Testimony and new applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and the meeting will adjourn at 10 p.m. sharp. Adequate notice of this meeting was provided in the New Jersey Herald. It was also posted on the Sparta Township website and its bulletin board in accordance
with all provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act. Also, formal action may or may not be taken tonight by this board on the application to be heard this evening. also the practice of this board to salute the
flag. Please rise and join us. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Orisa, please call the role. Michael
Jafik here. Richard Larupa here. Richard Roarbacker here. Jennifer Paha here. Michael Steinberg here. Chairman Kenneth Lowry here. Glen Ke.
Oh, that was me. Yes, I'm here. We have a few resolutions to be memorialized tonight. The first one is application 3-25 Lake Mohawk preservation application for devariance decided on July 9th 2025.
Chair will entertain a motion. So move. Second, please. Second. Any discussion? Marissa, please call the role. Michael Jophic, yes. Richard Roarbacker,
yes. Jennifer Pernahan. Yes. Chairman Kenneth Larry. Yes. Second one is application 6-25 Firehouse Apartment LLC for DV variance decided on
August 13, 2025. The chair will entertain a motion. So move. Second, please. Second. Any discussion? Marissa, please call the role. Michael Jac, yes. Richie Larufa, yes. Richard Roarbacker.
Yes. Jennifer Paha. Yes. Chairman Kenneth Larry. Yes. Also application 8-25. Yippi Arts LLC for DV variance decided on August 13, 2025. Chair will entertain a motion.
So move. Second, please. Second. Any discussion? Marissa, please call the role. Michael Jipek, yes. Richard Laroffa, yes. Richard Roarbacker, yes. Jennifer Paha,
yes. Chairman Kenneth Flurry, yes. The final one is application 5-24 Main Street Creations LLC decided on August 13, 2025 for C Variance approval. Chair will entertain a motion.
So move. Second, please. Second. Any discussion? Marissa, please call the role. Michael, yes. Reggie Larupa, yes. Richard Robacker, yes. Jennifer Paha, yes. Chairman Kenneth Larry,
yes. We also have minutes to be approved from October 11, 2023. Is that date correct, Marissa? October 11, 2023. Any reason why so many years ago? I'm
just curious. I thought it was a misprint. No, just we're just catching up on the old ones from two years ago. Do we have many other ones going that far back too yet or not? Good. I will have to check on when Diana was here in 2022. I think we're all caught
up in 2023. Okay. Thank you. The chair, let's entertain a motion approving the minutes from October 11, 2023. So moved. Second, please. Second. Any discussion? Marissa, please call the role. Michael
Joseph, yes. Richard Larufa, yes. Richard Robecker, yes. Chairman Kenneth Larry, yes. We have one application to be heard tonight. The application 1-25 Lewis
Peralta for both Cvariances and Dvariances. The Dvariances are a D2 expansion of a non-conforming use and the D6 variance for the height of a principal structure exceeding by 10 ft or 10% the maximum height permitted in
that zone. We have a few applications being carried. Application 6-23 elite truck and tire LLC for the bulk C variances and
B variance which is a D1 use variance. Since storage of tires and trailers and tire recycling are not permitted use in that zone will be carried with further notice to October 8th,
2025. Also application 7-2566 Woodport LLC for Cabboke variances and a D1 use variance since billboards are not permitted use in that zone
will be carried with further notice to October 8th with further notice or without further notice Mr. Chair with no further notice. Correct. Thank you Glenn. Okay. October 8, 2025. Then after the one application is heard, I'll open the hearing to the public for
questions and comments they may have on items not on the agenda tonight. So the paratha application attorney and professionals please come forward. Is this thing on? Okay. All right. Uh good evening ladies and gentlemen. Uh Daniel Benondorf from the law firm of
Askin and Hooker uh representing American Remodelation. Um here on their behalf, although he hasn't stepped through the door, uh is Lewis Peralta. Um I also have a number of other experts here. They've all been sworn in and uh they've all been qualified except for one. He is a historian, Mr. McCabe. Mr.
McCabe, if you will still uh step up to the microphone, please. I will qualify Mr. McCabe. Always makes my night to have that opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Ke. Appreciate it. We'll also help you, Dan. Please identify yourself for the record,
sir. Wayne McCabe. Wayne, just point that mic. It's not picking you up so much, buddy. Just bring it closer. Here you go. I'll lean into it. Good. So, you are Wayne McCabe? I am. And you're licensed professional planner the state of New
Jersey, license number 2009. I've had that for 48 years now. And do you have any other special qualifications, Wayne? Yes, I'm a National Park Service qualified architectural historian. I've also just finished 12 and a half years as president of the County
Historical Society. I wrote a weekly column for the New Jersey Herald about local history for 10 years before the paper decided local history was no good to them. And um I also taught in historic preservation down at Drew University in their program. And you're
here to testify. He's council. He's here to testify in what? Uh as to the historical usage of the building uh based upon a request from the board at the last hearing. The board have any questions on Mr. McCabe's qualifications? No.
Okay, Wayne, you can relax. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Beckondorf, before you start, I guess you're familiar with the process here. I'll go over it again for the public. After you and your professionals have finished presenting your client's application,
uh we'll have our board professionals, David Simmons, our engineer, and Lindseay Knight, our professional planner, give their reports. After they're finished, our board members who have comments and questions will go next. After we're finished, I'll open a hearing to the public for their comments
and questions. And for the record, as you know, this is a Dvariance. You'll need five yes votes to have it approved. If it's approved, the warrants will be tied to the land in perpetuity as you know. And please yourself and your professionals speak
clearly and directly into the microphone since it's a state requirement that we have recordings of all procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, on that note, there's usually two microphones here. Um, I don't know if we still have them.
Look at the other one. The part of the one you want. Even just one might be a good because then then they don't have they can talk to their plants and um so it's not going to reach I don't think though. It's okay. Yeah, we're getting something. Okay. Yeah. In the meantime though, I can start talking and and get moving on it.
Um so we're here to discuss 20 Morris Lake Road. Uh it's block 27001, a lot 4. Uh it's a regularly shaped lot, 1.47 acres. It's located in the R2 zone. currently developed with a 5,000 plus
square foot uh building. Um for either a multif family or uh some other residential use currently um that's what our historian's here to discuss this evening. Um we were last before the board on July 9th, 2025. Um again I
discussed that uh we had a a planner testify. He put forth the standards required for the variance as all we we hope. Um, we had the engineer testify and we also had the architect testify. Uh, the last time we were before the board, the board had some concerns
regarding the architectural plans. They were unclear. The board had some concerns about uh environmental impacts around the area. Additionally, some additional um parking concerns. Um and uh and the board also had some questions about the histo history of the building
and how it was used over the many years that it has existed. Um since that time we've gone kind of back to the drawing board with respect to what we want to do with the building and keeping in mind that we wanted to reduce any uh significant impact to the to uh the
surrounding properties. Um what we've done is we've we've we've restricted uh the attic space to no um no livable area. The only access to the third floor is going to be through a ladder. Um and it's just going to be for storage space.
Um and then uh there's going to be four units as was always planned, but instead of two of those units being threebedroom, uh they're going to be only twobedroom. Um, we will note that uh that the plans that were resubmitted
to the board um did list three bedrooms. Um, but our expert is going to explain that this evening. Um, we spoke with the professionals um and we made some serious decisions on that. Uh the the
objective, the goal for my um my client is to ultimately create a livable space for young bluecollar and professionals uh in the area that are, you know, they've kind of aged out of their home. Um but they haven't, you know, they
haven't the the necessity for a a home yet. Um so they haven't been able to purchase a home yet. And so this is a place for them to reside in the meantime. Um there's going to be uh office spaces in the units for uh people if they work from home. Um there's going
to be an EV unit installed outside, but we'll get into that testimony. So I'd like to first bring up my engineer, if that's okay, to go over the changes in the plans regarding the area surrounding the building um and the height. Um so without further ado, Mr. Hogan.
Good evening. Um so as was mentioned, we What's your name? I'm sorry. My name is Joseph Hogan. last name H O G A N. And you were sworn in at the last meeting. Is that correct? Yes, I was. Okay. So, you're still under oath, Joe? Yes, sir.
Go ahead. Um, so we kind of went back a little bit and started looking at things a little bit from the beginning again. Um, as was mentioned, we decided to reduce the units in um the structure that we now
have four two-bedroom units. um which in turns reddo the parking calculations and requires fewer parking spots. So we're providing a main parking area to provide eight parking spaces
um based on the NJRSIS requirements uh as well as an EV parking spot. Um so someone with an electronic vehicle can um rent something there. they'll have a spot to charge their vehicle.
Um, and with the parking area, we've also added some further landscaping around there with uh some trees and some shrubbery to uh kind of beautify the area a little bit, as well as some trees lining the driveway.
Uh, we've also added a fence around the what I would consider the rear of the property um to help protect and uh discourage anyone from venturing into the um the brook that exists behind the
property. You've also included in your plans uh tree retention plans, correct? That was one concern of the board. They wanted to make sure that trees weren't regularly being removed from the property. Yes. The landscaping plan also includes a notation that all the existing trees
along the frontage of Morris Lake Road are to remain. The only tree removal that is proposed is uh for the installation of a septic system. And you also uh included on your plans the location of a water man. Is that
correct? Yes, the plans have been updated to indicate the location of the water man um that runs across the front of the property. Okay. And there was also a question regarding a runoff uh uh going down the property and crossing the street and
then somehow entering the lake. And so as a result of that, you've agreed to maintain and maybe even increase the size of um a water retention basin that exists on the property but isn't regularly used.
Uh correct. There is an existing lowlying area um to the south of the driveway entrance which currently prevents I'd say at least a majority of the
runoff that would be generated from the site from crossing the road and entering the lake. Um this lowlying area we are proposing to remain. Um if need be, we could expand it as well to further increase the volume of water that it can
contain. Um along with that, the drainage uh system we are proposing has been altered a little bit to collect the runoff generated by the structure itself. Um all of that runoff will be
captured through gutters and piped to a chamber underground chamber system that will allow that water to um sit underground and leech back into the water uh the groundwater. Okay. Um and then uh there was also um uh
because we're reducing the amount of bedrooms uh the septic uh gallonage requirement would be reduced as well. Is that correct? Correct. The septic will be uh reduced compared to what was initially proposed
here. Um the revised plans do show a potential system based on the new sizing. Um and pending the board's approval, we will certainly work with the county health department to obtain their approval for the plans. Okay.
Uh and uh I think we included on the first plans, but just to be clear, there was a trash enclosure that was going to be uh installed and maintained uh to mimic uh you know the materials and and uh the look of the home. Is that correct?
That is correct. Yes. All right. Uh and that's in addition to all of the additional landscaping that we've provided for in the plans this time as well. Correct. another big concern for the uh board. Okay. And you mentioned the fence on the
back side of the property. Um and again, that's to prohibit or not prohibit, but just uh um it's it's to help people see that there is a divide between the property line and the creek that exists behind the property. Is that correct?
Yes. Okay. All right. Anything else you'd like to add, Mr. Hogan? Uh I believe the only other thing that really changed was uh the building height calculation. We took a second look at that uh based on the township's
definitions of height and average grade. Um so the sheet five of the plans do have a detailed um indicating how the average grade was calculated and using that with the existing um highest point of the structure. The
building height is now indicated at 39.8 ft u which exceeds the required limit of 35 ft. Um, so that is one of the variances we are looking for today and that's a pre-existing non-conforming variance as far as bulk standards are
concerned. Correct. Correct. Okay. Um, and then um I I do note uh Miss Knight uh is still calculating that we're going to need a variance for parking. Is that correct? Uh yes, I believe so.
So RSIS is maximum but you meet the requirements for the municipality which is eight. So, okay. Yeah. So, you meet the requirements for parking. And we actually have an extra one which makes the nine uh with the UV. Um so, or the EV. Uh so, that's good. That's good
news. Um so, uh anything else? So, that was a typo on my report should say technically it's conforming since RSIS is the maximum. Outstanding. Um great. Uh any uh any other testimony you want to provide, Mr. Hogan? It's okay. You know, I'm sure questions
will elicit more testimony, so that's good. Yeah, I think that covers the major changes from my end. That always was a good answer. Have anyone testimony? No. Thank you. Okay. Um, and so, uh, without, uh, further ado, I'd like to bring up the architect to kind of go over his revisions in the plans if that's okay.
Okay. Please go ahead, ma'am. We're going to want this marked as uh I have you on A3. You sure? That's what I have at So these are revised architecturals. Yeah, they're colorized.
Okay. and they clearly delineate the differences in the units. Yeah, I'm put as far as the architectural design like the quality of the products used.
Thank you. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for having me here. Um I was here back in July so I've been sworn in before. All right. But uh for the record your name and spell it again. Uh for the record my name is Bharat
Ramorti. Last name Ram Morti R A M A M O O R T H Y I'm a registered architect in the state of New Jersey in good standing. Thank you for taking this opportunity to talk to us again. What I wanted to really highlight through this effort was
to show how we're uh calculating the units uh what we're proposing for the units internally and to some extent what we're treating for the external site. As Dan mentioned, the biggest the revision from the original submission
that was made a few days ago or 10 days ago was moving two units that had three bedrooms uh to two bedrooms. That's one of the biggest changes in the floor plan. Uh we now have all four units. All of them are two-bedroom units. Two of
the units do have an office space. That is more in line with the type of people that were expecting to be in that space. Young professionals who need their own home office. So we're trying to include that. The other change as Sogan mentioned was the calculation of the uh
elevation height. Uh so that you'll see in the further pages on the elevation height. Mr. Can you go over each page you're saying so the public knows which page you're on please? Defin definitely. I just want to give a quick overview. U so if I move to page number two where I'll start uh based on
the revised square footage calculations. We've updated our unit square footages. Um as we mentioned before we're not using the third floor or attic space. Uh it is accessible through an attic ladder but that is about the extent of the access. There are existing windows that
we are maintaining in place only to maintain the exterior facade but there is no uh living space on on the third floor. We talked about the change the units which I'll talk about in just so moving on to uh page three. There are no
changes since our last submission except to point out that we've taken the opportunity to look at egress from each of the units and provide additional egress where possible. So you'll notice at the page southeast and page northwest two additional stairs uh that come out
from the basement. So residents do have an access uh outside if they need to in case of an emergency. Moving on to page four. Um as you can clearly see there are three units on this floor. Um I will point out that unit number one and unit number three
both of them on page uh left uh they are twostory units. Uh they do have a bedrooms on the upper floor but unit number two is completely a single floor unit. As I mentioned before they're all two bedroom units. Uh there is a common
entrance um to all the units. uh but as I mentioned before we also have an opportunity to provide egress from these units uh separately. Uh moving on to page five uh you could see where units one and three have a portion of their bedrooms allocated on
the upper floor. Um there on unit one it's a bedroom and a bathroom and in unit three it's a bedroom study and bathroom. So both of them are what we would call a master suite combination where it's it's a space separate from the living floor below. Um, unit number
four again is a single uh floor uh space. It's two bedrooms with its own living and dining spaces. We talked earlier about the attic space. Uh we're not using it. So there's no change in that except that the access to the attic space is through unit 4.
That's that's how we're showing our current access to the attic space. U sheets six and seven identify the four principal elevations of the building. Um we are not changing the facade um in terms of structural changes. Uh we're
only updating the siding u because of its current state. Um and we're applying stone winner to the base which is depicted in in the gray over here. The last two pages u look at two principal views of the building. Uh the page number eight shows a view of the
building as it would be from the lake. And obviously with the amount of vegetation and landscaping, you're not going to look at a complete view like this, but you would see enough of the building for it to be an important view. U last but not least, page number nine shows the view of the building from the
driveway. Um just to cap capture how people would see it as they enter through the property. There are no questions for me. I will pause. Thank you. Who's next? Mr.
Stone Veneer. Okay. Um, so, uh, I'd now like to just bring up my planner, uh, just to kind of reiterate his testimony that he provided at the last meeting just to kind of touch on, uh, the standards and then
we'll have our, um, our historian speak. Still, you still have a name. Mhm. Matthew Flynn, LY N. Thanks. Professional planner. Hey. Um, so I don't think at this point I
need to reiterate my entire testimony. Really, it largely remains the same in terms of the benefits versus the detriments, the suitability of the property. I do just want to remind the board uh just to orient the discussion this evening what we're voting on.
Again, this is a use variance. Um here we're looking at a multifamily use in a single family zone. I put on the testimony at the last meeting regarding site suitability which is the enhanced burden of proof for a use variance for obvious reasons uh the fact that the use
is not expressly permitted in the zone. We need to look at whether this site is appropriate for that use. It's a sightsp specific test. It's not general to the entire zone. Really, the fact that this is zoned for single family does not factor into the site suitability test.
Again, we look at this specific site and whether it is appropriate. Um, in this case, we are looking at a longstanding development that has been vacant for some time. I believe we have some testimony coming up regarding the historic use of the property. Um, so I won't get into that. I'll leave that to
to the future witness there. But again, to the extent that we are requesting a use variance, just to remind the board, I put on testimony regarding the contextual suitability of the property here, we do have a property that's wrapped around by the open space zone.
So, we really have no immediately adjacent residential neighbors, um, which is pretty unique for a residential zone district. Typically, we have uh neighbors surrounding a property on all sides. Here, we don't have that. So that substantially mitigates any impacts. I
also spoke to the substantial buffering. Um so compatibility suitability from a perceptual or aesthetic standpoint. This is not going to be something that's going to be noticeable due to the buffering. Also again we are keeping the mass and the scale of the existing
building. We're not bringing it any closer to any property lines. So taking advantage of what's there today, not introducing something that's brand new or will stand out as something new. Um, importantly also the property itself. Uh, the spatial suitability of
the property. This is a substantially oversized lot at over 2.5 times the lot area, three times the lot width, and three times the lot frontage that's required in the single family zone. These are all unique characteristics of
this particular property. If we were looking at any other property in the uh R2 zone, I believe that my planning conclusions would be totally different. But here we are looking at a property that can clearly accommodate uh the use in question. As I said, there is a
historic context that we're going to get to after me. Um, but I think we will hear that the site has been historically accommodating uh multi-occupancy uses such as a hotel. I believe I would say that the residential use that's
proposed this evening is actually more in line with the residential zoning than something that has historically been non-residential. In other words, we're not removing a non-permitted use and replacing it. I mean, I'm sorry. We're not per removing
a permitted use and replacing it with a non-permitted use. Again, we're preserving the existing mass and scale of the existing building. So, I believe that the site suitability standard is clearly uh met here. When we look at this specific property, there
are several unique characteristics that I think we need to look at um in order to uh really appropriately address the use variance. Real quickly, part of the test is also the positive criteria, the benefits. I went through purposes A, G, I, and M of
the municipal land use law. Really, just to boil it down, we're eliminating vacant conditions on the property. I think it is a benefit to preserve a historic building and make use of it rather than watch it continually fall into a state of disrepair and
potentially uh need to be demolished in the future. here were providing a variety of residential uses to meet the needs of all New Jersey residents. Um, falling back on the site suitability testimony, I think I addressed the aesthetic component of this with the
buffering and the uh lack of residential neighbors in the immediate area. In terms of the negative criteria, I think that was just addressed before me. We've actually made strides at this point since the last hearing to address some of the concerns that we heard in
terms of storm water management, reducing the number of bedrooms, which I think reduces the intensity of the proposal. Um, again, proposing additional buffering and landscaping, things of that nature. I think mitigate any potential uh detrimental impacts.
Just to remind the board again, the C variances that we're seeking are uh pretty much all existing conditions. Rear setback is existing. Again, that's relative to that open space zone. We're not talking about a setback that's relative to a developed property. Uh
building height at 39.8 ft. Uh whereas 20 uh I'm sorry, 35 feet is the maximum. Again, we're keeping the existing building. We're not going up. The only thing that is changing is the lock coverage slightly. Um 17.3%
whereas 15% is the maximum requirement and that is also an existing non-conforming condition that we're making just slightly um more non-conforming whereas right now it's at 16.4%. So we are increasing that by less than 1%.
Uh just to really tie that all together again I went I took the board through the C2 balancing test at the last hearing. It's a qualitative test not a quantitative test. Uh here we balance the benefits of the application that I had already went through for the use
variance and uh counterbalance that against the potential negative impacts. Here I again mentioned that coverage is only a slight uptick. uh the rear setback, the building height, existing conditions. We have substantially conforming lot area, lot width,
frontage. We comply with our front yard, our sideyards. Um and so I think really this property is not going to stand out as being overdeveloped or inappropriate um by virtue of the use or by virtue of the um particular bulk uh conditions
that we're requesting here. Uh so really in conclusion unless there's any uh redirect from Mr. Beckandorf uh I think that when we look at this particular property this particular development that we have thereon the proposal this evening I think makes a
lot of practical sense the statutory criteria is is met here in my professional opinion and approval is warranted for all the relief that we're requesting. No redirect. All right. Thank you Mr. Flynn. You said you had Mr. McCabe now. Yes, Mr. Durham.
Mr. McCabe. You're good. Take your time. Um, uh, so, u, Mr. McCabe, uh, we brought you in tonight to kind of discuss the historical significance of this building, how how you know this building has been used, how it how it came to be. Um, just so
that the board has a good idea of of what its existence was. Ladies and gentlemen, good evening. What I'm going to do this evening is speak about the background of the area and then tie it into the building itself.
If you're looking at the early part of the 19th century, your township here was a thriving industrial center or none. It was even larger and more productive than Newton. And what we saw was as we edged into the
end of the 19 19th century into the beginning of the 20th, we saw something here that was rather interesting. We saw the development of buildings that were used specifically
for guest houses, hotels, ins or lodges. And this was where people could come out of a city by the New York Susan and Western Railroad to Sparta so that they could enjoy the open air, the relief from
being the pressure of working in the city and they would bring their families here. Based upon numerous promotional materials that were sent to people in New York City, Brooklyn, Jersey City, or Patterson,
this became a thriving hub of tourism and local recreational opportunities. And so what we're seeing here with these promotional materials was the development of families that came out
here whether it was for a week, a couple weeks, a month, or even the entire summer where the wife and the fam and the children would be here. The father would be taking the train back home on Sunday night and then returning on
Friday evening out here again to be with the family. And so what we saw developing were larger hotels where the uh Sparta in uh pardin is right now. That was the Everett House. That was the largest hotel in the
county until the Playboy Club came in. We saw smaller places like the Pioneer, which was just a small house converted and using three bedrooms that could be rented out.
At one time we had 25 such residences, seasonal residences located in the downtown Sparta area coming up Glenn Road to Glenn or Bernbury, what was known as Bernbury then and also going
out onto the road south towards Stan Hope. But these were basically facilities that were geared toward providing recreational and leisure time activities for people from the urban area.
At that time, weekly rates for a hotel or guest house was between 7 and $10 a week per person. That included your accommodations and all the food. We should only be that fortunate. Here
you could get fresh food from either a backyard uh garden or from a local farmer and all the food was prepared locally in each house. the entertainment. Basically, you had a
horse track that was near the railroad station at that time and that was the only formal track that we had until later on in the 20th century that came into Newton. You had card playing, you had a lot of
other activities. In fact, a gentleman this evening when I was talking to him outside was incredibly gracious enough to give me a copy of a brochure regarding this lodge. And on one side it shows all the
different recreational opportunities whether it be badmitten swimming, boating, softball, fishing, pingpong, horseback riding, croquet, skiing, just about anything you name. And it was
available to people who came to this the Burn. Thank you very much for that mural. We also had something else that was interesting and that was where people who arrived at the station were picked
up by a horsedrawn wagon from each one of these hotels or guest houses and taken there by the owner. That's where the term station wagon comes from. And this was a service that was offered to them so that when they came in,
they'd be able to just be brought into the hotel and all their baggage and dunage would be brought upstairs for them. Like I said, we had about 25 of these hotels or guest houses here right now.
If we have 10 left, that'd be lucky. The Burn happens to be one of the few survivors uh from this era of hotels and guest houses. This former guest house stands at Morris Lake Road opposite Glenn Lake which used
to be known as Lake Burn. Glenn Lake is also situated just below the dam that forms Morris Lake which is the portable water supply for the town of Newton. From here, all the water goes down through the Glenn and ties into the Walkill.
According to a March 2024 article by Katherine Roy, the story regarding the Burnberry began when the Hansshed family acquired a piece of land adjacent to the lake in 1898. Now,
Hansed himself, William, was a pastor. He'd served in both Ohio and in Pennsylvania. Apparently, his health was turning not to the better and he wanted to get away and he came here to Sparta and they decided in the family to build
a hotel. It took them 10 years to build this. And so what you're seeing here is something that is locally produced in demand in response to a demand. Now, we know that in 1906 when the New York Sesan and Western put out a
publication promoting all the hotels and guest rooms and facilities along their route, this was listed there. At that time, William Hollingsshed was noted as being the proprietor. He could have up
to 40 guests. They charged him $8 a week for room and board. Hed also, as things changed, encouraged tourism by the use of automobile parties to visit his accommodations. We found that there were other
attractive places in the area, but this was considered one of the better ones, especially in terms of food and uh drink as well as having up-to-date lodging facilities. 1910, one of four Holland sheds children, Eva, was found, according to
the 1910 census, to be in charge of operating the guest house with her younger brother, Harry. They had two paid workers. Between 1919 and 1920, the seasonal population of guests in the these all
these facilities was noted as being decreasing and at an increasing rate. The period of this type of recreational opportunities had come and been experienced and is now on the Wayne.
As I said before, Sparta today only has a few of these once prolific guest accommodations left in the township. And in looking at this, I checked in some of the articles that I
wrote for the New Jersey Herald. I wrote about eight different hotels or guest accommodations in the township. Seven of them don't exist any longer. Only one does. And I would like to say this to you as a planner, but more as a historian for our
county. You have an opportunity here to make sure that this does not get torn down and used for some other purpose. The idea of trying to adaptively reuse buildings that were built well that can
contribute to a better understanding of the history of your community. in my opinion professionally is essential and I think that you have an opportunity available to you here that you can work with.
It is not having 40 people there. It's having four families and and not even families but individuals who are looking to get themselves squared away and get themselves on the road to business success.
And I would urge you to consider this especially because the architect indicated that they're not changing the exterior. There's no change in the profile of the building type of materials to be used. It's an opportunity that this board
should avail itself of. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Beck, that's it. We'll now have our board engineer, David Simmons, give his report, please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I I will reference a report that our
office did dated September 10th, 2025. But before I do that, I just like to clarify one thing on the architectural plans that we got tonight as exhibit, I believe it was A3. Uh, I'm just looking at sheet number
number four and number five and what I believe is described as unit number one. Uh, on sheet four, unless I'm misinterpreting this, it's got it labeled as bedroom number two. And on
sheet five on unit number one on the second floor, it's got a bedroom number three. I think the intent was to be one and two, not two and three. Mr. Ramorthy, could you I'm right behind you. I'm sorry. Uh the that is correct. It is intended to be bedroom one and two.
Okay. So, what I'd suggest just for the record so it's clear. So, years from now, depending on how the board goes on this, there's no confusion. On sheet number four, on unit number one, that should be bedroom one. And on sheet
number five on the second floor for unit number one, that should be bedroom number two. Noted. Thank you. Agreed. Y. Okay, David, then you're suggesting that as a con if the board were to approve it that so that there's no confusion whatsoever,
we should have new sheets four and five submitted subject to your review or our planner's review. Yes. Just so there's no confusion. Then going back to the report that we prepared, page one basically had a
listing of all the documents we reviewed which did not include uh item A3, exhibit A3 that we talked about tonight. On page two, uh at the top we talked about the various variances. The planner has gone over that and the engineer and
I agree with the testimony that they gave that most of those conditions with the exception of the impervious coverage uh which increased slightly from what it is existing or pre-existing non-conforming conditions with regards to the unit again and that
was the intent of me trying to clarify this on the architectural plans. we're talking about four units and as of tonight with the latest architectural plans from A3, we're talking four two-bedroom units just so there's no confusion.
Uh that really covers items four and five. Uh with regards to five with regards to the history of the facility, uh again, Mr. McCabe gave the background for the various uh resort hotels and what have you in the township including
this particular one at Burn. Uh with regards to the architectural plans, I will say that on the uh exterior elevations that were provided, it's my understanding that basically the applicant now is pro proposing to
basically resside all four or all sides if you will of the structure to make it uh uniform in nature. So that was addressed with regards on page three number seven again they talked about the
exterior changes uh and they're going to obvious shouldn't say obviously if the board approves it the application they're going to have to get the appropriate permits from the zoning department and also from the uh construction official with regards to the detailed construction
with regards to item number eight the impervious coverage is slightly over the 15% allowed. And as we'll talk about under item number 10 and number nine, uh they did provide a paved parking lot for the facility. And they did through their
engineer respond to the comments that we had before with regards to not taking the runoff from the parking lot because it could have silt, sand, salt, that type of thing, and putting it into the recharge chambers. Instead, they now show, to the best of my knowledge,
looking at the plans, taking the quote unquote clean water off the roof of the structure and putting that into the chambers, which is fine. Uh, we did point out, unless I didn't receive it or whatever, but I don't think I did revised drainage calculations just so we
can verify the amount of water coming through, the capacity of the pipes, and the chambers. So we can verify that as a condition of any approval if the board acts favorably upon the application because I point out that overall uh
while it's not a major project um it does exceed an additional 500 square ft of impervious which under the township's ordinance requires the storm water mitigation which they are proposing but it's subject to f if you approve the application it'd be subject to further
review by our office uh to make sure it's adequately sized. Uh they did provide uh lighting going uh on the uh access drive and around the parking area. Uh as far as impacts on the surrounding
neighborhood, uh the applicant's engineer should confirm that they're using LED lights that are downward facing. He could confirm that. Yes. Yes. Okay. All right. Um so sheet five on our plans the
details does um there are some um basic drainage calculations there indicating that the chambers are sized to accommodate for a 3-in rainstorm. But regardless we will provide revised drainage standards to your
right you're gonna that that that's irrelevant. What you're going to do is you're going to respond to Dave's comments with the stuff to meet his requirements. Correct. Thank you. Okay. Then with regards to the landscaping, uh they did show some landscaping and general comments and there are the notes
on there to maintain the existing tree uh coverage and buffering as much as possible, which is good. But I, unless I missed it, uh, we do need a planning schedule showing the type of tree, the caliber, and what have you when it's being installed, just so we've got that
and so we're all on the same page as far as the landscaping plan. No objection. Then on the following page, uh, you're going to need a septic permit from the county health department. Uh, and again, that'll change based on what we heard
tonight with exhibit A3 because there's basically two less bedrooms based on the proposed four two-bedroom units. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining that permit, and that would be a condition of any approval you might consider. Item number 14, I did point
out and I'll put this on the record again. Uh the applicants engineer, I did send them plans from the Newton transmission main and they did incorporate them on the revised drawing. Uh they are not going out into Morris Lake Road, but where they bring their
driveway out to the edge of Morris Lake Road, it's only a few feet from the transmission main. So number one, I wanted to make them aware of it. Number two, uh they called out where the one manhole uh is an air relief valve for that transmission main. And I'll put this on the record again. That pipe is
the sole source of portable water for the whole town of Newton. So I called out that they have to call the 1-800 call before you dig number and make sure the town of Newton water department comes out and marks it out and use the utmost and I can't stress that enough,
utmost care with that transmission. we're on the same page. No objection. Okay. Absolutely. And then 15, I called out uh the basic permits they'd have to get in approvals from the construction department here in Sparta, the fire sub code official, and
as we discussed before, the county health department with regards to the septic and the well. And that's my report, Mr. Chairman. Uh one quick question, David. Sir, page two of your report, you're saying now the maximum imperous
coverage variance and the building height. What about the rear yard setback? I know that was covered, but you still had it down as a variance because of the extensive renovations going on there. Right. The Well, from what I took from the uh plans, 50 ft is required and they
have 13.4. They're not, as I understand it, they're not expanding the footprint of the structure itself. It's all internal configuration if you will. So basically that's an existing non-conforming use or setback just the impervious coverage and
building height is the same since it's uh the building height uh they only had the information on existing it's greater than 37.7 that was on their plan. Uh the latest plan for the proposed is 39.8. Uh the architect
can probably andor the engineer address that that when they said greater than 37.7 presumably it's 39.8 at this time. That's correct. Yes. So that's not changing but it's an existing uh height that exceeds the 35
foot allowed. Plus it's three stories versus the 2 and a half that's allowed in the R2 zone. And the impervious coverage did go up slightly as the planner mentioned less than 1% but it did go up slightly based on presumably walks and what have you that they have
around the site and the only the only other question I had on the architectural plans. Uh I know now they're saying the attic there's no habitable area up there. My one question and you may have answered this at the previous hearing. Uh, who
has access andor use of that attic area? All four apartments or just one apartment? Just one? Go ahead. Just one. Unit number four. Okay. And the other the other question I had was for the basement area. I know
there's no habitable area down there. Uh there's no storage down there either, is there? There's no storage, but the electric meters are in the back wall. Okay, this is access to those electric meters and those uh exit stairs, but no storage for any of the tenants.
Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chair. All right, thank you, David. Lindsy, you can give your report, please. Um, sure. Yeah. Um, Mr. Simmons addressed a lot of the comments that I had as well. Um, many of the comments from my original letter were addressed.
um specifically with the revisions from five units down to four as well as the uh revisions to the interior configuration and the color coding made it a lot easier to read. So, thank you for those revisions. Um I do have um the
minimum mirror yard still as a non-conforming um just based on the architectural plans. They didn't provide us demolition plans. So on the architectural plans, they do have it colorcoded as a new wall um in the area where it is the 13 um the 13 ft. So
airing on the side of caution, I put that as a non-conforming. And then I also had it as um a building height for a D6 variance. And that's simply because looking at the elevations that they provided compared to what is existing on the site, it looks like dormers and a number of other items are being
constructed on the um on that third story. So um without kind of information on the roof plan I just aired on the side of caution as that as well. So just explaining those a professional opinion they'll need a height variance then. Um yeah and I think also we don't have
the documentation saying it's existing nonconforming as well. So I think since they're here for the variance um that should be included. I think that there has been proofs put on the record by their planner as well um for for these variances. So, um I would be comfortable having that just kind of looped in just
so there's an all-encompassing approval moving forward in the future if uh the board was to look favorably upon this. Um and then my one question I just had was actually for Mr. McCabe as we talked about the materials that would be used on the building. I know um the applicant's attorney said that they're
open to suggestions. I just was wondering in Mr. McCabe's opinion which type of materials he thinks would help um with the historical integrity of the building. We just wanted to know my opinion on the materials. Yeah, I think um because of the historical nature um in your opinion,
your professional opinion, what do you think um what types of materials should or would you suggest being used for the exterior of the building to kind of maintain that historical characterization? There are if you don't use the original materials, the Secretary of the Interior has a set of
standards for alternate materials that we could take a look at and that's easily enough picked through and if you want I can provide that without any problem. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a question? I I kind of knew you were going to say that Wayne and I guess my question Lindsay is
shouldn't we have Mr. McCabe put together a materials board since they are changing the stuff and this isn't like it's an historic site so we have the whole higher chain but I think we ought to know what the board is buying
and if it's all right with the board we ought to have at least Lindsay or David or both of you take a look just to make sure it's acceptable with whatever Mr. McCabe came up with. Does that make does that make sense to everybody?
Yeah, I think just because the given the historical character and what Mr. McK testimony stated, I think it would I think it would be beneficial for the community as well. I was kind of looking for it in the architecturals and I thought, oh, maybe they're just kind of painting it or doing something else. But since they're residing it, I think you're absolutely
right. And Wayne's familiar with with this and he knows exactly what you're I figured since we have the expert, why not utilize him? So, is that all right, council? Yes. No objection. Done. Thank you, Mr. McC.
That's it. Those are all my questions. Thank you, Lindsay. I'll now open hearing to the public. Oh, excuse me. Thank you, Rich. Yeah. Board members, please, with your comments and questions. Michael Johnson. Um, no comments at this
time. Richard Larua, couple of couple of minor ones. Uh, one on sheet two, you're showing where the existing oil tank is going to be removed, back of the building. Yes.
And on sheet one, under your calculation of impervious coverage, you're showing only six square feet of the at the existing oil tank to remain. I'm just wondering what that's is that an inconsistency or is that just a minor
point that has to be cleaned up? Uh that would just be a typo. Under the list of proposed impervious coverage, the oil tank should be removed. 26 feet, but thank you. I thought there was nothing slab over it if something was being protected. Um my
other question is listening to the previous hearing since I wasn't here. Uh a question came up about the propane tank and comments were made to the effect that at this time you don't know if it's going to natural gas is going to be available or not on the current site
plan on sheet two. Again, you're showing a location for the proposed underground propane tank. Uh is that the way it stands right now? It's shown on plan that you are going with propane tank and as part of this package.
Uh as of now, yes. If natural gas becomes available and is an option, we would be open to uh potentially changing that. But for now, the plan is an underground propane tank. Okay. Uh you talked about the existing lowlying area to remain by the entrance
by the driveway. Correct. And you're also showing on your plans a proposed stabilized construction access pad. How is that going to be made? Is it again just for construction? So the construction access pad is temporary. It is just while construction
is ongoing. Uh once construction is done that material will be removed and the area will be restored to its natural um previous state. It looks like the the hundred 100 foot level is is where the the circle area
called the existing lowlying area and right right adjacent to it is the 100 yard 100 foot level uh elevation line that kind of weaves up along the driveway. Is there any benefit to connecting all of those things or we're just It looks like there's a
narrow area in the middle that's higher. I'm just wondering why it's it's remained that way. Can be graded a little. Uh so the area in the driveway will likely be leveled out um a little bit
higher than the 100 level or lower than it's just kind of odd the way that 100 100 foot level way in and out of the driveway there. I would recommend it be just a little bit higher than the 100 level at least on
the south side. That way um the driveway can be cross pitched a little bit so that any runoff that falls on the driveway will be directed towards that lowlying area rather than towards the surrounding properties. David, maybe that's something you can
see how that's going to all work out. It just seems we can double check that. Yeah. Do I do I just have that one little neck of high area between the two of them? See what you're saying is very serpentine on that concrete. Yeah. And and it just you have a high point then between the 200 foot level the two levels at 100 foot for the the
lowlying area. It just looks kind of awkward the way it would remain that way. Um the only other the only other question I had and that this more for a planning issue and a code issue is maybe a little clarification between all our planners
that are here tonight. The difference between a u multi-family residential unit and a commercial apartment building because hotels were are commercial. Was it a commercial area and then in a
residential area back when that didn't count? Now it kind of counts. And that gets that gets to the question of uh the code that applies and some of the fire issues. Uh maybe something should be sprinkled or not. I don't know what what would apply, but I'd like to know. I
think we have to prove this as what it actually is. And historically, I would say this was kind of like a familyrun business where the family lived there. Most most of the times you you come with multif multif family residential units.
It's the father and maybe the sons live there or they they rent they rent rent out an apartment in the building in in their house to somebody. But this is going to this looks like an apartment building. And if it is that that's we should classify it as a commercial apartment building. That would change how the construction
department looks at it for sub codes and stuff. still going firewall construction and and again if it has to be sprinkler or whatever and I just I'm just not clear as to what it is we're looking at feel free Lindsay or David
or the applicant yeah um so I think couple things right so there's use and how we're determining the use right now we're determining it's multif family um I think then the next piece is the way the codes the building code that the architect ure has to draw
the building based on. Um so once it's approved here, we're we're just talking about the use. Um the next piece is when it goes to the um the land use department and the building department to be reviewed for permits. The fire
subcode would then look at it based on their UBC, their UCCC. So they determine what ratings determined by the type of use it is for them. So they're not that the planning and zoning is the same as
building, but their ratings are the way they look at the uses slightly different. I think he understands that he's actually been doing this longer than you and me on the face of the earth. I think he would prefer it to be I think their architect should come up and answer Rich's question because Rich
knows exactly what he's asking. Yeah. And it wasn't aimed at you at all. Okay. Everyone looked at me. Well, you're down there sitting next to Dave, so I I was like, Dave, come on. Thank you. And the building is a
multifamily unit. The purpose is not for commercial purposes, which as as a restaurant or as a hotel accommodation short-term wise. So therefore, this would qualify as a multif family unit. That is how we're approaching it and that's how our construction documents
will be detailed. The fire regulations you talked about are different for both. um and they are less uh for the multif family unit if that makes clarification easier. And and that's my concern. We we approved uh apartments in in town. There
was a commercial building before, the one right on Main Street, right down the road here. And but it is a it is a commercial operation and is an apartment. Well, you also don't want to have I mean, that's exactly what Andover Township ran into
at Drake's Pond on the curve going into Newton where they had a change of use there. They had a fire there because it was wrongly coded. And not that Andover Township did anything wrong, but it was a change just like you're talking about. That happened to be more commercial to
restaurant. I think Rich, but I I guess the question I have is how and I'm probably looking at David as the experienced horse down here. How how do we trigger this so we make sure? I don't really I'm not particularly interested
in what the applicant or his experts think it is. interested in making sure that our folks on the other side of the hall when they're looking at it know exactly what it is and how the code should be treated. And
I don't have any idea. We had one board member who has an inkling that it may be something it it may be not a fish. It may be a foul. Well, again, my you know, again, part of my perception is multif family residential is the person lives
on the property, okay? Operates the property. This is just four apartments that are going to be for rent, right? And that is to me is an apartment building, which is a commercial use. I'm not saying it's wrong because it was a hotel before, which is also a commercial, which has nothing to do, as Lindsay
said, with the zoning decision, but it has everything to do with the health and safety. I think it does have some zoning decision because whether it's commercial property or residential. Well, and you're going to call it what what it is, but at the end of the day, if you approve it, you want to make sure that whatever you
approve is going to be approved under the right Yes. code so it's safe. Yes. That that's where you're really I I didn't mean to blur it from your standpoint as much as I'm more concerned about the construction official. And I think at the end of the day, uh, on page four of
my report, item 15, where I called out other approvals, the Sparta Township Construction Department, the Sparta Township Fire SubCode official, he's going to look at it. He or she's going to look at it, and they're going to apply what they believe is correct, and
if in fact, uh, there's a disagreement, they might have to go to the construction board of appeals or whatever. But I think I would put my uh confidence in the construction department as far as what they're going to require and go with that. Uh it's it's significantly different I think
from what Mr. McCabe said back in the 100 years ago, if you will, when they had up to about 40 guests in the hotel versus now if you've got four apartments, let's say there's two people in each apartment, that's eight people.
There's a significant occupancy difference right there. So, I think they have to look at the code and and apply what's necessary there. And if in fact, I'm sorry. If in fact they say it's got to be sprinkler, well, it's got to be sprinklered unless they apply for some waiver. And I I don't
think that would happen. And David, like uh Rich was saying and Glenn, so we know what we're voting on here tonight. If it's an apartment building or a residential multi-dwelling residential building, that's what you were saying, right? Yeah. So, who can answer that? So, we know what we're voting on.
Have the code in front of you. Does the code defend what or define what an apartment building is? Linds. I knew that. I know you. So your definitions are apartment/ multifamily unit building. So it's combined. Um and it says shall mean
building or buildings containing a minimum of 10 or more for sale or rental dwelling units together with common elements including but not limited to community rooms, exercise facilities, terraces, pergolas, indoor and outdoor passive and/or active recreational areas, surface parking, structured and
underground parking and related improvements. So that definition doesn't apply to what's going on here. No. All right. Well, that doesn't mean that the board based on Rich's comments and the chair's comments can't define what
they think that it is. Uh, and you know, in addition that that you can even call it it's not this, it's not this, but please be careful. Should it be approved? I think I think that's important because it's it's a life safety issue. It's what this is all about.
We could could it even be I don't know. This might be like a a condition that it be reviewed as that's that's I think what is being implied here. Sure. Yeah. Thank you, Lindsay. Thank you. Those are my concerns.
Thanks, Richard. Go ahead, Marissa. For the next board member, Richard Roarbecker. Um, I think I have some questions. Um, in previous testimony,
if I recall correctly, the structure in question was originally a hotel and then later on it was converted to apartments
and ultimately was a single occupant which was the owner. The property was abandoned. Mr. Peralta, you're shaking your head. No,
please step to the mic and good evening everybody. Oh, my name name and uh address to the uh board secretary and Glenn will have to swear him in. Uh yeah, I think we do because I don't see him on my list from the last meeting.
Sir, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the proceedings before the board tonight to help you God? Yes, I do. Okay. And what is your name, sir? My name is Luis Peralta. P E R A L T A. Okay.
And you're the applicant? Yes, sir. Okay, Luis, go ahead. Yes, I contacted who was the owner priority. Uh I purchased a property a year and a half ago and he was all the time living in Florida and he had a 40
units occupied at the moment he lost the property and it was given an action or whatever legal that he had it and I know this for a fact because the persons who used to live in
the property uh arrive at the time that I was doing some landscaping work and they say I used to live here. If you want a testimony, I can testimony. I was uh leaving here on September 25th and the bank give me the notification to I
have to move it out before the action and the bank paid them $1,000 fee to lift of the property before taking an action. And Mr. Peralta, unlike unlike the last owner, we're trying to take the proper
steps to get the proper approvals to do what you believed was being done at that property correctly, but but are actually taking those steps. Correct. Yes, that's uh he sent me he provide me drawings, applications where he was trying to adjust it the
confirmity of the property. um uh that's I was provided right there and also he wanted to come and testify in the in front of the board uh but I I
denied because he have a legal concerns so I say no uh I want to like just do my professionals and then do all the correct things. That's correct. So we're not entirely sure what what they were doing at the property. We only have hearsay. Um and
that's why we're before the board this evening. I understood. I just wanted to clarify the progression of Yeah. the act there's like a big residential activities of the how of the structure.
Got it. Before Mr. Peralta applied. Yes. Also, uh there's um five existing electrical meters and when I went to the get the paper from the tax assessor, he
then uh they somebody from there was inspected five units at the moment. Uh that was in 2023. I just wanted to know about Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. the the basic history. I didn't need to
get into the gory det the gory of the whole thing that but thank you anyway. Um I have a slightly off topic question. Maybe our historian can answer it. When
did the lake become Newton's sole water source? portable water source. Do you have any approximate time? Wayne, do you want to answer this or you
want Mr. Water to answer it? I got the answer. David doesn't. I've got the answer. No, you don't. All right. I don't know. 18. So, I need to know. Approximately 1895. Mar 1895.
Yes. So this particular structure has basically existed for the length of time that Newton has used this one lake for their portable water. Just just to be clear though, Newton
Newton's source of water is Morris Lake, not Lake Burn, not Lower Glen Lake. No, I understand that. Okay. No, I understand that. But the ma water man goes in front of this particular property. Correct.
The 16-inch main. The the history of it is when the water system was formed around 1895 and damned up. There was an original 12-in cast iron water mane that went from the dam that created Morris Lake
along the lake bottom of what I've always called lower Glen Lake or Lake Burn out to approximately the area of the bridge uh on Morris Lake Road and then the main went down through the Glenn and on its way to the town of
Newton by gravity. Now, in the 1950s, a second transmission main was constructed. It started approximately around Diller Avenue in Newton, and it was constructed uh up through Andover
Township and Sparta Township up to about the rear portion of the cemetery behind the Sparta Presbyterian Church. Then in the 1970s, that 16-inch main was continued up from the back of the cemetery behind the
Sparta Presbyterian Church up to Main Street and went down Main Street to the intersection with Glenn Road. Made a right and went up Glenn Road, went up through Sparta Glenn. And at that time before the flood of 2000, it meandered
through Sparta Glenn to minimize the damage to the trees and what have you. And it ultimately got up to Morris Lake Road. And at that time, Lower Glenn Lake was a lake. So they went up Morris Lake Road, which they put on their plans tonight, and it went all the way up to
the dam and then went through the dam and got water that way. That 16-inch main was basically the second transmission main to provide more capacity to go to Newton. And I know that they went through the Glenn and
went through around trees to minimize it because I worked in the field crew that summer and had to locate every tree in that Glenn with the field crew. So that's how it came about. What a tough job. Yes. I heard it here first. Remember that.
I I I heard it here. I now have had a history lesson that satisfies that part of the curiosity and it's just I needed this information to help process the whole thing. Understood.
Okay. Uh no offense sir and no offense to anyone else. It's just I needed to know carryover. Sorry guys. Um
I think that's my questions for the time being. Jennifer Panaha. Um yeah. So curiosity too. Um so we're looking at the setbacks here and um I think this property is a little
less Excuse me, Jen. A little bit closer to the microphone. And I I think this property is a little less than an acre and a half. So are we basing the setbacks on a single family home
even though it's a fourf family home? Okay. So there's no distinction there is how we do it. No. Yeah. We're just using the bulk requirements for the zone that it's in. And the zone that it's in is a traditionally a single family. So does a residential zone include
multifamily? No. So that's why they're here for variance relief for the use. So that's where I'm just kind of getting a little lost too. Are we applying residential requirements to something that we're trying to vote on being a
different zoning for bulk standards? The answer is yes. Yes. But what they're asking for is they want to take a use that's not permitted in that zone
and plop it down in that zone meeting as best as is possible right the dimensional requirements of that zone. Okay. Okay. And um thank you. That answers that question. And then the second question I have is um I heard in
the beginning of this a referral to that you want to make this a home for blue collar workers that are trying to bluecollar and young professionals professionals people in between their like their famil
family's home and before they can afford a new home. That's kind of what our objective was. The purpose for that is is that a passion or is that utilitarian? Is that so that you're reducing the impact so that you won't have too many people? It's twofold. Absolutely. That we
considered it based on the last time we were before the board. That's why we removed uh the three bedrooms because they tend to lend themselves to a larger family. So, we wanted to kind of reduce that impact to the surrounding area by just making them all two-bedroom units. Um,
also, uh, you know, I mean, me personally, I'm 41 years old, but I do know people in their 30s, in their 20s that are having a lot of trouble finding homes in the area, but still want that that home feeling. Um, and something
historic like this gives them that opportunity to have a beautiful apartment while at the same time living in the country. Um, and so I to me personally, this is a place where I would want to live, a friend would want to live in a place like this. So I know
that's a little personal, but that's just kind of what we discussed when after the board meeting, uh, we went back to the drawing board with that. Well, and I think from a utilitarian perspective too, it's a while an acre and a half may seem
ample in some other areas of of you know, New Jersey, an acre and a half, I mean, I think we have a 5 acre minimum for single family homes now that are new. And this is an acre and a half for four units. So I guess my question is is
that Glen is that some kind of deed restriction that we put on that because for example the parking we have to reduce the number of spots that there are for parking and there's no on the street parking there um that I know of
on Morris Lake Road. It's a tight road. So, are we are we somehow putting into the description of what's allowed here some limit because of that because of the small piece of property
or the parking or how does that work? Well, the parking I I thought I heard testimony and our professionals can correct me. I thought I heard that the parking on site met RS RSIS and also Sparta Township requirements. So they
have enough parking on site. Now that's the first part of your question. The second part doing it actually in reverse order is if the board grants an approval for this used variance that is the restriction. So what they would what
they would get is if you vote to approve the application as submitted, they would be getting permission to have four two-bedroom units in this structure. They couldn't have anything more in there without coming back to you to
alter that use variance. Once the board grants a use variance, that's it. Uh it's it's over. It's done. That's what the property that becomes the stamp on this piece of property and whatever whatever provisions that we whatever whatever conditions
you impose that that's correct. And that's why at the beginning when we talked about exhibit A3, I wanted to make sure there was no question on the number of bedrooms through some mislabeling. That's why I brought that up. Okay. And and this lot is actually a little oversized for this specific zone, the C2
zone. Um I I might even be like two and a half times or it's two times the actual size for this zone. I'm not sure exactly the Yeah. So, this zone requires 25,000 square ft um per lot and this particular lot has 64,200
square ft. Got it. Got it. Yeah. I'd like to live there, too. Um Okay. Thanks. That's all my questions. Thank you, Michael Steyberg. Um the good news is I think Mr. Simmons and Mr. Luri already beat me to my question, so no further questions.
I would just Mr. Chairman, if I could That's You just pulled everybody on the board, right? Uh, Ken, did you answer any questions? I have no questions, ma'am. Well, the chairman doesn't count. He's he's he's he's the last and he gets to say whatever he wants. I just want to indicate that there were board members
that were not here for the initial hearing. They s they signed an affidavit saying that they had reviewed it. I That was my fault. I should have put it on in the beginning, but everybody here is eligible to vote. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Okay. Now I'll open it to the public. Whoever has questions and comments, please come forward. And if you're so kind, try to keep them to about five minutes so everyone can get their questions and comments in. Your name, sir? My name is Sean Mleier. I'm a
co-adjacent property owner, direct line of sight of the property. And can you give your name and address to Marissa? Sean Mleier, 40 Mars Lake Road, Sparta, New Jersey. So kind to
last name is M C A L E R and it's Sean S E an attorney will swear you in in a second. Sean, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth proceedings before the board tonight you got? I do. Go ahead, Sean.
Thank you for letting me speak. First, let me say I'm happy the property is being improved. I've been looking at it now for years. Um but I do have some concerns and some of the topics I like to talk about. I did review the whole package everything that I had access to.
So the storm water management um flooding issues that we have in this area um light pollution um excessive light sight suitability and the coverage requirements which um Jennifer brought up about dropping a a different that
this is based on an R2 zone and we're putting a much bigger pro much bigger number of people into that R2 zone. But let me start with the uh storm water management and the flooding issues. We have a lot of water on Mars Lake Road. When it rains, it doesn't take a lot to flood it and flood into the lake. From
what I can see in the package, um the existing we it talks about uh less than one incre 1% increase in the calculations on impervious coverage, but is that the actual driveway is not paved. So, if
that was included in the the existing coverage and going to the new coverage, it's substantial. It is a substantial increase all that driveway being paved. So it's not a 1% in reality. It may be a 1% on paper, but in reality that whole driveway, all of that area is imper is
pvious at the moment. So it's a big jump. And then how was the driveway that runs into the easement calculated? Was that calculated into the property calculations? I'd like to get clarity on that. Could I suggest that he stop and
we at least try and and answer them rather than they rather than them getting lost in the source. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Beckov, he's pretty good at following everything. He could have 10 or 20 questions. He'll follow them all. But I know what you're saying. I didn't know whether I didn't know whether Dan was on game tonight. Okay, continue.
I'm sorry. Continue, Sean. Um, right. So, that's that's the impervious coverage and that those calculations there. Um, the sites site suitability. Um, I take issue with the site suitability. Yes, there's no neighbors behind it, but that property has no less
than 12 homes that have direct line of sight of that property across the lake. And in this pro in this area, there are no street lights. We have we're blessed with being able to sit on the deck and look at the stars and the moon and everything else. There is no lights on that lake whatsoever. And this property
is visible from at least a dozen houses on this lake right across the street. I can see it. the two neighbors between me and the property can see it, the neighbors up from me can see it, and all the other people on the other side of the lake can see it. So, speaking to the light pollution on that side, putting in
five 12 1/2 ft tall 4K LED lights, 5,000 lumens is going to be like dropping a commercial parking lot into a residential area, into an R2 area. This is going to be the dominant feature at night on our beautiful lake. So, that is a huge concern. Maybe we do low uh low
profile lighting. I don't know what the board's going to think about that, but we're literally dropping a commercial parking lot into our residential neighborhood with full view from everybody on the lake. So, that's something to cons to concern. That's a big concern of mine. Um the site
suitability, well, we talked about that before. Um and coverage requirements, coverage requirements. Um, but so the two major things, the light pollution and the storm water management, that's a that's a big thing because it is not just a 1% increase if you're paving that.
Okay, they they got it. Thank you very much, Sean. Thank you, Mr. Beck. Can your respond to his comments? You want to talk about drainage? Uh, yeah. I'll start with the storm water concerns um regarding the
coverage calculations. the portion of the driveway that is on the property was included in all this calculations. Um, and just as a note, when it comes to coverage calculations, gravel is typically considered impervious, even
though usually there is some water that will get through it. Um, the portion of the driveway that is off the property within the access easement is not included in the coverage. However, that part portion of the driveway will also
be pitched onto our property to keep as much runoff as possible within our property lines. And you said that that was gravel, right? The is it is it gravel? So, I've been on that property multiple
times throughout the years. It's not even gravel. It was gravel maybe 20 years ago. It's all dirt and mud now going up through there. And a big concern is if we're paving the property, if if those calculations on that easement, the driveway that runs through there are not not even calculated into
this, that's even bigger enhancement of imperous coverage. So, and the driveway, what is that lot that's there? Whose is that lot? That's owned by the town as far as I can tell. Okay. Um, and Mr. McKeler, uh, were you here at the first meeting? No, I wasn't.
Okay. Um the the rest of the driveway where the parking lot is, that's just all grass. I mean, since the new owner took over, he's brought in gravel and put a lot of stuff there. But for the last 20 years, as long as I've been there, it's been all it's been all dirt.
So, there was no there was no uh there was it was all pvious. And we still had the problems we have. So, um and then we'll have our planner come up and talk about site suitability. Um, but before he does that, um, regarding lighting, uh, we can address the
lighting issue. Uh, we can have them timed. Um, we can have them motion censored, uh, we don't necessarily need the lighting, uh, other than, you know, a light or two on the actual building, uh, for the purposes of the tenants, but just like anybody would have lighting on their building. Again, it can be motion
centered. So, we'd be happy to accommodate them with respect to that. So, as far as my comment on that would be the lighting on the building, totally understand it. We all have motion sensor lights on our house. The five driveway lights that are going to be 12 1/2 ft.
Those are the ones that are the biggest concern. Sure. And we can have them turned off at any time and they'll be seasonal, right? Because, you know, at 9:00 at night, you're still getting light in the middle of July. Um, so, you know, it can be seasonal and it can be based on time. So, if there's a time that the board would like the lights off, they'll be
turned off. Um, and again, it'll be based on season. Well, my response to that would be I if they shut off at 11 12 o'clock at night, I'm going to bed. No, far before that. I'd like to see if the board would consider if the lighting has to be there, go with a low a low uh a low-rise
option that lights the driveway and doesn't spread the light out for everyone in the neighborhood to see. Problem with that? No. No problem with that at all. If the board, you know, it's it's up to the board. We can either turn the lights off entirely or we can do low low lighting and turn them off
entirely. I mean, actually, I think that's even cheaper, but we'll accommodate them. Okay. Uh, do you want to come up, uh, Matt, and just talk about site suitability? There was a lot of testimony to that effect at the last meeting. Um, so I think he'll have to go
over that again. But no, I'm wait. What? Why? You put your testimony in. I'm not going to go over it again. I'm just going to respond to the one of the comments that I heard. Right. Okay. We don't need to hear it anymore. I agree with you. Um Dan, the exhibit that I presented at
the last hearing, what was that marked? Uh A1 or A2. So I would ask the board to have my exhibit A1, which was the drone photographs that I submitted at the last year.
Yeah, it was A1. We got one down here. June 28th. Okay. So, I would just ask I guess we're gonna uh June Is it June 28th? Dan, it's only one set. We only had one other meeting, Dan. Sorry.
Um Yeah. So, I would ask that since we're going to pass that around if if the um if we could flip that to sheet four. Yep. It's it's A2 and it's it's dated July 9th and that was from the planner.
Sorry, that's correct. So, I would ask that we flip to sheet four before we start passing that around. And if each board member would just um maybe flip back and forth between sheet four and five um before passing that along.
And I guess I should probably say while we're looking at those two sheets, um the the member of the public's home, if we're looking at sheets four and five, would be
due north of the subject property. And so the reason that I'm bringing this exhibit back up is to show the the nice buffering that is out there today. We actually see uh a couple evergreen trees for year round. Um you go Mike
year round buffering. Um and I would say that this does sort it is sort of an isolated site not only because of the buffering that we see on sheets four and five, but if we now flip over to sheet uh six,
and I guess we'll go back the way that we came with sheet six now. Um, we can see the zoning map which shows that that property immediately to the north of the subject property is in that open space
zone. I think the U member of the public mentioned that he was immediately adjacent to the site, which I would um beg to differ because immediately adjacent to the north is actually the open space zone and then his property is across the street and uh about three
lots continuing to the north. Um so I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention. um since that does relate to site suitability in terms of the visibility as well as the context of this of this property. So I felt I owed it to the to the board
and to the applicant to just Thank you, Mr. Ran. Did that alleviate your your concerns? I can show the the member of the public the exhibit that I have if he doesn't have it just to give him the benefit of what I'm looking
to the microphone. Sean, please go ahead and take it to just so you can see. So, I just showed the board this image here. My my understanding is that your property is just about here.
So, there's the properties in between. I believe they're 60 ft. So, at the width of the street and then two properties that about 60 ft wide and then my property starts. Correct. So, this is lovely. It's beautiful and lush in the summertime, but in the
winter time it's a lot more open and I don't have as much of an impact as far far as my visual line of sight. I can see the building. Obviously, if it's all lit up, I'm going to see it, but I can see it. I can see the building in the winter time, in the fall when the leaves
drop. I can see all that. I'm less impacted than a lot of other people around. I'm sure they want to say something about it, too. But yeah, I know what this looks like. All right. Thank you, Sean. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Flynn. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in the public, please come
forward. Please give your name and address to our secretary. Sure. It's uh John Osullivan. Osu Li Van. And I live at 11 Morris Lake Road. John, do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth
proceedings before the board tonight? I do. Go ahead, John. I just want to say that in with the last comments, it doesn't take into account the homes that are south of the cur of the building we're discussing at number 20. Like my I would have definitely
issues with the lighting there and it would definitely affect, you know, that quality of life for me and my neighbor to the next to me and across the street. Just want to let you guys know that it's not just north, it's south as well.
Thank you, John. Anyone else in the public, please come forward. Hello. Uh, my name is Glenn Thomas. I'm at two Burn Lane. Um, I spoke at the last meeting. still under oath because I swore you in the last time.
Okay. Thank you. And I just really wanted to restate um that it is zoned to single family residence and that would be greatly beneficial to put things right in our little community
over there. We've had a lot of difficulty with it being a previous rental property and bad elements and all kinds of problems that stemmed from it. So, I just wanted to restate it's not just me, it's many members of the
community feel that would be the most beneficial uh solution for this. So, just wanted to make that comment. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else in the public? Any comments or questions?
You see no one else in the public? Close to them and back to this board. Any of our board members have any other questions or comments on the application? Our board engineer, professional planner, anything else? No,
nothing at this time. All right. Thank you. Well, the board will entertain a motion approving the application and I will guide that member through the process with a few addendums if they're
so kind to make the original motion. Oh, Lord want to take a chance. You want me to make this motion? Thanks. You're so kind to me. I need the practice. I so move that we accept this
application for two four uh two twobedroom apartments and let me let me make the addendum to
the motion Richard and then we can go from Mayor. Okay. If you're so kind to accept. Absolutely. I I defer to you. I'm learning. Okay. Okay. The chair um will amend Miss Roacher's motion to have our board
attorney prepare a resolution approving the application 1-25 block 271 lot 40 Lewis Paralta for conversion and renovation of the existing
structure there at this point also as a use variance for 4unit multifamily family dwelling and expansion of that non-conforming use and the D6 height variance
and the impervious coverage variance of 2.34%. Is that correct David? You know I always do the difference. Yes. Yes. Thank you. And to uh don't forget the rear. No, I think the rear we didn't have to cover. Correct.
No, we have to cuz it's the rear of the yard set back. The rear setback is short. Way short. 36.6 ft. Yeah, we got to cover that. That would be Yeah, 36.
What was the calculation, David? Then the difference 50 - 13.4 36. And then also the height is 2.1 ft 4.8 4.8 35 uh 38
39.8 4.8 Right. We have a few conditions to go over. Yes. Let's see here. Um, did you have any noted, Richard, or not? No, I don't have them written down.
That's the problem. And I should have, but I didn't. Probably not, Richard. I think the chairman has a number of notes that will age you. We also have the conditions of, as the applicant's attorney had mentioned, motion sensor lighting and
seasonal parking lighting or lowrise lighting could be turned off completely at night. Mr. Beckendorf. Yes, we'll do one hour after sunset or we can do it sooner. a half hour after.
Okay. Also for ver uh further review by your board engineer in regards to the storm water runoff. David remember you had mentioned that as a condition. Yes. Also
the septic system permit to be supplied. Also, as our board attorney had mentioned in regards to sheets page four and five on the architectural drawings to be what was they marked that uh marked as Glenn? Do you remember or should
I do remember because I got my notes from the last meeting. So sheets four and five uh were that was A2 Mr. Chairman also with the materials for the siding to be reviewed by our planner Wednesday night
not just the signing Mr. Chair if you don't mind if I can just amend it siding all exterior materials Mr. McCabe knows what to do and our professionals know what to review. Thank you, Glenn. Also, that as bill plans be provided
upon completion certified by New Jersey license surveyor. Also, that the applicant adheres to our board engineer and board planners reports. Karen, make it subject to Mr. Simmons report because I had about four or five
things that I circ that I circled in David's report that would be in the conditions anyway. Good. You accept that Richard? I accept. Our board attorney had just mentioned. Yes, I just I do. And also there'll be only four units in
the structure, correct? Yep. All right. This is all according to all plans and testimony here tonight. I was taking notes because I know you're you're missing your uh left-hand man. I have a couple when you're ready.
Sure. That I I think came up. Um, they shall provide uh revised drainage calculations for David to review, especially in light of the testimony that you heard tonight. Um, there should
be a revised planting schedule because I think David said that that was something that was needed. uh the oil tank will be removed and that areas calculation or something as was pointed out by a board member shall be checked just to make just to make sure it's all consistent
Mr. chairman. Uh, and Dave was to review, and I think this becomes more interesting, Dave, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Dave's to review the installation of the driveway. Uh, because you had a materials issue,
but then you had a sloping issue and other things. So, it just seemed to me, unless Dave says, "No, I'm not going to do it." Somebody in the construction department will do it. I thought that's something that you normally would do, especially since Dave, this isn't just for, you know, a single family residential use. It's going to it's
going to have more usage and traffic. So, it just made sense based on those comments, Mr. Chairman, if that's acceptable to you. Well, Mr. Rollback, is that acceptable? Yes. Oh. Um on our variances for usage,
the the height is restricted to 30 according to the the the requirements in the zoning. It's 2 and a half stories and 35 and 35 ft. We're making this uh
the the applicant wants a threestory building at 39.8 ft. So we want to make sure we include both of them. That's correct. But as far as I understood it,
they weren't adding to the building. What is what is out it's a pre-existing non-conforming. what you're doing is you're now giving that the Good Housekeeping seal of approval. So regardless of whether they used it for something else, that's still there. So
that's that's just a reaffirmation, sir, of of what's there. I just want to make sure that No, you're absolutely right. I just want to make it clear. I think that's a drafting error because on the plan what what I'm looking at and you guys can
help me. What I'm looking at is on the cover sheet of the plans they say existing is 37. Help me J.7 37.7 and they're saying it's going up to 39.8. You want me to clarify? I hope I understood it right.
Yeah. the first at the first meeting uh this was pointed out and we went back and got the proper height calculation for the building. That's that's what I just said. You're not doing anything right. It was the same height. We're not adding plans, right? And that was one of the things that the
board had a problem with, Richard, at the at the first meeting. No, I I remember that. But it's just I want to make sure we got all the eyes dotted and tees crossed. Terrific. Of course, it it's my old background coming through again
and your week your weekend chores, too. I'm anal. In the last issue, did we confirm it as an apartment building or a fourunit multifamily residence as me and Richard
were discussing? I'm what's the question? You're going to call it a multifamily or you going to call it an apartment or in terms of a condition what we're building on
according to the definition Lindsay gave us about an apartment building. I believe you said it was 10 or more units but I think the question is putting it in the resolution as how it should be reviewed by the building department.
Correct. Not a zoning determination. I Rich, you got an idea because I have one, but I'm gonna No, because I think I I think it's important to the point where if it is considered an apartment building and you do have to put sprinklers in, for
example, where where's your water supply for sprinkles? You have a well, right? Municipal water. And the question is, does it affect the well is the well capacity sufficient? Uh, you know, is it going to affect what you're doing? I
don't think it's a problem. Dave, you know, the bottom line is why would we be waiting for the building department to classify it as an apartment building or a four-unit multif family after we vote on it here? I don't think after the fact you will not be. I think what
we want to do is just tip off the building department as to making sure that it puts it into the proper use cl uh classification. Right, Richard? That that's all you're trying to do, K.
Could we call it a four family apartment and restrict it that way? I was thinking of being a little more general. uh in what I was going to craft up and say that the board found this to be four unit building that may in fact
have the characteristics of an apartment building. Uh and then that alerts the construction department because then I could put the board is approving this. Go ahead. But but doesn't that also then kick it into being a commercial property rather than a residential property?
It's residential. It's not commercial. I don't know how you get the I don't know how you get to the commercial. Yeah. rental apartment building. That's commercial business. I don't see as a two family house where I'm renting the upstairs. Well, you're renting the upstairs, but
you're living downstairs is different than being a Go closer here, Rich too, please. It's different than being a an a separate owner operator or not even operator but owner where you have an apartment
building that you you're renting apartments in. Okay, that's commercial property. I mean, we talked about it being in a hotel before, which was a commercial use, right? So, is it a commercial? Well, you're proving something that's commercial or proving something that's just strictly residential. I think if Mr. McCabe were at the
microphone right now, he would say, well, you're absolutely right, sir, because it was used as a commercial building at some points during its life, and now it's morphed into something else. But now whether it's coming back to its original pedigree
of a commercial building which was being rented out for weekends or whether it's something else that that you know you might not even be making a determination on that and all you're doing is calling it out for the construction department
to decide so that it's safe. All right, Richard, do you accept all the addendums from Glenn and myself? You can live with those addendums with no problem. No problem. I I my buddy who I've known for 100 years here is having some difficulty. Do
you want to call out that the board is not making a decision whether it's residential or commercial? It certainly has the characteristics of both or something like that. It's your It's your resolution for those of you who voted for I could I could live with that with that
statement that we don't know if it's commercial or residential and we aren't going to call it. I could live with that sort of statement. Could you handle that, Richard?
I just want the resolution to reflect what it actually is. I I You don't know. It's a business. Yeah. Yeah. The business. Yes, it's a business because there's nobody residing there which makes it a commercial. Okay.
So, and you can grant this that could be part of the use variance that you're granting to allow this use which has which has a characteristics of being a commercial building or which is a commercial building. Maybe you want to even be stronger than what I just said. Then then you then now you're deeding
the property as commercial. You have to Jen, can you speak into the microphone? Then you then you then you have to accept that now you've the deed is going to be commercial and now we've just opened up a whole can of worms for if ownership changes or if is our definition of like a multifamily
versus commercial like whether somebody's like the owner's living there or not because theoretically if you have a second home and you're renting the second home would that not make it commercial? in in that thought process, right? I'm trying to define in my head where does commercial and where does
multif family stop and what is that threshold? Is it does that person need to live there or not like the owner when I have no idea. No, I don't I really I'm not being I'm not being I'm not being glib about this. I,
you know, why don't we go to I' I've never seen multif family housing where you just have a caretaker and you go out to garden apartments and stuff. Are they commercial in nature? Yeah. The owner is not living there, but that's multif family. It's a it's a residential
use. Okay. Uh yeah, Richard, you again accept all the addendums from our board attorney Glenn and myself, etc. Yes. Yes. Um I think he has what would you call declared
this a commercial structure just as long as you accept them all residential use but you accept everything okay I do all right wait I want to make sure I get that because these two guys now put it we've declared it a commercial structure
for residential use now I also want to double back. Uh oh. You had some concerns about changing stuff. So I just want to address that too, J. Thank you. And the concerns are
um So if we change it to that, does that somehow broaden the use of the structure should Mr. Peralta decide that he wants to use it for something different or should he sell the place and then it
goes to somebody else? No. How does that change? It doesn't change at all. All they're getting approval for is for residential for residential. That's that's all they're getting approval for. The only other and the other question I have for you is
I don't know all the commercial requirements, but we can with a commercial structure keep the things like the lighting and things that we talked about. Of course. Right. We can keep the lighting and everything else. And Dave's going out with his trusty light. I think you have a trusty light meter still, don't you? He goes out with his trusty light meter. He
didn't name it, though. He goes out and he checks it and if it has to come, the light has to come down to address some of the concerns that uh were raised by Shawn from the public, David will do that. And I was going to suggest in it that the lighting plan's going to come in and David's going to take a look at
it and decide whether the lighting plan is a little too ambitious and whether in whether in fact it can have less foot candles on it or whatever to accomplish what were some concerns for the area and you know we we do that all the time.
Right Dave? And and the light fixtures that they are showing going up the driveway are downward facing. They are down and they're only I believe 15 feet high. And do they need to actually do they need to be 15 feet high or could they be lower? I don't know. That that's about the usual.
Okay. Before I take a second motion, excuse me. Can I open the hearing again to the public? Glenn Sean, I don't think you should, Mr. Chairman. The hearing was closed. If you open it, it's going to go round and round again.
You closed it. I I think we've been as tight. If you want to do it, you're the chair, but I don't recommend it. Sorry, Sean. Wait, please. The answer is no. The he already said don't talk, but I'll answer it quick.
No, all they're getting all they're getting is approval for four apartments. That's it. If they want to do anything else there, they'd have to come back to this board and go through this on a number of nights again. And I'm sure council might not want to ever do that
one again. I'm not going to debate you. I It's close to the public. It's just inappropriate, Mr. Chairman. But Sean, please. We We They covered every uh You covered everything. It was discussed on the record, too, which we appreciate. The chair will
do I have a second on a motion, please? Second. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. And and again, as the board knows, it's a use variance to be voted on. And I hope everything is clear tonight what was discussed about what it
actually is and all the conditions, etc., etc. Marissa, please call. Mr. Chairman, if if I may, I just had two other conditions you might want to consider just so it's absolutely clear. Call. You wanted us to call Dan. Dan. Dan. Dan.
Sorry. Stop. Yeah. Just stop. Nope. No. No storage in the basement. Okay. And only unit number four has access to the attic area for that was going to be a finding of fact and conclusion. I had I had both of those down.
Okay. Good. All right. Thank you. Uh David, uh just to remind the board that because it is a use variance, I thought this is where you were going, Mr. Chairman. Because it is a use variance, they need uh majority of five and there are only
six voting members here tonight. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Glenn. Marissa, please call the role. Michael Joseph, yes. Richard Larufa, yes. Richard Roarback Becker. Yes. Jennifer Paha,
no. Michael Steyberg, yes. Chairman Kenneth Larry, no. What was the total, Marissa? Four yeses, two nos. Excuse me. Four yeses, two nos. All right. Thank you, ladies and
gentlemen. So, the application has been declined. Mr. the background door at you. Now, anyone else in the public have any comments or questions on items not on the agenda tonight? Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you.
Carol, entertain a motion. Motion to adjurnn. To adjourn. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. Thank you for everyone on the board for all your comments.
I may figure this out yet, but it's going to take a while. Farther than I would have gotten. So, Glenn, thank you too for all the notes too you were taking. David, thank you too.
I'm having an issue logging off live. So, just Can we turn off the mics? Turn the power. Are they off? Are they off? Uh, no, they're on. You're still
having legend by