whole closet into a bedroom you know just a to for a new tenant. So, I think it may be best just to find a way how to prohibit them from creating like these spaces for overcrowding and just stuffing people in in these random
rooms. And I actually don't like the fact that there isn't an extra set of steps that goes outside from the basement. Um, it's just a little bit complicated when it comes to like code enforcement and and it's only an issue and code
enforcement only really knows about what's going on when there's an a code issue. >> Yeah. >> So, we will never know if they're like the bathroom is the hookups and everything is already there and you know somebody does it illegally. We won't
know unless um they go for they sell the building and they go for the CO inspection. >> What's the final idea? >> I'm okay with I'm okay with the half that. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Great.
>> Right. Okay. All right. So, so the deed restriction condition is going to be the attic can't be occupied without coming back obviously and the basement is at the most can is it going to be finished then the the basement going to be finished with the half bath or or what
are we doing? >> No, not an unfinished ba basement with a half bath, >> right? >> Okay. >> Okay. And then it has the egress windows. Yes, correct. >> No, no stairs.
>> Just just the stair that gets >> No, I understand that. No stairs going from the basement. >> No, no, definitely not. >> Thank you. >> That's all we need. That's all we needed for. >> Okay. So, we uh like to call Mr. Gerudo.
Hey, J. >> Was Mr. GTO previously sworn. >> Yes, he was. >> Okay. Still under oath. >> Thank you. I have an exhibit, but I guess it's maybe easier for you guys just to look at the site plan on your screen.
I'm sorry. >> This picture is this good? >> Well, that that's that's the old that's the old plan. If you don't have the new one, I I can just >> I think I have the Oh, please. I do. >> Yes. Um I could get that for you.
the 119 one. Maybe go back. You're going too far. That That's probably the That's probably the easiest to Okay. So, so basically the the major changes to the engineering plan where we
eliminated the kind of the two parking lots we had we had two parking lots which each had um four parking stalls in each um you know what maybe maybe I'll just show my exhibit because then I can kind of point to the two
>> mark that >> it's a different exhibit so I think we're up to exhibit A14. >> Yes, correct. A and A14 is a colorized version of what's also included in the site
plan. >> Yeah. >> All right. So So it's a colorized version of Do you know what sheets those are? >> I'm sorry. >> What sheets within your >> It's the Well, it's the landscaping sheet. Uh >> of landscape. I'll just put that
>> landscape. And what I did is I I cut the previous exhibit just so you can see a comparison. >> Okay. Eight seven. Go ahead. >> So the previous we had these kind of two little parking lots each with with four stalls. Um they really weren't efficient
as far as block coverage because you had one driveway and you only had stalls on one side. The board suggested that, you know, would we eliminate two of the parking spots and only provide three parking stalls for each unit, which we did. Um because of that, we're able to eliminate both these parking lots and
sort of just put three stalls off the the main driveway. Um that provided a lot less lock coverage on the property um substantial substantially really. Um we're able to provide a few more sidewalks now. So another question was the where you going to put the garbage
cans and how you going to take the garbage cans out to the street. Um on the building up front, this building here, we're able to kind of split the rear decks. Um these decks are elevated a few feet and the stairs going down. We provided a little
concrete area where the garbage cans would go and then we provided a sidewalk. So we would have a a hard surface to take the garbage cans out to the street. the rear building will provide um the garbage cans um in the back between the two decks and as well
as provided a sidewalk to get it out to the driveway so they could take it to the street. We also showed where the condensers were going to go on the rear building. They're going to go on the two sides of the of the building and on the front building it was going to go um I guess that's the side or the rear,
whatever whatever you want to call that side of a parking lot. And we're able to screen all all those Um, and like I said, the the garbage cans are going to be kind of behind like two block walls when stairs are coming down. Um, the also the redesign enabled us to
eliminate we had two underground detention facilities. We eliminated those. We're able to put just one larger facility sort of in the center of the area that provided a um a much larger green area in the center of the property. Also, um those are really the
major changes. Um, I did my best to to address all of Jacqueline's technical comments to my ability. Um, I think we cleaned up most of the technical comments. She certainly still has some more, but um, if the board were to approve the application, um, it would certainly be conditioned on meeting all
all all Jacqueline's technical comments to her satisfaction. >> Um, I just have a comment. I'm not sure if I sent the shade tree comment to you, Ed, and I apologize if I didn't. >> No, I'm sorry. Um but so their comments
um were that two TR uh street trees were required um but you're proposing two crab apple trees near the sidewalk and so they'll count that as were the two trees required. Um and then there's a sugar maple in a ride of way and that
tree should be protected during construction. And that's all the comments that we have. >> Oh, okay. That's fine. And can you answer uh Mr. Dementoto's question about the tree caliber? How many trees are you taking down? I >> I believe there's six trees removing.
So, whatever we need to replace in the caliber, whatever we need, we'll certainly agree to that. >> And Jackie, you calculated it per the ordinance that that's how many Yeah. >> need to be installed. >> Correct. So, the ordinance um takes into account the size of the trees that are
being installed and how much needs to be replaced depending on the size of the trees that are um being uh the size and number. >> Um they vary the largest one was there's a a 36 inch tree kind of in the the
front middle of the property. Um and then it was like five trees. There's like a larger one kind of in the area here and there's five trees along the back here. >> So, for example, for the 36-in tree, they have to replant four trees to
replace one 36-in tree. Yeah, this this is the new plan I'm pointing to here and this is a landscaping plan that we proposed and we'll certainly supplement that to to add more trees to that as required. >> I'm not sure why that was selected, but
it would be changed. Yeah, I I agreed. Wasn't a good selection. I I said we we'll revise that. >> Well, the Shade Tree Committee Pa
>> Yeah, they had no issues with the crab apple trees. >> They were happy and they they found it acceptable for the um street trees. So, does that mean we we should keep the
crab tree? We just want to make sure. >> I would say so, but the shade tree has no issues with the crab tree. Yes. >> Think about the little rascals myself. >> Don't drink the milk. Um, did we mark in the environ the shade
tree letter? You want to mark that in since we're referencing it as exhibit B3. I have a question for the engineer. Are you proposing generators with these buildings? >> Uh, I think that's maybe a question for
Mr. O'Neal. He says no, there's no generators proposed. >> No. Thank you. >> But if the because these are for ownership, correct? Or rentals? Their ownership? >> They're they they are being owned by the
current owners of the property. >> Okay. >> They're they're going to start out as the owners, but they're they anticipated sometime in the future they may very well wish to sell them. >> Okay. And so if >> Yeah. No, I said >> but but they have to be they're going to have to be
>> you're not asking for a subdivision here. So Oh, you are asking for a subdivision. I'm sorry. Yeah, we are. Um so you're separating the two lots. Okay. There's going to be an easement between the two if I remember. >> That's correct. We'll see. Yeah. >> Thank you. I apologize. >> No problem. >> So um if the new owners would like to um
place generators, it would have to go next to where the condensers are. because kind of that area has been cut out for utilities like that. >> So, can we make that a condition or in the resolution >> stating that it that any um generators
have to go in the same area as the um AC condensers? >> I'd like to comment on that. >> And and there's plenty of room where the condensers are if someone in the future were to want to install a generator. Generators are
in my my view should be frowned upon. They are noisy. They are bulky. They are uh a nuisance. Um there are better technologies available now in terms of power walls.
Um, and so, you know, I don't know what our role is in, you know, making those kinds of determinations if at all, but I would favor encouraging people, discouraging generators and moving towards power wall
standards. Uh, power walls don't make any noise. They don't require any maintenance. Uh, they're have significant capacities these days. Um, I I think all she's saying though, it's
not that she's requiring a generator. She's just saying if at some point in the future the property owner decides to put in a generator that a condition is that it be put in the same area as well. I guess what I'm saying is are are we in a position to uh stipulate
uh that in lie of generators power walls if uh you know isn't there a separate ordinance for generators? >> Yeah, they have to be set back three feet from the property line and uh from the side and rear property line.
>> I mean generators are permitted at the site. What's what's the other thing? A what do you call it? power. They're they're big lithium batteries. They're, you know, >> I don't know. I doubt >> they're whole house batteries. >> That's fine. I doubt the ordinance envisions power walls. Maybe it's
something we can >> Yeah. Your council representative. >> Okay. Just >> I mean, I don't it's not up to me. I'm just I'm just saying I don't think Shauna's suggestion is a bad suggestion. >> No, I I I don't either. That wasn't my
point. I was just raising the the alternative technology. >> But so so you're looking to force upon the applicant that if you're going to ever install a generator, it would have to be a don't do that. It's a power wall. >> Well, no, I don't want to pick on this particular applicant. I don't think I
think it's a it's a broader question of the of the ordinance. >> Okay. So that's more of an issue for council then. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So So are we okay with Shauna's condition? >> Yes. >> Okay. Because it make it makes sense to me. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Okay. Okay. Okay.
Does anyone else on the board have any questions for either the architect, the applicant, or the engineer? What is the And forgive me because I don't have the the documents in front of me. What's the updated imperous coverage relative to the previous imperous
coverage for lot 12.03 it was 63% and now it's uh 56.2% and then 12.04 4 was 67 and now it's 57.9. >> And do you need any variances for those
numbers? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we advertise for them. >> Okay. >> Last call. Any more questions? >> You have anything else, Ed? No, I I I would like to express uh on behalf of the applicants and and our experts, our
thanks to the board, we we listen to your comments and we appreciate them. And as someone who appears before boards regularly, I think it's great when you have a board that you can have a rapport with and you can have a discussion and
sometimes it comes up with much better solutions to issues. So, I just want to extend thanks to the to the board for your for your help. >> I'm sorry. Um, can you provide testimony as to the the um
the subdivision? I realize we you guys never really covered that in like the boundaries for the subdivision. You guys never really covered that. >> I guess I'll read back to Yeah, it it it's still going to be two lots. It there's just they're going to
be reconfigured because it's two lots now. >> Yeah, it's it's basically two lots kind of slice down the middle of the property. Two real thin lots. We're proposing the front building um
the rear building on a flag lot and and putting the the property line down the center of the driveway. Um, so you got a flag lot, the rear, and then the front lot front. And they'll have, you know, shared access obviously through the driveway in the future. >> And that's essentially because the
property is 300 ft deep. >> How wide is it? >> Uh, 75 >> 75 ft wide. Yes. >> Two wide. >> Yeah. And and that and that reminded me and I apologize. That's exactly why we wanted the planner here tonight on our side was I think primarily for the flag
the flagbot situation. I didn't know if you had any comments, Dan. >> Yeah, I think that's why we wanted him here. >> So, >> if you can just comment >> close to the mic. >> Sure. >> Yeah. I mean, uh flag laws aren't ideal.
Um I think the idea of having two uh two family uh properties uh it, you know, I think is an appropriate location for it. I think um as long as there's a a you know a a a
suitable cross access easement, I don't really have an issue with a flag lot per se. Um would it have been more efficient to do something like a townhouse on the full lot? Uh the lot is a little narrow which makes it kind of hard to do a typical design. Um but you would avoid
the the um the flag lot issue. Uh I think this is a an okay compromise between you know having something more dense and having something uh and keeping it the way it is basically. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Can I just um can we talk about the access easements and how the storm water uh systems are going to be maintained between the two properties? Say say you sell sell the two lots. how >> or sell one and not the other
>> or sell one and not the other. Who who is responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater system? >> We're going to have a requirement in the deeds that that if you want to buy the property, you have to commit yourself to be responsible.
>> That's >> who who's Yeah, but who's going to be responsible? Is it lot one, lot two? Are they going to have to jointly pay for the maintenance? >> I think that's what Jackie is asking. I think because the system is straddles both lots, right? >> It does.
>> And um so we would recommend almost like an HOA like it shouldn't be up to one property owner or the other. It should be common a common ownership. >> Totally agree. And that will be in there. >> So So you're agree you're agreeing to an HOA because I know that was up in the
air at the last meeting. I think I asked that. >> Yeah. No, we don't want a full-blown HOA, but what we do what I'll submit to you for your review and and you know, hopefully approval will be an agreement that will be binding on all parties and
all four units. >> How does that work? >> I mean, it can work that there doesn't need to be. I I personally would prefer an HOA, too. >> There should be a common fund that >> Yeah, that's exactly how it' be structured. >> So, it's not an HOA. is just sort of
like a a crossmaintenance agreement where they have to pay into a fund. >> Exactly. >> And they're both jointly responsible for the maintenance. >> Correct. >> So, it's going to be an interesting agreement. Um, >> which you will review with us. >> I'm I'm going to review it. You're going
to review it. We're both going to review it >> because what's the remedy in the event of failure on the part of one of the homeowners? >> The other it would be the other homeowner suing the other homeowner. the defaulting the the one homeowner would sue the defaulting homeowner who hasn't been doing what they need to do.
>> Just as with an HOA, if somebody doesn't pay in an HOA, you you sue the person. like the the owner of the one lot is an absentee owner and you can't find them but so all the is
kind of on >> you would listen it's not an ideal situation and that's part of the problems of creating this type of fot situation um with with a cross I think that's why Jackie's Jackie's uh bringing it up >> and that's why like I think at the last meeting I encouraged an HOA but I
understand why they don't want do it. It doesn't mean but it's going to essentially what would happen is if if you have an absentee property owner and the one property owner is suing the other property owner, they would get a lean on the property and they would have to foreclose. I mean it's a >> a mess.
>> Yeah, it's a mess. >> So shoveling the snow on those >> That's another question. Yeah, exactly. That would have to be in the cross access that that was discussed. And there's another >> can you design would it be helpful to
designate one of the two owners as a primary >> for the purposes of execution >> is reported >> like what are you saying that that if that if one homeowner is not that that you designate one person for the town to
go after if there's a problem. No, no. That that there that there be one homeowner at least who has primary responsibility for executing on the things that need done. Uh whether it's arranging for snow plowing or
>> Yeah, you you can absolutely say uh lot A is responsible for the snow plowing to which lot B will contribute after bills are sent to him. I mean, I've seen things like that.
>> Yeah. >> Driveway. Yes. I I've seen >> storm water system. >> Yeah. >> Again, none of this is ideal. This you're creating you're creating a that's why people don't like these types of arrangements in general from a planning perspective because it creates all these
logistical hurdles, >> right? But it just seems to me that at least fingering somebody as being in charge is a little better than like >> Yeah, I mean, you know. >> Yeah, I agree with Wilson because I see
it a lot where it's a shared driveway and one property owner is asking who's responsible or my neighbor wants to make improvements. I I don't agree with it. Who has the majority of my lawn?
>> Remind me. Is is the driveway all on one lot or is the driveway on both lots? >> It's split between two. >> It is split. The driveway is actually split. >> Yeah, >> it's a shared drive. >> I know. I know. It's a shared driveway, but but a lot of But sometimes the driveway is on one lot with an easement allowing the other person to travel it.
But in this case, it's actually a divided driveway. >> Yeah. >> So, is how how is it being done? with lot B for the is the lower lot responsible for their portion of the lot and but lot A is subservient to lot B that they have to do their portion of the lot.
>> I I've done this twice of twice before. I haven't done it recently. Okay. >> So, I'd have to go back and open up my file and get get into those agreements. But, uh I have one I had one in Ocean Port and I think one in Long Branch and
both of them are still there. And I inquired about I guess about a year ago uh because we've been working on this for a while uh how you know is does it does it work? And they said yeah it's fine. What's what's the problem? I said
well I'm not saying there is a problem. I'm just I'm just asking you know have you had any difficulty as far as the the arrangement so to speak and in both instances they said no. But that that's only I mean it's two examples
>> but but who's responsible? So so >> they they >> go ahead. >> They came up with they came up with something similar to what I think Mr. maybe was talking about and that was that there would be they all belong to a
a a group so to speak of owners and then one owner was designated I think in ownership report there's one owner designated as being sort of the in charge party and they uh called the shots they did the collections
all of that and it and it's worked and that one's been there it's got to be 15 years >> okay so I mean That's acceptable to the board. We can that they have to designate and one would assume it'd be the uh the northern lot or or the one that's closer to the to the road would
make more sense to be the I assume would be make more sense to make them the dominant lot and having to collect from the blower line. Is them is the are the driveways designed in a way that they can be
easily plowed or do you have raised block in between them? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> No. So, it's it's one surface, easy to plow. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> I also just want to bring up in terms of
the access or the agreement um between owners, your utilities, the water and the sewer um laterals, you're almost creating your own main in the driveway, right? So, say there's an issue on the
line that you a common line it needs to be snaked or whatever. You got to figure out who's going to pay for that between the two. >> So, the back lot is going to mix on the way to the street with the front lot
>> shown right now. Now, p uh DPU might require them to split it up. Um that's up to our public works department. Um they control sewer and water, so they might make them do two um lines. >> Y >> right. It makes sense. Um, but as it's
shown right now, you're sharing you're sharing sewer and water. You're you're going into like a common mane in your driveway. So then who's going to be responsible for that at the you know it's the same as a driveway. So
um I would say maybe we stipulate that that they split it. >> Yeah, >> I agree. It makes sense. It just it's solving future problems. Yeah, we're okay with that as long as DP, you know.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we're leaving. I just want to make sure I understand. So, we're leaving it to them to draft this agreement which is then going to come to us for review. You and I, she and Mark are going to review this agreement and we're going to put our blessing on it.
If we like it, if they don't like it, they're going to have to change it. But, it's going to have to include everything. It's going to have to include plowing. It's going to have to include access on the driveway. is going to have to include utilities, repairs, sewer systems, absolutely everything. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> And we're looking for we're looking for them to designate one of the property owners as the dominant with collecting from the other. >> Correct. And also we're recommending that they split the water and sewer. >> And what to allow emergency access? >> Has the fire department reviewed this? I
sent the plans, no one responded. >> Is the idea that for trash collection the everybody would just bring their trash to the curb? >> No, you can correct. You can hit me anytime you want. >> Um trashes at the last meeting you're
actually bringing it from the lower unit is going to have to be responsible for bringing it all the way up to the street. Yeah, we have we're we have the appropriate storage area and then they're going to have a cart that they that they walk up to the street.
>> All right. So, that's going to have to be in that agreement, too. I guess that that that the upper unit's going to have to allow the lower unit to to bring the trash up every single day and bring it back at night. >> Yeah. I they >> they're not going to walk it around the house into the driveway and walk to the
street. Yeah, that's that's makes more sense to me. >> They would walk the back lot would walk their cans around the back >> down the driveway to the street down there. >> No, no, I know that. What I'm saying is the there should be some obligation of
the lower unit to remove the garbage cans so that the upper unit doesn't have a garbage can sitting there for that's been picked up for days upon end. >> Yeah, >> that that's what I'm saying. >> I agree. Just so I can imagine this in context, I
think last time we talked about as of now these were envisioned as rentals. Is that still the case or some other condo situation? >> Rentals right now. >> So these are So if they're envisioned as rentals, why are we subdividing the lot?
>> I'm sorry. I wasn't able to ask. >> No, just a question was that these were being >> Sorry. So it's two family that are rentals. There two Two two family. So a person is going to buy the two family house and rent
>> the other two two family dwellings. Yes. There's four families. >> Well, one going to own one's going to own two people are going to own one of those >> and then rent the other unit. >> Well, >> okay. >> Well, we have to presume that they're
going to sell them, >> right? >> Yes. They're theoretically could be four owners. That's correct. >> Oh, go ahead. Yes. Now, now with that said, I presume you'd have to come back for another subdivision if you I I don't know how you would do it. If you're
going if one of the two families decides that they're not going to be under the common ownership, do you have to come back for another subdivision to subdivide the two properties? Because if they're two different owners within the one the one house. Yeah, but
there Well, I mean, I I'll check first first of all, allow me to check, which I'll be doing anyway with the tax assessor. Um, yeah, but the >> No, no. If if if each H there's four units. All right. Right now, it's all under
common ownership, which you're getting the subdivision. If one of those units decides that I'm now going to sell and divide the ownerships, now there's going to be three owners or there's going to be four owners. Don't those individual homes need now a further subdivision because they're not going to be under
common ownership? What are they? They're not condos. What? >> Yeah. I I mean, what are they at that point? >> Could it be just something as simple as like >> it it's
well yeah the way to handle it is >> this is just it's very I mean again this is all >> start thinking about it. >> Yeah. you start thinking about this is so this is so complicated. >> I I
>> How are they How are they going to sell four units when they only have two lots? >> They can't That's my point. But so so >> they got they got to sell them together. >> If they if they So they can't have But Ed just said there could potentially be four owners. If they're four owners, >> then they would have to come back for
another subdivision to subdivide >> Yeah. the you the structure. >> A bank's not going to give somebody a mortgage on a half of one of those buildings that is sharing a lot with someone else and you're never going to get title insurance. >> There's an easy answer to it. We will not. We if you want to buy, you're going
to have to buy both units. >> That makes sense. >> Period. >> Okay. And and that resolves that problem. >> Yeah. >> So So that's going to be in the deed restriction also. >> That's fine. >> So at So there will only ever be two owners, >> correct? >> At max. two two owners max.
>> Yeah, there could be one owner for both places, but >> we because we do have this issue. There's a property on West Front where um there's four apartments in there and there it's a condo, but there's ownership and the former owner that did
all of this, it's been just a mess on finding out like who owns what, >> right? >> And to sell just an apartment, but it's weird how to access it. it it's just a mess later on down the road because it's a very confusing deed everything. >> Yeah. And and to be clear that can be a
condition the applicant always has a right to come to the board and ask for relief from that condition because they now want to subdivide one of those units. So I I that could always happen. I mean we can't the board could say no but that's always a possibility that you could come back and ask for relief from it. So
>> but certainly for purposes of tonight as far as >> you're going to need restrictions to that that cannot be solved that way. >> Yep. That eliminates the problem. Okay. >> And the owners have agreed. So, >> okay. Anyone else have any questions?
You have anything else to add, Ed? >> No, thank you. Someone would like to make a motion. As you'll recall, I I'm not voting on this. So, if someone would like to make a motion, please do so. >> Second. >> What's your motion? >> Oh, uh, sorry. I was just about to say
>> to make a motion um make a motion to approve. Thank you for making those changes. I think it looks a lot more streamlined with the the driveway and um more grassy area >> and thank you for your help too. >> And I second
um >> Shauna Ebanks. Yes. Christina Bonosakis. Yes. Dan Manuso. >> Lou Dementoto. >> Yes. Were you with the last meeting at the meeting? I don't think you attended the meeting.
>> Oh, >> yeah. >> It's not eligible. >> And also the chairman isn't isn't necessarily abstaining. He's not eligible because he has >> Okay. Megan Massie. Yes. Wilson BB. >> Uh I also was not present at that meeting, but I've reviewed the uh video
transcript and uh I would vote yes. We'll do Sean will get you a certification to that if >> Okay. >> Um Fred Stone. >> Yes. >> And Brian Parnean. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Have a great night.
>> Nice to see everybody. Thanks. >> I'm not sure how this >> might be on the bottom. head. >> Thank you. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> Can just Can I ask a a general question?
>> Sure. Before you do that, do not leave with the you have to take that off the board for whatever we mark in as the extra exhibit >> on planning board process. Um at the last meeting we had a sub substantive discussion about the parking ordinance
and you know how much we allocate. Today I raised an issue about power walls versus generators and in the back of my mind I've also got some questions about permeable driveways. Right.
Is it appropriate for the planning board to have discussions on these issues as agenda items and and make recommendations to the council? >> We certainly can. Yes. So, you know, send us an email
and uh we can work on that. >> Yeah. I mean, just I mean, just the parking discussion we had last time, it's sort of like we have these parking discussions all the time and you know, the ordinance is you know, does the ordinance need, you know, looking at, thinking about. >> So, it is currently being looked at. So,
if there are any changes that you'd like, recommendations, just send them to me and I can forward them to um BFJ um who's working on the revisions as we speak. Um and because we'll have to
review the entire all the changes that are being made. So, if you give me recommendations to send to her of things you'd like to see change, um, stricter ordinances, then we can we can make that work and have the discussion on it if
it's if it's feasible or if it it's more of a hindrance to the property owners, >> right? And that draft ordinance will come here before it gets up to the councils to make sure the entire board is in agreement. >> We can do that and I'm pretty sure council that. Yeah. >> Yeah. because you don't you don't want to have every single board member
emailing you and then the rest of the board is like that's crazy whatever the idea might be >> and I would like to thank the board for your continued confidence in me to serve as your chairman during my last year here so thank you very much >> I think they vote and they voted you in
abstentia they >> I know it's crazy >> they may do that again next year >> not not happening next year this is it I'm like a record 33 and a third years is plenty really is. There should be a law. Uh that's it. We adjourned.
>> I made a motion. >> Second. Yeah. >> All right. All in favor? >> I. >> Thank you. >> Good night, everyone.