145,000 14 came home. So I They're so at the same time. >> [snorts] >> 26 terminal. >> [snorts]
>> house. wanted to share something with you. >> What's going on, baby? >> Remember we were talking about the uh six to six to 10. >> Um I did prepare and send in the bills the bill. >> Yeah. >> I mean, like I I was shocked. I have to
be honest with you. >> I was shocked how much how much time and and work I put in on it. Anyway, that's great. We should probably
All right. >> The meeting will please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been that on January 7th, 2026, a copy of the notice specifying the day, time, and location was posted on the Bolton board outside of Burough Hall,
given to the clerk administrator, mailed facts, or emailed to the Courier News and posted on the Burough website. If any member believes that this meeting is being held in violation of the Open Public Meeting Act, please state your view at this time. Hearing none, these proceedings are judicial in nature.
Proper judicial decorum must and will be maintained. Only those items on the agenda will be commented on or questions responded to. Next item. Roll call, please. >> Chairman Ardair >> here. >> Ed Alllet >> here.
>> Robera Carpinets >> here. >> Morgan McLaclin >> here. >> Rich O'Neal >> here. >> Brian Viddimky >> here. >> John Flores. Eric Alvarez. >> Store Daniels. Would someone please move that the absences of Eric, John, and
Stew be recorded as excused? >> I'll move it. >> Moved. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor? >> Roll call. Amen. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God,
indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> Jason, what's the next minutes? >> Yep. Uh, we have the minutes for June 17, 2026. >> I'll move them. >> Move. Second. Roll call, please. >> Chairman Arere, >> yes. >> Ed Alllet, >> yes.
>> Roberto Carpinets, >> yes. >> Morgan McLaclin, >> yes. >> Rich O'Neal, >> yes. >> Brian Vimsky, >> yes. >> Resolution. >> Good. We're all caught up. >> All right.
Next item. Next we have the hearing uh 2025 018Z Nan Realy Holdings LLC 79 Route 206 block 124 lot 1.01. >> Okay.
>> Good evening. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Um Jason Tubal, attorney for the applicant. Good to see everybody again. Um so we're back on this project 79 Route 206. At the last meeting you
heard testimony from our civil engineer um our architect and our um traffic engineer. So there were some comments that we received from the board. There were some comments that we received from the public and we resubmitted plans um for the board's uh consideration. Oh yeah, the bo the hearing was also
carried from the last time without further notice uh to the public. So, we took those um comments um under consideration and I think we've addressed everything that the board had asked us to to look at in the public as well. So, the first thing that we that
the board brought up and I think some members of the public as well was the trash enclosure was on the exterior of the parking lot and we were asked if we could move it underneath the building, have it screened a little bit better. So, we did that. So, that you'll hear in testimony. The other uh issue came about
having a gate on the on the property so that after hours when no employees were present um there would there couldn't be the possibility of somebody driving in and parking. So we've addressed that issue as well. Mr. Cole had asked in between meetings that we design the
storm water management so that when the board votes on the application they'll know that the storm water management was properly designed in accordance with the New Jersey rules and the and the burrow's ordinance. We've done that. And then finally, as well, we've also, I
believe, have made some architectural modifications to the aesthetic of the aesthetics of the building based on some comments that we heard as well. So, we're going to go through those items. I don't think it'll take very long because we were pretty extensive the last time. Um, so my goal, Mr. Chairman, is to
recall Mr. Mut, who was our civil engineer, have him go through some of the comments that I just discussed. Then I'll bring our um traffic engineer planner, Mr. Seckler. Uh he's done with traffic, but he will do his planning testimony um and go through some of the aesthetic changes to the building as
well as putting on his proofs uh for the for the variance criteria that we have. But procedurally, let me just ask one question before we start. I did uh reach out to uh Ryan uh before um this evening. He said there would be seven members, but I believe we only have six.
Is that the case? Yeah, we have a we we're a little short tonight. >> Okay. So, >> you want to proceed? >> Let's proceed. But I would ask that before we conclude, maybe I'll consult with Cliff before uh before we we finish, but let's uh let's I definitely
think we should get started. >> Okay. What's that? >> Oh, >> sir, you rem Mr. March, you remain under I think I hope I have that right. You remain under oath. >> Yes. >> All right. Very good, sir. >> Oh, and and just just to be sure,
everybody who's here, all six members are eligible, right? They were either present or read the transcripts on the last meeting. Okay, great. Thank you very much. All right. So, the next exhibit that I have, I don't know if the if anyone else has it any different, would be A4 is the
next exhibit I have in my in my notes. >> I believe that's correct. Uh, do you have the uh exhibit list? Uh, >> that's what I thought. Okay. All right. Great. All right. So, Paul, um, as you're getting the exhibit up, just, um, to
reiterate, you're still under oath, you acknowledge that? >> Yes, that's correct. >> And your license is still current and in good standing as a civil engineer. >> Yes. >> Great. Okay. So, why don't we cover the changes that we made um to the application based on the comments that
we received both from the board and the public. >> Yeah, absolutely. So, I'll be I'll be generally brief as we stated this evening, just kind of summarizing some of the last tweaks that we made to the civil site plans based on the feedback we've gotten and certainly based on the
comments from um from Mr. Cole on this application. So, I'll just start with a brief summary of the updates that we've made. Um, one of the one of the pieces of commentary in um the review letter was discussing
some of the signage. Um we've located along the frontage of the site um the location for a monument sign. Also on the architectural there's some generic wall signage provided. The um the signage regulations for this zone the B6
zone are pretty expansive. So anything that a typical self storage operator would bring in would certainly be compliant. We've shown the location and general layout. Um, we're going to fall well well within the the overall areas heights and things like that for this, but the intention is for a monument sign
of the driveway, which is typical. It'll be much smaller and shorter than what's permitted. You're you're allowed a 30ft pylon sign. It's not something that a typical self- storage operator would utilize here. So, we've shown that on the plan just to ensure that the board understands where it's going to be. Um,
and you'll see some of the architectural renderings as we move through as well. >> [snorts] >> Um, just to comment on that a little bit, 130 square feet, 30 feet is the size sign. We'll be will be well below that. Um, one of the big ticket items that I think is a benefit to everyone um
that we've heard from so far as far as the public is that the trash enclosure went from sort of the northwest corner outside the building closest to the residential. We've now shifted that under the building. So, it'll be fully screened and enclosed under the roof deck of the building. You'll see the
architectural renderings. There are walls with some with some um some gaps. We'll call it some screen gaps, but certainly something that no one will see or really even be able to hear the operations of that trash enclosure. Again, the self storage use will it will
not be for public use for that trash enclosure. So, this is not a high generating trash enclosure. And because of the ceiling height, I was talking a little bit to Mr. Cole before the meeting. Um it's likely that you wouldn't do a normal size dumpster either. will either do a very small dumpster or they can even do kind of the
roll out cans in there just to handle some of the office stuff. So very very low impactful operations for the trash enclosure in general and now it's under the building and entirely hidden from from the public. So I think that's a I think that's a definite benefit coming out of the last meeting. Um in addition
there was a neighbor here at the previous meeting. He's actually elected not to not to come this evening. We provided him with the updated plans. He seems satisfied. Um he is building the Dunkin Donuts to our west or page left. Um he is going to be finished with his
construction before we install the connection for our sanitary sewer pipe. And the sanitary sewer pipe previously ran into his lot and under where his proposed trash enclosure is. There's actually a manhole in the middle of his trash enclosure at the rear of the property. We have discussed with that
neighbor to just move that connection point outside of his trash enclosure. It'll take a small area and I can highlight it a little bit here. You can see this little hatched area back here. A small amendment to the um the easement that allows for our use there. The
neighbor is open to that and we'll coordinate that with him. But essentially, it just allows us to align our connection to the existing infrastructure outside of what will be his completed construction. Um so we're not disturbing brand new installed construction at that time. and also it
prevents our need to get into his trash enclosure if there's ever an issue in that line. We're kind of entirely independent of his of his development at that point. So, um another positive um item that came out of the meeting is just being able to talk with the neighbor, work with him, and come up with a solution that works and he didn't
feel he needed to come to the meeting to talk about it, which is, you know, I think a sign in and of itself. We've upgraded the landscaping. Um, I don't have the old rendering in front of me, but in general, there's there's plantings along the rear that we're looking at now. We've sort of replaced
the trash enclosure with some additional trees just to kind of expand that buffer. The buffer is pretty expansive going to the neighbors already. There's a there's a, you know, there's a mature forest there that's going to remain. We're not tearing down any trees as part of this application. We're not allowed
to. Everything that is undeveloped today um is encumbered by D. So, we're leaving all the existing mature trees. Um, but what we did do is we made some upgrades along the frontage. We've added street trees. We've dressed up the foundation of the building in a more substantial
way. So, that corridor as you come down Route 206. Um, the aesthetics there will be certainly a great improvement over what's there today, but something that really complements the architecture, and you'll see that in some of the 3D renderings that that our planner will be
pre presenting this evening. Um, one of the items that we talked about and you've heard a little bit about already is just gate gated entrances and exits for underneath the building really for after hours to avoid any issues of kind of having a a dark
underbuilding. Um, so we have gates provided for the ingress and egress. Um, in response to in coordination of one of the comments from uh Mr. Cole is that we're looking for a way that let's say there was a there was a scenario where somebody comes after hours, no
employees, they pull onto the site. Currently, we have the gate shown right at the edge. You'll see that on the architecturals. Um, but that presents the issue of where do you go if you can't get in? Um, so we talked a little bit about providing a K turn and some pavement up front to allow that to happen. It just didn't feel like it fit
with the aesthetics that we were going for. It's wasted pavement. So, what we've explored and discussed already is just taking that gate and and kind of extending it in up into just past the ADA parking space. So, you won't be able to get to the rear units when that gate
is down. There'll be essentially walls up so you you can't get into the office and and get under the building, but we'll leave that ADA space open. So in those late night afterhour employees can then or afterhour visits when there's no employees you can pull in pull into the
ADA space and make your K turn without having to back on Route 206. And we'll obviously coordinate that with your board professional but the intention is there are no backing movements on Route 206. That's the primary concern that we heard the primary concern that we intend to address um in totality.
Um, and finally, some of the more, you know, the engineering nerdy side of things is that, you know, you heard testimony from Mr. Cole last time that the Somerville's storm water regulations are more stringent than what the D would require. So, in the interim between the
last meeting and this meeting, we have um fully upgraded the storm water management system to provide for the D regulations for a major development um per the per the bureau's um code. So that includes an underground basin um
that will collect the roof runoff um infiltrate a portion of it into the ground and then anything that's not infiltrated will be then discharged to the same location where it was being before into the into the side of the site and into the wetlands. So, the good thing again, just to reiterate on the
storm water management plan, we currently have a site that is um paved parking area that flows untreated and undetained into the wetlands around the site. We are now replacing the vast majority of that pavement with clean
roof runoff. That clean runoff is now going into a basin, which will reduce the overall volume and peak flow rates that are flowing to that wetland. So, previously it was a it was a benefit and now it's kind of what I'll call a supercharged benefit for this site because you're going to have detention,
water quality treatment, and a lot of clean runoff going to that wetland where I'll call, you know, there's now dirty runoff and kind of just undetained runoff going today. So, um there's some testing that needs to be done just to to validate that that the storm water plan
works, but all of that is a sort of a will comply with your board professionals letter. We'll do the testing if the board looks upon this application um favorably and we'll address all of the comments in the letter. Um there's nothing in there that we take any issue
with and we can comply with all of the comments in the engineering review letter um as we move through this meeting. So with that, that's everything that I direct Jason. >> Yeah. Just to be clear, too, um anything that you haven't addressed in Mr. Cole's letter, that's a technical comment you
will we will comply with. >> Yes, absolutely. And just to be clear, because we got a revised letter, that's Mr. Kohl's letter dated June 25th, 2026. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. >> All right. And then we also received today, this afternoon, the letter from the fire official.
>> Yes. >> Can you just speak to that as well? >> Yeah, there were there were a couple of questions. Well, I guess there was two comments in the letter. The first comment was dealing with the fact that we've identified that fire hydrant that's directly in front of the site. They concurred that another fire hydrant is not needed. It's in the perfect spot.
They'll utilize that for that. And I believe there was a question about sprinkler systems in there. Um, and we'll work with the fire department to make sure that we're we're complying with all of the sprinkler systems for the site as well. >> And um, I've been told by the architect that we'll comply with that request on the sprinkler system as well.
>> Excellent. >> Okay. So, I just wanted Mr. Much to address those items. So, I think that's it. We touched upon the u the trash enclosure relocation, the gates, the additional landscaping um and the storm water management design. So, um we were happy to answer
any questions that you may have. >> Anybody from the board have any questions on Mr. Much's testimony? >> I do. So, can you go back to the flooding? >> Yes. >> In the last four years ago,
Yeah. >> In Ida, based on the level that your parking lot is right now, how much of the land was underwater? >> I think it was about um a foot and a half of water on the existing site.
We're lowering in some spots um to make sure that the flood storage works. But just to comment a little bit on IDA, the the new storm water rules that we have to comply with as part of this application were essentially written for the IDA situation. like some where the flood waters went to IDA is basically
where the maps have been rewritten. So, our site will flood. Um we understand that it's part of the process. Um we will have to do some flood proofing on the building. That is all within um the purview of the NJP. We are required to
and and will obtain permits for everything we're doing on this site from the D for those new elevated IDA level storm water or I mean um flood hazard regulations. We have another item >> when we have another
>> when [laughter] we know it's coming two feet of that property is going to be totally out of >> Yeah. plus or minus and again I don't have the exact grading plan but plus or minus. Um previously before they raised the flood levels this site was mostly out of the flood and then essentially
the entire parking lot for Ida after Ida for the new storm rules is now you know of varying degrees of flood waters. Yes, the site will flood as part of what the applicant um has to do with the D as essentially two choices for this building. He can dry flood proof it,
which means he put up some flood barriers in front of doors. He'll have an emergency action team that comes in when there's going to be a big storm like that um and seals up the whole building. He also has the option here to to wet floodproof portions of it as well. And he'll make those decisions as
we work through with the D, but wet flood proofing means you just let the water come in and go out. So there's certain strategic areas you can do that to balance where you're going to drive flood proof. Um but all things that we commonly run into with the D um that will permit exactly what we're doing here. And that's why it's so unique
here. We only can have a certain footprint. We got to raise the the rest above because you don't want the first floor entirely within the flood. >> Go through the dry flood proofing again. I know you described that at the last meeting. >> Yeah. So a a lot of the times what we use for the dry flood proofing is it's
essentially like a Lincoln log system. You put these posts on anywhere that there's an entrance on the site. So doors, entrances to storage units and you essentially have these posts that fit together and hold the floodwaters back. I actually just did one that just
got installed down in Wildwood for a Waw Wa that's in the flood down there. Um, and what that does is just it prevents the flood waters from getting into the areas of the building that can be penetrated by water. Um, so it's doors, sometimes it's windows, you know, sometimes fancier residential windows
can withstand. Um, but for something like this, we have the units and and two or three door entrances that will have those essentially areas where you can stack up those Lincoln logs three feet to keep the flood waters out of those vulnerable areas. >> Okay. And then the first floor building
part of it, that's going to be concrete. >> Yes. >> And when the water comes up two feet on the property, it can't get into the concrete, but it can get into the door. >> And that is a requirement that we'll have to show the D that the that anywhere outside of the building
penetrations, the doors and things like that is is can is built in a way that can withstand flood waters. So, it's a little bit more of a premium for the applicant obviously than just your traditional building, but it's something that we have to fully vet out with the
NJ. Is it up to us to say whether it's dry or wet or we have to do >> it's a use fair. So, >> that's now the trash enclosure I think previous
testimony that you said that there's going to be two people that are on site. >> One to two. Yeah. >> One to two. All right. And you have this trash uh exposure there, but you're not going to allow anybody to use it other than the office people,
>> right? >> And I can't imagine that one or two office people are going to need a dumpster. >> No, we to we totally agree with that. And it's the conversation we had with your engineer prior to this is that, you know, we put a trash enclosure because typically they're outside of the
building, you want it to be aesthetic, but I would anticipate a use like this, especially as they work with the private hauler to do it under the building. We'll have roll out residential cans rather than a dumpster because you're not going to be able to lift the dumpster above the roof underneath this and you just don't need it. We just want
an aesthetic place to put, you know, the cans or whatever we're doing. >> And we also need to lock them up. Just one last thing because we don't want people coming in moving their boxes and throwing all their stuff in. Like that area is locked off from the public. So you need something, but I agree with
you, a dumpster is likely unnecessary. >> And that's why we made it like really really small. And like Paul was saying, it's just like you would take out your trash at your house. You just want to put it in an area that's just shielded so it's not exposed to the >> Okay. And then at night when the office people leave and they lock up and the
gate is down, there are no vehicles on the property open. >> That's correct. >> That's correct. Yeah, I think we went over that the last time, but good point. That that is correct. >> Yeah. And there's no there's no boat storage, RV storage, anything like that
going on underneath the building. This is all interior to the building storage. >> Yeah. Morgan is basically a building within the building. >> Okay. The 5,000 square foot ground floor which mimics the diner essentially >> and the bigger area with the footprint which is elevated. And I we we haven't
gotten to it yet with the architect, but I think there's going to be blowout walls that the exterior 20,700 foot building, that footprint needs to to allow water into it. >> Yes. And I can comment on that a bit as well is that
>> similarly to you know the building itself um when we have those exterior walls that we're doing for screening and aesthetics and to kind of enclose the underneath there needs to be enough area and it's a calculation we do with the D and it's shown on our plans that allows
floodwaters to enter and exit the site because you don't want the flood waters to come in and not be able to get out. So a lot of so they're kind of serving a dual purpose. They're an aesthetic feature of the architecture, but they also allow flood waters to come in and leave the site. Because in a scenario
like this, we can't build a solid wall because this is a fluial flood zone. And if we reduce the flood storage on our site, it makes flooding worse somewhere downstream. >> So, we have to essentially accept all the flood waters that were coming if there was nothing on this site. Um or
really you can you can manage it against the diner but you have to allow all the water that was coming before to come onto the site which is why we have those gaps in the walls. It I would anticipate here as well you may have to put a couple of flood vents as well just to make sure that we're complying with that calculation we do with the D.
>> So just throw this concept out. You get a lot of square footage here. You have a lot of stories that are going up. How about eliminating the first floor? the first >> you only have 5,000 square feet compared to what >> 20,000.
>> Yeah. So, the first floor, I mean, it's its primary function is obviously you need an office, you need an elevator, you need corridors to get there. Um, and then just based on the codes that we have with the NJ, you can mimic what was there previously as far as the area when
we're doing our calculations for flood storage. So, there was some additional space there that we're utilizing. But yet when the water comes, you still have that footprint of 5,000 square feet. >> Yeah, certainly. And and but that area
is going to fully comply with everything the D has on flood storage and regulations for this site. >> Yeah. And you could build a retail establishment here of one story, like a Dunkin Donuts or something like that. like you could. It's not as if the first
floor that's I was going to ask Paul to kind of go off of what you were saying. The fact that we're doing this type of building here versus a shopping center or something like that is actually beneficial based on the line of questioning you're asking because it allows for the flood waters to kind of
go through dissipate. It it kind of leaves more room for the flood. Correct. >> Yeah. Essentially, anything that was built on this site would have the same would we'd be limited to the same footprint that we have. Um, and then you would have to you would have to floodp proof that it was a retail use or or or
anything else. So, you know, we're just trying to make the site viable for the applicant. And this is the this is the footprint that we're permitted to have uh per all of the D regulations. >> Yeah. And we're happy like um Mr. Mr. Cole was saying when we have to finalize
those items with the D that both Mike and Paul will have to deal with to keep Mr. Cole in the loop on those items and get make sure that he's on board with what we're submitting to D and that's fine. >> What What do you mean by breakaway walls? >> Um I didn't say breakaway walls, but
there um there are no breakaway walls on this. >> No. So, the the walls that we have, the exterior of this building, and you'll see it in the architectures, is that there's solid walls that are just solid walls, and then there's there's gaps that allow that both are aesthetic and also and allow for air flow, like you've
seen in some of the comments in the letter for being essentially a parking garage under this building, >> following those regulations, but also to allow flood water in and out. So, there's no breakaway walls. Um, the building will be will have to withstand all of the flood. will have to prove that to the D as part of this.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I've got a question with the the gaps in the wall. Maybe I misunderstood what you said, but you're permitting water to get into this building and to escape the building. Am I right so far? >> Yes. The exterior. So, we were talking about dry and wet flood proofing that
center 5,000 square feet. Separate conversation. You have to for any of these aesthetic walls. Either Well, we have two options. We could just put the whole building on stilts and leave the bottom open. Obviously, we've talked about some security things. We want that to be enclosed. So then we just have to provide enough room to let the flood
waters flow in and out. >> If you've got storage on that first level >> and the flood waters come in, does Antilly's tet go down the river? >> No. So everything will obviously in a in an emergency like that, the doors will be locked. Um, and then depending on how
we do this, you'll either you'll either have flood proofing in front of the doors that doesn't allow the the the flood waters in or in certain portions it may flow in, but it's all designed to keep nothing is going to float down, I guess, is what you're that's certainly not something that's permissible and not something that would be, you know,
allowed by the D to happen. And you'll have to have you'll have to have a team that when there is a flood or there is that large storm, they respond to it, set up the site for that type of thing. Sometimes these floods come before we know it. We don't get a lot of warning.
Idaho was a prime example of that. We had no idea that was coming until it was here. >> But like but like Paul said, the the regs were designed or changed based on that storm. >> Oh, I get that. I understand the regs. I deal with regs. No problem. I get it. >> But all I'm concerned about is you got
storage down there. It's going to get flooded. What's where's it going to go? >> It's going to stay in the building. There won't there won't be any open doors. There won't be anything that can flow in and out of the building that wouldn't be controlled. So, we're not going to have >> things inside the storage units flowing
out in a flood situation. That's certainly not what's going to happen. >> So, the the occupant of that storage, that's their problem. It's not going to leak into this. >> Yeah. And certainly anybody that leases here and the applicant is aware of the of the flooding risk and they will be made um aware of what happens if there
is an IDA or something like that. Absolutely. because we had about 14 seconds notice on IDA. So there was no getting a team out. >> Yeah. And certainly and and I know that you know this um this team will certainly operate this in an above board way.
>> So legally do you have to notify the tenants up front that if a flood comes in your stuff gets damaged it's your responsibility? >> It's we certainly have to make them aware. I'm not I'm not privy to how the leases are written for these. That's just not outside my purview. But from
the D regulations, not only for the parking that's below the flood, but anything that's going to be impacted by the floods, you would have to notify um those people. Absolutely. >> What's the least say? >> I I don't know if that's I wouldn't I've never gotten into that issue. Um
I have no idea what it would say. I have no idea what it would say. >> Here's the issue. So >> that's more of a business issue, I would say, than a land use issue because you're really talking about liability. like who would pay for somebody's item if it got destroyed? You know, I think that's more of like a liability issue.
But I think what Paul was saying is that the D flood areas have to be signed appropriately. So there have So if you rented your unit on the first floor, there have to be signs posted that say this floor in a flood may whatever. And
so people would be put on notice is my point. >> So if you drove through Somerville after Ida, you would have [snorts] thought that there was a You don't have to talk to me about Ida. I lost my house and three cars. I had to basically My whole life was changed. So
you don't have to. We The more we talk about Ida, the more I get a little upset about it, but >> Yeah. I lost Yeah. So I I know I I'm very much aware of it. >> So I don't know what you did with all your stuff, but many of our residents just put it right out on the curb and
the town was then responsible. FEMA had to come in and it was And it took us a long time to clean up. So what I'm concerned with is if we don't have to have something like that because we know it's going to come and it's going to happen again
>> and we're already identifying that. >> But what I would say to you is this and speaking from experience on how I had to deal with losing couches and furniture and all all these things that you're talking about. But my house, which was built in the
1950s that I was living in, did not have any of these floodproofing, dry flood proofing. It wasn't subject to any of these regulations that this project is going to be constructed to. So, yeah, I had to rent a dumpster and put my stuff that was destroyed in a dumpster. I had to do
that. But here you have rules that are now contemplating these types of storms that my house didn't have that was built and I'm sure all these other homes that you're referencing of course didn't have either. So we're we're we're designing for that based on the D regulations.
>> I understand the concern completely, but my point to you back to you on that is that all Paul's testimony is basically saying we're planning for that and designing for that. >> I just want to mention >> you're not proofing it. No, that that that's not >> We are flip. Absolutely.
>> Yeah. What he's saying what he's saying and let's let's I'll I'll summarize as a lay person and make sure I'm saying it [laughter] right and he could say it. The the garage with the parking lot, water can get in there and then water recedes when the flood goes down. That's what those openings in the in the walls
are for. You let the water in so you so that you don't displace water to other properties and then it goes out. Correct. >> Yes, that's correct. Okay. So that's it's essentially two different areas. It's the exterior and then it's the interior. >> So now you're talking about the 5,000 square feet on the first floor. So now
we're talking about the interior space. That is what Paul is saying is floodproofed so that you have two options like you said. Dry floodproof which means the water doesn't go in and wet floodproof which some of it gets in. Correct. Just explain that again.
>> Yeah. So, so in strategic areas and I again I'm just leaving this um so there's some flexibility as we work with the D on on the floodp proofing for this but there's strategic areas in the building that doesn't necessarily need to be dry floodp proofed. Um I would
anticipate we'll dry floodp proof the units. I don't know that for sure. We have to work with the D. There's certain approvals that we'll have to get from them. Um but the intention is the the the important spaces are dry floodp proofed um and areas where maybe there's a crawl space or something else you can let water come in and out.
>> Yeah. And your question before to Michael which was whether we have to decide this now and Michael's response to you was it's a use variance which meant you have more discretion here because it's it's a use variance application. So we could talk to the client about make and we can take a
break later. Maybe as Paul indicated, we can drive floodp proof the specific areas that have the stored items so that water doesn't get into those areas. >> I'd like to say something. I've been interrupt interrupted a couple times, but >> sure. >> Um, >> I just want to remind the board that
when it makes this determination, whatever it's going to be, that part of its charge under the MLU is public safety, health, and welfare. And so, you know, that you know, I understand what the applicant is presenting and I certainly don't want to
minimize what you went through personally, but I'm just saying from a legal standpoint, the decision you make, you know, nothing we're talking about here mitigates that duty that the board has. So, that's my statement on it. I feel like we're getting away from that a
little bit and I don't want to. I mean, I'll let the applicant respond to what I said, but I I >> And Morgan, to to address your some of your concerns, we're talking about I think it's fair to say less than 2 ft of water on the ground units. I think
that's fair, Paul. >> Yes. >> Potential flood. Correct. I think that's a fair statement. >> It might be a little bit more because of flood hazard elevation. It might be three feet, but right now the design has the first floor at grade. No steps, no
nothing. To minimize the flood, you could put one step and do a ramp or something just to raise it a foot. So the flood damage might be less than a foot as opposed to two feet. That would obviously you don't want
steps moving stuff in. So that would right I would say that would evolve ramping which may take up flood hazard area within the zone. So, it might be a challenge from the DP, but we're just talking a few feet here is what I'm
gathering. I'm not we're not talking eight feet. Uh I think it's in the report. I might be wrong on that. It might be more like three or four feet flood hazards versus >> the the the vast majority as you get to sort of the the corner closest to the
wetlands, it's it's closer to two feet. as you get to the the corner that's farthest from the wetlands, it's it's more like six inches in the flood. So, it varies over over the course uh of it. But yeah, to to Michael's point, it's going to be about 2 feet of flood hazard
area at some of the doors and then we'll have to flood proof to a foot above that as well. Um, as part of this, it's just that that's part of the D regulations is to go a foot above the design elevation. So those 17 units that are on the first
upt >> if the applicant made the decision to wet flood proof them, but I don't I don't anticipate that's the direction we would go. The the dry flood proofing in those kind of Lincoln lungs I talked about are not a very expensive thing.
Um, so I would anticipate now we haven't we haven't talked to the DP. That's why I'm being a little bit vague like they're going to have the ultimate. >> You are being a little bit vague >> like you know on the ultimate the ultimate decision will be coordination with the D. So we're going to have a lot of review there. Now my anticipation is
is that we will dry floodp proof all of the storage units to not allowed flood waters in there. That makes sense to me. >> Um >> yeah, my client just indicated we'll dry floodproof that first floor so that there's no water that gets in there. doesn't sound like a guarantee. I guess
what I'm looking at is that Rich said these terms come up pretty quick. It's human nature. You're going to rely on somebody to say, "Hey, we're going to get it." We just lost in the town of Somerville. We lost a million dollar.
>> We had no idea that was coming that quickly, right? The same can happen here. And I think the issue is that these 17 units, whether they get water in them or not, if there's a foot or two water, you're going to have mold. Next thing we're going to see is your curb
out on Route 206 filled with stuff and you're going to want the burrow to take care of that stuff. That puts undue hardship on the bur. >> All I would say to you to that, and I understand the point, is that would be the case with any use that you now develop in the flood. any any if
you had a store, if you had a a restaurant, if you had that would be applicable to anything. So, I mean, you're you're you're going to build one-story buildings along 206 in the flood and you're going to have that would apply to all of those. I mean, so
we we have a very small the first floor is not all storage. There's obviously common areas, there's an office, there's things like that as well. So, it's not So, out of that 5,000, it's not the whole 5,000. >> 17 units. >> No, no, I understand. But I'm saying like square footage wise is what I'm saying. It's not a it's not significant.
Whereas, if you put a restaurant there, if you put a retail store, you'd have the same issue. It's all that that's all. You'd have goods and things, materials that are that are also prone to flood to flooding as well. It would no matter what you put there, it's going to flood. And that's why we've agreed to
dry floodproof it. Wouldn't it make more sense just to take those 17 units and put them upstairs or nowhere and not have to even have this flood proofing, not have to put the expense in? I don't I'm not the businessman here that does the economics, but it seems to me
>> I think you'd have to have the flood proofing regardless because there'd have to be an entrance to the building there because you'd still have to have a lobby, an elevator, you you'd have to have the office down there. So, you would still have those things there. You're just talking specifically about those 17 units. >> Yeah.
Why would you have to have the office there? >> Could it be on the second floor? It's elevator handicapped access. >> I I'd have to ask. I mean, it it it seems like we're picking at this even though we're complying with all the D
regulations and going above and beyond and agree to drive floodproof it. But if it's a concern of the board, we'll ask the client. >> I don't think we're being picky with the D. The D has continually revised these things. I spent 44 years in the fire department and I saw the D change a lot
of things and they based it on history. What just happened last week? Okay, we'll change the rules. So, I mean, it's it's just about >> No, I understand your planning. You I get it. We have the hundredyear storm now every 5 years or 10 years. I I I I hear >> it is a major issue in this municipality. So, it is
>> Okay. I I I I hear you loud and clear. Let me speak to the client about it. Is that fair? >> Yeah, please. >> Okay. Is that fair, Mr. McGlaughlin? Mr. O'Neal. Okay. >> Okay. Any other I'm sorry, we spent a lot of time on the flood. Any other questions for for Paul?
>> Anybody else have any questions on this? >> Anyone from the audience have any questions of the testimony just given? Questions on the testimony? >> Come forward. State your name, address, please. >> Yep. Joe Pomar, 77 Washington Place. And
um so this is the time for questions. >> Questions? >> Correct. >> Questions about the testimony given by the witness, >> right? So is there a um >> there'll be a time for comments? >> Yeah, understood. >> No comments. >> Understood. >> Okay.
>> Uh yeah. So the um so Paul, you were saying you haven't yet spoken to the D. Is that correct? We've had a pre-application meeting, but we have not made a formal submission obviously based we wanted to get through this process first. >> So, is there any chance that you would
go to the D and they would say this property floods and obviously we can't develop this use here? >> We as a as a firm have extensive experience with the D and their permitting practices, especially with the new rules. So, we've designed this
site to comply and we we have a high level of confidence that um they will approve the design as shown. >> Have have you or the applicant considered um an environmental hazard in the event of floodwaters coming through
17 units there? Let's say somebody stores photographic chemicals in there or some other um uses because there are my home is uh is [snorts] 200 ft from the site here. So, um, since we've had
the, uh, the impermeable liner put under the, uh, the green seam, that wetlands area actually fills up, not even on an IDA style storm, but it becomes a lake. And I'm concerned about if you had a
flood like Ida, um, and you had a discharge of environmentally sensitive chemicals into that, you know, what risk are we, the public? Yeah, I mean the leases for these types of uses don't allow for the storage of any environmentally sensitive or hazardous
chemicals materials. And again, we've talked about the dry flood proofing to prevent the water from getting in and out of there. So um again, obviously the D is also is also focused on that sort of thing. So it'll be part of their review um of the application as well,
>> right? So reference was made to I think the phrase was um public safety, health and welfare. And you know, my concern is that some someone stores something in there unbeknownst to to you all and it it basically impacts the neighborhood
there. Um, and I guess last question, Paul, did you um uh and I'm not sure if this is an appropriate question. Uh, Mike Pro sent over the photographs that he referenced in the last meeting. Uh Mike is a resident of Washington Place
showing the flooding at the site during Ida and I'm wondering whether you had a chance to look at that because it was a uh a very robust flood. Uh the 206 was was closed at exactly at your site and the photo two photographs that Mike
submitted show uh the property underwater and I would say to a greater extent than two feet just visually looking at it. Yeah, I have not had the chance to review those photos, but the D rules that we are designing this site to
are the latest and greatest and are in direct response to the elevations and flood hazard areas that were associated with IDA. So what I would say is that the D is looking forward and and looking to pre prevent or you know develop lands
responsibly with those flood elevations in mind and this plan specifically is designed to comply with those regulations. >> Okay. And then last question is um to to follow up on what Mr. O'Neal had said. Ida as just one example came upon very
suddenly. So, you have a crew that has to put the the flood gates in place. But what happens if in the case like Ida, it's 11 p.m., it's 12:00 p.m. and there hasn't been a good meteorological warning and and uh a lot of the flooding
that occurred in Ida really occurred in the middle of the night. >> Any use that goes here would have to deal with the same issue. It it's not specific to this, >> right? But it wouldn't be 17 units, Jason. Sure. It might be a diner with a
kitchen. >> Sure. With food and perishable items and things like that or it could be with cooking oil and other things. So, I guess my point to you is it's a B6 zone. Any use you put there is going to have to deal with these flood regulations and
we're complying with them, >> right? Um, okay. I'll, you know, rather than debate that point, I just want to, you know, make sure that we understand that what Mr. O'Neal said was a lot of these things happen without warning and
at time of the night when people aren't aren't around. Uh when I woke up the morning after Ida I I was on my house was on an island and um Washington place was closed. So >> goodness. >> Uh anyway, thanks.
>> Anyone else have any questions of the testimony by Mr. >> M? Okay. >> Okay. So, our last witness is our professional planner, U Matt Seckler. And I'll have Matt um go through some of
the architectural changes and then the planning testimony. >> Do you mean go through the planning testimony to the >> Mr. W testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth. So, help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. Uh, Matthew
Secler, that's SEC Kle with Stonefield Engineering Design. Address is 92 Park Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. >> Thank you, Mr. Sackler. Uh, Mr. Tuvel, your witness, sir. >> Sure. I think we we qualified you as a traffic engineer the last time, but we should qualify you as a professional planner. Can you just go through your
correct qualifications as well? >> Certainly. I have a masters in city regional planning from Ruckers University as a planner. I have been uh testifying for over six years as a planner in the state of New Jersey and been accepted for over 75 boards in the state as a professional planner including this board I think at least on
one occasion. >> Yes. >> Okay. Would the board accept uh Mr. Seckler? >> Yes, we will. >> Okay. So, Matt, in preparation of this application, you visited the site in the surrounding area. >> Yes, I have. I also reviewed all the plans uh that our office had prepared
along with the architectural uh firm's uh plans as well. also reviewed the master plan documents, the zoning ordinance uh as well as obviously looked back at some old aerial photographs uh to get an understanding of what was on the site previously to you know my engagement on this project.
>> Okay. So why don't we speak to the [clears throat] changes made to the building first and then we can get deeper into the planning testimony. >> Certainly. And again uh this is >> I don't have there screen's back. >> Yeah, we're up to A6. A6. [cough] And I don't want to take any credit for what
you'll see as these beautiful renders. >> I'm sorry, A5. I'm sorry. >> A5. >> Yeah. >> This is A5. >> This is A5. >> Yeah. >> This is prepared by USA Architects. Um it's a um set of images and you'll see it includes both the floor plans or perspective potential floor plans for
the site along with some uh images showing the materials that are proposed as well as I think there were some questions regarding uh some of the rooftop screenings. Uh so again, we could kind of walk through that as well. The key aspect of this again I'm not the architect in the project but I did want to highlight the enhanced visual
environment aspect of um you know the purposes of planning so I do want to highlight uh really how this uh site will look well and function well uh both the site civil plan that you saw Mr. Much present in terms of the landscaping and that type of design as well as obviously the building itself.
Um again uh the first sheet is the floor plan that you we must discuss 17 units on the ground floor and again the remainder of the ground floor is I would say uh circulation space, elevator, lobby, toilet uh and kind of that common area as well.
The second sheet uh this is a potential proposed floor plan uh of the second through fifth floor. Again, as you kind of notice as was mentioned earlier, you have a small 5,000 foot first floor. Then basically the building um expands to its uh full limits uh on the floors
above. Again, this is a representative mix of the type of units that would be um proposed. Again, the final unit mix will likely be done uh closer to uh construction documents as you know they work with kind of marketing teams to get understanding of in the area or people
looking for more small units, large units, things of that nature. This is the rooftop. Uh and again um again not the architect but I do want to highlight is the rooftop screening just to orientate everybody um uh the uh jug
handle at Orlando is basically located on the right side of this page that is where the rooftop equipment is located mo uh extensively uh the residential communial in Washington that would be on the far leftand corner of this page. So again, rooftop equipment is on the right side, furthest from the residential. And
if I could figure out how to zoom in without screwing up too much. That was not where I wanted to go. Uh but again, you'll see um you know, the way that the rooftop is screened, any of the equipment has um obviously uh um
blocking uh around it. But again, residents, they're all the way located on the far side of the building. So this is not an area they would see. It would be more so if people are driving by on route 206 and again they'll see the screening now instead of any type of rooftop equipment. In terms of what people would see uh
when driving by I think I skipped the page just no did not. Um what you see here uh the top image is the front of the building. What you would see from Route 206 as you can see the entry here that is the um uh obvious the access uh
under the building as was mentioned by Mr. Mut. there would be a uh gate uh when the site is closed or when there's not an um someone in the office located interior to that um access point. Uh a couple other items that Mr. Mut mentioned uh the uh building mounted
sign you can see here it says you know uh it's a uh sign that says self storage. It's about 55 square feet again located on the Route 206 facade. There's no signage towards any of the residential community obviously focused on the customers that'll be driving by on Route 206. And then we have the
monument sign which again I will try to see if I could zoom in a little more. Monument sign itself uh the actual text um is about 5 1/2 square feet. It's uh 18 8 and 1/2 ft long and about 7 and 12
inches high. Uh we just have a uh it just says self storage for now. Obviously would have a brand name in the future. Uh but again the key aspect here is this is a five foot high monument sign versus any type of huge pylon sign that is regularly permitted within the R
six uh in the B6 zone. Uh so again uh you know we're trying to be modest with the uh signage that we're proposing and again uh just want to provide you that visual. The sign itself will match the materials of the building. In terms of the materials of the building um this area and you'll see a colorized a little
colorized version after this. Uh these are metal panels that are meant to look like wood. So they're kind of woodlike looking. Uh again to try to soften the u the look of the building and the size of the building. All the exterior glazing here um is opaque glass. So it would not be shining. Any lights that are inside
would not be shining out. Uh essentially helps break up the facade but does not provide you know any type of glaring uh or uh anyone be able to see in or any of the lighting in the inside shining out. So in terms of you know at night there's not going to be any type of glow from the inside of the building here. Uh
you'll see in a later image when we show the nighttime image of the building uh you'll see that they we've added some uh ground mounted um uh building mounted lighting uh sorry building mounted lighting on the ground floor level uh that kind of again shines down to
provide a little bit more of pedestrian uh look to the building itself. Um just kind of now rotating the building. This is now the back of the building. Uh what you see here and I don't need AI to assist. Um what you see here is what Mr. Mut mentioned in terms of uh the way
that the ground floor building has some openings in it so that water can uh flow through in the areas where it's not an actual unit itself. Um you could also see that um uh we've extended those materials. You know the uh undulating woodlike uh uh aluminum panels extend
throughout the entire building. This is the rear. This is basically facing the wetlands and the um in the rear of the site. Sorry, just want to get to the next image. This has that nighttime and daytime look
from Route 206. Again, this gives you a little bit more of a look of the building. Again, I don't know how well you guys can see on the screens, but you could see that the uh aluminum paneling again has that kind of brownish woodish look itself. the ground floor with the split block face uh you know has both a
texture to it but also is meant to look kind of earthy matching the building above but also uh not providing uh anything of too showy of a color. And then on the bottom image you could see the building which would be quite attractive at night uh again with the mix of um lighting that shines up the up the building itself and then the ground
level lighting that is shining down again to provide a little bit more of that streetscape look along 206. Um, as you can see in these images, just to remind everybody, that rooftop equipment that's located basically behind where this sign is that says self storage. Um, and again, the Dunkin
Donuts is over here on the left hand side of this image. And the residents on Washington would be, uh, kind of the back left corner of the page. And again, obviously, uh, you know, if there's more extensive architecture testimony here, we have architects here. I just wanted to show this in terms of
how the fact that I find this uh both an attractive site both from uh kind of the streetscape and the landscaping that are that's being proposed as well as the building itself. Uh I think it kind of fits uh in with the area in terms of the the materials. Again, it's not too modern of a building, but again uses
modern uh techniques, I think, to provide a sleek looking building here. um kind of getting a little bit more uh into the planning and I'm going to roll back into um the the site plan here. I think one of the aspects of this application uh
that we need to remember is that this site is extensively limited due to the fact that we do are not only in the flood but we also have uh the wetlands uh in the whole basically back right corner from a environmental perspective but also from a zoning perspective the actual buildable area and
>> we're on we're on A4 here right Matt >> A4 yes and I know I'm going to screw this up again so let me the actual buildable area within the setbacks is this very small triangle that's about 1,500 square feet of buildable areas. This
little triangle. So, if we were going to build a site that's compliant with your setbacks, not only is it about 3/4 within a wetlands that we can't build, but also it's this very very small triangle basically uh requiring us to get C variances as it relates to
setbacks. um you know your 150 foot front yard setback that's required as part of the zone again puts us into really a non-buildable area. Uh so um as we go through the variances a lot of the variances a lot of the C variances kind of relate to the fact that we are dealing with a hardship uh because of
the environmental constraints on the property as well as you know there being really no buildable area uh to construct in this property. Now, in terms of the use itself, because we are here seeking a use variance, um, as was mentioned, we are in the B6 zone. Uh, the B6 zone uh
is a uh shopping center uh kind of commercial zone. Uh, so it does allow for a lot of uses that are a little more intense than what we're proposing here. Um, also uh you are permitted some significant height in the zone. I think that is uh important aspect of this application uh to remember that this is
again not a a um district that is intended to be um passive. It's intended to generate traffic to generate uh business. And again, I think we're trying to balance that with the difficulties that we have with the environmental constraints on this property. terms of permitted uses in the
B6 zone, offices, restaurants, hotels, health services, child care centers, uh retail establishments, all of those things are permitted in with this zone. I also think it's interesting that public storage and warehousing is an accessory permitted use in the zone. So
while we are not permitted in this zone as a principal use, it is recognized that kind of storage activities that are associated with a permitted permit permitted principal use is allowed in the zone. So the idea of storing items is not you know I would say uh
inherently against what the ordinance contemplated uh but it is clearly not listed as a principal permitted use. We went through extensive testimony uh um regarding um the um traffic uh that is generated by a site like this. And I
would kind of re uh remind the board that in terms of all those uses that I mentioned, the B6 zone, nearly all of them have double, triple, maybe four times the amount of traffic. Some of those uses generate more traffic in an hour than in the self storage generates an entire day. I think that's important
along 206 where obviously it is a heavy travel corridor. uh can be very busy in terms of the amount of traffic. So, being able to put in a use that kind of brings, you know, that is a a business and a it's a a use that brings revenue to the community um while also not
multiplying uh the amount of traffic on the road, I think is is important and beneficial. I'd also note that in terms of this site location, while our driveway has good sight distance coming in and out, kind of as you travel north, uh the road kind of kinks to the right as you get towards the next intersection. So you do have some
difficulty with um you know sight distance as you get closer to the intersection north of here um while those vehicles are backed up. So I do think it's an area where uh while we have good sight distance it is a corridor that uh is a little ge geometrically challenged uh in terms of
providing proper sight distance further down the line. So again not increasing the levels of traffic to high levels I think are very important. Um so again when evaluating this site from a a D1 perspective uh we need to identify that there are special reasons and um with
this application as long as showing that there is uh the site is is suitable and we have to meet the threshold of site suitability all that is outlined is within the Medici standard. Um one of the aspects of this uh application that we do think this site is particularly suited is the fact that there is unique
geometry and unique physical and environmental constraints. As was mentioned, um this is an application that really you're only allowed to have about 5,000 square foot of ground floor. So you have this nice big property, um you know, multiple acres in size, uh 1.67 acres, and really only 5,000 square
feet can you put something on the ground floor. Um so you're really looking for uses if you want to maximize this property and its value and being 1.67 square feet, uh sorry, acres, you know, you're really talking about building something above with a very short short or or small base. And you know honestly
self storage is use that actually works very well for that because in your parking area can be covered. So if you are moving things in and out it's weather protected during that time period. And again um you know uh the storage units don't care that they're on the second floor, third floor, fourth floor because you have elevator access
and as was mentioned uh climate controlled uh units in this building. So again, I do think this is a use that does well um uh uh in a challenge lot like this where you do have a smaller base and you could uh kind of maximize the size of the upper levels um of the building. So I do think that is
beneficial here. I'd also again highlight the fact that we are removing uh a little more than 5,000 square foot of impervious coverage as part of this project. It's about the size of a fullcourt basketball court is now going to be grass while previously it was pavement. Um so I do think that's
important. uh and the fact that clearly the site has uh been constrained uh over the years uh having been about a decade without any type of use on this property. It's gone from the diner to nothing um for about a decade. So obviously it is challenged uh in terms
of the develop uh being able to find a use that is you know able to be developed on this property. And again I think a lot of that has to do with the environmental constraints and really the odd shape of developable property that you end up with when you kind of layer in the wetlands on this on this site. I'd also note from a site suitability
perspective the proximity of the state highway uh obviously this is a use um you know that uh benefits from being on a heavily traveled roadway but also is beneficial to the state highway in the fact that does not add a lot of traffic to it. So I do think that is uh one of
the characteristics that shows the site is uh particularly suited. Um and again as was mentioned uh earlier a storage use um uh and uh a building of this height um is I would say contemplated within this u district. Again you could
go up to 165 uh feet in height or I believe about 70 >> 72 feet. So um under half the total height of the allowable uh building uh that that is allowed. And again, as I was mentioned earlier, um based on the burough ordinance, public storage
facilities is an accessory use. So again, while it's not explicitly permitted, um it is uh generally contemplated to be allowed in this type of zone, meaning that it kind of fits in well or it's compatible with nearby shopping center uses. >> Can I I'm sorry to interrupt you.
>> I I you know, I understand what you just said, but could you touch on the issue of reconciliation because >> Yeah, we were we were we gonna get there. Yeah. >> All right. Yeah. because you're going very fast and I'm trying to keep up [laughter] with you. So try to, >> you know, try to slow down just a little bit. >> No. Yeah, no problem. We'll go a little slower and we're we'll touch upon
obviously both the positive and the negative criteria. >> Yeah, because reconciliation is also a requirement under Medici and I haven't heard anything on it yet. I thought I missed it. >> Nope. I I haven't made it >> so fast. [laughter] I'm like, oh god, I was about We're gonna turn it down a
notch, Cliff, and go a little slower. >> Thank you. >> No problem. >> So [laughter] I try to get a lot of words in. Uh the court court reporter said that she gets paid by the by the page. So I'm trying to [laughter] add the pages. >> Everybody wants to watch the US USA is
playing right now. So >> All right. Go ahead. Do you want me to do uh special reasons [laughter] and then >> Okay. Uh so I'll go into special reasons, then I'll go to the negative criteria and work through the two prongs related to the Medici standard. Appreciate it.
>> Um no problem. So first in terms of uh special reasons I believe we meet special reasons uh from the uh purposes of zoning in terms of uh a letter I which is visual environment promoting the visual environment. That was the reason why I shared those um uh new images from the architect is to show
again the materials that are being utilized. These are highclass high level materials. Um this is you know I would say somewhat unique. This is not your just standard box that you may see on a highway. And clearly not the type of self- storage buildings that were the first generation self- storage buildings
which were the one-story kind of, you know, almost like barn type m uh units where everything had a rollup door. >> Would you also agree that the the landscaping that we're adding contributes to that as well? >> Absolutely. And that's why we're looking at a four uh right now because uh again
we are enhancing the landscaping both interior to the site but also exterior. I think having a good street presence uh in this area, Route 206, is important and providing the landscaping along the roadway, those street trees, I think is a a vast improvement to this corridor here. I'd also believe that we are
meeting purpose M, which is an efficient use of land. This does have an irregularly shaped developable area, and again, uh we are challenged with meeting the flood hazard regulations. Uh and as we've kind of debated, you know, we can use about 5,000 square foot of the first
floor. Obviously, we'll be discussing with the applicant in terms of should there be units or can we remove some of the units on the first floor, but again, I believe this is an efficient use, finding a use that can maximize this property when you're really stuck with a footprint that's only 5,000 square feet
on the first floor. >> And just for the record, to be clear, too, that there's many things that make this property um somewhat unique and constrained, right? So, you have the overall shape of the property, right? >> Yes. >> You have somewhat of the geometry of the highway here. >> Correct. You have the wetlands area.
>> Yes. >> You have the flood issues. Correct. >> Yes. The fill and elevations we need to hit. >> Right. So there's there's many things that actually on this property that make it unique from a from a from a constraint perspective. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And then one last special reason would
be per uh purpose H which is free flow of traffic. Again I discussed uh for way too long in this application the traffic levels related to self- storage buildings. But again, I think having a use that is less intense from a traffic perspective than most B6 uses is a
benefit to the free flow of traffic on the roadways. And we've already received a DOT letter of no interest. So, we've, you know, kind of passed their threshold and they agree that this is not a a detriment from a traffic perspective. And would and putting all all the testimony from the architect and the engineer and also from yourself as a
traffic engineer. Would you agree that purpose A is met promoting the general welfare in a sense that the storm water is improving the aesthetics are improving the um complying with the flood rules? Do all that contributes also to purpose A? >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Now I want to go to the negative
criteria because obviously we need to um as part of Medici project standard we need to uh satisfy both prongs of negative criteria. One is no substantial detriment to the public good. So when I look at the public good, I kind of identify a number of criteria that I
judge this these projects on. First is the intensity of the project. Um is it an overintensification of the of the bill of the lot? And I do not think so. I think the fact that is less intense from a traffic perspective and I'll talk to later about the noise perspective. Uh
so I do not believe this is a use that is overly intensive. When you compare it to retail establishments, restaurants, office building, uh uh medical uses that can be allowed in this site. I believe this is uh you know would be considered a sleepy use compared to a lot of the
more intense uses that are allowed within this zone. Uh I review jobs from a negative um criteria perspective as it relates to traffic. Again, less traffic than the previous diner when it was in operation. Less traffic than all those uses I previously talked about. Noise.
Again, this is a commercial zone. Commercial zones can have activity later on at night. You can have diners 24 hours. You can have um you know, restaurants. You could have certain medical uses that, you know, that have activity uh in the later hours of night
at night because of you know, emergency uh care. This is not an activity that has a high level of noise. We even worked obviously with um the board and some of the members of the public to bring the trash enclosure closure under the building. We even discussed about not having a dumpster at all. So in
terms of the noise you would hear um really is concentrated closer to Route 206 and again this is generally a sleepy use when you would consider noise >> and also the fact that we're closing at 10 p.m. which is when the stricter noise regulations come into play. We're actually going to be closed at that
time. >> Yes. And gings the site. So you're not you're talking about, you know, even if you had a shopping center that everything was closed at night, you could have a couple hooligans in the back of the site hanging out at all hours of the night. We'll be gating our site. So in terms of noise implications to the neighbors, um I believe that um
you know, we are probably on the lower lower end of a lot of commercial uses that would be allowed in this site. Lighting is another thing that I look at in terms of um you know, is it pro is a use uh providing an substantial detriment to the public good? Uh, I think what you've noticed is that we've
focused the lighting towards Route 206, providing both building lighting and kind of streetscape lighting. Um, and interior to the building. Any lights inside would not be seen on the outside of the building because of the opaque um um uh um materials that we're using um
to prevent any type of uh shining from our building out of the site itself. So again, from a lighting perspective, this is not a use that would have a substantial negative uh detriment to the public good. In addition, height and building SCA scale, um this is a building that is permitted in terms of
the uh allowable height. Um this is a site that does sit a little bit further down. I think we're about 8 feet lower than Washington in terms of where our finished floor is. So almost about, you know, almost one story of our building is actually below the grade of the, you know, nearest residential street. and
I'll get into the the residential aspect or the residential zone that's near us uh as part of the second prong which is what I'm going to get into right now. The second prong is recon uh is looking at if we are impairing the intent and purposes of the zone plan of the zoning ordinance and your master plan does
speak specifically about um protecting residential neighborhoods from encroachment of businesses. Um, and I think a couple things to note here is that one, we don't adjoin any residential zone. Um, actually, uh, um,
the the Dunkin Donuts lot is basically our nearest neighbor all the way around, uh, the north side of the site. Then there's the residential zone along Washington. So, we don't have any, I'd say, immediate neighbors from a residential perspective. Uh but uh
clearly uh you know there you were about you know less than 200 feet from that residential zone through that other property. And again I would note that when you look at the activity within the building itself uh where the access points are are obviously on 206 not near the residential area. Uh the parking um
is generally along the area that is the furthest from the residential uh community. Um in addition as we noted the um uh all the um roof mounted uh equipment is located as far from the residential area as possible. So again
knowing that this is a C6 zone >> uh sorry B6 zone B6 zone um you know there obviously is the idea that this should be allowed to have some level intensity some level activity but we're trying to be as cognizant as possible and pull that away from the residential
community up to our kind of northeast corner. Um, so I do believe that we are um not providing a detriment or damaging uh the the goal as it related to uh the 2019 master plan, but actually enhancing it. And again, I'll just read that design goal itself. Improve the visual
appearance of business areas while protecting residential neighborhoods from encroachment and ensure improvements are made with respect to the architecture character of the burrow. And I think we're really hitting that with here. We have enhanced architecture, so that's a check there. um uh not having an encroachment to the
residential neighborhoods. We're in a business zone, so we're not encroaching that area and improving the visual appearance of business areas, which I do think we are obviously improving a vacant site that's been vacant for 10 years. Another master plan goal was related to the local economy, encourage
development and improvement of non-residential uses in designated areas. A strong business community is vital to the fiscal health of the burrow. Um so again a site that's been vacant for a decade you know finding investment to it finding the right type of use for it has taken a long time but
I do believe that uh this is a use that is compatible with this area and we are advancing that master plan goal not providing a substantial detriment. So I do believe we've met um the second prong as related to that. Uh lastly, in terms of the zoning ordinance, um we are uh
other than you know there are some C variances that we are seeking as it relates to the uh buildable area on the lot because the triangle is so tiny here. I do think that generally um we are providing much less impervious coverage than was allowed. You allowed to be 70% impervious. I think we're in
like the mid30s in terms of the percentage impervious coverage. So that's a clear benefit. Uh, so we're not really providing a detriment to the to the zone plan as it relate to that. And again, the B6 zone is a commercial zone that allows for it, encourages activity
intensity, and we're I think dialing it down from what's allowed there. So again, I believe that we're trying to uh balance and I do think we're generally aligned with the goals of a of a um of of this business zone uh here. So overall when I look at the the use
variance um uh criteria in terms of the Medici standard I do think that we are um providing a site that is uh particularly well suited for this use. I think this is actually one of the uses that works best on this type of property. I don't think there's a substantial negative um detriment to the
uh general neighborhood nor the zone plan or the master plan. So I do believe we meet the thresholds um as it relates to what is required in the Medi Medici standard. >> Yeah. And Matt just to go back to the reconciliation to when when the master plan was last looked at, when the zoning
ordinance was last looked at, the um the flood regulations, the storm water regulations weren't what they are today, right? They've been, as the board has correctly pointed out, they've been evolving over the last several years >> and and more so becoming more strict. So where some things may have been able to
be built seven or eight years ago under different D regulations, it's become more strict, more challenging, and really trying to find a use that, you know, we're I don't want to say you're grandfathered into the 5,000 square feet the diner had as a footprint. But that's basically all you got to work with on
the site is that as a first floor and it really provides a challenge when you're looking at shopping center type uses and you're stuck with a 5,000 square foot piece >> and also like I think you pointed this out and Paul did as well Paul much the self- storage sort of product has
evolved where it what I think we were used to many years ago was you know contractors pulling up pulling up their gate type thing and this is more of a retail climate controlled, you know, house some of your put some of your home goods, put some of your office dry good
materials. So, the use itself has somewhat evolved as well. >> Correct. Yes, it's it's been maturing kind of over time and even the designs have changed. Again, this I think is a very attractive building. As I mentioned, first generation was nonclimatec controlled rollup units, contractor-like stuff that Mr. Tuvel was
talking about. Then you saw a lot of I would say bland highway type sites where you just had like a box and it was just basically gray and you saw into either real units or fake units from the from the outside of the highway. I think this is uh an enhancement over that kind of
you know uh uh you know basic model and this is an enhanced model. >> All right. And as to the C variances that that we've talked about, um you believe that the positive criteria, the purposes of the MLUL that you cited for the D variances, I think it was A, I, M,
and H are all um relevant and all are all advanced by the C variances as well. >> Correct. And I I would just state kind of grouping a lot of these variances together because there are quite a number of them again because our developable area is a triangle uh that is is so tiny. Um, I think that we've
designed the site to provide for uh the proper style and type of design for this type of use. Meaning, while we do have a parking variance, I believe we're providing the appropriate amount of parking. Additional parking would be additional impervious coverage, poor envi environmental design, and obviously
push us potentially into areas of wetlands that we can't disturb. Items like um the drive widths or number of driveways. And this is complying with DOT regulations and you know providing proper circulation. So I think kind of across the board you know in terms of
the the lighting, the driveway design, the parking, all of that we've kind of matched what is necessary kind of uh in the industry and to provide for a proper plan um while really promoting all those purposes you said said before. Again,
not providing excess um um parking instead providing enhanced landscaping. for making that trade-off. I think it's the proper trade-off to make with a site like this. This is really a less intense type of use. >> And then same question, the the first prong of the negative criteria as it relates to the C variances, you don't
see any substantial detriment to the public good also based on the reasons you set forth earlier on the Dvarian proofs. >> Correct. I agree. All all those um negative criteria would kind of for the use kind of carries over with all of those C variances. Uh, and again, I do
think there's a benefit to where we've placed the building. Um, pushing it closer to 206 as opposed to in the back where really our developable envelope is. That would be closer to the wetlands, closer to the residents, and this is really the the best location for the building. >> And because of the that footprint that's
very constrained, you believe that this from as the C variances, there's no impairment to the zone plane or zone ordinance because essentially we couldn't build anything here if we didn't deviate it deviate from it in some respect. >> Correct. I don't think that there's any
as of right no sea variance development that is possible at this site. Again, your developable envelope is this triangle that's located in the rear of the site which the majority is actually in the wetlands where you can't build at all. So really, if we were to be held to
a, you know, a strict standard of the zoning ordinance, we would have no developable opportunity on the site. >> All right. And so in your professional opinion as to the C variances, the benefits of those would substantially outweigh any detriments. >> That is correct. >> Yeah. And we put on the proofs for them as if they weren't subsumed in the
Dvarian because I thought it's always a conservative thing to do. But there's also case law that they're subsumed in the Dvarians as well. And you would agree that if you looked at it that way, the C variances would also be justified. >> Correct. I would be talking twice as long and twice as fast, but I would have said the same thing.
>> Okay. that that no that that [laughter] is the correct approach or please don't speak twice as fast. >> All right. So that that concludes my um direct uh for Mr. Sackler. I appreciate everybody's patience and just letting us go through it. So thank you.
>> Any questions for Mr. Seckler >> and I I will get back to the board if we take a break after Mr. Sackler's testimony on the issues that were brought up before. Okay. I promise. >> Just one quick question. Can you show me the picture of the back again that's going to face the residential neighborhood?
>> Well, so let me just clarify the I think that image is this image here. So the residential neighborhood is actually on this side of the building. So I I'm going to flip over to it, but I wanted to kind of highlight I believe that is the north or the top side. Let me go to
image. Sorry. >> Oh, no. This this has the opening. You're right. This is the side that would be um closer to wash. Now, they wouldn't see the whole thing because some of this building is kind of aligned with the I guess the Dunkin Donuts and the shopping center portion of it. >> Okay. >> But again, I think one of the key is,
you know, things like windows, opportunity for lighting that is not in the residential area. >> Great. Okay. Thank you. >> What' you think of? >> Are we commenting now or we >> a question? Um I I yeah I think that's
kind of the direction I was kind of going to the last meeting. I just don't want them to be impacted by this. >> Right. >> Anybody else on the uh from the board have any questions of Mr. >> Matt? I had a couple questions regarding a statics there. Architectural. Is that
for the architect? >> If Matt can answer, we can. If not, I can ask the architect to come up. Either way. >> Shoot. Shoot. I had um on some of the elevations it appears to be three openings, but on the floor plan is two openings. Is it two or three?
>> If you look on there's two elevations that show openings that I think it's only two open. >> Michael, Michael, on which elevation? >> Yeah. >> And when you say openings, you mean on the ground floor? >> I'm talking about the gated openings.
The gated openings. You have one. >> There's only two, >> right? >> Yeah. Sorry if that was unclear, but yeah, only the one off 206 and then leaving in the rear. >> There's one shown on the proposed northern elevation, which >> I guess that's a then if that's the case, then I think that's a mistake. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, just go back to the site plan, Matt. So, if if it doesn't match for some reason, Michael, we'll fix it. But the two openings are obviously when you come in off 206 >> to the building and then Mike Matt just showed them in the back and then right back there. That's it.
>> Adjacent to the Dunkin Donuts. That's correct. The two openings. >> Correct. >> And the aesthetic the difference is is it just color between the elevations of the of the of the revisions on the facade?
No, I believe they're materials as well. Matt just read over. >> Yeah, I believe it was the material and the the the material itself and the woodlike look that were kind >> I see. So, it's the wood light look. >> Yes. >> Okay. And the slight Okay, now I get it. >> And I think we also added some of the
ground level or the the lighting along the ground, right? >> Uh level uh to kind of create a pedestrian look in the front of the building. >> So, the woodlike is not that's not in our package, right? That was changed. >> Correct. Okay. Thank you. That that
solves that confusion. I'm like woodlike. Maybe I missed it. [laughter] And you're like, "No, I didn't miss it. That was a change. Make it more woodlike." Okay. >> Yeah. I think one of your comments in the letter was to soften it as much as possible. So that's why we're trying to be responsive to that.
>> Okay. >> And the ceiling height elevations. We're going to work that out with the down the road in terms of 12t 14t to the sprinkler heads. >> Yeah, I think that would be worked out with the building department and the Yeah. And yourself. >> That's going to work out. >> Yeah. But the height of the building would stay the same.
>> Anyone else on board have any questions? Mr. Sler, >> anyone from the audience have any questions of this testimony just given by Mr. Cycl? Please state your name and address for the uh for the record. Speaking to the mic.
>> Yeah. Hi, Joe Fulmore again. uh 77 Washington Place and um that was truly impressive. Uh Matt, it was uh you covered a lot of ground there [laughter] >> in a lot of words. the um but uh as
you're um I I guess we kind of we address I think Jason and I addressed this at the last meeting but the question I have is as as an architect or as a planner um it feels like it's a bit
of a straw man argument to say we have this little triangle right now that we currently can can build on but we could build 65 ft high on that, right? So you you know, isn't isn't it true that you
would be building basically a a monolith at 265 ft? So my question to you is Matt, as a as a um as a planner, um you're you're you're looking for a
variance here. So rather than do the straw man, it feels like the argument that we could build 165 feet tall, which would be the tallest building probably in Rarid and Somerville. Why not in a
sense come in here asking for more floor footprint, which you're asking for as part of your variance, right? You want to cover a bigger part of the site. Uh, but why not trade a little bit of that extra floor area for some height? In
other words, why go five? And I understand there's an economic reason to go five floors. So truly as you're as you're opining as to the detriments and the and the viability of of of this based on how you're looking at it, isn't
it wouldn't it really be a better kind of um aesthetic to tra to to go three floors say just just to throw out an example. So I I guess let me go through the
zoning requirements or the allowable bulk standards in the zone. So the 15 story allowance is anything in the the B6 zone. So if we were in let's say a imaginary rectangular property without any wetlands that very deep and wide,
right? >> You'd be able to go 15 stories high >> uh just like you can here. >> We we don't have a height variance. There's no height variance. >> Right. Right. But so but you can only but in this particular site >> we have that triangle triangle instead of a you know let's say a normal box of
some sort uh because of the shape of the property. Um in addition this zone does not have any building coverage standard or F standard. So in terms of what could cover the ground the zoning ordinance doesn't have any limitation. We're limited because of the flood, but if we
were not in the flood, you'd be able to fit, you know, as long as you're under 70% improvement coverage, you're good to go. Again, we're at 33.9%. So, we are again less than half of what can be built in terms of improvement. Again, we are not afforded much more
than that because we have wetlands and other restrictions on site. So we're we're kind of again we're not seeking height variance and we're not able to fully affectuate our our improvement level which is how we kind of ended up with the building we have here. And as you mentioned we're we're seeking
sideyard and rear yard and those setbacks because there's really no developable area. We went up some of the way not all the way that's allowed. >> And we again needed we definitely need relief but again we're less than half of the improvement coverage that this
allows. But that's but but that's really my point, Matt. You're you you you you have that improvement, you know, height on a very tiny little footprint. So now you're now we're we're asking for a variance here to make a larger footprint
here. And but in a perfect world, this isn't a perfect world. You said the site is ex I think you you use the word constrained, right? And it's constrained by wetlands. is constrained by the topography by the flooding. So I I guess
it's a point really it it's between really your opinion as a planner and so really what I'm asking you is as you assess the either you know is this a detriment as you assess this request for
a variance doesn't it feel like you're being a little bit too robust in asking for five floors on top of asking for a greater footprint? Why couldn't there be? And we talked at the last meeting about the whole idea of a of a stepped volume,
right, that was lower at the north end of the site, closer to the residences, and then climbed up, you know, you could do almost three floors, four floors, five floors at the south end. And and I guess my other question was, was that uh
considered in the, you know, since we had the last meeting? Well, we're not we're not going to testify on things that aren't being presented, but Matt, can you can you just give your opinion on the detriment again? Do you feel at all that there's a negative impact to the public good or
substantial detriment to the public good here? >> No. And especially because of the use that we're proposing. If we were proposing an office building of let's say five stories that we're going to have generate a lot of traffic because you a lot of people working there. I think that's when you may be looking at hey the bulk of the building is creating
these other negative detriments that kind of go along with it. I think this is a use that while the building is is large and beyond the the allowable footprint because it's a the tiny triangle. it is not one that brings with it the negative aspects of noise,
traffic, you know, environmental constraints, things like that. So, I think that that is why I think this use goes is well, it works well here and kind of because that extra square footage, that extra bulk does not kind of compound those negative uh aspects of
the project. >> But, but how about the visual? >> Well, again, I I would say that I think this >> for a residential area. Well, this is again a a business zone and next to a business zone. There is and again by no
means you are within 200 feet of the property 100%. Uh but you know that we are in a commercial district next to commercial districts and you're beyond that. And I think that what we tried to do in the, you know, the colorized images and things like that is to show,
you know, the landscaping that we're going to add on that side of the building, the intensity we're trying to pull away. And again, the the residential zone again is not our neighbor. Um, but you know, there's the parking lot, the Dunkin Donuts, which you can't see here because it wasn't built at the time of this. You know,
that is what adjoins the vast majority of the building. uh your your building uh or your lot, you know, again is closer to the wetlands area where we can't develop at all on the property >> and um yeah, so you know, we're not going to belabor the point. I think I've
made my point and you've stated your opinion. Um um and then the other um the north elevation still has one it it looks like it has one window vertical
window at the west northwest corner of the property. >> We get to it >> that one there. That strip window the vertical. >> Yeah. This is all the way at the front of the building. So if you're driving by on 206 north, you see a strip of
>> And again, those windows are those are opaque windows. >> Understood. But they're but they're translucent, right? So a light inside would would >> No, they're opaque. >> Translate out. >> They're opaque both sides. Interior lighting will not be seen on the outside, right? Um so and there won't so
>> um there won't be any u you know, >> you know, hallway lighting or anything. >> It's a >> decorative feature. It's a decorative feature of glass that's basically not translucent at all. >> Correct. >> Okay, got it. And the um we talked last
about having the the lights downlighting the facade and it looked like when I saw the elevation there at night there's some uplighting there. >> I know we we added down lighting at the ground level. That's what the >> Yeah, the the uplighting I think is just
for the along route 206, Joe, for the for the plantings. But I think what you were talking about from the last meeting was along the residential side that if there was any lighting there, that would be downlit cut off fixture. We would of course stipulate to that. If it's not I thought we did put that on the plan, but
if we didn't, we would stipulate to that 100%. >> Right. Okay. Got it. >> So yes, you would not have this type of uplight on your side of the >> Got it. Okay. And then um the last would be I couldn't really see the detail of the containment feature of your
mechanicals, >> but is there is it possible to design something that would be a noise enclosure? So, if you fire, you know, if the elevator mechanics are working, >> what what typically happens is they >> um I think we talked about this earlier.
They have Well, the good news is is um >> it's closed at 10 o'clock. So, the the noise levels which become more stringent at night, it won't be used at 10 o'clock. >> But what they'll do is they'll design it. They'll measure the sound. Um, if there's an issue, they'll then acoustically screen it, but they'll they
have to comply with D standards, Joe. >> Right. Okay. And, uh, >> yeah, my neighbor was unable to be here, so he had a couple other questions, but >> one of the things he asked is on the north the the Duncan end of the site. Yes. Okay. >> Is there any consideration given to a
noise or light barrier? So basically, in other words, some sort of a wall >> that were was on the on the property line right there. >> So I do know from a and obviously Paul Paul would know better. There is certain
fencing that you can't use in D in flood hazard areas because the water has to be able to pass through, right? Um so obviously you know we could look to work with the D and the engineer on if there is some sort of barrier we could provide in that area but obviously we have to be cognizant of not running a foul of the
D. >> The other the the advantage of doing that and I'll put this in the form of a question. Wouldn't the advantage of doing that be that that those we can see through the first floor through those grates? >> No. No you won't be able you won't be able to. No,
>> no, but but but I don't disagree that if we can put evergreens there or something that to to give a little bit more screening. I don't I think you have when you have a valid point, I'll tell you. And [laughter] and if and and if we can if we can do that, like Matt was saying, I think because of the flood, you're
constrained to what you could put there. But if we can put like, you know, like 8 foot evergreens up up that area, okay, we can look into that. I would also say that our finished floor and again I don't know where your house physically sits but I do know that Washington sits about eight feet higher than our
finished floor. So it's possible that you'd be looking out almost in the second story if you had a clearer look as opposed to the ground floor with the parking and circulation. >> Yeah, I'm thinking of my neighbors um MNA S. >> We can if if it's if it's um doable
we'll we'll look into it. I I don't think the applicant would have any issue with that. >> Okay. And last, so the last thing is just what I mentioned, >> which was we talked about at the last meeting. I thought it was something that Paul Schwarz was going to address. >> What's that?
>> Was you know the idea, and I'm going to I don't know if I'm permitted to hold up a little sketch that I did. >> Just just try to describe it. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, basically, this was the idea of a stepped volume, right, Matt? You know, this >> the wedding cake style design.
>> The wedding Yeah. wedding. Did you prepare that, sir? >> I did. Yeah. >> So, >> I understand you. You asked the question earlier. >> Yeah. >> And and we feel that I think Matt had said this during his testimony that we were responsive to the board comments regarding softening that facade, taking
away windows, um doing the lighting. So, we feel that we were responsive to your comment in that regard. >> Right. So what I said last time was that in the spirit of compromise, I wanted to say as opposed to come in and say I'm against the thing, here's here's a
possible other volutric solution here. So I want to just throw that out because Matt, you and I started out asking, could we really build 165t tall here? Well, you could after a teeny off a little a little um triangular footprint.
So, I'm just saying there is another volume, you know, volume exercise you could do that would soft that would take the volume down as it's north and closest to the residences. I'm going to ask that your self-prepared uh
>> exhibit >> exhibit be marked as Oh, I I'm going to I'm going to assume and you can tell me otherwise, but it should be exhibit zero or O for objector one and should be accepted in evidence. I would like to
see it, please. >> Yeah, Cliff, I think I mean just I think his it's he's not an architect. He's not an engineer. No, I understand. But as a lay person, he could just he just did a drawing, but I think his point was could you have done this? We responded that I think we we we did respond to it just in
a different way. And if there's a difference of opinion, it is what it is. >> Yeah, I understand. But I do think it's a potential hybrid solution. It's a potential compromise solution. >> Well, that'll be up for the board to determine, not you. I'm not trying to be
rude, but I'm just saying I understand. Why don't you pro please mark it as 01 and give it to the board secretary? >> Sure. >> That's that's it for me everybody. >> Do you have other questions? Okay. >> Anybody else from the audience have any questions?
>> Matt, I just had the one I don't know if it's you or the architect on the Sorry. Uh the if the garage is is considered a parking garage, the loading area, and it's enclosed, my based on my read of the code, you're
going to have to have a backup power source for the mechanical ventilation. Is there any contemplations? Do we know if it's open or closed? Is there a backup power required? >> Okay. Um, I've been told it's considered to be open. Um, but obviously whatever
the construction official requires, we would have to comply with. >> So, it's open so we don't need backup power. So, there's no generator being proposed since it's >> not driven by the UCCC. >> Correct. >> Art, I've got one question. >> You're right. >> Am I It takes a while. Joe,
>> this building would this be almost like a sound barrier between the residential neighborhoods and 206? Again, I'm not an acoustical engineer, but I do know that physical >> walls help prevent noise from traveling. So, I would say I would imagine it would be, but I'm not an acoustical engineer.
I've heard them testify. So, that's >> given that's the amount that I could provide. >> But, as a plerary, it would act as a buffer that could >> it's a buffer from a from a visual perspective. It's a buffer from a I imagine a noise perspective as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anyone else?
>> All right, Mr. Mr. Chairman, could we take five or 10 just to go over the issues that >> that were raised earlier? I appreciate it. Thank you. >> 10 minutes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> 10 minutes past. >> So, we off the record.
>> Okay. Maybe you did. I don't know. >> I think it covers the basis. >> Yeah, I think that's about it. This is obviously more than a basics. This is, you know, it's a D1.
So, I just want to make sure that's why I try finally just said to slow this guy down. He's got he's got to touch the bases >> because he talks a lot doesn't mean
the proof. >> And who is the guy who was the fellow? >> No, no, no, no. I mean, the guy who spoke up a couple times a minute, >> that's a neighbor, right?
>> Yeah. I just >> Go ahead. That was fast. Fine, thank you. How are you? Princon. >> Yes, it's where I grew up and I live in Lawrenceville now, but I my old my law
office is in Princeton. >> Are you from Princeton? >> Where'd you go? >> Princeton High School. >> Oh, very familiar with the university. >> Most beautiful place in the world. Right.
>> What year? What year did you graduate from the university? >> Oh, that's not that long. I was going to say it's only 50 years. >> I have a lot of friends. I have a lot of friends who are Princeton graduates. So
76 is to me not all that long ago. I mean do you march in the parade every year? Are we getting through? I mean, because I know you have some concerns and things. I know. I'm serious about this. That's why I had your thing put in
evidence. But I mean, you know, are there other things you need to discuss? >> Well, I have my comments written down, >> right? No, no, no. You'll have that opportunity, of course. No, I want you to have that. But I mean, I some of the questions I was I was trying to nudge
you in the direction of asking questions and not making comments. Please. >> All right. Okay. Yes. >> Yes. That was a very difficult That was
a very difficult thing to do. >> Now, are you an architect? >> Mhm. That's great. >> Right. >> I was concerned and I you probably what I said. I mean, he was going so fast
that that um frankly, you know, he should have been a little more I felt he should slow down a little bit and be a little more >> but that's all right. I mean, as long as the board is fully familiar with it, then I'm okay with it. But I wanted to
make sure I never like to have to ask the uh the witness to be more succinct. I'm sorry. >> No, you're not keeping you. Listen, you're doing I'm glad you're doing what
you're doing. I just want to make sure that we're keeping it. >> Sometimes I have to be you. You heard what I said at one point. And I said, you have to think about uh you know the primary function of the NLU is public
safety, health, welfare, and morals. And uh I do think that they they got a little too casual with it. So I >> but but I was going to say but having said that I I I have to always call the
attention to anybody who you know when the time comes you know I mean I was going to say when you're when you're com you're going to have a chance to comment. So I mean I want to make sure you know that too. So people sometimes
come up and they don't realize that, you know, you will get a chance to get up there and say, I like it or I don't like it and why and here's what I'm doing. >> But that's also when I wanted that item that you prepared over the objection of
the applicant's attorney to be put in the record. >> All right. Maybe I was thinking about >> Right. Well, I mean, if you want to if you can object to that if you want to. I mean, that's up to you. But I mean, I will say
that under the rules, under the MLU and under the local rules, the applicant retains a uh the right to present its case as it sees fit. I mean I do get you know he did mention something at the outset and that was
acceptable to the board but the applicant is always at liberty to present its case in its own uh I mean I've been doing this for 39 years so I'm you know I I I'm I'm one of the I'm chairman of the municipal land use law drafting committee so I know the law
fairly well and I know that you know the applicant has the right to make it to make its case. I mean, if it wants to make a mistake, that's its prerogative. If it wants to do something else, that's it prerogative, too. But
>> I mean, if you have concerns about it, put them on the record. I >> Well, no. No. If you do, that's up to you. I just have my No, I'm f I'm fine. I just uh
>> Are we off the record? I know that was for you, by the way. Yeah, Paul, just come up just in case there's like to talk about this compromise and I screw up how it says. >> You got it. Oh [snorts] god, Matt.
Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Let's resume. >> Back on the record. >> Back on the record. >> All right. Because I know a month can't go by without you guys seeing me. So, and I know that would break your hearts if we didn't. So,
>> in all seriousness, I want we want to try to compromise and figure out this this flood issue on the first floor, >> right? >> So, we looked at we were when we were talking about this during the break there is a way we believe and we have to look at it. We're not going to figure it out in the hallway, but there is a way to raise those uh units on the first
floor out of the flood to get them above that two feet and still keep the building height the same. >> Okay. So we want to explore that because I think that's the concern of the board. Correct. Having those units in the flood is that I just want to get direction on that just yeah
>> it seems like that's the way u that's a concern of the board and the other concern we have. We only have six members. >> Yeah. No obviously that was the second point but before we get into redesigning that's the sort of my take is the one issue that you is is kind of open. And
I'm not saying you're how you're voting on the application, but from this evening, the one issue that's still open is how we address those units in the flood. Is that fair? >> Yes. >> Is to me. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. No, I mean, we we we want to work with the board. We want to make sure that we're we're getting it
right and that you're comfortable with the final design. >> Well, so the board is a little short, so I >> Yeah, I understand. Of course, that's fine. >> Those units are in the back that that they have roll down doors that you from the like that parking area. You come into those units in the back there? >> They do currently. Yes. >> Yeah. So, is it possible to put roll
down flood doors >> because they do they do make those? >> Yeah. I mean, I haven't personally used them in the past, but there's definitely, [laughter] you know, there's definitely a product out there that you could use. >> The doors the the man doors obviously will get planks. >> Yeah. Obviously, we have to evaluate
this, but what we were sort of brainstorming on was >> not having those exterior doors, >> right? >> And raising the the floor area up out of the flood. And if a couple get lost, they get lost. But if we can keep them, great. But the goal was to just raise
all those units out of the flood so the board's concern is addressed. And then we could also come back with sort of with recommendations on the flood proofing if if it's even necessary based on what we're designing. And we would talk to Michael in during that process as well. >> What kind of utilities you have then on
the ground floor? Is it your electrical service come in there? >> Yeah, I mean all the utilities come there and they'll obviously have to be designed in a way that complies with flood regulations. >> [clears throat] >> You've also had some citizen testimony which you or citizen input which you may want to certainly give consideration to
as well. >> Yeah, I think the only item that we we'll address is we'll make sure that those lights on that side are cut off uh just so it's clear on the plans. >> I'm just making sure that it's brought to your attention because it has been
discussed a couple times already on the record. >> Okay. Okay. So, when would the next meeting be? Could we do the second meeting of August? Is that okay? >> Yeah, we had talked about that. >> 26. >> We have two small residential uh applications
>> and you be number three on the uh for that. >> I don't think so. >> But you have to be available. >> No, it's before that. >> Yeah. You meet the first and third Wednesday, correct? >> Right. >> So, it would be the the 19th, I think.
19th. >> 19th. >> The 19th. >> That'll be August 19th. >> August 19th. >> Matt, are you good? Just in case. >> Okay. So, let's let's um let's do that. >> Okay.
>> So, you want to be carried to the 19th of August without notification. >> Okay. So, we're being carried without further notice. August 19th, 2026, 700 p.m. in this room. >> Yes, >> that is correct. >> With no further notice. Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, you've been notified accordingly. The next meeting on this
will be on this application will be uh August 19th at 7 p.m. in this location. There will be no further written notice. >> Great. Great. Thank you very much everybody. >> Okay. Chipping away. >> Any other business to come before the board?
>> Uh we're on to discussion. >> Okay. Just something real quick. something we uh we had talked about briefly at the last meeting and Morgan had brought it up. Um how about a hiatus in August for next year?
>> Something to talk about for next year. >> It's too late to do it this year. >> Yeah, we just scheduled something for August. So, >> huh. >> Yeah. >> The first Wednesday in August the board is there's no applications. So >> we got a lot of time. >> Subject to the chairman scheduling
something. It appears that the board's off the first. >> So there's no meeting subject to arts concurrence on August 5th. >> No. >> So I'm thinking about for a hiatus for next year, >> right? Gotcha.
>> Take August or July. Either one. >> I know at the leisure we take July and >> we meet again on the 15th, right? Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. No other business come before the board. Someone like to move for adjournment. >> Second. >> Second. All in favor?