bring the meeting to order. Welcome to the planning board meeting for Monday, March 23rd. Uh let's all stand for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge >> alg 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. >> Thank you. >> Jessica, could you do our adequate notice statement? >> In accordance with New Jersey statute 10
col4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the newspapers of record and has 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 hearings on applications for development in this meeting are Quasi 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.
Thank you. So, we're going to change our agenda uh for the resolution uh of extension for four park viewer terrace. Bart Sheen would like to come up. Nice to see you, Mr. Sheen.
Oh, I always forget the roll call. We're here. Okay, go ahead. I'm so sorry. >> Chair Bolson Alvarez >> here. >> Vice Chair Hamlet is excused. Miss Bowen >> here. >> Council member Chrisoy >> here. >> Mr. Domaso >> here.
>> Mr. Felman is excused. Miss Morrison >> here. >> Mr. Salah >> here. >> Mr. Stern >> here. >> Mr. Stuntton is excused. Mr. Golden >> here. >> You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Sorry about that, >> Madam Chair. Thank you for the calendar
preference. I deeply appreciate it. You're >> welcome. >> They let me out of the corral uh just this once to participate in the priv privilege of appearing before this board, a privilege too long deferred over these last several years. Mhm.
>> This is an application that seeks uh a 120day extension of the uh condition >> uh imposed by the board the last time this application appeared before it
granting approval for a subdivision uh for uh block 4707 and this particular lot 2301 requiring construction to begin within two years. There are certain
extenduating circumstances underlying this request, including the time that it took to discharge all of the other conditions with respect to site improvements, deed recording, uh subdivision perfection, and the uh
required stormwater management easement as well as familial complexities uh of a nature that we don't have to go into this evening. >> Okay. So, I would submit it to the board's favorable application uh and uh answer any questions that
anybody might have. >> Do any of the board members have questions? >> Do any of our professionals have questions? >> No. The only thing I would comment on you typically on an extension, the real issue is whether there's been a change
in zoning. Since the approval, there has not been. So, you can proceed. >> Okay. Right. >> And if I may add, from a legal perspective, the MLUL affords up to three one-year extensions. This is the first request and it is for a, if I'm
doing the math correct, about a third of a year, 120 years. Right. >> Uh, so to give the board some context. >> Thank you. So, do we have to can we do uh do we have to do roll call? >> I have a a resolution already in anticipation of a possible grant of the
extension. So all you need to do is a motion second roll call vote to adopt the resolution if indeed you're granting the extension. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to extend? >> So moved. >> Do you have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Now,
>> Miss Bowen, >> yes. >> Council member Chrisoy, >> yes. >> Mr. Dalmaso, >> yes. >> Miss Morrison, >> yes. >> Mr. Salah, >> yes. >> Mr. Stern, >> yes. >> Mr. Golden, >> yes. Chair Bolson Alvarez. >> Yes.
>> Thank you very much, members of the board. >> Okay. So, back to our agenda. Um, we have the adoption of the bylaws. Mr. Stern. >> Yeah. Oh, just two quick things. Uh
in rule 2-22 um it says that the rule states once a quorum of the board is present which at least four and then in parentheses says five members I think it should be five and five >> right
>> should be five bear with me 2 col 2-2 >> oh there we go five y >> and then in uh two colon 3-1. It references the township of Summit. It should be the city of Summit. >> Absolutely. >> That's all I got.
>> Where? Oh, there's township. Okay. Yep. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Does anybody else have any changes or suggestions for the bylaw? >> And if I may, Madam Chair, I did uh review same uh as I do every year uh other than those two typos uh that uh
the uh there's nothing in the content uh that needs to change. They are uh these bylaws remain consistent with and frankly to a large degree are dictated by the municipal land use law. >> Yep. >> So uh just want to put that on the record. >> Thank you. Thank you. So we can adopt
these now. >> Can we just do a >> a motion? Second and a voice vote will do it. >> Do we have a motion? >> You can do a voice. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All right. >> All and all in favor will do it. >> All in favor? I
>> Oh, I love that. I like the all in favor. Okay. >> Now, we'll do them wherever we can. >> Yes. Okay. So, uh committee lison appointments. So, um these are the suggested uh subcommittees and layons
for the various commissions and committees and subcommittees. Um and I'm just going to list them out and we can discuss ask questions whatever. uh for the Mount Laurel Committee. Dileia Hamlet would continue on that subcommittee. She's been on it for quite a while, knows a lot about it and is
willing to serve. She's not here today. She had to be excused. The master plan subcommittee uh would be Susan Bowen, Paul Stern, and me. Uh the historic preservation commission laid on would be Bonnie Morrison, environmental
commission, PJ Salah, Parkline, Ryan Felmmet, Ryan's not here. Okay. Yeah. And shade tree is John Sten who did agree to do that. So does anybody have anything to share or discuss about this or are we
all good? Okay. Looks like everybody's happy. Uh do we have to do the same thing? >> They these are mayoral appointments. So technically you don't even have to do the motion second and voice vote. >> Good. So, we are all set and everybody has to go to your respective meetings
and report back to us and we will expect that. All right, moving on. Now, we're up to applications. So, um the first application is 791795 Old Springfield Avenue. And uh welcome.
Yeah, we madam chair we we do have a recusal. Our class two member Mr. Delmaso will be recusing himself from this matter. >> Uh would you be coming back for the next one there on? >> Yes, I will be back for the next matter. >> Okay, great. >> And uh we still have seven more than a
sufficient quarum. >> Yeah. >> And while Mr. Weber's getting all set up with the chair's permission. I'll put on the record that uh we did uh review the notice originally for the last meeting and the content was sufficient and
timely served and the matter was carried without further notice to this evening. >> Yep. >> Uh so board continues to have jurisdiction uh with respect to this matter and that's all the time that I can buy for Mr. Weber. So he's going to have to get
ready very quickly. Good evening, Madame Chairwoman, members of the board. James Weber on behalf of the applicant uh Carolyn and Adele Bo with regard to property located at 791 795
Old Springfield Avenue which was the site of the Corkran West Summit garage at one point and has fallen into somewhat uh disrepair over the past 10 years. The uh boresses are proposing to construct a
three-story mixeduse building in the NB zone district. It's a permitted use, but there are a series of variances associated with it. The uh I think the lot area is around 19,000
square ft. They're proposing a 14,000 square ft building. It uh is consistent with the floor area ratio. It's consistent significantly with lot coverage. Lot coverage is permitted in the NV zone at 90%, they're at 49%.
Building coverage is over by around 6% and that's mainly due to the terraces that are proposed as part of the structure. So those terraces contribute around the full 1,200 square ft uh overage.
There are then uh variances associated with the design of the site. For example, the lighting that is on the building is at 10 ft. Your ordinance sets it at 8 ft. But obviously, in order to have it over the fenestration, you
need the additional 2 ft. Likewise, there's some spillage. And by spillage, the light uh is set at a certain standard and it's going over the line within that standard. So, it's a well lit area. and where it goes over is onto
the parking lot of the dry cleaners to the side. The other variance is with regard to the loading space. The loading space for this six dwelling unit building is
uh it's required by ordinance, but more likely than not that loading space would probably be devoted to people moving in or people moving out of the units. the others. Uh, and there's a five-foot
setback requirement. 2 and 1/2 ft is is proposed with regard to the parking lot of the dry cleaners uh to increase that five uh to 5 ft. Now, you're squeezing that loading space which is already uh
undersized. I think I've hit most of the variances. Yeah, I'm just checking for a second to see if there are any other ones. Ah, there. So, the ordinance in the NB
zone district sets a building size for 10,000 square ft. And what's being proposed here exceeds that 10,000, which could be met if you split the development into two buildings. But that would be increasing lot coverage, increasing building coverage, creating
more variances, and would actually not work well as the architect and the engineer will describe further in their testimony. Uh the roof uh under your ordinance supposed to be peaked. This is a flat roof. There will be access for the
residents to be up on the roof in a controlled area. And as a result, uh, you don't have the peak roof, you have a flat roof in the, uh, design. Uh, and I think that now covers it.
Uh, unless the board has any questions of me, uh, I'll call, uh, Adele Bo, uh, to the stand. Uh, Mr. Bro literally just got in at 6:30. uh the airlines
apparently because of the uh disaster at LaGuardia uh have been backed up. So uh he has here now uh coming in from uh Colorado. So Mr. Bro and Madam Chair, with your permission, I'll swear in all
the witnesses at once. Uh so if we could have our other witnesses uh as well stand raise a right hand as well as our two board professionals, our planner and engineer. Do all five 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?
>> I do. >> Thank you all. >> Back to you, Madam Chair. >> I like that efficiency. >> There you go. >> Good job. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Uh my wife wanted to be here, but she couldn't be here today. We were out of
town. Uh and I got back for the hearing. So, uh, we live down the street from this property. We live at 738A Springfield Avenue, like less than a half a mile away. We've lived there for 30 years. Uh, that property has never
been functional since we've lived there. It's, uh, been in closed down gas station since 1996 when we moved to our house. Uh, when the opportunity came up for us to purchase it, I saw it, you know, go on sale. We walk by it all the
time with our dogs. I wanted to do something nice there. And uh and here we are. >> Okay. >> And you've retain the services of experts to assist you with this application, haven't you? >> Absolutely. >> And who are those experts?
>> Uh Dave Rosen, Nick, yourself, Bill, and Sheran. So we have >> those are architects and engineers. Correct. >> Engineers here. And you've reviewed the staff comments of the board's uh consultants? >> I have. >> And do you agree to be bound by those recommendations?
>> Uh yes. >> Was there anything within those recommendations that you would ask the board to consider or would it be subject to the comments of your experts? So in other words, if their experts dis have a
an agreement or a discussion with the uh board experts, you would ask that the board consider that discussion. >> Right. >> And uh I have nothing further. Madam Chairwoman, >> are you going to bring your architects up? >> Yes, we are.
>> Good. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I would ask that Nick Giuliano be called to the stand. Does anybody have questions for the applicant or do we want to wait? Okay, we might later >> and and members of the public then also will have an opportunity to question Mr.
Borro later as well. Correct. >> Mhm. Thanks. >> Okay. >> All right. >> Hello. >> Evening everyone >> and remind me your name. >> Nicholas Giuliano. >> Okay. And you are >> I'm a partner with Rosen Kelly Conway
Architecture and Design and I'm a licensed architect in New York and New Jersey. Okay. Okay. >> Please speak right into the mic. >> Sure. Better. >> Yeah. It's hard for people to hear at home. >> Great. >> Do you need me to repeat anything? >> I think you're going to be vadered by
your by applicants council so we can accept you as an expert in the field of architecture, but uh I don't want to take the wind out of his sales. >> Thank you, Mr. Warner. Have you ever appeared and provided testimony before a municipal agency in the state of New Jersey previously?
>> Yes. And could you uh list those uh particular agencies? >> Uh Summit, New Jersey, Monontlair, New Jersey, Rumson, New Jersey, Middletown, New Jersey, and I think that covers it in New Jersey. >> I would ask remains to good standing. >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Deferred of the chair. >> Yeah. Go. >> Thanks. >> You're accepted. >> Okay, great. So, I mean, I won't belabor the point that the site is very rundown and not much is happening there right now. Um, I think we've got planned here is a really attractive design for a new
mixeduse building that'll offer a variety. >> Sure. Is that better? >> Sorry, I'm a low talker. Um, so yeah, I mean on the current site, I think we've got planned a really kind of attractive and fitting building um that will offer
a variety of, you know, more housing types for the city. Um, you know, we're focusing on people that may want to downsize and age in place in town and stay in Summit, but don't necessarily have the need for a whole house or a freestanding lot anymore. That's kind of
the goal of the program of the project. Um, we're slightly mixed use. We've got a fitness studio on the first floor of the building. I'll just move over to the ground floor plan here. >> Is this exactly what was submitted to >> Except for the rendering in the front?
>> The the renderings are exhibits. They're um they're unchanged in design. Um they're just illustrative of the plans and elevations that were >> So to answer the attorney's question, the the rendering, >> you had an a caddy quarter rendering that I don't think we have in our packet.
>> You do not. So if we could have those accepted as a one and I believe you have two other perspectives if I'm not mistaken. >> We do. We have three total perspectives around the building. So th those will just A123. >> Correct.
>> Okay. >> And the drawings I'm moving over to now were part of the submitted packet. >> We have these. >> Yeah. Just refer to the sheet in the last revised. >> Sure. >> So on sheet A2 um only has the one date submitted. >> Sure.
So yeah, if everybody could please go to sheet 82, we can start there. >> Sorry. Go ahead. >> So if you turn to sheet A2. >> A2. >> So on the ground floor of the building, um we're primarily providing covered
parking um for the residents and the few spaces that are required by the commercial use on the first floor. Um, the only commercial use in the building will be in the fitness studio. Um, the fitness studio will primarily be for the residents of the building, but we will
have um one-on-one training sessions that could happen um with outside occupants if people want to come and use the the space for that. >> So, it's open to the public, correct? >> Uh, correct. It won't be by appointment only. Um, not large classes really, just one-on-one, one-on- two with a trainer.
um that could double in, you know, and it'll still be open to the occupants at all times. Um one of the comments in the staff reports were whether or not there would be a bathroom provided. Um if we do have this function of the outside public coming in for appointments and we
can add a single unisex restroom, we would probably put it right in part of this storage area here that's adjacent to the fitness studio. That storage space isn't allocated for anything specific. I'm sorry. >> Yeah, >> keep going.
>> Um, and then the rest of the first floor is primarily just hallway space, elevator, um, two egress stairs that exit from the upper floors of the building at grade level, um, access to the basement. The basement will just be, um, individual storage units for the
building occupants and mechanical space. Um and then on the outside is where we have the refu um that'll be accessible from just the outside for uh collection and there'll be individual trash rooms and shoots on each floor for the
occupants. Then if we move to sheet A3, this is our typical floor layout for the residential units. Um both floors have three units per floor. Um on each floor, two out of the three units are
three-bedroom units and one of the units on this side is a two-bedroom unit. Um and off to the corner here, elevator and trash room and staircases up and down. Each of the um units have an outdoor
terrace um connected to the unit and Jim had mentioned earlier that that's primarily one of the big uh contributors to the building coverage variance is that they do count in building coverage. Um but again just you know to reiterate that we're very very under the threshold
on lot coverage for this project by locating the parking underneath the building um itself. So, we felt that that was a good trade-off to have a little bit of extra building coverage, but be considerably under on lot coverage and have a lot of the site
remain pvious and planted and green. So, then moving up to the third floor. Third floor essentially the same floor plate, just the uh stair changes a little bit. And then on the roof, um, primarily flat
roof where we've got most of it, uh, allocated towards what we would need as mechanical space. And towards the back, we're used we're um, programming it with a roof deck space that would be accessible. Sorry. >> Yeah.
>> Roof deck space that would be accessible to the occupants of the building. So, um, common shared outdoor use. Um, no plans on the outdoor space for any kind of public use. It would really just be for the occupants of the building as kind of a third space for them.
And then basement, just to reiterate, individual storage units for the six apartments upstairs and just storage and mechanical space for the building infrastructure itself. And on the exterior of the building, I'll go back to the renderings a little
bit for this one as well. If you turn to A7. So, we're proposing a primarily brick facade. Um, for all >> what uh what exhibit are we looking at now that you brought up on the screen? >> Uh, sheet A1,
>> but it would be designated as A3 in the evidence. So, when you're calling it A1, >> we've noted as either A1, 2, or three. So, >> this one's A1, Jim. This will be A1. This will be A1, A2, and A3.
as you're referring to A1 or A1 indicate that it's A1. >> Sure. >> So, yeah, exterior of the building primarily brick facads, you know, to just kind of remain consistent with a lot of the buildings that are in the area um nearby. The Kings is a lot of
masonry. There's a lot of other brick um low-rise residential buildings nearby. Um, and then terraces are kind of carved out from the facade. They're not really additive to the building. They're kind of more tucked in within the the
facades. So, they tuck in nicely here. And ground level will be really glassy kind of to just encourage the view into that space for people that are walking by being that it is a space that functions as commercial as well. And if
we come around to exhibit A2 here, this is if you're kind of standing back towards um the train station and looking towards the intersection. Um this is the parking entry here that's all completely covered by the building itself. And on
the sides there's screening that goes up to about 6 7 ft above the ground so that the adjoining properties can't really look into the parking area either. Um, one of the staff comments was to um, possibly add an additional screen at the first parking space along Old
Springfield A here. And we would be fine to add that. Um, you know, we think it's a good a good idea to further screen the parking. So that really you only kind of see the cars once you're in the parking lot itself. Um, and otherwise. And then if we go around to A3 or
exhibit A3, um this is the view from Springfield Avenue which is up a little bit higher um in grade level from old Springfield A. When you're on this side, the building appears a little bit more like two stories um because most of the parking level is sunk at that point um
lower below the grade level of the street. And um we've had a lot of uh evergreen arborite screening on the back part of this property as well just to kind of further soften the edge of the uh property with the sidewalk and
provide screening. And the roof primarily is flat. Um the ordinance does stipulate a 4 and12 pitch, but we felt that most of the surrounding neighborhood the the roofs are already flat or just very low pitches. Um there's not a lot of 412 in
that neighborhood, aside from the one housing complex directly across the street. All of the commercial um buildings along Springfield Avenue here flat roofed. Kings is flat. Um, and then the apartment buildings that are kind of off to the side here, the brick ones,
very low pitch hip roofs on them. So, we didn't feel that there was a lot of precedent necessarily in the immediate neighbors um that it needed to be consistent with. So, we felt like it could handle it. Um, we introduced some gable shapes on the parapets of the roof
as well just to try to, you know, get a little bit of the angularity that maybe the ordinance wants there. We also felt that the um the flat roof kind of helps with the mechanical screening a little bit better too because we can use the parapets to screen the mechanical units. We'll have screening right around the
units themselves in addition, but the flat roof and the higher parapet from street level really kind of obscures any view you would have of the units themselves or the screening itself. So, we thought that that was kind of a a stronger option for this building and it gave us a little bit of extra height to
work with um for the parking level. Um if we had pitched roofs, we'd probably be looking at maybe a building height variance because they slope up to a peak rather than just be flat at the top of the third floor. And then most of the other variances I
think Jim kind of hit on um the loading area variance. We don't really need 70 ft for anything in this use of of a building. We're not anticipating that a tractor trailer would ever come here and need to park on site. So we provided a loading area big enough just for a
normal moving truck or a UPS truck if it needed to park in there. um a delivery of any kind, but we think that the use of the building can handle the the smaller um depth for the loading area. Just a few more of the staff comments.
Um we talked about the restroom already. Um there was question about uh what the final landscaping would be for all of the areas that are um pvious on our property. We will have a more developed landscape plan eventually. What the civil engineer showed is primarily
diagrammatic for now um just to show where the evergreen screening would be. There will be more landscaping um probably um certainly denser, more variety, and we'll have a landscape plan that gets submitted with that as part of the building permit package as well.
>> On behalf of the applicant, would you agree on his behalf to have that subject to the review and approval John of John Lintson, the city forester? >> Sure, of course. >> Thank you for saving me the effort of having to say that. >> Yeah.
check. >> Um the additional screen was mentioned for the parking level on Old Springfield A. We would comply with that if it's requested um to have that last parking space be screened as well. Um parking for the fitness studio. There was just
um a request to just uh provide testimony that it complies with the proposed business use. it would um the one-on-one fitness studio would fall under just a normal B business occupancy because it's not assembly and it's only a small occupancy number. So the excess
parking spaces that we have, we need 13 for the residences and three for the commercial use and we've got 16 total. So we're compliant with the city ordinance there. >> Um the parking area will have electric vehicle chargers integrated into it. Um, we don't have the final number
determined yet, but we would comply with whatever. >> Three. Yeah, we probably have more than three, I think, when >> Yeah, we would have one for each unit. So, six total. Um, the building will be sprinklered.
So, that was one of the comments. Um, the interior of the building will be sprinklered and the parking area itself, um, the underside of the deck above it will have exterior sprinklers. So, we'll be well protected. um the egress there in the parking area. We looked at that a little bit more and
we could turn it so that it doesn't empty right out onto the aisle. We could carve out a niche in one of the corners so that it empties out not onto um the parking aisle or onto a parking space. It'll have its own kind of landing pad. So
um and then the 23 wide aisle for uh the vehicular traffic. Uh we felt it was okay um to be the 23 ft just because it's a very low traffic level um parking area. It's just the residents. Um it's not really a public use aside from just
the couple spots um at the front. So we're okay with using it if if >> Yeah, I think um I think it just needs a formal um request from RSIS. Okay. I I
think it just has there has to be something that goes through. I don't you know I I think the ordinance um in summit allows it. So um I don't I don't see a problem with it. >> Yeah, we we have the room to our highest exception. >> Right. Okay. >> Yeah, we we have the room to do it if it
really needed to be. We felt that the parking spaces were better with the 23 because if we went to the 24, some of the columns would encroach onto some corners of parking spaces. We just thought that the parking spaces would be better if we could have the extra space there rather than in the aisle. So
>> Nick, if you following up on what Miss Rafé and you were talking about, could you describe for the board what the RSIS is and how that applies with the DRRO >> and what the discrepancy is that you're talking about? >> Sure. So RSIS is a New Jersey state
level um organization that sets a lot of the parameters for residences themselves in like multifamily buildings and apartment buildings. Um a lot of the commercial use if it was a mixeduse building falls at the town level. So the
parking for instance the number of spaces for the units that's determined by RSIS not summit. But if there is another use in the building like our groundf flooror commercial that does fall to Summit's jurisdiction under the zoning ordinance. So it's a combination
of both as it relates to parking and traffic and vehicular access when it's a mixeduse building. >> Thank you. >> And I think the last staff comment that we had a response to uh the roof access is planned for for residents only right
now. No, no public use. And the lighting on the roof, I think, um I know that was questioned during the submission process, but that is all just kind of on the parapet shining down so there's no light spillage from the roof um onto the adjoining property at all. So
>> in reviewing the architecture, can you go through the lighting that's associated with the building understanding that the site lighting is going to be uh the uh purview of the engineer? >> Sure. So pretty much all of the site
lighting that we have um is really just at the perimeter of the building at the ground floor. >> That can you blow that up so we can see the lighting? >> I could also open up the engineers plan um if it's clear. It shows the actual individual lighting points. But >> well, Mr. Scott will go through the site
plan lighting. >> Your lighting uh if descriptive uh is for the uh lighting at the point of entry, the roof, uh anything that's associated with the building, >> right? So, ours is all um along the
front on Old Springfield and kind of as you turn at the intersection towards Springfield A. And it's all architectural down lights mounted um in between the glass storefronts at the fitness studio area um and the residential entry. This piece right here
is the double entry doors into the residential lobby from Old Springfield Avenue. >> It is over 6 ft. Um mostly just because we felt like it looked better with the actual design of the storefronts. The storefronts are a little taller. We've got a little bit more height on the
first floor because of the parking clearances that we wanted to provide in the deck. So, >> what height are those on the building? >> These are at uh 8 ft. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, 8 ft. They shine down. They're all shielded. Um there's no bare bulb
exposure on any of the fixtures. No uplighting. Um and it's really mostly just kind of wayfinding lighting that shines down. Not really anything that would go outward. Um, and I think, you know, there's the building is set off of the property line enough that they're not going to throw anything out onto the
street that's certainly brighter than the street lighting and sidewalk lighting that already exists. So, we feel that it's a it's an appropriate amount for the building and and not too much. And again, on the roof, everything is internal on the roof, parapet shining down just to kind of illuminate the the
ground area of the roof. Nothing that's above parapet level and nothing that would spill over. >> How tall is the parapet? Uh probably 42 in I think above finished deck level. Yeah. >> Except for the peak is a little more >> right. So the mechanical should be much lower
than that >> for this kind of a building. I would think >> they'll probably be a unit or two that's taller. Um, but they'll be set back far enough from the parapet that the sightelines from the street, you wouldn't really be able to see them from from anywhere >> because I I don't think having
additional screening that's taller is going to be advantageous necessarily tall enough. >> It may not be needed. Um, we've had projects in the past where the the units were set back far enough and the parapet was high enough that there was no vantage point around the immediate area
that you could connect the sight line. We just haven't designed the the mechanical system exactly yet. So I can't say >> your amenity space back there. So yes, you're probably not going to want to back it up too much, right? >> There'll be and there'll be an internal parapet as well that separates the amenity space from the mechanical roof
area. So >> I mean we could do subject to sighteline study just in case it's not what you think because you haven't designed it yet or should >> Yeah. I mean I don't think anything will be higher than four feet you know including dunage but again I don't want
to put a number in the testimony because we haven't designed it yet. >> Yeah. Should be lower than the parapit. I think that's doable. >> Yeah. >> If I can madam chairwoman and uh Nick >> what's dunage? Dunage is the structure that the roof equipment is mounted on.
>> You know it >> because it can't just sit right on the roof deck itself. So there's extra structure in the roof where the mechanical equipment is and then on that structure vertical points and a platform for the mechanical to sit on. Gives it free area underneath it for air flow and
things like that. But usually it's it's pretty shallow. So 18 in or less. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have started questions, but do you have anything else to share before we uh >> I don't I don't think so, unless Jim would like me to hit on any more points.
I think, you know, we kind of have an overall >> I have some questions, but I'd like to open it up to the board. >> Just a quick question. >> Um, in the horrible event that there's an accident or something, an ambulance is going to park just sort of on the street. They're not going to go into the
parking lot probably, right? >> They could. But I mean that the headroom is in there for like a large >> probably not a fire truck or something. >> No. Fire truck. No. But ambulance, yes. Or the loading area next to the parking area could could handle it. But fire
truck probably is on the street, I would think. >> Interesting you brought that up. Were you done? Do you have more to say? >> Yeah, I was just trying to understand how. And so the stretcher would come out through that resident's entrance then, not probably through the parking lot. I would guess.
Uh, which resident's entrance? >> I mean, the the the the door I'm assuming if you're walking in, you haven't come in your car, >> right? >> You're going to go in sort of the front door, right? >> Aren't you? >> And so, so this I'm just thinking I don't want to be macob, but if there's an ambulance, it's going to park at the
front door. The stretcher is going to come out the front door >> and not have to depend on the loading dock or anything. >> No, it could go in two different ways. I'm going to just go back to sheet A2 here. If you park your car, you know, the sequence is you'd come in and you don't have to go back out onto the
sidewalk. There's another entrance for the residents here. And this would have just a a a sloped ramp curb here. So, something comes in and parks in the parking lot. A stretcher can go up without hitting a threshold or a 4-in step of any kind into that door and
right into the lobby. >> Can I expand this a little bit? >> Sure. So, you're saying that this is a sufficiently wide door from the parking directly to the hall that for a stretcher and >> yeah, it's a 40-inch wide exterior door that'll fit any kind of stretcher. The
elevator size to fit um a standard stretcher as well. So, >> I was thinking going to go here yet, but um in looking at your your plan and your site plan, and maybe the engineer will speak to this, but you might know um
when I've seen similar projects, um not in New Jersey, just you know, professionally, sometimes in some jurisdictions, they require a firetruck to be able to drive around the whole perimeter so that they can access um in case there's a fire. And this is
such an unusual site and it has, you know, the elevated road behind and all of that. How the way it's designed now with just the small loading area and no access on this side and really no access from the railroad side and the bridge, how how
would they fight a fire in this situation? I wasn't going to start with that. I was >> that's sort of >> do that later, but you know, you brought it up. So yeah, I'm a little concerned about how do they access and this is how deep
>> you know that the maximum depth is isund some feet, right? >> Which side >> from your front of your where you enter the parking lot to the rear of the parking lot which is in the building.
>> You're saying how deep is your building? How wide is your building? Can they can they service it if there's a fire? I suppose they could just use this whole area here as well. I mean, even if it is grass, they could just go on. >> Just for the record, can you speak directionally?
>> Yeah. Well, if you could look at the screen. >> No, but I mean for the record record. So, somebody's might read a record. Might read a trans. >> That's the west side, right? On the west side beyond the loading area. >> Yeah. West side >> off of Old Springfield Avenue.
So they could go back there because that's going to be flush grass. You said >> we could. Yeah. It's there's a little bit of a slope as you get towards the back. This starts getting steeper and steeper you go up. But >> and then on the other side you really
it's going to have retaining walls and such. So this side is really tougher to get to. >> Right. >> Okay. Um, so as far as fire code, >> any of those issues come up or is this something your engineer to talk about?
>> We didn't get any comments from the fire inspector regarding that. So >> the staff comments did go to Eric Evers, fire chief. Uh, he did not submit a report. Uh but we have Bill Scott here, a civil engineer longstanding and he'll
be able to uh provide the area that if there was a requirement for a fire lane that this site would be able to accommodate that. >> I think beyond that, just want to know how are you going to fight a fire in this? I mean, how is it fire compliant with this unusual I it's a very unusual
situation having this elevated road behind it? It's just unusual. How are you going to fight a fire on this side of the building? I don't know. I'm just concerned about that. But I had other questions that are more typical questions. But who else has questions for the architect?
>> I on a similar vein, garbage collection. >> Now your your dumpsters are way in the back and there's no roadway towards them. Where would the garbage trucks pick up and I mean moving the dumpsters, you
know, >> to be able to >> Our plan is that it's privately contracted and there is pathway to the back room for them to come and take out um the trash on whatever basis it is if it's weekly or bi-weekly or staggered for recycling and and garbage. But there
is access for them to get to that area from and access it just from the exterior without going in the building. >> Okay. But they would need to park on the street. Is that >> Yes. Or in the loading area >> cuz that that side of the street is currently no parking for its entire
length. >> Yeah. Or that they would park in the loading space. >> Okay. And then have to back up onto spring old Springfield Avenue, >> right? I mean, the traffic there is an ongoing thing with the grocery store and
school traffic comes that way and it it gets a little crazy and all of course the train station. >> Yeah, I mean that is the plan for them to get in and out off of spring old Springfield. So, >> okay. >> Any other questions?
>> You you mentioned downsizing as the target. Is it It's not being presented as a C. is not probably a question for you but it's not a senior housing presented project to the city is it >> no >> no that's not the target that's just a >> need okay
>> we are marketing people >> if uh if I could recall >> he remains under that's okay >> votros >> I couldn't hear you and it wasn't recorded >> I I think he the proper is that it's uh
it's not uh limited to senior housing. It's uh >> market. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So, I have a question about um can you talk to the retaining wall and the fence or is that the engineer? >> I think the engineer would be best for
that. Certainly, if Nick feels that he wants to talk about it from an architectural standpoint, >> this is really an architect's question. Um >> the metal panning that you're going to use or the metal siding that you're going to use on the first floor. Um, can
you tell us more about that? I mean, it seems like, you know, where you're having a driveway and you're having, um, you know, people walking by, it may be dented easily. It may not be the most practical choice. Did you consider just
bringing the brick down all the way? >> Um, you bring up the perspective so >> Sure. Yeah. >> that I can follow the chair's >> question. So the first floor is a metal a metal paneling system. >> That's right. >> And I can just imagine it getting dented
really easily cuz it's high, you know, hight traffic. The first floor is the most trafficked. >> Yeah. I mean, it won't get dented because of the way it's mounted. I mean, there's not like free air behind it. It's mount mounted on a system that's on a masonry wall. So there's really I
mean, it's it's heavy duty stuff. It's It's not like aluminum like >> And in the neighborhood, what were you picking up on on getting on doing a a metal panel first floor? >> Well, generally the ordinance encourages for mixed use in commercial buildings, they like to have the the ground level podium be kind of expressed differently
than the rest of the building. So, right from the get-go, we didn't want to have the brick go all the way to the ground because we wanted the ground level to kind of have its own expression given that it's got the parking area and the commercial use and then it would go to brick, >> the screens as well. more glazing.
>> Um yeah, and the aluminum um the aluminum we're picking mostly just because it's a common material for these kind of ground floor storefronts and the way that they install it with kind of the staggered joints and things. It kind of does echo stone paneling a little bit at, you know, not the same price point
or maintenance um level that like a natural stone would, but um that wouldn't the color would probably be consistent with like a masonry color as well, like a bronze or type color. So >> Mhm. And and there's no bulkhead at the
bottom. Is that practical? Shouldn't there be a bulkhead at the bottom of the storefronts? Um, we could I mean maybe just like one course of stone of some kind might be just at the ground level, but I don't think we want to have an express >> salt and the snow. >> Yeah. Yeah. But not like an express
Wayne Scott. We didn't want too many. >> So, >> right. Um, okay. And the screens, can you show us any cut sheets or anything with the appearance of the screens that you're proposing? >> Yeah, I could zoom. Let me I'm going to
zoom into one right now. We don't have a specific product picked yet, but the renderings show a pretty good idea of kind of what it would look like. Either be a dark metal or composite material. It's got kind of just >> quite translucent. >> Yeah. I mean, it's just this is just
diagrammatic for the rendering. I mean, we could make them as mesh. >> We could make them as dense as as you'd like. >> It's not really a screen then, right? It's more like a fence >> kind of. Yeah. Metal mesh fence. Yeah. >> Okay. Um, I just want to make sure I'm asking
the right person the right questions. Would there be any um alternative material that you could use there to give it actually a more of a solid finish between the road and the parking area so that it would look more like a
finished wall? >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean we could make the screen design more dense and just have less free area and more solid space and kind of the way that the lad screen the cars and their lights and all of that. It would be better for the surrounding neighbors. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. That would be a condition. >> Mhm. Um the one thing that that is probably a difficult question but I want to ask you anyway is um you know I noticed that they're they're
generous apartments. You're you're doing uh a third more FAR F than what's allowed. Um, and you have a a big entry in the middle, not in the
middle, but on the the sidewalk, big entrance in the middle of the building rather than having building there, kind of a street wall that's more comfortable to walk down. Was there any discussion early on when you started this design process to do the entrance to the side
away from the building and then come around and enter on the on the side of the building so that the the big garage door is not on the main face? So the building >> HBC mentioned it as well as you know something that >> we didn't really look at it. I mean just
at first glance right now the turn radiuses would probably get difficult. I mean part of the challenge on this site is that one of the sites as it is right now is kind of not really buildable because of how triangulated it is once you you know kind of really start blocking out the building massing. You
can't do much with it. So, we're already kind of pushed to have the building be towards the one side of the two lots combined. And the further we push it more towards the intersection to get more turn radius for cars to come in and out, um, you know, the harder it gets to
develop because you start getting more into the tighter part of the angle. >> Um, also we just wanted to not take up more impervious coverage than we needed to with driveways on the site and we could just come right off. >> You have a garage door? >> There are no doors. No.
>> And could you have a garage door? So, it's it's more of a street wall when people aren't coming in and out. >> I suppose we could. I I don't think it would look as good. I think you'd have a big solid wall most of the time. Um I think kind of having it just be more of a void makes it look lighter personally
than not having it be a solid thing that comes down. >> I'm thinking of the pedestrians, you know, walking down what feels more comfortable to them. having a big hole with the park. Do they have >> is probably not as comfortable.
>> I I suppose I'd go back to um Miss Morrison's point just about spring old Springfield being a busy road. I don't think you want cars queuing up waiting for doors to open every time they want to get in and out of their >> that train right is a lot of pedestrians are walking by on that. >> Yeah, I mean I I understand. I don't
know how practical it is for the site to just have them constantly have to have a door come up and down. I'd like others input on that. Um, I think that's all I have for architecture. Just making sure.
Adding the bathroom. >> Okay. Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. Great. >> Yes. The board professionals. >> Yes. Yes. I want I want the board professionals to go next. >> Uh, just a few questions. Could you touch off? >> Sure. what was in my memo. Uh, the
ordinance does have a whole host of architectural design standards. >> Microphone. Sorry, Joe. >> Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Could you just confirm that you're in compliance with all of those standards? >> We are. Yeah. I mean, there's there's a long list about how long facade lengths
can be before there's a, you know, expression in the relief of it. Um, you know, the expressing kind of the podium level, how much glass you have at the storefront level, at ground level. So there's Yeah, we're in compliance with all of them. >> Well, also the design guidelines in the
appendix, did you get to see those? >> Okay. >> Okay. And then secondly, uh you mentioned a lot of the variances you are you having a planner testify on that or >> No, not >> no. >> So could we have some testimony about the statutory criteria
uh for each of those variances then and how it's being addressed? He's touched upon the C1 with regard to the fact that you have a shaped lot that is somewhat unique but difficult to work with. You have the topography.
>> Let let the expert testify though. Okay. >> You ready, Nick? >> Sure. >> Okay. >> Yes. Would you describe how the shape and topography of the site uh presents the applicant with an undue hardship and practical difficulty in realizing the
development of this property? >> Sure. Um right now I'm on the uh submitted civil engineering plan. Um I think it'll just be easiest to go over this being able to look at some of the topography that exists on the site currently. It's >> hard to see.
Which sheet and last revised? >> I don't know how you read the sheets. 27. >> Uh, sheet three of seven on the grading utilities and storm water management plan. >> I'm sorry. >> 37. >> Yeah. No, I got that part. The the uh la
the last revised date. uh November 10th, 2025. >> Thank you. So yeah, I mean if you look at kind of the site as a whole here and just sort of comparing some of these room sizes that we have internally as you get kind
of further towards the intersection, the inner triangular area here gets kind of very unbuildable just with the slope um that exists currently from Springfield right up to or old Springfield up to Springfield. Um and just being able to
get kind of a practical building shape to work. um you know as it gets more towards the intersection here. This was the zone where we felt that the building could be planned in a more efficient way. Um so
>> does that uh contribute to the variance that's being requested for putting the uh units all in one building rather than trying to create two buildings? >> Yes. So that goes to the size of the building as to the 10,000 square foot limit.
>> Yes. >> And um >> and the overall F for the site, the ratio itself, I just want to reiterate, is conforming. It's 75% of lot area and we're we're we're beneath that. So we are over the 10,000 square foot gross
limit, but the 75% floor area ratio, we are conforming to that. And with regard to the uh benefits to be gained by the project as a whole, do you have an opinion and can you provide the facts as to how those benefits substantially
outweigh any detriment? >> Yeah, I mean just developing the site to begin with, I think is a benefit to the immediate neighborhood. Um it's a nicer building to look at for the neighbors. Um I think it helps neighbors property values having you know a attractive
building next door versus an abandoned site. Um and for the building itself um like I said early in the beginning of the presentation I think the goal here is to provide you know a bigger variety of housing type for the city. Um aside from just freestanding homes um people
looking to downsize that want to stay in Summit. Um primarily Summit residents already that are going to be downsizing. So, I think the benefits um are twofold for the neighborhood itself and then just for um you know for the whole city and what the
building can offer. >> Do we need more Mr. Burgess? >> No, I think you your comments earlier touched upon a number of the things didn't use the wording but what I just heard was fine. Um just could you touch upon the lighting height in terms of the
criteria you're allowed um you're proposing 10 feet you're allowed 8 feet what's the physical condition that warrants that exceedence? Um, I mean generally just our first floor is a little bit taller, you know, than a
typical story would be. And as such, the glass storefront height is a little bit taller as well to kind of maximize the view. And we felt that just the lighting height um worked better to kind of just illuminate the whole ground facade at the higher height um rather than it
being kind of up maybe just a little bit more than halfway. It gets it up a little bit higher and kind of illuminates the whole storefront better. in a way that's more of a C2 relief. There's more in the way of a C2. >> Yes. >> A public benefit relief. Okay. We'll go
with that. >> But the light lighting you've shown us so far was 8 ft. We haven't seen the lighting that's >> No, that lighting is 10 that's on the front facade. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> You said it was eight. >> I'm sorry. I'm >> Okay.
>> I was waiting for the the 10 foot from the engine. Okay. So, that that's Wow. So, how tall is your first story? >> Uh, 12 feet to the underside of the the structure that spans over the parking deck. So,
>> okay. >> All right. Are there any other questions for this? Oh, sorry. >> Yep. No, that's okay. I had a few. >> Yes. >> Um, I I have some that I'm saying saving for the engineer, but um could you talk about um some of the amenities that might be on the roof? any permanent
structures, any temporary structures >> in the amenity space? >> Um, I mean, in the amenities space itself, it's it's just a roof deck. Um, there are permanent structures at roof level, but it's limited to just the stair bulkheads for the egress stairs and the elevator lobby if you take the
elevator up to the roof. But we don't have anything planned as far as gazeos or pergolas or anything like that. It's just the roof deck. >> And there's no extra railing, just the parapit. Just the parapet. >> And you have you have foot lighting around the amenity space.
>> Yeah, the parapet on the inside wall will have uh shielded kind of down lights just to kind of softly illuminate the ground level if you're up there at night. So, >> okay. Um you mentioned um about the landscaping on Springfield that what was shown on
the engineering plan and I can ask this is kind of like between two of you. So, um, if if you'd rather me put this off to the engineer, that's fine. Your, um, rendering that you showed from Springfield showed some arborite that were look like maybe they were on top of
the retaining wall area. Um, but it it those arborit are not shown on the engineering plan. Um, which do you think is going to be more accurate? I think the final landscaping plan will just have more landscaping overall than
anything that's been shown to this point. Um, we're mostly just kind of diagrammatic with the landscaping right now. Um, the condition of the updated landscaping plan by a landscape architect that would go to John Linson would would address that. >> I think that's a good condition. And
maybe we can also just say that that corner that where old Springfield and current Springfield meet needs to really have a lot more landscaping that's year round. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Um
are you proposing Oh, could you talk about um the uh the mail room any packages? I I see there's something on your your architectural plans about um mail. Um, but could you could you kind of talk about that for testimony?
>> Sure. >> So, yeah, on sheet A2 of our drawing set, um, we'd have a a mail drop right at the um right off the street. Um, as far as package delivery, um, this storage area that's allocated over here,
that may become package storage. Um I mean it's only six units so um we don't expect that big of a volume but you know every year people are getting more stuff from Amazon so um but we do have space allocated for it on the ground floor.
>> Okay. Are there any um outlets proposed in any of the storage um areas for maybe um ebikes or or anything of that matter? Uh, we haven't gotten that far yet with lighting in individual room electrical,
but certainly a consideration, you know, given they're pretty goodiz rooms. So, >> right. I I guess that's my question and that would be something for the board to consider. Do you want ebikes in there or do you not want ebikes in there? That is something that you need to >> need to sometimes
>> fire, right? Yeah. >> Right. didn't stop. >> So, I would think that that may be something that maybe the board should consider whether they want or not want. Um, I think that's all I had for architecture. >> Okay. >> Okay. Joe forgot one. Sorry,
>> Mr. Christopher is after you. >> And this is more >> Mr. Christophouli is after you. Okay. >> Okay. Um, with six units, one has to be an affordable unit. Yes. >> So, that as a condition, there should be a deed restriction on that one unit. Yep,
>> that's right. >> Be in the resolution. >> Oh, no. I >> With regard to the affordable unit, uh we're requesting that as a condition of approval, uh putting in of the affordable unit or uh the referral to
the common council to seek a uh uh ability to uh have a payment in lie of construction of that affordable unit. the uh prior ordinance in the DRRO which was just recently repealed allowed that
process before common council and that's common council's decision as to whether or not to allow that. There's aspects associated with this application that present a serious financial challenge to achieving this result and that uh uh
ability to put the affordable unit either through the trust fund or an alternative site is something that uh may be necessary to achieve that. But what we're saying is certainly an affordable unit will be provided, but we're asking and uh as a condition of
approval that we'll refer that to common council for their deter uh determination. >> Council, do we have to do that? >> Well, couple of things and and we'll want Mr. Burgess, our planner, to speak to it as well, I would assume. But uh
but just so I understand what the requested uh condition is is that correct me if I'm wrong uh you will either construct one affordable unit or in the alternative if and only if common
council permits uh with the appropriate authority to do so a payment in lie of construction. uh you might choose the payment in lie of construction in the alternative. If common council does not permit it, you
are stipulating to providing onsite construction of the required affordable unit with the appropriate deed restriction. Is am I correct in my understanding of the condition? >> Yes. >> Okay. Now maybe the board wants to hear
from Mr. Burgess if they he has an opinion with respect to that requested condition of approval. I will have to double check to make certain with the new fourth round rules because for those that are not aware
um although there was the March 15th deadline on March 16th the program issued a new set of guidelines. >> No. >> And I have not yet finished going over all those that 50 or 60page document. I'm not certain that you're allowed to
do that any longer, but I will double check and then report back to the board on that. >> That would be acceptable. >> So, do we proceed now as if you're building the affordable unit unless something changes, >> right? I think the way Mr. Warner I set
this set the stage for it. >> Okay. >> Addresses the question that I just raised. >> Okay. Good. >> Yeah. I might add to that that I'm a council member here in summit uh and the guidance we've received is that all of
the mechanisms under the court agreed uh affordable housing fair share plan all of those mechanisms we need to show progress on them. So that's the guidance I've received but I'm sure there could be more legal >> opinions on that. >> And if I may madam chair and to follow
up on the councilman's uh uh Sorry. >> Uh statement I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Burgess, uh this particular unit would be part of a mandatory set aside ordinance requirement but not
necessarily a fourth round mechanism or would it be a fourth round mechanism? >> No, it would be a fourth round mechanism >> pursuant to the or mandatory set aside and it is part of the mandatory set aside requirements. >> So we Okay. Uh, all right.
Okay. So, we have a stipulation. It's a stipulation with a contingency. So, can't get any more definitive than that. >> All right. >> Okay. So, are we all Did you get everything?
No. >> No. I had two questions. Going back to your uh Jennifer, your questions about the screening in front of the parking area, the rendering that we received on page A1 shows solid panels here where
the one on the screen, the 3D rendering showed that that was open to the >> one on the elevation that was submitted. That's the stair that's back about halfway in the parking area. >> Oh, okay. Yeah. because it appeared to me as if that were a solid
>> uh front to the parking area. >> Yeah. No, that's set back. Yeah. You don't have the screens on that elevation of the the original submission. >> So, but >> so I think it for me that's an important feature to have that that screening there. And the other question is on the
the workout studio. I think most people certainly of my age um would prefer not to have all the glass windows when they're working out. Um, and is there is that something that might be under consideration uh more privacy for the
the gym users? And separately, would that space also be available for other retail uses? I'm not familiar with the zoning for this site, whether other retail uses that might be more appropriate for the kind of facade there uh with the with the windows. Are you
also considering those other uses? Um, for your first question, we definitely could provide an additional internal screening system, you know, just via window treatments. Um, you know, for the outside of the building, the ordinance does encourage, you know, glass for as
much as you possibly can do for the ground level. So, we want to be consistent with that and and and address it. Um, but I I understand what you're saying and internally we can do even if it's like an up down kind of mechanism where maybe the upper portion of the glass is still clear and you could kind
of get a sense of what's going on inside but there is screening at kind of eye level for passerbys. Um, and then for other >> I get to ask the basic questions. I'm new to this to the planning board and to these issues, although I did take my
six-hour training course, >> but you know, so that that's where I'm coming from. >> Yeah. And then as far as the other retail uses, um I mean, two out of the four walls are solid. Um I mean, it would definitely be a retail business that has a layout that could handle
glass at the at the front wall. Um one of the early things that we talked about was the dry cleaning um the pickup component of it. There's the dry cleaning building next door and we had looked at an early idea of maybe this is just um an annex to that where people could just come and pick up and drop off
deliveries but none of the actual cleaning happens in this little spot. It's just a storefront for for customers. >> So there's definitely flexibility in what could go in that space in terms of just square footage and how much solid wall there is for them to kind of back up the the infrastructure too. So
>> yeah, and if I may add to that, the ordinance does permit a variety of retail and service commercial uses at this location. >> Um, but then wouldn't we have to worry more about parking there on site? >> Um, it depends on on what the use is. So
some of them there's >> um I don't want to list the whole parking ordinance but different uses have different um spaces that are required per >> you know for ours it's one parking space per 200 square ft of gross floor area
and our re our space is 405 square ft. So it's necessitates three parking spaces but if you have a different type of use like an educational or or a retail space they have different formulas for it. So it would be limited to what could fit with three parking spaces as well.
>> You're compliant with your proposed use, but if you were to change the use, particularly one that would increase the parking requirement, you'd be back in front of us. >> In theory, yes. But we're not proposing that. So >> correct. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. All right. So I think we are >> Oh, sorry. So, there's no exterior parking for the retail space. They're going to park underground to get to access the retail space. >> Um, it's not really underground. It's just it's gr it's street level but covered.
>> It's going to they're going to park undercover >> and then they're going to they're going to walk out to street level, >> right? >> And then towards the Springfield area, >> right?
>> So, I mean that's I mean It seems a little difficult for ongoing, you know, drop off for clothing. I mean, little seems like you'd have a lot of traffic, you know, you don't you don't want to
have that retail space to have a lot of traffic of cars coming in and out. >> Yeah. I mean, I think for the proposed use that we have, it's it's not going to be a high traffic. It's an appointment based. You you said it will be an exercise place for the residents primarily, >> right?
>> So So you're you're very limited in what you can do whether it's zoned or not, you you've got a situation where it can't be a high traffic volume of cars coming in and out. >> Correct. can recognize that at 400 and
some square feet this is this would be a very small retail for service commercial use. So in all likelihood what's being proposed will probably stay there for a long time. >> I mean so basically it is it is a space
that's going to be used for the for the residents. I mean for all intents and purposes that's what it is. >> Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, it's it's a it's a dual use. It's a appointment based use for non-residents. And >> I mean, so to call it a retail space is
I mean, really, it's it's it's part of the it's part of the the structure and part of the amenity for the the residents. >> Sure. I mean, I I wouldn't call it a retail space. I would just say it's a fitness studio, you know, that that is
being either used by the residents or by appointment for public. May madam chair maybe I dovetail off the question and may hopefully it'll be helpful with the question and answer but Mr. Burgess would if the
personal training studio area were to be considered accessory to the residential use primary residential use of the building would that uh have any impact uh from a zoning and planning perspective? >> Yes.
>> And what would that impact be? If it was solely accessory to the for the residents, it wouldn't generate any parking requirement. But the fact that they're making it available to the outsiders even if on a limited basis,
that's what generates three by appointment only, that's what generates the demand for three additional parking spaces on site. >> But otherwise, it would not have any impact. Either is a permitted would be permitted. Correct. Both both would be permitted.
>> Okay. >> So, in this zone, you don't have to have a retail component on the first floor. >> No, you're not obligated to. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I believe the ordinance encourages the the the use of that. So, >> neighborhood business. Yeah. Our thought was that maybe commuters that are going
to the train station might come here and they might do a once a week >> class before. Um, so in terms of like wayfinding on the site, it might be regular people that come weekly or every two weeks and they kind of know their once they're there for the first time, they they know their way around to be
able to park in the main parking level and just double back out to the street. So, >> okay. Do we have any other questions for this witness? Ju >> I just have one more about the parking. Now, each spot will be clearly labeled as belonging to
different units cuz one of the issues over there is there's limited parking for the train station and don't want people sneaking in or, you know, or taking any of those retail spots, right? So, I mean, it'll be clearly labeled.
>> It would all be controlled, you know, either deed spots or just labeled. um the spaces for the public use and the handicap space would all be kind of positioned towards the front door um you know tucked in that corner of the parking lot. So
>> okay for for clarification uh Mr. Weber is the applicant proposing to designate spaces for residents only and if so is the applicant also uh proposing to designate those spaces by unit. What is
the plan for the parking? >> Okay. >> The answer is yes, Mr. Warner. Okay. >> As to both. >> As to both. >> Okay. So, there'll be three three public and there'll be 13 for residences and there'll be units one through 13 or whatever the units are. That's the
proposal. >> It sounds as though one of the units going to have three spaces. >> Wait, I'm sorry. >> Six units there. And >> I'm sorry. Six units. However many sp the six units will be uh designated for particular for how many how many spaces
per >> there only three three for the the retail >> and you have 15 altogether I thought I heard >> 16 okay so there's 13 spaces extra and there's only six units >> okay how how you parking that
>> yes one will be designated for a visitor >> well one through six will be for the units and then the rest will be for Okay thank So 1 through six would be designated and then the remainder would be open. You would you would designated.
So each unit would have two designated. >> That's why we asked the questions. >> That's 12. >> And so that's 12. >> That's 12. >> Which leaves us with which unit gets the third space? >> Well, not only that, who's getting the uh >> Okay.
>> You get that's you get the other three. Okay. All right. >> I think we've covered Miss Morrison's worry. Okay. Are we Oh, >> for Mr. Warner. So,
do we ignore the affordable housing question for purposes of our deliberations today? Or >> my understanding from the uh the request from the applicant is that if the board
grants the approval uh and and takes the condition as stipulated by the applicant uh effectively what the condition is is the applicant will either build on site one or designate one of the units as deed restricted for affordable housing
or in the alternative if the city council the common council uh permits with authority that Mr. Burgess will confirm if if they have it or not. Uh if they permit a payment in lie of construction, there is a
corresponding amount that corresponds to one unit of affordable housing that would be provided and paid to the city's affordable housing trust fund which has certain requirements for utilization to be associated with affordable housing in
the city. Um so that's why I said it's a contingent contingent on Mr. Burgess's advice and what the common council ultimately does as to whether they get the option to do a payment in le of construction or whether they are simply required to designate the unit on site.
And uh if that's what their requirement is, they've agreed that they're going to live with it and they're going to designate that one unit as affordable on site. For our purposes though, to me it sounds like, and I'm not an attorney, that we're approving an application with
one affordable unit. If they can get relief from the city council, that's another matter. >> Right. But that but but >> that's what we're looking at. >> Well, right. But that's how but that's how the condition would be worded. It would give them that option. Whereas if you might alternatively say, "No, it's
one unit, one unit only on site. Forget it. You can't make an application to to the common council. We're not, that's not what we're approving. >> So that's why >> we have that power to not give them that right to go to city council if we confirm that the new March 16th rules allow it. >> Well, they could always make the
>> and that's a discussion. >> They can always make the request of common council, but you as a planning board are approving an application with variances with conditions. So that would be an interesting uh uh situation if you said simply, yo, you build the one unit. They may go to common council. common
council gives them the ability for a payment of little construction, they may have to come back to you. Uh so that's why >> can we approve it with the one unit and they can separately do that. >> Well, we have to separately do that. >> They have to separately do that. >> You have to know what we're approving.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Madam Chair, I think what we just discussed, Mr. Burgess and I, and made clear, I thought, for everybody, is is the way you want to go. >> Yeah. >> That's what we we we that's why we've set it up this way. gives them the option to go to common council, get the authority uh to do the payment of little construction if it's so advised.
>> Uh and and as long as you're okay with them doing one or the other, as long as they go to common counsel and get the authority, then then that that's the that's the wisest choice for a condition of approval so that they don't have to come back. You have to deal with >> that's the if >> are we okay with them going and asking
for that? You're saying if we're okay with it. >> Well, you can't prohibit them from asking. But if you pro but but if they came if if if you set it up in a certain way right now if that was your desire uh then they'd have to come back to you again. That's also
>> it's your choice. It's board's choice. >> Got it. >> Might might be prudent to do it the first way. >> Okay. engineer. >> Uh before we move on to the engineer, uh two conditions, uh no sound
amplification on the rooftop, no ebikes. >> Okay. >> Okay. They're they're stipulating to those. Okay. >> Well, no ebikes in the storage area in the basement, >> right? >> So, >> all right. And madam chair, do you want to have the public ask questions at the
very end of all the witnesses or >> I don't even see any. Does anybody from from the public want to ask questions of the architect? I'm sorry. >> Or or if you had if the chair permits if you had any for Mr. Bro. >> I don't see any. Okay. Moving on. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> I would ask that Bill Scott be called to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony in this matter. >> Okay. He's already been sworn, but he can come to the stand. >> Mr. Scott, you've already been sworn. >> Yep. >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you provide the board with
your uh credentials? >> Uh I obtained a bachelor of science degree from the Clarkson University School of Engineering in New York. Um I became a licensed professional engineer in 2004. Uh I've had my license in good standing since then. It's in good
standing now. Uh, I've appeared before the planning and zoning boards of Summit several times in the past. Uh, once on this property. Um, I've appeared before numerous other boards throughout central New Jersey. Uh, Chadam, Madison, Westfield.
>> I suspect the chair is going to accept you as an expert. >> Field of civil engineering. >> Y >> proceed, >> but speak up. Get in that microphone so people at home can hear you. Yeah,
>> I'm another soft talker. Unfortunately, >> uh I know you're all familiar with the site. Uh the geometry of the site uh creates some challenges for design. Uh especially with the grade change due to the uh roadway ramping up over the railroad. Uh, I think the architect did
a a wonderful job creating a building footprint uh that allows for uh the appropriate parking but also respects all of the um side setbacks, rear setbacks, and front yard setbacks. Um you heard that the parking will be
primarily below the uh deck. Uh the entrance and exit to the parking lot is situated uh in a location so it won't conflict with uh the entrances and exits of any of the neighboring uh properties. Uh the the um intersection is
signalized, so I don't anticipate there would be any uh traffic uh problems at the site. >> When you talk about the intersection, you're talking about Morris Avenue uh or I mean Springfield Avenue, Old Springfield Avenue. >> Yeah. Once once you uh exit our site, if
you go to the intersection, it's signalized. Uh there is a significant grade change from the developed portion of the site up to the roadway ramping over the ramp track. Uh to make that transition, we're proposing a retaining wall. Uh the
retaining wall is going to be clad in a similar material to the building. Um the retaining wall will be at its highest point 9 ft tall. Uh we're proposing a fence that will run along the sidewalk
um paralleling Springfield Avenue. And we are also proposing or will be proposing a secondary fence which will be set along the top of the wall. Uh this was mentioned in the engineers report and I'm sorry to interrupt. When I was
reciting for the board the number of variances, I overlooked the steep slope variance. >> Yeah, there is a steep slope variance associated with that sloped area. Uh I believe it's 4,020 ft of steep slopes that will be disturbed. Uh during
construction, we will provide the appropriate soil erosion controls. Uh and after construction, the area will be stabilized. Now you had mentioned in the retaining wall, the retaining wall is 9 ft high. >> Yes. >> And you're putting a fence on top of it. >> Yes. That uh additional fence will
trigger another variance which is the 10-ft wall and fence combination. >> Thank you. >> Which is another variance, right? >> Yes. Yeah. >> Uh currently our landscaping plan proposes the removal of 20 trees and
planting of uh 42 trees along with uh uh of various uh species along with several shrubs. Um however, we did note Mr. Linson's um memo and we understand that this site is the entrance to to Summit. Uh I
believe the um applicant will be retaining a landscape architect who will work with Mr. Lenson >> um to develop a suitable plan. >> Yeah. >> Uh we talked briefly about the loading space. The loading space is undersized.
Uh it's not intended for use of delivery trucks per se. uh has a temporary use uh intended uh more for maybe a U-Haul from time to time as people might move in and out of the building. Uh the required dimensions are 12 x60.
The proposed dimensions are 12x30. Uh again because of the dimensions and the restrictions to the dimensional restrictions to the building it's not uh possible to provide the required 6ft uh landscape screening from the property line to the
>> is it 6 foot or 5 foot >> 5 foot. So uh we're two and a half ft um which really doesn't allow for the installation of screening >> rather than five >> rather than five. Yes.
>> Yeah. >> Uh we are proposing uh arbor viting screening along the other uh portions of the northerly and westerly uh property lines which are the uh budding property line to the dry cleaners to the west and
um to the railroad to the north. We have sufficient space there and we are proposing uh the screening. Uh all the proposed utility connections will be uh located uh within the bed of Old Springfield Road and we don't
anticipate any work within Springfield Avenue. So there shouldn't be any disruptions to traffic flow uh with the possible exception of um curb and sidewalk replacement. Uh, all construction vehicles, deliveries,
and access will be off of Old Springfield. Um, the applicant will make every attempt to keep the sidewalks open throughout construction. And when sidewalks cannot be open, then there'll be appropriate um police at the site.
Uh we talked about the uh lighting. There's a few uh issues with that. Uh the lighting in certain spaces does spill over the property lines. Uh this occurs mainly at the location abuing the the uh dry cleaner. So we're spilling
over into a paved parking lot which is illuminated and also to the north of the site where we're abuing the walkway to the train station which is also illuminated. What's the standard that uh is established in the ordinance for light
spillage? >> Uh I believe it's 0.1 >> 0.1. >> Yeah. 0.1. >> And what are you proposing? >> Uh we're we have some 2 I believe spilling over and then we have some areas where it's not clear exactly what
it is. Uh it's zero. We don't have a dimens a spot spotlight at the property line itself, but it's in the area of 0.2ish. >> Well, okay. Yeah. So, for quantification of the deviation, Mr. Burgess knows where I'm going because we uh I think on
the same plane uh the the uh we'll call it approximately a 0.2 foot candle uh uh at the property line whereas 0.1 is the maximum permitted. >> Yes. And all of these locations are
locations where I feel lighting is probably encouraged. Uh the paid parking and also a pedestrian walkway, >> right? But the approximately 0.2 will be sufficient if the application is granted to give you the deviation relief you're you you find necessary. Correct.
>> We can do that. Yes. >> Okay. Uh we talked about the height of the lighting. So, we have uh a couple different um areas within the uh parking deck itself. We would like the opportunity to mount the lights on the
underside of the deck if if we have that need. Uh which would push the lighting well up over eight. Uh right now it's shown at 10, but it could be up to 12. >> What would be a alternative to that?
Well, we are currently showing wall-mounted lights within the um deck and there's they're at 10. So, I can provide the correct lighting, but um I think it would be wise to have the
freedom to to put alternate lighting at that height. Uh we might be able to put in more lighting at a lower intensity to create a better illumination standard there. Yeah, if I could uh recall uh Nick for the second uh with regard to the
lighting in the parking area. >> Sure. >> So, for the underside of the parking area itself, I don't know if anybody here has ever used the parking deck um right by the train station near downtown. We probably have a system similar to that where they're
pre-fabricated concrete tea structures. So the lighting itself that's on the underside of the ceiling, you probably would not see the light source at all from street view. Um it would probably be shielded by the TE's of those individual pieces of concrete um that
span from side to side. So um and again, I mean, we'd keep it at a level just low enough to really be safe for for vehicles to be in that aisle. You know, it's not really for anything that needs to be any brighter than that. >> Do you have some other ideas? >> I mean, >> what else could you do to make it lower,
to make it less of an impact? Because when you do look up at the parking structures, they don't look good. It's really It's great for when you're in it, but when you're looking from anywhere else, it's not great. >> Yeah. I mean, one thing we could do right off the bat is just make sure it's a nice color temperature, right? We
wouldn't have the really white 5,000 Kelvin lights that you >> have some posts, right? >> We do have posts. Um, they'd be the postmount lighting would be sufficient for the parking spots themselves. We'd have to see how well it illuminates when you get into the middle of the aisle
area to get to the spaces. So, >> you have the you have the ball from the stair. I see what you're saying. How far would it reach? >> Right. >> And how wide is the parking deck? Parking deck is 2320. About 63 square
feet plus the center aisle. >> About 60 63 square feet. We have the 23 63 square ft. >> Yeah. >> And your lights go how far if they're at 9 ft or 8 ft? >> It would depend on the specification. I
mean, we don't want to have anything that's too bright and really could throw light that far cuz then if you're walking at the street and you see those lights, it could be really intense. It's just, >> you know, it would make it bright enough for the cars, but might be a little intense for passerbys.
>> I mean, I I think it just it it because of pedestrians, because it's a, you know, apartment across the street that is going to be a viewhed for them. >> Yeah. >> And all the people walking to the train station and it's, you know, more residential than not over there. >> It warrants a lighting plan. So, maybe
we could do a condition that they work with Marie for on a lighting plan for that because I think it could be really bad or it could be really good. We just don't know. >> Yeah. >> How's that sound? >> Yeah. I think there were also Sorry. >> Go ahead. >> There were also some hot spots on the uh
the walkways. Um there's there's one that's actually >> that's actually 9.1 foot candles um in the the back corner kind of by the um by the I guess it's by the by the garbage area somewhere in that
area and then on the front you have something that's um at 8.0. So we could probably work on that together. >> Okay. Yeah, we'd be fine. >> Similarly to the landscape architect, you could do that. Okay. Yeah, >> I was also going to suggest >> Yeah, >> I know we do this in other municipalities.
6 months after it's built, the engineer could take a look at it and if things need to be adjusted, you adjust it accordingly. >> That's always been good. Yeah, I remember us doing that right in the same neighborhood behind uh Caddy Corner. >> Yeah, we could specify fixtures that
that have the flexibility for that. So, >> yeah, but I think working together might be great. It come >> and we want I mean we want it to look nice, too. We don't want it to be overly bright at that level. So, we just want to provide enough for it to be safe to be driving under there. So, >> we're happy to work with you on it. >> Thanks.
>> And Miss Weber, applicants good with that as a step. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> We're done with lighting. >> We're done with lighting. >> Uh so that brings me to uh storm water management. Uh currently there is no storm water mitigation on the site. So
what we're doing is we're proposing a dry well for this property. Uh that will collect um in excess of the required 3 in of runoff from the roof surfaces. Uh we're also going to be collecting some water from the lawn areas and that will
be piped to a drywall which will be underground, not visible from the street and basically towards the intersection area. Um, in addition to providing the drywall, the the project actually does remove an
additional net 2500 square ft of imperous coverage. So, there will be a significant decrease in runoff associated with this uh development. Um, we will be providing required testing to the engineer. Uh, and any of
the construction of the drywall would be done in accord with the, uh, New Jersey pest management practices. >> I think that's briefly what I have for you. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Yeah, >> if I can. Following up on the uh, fire lane,
>> is there accessibility around the building and could you describe it for the board? Um certainly you can't drive a firetruck around this building. Um my experience with uh three-story town homes of this nature uh not
uh more of threetory row town homes that you would see in a townhouse development is that the fire department is very interested in having level areas around the building where they can stage a ladder. Uh we do have that on all four sides of the building. Can you can you There aren't very many
dimensions on on the drawings. Can you um blow that up and show us not not that one actually uh 37 and show us how there would be adequate fire safety access around this building
as designed. because of the steep slope and the bridge behind it. It just >> Yeah. Sorry, this isn't my laptop, so I'm a little struggling. >> Yeah. Can you I'm sorry. >> That's not That's not this one, is it?
You just do it this way around it. It's a haptic screen, too. Shift. That might be the best way. >> All right. >> So, um everything to the as you're looking at the drawing to the left,
which is the west side of the property, >> is is level uh between the paved um parking area to the building is generally level. level until until the notch out in the back. >> Yeah, the notch out in the back is the only area where it does have a little slope to it.
>> Okay. >> Uh between the retaining wall and the building >> between the turnound >> right where that's that's actually where the exterior uh parking is. So the parking itself would be level which is outside of the the building footprint
there. So when you're looking at and I think you're looking at sheet two of seven, not three of seven. >> I'm looking at three of seven, but >> yeah, >> I don't know if three of seven has that shading which highlights the fact that
>> you can see where the building is. Two of seven, if I may. Madam Chair, >> yeah, >> has a a gray area, a shading that uh demonstrates the extent of the building. And then you have the two parking spaces
with the turnaround uh beyond the scope of the building above. >> Got it. Yeah, I can see it. Very light. Okay. Got it. Anyway, so it's flat all the way to the corner. >> Yeah, it's it's flat flat enough that you could carry a ladder, set it up, and
and get up onto the building. >> But can you get a fire truck in that loading area 12t wide? >> I I can't imagine. No, it's actually too close to a building for ladder use. They wouldn't if they wanted to put a l a ladder off
their truck, they would put it in the neighboring parking lot, >> but the use could change on the neighboring parking lot. It could become an as of right building. I'm I'm just saying that the the fire trucks generally won't won't go that close to a building that has an issue,
>> especially you're next it's next to the cars the >> How deep is this building and can a firetruck >> spray water on a building this deep? >> Certainly. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> They can't they couldn't use ladders off of Old Springfield because of the
downslope. They'd have to extend too far, but they could spray water off of that or they'd be at an elevated area. Um, they can certainly spray water off of uh Old Springfield even if they, you know, if they couldn't access. >> But would that put out a fire in the
back of the building? Well, I mean, this building is sprinklered, so most like, you know, they they I won't speak to how they're how they're going to fight the fire, but I don't I don't envision a scenario
where the building is engulfed with the sprinkler system on and they they can enter the building if they like. >> Can we ask the fire chief to just comment on it? Yeah, I'm uncomfortable moving forward without the fire chief's comments.
>> I mean, couldn't they just park the truck on Springfield Avenue and then get it from the back when >> and then just like shoot it up? >> Well, I mean, it's it's right there. It's not too far. >> Not that I'm a firefighter. >> It's right there. >> Street's right there. It's worth a
discussion of people's comfort level with what's proposed. >> He didn't make comments. Fire truck. >> The fire chief didn't make comments. Yes, that's a problem. No, >> sorry. >> But also our you know our witnesses can
can say is this going to meet fire code? Can a fire truck >> reach >> reach where it needs to reach? They should be able to tell us that. >> I think that we should have that information. >> More information. >> Yeah, >> agreed. I feel the same way. Um
>> we can certainly make it subject to uh asking uh the fire chief director who was did get a copy of the application and did not submit a report. So uh we can ask him to clarify whether or not he had any issues with this and make that a
condition of approval. Well, would would it would the condition include >> the approval being subject to the fire officials >> uh uh comments with respect to adequate firefighting? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Not just asking him, >> right? Because what he says room on the loading dock side, then your building might have to shrink a couple feet, >> for example. That's just an example. you know, if that's if that's what they and you could still get six units, you could
still do all your programming, but maybe if if it doesn't have proper access for fire safety, we might have to make those changes and you're comfortable with that condition. Is your applicant comfortable with that condition?
>> In other words, by having >> I mean otherwise, I think a lot of us are not comfortable going forward. So >> what would happen I think if I could speak is that there would be a deferral of the hearing tonight the request would
go to Chief Evers if he comes down formally reply could be I have no concerns uh or >> so right now uh he did not submit a report we cannot assume as to what he meant by not submitting a report and
what the board is asking is if we make it uh the approval conditioned upon his report that if he says, "Oh, gee, I need to uh take a look at this closer," then the board, I think, would retain jurisdiction and we'd come back into the
board >> with modifications based on whatever he says. Yeah. And >> subject to be fair to the chief, he he always sends a report, so there must have been something unusual. >> Yeah. a well-designed plan with plenty
of room around it. >> Right. Okay. So, how do we phrase that? >> Well, there's different ways you could do it. If you're comfortable and the applicant's comfortable, they could stipulate to whatever he says in advance. It's it's sort of a blank check, if you will, to the fire
official. Alternatively, we can make them come back another night. Uh >> that's what it sounds like you want to do based on the first one. have it stipulated to what the fire chief says. So if >> you're willing to do that, okay, >> if he's accepted, >> so then the board could actually grant
approval tonight subject to their complying with whatever the fire official requires. >> Okay. >> Which would mean that we wouldn't have time to review his report to see >> you'd be deferring to the fire official as the expert. >> Okay. And if he requires it and they're
willing to do it, if you're comfortable with that scenario, you can go ahead and approve it tonight or if if you're int if you intend to approve it. >> As a practical matter, that's great and that's great for the applicant because he can go forward. I prefer that. But
can I ask the architect something as a practical matter? If he says there isn't enough room for me to get around this building and you have to shrink it, then we don't see that new design. >> No, I think then they come well well well they either shrink their building
>> or they have to come back and say, "Hey, you know, we we want to modify that condition. We don't want to shrink it and these and the fire officials, you know, or we have an alternative, you know, we'll we'll do this instead of shrinking the building." >> And we don't see that version. >> No. Oh, then they'd they would be coming
back with whatever that alternative is. You would see you would be seeing >> Okay. Okay. Good. >> If if I can I think if it was a significant alternative. >> So if if it's less if it's uh I want you to put gravel in the back and something
along those lines and >> I can access >> then it's not significant at that point. However, if it turns out we're moving everything and really creating a true fire lane and >> ending up if it results in a change to
the size of the structure, >> that's probably significant enough to >> to come back. >> All right. If it's gravel or if it's some other form of so they can get ladders up, that's >> okay. >> Dominous. >> All right. >> That would just be subject to the
engineer. Yeah. Okay. >> Just just just a question on that. Is the fact that >> Springfield Avenue, not old Springfield Avenue, but the elevated portion is adjacent to the structure and at some places is pretty close to the roof line. Is that part of your thinking about the
fire mitigation strategy? Is it the firetruck could just be there on Springfield Avenue which is next to the building? >> It could. >> Yeah. Is that part of your thinking? I don't know. I was a before I was a lawyer, I was a paramedic in the city of Elizabeth and I've been at any number of
fire scenes and the one thing that has always impressed me is that if there's a fire, the firemen get to it. They don't care what's in the way. They're going to get there. They're going to put it out. So, but at this point, the board is uh
uh ch, you know, is raised a good point. Let's make sure that the fire chief is satisfied with this. And that may be they could probably put a pumper up on top of the bridge and put water down that way. >> So, >> okay, good. Thank you.
>> And the second floor, just to reiterate, is it's kind of about at the same level as Springfield Avenue. >> Um, so they wouldn't really be >> they would be higher than >> Yeah, they wouldn't necessarily be pumping down because down is just the open parking level at that point. though.
>> Yeah. >> The tallest part of the parapit, not the the elevator and the stair bulkhead is what? >> From what elevation? Like from which street? >> From the front on Old Springfield to the front of the parapit. How tall is that? >> 42 feet.
>> And then and that's to code. That's I mean that >> that's two ordinates. Right. Right. >> And then your pertinances. You got a certain amount that's allowable. How tall is that? They are under the 8 foot limit. Um the highest one is at 49.5 ft.
>> So they're maxing it, >> right? >> So yeah, it wouldn't be pumping down. It would be shooting up >> water. >> Well, I'm thinking if it's on Springfield, it's going to sort of go because it has to go up and >> Okay. Sorry about that. >> Yeah. I mean, I think with a sprinkler
system in place and and access on both sides, um, with Springfield, I know it's Springfield, I mean, I'm not a fire official, but, you know, I think it's probably okay. >> Well, we'll find out. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Thanks.
>> I have two questions and I'm not sure who gets the first one. The first one is an environmental. Um, I'm assuming since it was a car repair plus, are there any wrecks? Was I'm assuming there's a phase one. Is there a phase two in place? Are there any racks?
>> It was the uh condition set forth by Ms. Rafé makes it clear that the DP has jurisdiction over the environmental uh state of the site. So there are monitoring wells on the site. Okay. >> And as a result, we have to get D approval.
>> Okay. And the second one, I'm not sure if it's for you, Joe, or for them. During construction, will New Jersey Transit have any involvement or any I'm assuming if you're putting up stuff right near to their track they need to know. And I'm just wondering for
commuters, is there any reason that they would have to stop trains for a moment to do something? >> I know a little about that, Joe. If you don't, >> I I really don't know the answer. I can tell you I've been involved in a number of
projects adjacent to rail lines and I've never seen where they were allowed to, you know, intrude into the railroad right away. >> Well, I don't mean permanent. I mean while they're building something they need.
>> What's the setback from What's your construction set back from the railroad >> to enter that? >> What's the closest spot? We had looked at this in the uh initial discussions and uh we were satisfied that we're beyond the New Jersey Transit
property. >> Right. >> But we're within 200 ft. >> So I'm looking now >> if you can Bill. >> I think the engineer should know what what let the engineer answer. I think he's his retaining wall is 10 ft from
the property line which is >> 10 ft from New Jersey Transit. No. >> Right. No, >> it's 10T. >> 10 ft. >> Yeah. >> Or is that 10 ft to your retaining wall and there's a little more to New Jersey Transit? >> Word to the wise. You want to be 15 ft because if you are, this is what I
remember and you should double check, but if you're within 15t of their property line, not up to their property line, you need a flagman. You need you need so many people involved. Stay 15 feet away from the property line. But what is what is your
construction? >> Well, we we have a lot four between us and the railroad rightway of where the tracks would be. Lot four is where the that pedestrian walkway comes through. >> Can you expand it a bit for the board?
Just what where does your work end and where does New Jersey Transit start? >> We have some minor grading about six feet off of our rear property line. >> And how close is that to New Jersey Trans to answer your phone's question?
>> Jersey. >> Uh, can you help them expand? >> Yeah, I'm trying to get to the >> because lot four, how wide is lot four? How long is >> I would say to to the property line of of New Jersey Transit where the actual
train tracks would run >> is probably we're 25 ft give or take. >> The their right of way is where you need to be measuring to. >> It sounds like you're well over 15 ft which is good for you. Yeah, I I I know what you you mean and it's a
>> once you get within 15 feet of their property line, it's a whole another level of um effort and safety. >> So, just to be clear, the engineer's testimony is there's at least 25 ft between the New Jersey Transit right away and uh where you will be constructing, including uh the minor
grading uh 6 ft off the property line. There's at least 25 ft. Is that your testimony? Can you scale? Do you have a scale that you can uh see how wide easier than trying to use the computer?
>> Hold on. >> No, but it's not. We're checking that there's a lot four uh that is between the line and the property. And I'm taking a look to see
who owns lot four. See, there's a little little sliver of a property between the railroad track. >> What's the block? >> 798 is the number. >> It's just a sliver. It's >> Its address is actually Springfield
Avenue, but it's where the bridge is. >> It's like a weird >> 166 lot 4 is owned by New Jersey Transit Court. So that's you're going to be with the flag man it looks like
>> because lot four is recognized as a stairwell down right >> lot lot four is owned by New Jersey Transit. It's not the lot which contains the tracks but it is their walkway. >> So it sounds as though it's going to be something that New Jersey Transit will have an opportunity to be heard. They
were given notice >> or you may want to modify your parking lot. Isn't that where you're talking about where your parking lot is? >> It very well may be. So, we'll
communicate with New Jersey Transit at the time that if the board approves the application at the time that the construction is commencing. Uh there will be that opportunity to have the preconstruction meeting and I expect at that point that the construction
official, the city engineer will all be raising the issues. Did you do this? Did you comply with that? And as a result, that will be addressed and there will be a reach out to New Jersey Transit. >> Your choice. Okay. Anything else?
>> Marie, do you have anything to say about that? >> I have some engineering questions. Sure. That I just want to clarify. Um, thank you. You went through a lot of my um information on there. Um are you you are combining these lots as part of this application, right? Um so
you'll be submitting that to the county >> with um a lot line adjustment. >> Yeah, I guess it would be a subdivision or a combination by deed. >> Okay. Um so you'll you'll work with the um the tax office to find out what the
what the number's going to be on it. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, >> if we That'll be a deed of consolidation. >> Yeah. >> Will you be placing a a stop sign or um a stop bar at the
>> um you a stop sign and stop bar and the additional ADA um signage that you you had mentioned. >> Great. Thank you. Um I I did look over the um storm water design and I'm satisfied with the with the stormwater design just to make sure that you're
going to be you have enough um volume for any surface runoff. >> We'll do that. >> Great. >> Are you worried about getting a soil test just to make sure it works? >> Yes. Right. Yeah. And um and I think he did mention that that he would be
getting a soil test um and that's required um to make sure that it's going to function that you know he knows where the um the seasonal high water table is. So that'll all come in with his soil test. >> Can you explain just for the benefit of the public if that doesn't come out favor? It's all clay and it doesn't
percolate. What do you do? >> Well, he he'd either have to modify his design um or he'd have to maybe find some other way of managing the water on site. maybe some rain gardens or some other other kind of system. >> So when that test comes in, you're in
consultation with them to come up with a new plan if there if need be. >> Okay. Correct. >> Yeah. We we did design the um site directly across the street with a large infiltration basin and the soils at that point were were very uh very infiltrative.
So >> Okay. Good. Um, can you make sure that um you you put some sight triangles on at the exit and um make sure that there's no landscaping that will be encroaching onto those sight triangles.
>> Yes, we'll get the site triangles onto our site plan and then we'll coordinate that with the landscape architect. >> Um could you talk about the um the sidewalks, the driveway aprons? Right now they're in disrepair. Um but the plans are not showing for anything to be replaced. Is there any plans to do
anything about that to modify any of the curb cuts that are on there? Uh well the curb cuts uh on our property that are are not used would be restored to full height. Um the sidewalk I would imagine uh will be um fully replaced.
It's in pretty sad, you know, status now and following construction. I imagine it's going to be worse. Uh, and typically that's done at the direction of the city engineer. Uh, the county in their review letters had asked us to replace the curbon sidewalk along their rightway.
>> And that's on um Springfield Avenue, correct? That's the >> Yes. And I guess it would come around partially through the signalized intersection as well. >> Okay. Um, and uh, have you have you gotten any will serve letters for the water and
sewer on site or is that part of your post application? >> I don't believe we have any letters yet. >> Okay. So, I'm that'll just be part of part of what you do. >> Yes. conditions subsequent to approval should the board so grant approval.
>> Correct. >> Um that's all I had. Thank you. >> I have one other question uh that I forgot to ask. What is the uh appearance of the fence that's going to be on and the appearance of the retaining wall?
Uh the fence uh is going to well I I am proposing um a black metal fence open uh thin u thin spets um uh what's the name of the company? >> Do you have a cut sheet with on it or a
photo? >> Yeah, like it's like a Jarth re regency fence. Um they have a like a commercial grade of that. Um, I can I don't have that for you right here, but we can provide that. >> Okay.
>> To whom? And if who could approve that, Joe, would you be >> I can do that. >> Okay. >> That would be another condition. >> Yeah. >> And if he doesn't think it's acceptable, then you have to come up with another fence. >> Of course. Sure. Okay. Yeah. >> Good. And what's the what's this the
wall cladding or wall material? >> Uh, it's it's >> You said it's going to look like the building. Is it going to be a brick? >> Climbed stone brick. Yeah, we would clap the actual >> great >> structural part of the wall would work pretty matches the building. >> That's good.
>> Okay. Are we good? >> Oh, yes, Mr. >> Um, I understand that the D uh will have new requirements that take effect around July. Some of those are still contested a bit. Um, are you aware of those
changing regulations? Uh, and do you believe that you're in good position to meet them? >> The, uh, I'm not aware of the new regulations. Uh, so it's hard for me to opine. The,
uh, LSRP, uh, is confident that this will meet uh, the approval, but that's a good point and we'll have to wait to see what the conditions come out from the D, >> including particularly storm water related. Mhm.
>> Which reminds me, uh, in your review, the letter says that you want the soil test, but then you say that there should not be any, uh, site disturbance, excavation, soil movement before, uh, or consistent with applicable NJ D
requirements. >> Oh, because of the the contamination. >> Oh, right. Right. >> Yeah. So, the soil test is not going to be in the area with the monitoring wells, >> right? Right. I So, I think you're okay. >> Okay. Okay. Um, so if I could I I I
think what you're discussing is the storm water D regulations that are changing and those are for major developments, but this isn't a major development. >> So I think I think they're okay. And on top of that, they would have already been approved and through the process
and they would have they would have been protected from that additional rule. Okay. Good. Okay, everybody finished. Okay, so >> thank you. >> Are you guys happy?
>> Yeah. >> All right. Do you have any questions? >> Do you have any questions? >> Does the public have any questions for this witness? Okay. Or any other witness? >> No further witnesses. >> I thought so. Thank you. So, I think
we're closed. Are we finished? >> I submit the application to the approval of the board. >> Thank you. All right. So, we can discuss amongst ourselves. We have a lot of conditions. >> Do you want me to tee up what I have as
the relief and the conditions and to facilitate? >> Do you want to ask a few questions before Mr. Warner does that or discuss anything or any feelings, any concerns that you want to discuss? This is our moment we can discuss amongst ourselves because it's closed hearing now.
You look like >> I'm concerned about the one affordable housing unit and my opinion is that we should do everything >> we can to require it to be built. >> I agree. >> Whatever whatever >> because I think there's a slipper housing for
>> Yeah, I think there's a slippery slope there that allows it any developer to come in and say, >> you know, >> I I think Joe's right though. I don't think it's allowed, but I'm not >> Yeah, I I'm I'd be surprised if the new set of regulations >> changed that issue.
>> The mandatory set aside the the previous mandatory set aside regulations are pretty straightforward. >> I'd be s surprised I'm going to find that that's changed. >> Okay. >> I mean, I feel like look, it's taking a
somewhat of an eyesore and found beautiful. I think it fits the character of of Summit. It's not from a summit perspective, right? I know there's the new Providence train station right there, but from a summit
perspective, it's not going to contribute schools heavily, traffic, so forth and so on, but I think I would feel differently without the affordable housing unit, >> especially after everything that we just went through over the last 18 months. >> Right. Right. We're trying to
incorporate the housing units into existing uh new developments. So, that's the goal. I agree with both of you if there's a way to >> But I'm also happy to let the governing body decide that because I I think we all know what
>> they they're welcome to do that, but I'd like to >> Yeah. approve it with the unit and let them >> Yep. >> Yeah. Agreed. PJ, do you have anything to say? I mean, I'm a little bit concerned by the overall scale of the building just because and again, I like it for the town. I like it for the site.
You know, I appreciate that the overall lot coverage is lower because of the, you know, the variance that they're applying for. It it just feels a little bit kind of impactful, but again, compared to what we have right now, I also think it's a a net positive. But,
>> you know, >> I don't know why, you know, unbuildable land in this corner really is, you know, an additional third more square footage to be able to be commercially viable, but it also has to make sense financially. We understand that. And
>> that'd be my my concern. >> Yeah, that's what makes it a little tight all the way around, >> right? And the fire >> that they're going for, just remind everybody because Mr. Weber's really good at describing things the way he does. It's It's a third larger. It
10,000 square feet allowed. They're doing 15,000 square feet. So, that is quite a bit bigger than what's allowable. So, that's a a big variance. Um, and that's why it feels a little tight on the lot like PJ said. Um,
on the other hand, I think that it is a net positive overall from what's there. Um, it's all impervious cover right now. There are positives and negatives to it all. I think it comes down to the fire chief for me because it is bigger and it
is as maxed out as it possibly can be, I think, on the site. So to me it looks like it it might be tough to fight a fire on the site the way it's designed. But if he finds that it's okay and he can fight a fire and then I can get
comfortable with it, especially with all the conditions we've put in there. So shall we uh go through the conditions, Mr. Warner? >> If u I can I think it'd be prudent to go through the relief and the conditions to make sure we have all the relief correct and and agreed to
>> uh in that order. The uh And I apologize but maybe if I may can Mr. Burgess uh we have something called building area here and that's technically different from floor area ratio
>> which as we all know uh uh would require a D4 D4 yeah D4 uh uh variance from the zoning board of adjustment if it were a floor area ratio deviation. So could you just briefly explain the distinction
between building area and floor area for that ratio for that purpose? >> Well, floor area ratio is actually defined in the municipal land use law and it's specifically just the ratio of lot size or floor space to lot size. So,
if you have a an F of 25% and you have a 40,000 square foot lot, you'll be allowed 10,000 square feet of building area. Just to give you >> it's not just uh out uh but it's also up.
>> Yes. Uh building area is just the amount of floor space you're entitled to in a building. Now, in you can have more than one building on a site. So theoretically, you know, they could have broken this up into two buildings,
maybe not gotten their 14,800 square feet, but something close to that. Anyway, now I know those who have been on the board for a while, they've often heard me talk about how in the end, planning is a balance of competing interests. And I think some of you have
already touched upon that that we've got a site that's been looking like the way it has for many many years hasn't offered much in the way of any amenity to the community or any positive feature to the community. And I think you can balance that against
all the positive things that you've all started to discuss and comment upon earlier tonight. So when you look at it in that context, you know, well, when you look at it in that context, I think you could come to your own conclusion as to the public
benefits that may occur from your irrespective of the large number of variances that are being requested, which we'll get into in a moment. And you know some of the other issues that we talked about probably critically
is is it is the issue of affordable housing because if this building were to be required to be shrunk to the 10,000 square foot size you'd probably lose two afford the two units and at four units they wouldn't be providing any
affordable unit on the property. >> The mandatory mandatory set aside ordinance requires five or more total units. Correct. Correct. >> Correct. So that after all that we went through as Mr. Star has pointed out over the past 18 months. I think that's a critical
element to consider. Uh in terms of the variances that are required, it's my understanding that there's and they're spelled out on page five and six of my memo to make it simple. >> I have my handwritten notes. Go ahead. I'll I'll check you. Okay. Um, maximum
building area is one maximum building, >> right? Building area 14,798 square ft versus 10,000 10,000 ft² maximum. >> Correct. >> And and everybody now understands why building area is not floor area ratio. So that's why we have it as a planning
board as it's a bulk variance, not a Dvariance that would have required this whole application to go to the zoning board. >> Correct. Thank you. >> So go ahead. I'm sorry, Mr. Um maximum building coverage the code permits 30% they're at 36%
>> at 30%. >> The testimony related suggested that in large measure that variance is a function of the terraces being provided on the site. Um the maximum illumination at property
lines there's a slight overage you're allowed point 0.1% they're at 0.2 two in certain instances and you heard where it the overage is in terms of
adjoining parking lot for the most part I could say visually speaking I don't know that well a lot of us are wearing glasses I see on the board but I don't know that anybody would recognize the difference between 0.1
and 0.2 too. In terms of actual impact on a property, uh in terms of the lighting height, you heard in large measure, it's a function of the slightly higher than average height
of the first floor. Um terms of an aesthetic enhancement. If you accept the argument that they made that having that additional height necessitates having the lights on the wall a little higher, >> the deviation is 10 ft tall versus a
maximum of 8 ft tall. >> They said actually 12 feet underneath the ceiling. So >> there's the loading setback variance. You're allowed you're technically allowed or required to have five feet to have two and a half feet on that one
side. And then there's the loading space dimension. The code technically requires for loading spaces everywhere, whether it's an industrial zone or
a retail commercial area. Uh 12 by60 that's designed to accommodate tractor trailers. Buildings of this type don't need 12x60. 12 by 30 can accommodate most
conventionally sized U-Hauls that would likely serve this building. So, I think you could factor that in. Uh the roof pitch of the code requires a 4 by 4 over 12. Uh and I think knowing the area, I'm
sure everybody does, um most of the buildings in the area do not have that. the the master plan does talk about trying to create structures that are compatible and complimentary to the established character of the developed
area. And I think this height, this excuse me, sloped pitch uh is more consistent with what's in the neighborhood. And then there's the steep slope disturbance issue um where we have 15% disturbance.
Um, you're allowed up to 1,000 square ft. They're at 4,000 square ft. Um, but it it wasn't mentioned in the testimony, but in the documentation that was filed, they did point out that this is really a function of man-made slopes,
>> right? and was an existing condition from the >> so you could factor that in the I think that covered the variance relief and I think there may be correct me if I'm wrong an RSIS waiver for a 23 foot wide
dimminimous exception uh for 23 foot wide drive aisle I believe the uh uh minimum required is 24 feet is that correct >> correct >> thank you so that technically would added to the deviations >> and one more.
>> Oh, thank you, Mr. >> The fence on top of the retaining wall. >> Yes, fence on top of retaining. Okay, so that >> we had a retaining wall. I guess we didn't have a retaining wall. Okay, on top of retaining wall and so the total height would be >> you're permitted 10 ft and this will be
9 + 4. >> So 13 versus 10, >> right? >> And the two and a half side yard in the loading dock area versus five. Did you say that? >> Oh yeah. Yeah, he said that one. That's the loading area. Yep. Set back. >> Looking back at my >> So, we have nine variances and one RSIS
waiver. And then the I'm sorry. >> No, I was just going to say it really wasn't touched upon in testimony, but in terms of the negative criteria, it's a two-prong test, but there you have to show there's no substantial detriment to the public good, no substantial
impairment to the intent of the master plan. In our memo, we identify a whole host of goals and objectives that are being furthered by this application in terms of providing a variety of housing types, addressing affordable housing
needs and encouraging enhanced character and aesthetic appeal to a site. I don't think anybody could disagree with the fact that this is an improvement over the existing condition. There are other goals and objectives which he also
highlighted, but I don't have to go into to that in detail and I think the other prong of the negative criteria that that had been addressed by test through testimony. >> Thank you. >> So that's the relief sought the conditions of approval are all those
because they stipulated to them as set forth in the various reports of the board professionals and uh staff. Uh they they'll do a lot consolidation. They'll do a soil conservation district application. uh they will provide I I
suspect the board is uh going to require uh the provision of one unit uh designated indeed restricted for affordable housing and leave it at that. >> You'll correct me if I'm wrong uh if there's an approval and if I'm wrong on that condition. Uh in addition, the
other stipulated two conditions included landscaping uh subject to the review and approval landscaping plan subject to review and approval of the forester. Uh the mechanical screening will be subject to a sighteline study. Uh there will be
one course of stone bulkhead across the front of the first floor. Uh there'll be an alternate uh bear with me screen design alternate finished wall screen design to screen cars and lights on the
ground floor. Uh that was the the uh I think that was the enclosure or the fencing. The screen >> the screen >> uh it would be denser. Um, >> who would that be subject to? >> I think I think Joe should look at that because he's doing the fence as well. >> Thank you.
>> Review and approval of the planner. Uh, compliance with building design standards, architectural standards. Uh, there will be subject to uh, increase screen studies. Bear with me. Got that one already. uh
no sound amplification was stipulated to as well as uh no electrical no eike storage in the basement which would actually really be the building in its entirety. >> Um >> did you get the EV uh charging?
>> The EV chargers I think are on the plan but they'll be there'll be a condition of approval as well. lighting plan subject to the review and approval of our engineer uh including I think I heard a subsequent light study uh and appropriate modifications if necessary.
>> Yes. >> Uh post construction. >> The uh also subject to the review and approval of our fire official and compliance with his reasonably required uh uh uh uh uh conditions and modifications uh for adequate
firefighting. Uh there will be a stop sign. Bless you. Stop sign andor stop bar uh at an ADA. >> Even I can't read my own writing. ADA something. The ADA
>> compliance. >> Yeah. >> Isn't there a stop sign at at the entrance? >> Yeah. ADA something. >> You had said that. >> Geez, I can't even read it. I'll come back to that. I have the lock consolidation. I have the sight triangles at the exit with no landscaping encroaching. Sidewalks and
driveway aprons will be fully replaced. >> Is that the parking? Is this apartments will have >> ADA? >> Is that is that what that is? >> No, I don't know what it was, but I'm going to remember it. Uh uh and the appearance of the fence will be while
it's proposed to be a black metal fence and open it'll be subject to review and approval of >> Joe >> our planner uh and uh the appearance of the retaining wall uh is proposed to be and apparently sufficient a brick veneer
to match the building and there was it was an ADA >> I feel like it was it was this the stop sign and the line and he said that the um sign for ADA >> which is a strange line >> ADA signage. >> Yeah, >> ADA signage. That's I couldn't read ADA
signage. I'm sorry. >> Which is the >> uh am I missing any and again I I included in my reference by incorporation all the all the comments set forth in the various reports. Yeah, but the architect has said that, and
correct me if I'm wrong, um, he'll turn the stairway inside the parking lot >> so it doesn't lead directly out into its driveway aisle. >> Oh, that was in the notes. Yeah. I don't know if we you were going to change it though, were you?
>> We were going to look into >> I'm sorry. What's you're going to have to come up because >> yeah, >> we've already started looking at that since we received the staff comments on how to make that door just exit onto a landing rather than onto the 23 ft aisle. So, we can we're comfortable
putting that in as a as a condition. >> Okay. So, the stair case uh will come will phrase it for me. The egress stair will not exit directly onto the aisle in the
parking area. >> Nobody. >> Okay. And it'll be up but but rather to a landing. Okay. >> Got it. >> Got it. >> Great. >> Okay. Any other conditions of approval? Anyone? Anyone? Paris Buer? >> Anyone? >> The No. So, so then if it is an
approval, it'll be a majority of the planning board approving the relief gr uh the relief we set forth. I'll assume with all the stipulated to conditions unless I'm told otherwise. If it's a denial, all denials are unconditional.
>> Right. Um, so do we have a motion to approve with all these conditions, >> including the chiefs? >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> We got two motion. You going to go a second? Okay. >> Okay. Okay. I just want to check the
motion was Mr. Salah. The second is Mr. M. Sorry. Miss Bowen. >> Yes. Council member Chrisoy. >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Salah. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Golden.
>> Yes. >> Chair Balsson Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Oh, that's right. We have a recusal. That's right. Seven. Yep. >> Okay. >> Do all approved. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you for coming. Do you
want to take a break? >> 5 minute break. Okay. If I could just >> actually before we do the case. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> On the record. Okay. Uh if I could just reflect for the uh benefit of everyone that I had an opportunity to review the affidav of proof of service and publication of notice. I found the content of the notice to be sufficient for this matter and I found it to be
timely served. Certified mail on February 26 uh published both on March 3rd and March 9th uh in the Star Ledger and the Union News Daily respectively.
Uh and we have confirmation of not only the certified mailings uh but there was a affidavit on the record uh confirming uh that the neighbor at 65 Essex Road
personally delivered notice uh to the 200t neighbor at 62 Essex Road. Uh so based upon all of the above, I can opine that the board does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the application. With
the chair's permission, I can swear on all the witnesses and our boards professionals. >> You have my permission. >> Uh two applicants, witnesses, and two board professionals. 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? >> I do. Thank you all. Back to you, Madam Chair. >> Okay. Welcome. Who are we going to have first, Mr. Weber? >> Uh, one minute. Okay. >> James Weber of Alfonso and Weber on behalf of Summit Grove LLC and Forest
Sounds LLC. This is a lot line relocation and I would ask that Dave Rosen be called to the stand to be sworn in to give testimony on this matter. >> Already sworn. Please proceed with the chair's permission. >> Yes.
Hello. >> Do you want any any information on me? >> You're test he's testifying as a fact witness. Correct. >> He's an architect. No, but I thought you said I think he owns a property. >> He doesn't property. >> Oh, my mistake.
>> It's uh again uh owned by Forest Sounds LLC and Summit Grove LLC. >> Gotcha. >> The owner Mark is in the back. >> Okay, great. So you're uh testifying as an as an architect. >> I'm testifying as an architect. We have
the engineer Peter Cororsen here as well. >> So I think Mr. We'll leave it to your council to uh get you accepted so that the chair could accept you as an expert in the field of architecture. >> Okay. >> How long have you been an architect and
have you testified before any municipal agencies in the city of Summit? >> Uh yes I have. My name is Dave Rosen, R O Sen. I'm a partner at Rosen Kelly Conway Architects. Um, and uh, we are in Summit. Um,
uh, I was licensed in graduated 1980, Syracuse University School of Architecture. Uh, licensed in 1983. uh started uh what has become Rosen Kelly Conway in um 40 years ago in uh
1986 in Summit and we're still here and my I'm I'm I'm good with my license and all of that. I have testified before uh a lot of uh boards. Uh just just to keep
it sort of local just I'll say Summit, Chattam Burough, Chattam Township, um Milburn, and I could go on, but I'll just I like being here best in Summit. This board I don't see very often, but we do a lot with the board of
adjustment. >> Well, this is broadcast to all those other municipalities as well, so they they know that, too. Well, they're learning how to do it. Learning how to do it, right? >> Thank you. >> We accept. >> Okay. So, this is a really simple application. It is a lot line relocation
where the two properties, 6,000 square ft is being moved from one property to the other. Uh they are owned by two LLC's as Jim mentioned. Um but I'm not going to call them by that. One is on
Hobart. uh road. That's Forest Sounds LLC. The other one is on Dogwood uh on the corner of uh Essex Road. And that one is called Summit Grove LLC.
34 Dogwood is a property that's I'm going to say the big number first and then I'll just round it off. But it's 40,479 square ft. 6,000 square ft is being removed. So, we end up at 34, uh,479
square ft. That 6,000 square ft is being moved from the backyard of 34 Dogwood to 22 Hobart Road, which is currently 24,635 ft. And with that 6,000 square ft, it
goes to 30,635. Um it is it is a just a a straight taking the 6,000 square feet. It's exactly 6,000 and moving it over. Um the properties are adjacent. You can see in the center of the drawing here Pete Corson's drawing. And I'm just going to
come in a little bit on the um Whoops. Uh I'm just going to come in a little bit on the site plan. So you can see Dogwood Drive is on the angle. The vertical on the right of the uh of the
plan here is Essex Road. So Dogwood comes down and then it turns the corner and then Hobart Road is the little piece that goes between that and uh Hobart Avenue sort of near the Arboritum. And
in fact, the arboritum is the property that is directly behind where these two meet. Uh so where it says site on the um on the plan there, that's in the area that's right in the area that is the 6,000 square ft that gets moved.
Uh most of what I'm going to do is just go through the two reports and just address all of the questions or the areas where it says the applicant shall uh confirm or testify and so on. I just wanted to mention two items that are
currently nonconforming and that is that the property on Hobart Road is slightly undized. It's supposed to be 25,000 square ft and it's just a bit under that. It's 20 roughly 24 and a
half. Um with the transfer that becomes a compliant lot because it'll be 30,000 square feet and change. Um and not only is the property a little bit smaller, but it's also slightly over on lot
coverage. The limit in the R25 zone for uh for lot coverage is 30% and this is 30.6. 67 with the transfer of the property it becomes a lot coverage of 24.66
so it's well into conformance. Um the >> would you just touch upon the fact that because there's a subdivision here the opinion of the planner is that this has created a lot area variance because you have an average and I'm not sure that the board members have heard the lot
area averaging. So if you just walk through that, >> right? So in every the in every um block and and block is used loosely because it may not be bounded by four streets. Some blocks are very long and so they may be
divided in half. But in any case, the the block um you take all the properties, all the area, divide it, and you also get an average. So that there's not only a minimum size of 25,000 square
ft for both of these properties, but there's also an average lot area in this block of 37,534. Now, the two properties together right now are roughly 65,000
square ft. You can't get two 37,000 square foot lots out of this. So, we're not bringing in any new area into the into the equation. We're just moving
6,000 from one to the other. Both are uh conforming to the usual requirement of 25,000 square ft, but they can't both meet the requirement of 37,000 and change. Um, so that's the variance.
Uh, otherwise, um, they're bringing the one that's bigger is still bigger, but I was going to say it's but it's a smaller bigger. It's, um, the two are are moving towards more equally balanced. And
that's uh that's part of the objective here. Um the purpose for it is in order to get the 22 Hobart Road uh property to be a little bit bigger to allow more play space in the backyard uh for the
young kids of the owner. Uh so I'm going to go through a whole series of the um of the comments. uh first on the uh Burgess um report and then I'll go into
the the engineering. Uh first I just want to see if there are any questions in sort of the basic scope of what we're doing here. >> Actually, Madam Chair, if I could ask Mr. Burgess a question or two. >> Sure. >> Just for clarity on the on the variance
at issue uh to make sure I understand. Um, with respect to the neighborhood average lot area, as I understand it, the 37,534 square foot uh goal,
uh, we have 34 Dogwood in excess of that currently, but it would be rendered below that 37,534 average. So therefore,
it's your opinion that that lot at least by virtue of going from over 37,000 to under 37,000 approximately requires a variance from the neighborhood average lot area. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. And I take it then it's implied that uh in your opinion that the neighborhood average lot area applies not only to newly created lots but to newly created lots created by
subdivision i.e or lot line adjustment. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So the lot line adjustment makes this a newly created makes both of them newly created lots for that purpose. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. And then would is it also your opinion then that the 22 Hobart lot
which is going from 24,635 square feet to 30,635 uh square ft. It's increasing. It's already below the neighborhood >> but it's still not >> lot average. It's getting closer to it
but it's still not reaching or exceeding it. But it's getting >> is your opinion 22 Hobart also needs a variance from the neighborhood uh average lot area or no because that's a pre-existing non-conformity. >> No, they I believe they need the relief
but there has to be a recognition they're getting closer to conformance. >> Okay. >> So you have it as two variances, correct? Okay. And those are the only two variances. >> Yes. Thank you for allowing me that clarification so that we have an accurate resolution and and even more
importantly everybody knows what the relief being sought is before we get too far into the application and why. >> Thank you. >> So, okay. >> Thank you. And I just wanted to add to that that there are two existing variances
that are being removed >> eliminated non nonconformities. Yep. >> Right. Right. the lot size of the smaller property, the 22 Hobart Road, and the lot coverage, which is a bit in excess. >> Yes.
>> Which presumably will be part of your benefits substantially outweighing the detriments arguments going. >> Yeah. It's it's unusual to uh be able to um well, there are a few things that are unusual here, but getting rid of two nonconformities without building
anything or removing anything is pretty unusual. Um the other thing that's unusual is that years ago they used to ask whenever we came for a variance at the summit zoning board of adjustment they would ask have
you spoken with your neighbors to to see if they might be willing to sell property and the answer was usually that we tried but almost never could you get that. So, what I realize is you have to have the
same owner on both properties and then it's then it's a lot easier to uh get an agreement because most of the time people don't want to they don't want to sell their property. Okay. Uh just going through in the general comments um the applicant shall confirm the extent of
any proposed improvements and intended purpose for the subdivision. And the intended purpose is to provide more play space for the kids, possibly some uh reconfiguration of a patio, those kinds of things. We are currently doing a
project to finish an attic at this property at 22 Hobart Road and with a dormer. Um that has no impact there. There no variances for that. All of that is uh allowable. But so there is some activity on the property but we don't
have >> it's it's a separate thing that's >> but it's only on the Hobart property. >> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Right. And it's totally conforming. But I just want to say that there are other things that are happening. But we don't have any specific intent or or purpose
other than maybe reconfiguring a few of the things. And I'll I'll mention also that there is currently a fence at the border between the two properties and there's some landscaping along there. Those will be modified. The fence will be moved to the new uh property line uh
depending on which side of the property line the fence is on now. It will stay on the same on the same property. So it'll stay on the same side uh but repositioned. Um other than that and and uh other
minor aspects of landscaping where around the 22 Hobart where the property line is now the evidence of that will sort of be uh will be mostly eliminated and landscaping
will move to be the periphery of the new uh of the new property. Um uh I I addressed item two noting that the uh imperous lot coverage which is non-conforming will be reduced from
30.67 to 24.66. Um oh then there was a question about the in item four about whether the existing basement counts uh in F. It does not.
And I I have the um there are a couple of we went through the drawings uh sorry we went through the drawings on Hovart and submitted all of that in order to show that the floor area ratio
for both houses are fine now and um and going forward. Um then sort of finishing up, there was a question about the public benefits. Uh and I agree that it's a a C2 variance
where um it will it will not well it will advance uh the intent and purposes of the municipal land use law and the also the summit ordinance and master plan. And one of the main ways it's doing that is what I mentioned in the beginning where the property size of the
smaller property will become conforming and the lot coverage on that same property, the Hobart Road, that will also be conforming, which is the intent of of the ordinance to have properties that are conforming. Um, with regard to
the negative criteria, it's the the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good, mainly because nobody's going to see this. It's not prompting any other uh major actions on either of the sites and that the granting of relief will not
substantially impair the intent and purpose of the master plan and zoning ordinance, which is what I was uh what I just mentioned. Okay, I'm going to skip the the other um the other uh staff comments mostly
consist of the words no objections. Um John Linson mentions that no trees need to be removed in order to have this lot line. So he fleshed it out a little bit more but then no objections. Okay. So uh on the Kier's report uh number seven um
they indicate re realign the common lot line to balance the respective lot areas. We we agree on that. Number 12, the submission indicates that the proposed lot line uh relocation will eliminate again the same thing about the
existing nonconformities. Um uh number 13. The subdivision plan also depicts a proposed right-of-way dedication noted as an 8 foot wide dedication area. This is uh Hobart. This
is about Hobart Road. I'm just going to come back to this drawing. >> Um Just a second here. So here I I can come out a bit, but this is Dogwood Drive coming up from the
bottom and then it turns sharp left um to become Hobart Road. Hobart Road has a 16 ft rightway. Um there was some clarification wanted uh with regard to the
that space because in many older properties uh and in many communities originally the the deed um had the lot go to the center of the street and the right of way was actually the right of somebody to be able to pass along that
area. um that's the way it was done and so many of the older surveys have that and newer surveys reference that old way of doing it. That's at some point all the municipalities around here
claim that property and it's no longer personal property. It's uh municipal property. So, um this this all of the statistics I've given you are based on not counting the
street, not counting um Hobart Road. And if anything needs to be done, if the deed or the um whatever if something is not consistent, we'll make that consistent and that will be uh appropriately filed with the county or
and and the city, whoever needs to see that. Um number 14 as I mentioned it is the purpose of this is a lot li lot line adjustment and we're not planning uh new site improvements grading or disturbance
um in in conjunction with this. Now, something may happen in the future, and I mentioned maybe reconfiguring of the patio, some landscape changes, and there could be other things. Uh, but mainly it's it's space for uh the young kids
that they have uh to be able to play. Okay, just going through a few others. Uh item 15, the applicant shall cl shall clarify uh to the right-of-way line. That's what I just mentioned. And confirm that all existing structures and improvements
will continue to comply. Yes, we do. Number 17, no existing easements, utilities, drainage facilities, or other aspects of the properties are being affected by this. Um, we confirm that the address, uh, there's there may have
been some confusion somewhere. I I don't know where between Hobart Road and Hobart Avenue. We're only dealing with Hobart Road. And if we'll go through all the paperwork and make sure that that that's correctly identified. Number 20
says that the the plan depicts fencing and baseball netting. Baseball netting is going away and the fence will be relocated. As I mentioned, the baseball netting is on 34 Dogwood and that's it. It's it's not in a good spot after the
subdivision, so that just goes away. Um, and number 21, the applicant shall confirm that the subdivision does not alter drainage patterns, all of the rest. That is uh that's correct. So with
that, that's our that's the that's most of the presentation, but I'll answer any questions. >> Any questions? >> I have a question. >> Yes. >> So what's the what's the required um rear yard setback for 34 Dogwood?
>> Uh I think it's 45. >> And what is it going to be when you put the lot line? Okay, I have it right here. So, it's going to be currently uh to the to the house it's 137.93.
So, uh >> 137 from the new lot line. >> No, that's from the old lot line and the new one for the house the rear yard setback which is required to be 45 will be 73. >> Okay. And the stone walkway and all of
that, isn't that required to be set back, too? That's not what you're including, but that's just a a couple. >> Well, the stone walkway is 68 ft. That too is is compliant. >> Yeah. Okay, good. >> 68 in the proposed. >> Are there any plans to alter? This is a
really nice historic building in a district, historic district in Summit, as you know, architect design, not your cookie cutter kind of house. Uh, are there any plans to alter this building? >> 34 Dogwood. >> Yeah. >> No, >> because of this lot line change. It's an
LLC. It's not just >> Right. The plan is >> Joe Smith. Um the plan is to move the lot line and sell the property at 34 Dogwood and for the owner current of the two lots to
just have uh the 22 Hobart Road property >> and do the improvements you discussed. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Yeah. But nothing uh we've we haven't even had discussions about that house, the house at 34
Dogwood because the intent is to put it on the market and and sell that. It was it was convenient that that house came up for sale at a time when the owner of 22 Dogwood was trying to see if there
was a way that of of getting a little more space for the kids to play in the backyard. Um it looks like it's endless because it goes out into the arboritum. So there isn't another house visible, but the actual ownership um instead of
negotiating with the owner at the time, uh the current the owner of 22 Hobart bought the property and now we're here. >> Okay. Bonnie, do you have anything to say about this uh historic property? Oh,
I mean it's, you know, it's gorgeous and I hate to think what could happen, but I I don't know that tonight is there's anything that can be done that way tonight. >> Oh, I just have a comment. My son used
to play back there. >> There's a little place where the Espie's house was, if you remember. They moved. It's a nice place to play. It's a really nice place to play. The SPS is a little bit farther. >> It's on. Yeah. But it's over
>> sort of SPS go on goes onto Hobart Road. >> Yeah. On this on this drawing in the lower left. This is the garage that's on their property. Yeah. >> The property that you just mentioned. >> Yeah.
>> You played all of that. >> Oh, yeah. It looks like it's a little valley where >> there is uh yeah, the property dips down um it dips down in the area sort of the back right of the
uh is that dipping? Yeah. Yeah, it dips down in the in the back right corner of the original of of 22 Hobart. So like back in here. >> Okay. >> It dips down. But this is nice because the property extends across here and
this is quite level. >> So it forms a nice this will form a nice play area. >> Joe and Marie, do you have any comments? >> I'm thrilled that somebody obviously read my memo. >> Isn't that nice when they read >> marked it up and highlighted it?
>> Look at that. >> I love it when they go through it. That's what Bart used to do, too. You you know Bart. Um well I don't have any further questions either. Um I wanted to hear about why and you have addressed that.
>> Yeah I don't know the ages of the girls but they're one of them is less than one. One of them was born during the process we've been talking about. >> Okay. Do we uh
>> have any public questions? Nope. Uh, are we good? Do we want to Sorry. >> Oh, we have to talk to the engineer. I don't even know if we need to talk to the engineer. Does anybody want to talk to the engineer? >> Mr. Engineer, do you have anything you
really need to share that Mr. Rosen hasn't shared? >> Covered everything. >> Sorry, >> Mr. Rosen covered everything. >> Left with nothing to do. No, but he was very thorough. So, that's good. We appreciate it. I Does anybody Everybody okay with that? Okay. All right. So, do
we have a a motion? Do we want to discuss first? >> You're submitting on the no summation council. >> 1025. >> Yeah. >> Um, so we can discuss, but it doesn't look like anybody really wants to say anything. >> I mean, just
>> lot line adjustment in two neighborhood average lot area deviations. As we discussed earlier, the conditions are everything set forth in the various reports. I didn't hear anything else. So, that's what's on the table. >> What did you want to say, Augusta? >> Go. >> Fairly simple. Uh, I think we're seeing
the benefit of just seeing at least one lot over the uh minimum threshold for 25,000. Even though they're slightly below the average, uh there's no imminent or immediate impact to allowing the lot lines to be adjusted. And it does alleviate one factor. So,
>> and it leaves plenty of room in the back of the other house if they want to do anything back there. >> Yeah. Rear yard, sideyard, and setbacks are all well. So, >> yeah. Okay. I agree. Does is there a motion to >> approve?
Second. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Ms. Bowen. >> Yes. >> Council member Chrisoy. >> Yes. >> Mr. Domaso. >> Yes. >> Miss Morrison. >> Yes. >> Mr. Salah. >> Yes. >> Mr. Stern. >> Yes. >> Mr. Golden.
>> Yes. Chair Bolson Alvarez. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Resolutions. Okay. >> And they're selling
>> they're selling they're selling the Oh, >> this one got chopped off. >> Thank you. >> Good job. Thank you, >> Madam Chair. Madam Chair, we got we got to conclude some of the items on the
agenda. >> Yes. Sorry, I'm like ready. Okay, I'm >> getting ahead of ourselves. >> You're right. We have resolution >> Lindon Place. That was a motion for minor subdivision approval and variance relief for uh 268-270
Ashlin Road. Some lot area deficient front yard setbacks. The uh conditions of approval was unanimous. >> I was not there for this meeting. I did watch it, but I I'm going to leave it up to those who were to approve this. So,
>> and I recused recused. >> So, who's eligible to vote? Jessica, >> Ms. Bowen, Council Member Chrisley, Mr. Dalmaso, Mr. Salah, and Mr. Stern. >> If someone could give us a motion second or quick moved >> second, >> Miss Bowen,
>> yes. >> Council member Chris Foley, >> I'm sorry. This is these are the minutes from from last 22 minutes. >> The resolution Lynen Place resolution >> the a yeah Ashlin road lynen place >> oh >> yes >> Mr. Domaso
>> yes >> Mr. Salah >> yes >> Mr. Stern >> yes >> so adopted >> and we took care of four parferas earlier with Mr. Uh she in >> now we're down to >> we still have a close session. >> Yes. >> Sorry.
>> We still have the close session too. >> We have to do >> for the minutes. >> No, no, no. After that. >> Okay. >> No. I'm saying do we have a close session? >> We we do. We have a short >> five minutes or less. >> No questions less. >> Do you want to do the minutes next time?
>> No. No. >> No. No. No. Okay. Okay. Let's go. >> All right. Any changes to the minutes? I >> can't find my minutes. >> We can start with the October 27 regular. >> Yep. We have a four because there were two close out sessions.
>> Okay. So, Mr. Stern, where are your typos >> in what >> with the minute? >> Are there any? >> There were none. >> That's your Jessica. We can take a quick look if you
haven't had a chance. >> So the eligible voting members for October 27th, 2025 for both regular and close session minutes were Chair Balsson Alvarez, Miss Bowen, Mr. Dalmaso, and Mr. Stern. >> Were there any edits?
>> No, I don't have any. >> Could we get a motion to approve? >> So moved. >> And a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? I >> I any opposed? >> Okay. Then next up we have the regular and close session meeting minutes from December 15th, 2025.
The eligible voting members are Chair Balsson Alvarez, Miss Bowen, Mr. Dalmaso, Mr. Salah, and Mr. Stern. And I just would like to state that Vice Chair Hamlet reached out and there is an edit on page one of the December 15, 2025
regular meeting minutes where it says the second for 268 270 Ashland. I had written down it was Mayor Fagen. It was actually Mr. Stern. >> I move to approve the minutes unless there are any other edits. No.
>> So move. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? That's right. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I think we're done. Are we done? >> Well, do we have to go into
session? could stay here and do a quick motion and you could announce that there'll be no formal action taken when we come back and we'll just be moving to adjourn. So people need not wait. >> We can just close. >> Can they Can they turn off the
television? You can do it right here. We don't have to go anywhere else. Okay. Thank you. Have a safe trip home. Appreciate your help. >> Make sure you all five minutes or less. >> That's right. No questions. It'll be three minutes. >> That's right. That's right. So, do I have to do this for close session? If
you don't mind, close the door on your way out. >> Do we need a question? >> Yeah. andor >> so motion to enter into close session. >> Yes. Which means the public has to go. >> And this is for Yeah. pending
litigation. Tatlock lights update. >> Yes. Okay. Close session. Thank you. >> We have a second. >> Second.