Good see Mr. Happy Merry Christmas. >> January 1st. [cough] We good. Good evening. The meeting of the board of adjustment for the Bureau of Somerville for December 3rd, 2025 will
please come to order. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meeting act has been that on May 18th, 2025, a copy of the no notice specifying the date, time, and location was posted on a molten ward outside of Burough Hall, given to the clerk administrator, mailed fact or emailed to
the courier news, placed 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 views at this time. These proceedings are of a judicial nature. Only those items on the agenda will be
uh discussed and only questions and answers related to agenda items will be um honored. Next item, roll call. >> Here I don't know.
>> I'll call my grandkids to see. Got it. >> Chairman Adair >> here. >> Vice Chairman Ed Allot >> here. >> Robera Carpinets is um >> excused this evening. Morgan McLaclin >> here. >> Rich O'Neal >> here. >> Brian Viddimky
>> here. >> John Flores >> here. >> Alternates Eric Alvarez is not either here yet or excused. And Steuart Daniels >> here. >> Someone like to move that U. Eric's absence be recorded as excused. >> I'll move that. He's in Florida. Second
it. >> All in favor? >> Thank you. >> Next item on the agenda. >> To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nationy for all.
Next item. Okay, Kevin, what we got? >> We have the regular session minutes of October 15, 2025. >> Second. >> Move the second. All in favor? >> I opposed. >> Carry. >> Thank you. The fifth item on the agenda
is resolution of 2024 012Z Vimar LLC 131 North Gaston block 36.01 lot 14. Mike, there's Cliff. >> Yeah.
>> I don't know. Find out after we look at these resolutions. >> Yeah. Let's get the resolution. >> Yeah. >> Someone like to move it. >> I do have a copy of the resolution in front of all of you. If if it's not sitting on the day, it's sitting on the on the uh granite countertop.
>> Okay. Someone like to move the resolution. >> Second. >> Move. Second. Roll. Roll call, please. The the eligible folks on this is Ed Allat. Um Robera is not here. Um Rich O'Neal, John Flores, and John Flores. So
we'll be calling those names. Um >> Ed Alllet, >> yes. >> Richard O'Neal, >> yes. >> John Flores, >> yes. >> Carried. The the following item is 2025 013Zahage
Patel 793rd Street block 59 lot 10 resolution. >> I have one one tweak. Uh I do believe that there was no parking. They were doing the onsite driveways for both. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Also I do believe it says parking
bearings. So I'd like to see that tweaked to say there's no parking for that. >> Yeah. They were going to build a driveway. >> They're building a driveway and extending the driveway on the existing house to comply with the parking requirement. >> He's coming along with that.
>> Yeah. >> All right. Someone like to move it. >> I'll move it with the uh deletion of the parking. >> A second. >> Move and second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. >> Yes. >> Ed Allat. >> Yes. >> Morgan McLaclin. >> Yes.
>> Rich O'Neal. >> Yes. >> John Flores, >> yes. Brian Viddimky. >> Yes. >> And Stuart Daniels. >> Yes. >> Hey, Cliff. >> I thought it >> I thought it was Willis Reed coming in
for the last game. [laughter] >> Thank you. The the sixth item on the agenda is the application hearing 2025 017Z top Asian Fusion Incorporated 156 North
Gaston Avenue block 83 L 10. >> This is an appeal. Okay. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening, members of the board. Uh my name is Mike Oradnik. I'm an attorney
at Savo Shaw Law Firm here in Somerville. Uh I'm here on behalf of Top Asian Fusion uh which is a um current tenant um that's been a tenant
uh since the 1st of January 1st of 2025 at the at the old social restaurant. Um, this is an application for appeal of the zoning officer's denial dated August 14th, 2025 pursuant to NJSA455D-70A.
The [clears throat] August 2025 denial uh prevented the continuation of a long-standing permitted restaurant use that was subject to a full site plan re. uh the application for the new Asian restaurant proposed and proposes no
changes to the site plan, the structure or the layout. The sole change is a removal of the western style range and the installation of an eastern style kitchen which includes a walk station and duck smoker under a new exhaust hood. I've handed out an exhibit which
I'd like to mark as A1. And if you look at Just to kind of jump ahead a little bit, if you look at schedule D, you'll see a photograph taken by our client
that shows the kitchen as it existed when they took over the lease in January of 2025. And if you look at the next page, exhibit E, you'll see the improvements that are uh
that are underway um that convert this kitchen from a western style kitchen to an eastern style kitchen. For a little more detail, we've added a schematic uh that breaks down the removal of the
ovens and the ranges and replaces them with a rice cooker, two deep fryers, a new six burner range, a new broiler, Chinese uh it says new Chinese whole walks, new hot plate, and at the end there is a
smoking station for duck. Those are the uh extent of the changes that are proposed. Um however, the zoning officer determined that site plan would be required for the changes to
kitchen. So they've been um occupying since January of last year and they have been unable to operate um based upon the denial that required a full sight plan. So, we're appealing that decision. Okay.
And we feel there's a couple of reasons we feel that it's an ex it's exempt under for site plan review. So, your ordinance at 10241 states I'm just going to paraphrase the important parts. Site plan approval when required prior to the
issuance of a building permit, demo permit, sign permit, zoning permit, or certificate of occupancy for any development. A final site plan application shall be submitted to and approved by the resolution to the board in accordance with requirements of this article etc etc. Notwithstanding the
above, the following development shall be exempt from the requirement of site plan review and approval. Subsection two, a proposed interior alteration not involving a change of use nor involving any exterior site improvements. And
number three, which we also think is relevant, is maintenance and repair of existing improvements. The applicant is requesting that the board reverse the zoning officials interpretation that the kitchen alteration and sign location uh require a full site plan uh or in the
alternative grant any necessary relief or variances. This is a property that as if you remember and I do um when this uh was Chowabella and uh there was a pretty substantial rehabilitation that was completed after
a 2012 planning board application when social Italian restaurant came in. They built the bar. They redid the exterior uh and they made other improvements to the site, significant improvements to the site, parking, etc. Lighting.
This is a restaurant that's located in the B4 zone where restaurant use is a permitted use. Uh again, we the proposal is a mere transition from the restaurant use Italian to another another restaurant use with no new structures or
site modifications proposed to the footprint or the exterior of the building. Obviously, the change in cuisine doesn't trigger the change in use uh requirement under 10228B2 and the use remains restaurant to restaurant.
The restaurant use was previously approved for the property and the application is consistent with the zoning ordinance, the prior uh approvals and the redevelopment plan. Um, I have before I get into some of the legal argument related to why I don't
think this requires site plan, I think a little bit of testimony would be helpful. Um, we have Molly Chang, um, which I'd ask her to be sworn in. Of course.
>> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. >> Molly James C. >> Thank you, Molly. So, tell me, it was about a year ago when we started to talk about uh this project, right? So,
>> Mr. What's her position with the >> um >> I'm actually the manager there. >> Okay. Yeah, she's operations manager for uh Top Asian Fusion, Inc. >> Um so we know that social closed down and my understanding is they sold their
liquor license. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. And >> and this all started last October. >> Last October. Okay. And then you we negot negotiated a lease for the commercial space. >> Correct. Um, and the lease, as I recall, it was for two months. It was started on
January 1st, 2026. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And there were two months free rent. Correct. >> Yes. >> And >> because they the owner didn't feel like there was a lot of changes being made. It was just the conversion of the kitchen. So, they gave us a two two month renovation time. And then um
beginning in March 2025, u the rent commencement, correct, was required under the lease, right? >> Correct. >> And that and that's $11,000 a month. Is that correct? >> Yes. $11,000. >> There's also a common area maintenance fees, you know, utilities, etc. >> Yes. Yes. >> And what what [snorts] are those total?
>> Um utility being that it's not in operation. is just to have the lights turn on. Everything else, including security, fire alarm system that's connected to the fire department. It runs at zero with no operation, about
3,900 a month. >> Okay. And so what did you do to to start to prepare the the restaurant for its new life as an Asian restaurant? >> Um, we had an architect come in. Basically, the only work that we had to
do was in the kitchen. Everything else in the dining area was cosmetic. Um, you know, we took away the soda machines, this and that. You know, you know, here and that, but that's all cosmetic stuff. The only thing we did in the dining area was just paint. It went from red and
white to green. So, the only thing we did was paint. Uh, nothing else done. >> And there there's a basement. Nothing done. It was the office and still is the office. Um, and just the kitchen. The only thing work was done was in the kitchen.
>> Okay. So, in the kitchen, I understand having visited there yesterday with you. Um, new appliances basically, right? >> Yes. All new appliances. Everything was deteriorated. Um, keep in mind it's about 15 years old. I don't think they really kept anything in good condition.
So, we end up having to throw everything out. >> Right. And so, now there's there's all new. >> Yes. >> Ready to be installed? >> Yes. And then at a certain point um you you know because of the different styles of kitchen uh it was necessary
that you expanded the hood area to handle all those walk stations. Correct. >> Correct. Um the hood actually in I would say first week of February [snorts] this year. Right. Yeah. It started to snow and um it was leaking through the vent
system the hood that was outside the building. So the whole thing was so corroded that it started to leak and drip and it was like raining inside. So we figured that since ultimately we were going to replace it instead of just having it keep leaking and rust away we
just ended up replacing it. >> Okay. >> At that time >> and >> and the hood needed to be changed expanded. >> Right. So the hood my understanding it was about 12 feet and it's now doubled inside roughly. >> Um we did yeah 11 more feet onto it. >> Okay. and that handles the the walk
station and the duck the duck correct smoker. >> Yes. It used to be just in the center over their um stove. Now we went from end to end >> so that it covers everything. >> And how much money do you think that you've invested so far and >> just in renovation alone? We're looking
at 130,000. >> Okay. Um >> and not including the new hood that has to come in. That's another about 45,000. Okay. And at some point you were advised that you needed to apply for a CL. Correct.
>> Um yeah, we were told that later on, but we didn't think we needed one because it's no change in use. It's still a restaurant. >> Okay. And you haven't been and my understanding is that you applied and the zoning permit was denied. >> Everything was denied. >> Right. We we we asked for a temporary
certificate of occupancy and that was denied as well. >> Everything was denied. Yes. And so here we are on the appeal of that zoning officer's denial. I have no further questions for Molly if any. >> Anyone from the board have any questions? >> Yeah, I do. Yes. >> Were there any structural changes made? >> No. No. >> No. >> None at all.
>> No walls, no doors, no? >> No, nothing. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Nothing. >> Just the just the equipment alone. >> Is the hood already the new hood already in or is that >> Excuse me. >> The new hood already in >> Well, we end um Yes, we installed the new hood, but um we were told
uh that it wasn't the right hood. So, we need to dismantle it and redo the right one to support because I think the old hood um was not the right steel. So, we had >> It was a code issue. >> Yeah, there was a code. Yeah, correct.
So, we had to not use the old one and keep the new one. But then it ended up after we got a consultation from the hood company, they said they can't mend and connect the two. It's got to all come down. >> And what was the cost just for that exhaust?
>> 40 45,000. >> And you did that with permits through the town? >> No, we haven't done anything. Ever since we got the denial, we have not done anything. >> Oh, curious. The duck cooker, is that gas or? >> It's gas there. It's gas.
>> No change to the size of the dining room. [snorts] >> Nothing. Like I said, we only painted and the only thing we lost was the the liquor license because they went with the old owner. In fact, it's just an empty bar. Now, back then, they had all the the taps and everything that was all
removed by the uh soda company that's supplied. >> So, back to the hood, the uplast fan, the exhaust fan on the roof. >> Yes. >> Still only going to be one or is it going to have to be a second one? >> No, I think the new plan only shows one. >> Shows one. >> Yeah. Where's your makeup air unit? Is
that on the roof, too? The makeup air unit that returns the air for the the hood. Is that outside? >> Yeah, it's outside. >> Is it on the roof or is it on the ground? >> The return air? >> I think it's outside. That I'm not sure. It's kind of technical. I'm not We have to ask the hoodman, but he did do the drawing. The architect rendered the
drawing to what the hood code was to be. >> Like, what's your denial for the Yeah. The hood size? the hood, the exhaust and intake vents. >> So those are already >> modification to the ex to the roof line.
>> So the old ones are still are still there, right? >> There's something in there. I saw it. >> No, the photograph shows the new exhaust. >> The one wasn't in yet. >> It's right in the photos. >> I do believe it. >> Mike, is this the new one? >> I just took those photos yesterday.
>> Yeah, this is the new hood. And to answer your question, the modification, my understanding, I haven't been in the site was the fire marshal was in that that it's consistent that the hood was increased by 12 ft for the walk and some
other uh cooking and that the intake and exhaust fans were replaced. Hence, the photograph that Mr. O'Rnik has shown shows the new exhaust fan. >> Is it in the same spot as the old exhaust? >> I don't know that. >> Yes, it is. It's the same.
>> It's the same. There's no movement. It the straight up is still the same. >> Right. So, from an exterior perspective, there's no changes to the exterior of the site, which is why we're appealing rather than filing a minor site plan. >> I was down here, Ed. There's no patch. I
mean, it's right right where it's always been. >> I was I was looking on Google. >> Yeah. AI >> go ahead. >> First of all, has the restaurant been open? Never. So since January, you've not been open?
>> No. >> All right. This picture that you have here, Mike, is that that's what's there right now? >> That's correct. That's the new what I refer to as the blower that was replaced. How does that differ for the old one? There's no difference. >> There's no difference.
>> No difference. So, just on the inside, the hood increased from 12 to 20 >> 21 ft. >> And the only other change would be the horsepower. >> Okay. >> Same size hood. I mean, the same thing except the horsepower was increased because of the expansion of the hood.
>> Does that generate more noise? >> Do we have an idea? Does it generate more noise? No. >> I It wasn't It wasn't part of the well the appeal didn't submit any specifics. Uh the zoning application just show didn't No,
I don't have any specifics >> regarding the noise aesthetics or anything other than the intake and exhaust replacing the the kitchen or the duck was expanded by default heat as I think that was based on fire marshall's
inspection. >> Correct. What's the fire What's the fire marshall's position now? >> Pick up the code. >> Um, well, he has a violation, but it was a for alarm, I do believe. >> Yeah, >> the board has a copy of that, >> right? And and you don't have a liquor
license now? >> No. >> No, you will not. >> Um, not at the price that they're wanting to, >> but they sold it. >> They sold it. They ended up selling it. Yes. >> Recently, I think. >> Thank you. So, just so I can I'm Irish.
I as twice the you're expanding the hood, but you've done no structural changes outside of >> No, outside the building. No. >> Yep. In No interior walls, no doors, no framing, >> nothing. >> Nothing. >> Just installed the hood and the ceiling. >> Yeah. And paint. Interior. Interior was
paint. We ended up buying the furniture from the old social as well. >> So, we didn't have, you know, as a deal. We bought their furniture. So, the furniture is even the same. And just real quick, um, we you retained, uh, the signage,
uh, and you've submitted for a signage application. >> Yeah. Which we got denied. >> Which we Right. And is it correct that you're just you're using the same backlit sign where the social signs are, but you're just putting in top Asian fusion?
>> Correct. >> There's no expansion of the footprint of >> No. No. There's actually I I know if you have a photo of it. >> It's exhibit exhibit I >> um >> if you look at the exhibit there's a back piece that the actual word social
is mounted on because they didn't want to I guess didn't want to touch the building the structural integrity of the building. So, um, what we've decided to do, and which is a cost-effective way to do it, was just to take out the word social and replace it with top Asian,
but on the same back, the the back plate that it sits on. And the wiring, we've went up there and looked at it. The wiring is all good. Everything is good. So, basically, if we have a a light box, sort of say, what we do have to take that on, replace it, and just plug it
in. it will light up but it doesn't change the size or anything. >> That's on the existing side. Yes. >> Yes. >> Right. There are windows but we're not putting anything on the windows now.
>> Yes. Yes. >> Anybody from the Anybody else from the board have any questions of Mr. Chad? >> So just to confirm that I took pictures the other day. The your signs are going to replace the social signs that are up there right now. So the lettering
>> same color, same size. >> Yes. So we're replacing the lettering. >> And Mike, this was approved before with the uh previous shoes. >> Yeah. So I did after reviewing Mr. Cole's memorandum, I did dig into the archives of Somerville Burough Hall and
um fantastic uh organization. Everything was scanned and emailed to me and um there's a site plan as that was the 2012 uh site plan when Chiao Bella became uh social and then schedule B shows the
signage sheet and then I also was able to pull the permits for the signage. So you know in 2012 oddly enough the resolution was you know page and a half just said presentations approved. So, we had to dig a little deeper to see what the sheet sheets were within that site
plan application. And there was renderings with the signage and then Frank Vuoso's inspections, approvals. I mean, this you know, this thick of inspections for when they did the bar and all all the exterior work. So, you know, our position is that is a uh the
signs are permitted by variance. That's a vested right and they run with the land. So, there's no so there is no relief. We don't believe there's any relief that's needed. Um obviously or we would have filed for a site plan. >> Anybody else on board have any
questions? Mrs. Ch. >> Anyone from the audience have any questions of the testimony just given by Miss Ch. >> Um I'm just gonna call Uh Craig Styers >> just to provide some brief testimony. We did retain Mr. Styers as part of the
zoning permit application. Um and >> Okay. >> Thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Uh good evening, Craig. Do you saw me swear the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth? So help you God. >> Yes, I do. >> Please state your name. Spell your last
name for the record. >> Craig Styers. S T I R. Yes. >> Mr. Chairman, I believe you can stipulate to Mr. Stein. >> I think we can. >> Thank you. >> I have some questions. >> Um, so you were retained on this project
initially as to do a survey, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And and the survey is part of a zoning permit application, my understanding, is essentially to confirm that what's on the site, what's there, correct? >> Yes. And um your office did conduct a survey and you've you're I'm sure you're
familiar with the site. Is that correct? >> Yep. >> And uh have you had an opportunity to personally visit the site and inspect the site? >> Yes. >> Um we've also provided uh the site plan from 2012 for the social rehabilitation. Had you had the opportunity to review
that? >> Yeah, I did. Um, so what just real briefly go over [snorts] what you know what what was done in 2012 and were there any changes from the 2012 approvals? >> Uh, I mean obviously the building was
retrofitted. Um, the plans that were the site plan that was part of the architectural plans did show the you know essentially the improvements. They didn't show the parking stripes per se back then. Um but and our survey does
show the parking now. Um but if you were to compare our survey to what the plan was back with um social celabella uh there's virtually no difference. Um there's, you know, air conditioners on the outside, but um you know, as far as
the layout of the parking lot itself, the where the dumpster is, where the entrances are, where the walkways are, the driveways in and out, everything's the same. [snorts] >> Is it your testimony that there's no meaningful site modifications compared to the 2012 site plan approvals?
>> No. >> I have no further questions for Mr. >> Anybody have any questions, Mr. Styers? Anybody from the audience have any question of Mr. Syers? >> Good seeing you. [clears throat]
>> Um so just to conclude my presentation um I did a little little bit of a deep dive into um you know what what is the threshold that requires site plan and the municipal land use law defines a development.
Um, and based upon my research, I don't and and comparing it to the ordinance, I believe that this is an exempt uh application. Uh, however, you know, if there's any reasonable requests, you know, we'll obviously comply with those.
Um the proposed work it consists of minor interior renovations converting the range from eastern to western style does not involve any change in use or modification to the exterior of the property which we feel is exempt under 10241a4 of the burough land use and
development ordinance to require full site plan um would not only incredibly detriment uh the tenant who's paying close to $15,000 a month without any revenue revenue would be contrary to the explicit language of the exemptions in
the bureau ordinances and the underlying principles of the municipal land use law. The bureau's land use and development ordinance clearly and unambiguously sets forth specific exemptions from site plan review and states that a proposed interior alteration not involving a change of use
nor involving any exterior site improvements is exempt. The applicate confirms confirmed that the following undisputed facts relate that there's it's an interior alteration, interior reconfiguration, does not involve a change of use, and provides maintenance
for what was otherwise a leaking uh exhaust hood. There's no other exterior site improvements proposed. Doesn't impact parking, traffic circulation, drainage, landscape, building footprint, or impervious coverage. Since the project
meets all the criteria defined by ordinance, the plain language dictates that it should be exempt from site plan review, the proposed work does not constitute a development or a structural alteration. And this is kind of an interesting aside when we talk about um what triggers site plan review. So in
Somerville, we have a change of use ordinance that requires any change of use, even if it's a permitted use from retail to say restaurant, if it's permitted on Main Street, that requires a full site plan review. However, the municipal land use law defines this very
carefully and it says development means that a part divi means division of a parcel of land into two or more parcels. The construction, reconstruction, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any building. The burough ordinance takes
out the language structural and just says alteration. uh which based upon some case law I think I don't think is correct. I think you need to have some type of structural alteration to trigger site plan review. Um courts have
determined that change of use ordinances are permitted and enforceable and which is what we do all the time before this board. However, a mod uh just an interior renovation such as replacement of ranges which are commonly known as
trade fixtures um I don't believe rises to the level of structural alteration. Um structural alteration although is is defined as well in the ordinance and it says any change in the supporting members of a building such as bearing
walls, columns, beams, girders, interior partitions as well as any doors, windows or the addition or dimmunition of dimensions or configurations of the roof and exterior walls of the building. The proposed work uh is confined to
non-loadbearing internal elements. does not change any bearing walls, columns, beams or exterior envelope of the building. Therefore, the work clearly falls outside the definition of structural alteration and cannot be deemed a development triggering site plan review based upon the municipal
land use law. Um there's also case law that says these are mandatory definitions. So um the idea that there's it just it removes structural alteration and says alteration uh I think is you know bears some scrutiny as it as it
applies. Um there's a case sum v township of debat teneck that says a municipal or ordinance if fails if it doesn't use the consistent mandatory language of the MLU well and again um you know this is what we're always struggling with with the control of land
use is what triggers site plan review um and we would submit that uh there's no exacerbation on the existing site necessary to require a full minor site plant Um, again, it's been, you know, it's it's already been five months since
we were uh turned down from that. We would ask that based upon the clear language of the burough land use development ordinance and the proposed work constitutes expressly exempted interioral alteration under 10241A uh and that it is a non determination
that is a nonstructural and therefore doesn't meet the necessary criteria for development under the municipal land use law. The applicant respectively requests that the board or its authorized administrative officer grant an administrative determination of exemption allowing the applicant to
conceit process and to proceed without the imposition of site plan review. >> Anybody from the board have comments? >> Yeah, I do. I asked those questions I asked about doors and framing and stuff like that
because of what was just said. I don't see anything here that is alteration. I mean, if your refrigerator breaks in and replace it, you got to go to the board of adjustment or the planning board. It doesn't make any sense. I don't The other part of it is this this property is in a redevelopment zone. So
the administratively that sign can be handled through the architectural review board and would not require who would report to the planning board but would not require going to the planning board to to approve the sign. It's done. So I
I'm on a bit of a roll. I'm a little bit annoyed but I think that those permits should be issued tomorrow morning. >> Anybody else from the board have >> Yeah, I have a question. So the because I think Rich alluded to it earlier. So
the because of the windows that are on the first floor, they're unable to have the sign on the first floor. That's the reason why social had it in the first place. So that triggered Mike the the the this the need for a C variance.
>> Yeah. The location doesn't comply with the ordinance, >> but it's in a redevelopment zone which is handled differently. >> It's still the redevelopment plan refers back to the sign ordinance in the B4 which requires varants. >> I'm not going to tell you your job, but it can be handled through the architectural review board who will make
the recommendation to the planning board to do whatever they choose to do. >> Not for non-conforming signs, Rich. >> Well, let's we could talk about conforming and non-conforming all night. The building is there. It's been there since I was a kid. It was a gin mill and bar when I
was a kid. You know, nothing has changed. The lot stayed the same. The trouble fans stayed the same. They're doing interior renovations. This is nonsense. This is why this town has reputation is has when people try to move in here. You jump through a hoop and then there's another hoop and then
the third hoop's got flames, you know. I'll shut up and get But you know where I'm coming from. >> Preach. Anyone else on the board have any comments? Anyone from the audience have any comments?
Someone like to move to close the public portion of this? >> I'll move second. >> Second board. What's your pleasure? I've expressed my opinion. >> I think summed it up. Would someone like to move
>> move to approve the appeal? >> I'll move it. >> Second. >> Move the second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. >> Chairman Adair. >> Yes. >> Vice Chairman Ed All. >> Yes. >> Morgan Mclofflin. >> Yes. >> Rich O'Neal. >> Yes.
>> Brian Padimky. >> Yes. >> John Flores. Yes. >> And if I'm correct, uh, Stuart Daniels, you don't get a vote on this, right? >> I don't believe so. >> Yeah. Thank you. I wasn't sure on the appeal. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Merry Christmas, Mr.
>> Of course. [clears throat] Uh >> board members, I need to recuse myself on this next application as I'm engaging the business relationship with the applicant. >> Okay. Take care.
>> Watch Chicago Med. Yeah, this week is that night. >> The next application hearing is 2025009Z Princeton uh Cano. Is that how it's said? >> Thank you. LLC, 281 East Main Street,
block 129, lot 6.01. Um, good evening members of the board. >> Evening. >> Mike O'Rnik. Um, on be on behalf of the applicant, Princeton Canal LLC. Um, in connection with the property located at 281 East Main Street, block
39, lot 2. As you may recall, this application was first presented to the board on September 3rd, 2025. Subject is located on a 75x 200 foot lot in the professional office and residential P zone and is presently improved with a 2,142 square foot 2.5
story office building where the owner has had his engineering firm for many years. The applicant proposes to convert the existing building into resident two residential apartments. The floor plans included in the application propose recreation rooms in the attic and the
basement and each unit would have three bedrooms on the first floor and second floor respectively. The application does not propose any bathroom in the recreation areas of the basement or the attic. There's only we've got down to two variants for for this case. Um the
first one I I'm calling a bit of a technical variance. There's a D4 floor area ratio variance. The ordinance permits a maximum F of 25%. The property currently exists at 16.8% and the proposed design would incre increase the
F to 30.19% which is 6 point or 5.19% over the required maximum. So in this case, we had discussions with the township professionals and although there's no changes to the footprint of the structure, there is a provision in
the ordinance that provides for floor area ratio coverage calculations for the basement and the attic uh which have been added to the gross floor area calculations. So although the building's not is is not making any noticeable
changes or any significant changes, um we do have to if we if you finish your attic or your basement in uh in in Somerville, then that does uh consist or that that would trigger the gross floor area calcs. Um much of the and we went
through that with our site plan engineer at the last hearing who's here, but I don't anticipate to present him as a witness. There was also um a maximum improvement coverage variance that was eliminated after we had discussions with the board ordinance permits of 50% in
the P zone. Um the existing site is already at 62.53%. So um at the end of the last meeting we the board had some requests to remove a significant portion of the rear parking lot as it converts from an office to
residential to provide some lawn space. And we've provided an updated exhibit that removes a significant portion of the rear parking lot uh while still providing adequate more than adequate parking for the apartments and so that the maximum improvement coverage ratio
will fall below the maximum allowable 50% and remove that variance. There's also a variance and again somewhat of a technical variance. Um the ordinance only permits 2.5 story
dwellings in the PO zone. However, we are uh planning to improve the attic space which will technically create a third story. Again, uh no bedrooms, just additional uh finished space for the apartment structure.
um which technically uh necessitates even though it's it talks about stories 2 and a half and we're creating a third story technically creates a D6 height variance I believe based on my reading of the law um even though there's no additional height to the building this
building according to the tax records was constructed in 1960 and there will uh there won't be any uh variation related to the height but if an ordinance defines um stories then technically I believe
it's a D6 height variance. >> Any comment on that? >> I I think it's a C Mike when you when you comply with the height but not the story. I do believe it's a C variance not not >> well I'm not a planner so I'll let Miss Mcur
with you I believe it's a it's a C. >> Okay. All right. Well, >> and in addition, Mike, the F changed in the P subsequent to the application to 30%. It's in my report. >> Okay. >> It's 30%, not 25. You're still slightly over. >> Okay.
>> But just I missed that. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, so we have our architect to um go over some of the final comments on this application. Um, we've we have we do have our site engine here too if there's any questions
related to some of the issues that were raised in the past. >> Yes. >> Could you please state your name for the record? >> Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. >> First name is Last R.
Thank you very much. >> Thank you. Um, are you a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey? Yes, sir. >> And your license is in good standing. >> Could you explain perhaps just highlight some some of the basics of this project as well as some of the changes that were made since the last hearing in
September? >> Uh, so the project [snorts] structure. And the rest is story. So we are contining to finishing [clears throat] the
>> [clears throat] >> Aesthetics of the building will not change the two apartments includition. [snorts] requested to specify a few things
such as the roof shingles will be fixed across the whole building. So there will be Uh the wall finishes will stay the same. Will match the existence.
So we will provide We are staircase. This is the same. Staircase accessing [snorts] [snorts] the first floor. As for
a question about secondary structure as long stairs. Stairs remaining elevations. Other than basically just expansion of the roof.
Expansion of the second wall. external showing reduced down parking spots. We are behind
the parking trees and the owner has already. >> Thank you. I have no further questions for the witness. >> Anybody have anybody from the board have any questions? >> Yeah, just my usual questions. Have you considered a residential sprinkler
system for this place? Anybody else on the board? >> Yeah. Are you taking the chimney down or the chimney staying up? >> Wants to take it down. Anybody else on the board have any questions? >> Yeah, Mike.
The stairwells, the outside stairs, they're wood. They don't have to be steel. No, I do, as the architect [snorts] has said, I don't believe that the staircase is code required. He has a second means
of egress. So, in theory, he could take the staircase out entirely and not need it and still, >> right? I had a comment there about uh putting a covering over it because if it's going to be used for inclement weather, but you really can't cover the staircase because of the windows except
for maybe the landing. There's a comment about maybe putting a covering over the landing, but the staircase, if you try to cover it, it's going to block the egress windows that are on the rear of the facade. >> Right. Okay. And how about the fence? Uh
it there was some discussion it may not be the applicant's fence. >> Yeah. Based on the the survey done by Parker Engineering, the fence appears to be offsite on the adjoining property. The vents is off and then it's not for
the architect, but the I don't know there shrubs in the back or trees. They appear to me to be a varieties, but that's not for the architect on that. >> Okay. And we're going to hear something about drainage. I I see Steve Parker's
in the back on there in the audience, so I'm sure he's going to give testimony regarding the drainage uh for the site and on the 12in RCP pipe. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> Anyone else on the board have any questions? Anyone from the audience have
any questions on the uh testimony just given? If you do, please come to the mic. Um your name Just like a little button on there. This is all mics on.
Thank you. >> [snorts] >> questions in general or just questions for the >> question on the application on the testimony just given by the architect. >> Uh Brian Jav, I am the owner of the property behind at 10 Grant Avenue.
Um the singlestory part of the building is that on a slab. Okay. And uh the fence is mine. Uh there is one post on the southeast corner that
is 1.2 in over the property line. I do have a survey of that. And somebody asked me who the surveyor was. It was Jeffrey Baldwin of Hillsboro. uh when he came he noticed that there
was an error in my original survey which had there is a drainage pipe right on the border of the property and it had the property line my previous survey right smack in the middle of the inlet
right there was even a um a marker left behind from the previous survey >> yeah what was the more question for the architect >> the Uh well, he mentioned that that was part that repairing the fence was part of
that. Um other than that, uh I don't think >> there'll be time for comments. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Brian, could you say your last name again and spell it, please? >> Hobby. H O B Y. >> And you said you were the property behind. Could you give me that address?
>> 10 Grant Avenue. >> Thank you. Anyone else have any questions on the testimony given by the architect? >> I'd like to introduce Mr. Parker of his firm town, [clears throat]
previously qualified. >> No. Okay. Okay. >> Yes, I do. >> State your name. Call your last name for the record. >> Yep. Steve Parker. P A R K E R. >> Mr. Since this is a new hearing, if you would.
>> Sure. >> Appreciate it. >> Mr. Parker, um, is it correct that you're a licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey? >> Yes, that's correct. >> And, um, you're here on East Main in Somerville, right? >> We are 370. >> How long have you been practicing the
field of civil engineering? >> Uh, 35 years. >> And is your license in good standing in the state of New Jersey? Yes, it is. >> Okay. Could you provide um just a description of the existing and proposed site conditions? >> Yeah, I think um you know the existing
property is uh been used as a commercial lot or commercial site for many many years. Um and so there's a parking lot in the back part of the property. The front part is lawn. There's a sidewalk that you know proceeds from the front door out to the to the street. Um and
then the back is mostly just all parking lot. Uh there's parking for a total of 16 stalls in the backyard there. Um and the proposal is actually of course to convert the house or convert the building to a house, two family house, but then to remove a significant amount of the impervious coverage. That parking
lot will be reduced by almost 2500 square feet uh which is quite a bit. Um and so that will have the effect of reducing the uh the rate and volume of storm water runoff uh from this property uh onto adjoining sites. Now, the way
the drainage system works on the property right now, there's two inlets in the parking lot. Those will remain as is. Uh there's no changes proposed to those, and they drain to that pipe that was talked about before. There's a there's a 12-in concrete pipe that runs in a generally east to west direction
across the back of this property and the adjoining property. And what it does is it ties into the storm system in Vander Avenue. Um so that's going to remain as is. The drainage system on this property is proposed to remain as is. uh but there will be a significant decrease in the runoff uh from the site as a result
of converting the back part of the parking lot into lawn and a landscaped area. Um so other than that there really are no there's no need to make any changes to the drainage system. It works fine. We've provided the calculations demonstrate that it's adequate to convey the uh the storm water runoff uh onto
the property. Um I think Mr. Cole mentioned in his report um that there is an issue with the 12-in drain pipe uh that traverses the back part of this property. Um and he's requested some calculations for that. We didn't I don't think we provided those uh numbers and I
think Mr. Cole is asking for that. Um that the to verify whether the pipe is adequately sized to convey the runoff from a 25-year storm event which is something we can certainly provide. Um I'm not familiar with how that works in
general uh as far as um whether there's d what the drainage problems are uh out in the back part of the property. I understand there was some discussion last time about that. Uh but again the the runoff from this site will be decreasing significantly as a result of
the changes that are being made. Yeah, Steve. I mean, the question number one, it was the pipe was it was not known where the pipe was on site or offsite. So, the pipe is on site. >> That's correct. >> And based on my the burrow doesn't have
any records of an easement. So, the so it appears that the pipe is privately owned. That's the pipe that terminates on the subject site and runs to the west to Vanir. So the question came up on the capacity being of the the DPW's position
is they would like the applicant should the board approve this to maintain the pipe and I brought up the capacity because of the pipe is under sized for the collection zone obviously that invol in involves other properties upstream
not just the applicant so that's where I I did some thing that if that's the case the burrow might want to rethink this position of who's responsible for the pipe. >> Well, since we're having a discussion,
has anybody looked in the pipe to see if it's clogged up? I mean, [clears throat] real simple test. >> Yeah, I mean, I I was out there and I looked at the upstream end of it, but I I you can only see in a, you know, a foot or two. Um, so I don't know if it's clogged up or not. It's um um yeah, I'm not sure whether it is or
not. I mean, I know it it traverses the back of the subject property, but also the the adjacent property next door as well. So, um you know, I looked at the inlet on [clears throat] Vanderver Avenue that appeared to be, you know, uh it wasn't clogged up. There wasn't a lot of debris in there. So, um from what I
could see, um but then again, you know what I mean? It so the the open end of this collects runoff from the properties front on Grant Street as well. So, I suspect it certainly could get leaves, maybe some grass clippings or those kind of things that may uh present an issue
if it gets clogged up. It certainly it won't help and it won't it may not be a self flushing pipe because if the slope is pretty pretty flat, >> right? Correct. Right. >> Would Wouldn't it make sense if somebody takes a look or shoots a camera in there
or >> I mean just >> sense to me. >> I mean, just find out if it works. I mean, it's pro I'm not going to get into the engineering calculations and all that. That's not my thing. But if it's clogged up, I know about stuff like that. I mean, it's like maybe somebody should take a look because I know we had
some neighbors talk about water problems and and I know they're not it's not I'm not saying you're generating them, >> but you own the solution apparently. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean I was out there after a storm event and there wasn't I what I did I didn't see any you know ponding or
any residual uh storm water on the uphill side of the inlet of that pipe. So >> um >> you know it it could but it could still be slow draining that may during the event make it you know kind of a a nuisance in the backyard there that but it does go away. It resolves itself eventually. But you know maybe cleaning
the pipe out we can have someone take a look at that. >> Let's do that. >> It's an orphan pipe. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. Steve, I had some comments about your drive aisle typically is 24 feet, >> right, >> for six spaces. That drive aisle right
now is 48 ft. So, I I use the term it's excessively wide and made a suggestion to reduce the width of the parking stall and that would also give some room for landscaping along the western property
line. I don't >> eastern property line. >> I'm sorry. That would be the western property line. >> Right now, the par parcels on the western are within three feet of the property line, right? >> Oh, okay. You're saying I'll reduce that side over there. >> I reduce that side because it's not you can't there's no room for landscaping on
that side. Three feet. So, I think I said eight or 10 feet moving it back. >> Uh just just food for thought because the drive aisle is >> Yeah, it's big for sure. It's it bigger than >> it's not it's not needed for a six for that configuration. A drive aisle of 48
ft is not needed as you know. >> Correct. Right. >> So I just didn't know if you [clears throat] had a a comment or a position on reducing that. >> I mean you could certainly do it. It would it wouldn't again it wouldn't impact the drainage structures that are out there. It would certainly reduce
more uh impervious coverage. So um and I and I I tend to agree. I think standard uh backup aisle is 24 ft. Right. Uh this is you know almost twice that. So um it is >> I think yeah there's some room there. Should >> for sure. >> Yeah.
>> And I had some comments on the lighting. I don't know that you're doing the lighting or is that the architect? >> Well I think it was shown on the architect's plans. I mean I can comment on that. I you know the lights I think the lights that are out there um are existing those poles along that side and that's the adjacent property is a commercial property as well. It's a
parking lot. Um so I don't see any I don't see a problem with leaving those lights as is uh the way they are. I mean I There there is some spill over. I s I I suspect because it doesn't appear to me the lights are older. I don't see any I didn't see any shields on them and maybe maybe you could put them on there.
Um I don't know if that's really a problem. I think the lights in the back are being relocated more into the property and away from the rear property. So that'll help the residential properties in the back for sure. Um I I don't know that it's necessary to move the ones on, you know, >> although I guess if they're going to
move the uh >> Yeah, that's what I was >> the parking lot over. Maybe they, you know, that's something they could look into. >> If it's a two family, do you really need pole mounted lights in the back for is it a little bit of overkill? I understand they're being proposed to take the two light poles and move them forward, right?
>> To to be next to the new uh curb line for the parking lot. I'm just throwing out there that yes, you have the light trespass, but are the light poles needed on a two family? That's what I'm basically saying. Yeah, I [snorts] think they were just trying to keep what's there and just provide some benefit for
the residents there. >> Um, >> I'd have to talk about that with with the the applicant to see what his thoughts about that are. >> And the wall man light on the driveway. I had some comments about the illumination levels of the driveway and
the curb cut the entrance. >> Yeah. Again, I I think we're just we're not trying to overlight the the area. I don't think it, you know, a driveway typically you wouldn't have that. There's enough street lights >> on any street. I don't think that needs any any more lighting at the driveway entrance there or along the side. I
think that's sufficient. >> Yeah. If we have a should the board grant approval, would you be okay with doing a light meter just to show I agree with you. I think the street lighting will provide adequate lighting of that entrance. >> Right. I I I do believe that, but it's
not on the plans right now. You don't have any. >> Yeah, we could do some light meter reure. >> There's nothing. You have the the the wall mount of light is depicted >> and there's a detail of the isolux, but it's not on the plan. >> Okay. >> Uh just to to pick up the driveway
lighting existing and what the proposed wall mount light would be. >> Sure, we can do that. Yep. spillage. Will they be u shielded enough to prevent spillage onto the other properties? >> Well, that light is more of like a downward directed light. It's not It
doesn't broadcast out. So, it's it's um and it's not what you would consider like a typical parking lot light. So, I don't I don't know till we take the readings, but I suspect if there is, it's minimal um just because of the style of light that it is. >> Any questions from the board to Mr.
Parker? Yeah, I do have uh so if we can just revisit the two inlets that are on the parking lot itself. All the water from the back of the building go into those two inlets and then it goes through a PVC pipe to the corner uh I
guess it would be the northwest corner of the property and then from there it goes out to Vanderve Avenue. >> Correct. >> Okay. And the PVC pipe that you're talking about, Mike, is the one that's from the on our property out to Vandervir.
>> Yeah, there's a reinforced concrete pipe, a 12 inch, >> right, >> that terminates on the subject property and runs to the west to Vanir. >> So there's one inlet that at the mouth of the pipe, >> okay, that catches it's upstream, but
it's to the east, >> right? >> There's runoff on the pro parcels on Grant and East Main to the east of the site. that runs to the west apparently enters the pipe but then that pipe discharges to the catch basin on Vander.
So what Steve has done, he's done the calcs for the catch basins on site >> catch bas >> and he's demonstrated that the 8 inch pipe the 8 inch that collects to the RCP pipe 12 inch pipe is adequately sized for a 10 10 years 10ear storm which I
don't have a problem with. >> So is that inlet that is on the norththeast corner is that on this subject property here? >> Yes, >> it is. There is a the pipe terminates and that's where there's a c there's a a
grate on top of the pipe, but that is what collects the storm water runoff from the properties towards the east that apparently there's a swale or some kind of somehow I I think there's supposed to be a soil. I'm not sure it it's there, but there's a drainage
problem back there. I'm I'm aware of from 20 years uh that there's a collection issue and that's why I don't if it's a swale, a lack of a swale, or the pipe has a capacity issue. Is the water coming in this 12-in pipe and
backing up everywhere? That's why I asked the question whether the pipe is adequately sized. uh the bureau's position at least DBWs is there's no easement and they don't want to maintain any more infrastructure which I get but if that pipe is
undersized and it's collecting from multiple places upstream and the pipe has to be replaced because it's undersized I I I'm throwing out there that might be something that the applicant needs to talk about the with the burrow because
then you're dealing with runoff other sources that's going through the applicant's parcel that upgrades needed >> and and replacing a pipe on the adjacent property would need their right, you know, authorization as well. And I'm not sure, you know, if that's >> how that would work. >> Yeah. Before you start digging things
up, how about just cleaning it? Maybe it's >> I think that's a great suggestion. >> Y Okay. [snorts] >> I think there's some property owners here that might have answers when you get to the Thank you, Larry.
>> You're welcome. Very helpful. >> So, Steve, I had some questions about granite curbing versus the concrete curving. Are you okay with putting granite curbing? >> Yeah, sure. Yep. >> Anybody else on the board have any
questions? Anyone from the audience have any questions of the testimony given by Mr. Parker? >> I found out if you ignore me won't go away.
>> You know the rules. >> Please give your name and address, sir. >> Dan Swah, 16 Grant Avenue. uh over the uh corner lot. Uh with regard to the swale, I heard it mentioned at a meeting quite like this many years ago. From Reh Hill to
Vanderve, the backyards have a 2 to 4 inch swale, which turns into a 1 foot deep by 6 to 10 foot wide swale in my backyard, a little bit wider on property to the west of us or east rather. Um the
pipe is situated um on the east northeast corner. And as far as the three drainage um uh capabilities on the property, that one pipe uh has a drain, water's never
seen it except for things like Hurricane Ida. Um yesterday with the the storm that we had, light storm I should say, um you know, it rained steadily all day, relatively light. the water was flowing.
Um the property directly behind us has drainage ditches on either side that fill that. I've never seen water come back. Wouldn't hurt to run a camera down there. Um but um I I've never seen water come back. Um when you have a storm of
significance and it's filled up, how can you tell which way it's running? Um it just fills up. uh the property to the uh east of us um recently the their swale they've been filling in with landscaping material so
it's um I think that's creating a a problem with the backup but um didn't seem to be um inhibiting water flow yesterday um as far as lighting um the lights were recently repaired or turned
on I don't know if the light on the pole to the back of the house facing our properties was burned out or maybe it was just shut off. Um but now that one's lit again and with the trees that have been removed, no buffer. Um the lighting is very obtrusive. There's no shielding
on it. Um we would like to see shielding. Um or you know remove the lights. I don't know that you need to have all those lights. Um, one thing that was nice is recently to notice there seems to be a timer put on them. So, they do go off somewhere
around 10 or 11 o'clock at night. The house on the corner next to it though has three lights unshielded and they stay on all night. They're kind of annoying. Um, but that's the property. Um, so we would uh with regard to the
parking lot, I'm glad to hear that some of it's going to be removed. We would like to see some trees rather than That would create a better buffer and soak up water going to be done. >> That's all I have.
>> Thank you. Anyone else in the audience have any com comments or questions on the >> Yes. >> testimony? So, we will move for >> German. [laughter] Nice try. The first thing I'm going to say is that
this applicant is not the responsibility. This is not the responsibility of this Larry Cleveland. Everybody knows me. 34 Grant Avenue >> and I have lived in town for 27 years or 28 years. Okay.
>> And I've been on the planning board almost the entire time. And [snorts] I was never allowed to talk about developments that were on the street because it was a conflict of interest. But every time the planning board
approved a parking lot on East Main Street, they went, "Don't worry about it. The swale is going to take care of the water." Every time there are nine buildings on the street that were parking lots were
put in or redeveloped, expanded, and every time the swale is going to handle it. So, their property right now, yeah, it's not taking anything else in because it's just their water renewal. It's not handling
things coming from up up the street because it pulls in my backyard because two houses down when they did a renovation on the house, the DPW did an investigation and found out that the
swale is blocked right there. That's where it's blocked. So the water comes down from Rehill and it stops and it ends up in 34 40. >> Larry, what's the question? >> The question is
before we before we you you wanted questions. You want you I'm giving you answers to >> Well, the the question is what are what what's the applicant going to do about >> fixing the swale so that they can do a
proper calculation for the pipe that's in their backyard? >> This this has to get fixed. This has been 27 years of this and it got worse about 10 years ago when they renovated this house. I've been asking for this
for years. Now is the time to like let's take a look at it. We know exactly where it is. The town has been counting on this swale for 20some years. So you can't go, "Oh well, oh well now now it's private property, so we can't do
anything about it." That's nonsense. And I got stronger words. You have to the DPW has to do something about it so that that pipe will handle the water that's coming down and if it does have to get replaced then we can replace it.
>> But you know um one of the things that this board has done we made a recommendation because of all the uh applications in the P zone which this was or is uh requesting to go to residential. with residential there's going to be less
parking and just as they're doing they're removing some of the madam 2500 square feet I believe >> that's true and that's going to run the reduced runoff for theirs but it doesn't do anything upstream
this pipe is on their property it's not taking any water in because it's not getting there because the swale is blocked >> but we'll find that out once it's once they run the cameras through >> I I'll I'll bet you money right now there's nothing wrong with that pipe.
There's nothing blocked in the pipe because nothing's getting there but water. It's blocked two properties up. I can guarantee it because the DPW already investigated and told me that. >> That's something Mr. Parker's going to have to take take a look at. >> Well, that's that's what I'm saying. We
got to get it fixed because it it just can't stay like this. >> Any other questions? Could I ask you? Oh, Larry, before you go, >> this the swale you're talking about is not on this property. >> It the swale is two properties before. It goes the entire way up
>> towards Rehill >> from Rehill all the way down. Every property on Rehill and I mean, excuse me, every property on Grant and every property on East Main that shared a parking lot has the swale. After it passes my property, it goes one more
property and now it's blocked. And that's the property right before this pipe that we're concerned about it being blocked. It's not being blocked. The water's not getting there from two properties away.
And this is from DPW, not my opinion. They told me what happened. >> And when you say the swale is blocked, what's blocking it? >> Grass. soil that they filled in the soil on the back of this property over a building
that was recently renovated about. >> And Dan, that's what you were talking about that it's being filled in. >> Okay. >> So, the swell doesn't exist anymore. It doesn't meander anywhere. It stops. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else have any questions of the uh testimony of Mr. Parker? >> Uh do I restate my >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Brian Hobby. I'm the owner of the
property behind it at 10 Grant Avenue. As far as the uh drainage goes, the parking lot seems to handle the water pretty well from what I've noticed over the last 29 years. Um on the maps there, it is listed as an
intermittent stream that starts by the hospital and comes around the backside. I don't know if that makes any difference to uh people that are professionally planners or whatever, but I just thought I'd mention that. Are we talking about the parking lot now or
>> we're talking about any uh thing that Mr. Parker had testified to? >> Um so it's going to go down to six spaces. Are they going to come in in the same direction that they're coming now or are they going to be along the back side
facing my property? >> Mr. Parker. >> Yeah. So the um the stalls are going to stay basically the way they are. Um, and I think what we talked about, the driveway is going to stay in the same location. We're we're taking uh pavement off of the back uh of the parking lot.
And then what Mr. Cole was just suggesting was actually eliminating some more along the westerly side [snorts] and and making it shorter along the westerly side. So the entrance and the the driveway into the back will stay the same. Part of the back parking lot,
which on the plans that were submitted is the hatched area, that's going to be removed. And then some additional area along the westerly side um is also going to be removed as well. >> Yeah, that that works better. >> So is is there still going to be
professional use of this building? Possibly in the future >> come back for a change of use. >> They would have to P and they want to use it downstairs, >> right? >> Yeah. So technically it could be used in the future. in the future. Yes,
>> that would be permitted. Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. That's it for now. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Parker. >> I have no further questions for Mr. Parker. >> Anyone else from the audience have any
questions? Mr. Parker, >> just uh landscape, Michael, is that who's going is that Mr. Parker or is that the architect or applicant or property owner >> species are you're talking about
>> species is there any >> if you have suggestions then we could >> are those evergreen trees on the rear or they shrubs or varieties there's they were the eight trees shrubs planted [snorts] along the northern property
line I just didn't know who's going to anybody comment on >> yeah I mean those are those are arborites that have that have been planted there already in the back and I think Mr. also made some suggestions about some of the landscaping across the front of the property that's existing right now, maybe overgrown. Um so yes,
the applicant is certainly going to revise that as part of the project. They're going to um you know, plan on just doing like you would expect for a normal residential attractive landscaping package. Um you know, I think that Mr. Cole commented about trees, street trees as well. Uh those uh
I think the suggestion was not to include those in this because of the wires that are across the front of the site. So I think um we can either I think the suggestion was there's either a requirement for a contribution or maybe we can put some trees in the backyard uh as described by Mr.
Sorry, I forget who mentioned it. Probably about maybe some a tree or two in the backyard in addition to the uh arborites. I believe we can, you know, put some of those back there also. There's plenty of room for that [snorts] >> along the western property line with the
parking spaces, >> right? In that in that area, right? >> And so the board knows six spaces. The ordinance requires four. So the applicant's asking for two more for guest parking or parties or what
have you. So it's not in my opinion overly excessive for two >> our final witness is Elizabeth Mcmanis from the firm of Kyle Mcmanis who's our professional planner. Good evening, Mr. McManis. Would you
please uh do you solemnly, sir, the pardon me, do you solemnly sure the testimony you're about to give in this matter will be the truth? So, I hope you got it. >> I do. >> Please state your name and spell your last name for the record. >> My name is Elizabeth Mcmanis. Mus.
>> Thank you. >> Good evening. >> Good evening, uh, Miss McManis. Um, could you just provide a little bit of your professional experience as a planner? relate to her credentials. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Okay, folks. So, uh, we have a couple
variances I want to I need to address for you. The first one is I'd like to talk about the F variance. So, I'm I'm so pleased to have Mr. Cole point out the fact that we are now much closer to the permitted F than uh we were when the
application started. The PO district now permits 30% F. I think we really have what amounts to a dimminimous variance at this point because we are at 30.19%. So just uh just less than uh2%
of uh of an overage of the permitted F. That said, uh I do still want to go through some of the testimony to to help the board understand uh the what I think is really the lack of impact from the the increased floor area. Um, I do want
to point out that we have uh we have some uh when when I review the definitions related to floor area ratio and gross floor area, there is language that floors with or areas with uh floor to
ceiling heights of less than seven feet don't contribute. Now, we've included that for the sake of providing a conservative uh calculation because there is other language about having the gross floor area when it's used for storage and things and human habitation
contributing to aspects like parking and other aspects of the of code requirements. But I do want to point that point out that we have uh areas in the basement and significant areas in the attic that are indeed at less than 7
feet in height. And so that that's uh I think that's also could contribute to a lower F if we wanted to try to take uh a different outlook on how to do that calculation. But as I said, we tried to be conservative for the sake of capturing all floor area uh for the
board's understanding. But that if we were going to take this alternative tactic or strategy, our F would be closer to 22%. Um but beyond that, even even with the 30.19%
F, uh there are a couple uh aspects of this project that I think the board can consider in hopefully finding in favor of our variance. And that is first and foremost, we're not looking for a change in the building footprint at all. Instead, this additional floor area
really is a is a result of the one-story uh portion of the building that's going or the the increase in height as it expands the floor area on the upper stories. Um, [snorts] and so it doesn't create an enlarged footprint. It doesn't change the
setbacks. For example, it's not bringing the building closer to the street or closer to our neighbors. Um the increased floor area is also in this case not indicative of uh excessive intensity of the building as you so often see with F variances. Instead,
we're actually reducing our impervious cover by about 2500 square feet and we're reducing the as part of that reduction in impervious cover, we're actually reducing the parking as well. And I would suggest that that's indicative of reduced intensity of use
of the pro of the property. We just simply need to have less parking to host fewer people coming and going on the property. And so this increase in F uh is is simply not related to an increase
in activity on the property or intensity of use. Um in terms of uh and I let me back up for a moment. I cite that in part because for F for uh while this is a Dvariance we're not looking for the
typical Dvariance criteria whether it meets uh special reasons purposes municipal land use law rather the the question that must be asked is whether or not the property can accommodate the increased floor area here I think the answer is clearly yes given the lack of
footprint changes and the lack of increased uh intensity or increased activity on the building itself and the site itself for the negative criteria for the F notw notwithstanding these uh different criteria there's also needs to be a
finding that there's no substantial detriment and here I think the board can easily find in favor of that in fact I think there's there's really no negative impact from the increased building area of that uh of that 0.19 as the P
district now permits uh the intent of F is typically tocl to include that intensity. But here, I don't think we have that issue. In fact, we're proposing to occupy the site with just two housing units, uh, which is, I think, less activity than an office use
occupying this site would produce. We have, uh, no increased disturbance of the site. In fact, our the disturbance is related to removing that impervious cover. We've got negligible traffic. And then also as I look around at the surrounding area, which is really a mix
of homes as well as offices, what I see are buildings that are similarly sized. Uh, and in terms of how they present to the street, I also see buildings that are similarly wide. So, our building is approximately 50 feet wide. And when I
view the properties along our side of the street um as well as those across the street, what I see are building sizes or not sizes but widths rather that range from about 33 feet to 55 ft. So, uh with the largest building
actually being directly across the street from us on lot 14. And so we are uh as I view the neighborhood, I think we're really in line or consistent with the size of buildings uh along this portion of East Main Street.
Our second variance is uh building height variance. We've got a a C2 variance for this. Um happy to hear that uh that the board is not asking us to meet uh D6 variance, although I I do think that we could satisfy that as well. Uh notwithstanding though, for the
C2 variance, I'd say there are two purposes of the municipal land use law that are advanced by our application. The first is purpose J which addresses prevention of urban sprawl, degradation of the environment and then al also
purpose M which is lessening the cost of development and a more efficient use of land. And the reason why I cite that is because in order to provide the floor area were in the and the bedrooms that were aspiring to provide residence on
this property, the alternative would be to expand the building footprint to the to the rear of the site as an alternative. Uh and here we're simply uh simply not necessary as we're able to go up in up in height. Uh instead uh I
would also suggest that uh and want to remind folks that while we are looking for this height variance, the proposal specifically is to simply bring the uh the portion of the building that's at a single story now up to match the
existing height of the remaining portion of the building. So this is not a proposal to increase the overall height of the building. uh instead it's simply a proposal to uh to create a consistent roof line across the front of the building. But as a result of the
proposed changes to that upper story, we're moving from a half story to a third story. Although it will appear, I think to to folks walking, driving, and living in the area, it will appear to be the same height. It's just a virtue of
the technical manner in which the burrow defines a story versus a height. half story that triggers the variance. >> Mr. Cole taught a class on that one night. >> Oh, an application. Half story and height.
It was it was a classic. >> Well, I'm sorry I missed it, I guess. >> Uh so, as I said, for uh for the positive criteria for a height, it's purposes J and M that I would point to as being relevant. for our negative criteria for
the for the C2 variance. It's uh it's a typical negative criteria whether there's any substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan. And I think here the case is is certainly not. In fact, I really don't see a negative impact by virtue of the fact that the
building height is not actually increasing in terms of feet uh beyond what it is today. And in fact, we're at just 34 feet in height whereas 35 feet is what's permitted. Uh, and we're also not increasing the overall appearance of
the number of stories perhaps to a to a layman is the better way to put it for folks that are walking or driving down the street. The building today looks like a two and a half story building uh albeit with a one-story portion. The building will continue to look like a two and a half story building uh if
we're lucky enough to achieve approval. Uh height is also often used by municipalities to control the intensity of the use. But as I said before, uh this is not a story of increased intensity. We're in fact just proposing two apartments and I would point to the
removal of parking as uh as evidence of the the reduced intensity that can be anticipated from the property. And overall in uh through this building change, through this building addition, one of the one of the benefits that the
burrow will will receive is that the outside of the building is really going to be improved. It's going to have a bit of a facelift uh such that the building is going to be modernized, improved in in appearance, and I just I think just frankly look nicer for the neighborhood.
Um, and before I address some master plan items, there are a handful of exceptions I want to review that we uh that we're seeking. The first one is uh section 10288C. Uh, and this is about landscaping around the perimeter of the parking lot. We are
uh well I suppose now at this point given we're proposing to remove some of the parking uh paving from the the width of the parking area will have an opportunity to provide some landscaping but nonetheless we may still need relief. So I would like to address it uh
as uh as the property exists uh today uh we don't have adequate space to provide landscaping on both sides. as we have proposed to amend the application this evening will have adequate space to provide landscaping on simply one side
and I believe the board has uh has suggested that the land excuse me the parking area be reduced from the side of or the western property line which abuts the adjacent parking area and so we'll be able to provide some buffering along that side. We're also looking for relief
from uh waste removal and recycling that requires uh exterior refuge pickup to be accessible to sal waste trucks and that's simply unnecessary given our application is to bring the garbage to the street for regular pickup. It's sort
of an unnecessary improvement. We are also looking for relief on uh on shade trees on the property. uh although perhaps we've we've already committed to providing additional shade trees. So that that item of relief may indeed be
uh eliminated. But notwithstanding, I would say uh we did pro we did plant the eight trees along the rear of the property. And while they're not shade trees, they are indeed to they are indeed trees of course and they'll provide some environmental benefit and they'll also provide some screening
benefit as they continue [snorts] to mature. We are looking for relief on street trees. Uh as we just heard Mr. Parker referenced, there are uh wires across the front that prevent our ability to provide the street trees, but again, we're proposing to mitigate that
through additional landscaping on the property uh if we're able to achieve an approval. We're also uh the last item of relief is really for light trespass. There's a requirement for uh for not greater than.5 foot candles at the property
line. And uh I want to be really clear, the area that we're seeking relief from is the property line that abuts the adjacent parking lot. And so this is not uh a request to uh seek relief for a property line that's shared with one of our residences perhaps to to the east or
perhaps to the rear. Instead, it's just on the existing parking lot. And I want to note that this is largely an existing condition as the the uh the lights exist uh today. And I do think uh I do want to make sure that we have adequate light for the residents that live on the
property. But uh notwithstanding uh we have agreed to a light meter test post construction just to confirm that the lighting is not excessive and and presumably if it if it is found to be a problem, we'll address the lights to ensure they're not a nuisance for the area.
And then uh I do want to talk about the master plan. There are a few goals that I think our application is advancing and this is from your 2021 master plan. There are a few housing goals and policies. The the first one to site is a goal to provide a range of housing types
to meet varied resident population needs as well as to preserve [snorts] established resident residential areas and promote redevelopment by establishing redevelopment areas. The relevant portion here is to provide a range of housing types to meet varied population needs. Uh and I don't think
we are preserving an established residential area necessarily. We are restoring what was once a house uh converted to an office now proposing to uh uh convert it back to a residential use which is consistent with many of the
buildings in the area including our neighbor to the east. We also have a goal to increase the opportunities for households to obtain satisfactory housing at a variety of prices. And I think here with our uh our three-bedroom rentals, it's really going to create a
niche housing type. It's hard to find uh three-story rental units oftentimes and I'm sure as the the burrow seen for many of its new developments uh unless it's an affordable unit. So often they are only one and two bedrooms and this really creates an opportunity for for
households that are looking for a little bit more space. Maybe they want to work from home. They'll be able to do so uh in the privacy privacy of their homes uh in one of these two apartments that are being proposed. And then the Last part of the master
plan I wanted to cite is a policy which is to encourage attractive site appearance, consistency and good design. And I think that's one of the benefits of this application. Not only are we uh proposing to take some environmental uh impacts and reduce them by the through
the reduction in the impervious cover, but the uh the result from the result of this application, particularly from the street, will be a nicer looking building that's modernized with improved uh building materials and just simply a facelift through not only the building,
but also through landscaping that we're proposing. And all of that will uh will simply improve the site and the and the surrounding area. And the last thing I want to remind folks about is we have uh committed to review and clean up the uh
the drainage pipe as needed which will have another benefit hopefully for the neighborhood assuming that we find a blockage. >> And with that folks I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Anyone from the board have any questions of the testimony just given? Anyone from the audience have any
questions of the testimony just given by Miss McManis [clears throat] >> and Brian Hobby uh from the property behind 10 Grant Avenue. Um you're going to do more landscaping. >> I think that was uh one aspect that we
just talked about with with Mr. Parker's testimony. Yes. >> Right. So, shade trees and more better screening >> in the rear of the property and to the side of the property. You going to remove the light poles or have we decided not or is that going to happen?
>> The light pole closest because you're directly to the rear, right? >> Yes. >> The light. >> There's two in the back. So, are they going to be moved forward? I mean, do you need the light poles [snorts] or >> one of them is proposed to be moved forward to to essentially reuse so that we can light the parking lot, but they
will be uh significantly farther from your property line. And so I would expect the lighting [snorts] >> and there'll be hoods or something on them or the leakage the whole test. >> They're uh downward facing lighting. Uh they should not have uh >> Well, right now they're not downward,
but they're they're 45 degree angle. The proposed light fixtures are downward facing. And not only that, but when I view the lighting plan, what I don't see is any light spill on your property. >> Okay. Yeah. Because right now it's pretty bright. That's all. And there is
no screening between the two properties. There used to be lots of trees, lots of undergrowth, lots of trees all around. Since we've started this proceedings, I've had to take another tree down. So, you know, I would like to because in the
past that property was used where people would come and go 24/7. >> The lights come down that driveway and boom, right on me. So, when I stand on the ground level with the fence as it is now, the entire
property is cut off. I can see East Main Street, but once they turn on, you know, the driveway is gone, the parking lot is gone. If you're up a little bit higher, the parking lot is still gone with my fence there. That's my only issue. As
far as less intensive use of the property, it couldn't get any less intense as it is now. They show up at 8, they leave at 5. No nights, no weekends, and all I can think of is a counseling service moving in later on where you
have people every hour coming in with the lights shining toward our property. Now, luckily, there's enough room. This is a 200 foot deep property. Every and the one next to it is, but everybody else is 175. So, I guess you can have
the property uh parking go in the um parallel to me. Other prop if the parking lot gets short and they're coming at me, that's that would be a problem. But it seems like you have the parking going in the proper direction. >> That's correct. They'll come down the driveway, they'll turn if you're a
driver, you'll turn left into a parking space. >> Yeah. Um, and so just just so you see, uh, I don't shown on this, but there's a light pole back here that will be relocated to our parking area. And so that'll move the lighting the light
fixture as well as the light spill away from your property. And then all of the cars will continue to park this way. And so yes, you may see the headlights as they come up the driveway, but then they'll be turning away from your site towards the the office property. >> All right. And what about this light here?
>> That is I think that's proposed to be eliminated as well. >> It's right here. Actually, >> please try to speak into the microphone. >> Are you going to move it? Are you going to move that? >> Excuse Mr. >> Could you speak into the mic? >> I'm sorry. Uh,
>> it is not proposed to be uh relocated to this corner. All of the >> Is it being eliminated? >> Uh, I believe it is. All of our light fixtures are proposed along the western property line. There are none proposed [clears throat] along the rear of the parking area which is closer to your home.
>> Right. But this one is still going to >> Yeah, there'll be there. >> But this one will be gone. >> Yes, there'll be here and here >> and hooded and downward facing. >> Correct. >> Uh doesn't have to be on a timer or anything, but uh that would be nice,
too. Uh, I think that's about it. >> I think you'll I I I believe that the impact on your property as a result of this application is going to be much less. You'll have more grass area. There'll be additional plantings beyond
what's there and the lighting will be uh much farther from your property than exist today. >> Yeah. I'm cur I'm also curious as to why it goes from a two and a half to a threetory. There's some nuances in >> I know there's some nuances, but if you ever go to uh Kate May and take a tour
>> always there. They're like two and a half story. And the reason for that was so they could uh avoid property taxes. So where there's a will, there's a way. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Anyone else on board?
Okay, Mr. Bradic, >> any other witnesses? >> No other witnesses. Um, just my closing is that um the applicant submits the requested variances satisfy the statutory criteria under the municipal land use law. Now, the proposed conversion will promote the purposes of
the zoning as set forth by our planner, including the reap reuse and and adaptive conversion of this office building to provide new housing opportunities consistent with several's need for diverse residential options. Uh it's consent consistent with the intent and spirit of the zoning plan and we for
these reasons the applicant respectfully requests that the board grant the requested variances so that the property can be adapted into a beneficial residential use. >> Thank you. Anyone from the audience have any comments?
Now's your time. >> Okay. Anyone for the board? >> Sorry. Anyone like to move to close the public portion of this application? >> So move. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I >> I think I think overall it's a it's as a
neighbor I would consider it an improvement. you know, it should be less intense. Uh we the housing is an issue. We we do need decent housing and this appears to fit the bill. I I they're going to put the sprinkler
system in. We've got a basement on the third floor. I'm happy with it. [snorts] >> Um yeah, less lights when impossible I think I think would help everybody out. I know I can
You know, I know when that happens and it always starts out like, oh, but the and the lights end up bothering you. So, if we can take some away or really make sure it's screened. Um, but the
more landscaping will help, but other than that, the water thing, um, it sounds like to me it's not this property's problem. Um, I think it would be in good faith to
like make sure that if that problem is alleviated that that pipe can take the water like it's not clogged or anything, but right now it sounds like that problem is is properties away. And that's that's that's basically all I
have to say about it. Uh, I like the plan. I think it's a substantial improvement uh to the area and uh I hope we can clean up the landscaping, put a little bit more landscaping in to shield some of the
lighting issues and uh maybe also to eliminate some of the light poles there make it less commercial. >> I was going to suggest, Mr. chairman, as a condition of approval, as we've done with a recent application, that
landscaping be subject to the review and approval of Mr. Mr. Cole. Um, I think that's probably good way to serve the uh the board's per the you know, the board's purposes and also to
meet with the uh comments made by members of the interested public. You object to that, Mr. Cole? No, I I think it's the landscaping is be a beneficial for the surrounding houses
and uh I'd like to see if the two light poles to the north can be eliminated >> and the parking lot illuminated from the house side like it's classically done in a two family house >> uh with down with uh lights that are
shielded as we discussed so that you don't have a lot of light trespass and you don't have the direct glare. Uh the the term is full cut off. So I don't know if it's the the architects or office or >> Mr. Parker someone uh that we can u we
normally the board would like to see all this as we said but I I think that the applicant Mr. Grodnik knows what we're trying to achieve here with the landscaping and the light trespass and the more residential look. So I'm comfortable should the board want to
move this on conditions that we can work up during uh compliance. >> And one other question uh Mr. Chairman in connection with the drainage. I mean uh Mr. Cole, do you believe it's appropriate that we have the video of the uh of you know the drainage as we do
on certain properties? >> There seem to be some questions as to whether you know Mr. Mr. O'Neal pointed out a number of things. Yeah, I take that off the table. The question is the residents
Larry has brought up that we have a drainage problem there that's to the east of the site. Obviously, that's a swale that's not on the property, the subject property. However, it would be nice to say if the water gets to the pipe the pipe can adequately convey the
water. So, I think the testimony from uh Mr. Parker was he could do the calculations so we could see if the pipe is adequately sized. If the pipe is adequately sized then it becomes the issue of getting the water to the pipe and the clippings and are filled in. Uh
unfortunately that's on private property not on the applicant's property. So, uh, to the extent to to help the residents, uh, it might be a recommendation, should the board approve this, to have the burrow look at this swale and try to,
uh, get private parties to, uh, convey the storm water. Uh, because I don't think there's an easement back there from the burrow. >> So, it's a total private property issue upstream of the pipe, unless I'm missing
some information. Okay. >> But it sounds like somebody may have interfered with the drainage that was existing, >> right? >> And and that I think can be a municipal issue. >> It's private property and I I think from what the residents are saying that the
swale has been blocked or filled in. >> So if the pipe is adequately sized, you still can't get the water to the pipe. Uh so to to to the extent of what's in front of the applicant, if the pipe demonstrated to be the right size and
clear. >> The applicant is I don't know how the applicant can be bound to >> working on somebody else's property. >> I agree. But maybe we as a board ought to ask the town to go take a look. just a recommendation saying >> if it's creating a nuisance or dangerous
condition at that point it becomes a municipal issue >> if and I've heard this and I've heard Larry and I've been subject to other applications and I agree with Larry there's a drainage issue back there
>> and at some point I agree that should be addressed the question is it's all private property rich to go back to your point >> yeah but if if I change the water flow in my neighborhood and direct it onto my neighbor's lawn. >> I agree. I know what you're saying. You're saying you can't do that. I
agree. I agree. >> No, no, no argument there, Rich. >> I mean, go ahead. >> At the end of the day, I I mean, the reduced um impervious coverage is going to do nothing but improve the situation,
>> right? The question before the community is whether or not that reduction is if they clear the swale and stuff like that and water flows. We don't know yet if that reduction is going to be
>> um is going to alleviate all the issues in the area. Right. We don't know like you said we don't know if the pipe is right size but that the sizing of the pipe is not necessarily the full responsibility of this application. I'd hate to go through this tremendous effort to get all this coordination,
have the swale redone, eliminate the drainage, and have the pipe back up. >> Obviously, the whole thing should be looked in its entirety. So, if the pipe is undersized because of the drainage area updated, then I'm suggesting that the burrow would have to get involved
because uh the storm water runoff for the whole area is is is caused by others, third parties. That's not the applicant's responsibility. >> Agreed. Yes, >> that's where I'm coming from. At some point, this becomes,
>> as I think Mr. O'Neal has said, >> uh, the burrow needs to get involved and do some cooperation and maybe there's violations for filling things and changing the runoff, which has been suggested, but any of those would require some burough intervention.
>> Yes. >> So, I my opinion, the best I think this board, as Cliff could do is make a recommendation to the the bureau to investigate this and to get the swale running properly
and from the applicant and Mr. Parker has said and I agree with do the calculations to show that the pipe is adequately sized for whatever that drainage area is keep it clear and then it becomes an applicant an issue of the
swale and a violation upgradient now and that's the DPW's position is the pipe they don't want to maintain the pipe >> and I'm just saying as a caveat caveat if the pipe has to be changed because it's undersized
Then it evolves. I don't know how it doesn't because the pipe goes across two properties, ties into a a catch basin that's owned by the burrow. So I think at that point the burrow would be forced and to have some joint agreement on it. Just my opinion.
>> You know, if somebody filled that swale, it's not that hard to unfill it. I mean, we're not talking rocket science here, >> right? >> Yeah. I mean I I I I like the uh improvements to the application. I uh really do appreciate the reduction in
the uh intensity of usage and the reduction in impervious coverage. Again, this is this can only improve what's happening in the area um in terms of in terms of drainage and whatnot. And I don't know this I guess this is the question we're
all talking about. I don't know if it's this application's responsibility to be entirely responsible for the drainage of that area, right? They h they play a role, but I don't uh for sure, but I don't know if they should be they should
because of that that 12-in pipe >> is not entirely theirs. I don't think they should bear full responsibility for it. But I think you're right. I think calculations should be done. I think separately the addition the issue of the the block be addressed. Um but but all
those things I don't I don't see any reason why this application should be delayed while those things are while that swale is addressed separately. >> I like the application. Um I do appreciate the applicant listening from the first meeting in September coming
back makes some changes. I don't really have anything else to add. >> Who are you? >> What' you do with that? [laughter] beat the >> I had a feeling of deja vu on this one
about the swale and and the drainage. It came up before on the uh two and a half stories as I said about 15 years ago Mrs. Cole taught a class on it Marcus Rosenau on
East Cliff Street Mike the difference between two and a half and three stories. This board took a position a couple years ago as we've seen more and more applications in the P zone want to go to residential which is great because we
need we need more apartments but the P zone is on the on the way out to answer what I think was Mr. Hobby said uh the question he asked could somebody come back in in the future and want to put an office in it yes because
we still zone and it's legal. Uh I think all the work that's being done on the swale on the pipe uh and the impervious coverage is good. I I like the applications and
uh three st three apartments probably go about five grand each. I'm I'm in favor of it. So board would pleasure. >> I'll move to approve it. >> Second.
>> Move in. Second. Any more discussion? >> Roll call, please. >> Chairman Adair, >> yes. >> Vice Chairman Edot, >> yes. >> Morgan McGlaughlin, >> yes. >> Rich O'Neal, >> yes. >> Brian Viddimky, >> yes. >> John Flores, >> yes.
>> Thanks everybody. Merry Christmas to you. >> Merry Christmas. >> Oh, uh, one thing, you know, I'm sure Mr. Mr. Oradic knows what I'm going to ask to make this subject to uh the comments and terms and conditions set forth in uh
>> I got so tied up with the swale I forgot we all know >> you know so it's subject to the comments and conditions set forth in Mr. Kohl's November 26 2025 report. >> Yeah Mike I think one of the things when
we get these uh trees that are required in the front yard, one for every 50 feet. If they can't do it, they want to waiver. I don't think we can we as a board can u give them a pass on that. I think that's going to come before the uh
environmental commission. >> Yeah, I think they have to. I I was going to say I don't think I'm not sure we can do it, but >> the uh ordinance says that financial contribution of 650 can be uh made in lie of planting the
should the board feel that it's not appropriate. >> Well, whatever. Utility poles, location. >> Yeah. Overhead wise. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> One thing left. What? >> Oh, >> the seventh item you have is I'm I'm
sorry. Are you ready for that? The seventh item you have is the light waiver for checklist 45-55 Hamilton Street. >> It's just for clarification to the board. Uh PSCG is coming in for a land use application to cap I think black top
paving of one of their sites off of Hamilton Street. And they've asked for a waiver for site lighting, but I want to make the board aware. I do believe it's a waiver for providing lighting, not a waiver for not showing it. So I I'm not
100% sure which one it is. Uh, I think it's a waiver for providing lighting because they're not proposing lighting. So, if they're not proposing lighting, they can't show us anything. So, obviously, it's not a waiver, but I just want to
make it clear clarification that they're I do, if you read the language of what they're saying, they're saying they're asking for a waiver providing site lighting. I'm interpreting that mean they're not proposing any onsite site lighting. So it wouldn't be
>> just capping the property, right? >> That's that's I'm just making the board aware that I'm interpreting this to mean they're not providing >> site lighting and that's why they're asking for a waiver once the application is deemed complete. Uh the alternative
is they're asking for a waiver to de showing the lighting which I don't think is the fact. uh typically uh site lighting, landscaping, the existing conditions the board likes to see and doesn't typically grant checklist items
for that. I'm just reconfirming that and I'll I'll drill down with the applicant to make sure. No, we're not providing any lighting on the site because we're just capping it as Mr. O'Neal had just said. >> Well, they they are they done the cleanup over there or is that still ongoing? I think it's somewhat
monitoring ongoing and that's why they're looking to finalize [clears throat] the cap or the black top on the site and it'll be coming in front of the application. It's on the agenda just to make sure the board's aware that as long as I drill down on this and
they're saying no, we're not showing any lighting because we're not proposing it. Then that'll be addressed at the hearing as opposed to asking for a waiver for the subject. So that's all just making sure you're aware
>> of that a waiver request and I'm not 100% sure right now. I think it's for the they're not showing lighting because they're not providing any lighting because it's being capped. So >> we declared it complete yet. >> Right. It hasn't been deemed complete. It's on the checklist item. I said on
the checklist you have to provide lighting and the responses were asking you for a waiver but they didn't say a waiver from >> design standards checklist. So I'm making sure the board is aware of that and that the position
that if it's not if it's a waiver from a checklist the answer is no. It's a waiver for not doing it that's a different story and entirely because they're going to say they're not providing any on-site activity. So why are we providing lighting? Which makes perfect sense. >> It's a perpetual vacant lot. >> There you go.
>> Yeah. Sounds like a Seinfeld. >> So to me, right, clarification, letting the board know, then I'll drill down. But should uh it become no, we're not providing sightelining, we'll address that. And that's not a checklist item. Obviously, I can't with the burrow can't provide
require something that they're not proposing. Right. >> True. >> Uh chairman, we're up to chairman's comments. This is the last meeting of the year. This year went fast. It was interesting. Next year is going to be
it's going to be a good year because this year was not good for me. Uh I've asked the mayor to keep the board intact. Those of us who were up for reappoint, I've asked that we keep we have some great boards. When I look at
the uh the burough council, I see Brian and Roger and The others that I look at the planning board, see Brian and Larry. >> Yeah. >> And others that I look at this board on
TV. We have We are blessed with some very talented people in this town and they're standing up. They're coming up and say, "I want to be a part of this. We're making this town great." Affordability, that's another problem. That's a universal problem. But here are
we going to get more more apartments? and I'm just looking forward to working with everybody next year. >> It's been a good year. Thanks a lot. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Take care. >> Honor, a pleasure. An honor and a pleasure.
>> Come in here like Will Chamberlain. I mean, Willis Reed. >> I'm sorry. I couldn't get a Unfortunately, I couldn't get a parking space and somebody parked in the uh handicap. >> Oh, no. >> We're going to need a motion to adjourn. Yeah, we
>> I'll move it. >> Second. >> We're just having so much fun. >> All in favor? >> All in favor? >> Thank you. You know