this meeting is called to order pursuant to the provisions of oh so the meeting of the planning board sorry part Somerville for February 12 2025 will please come to order this meeting is called to order pursuant to the provisions of the open public meeting act both adequate and electronic notice of this virtual meeting has been of this
meeting has been provided way of publication of The Courier news on December 24th 2024 in addition notice of the meeting was posted on the bulletin board outside of the borrow Hall located at 25 West End most Avenue posted on the municipal website provided to the municipal clerk and
distributed to all persons if any requesting copies of same this meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and may be rebroadcast this meeting is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a
decision and decorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times roll call Andrea D is excused ch addex is excused art iins is excused Larry Cleveland here Jason crasa here John
manilo here Barry Van Horn is also excused mayor Gallagher here council member V here chairperson Warner here please stand for the pledge IED Ali to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic
for which it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all right approve uh approval of minutes from January 22 so moved second Larry Cleveland yes Jason krasa
yes John manelo yes mayor Gallagher yes council member of room stain chairperson Warner yes all right we have a hearing tonight for 444 Katherine Street if you would like to step forward please
okay we want no no problem no problem at all we're not going anywhere we're skipping you to the end of the evening um do we want to go to one of the items for discussion moving along all right so um e charging
station thank you uh we got a response back from DCA division of uh fire safety basically saying they could offer no guidance that's fascinating the email says that they have no guidance to be
offered I drill down with uh Robert Lyn on the Fire Marshals coordination and the other principalities and the Fire Marshals have zero to offer so the Fire Marshals are out your DCA is out so
we're going to I guess look at National codes but there's nothing uh it appears to be no guidance for Best Practices on where to place EVS charging locations Mike Mike have you checked with your your planning
organization in New Jersey to see if anybody um within your network of planners I have but not in the detail you're referring to I will I would look at that I find it hard to believe well you know what no I shouldn't say that it's It's Not Unusual that we actually
have to create uh policy legislation for the state right it's we've done it before we can do it again if they don't have any yeah all right so you'll just keep I will reach out to apa New Jersey chapter some of the planners to see what if
anything's out there uh Robert Lyn is saying he's EX at his things we have his guides document that the board of Engineers and Robert came up with the board has that and um I will see on my end in this guy's
letter he says reasonable standards so they're leaving it up this is the state saying use reasonable standards yeah I responded to him by saying please let us know if guidance come up and he said absolutely but right
now DCA is offering no best practices on where exactly to install the EV Chargers so so any there is nothing regarding location and reasonable standards I guess is what you're saying that's what DCA is saying they're not
offering any guides from at this point it's local control local control and uh obviously we'd like to question is to find a national some guidance on this to help the board craft some
reasonable ordinances on or I guess we will be creating that reasonable ordinance right yeah okay thank you Mike uh attorney yes no yes okay yes if you
guys would like to step forward again thank you my name is John Sullivan I'm an attorney with the offices of vasta and Sullivan and I'm representing the applicant tonight my apologies for coming late it's my first time to the Civic Center and uh I parked in the
parking deck and uh learned how to get here the all good okay so the application before you uh the applicant is Ronaldo Partners they are the owner of uh the property located at 444 Katherine Street and our
proposal tonight before you is for a subdivision um what we're going to do here is we're on this property right now there's an existing home which is in the process of being renovated and then we want to subdivide the Cara do we want to swear everybody
in uh we can let him finish his opening and then I'll mark the exhibits and then we'll swear everybody we'll sorry for the interruption go ahead no problem uh so basically we want to subdivide right down the middle and we're going to create two fully conforming loots so we're not creating any new variances the
only variance condition that we have here I believe is an existing front yard setback of for the existing home I think um 25 ft is required we have 19 P 19.4
feet to the house and 14.5 feet to the front porch uh so we do have a few Witnesses tonight um we have our engineer Mr uh Nel uh we have our architect Mr Meyer
and then I have Donald Ronaldo he's a representative of the applicant um and we'll just put it into perspective to you but there's not a heck of a lot in testimony um in addition to the plans that we've already provided those plans are a subdivision plan prepared by
Salvatore michowitz uh dated May 14th of 2024 last Revis November 26th of 2024 and then we did submit a set of architectural floor plans and elevations prepared by EMZ Architects dated January
6 6 of 24 last revised October 10th of 24 okay uh Madam chair we have reviewed the notice everything is in order the board has jurisdiction to hear this application um as usual we will Mark as absolutely I
do yes um why don't we begin with our our engineer you come up and just State your uh name and professional address my name is Richard nuser I a licensed professional engineer and professional planner in the state of New
Jersey uh I graduated in 1975 as an engineer for those with math that's 50 years ago uh I've practiced engineering since that time in various areas is of of New Jersey on both sides uh as as Municipal
engineer and as a Consulting engineer and um you're you're also licensed as a planner yes I licensed as a plan planner and an engineer in New Jersey and your licens is for both are in good standing yes and have you been accepted as an expert before any board
or Court in the past um multiple times over the past 30 years okay we would ask that Mr ner be so accepted so yes
yep Mr Nester um you've uh reviewed the plans you're familiar with the site and the application before the board yes I have and could you just uh briefly explain to the board the site as it exists now that's a a large large slot for the
area uh that's a 100 100 foot a 165 foot lot with a a single family house on on the left side of the property and a vacant partial on on the
right side uh according to the tax records the house was constructed in 1897 so it has been there for a long time and occupied as a residence okay and then could you
explain to the board the uh proposal for subdivision and the um construction of the new dwelling on the right side of the prop yeah the lot would be subdivided in half creating two 50 foot wide lots a new home would be constructed on the new
lot uh totally conforming with the setbacks okay and then each lot resulting from this will be uh fully conforming to the zoning ordinance the lot size yes is all conforming the uh the
only uh non-conformance is is the existing houses front yard set back but otherwise the existing home and the proposed new home they're going to comply with all setback um and coverage requirements of the ordinance yes that
everything would be complying except that one thing just wanted to direct your attention to Mr to a couple of the professional reports um the first one is the County planning board um letter of approval um subject only to a recycling
contribution is that correct yes and the applicant will comply with that recycling contribution uh then wanted to direct your attention to Mr Cole's report and in Mr Cole's report if you go to page five he lists
um a variance and a waiver condition and the first one is for the driveway width and I do understand that the applicant will reduce the driveway width in order to comply with the ordinance and eliminate that variance as a condition is that correct that's correct we'll
change the we'll change the driveway with of 10 feet at the street and then uh with regard to a waiver for Street trees I understand the applicant will comply so we will not be requesting a waiver is that correct that's
correct for each property for each property I think it's uh two trees one each property right yes thank you wanted to direct your attention to um SE C1 uh requiring a revision to the zoning
table we will provide that correct C1 page six item C1 well yes we can revise anything that's necessary but there won't be a
the 10 foot the waiver for the driveway with will not be required that be complying and then I wanted to go to section um four performance standards in particular um item
A2 dealing with um uh roof leaders could you just briefly address that yeah I was a little bit confused by that one because it says we are providing an infiltration pit and we aren't we don't think we need
one um on sheet three of six it shows an infiltration pit a big red rectangle says proposed dryw on uh sheet four six identifies the square as proposed DW well
so okay so the board knows the property slopes to the South so the runoff to the street may be a challenge and to try to eliminate runoff on enjoining properties to create problems I think that's why
the dryw is shown um I had said that if we're doing a drive well as the board's aware there's a lot of soils and it may not be feasible from an infiltration point of view so if the applicant would agree I could work with the applicant's engineer to work out the drainage the
goal was to try to get the drainage to the street or in the ground not onto the adjoining properties yeah I think we have that would be acceptable I get the the house and and the driveway all draining out to the street it drives to the South which goes into a medical building it un unfortunately the way the
grading is we might not be able to by gravity get the roof leaders to the street and I think that's why the infiltration pit was shown but it may not be possible because of the soils but we can certainly drill down should the board approve this to uh address the
storm water management so that it doesn't impact your joining properties which I think is the goal I think that's reasonable um and that also covers item A4 um with regard to item A3 uh public sidewalk has settled needs
to be releveled um I understand the applicant has agreed to take care of that and also um repair any damage that might be the result of construction is that correct of course yes sir um item
A6 uh the existing shed I understand that's already been removed it was it was leaning it didn't have any footings and uh it seemed a bit dangerous so could we just I'm sorry could we I didn't realize you switched experts could we just get his name and
qualifications and information for the record I'm Donald Ronaldo Jr I am one of the owners of Ronaldo Partners I'm basically it's my project okay great thank you so much yes sorry for the confusion um that's okay and I would have know better um so yeah the existing
garage we we took it down because we thought it was not really in safe condition right now um if we want to replace it we would make an application conforming to all zoning later to to rebuild a garage there but right now for the moment we are not so but that one had no footings
it was leaning and in one of the snowstorms it started to Creek and lean a little more and I thought well someone if this thing Falls it's dangerous so we we literally just picked it right apart and put it in a dumpster because it was a safer play than to leave it
and then item eight uh talks about underground utilities um I do understand all of the utilities in the area are currently overhead is that correct that that's correct the whole street is overhead holes are on the other side of the
street um I understand it it is in can you pull the microphone to to you I understand that lers has has that requirement in there in this case it would be
go off yeah there we go okay um in this case it would be the only house under Going Underground uh we'd request it the Minimus exception to leave it Go overhead and not have to install a pole
that would be another traffic impediment on on our side of the street I I understand it's just it's an rsis it's not a burough ordinance requirement and uh on different application we've dealt with this issue and uh you'd have to get
a waiver for that from rsis not from the board on that issue so from from what agency from the RSI would be the DCA there's a provision in the statute for the board notes the statute is gets revised every year to three years year
and a half three years 15 years ago there was an exemption for existing Lots or that exemption is no longer there the RSI has clear really shows that if it's a new dwelling regardless where it is the service has to be on the ground I think the intent is in a 100 years from
now you will have all underground service so this is coming up because we've had neighborhoods as applicant has said well it's all overhead so they're saying why and it's the other side of the street so we'd have to do a drop pole which I find to be aesthetically
not it's and it would still be overhead it's you go a drop pole then down but it would still be over overhead cross the street down the drop pole and in and unfortunately the RSI says the service should be so it's not in our control correct okay so if we can get a waiver
for that from the state should the board agree conditioned on this I'm all in favor for that but what I'm saying is right now that our hands are tied I would rather have less poles right yeah absolutely in an established neighborhood it's less polls is better
right yeah this is common sense there we go they should just wave this right I work for Verizon I know what I'm talking about so I certainly understand it doesn't make sense to add another poll Zing off go through that then you have
to go through that the zoning office you got the information so we can provide the waiver this has come up at least four times in the last six months on uh this issue all right we will request the waiver and for whatever reason we it's
not granted we will comply okay items one uh B1 and two we've already addressed that I wanted to move on to section d uh subdivision comments um yes we will obtain lot numbers from the assessor and
we are going to perfect this subdivision by deed if it's approved by the board moving on to section e um there are items uh one talking about
the with of the driveway and as I said we're going to make that comply and item seven talks about um having the driveway withd down at the street at 10 feet and then have it come up and then have it taper out to 17 feet
so we can park two vehicles there if that is the board's um pleasure we will comply with that as well yeah so the board knows it's a single car garage with a single car driveway it's a four-bedroom house so they suggest was assuming the Improvement
coverage meets the French curve it so you can get two cars on the lot side by side because there's probably going to be sometime down the road with bedrooms more than two cars so we can certainly do that um
other than that U there are a couple of um items I'm going to have the architect address on Mr Cole's report um but other than that uh we can comply and uh just to answer one question right now there is not a backup generator that is
proposed so if there's any questions for Mr nusser now or we can we can wait until we finish all the testimony whatever you prefer we can wait till all testimonies finished um I would then call our architect Mr Meer uh Mr Mar would you state your
qualifications for the rep uh my name is Edward Mayer I'm the principal of em2 Architects I've been an architect in the a registered architect state of New Jersey since 1998 I got my bachelor of architecture from the University of notame and uh your license is still in good
standing yes it is and have you appeared and testified before any other boards or um or courts multiple times throughout the state of New Jersey and other states as well we would ask that he' be so accepted they're accepted you uh you prepared the
architectural plans that we submitted to the board correct yes I did and could you describe the um proposed new dwelling to the board as indicated the dwelling is a is a twostory four bedroom home about 2200
square ft it uh size is 30 feet wide by 44t deep it has a vinyl sighing matching a lot of the other buildings other homes within the neighborhood John is it possible to get it's shown on the screen the package doesn't have the
architectural drawings the board doesn't have it is there a possible to get the tablet booked up to the screen no okay I don't know if I have that technological capability I'll ask Mr Mayor big paper cop wait so do we
have we have a paper copy of it we it was submitted so I'm I'm not sure I think we submitted an electronic copy as well all right let's just mark this just in case um because I don't see it referenced not referenced in your report
right Mike it's in my report it's just what the board has the copies the 11 by 17s aren't the architecturals I just don't know if there's paper copies this is the site drawing it shows the Box we just don't have the architectural drawings I was hoping maybe you put on the screen it's not possible okay so the architectural
are my laptop with me I'm not sure how it could be done either the arals are reference in yours yeah the A1 two and three okay just want to make sure we didn't have to mark something else and um overall do you consider what the proposed Welling that we're going to put can we just hold on for one second
sorry the board want us to see if there's a way we could try maybe email if you have a PDF email it we're getting so tacky um I don't have uh this doesn't have um Wi-Fi on it I mean so how would you suggest I do it I send it to you if the Board needs it
again I can send it to you and put it on top I can pull out my yeah that's that that's how I got here initially I put it on here before I here he might I don't know he I got to turn myplan off I have to
get into my email oh you just sent it to that second yeah if you can give us an email for the person coordinating the monitors then we can have them just throw it up on the screen yeah that's what we're thinking of Ryan just use your regular email address
r b a k i e all right just give meille nj.org you should have you have it no I have the I found the things I can email it so if you give me that email again kindly
I'll do it RB RB a Ki a k i i e i e sorry RB a k i e Summerville uh NJ NJ
dotg myp do might take a minute but it looks like it went oh I have it yeah M it shows having sent so we should have it momentarily got it Ryan
yet it's all the timing okay yes we do my 12y old well I was going to say or even a 5-year-old because seems they know earlier and earlier and we get worse and worse as we get older well because the technology is getting I know
different I mean I just learned you know the old one now there's new stuff it's the only reason why we have children yes I agree to replace that's what I tell my daughter every day yeah fix
this fix this yes exactly here well that's funny when are young in the tecky already it's amazing anyway I just realized it's this Mach
oh thank you is there a rotate command it's right here I think right yeah okay you got it got perfect excellent so there will be um all right we're good everyone can see it
y you guys can see it up there thank you fantastic so as you can see here um as I indicated previously that it's a 30X 44 foot uh house that there's a basement level that uh at the currently we're not looking at finishing it but someday in
the future it may be finished as well uh on the on the first floor you see see here we have a foyer we have a a dining room in the front kitchen and a family room in the back and then a onecar garage then on the second floor we have
the four bedrooms with uh two bathrooms one master bathroom and then one bathroom that Services the uh other other two uh other three bedrooms and as I previously indicated we're looking at vinyl siding some nice
uh wood trim we're also looking at some asph shingles and then the uh the foundation will be a uh sort of a concrete finish and overall um you feel it's uh this design is compatible with what we
have in the neighborhood yes absolutely there's many homes along here that have very similar attributes and uh qualities and you had mentioned right now where we are we are not proposing to finish the basement um I understand we are also not proposing to finish the is
that correct at this time I mean this is um this is all for entitlement and get an understanding of the scale and size of the of the house um but we don't we reserve the right to be able to do that at least in the basement yeah weever we going to finish the attic just yeah someone might want to buy it and have ask for a finished basement at some
point so but we're we're not planning that at this point and then in connection with um continuing just on some of the comments in Mr Cole's report uh could you just uh briefly discuss lighting that's proposed
uh there's three exterior lights specifically at the uh entry points right now um as as it is also at the existing facil existing home that's being uh renovated where that we're looking at having uh uh lights along the entry points as
well and that just typical residential I mean yes you know it's for you know being able to access the house at night when you go outside and for security and for uh for security and ease of Entry so lights will comply with the bur ordinance the res residential style lights exactly
right and then uh there was a question about the uh proposed HB location and uh confirming that noise levels will not exceed what's permitted by ordinance yeah we'll definitely be following the ordinance and the uh code requirements for the air conditioning unit we're
looking probably at the uh side towards the rear area of the home and it'll be in accordance following all the setback requirements necessary and the levels of the uh the noise the sound will be within uh normal AC unit you know current today uh
equipment so the sound data can be provided should the board Grant approval yes absolutely the the just to note that uh in recent years there's been a bit of a push with the manufacturers that uh most of the equipment now is significantly quiet quieter than it even
was 10 or 11 years ago it's really a good thing and I'm going to just stay with Mr Ronaldo for a minute um the existing home can you explain to the board um what Renovations have been completed and what might still be proposed for that
yes well we let's make this easier so uh the existing home um principally was receiving an addition to the uh rear second floor to create a master bedroom suite and a rearrangement of the space on the second floor uh toward the front
end of the house to reconfigure the shapes of the two bedrooms within the existing uh exterior wall um uh layout uh on the first floor uh a wall was taken out to open the dining
area to the kitchen area and um the kitchen used to be in the back but that's going to become a family room and the kitchen will be moved a little bit more toward the front um basically it just provides a a lovely layout highly
usable space um and we are going we are putting a there was an existing laundry room on the first floor we're adding a powder room uh there's a very small addition on the right side it protrudes about five proximately five five and a half fet um well within well within the
setback we're nowhere close to our to our uh sidey yard setback requirement and um over that space on the second floor will be a hall bath and a master bath um it's a it's a modest home it finishes about 1600 square ft but it's
going to be very lovely uh the existing front posts that are made of uh RW iron it's like an older look um those are going to be replaced by columns that will be trimmed in ASAC probably with a little Crown head some detail to make it
a little more lovely uh the brick on the front of the house is relatively new so we decided to keep it because it has a lovely Co quaint appearance and the entire house will have brand new siding brand new roof um and all brand new windows so it will look basically brand
new inside and out and then U we have the um the elevation showing on the screen now I understand you had some photos of a very similar house that you built that you wanted to share with the board well I would love to show you one um so you can
actually see it uh in color I have one picture but I'd like to bring it up may I so Mar that photo A3 I think yes where do I start we are this is this is oh we have one okay
yeah thank you so yeah and would you explain to the board what that that photo show that that was a house I built in Cranford a couple years ago and it's it's about I think that one's about two feet wider but it's it's basically about the same shape and a very similar
appearance and it just has lovely elegant lines it's traditionally Colonial um that has some nice front Trims on it like a uh ASAC trims around the windows I actually intend to do that on the new house to make it look really nice um and so you know you basically
have a pretty good look at the general scope of what it looks like it's kind of a lovely attractive um I realize that's subjective but it's you know it's a lovely Colonial present ation for a dwelling uh that's kind of elegant and
you know looks nice I think so the finished floor elevation I I think on the pictures it shows more than I have is 1.5 feet above I I believe it's uh respectfully it's my
general intention to try to hit what we call Foundation freeboard that is the amount of foundation that is exposed over the grade level to try to hit around 2 feet or just over so that we could use a twoot tall basement window which is nice because it allows for some
uh you know little more light they're not it's not cramped feeling it's just a nicer look and also in the event you ever had to you could actually crawl out of it if you had to you know um so I I have a conviction that rather than making the house look very in the ground
if we're not anywhere near the uh you know if we're not attracting a limit on the allowable height which we are not that you know rather than maybe show a very small amount of freeboard like a foot it's better to show around two feet um house tends to be drier also and uh
also that would be more contiguous with the houses on either side of the existing property um I actually bought some photographs but they just kind of prove the point um that the house to the left of the property has a freeboard in
the front of approximately 20 in and in the back a little bit better than two feet and the house on the right is almost identical a little bit more than two feet I'd like to bring these photos up so we're we're just looking to kind of do about the same approximate look because there's no reason to pull it out
of the ground more on the other hand it doesn't seem to be any reason to put it in the ground more it just seemed like that that right Pleasant height to show two feet of foundation so I'd like to right so I'll mark these as A4 and A5 uh
Mr Ronaldo you took these photograph this is the house on the right that's on the left okay so if we're looking at the house the house to the right we will be marking as A4 and when did you take these photographs U yesterday okay uh
and the photographs accurately depict what it is that you were okay and then A5 will be the home to the left of the proposed yep okay and I just wanted to call Mr
ner back up just so he can provide his planning testimony of okay Mr nesser I understand you're going to provide testimony um in support of both a C1 and a C2 is that correct that's correct and could you begin with
the C1 plus okay the applicant is requesting the C1 Varian for the front setback on the existing structure can you get the microphone a little closer sure for to the existing structure at 444 Katherine Street the existing setback is 14 1 12 ft to the porch where
25 ft is required and 19.4 ft to the existing house foundation the structure was lawfully constructed approximately in the year 1897 according to tax records and has continuously been occupied as a single family residence
complying with the front yard would require relocation or demolition this constitutes exceptional practical difficulties the house has existed in the current location for over 125 years without any negative impact there has been and will be in the
future no detal inter detrimental impact to the public good granting the variant would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone plan or the zoning ordinance and the the structure is not inconsistent with other homes on Catherine
Street okay and it just kind of carrying from there can you just explain obviously you've addressed the uh fact that you do not believe there's any detriments can you just um uh explain to the board what you feel the uh the benefits
are yeah it's an appropriate use in development of land in a manner which will promote the public health safety and morals in general welfare provide light light air and open space it promotes the establishment of appropriate population
densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons neighborhoods communities and regions and preservation of the environment provides sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential and it
promotes desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good Civic design and Arrangement it's a pseudo infield development a continuous streetcape is a fully conforming single family dwelling and a
single family zoning District there's no detriment to any uh any of the town's ordinances okay thank you um that concludes our uh testimony
present questions just a couple um thank you so just a couple uh the the existing uh empty lot has a lot of trees on are you looking to clearcut are you looking to save some of those trees and
utilize them as part of your landscape plan what do you intend on doing there are a couple trees on the right side and one all the way to the left and if I can keep those I will um there's also a couple dead ones in the middle one one is actually fallen into
the uh the vshape of the limbs and it's being held it's a probably not a desirable condition but it's that's the way it is that one definitely has to come out so and basically that group of trees anyway is where the proposed new Foundation would exist so um I I only
want to take those out the ones further toward the back of the lot can certainly remain I think that you know I try to not have houses within like 20 or TW I mean apologies I misspoke not have a tree within 20 or 25t of a foundation because you get negative impact from the
root system and you know it's probably not healthy to have the limbs over overgrowing the house but aside from that I would try to keep them I think there's two on the right side that can remain and one on the left on the far left now whether one would have to go
because of utility consideration is a different issue but I would try to do my best to keep them where I could so so the intent isn't to clearcut immediately it's to see what you can preserve yes okay um what I didn't see was the Western elevation of the sidewall of the
home I saw the Eastern elevation but I didn't see the Western and the Western butts up to an existing house um the the Cape Cod I think it's the red Cape Cod um yeah if we put this back up I just
scrolled to it it's there it it is yeah yes yes sir Sor cuz I yeah cuz I only saw the uh the Eastern oh look there it is okay so we have a rear yeah with rear elevation and the right side elevation my con my concern and I'm assuming the to the well my left um
that's the garage area up to the front yeah my concern is that you know it it becomes a a large wall uh where right now the neighbor is looking at trees and I don't know if there's something you can do I I like
the windows but I don't know if there's something you can do to soften it in the garage area uh just to you know Windows maybe the the appropriate treatment add one more window in the garage just to have it look a little I it's it softens it up a little bit sure we could do that that's my feeling I don't know how the
board feels sure yes we we can do that adding some windows one or two windows to the garage so that it softens that just solid wall look yeah yeah yeah I actually have a followup to that
as well so yeah talking about the west elevation with the existing neighbor um that's to that side so I know the testimony was that the HVAC would be on probably one side of of the dwelling has any thought been made to put the hvc to the east where there's a little bit more
separation between the two houses that could easily be that would be fine okay anybody else have any other questions comments from the board just another comment on the pre-existing non-conforming I mean summer I think every lot in Somerville is pre-existing
non-conforming so you know requesting the variance for the existing home is a pre-existing I it it there there are actually a number of them on the street yes there is and there's a a number of them even on Gaston uh within 100 something feet of the dwelling there's a
pair of them that are that are uh very close that are almost about the same so there there are a number of them like that and then the only thing I would the only other area I would say is the the architectural rendering you showed from the home you built in Cranford I thought was very nice very tasteful you may want
to show we have two folks from the audience here you may want to show that to them so they understand the style and form of the home that you're proposing and and I'm taking it it's your testimony that um the home will
substantially reflect what's shown in that photo another followup from from the mayor's comment uh so when the applicant has a chance so yeah let's let him yeah A3 yes A3 yeah we we we really should get this on
yeah we just wanted to be able to see the picture I really can't take testimony or comments right now sorry that's okay but the mayor did have a question yep so I had a followup question John uh so on A3 so the house built in Cranford I can't tell on the photo is that vinyl
that you're putting on this house or Hardy playing that is actually Hardy plank but but the general lines are so similar and the trim Style on the front will be almost identical so so your testimony is that substantially from an architectural I'll call it fenestration
architectural look um the home that you're proposing to build here will reflect very similar to the home absolutely yes okay any other comments from board members the only thing I have is I do agree it it's the pre-existing is a
pre-existing not much you can do about that it's not as if you were creating that um by when you build the house itself um I'm going to open the to the public for comments yep if you can come up to the
microphone please state your name and address for the record my name is Robert gski I reside at 436 Katherine Street which I guess is lot 13 on block 81 it's immediately adjacent to the vacant lot that they're
talking about so I came because I was concerned yes the the the red cape uh it's green but yeah yeah it's an older phone I guess I think it was A5 the way you're describing it to the right if you're
facing facing it to the right yeah then it's A5 okay 436 okay so my concerns when I came was basically first this whether the side off what the side offset was going to be between my house and the other one and
it sounds like it's you know there's no I no uh variance requested so I guess it's within you code um the other things that were were cons of concern uh and before I forget the other thing about
you know I totally agree with you it's ridiculous to not Grant a variance to the existing structure it's been there for forever as far as I can remember so you know no reason not to do that uh
the um trees along the property line that was the my concern uh the when they redid the gas lines they had to move them and they shifted on onto the left side of the property so
it's still of course still on my property but it's fairly close to those trees now and I'm concerned it if those trees are removed because the pipe run the gas line runs through the roots of those trees because they do extend onto my property I'm concerned that there's
going to be you know some if the trees are removed that there'll be some sort of damage I would be uh looking to see that that doesn't happen obviously of course um the and the other thing is about the drainage because when I looked at the site
plan uh it did seem that there was a dry well on the front of the house that's proposed and uh it does that property does get a little swamp you with heavy heavy rain so
uh um you know if there's if there are uh proposals to make it drain better I'd be uh you know happy to hear that sounds like there are things that are being proposed to make sure that it doesn't run off into other people's properties
and things like that so we're going to work we're going to work with the um the board engineer to to address that okay well those remind me of concerns with that so thank you thank you sir thank you for coming out thank you anyone else
from the public have any questions or comments all right we'll close public all right uh can you read where we are at because there are a couple like the drainage issues things like that are part of that condition of
approval so the app mik will Prov what yeah the conditions really discussed we said filing by deed which is acceptable by uh
setting the property Corners I I think everybody's in agreement to set the property Corners like Stakes or a monument I it's the rebar or yeah it's just the the backup real quick is you can get a waiver for not putting
the corners in I don't recommend doing that because the property Corners are used down the road I'm happy I'm happy to have that done thank you anything else Mike for us anything else
before move it with the conditions noted by Cara second Larry Cleveland yes Jason kosa yes John manelo yes mayor Gallagher yes council member of room yes chairperson Warner yes thank you very much thank you have a
good night thank thank you all very much for your time and your kind consideration which I very much appreciate thank you for investing in summer yes thank you your what your timeline um just normal uh get it together and move it ahead two years
well I don't know about that long but we'll see no I mean usually once I get them moving I can build one in six months but uh there there's there's a joy in creating something beautiful and there's a joy in creating a home that somebody will love to live in and there
is a joy in getting calls from people for whom I've built years later around the holidays just saying how are you we love our home come by sometime have a drink with us so uh so this process for me has been uh it's I mean it's what I do for a living but it's what I do for
kind of my sustenance too and I enjoy it even though this is not a large home to build I felt that the plan was so perfect that it was so nice that it would make somebody such a great house that I'm excited to go build it here it's it is it's an exciting thing to do
something that creative and that wonderful so I just want to thank you again for the uh approval very much thank you very nice thank you thank you good night good night all right um more discussion planning board hearing
timeline Brian you want to kick this one off well actually we'll let Mike there we go down it used to be that the of Health Construction office
com coms and this was way before we had electronic versions correct yeah I think there was a slight amendment in 2001 it actually goes back to the 1900s definitely before electronic yes speaking the has
totic solect okay you have a days reality I get mys review it that's yeah I I think going I think 28 days 35 days is is too long yeah um but
I think 10 days is too short um I we do need to allow the public time to come in and look and even in the Advent of electronic media where it should all be available instantaneously um we still have to ER on the side of the giving the public that ability and and I would think
around 15 days or so is is reasonable um I don't know how the rest of the board feels I just have a quick question about the number of days is this business business days or just consecutive days just going to ask the same thing coup coms right
that it all too tight that puts to that's two okay thank you yeah it gives you a little bit of a buffer that's not if we're going to make these changes I was just a little confused I
understand was if we look at that first sentence any Maps andc be determined complete deadlines I would just of change at least that number of days we'll just change that a little bit once
we decide that sounds like yeah 2 yeah we'll fool around with that a little bit but um yeah I would say at the very very least it would have make it easy just make it
um even divisible by seven so 21 days and 28 days 21 days across the board John EAS you see a distinction C's and D's time I don't for what we're looking
at I don't really see a difference yeah I don't yeah usually preliminary final come in together don't they for the most part well this board is okay yes I think they all be the same 21 I'm comfortable with
21 yeah I mean I'm fine with any of them you know from the 15 to the 21 um I guess my question is is so you deem a complete Mike that's when the clock starts and if the applicant can't get it
you know noticed and everything else that's on them at least we're not the ones holding it up so I I don't I don't care if it's 15 to the 21 um you know if 15's too tight for them well they push it back to the next meeting or whatever so as long as we're not the ones holding it up I don't see the difference from
the 15 to doesn't make a difference to me I think I think this question always so 21 everybody's comfortable with 21 I think 21 yeah
okay which dovetails into the next discussion do we have to make is that a do we have to vote on make a recommendation that or yeah I think I think we would have to make a recommendation to council okay to amend oh for the yeah sorry I was already on my next my head I'm already
at the next conversation so I'll make a motion and make a recommendation to change it to 21 days across the board for both CND D and change that terminology in letter C to at least the deadlines right I'll second
it Larry Cleveland yes Jason krco yes John manelo yes mayor Gallagher yes council member of room yes chairperson Warner yes okay now our next conversation so this has come up um I am going to turn this one over to Mayor Gallagher
crafting packets for Council referrals um this is how we can give a better complete package of information when we make a recommendation or uh some something that we're referring to council um and better
give them better equip them to be able to make a better decision without asking 50 different questions because we seem to forget they're not here for our conversations yeah and and Lisa and I had a big conversation about this last week and and how we can make it a little
bit more user friendly and informative for the council to begin to evaluate some of the recommendations that come from this body to theirs uh one of the challenges is you know sometimes a council and I'll I'll say I'm guilty of it you speak in shorthand because we've
gone through this discussion here uh and we've vetted it pretty significantly and when the council gets it they will have a lot of the same questions that that we've already gone through so leis and I chatted and we said you know what what why don't we create a packet for the
Council on any referral that comes from from this body and that packet will include a synopsis of the discussion um you know the the the pros cons of what we discussed um and I've discussed this with Mike already as well um and and a
Redline of what we're proposing to change so that if it's an existing ordinance it will show the deletions and the additions in that ordinance um and using Graphics uh we we've actually gotten a lot of positive
response on the fencing graphic that we did which is incorporated and where applicable using Graphics to help people under people are very visual today so helping them understand helping Council understand so there's nothing wrong with being over informative it will allow
Council to review it prior to actually coming to the meeting we hope right most of us most of us so um so so there in lies you know what we're trying to do is to give them the information um give them the synopsis of this of these
discussions you know we just had a 10-minute discussion on um on these timelines well they're going to get it cold uh in in a different scenario they would just get it cold and why are you changing it but this way we give them all of that information ahead of a
meeting so that when they get into the meeting I Roger or I can say well what don't you understand in the synopsis um and and it it it forces people to I think review and understand a little bit better what is coming between the two governing bodies and why
and why exactly so and it goes to a conversation uh a number of conversations uh and and you know our commissions uh they can get some of that same information as well I think it's just it's good policy so let's be
informative as it as it transfers because there's going to be a lot of information going back and forth between the council and the planning board over the course of the next two years with all of our Redevelopment plans our master plan um there's going to be a lot of give and take so the more information
we can provide to them and vice versa the better so and one of the things I just want to say after it was actually after Brian and I had the conversation that I really thought about how you know when an applicant comes before us it's on them to prove right they have to
prove why it is uh not a detriment and I kind of thought of it the same way I know it's we're not there we have to prove ourselves to anybody but we do have to give documentation or explain to them why we're coming to a decision and in there you know their defense they are not part of these they're not you know
they shouldn't have to go and watch our planning board meetings to understand our thought process and then here we are asking them to change something so that's how I looked at it you know we in talking to Mike it won't be this lengthy 10-page report it will be that might be a
challenge for it will be a bulleted synopsis so that it is something um because we want it to be easy for them we're not asking for them to do a ton more work and read a ton more but they should have a general idea of why you know Del's word the word why
why did we do this is there something that triggered it and how did we come to our decision um on a very higher level without having to watch it and and then read our minutes yep I I love the idea my only question is is this going to go out for
the public as well or just to the C so when you guys get the council packet is it in that or is it going to be attached online to the agenda as a note it'll the public attach to the agenda so that they can see it as well love it so we do need do we need a no we
don't need that something internal so we're good on that internal okay all right uh Improvement coverage ordinance yes thank you um what just got passed out is the recommendation that went to council that Council introduced
and had some comments back so came back to the board for comments I also had the opportunity to meet with the environmental commission I got some of their feedback last night and uh because of that feedback what you have in front of you
is the setbacks or the exis ordinance that talks about decks if it's more than one foot above it's a 5 foot setback or if it's a non-conforming structure to match the structure so the structure is 3 okay the de can match the
non-conformance and you'll see that in to be uh referring to patios have no setback the deck's one foot above this question came up what's the setbacks those are the setbacks show uh if the
board has any concerns with these setbacks Now's the Time to uh drill down on that V that secondly uh the environmental commission had two comments one is to how the deck
Ordinance Works is the slats you don't have a point discharge the water in theory will go through the slats and go into the ground the ground to keep that they had recommended that uh covering a
permanent roof be prohibited because a permanent roof would make a point discharge which makes perfect sense okay that's that's a reasonable got so if retractable I was about to say they're allowed to do a temporary which is like a retractable if they wanted to we're
talking about like a porch three seasons yeah got it just want to make sure for clarification for everybody that it's you can still do and it's a good point if you put a permanent roof over it you're no longer having the slats and having a deck uh distribute uniformly
the runoff storm water hitting the deck no I think that's a good comment so so actually I'm I'm actually what constitutes permanent having walls or no walls can't we move yeah it I don't
think it has anything to do with walls so so an awning a canopy a uh um an umbrella they're okay okay it's just a a permanent fix I think the distinction would be retractable or non- retracting a permanent no yeah and I'll look at the
ordinance on that should the board want a permanent to make sure it's clear to what Lisa what you're saying you want this clear as day what exactly we're saying is a permanent structure we don't get caught off somebody cranking up a
big oning and somehow calling that a permanent structure is what you're getting at and I can certainly work on that to uh should the board want to conclude that the second thing is the PS the pul surface the environmental
commission some had the cover it's going to be covered six eight months 10 months of the year sometime maybe eight months of the year the cover may make this an impervious surface so how does the cover
work into this and the second comment was that yes the the pole surface but because of the pole itself we're not allowing infiltration into the ground because you're putting a basically a bathtub in the ground right so they're
saying there is a a a distinction being made that we're with this by Pro ignoring the surface water because it's no runoff that we will be impacting potentially infiltration in soils from that structure
I think I think we I want to say this gently um the I think the goal of what this board this board's recommendation was to allow people residents homeowners to invest in
their property easily and enjoy their backyards nicely m um and I think we made a a solid recommendation um we can sometimes get lost in science uh and and I think it's it's
really an effort to allow people to enjoy their backyard and that's really what it is somebody looked at a couple of towns nearby and some towns exclude the pool as part of any kind of impervious
coverage simply excluded other towns do so it just depend it's a coin flip we decide we're going to do it this way that's what we decide it's the the point was to change these things change these ordinances was
to make it easier for people to build a deck without having to get a professional yes or a pool without having to get a professional without having to go to the zoning Zing will cost thousand have a professional for the that's something that I was thinking about and with the decks and everything
you know this isn't not that it's not allowed right now it's just that they have to pay an exorb amount of money to do it so I I don't to Brian's point I don't think we want to lose sight of we're not trying to put something into existence
that's just not possible you absolutely not there is absolutely no way it can happen we're we're trying to do away with the extra cost of somebody trying to improve their home so I think that point is getting missed right because
these things it's not that they're not allowed guys they can go and try to get this right and so I think I I think we need to not lose sight of that in everything the whole purpose of just backing up even more of a 50,000 foot view of about this impervious uh
Improvement coverage ordinance looking at it was there are so many things that we're punishing our residents for that have been in existence for instance we had an application before us tonight that has been in existence forever now one piece of that land touch and now we're going to punish him for it right
he had to come here to get a variance uh so I think that's something that we want to remember is that the intent of what we're trying to do not necessarily the details of why it shouldn't be done and I I do agree with some of the tweaking and I think we've done a good job of
just not opening up the floodgates but I would just ask that we all everyone not just on this board remember the intent of why we're doing this isn't to open up things that that have never been allowed or you know we don't allow now it's just we're trying to make it a
little easier for our residents and not always touch their pocketbook every time or deep dive into their pocketbook necessarily every time they want to improve their home and and just to dovetail I do want to just you know point out they still need to get permits
for all this stuff it's it's not they're not getting permits now we're giving them a blank slate so if there was any conditions or any adverse effects that would get brought up during the permits and the inspections to make sure that you know it's done right so and then I agree with everything both of you guys
said I just had a secondary question about the decks because people brought it up should there be a clarification in the ordinance about how large a Deb can be in relation to
portion of your house if you have thousand foot I think that's how you guys came up with the number you did right yeah so I think what we we thought was that the zoning controls will control the size of the deck um but where is that stated because that became
a question well would be the Improvement coverage Larry we're giving 50% but you still have to comply with the Improvement coverage yeah so obviously a larger lot you're allowed more Improvement coverage was proportional smaller so right and I think be stated I
think a 10 by1 is it's minimal proportional to to almost any dwelling that's what I'm saying is I think it's self that's why they came up and landed with those numbers is because across the board I think you're going to have any homes that it's not going to be proportion to yeah so they still follow
the impervious coverage after the 10 by10 yeah yeah right and I stack down and uh Ryan and myself we looked at the YouTube from the councils to get a gleam and they Council recommended some clarification that the 50% only complies
to decks not to any other yes uh Improvement coverage so should the board want we can make clarification I think it's fairly clear but we can make it clear that the 50% is over a 100 it does not include driveways patios
just the deck where we have the slats I'm sure you can figure out a way to add some more words to make it clearer I have no doubt in no I have all confidence in the world are you Mike I think % needs to be clarified need
example I for example this would you know a mathematical understand Larry yeah I have no problem with I I actually like the idea of using examples I I think that that works very well it's it clarifies it for people because sometimes the the planning ease gets in
the way of understanding I kind of feel like that's kind of like the synopsis that somebody just suggested we do um it's all coming together and here's what I would also suggest that this be our test run for the packet MH uh because we're going to make an
official referral uh back up if it passes back up to council uh I don't think council's reviewing it at their their meeting Tuesday it's going to be pushed to the following yeah I didn't think we had much time I thought I had to get this recommendation should the board made these changes to council but
Kevin's saying it's not on the agendar correct for the Tuesday after President's Day so we have some time to get this in a a more user friendly or more intuitive form so we should we should move it uh
yeah with the revisions that we discussed so we're going to make a motion to find this draft ordinance consistent with our master plan yes and make the recommendations noted back to council prior to Second reading correct
so moved second Larry Cleveland yes Jason kesa yes John manilo yes mayor Gallagher yes council member vom yes chairperson Warner yes all right affording for uh affording
affordable housing update anything uh real know the numbers went out to uh DCA at stun we're starting to look at the fair housing plan and I I would think starting soon the BAC land adjustment
we're basically starting the process and putting the plan together and the charge was to think outside the box and be creative to find uh Creative Solutions to addressing this yeah we uh Colin put together a uh an agenda over the course
of the next five months uh between now and uh July 1 uh we're meeting weekly uh with the with folks from the uh the ad hoc and we're we're walking through it and as soon as we have something in a
shape that's ready to roll out out to planning board and Council um you know as drafts that we can start to to discuss we'll uh we'll bring everybody up to speed if I may um we're targeting to the you got to talk into the microphone you can't hear me name and
address please yeah um we're targeting to get a draft plan to this board by the end of May um Hang On by the end of March right and um
then we can discuss it it should be in public and that draft with whatever Corrections we need to make will go to council for another public review then it'll go back to the committee again and we'll we'll
tidy it up and go through the whole thing again in March early May um the plan being that we should have it complete by the end of May to meet the other deadlines that are required and both governing body well not
governing but both the planning board and the council will have to approve it yes yeah well the planning board's got to approve it and recommend it y as um an amend as part of the master plan yes yes yeah and it's got to go to Trenton
and all sorts of neat things yeah good can thank you sir can I sit down now we didn't ask you to come up so yeah that's getting a bit fresh all right my comment I really don't have any comments um actually I I am going to
bring up uh I spoke to Ryan moving forward we are just going to when the uh draft goes out please respond whether you will be in attendance or not okay so that we can track that earlier um no listen we all haven't done it and I told
them I said we're all guilty of it it's like hey if you don't hear from me I'm I'm coming well we had a little bit positive y so that's just keeps us and then it's a little bit easier for Ryan to track it also saying oh we're getting to a point where we might not be able to or how that so just to give our board
secretary a bit of a break and then me not a heart attack tonight be great and also it should be directed only to you yes and that's the other thing I say please do not reply all so I think we might need to re inform all even those that are absent that we don't reply all
on our emails it's just to you and I then okay thank you Ryan it may be good on one of our light agendas to have Cara just give a a primer lesson on Oprah uh compliance yeah that would be extremely helpful so
thank you all right I going to open up the meeting to the public for any comments comments or questions on anything that is not on tonight's agenda okay hearing none I have closed that a motion to adjourn so moved second
all in favor I I opposed