Four, five, six, right? Let her work in my Hi friends, that's our vice chair saunters in good evening and welcome to the
September 29th 2025 meeting of the city of summit planning board. My name is Steven Spur and I have the privilege of serving as the chair of this August body. If you'll please rise, we will begin first with the pledge of allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> All right. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of
this meeting has been provided to the newspapers of record and been posted here in city hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on summit's government channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30. Any
any hearings on applications for development or we will hear a little bit further capital review projects. uh our quaso judicial proceedings. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision and a quorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at
all times. Please note that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment here at the deis and return it immediately after our meeting. Miss Sans, will you please call the role
of the members? Chairman Spur >> here. >> Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez >> here. >> Mayor Fagan >> here. >> Council member Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Dalmaso >> here. >> Mr. Felman is excused. Mr. LJOY >> here.
>> Mr. Salah is excused. Mr. Stern >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Excellent. >> Uh on the day as well is first Steve Warner. He is our planning board attorney. Mr. Mr. Warner will advise board members on matters of law and serves as the key interface uh with each
presenter's attorney. Mr. Warner will not vote on any applications or presentations or other matters formally considered by this board. Jessica Sans, who you just heard from, is a city employee and the planning board secretary. Miss Sans assists applicants in preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our
meeting minutes. Miss Sans also does not vote on the applications or other matters formally considered by this board. Also present is uh are actually two of our board professionals in addition to our attorney who are contracted annually by the board to provide input to the board. Uh tonight
we have board planner Mr. Tom Barren from Burgess Associates and board engineer Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering and Design. It's been some time. We're happy to have you back. Uh Mr. uh Barren and Miss Rafé are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They do not vote on
the applications or other matters formally considered by the board. Our board consists of 11 members. All members can participate in the hearings or other matters presented this evening. Uh but only a maximum of nine can vote. Uh any matters considered by the board require typically a simple majority to be approved. Um if it doesn't, Mr.
Warner will make sure we know that. Um the only slight shift in the agenda is we're going to push uh the vote on resolution of the general development plan extension for BMS uh just ahead of the star of the show this evening, which will be the Tatlock Field Lights capital
project review. So um we're going to work through the other agenda items and then reserve the bulk of the uh bulk of the evening for Talon flights. Uh so the first item on the agenda the under the appointment section uh we're happy to welcome John Stton a class 4 alternate 2
all the way at the end of DES over there. Uh John I'm sure many of you know from the community active in any number of uh different pursuits here including the first aid squad which he uh is kindly going to head over for a shift this evening after our planning board. So, uh, if you ever want to look at
someone really truly dedicated to the city of Summit, he's putting in the hours. So, welcome, John. We're happy to have you here. Thanks for everything. Um, next, uh, will be a quick vote. Uh, our planning board, um, sends a liaison to the environmental commission to ensure the easy flow of information, uh,
to them and then back to us. Uh, this was previously a position held by, um, by Mr. Mr. Formicelli who stepped off the board recently and after canvasing the board I was fortunate to have a hand raised at least for the remainder of this year's term um and that would be
one of our absent members Mr. Ryan Felmet has generously offered to step in. So I would just ask for a motion and a second uh for appointment of Mr. Ryan Felmet to uh to serve the planning as a planning board leaison for the environmental commission for the remainder of this calendar year.
>> So moved. >> Second. All in favor? >> I >> I. Any opposed? >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yes. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, just wanted to uh let the record reflect that our newest board member, St. Stuntton, uh has taken the oath of allegiance and the oath of
office has signed same, notorized same. So, he is an official qualified member of the board for this evening's uh proceedings. >> Okay. Excellent. All right. So, we've dispensed with two items so far. Doing great. Now, we're going to move on to
first Morris Broad Crossroads resoning. Uh for folks that are paying particular close attention, uh you may have recalled we had an earlier dress rehearsal this month. Uh and we're back we're back again just out in an abundance of caution to ensure um that that gets the appropriate treatment here at the planning board. Uh we'll be sent
next back to the governing body. So, I'm going to ask uh our planner Tom Barren to speak to this item. Uh final thing before I do speak, ask Tom to speak is both Morris Broad's crossroads resoning and historic preservation ordinance. They are consistency reviews. Um there
is no procedural opportunity for the public to comment here. However, there is an intention at the governing body which will be the second reading of these particular ordinances uh where public comment will be welcome. So don't feel like I'm slighting you or you know foregoing you that opportunity for you.
Um, if you have questions, comments, go see Dileia and Mayor Fagan at the uh the next council meeting when it's heard. So, Tom, you want to set the stage for us here >> or Steve? I don't know. So, you guys >> can give I'll give you one minute overview. >> Go ahead and and I'll and I'll concur I'll concur on the accuracy of your
legal opinions if you give any. >> I'll do >> or if I disagree with them, I'll let everyone know. >> See what happens. Okay. Very good. So uh in accordance with the municipal land use law for all new development ordinances um the governing body is required to refer to the planning board
such ordinances to conduct what we refer to as a master plan consistency review whereby the board um is tasked with identifying any portions of the ordinance that might be inconsistent with the in this case the city's master plan documents and can forward uh any recommendations for consideration back
to the governing body um for uh prior to the hearing and adoption. on the ordinance. I get that right, Steve? >> Yes. >> Without further ado, just to dive into the ordinance itself, by way of background, in June 2024, the city
created the existing Mars Broad Crossroads or NBC overlay zone to replace what had been the Broad Street West redevelopment plan specifically for block 2706, lots 1, 2, 3, and four. These parcels include the old firehouse site, chestnut parking lot, an office
building, and privately owned finger lot, which is lot two. Um, the site comprises an area of about 1.5 acres and has frontages on Broad Street, Mars Avenue, and Cedar Street. Uh, the overlay zone created a new mixeduse zoning framework for the site, which established the permitted uses and
development requirements, uh, which had been based on years of community input analyzing the site. The overlay zone was designed to achieve several community goals, including one, repurpose the site given the relocation of of the fire department down Broad Street. Uh two, to generate revenue from the sale of the
property and um for annual tax revenue. Three, to satisfy a portion of the city's affordable housing obligation. Four, to maintain existing public parking and for St. Teresa's Memorial Hall located immediately adjacent to the Chestnut parking lot. and finally to develop the site in a in a unified
manner that's consistent with the character of the city. So on September 3rd, the common council introduced ordinance number 12144 to repeal and replace the existing NBC overlay zone with a new MBC zone uh designation for the same four parcels.
The new zone is being implemented for two primary reasons. Um one is to adjust the bulk criteria to account for the land swap with the owners of uh lot 2, which is currently privately owned. Um this is so the city can control the entirety of the tract. Um so when it sells the property at auction, the
prospective developer will have uh the rights to the entire property. And the second purpose is to modify the zoning from an overlay zone to a new zone that would maximize the city's affordable housing credits for the site. Um this new NBC zone is intended to keep the
original vision and zoning framework of the overlay zone. I'll note se the several modifications which I I would offer relatively minor include sw uh slight tweaks to the density and f uh requirements to achieve the original development yield. Again uh due to the
land swap the the tract is losing about 2,900 square ft. So we had to account and adjust for that loss of land area which density and f use as a factor. Uh it's to provide clarification in a few areas of the ordinance with respect to
parking and other areas. Uh um and finally to adjust the three-story height requirement to allow for an office building. So for instance in a three-story office building format to account for 14 foot floor heights uh we've adjusted the height for such buildings to 42 feet where previously
the ordinance allowed for three stories and 36 feet. Um, I mentioned the MLUL requirement to again the board's task is to identify um any to the extent to which the ordinance might be inconsistent with the master plan and and offer any recommendations to the the council for consideration. I'll note
that the site is included in the city's adopted 2025 housing element fair share plan which is a component of the master plan. Um again, the zoning is very similar to the existing overlay zone which the board previously deemed to be consistent with the master plan. Um, and in addition to the housing element, we
re also reviewed the 2000 master plan, 2015 downtown improvement plan, and 2016 re-examination report. Um, which include such relevant themes as um placing the site in a gateway to the downtown and a transitional area between surrounding neighborhoods and the CRBD to encourage
a balanced development pattern um to encourage residential densities and development at appropriate scales to promote mixeduse development of this particular area of the city. And then finally to promote enh excuse me aesthetic enhancements in the city.
>> So without that further ado >> just very quickly uh as the chair mentioned this is not uh this is a master plan consistency review. It is not a public hearing. The public hearing takes place on second reading of the ordinance before the governing body at a later date. Um but nevertheless I would
like to swear uh Mr. Barren in a little bit belatedly. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you already gave as well as that which you will be giving no doubt is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Uh and the opinions you were uh uh
referencing with respect to master plan consistency. Would it be fair to say that those are encapsulated in your September 6, 2025 memorandum to the board? >> I would agree with that. >> Okay. And it remains your opinion as a professional planner in the state of New Jersey and our planner uh that this
particular ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan. >> I would agree with that also. >> Okay. And uh for the reasons stated and set forth in your September 6 memorandum. >> Yes. >> And uh Mr. Chairman, I did uh uh draft for this one as well as the one to come
uh master plan consistency review to come. Uh I did draft a uh res resolution. So should the board find that indeed this ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan, we do have that draft resolution that was circulated amongst the board members. So
you can go right to motion second and roll call vote on that resolution which would memorialize the not inconsistent opinion that you were just given by your planner. Uh but the board is free to make any determination it wishes as well as make additional recommendations uh
should it so desire. Okay, with that, I'll offer board members the opportunity to give questions or brief comments um in alignment with or potentially opposed to what had been presented there. Any quick comments,
the left side, try the right side. John, don't worry. No, no expectation to step up. Um may maybe I'll just help to bring it together as I know we did address this in the earlier September meeting, but u as referenced in uh Mr. Baron's memorandum. A couple of items certainly
stood out to me with regard to the not inconsistency here um for the ordinance. uh with regard drawn particularly first from the 2000 master plan um the desire to balance growth and development opportunities with an established pattern of development and existing infrastructure um given the location of
uh those particular parcels and the lengthy conversation I'll say the city has had and residents have contributed to around for what they see the future of that potential development is certainly something worth drawing attention to uh within the 2015 downtown improvement plan uh there's reference to
parking policies to promote district economic vitality. Um both elements of that particular call out um are thoughtfully contemplated within uh this this particular reasonzoning sensitivity to parking which is a perennial challenge here in Summit, but one we're
really putting some extra elbow grease into. Um but then even beyond just development, the holistic economic impact that we think a developed site can have for those particular parcels. Um and then finally I would draw attention in the 2016 master plan uh revision and re-examination.
Um the again uh point 12 build economic resiliency by supporting reinvestment. Uh we as a community have had a number of conversations about what reinvestment can look like in terms of the role of the municipality versus private entities. um and think that uh the path
that this resoning uh really outlays for us puts us on a a real positive trajectory that respects a number of competing interests um and will really ultimately align with the intent of the master plan in its many iterations. So with that um and given the fact that uh
Steve's already prepared a a resolution for us, thank you Steve. Um, I would invite a motion, a second before we entertain a roll call vote with regard to the not inconsistency um of this ordinance. >> So move. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. Okay. And Jessica, when you're
ready, we'll do a roll call vote. >> Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez, >> yes. >> Mayor Fagan, >> yes. >> Council member Hamlet, >> yes. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Dalmaso, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Stuntton, >> yes. >> Mr. Loy, >> yes. Chairman Spur.
>> Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Uh, next item, historic preservation ordinance, master plan consistency review. Um, so I will similarly hold pass this over. Do you want it first, Steve, or should we >> Well, you know what? We'll we'll swear you in again so I don't so I'm not
belated this time. Do you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to God testimony you're about to give is the truth? The whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Thank you. And same as before, I guess would be appropriate. It's a referral, not a public hearing. It's a consistency review uh pursuant to section 26 uh and
the hearing takes place with respect to this ordinance as it did with the other uh before the governing body the common council at a later date. I don't have that date in front of me. >> Okay, Mr. Barren, >> I have that date in front of >> uh Mr. Barren is going to share that date along with his opinion. So um and
and this is in with regard to the historic preservation ordinance that was uh introduced by the common council on September 3rd. That's specifically ordinance number 12 049 um which is intended to repeal the city's existing historic preservation
commission section of the ordinance with a new historic preservation ordinance located in chapter 35 development regulations. I note that the during the preparation of the most recent DRRO, it was always intended that the city would relocate its historic preservation
requirements to the DRRO. Um, and that's what this ordinance intends to do. The ordinance maintains the HP historic preservation commission's advisory status where it will continue to review relevant planning board and zoning board of adjustment applications. The HPC will
also be tasked with reviewing certain types of building permit applications, including demolition permit applications. Um, I'll note the HPC review is generally limited to the exterior of buildings and structures um where they can be observed primarily from the street or the front of the
property. U the HPC will have the opportunity to provide information and recommendations where it feels warranted. Um the HPC will also provide education um and primarily discourage the demolition of historic buildings and removal of the historic fabric of
existing structures. Uh the ordinance also features new administrative procedures and requirements for HBC review. Um and it also designates for it formally designates historic sites and districts um that are identified in the city's 2000 historic preservation element of the master plan. And I'll
note for the record that the ordinance does not reduce the ability of anyone to improve their property or strip uh anyone of their development rights again as the HPC will remain an advisory body. Uh so with respect to to the master plan review u of the ordinance I'll note that
um our office did submit a memorandum dated September 6th to the board for its consideration which gives a lengthy overview of all the relevant master plan considerations. I I don't need to read all of those but I'll note that um the review includes recognition of purpose J
of the municipal landies law which is to uh promote the conservation of historic sites and districts open space energy resources etc. um through uh etc. We'll leave it at that. Um it also um specifically calls for the adoption of an ordinance very
similar to this and granting the HPC the advisory powers that are um incorporated into the ordinance. And it also calls for the um formal designation of the historic sites and districts that are identified in the 2000 historic preservation element of the master plan
and ultimately is intended um to preserve the character of the city which is a way of summarizing all of the several uh master plan goals and objectives that are listed in our memorandum. >> If I may, Mr. Chairman, as with the prior ordinance, Mr. barren. I uh let us
know if it's your opinion as a professional planner licensed and in good standing in the state of New Jersey and our city planner. Uh if it's your opinion that this ordinance is not inconsistent with the master plan for the reasons you stated as well as those set forth in your September 6, 2025
memorandum. >> That's correct. >> And again, uh we do have a resolution. Uh we actually were able to keep both of them to one page. I think that may be a first for me personally, but uh the the um and it does find that the ordinance
if this board so finds uh is not inconsistent with the master plan. So you can proceed to motion second and roll call vote uh on the resolution itself. But of course as before uh should you have any uh inconsistency
uh uh uh opinions or uh any additional matters that you wish to address uh visav your role uh as the planning board looking at the consistency of the ordinance um please do so you have that authority under the municipal land use
law >> I'll let our vice chair have the last word on it so that means I have to get just ahead of her here couple eyes >> as I know she is a passionate defender of all things historic preservation. Um, so we're grateful. >> Be my biz.
>> That's right. Um, but I think Tom's memo and his his testimony here has done a good job highlighting uh a any number of ways with which this new mechanis set of mechanisms um help uh us as the city of summit honor a commitment to historic
preservation which is an ongoing conversation uh but one that I think is taking a positive incremental step forward here. Um it strikes a really for me an important balance. It maintains the HPC's advisory status um respects the fact that the review contemplated
here is limited um but does the noble job of aiming to raise awareness and educating the diversity of stakeholders that can be positively contributing to historic preservation um here in the community. So we had heard uh back at the September 3rd meeting um the
ordinance was introduced by Councilman Palowski. you did a nice job summarizing that this is the output of many months, maybe years, dare I say, >> many um of effort and a lot of input from a lot of different uh individuals. It's still a pilot program of sorts. So,
there's still further lessons to learn. Uh but one I think that does an admirable job uh really demonstrating the commitment to historic preservation that we have um and certainly in alignment with the the master plan. Um so, please don't refute anything I said, but um Maybe you have a little something
you'd like to add. I want to make sure you have the last word on historic preservation. >> As you all know, I am historic preservation specialist and I work for the National Park Service. Um, and it's nice to see that there's a nod to a
little more emphasis on keeping our character and summit, which was goal number one in our re-examination. Um, and this is something that can do that. It can also maintain a variety of housing stock, building stock that if we
don't maintain it then then everything will become somewhat monolithic and similar and presumably the same size etc. Don't get me going. Um I think this is a nice small step forward and it's certainly consistent
with the master plan. >> Wonderful. Mr. LJOY, you have something that your esteemed chair and vice chair didn't uh cover. >> Yes, please. >> Um, no, I just like to note for the public that this is a very important ordinance in that there was no
constraint on de demolition permits being issued before this ordinance and um so at least before a home or structure is completely demolished uh it will get a look and I think that's very
important. uh and a city-like summit and I com commend both the council and the historic preservation commission for pursuing this and getting it done. >> Excellent. Any further comments,
questions. Okay, with that I would invite a motion to find the ordinance not inconsistent with Summit's master plan >> and adopt the resolution. >> So moved. I heard So moved from our vice chair. Second.
>> Okay. And a roll call vote if you would. Jessica. >> Vice Chair Balsson. >> Yes. >> Mayor Fagan. >> Yes. >> Council member Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Tomaso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stonen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Loy.
>> Yes. >> Chairman Spur. >> Yes. >> All right. Wonderful. Uh we're going to jump ahead just a little bit in the agenda. Uh we have one item under resolutions for memorialization. Um I can't remember when these folks actually came through.
>> Uh July 28th actually. >> We may have had a meeting that was cancelled in the midst. >> We take August off. So yeah, >> got to rec recoup here. Um this is simply just uh us us the planning board memorializing the resolution um that had
already been adopted. I don't anyone have any questions? This typically is not something we spend any time on, but >> it was an extension just for the benefit of the public and a reminder for everybody since it's been a couple of months. It was an extension uh a two-year extension of the uh second
general development plan approval uh applicable to the property uh of Bristol Meyer Squib Company, BMS, uh which is lots 192, 93 and 94, block 701, 556 Mars Avenue. I suspect everyone
knows where it is. >> Okay. So, barring any kind of procedural questions, the resolution had already been adopted. We're simply memorializing it as is. >> Correct. This this resolution will memorialize the decision of the board granting that extension on July 28th. Uh
uh I'm going to assume Jessica has the uh board members who are eligible to vote. I think it was 70. So, those seven if they are here or those of which are here, they can vote. Okay, with that we'll take a motion and a second and then proceed to a roll call
vote. >> Do you want to Jessica? Do you have handy who the seven are or who's here who tonight who can vote on that? >> Mr. Chairman, I wasn't here on that day. So, should I vote? That's when I >> No, no, no. This would only be the the seven from the seven members, those of
us who are here this evening, who were the seven members who voted to approve this extension on July 28th. on vacation. >> I wasn't here. >> Maybe we wait until we get a list of who was here. >> It sounds like we don't have >> I think
>> you don't have a list. You want to get the list? >> If we could double check quickly. >> Yes, >> we're going to double check. >> I'll talk on another matter for a moment to give Miss Sans a moment to check that. Um, if we look further down the uh
agenda this evening, uh, there was anticipated a close session discussion on the housing element and fair share mediation process. Um, I forgot to mention that at the at the outset. Um, as the public knows, uh, Summit Duly uh,
adopted and had endorsed by our governing body a housing element and fair share plan with respect to the fourth round affordable housing obligation. uh we adopted that at the appropriate time frame. The challenge period had uh had closed. The summit found itself with three challengers. All
this is publicly available information. Um and we are now currently in the mediation process. The news I have to share with you is the first mediation session was today. I haven't heard an update yet from the mediation team. Um so there really isn't any news to share at this moment. Uh but I would expect
not to put any pressure on the mayor and council president Mutierin. Uh the next governing body meeting is an appropriate time to engage there. For what we can share publicly, the mediation process is is confidential between uh the city and
the challenging parties guided by the program judge um the planner he's working with. Um so no news unfortunately to share at this process but naturally um as we can we'll solicit public input um and continue to move that process to a satisfactory
conclusion hopefully sooner than later. >> Any progress Jessica or shall I filibuster a little more >> don't let me start tap dancing Mr. Chairman we know >> I want to >> I wasn't here so I mean I know I wasn't >> I think
>> the eligible members to vote are Mr. Stern, Mr. Mr. Delaso, Chairman Spur, Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez, Mayor Fagan, and Mr. Loy. >> Okay, more than enough. >> All right. So, with that, we want a motion and a second, and then the eligible voting members will vote accordingly. >> So,
>> so moved. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Okay. >> And then just the eligible voting members. >> Okay. Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Domo, >> yes. >> Chairman Spur, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez, >> yes. >> Mayor Fagan, >> yes. >> Mr. Loy,
>> yes. Okay, wonderful. >> All right, we've been snuck in a housing element update for you there. So, we're really knocking them out then. Uh, next on our agenda, what you've all been waiting for, the Tatlock Field Lights Capital Project Review. Mr. Simon, if
you'd like to take a front row seat, you're welcome certainly as well or whatever is most convenient for you to access the podium. Um, I'll offer um just a quick discussion of the procedural how we will structure the process for this particular agenda item and then Steve's got all kinds of fun
legal to share with you. I promise you, John, a slight slight legal education this evening. So, we've got enough attorneys I think among us to accomplish that task. Um, >> there's probably a punch line there somewhere. >> Leave it alone. Save your ammo for later. That's right. Um so this is uh
characterized after quite a bit of uh research and deliberation and as Steve will expand upon it as a capital project review. Um this procedurally will feel like a standard land use application will feel like it um in the sense that
we will invite and these are small award applicants the city in this case to offer their presentation of the the capital project for us to conduct our review. um that'll comprise any expert witness testimony they they wish to present. Um those experts will be sworn
in. Uh members of the interested public following our board professionals, the board members will have the opportunity to ask questions of uh any expert witnesses. Um but you will not be offered the opportunity to offer any commentary at that point. We're going to withhold comments until the end of the
proceedings. After the applicant has offered their presentation, we'll offer likely the uh we have an objecting party the opportunity to present uh their their their case in a sense. Um and at that that point as well, we'll similarly
offer board members uh board professionals the opportunity to ask questions. The public then um after that point will be able to offer similarly questions of any objecting witnesses. Uh, and when we all wrap it up with a nice tight bow, uh, we will offer a public comment section. Uh, I'll give
you a chance to come up. You'll be sworn in. Um, you'll speak your piece for I'd ask for under three minutes if you can, just out of a respect for time. Um, and that's how we will conduct it. For those that are accustomed to land use, that's a pretty standard uh, process to hear applications. But again, some of the
terminology I'm using here um, isn't exactly fit for what we're going to undertake this evening. So, I'm going to hand it over to Mr. Warner, who will give you a little bit more context as to importantly what the board is considering this evening. Um, and how we can be successful in achieving that
before he turns into a pumpkin at 11 p.m. on >> Oh, I don't never never not even at 2 in the morning. No, >> the the uh body shape aside, the the the the uh yes, this is a capital project review under section 31A.
Uh whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan as we have uh the governing body in this case uh having jurisdiction over the subject matter before taking any action necessitating the expenditure of public funds incidental to the location,
character or extent of a project. uh shall refer the action as the city has done, the common council has done, shall refer the action involving such specific project to the planning board for review and recommendation
in conjunction with its master plan and such body shall not uh act that being the common council until 45 days have elapsed after such reference without receiving the planning board's recommendation. Uh the uh it is a capital project review. It is not a
master plan consistency review. It is not a courtesy review. Uh under section 10A, capital project reviews specifically require a public hearing. Uh however, while it requires a public
hearing, it is not an application for development. Uh as are many of the public hearings we hear when uh private applicants come for development applications. Uh therefore the applicant the city is not required was not required to give MLUL notice but of
course this is an open public meeting act excuse me an open public meeting under the open public meetings act uh and it's our regular meeting uh uh duly notice at the uh beginning of the year uh with our calendar published in two newspapers. Um so the board's role is
recommendatory uh the review and the recommendations. We cannot uh approve or deny. We don't have that authority on a capital project review. Uh we only have the authority to review it and to make recommendations.
We cannot impose conditions. Uh we've done this before, frankly. Uh so you're familiar with the process, but I want to remind everybody uh of the process. uh we can make the board can uh recommend conditions uh but the assumption is that
the city is generally exempt from zoning requirements and hence that's why it's a referral under 31A uh not something different. Um, and we can uh uh make those recommendations
uh to make the project even more consistent with, if that's your determination, the master plan uh to whatever extent possible. Uh, and I'm taking that from applicable case law. The um
bear with me the uh and I did mention section 10A. It is a public hearing. So the procedure will take place similar very similar to a land development application public hearing as the chair stated. Um they're
it's somewhat unique uh in my experience because uh as is public knowledge uh there is litigation pending related to this matter and that litigation uh as I understand it was initially commenced
against uh the city uh and has since been amended to include both the zoning board and this planning board. Uh so the planning board is currently a defendant in litigation uh by the objectors organization with respect to uh this
matter uh and to be specific Tatlock community preservation association and New Jersey nonprofit corporation uh is the plaintiff and now the city of Summit uh the city of Summit board of adjustment and the planning board at the city of Summit this board are defendants. That said does not change in
my opinion the fact that we have a statutory obligation and that statutory the statutory the statute excuse me being the municipal land use law that statutory obligation is to hear that capital project review public hearing as we would any other capital project review uh by way of a public hearing. Uh
it's also my understanding that um it's at least alleged that uh the matter involves in some way, shape or form not only uh the city but also private entities
uh that allegation being made by the objectors group. The reason I raised that is in addition to the capital project review and recommendations I discussed pursuant to 30 section 31A. Uh there is a case hills of Troy v.
Paripony uh and its progyny Hills of Troy versus Paripony 392 NJ super 593. It's a law division case 2005. um wherein this board may be asked to in addition to the capital project review
findings uh make a determination uh the extent to which the city's exercise of its exemption from zoning remains reasonable notwithstanding the at least allegation uh if not evidence of there being some private involvement in
addition to the public involvement. Um, so that I think uh covers it. Once you're citing uh cases, that's probably uh we want to start wrapping up soon thereafter because that's when people's
tend to uh lose uh patience with the attorneys. So um that uh is hopefully gives you an idea of what is forthcoming. Again, public hearing. We have representatives from the city uh city solicitor and witnesses. Uh we have the organization I mentioned who I
understand has counsel and at least one if not more witnesses. We'll find out. Uh and certainly our members of the public. So uh with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it back to you. >> Excellent. >> Have a question. >> Ask Miss B. >> So we can't approve or deny. We cannot
do conditions. We can only do recommendations. And if we do recommendations of some kind rather than conditions, what is the we send them over to the governing body. >> Well, they'll >> they can just use those recommendations
or not at their discretion. Correct. >> Recommendations. >> That's the extent of our power. >> That's the extent of the authority of a planning board in a capital project review. Uh also just uh perhaps to state the obvious, we are a quasi judicial
body and have a we're a hybrid legislative and and judicial quasi judicial body as well. But um we don't bring cases. Uh cases come to us so to speak. Uh so this is not an application for development that came to us. This is
a capital project review that came to that was brought to us. Uh so we hear it. uh and within that authority uh when I say we can't approve or deny what I mean is is is we don't have that authority it it will be reviewed and it
will and the recommendations if any will be made um they'll be memorialized any resolution >> um and uh a recommendation is a recommendation it may or may not be adhered to uh one will wait and find out
>> thank you >> another question um >> please >> can Can you please provide guidance on the objective attorney and whether or not their scope has to be limited to uh whether or not uh our um finding is whether it's consistent or not inconsistent with the master plan so
that we have guidance on on those questions. >> Well, it's a little more than just consistency on the master plan, but again the capital project review is for uh review and recommendation in conjunction with the master plan. uh and uh so you may make other recommendations
beyond I find it consistent with the master plan or what have you. Um but certainly uh uh objectors council is experienced and certainly should understand and and if need be if there's a difference of opinion will address it uh that uh the scope of a capital
project review it's not an application for development allegations appear to have been made in the complaint. I'm not going to discuss the litigation that it might be something different or more what have you. But the fact of the matter is what is before us is a capital project review. So uh the public hearing
should be limited to that capital project review. >> Mr. Loy, >> um just for clarification, Mr. Warner, I just uh I'm assuming, so please tell me if I'm wrong, that like the city, like
any other board, uh when a lawsuit's filed, the it's the board, the entity that's being sued, not the members. Correct. >> That that is correct. >> All right. I'm really excited to hear from the city. So, >> now that we've said our piece, maybe
just introduce yourself and hi. >> I'll let you go. Yes. Good evening board members. I'm Heather Goldstein from Clearary Gia Cove representing the city of Summit. As you know, the city is here for a capital project review under New Jersey
NJSA 4055D-31A in connection with the lighting the proposed lighting on on Tatlock Field. The city is addressing the demands of the community since there is a need for more field space. There are longer
sports seasons. There's more travel teams, more participation in youth sports. Most of the city of Summit fields are being used at maximum capacity and other alternatives. In fact, 27 have been reviewed to determine the possible shortage and there is no
other viable alternative. Specifically, this project consists of lighting for two fields at Tat Tatlock Field. The upper field and the lower field. For the upper field, the light poles at each corner will be replaced.
And for the lower field, there will be new poles and lighting since there is there there's none um currently. The lights will all be LED downward-facing poles between 70 feet and 80 feet.
At this uh tonight, you will hear from three witnesses. Uh Ryan Marsh, who is the lighting expert from Musco Engineering, Mark Ozaroski, director of Department of Community Programs,
and Aaron Shrager who is the burrow engineer. At this time, I would like to call Ryan Marsh um the lighting expert from Musco Engineering. And Mr. Chairman, if you have uh uh if I may, I can swear in all
three witnesses together with our board professionals uh right now and then if there's any further swearing in to be done by other witnesses, I'll swear them in later. Uh so if our engineer and planner uh as well as the three uh individual witnesses on behalf of the city just mentioned, if you'll all raise
your right hand, do all of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> Thank you all five of you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Right answer. All right. I think we're going to hear from Mr. Marsh
now from Musco Lighting. >> Sorry we don't have a seat for you, but hope you'll indulge us there. And if you could start with your full name and uh address, business address is fine for the record. >> Okay. Uh Ryan Marsh, Musco Lighting. And
the business address, I believe, is 211 West 2nd Avenue, Oscaloosa, Iowa. >> Thank you. Mr. Marsh, can you describe your your educational background? I am a
degreed mechanical engineer from Worcester Polytenic Institute in Western Massachusetts and I have worked at Musco Lighting for over 27 years, the first 25 26 in the engineering department doing the
lighting designs for fields like Tatlock Field and just recently moved into a sales role, sales manager role. >> Thank you. What certifications do you hold? I am lighting certified by the
illuminating engineering society. So, >> and that's a national certification. >> Yes, it is. >> And have you ever testified in New Jersey? >> I have once before. >> I don't know the date. It's been a
while. >> At this time, I would like to um ask if the board accepts Mr. Marsh as an expert in lighting. And just if I may, Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, uh the uh
you're being sought to be uh introduced and and accepted as an expert uh >> engineer >> engineering lighting with >> or what what why don't I leave it to the city solicitor to explain exactly what
you're seeking to have him accepted. >> Lighting expert. lighting expert I would say because he has a certifi Can you describe your certification in more detail or >> uh again lighting certified is a um a qualification that is bestowed upon
individuals by the illuminating engineering society as to whether you're an expert you take a rigorous test pass fail >> an expert in lighting >> in lighting >> okay just generally in lighting >> generally in lighting there are if I
remember correctly when I took it there were probably two sports lighting questions on a 4-hour test. So, >> okay. And you testified previously in the state of New Jersey. You said was that in court or land or before a land use board? >> Land use sport. >> Land. Okay. And would you accepted in uh
in the field of lighting as an expert? Same same. Yes. As you're being sought to be accepted here. >> Yes. >> So you have that uh pre previous acceptance as an expert in that field. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And uh Mr. assignment on behalf of uh I I well you haven't entered an
appearance yet but if I understand correctly uh you're appearing on behalf of Why don't you tell us who you're appearing but on behalf of and then you could tell us whether or not you have any objection to Mr. uh uh Marsh being uh accepted as an
expert in the field of lighting by this board in connection with this public hearing on this capital project review. Tatlock Community Preservation Association. Got it. >> Why do I even have to >> There you go. Why? Um members of the
board, good evening. Uh Rob Simon from Herald Law here on behalf of Tatlaw Community Preservation Association. Um, thank you for um recognizing me uh members of the board, Mr. Warner. Um, I just have some questions I do for for Mr. Marsh in terms of qualification.
>> So, you're are you objecting or you're seeking to vadier? >> Well, I'm going to seek the voadier and then I can take my position. >> Okay. Uh, brief my recommendation to the board is this is a public hearing. So a brief wadier uh if he's not going to
accept him or if he's may object that's his right on behalf of his client >> right just just in terms of qualifications understood that's all that's all it should be >> right um >> step forward Mr. Marsh use the microphone >> okay thank you
>> um Mr. Mars, do you have a um degree in electrical engineering? >> No, I do not. It's mechanical. >> And are you um licensed in the state of New
Jersey in the field of mechanical engineering or any other engineering? >> I'm not licensed anywhere. >> And with regard to your comment about testifying in New Jersey once before, um where was that?
I don't is I don't remember recall which uh township it was for. It's been over 10 years. >> I would have to go back to my records to find out. >> And did you prepare um phototric exhibits at the time for for that
application? >> I believe I was the one who prepared the phototric exhibits >> for that application. >> For that application. >> Okay. You don't remember what county it was in? >> No, I do not. >> And do do you recall being qualified as an actual expert in the field of
lighting or do you not recall that one way or another? >> I believe I was accepted. So I don't know how that 10 years ago what what the terminology or what they said accepted me as.
Um, so just just based on uh Thank you, Mr. Marsh. Um, just based on those results, I do or those uh responses um I do at least at this point take issue with um Mr. Marsh being qualified as an
expert. Certainly, he's he's permitted to testify. Um and in full disclosure, it may turn out that I may change my opinion. Um but I just want to reserve my right to continue to object to the extent that it's warranted with regard
to his qualifications as an expert. >> My advice to the board is the objector can reserve their right to do so. uh as as a practical matter to the extent that the board finds that he has knowledge above the general ken we use the word ken uh the general knowledge of we lay
persons to I'm certainly a lay person with respect to lighting but uh the board members can speak for themselves that he can benefit uh and render opinions uh uh in order to help facilitate the uh resolution of this capital project review. the board can
certainly accept him as an expert and he can proceed accordingly notwithstanding the potential objection on behalf of the objection by Mr. Simon. So that's my advice to the board. Mr. Chairman, you can check with the board and see if the board accepts him as an expert. >> Do you need a motion?
>> Uh you don't we don't need a motion. The chair can get the consensus of the board. I'm inclined to accept him as an expert in it in in the in lighting generally given his educational background certainly extensive professional experience um and hope he's
degree right his certifications relevant certifications as well and hope that Mr. assignment is proven pres pleasantly surprised by the testimony that's provided. Um, so unless there's an objection by the board, we would accept you as an expert on lighting and welcome
your testimony led by Miss Goldstein. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. I I just want to add to that that there's nothing in the municipal land use law that requires a New Jersey state license in order to provide expert testim testimony. >> Thank you.
And I take when you say that you're not specifically referring to engineering, but the fact of the matter that experts may or may not be licensed >> as a lighting expert >> in order to provide expert testimony in court or or for that matter before a board. Correct. >> Correct.
>> Just hold for one second, Miss Goldstein. Yes. >> Uh yes, I would imagine that he is he's representing the plans that were that were done by uh the appropriate engineers for Musco. I know we couldn't have that specific person. to hear from them. As a as a planning board, separate
and independent uh as we're operating separate and independent from the >> common council, we're hearing the application as an independent autonomous body. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Marsh. I'm going to turn um
everyone's attention to the Musco Lighting Solutions Tatlock Park presentation which is on the screen. >> And this has been previously submitted to the board and I believe is marked. I don't know what it's marked actually. A1. >> Well, it's going to be marked tonight, I guess. So, we'll mark it A1. >> Sure.
>> A1. >> And it's a PowerPoint presentation. Is it >> looks that way to make a presentation? Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Okay. >> If you can Okay. This Mr. Marsh, can you explain the evolution of the CLA control
technology? >> Yes. This is Representative Musco's uh evolution of glare control from 1977 to the current technology while you know 2026 is not >> and I'm sorry to interrupt but but can
we just go back to the heading so that we can have it identified the first page. >> Okay. Musco Lighting Solutions Catlock Park. That's the uh title. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Great. Please proceed with your testimony. So from 1977 to uh 2013
pretty much everybody's been using metal halloi technology and as Musco evolved our concern was about neighborhood light pollution spill control and as you can see we developed the technology to
harness that light and pro put more light on the field and less light off the field, whether it be in the night sky or in the neighbor's backyard. So, in ' 89, we introduced some inserts in the bottom of the fixture that took that where you can see in 1977 that
light is reflecting off of the bottom of the fixture right towards your eye. Now, that light is being redirected down to the field. Then we added visors, um, two different types, one for, uh, moderate spill control and one for more extreme spill control. Can you just give us the
years that you read? >> Yeah. Uh 1989 was the the visors for the spill control. Um I believe he's got Jefferson School was done non-Musco 2003. So um in 2005 we came out with a new metal halli
technology, new fixture technology where we were able to reduce the number of fixtures because we were harnessing so much more of the light and putting it on the field. We reduced the the number of fixtures by 40% needed to light a field to the same light level. And as
referenced by the slide, Glennside Avenue at high school in 2007 use that technology. 2013 LED fixture is used at Tatlock Tennis that's currently in use. The
fixture came out in 2013. The tennis was lit in 2015. >> And the technology has advanced since then. Correct. >> Correct. And the technology that would be for
these lights proposed would be the new technology. Correct. >> Correct. >> Can you switch it to the next? >> Can you please describe Can you please describe this slide, Mr. Marsh? So what we're showing here is the
history of the the evolution of the technology and it is showing the number of fixtures required for each technology to put the same light level at the same distance in front of each
pole on the field. So back in 1977, it would have taken five of those metal halli fixtures up to the LED system today, which the Musco LED system. There's two fixtures there. While you cannot see them, you can see that the
there's light on the pole, but the fixtures are shielded such that you can't even see them. So two LED fixtures replaces the five metal halli from 1977. >> So So you're saying two LED fixtures now would report.
>> Correct. >> And that does this show the lack of spillage in the with the light? >> Yes, it does. >> And the lack of glare. >> Correct. >> Can you please can you describe this slide please, Mr.
Marsh? >> This is showing two different LED manufacturers. one Musco and another um other LED manufacturer and without proper glare control. You can see what
happens with um an uncontrolled fixture there compared to uh the Musco on the left. >> I take it Musco's on the left. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yes, please describe this. So this is the 1500 watt fixture that is being
proposed on the design. It shows the graphical representation physical size and then a um just a photo of the the actual fixture with a visor extreme cutff. Um at this angle you can't see
the dodes uh the light source where the light is being generated. >> Can you explain in layman's terms what a diode is? The diode is the um the chip that the uh electrical currents going through that generates the the light
energy that then is produced. So I believe on this fixture there's 300 some odd diodes on there in order to generate the amount of light needed. >> And this is also showing like the lap
spillage and the glare. >> It's just showing the cut off with the visor. Yes. >> If I may share, is it fair to assume that this is what's proposed for >> Yes, it is. >> That's the 1500 watt. I believe there's also a couple different wattages that are also there, but they follow the same
concept. It's just different sizes, number of diodes that are being used >> for all the PS, both the replacement and the new ones. >> Yes. >> Thank you. We're going to skip this because we're talking about this in the contour map. That one too.
Just go. Yes, that. Okay. Can you describe what what this slide is? >> So, this is just showing the um light spill from above and how you can see the cut off. Uh
it's, you know, high school in New Jersey. I can't see the city name. But Central Regional High School football and how the light is contained with on within the field and the track area and
there's minimal light spillage in the to the surrounding areas >> and this is similar to what would be proposed at Tatlock field. >> Yes. Is this an is this another image similar to what we >> Yes, that that that's another image just
showing the control of the light. I believe this one probably has more light on the track corners than Tatlock's going to have. >> And speaking of the track, um is there a dimmer on these lights? >> Yes, the system will be able to uh
be dimmed have various dimming settings. So when the field is not being used for a game and the track is being used, the lights would be dimmed. >> Yes, they could be dimmed. Um there's
the setup is designed such that the track lighting is separate for afterhour usage for public walking on the track. So much less light than that. >> And what is what is this? This is just showing from the um opposite side of the
field how when you're looking across and you can see the other poles, you can see that the lights are on, but you you're experiencing no glare from those fixtures. So, it's just demonstrating the cut off of the fixture. And this is within the property. That's the
bleachers. So, we're not even offsite yet for that. So, >> thank you. And I believe this >> that's an offsite photo. This is offsite. So would this be
how approximately how far? >> I don't know the distance that that photo was taken at. So I can't comment. >> But it would be from not obviously not in the um >> correct >> field. I'm sorry she didn't finish. Let her finish the question before you answer. >> Sure. I just said it's it's not from
inside the field. >> Correct. Thank you. >> Now we're if you could put up >> no the lighting plan. >> It's what's coming up next. Applicants A.
>> Yes. If we can mark this as A2 and it's um >> lighting summary and field maps from Musco. Go back to >> it's dated August 6, 2025. Yeah. No, both have both.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Um and uh what page is this? >> Page eight. >> Page eight. >> Yes. Mr. Marsh, can you explain what this is a um picture of? So this is the calculated combined light
levels from both the upper field and the lower field. The light spillage at the property line um along the far side of the street. [Music] >> Okay. >> And and it assumes no blockage, no trees
at a straight line of sight. And if I can point out for each field there's two poles that are 70 feet and two poles that are 80 ft. >> I believe that is correct. >> Can you explain why?
>> So the the the poles on the lower field F1 and F2 are 80 ft because they are pointed directed towards the neighbors. So, we want the better ability to control the light and direct it down towards the field.
>> Just pause for a second. Mr. Marsh, just have a question. Just navigating. >> Just it's navigation, please. Okay. So, I just want to make sure we're marking the right exhibit. So, um I see an
exhibit which is multi- pages project summary and then I'm seeing something very different on the screen. That's why I just wanted to Yeah, I have a >> it's on the screen. I don't have >> Yeah, bear with me one sec because uh
council the the um I have something I'm assuming I got with the board members got the first page it says bottom right project summary. The top left it says Tatlock Park multi-purpose fields. >> Is that the >> first page? >> Yes. >> Okay. And then we're going one, two,
three, four, >> four, five. Yep. Five, six, seven, eight. Uh, my page eight says aluminum. After a few pages of project summary, we have illumination. Actually, after one page of project summary, we have illumination summary at the bottom right
>> for a bunch of pages. Is that correct? >> That that's the exhibit you're you're putting up, correct? >> Yes. Correct. >> There we go. Okay. So, my page eight does have what? Thank you. If you can It's moving around like crazy. The the uh um Okay. In the top left there it
says equipment list for areas shown. And then the top right it says Tatlock park multi-purpose food fields grid summary illumination summary. Okay. That looks like my page eight. >> Yes. >> Uh I'm oriented. Mr. uh Simon. Do you do you have that document?
>> I'm not. >> All right. We'll ask Mr. Guid to take it slow then for you if you're seeing this. >> It looks right to me. It looks like page eight to me. >> So is this >> Check your dates. >> He got a a later version. Did he not get the leader? Remember there was something said just ask
>> No, but does he >> Okay, >> we're good. >> That might be the difference. >> So, it was updated. >> Hold on. >> August. >> That's August 6th, 25. >> Yes. So, that's what we're looking at. >> Right. So, this So, what you're referring to just again navigation.
>> Um August 6, 2025 version of Taplock Park multi-purpose fields. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. appreciate that. >> No, no, good. We want to make sure that all members of the public and council for the group executing. We make sure everybody's uh able to
participate fully. So, thank you for pointing that out, Mr. Simon. I think we could continue. >> Yes. And this is marked as A2. >> Yep. Yep. A2. Please continue. >> Go back to >> the Okay. So we're talking about the
different heights of 70 feet versus 80 feet and why why >> for using the 80ft poles that are directed the lights are directed towards the neighbors by using 80 foot it gives us better ability to control the light
and direct it down to the field and minimize the spill light spill light and glare to the neighboring properties. For the 70 foot poles, we're directing those lights away from so we don't need to be as tall. Plus, with the visors, you get a little backlight off of the visors.
So, we're we're trying to direct light away from the neighbors. >> Could you point out S12 34 and F12 34? Which ones are the 70s and which ones are the 80s? >> Yes. F1 and F2 are the 80 foot poles. S3
and four are the 80s. And I believe >> that is because there's a negative elevation on the >> I guess it's the east side of that field. >> There's a retaining wall and there is um so it the mounting height becomes more
than 70. It's not a 10 foot negative. I believe it's a seven if we which page would that be show more accurately? Page seven
shows just the um up upper field and you see in the um equipment listing up in the upper left it shows an elevation of minus 7 ft for S3 and S4 >> up there.
>> Yes. >> So S is the upper and F is the lower. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Yes. soccer and football. >> We're very creative with our naming conventions here.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mark. Um, >> can you describe the It says 0.0. >> So, that that is zero horizontal foot candles. Again, the combined light spillage from both fields
assuming no blockage. We don't have the way to replicate the trees, the blockage in there. So assuming worst case scenario, you have a bad storm come through, all the trees are gone, you get a infestation, you know, emerald ash bore, whatever. Um,
you got to take them all down. So no trees. >> So there would be zero spillage on the other side to the left of 0.0. Correct. >> Correct. When you say foot candles, can you
describe in in uh simple terms what >> it's it's the amount of light that one candle would put out in a square foot. >> That's it. It's >> Thank you. Oh, wait. I'm sorry. You know what? I
second. I'm sorry. Go back. Yeah, I think the last page. >> Yes, this >> we're back on page eight. >> Nine. >> Now we're on page nine of A2.
>> Thank you. This is just the layout and it shows the aiming lines of each fixture and how they're aimed so that they are directed. Um so the aiming lines represent the direction that the light is cast on the floor.
>> Each individual fixture how in which direction it's aimed >> has no real bearing on any kind of glare or any >> it's not a calculation thing. It's just a a graphical representation of how the how we would intend to aim the lights.
>> Thank you. if you could go to >> and now we're if I can mark the contour map of musco lighting as A3 Mr. Marsh, can you describe this page, please?
>> So, what we did here is to put a a grid covering the entire field um to take the light out to zero. >> And this is page one. >> This is page one. This is would be the lower field. >> Bear with me. >> Okay. Oh, sorry.
We have a multi-page uh exhibit that's also a PowerPoint uh and uh illumination summary on the bottom right I guess of all the pages it looks like >> one two three >> four >> four pages y >> yes
>> okay and we're on page one of A3 okay and and A3 we are 15 >> September 15th >> September 15th >> 2025 okay wait bear with me one at a time the the uh September 15th is the date of this exhibit, this five-page exhibit.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh and it's uh we're calling it what now? >> A A3. >> Musco contour map. >> Contour. Okay. >> Mr. Simon. Yes. >> Um
>> just come up the microphone real quick. >> The one that I got from from the website actually. >> Um the one I have is dated November 22nd, 2024. Okay. >> I don't know if Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm Jessica, do
you know what date it was put on the website? >> They were put on this morning. >> The newest ones? >> I just opened it. It's September 15th, 25. >> Yeah, it's on. >> Wait, they were put on this morning. >> Derek,
>> do we have any uh copies for Mr. Simon or andor any other members of the public. >> Did you make copies? I >> I only brought me copies. Did >> you share that? >> We have an expert if it's we can save a little time. Is it
uh precisely the same as the >> It's fairly similar. >> Well, wait, wait, wait. Let let maybe the expert can tell us. My understanding is that there was a pre-construction meeting on site and one pole location needed to be moved >> and I can't remember
>> one pole location was moved otherwise the same. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> A few feet. So the plans were revised. >> You can we can pro we can get you a copy if you want one. It's your call. >> Mr. Simon similar.
>> I think she's already got one. >> Mr. Loy is gonna give Mr. Okay. >> Hand delivered by a board member. It doesn't get any better. Okay. >> That's service break. All right. Let's continue. >> And board members can share. Okay. >> You can't see it. >> You can't see it.
>> I had to do it on my computer. >> Please proceed. >> All right. Thank you. >> Okay. So, this grid goes out beyond the playing field, goes out to zero foot candles. We're showing a tighter grid to
show how the light dissipates as it, you know, as you go from the playing field to uh outside of the playing field and towards the neighbors. Um the illumination summary shows that there's a maximum of 70 foot candles and of
course that's on the field and the minimum of zero. The dark blue line is 0.0 zero foot candles >> around the perimeter. >> That's a contour line. Yes.
>> So, and the as you can see on the street there, it reaches 0.0 before it gets to the opposite side of the street. >> And these numbers are measurements of foot candles. >> Foot candles. Yes.
And then the same thing was done for the upper field. >> The next page, this is page two of >> uh I think it's page three. >> Page three. >> Page three is the upper field. There's a
>> am I correct on page two just is the the layout of the field without the numbers but still showing the contour line. makes it easier to see where the contour line is. So, page three, >> page three is the upper field, correct? >> Upper field with the numbers. Page four
is the upper field without the numbers, but still the contour line. >> And again, that contour line signifies zero foot candles from there and beyond. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. >> And that would mean that there is no spillage beyond the contour line.
Correct. >> Correct. Just may I ask does these zeros extend well into the conservation area? Correct. >> Correct. >> Continue the testimony though. We'll offer uh first the board professionals
then the board members and then members of the interested well actually first our objecting attorney and then members of the interested public the opportunity to ask questions. So please continue. Yes. >> Would you say that these the proposed lights would meet um dark sky
certification? Based on my experience, this design uh has a high probability of achieving dark sky certification. I can't say for a fact because Dark Sky does the certification. We give them an electronic file and they
deem it pass fail. But based on our experience uh and my experience doing lighting designs that this design has done been done in a way that it would meet the dark sky outdoor sports lighting program certification.
Now, I'm going to I believe we're we're done with A3. Um I'm going to ask you to I'm going to go over some recommendations from um Tom Baron's
in a memorandum dated September 6, 2025 to see if >> that's our board planner, correct? >> Yes. to see if the proposed lights would meet the planner's recommendations.
>> I don't I don't think we need to mark this as an exhibit. >> No, it was submitted more than 10 days in advance of this evening. So, uh, and it's our board planners report. >> Well, to clarify, they're recommendations offered for the board's consideration that they might share those recommendations with the council.
>> It's from your September 6 memo, correct? That's right. Yeah. So on page three of Mr. Baron's memorandum, he just um he has some recommendations regarding installation of new field
lighting. Um one would be regulating the hours of field lighting to shut off at a time that is deemed appropriate to minimize impacts to surrounding properties. >> This is page three, correct? >> Yes. Would these proposed lights be able to meet that recommendation?
>> The system comes with a lighting control system that includes the ability to schedule the lights more than seven days in advance. Use an app for control computer 247 call center to control the
lights. >> So, yes. >> Yes. So, and similar in number two, could these light fixtures be um dimmed to the minim minimum levels at certain times? >> Yes, they can.
>> And is it a remote the dimmer? Like is it >> it can be done through the app. It can be done through the scheduling and the dimming levels can be chosen by the owner. We usually set the standard at 7550 and
25 I believe or something. >> When you what when you say 75 >> 75% sorry. So we got 100% and 75% and uh yeah either a 50 or a 25% you know just kind of depends. And then again the
owner may choose to vary from that and we can adjust that remotely. So for instance, when the football field is not being used and if the track was being used, it could be um dimmed appropriately.
>> It could. >> Number three of Mr. Baron's memorandum discusses appropriate shielding and positioning to focus lighting on the play areas for safety and to minimize off-site glare. >> Would these lights meet that recommendation?
>> Yes. already doing >> and that's um the fourth recommendation really discusses mitigating off-site glare and I believe that you discussed you discussed that and showed the technology in um the presentation.
>> Yes. Um, and I I mean the fifth it talks about additional landscape buffering and for street trees and that's something that also could be provided to minimize glare. That's Yes, that's out of my
>> out of your Okay, >> I don't have any more questions for Mr. Marsh. >> Okay. Uh, first we're going to offer our board planner and board engineer the opportunity to ask any clarifying questions. Anything you think would benefit the board and its uh function
tonight. So, Tom, you wrote a memo. Do you want to take the first swing at it? >> Here. Um well I well I'll offer that uh the explanation from my perspective fairly self-explanatory. We we understood where the location of the lighting would be um the nature of the fixtures, the heights and the measures
to control the glare and potential impacts to surrounding neighborhood which we understand is a concern. Um and and I believe that Mr. Marsh has explained how Musco intends to minimize any of those impacts to the point that
there may not even be any. We saw the um the different various diagrams for lack of a better term which show that there'll be no light spillage for um you know onto those properties surrounding residential properties um and that they're a modern lighting fixture that can be controlled in a number of ways
and really uh in an effort to direct the lighting directly onto the field and not impact anywhere beyond the field itself. >> Okay, that's helpful context. Now, Marie, can we do any better or there? >> I don't know that it's contest, but >> um
>> could you talk about the the temperature of the lighting? Is it warm? Is it cold? And who does who is that better for? >> The um it is a 5700 Kelvin light light source.
Uh which again is allowed under the dark sky outdoor sports lighting program. So, it's a cool white light. It's um it's a very efficient it's one of the more efficient uh diode combinations.
>> So, is that >> to provide more lumens per watt? >> Okay. >> In a sense of >> I'm sorry, provide more >> more lumens per watt and so that we can use fewer fixtures, use less KW for the
uh end user. And is there any um is there any reason in your professional opinion that it should be changed to a a a cooler light or a warmer light depending on the location of it, the sports that are being played on it?
>> No, this this application doesn't uh I don't feel needs that. And part of the uh you know the outdoor sports lighting program is that dark sky has identified that sports lighting it's not
a dust to dawn type of sport. So it not a dust to dawn type of application such that there's a usually a curfew time the lights go off. So, we're we're not in a situation of uh parking lots, roadways, um environmental impact zones where you
would need a warmer light for the uh natural habitat flora and fauna. >> Okay. Um when you were showing me the um the lighting lines um and where the zero
foot candles were um I felt that maybe it was it was um the line was further than you needed it because I'm looking at where where you have the zero foot candles. It looks like it's on the other side of the street which is which is further away from the neighbors. Is that
true? And how am I am I not reading that correctly? >> Well, I guess we went to both both extremes to show here's the property line. It's zero. Now, where does it actually get to
zero before then? And it does. So, that's even better. >> Yes. >> But to show the property line as zero to show that zero actually happens before the property line is we felt helpful as well. >> I see. So, so what you're saying is that
it is showing zero before the property line, correct? And you were just being more conservative >> for to show for >> I mean just just showing both. >> Okay. Um um
is there um any reason to show any um compounding of the lights? There's um tennis court lights that are that are already there on site, parking lot lights um and then the two field lights. Is there any reason to show any illumination levels that would exhibit
the cumulative effect of all those lights on the property? >> The well with the the light spillage at the property line, we're showing the cumulative effect of both fields. >> Okay. >> And that's at zero. And then the tennis
court is even further removed from those and it is uh in a sense fully shielded. So there's not going to be a con contribution there. From a standpoint of the um parking lot lights, you've also got the street lights. The street lights are
going to put more light on the properties than the sports lighting will and do already. Um, we don't have the we don't know what
um product that is. We don't know the manufacturer or the wattage. >> You mean the one on the tennis courts? >> We know the tennis courts. That's ours. But I'm talking about the the parking lot lighting or even street lighting. >> Um, so >> uh it would be a little hard for us to
model that as a cumulative effect. >> Okay. Um, and I think that's all I had. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Fay. Uh, any questions from members of the board for this expert in lighting? >> Um,
on your first very first PowerPoint on the second page, David. Not that. Can you go back? Back. Okay. Does the highlighting on the bottom the where you're highlighting the grass is that >> I'm sorry just for the record that's
page four I think correct >> on the A1 I believe >> of A1 thank you Mr. Does the highlighting of the grass mean anything or is that just artwork? >> The that is light on the grass and it it
should be that the uh light from all how many seven poles is the same quantity at the same distance away. >> Okay. >> It was designed such that there was a center focal point. Those poles are set
up in a somewhat of an arc and all aimed to a common point such that they would if on individually would have the same amount of light represented at that same point at the same distance from each pole.
>> So the ones in the middle have a teeny bit more spillage than the one. >> Well, I think it's just more of the the angle of the viewer that you can see. Well, they've got more contribution from the ones around them. So that's where >> Oh, okay. >> It's all combined in front of the middle
holes. >> And then David, I think it's the next page. It's the one that shows the fixture. >> Is that the largest of the fixtures? >> That is the largest. >> Okay. >> And that's page six of A1. >> Six. >> Thank you. >> And then I had a question about I have
one more question on here, but then Okay. Um, the next one is just sort of a general question thinking about the neighbors >> as I remember that street. I actually spent a lot of time at John's house many years ago and those are uh split levels and some two stories. So, can you tell
me um if I'm at in my kitchen on the first floor or I'm watching TV in my living room, which presumably will be on my first floor, what am I going to see out the window that I don't see now? >> And the lights are on. and the lights are on. You're going to be able just
like um if we go back like that pa >> no that page is fine like >> page give us a number >> five page five the photo on the left you're going to see that the there is light on the field you will be able to
know that inherently if it's dark out and the field is bright that there the field is lit right but in looking at those poles you're not going to see any light. You're not going to see the light source pointed into your living room window.
>> Your contention, and I'm just trying to learn, is it your contention that if I have my TV in such a way, am I going to have to think about moving which wall my TV is on on the basis of those lights being on? >> The glare come? >> No.
>> Okay. So, if I'm lying down on my second floor, if I have a child who's lying down and in the front >> looking at the lights, um, this is just my own bugaboo and I live far away from the lights. >> If I'm lying in bed, am I going to be staring at that light bulb? >> No. On the second floor, you're even
going to be better off than the first because the geometry of the the light is that it's directed down. So, as you move up, you're getting above that angle of what you may or may not see. Okay. >> Your worst case would be to be as close
to the ground trying to look up under the visor of the lights. >> So, if I were say in my basement looking out my window or something like that. >> Even then, I'm not sure that you could you could see it. You're probably going to have to cross the street or get up to the fence. >> I was just trying to imagine what this would
>> I mean, it's a it's a geometry thing. Just the angle of the closer you get, the better you are going to be able to see up under the visor and see the light. I have a general question for you. Just in your 28 years of knowledge on doing this, where would you say we're on the learning curve of this
technology? >> Is there something right around the corner that might be >> I'm not aware of anything around the right around the corner. I think right now as far as LED goes, the biggest challenge that we had in the beginning
going back to the 2013 when we first introduced LED, which is page three. No, go back one more. Page three, is that it was a lumens per watt thing. So being efficient with getting more light out of
the fixture to do um be efficient with the number of fixtures being used on a pole than the amount of energy being used and we've pretty much um I would say right now we're kind of tapped out,
you know, we're not making huge changes in the amount of lumens per watt that we're we're getting out of LEDs these days. >> Okay. And then my last question on a lot of these charts, so page three
of the original PDF we have, you talk about the >> is that A1? >> A1. >> A1. Um, you talk about the >> that's a >> above field versus the the size which is 70 or 80 and the above
field which goes from 70 to 100. And I'm wondering for the 100 foot pole, which I'm assuming is because of grade you have to have a 100 foot pole, would that change my analysis if I'm on a second floor bedroom? If I'm on the first floor living room, is that going to change
what I'm going to see out my window? >> Oh. Oh, okay. >> And just to pause for a second, Mr. Marsh, this is A3, I believe. >> No, this is this was A2, page eight. >> A2, page eight. Thank you. >> Okay. So the the the 100 is is relative
to when this is put together is assuming that 000 grade is the lower field and that the upper field is approximately 20 ft above the lower field in grade elevation.
thus making the mounting height of the poles on the upper field seem like they're 100 foot tall compared to the lower field. So if you're standing on the lower field
again it's geometry and perspective we're saying if you're right next to it it's a 100 foot mounting height relative to the lower field. If you're standing there you might not notice it because of the distance and perspective. Right.
>> Okay. >> Does Does that help answer that? >> I'm just And it And it's not going to change my view from my first floor or my kitchen or my second floor? >> No. >> Okay. >> It's still I mean it's still physically um an 80ft pole and two 80 foot poles
and two 70 foot poles. It's a mounting height that is relative to the lower field. So you add in the 80 foot mounting height plus the 20 foot grade elevation relative to the lower field
gets you the 100 foot. >> Okay, that's all I had. >> Great. Thank you, Susan. >> Mr. Loy, >> I just have one question relative to our engineers comment. Speaking of the microphone, sorry, >> I just have one question relevant to the
engineers's comment that the existing lights on the upper field are going away. So there won't be you were refer It was unclear to me whether you were suggesting that there was spillage from the old lights and the new lights. The the old lights are gone,
>> right? Yes. No, I was asking about the tennis court. I think the tennis court has lights on it. Yes. >> Right. So, it's asking if you add the tennis court lights, is that taken into account with these >> um these ISO lines? >> Great. Thank you for the clarification.
>> So, we're creeping up to you, Miss Ber. Do you have a question? >> Yes, I do. Go ahead. >> So, um learning a lot. Can you go to A1 page two? I think it is. >> That's three. Oh, P. A1.
>> It's the one where you have just the polls and you're getting a view from a distance. >> Yeah. There we go. >> No, not the comparative polls, but just the ones that you're proposing that are just on the landscape. Isn't that one? >> Yeah. This one. >> Is it page? No. No. Back.
>> It's the Musco versus other. That one or >> Well, that's good. That'll work. >> Okay. Um, >> what page are we on? A1 page >> 13. >> 13. >> Page 13. >> A1. Oh, okay. >> That'll work. So, just to because, you
know, talking about the foot candles, that's been very helpful in explaining where this the lack of spillage is. You you're really lighting the field. >> So, I think you've shown that very clearly. Um but from a distance when you're looking from the community
towards the field and and to my colleagueu's point and here um what is that going to look like? It does look like some light is visible not just on the ground. >> What and what you're seeing there is the
reflected light off of the visors of the fixtures on the bottom crossarm. So you've got two rows of fixtures. You got fixtures on the top crossarm and fixtures on the bottom crossarm. And so you're getting some reflected light off of the vi top of the visor on the
fixtures below. >> Okay. Um just just to make it clear. So if you had tree height poles, not 70 foot poles or 80 foot poles, but you had 40 foot poles or something like that or 35 foot poles
where okay, they're kind of tree height. We're not going to see them from the distance from far away. What happens to your light angles and what does that do to view sheds for the community? >> Well, you you've got you've got competing uh things there. So, you're
either going to aim, you're going to have like 40 foot poles and you're going to aim them short and the middle of the field's dark, the fields aren't playable, and then you're asking, "Why did we even put lights on there?" Or you stretch them out >> and you're going to have glare to the
neighbors and and then now you've got light on the field. >> And it also does become a problem for uh the participants on the field because now you've increased the amount of glare. you the pole heights are down closer to their line of sight from a
playability thing. By having the 70s and 80s, they're up and out of the way. You're looking at the field, the lights are off to the side and they're out of their line of sight for play. >> So, when you lower the lights down and then you start stretching the fixtures out, it then becomes a a hazard for
players. Um, >> you're going to have more spillage. Yeah, you're going to have more spillage offsite, but you're also going to have glare on field, >> which could be a hazard to the participants. >> Okay. So, that's interesting to learn that the taller they are,
>> the less effect really. Um, but you also mentioned that the bottom is where it's the brightest obviously because you're literally lighting the field. So, the the field is the brightest thing. So if you're walking along, they're they're playing, you're seeing a bright field, >> right?
>> So that might um lead us to think that maybe, you know, 12 evergreens might not be sufficient to, you know, maybe mitigate some of that. That might be something that is some that we might want to recommend. I
don't know. But something to think about, you know, for the community around the field. >> Will will Mr. Mr. Shreger provide testimony with regard to landscaping. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we can hold that thought for Mr. Shreger. Excellent. >> I think that's all I have. >> Mr. Stern, >> uh, just one question. Uh, we talked a
lot about the lights obviously, but what's the noise level that's going to be from? >> So, the LED uses an electronic driver. It's the older technology, the metal hallid used a ballast and capacitor
system. And a lot of people what you're thinking from the noise is that the ballast um would start to hum and you would hear this hum. And you have a ballast mounted at 10 ft. It's close to the um it's only 10 feet up the pole. So it's
either close to the bleachers or would be close to the neighbors. And that humming noise would be a a ballast going bad or that has delaminated. So, cuz it's just a, you know, a piece of iron core with the wires wrapped
around it to uh So, >> and how's it powered? >> Powered electricity. Just >> But there's there's no generator. There's no >> no generation. No, just your stand. I mean, you know, your regular uh again, I
don't presume to know where the power's coming from. You're going to drop a transformer. uh put a distribution panel in just you know um distribution panel like it's in your house but for the correct voltage whatever's available and then wires run to the pole and uh
>> Mr. Warner I think had a clear >> I want him well I want him to finish but thank you m >> yeah please no >> were you finished >> answering Mr. concerns question. Okay. So, just so I'm clear, what you're saying is that you're you are using the electric driver. You are not using the
old ballast correct system and therefore you are not going to have the hum. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Got it. >> Any other questions? Don't have to. Okay. Wonderful. Um we can use then this
opportunity to invite Mr. Simon if you have any questions for >> questions. Should we take this five minute break? >> You would like a fivem minute break after the questions or before? >> Okay, let's take a five five minute recess. All right, thank you.
[Music] Careful, man. >> You're going to lose your knee. >> Everyone. Oh, no. We have one missing board member. There's always one. She's just getting water. >> Not allowed.
>> Ask the chair's permission. >> We're just waiting for one more board member and then we'll kick back in. >> Yeah, of course. >> Mr. Marsh, you're going to be back on. Mr. Simon may have a couple of clarifying questions.
destroy course by the end of the month. Okay. All right. I see a vice chair which would constitute board's membership for the evening which is wonderful. Mr. Simon, if you have questions for our lighting expert, Mr. Marsh,
>> we would welcome. >> Share the mic. >> Yeah. Does that mic work, David? Do you know? Okay, let's let's try that. >> You guys not to get too cozy there. >> It's okay. It's all good. >> Okay, Mr. Morris, thank you for your
testimony. Um, so have you been to Tatlockfield? >> Yes, I have. >> Okay. And how many times have you been to Tatlock? >> I went there this afternoon. >> Okay. Um, was this afternoon the first time you've been to the site?
>> Correct. >> Okay. And this afternoon when you went to the site, how long were you there for? >> Oh, 20 to 30 minutes. >> And at what times were you there, sir?
>> This afternoon. >> I know. Do you recall what time specifically? about 4 or 5:00 this afternoon. >> So, were you there from 4:00 to 5:00 >> in between 4:00 and 5 for a half hour? >> Okay. So, it it was during daylight hours that you were there. >> That is correct.
>> So, you've not been to the site um during the evening, correct? >> No. >> And was um so school was was not in session at the time when you were there? I cannot speak to whether school was in session. The football field was in use.
There were practicing on the soccer field as well. The tennis courts were in use. >> Okay. >> No, no lights were um being used at the time at this at the tennis courts or otherwise. Correct. >> And um
with regard to um these exhibits, and I apologize in advance for jumping around. I'll do my best. I promise. Um, so let's start with A1. So, uh, you did not prepare A1, correct? >> Correct.
>> Okay. And, um, it says on the first page, it's prepared by Bob Zer. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and do you know when Mr. Zer prepared this exhibit? >> I believe it was submitted last year.
>> Okay. Do you know when Mr. Zer prepared the exhibit? No, I do not. >> Did you um work with him in preparing this exhibit? >> No, I did not. >> Did you um take any of the photos
that are on A1? I don't believe I did. No. And um on A1 on the third page of A1 when you went over the the evolution of
glare control technology during your testimony um you you referenced um the different years and then you mentioned Jefferson Glennside Avenue High School Tatlock Tennis Um,
other than today, you've never been to the high school or um seen the tennis courts. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And with regard to Jefferson School, have you ever been to Jefferson School? >> No. >> Okay. And Glennside Avenue, do you know
what that's referring to? >> No, I do not. And let's just go page by page here. On page four, when you when it says today Musco LED system, um,
how do you know that this particular design is going to be what is installed at the fields? So >> if you do >> that was done for a demonstration purpose to show the evolution of Musco's
light technology and at the time the reference of today Musco LED system I'm not exactly sure what wattage of fixture was used there but the visor control and the light control is been consistent as
we have changed the design and upgraded our fixtures. So the >> but but you can't tell me that the fi the visor control and the light control is going to be identical to what is
shown in this today muscoledd system. Correct. >> I can't say 100%. No. And on the fifth page, you don't know um regarding it says light control matters. What can be?
You don't know where this photo was taken from. Correct. >> Sorry, Steve. Can Can you Can you repeat that? >> You're saying this photo >> I'm not I'm not I'm not following. Can you just repeat it a little bit louder? Sorry. >> I think I said on page >> Thank you. >> That's my fault. On page five, I believe of We're still on A1.
>> Yeah, we're still on A1. >> I don't know that field. >> Follow what? >> Well, A1 A1. I'm I'm going page by page on A1 >> and they're not and I would normally absolutely mention the page number, but they're not >> numbered. >> Trying to follow along.
>> So, doing my best. So, two, three, four. Yeah. On page five of A1. >> Correct. Okay. the left hand photo. Do you know from how far away the photographer was
to those light poles? >> I do not. >> And do you know when that photo was taken? >> I do not. And on page >> six of A1 when you are showing um the the visor I guess right for the full cut
off fixture. Okay. Um how do we know that this fixture is what is going to be installed? this type of fixture visor >> because that's what I said. It's that that is the 1500 watt fixture. That is
the 1500 watt fixture that is on the plans. >> And on page I guess seven, I'm up to I'm up to this. >> Okay. On page seven of A1, um
there's S1 through S4 and those represent the four lay pole locations um for the upper field. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And you didn't create this >> no >> design, right? And there's no scale
associated with this design. So you don't know what kind of scale was used to create this design, correct? No. >> And with regard to um the different colors, so there's certain markings in red, certain markings in green, certain
markings in light green, uh certain markings in blue. Um do you know what the different markings represent? Because there's no key to determine what they are, >> right? This would just be from an AutoCAD file that we were given by an
engineer or by the city. Um, >> okay. But you don't know, to answer my question, you don't know what these different colors represent. Correct. >> Well, the green is the um greenery, the trees. >> How do you know that? >> Have you?
>> Because I've been to the site and that's >> So you're you're >> where they are. >> Okay. And you you recall in the one hour you were there today that that the tree canopies are are accurately reflected on on this design.
>> I don't know that they're accurately reflected, but there were trees in the areas where the green is indicated. And um do you know how close let's say for S4 and S1 those pole
locations do you know how close those are to the tree canopies? >> I do not. >> Associated root systems? >> I do not. >> Okay. And you Okay. And you're not aware of any evaluation in terms of tree impacts by these installations? Correct. >> No. >> Okay. And you don't know what the the
the red versus the blue represent? Correct. Well, the red is the parking lot lines. Well, >> what what are these yellow lines? >> Yellow is also the parking lot lines. >> Do you know why there's a distinction between >> I do not. That would Whoever created the AutoCAD file would have to speak to
that. >> And do you know what the blue represents? >> Well, there's multiple blues. You've got a building and you've got a retaining wall. >> So, you think it's a >> fence? >> Is that based on your your review >> from being at the site
>> site today? But you didn't create this, correct? >> No. >> Um, similar to toward the back of A1, another colored um,
diagram. You don't know what these colors why um there's a distinction between the different colors. Correct. >> No. >> Is that nine page? Is that page? >> I I Steve, I apologize. I just don't >> I know they're not numbered.
>> They're not numbered. >> It's two after the one you just did. >> Two after the one I just did. That's fair. >> I think it's nine. Sure. Um, and the following page, if that's page 10, that's what I'm referring to on A1,
do you know what these different lines represent? >> No, I do not. >> And on on page 11, um, that's showing Central Reg Regional High School football, uh, aerial view it looks like, of a lit
field. Do you know where this field's located? the >> Bayville, New Jersey. >> Based on the uh the left box, have you been to that field? >> I have not. >> And on from this aerial, you can still see
the light fixtures. Correct. >> Correct. Similarly on the next to last page I'm sorry three away on A1 12 I think
>> for three from the end you can see the light fixtures on each one of these light poles. Correct. >> Correct. and two from the end and one from the end. You can see the light fixtures on each one of these poles. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And and I apologize. I think uh
board member may have appropriately asked you this question. You don't know how far away um these light poles are from where the photographer was standing. Correct. >> That is correct. So let's say 23 When you talk about um the dimmer,
right? >> Yes. >> Um is there different and I apologize for my ignorance. Is there different settings for the dimmer like or is it going from dark to really bright like a
light switch? >> So, it's an electronic driver. We can set it to whatever percent you want. We could set it for 52%. We could set it for 33%. We could set it for 77%. >> It's a percentage, >> right? And how and and how is it
determined um that one would advise let's say the city of Summit in terms of the appropriate setting depending on sport age of the children
practice first game time of night. I think that would be a combination of the end user and going out their trial and you know feel like what what do they feel is also appropriate from a look
standpoint where I've seen knowing that 100% is 50 foot candles and you want something less 50% is going to be approximately 25 foot candles. Is there in in your experience, is there
a st a particular lighting setting standard depending on practices versus games, age of the children, type of sport, time of day.
It it's all user dependent because a lot of times you you can have a practice mode and you know coach will want to say well I want to practice at game speed game conditions so you want the 50 foot handles so they're going to go to 50 and
that's what they're going to practice under. Well, when you say game conditions, are there different game conditions if >> the the standards? So, the standards by IEES are based on class of play and we've determined that the football field
class of play 50 foot candles is appropriate based on >> for for high school >> for high school. Correct. >> Right. >> And what about middle school field hockey? Just I'm just using as an example. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just sure
trying to be We >> answer. >> We've done both. We've done 30 foot candles and 50 foot candles for middle school uh field hockey. We've also done 100 foot candles, 150 foot candles for
high school football. When we're doing uh football, high school football in Texas, >> they like bright lights. Yes, they uh big stadium bigger stadiums and they're going to go for uh higher light levels.
So to say high school and put high school in the United States under one blanket statement, it doesn't necessarily work. >> What about some high school in Union County? >> I don't believe there are standards in Union County. Union County doesn't have
lighting standards for >> I'm not suggesting that Union County has standards. I'm asking you what your recommendation is if you have one. >> My I wouldn't have a recommendation per
se other than to say what my experience is with the high school fields that have been lit in New Jersey. Most of them I believe are at 50 foot candles. >> And and what high schools are you familiar with in New Jersey that have
been lit? fields. >> I don't have names off the top of my head. >> Um any any in Union County? >> I don't have names off the top of my head. >> Okay. >> Um do you do you have any recollection?
Forget about names about the >> Mr. Simon. Can you >> I'm sorry. Yeah, sure. Of course. Eat the mic. Um, do you know um the capacity the seating capacity of any of those stadiums that you're referring to?
>> I do not. >> Okay. >> Do you know the type of sports that are offered by um those communities where those those kids are playing? >> I do not know the breadth of all the varieties of sports that are offered. Okay. Let me let me ask you another
question about about the the lights per se that have you had experience where depending on for example practices let's say it's practice and not games or it's youth flag football or something like that where you would keep some of the
light poles on and some of the light poles off. No, that would not be a recommendation that we would uh have because of the modeling of the sport, the modeling of the ball. The more light sources you
have, the better it is for playability, the safer it is for playability to have more directional light coming from different angles so that you can model and see what you're uh participating in, see an object coming at you from
different angles. And what's is there a recommendation when no one is scheduled to be using a particular field? But you had mentioned during your direct testimony about folks
using the track, right? Is there a certain lighting um re uh recommendation in terms of light levels for let's say walking or running on the track? We we don't have necessarily a
recommendation. What we did is used our lowest wattage fixture and provided two fixtures per pole for coverage so that you could have full coverage around the track >> so that it's >> Mr. Mr. Simon, it may be helpful to allow ultimately Mr. Ozaroski to speak
to the use cases that the municipality anticipates for these lighting. I understand you're dissecting to a substantial degree all the different scenarios that could be contemplated, but just offer a suggestion for you that you may benefit from hearing Mr. Alzaroski. >> Yeah. No, I I understand. I just I figured since the witness
>> gave gave testimony, I wanted to >> please Yes. >> get his uh opinion. Um >> Okay. So uh referring to A2 um this stated uh engineered design by
by D Abbott um you didn't prepare A2 correct >> correct and you didn't participate in the preparation of A2 correct >> correct And with regard to the foot candle measurements that are
set forth at a on A2 um you did not um measure those. Correct. You you didn't come up with these um numbers, right? >> Correct. I already stated I did not design it.
>> Okay. And um by the way, have you reviewed uh the city of Summit's uh ordinance or master plan? >> No, I have not. >> Okay. And are you familiar with any um light standards or references to
lighting in any of the city of Summit's planning documents? >> I'm not familiar with any of that. No. And um with regard to these these measurements
um actually I'm just curious. This is on got to count. We'll start on on five on page on page five. I'm just looking at the bleachers. There's there's one number in red. Why
is and and one number in green? What do those numbers represent? >> Max and min. >> Okay. Max is green. >> Yes. >> And with regard to page I think it was page eight of A2.
Correct. >> Right. When you talked about the the combined um levels. >> Yes. How do you know that that represents the combined levels
>> in the illumination summary? It show it says the applied circuits A B C D number of fixtures 68 which is the total number of fixtures on this uh project. >> Okay. That doesn't include the tennis courts. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> Doesn't include parking lot lighting. Correct. Correct. >> It doesn't include any path lighting may be installed. Right. It doesn't include any street lighting. Correct. >> Correct. And um these
foot candle measurements that you're showing on page eight of A2, they're not taken at the Tat Tatlock field property line. Correct. They're taken at the far side of the
street. So the >> it's across the street, not at the property. >> Correct. And do you know the the difference in topography between the upper field, the lower
field, and the residential properties in the surrounding area, for example, across from Butler. I know there is a topography change and we did take that into account when I uh answered the previous question about the difference
in elevation from field to field. Thus the um I can't say how the uh property line spill was drawn. >> And do you know what the topography is between let's say the upper field and
any of the residential properties across Butler? Did you do that evaluation? >> You you didn't do the I'll ask it this way. >> Yeah. >> You didn't do any evaluation or study of the elevations of the residential homes
across Butler. Correct. >> I can't say for sure what the the engineer who prepared this how. >> No, I don't I don't want to know about him or her. I want to know you're not I just want to answer it directly. We can move on. You're not aware of any topography or elevation of any of the
residential homes across Butler Parkway. Correct? >> I know there is an elevation difference. >> And do you know what the elevation differences? >> I do not. And um again on A3 dated September 15,
2025 um you did not prepare exhibit A3. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. >> You did not participate in the creation of A3. Correct. >> Correct. Um you you talked about
Oh, by the way, you have not provided um to this board in connection with this capital review application um any um renderings of what these
lights will look at look like, excuse me, I'm sorry, at 70 feet andor at 80 ft. individual fields or combined fields from the residential neighbors across the way? >> To my knowledge, I have not.
>> Do you know if anyone at Musco um was asked to create or has created any such renderings? >> I do not know if anybody was asked to create them and I do not know if anybody has created them. when you um
talk about foot candles and and to your knowledge all of these measurements are on A1, A2 and A3 are in foot candle measurements. >> Correct. >> Right. That a foot candle measurement of 0.0 zero
does not mean that there is >> Is there a question? Sorry, Mr. Simon, are you offering testimony with regard to the definition of candle? >> No, no, no. I'm I'm laying a foundation. >> Thank you. >> Maybe inartfully. >> Um, apparently um in terms of candle
measurements, that doesn't mean that that it's pitch black in the areas where it's 0.0. Correct. I don't know your definition of pitch black. >> You said as a definition of foot candle. >> Yes.
>> That it's a candle one foot square. Yep. >> Right. >> The amount of light. >> How many feet off the ground? >> These measurements are done at three feet off the ground. >> Three feet off the ground.
So, it could be that a foot candle measurement would be different higher than 3 ft off the ground. Correct. >> Could be. >> Could be. >> Right. Um, and
the foot candle measurement doesn't tell me how much light I'm going to see at the two fields if they're lit at the same time. >> No, it does not. And you said that there is a high
probability that >> I should correct my statement there. The the horizontal foot candle measurement does not tell you how much you're going to see. All these designs have been done using the measurement of horizontal foot candles.
>> Thank you for the clarification. Um you stated that that there's a high probability that the design's going to meet dark sigh dark sky outdoor sports lighting program certification. Um are you aware whether anyone has sought that
certification for this particular design? >> No, we have not been asked to do that and typically that falls on the applicant. Musco does not typically submit
for certification on behalf of the applicant. Um you you mentioned in your testimony about uh dimming through an app. I think you said I apologize we got it wrong.
Dimming through an app or scheduling. What? Describe first the difference between the two if there is. >> Well, the app allows you to schedule. So, you can you can get onto the app and you could set a schedule for tomorrow
night. If the tennis courts have uh that control link and I would ask I I don't know if the tennis courts have that, but that could be something that could be done. And who
can who typically controls that? Excuse me. When I say controls it, meaning you know can set it, can turn it off, etc. >> That it's totally up to the end user. There's typically a masteruler and then they can set permissions for anybody
else. So they could give permission to you to even just view the schedule. So, you could get the app, then you could go into the tennis tatlock tennis, and all you would be able to do is look and see when it's scheduled to be on, when it's scheduled to be off. Somebody else could
only have the ability, the owner could set it so that um, you know, the chairman would have the ability to do early off. if there was a schedule set until 10 PM and a thunderstorm comes through
at 9ine, he could be driving by and go, shoot, let's make sure that the lights aren't running while there's a thunderstorm going on. So, you could do an early off. >> Others could then have the ability to set schedules when an on and off is. So there's multiple people that could have
access to the app, but their permissions can be controlled by the master scheduler. >> So to your point, if >> speaking of the microphone, Mr. Sun, thank you. >> To your point,
if you have inclement weather >> Mhm. Correct. And you have a wash out and you have the lighting scheduled to be on until 9:00 at night. >> Yes. >> And there's no game. >> Yes. >> Or no practice. Um
who is it? One person that can turn off those lights. I mean, how does you know? >> Yes. It's totally the end user. And it could be somebody even a concerned me community member could say, "Hey, it's raining. The lights are on." and the park director could be in Florida, gets
a phone call, he could call into Control Link, or he could use his app and turn him off from Florida. He does not have to be there. >> Um, >> he or she you you stated earlier that this is, and I'm sorry if I got it wrong, this is not a dusk to dawn type
of application. What do you mean by that? Parking lots, roadways would be typically a dust to dawn application in some cases. Parking lots for a big box store, a Walmart, a um grocery store,
potentially a service station, gas station. Uh >> okay, that's what you meant. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um, you also mentioned that that there's an a potential sometimes there's a need for warmer light for natural habitat, flora and fauna. What do you
mean by that? >> If there's an environmentally sensitive area, um, turtles are a big one that come to mind. Uh, have issues with, uh, we do a lot of port lighting. Uh
I believe uh we've got one couple of ports here in New Jersey providing uh lighting for the ports where the shipping containers are and making sure that the light is controlled such it's not into the water um and you know affecting turtles.
>> So color temperature is kind of a thing for that as well. Um you have no um information as to whether there's any environmentally sensitive areas near these uh fields. Correct. >> That is correct. I read the
environmental study and there was no mention that there was uh anything there would mention of bats but not that the color temperature of the lights was a concern for the bats. Wait, so are you referring to the Eco
Sciences report? >> I Yes. >> Okay. And you reviewed that report? >> I briefly read it. Yes. >> Okay. Do you recall that report talking about the color or temperature of lighting as
impacting a determination for installation purposes with with bats in the area? >> No. So there was no there was no reference to that, correct? >> I don't recall any reference to it. >> Okay.
>> And you're not aware of any um light readings performed in the field for existing conditions at night? >> No. And there's no um generators going to be
proposed. If if the if >> that question was posed by a member of the board just for the sake of time here, Mr. S, if we could avoid duplicative questions, that'd be useful. Thank you. >> I don't >> you may have a clarification that you want to pursue and please do if you but just if we can avoid duplicative questions.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the board attorney. It seems that this line of questioning is wandering far away from this witness's expertise and >> it was based he he actually already testified with respect to the generator
>> but but beyond that we're talking about environmental and that's well beyond >> he he he frankly the witness mentioned the eco science report that's what I heard >> no he was asked >> but the the attorney just asked that question and he answered it so what what I'm saying is
>> what I believe is that we are wandering way beyond what this witness was asked to testify on through Mr. Simon's line of question. >> Mr. Loy, that the the city's council didn't not even object to the line of question. I understand you you you may
think frankly I'll defer to the chair, but I don't think he's too far far a field and I suspect Mr. Simon's about about done about done questioning. I'm gonna object to the >> that line of questioning because
>> because Mr. I did not ask him about the eco science environmental report and that was first brought up by Mr. Simon for the record. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Simon.
>> Do you have any further questions? >> Just so we're clear. >> You were on the generator, right? Um and you have no independent knowledge as to um any programming that is uh current
or proposed for these fields. Correct? >> No. >> Just give me a second please. And you're not aware of any um other plans to put additional lighting at Tatlock Field for parking or pedestrian activity. Correct.
>> Correct. Correct. >> Okay. Uh nothing further for this witness. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Simon. Uh we will offer the public the opportunity to ask any questions if they'd like. Anything not covered by the board's professionals, the board itself, Mr. Simon's extensive
dissection of the witness's testimony. >> Just questions we're taking, not testimony. >> BA based on based on his testimony. Just give us your name and address and then please ask your question. >> PJ Angler, 16 High Street. >> I'm sorry, what? One more time. >> PJ Angler, 16 High Street.
>> Okay. And your questions, >> Mr. Morris. Um, how long have you worked at Musco again? Sorry. It's 28 years. >> 27. >> 27 years. Is it common that you work with teams of people that work on these reports, develop them? >> Yes,
I did. I created a number of these reports myself individually for many years and then was a manager of an engineering department and oversaw five to six engineers at a time that would create these. >> Okay. >> Can you elaborate a little bit more on
the 0.0 line and how that's actually calculated? I mean, I saw it on the Yeah. the the schedule there, but can you just explain to me how you determine that line? >> Well, the contour line, the computer determines where the 00 is. So, that's
why we put the the what we call a blanket grid over the site so that it can calculate all the way out to 0 0. And it's just taking into all the the angles of the uh luminers as they're aimed and the contribution at each of
those measurement points. and it provides a total and as it gets to the 000 and we asked for a contour we have the ability to add other contours like we could have done one foot where it hits one foot candle where it hits a half a foot candle and then where we get to 0.0 zero. >> But the computer is designed once you
put in the parameters of the area, it's designed to calculate all that. >> Are those calculations done with the lights at 100%. >> They are. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, are you currently being investigated by any municipality, county, state for any
testimony you've given in front of them? >> I am not. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Appreciate it. >> Just questions again. >> Thank you. Hi, Dory Gagnon, 27 Bedford Road. Um, thank you for your testimony and thank you for all being here so late tonight.
Um, I have a question for you. So, uh, did you also do the lighting, uh, for the Tatlock uh, upper field and the Tatlock tennis courts when Summit prepared those lights years ago? >> I did not prepare the designs. No.
>> Okay. And um that circle of the lights that shows where the lighting is going to be casted down. Um did you have where the cast is currently on the upper field? Did you talk about where the lights are currently casted down on the upper field at all? Where that the
lighting is the existent lighting? >> No, we don't have I don't have information for that to do a design for that. Um don't know the the fixture manufacturer, the wattage of the fixture that and aiming angles, you know. So, >> but Moscow was the original.
>> No, not the upper field is not Musco lighting. >> Okay. Sorry, I said the name wrong. I apologize for that. Um Okay. But this the current lighting is going to be a lot lower. Correct. Is that what you were testifying before? The wattage >> less. It's going to be less spillage. The
>> Okay. inherently based on the way th those fixtures are aimed looking at them when I walk the site it's straight out there's um and they're they probably are low wattage but the glare that they're producing I can only imagine is very high
>> and do you know um what the height of those lights are currently now >> I do not but I would guess it's somewhere 30 40 feet but >> and and the current ones are going to be what was the height of the current >> the new ones would be 70 feet above the field. >> Okay. So,
>> there's some 80 foot poles, but that >> on the upper field, we're talking about the upper field. >> Yes, the upper field, but there's two 80 foot poles because of the minus 7 elevation on the parking lot side. So, we got to account for that. >> And so, we put in 80 foot poles gives us a 73 ft mounting height.
>> Okay. And they're going to be on the same timer as the lower field or those going to be on. They can both be separate. >> Okay. And has that been discussed as to what time that's going to be? >> That's out of Okay. Um, and then I have another question. Um, and just so it's
clarified as to what you uh because they were trying to disqualify what your credentials were. I just want to make sure that you are not a expert on any ecosystem or wildlife. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay, great. Thanks. >> Miss Gagnon,
any other questions from the public for this witness? Oh, sorry. We got one one more taker, Mr. S. No, please. Yep. >> Yep. We'll take you. >> Hi, everyone. Just your name and address for >> Carlos Hernandez, 85 Butler Parkway. Um, >> good night. How are you?
>> Good. How are you? >> Great. Um, on the I think it's the updated uh summary study uh that has all the uh >> A2 >> the light candles. A2. Thank you. I can't keep up with this stuff. Uh each of the uh slide pages has uh a statement
of guarantee performance and it reads the illumination described above is guaranteed per Moscow warranty documents. >> Correct. >> Does that extend to the zeros? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. So, anywhere that is a zero, if it
is not zero, you're going to fix that. >> That is correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. Correct. Uh, and then if I go to A1, I think, uh, the document that was A1 where it
has all the all the pictures. Uh, >> page. >> Yeah. Let me figure Yeah, I wanted to hold on here. Yeah, I got to find it here because I don't know. Um,
>> yeah, I'll tell you which one is it. >> Uh, so that would be 12 of 14. >> Yeah. >> There you go. There you go. >> Yeah, the the other one. The other one. >> Well, it could have been another one, but that one there, you see the bleachers in blue? >> Yes.
>> So, >> like Thank you. So, right right behind those bleachers, >> it's like pitch pitch black according to that picture. Is that the way it's in reality? >> Yes, it should be. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> I believe those bleachers may be a little bigger than what's at Tatlock, but again, the um >> I like the bleachers >> and those poles are in front of the bleachers. >> So, it's not the overexposure of the
lights that creates the darkness behind. You're saying it would actually be that way. >> It's hard to say what lights might be on the back side of the bleachers or coming from the parking lot um at Tatlock or
anything like that. I can't say for a fact that behind the bleachers at Tatlock would be pitch black. Again, the relative definition of pitch black, but >> same. Yeah, it's it's going to look like that. >> Very similar.
Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. >> Can I just follow up with that for a second? >> Yes. >> What you what you're proposing or what our city's proposing, you're not lighting the bleachers or the track as much as this particular example. >> That is correct. Yes. This has much more
light on the track than uh this photo has much more light on the track and the bleachers than uh proposed for Tatlock. >> You got a clarifying question, Mr. Simon? Yes. Um, you were asked a couple questions
about the existing lights at the upper field. >> Correct. >> Um, you haven't seen any of those illuminated. Correct. >> Not at night. No >> objection. We already discussed this. This was brought up before that he
testified when he was at the field. >> I'd like to read, please. Um, how many light poles are currently at the upper field?
>> Three, I believe, is what I saw. >> Okay. And, um, where are they located in relation to where the new light poles are proposed to be installed? There is >> if you recall
>> there is one that will be replaced by if we have the S3 S3 um it's the lower right pole as seen on the >> yes S3 that is an existing light pole
there and it will be replaced. The other two are towards the uh right end of the soccer field like behind the netting or fencing along that walkway as you see running uh on the the right end of the soccer field
>> and those are going away and the three new poles in new locations. So the the ones behind the this the soccer goals, >> those are currently furthest from the neighbors and those are the ones who are going away. Correct.
>> Correct. Thank you. Oh, and one one more question. I'm sorry. Um none of these foot candle or other measurements that are on A1 through A3, none of them measure the light that's reflected off the field itself. Correct?
>> No, I don't believe so. No, I don't believe they don't they don't measure the light that's reflected off off a surface. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Yes, Mr. Marsh. Um, with respect to A1 the
presentation, A2 the illumination plan and A3 the contour map based upon your 28 years of experience at Musco, you are familiar with reviewing and analyzing the information on those types of maps. Correct.
>> Yes, I've prepared my fair share. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Marsh. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, fair share is a bit of a touchy word. Anyhow, we're happy to have you. Um, all right. I I believe we can move to the applicant
second witness, >> Mr. Trader. I'm not sure who you're calling first. >> Yes, >> Mr. Rosari. >> Let me just Yes. >> Okay. Second. Sorry. >> You start with name and business
address. Uh Mark Ozaroski, director of community programs, 100 Mars Avenue, Summit, New Jersey. >> Yes. Um Mr. Ozaroski, can you um go through how long you've been working at um Summit and what your
positions have been? >> I've been working for the city of Summit since 1999. I was the assistant director up until 2019 and I became the director um in the spring of 2019 up until now.
>> Thank you. Can you just describe your um educational background? >> Um I have a uh a bachelor degree uh from Rutgers University in health and sports studies. >> Thank you. What um what sports are played at the
two fields? >> Um we have every sport um is played on both of those fields. We have tackle football, flag football, recreational soccer, travel soccer, field hockey,
we've got track, um I think I covered them all. And that's youth and lacrosse. How could I forget lacrosse? >> And that's for youth um as well as the high school sports. >> Would you say since you've been working at um some in this capacity for so long
that there's been an increase in participation in youth sports over the years? >> Yes. Um the just the participation numbers in all the sports have gone up. Um female sports participation rates
have increased. Um, you'll see it now with all the sports seasons are overlapping. Travel soccer plays year round. Um, travel baseball plays year round. Uh, the lacrosse program is starting to do that. Football is looking
to do that as well. Um, so there's a huge increase. >> And the Tatlock site development plan. Um, that's this has been going on for a while. That's dated back to 2014. Correct. >> Correct. That that was done by um Tom
Miller and an an engineering firm. He did a redevelopment plan for Tatlock. It had 14 different items in there. Um lights were two of them. One on upper Tatlock, one on Investors. The tennis courts were involved. The the uh
fieldhouse. Uh the basketball court. Um again, there's a number the track which we redid. We we've already redone a lot of these uh these um items already. Um the bleachers were part of that, a new press box. So half of those items have
already been taken care of. >> And would and this was this remained in the 2018 revisions of the Tatlop development plan. Correct. >> Correct. And was there a presentation around
October or on October 2nd, 2018 about the Tatlock proposed lighting plan? So in 2017, um the DCP advisory board met with all the sport presidents, the Summit High
School athletic director, and we discussed fields. Um how we could do better, how we could get more participation, how we could get more use out of our fields. Um and we had a number of different items that we discussed, but the number one
um item that everybody agreed upon was lighting upper tatlock and lighting investors field. After that, um Elaine Anderson, who was the president of our board, came to a council meeting and made a presentation um about what I just
spoke about. And were other fields looked at when for for um to see if there was a solution to the field shortage? >> Yes. >> And was there approximately like 27 different viable different options that
were looked at? >> Yeah. So we uh really looked outside the box to try to figure out solutions to our field crisis. And yes, there were 27 different options that we looked at. um you know just a few a sports complex at the Red Cross site that that can't
happen. Create fields on the Cell Gene property that couldn't happen. Um we were looking to use some of the private schools in town. While we can use them, it's not ideal. We can't get a lot of time on them. It's sporadic and we need consistency.
Um and then a number of things we did do. We added a field in between the tennis courts and the fieldhouse at Tatlock. Um just looking here >> and the list is it's been online. Correct. Correct. Everyone can see that.com.
>> Yes. >> In fact, all this a lot of this information has been online to make sure that the public is advised and they can have some input if they want. Correct. >> Correct. And around um
February in February 2024, there was a the first small group Tatlock community meeting. Correct. >> Yes. >> And did you receive input from the public at that meeting? >> Yes, we did. >> And again, that's that's available
online as well as all the public comments. >> Yes. And the DCP continued to have group meetings in 2024. >> Yeah. Uh yes, we had three other meetings with the neighbors. We had an
open house where people could come in and talk to us. We did a presentation at a council meeting and then we had a um presentation in December for the entire community. >> That was December 2024.
>> Uh >> yes. >> Yeah. Well, I'm asking the witness. >> Yes. >> December 2024. Yes. Sorry, I thought you meant December 24th. And >> no.
>> Um, based upon your your work and your over 20 years of experience, um, would you say that there's a public need for um, increased fields? >> 100%. So, I've been uh I've been the field
scheduler basically since I started here. So, I know the demands. I know what we have. Um, and we're not even close to having sufficient fields for all the activities and participants that we have. >> Okay. Thank you. I don't have any more questions at this.
>> Thanks. Great. >> Um, I'm not sure Marie if you'll have any questions >> for this particular witness. Tom, again relative to what the board is seeking to consider here, is there any clarification or questions you might have for >> as far as utilization potential impact?
So, thank you for the overview. Do you have a sense of the number of participants? >> I do. >> And Tom, if you can please speak. Kansas >> that and that's pertaining to all the various programs that would be served by
those fields. The Summit Lacrosse Club has 700 plus. Summit softball baseball league have 800 plus. Rex soccer and the Summit Soccer Club has over a thousand. >> Football, tackle, flag for boys and
girls, we have 500 plus. Field hockey, we're just under 200. That's just youth programs. High school, we've got boys soccer at 67. Cross country at 99. Football at 98. field hockey at 52, girls soccer at 64,
cheerleading, which uses the field 23, middle school field hockey 35, uh middle school cross country 102, unified soccer 57, girls lacrosse 56, boys lacrosse 55,
baseball 41, softball 25, track and field 141, and flag football for girls 35. So, a few thousand kids. I I didn't do the math, but that that would utilize the facility presumably. >> Correct.
>> Do you have a sense of the the schedule um you know, the lighting schedule, say seven days a week? >> We we are still in the process of hiring that out. >> Okay. Would you suspect that it would revolve around the seasonality of sports? Um, for instance, having been a
football player, uh, generally practice Monday through Thursday, get off the field around 700 p.m. Um, there's probably 10 games in a season. Half of them would be home games, for instance. Do you have a sense of when, you know, the Friday night light games might start
and end? >> Generally, >> no, I don't have that. >> Okay. Would you say they'd end? >> Well, if you don't know, I'll stop. >> Yeah, we'll stop. >> Yeah. Um fair enough. Um going back to this seasonality question, would you expect that there would be certain parts
of the year that would utilize the field more than other? For instance, during the winter, you don't have too many active sports that play outside. Accurate. Okay. And in the summer months, it tends to be light out until about 900 p.m. Is that also accurate? >> Correct. >> So really, your lighting needs are are
mostly focused around the spring and fall months. >> Yes, >> presumably. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um, I think that's all I have for now as far as program. Great. Thank you. Uh, questions from the board. Mr. Ozarovski. Peter.
>> Uh, do you know which of our >> Mr. Oshowski, do you know which of our neighboring communities currently have lighted fields? I know New Providence, I believe Chadam, but do you know
>> New Providence? Um, Milbour, Scotch Plains, Westfield, >> just to name a few. >> Chadam. >> Yeah, I don't think it's a Cougar Field though.
>> Any questions from Yep. >> Mark, can you confirm whether or not there are bleachers on um both fields? >> There are large bleachers down at investors. There's small bleachers up on investors or up on up on upper tatlock,
>> right? So just for for the public, there's not massive bleachers on the the one set of fields. >> No. And the majority and actually those those bleachers are on the home side. So the kids are on that side. Most of the fans sit on the wall, the retaining wall. >> You may not be able to answer this. I'm
sorry if I'm stumping you, but um do do you remember kind of at what point the tipping point happened when field space became like impossible or really difficult to manage? Was it before you even got here or was it >> So honestly the field crisis started
when we initially put the turf fields in. So that was 2005 six7 around that. >> One more one more question. Um, you spoke a little bit to the increase in
kids participants. Um, but did you speak at all if you did I apologize I missed it about increased increasing programming over the last two and a half decades that you've been here? >> Yeah. So I I didn't speak about that. Um, but just in particular, we've got
two sports that are well girls flag football just started up. The numbers were fantastic last year. They continue to increase. Um David, my one of my assistant directors, started our our travel field hockey program a couple years ago and like I said, we're up to
close to 200 people. So >> So we keep adding programming. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Questions on this side? Um >> Mark, what would you say the the safety of the kids is currently with the current light situation?
>> Uh I think it is not that safe. Um, and for any of you that know, we've got the three light poles on Upper Tatlock that light up about a third of the field. Um, the only sport that can be played up there is football because it's so dim. Um, and we've got three or four teams
practicing up there in the evening. It's just it's not it's not right. >> I don't know if this is a question for you, Mark, or perhaps for Aaron, but with respect to traffic, right? Sorry to open that can of worms here. Um maybe the question you
can answer is given that you're the master scheduler, do you coordinate with city police so they're aware of the utilization of the field so they can anticipate any additional kind of traffic controls um to ensure safe ingress and egress? >> So any big events that our department holds? Yes.
>> Okay. >> The high school deals with the police officers on their own. >> Sure. Okay. And then there'll be more I'm sure Aaron or others can can to address. I just have one other quick question and I don't know if this is for you or Aaron, but uh are you in fact planning
to install um some sort of less than some impervious type of surface so the school buses can park off of Butler Parkway in the near future? >> That's an Aaron question. >> Okay.
Um, Mark, I would assume that if if the lights go through, it wouldn't be your intent to fill them from, you know, 4 5:00 p.m. till till 9:00 p.m. I would imagine you're going to spread it the programs will be able to spread out so that I mean, I know when I go to flag football on a Saturday, um, you can't
get a parking lot. You you can't get a parking spot. Um, the streets are jammed. I would imagine with lights, it would give proper spacing. I don't want to speak on behalf of you, but I would imagine you could probably space it so that it wouldn't be bumperto-bumper traffic. >> Absolutely. So, you know, you brought up
a good good point. Our flag football program, we've got eight games going on starting at 11:00. Each team has 10 kids. So, you're looking at a just 160 kids for that hour with their parents. Um, the goal would be obviously to space
those out and have some games during the week. >> I assume that's 11:00 a.m. >> 11:00 a.m. Yep. And then we followed up at 12 with another 160 kids there. >> Yeah. I mean, we're rocking and rolling at like 8 am down at Tatlock, right? Even earlier. >> Okay. Let me put exhaust boards board member questions,
>> Steve. Yeah. >> Not on this. Okay. >> The uh and I apologize because perhaps this Well, I don't know who this would have been, so I'll throw it out now. The uh there were a couple of reports. One was from the construction code official. All plans must comply with the current codes and all light poles and footings must be designed to withstand wind
loads. that might might be have been belated. Um, but I take it that there's a witness that can confirm that from the city's perspective. Maybe our Musco lighting witness without reopening his testimony any further than just asking him that
one question. Uh can you confirm that that uh the city >> we'll provide a stamp uh foundation designed by a licensed structural engineer >> certifies will load >> that's part of the package
>> okay >> nothing further >> okay uh we'll open questioning to Mr. Simon, if you anything piqu your interest, >> thank you for your testimony. Um, have you determined based on time of the year
and the sports how many additional hours per week, month or year that you're going to have activities under the lights? >> No. >> When is that going to be determined sir? >> Uh, definitely before we turn the lights on.
>> And is that going to be part of any type of public process? >> Yes, it'll it'll be uh brought up at a council meeting. It'll become an ordinance in town. And is that going to be part of a public hearing or you don't know? >> No.
>> No. Meaning I don't know or not? >> I'm going to object because he's asking for a um a legal determination as to >> I'm not >> whether it would be a public hearing or not. >> Not asking if it's if it's I'm asking for a legal opinion. I'm asking just
whether what what are their plans. Well, it would have to go through proper legal um formalities and Mr. This witness is not an expert in that >> suggest though that
>> well he's not an expert in the proper legal forms. Um, have you done any studies to date to substantiate the amount of additional hours that you're going to gain from having lights at these two fields?
>> Um, yes and no. >> I'll take the yes before I take the >> We're going to gain hours, but I'll have the exact numbers. >> Okay. Do you have an estimate as to how many hours you're going to gain? Uh, I would say
15 to 20 a week. >> And is that based on seven days a week? >> Yes. >> And has it has there been thought of what sports what activities are are
going to be under the lights per se at what times? It'll be all sports. >> Will it be all age groups? >> Uh, could be, but typically we try to get the younger kids out there earlier with all of our sports and then the older kids come on the second shift.
>> When you say second shift, you mean >> 7 to 8:30, 8 to 9:30? >> Okay. So, how late will the lights be on until? >> We don't know that yet. >> Okay. Has there been any >> There's been talk, but we haven't solidified any times yet.
>> Okay. Um, do you have an idea right now as to when the lights are going to go out? >> Yes. >> Okay. And what is that time? >> Asked and answered. Sorry. >> Thank you. >> Answered. >> Yes. You've asked this question multiple times.
>> He said yes. >> I'm not going to give you a time. >> You're not going to give me a time? >> No. >> Okay. Are you going to give me a Are you going to give me um the sports are going to be played under both under the lights? I think I already said that. >> You You didn't You didn't tell me which
lights, which teams, which sports. >> I did say that in my presentation, but it'll be football, it'll be field hockey, it'll be flag football, it'll be wreck soccer, it'll be travel soccer, it'll be field hockey. Every sport that we offer >> and the all every sport that you offer,
it'll be under the lights potentially >> at some point. Yes. and your testimony about increase in participation in sports and sports overlapping year round etc. Is there any data that you're relying on to substantiate that?
>> Um there's data from the sport presidents that I deal with. Yes. >> Okay. Is that data available to the public to review? No. >> Is there any intention to make that data available to the public to review?
>> We could. Sure. >> Objection. >> What's the basis for your objection? >> Well, it I mean it could be oper. I mean there is a way to get the information. Um >> okay.
>> Historic usage is available and it's on the website. >> When you say historic use, what do you mean? What's available on the website? >> What's available is what we have currently.
>> No, no. Council, excuse me. council just made a profer on behalf of her client. That information is available on the website. I'm just want to know what she's referring to. >> The field use study that was presented
before council last in December of 2024. It's on the communityprograms.com website >> and that's what you're referring to council answering that question >> and answering what question I'm not a witness here so >> you you you you chimed in and you made a
statement >> um when you when you said sir that you uh you looked at other options. 27 options. Okay. Where where
is that investigation documented? >> That's all on our website as well. >> That's on communityprograms.com. >> Yes. >> Okay. And each one of those options is identified and and explained as to why those options wouldn't work. >> Yep. >> And you you talked about you had
meetings with the public. Um, what did the neighbors express concerns about regarding the lights, if any? >> Uh, the increased uh usage traffic.
>> Increased usage meaning what? >> Just there's going to be more play down there than what they were used to. >> Traffic, you said noise. Anything else? Nope, that's it. >> And
are you doing anything to address those concerns with increased usage, traffic, and noise? >> Yes, the council's already done a number of things to alleviate some of the traffic concerns. >> Okay. Well, let's start with increased usage. Are you doing anything to um
mitigate or or limit the increased usage proposed increased usage from uh utilizing the lights? >> Say say that again. >> Are you doing anything to mitigate the >> no >> anticipated increase usage? And you're
you anticipate using the two lit fields at the same time. >> Correct. >> Okay. Have you done any type of parking analysis as to how many parking spaces are currently on site? >> No. >> Do do you know what the You talked about the bleachers. There was a question asked before. What's the seat? What's
the seating capacity of Investors Field? >> I want to say about 1,800. >> 1,800. And what's the seating capacity for the upper field? >> Zero. >> Zero. There's there's no bleach. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. We need the witness. There's no bleaching. Mr. Simon
asked the witness a question. >> I think we're all waiting for the witness to answer this question. >> There are no bleachers for spectators on Upper Tatlock. >> Okay. And and and you've certainly in your role um have been present for games and practices at Upper Tatlock. Correct.
>> Correct. >> Sure. And um and you've been there where where there's been parents and spectators at the field. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Are you able to estimate just just for the upper field um how many uh
parents, spectators, children are are at the field that are not directly participating in the activity? >> No. >> Okay. >> Can you guesstimate for me? >> No. >> And you're not aware of any type of parking
study that has ever been done um for Tatlock Field, correct? >> No. No. Correct. >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Okay. You you talked about So, we talked about increased usage. The the neighbors compl uh you said expressed concern about traffic. How is that being um
addressed if at all? >> I already spoke to you about that. >> What what what are >> the council's already taken steps to alleviate the traffic concerns right now? >> Planning board membership did ask a question regarding traffic control and I believe council suggested that the city engineers Mr. Trigger would be a better
witness. So to the extent that you believe Mr. Ozarowski can answer those questions, >> I'm saying he he >> I understand he he may have raised the prospect of traffic but for the you know >> if you know do you know what the council is doing now and in terms of noise do you know how that's being addressed if at all?
>> It's not right now. And there was a a field study observations document that >> was included with the application materials. Are you familiar with that? >> Yes. Okay. Are you the author of that?
>> Uh no, my assistant is. >> Okay. Did you participate to what extent did you if at all did you participate in creating this field study observations document? It was based on field schedules that I have done for the last 23 four years.
>> Okay. And are those field schedules that you've done for the last 23 24 years all available at communityprograms.com? >> Uh no. >> Okay. Are are any of them those field schedules are any of them publicly available?
>> Yes. >> Okay. And and how would I be able to review those? >> You could you could open them. the numbers that you were um stating in terms of the participants for each individual sport. Where are you getting
those numbers from? um from our data from the summit high school athletic director and from the sport presidents >> and in terms of um the use of the existing um we'll call them uh well the existing
fields that are not at tatlock um is there schedules um that are publicly available as to the use of those fields yes throughout throughout the year. Are there any fields um sports fields
that are are being underused in the city of Summit? >> No. >> Are there any fields that require additional maintenance so that they may be used more frequently? >> No.
And when you allocate fields to different sports, different sports organizations, is it based on blocks of time like you know you guys
get every Tuesday from 4 to 6 just as an example or is it just based on individual scheduling of games and practices? combination of the two. >> And and that information is all publicly available
as to how those different fields are scheduled, how it's determined it. >> Well, have you done any actually any studies as to how often the fields are actually being used versus how often
they're being booked? >> No. When do you anticipate um using the lights? >> Objection. >> Objection. This was already asked and answered. I didn't ask it.
>> You asked about the schedule. >> No. When do you when do you anticipate using the lights? >> Uh me personally, hopefully as soon as possible. >> Okay. And other than
excuse me, the field study observations that were submitted with this application, you're not aware of any other scheduling or usage information existing or proposed that was submitted to this
board as part of this application. Correct. >> Correct. >> Just give me a minute, please. you talked about and I apologize if I if this was asked because it may have been asked by someone but I want to just uh clarify.
So, when you allow, let's say, the high school to use Investors Field for a lacrosse game, right? Um, on on a Saturday, big game.
I think there was a question asked about like um maybe Mr. Loya asked about like buses or something like that and and I think your response was that that's up to the to the high school, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. So,
what do you what do you mean by that? In other words, I'm I'm going to ask the question a little bit more eloquently because that was not good. Um, if they have a sporting event, say big, medium, or small, and it's their sporting event, what are they controlling? Are they
controlling traffic? They controlling parking. >> They're controlling their event. >> The their entire event? >> Yes. >> Okay. And and what about for at night? So there was >> we we don't have anything for night. >> No, I'm saying what is anticipated? Are
they going to control that night activity in terms of turning on the lights, turning off the lights? >> Well, we would be turning on on and off the lights because it's our property. So, if they schedule a lacrosse game on on a Saturday night,
>> we would set the lights. >> And if the game ends early, are the lights anticipated to stay on until the scheduled time or is there an opportunity to turn the lights off earlier? >> There's an opportunity to turn them off earlier. >> Okay. And and has that been discussed as
how that's going to be facilitated? >> Nope. And you um in the field study observation it's mentioned that other um private clubs private schools utilize
Tatlock field. Correct. Um nonprofit summit clubs use the field and the two private schools use the field and they pay us for that. >> Summit YMCA uses the field.
>> No. And do you have a breakdown um in terms of currently how often the board of ed uses the fields versus
private clubs use? >> It's all in the master field schedule. >> So it's broken down. >> Okay. And that's publicly available. >> It's all in the master field schedule. >> And the master field schedule is publicly available. You're telling me correct? If you open it, you can get it.
Just give me one more second. >> Oh. Um, band. Will the band be used in the field at night under lights? >> Um, no. The band uses the lower high school field. >> And will there be any track activities
at night? >> No. The track will be lit for residents only, but not enough for a track event. >> And when the track is lit for for residents only, is do you determine what time that light's going to be turned off? >> No.
>> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further. >> Thank you, Mr. Simon. I just offer opportunity for members of the interest of public as ask questions to close this witness's testimony. Did you want to clarify or >> redirect questions? Yes. >> Do you uh you wanted you redirect right
after the cross and reserve your right to do more? >> Your call. Your call. >> Do you want to you want to wait? >> Go ahead. Let's take public. >> I'll go after. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um hi Dory Gagnon. Um Mark, thanks so much. That was great. Um uh for the interested public watching, >> you just have to give the your address again.
>> Oh, sorry. In case you forgot, 27 Bedford Road. Um >> Dan, just it's one of the rules that >> Okay. I'm a rule follower. Um so for people watching, I think it's really important to understand field usage and I I worked uh for with the lacrosse team for a long time and under you're asking
him a question. >> I am. So I'm getting there. So the question is >> who has priority over the fields at Tatlock? Which club? Is it lacrosse or soccer, high school, middle school? who is the first priority over the use usage of those fields?
>> First priority is the high school athletics. >> Okay. So, can you explain to the public how that works? >> So, basically, um, if you're not familiar, the city owns probably 80% of the, um, high school's fields. Um, and
they get basically priority Monday through Saturday from well, Monday through Friday from 3:30 to 6 o'clock every day. And on Saturdays basically 8:00 until 12 normal practice time unless they have games later in the day then >> 12 noon. Correct.
>> Yes. >> But if if if it's a football game then they have it from 2:00 1:00 on. >> Okay. Can you also explain what happens when nobody's using those fields and it looks empty and a lacrosse team or somebody wants to practice
during those times and we say, "Hey, can we go on those fields?" and we want to call you and we say, "Can we go on those fields?" And you say, "What what what do you say?" >> I say, "No, you you can't go on them." >> Okay. So, they're blocked out regardless. Correct. >> And there are times on a, you know, on a
Friday night, um, the Summit High School football team has investors fields. Sometimes they're not out there. Um, sometimes they go through a walkthrough. Sometimes they're watching film and they go out for 20 minutes, 30 minutes. But I'm not going to book that field with another program and potentially have to,
you know, football not be able to use it. >> And is this the same for lacrosse teams, girls and boys? >> Yes. >> And the JV lacrosse team, where do they practice? >> Upper Tatlock. >> And that's for girls and boys or >> That's just for boys. >> The boys and the girls practice >> girls are at lower high school.
>> Lower high school. And then can you explain to me what happens on rain days with the high school teams and how that operates with shifting around programs and what that kind of looks like? >> So rainy days typically myself and the athletic director um speak to decide
whether fields are playable. Um and then typically what happens is we cancel and then they schedule they have to reschedule their games and it bumps out a lot of the youth programs. And then um how many grass fields are left in this town?
>> Uh Memorial Wilson um Longfield, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Franklin. >> So on those rainy days, what happens to those fields? Usually >> the we close them for the day and practices or games are cancelled. >> And how often are they usually closed
thereafter? >> Sometimes a couple days depending upon how much rain we get. >> Okay. And those are usually the youth sports, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um so putting lights on Tatlock would give you the opportunity
to put more youth sports or makeup rainy days. Is that correct? >> 100% correct. >> Okay. Um and I have a question regarding you opened up the questioning of parking. Correct. Um when we had all those community meetings, um I know a lot of people felt that there was a
parking issue on Butler. Um, have you addressed their parking concerns on Butler or um alleviated any of those concerns? >> The I know the council has taken steps to alleviate a lot of the traffic on Butler. >> Do you know um have have you given any
suggestions such as no parking across the neighborhood across from their um houses or anything like that to help alleviate it? And have they um taken you up on any of those suggestions? >> I have not. >> You have not. Has Mr. Mr. Shreger. Maybe I can ask him that question. >> You can ask him that question.
>> Okay. Um and then uh lastly, um is there parking um up on the Washington School? Is that another parking lot that's utilized? >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Other questions from the interested
public for this witness? Just make sure everybody else gets to play. All right. You get a second bite of the apple, Mr. S. >> Wait, I'm sorry. I I wanted to >> Oh, did you would you like to redirect? Yes. >> Sorry. Thank you, Mr. Patience. >> Are the grass fields at Memorial and I
think you said uh Wilson >> Wilson. >> Would you consider that they are overused? >> Um yes. >> And is there a danger to that? >> Yeah, the safety of the kids if the grass is worn down and um there's holes
and puddles accumulate. Um when you mentioned the private schools, do they just use the track or also the field? >> They use the track. >> Only the track. >> Correct. >> I don't have any further questions. >> Mr. Simon,
>> have you considered lighting uh any fields other than the satlock fields? >> No. Why not? >> Um because we would not light any of our grass fields. >> That would just because it would be a waste of money
>> because they would because they would get beat up. >> It's it's not smart to light grass fields if you can't rest them for a season. We don't have that luxury. >> Are you aware of grass fields in the state that are lit?
Uh where >> I'm asking you, are you aware of grass fields that are lit? >> Yes. >> Okay. And >> and I know in those towns that they can rest the fields for a season. >> Okay. And what towns are you referring
to, sir? >> Um I can tell you West Windsor because I live down there. >> I'm sorry to to look at, Mr. Chairman. We >> have a board member that's uh stepped away for a moment. Sorry.
>> So that's not true. >> But uh >> she's going to clear her throat and then hopefully come back in for us. So then I'll offer you a fivem minute recess close line of questioning. So Mr. Simon, that's up to you when we get to take a break. >> Welcome vice chair back in just a
moment. and she need to get water. >> All right, let's take five. It's going to be five strict five though. Excuse me. me. >> All right.
>> Welcome back everyone. >> Yeah, good m quick uh quick roll call maybe just for the record. >> Sure. >> Chairman Spur >> here. >> Vice Chair Bolson Alvarez >> here. >> Mayor Fagan >> here. >> Council member Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen >> here. >> Mr. Domo >> here.
>> Mr. Felman is excused. Mr. Joy >> here. >> Mr. Salah is excused. Mr. Stern >> here. >> And Mr. Stonington >> here. >> Great. Everybody's back. Mr. Chair, >> everyone's back. I believe Mr. Simon is going to have a few more questions for Mr. Rosarowski. Uh we're about to hit the 11:00 hour, which means I will ask
for a motion, a second, and a voice vote from the board membership to extend uh this evening's meeting. We're going to extend in 30-minut increments until the first person hits the floor. Uh but ideally we're going to keep we're going to keep going to hear this uh this full uh capital project review this evening.
So do we have a motion to extend for likely the first 30-minute increment? >> So move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I. >> Any oppose? >> Okay. Excellent. Mr. Simon, begin again. Um
I asked you about whether you consider lighting any other fields and you said you said no. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Um is there a particular and we then we started talking about grass. >> Correct. >> And I had asked you about um grass of other fields and you mentioned West
Windsor. >> Correct. >> And you're saying um West Windsor High School. Uh actually their youth program. >> Okay. So, and what field is um is grass
with lights for their youth program? >> Duck Pond Park. >> You familiar? >> I am. And do you know when Duck Pond Park was lit? >> No. Lit for at when it Yes. No. When they put lights on?
>> No, I don't know. Any other um fields that you're aware of that are lit with grass? >> As answered, objection. >> Other than Duck Pond Park in West Windsor, are you aware of any other
fields in the state of New Jersey that have stadium lighting on them that have grass? >> No. >> You know, you know. [Music] And have you considered um
turfing fields other than the fields at Tatlock? >> No. >> Why not? >> Uh because it would be too cost costly. Okay. And and what is the cost of light
of turfing a field versus installing a stadium lights at a field? >> Turfing a fields about a million dollars. >> Okay. And how much? >> Probably nine what? >> Turfing a fields about a million dollars. >> Okay. And and when you say million dollars, how do you know how that's broken down? >> No. No.
>> Um do you know when uh the upper field was turfed? >> It was returfed in 2017. >> Okay. And do you know what the cost was of that returfing? >> I don't. I don't remember. >> And Investors Field, Do you recall when that was turfed?
>> Uh the year prior, 2016ish. >> And do you know what the cost was for that turf? >> No, I um both of them were probably about $5 to $600,000. And remember, a returf is different than the initial turf because it already has the
drainage. And um do you know what the cost is to install the lights >> on one field? >> On one field >> uh $600,000.
>> So So is that times two or 1.2 million for two fields >> approximate? Yes. And do you have instances where uh teams would rather play on
artificial turf than natural grass? >> Uh the majority of teams want to play on synthetic turf. >> Okay. And why do the majority of teams want to play on synthetic turf instead of natural grass? >> Because it's a truer bounce. >> The the synthetic turf has a a truer
bounce than and and and unless you had uh the Yankee Stadium grounds crew to maintain a city-owned field, you'll never get that you'll never get the same result as a synthetic field. >> So, um because of um teams rather
playing on synthetic turf than natural grass, does that result in some of the grass fields in town tending to be underused? >> No, they're still used. They're just beat up. So, they're still used on a full-time
basis, >> correct? >> Um, you talked about the turf and the replacement of the the turf. Um, when is the the turf on the upper field scheduled to be um replaced?
>> Typically, you get the warranty is 8 to 12 years. I think the initial we had and I think we had closer to 12 to 13 on both of those fields. So you decided to returf them after 12 or 13 years. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And and that wasn't somebody
recommending that you can go beyond the warranty period. >> So twice a year we have a company that comes out that grooms our fields and they test the uh the sponginess, the hardness and the softness and there's a value where your fields are still safe.
So we go by that. So, um, have you taken into consideration the fact that with your increased use of not one but two turf fields, as you testified to earlier, that the turfs are the the synthetic turf fields are going to need
to be replaced sooner than every 12 to 13 years? >> No. >> Okay. Nothing further. Thank you. >> Thanks. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rosarowski. I believe there is a third witness. >> Yes. From the city. >> Name and business address for the
record, please. >> Uh Aaron Shger, 512 Springfield Avenue, Summit, New Jersey, 07901. >> Mr. Sher, can you please um state your position at uh the city of Summit?
>> Currently director of engineering and public works within the department of community services. >> Can you give us your educational background? >> Certainly. Bachelor's of Science and Civil Engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Western Massachusetts.
Licensed engineer in the state of New Jersey. Have you ever testified um before any boards in the state of New Jersey? >> Yes, I have. >> Are you also a professional planner? >> I do have a professional planner's license. Yes.
>> Um at this time, I would like to request that the board accept Mr. Shrager as an expert in in the field of engineering. >> Civil engineer. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And only civil engineer because she asked him another question about being a planner. >> Only civil engineer. >> Yes. at the
>> Okay. And your license remains in good standing uh in the state of New Jersey as a as a as a civil engineer. Correct? >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. Any objection, Mr. Simon? >> No objection. >> No. No objection by Mr. Simon. So, >> we'll accept you as an expert in engineering. Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you.
>> Um, with respect to the proposed lighting, can you uh go over what the landscaping would be or if there would be any changes? So in regards to the actual project uh there would be no uh change to
landscapecaping. Um independently and separately the department of community services is working to uh plant at present time 12 evergreen trees as soon as this fall as part of our fall planting program which was recommended by the city forester and was included in
our bids we just received I believe a week ago. Uh so that would be planted and and whether um this project takes place or not would still be part of the plan uh if so desired by the neighborhood. >> And the 12 evergreen trees like where
would they be located? >> Uh there's an area as you look I'll say west from Butler Parkway that there's kind of a break in the natural landscaping that does um provide a view to residents there. It's in or near like number 61 if I recall. So we would fill
it in there behind the fence >> in connection with um the circulation for pedestrian and p personal vehicles. Would there be any change with respect to uh the proposed lighting? >> No, there would not.
>> Would there be any drainage impacts uh with respect to the proposed lighting? No, there would not >> any any change in imperous coverage >> there. There's a deminimus. The light poles do have a concrete base times 8.
So there would be a small increase in imperous surface just by the nature of those but there's not major sight disruption nor will it impact the overall flow of drainage. So I I would label it as dimminimous. And with the a poles it would it be like approximately like 50 square feet or so or
>> that three nine 10 probably close to 100 you know >> based on your experience as an engineer would you expect that there would be any change in like the the noise level >> um noise only relative to possibly the
frequency when Department of Community Programs selects the programming for the field. Um, but events that would take place there wouldn't be any louder than they previously are. >> Um, would it be possible that it's actually less it would be less noisy because of
you don't need any sort of generator or anything to for the lights or >> or in regards to if it's as opposed to a temporary lighting situation or something with generators. Yes, in that regard. And the Musco expert did testify that this this lighting system would would generate less noise than the um
old hum of yester year. >> As far as um garbage and recycling, would you expect that there would be any change um with respect to the proposed lights? >> Uh potentially based on programming, I mean we currently collect it in
conjunction with the board of ed. there's more frequency needed, we we can handle it and accommodate it. It wouldn't be an issue. >> And would there be any sort of electrical upgra um upgrades with respect to the the poles and the proposed lights?
>> Uh at the main service, there would be electrical upgrade as as needed for the system. Um, at this point I don't have any further questions. >> Mr. Shger, maybe Marie, I'll let you take the first crack at him. >> Um, well, council,
>> he's pulled the bike. Pulled the bike. council cover a lot of the questions that I had, but um as far as the um electrical upgrades, do you see any transformer pads or um any additional um impervious service because of that?
>> Not that I'm aware of. Um anything would be at the general area where electricity is now. >> Okay. Okay. You don't have to upgrade any of your panels or anything like that because of this additional >> Not that I'm aware of. That would be something better for um the ultimate electric designer, but Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, no, that's really all I had. >> Okay. Um, anything you want to comment on or questions? >> Just so um, the landscaping is the extent of the proposed improvements by
the city other than the lighting at this juncture. >> That is correct. Yes. >> Okay. Um, in addition to the 12 evergreen plantings, if a need arose in the future to install additional supplemental planting, is that something the city would consider?
>> Oh, absolutely. We've already discussed doing a mix of deciduous and evergreen. These would be evergreen. Uh, it's also when we tie into the season. So, if it is happening this season, uh, meaning this season is fall season, the evergreens, we could do deciduous, we could come back and look at. Uh we also
want to um make sure we're mindful of the construction if the project proceeds. Uh we're not aware of if if the contractor might have to come from Butler Parkway and remove some fencing to access for those lights. So uh we don't want to put a dense plan or put anything that we have to remove as a
result of construction. So uh so until we have a if there's a contractor if the project is is proceeds and is selected we would work with them and then once completed yes we're absolutely open and would like to put a lot more up. >> Thank and finally that would be in consultation with the city forester.
>> Absolutely. Yes. >> Great. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Questions from the board for Mr. Shreger. I have the question which was referred to you because I I know there's been some talk about putting some time of
nonsemi impervious uh matting down for the buses to park off of Butler. Is that going to happen or what is the plan for that? >> Yes. So currently what's being proposed out of the safety committee is to revise some striping on Butler Parkway, but to
just stripe an area for where the buses do uh pick up and drop off close to the the access gate along Butler. Um so that's what's being pitched currently. Uh conceptually there has been some excuse me there has been some discussion about building a bumpout to try to
provide more uh off the road um parking area in the same vicinity. But then the desire was if that proceeded to use a grass paver or something to not impact impervious surface. So that that is something that conceptually has been discussed uh both with safety and with the um CPPS committee.
>> So that's not necessarily off the table. >> Not off the table, just um conceptually an idea right now. It hasn't been drafted. >> And the only other thing is, you know, I noticed we've lost because of storms and just age and whatever. You mentioned deciduous trees. Is there a plan to
replace the ones we lose on the property >> on any sort of regular basis? >> Yes. I mean, continuously we always look to We are a tree city. We do have a city forester. So, yes, we always looking to uh replant both at the Martins Brook area on on our facilities that we have.
We do like to do it at neighborhoods as well. We do get some push back at times so it's easier to work within our park. So, um, yes, and we don't foresee any tree loss as a result of this project, but if there was for some unforeseen reason, we would replace it with at
least one, uh, in kind. Um, for sure, >> the board questions for Mr. Shger. Uh, Director Shger, have we looked at any other areas for trees or is that just the main the main area along Butler
>> relative to for just this project or like citywide or >> just in this just around this project? >> Um, there was also some proposals and considerations for additional trees uh up by the press box area there. So, on the access road, both on the east and
west side. um not proceeding at this time, but we did have um um quotes and and ideas for that. So, >> I would just mention I was on I think it was Greenfield the other day and at the top of that culde-sac it might be a good opportunity to um we have temporary parking signs all along that street. So, I think the residents are happy at least
on that street, but it might be pushing traffic to other parts. I don't know, but it would be might be kind of nice to maybe put on our radar screen. >> Yeah, we're we're absolutely open to planting more trees and when we get some um green money from Union County, we have some saved up and we do an annual program. So yes,
>> questions for Director Sugar. Yep. Go Paul. >> Director Sugar, is any plans just, you know, look given if these lights are on late at night, kids could be waiting around at the end of practice waiting for their parents, is there any plans for the city to, you know, introduce new
or elevated safety measures to just protect a little bit more? Uh I mean it would be more of a question for a police and possibly DCP in terms of I mean from a infrastructure point of view separately. The the parking lot has
been surveyed for potential conceptual ideas to upgrade the parking lot and I think that might um should or may include elements of lighting just for the parking lot. Um but any sort of um you know enforcement or patrol would come from police. Any
other questions from the board? All right, Mr. Simon, your time to shine. >> We're never shining. >> Okay. Um, >> how many folk can Right. >> Mr. Shreger, thank you for your testimony. Um you have not prepared any
type of um site plan for this application. Correct. >> Correct. I did not. >> And um have you prepared any type of report uh that you submitted in connection with this application? >> Um no I have not.
And um with regard to um you were present when I um when I cross-examined the um the muscular representative, correct? >> Correct. Yes. >> And if you recall, just to kind of move things around forward, um I asked him
some questions about some particular um light poles that were going to be installed um adjacent to tree canopies. Do you recall me asking him that question? >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, have you had an opportunity to assess whether there's going to be root damage
or impacts from those particular installations or the tree canopies in that particular area? >> Um, I have not. No. >> Do you know if anyone has made that analysis? >> Uh, no. It's something we can gladly send the forester to do. And I think it's just the one light in particular
that should be looked at. >> Yeah. I think there's there's there's two. There's one both of them have right next to the canopies. It's hard to tell because there's no scale. >> Right. >> Okay. Um and uh with regard to the 12 evergreen trees that you're intending to plant, what's the the height of those
trees intended to be the time of planting? >> Uh they they would be I don't want to say full size, but it's not the uh 599 version from Home Depot. It' be 8 to 10 feet uh bald and burlap. So we would look to get substantial trees, but yes. >> Okay. And is there an opportunity to do,
you know, double rows as opposed to single rows? Have you taken a look at the um area within which there is an opportunity to fill in some some gaps >> just at like in the area of the 12 or just sporadically? I mean, we're open >> both. Thank you for saying both in the
area of the 12, but also um to other areas potentially that are impacting, you know, residential areas including along Butler. >> Yes, abs. Absolutely. We're open to it. I think the 12 is just a start for the immediate, you know, evergreen and get it a a growing season sooner than later.
U more absolutely we've we've looked at and would like to do. And um with regard to lighting, other than the the proposed Musco lighting, is there um an intention to um replace or install additional
lighting in the parking lot area or in the pedestrian areas in and surrounding uh Tallac field? >> Not at this time. >> Okay. Have you done an evaluation? Has your office done an evaluation as to the need for that additional or or even
different illumination given um advances in technology, dark spots, dark areas, especially given the um intended lighting of not one but two fields. >> We have not. No. >> Do you know if there's any plans for
that? >> No. just if the parking lot is to be redone, which is um you know, conceptually we'll be looking at um through the next six months or so, uh it lighting is something that would be looked at as part of >> and when you say the parking lot to be redone, what do you mean by that?
>> Oh, well, the pavement uh the the main Butler parking lot or the Tatlock parking lot is the pavement is is passed it useful life. Um we're patching it the best we can. we're sealing it the best we can, but we knew with um both pending projects at the Anderson Fieldhouse and potentially this, we would wait until
the conclusion of that to um budget for and then redo the parking lot. And at that time, we would make sure we have ADA compliance, um increase spaces if we can, tweak circulation if it makes sense, and then lighting if it makes sense as well. So, >> okay. And you're and you're familiar certainly with the with the city's uh
ordinances and master plan, correct? >> Yes. Um, what is the current parking capacity at Tatlock? >> Uh, I'm not aware of that right now. >> Okay. Can you estimate for me or no? >> 85. >> Don't ask. I'm sorry. I should have
objected, Junior, but >> Well, he he if if I if he can estimate, I'm not trying to trick him. >> Well, he he he already said he doesn't he's not aware of the answer. So, now you're asking to estimate. >> You move to your next question, Mr. Sam. Well, he he just he estimated 85, which
is good. So, um do you based on your um experience with the um the ordinances in Summit? Um do you know what the parking requirement is for the proposed use with
uh with lighting on the two fields? >> I do not. No. >> Have you have you looked into that at all or No. >> No, I have not. And um you were asked a question about about circulation. Um you didn't participate
in any way, shape or form in any of the uh any traffic study that was uh performed for this project. Correct. >> Correct. I did not. And are you aware of any parking study or evaluation that uh
has been conducted in connection with this proposal to light these two fields? >> Yes, there was a study done by Shropshshire Associates. >> There was there was a parking study done. >> Oh, no. It was a traffic study. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Well, first of all, you're not aware of any parking study, correct? And
Shropshire Associates, Andy Fernande, he didn't do any parking study, correct? >> No. >> Okay. And and with regard to a traffic study, um did you review that? >> Uh I did. Yes. Okay. >> I'm going to object because um Mr. Sh I
he did not discuss the traffic study on um direct. >> Well, he you you asked him because I wrote it down. I'm surprised you asked him actually about circulation for vehicles and he answered the question
and and I'm you open the door. So I'm asking him the question. So with regard to um circulation of vehicles, you you reviewed the Shropshshire Associates report, correct? >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. And and you recall um that there
was um level of service um E and F at both Butler Parkway and the River Road intersection as well as Butler Parkway and the Mars Avenue intersection. Uh, I don't recall specifically the grades for all the intersections in the report, but if that's what the report
says, then yes. >> Okay. Um, and and do you know what it means to have a level of service of F? >> Uh, yes. >> Okay. What does it mean? >> Uh, that is the lowest efficiency grade for that intersection, >> right? And and and do you know what the associated delay is for a level of F
service? >> Um, no. I forgot off the top of my head. There's a chart that um sometimes I know but not at 11 o'clock, but yeah, >> that's okay. Yeah. >> Um >> yeah, let alone 11:25. Um with regard to um but you don't seem to recall as we uh
stand here tonight 11:25 how much beyond a level of service f those intersections actually are correct times. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and with regard to um circulation for pedestrians which you also were asked um are you aware of any
study conducted with regarding pedestrian circulations during uh game events? >> Not that I'm aware of. I mean the Shropshire did make some recommendations in there in the report. Yes. >> Right. Do do you do you recall because I didn't see it. Did did you see any actual data um as to any of those uh
pedestrian observations? Um, I don't recall. There was a lot of pages in the appendex. Um, and are you aware of existing concerns by the neighbors um with public events
occurring at Tatlock, including streets becoming inaccessible to emergency vehicles, cars parked illegally and infringing on driveways, uh, buses being parked in unsafe locations, and jaywalking. Are you aware of that? Yes,
but not through residents through the safety committee. Okay. >> And and are there efforts being made um to your knowledge of course to address those those concerns? >> Yes. So currently there's a proposal out there to redo some of the shoulder
striping to delineate the driveway specifically um to try to prevent cars that are parking within the driveway and blocking Butler residents in their in their own homes or from getting back into their homes. Uh so that has been um circulated to the neighborhood last week. Um just
seeking feedback. That's something that's being proposed out of safety. >> Okay. Anything else at this point? >> Uh just the aforementioned like bus drop off zone which would just be a striped area on the opposite side of the street uh to prevent people from parking there so buses can do their pickup and drop
off without stopping traffic on Butler. So, >> um, and are you aware of locations of offsite parking during events where both fields are intended to
be used simultaneously? >> In terms of am I aware that it exists or that there's an intent to use it? Well, and like the location like where are you aware aware >> where off-site parking is taking place
in the areas surrounding Tatlock Field? >> Um, not through through witnessing, but I'm told on the Butler and and adjacent streets or neighborhood that that becomes overflow for the Tatlock parking lot. So, yes. >> Right. And is there anything that you're aware of that's that's addressing that
whether it's increased number of parking spaces on site or otherwise? Um, no, nothing physically being done. I just know through meetings at the safety committee, police are doing added patrol and signage on event days. And um, you were asked about noise.
You didn't conduct any noise study associated with any increased use or increased sounds resulting from permanent lights. Correct? >> Uh, no, I did not. And you and you haven't done any um noise measurements of the field at any time, correct?
>> No, I have not. >> And you talked about um drop off and and pickup. Um, is that being done um on Tatlockfield site or is that offsite? I couldn't tell what you're referring to.
>> Yeah, the the proposed striped area to allow bus pickup and drop off would be on Butler Parkway across from the area of like 57561 maybe. I might be a little off with the number. I think it might be in the lower numbers. Um, but where there's currently
a pedestrian access gate on Butler Parkway. Okay. Um, I have nothing further. Thank you, >> Mr. Simon. Uh, any members of the interested public have questions for Mr. Shreger. >> Name and address again.
>> I'm sorry. Dory Gagnon, 27 Petford Road. Um, thank you, Mr. Shreger for your testimony. Um, just to clarify, are you a a traffic expert? >> No, I am not. So, you testified tonight
on traffic, but you are not an expert on traffic. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Okay. Just clarify that. Um, can you also um explain to me or um uh I guess explain a little bit if there
has ever been any noise complaints prior to the lights coming up for uh conversation here at council before at city hall or to the mayor maybe to you? Anybody ever complain of noise down at
Tatlock or upper Tatlock or those areas down those fields? >> Not that I'm aware of, but if our department gets any complaints, we do defer them to police. So So I'm not aware of any. Yeah. >> Okay. And um have any of those neighbors on Butler, have you suggested putting up
no parking signs across the street from them, their homes? >> No. >> That wasn't a conversation to put up no parking on one side of the street. >> Not through my department. It's it's um I mean police it might have been discussed at safety but um
we probably discussed it when we did the Butler Parkway project 5 years ago um but I don't recall the the outcome of that. That's when we did the major road project. So >> but not now with the parking issue that's there. >> Um no.
>> Okay. Um I think that's all I have for you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Gagnon. Any other questions from the public, Mr. Sher? And I'll just pose a question to the board. May I have a motion and a second to extend this evening's meeting about another 30 minutes?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you, Mr. Sher. >> Uh, Miss Wilson, any further witnesses for you to offer? Okay. Excellent. Then I believe we're going to proceed. Mr.
Simon, if you have any witnesses you would like to offer. >> Um, yes. So, I mean, I have a bunch of comments that I'll make at the end. Okay. >> Um, regarding this process um, but in
terms of um, expert witness, I have one professional planning witness. >> So, unless there's any other questions and we can qualify him and you can begin your your questioning. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. Your name and address, a business address is fine for the record. Uh Peter Stack, SK 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey. >> Mr. Ste, if you would please provide the
board with your um areas of expertise, experience, and lure in the field of professional Uh yes, by way of education, I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's in city and regional planning. I was licensed in 1976 and
that license is still in effect. And I've uh testified before a couple hundred municipalities in New Jersey as well as in superior court and tax court. and I've appeared in summit on several past occasions and
been accepted as an expert witness in those instances. >> License remains in good standing >> as of this evening. Yes. Okay. Any further voadier or questions from you, Mr. uh Simon? >> No. >> Any objection to the board accepting Mr. Ste as an expert in the field of
professional planning? >> We have no objection. >> No objection. >> No objection from council. >> Thank you. And yes, we'll accept you as an expert in planning, Mr. Stack. >> Thank you. So, um, Mr. Spec, the hour is late. It's after 11:30. Uh, so I'm going
to ask you um just to uh briefly um maybe not so briefly kind of go over um on behalf of our clientele community preservation association um your
observations and opinions with regard to this procedure namely um a capital review that the board is conducting this evening. >> Okay. Uh the municipal land use law section 31 was referenced as the basis
for um this hearing. Um as a fine point to it is that that section is triggered uh when uh you've been assigned to have a capital improvement program and that's
in your master plan. Uh while there is a budget line for uh this lighting and other improvements, um there is no capital improvement section of your master plan.
Um and consequently, uh this doesn't fit into the section 31 provision of the municipal land use law. uh simply because uh the governing body
uh simply because your master plan does not have was not directed to have and does not have um a capital improvement section on it. So uh the question is is um you know what's should be the nature of this
presentation and uh what I would suggest although uh uh the memo uh the planning memo says that uh this it project is exempt from
site plan review. Uh as I read your ordinance it's not. Uh your ordinance says that one and two family homes are exempt from site plan review, but it doesn't eliminate uh a project like this. Um
and uh so number one, I do think this needs site plan approval and I think that there may be uh some variances that would be associated with it. Um this is in an R10 zone
and uh as you know the principal permitted uses are single family detached and public parks. Um your ordinance clearly makes a dist distinction between public and private
recreation. In fact, as a conditional use in the uh R10 zone, uh it lists uh private recreation is only permitted in
your lower density R I think you know 43 your like one acre residential zone because there are non-public entities that are using this facility. Um in my opinion uh there's a question
of whether um this fits fully in the uh public recreation classification. Of also interest in addition to potentially use issues is the issue of the height of the fixtures that are
being proposed 70 and 80 feet. Um, your ordinance, as you know, allows only a maximum height of 15 ft for accessory structures.
And let's go to a different level. Let's assume that there is that these are principal structures, which they're which they're not. But let's look at the um standards in Summit. And in this zone, the tallest building
you can have is 35 ft. Uh you can go up to 38 to match an existing uh uh roof line, but there is no zone in any zone in Summit that allows anything taller
than 48 ft. So this is a significant increase in height over uh what is allowed in any zone uh in Summit. of significance is uh again I mentioned
it this is not this not an exempt project from site plan review your ordinance has a provision describing what's exempt this is not one of the items that's exempt your ordinance also has a definition of change of use
and among the features that trigger a change of use are change in lighting intensity Um and uh also it in terms of extending hours of
operation by like 4 hours. Your ordinance says that that's considered a change of use. Um clearly your master plan wanted to uh protect residential areas.
um your uh description of the uh R10 zone in your ordinance uh you know talks about the purpose and it's to uh protect residential areas knowing that sometimes
um there can be disturbance from non-residential uses. This is a non-residential use. If you look at your ordinance in terms of lighting, it clearly says that there can be nuisance issues because of that. Um I as a
footnote to the exhibits that was was were being presented uh you see these diagrams that show how the light is cast on a on the horizontal surface and you see a 0.0 zero. And that's not like if you step beyond
that line, all of a sudden you don't see any light. That's simply the light from the fixture that hits the ground. That's the measurement. And I presume it's it's it's accurate from a scientific point of view, but it doesn't measure the
reflection from the items that you're lighting, such as the bleachers, such as the field itself. Uh it reminds me of a a case where a an auto dealer was using the same metrics and saying look on the ground
you know my lights going to be only uh you know 12 foot candles and the answer is these lights bounce off all the cars and the car windshields. So, what I'm suggesting to you is not to misread
that diagram that shows a zero foot candle 3 ft above the ground. You will see something. The lights will be well lit. And in fact, the witness indicated that it only measures in one dimension. It doesn't measure the light that comes
off of the other objects. So while on the surface your job is to look at the as announced at the start of this hearing to look at the character, location and extent of this. Those terms
encompass noise, light, parking, uh traffic, all of those things are eligible features. if this was just a capital improvement review,
but in my opinion, this is more than that. Um, this requires site plan review because it's not exempted. Uh, it will certainly trigger some kind of variance relief in terms of the height of these fixtures. Uh, we don't
know how those fixtures are going to look like from the the houses across the street. The applicant admitted that they don't have no and they have produced no renderings. They've done no renderings of what it's going to look like. And in fact, the the witness from the lighting
company had, as you know, hasn't prepared any of those plans. So, we can't verify how accurate they are. You haven't seen the person that prepared those plans. So, I would uh say that
um number one, because there's no capital improvement portion of your master plan, um the very foundation of why you're here is not present.
Number two, if you look at your master plan, aside from that point, clearly there is an interest in protecting um residential areas, single family areas, and this will have an effect
according to your ordinance. This is an change in use. It's not just because your ordinance defines it that way. You extend the hours of operation by four hours. you uh change the lighting intensity, your ordinance says that's a change of use.
That deserves a review under your ordinance. And I would suggest to you at a minimum there are bulk variances that are triggered and there may be a use variance that might be related to the nonpublic use of these facilities.
>> And so Mr. just a sec with regard to um the master plan and recommendations in conjunction with the master plan. >> Would you just mind coming up to the microphone just so we capture your
comments? Mr. S. Thank you. >> So, at the beginning of the hearing, Mr. Um Warner um talked about the board's role in a capital uh project review um
as to performing a review and recommendation um in conjunction with the master plan. assuming for the moment that the board concludes that they in fact have
jurisdiction to to engage and have engaged in this in this hearing this evening as a capital review project. Um in terms of reviews and recommendations, do you have any um
suggestions for for this board if they are to proceed as a capital review in terms of particular recommendations based on their review? >> Uh the master plan does not recommend the lighting of fields in general or the
lighting of this field. And in fact, there is language clearly on uh protecting residential areas. Uh you have a zone in the center town that's a public zone. Clearly, you can kind of do anything you want there
because it is a public zone. So, the governing body knew what that was. This is an R10 residential use where the prime use u happens to be single family homes. um that's part and parcel of the design of the zone and that tells me
that facilities that such as public parks um are permitted but I would think in most people's minds that when someone says I'm going to have a public park they don't automatically think of
lighting in the evening and the impact is relevant in determining whether that is a permissible use I'll I guess the Tannis case that suggests that does it have an impact and back up. Um
as a followup to your statement, the fact that this public park is intending to light not one but two turf fields and fields in in fairly close proximity, the
plans will speak for themselves to each other. Does that um impact your your statement? >> Well, clearly two is more than one both arithmetically and in terms of land use impacts. Um,
if this board hypothetically determines that A, this is properly reviewed as a capital review project and B determines in terms of their
recommendation that lighting as proposed is okay or permitted or whatever the term the the the board uses. Do you have any if if that's the case, arguendo of
course, um do you have any suggestions as a professional planner in terms of recommendations whether it has to do with activity levels, times, traffic circulation, parking and the like. >> Well, you know, as the board is a knows
already, there's a parking problem. Uh this has a substandard amount of parking right now, some 85 spaces. Uh with both fields being used, the figure was mentioned that the bleachers had 1,800 seats in them uh at one
as three persons per parking spot. That's a lot of parking that your ordinance says that you need. Um >> 600 plus. >> Yes. So that's a significant feature um that is a your your municipal standard
and clearly uh not only is that standard not met today but it becomes uh more um I think ownorous in terms of the neighborhood when that's transferred into the evening and when both fields are used at the same time
>> and when neighbors neighbors are home in the >> yes that's usually residential neighbor neighborhoods are quieter in the evening. Uh that's going to be uh not the case. And and you haven't heard this evening particularly from the from the
witnesses any commitment in terms of days, hours, uh weeks, months in terms of scheduling or or programming for any of these fields or whether it's going to be
practices or games or particular light levels. Uh whether it's 100% 50% 75. Uh what I've heard is that it has not been determined yet and I think that's directly related to the impacts on the neighborhood.
>> So um is it your conclusion that the board is left without even some in certain cases sufficient information for it to make an informed determination of providing any recommendations that they
even got that far in conjunction with the master? >> Yeah. Again the the initial language is character, location and extent. You know the location but the character and extent of these uses depend upon the scheduling and we don't know what that
is. So one response is simply we don't have enough information to uh recommend uh it to endorse this capital improvement >> and and further you understand that there's been um some investigations
regarding um bat and bird population um in the vicinity of this site. Correct. >> Uh yes. >> Right. And um is that those types of concerns addressed or referenced uh in the master plan particularly with regard
to Martinsbrook Park? Uh yes, it's it it's it's referenced with respect to the park and the and lighting and is referenced as lighting of the fields or more active use of the fields is referenced in the plan as both producing
traffic and lighting effect and and lighting effects. Oh, excuse me, environmental effects. Okay. and and the applicant in this case has not produced a traffic expert, a parking expert, a noise expert, an environmental expert to
this board um for purposes of questioning and cross-examination in connection with this project. >> Uh that's correct. There is a traffic study. It hasn't been presented in and it it didn't handle parking. It just handled traffic >> and and no and no Right. No parking
study was done. Correct. Okay. Um I have So anything else you want to say Mr. Ste? >> I think not. >> Okay. Nothing further for this witness at this time. >> Thank Mr. St. All right, Mr. Warner is getting a little fidgety here. So, we have some
questions for you first. >> No, just just just curious if I may start chairman and obviously other board professionals, board members, applicants, council asked questions. Members of the public will ask questions, but uh there were some jurisdictional related uh questions that
piqued my interest. So, I thought I would my chair's permission to address those uh by way of uh asking you questions, Mr. Ste. Okay, >> it's okay with me. >> I appreciate that. >> I don't think I can say no. >> The the the uh Well, I I wouldn't offer
you the opportunity to say no. Just I offered you the opportunity to say okay. The the the um section 31A uh first of all, uh this planning board was provided a referral from the city for a section 31A capital project review. Correct.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh, is it your position that this board has the authority to reject that referral or to try to transfer that referral into a land development application that was not brought by the city before it? In other words, we're a planning board. We receive the
application or the review that's provided to us and we uh act accordingly. Isn't that correct? >> Objection. Sorry, I don't understand. >> Sure. Sure. You you made you made a comment that you thought this should be you testified that you thought uh in
your planning opinion, Mr. Stack, that you thought that this board should be doing something other than a or more than or different than a capital project review. Uh uh what do you base your authority that this board has or what do
you base your planning opinion that this board has that authority to do that >> from a planning perspective? from a planning perspective. He testified from a planning perspective. >> Reading section 31, >> it says that the referral of a capital project
uh from the governing body um is uh to be done when you have a capital improvement program within your master plan. >> Where does it say that in section 31? >> Um wait, wait. I I Okay, >> he just testified to that. >> Yes, sir. >> From his that's his planning.
>> I'll have to pull up this. Let me see if I have the section handy. >> You may reference it. Do you say where where in 31? >> Graciously provided section 31. Um it starts out and this is a >> Mhm.
>> whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan. >> Let's stop there. Any portion of the master plan. Correct. >> May I read? Let him so let him finish, please, >> Mr. Simon. Uh, >> let him finish. He was making a statement.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, I I understand. We're going to break that we're going to break down 31A. >> May I read it to myself first so I can accurately respond in pieces? >> Well, you you you summon. I'll make that determinate. Actually, the board will
you can they're welcome to read the section, but for the benefit of the board that you're the questions presented, >> Mr. If you want to read that section, you've already testified that you had an opinion about what this board can and can't do or should or shouldn't do based on section 31, but if you feel the need
to read it again to yourself, read it. >> I do, >> please. >> Thank you. I jumped up to section 30 that pred precedes that. And it says, "Whenever the planning board has prepared a capital improvement
program presumed to section 20 of this act, it shall recommend such program to the governing body which may adopt such program with any modifications approved by the affirmative vote of majority of the full authorized membership of the governing body and with the reasons for said modification recorded in the
minutes." >> Section A. >> Wait, wait, I'm sorry. You just read section 30. >> 30. Yeah, that's that authorizes the that that's that's the excuse me the that's the capital improvement program
that the governing body may adopt. >> Right. The next section refers to something about the character location of stent of such project and that's the capital improvement project and as I understand the law and it may
be case law but when there is no capital improvement recommendation in the master plan there is no basis to review a capital improvement process. project.
>> You're not a lawyer, correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. You don't have as you stand here today, you don't have a case that you can site and and in fact, you said you think it's case law. Do you know it's case law? >> Um, I would rely on Mr. Simon. >> Okay. So, you're going to rely on Mr. Simon. But from the planning perspect
for the for the law, but from the planning perspective, section 31A, whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan, that's any portion, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. uh the governing body or other public agency having jurisdiction over
the subject matter before taking action necessitating the expenditure of any public funds incidental to location, character or extent of s such project capital review project uh capital improvement project. Correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Shall shall means must. No choice. Correct. >> Yeah. If you had a capital improvement section in your master plan, the governing body must refer that capital improvement expenditure to the planning board.
>> Doesn't say that in 31. It's a it says whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan. Correct. >> But it says necessitating the expend. Let's see >> any capital project. >> It says before taking action
necessitating the expenditure of public funds incidental to the location, character and extent of such project shall refer the action involving such specific project to the planning board. The way I think the intent of that is
because this is different from site plan review as we all know I think we know um this is this means on what basis does the governing body review it and it seems to me that um where you have a
capital improvement section that's the jurisdiction that the planning board has in reviewing the project. >> Okay. So that's your planning board opinion based on what you've provided thus far. >> My planning person opinion. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Your planning your
professional planning m >> shall shall I'm not done. Mr. Si shall refer the action involving such specific project to the planning board for review and recommendation. You agree that that's review and recommendation not an approval authority under section 31A. Correct. >> I agree.
>> Okay. And that and the board does not have the authority under 31A to impose conditions. Correct. >> Correct. only make recommendations. Correct. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Uh in conjunction with the master plan and and then it goes on from there. Correct. >> Yes.
>> Okay. The the um >> Thank you. And uh it's your you you testified with respect to permitted uses in the R10 zone, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Can you speak in the microphone? >> I'm sorry. You you you Sure. Um I'll make it real loud. I promise. The the uh if this mic stays up here, the the um you testified to permitted uses in the R10 zone, correct?
>> Yes. Okay. Uh and if indeed the city is exempt from zoning, uh as it contends that it is for purposes of a capital project review, uh the um the uses are not relevant
to whether or not the board can exercise a capital project review under section 31A. Correct. >> It's um in other, let me rephrase it. The board can't find m makes no determination as to whether or not it's
a permitted use or a non-permitted use in the context of a capital project review. Correct. Well, that that's not the central task, but in my opinion, it is included reasonably in the phrase
character, location, and extent. if it's a use that's not permitted in a certain zone or a certain area that has to do with the location of the capital improvement. So the the answer is while it's not a zoning review
the treatment in the zoning ordinance and the master plan are relevant considerations >> is are public parks and playgrounds principal permitted principal uses in the R10 zone. >> Yes. Yes. >> Okay. And is it your contention that this is not a public park and
playground? >> No. >> My contention is is that the lighting because it is not usually associated with a not automatically associated with a public park lighting in the evening.
Uh I my experience is that lighting stanches um I guess kind of draw fire. No pun intended, but like there are lightning rods for impacts on the community and uh
because of that and because of the scale of these uh lighting fixtures, they don't necessarily uh are permitted by right as an accessory use. So it's not the principal use that that
is risen here except for the issue of use by let's say non non-citizens or private clubs at a certain point one could say that's not included in the public park or playground. My real focus
is on the nature of lighting as an automatically permitted accessory use in the R10 zone. So your contention is that lighting is not incidental and and and uh subordinate to the permitted principal use of public parks and
playgrounds. My contention is that the the lighting that is being contemplated because it has such an adverse potentially such an adverse impact um is not automatically consider should
be considered in fact it should not be considered a permitted accessory use and that's why I referenced the uh the Tannis case which said that in order to arrive at a conclusion clusion that something is a permissible accessory
use. A relevant consideration is the impact on the surrounding area. >> Is it your contention that this uh that the use the principal use is anything other than a public park and playground? The
principal uses primarily a public park and playground, but we I don't think there's um fixed data about how many private clubs may be using this as opposed to uh public um
um you know, high school students uh public entities. I I understand that this is being partly funded by private organizations and what's not clear is the share that they are taking uh in the
lighted uh evening hours of these two fields. >> Are you familiar with the hills of Troy versus Parcipony case? >> Uh I have not. Um I'll say no. I don't recall uh having read it. So then you
can't testify with respect to it in any way, shape or form as a professional planner. Correct. >> Uh not this m >> Mr. Warner. This is not a Hills of Troy hearing and I object to any reference to it. It wasn't any type of notice. It wasn't any type of agenda. It is the
public would never know what Hills of Troy hearing is and certainly it's a legal question and not appropriate if this board in fact is continuing with its uh intended capital review determination. I also would say that I
will address certainly in my closing legal issues relating to capital review and the like. Um and Mr. Ste certainly though will answer any questions from a planning perspective based on his testimony. >> I'm just asking questions based upon the testimony he provided.
>> He didn't talk about he I know I can he testified that it was something more different. >> The I think we have to make a motion. >> Yeah, I would like to if you would mind to give me 30 seconds here. Just ask for a motion and a second from the board uh to extend the meeting a further 30 minutes. Motion.
>> So moved. >> Thank you, Mayor Pagan. A second. >> Second. >> All right. All in favor? >> Any opposed? All right. Hanging in there. Love it. You may continue, Mr. Warner. >> The um >> I'm going to reserve my right to ask
further questions after other members as well as the board professionals ask questions, including our planner. >> Okay. All right, Tom, maybe we'll pitch it over to you. I don't think Marie, you have too much to add to this, but go ahead, Tom. >> To begin. So, I I think we're in
agreement here that the applicant is the city of Stomitic Summit, right? That's been stated pretty clearly. Are we in agreement? >> The applicant is the city of Summit. >> Okay. And we're in agreement that the uh property in question is publicly owned by the city of Summit. >> Uh part of it is publicly owned by the
city of Summit. part part of it is owned by the board of education which is a different entity >> but a public entity nonetheless. >> It is a public entity. >> Okay. Fair. >> Um with respect to um the capital improvement section of the municipal land use law um are capital improvement
uh programs a required component of the municipal land use law? >> No. >> So towns can spend money on capital improvements without having adopted the capital improvement plan? >> Yes. >> Prepared by the planning board? >> Yes. Okay. Um, with respect to the
ordinance, you uh mentioned the definition u which is exempt site plan. You referenced that pertains specifically to single family and two family homes. >> Yes. >> Um did you happen to review section 35-1.4B which states matters not regulated
herein shall be governed by applicable provisions of the MLUL. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and the MLUL, the MLUL shall control. >> U I recall that. I haven't read that recently, but I recall that language.
>> Okay. So, could that be construed to mean that in this case the MLUL has jurisdiction over the matter which would require um such capital review to be referred to the planning board as it has been? >> Um all that we're discussing this evening is under the MLUL. that that
requires site plan approval. That >> based on what? Why does it require site plan approval? >> I Well, I just said because it this is not exempt from your ordinance for site plan approval and there may be variances triggered uh because of the scale of the
lighting that it is not eligible to be considered a permitted accessory use. But you agree that the existing Tatlock facility constitutes a public park? >> Yes. >> Okay. And it's it's your
opinion that lighting would not be considered an ancillary accessory use to a public park which is a permitted use in the zone. It's my opinion that the lighting that is cont that is before the board this evening because of its scale
uh is not automatically eligible to be considered as a permitted accessory use. In fact, my permitted my opinion is that it is not an accessory permitted use by right. >> Are you aware of the number of high
school football fields in New Jersey that have lighting? No. >> Okay. What um if you were listening to the um prior deliberations, I think a board member had mentioned there were at least five municipalities
adjacent to Summit that have lighting around their high school uh football fields. >> But the issue is what does their ordinance say? Their ordinance isn't necessarily the same as the Summit ordinance. So, >> right. But if you take the position that public fields and board of ed fields are
exempt from the ordinance, you wouldn't regulate that because you would know that those types of things would be exempt and therefore you wouldn't have to >> I think you have to read the ordinance of every of each municipality because some municipalities outright say that um like you know
projects of the governing body are not subject to the zoning ordinance. This municipality does not say that in its ordinance. Does it specifically require the municipality to submit site plan applications for capital improvement projects? >> Not if the municipality and not if the
planning board has no section in its master plan. That is it a capital improvement section. >> And and though we already covered it, just to be clear again, section 31A refers to any portion of the master plan. >> That's correct. It says that. But you're
you're interpreting any portion to mean specifically mean a capital improvement program as part of the master. >> Uh logic tells me that if someone's submitting a capital improvement project to the planning board, its job in evaluating the character, location, and
extent is to first of all compare it to its capital improvement program in the master plan. And I add that zoning and master plan considerations are also involved under those terms, character,
location, and extent. Right. But there there could be other relevant portions of the master plan such as the land use plan element, the parks and recreations uh plan element that would relate specifically to this application other than the capital improvement program.
>> Well, there's nothing in the master plan that talks about recommending the lighting of fields. Are you familiar with the city's adopted 2006 uh recreation master plan? >> Um I did review it. >> Okay. In which it references Tatlock.
>> It does reference an >> existing facility and in which a community survey was conducted to um assess whether or not the community was interested in installing lighting. >> Um a community survey does not necessarily mean it's a master plan goals. It's a it's a it's a reporting of
what the sentiment of the community is, >> right? And if the sentiment of the community was that it was in favor of installing lighting in Tatlock, do you think that would be significant? >> That's information that the planning board can use to recommend lighting, but I don't recall that there was a
recommendation to light. >> Okay. And in your review of the master plan, did it talk about um not wanting to have lighting? I mean, it was frankly it was silent on the issue, right? So whether it promotes it or not is >> what I can say is that the there is no
master plan provision that recommends lighting of either of these two fields. >> Okay. And so in order for any municipality to do anything is it your opinion that uh it automatically has to be recommended in the master plan that a municipality can't expend funds if it's
not specifically recommended in the master plan. >> Objection in terms of them asking the question that they want to do anything. I don't know. >> Uh c any any sort of capital improvement or I I think I phrase it any expenditure of um public funds for ancillary
improvements to existing public facilities. Do those specifically have if a city wants to buy new bleachers, does it have to be in the master plan that they want to buy new bleachers or new trash cans or new >> um anything for its public parks? >> No. >> A new dugout? >> No.
>> Okay. Um, you referenced the city's definition of change of use, and I don't think we got the full color of what that actually says. So, just to be clear, the city's definition of change of use in chapter 35 first states any permitted use that
substantially differs from the previous use of a building or land involving any of the following. And then it lists things like lighting. But just to be clear, um, the property in question is a park and will remain a park. >> I think I already answered that. Right. But not in the context of of the
change of use definition where you cherrypicked and only said that. >> Well, I'll read the whole thing constitutes a change of use. >> Object to the reference that he was cherrypicking. >> I'll I'll read what happened. >> I'll I'll read the definition. If >> you'd like to clarify, >> please read the definition.
>> Change of use. A, any permitted use that substantially differs from the previous use of a building or land involving any of the following. So any of the following would be consider considered a change of use. One, the addition of
parking spaces based upon the parking requirements of this chapter. Two, a significant increase 10 or more during a weekly period in the amount of truck deliveries to the property. Three, a significant change in the hours of
operation from the previous use. a deviation of four or more hours in the morning and or evening close parenthesis. Four, the storage or handling of chemicals or hazardous substances. Five, proposed changes in
intensity of exterior lighting. Or six, additions to buildings in the central business district, which is not the case here. B, a permitted use that does not meet the foregoing criteria can be considered a change of occupancy that does not
require site plan approval. So, at least two of those items, the duration and the intensity of the light lighting in the your definition says that this is a change of use. >> Yeah. But but that's what what has to happen first is that any
>> No, you're cutting you're sitting back there. Stop cutting me off, please. Okay. Thank you. What the definition says and and we've deviated from is that any what has to happen first as a pretext is that any permitted use has to differ from the previous use. That hasn't occurred and
at that point once the use differs from the previous use then you look at the following involving lighting etc. We have a park that's going to remain a park. The use is not changing. Therefore the issue of the lighting is irrelevant as as it relates to the definition of
change of use. I would say that that makes no sense because >> So your suggestion is that a change in lighting is a change of view >> to your question. >> Mr. Warner, are we going to is he going to keep chirping from the back here? Are we allowed? I >> All right. All right, guys. Guys, >> this is ridiculous. This is a clown.
>> Thank you for your patience. All involved in the late hour. I appreciate that. Is Mr. Baron's question clear? So you can address that and we can move on to the next. >> Um, in my opinion, that makes no sense. Uh, Mr. Barren has suggested that if it stays in the same category of use, we
don't care if the hours of operations change or we don't care if the lighting intensity changes. That makes no sense to me. >> Okay. And and what I'm hearing a little bit here, just to interject for a moment, is fodder for recommendations for the board. That's I'm hearing a little bit of that. So, I appreciate,
Mr. Simon, to the extent that you can guide your witness and offer your own perspective as well. Um, the board seems to be on a trajectory of considering this a capital project review. appreciate the legal lease that's being debated here. Um, but if we do ultimately take it to that extent, we'll need to consider recommendations to
offer to the governing body. So, if you can balance your testimony with respect for your objection perhaps to the foundation, the legal foundation with which you're here, um, though stated very clearly from our board attorney, what we believe is appropriate. Balance that with recommendations to the board, it would be greatly appreciated.
>> Mr. Mr. Chairman. >> Yes. I would just like >> I would just like to ask the board attorney to just repeat um the portion of the law which you've been talking about. To me it seems to refer
to capital projects, not a plan. It refers to specifically projects if I'm not mistaken. Am I wrong? >> With the chair's permission. No, you're not wrong. The 31A provides that whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan,
the governing body or other public agency, this is the governing body, having jurisdiction over the subject matter uh before expending uh taking action necessitating expenditure of public funds incidental to location character extent of a project. It's all
about a capital project, not a capital improvement plan, not a capital improvement program. uh it does not cross reference section 30. It's section 31A standing alone and it says what I just said after which it says shall so
the city has no choice. Refer the action involving such specific project to your point uh to us. It doesn't say us. It says the planning board uh for review and recommendation. So that is the operative language in section 31A. Thank
you, counselor. >> Okay, Mr. Barren, anything else you like to clean up or there's a bit of circular argument going on here, >> right? So, we we can move it. We disagree. I I referenced a lit literal interpretation of what it says. Um, Mr. Ste, you mentioned there was a parking
requirement that you referred to in the city code. >> Yeah, I believe it's one space for every three stadium, for example, stadium uh seats. >> Which ordinance is that? >> Uh, it's in your zoning ordinance. Which section of the ordinance?
>> I asked because I'm looking at the chart of the parking requirements and um I don't see anything about stadiums or parks, public parks. >> Um I can look it up later. I I don't have it handy in front of me, but there is a there is a table that lists different
uses, and one of the uses is stadiums, and it says one space for every three seats. >> Okay. I I don't see that in the city's chart of uh the parking schedule. Um but would you agree that we're not adding any field space or any new facilities
that were all we're talking about is adding lighting in this? >> Um the this the proposal before the board is to add lighting, not to increase the parking. >> Correct. So it's your opinion that
adding lighting requires additional parking? No. >> No. My my opinion is that um this is a substandard facility and that uh putting uh lights on and
extending the use of both fields into the evening will clearly generate a greater parking need which is not being not satisfied today and will be made worse by those improvements. So even
though the capacity of the fields won't increase just because the hours will be prolonged that that requires additional parking. >> In my opinion, logic says yes, you're going to use it uh more intensively and for a greater number of hours and into
the evening. Uh and in my opinion that because it's already substandard in parking, it'll make it worse in terms of the impact on the area. >> Okay. And and then finally, without prolonging this any any further, um in terms of uh your review of the city's
master plan documents, would you agree that when a board conducts a master plan consistency review or at least considers the master plan that it has to do so on balance? >> Well, this is not a consistency review. I think it was already announced at the beginning of this hearing. >> Well, it's not, but the board has to
consider the master plan. So when it considers the master plan its consideration should be on balance meaning that there might be some aspects of the master plan which you mentioned which might support one conclusion there might be other parts of the master plan which might be contrary to that is that
accurate >> because it's such a general document I have found instances where uh there is no clear resolution of the different policies in the master plan. Okay. But again, the the master plan doesn't say um the city should prohibit lighting at
Tatlockfield. Is that accurate? >> It does not say that you should prohibit lighting. >> Okay. And did you happen to reference the various master plan provisions, specific master plan provisions in our memo dated September 6, 2025? >> Yes. >> Okay. Are there any that you disagree with?
>> Uh your >> as being relevant to this application? Um you referenced some general goals um but uh in my opinion that's not a complete view of uh what the board should be uh reviewing.
>> Okay. And what should they be reviewing? What are the specific >> again? I I think this requires site plan review and I think the tall lights because of their impacts um should are in fact not automatically allowed as a
permitted accessory use. >> Okay. So you you didn't identify any master plan provisions that would take your position as far as lighting shouldn't be installed. >> I there is nothing in the plan that says don't light Tatlock Field.
>> Leave it at that. Mr. Chair, >> leave it at that. Mr. Barnes, um Mr. Ray, anything you'd like to >> No. >> No. Okay. >> That table is well is well represented. >> Guess that. >> Okay. questions from the board
or Mr. Stack >> for this witness >> for this particular witness here. >> I just had I had one question and perhaps I wasn't hearing entirely correctly. Um there was reference um to your research or review of the master plan documents um where maybe tatlock
lighting wasn't explicitly um discouraged but did you I hear correctly you made some reference though that field lights generally were discouraged or under some circumstances >> no what I said was that uh when
um field lights are a special consideration >> okay >> and when a when when a master plan it's it's very typical that master plans talk about you know conservation of open
space in parks um they do not in many cases they do not address the issue of lighting although it is a very important issue because it it obviously is a um a land use impact that can be
significant. >> Okay. And I I guess I was just asking the question with with reference to Summit's master plan and I did a quick search of the 2016 re-examination the 2000 master plan document and I didn't find any reference to field lighting or lighting of parks and recreation facilities being
>> discouraged. The focus is on the master plan by the way and not on the re-examination report which is a little bit of a different not a little bit it's a different document. >> Okay, that's that's fair. Okay, I'll leave that. Any questions other questions? >> I have actually Mr. >> I do Mr.
You use the word private quite actively and isn't it common in New Jersey that nonprofit groups get together to provide basically public sports services and programs. And that's what we're talking
about here. We're not talking about a private club or a private organization that limits its membership. We're talking about nonprofits that work in conjunction with the city to provide
public services. Isn't that correct? >> There is a component here with uh private clubs uh using this although it is not >> No, no, you're you're misusing the term. They're not private clubs. They're nonprofit
entities that are open to the public and anyone any parent can bring their child to join and participate in the sport. This is not a private club in the common sense. >> I meant it's different than a municipally sponsored or board of
education sponsored uh sport. Actually, I disagree because >> well, we're gonna we're going to have deliberations at the conclusion, but it's a interesting contrast that you have struck here material to the board's decision. >> Yeah, I just I just but I just wanted to clarify that the board of w
>> board of wreck does work with these clubs to coordinate and schedule and provide these programs. >> And perhaps council will be interested to address some questions about the witness's understanding of participation at the fields beyond what Mr. Rosarowski
and others write a testimony for it. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Yes, Mr. SE. Thank you. Have you been to Tatlock Field? >> Yes. >> When was the last time you were there? >> Uh, just before the last hearing. >> So, how many times in total have you been to T? >> I've intentionally went on there uh for
about an hour uh just before the last meeting during the daytime and took pictures, etc. >> So, about two times. >> Yeah. So, so equivalent to our lighting uh uh lighting person who was here one time because he just flew in. I believe >> the city's lighting city's lighting
operating as a member of the plant. Uh >> yes. >> Yes. >> I equivalent to him although I happen to live outside of Iowa. >> That's okay. So, um I guess my question when you went to Tatlock, where did you find the players families parking?
>> I went there uh when there were only a handful of people there. There wasn't an activity going on at the time. >> So, you never witnessed it during game time, during high time? No. No. >> So, where would you where if you if it were you and you were going tomorrow and you knew you were going to your grandson's game, where would you park?
>> Um, that's not part of my testimony. My testimony is where >> you talk about increased parking standards. And I I just want as a >> Your ordinance has a standard. I didn't >> No, I understand. I'm just I'm just asking if you were to go tomorrow with your grandson and the lot was full, where would be the next place that you
would park? Um he didn't provide direct testimony on that. >> But but we're asking about parking requirements. So I'm just simply asking I'm just simply asking. He's questioning our ordinance. I'm just simply asking if he was to go there tomorrow with his grandson, where would he park if the parking lot was full? >> Well, I don't have a grandson.
But aside from that, um >> I am aware that people park on the surrounding streets and occasionally block driveways, etc. >> Would there be another parking lot that would be close? I that was not part of my examination.
>> He's not a traffic engineer. He's not kind of testimony, but >> and I'm not a grandfather either, so unfortunately. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. St. Any other questions from members of the board? Yeah, we're going to go over here. >> Okay. Any other questions from the board? Miss Goldstein, do you have any
questions? >> I have a couple questions. >> Good. Maybe before you start, uh, may I take a a motion and a second from the board to extend until, uh, 100 a.m. in the morning?
>> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> abain. Opposed. >> Since my wife is watching at home, I'm going toain. >> Let's proceed. Miss Goldste. >> All right.
>> Yes. Um, Mr. stack. Um, are you aware of the case Thornton village of Ridgewood? >> No. Okay. >> I don't there I'm aware of cases in the village of Rididgewood, but I don't
know. Your question is kind of imprecise. >> Okay. It's are you aware of a Supreme Court case from 1955 that said that um that said that there has to be a
specific limitation upon municipal use of land in the zoning ordinance for it to be ex for it to be not excluded. >> No, I'm not aware of that case. >> Have you you reviewed that? >> I'm sorry. What did you mean by not excluded? >> Not that
Let me just ask it a different way. Is there a spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe specific limitation upon the mun m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m municipal use of land in the zoning ordinance >> in summit zoning ordinance.
>> Is there a specific limitation? Uh can you give me an example of what you're looking? Does it say that the municipal properties are either exempt or not exempt from
>> it? It does not say, but it does not exempt uh an application. It does not exempt the municipality on a project like this from site plan approval. >> But it doesn't say either way. Correct. >> No, it says it's exempt. It says
>> it says anything except for one and two family homes which is a municipal land use law requirement uh is would be exempt from site plan approval. >> Okay. >> And it doesn't it doesn't qualify that to say whether it's public or private.
It just says anything other than a single family or two family home um requires site plan approval. U are you aware have you reviewed the 2006 recreation master plan?
>> I did look at it at one time. Yes. >> Are you aware that it discusses the need for lights? the there is a reference to lights, but there's not a recommend there's a a a recommendation to look at it, but there was never a resolution or never a
recommendation to light these facilities. >> But there it does discuss the need for lights even back in objections. I'm going to say >> it's it says that there ought to be consideration >> and that there's a need for more fields back,
>> but that's different than lighting. It says there's a there's the it says the fields are are heavily used. Uh but it doesn't resolve the fact that uh lighting should be considered. I I'm not aware of any other master plan study
since that time that studied the need for lighting. Are you aware of um NJSA 4061-1A that provides that a governing body of municipality may improve parks, playgrounds
um for public resort and recreation? Um, I'm not familiar with that at the moment >> and that it gives broad powers to the municipality to do so. >> Well, I'm not familiar with it, so I can't answer that question.
>> I don't have any questions right now. >> Thank you, Miss Colstein. I will offer members of the interested public opportunity to ask questions of this witness. >> Name and address, please. >> Kevin Fagen, 27 Hawthorne Place. Uh, Mr.
Ste, you referenced in regards to R10 zoning um, non-public uses. Could you tell me what you think non-public uses on these fields would be? I I would say a private organization um that is not sponsored by the
municipality or the board of ed. >> Um could you tell me have you ever uh coached or run a youth sports organization? >> No. >> Do do you have any experience with youth sports organizations whatsoever?
>> Uh I had daughters that were good athletes. >> You had children that played. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Megan. Okay. Any other questions for the members of the interested public? Miss Gagnon, sorry. Your name and address again for the record.
>> Uh Dory Gagnon, 27 Bedford Road. Uh you used the word fire when you mentioned lights. >> Um >> in the sense that it draws this it's a controversial thing that draws fire. >> You still mentioned fire. We we I apologize, but can you re ask the
question that you >> Yes, I was trying to. So, you you mentioned the word fire when you were describing the lights on Tatlock Field as they were lightning rods and could potentially cause fire, which is a little alarming considering there
already lights. >> We let him is it a question for clarification or just >> that's that's not I mentioned fire in the sense that it's a issue that draws public interest, not that it necessarily
bursts into flame. That's not >> Well, that's a little alarming for me. So, can you describe exactly what your expertise is again for me? I'm just I There's a lot being thrown at me. So, what what are you an expert? >> Men, we just want to watch kind of the test the creep of testimony to the
question. >> Were you speaking figuratively and not literally? >> Yes, that's well described. >> Okay. Um and um as this is a uh board of ed and
city-owned property, the board of education often puts builds properties and things on their properties without having to go through all of these steps. >> Can you Sorry, M. Just a question. That's not fact. >> Sorry, I'm trying to get a question.
It's late. I think my brain's not processing like it usually does. Maybe um A a board of ed is exempt from site plan approval but not exempt from uses >> from site plan. Okay. And this is it what we were doing as a site plan. Is
that correct? >> Is there no? No. Okay. So I'm just trying to understand. All right. Hold on a second there. I'm again trying to process. It's like almost one o'clock. >> So from now so this is a joint effort between board of ed and city. >> No this is an application of just the
city. >> City. Okay. But it's a board of ed and city- owned property. >> Yes. >> So the board of ed recently put a turf field on close to this property and they have lights on maybe within a mile as well as on upper turf. So there's lights
on a turf and upper turf field. So would they have had to do the same application >> in in my opinion? I I'm not familiar with that property. Uh but it that
things don't change uh the way I read the ordinance that if um is that field lighted >> uh I don't I don't know anything about the scale of the lights but >> pretty tall >> but >> well I don't know what pretty tall is >> if we can limit the question and testimony to the project
>> I I I just examined this uh matter this evening. I did not look at other facilities. >> Thank you Mr. >> Okay. And do you live around here? >> I just live in Maplewood. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. >> And Mr. Chairman, I apologize because what I I've been operating under the assumption maybe Mr. Simon can confirm
this because he has a an entity client. I believe uh I'm assuming because I know Mr. Simon knows the rules of uh land use proceedings including capital project reviews. None of the uh none of the members of your client entity have been
asking questions. Those questions have only been asked through you. Correct, Mr. Simon? >> Thank Well, I'll take a 100, but a thousand's even better. Thank you. >> You can use >> Thank you. I'll I'll keep the surplus. Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Okay. I think Mr. Ste, your time has elapsed. >> If you'd like to Sure. If you'd like >> redirect redirect, you may redirect. and council for the city can reserve her right to recross streets. She deem it necessary. >> Y 12:35
a.m. >> Um Mr. S, there were a couple questions asked of you regarding the 2006 um I guess recreation plan. Um in 2016 there was a re-examination report um that was issued by the planning board.
Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Did that 2016 master plan re-examination report make any mention of um lighting of Tatlock Fields? >> It did not. >> And there's nothing in the um ordinance
of the city of Summit that exempts the city from its own zoning. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And just to clarify this, it's your opinion that the lighting of two um turf fields is not customarily associated with a with a public park in
a residential neighborhood. >> I would say it is not customary. Um it would not automatically be a thought uh of a citizen reviewing that that they would be lighting because it's such a significant difference in character. uh
if someone was filing an application and didn't mention that kind of lighting, in my opinion, that notice would be incorrect because it's such a fundamental part of the use. >> Right. And and you you mentioned a couple times the Tannis case. And doesn't the Tannis case talk about when
when assessing um a accessory use commonality and impact? >> Yes. >> Those are the two factors. Yes. Right. Um, and in your professional planning opinion, um, is it common to have two
lit turf fields at a at a public park? >> Well, it's not common, but frankly, the real um >> Well, I'm going to get to you about it's not common to have um two fields together. I don't I can't think of
another instance where they're two lighted fields that are turf fields. Do you recall any two two lighted fields that are two fields adjacent to a residential neighborhood in a residential zone? Sir, >> I don't recall any. >> Okay. And with regard to there are some questions asked of you regarding um the
board of education. So um under the ordinance in the R10 zone um public schools and uh conditional use, correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And under the municipal land use law, we're referring to that, um any development on a uh public school in the
R10 zone would require conditional use approval under section 67 municipal land use law. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And that um section 67 municipal land use law uh review includes site plan review. Correct.
It does except that I believe the state has jurisdiction over board of ed plans. >> That's right. That's um the >> details. >> I got nothing further for Mr. Ste. Thank
you, Mr. Simon. Anything? >> Yes. >> Follow. >> Mr. Ste, did you ever go to um Tatlac Park at night? No. >> No. >> And just to review, you said you went
you you've been to the park how many times >> for for the purposes of this application? Once >> once. And you just testified that you're you um live in Maplewood, New Jersey. Correct. >> Yes. >> As compared to Mr. Marsh who flew in
from Iowa that went to the park also one time. Correct. >> Yes. I don't have anything further. >> All right. Thank you very much, Miss Goldstein. Uh, I believe you have no further witnesses, Mr. Simon. Just to give you a >> Well, I just want to make sure that I
may have a representative from your organization that >> may have may want to testify. >> Okay. >> Which I will disclose, of course, which I am doing. All right, you're ready to do it. We're ready for >> I just want to say something.
>> Excuse me. Just one second. >> Sure. >> Okay. Okay. >> No. Okay. >> Fair enough. >> No further witnesses. >> All right. So, uh we'll move the next three steps here. We're going to invite
uh Mr. Simon as the representing the objecting party to present any summation closing remarks. >> Can I do I'd like to do that at the end after everyone >> members of the public >> I respectfully ask at the very end before you deliberate and whatever you
do with these. So >> members of public comment that he Okay. All right. So out of respect for Mr. Mr. Simon, thank you for being generous and patient this evening. Uh we will offer members of the interested public the opportunity to comment. Uh Mr. Simon will then offer his close
closing his summation and Miss Goldstein will wrap us up here. Absolutely. So members of the interested public, you will come forward. You will be sworn in. You'll provide your name, your address, uh and then we'll just kindly ask you limit your testim your testimony to three minutes. If you can >> please raise your right hand. Do you
swear to God affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Uh, please give us your name and address for the record and then proceed with your comment. >> PJ Angler, 16 High Street. >> So, I've had the opportunity to speak in
front of uh, common council multiple times on this. Haven't had the opportunity or the pleasure of speaking in front of this board. U, uh, but I appreciate all of you taking the time tonight. I know it's very late. Um, going back several months, a handful of residents, including myself, started a
petition to urge common council to install lights at Tatlock Field. Um, the petition was designed to cover both fields. Um, that was our intent. That was our plan. Uh, in two weeks time, we received over 2,000 signatures, 272.
I just checked, just to double check, um, while I was sitting here. That does include residents that live in the affected Tatlock area. Residents on Butler Parkway. I couldn't do a a count of that
on my phone. It was too too difficult. I tried, but I can assure you we have signatures from people that live on Butler Parkway and other surrounding streets near Tatlock Fields. Fast forward to May when the budget was
approved. 650,000 was was approved. So, we felt we partially successful there. Upper Tatlock was going to get lit. That same group of residents took it upon ourselves to start a fundraising initiative to see if we could raise the
funds to cover lower Tatlock Field. Our thought process being that if we're having company like Musco come at once, it'd be much cheaper for town and the residents to do both simultaneously. The reality is is we do need these fields. There isn't there is a genuine
need for more field space. This the lights at these two fields doesn't solve that problem. It just alleviates it a bit. Um I urge you to move forward with this project. Um and I appreciate all your time. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Any other members of the interested public care to offer comments? I swear you and Miss Gagnon this time. >> Do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth? >> My hat off. Jeez.
>> Yes, I do. Dory Gagnon, 27 F Road, >> please proceed. >> Um, well, I've been wanting to say this uh for the whole time. Um, as a resident for Summit, Mr. Simon was our attorney
and probably about 75% of you signed our petition and actually hired Mr. Simon to fight Broad Street West. >> And uh sitting here tonight um pushing forward that one consistency
review for Broad Street West to fi get finalized. Um, I feel like there's a major conflict of interest having him now, uh, advocate for the Tatlock neighborhood and suing the city. Um,
which is Mayor Fagan, uh, Miss Hamlet, Mr. Lejoy, some of the biggest advocates for residents for summit. I have to say that, and I'm going to say it again, I feel like there's a conflict of interest. Uh, with that being said, I did not want
the lights. I don't think our kids need to play sports 247. But what I do think is that the way the neighbors have gone about this is all wrong. Because I've never met council people take more time out of
their life to meet with neighbors and work with them to resolve a solution, a problem, figure it out than Mr. Smallwood, Hamlet, Mayor Fagan, then these guys, and they're still angry.
So now, do I want the lights? Yeah, I want the lights because this is just ridiculous. So, I'm coming here at 1:00 and I'm listening and and I'm advocating for him because um the way that this has all transpired in the last two years is just not okay
with me. um you know, put up no parking. I lived here my whole life. There's been parking up and down in that street. I was an athletic trainer. I worked with the football team. I was in the marching band. I did everything. I've been out tat lock my whole entire life with that stinky bathroom. Still not fixed. So,
I say pass the lights, let the kids play, put in time constraints, put up more trees, put up no parking. But if you guys keep arguing and fighting with this city, nobody's going to like you. Thank you.
>> Swear you in, sir. >> Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. Kevin, 27 Hawthorne, please. I just um want to say thank you to all the volunteers here tonight, the city staff.
Um, I was there in the meeting in 2018 with Mark and David and this has been a long time coming. It's not this isn't new. It's no surprise. It hasn't been hidden. It's something that's been needed forever. And um, I want to and
and it's time that we trust our experts, the our city staff that have been advocating for this for years. And finally, we have a council that's willing to stand up for it. And I thank you all for your time for we're here at
1:00 am. Um, thank you. >> Any other members of the interested public? This is your for the purpose of this meeting, your last opportunity to comment. Um, again, this goes back to the governing body and you can see some of our planning board members there at a
later date. All right. Not seeing any other interest in public comments. Uh again, we'll offer Mr. Simon the opportunity to offer a close and then Miss Goldstein uh will be the last to present before the board enters into deliberation.
So, it's 10 minutes to 1 a.m. Um, despite the late hour and that I have a hearing in about 7 hours, um, from now, um, I still don't believe that I'm going to give short shrift to my to my
comments. First of all, I want to thank everybody for staying and listening um to our presentation and to hear all the witnesses, you know, certainly. So, couple things to note. Um
certainly you heard from from Mr. Stack. Um, and I don't have to belabor the point about the fact that whether or not you believe that capital review is an appropriate mechanism um for review. Um,
we believe that it is not necessarily appropriate, certainly not the exclusive MLUL review for this project, nor does this review exempt the project from municipal land use law or um development regulations ordinance requirements. The
ordinance does not exempt the city uh from compliance with the ordinance. Section 31 does not exempt the city from compliance with other sections of the municipal land use law. Certainly, we know that this project is funded, as we heard in part, by by private by private
funds. Um, and that the project is not intended for use solely by the city's public recreation groups and the and the board of education. Um, not to mention that the board of ed is
not, as was admitted, not part of this of this application uh process. So, what are we talking about? We're talking about eight 70 to 80 foot lights not permitted
in the R10 zone. Heights not permitted and accessory use or principal use in the R10 zone. Um, we all know that there's going to be an obvious significant increase in nighttime
activities due to these lights not on one but on two fields creating a new active evening sports complex with additional nighttime vehicular traffic, on street parking,
pedestrian activity, lording, noise, sound amplification, which we haven't even talked about tonight from a PA system into the night. Whistles, horns, human noise, not contemplated anywhere
in your master plan documents, not contemplated in the re-exam, and not permitted in the R10 residential zoning district. So we believe that certainly whether it's the planning board or board of
adjustment in conjunction with site plan responsibilities that there is a more formal review that should take place with regard to this proposed project. Um
I will just briefly you know there's some colloquy back and forth between Mr. Warner and Mr. stuck and maybe some others. I will tell you that if you read comprehensively section 29, section 30,
section 31 together, which is what's intended, it's under the heading capital review requirements. If you read those sections of the municipal landings law together, what they will tell you is that for a planning board to review a
project under section 31, there needs to be a capital improvement project program in your master plan. There is none,
let alone one for this project. And Mr. Warner asked Mr. Steek, are you aware of a case? I'll tell you what the case is. You can read it. Board of Education of City of Clifton versus Board of Adjustment of Clifton 409 New Jersey
Super 389. It's a PEL division decision from 2009. that case. PEL division states the requirement of a planning board referral under section 31 only applies if the governing body has authorized the
planning board to prepare a program of municipal capital improvement projects in accordance with what? With section 29 where there is no such delegation referral to the planning board is
improper. And that is why specifically section 31 states in part we we keep talking about charact location character and extent. There's more words that follow. It says
before taking action this is section 31 necessitating the expenditure of any public funds incidental to the location character or extent of such project. That's the first time the word such is mentioned in section 31. The reason for
that is that you have to look at section 30 in section 29 that talks about the projects that they're referring to when they say such. Not to mention the fact even if you don't believe me and you have a
difference of opinion, what is this board supposed to be doing as part of a capital project? It's supposed to be getting information so it can make an informed determination as to recommendations in conjunction with the
master plan concerning the location, character, or extent of the project. Are you aware of the location of the project? Of course you are. That would be silly to state otherwise. Are you aware of the character or extent of the
project? You're absolutely not. You were not provided with information that is typically provided, in my humble opinion, in connection with any review responsibilities under 31, assuming
those responsibilities are appropriately um referred to or referred by the governing body. You don't know the extent of the project. If this was an application for site plan approval, of course, you would require the applicant
to provide information regarding the operation. Who's using it? When are they using it? For how long are they going to use it? What are the lighting levels at at various times for practices, for games? How does that impact the the residential
neighborhood of which it's it's a park? It's not in there. We haven't we you haven't been provided that information. The the response is we're not sure yet. Go look it up on the website. So the information for you to make a
decision should you decide to make the decision is arguably lacking. There is no information regarding the extent and the identification of the
various users, the capacity for the use associated uh lighting in terms of light levels at various times. Additional lighting that's going to be required for parking, pedestrian
activity, and the like. There was no traffic testimony. There was no environmental testimony. There was no parking testimony. There was a reference that oh, you don't where does it say in the ordinance about the parking requirement? It's section 35-14.1
P6. And it says for stadiums, one space for every three seats. So again, if just on the investor's field property or or stadium, if it's 1,800 seats divided by
three, 600 parking spaces. And the testimony was that that the belief was that there approximately 85 parking spaces. And yet there's no parking counts, there's no parking evaluation, there's no parking recommendations in
connection with the the presentation here. And we haven't even gotten into because there was no information provided as to what happens when both fields are used simultaneously, let alone both fields with other activities taking um
occurring at Tatlock field. What happens when kids are waiting to and their parents are waiting to go on a field while there's while there's another activity taking place lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, etc. Right? And you have two sets of parents. I will tell you
parathetically I unlike Mr. deck. I have coached for many, many years, many sports, many different levels, including here in Summit. And I will tell you that parking for us parents, for the kids, for the
grandparents, etc., drop off, pickup, it's a serious issue and it hasn't been looked at and it's going to be adversely impacting um this residential neighborhood. There was no reference despite um comments in in the
environmental um there was an environmental letter that came out from the environmental commission uh regarding concerns relating to this project uh pertaining to Martinsbrook Park bats birds
no reference whatsoever in terms of that type of information and responses to it. So where we are, we're at a place where your review and recommendation in
conjunction with the master plan, we we respectfully contend leads you to determination that it is not supported certainly by the master plan. There's no reference espec especially in the re-exam report if the 2006 h had a um
survey and then nothing was done about it in terms of lighting. It's not supported by the master plan to put not not just one but two sets of stadium lighting up at Tatlock Field that just
because there's comments that there should be upgrades and improvements to the existing fields. the fact that there's no mention of lighting to do that versus maintenance and and other improvements that happen to natural
grass fields um let alone turf fields leads one to conclusion that uh this project can't arguably be supported um or deemed to be supported by the master plan. In terms of recommendations,
certainly you heard a whole bunch of them. um whether it's from Mr. barrens, whether it's from traffic impacts, lighting impacts, noise impacts, parking impacts, environmental impacts, and use information that you
don't know about. that certainly if this board chooses to go in that direction that we respectfully contend that there's many recommendations that you all smart people can make to the governing body in your role as planning
board members to make the make the project better however you deem it to be to make it better for not just the kids not just the lax players players, football players, but
also for the residents, right? And you know, we are always I am just looking for essentially intelligent development in the end of the day. Not necessarily no development, but just having a
thoughtful balance so that everybody can live and move on with regard to their respective concerns in a way that is appropriate, in a way that's fair, in a
way that's reasonable, and and in a way that that makes things better for not just this neighborhood, of course, but for the community. So, and especially when you're dealing with a residential zone and the master plan, I have to tell
you, is replete with comments about protecting residential neighborhoods over and over again. So, um it's super late. >> That's >> I'm done. I thank you for your attention and um appreciate that.
>> Right. Right. That's >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Simon. Um, we're going to ask for first a motion to extend a further 30 minutes. >> We have a motion. >> We've been here all night just in case deliberations are particular.
>> So, sorry. We had a motion from the mayor. Second from Councilwoman Hamlet. All in favor? I. >> Any opposed? Not hearing any opposed. Uh, we're actually going to take a quick fivem minute recess if you don't mind. And then we'll we'll return for
>> summation. Crazy. >> Well, you only signed on for 20 years. >> Steve just said, the reason I said, Steve just said, welcome back. >> You guys see Peter out the door? >> You see him out there anyway? >> No.
>> Yeah, if you can try to shake him out. reason. >> Sorry, we'll send Dory. Dory will storm in there. >> Back at it. Jessica, would you just humor us with a quick roll call? Chairman Spur >> here.
>> Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez >> here. >> Mayor Fagan >> here. >> Council member Hamlet >> here. >> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Mr. Dalaso >> here. >> Mr. Felman is excused. Mr. >> Loy, >> Mr. Salah is excused. Mr. Stern >> here. >> And Mr. Stonton
>> here. >> Okay. Miss Goldstein. >> Um, thank you board members. Good evening. Or should I say good morning. Um, with respect to the the city of Summit's proposal for lighting, um, I
can we contend that it is a completely reasonable project. We, um, this evening you've heard from lighting expert Ryan Marsh, who testified as to the impact or the minimal impact on the surrounding
properties. You heard about the LED lights, the downward illumination, the reduced glare, and the lack of spillage to the neighboring properties. You also heard from um Mr. Ozarovski
who testified as to the overwhelming public need for the field space, which would be from the um the longer duration because of the lights. Um, you've heard that there was a lot of public input
throughout the years and that this project is not like a quick project that this has been going on at least since 2016, maybe even since 2014 if I recall. You've also heard from Mr. Shrager who
testified as to the um engineering aspects of the plan and um with respect to Mr. Simon's contention about the lack of studies and all that um all the all
these items can be addressed down the road and the timing of the the different programs and the usage of the fields. Um that's all up. You know, obviously that's is going to be worked on and as
Mr. Ozaraskki um noted, there clearly is a public need for um the lighting and the use and the uh increased usage of the fields. And you also heard about how there's a lack
of alternatives. And all this information has been on the community programming summit community programs website um for years. So there's been everything's been open um to the public.
I also just want to point out that the city has um broad authority to improve municipal public parks and playgrounds under um NJSA4061-1A and um
that there just I just wanted to emphasize in closing the public need for these for these for the lights, the increased field space, and that this is all going to be um on public property. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Miss Goldstein. Okay, we move now to the deliberation portion of capital project review. Uh before though we enter into it uh as our board attorney, Mr. Warner, if you'd like to
clarify any legal elements um that may cause some confusion for for the board. Um and I would just ask as you conclude your remarks that you reiterate the questions. We are meant to answer what in effect we are voting upon so we're clear in our deliberations and in
ultimately the vote that we cast um that the public understands what action we've taken this evening. Certainly uh section it'll be a little repetitive of some things that were said earlier at the beginning >> and and perhaps were but uh >> the charge under section 31A
uh is uh that whenever the planning board shall have adopted any portion of the master plan that is the strict uh that is the language of the provision uh the governing body uh for taking action necessitating expenditure of public funds incidental to location. So focus
on location, character or extent or and extent of such pro projects shall refer the action involving such specific project to the planning board for review and recommendation. Again, you don't have the authority to approve or deny. You have the don't have the author
authority under a section 31A capital review to impose conditions, but you have the authority to review it and to make recommendations. And those recommendations are in with in conjunction with the master plan. Generally perceived the extent to which
the character location uh or um extent of the project can if at all possible become more consistent with the master plan goals and objectives and you have those set forth by Mr. Baron in his memo uh as well as you've heard others
from uh others including Mr. uh uh testified as a planner for the objective group. Uh the city had the obligation and did refer that to us for that review and recommendation as a planning board. It was referenced to tying section 29,30
and 31 together and the mnick uh bear with me, excuse me, the board of education of city of Clifton vzoning board of adjustment of city of Clifton uh case the appellet division case uh that was referenced by Mr. Simon. Uh
he reads that to limit the explicit language in 31A. I disagree with that legal opinion. Uh the Clifton case dealt with the education law statute and a referral for a board of education
project uh not a municipal project. And in that case, in the relevant portions of that case, uh the board, excuse me, the court did reference, uh 29, 30, and 31 and said
that it led to the conclusion that, and bear with me, uh where there was no evidence in that particular case that Clipp the Clifton governing body delegated its authority to the planning board to prepare a program of municipal capital improvement
projects under section 29. That led to the conclusion that the board of education was not required to present the project to the planning board for its review and recommendation under 31. Uh that did not relate to the
municipality. It related solely to the board of education and in that particular case that interpretation of those three statutes together led to the conclusion that a capital project review was not required by the board of education
uh and that the board of education was subject to the jurisdiction of the department of education at the state. It did not, in my legal opinion, result in the conclusion that a municipality uh would not have an obligation to refer a capital project to the planning board.
Let alone would it lead to the conclusion that if a municipality such as the city of Summit referred a section 31A capital project review to the planning board, the planning board had the authority and in fact the obligation to say no, we got to do something
different and you either have to send it to the zoning board because it requires site plan and devariance relief or you have to have an application of development for development to us the planning board because it requires site plan and bulk variance relief or no bulk
riders variance relief but just a site plan. I do not read the Clifton case to say that uh it's my opinion I that it does not say that and that this board not only is uh uh
required on the referral uh from the city to do the capital project review under 31A but uh uh uh it uh it is it was appropriate of the city to make that referral uh and only that referral uh municipality ities are
generally exempt from zoning. Uh the Thornon village, bear with me, uh Thornton v. Village of Ridgewood, 179 NJ499, a 1955 Supreme Court case that I
think was rep referenced by the city's council. Uh the municipal land use law does not retain uh restrain the power of a municipality to determine where to locate municipal facilities within its borders. Um and indeed it's generally
been found that uh uh I'm sorry uh generally municipalities are exempt from zoning. Um also while there was some protestation to my reference to the Hills of Troy v. our symphony case. Um
I don't know frankly that it would even be ultimately deemed applicable because I believe the municipality's exemption from zoning uh is clear. Uh there is no exception in the DRRO or no provision
limiting or restricting the ability of the municipality uh to have an exemption from zoning. The silence speaks to the fact that the general rule is not restrained, imposed or restricted. The city has an exemption
from zoning. Uh and uh uh and indeed I think Mr. Barren referenced a provision uh that states essentially and I'm paraphrasing uh the municipal law governs uh and and the excuse me the municipal land use law governs and the
municipal land use law recognizes the exemption of municipalities from zoning generally uh and certainly uh uh the city has an ex such an exemption in this case. However, to the extent Mr. Simon on behalf of his client argued and Mr.
deck uh argued or testified uh or both uh that there was some private involvement be it private funding or otherwise. There is a case hills of Troy v. Paripony 392 NJ super 593 law division 2005 which stood essentially
for the proposition that not only is a municipality exempt from zoning but even if there is a private involvement uh the exemption is subject to a reasonleness test a determination by this board that even if there is some private component to the app to the
project in addition to the primary municipality uh uh ownership and involvement with project which is exempt from zoning. Uh the court uh the board can find that it's reasonable to have the municipality continue to be exempt
from zoning notwithstanding some private involvement. In particular, in that partic uh particular case, uh the court went so far as to hold that private companies, cell tower companies that were involved in the installation of a cell tower, uh that was going to derive
profit for those private entities, uh also had a municipal component to it on municipal property, serve the police, etc. And the court went so far as to hold that the private companies in that matter shared the township's exemption from zoning approvals. Notwithstanding
that each would receive financial or other private benefits in as much as the private enterprise was providing the municipality enhanced police, fire, and other emergency communication facilities along a busy state highway. So, uh, I
would submit to the board that A, the city is exempt. B, it would not be inappropriate for you to also find that if you, if you find there is some private involvement, you may find that the city uh, is reasonable, it's reasonable for the city to maintain its
exemption, notwithstanding any arguable private involvement. Again, section 31A capital project reviews are recommendatory. Uh as previously stated, board has jurisdiction
notice properly notice open public meeting. Uh and ultimately uh the only authority you have with respect to those recommendations as previously mentioned was to make recommendations that you believe
would in conjunction with the master plan make the project to the extent possible. uh more consistent with the master plan's goals and objectives. Um I'll leave to the planners uh all what those
items are as you've heard them and you certainly can make those recommendations. I think Mr. Simon correctly in my opinion said you are a very intelligent board and you can make those recommendations. I concur with Mr. Simon on that. Um and uh that's at least
one area of agreement. Um and uh and and again, as I stated before, the fact that there is a pending lawsuit uh involving the city, the zoning board, and this planning board does not absolve us, in my legal opinion, of our statutory authority to do what we did tonight,
which was have a full public hearing on this capital project review uh that lasted in excess of four hours. I'm my math is getting a little four about four and a half hours. Closer to six. >> Closer to six. There you go. That's right. We started seven. I'm sorry.
>> Six hours. Thank you. >> Thank you. That's why I went to law school and uh wasn't a mathematician. >> We won't ask you to do math. >> The uh the um so you've provided that public hearing in accordance with your obligation notwithstanding the lawsuit pending um as as you should in my
opinion. So at this point, as always, I've said more than I should, but uh what I will say is I'll turn it over to the board for deliberations. uh and uh to make your recommendations uh and ultimately I will memorialize the board's determinations and
recommendations in a resolution of approval uh well in a resolution uh with respect to the capital project review uh memorializing that uh at the next meeting. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh who would like to begin the
deliberations? Oh, we have a vice chair. Go for it. >> Okay. >> Jump in. Uh I have some recommendations. >> Would you like to opine though first on kind of overall master plan consistency or the appropriateness of >> going straight to recommendations? >> Go for it.
>> It is 125. >> Okay. >> Speaking of which >> Sorry. >> Are we going to get this done in five minutes? I'm just pointing out that there's a time >> now that we've done this. >> I can take a motion and a second to extend 15 minutes. How about that for motivation?
>> Let's leave a little extra hanging. Do we have a motion? So moved. So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> Any opposed? >> All right. Hit it, gentlemen. >> Okay. So, for discussion, proposed potential recommendations.
Limit to 900 p.m. Everyone was talking about summer light ends around 900 p.m. Maybe do the same for these lights. Limit the number of nighttime games because that's the only thing that may be changing.
um improve the landscaping per our engineer who's planning on doing it anyway, but do it with this in mind. And then um we do this all the time in our project reviews, our application re reviews.
Marie, um when do you recommend having uh review and adjustments >> of the lighting done? in two months and three months and six months. >> I'm trying to think typically we haven't
done one in a while. Um >> I remember doing them on other projects and it was a longer period of time but when it's you know fall it be >> you can figure it out pretty quickly I think. >> Right. Right. But if it was summertime you might not have to figure out quickly. >> So I don't know when this is going to be
proposed to be done. >> Could be with within a year then and it depends on when the lights go up. You know it could take some time. >> Okay. Okay. >> Does that sound reasonable? >> Yeah. >> Because we don't know when the project >> Well, and if you say within a year,
>> it could be >> You can do it sooner than a year, but Right. So, >> like if it's October, you could just do it, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> That's it. Six hours. That's all you got? >> Yeah. Just kidding. >> Please. Is there any way, you know,
look, I know we're doing this for for the city of Summit, but, you know, is there a way to limit the use of the fields than renting it out to only Summit sponsored or, you know, not having, you
know, Milbour, we may have an opening on the field, they can use the lights and have another town come in and then further use the lights even more like just allow it for the use of summit sports clubs that that you know are in town but
not allow outside towns to come in and rent the field. >> That sounds reasonable. >> That's sort of that's sort of the way things have operated, I think, anyway. And I think that was sort of the intention. So >> I I would just hate for someone to offer money and then and then that override
what we should be best for the city. >> I think that that's a great idea. I think it could also be vested. Use your >> microphone. I'm thinking if >> I don't know. >> I don't know when Milbourne flooded if the football field flooded. But let's
say it did. It could be that the Milbourne Board of Rec would call them up and say, "Look, we can't have a football season." I don't want that. I don't want us to be precluded from doing something like that. So, I would say >> there can Yeah. something or Yeah.
>> Okay. Other recommendations, Councilwoman Haml, >> um I would just say I mean I would still advocate and I've spoken with director about this uh field lighting usage policy and I think we can probably work on that either as a board or in committee but um all of these field lightage uh usage policies have all the
specs that Musco will be um putting in. I think we should put in that usage policy uh time parameters as well as uh going for the dark sky compliance. It sounds like that's an additional requirement, but I think it's important uh it's important for the community. So, and I think we should get the community members involved in the in the policy as
well, obviously after the lawsuit. Um, but we want to hear feedback and and get, you know, the community members involved and and making it right for the neighborhood. So, we're committed to that. Okay. >> I have a thought about um there was a comment about the PA system and um I
think that maybe a recommendation could be you know we don't use the PA system for things other than games or you know and in conjunction with limiting the number of night games. I think that would be an easy thing to accomplish and probably would be helpful to neighbors. Should we quantify
that somehow with limiting the number of night games? >> I think >> in the use of >> I just don't I don't think I don't think we're educated enough to know. I think that probably >> our DCP folks could weigh in on that and that can be a conversation based on what
sort of exists and what their kind of you know ideals are. >> Um I think that that's a bigger conversation than probably here would be my thought. >> Cool. I would on on the lighting just in terms of practicality and dealing with
DCP and DCS and safety. I would recommend that the lighting be let's say shut off to when let's say 15 minutes after the conclusion of games narrow time frames after the conclusion of events perhaps not limiting um you know
not allowing events for extend to too far in the first place um because I'm sure Mark would have spoken to this but the quantity and number of games that he's described uh and the number of participants seems significant so I I think that setting a
uh hard and fast time frame might not be effective for the real use of it. Limiting the use during the night's important, but perhaps that constraint that was talked about 15 minutes after a game, the lights are shut off. Let's say in the case of a rain rainstorm or
shutdown, there should be recommendation to say DCP should collaborate with both public works and safety to make sure that um you know any systems as necessary may be shut off accordingly. Um but just in terms of practicality that
seems a little easier from my perspective than setting a specific time frame as as things tend to change. >> Okay, Peter, you got something? Yeah, just a a couple of things. I think that in terms of shutting the lights down and
overall safety, I think it needs to be looked at in terms of maybe turning them down until I don't know how long it takes people to get off the site and safely to their cars. But maybe 15 minutes is too short.
I think somebody needs to look at that and tell us the police department probably. And I do think we need to look at uh off-site safety uh people walking back to their cars and stuff because overflow parking is always going to be
on the street. It's a reality. It has been that way uh for Saturday games and uh not really a problem, but I'm concerned about the safety. And then the other thing is I think the overall landscape plan of that site needs to be
looked at. Um, I think that there are areas where contractors have come in and done work, have not been required to clean up and restore properly, and I think that we need to have a heavier
hand on that. And I definitely believe we need to put in more trees. Um, I've just seen that site lose trees for a lot of reasons, age, storms. Uh, we cut them down. uh they go down
pretty easily, but it seems they don't grow that fast. So, I think the areas around the field that are green need to be protected. Cars shouldn't be parking on the grass. Uh we need to look for ways to mitigate that
and just generally beef up the tree plant. Maybe that too much. >> Okay, >> I'll make a quick comment. Uh I used to live in that neighborhood. Uh my first house I bought in Summit was on Sheridan Road and my backyard to the deck I could see Tatlockfield. Uh one of the other
members asked me earlier if if I still live there, would I oppose this? And my answer would be uh based on some of the restrictions I've heard tonight, probably not. Um you know, if if practice is over by 9, lights are off by 9:15, 9:30, it would not bother me if I
still lived in that house. Um, we had a similar issue when I did live there with a football coach who used to have practice at starting at 7:30 a.m. and he used a bullhorn and he sounded a bit like a, you know, a drill sergeant and I was elected to approach and ask him to
not do that. Um, and the compromise was, oh, you know, instead of lose the bullhorn, you know, could you not use the bullhorn until at least 9:00 a.m. And that was the compromise, and it worked. So to share that with you, John, >> just one other >> um just want to I know this will happen,
but and this isn't really necessarily a governing body decision per se, but to recommend to continue to have conversations with the neighbors um around um parking and what kind of safety measures happen, especially
around big events. We I think we've made some strides, but we're going to continue to work on that. So I just >> I mean maybe there's a way to create some sort of you know committee >> there's already one >> to have it continue where where the public you know and have members of the
public and the residents down there >> you know I live down there um >> and you know be able to voice concerns if there's issues that a aren't thought of or you know sometimes things change >> um to just help >> you know ease their concern that and
that know that the city is aware of it >> particularly for the lighting review because you need the feedback to know what we're reviewing for. >> I just make um another comment. >> Yep. >> It it's imperative to continue to keep the board of ed engaged in this process.
As I was sitting here tonight, I got an email that there was a bus on a certain street and you know what I said? Tell the superintendent the these are his teams and he can tell the chief of police. Um, you know, we're we're common council and planning board members, but there is a there is a chain of command
for these things and uh and the superintendent uh runs the sports programs there with the athletic director. So, we have to continue to work and have conversations with them and work together. >> I was capturing a bit of a summary here. I know Steve's been taking copious notes
as well. Um, some of the things that stood out to me is a reaffirmation that the city when it ultimately contracts for the equipment uses the latest available technology. I think uh Susan made that note and perhaps puts in place
a plan um for continued investment. The fact that that upper Tatlock field is partially lighted with aged equipment seems wild to me. My kids are still young, so I haven't quite experienced that yet, but seems off offputting for sure. So like to see the city have show some sensitivity there to a long-term
capital improvement. Um the notion of a field use policy, I've got to imagine that a good template exists somewhere and you guys probably already have it sitting on your desk. Um to be inclusive of all the things that we just talked about um scheduling for dates and dates and hours. Um how to liaz with other
stakeholder groups in the in the community. Um addressing sound, etc., etc. Um scrutinizing users is probably baked within that as well. Well, I I don't know if that just is a DCP policy document or something that gets codified as an ordinance, but we'll leave that uh
to you, Heather, or the solicitor and and the common council to address that. Um, we talked about installing additional landscaping or maybe Peter's you're suggesting ensuring such a substantial public recreation facility um to make sure that that's part of a
regular and formal review especially in the context of its evolution which in this case may include uh more substantial lighting. Um I'd ask for some continued monitoring of environmental impacts. Uh nothing from what I heard in our in testimony this
evening uh should stop this project necessarily from proceeding with respect to environmental impact but we have passionate members of the environmental commission uh committee commission and this might be something that our leazison Ryan Felic can uh make sure it gets communicated to them. Um, we talked
about public safety. Um, and I like the idea of within a year maybe of installation, uh, conducting the the post installation review, uh, with community engagement, BOE engagement, um, and sensitivity to other, uh,
projects, capital improvement that may be occurring. The parking lot lighting was something I had never really frankly thought about. Um, but I'm sure something with the amazing technology Musco presented to us this evening could be a real real significant improvement moving forward. Um, outside of the recommendations, I just do want to
codify in as part of the deliberations that um, based upon uh, the testimony that's been received advice of council, it's appropriate for the planning board to have considered this capital project review. Um it's actually appropriate for the governing body to have transmitted
to us, the planning boards who have accepted it. Um and that for us to have conducted a very thorough public hearing uh with the opportunity for uh an objecting council, objecting party to come forward. I know from my many years in land use here in summit, the zone first and the zoning board now here on
planning. uh input from the public is absolutely vital and this is a lengthy but thorough and I hope net positive outcome um for this process overall and to our vice chair's comment at the very beginning please governing bodies take
these recommendations seriously otherwise I stayed up way past my bedtime for nothing >> and then I would just want to comment with regard to consistency with the master plan or not inconsistency um a number of the goals that stood out to me around uh maintaining maintaining
the character of Summit. I think there can be a healthy tension there. Uh but I believe that continued improvement, thoughtful improvement to our uh public recreation facilities um reflects the best of Summit's character. We want healthy and active youth. We want a connected community and this project
helps to satisfy that. Maintaining a dynamic and vibrant um city. Uh Mr. Simon commented upon uh he's in favor of intelligent development, which is a kind of a new spin on smart development, I think. Um but I I'm with him in the sense that uh we should celebrate
continued investment in the community. Um and that's how we achieve the dynamism and vibrancy that that is called for in the master plan. Um and then uh finally the other fourth goal that really attracted me was um summit being a welcoming community to a
diversity of different people of shapes and sizes and all the other different characteristics um that we consider ourselves to be different. Um but Talah Hawk is a place that parking aside is where near everyone in the community comes together on the weekends, in the evenings, during the day. Um and it's a
great kind of opportunity to see summit alive um and together. So there's any number of more reasons that Tom has laid out um that I believe uh this project is not at all inconsistent with the master plan. Um and accordingly, I would ask
for a motion and a second. will have a vote um to transmit to the governing body that uh a we believe this was properly uh sent reviewed. Uh we believe that uh the project that's proposed is not inconsistent with the master plan and can be made even more consistent
with the recommendations that Steve has been scribbling furiously on his yellow pad. And and uh would that also include that to the extent applicable uh the board finds that the city's exemption from zoning is maintained uh with
respect to this project in its entirety uh allah if not to some degree at least uh the Troy >> yeah I I think >> hills of Troy varipony >> build build on that question yeah the there is a private component to the use
of this public recreation space. Private in the sense that youth football and lacrosse and any number of other um technically private entities bring together residents uh of the city of
Summit to utilize to a greater extent this public recreation facility. And accordingly, the city should maintain its exemption from zoning even with that intermingling to a minor degree of private parties within this public recreation space.
>> But just for the record, youth football is a DCP program. >> Oh, is it? >> Just excuse excuse me, I just have a cheerleader in my >> just for clear as I understood the motion, it's to the extent >> applicable if or necessary if at all.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. this one >> based frankly on the arguments made by the objective group. >> That's correct. >> So with that, do we have a motion? >> So moved. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Ask for a roll call vote. Jessica. >> Vice Chair Balsson Alvarez.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Fagan. >> Yes. >> Council member Hamlet. >> Yes. >> Miss Bowen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domaso. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stuntton. >> Yes. >> Mr. LJOY. >> Yes. >> Chairman Spur. >> Yes. Uh we're going to forego our two
closed sessions. Sorry everyone and I'll ask for a motion to adjurnn. So move >> second. Second. >> All in favor? Any opposed? >> Thank you to all our professionals. Thank you. >> City