##VIDEO ID:QMCdI81PLjI## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e [Music] 7:30 hey thank you great memo we can call this order was completely that reason consisten say let's throw it in anyway and you to he said I know it's not necessary but it's consistent thank all right good evening everybody Welcome um I'm going to call the meeting to order and our first step is to ask the secretary to call the role sure chairman zooker here Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez she'll be running oh no she was here oh she she must have just stepped out oh did she step out okay okay uh Mr spur here Mr felmet here council member Hamlet here Mr dalmaso here miss McGee Mr forelli here Mr stern here Mr Bell is excused Miss Bowen here you have quarum you may proceed all right thank you um I'll read the public notice and when uh Jennifer gets here we'll do the pledge uh in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here in City Hall please be advised this is a no smoking building fire exits are to my right and your left and in the back of the room this is a scheduled meeting of the planning board there may be other meetings currently running simultaneously with this meeting if you're not here for the summit planning board your meeting may be upstairs or elsewhere in the building and she comes my good you're just in time we'll do the Pledge of Allegiance please rise it's okay I 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 no problem um one thing I noticed when I was watching one of the the videos of our meeting is that our consultants and we all have to talk really close to these microphones to have it project okay um our first item on the agenda tonight is a um Summit Community program at tack lock field um and just be just to by way of introduction um I'm going to ask Mr Warner to give us a couple minutes explaining uh why this Project's come before us at this time certainly Mr chairman thank you and okay there we go the uh yeah this is not a typical application for the board uh and uh it is a what we refer to as a reasonableness review and I'll briefly explain uh it's not quite a capital project uh uh uh uh recommended recommendatory review because while it involves public Pro uh property uh and it certainly appears to be a public use um it is uh and the uh uh the municip our city is exempt from zoning uh it is not a Capital project because it is a donation from a nonprofit cor uh corporation that is providing the funds for this project so it's not technically a capital project however as I said uh public property public use certainly appears to be and so there is an exemption from uh uh from uh uh uh General exemption from uh from zoning um it's uh so but it's also not a site plan application per se because of the exemption from zoning so there are some cases in uh including the hills of Troy case where essentially what the job of the board is uh is to do a reasonableness review there's a four-part balancing test uh uh to ensure that it is indeed a public purpose and therefore exempt from zoning and uh that four-part test is the reasons why the municipality uh uh or in this case well the municipality and the uh non for-profit uh uh Enterprise are joining together in essence uh to do this project the type of public interest to be served by the location in the project uh the nature of the uh entity the private entity uh and the weighing the same to ensure that the private benefits obtained uh uh warrant an exemption from zoning on this project so it's uh lit literally based on a couple of cases including the hills of try case I guess the best way I could describe it and it's not a great way is somewhere in between uh a uh it's Capital it's it's Capital project like but not quite Capital project so it's a recom recommendatory review uh we uh are not finding that whether or not there's a site plan approval required there's no site plan approval required um we can make recommendations uh and certainly uh our board uh uh professionals and agencies have given us some recommendations to consider um and uh and we can while we don't have to we can uh make a master plan consistency determination no harm done and Mr bur just re referenced that fact in his uh report he said while not technically required he found uh the uh purposes to be such that they are consistent uh with the master plan so that's our job this evening with respect to this project so in some we can make recommendations this evening and we can opt to find it consistent with me or not inconsistent with yes correct and and again presuma I I don't want to presume too much but I I suspect that the board will find that it is a public purpose and it meets that four-part test under the hills of Troy case and I'm happy to repeat that test at the appropriate time later on um so uh so that indeed there is a a reasonable exemption from zoning requirements uh a couple of questions Mr Warner one what are the public hearing requirements for this uh public notice require what are the public notice requirements no no no public uh well when I say no public notice no ml notice required by the uh applicant Summit Community programs okay we didn't uh it's not doesn't require mlul notice Visa publication in the newspaper and certified male personal notice to those within 200 feet I guess the only other question is it sounds like this is going to be the first reasonableness review in the history of Summit New Jersey so for me it just sort of stuck out I'm like you know I'm calling Joe before the meeting I'm calling Jennifer and you could this is but this is the first time there's and I I'm just curious as so this isn't a board of ed project it's on city land so can we just CU for us nobody knows what the hills of Troy is here right so you know when we show up and I guess that's where we're we're all just sort of like what's this what's this yeah and that and that's why I want that to explain it briefly and I'm happy to continue to explain it uh Joe may want to chime in as well uh uh the um it's not the first in the history of the state of New Jersey for any municipality I can assure you that and uh I uh have had I represent several boards and have for many years decades now and uh and and had a few um but they they are not Gordon variety uh by any stretch um and often times they uh will involve sort of a joint Enterprise between a private entity and a public entity or municipality um this again is isn't even exactly on point with the hills of Troy case but it's pretty darn close so that's why uh uh it was the most appropriate review uh uh uh for for the board uh again not a capital project uh CU it's not Municipal funds right Capital funds being utilized so it doesn't fall squarely or within that category uh and you're familiar with the recommend recommendatory reviews we've done for Board of Ed projects and and other capital projects um not a site plan because it's a public purpose and a public use as I'm sure we'll hear uh so the closest thing uh and it's fairly close it is Hill Detroit and it's progyny there's other cases uh that are under that line of cases so do the requirements from the technical Review Committee change versus with a courtesy review and a reasonableness review because a lot of the things that I'm seeing in here tonight are requiring the applicant which is the city and the reviewer but you have a nonprofit who's on aware of those of those requirements and that's where I'm very confused yeah well I the the I didn't do the reports the so um uh I I think those reports technically should be viewed as for the board to make a determination as to whether or not to uh impose or or you know those as make those as recommendations uh but shouldn't the I mean if I may shouldn't the technical Review Committee say you either have to go forward with a permit based on the storm water management requirements that shouldn't be for this board to decide it's not our decision it's the city of summit the technical Review Committee should be saying these are your storm water management requirements why should we talk about that I'm just very confused yeah well I think similar to if these were reports for a site plan application in which case you would be looking at them and saying these are your conditions of approval um here these are your recommendations uh in that in the way that we handle ctes reviews for capital projects again this not being fitting squarely within that category uh Mr Felman did you have a question uh deal covered most of it but I so who decides that this comes to this board if it's once in a Summit like I'm sure we've had part U public private um funded structures in in this community before so like how did this get on today's agenda and how come nobody sent out like like the four things that go into the case and all that preliminary stuff because that would have been very helpful to have before this second uh well the the I was asked how this should be handled I opine based on my knowledge and experience with similar cases including the hill b and handle the hills of Troy case it's a publish decision um and from there the process continued I wasn't candidly consulted again uh until all the reports came in and and I was provided with them so uh and I think a lot of the comments um if I may are are from the city engineer and I know we have um some assistants here but the city engineer is not here yes actually we have the assistant city engineer here I'm sorry Mr Salama yeah okay I'm sorry also you should be sitting over here I just okay that's helpful I didn't know that um so you'll be able to answer anything related to director sher's comments yes okay great give me Authority yeah and if you could please sit here I candidly expected an an engineer to be here my apologies my apologies foration was correct um before we go forward I was wondering Mr Burgess do you can you uh fill in any gaps here in terms of what is expected of this board in terms of uh how we're supposed to respond I should say how we're supposed to evaluate is it is it similar to like when the Board of Ed came for the high school and the middle school where we can offer suggestions but they're under no obligation to actually they can it can go in one ear and out the other and do nothing well I don't know if i' say one ear and out the other but yes it is recommendatory as opposed to uh uh statute you can statutorily or or or actually with jurisdiction of the board impose it the conditions it it is recommendatory it's as I said before it's similar to The Way We handle courtesy seems like it's even lower bar it does so I don't know if it's a I wouldn't I wouldn't candidly describe it as a lower bar um i' describe it as a similar process um and again the the uh I the reasonableness test is really derived around is it a primarily a public use uh and the reason that test was enunciated in the hills of Troy case and other cases was because you had this in those cases this sort of combination private public is a public is a private which is a more that type of thing um so here do we have to opine if those four prongs are met uh you you you consider these that you they don't have to meet they're they're it's a balancing test so these are the considerations why is the municipality entering into a partnership with a private Enterprise here it's uh you know well it is what it is you'll hear it's a nonprofit and they're they're putting up the funds for the project uh we have two resolutions from the governing body appropriately so in my opinion I serve as uh Municipal Council in municipalities as well accepting the donation uh is one as I recall and uh the other authorizing the use of the public uh Municipal land a portion thereof uh so this is not well that's one of the factors uh the other the type of public interest to be served uh the other uh the nature of the private Enterprise uh and the other weighing private and public benefits and uh determining if it's reasonable for exemption from zoning regulations I suspect from what I've heard and seen we may hear that this is very public uh and not particularly private maybe the bulk of the private aspect of it is is that the city doesn't have to pay for it uh but we'll hear that well I think that if I may chairman that sort of is the question so this is a privately fun funed this is privately funded however if we impose these storm water management requirements which I don't believe the 501c3 was aware of until two days ago then does the city take on that responsibility because when I look at reasonableness all over the Internet and you talk about storm water who's responsible for the damage if we don't insert or prove or put forward those who's in who's in charge of that well it's Municipal property and while the municipality the city here is uh exempt from zoning uh you know the the ultimately I I would suspect uh that uh someone will ensure that uh the appropriate storm water management uh is is uh is installed just to chime in for a moment uh storm water management would be taken care of through the city's engineering Division if there are any issues recommendations that would come up through that it would you know pertain to this board to provide the recommendation but it would be the engineering division to oversee the project because it is on public land right so I wouldn't anticipate well again I think we heard it the it's you know it would be recommendatory as perhaps as be uh not for-profit entity that is funding the installation of these facilities but that certainly doesn't preclude the city from taking on those obligations fundamentally we're saying it I'm sorry go ahead no it may be most appropriate to have the applicant provide this testimony address those four points also address my comments about the consistency with the master plan and in that way I think you'll be touching base with all the requirements that you're obligated to address oh let's have the applicant present their case all right uh good evening everybody thank you um chairman Zucker and members of the planning board for allowing myself Mark aarosi and the director of Community programs I've been with the city for almost 26 years um I've got two of the three headed monsters with me Chris Badgley Leo pis U Bobby Mor arti who couldn't make it this evening um they are the three um gentlemen who came up with the idea um became a committee and then turned themselves into an LLC um in order to raise funds for this project um in your packet you saw my memo that I sent to everybody but basically we've been talking about this LaCrosse wall for at least 20 years um in 2014 we did a Redevelopment plan at tatlock um within that Redevelopment plan we had a LaCrosse wall um then in 2020 2021 the lacrosse group had come to me and said hey Mark it's time we need to do this um I met with my Council um board or my Council committee I met with with my DCP Advisory Board we discussed this project um at that point both um committies said it's a fantastic idea Mark but we do not want to put money into this project I reached out to the Lacrosse Club The Summit High School athletic director these gentlemen Bobby Mor Ary um and they said hey Mark we will take on the responsibility to fund raise for this project we will hire um an AR arit as well as a contractor we just need um official use of the city land um so back in 2021 or I guess it was 20 March of 2022 these gentlemen came to the council presented their idea um at that point in time the council said we are in favor passed a resolution um but did say once you raise your raise the funds um hire architect and bring in your contractor come back to us and let us know that in February of 2024 they came back they said they had raised the funds for the project they named the architect as well as the contractor the council said we are in total agreement we're super happy we would like you to go to the planning board for a courtesy review and that's why we're here today um as far as again the four the four items um I think actually you do that if I may Mr chairman I'm going to even though it is not a site plan application I'm going to uh swear you in and swear in the two witnesses the other two witnesses as well just out of an abundance of caution so if you could just raise your right hand do you uh all three of you do uh do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you've already given and that which you will no doubt continue to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you thank you and I and uh but please continue um so that's that's where we are at this point um as far as you know I had heard whether it's going to be used it's going to be private or public it's going to be open for every single resident in this in the city whether it's yes it's a LaCrosse wall something that we should have had um but any sport can use it soccer tennis you name it it's going to be open for everybody it's not going to be restricted to one one organization or one group I guess I can open up to questions either myself or Leo or Chris can answer cross wall Leo you want it's a basically a back stop and I'm sorry if you could just give us again your name and your position with the entity 164 Beachwood Road Jersey but you have to go to the mic everybody we got a little for a little bit form you can use the handheld mic nobody will hear you you could just turn it on just switch the button on and I'm sorry uh Mr pis p a y t s class of 81 and you are with uh I am with the summit Lacrosse Association okay thank you and and I'm Chris Badgley also a summit resident and also with the lacrosse Community okay I'm sorry please continue thank you it's basically a back stop or a wall a back stop so it's it's a Concrete uh cinder block wall uh with a um uh uh asphalt uh on the surface on the U on the ground uh for just uh wall ball what we call it it's just throwing and catching against the wall nothing better to develop skills left hand right hand throwing the ball with a wall that doesn't miss so it's just back and forth on that surface basically yeah the one one side's going to be a playing surface for catching and throwing and the other side is going to be a covered area a gazebo that will look out over the uh field below so it's dual where it's one one it's one's catch and thrown one's place for shelter essentially is there any lighting only sort uh under the Gazebo just to safety lighting there will be no lights behind the uh uh the wall so just down lighting down lighting yeah yeah just just for the covered area not not on the throwing side through you chair so couple of questions one is will we have will we have a sign that says children can't use this past a certain hour number two um well I don't mind you saying it's for soccer and Lacrosse when I have a fourth grader and what I'm thinking in my mind is you've got a sixth grader throwing a lacrosse ball and you've got a third grer grader playing lacrosse and the third grader is going to get whacked in the head by a lacrosse ball so have we thought about out I know it's probably the intention is good to have it used by multiports but my fear is that if we're if couple lacrosse kids are using it a couple soccer kids soccer kids are going to lose out unless somebody's really getting a bad soccer ball back so who's managing that I guess is my question uh so there's not any management General Management in place for for the wall I think um if you look at and You observe a a tennis backboard for that matter yeah you know you have the same type of you know who's ever on the wall at that particular moment in time is going to be on the wall so if no one's there and you know third graders show up and they're on the wall well they're on it until they're off and then you the sixth graders come on so it's it's going to be um I'm not not suggesting that we try to police it and say okay in between this hour this this group can use it and that hour somebody else can use it that's not the intent just a a quick note on that over at Memorial Field we have a uh wall that's used for tennis and there's soccer players that go up there there's all kinds of different athletes that go up there we never get any complaints or fights or anything so whose job is it to maintain the wall on an ongoing basis uh Su of AC cross Club has taken on that responsibility are there any time constraints other than light like I'm it's a wall it's a the cross ball going against the concrete wall right makes a noise if it's at night you know just thinking about the residents that are near the field is there any I don't think it's any louder than a pickle ball you've heard that for for for hours right um but a lacrosse ball is actually quieter than a than a pickle ball um and there since there's no light it would not be um utilized after after Dark I mean if I if I may then I think we should put some rules in place because I've seen communities just go wild over pickle ball and I think if we could be proactive and just recommend a stop time if they're not going to use it anyway then it would allow our uh police department to enforce a certain time and put rules in place and I've mentioning that we should do that for the park line anyway so I think to your point it might be helpful to just be proactive and and recommend that do you want to recommend till dark sense yeah yeah yeah that's safe and then I know there's a bigger tatlock plan so to speak that I saw some schematics about it does this fit in with that is it so part of the reason is there a reason that's being done well part of the reason we chose this location um I had met with the lacrosse president I had met with Dan Healey the athletic director um a few council members and I went down there and basically this location um allows for the current use of that facility and not interfere as well as potential expansion with potentially the Fieldhouse um so this is the the best and really only location that we could we could put it in do we have any other questions from the board have the residents closest to this construction been told about this I don't think there's a requirement but Ian if I may I can say we approved this at Council in was it March or April Mark uh was in March yeah and I will say there is a scrib eror in your memo Mark uh Stephanie it says in his in Mark's memo dated October 15th it says in March of 2002 but that was 2022 yes yes so the council has unanimously approved this on multiple occasions I believe we'd have to get the dates from Stephanie but most recently we did the February 2024 February so so pres came I can't remember if they came to that meeting or not I think they did yes they did yes they did several questions were asked yes several questions were asked and answered I got another question when is a construction uh planned to start if this the the goal is to hopefully have it in by the spring when lacrosse starts um obviously once we follow the rules with the city and the engineering department we're looking to start as soon as possible and will any of the other tatlock area be fected during the construction of this or will it be done during all hours will there be what kind of equipment will be used things like that uh I'm not sure of the specifics but it won't interfere with any activities that are going on in the park there's nothing used there now currently right no the city engineer mentions storm water management and a management plan for then previous cover I guess that's going in there so I was wondering because I don't know if you've done anything with regard to that yet but um whether we could just recommend that this is adhere to you know so that we don't have any storm water management issues and then the Construction office also had some recommendations and some questions apparently on the drawings it's it's poured concrete with rebar maybe and then on on the somewhere else it says it's cinder block so just cleaning that up and we can probably just recommend to work with the construction office to satisfy their needs and their questions um for Code Compliance um Mr well I was going to draw attention to the zoning officer's comments about the fence and the lighting and providing testimony and answer to those comments is that what you're going to raise that's exactly where I was going so you me me to the punch okay uh applicant should provide testimony as to uh the finalized fence height uh The Pavilion lighting plan where the power source would be uh ongoing maintenance you've already commented on and uh any signage I think we're recommending assign and the height of so the height of the fence is going to be consistent with the uh black fence that's up there it's going to be 6 foot and then if you're familiar with the area the ticket booth there's a power source um there's actually an outlet right there as well as uh electricity inside a boo so that's where we'll be pulling power from and any signage on the wall other than what we've already recommended uh which is a know no use after dark the logo that's that's there Summit logo that's on it the S which I think is on your plans think you've seen that sure yeah question please yes please uh my question would be when was the I guess it wouldn't be the applicant cuz that's us but uh The Entity that's paying for this when were they made aware of the storm water management requirements uh uh Thursday this P Thursday so today's Monday so um so three days ago yes okay so is the nonprofit comfortable with this Memo from Department of community services that that he writes that we you're going to have to be in compliance with these drro storm water management right regulation we were just speaking with the um uh uh the assistant engineer um and uh it would appear that uh understanding that code uh what we just got a few minutes ago seems to be relatively um simple in a sense that it's an aggregate Zone to take care of I me it's a small area 300 square feet of an impervious uh matter that we're we're dealing with so the storm water management of that system um shouldn't be that big of an undertaking for us to accommodate it so we should be able we're going to have uh you know backod that's going to be digging Footers anyway uh for the wall so obviously we need to kind of understand it a little better but we will be in accordance with the regulations that they are required than is the plan just on the storm water is the intent to submit a storm water management plan for review and approval about the C's engineer just as you're all kind come speed is that the intent I think the intent is to revise the plans accordingly and we submit for permit and at that point it'll be included on the plan for the permit to go ahead with the construction won't be an afterthought it'll be something that's planned with the architect the engineers subject to review and approval by the city before any construction is done correct and U can you describe the materials being used uh brick cinder block asphalt wood shingles and concrete right I mean from the design the images we saw I mean it seems attractive terms of the uh The Pavilion look and I guess a wall is a wall yeah it's going to be a beautiful wall there you go beautiful wall well we're concerned with everything being somewhat consistent with our uh design guidelines that we tried to no it's going to fit right into the neighborhood uh both my children went to Washington School in that neighborhood and we looked at that that building so would be brick in nature and columns and nice roof so it would fit into the the neighborhood also good that's exactly what we like that's what we like it's my neighborhood if I can make one more comment one of the things that we talked about at Council and this the last comment I'll make was thank you first of all for this vision and and you know it's our job to make sure that we've taken care of the neighbors and everything um the one thing I love about this that it allows lacrosse from all income levels so you don't have to hire a private coach it's truly a practice area for everybody in Summit it's not just the kids who can afford a private coach and that's why I think that you know a lot of us are going to be able to get behind this project so thank you for your vision and your leadership in this thank you thank you I think one of the things just to add on to what you're saying like if you if you're down there uh and you look at the amount of use that gets um on a on a weekend in the spring the amount of kids that are down there playing um if you were to walk around the area there really is no safe spot in which to throw a ball against a wall and if those of you guys who are familiar with LaCrosse wall ball is a big thing um and um that's how we get um our quality players to to kind of get to the high school yeah just one quick question we were just looking at the images here at the back side of it that you said that was covered what is that's just for to put stuff under or what's that going to be used for it be more more of a gazebo is a a place of shelter place to to look out over the other the field below so more of a instead of just having a wall on each side we we thought we'd use one side just as a viewing area place a shelter if it's raining if there's uh thunderstorm lightning place people go are we yeah okay are we concerned that there could be anyone trying to play wall ball on that side since it's to wall should we add that to the sign no cuz it it it's it's going to have columns and it's only I think 7t deep and it's it's it'll be more of a uh covered structure on that side and there won't be a hard surface in front of it beyond the the porch area so it's not going to be um conducive to throwing it against the ball yeah and then and that then that side of of it facing the field that's few more feet down it starts to slope downhill a little bit after that anyway so it it wouldn't be wouldn't be good to throw on that side thank you just have one last question have you guys made a decision whether it's going to be pavement or athletic tur pavement true or bounce the entire fenc in area or for like just the area approaching the wall just on the uh on the on the throwing side I believe it's got the back side of it back side of it I believe it's I think it's like 45 ft square like this whole Fen are is the whole thing paved or is it just like 10t to the wall no the whole place would be the whole the whole pavement is a trer balance than than like the surface that they' be playing on the field so if you if you understand what you're trying to do um if you've got a Turf in there the turf's going to give so the ball's not going to bounce up true so you want to be able to catch and throw with a consistent bounce instead of like bringing the ball back up to where you can catch it so you're throwing it bounce catch throwing it bounce catch if it's hitting the a softer Turf it'll die and now you're catching it down here so it's more accurate for you get a true bounce you're going to play tennis against it also same same idea can't so just to clarify the fenced in area is how many square feet 6 I think I think we made it small speak for that um that the square footage of the fenon area approximately 1788 Square ft all right is that wait which one of our stipulations as part of the city engineers office was to include the coverage tables on the plan so that all of these values are broken down clearly on the plan but going off of the fen here if it was the entire area be 3600 so that should just be noted [Music] noted so it's not the so between the between the the the the the asphalt and the actual fence they'll be since we're talking about we're not talking about half that much is actually covered is the rest grass but what what goes around or is it permeable inside the fence so the I think our goal is to have the entire space inside the fence I think the plan may be incorrect and it may we probably straight that down to uh the 1700 square ft oh so the 3 okay so it's not really 60 by 60 or whatever yeah I think originally it was 60 ft then we I think we reduced it down to 45 ft yeah so maybe that as an earlier drawing might have 2,000 yes close to that number 1788 is the area within the fence the 300 number is solely the Gazebo got it yes okay okay yeah so but even a 60 by 45 space I'm hearing everybody it's still 2700 make sure the same yeah I think it's I think it's 45t length in the wall and then I don't know how far the fence was going back was that I think we that was too big I think we reduced it to 45 60 yeah originally I think that was the the idea yeah that's big that that was too big what do you have 2,000 yeah so I have about 2,000 that was estimated from from the plan at scale just using an engineer scale just measured length width multiplied that's it however I mean that should be confirmed with you guys and with the lot coverage table on top of it on the plan so the contractor you folks the reviewing party we're all on the same page on the size of this thing yep so yes and the mitigation for the storm water if yes that's so it's all however many much impervious that's going to be add it all is subject to the to get their building permit that's all just going to have to get buttoned up right um after this recommendation as a part of the permit because of the coverage and impervious coverage it would naturally go to the engineering division as a a as a permit for their review and all these conditions would then be applied upon completion then reviewed Etc and then Construction office for these other yes absolutely we will be handling this as a review just like any other reviews so it'll go through the grading perit application process sounds good all right then so um D are we okay and then I guess the last thing is steep slopes doesn't look like we've addressed that but you'll address that at your so it seems to be out of the range of steep slopes in the area and given the scope of work the reviewing party finds it acceptable that it's not really out of the Zone yeah I I spoke with director Sher today and one of the questions I asked is well why did this get targeted as a flood plane in sdl and he mentioned that it it was I guess it came up as a flood plane because of Martins Brook Park but that it that we have not seen that type of flood erosion I'm not sure Mark if you can say that but he said it has not we haven't seen it so I asked the question that was the answer is that can you talk about that is there any flooding down there no okay there you go that's other than that probably not okay right do I haven't seen any yeah anything so with that our recommendations are what I gather is was the signage does anyone else have anything else they've covered every point I mean I would say I know this sounds ridiculous but add dogs to the signage because we're adding them at tatlock Turf and like let's just knock it out if we're making a sign let's say no dogs allowed yeah I mean that is the like I live over there and do there is like a little group of people who they're dogs run up and down that question just imag there no dogs are not to mention the cleanup well they're there all the time yeah okay all right we're adding dogs to the sign I obey the sign before we conclude if we're getting to that conclusion Point Mr chairman if I may there just two two things one again uh uh Mr Burgess and his me memorandum opined as to the consistency or or lack of inconsistency with respect to the master plan which while not required I would concur with him I would recommend that we make that finding in uh in our decision uh that will be memorialized in a resolution to be adopted at the next meeting that's one item uh the other item is uh uh if now is the appropriate time I can reiterate that four-part test for the board to make its reasonableness determination or I can wait I I just didn't want you to finish before I got there yeah I was that I'm sorry Joe do you have anything to share uh the only thing and Steve touched upon it uh there are a number of goals and objectives in the master plan they talk about enhancing Recreation facilities in the community and um upgrading Community Resources particularly recre facilities so this ties in directly with that call right that's how we looked at it thank you so with I'm sorry so go ahead with respect to the hills of Troy the the the hills of Troy the uh it's almost biblical and it's sound but uh the um that case involved a cell cell tower to be constructed on Municipal property the P ppines police station uh and the issue was whether or not it was exempt from zoning uh because the wireless cell service provider that that cell tower uh was going to uh serve the municipality in many ways Police Department uh emergency uh uh uh Communications Etc um but it did involve a private uh wireless cell tower uh uh service provider and the court ultimately employed this four-part test and determined that indeed it was a public use primarily and an exempt from zoning uh so again that test uh is the public purpose analysis requires one the reasons why the municipality entered into the agreement with the private Enterprise two the type of public interest to be served thereby at the location three the nature of the private Enterprise which you've heard you're familiar with the program uh and fourth weighing the same against the private benefits obtained to conclude whether the private Enterprise also is exempt from zoning regulation on Municipal project um and uh where on such analysis the public interest outweighs the private interest uh then the private entity may also share in the municipalities zoning exemption uh municipalities always have the power to contract with private Enterprises on Municipal projects uh and as long as those Agreements are for an overriding public purpose uh zoning exemptions exercised reasonably should apply to the private company so that is the context of that reasonable Min review that is that four-part test which you'll be opining on thank you and I think we heard testimony tonight that the uh public purpose does outweigh uh any private potential benefit uh to the organization which itself is a public service organization so um does anyone have any other thoughts or should we what do we do in terms of finalizing our recommendation it would uh well it would be uh that reasonableness finding uh it would be a motion second and a roll call Vote with that reasonableness finding that consistency with the master plan finding uh and then uh I can what I have as uh the recommendations of approval right um which uh include most frankly of the uh items in the staff comments reports without going through all those separately and independently um but in addition there too uh we have um a sign which would include the time restrictions uh I guess it's in essence no use between dusk from DUS to Dawn is that uh while it's start um as well as I believe I heard we're going to have a no dogs allowed on the sign as well um there with me uh the storm water management actually is in one of the reports but it will be complied with subject to the review and approval of our engineering department uh and uh obviously everything will be code compliant working with the construction office and that may actually I don't know that I had anything else that was not covered in the actual reports the and comments of the staff memos does anybody have any other any other comments just with respect to signage we just expand that to allow maybe Mark and his team some latitude around other stipulations on the signage I assume that's not the only two things I want to mention no alcoholic beverages no glass I can imagine there's all kinds of other things um I yeah we have a we have a list of items that we put on our signs the one thing I did want to mention though I don't want to have Dusk to Dawn because Dawn in the summertime sometimes is you know 5:30 in the morning and we don't want people playing across so we'll figure out the you know the best time from a sound from an ordinance for sound or whatever um from the town okay okay yeah the noise ordinances are usually based on DS njac C7 col 29 at SEC right um and I'm trying to remember what those time FR any chance I get you know the but there are times in there I if whatever the code is for the city will follow okay thank you and then Steve with regard to maintenance of the Pavilion was it already through the agreements with the governing body that that Arrangement was stipulated and agreed to that ongoing financing would provided through this LLC or it successor entities to provide for maintenance of the facility cly all I was provided was with the two resolutions so it didn't get into that if you remember anything sorry you remember if it was stipulated somewhere the mechanism for ongoing financial support not that we can again can compel that but it's a recommendation I assuming some mou somewhere no yeah I'm not sure I mean Leo we agre agreed upon it now so the sum of the Cross Club was you know ongoing maintenance for the for the war they already said just a recommendation yeah and I yeah I don't remember if we discussed it prior prior meeting not that there's a whole lot of Maintenance that needs to be done it's a eventually the asphalt will crack right eventually there'll be some inspections done it should be relatively dominous but the great so it's appropriate for a recommendation in the approval to reference uh ongoing maintenance the obligation of the SU Club that's correct that they testified to that that they yeah thank you very much roofing repairs lighting repairs over time things like that it's very nice all right with that in mind U do we have a motion move a second second thank you Mr Stern Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez yes Mr spur yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr dalmaso yes Miss McGee yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes chairman zooker yes the motion carries thank you very much for the presentation and for thank you everybody you and for this welcome addition to tatlock thanks so much not City funed so that's your pund all right moving right along um we have two discussions on our updates and discussions on the agenda for tonight um Mr Burgess drafted a memo helping us think through our challenges with with regard to how we address the requirements for uh reviewing our master plan yes um I assume everybody has read that there's going to be a written quiz so be prepared um at our last meeting we discussed three different options you know we talked about can we simply uh update the reexamination report from 2016 and turn it into a master plan alternatively do we prepare a new reexamination report or third do we prepare to start with a comprehensive new master plan uh in the end we came to the conclusion that you would be best served by simply preparing without for a technical term a down and dirty reexamination report we could do that quickly a planning term not illegal term yes um in 2025 we are going to be incredibly busy with the housing element and fair share plan we will only have uh until the end of January to assist a governing body in determining uh whether or not we're going to accept the number the housing need number that DCA published I guess a week and a half ago and we're going to talk I want to talk about that in a moment um or do do we want to accept that or do we want to challenge it and offer an alternative number um and then by the end of June we must adopt the new housing element and fair share plan um for those that went through the process last time around you know it's an exhaustive process there's a lot of time an effort that we went into it and there are innumerable meetings as we not only discuss all the background information um but then selecting sites to address whatever Our obligation will be and I say whatever Our obligation will be because DCA had indicated that we have a rehabilitation obligation of 59 units and a perspective obligation I mean future obligation of 345 units and those are the numbers that the legislation asks that we or the governing body adopt a resolution on as to whether or not they're accepting it or not in Prior rounds we we had obtained a vacant land adjustment we will certainly be entitled to a vacant land adjustment again I will tell you that the DCA was obligated in the legislation to follow what's called The Jacobson methodology judge Jacobson uh back in 200 18 and 19 18 2017 and 18 ran a 41 day trial just to determine what's the appropriate formula for determining housing how our housing State's housing obligation is distributed um irrespective of what DCA determines using that methodology the legislation also says that if a municipality is going to challenge the number the municipality has to use the exact same methodology so given that fact and given the fact that so much of it is Census Data driven there's not that much chance that we're going to adjust our number in any significant way but more critically um it's a very long and expensive process to run that formula we would not do it uh we would suggest a couple statisticians that would do that for you um but I can tell you since we've printed some but not all of the documents there's the document itself that DCA has put together and then there's about 11 indices that they've also put together that total in excess of 3,000 Pages now that's for every municipality in the state but it just goes to show you the weight of the documentation that you would' have to or somebody would have to review we're entitled to a vacant land adjustment we will be entitled so why go to that tie money and expense um for something that we know we're not going to have to worry about in the end Joe for the sake of argument how how how was the when would we know about the vacant land adjustment when would that number come in that doesn't get even established until well into 2025 after January they're only asking are you accepting first first you have to accept and then you can talk about right reality what we would suggest is we start that soon but there's two numbers that you really need to think about there not only that 345 figure and how it will get adjusted and the vacant land adjustment process will be similar to what we did the last time around however um what's interesting is the legislation there are so many holes in it that leave a lot of interpretation there are two schools of thought in terms of how you get to your vacant land number one school of thought that I subscribe to is you have to look at all the vacant land that's been created since the last certification of your housing plan you don't double count if a vacant site that you identified in the third round plan you don't count that again in the fourth round plan because then that site would be double counted for you there were there was a a New Jersey APA professional planners conference on this issue and there was one person on that panel that subscribed to the belief that you start all over and a lot of people chuckled at that but nobody just stood up and said that's ridiculous which was unfortunate I wasn't there so I couldn't do that I was actually in court on another affordable housing matter that day um but I think that and most of us believe that you don't start from scratch you start from the end of the third round and and if say a building has been knocked down now that's a newly vacant site if you also have to look at you also have to look at sites that may have Redevelopment potential that Warren looked at in the third round I know somebody you had mentioned Paran we're the planners in Paran and you they built Troy Hills right hence the hills of Troy in case anybody was wondering the hills of Troy neighborhood association versus parp Troy I'm sorry yes the um as you may know they had a tremendous number of substantial office developments in the 80s and 90s and then every owner of those buildings came forward in that third round to say We'll knock down our buildings because they're 80% vacant and some gorgeous looking Office Buildings and are now being knocked down to make way for affordable housing so if you had something like that you know we would have to look at that but we don't start from scratch and last time around for those new board members we had calculated that our RDP our realistic development potential which flows out of the vacant land adjustment analysis was only 36 units so I would suggest that in all likelihood our number is going to be much less than that um but in addition to that that prospective need number is that rehab need number of 59 now I'm going to round it up to 60 to make the math easier you're obligated to set aside um to address a third of that number right up front in terms of financing Rehabilitation and right now that we the R's talking about $20,000 per unit used to be 10 but now everybody's talking about $20,000 per unit so 20,000 a certifi number 20 units that's not spare change for you so we want to look at and do a um a windshield survey which the regulations have provided in the past and presumably they'll provide again and drive the town to look at you know what our actual number should be we've been very successful in other municipalities and I think we did it here um by reducing in what the rehab number that was published ended up being um I think I told D or somebody in the town I live in under the Third Realm we had a four unit rehab number and then with this fourth realm they say we have a 78 unit rehab number drive around town nothing has changed but all of a sudden that number and one other town that we represent we already had the same situation it went from 21 to 156 so we want to look at this number because we feel that if they've made such glaring hours in those two towns they probably made glaring hours in others so I think it's important to see that number get reduced sorry there's a lot of different entities you've mentioned just here in the city of summit the governing body um I assume well subcommittee will get a piece of the action the planning board um before you kind of show all the city's cards right on how we're going to approach this can you explain the decision- making process where at least this body is going to fit into this component then relative to the master plan reexamination okay just so we don't miss any meetings or you know okay no I appreciate that um for the housing plan and the housing plan process it's the governing body that makes has is obligated to adopt a resolution by January 31st saying we either accept the number or we don't our view is that we would be sending in a resolution that says we accept that number but we understand that we're going to be entitled to a vacant land adjustment and I would suggest we do this rehab analysis quickly and we'll do it with your office um so we could include that adjustment in that resolution the housing plan itself is a product of the planning board and it's technically solely the product of the planning board and I know the governing body likes to get involved in these things in many municipalities but the municipal land use law is clear in terms of who's responsible for it so you get to deal with the preparation of the document you get to deal with the flak from the public um the governing body gets to deal with the flock when they have to adopt the ordinances that you'll prepare for the governing body Joe can you speak for a second um if we put on uh after a windshield survey you know we go around and we we we add we we condition our resolution and if the if the governing body then passes passes that it's a it's a it's a yes but acceptance of the of the num yes um what's the state's time to respond well do they have to accept what we what we said 30 days they have 30 days right that this is what the interesting part um and I will tell you that um this in this new legislation in this new world of affordable housing with the fourth round the state has established What's called the affordable housing dispute resolution board it's made up of seven retired judges and they have staff but they are also reaching out to a number of US Special master or now special adjudicators um to assist them in reviewing all the documents that come flooding flooding in to them when you submit your number and by January 31st beginning February 1 anyone a developer fair share housing center anyone uh interested citizen can object to the number they have to provide detail the legislation spells out the detail that they have to provide along with that objection and that's the month of February and then in the month of March it says legislation says that the the I just call the program the program is going to resolve all disputes now I mentioned parcion a moment ago we had 15 object s in Paran alone and it took 8 and a half years to resolve all of those disputes you saw some of you saw how long it took to get our housing plan adopted uh in the burrow of Alpine we had one objector we just had our final compliance hearing about a month ago it took seven years to resolve that one dispute but but the program is going to do it all for every municipality in the state in March in the month of March thank God they picked a 31 day month but Joe if we accept the number and our dispute is only with the rehab I mean I guess somebody could object to that but that's not really that's not a developers interest as much as no that that wouldn't be no so okay I mean I'm not saying I'm not advising the Council on what to do but I'm just saying but when you when you adopt when you go to adopt your housing plan there's another round of potential objection based on our calculation for based on the site selection oh right based on densities that you selected you know um I'm in in in Middletown I'm the special I'm the adjudicator there and we have three developers that are still fighting over what the proper density should be for certain sites and you know the municipality is down here and needless to say the developers are way up here in terms of what the they feel the density should be so don't think that at the end of March you know your opposition is gone away it's still there other down the road than I I have three questions so we can answer them one at a time or all at once if you want so uh my first question is I guess to that effect we have Judgment of compliance and repos until what month of 2025 it's good till July 1 July June technically June okay June 30 so the city of summit has Judgment of compliance and Repose until the end of June 2025 cor for third for third round yep for the third yeah you continue to have it so long as you meet the deadlines right um and uh don't get it taken away but at this point it becomes for the fourth round dead I'm sorry for interrupting only with the chair's permission oh please thank you but but it becomes deadline driven so most of these deadlines that Joe's talking about if you below the deadline you risk losing not only RIS the legislation actually says unless there's a very special exception for why you blew the deadline you lose your immunity okay and then I guess the second question is with the numbers that just came out I forget the term Joe it's vacant land but in the states terms it's what was the land capacity so if we say okay we had 2.34 Acres of vacant land how does that I know land capacity means it's the city of summit's land across the divided by the state of New Jersey's vacant land is that correct that is correct so what is that number and how do we argue and say that our Assumption of vacant land because I agree with you we shouldn't start over we should just say it was 2.34 we developed an acre we lost two acres I mean it's not that it's not rocket science right right so how do you handle that but one of the thing one of the things we're going to do for you is um and actually we've already done it uh we have asked DCA to give us the actual mapping rather than you know these 3,000 pages of material we want to see the actual mapping um that they've used to identify where vacant sites are and we're not because in some instances they've already published very rough um mapping which doesn't tell you a lot but in one instance it told us enough to realize that while a town has 110 units of uh inclusionary development under construction right now for the fourth round database that map already shows that it's still vacant so they're obviously counting that acreage um a second time they it was counted under the third round it's counted now it's being counted again so it's part of the process for you while we're not attacking the number per se we may be attacking some of the analysis and we need though that additional mapping we have not yet received it from you for you they told us it could take three or four weeks before we get it and this conversation took place Friday or Thursday so this past Thursday so time will be cut short if we don't get this until you know Thanksgiving you we're not going to have a all that much time to prepare the all the analysis for you and make sure we get it in for the uh governing body to adopt this resolution I mean we will do it but um you can understand the time constraint that we're under um but Joe back to Mr Spur's comment what about our role and what's going to be expected of this board in terms of between now and January 25th and then after okay um what I would suggest is that we are starting the um background database uh for for you um there's a lot of background information we have to update some of the mapping because for whatever reason under the third round they identified certain specific databases that you use to determine wetlands and buffers and steep slopes and the like some of that has changed with the fourth round so some of it not all of it but some of we have to do again um and that'll be step one for us and as we prepare these documents you know we want to come before you and have a work session to talk about what this all means um but the real the real work will be done you know after January okay okay in connection with the housing element fair share plan that has to be adopted by June 30 right when this board will sit down and we'll think about overly zones or we'll think about changing all the different issues that we'd have yeah because what we what we want to do in that that scho is start to identify not so much vacant sites obviously but sites that may have some Redevelopment potential it's worth talking about and I'd rather have lots of discussions on that that type of issue rather than just going over updated census information because you know it's nice to talk about but it's not going to get us very far in terms of you know the real planning that has to be done Mr chairman if I may through I think what Mr spur is trying to ask you Mr Burgess and the chairman is you know we're working on these these things in the Mount Laurel committee we're working on red development potential and sometimes it feels like it might be more appropriate to be here um as much as I love my fellow council members and the people in the M Laurel subcommittee it for some reason it just feels more like and I think we're looking for some direction it feels like it should be here because as my fellow council members aren't planners and we don't we don't understand the zoning and the density and it it feels like it's almost not saying it's in an inappropriate place right now but I think that's we're just looking for a direction because sometimes it feels like we're doing things twice okay I I think the best place to do it is here because you're the ones who are going to adopt the plan in the end um I had been under the impression that the someone had made the choice that you know there's this committee made up of some Council people but um it does belong here and maybe you know I have some towns that are doing a subcommittee of primarily planning board members and a couple governing body members and somebody from you know staff and the municipality um to work with us just for the record someone from his firm and typically Joe is on that call but I think what I'm looking for is just some guidance on how other municipalities do do that sometimes it just seems a little bit I think and one one of the concerning things maybe preach chire on this is the expedit time frame the lack of back and forth between the Rel respective State entities and the municipalities is cutting out one other stakeholder Group which is the public and we just don't from a procedural standpoint can't offer a robust public input in the appropriate ways and I susp suspect you as the planner will offer some guidance on when it is appropriate and in what Manner it's appropriate toite broad-based public input in a way we're representative of the public but I understand that and what I intend to have happened is once we have some of that background database complete so we have some proposals something important to say rather than just have a discuss and you know I want to be able to talk about s sooner rather than later because that's what's really going to drive the bus in the end and the vacant landage Jus and fortunately although some of the the method the methodology of preparing it has changed a little bit from what they required in the past doesn't alter it all that much for Summit because we know where the vacant sites are already so they should be a fairly quick process for us to put that together for you great for the new members I think everybody should know that Joe is one of the experts in New Jersey for housing and for this process you're call you're a special Master for other for and quite a number of Judges throughout the state can you tell them what that is what special Master now we uh they actually for years it was called special master and then about what was it 6 months ago H special adjudicator now yeah they changed it we got this letter from the Supreme Court that said the term special master has inappropriate connotations so they changed it to special adjudicator got it and my initial reaction was I have a master's degree do I have to do that get change you have adjudicator's degree now uh unfortunately you're conflicted out of uh special adjudicating us so that is true yeah they've actually asked for a list of all the towns we represent to make sure that they don't assign yeah right you know have that conflict so we're in very good hands and thank you after you do a lot of your very detailed work we will then get I presume some recommendations for planning changes that will facilitate the mass the the housing element yes and then we can discuss those and that will be on the agenda and people will know they can come and talk about it too the the one thing I I have to stress is there will be a need for you know quite a number of work session meetings and uh we have to try to be flexible with with that because you know I have I have some towns that say here do it and there's none of this interaction my experience here is a little different so I expect a lot of give and take and that's probably the better way because you end up with a much better better plan that way that really represents the public interest and the public will be drawn in at some point if I may Joe is being humble because he didn't explain what a special master or special adjudicator is but so I want to do it on his behalf if I may real quick and that is uh because he shouldn't be humble uh they are basically the Court's expert on affordable housing the judges expert the judge the Mount Laurel judges in the third round one for each vage who made these decisions had an expert who did a report and uh the vast majority of the times those judges abide by the report from their expert uh so that was and remains Joe's position uh he is the Court's expert on affordable housing and the vast majority of the time if not all the time uh the mount laal judge will his his report will be in essence the J's decision so thank you for that well then I won't be humble no I just want to say one thing which is good for us I think that of the seven retired judges I was the special Master for three of them so at least we have that in for like of a better word and all but one M Laural judges but so Joe let me let let's take it back thank you for that and for explaining the housing element and how it's going to affect us but um that was a digression from your original conversation with us which is how to choose what we should be doing with the master plan we really got off track there I think it it reinforced how busy the housing plan is going to make us over the next you know eight months or so uh um and because of that you know the M well the municipal land use law says that you have to do a reexamination report or a new master plan at least once every 10 years you did it in November of 2016 so we technically have until then to do one but if we don't want to get pressed at some point we could do a very brief very specific um reexamination report document that you can approve and again that's also your responsibility not the governing bodies and then we can you know breathe breathe a little easier in terms of when we have to do it I mean you really do need a new master plan quite frankly yours is 24 years old um you did the reex in 2016 um which is fairly comprehensive and it had some elements of a master plan it had specific goals and objectives for example but it lacked a lot of other things that a master plan in the statute requires so I think that's the easiest and best approach for you so you could just move quickly into the housing plan okay I guess the question does anyone have any comment on that I do actually it it became a a topic of discussion uh considering the municipal Budget on whether the the board would not be interested in going out and seeking requests for services or proposals on a master plan reexamination uh it appears that a lot of the intention and you know J Joe's input is going to be focused on affordable housing matters so it would not be unreasonable for the board to consider uh submitting an individual request for qualification for master plan reexamination or a new master plan and it would also allow the city to more appropriately budget for this project and uh you know to avoid any excess in public spending so is there anything in the budget for any of these scenarios so uh as we're currently planning next year's operating we have sought quotes and proposals across the board for how much this would cost um Pur just included uh however to you know hold Consultants to account it's also good to get get a formal qualification in so that we may lock them in on that pricing and this is quite a significant operational matter you know it's this is a a scope of work that is going to range maybe 12 to 18 months um overall and just on maybe master plan re exam that well that's what we've been hearing and if we want to do a new master plan that that is the case clearly a new master plan is going to be an 18 month effort the re-exam that I was speaking of is a very simplified version of it uh to just make you legal um you know one of the interesting things about not just the react but the full blow master plan that you will end up doing is a lot of the information that we're going to be providing in the housing plan we could then use that you know as part of the master plan which would help cut cost a little bit right so but so as I understand we could well I think this something we should talk about a little bit think about a little bit uh I don't think we have to decide right now yeah okay um if I may Mr chairman I do think there's there's also a cost Associated from losing the professional expertise that we've had over the last couple of years with Mr Burgess so you know there's a there's a huge and I'm again I'm all about going for RPS I say it all the time I just think with this tight timeline doing a re-exam might make the most sense um you know and to the knowledge that we have to be perfectly clear no we would not be losing his Services right there the the the board planner would remain this would be a separate specific item to which in certain meetings they would appear and present in conjunction and would likely require collaboration with our board planner right but separate line items so that it can be adequately accounted for right so we would be I mean we did use a different planner at a different time for a different project you know under a fixed budget so that's not unheard of um we've also could at continue to use burges but is you're you're suggesting that they bid a particular price for yeah I mean they would be entitled yes they'd be entitled to also apply and provide their proposal um to which you could decide to award that it's just procedurally locking in these budget items um so that we do not exceed uh you know any typically when there's a special project of any kind like this this housing element is clearly a special project doesn't Burg just give you some kind of uh estimate on how much it's going to be for additional Services regardless yes absolutely they do um the overlap issue becomes how the city handles handles its Municipal purchasing procedure as opposed um alongside its contractual not to exceed amounts and how it manages to get work done I'm not recommending this based off of um the recommendation is based off of we know that there is a lot of work to be done so by potentially doing this you would uh not run across any purchasing related issue if you need to make an amendment to a you know contractual not to exceed that's what I'm saying it's just it's a step towards accountability for the taxpayer it's not it's not it's not about Joe's Services the great um it's just about that if I may he's 100% right and you know we've sat in the last two weeks just going over invoices and and and sometimes it does get muddy with what does the planning board want what are we requiring from a housing element and fair share plan and then all of a sudden we have you know his planner sitting in going over permit applications during the week so it does get really really complicated and I think we're just trying to you know protect the taxpayer make sure that our lines are very clearly defined because it does get it gets very very complicated and by the fact that this board sets its rates on its current rfps it would be entirely your choice who you go with this would not be a circumstance where we say it's the lowest bidder it's the overall qualification of the applying firm so you know we have there are tons of great firms in the area that the city has used and continues to use and it is up to the board keep that in mind no we appreciate that we also would have to design the scope of the project and that's something that we're just grasping with right now as to what we should decide which direction we want to go maybe just with respect into the budgetary process when do we as the board need to make a decision on the which are the three paths so um by making it let's say if you want to specifically uh create a request for qualification for this process there's not a it's not necessarily a deadline uh it is just a a secondary item where the board is going to say we are going to award this contract and we will need to set aside Municipal funds for it and through our Municipal process in commun conjunction with Finance we would just separate those funds for it right there's no there's no deadline on the board it's entirely optional from a budgetary perspective I mean assume out of respect for the preparation of the operating budget absolutely and then we can just send a bill out you know up to the city administrator's office and the CFO Tammy would love that no probably shouldn't make that a practice no absolutely um I believe that we're expected by the end of December uh to lock in our operating budgets and not expect any reasonable changes so I have one question um through through you Mr chair if I may please uh when when will the escrow accounts be available for round four do you know Joe or how does that work for affordable housing round are they available I'm not sure what you're referring to right now for example we're talking about round four specifically so but that's not escrow it's not escrow so I'm sorry trust fund um because I'm I'm just trying to think of the affordable housing round four affordable housing trust is what you're referring to uh right now the city is limited and how I can use this round three it's only for round three items correct when does round four become available and how does that transfer um that will start um beginning in January of 2025 yeah yeah and the regulations are such that 20% of your housing trust fund can be used for administrative costs which includes lawyers and uh planners fees I I would like to say one thing though yeah um you know we've been the firm has been around for a long time like 40 over 40 years now or close to 40 years and we often have multiple contracts on different project item for a municipality so it's not difficult for us to separate out the work we do in a housing plan versus a ordinance versus a react in fact we've done that for you on different things uh where we've done Redevelopment plans and ordinances and and the like separately I don't think there ever been any confusion in terms of submission of bills and how you know as to what he's getting paid for what service um I do want to point out there for you that I firmly believe that you shouldn't be doing a very complex reexamination report the end result is whatever reacts you do I think the conclusion is going to be you need to do a full-blown master plan and I think that you could do the bare minimum for a react just to make you legal you know it'll be very cost effective and the end conclusion will be you need to do a new master plan but that alone that document alone will give you the new 10-year time frame to do the master plan yes and I think I'm glad you circled us back to the question at hand which is which way do we want to go do we want to do a full master plan do we want to do a react or do we want to do a mini Rea that checks all the legal boxes and I I definitely think under the circumstances and with all that we have on our plates that we should do that by the 10 years because I do think we had a much heavier reacts in 2016 so we got a lot of input from tons of our community members you not hundreds but I dare say maybe thousand or more just tons and tons of input so I think we can make do with a skinnier reacts now so that we can buy time to plan for the next and perhaps an additional consideration is the fact that statuto statutorily as of now at least by June 30 of 2025 you're going to have a full-blown housing element fair share plan brand new done and completed boom right which is a essential element of whatever plan it's a significant element in my opinion it's a very significant El plugs into what we're going to do any of a master plan yeah I think as much or more work than we did on the whole rest of it all the other elements and it's going to be very time consuming on your parts as well so to to also be trying to do with a heavy lift and a large scale react or a new master plan I think so are we calling it down and dirty or skinny reacts I think for the public skinny sounds better than down and dirty lean and me what other folks think though about that does anyone have any other sorry when does the skinny reacts need to be done by that it doesn't have to be done until 2026 anyway but that we have half time we would only have half of next year really to focus on it right would we potentially if we did the if we want the skinny react would we kind of roll straight into the full-blown because we're getting all the numbers back from the fair share um or you know there's this period of time that could we have 10 years right so you oh right now you have uh two years right but after we do the reacts we'll have 10 more correct yes correct have to wait we probably don't want to wait wait but it would get us yeah exactly that's what I'm getting at and we probably want that to if we're working on all of this stuff to to move right into it after these other pieces other things are done you might want to hold off on the re like a year break and we're like we're cool with that then almost you could hold off on doing that reacts until the latter part of 25 or even the early part of 26 you could do it to save the budget that way but then still consider a quick down and dirty to give you the time to skinny skinny to do the uh full master plan after that I guess my question is so I think we've all agreed on that if if I may say but the bigger question for me is if the housing element in Fair Share is plan is due January of 2025 yeah only number there yeah but we have to forward to city council and they have to sign it before that's the recommendation to take the number and then we have to work on which says require the planning board to adopt a housing element fair share plan by June 30th 2025 sorry not January so we have to adopt the number the housing obligation okay with that caveat that we're going to do the uh the vacant okay so the housing element fair share plan is not due in June of 2025 no the housing element and fair share plan is due June 30 June 30th yes I had to remember how many June no sorry initially so the housing element fair share plan is due when June 30th of 25 it would be great if we could board has to adopt it I believe frankly the governing body endorses it to fight the number okay and also at that time you also have to have draft implementation ordinances no actually to new the new schedule um provides until March of 26 to do all your ordan those are the actual ordinances yes but you're supposed to have draft ordinances well we could I don't want to yeah but by June 3 they're not full-blown drafts they're they're like a zoning schedule and that sort of thing I made just a if we could get this information collated and put on like the city website since we are it seems like there's some unknowns even within this room on the dates and we keep going back and forth it would be really helpful wouldn't it be for we have that memo prepared I'll reissue it but and then can we get it up publicly for everyone sorry I miss that just to collate all these dates into a a timeline and present that to not only ourselves but to the public as well that's a good idea who and then make these discussions probably 10% of the time that we're taking because we're a lot of this is like what date is it again is it June is it we can Absolutely I'll reissue that for you that's fine because the dates that have passed and we've done that okay so I think have to be on that SCH I think we're we're we're we're in agreement on the on the skinny plan uh we um I think we're going to table for the moment the RFP conversation um and you know Joey suggested we could delay this quite a bit um considering when we actually have to start working on it so um I'll come back to everybody with that and um what's next Dr ah the Dr conversation getting late getting late will you just say yay neay on like these aren't that that difficult or complicated most of them like include don't include for the city coun for considerations like most of them yeah these are recommendations to Council on the various topics that we talked about last meeting Texs right there there's a few things that really do require the board to have some discussion on okay um so real quick before we get started if I may a real quick question how would this procedurally work we're going to go through this we're going to make a recommendation to council we it's going to be through some sort of ordinance or right I would I would assume um we're going to resolve some of the open-ended items and then we'll prepare the ordinances get set up all right so it'll be based on the language in this memo as as we amended language and then a few yeah open just from a timing perspective though Joe sorry that's kind of ordinances would come to us to yes adopt essentially the form to forward to the governing body so just from a timing perspective that's November then they would go to the governing body as soon as December for consideration and adoption as soon as January just in terms of time frame I think for me at least the most important thing to to really consider here is this should be an annual exercise so now that this is something we haven't really made a habit of doing in years past we just understand the time frame with which we need to operate to really turn it over in a relatively expeditious time yeah that none of these are particularly very difficult and we may want to exclude the particular cont for item number one if I before you do that if I may just to be clear because there is a a as you know a process and and so once the planning board makes recommendations even as specific as here's an ordinance we recommend to the governing body to adopt as I believe everyone knows you introduce it they introduce it first we master plan consistency review it right uh 35 days or less uh and then on secondary public hearing the governing body can adopted so there it could be done in a couple of months but it might be a little longer I don't know I don't want to say but it I don't think it could be any shorter than a couple of months put it that way fair enough okay okay if I may just not to throw you know but if we have 14 in here and we have only x amount of dollars for Mr Bridges to work on housing out and fair share in round three or round four like I guess how do we if we come across tonight we say you've got 10 or 12 and that's going to take you 40 or 50 hours right like how do we prioritize the and again I'm probably try most of them are written like they're yeah most of them not all of them and we could just ex you know if we don't have the money or the time we can just delete them but some of them are just we've been working on these for years right yeah for the most part yeah a lot of some of this yeah can you answer that Joe sorry just from a level of effort perspective and then I saw G kind of shiting his seat a little bit here on the budget point sry you you have a tell um because again if we're doing this on an annualized basis and we want to Li them in the operating budget to say drro review and revision what is the level of effort for say 10 of these relatively modest uh revisions to be reflected into ordinances and then kind of shephered through the process in terms of time probably six weeks or so okay and I only say that because of you know the league and the holidays and whatnot but probably in about six seven weeks at the outside so for me is just kind of a trigger to say and end of the year like everything is not probably the best time of year to be doing to doing these kind of things maybe it's an ambition of early fall is a little little bit of a qu year period that gives us the front half of the year to consider the the options remind me when we get the zoning report typically uh it should be in the first end of the first quarter of the year was the change we made right so you have at the beginning of the year okay great okay the first item is the wiress wireless regulations you know you could simply reopt what you had pre previously um or we can prepare a whole new ordinance we have lots of standard models for wireless that's up to you as to what you I think it's just the protection from those giant cell towers uh right downtown because we don't have one of those six review anymore for the downtown 106 review is something for historic districts that automatically H used to happen at the state level and we were protected somewhat from things that weren't compatible with the historic district at least for our downtown and now that's no longer it's exemp from that so that's why it's there okay this this is not a heavy lift at all okay and just so let's recall our conversation from last time is that we spent a decent amount of time and energy on the 5G ordinance so does that have to do with this I'm sorry the 5G ordinance that we worked on is that the small cell Jo yeah that's the small cell so it's part of this yes okay cuz I'm um I'm just going to say that I this this one I I just want to understand how that works into this because I looked at the bills for this one and I was like oh my gosh I think we could have written the wireless ordinance for the state of New Jersey so I just want to understand I just want to understand covered a lot more than land I know I just want like let's just dumb it down and like really talk about what the problem is with what we have which was recently updated and this number one because I don't understand there's some there's some minor actually some minor tweaks that need to be done to it it's not a heavy lift at all give us tools so we can just say can you move it two blocks that way or you know can we this is to give us modified this is to give us some control over large towers and this is not about 5G small Towers it or whatever you guys wanted to to include but also the technolog is a moving Target it's always going to be so we're always going to have to wrestle with this in some way because every five years come up and change just it's a not a heavy lift it's got he's got stock language from other municipalities I would suggest we get something so we have some tools because if we have a problem and we have nothing in the drro then we're legally exposed but if we have some language at least we can say something about it if it comes up exactly and it sounds like we can keep moving with the technology once a year if we had to revisit if we if was necessary we would okay okay all right great uh the shortterm rental issue uh this is really not an issue that you're facing from what we understand I know Krista has all had always been interested in saying it's prohibited she wants to restrict airb B she had always wanted to um and it was brought up again so we're just raising it if you want to and we have the language I mean what do what do a neighboring towns do like I I did some Googling doesn't seem Milburn allows it Maplewood allows it Short Hills allows it well that's Milburn chadam allows it like isn't that you can put requirements like violation if they if they don't adhere to a rental agreement or if they have too many units and they're operating them uh more like a hotel a business but like I feel like if we just eliminate the residents from being able to use Airbnb seems like it's a little counterintuitive for the language that we drafted doesn't eliminate it it just says that you can't rent them for more than a 30-day consecutive period okay which is the standard language is that similar to like what other jurisdiction less than 30 and that one's already written but that's saying but that's and that that makes it an a regular month to month rental that doesn't that eliminates Airbnb right you could just rent it for this requires you to have a regular to treat your your unit as a regular rental unit not as an Airbnb so this this that's how I read this the 30 days keeps the every like three days you don't want someone your neighbor renting their house every three days to a different person oh to to receive compensation of any kind for the use occupancy or rental of any dwelling for a period of less than 30 consecutive days that that's the issue that others have me less than 30 consecutive days you must you must leas it for 30 days or more right right that's so you I don't have a strong opin or if you did it for three days you'd have to wait 30 days before you could do it again no you wouldn't I mean you wouldn't be allowed to rent it for three days okay so then you then Airbnb is not an option correct I mean Airbnb is is goes for three months or two months or six months you can couple yeah oh you can you can't rent them for long term you're just saying no no no short term no short term do you want your neighbor having someone come in every three to five days re re you know Jersey Shore ventil do you want someone coming in every three to five days with a new group of people you need your mic oh it's just a constant turnover that's what he's that's usually the objection to it in many like this oh okay all right so it's I'm assuming you copy this from something else use this somewhere else okay I was thinking vacation week vacation I'm airb being somewhere it does keep out you can't it you can't do the week you can't do the right but you can do language to keep the long term you can do a Summer Rental a month yeah and I'm just hearing people saying some people saying they're indifferent and it hasn't been an issue so if it hasn't been an issue and we're indifferent or most of us are then I don't see the need to do anything on this one person do you see it much I mean we could always address it whenever we should keep it on our radar all right I don't Joe doesn't see it much either so some some towns have done it because of particular problems those municipal have had with people renting party houses you know uh a house for a night or a weekend yeah and Joe if we do nothing if we do nothing a policy do we have regulations in place to monitor enforce restrict if no we don't if anything maybe like a first step would be to like require permit so that we know they should to like a rental agreement we can get some data down and like what's what's actually happening I'll tell you what why don't I why don't I put something together and then you can decide you know I like the Comm department is a good idea um I'll put together a few things and then you'll decide or we can wait till next time what do you think I mean but again this is like techn Technology's changed right so th this wasn't this didn't exist 10 years ago 5 years ago maybe 5 years ago 10 years ago airbm wasn't a thing so we probably something we should in some way shape or form look at Patrice what do you feel I I mean if you have stand this like I said this what he's already written is actually covers and protects I think the city and I I I'm living right next door to a four has a four condo unit if he doesn't sell those units the first thing I thought of is this guy's going to start doing that because he wants to cover his costs which is fine I'm not against anyone but it does create if you've ever lived next door to one of these situations it it can go either way you can get kids renting it for a night and they'll have you know a 100 kids like it just it can explode or it cannot I don't really have and Summit is I don't know a diverse community and I just don't know if we can really feel what the future will hold I really don't so I think this language here is great I don't think it needs to have any more or any less it just kind of covers it so that someone can if something does occur you have some jurisdiction in place to well let me take a poll the people are we ready to take a poll right now on whether people feel like we should we should go with this or we should just wait sure I mean we could always resend it in a year if it becomes problematic or the that we could readdress it ever becomes a problem I don't think it's necessary at this time I just think it's already well written thank you so it's well written and it can sit um well written and the work is done does anyone else want to weigh in I mean I just think it should be consistent with what neighboring towns are doing we shouldn't do anything more or less if we don't see an issue but we shouldn't we shouldn't be at a disadvantage our residents shouldn't be at a disadvantage to yeah it is generally consistent Jersey sure much different like they're different purpose that's where you're seeing some of the problems yeah okay so you want to pause until next year if anyone feels rly we should move forward with it okay I think we'll pause okay I hear pause kind we keep on the agenda keep on theenda fine and we'll all cross our fingers for Patrice and her [Laughter] neighbor Springfield Springfield how did they handle that during the tournament is that you can rent your home can rent your home yeah they rented their home and and they rented front Lawns for parking the I don't think structures you want to move on yeah accessory structures let's go yeah the issue of the definition of lot coverage or impervious coverage um really came up because someone was concerned about we have sport fields and ser do we count them as impervious coverage even if it's Turf I've never quite understood why you would think that if it's Turf question I know where that came from actually right it might have come from uh Tom's list from Burgess maybe it's been discussed you know at community services and stuff like that no he had said it been discussed I don't know who had who raised it sub committee didn't have it on our list but um so are we suggesting here that we would take that out and not and the underliner added language added item a but we were just questioning whether that's because it says whether it's permeable or not would be considered coverage so to weigh in on this this question came up uh during I believe a zoning review uh and Engineering reviews of incoming permits in town um what happens is depending on the Builder specifications for how the turf is set up it will fundamentally alter whether it is permeable or impermeable and that uh impacts if it is impermeable impacts a lot coverage so I think this language is just shot uh sought to make it clear that if in a permit application the specifications of that Turf uh demonstrates that it is impermeable it is accounted for in the section of ordinance there a very very very specific case it was brought up with Tom between our engineers and you're saying that makes sense yeah this says we whether it's permeable or not and that's where I was drawing the lineability change over driveways that's right gravel driveways dri they become compacted they end up years later it's a different story maybe there's maybe there's a version of that maybe that's why people feel about it in the original conversation it was it was more based on we're getting a new approval for a permit um what are the conditions that the manufacturer is providing right that was the original original take however wear and tear over time obviously does change that's a valid point so perhaps worth rewarding based off what the board would prefer for me it seems like kind of a no-brainer if there are certain specifications that a manufacturer is requiring and then we're going to be able to allow our professionals to make better decisions then to me that would make sense I think the concept makes a lot of sense and I don't understand the wording myself per permeable or not and also like Fields is that a defined term like a field could be a field maybe somehow it can be tweaked so that it could just they have to prove out that it is indeed permeable yeah is there is there a rating system that actually that actually is exists and is applied by the manufactur because the manufacturer could sort of say whatever they want I mean that's that's or Eng or rate that it might be from an engineer's report that's required something so that there's some um accountability as to permeability well I mean letter D kind of covers it doesn't any impervious surface whether or not defined here in okay so then you could including Sports courts that's a really good point then you could just add add the different types of surfaces and and be silent on that's a good point we should put it there any field including sports for WEA including including artificial ter yeah you could end there that works it just gives a little more oh by the way we're thinking about these two what do you think of that that could work I lik someone's comment about um providing proof that it won't become impermeable impermeable over time okay I forget who I prove that BEC just we'll just do the double negative like we well if you could submit any evidence that that you know if you gravel is not going to fly but you know the little plastic Turf things you know don't change at least they'd have to put it in their packet and we'd have something to work something to work with so that's a keeper maybe with a little with a tweak combining DN sorry combining DN yeah okay agreed all right Joe okay accessory structures in residential zones no accessory building or structure with a roof shall have a floor or ground area in exess of 576 ft this was a Christa thing because she wanted to make it clear that this would allow swimming pools not to be included in the calculation and that was the sole reason for that I don't know if this was a real hot button issue or not I don't know I me does it come a lot this is another one that I think came from Tom's list yeah you know because I'm not as familiar with it um does it come up a lot of zoning I'm not aware that it has it has it hasn't I mean if you consider this with respect to like the equipment screening item that we're going to discuss next the volume of pool installations in Summit is way less than air conditioning units for example so nice to clean up I suppose but but this language that's not underlined is already in there right correct so we're just adding Fields artificial turf surfaces buildings and structures that's clear structures could be a sculpture whatever buildings are building so I don't have a problem with those couple of tweaks does anybody else okay okay so that's that's a go screening and replacement sorry oh sorry I feel like we're mixing the two up a little bit what am I wrong yeah we start with the pools two talking about the one under it well I think that um I think that we just have to make sure that I think we skipped uh 30 we sort of went to 9.8 but then we yeah we never did B2 B2 would be accessory structur with ro with the root so what's the take on that all they're just changing oh Ro they're just adding they're just adding with the roof to that whatever's underlined is all they're adding so we're okay to add CL so I I think the biggest one here that I think that I've heard and austo you can correct me I'm wrong is the deck one right so if you have a deck with a roof I don't know that's what I just remember hearing that from but that's not accessory structure though yeah your de your deck decks are attached to the house a deck with the roof is a porch so that would be counted okay anyway I think you might be thinking of a perola without a roof because that was in there somewhere or a pool house right right yeah okay okay which seemingly is you're talking about5 I got less common in sum okay that makes sense okay so are we on item number four four equipment screening and rep now there's a lot of discussion about you know when you can see exterior mechanical equipment and the comment was add you know from you know it has to be screened from view of a public Street or from surrounding properties at grade so if you're looking down from your second story window that doesn't count that doesn't count it has to be at grade MH and then that last sentence in that paragraph I think should be deleted because that's been the problem that you've had a lot yeah with the the zoning board has had a lot of those problems and like to see that deleted don't you think there's existing landscaping or a fence or something pull your uh your mic up that's okay good ah y we're good and the next item uh came from the Board of adjustment we're all over that one yeah the air conditioning units located in nonconforming locations can still be replaced uh in kind I was just wondering if we should make that residential uh zones yeah like also like do we need an administrative approval as avoid a zoning board application yeah um but I would like to suggest the leading where it says all other development yeah it really read all other development requirements building code requirements are one thing but there are some minor Provisions elsewhere in the zoning ordance that might affect we don't want un you don't want the unintended consequences of triggering some random other development right sure beat a variance is this to think about like some unfor not even size or visual piece but something that's more an aity like whether it's whether whether maybe it has to do with the the wiring or maybe it has to do with some other component of item yeah but code it says code requirements will still will still apply right we're just saying all other development code issues which we don't even we don't know what that is referring to did you want this to apply to prod zones and big commercial properties as well because they can have significant um I already hit own residential lots I feel like everyone was picturing residential when we talked about it I don't know if others were thinking about the pr zones and the commercial No it should be on residential lots okay is there a concern with the large residential developments other than the ones ref M do you need to do you want to consider family residential zones sing Homestead Lots well this is just like like for like Replacements right so I mean we're not assuming that you know I me I I don't really care whether it's residential Lo commercial if you got it put in I'm sorry I was yeah I was I was morphing back to the screening my I'm fine with anybody replacing what's already there yeah right often times we found though with the the more commercial ones that it's replacement end a lot of the time so it it turns into a a bigger project but fair enough up for discussion [Music] um well I guess that comes down in the administrative uh approval they have to they'd have to perceive it as in kind you can also have them on top of Office Buildings you know in kind be careful with commercial piece okay so we want can get tricky so we want to say this applies to residential I I would say maybe I mean even if you put residential not before development sort of implies you apply it to commercial development I think you got to put the resal in the first half of that sentence like ex I had added in residential zones existing air conditioning yeah right in the beginning in residential zones existing air conditioning okay start off with in residential zones the first words or how about existing air conditioning located in non-conforming residential locations that's good how about that non-conforming residential locations residential performing locations but somewhere in that somewhere in the beginning John [Laughter] whether whether it's a I like I your English whether it's a residence in a residential zone or it's a non-conforming residential zone why can't we just say existing air conditioning units unres ially developed Lots because that covers it all that's good un residentially developed Lots fine y okay can we just go back to the previous one real quick the screeny one from view of the public or from surrounding properties at grade so we're adding in context where you have to screen it from like your neighbors yes because sometimes what somebody says you know I'm on the third floor of an apartment building and I'm looking down at this you never get screen of that so you and that ends up with the zoning were becoming a huge battle between neighbors um and the suggestion was you're only one to screen it from from the street field yeah that part makes sense and also like is it from the street view or from your neighbors or well it says or from surrounding properties at grade well but that's kind of like does everybody cover their air conditioners then pardon me does everyone screen their air conditioners my air conditioner and my neighbors are right are 10t away from each other ex them from the are we supposed to screen them in front of each other so they don't offend each other let me tell you as you know I I where I live in the summer and I got a phone call that somebody said it was the former planning board and uh they needed to speak to me about a serious issue and I said well I'm at a cafe it's like 11:00 at night what are you talking about right and I said look let me get to my apartment and know and so I this is when I was you know in Paris and I get back to my apartment and I return the phone call and the zoning emergency was that some people were before the zoning board and they had too small a lot so when they wanted to redo their air conditioner they couldn't comply to code and I think you had like a five foot setback and I said so make it three feet done and then he said well what about screening and I said well you could always require some screening around it and that's what happened and I went back to the cafe and forgot about the issue and then I found out that they adopted such an ordinance but made it a lot more elaborate screening than I ever imagined I thought a couple bushes would have done it that they were talking about walls and everything else and that what was going on and the end result was something a lot uglier than yeah just looking at an air conditioning unit okay that was the Genesis of it all but what are we doing here I get I get it so leave it at from view of public Street of a public Street and yeah leave it at that yeah that's yeah okay good catch ran just from public view from the street yeah I think that's the only issue people really have okay you're right John most people have ones are buddying or facing each other AD joining lives yeah all right number five number five just simply makes sense because you want it in the Dr so if you don't comply it's a variance rather than a waiver request rooftop amenities this has been an issue in many municipalities whether you want some allowance for do you want outdoor dining on a a rooftop do you want just passive Recreation on on a rooftop I mean if you were to amend and allow more than 20 seats how would what kind of methodology around figuring out what's the appropriate number when you said 20 feet oh 20 seats you said okay uh um there is no magic number um but like can you put requirements in like it needs to comply with all something right Cod ma want someone putting you know overcrowding a roof or wherever you're going to put these well that's why we selected 20 seats because we looked at some of the other projects that have been approved this way um it should also say you know no and I just realized it this second um it might also say that you know no live entertainment because that could get noisy obviously and have that as a restriction or prohibition I'm indifferent if it's 2040 60 80 just some sense of how you would calculate the right number maybe occupancy by squit yeah I think that's more more like that than seats because don't we do that for for permits for outdoor park like for wind berries right now they come they come to the city for an application we approve X number of seats based on X number of square footage wouldn't this be something similar and is it cap is right now is it Capp at 20 just right I don't know but I know when we see those applications when they want to put a side Sidewalk tables in there's there's some sort of methodology so we have that formula to we could do that as an option what we were trying to limit was the sense of too much noise up there we picked a number do we have an application from the albian for the rooftop I hear there's talk of of a rooftop um spaces at the at the hotel they're working on submitting it we should be getting it soon because that could be the largest space around I don't know how big a space they have might be a good test case to figure out yeah maybe we maybe we put it on hold until we see that okay we should do that um does that sound good well actually or not or do you have something in place because then then retroactively trying to catch up you're not going to get it done in time you're not going to get if it's in motion all right and anyways the fullest kind of discussion on this is not just occupancy it's also lighting sound we can have umbrellas up there I mean this was these are zoning board applications 127 uh sum itav across from BMS and then 40 Beachwood you just hear in the downtown core but there's just no consistent guidance available around the time with which you're can have lighting grills you know you name it right there's a lot of different components and we'll certainly go the ALB on conversation so are we going to hold on this but not Steve Steve you know he saw these applications so do you have any suggestions on what we should try and include what what components we should include um or if we should address it yeah I mean I think the principal issue is the occupancy right how to potentially the Occupy and then from that things that we consistently ran into especially where there was res there's a residential component to the building if was a purely commercial building its use was different so some of the residential applications um white was a consideration sound was a consideration um cooking equipment was a consideration at the uh Avenue site there's a dog run on that rooftop which I think is an atypical amenity but we could potentially consider that um but that's that's a key diff differentiator as well that uh determines also some of the operational consideration like hours of use you wouldn't expect a purely commercial building to necessarily have weekend hours of operations or lengthy nighttime access um so those are some of the things that I recall seeing that there just wasn't consistent set of guidance available to apply and we were kind ofing it up on on the fly together that I remember that was the Elks and we there were you know you want to encourage uh residential on upper floors and downtowns you know genu gen generally thought of as a good thing but there are you know residents right next to it so to your point you know light and sound and so I think when because it was a variance we could say you know lights out at 11 or whatever it was so that people could have a comfortable lifestyle next door is there Joe is there any comparison we can draw from other municipalities on how they've dealt with it yes we've done it in Jersey City and hackin I believe so let me check that pardon me alen as well I would think we probably have some some there are some in Hoboken as well definely that used to be their planner so so we're going to hold on this yeah okay okay the next item is parking you do not require parking in the central business and then somebody was suggesting if you're over a certain level of intensity you should start requiring some parking so we deleted the section that says no parking required and then added that where you're above a ratio of 225% than RS highas would kick in yes I I think we're talking about two things totally separate and one is loading and one is parking so I when I look at this I think well are we going to require because when you look at sort of the initial scratched out one it mentions no off street parking or loading spaces shall be required for buildings located that's your current ordinance right so I guess my question is we're not changing anything with the loading correct correct so they don't require any loading they never have so just downtown yeah right I mean so to give you an example right on Maple Street every day there's two massive trucks who are blocking the street every day so I think we should when we're doing this we should think about that in addition to I'm not sure how I'm not sure what the answer is but I think we should be thinking about that that makes any there are standard there are standards identifying the number of loading spaces in relation to the number of units so we could certainly add that here well this is for this is for an extra- large project yes if if somebody wants to build something extra large they don't get that exemption correct they have to they have to start complying with some parking re whatever the the rsis often time it's anywhere from 20 to 40 or so units anything above that you require loading onsite loading right all right so there we CL is this Joe written such that any development over the 225% threshold for f would be required to provide parking for the full potential or above the for that over above the threshold yeah oh right it's like a safety net it sounds like yeah could be development so that don't have consequences in our parking public parking and Street interesting something more than exists today yeah it sounds reasonable to me it sounds reasonable to me too me too all right anyone objects we'll put that on we'll put that on the recommended to the council list okay there uh item on page four 35- 9.91 there had been discussion about deleting or repealing the section about lifts and stock vehicle stocking this is differentiation between having that kind of equipment versus actual having grounded actual spots right is the differentiation no wherever there's those lifts where you have you know one aggrade parking spaces and then with the lift there's spaces above that um and I don't know where this came from to delete it but that was the suggestion maybe Jennifer are there any in the city yes there's at least two 125 127 Summit Avenue that burn down building that was reconstructed there's a mechanical kind of remote operated stack parking and then the 2B constructed tonnell Park was approved with stock parking as well yeah what it does is add to the allowable density because obviously you have to get a certain number of parking in certain zones I mean I'm just thinking what if I mean look we know we're short on housing right if there was a apartment building that was going to be built but in order to meet parking they needed to use a hydraulic lift system why why would we prevent that from being I think I do think though when some of the zoning was done they looked at the parking as a governor somewhat like well they can't park it so they certainly can't go up you know so or they certainly can't have that many I think it was looked in part and parcel together not anticipating stock parking no just I brought it up for discussion because I'm curious I think the project on Summit AV is great you know and I don't think it affects the community the character anything and it works it worked out so I just I really like to get input because it's kind of a new thing and I don't know what the impacts let me let me suggest this because I like what uh Paul had said because we're going to be dealing with the affordable housing issue and if you find that you know these the projects are attractive anyway you get a few more units and even if you don't Zone certain sites for affordable housing if someone comes in and proposes that site for multif family we will have a mandatory set ofde ordinance buildt into the fourth round plan you already have it in the third round plan um that would require them to F to set aside so you'll get a couple of affordable units out of it you would never get that if you only allow atg grade parking so there might be some about to consider this got it is a question I have also is there even if it's not stated is this sort of a work around from a cubic footage perspective so that you maybe didn't have to add another story because no one wants to go down it's expensive true and they never do up you know if you to fit the same amount of cars without those you arguably probably have to add another level which would start to raise the height of even more than if you add a lift that's right so we're being we're going to be asked for make a variance for height right I would we rather just make the allowed allotment for the for this type of paring right maybe maybe because we have the option not and then then in our subcommittee discussion you know was we were talking about maintenance and you know this is a relatively new thing what happens you know it's just truly up for discussion because I it's relatively new I mean the maintenance issue was discussed extensively for the tono Park application we had input from the fire department around fire safety um we conditioned in that case it's actually if anyone interested in moving over there when it gets built it's going to be a valet run operation so there's some consideration on self-service versus operated by professionals what were to be happened in periods of extended power outages for example providing access to cars um handicap accessibility and it was the finding of the zoning board that we were able to address all of those considerations through a variety of different Avenues um so that could be evidence that we've reached sufficient maturity with the technology that it is a in fact a reasonable inclusion in multif family development these days it Summit just doesn't have tremendous amount experience with it you'd have to look Beyond summit's borders so leave it in so leave it in I would leave okay good okay parking for daycare yeah like the standard you have it we've talked about this in the past it's not a good standard it doesn't nearly reflect what the parking generation is um I forget if there were there was a daycare application I just forget if it was before this board or the there was Primrose here and there was Learning Center for zoning okay um and the parking lot designed for one I think it was Primrose was terrible CU it didn't work yeah primose was pretty contentious yeah it it was so um when we compared it to what was required for parking if it was a school you know because on their website and everything there a school but but for zoning purposes they wanted to be a daycare because the parking um was so much less the parking requirement was so much less so um three parking spaces per staff member at Peak shift is all that it says and I don't know if that's sufficient um you know should it be a less additional for number of students for some that's a type first it should be four it's four spaces not three of them to point that out but um because if it's an operator who who has larger classes per per uh employee you know then you're still dealing with a lot of parents coming and going dropping off their kids and if you don't have sufficient parking it could be a dangerous Situation Jersey New York size parking spes not Texas parking yeah so I I looked at the I believe let me double check this I believe this came from it uh their parking manual but I will double check that well in the in our Dr this needs to be changed the educational institutions is 2.5 per classroom for nursery uh 2.5 spaces um and two per classroom for grades K through 10 and three and a half for high school basically so I don't know well we could make a reasonable number I mean coun this is recommendation Council decide what it wants to do but we defin but we definit should write it and then let let me double check the it and look at okay but that's going to be a yes we're going to make a we're going to make a recommendation you're just going to do it better or leave that number or make it better thank you four or more four or more okay the EV parking your standard was actually adopted prior to the state adopting their standard um so you we would suggest you amend your ordinance accordingly because that's the state law yeah oh okay so we're just go this this is to make us come in compliance with state law yes consistency all right so okay that's okay good and we did receive extensive comment from the environmental Commission on solar and EV and I don't know you you or Tom saw that we can kind of pass it through I think this is at least a step towards compliance with the kind of universal standard in the state and there's more we could potentially do they cited some specific instances especially around EV charging around some concern of um what is permitted even at residential locations in terms of the actual EV equipment being accessible and where it's located how set bats work I mean there's a there's a lot of discussion I suspect that you see in other municipalities yeah there there's a lot of concern about a fire and a parking garage in particular right takes forever to put these things out but yeah think at least my perspective is bringing us into conformance with the state standard is a positive step forward but this does likely Merit a separate discussion around if we want to as a community adopt any different standards be it with respect to safety or what the environmental commission was attempting to express was to encourage easier access more Readiness of these Residential Properties via new construction or renovation to be ready to accept EV which today is I not by any means the universal expectation M so we just offer that for anybody E I mean doesn't the governor theoretically want us to be electric by 2035 is that that's something like that or 2030 we should at least have have something in place by then right it's going to coincide with the end of the third round of a well that's just going to be the month of mar so all going to come together right then and there not to punt it too far out but maybe in the master plan the prop proper master plan work to be done we revisit environmental considerations solar and EV and look at kind of where we sit there with regard to the technology the state standards and address it more holistically this at least is a nice incremental step to Conformity around the state regulation okay accessory dweller units do you want to skip this complicated we had this conversation once before yes so it's a continuation of that policy discussion uh this one's a bigger topic interesting this is a topic that could take some time and we may have to be reactionary to to what the governor what the state comes through with yeah that's true all right so I think we should you may want to hold off on this y it's got It's got to stay a cop yeah okay um this was another one that uh actually this was one the the artart say it in French say it in French come on this was brought actually from an architect that uses our drro all the time and you know there have been some newer homes that wanted a PCO share I don't think it's a big issue and it's very uncommon um but it also you know when it comes up we'd have something so I'm open to it either way what do you all think apparently carports per se are not allowed but a porer is a more more elegant elaborate matches the design I was going to say what's the difference between the two I come from Allentown Pennsylvania we don't have any Porter well I think it it actually it's supposed to be a for your coach it's like what you have it like when you go to a hotel and you pull up it's covered you drive in and out there's a there's a house that that built uh on the I'm trying to remember it is on the North sidei the new one that's going up I would have to imagine no it's over on eics or it's I mean the only way that I think that you could differentiate it because it's really the same thing um in a lot of ways except that I think by definition people Park under the carport versus por cusher you're just supposed to drive through and have parking elsewhere um is that I personally think this is a conversation where if we don't have pictures and stuff like I don't I think we should just I'm not saying I'm against it I just but I need to see like pictures and what's the difference between Port crocher and a cport and why we didn't have carports to begin with I think it's just like I know that was there forever and I wasn't going to touch it I think we should come back with some pictures and additional information okay that we can do okay or or just it comes up so infrequently it's like the double Dormer thing we could just I do think with with people who have garages out back right they are they're limited by I mean I had one and I know it was a pain because my kids are always in the rain so I can certainly appreciate I think that's what that means yeah I'm not against it I all right so I'll just say this so basically the difference would be um if you if you wrote it something like um a roof structure attached to the principal building designed in the same style and with the with the same um materials as the principal structure then that's kind of what it is like you know you see a shingle style house that has a shing you know with the Big Stone Piers you know like it it basically looks like it belongs to the house that is not a separate thing if you want to prevent it from being the parking site then you say that it can only be built in a house that already has a garage yeah because otherwise then it becomes then it becomes the parking spot some people use that parking I understand I'm leaning towards Julia for sure okay look at pictures It Go um finally canopy roofs and veras yeah you know we put this in this memo but then when we looked at your definition after the fact of building coverage I think it's covered already I don't know that we need it does say there have been some very large peros proposed in Summit indicating that some controls for pergas coverage Heights setbacks are appropriate and if if that's the case then would you want to use your accessory structure language to add it there again like it used to be 15t height it used to be I mean and then you have in the we have the 24t no longer than 24t long and no more than 576 square feet do you want to just have some parameters that's your recommendation we can do something we already have okay that we could do I mean in large measure I think building coverage definition handles that but we could add that so this stuff is not our shattering we ended up with that was a that was that's a good list okay so Joe has a few tweaks and then we can read it over approve it and send it up to the city council it might be less than six weeks now uh last item on the agenda is oh um actually any comments on the minut from last time oh I was there July 22nd oh yeah the the the minutes just say the end that I didn't vote on it because I wasn't there and I didn't didn't want to argue at I like oh I was there but that's okay members excused but I I was actually there sorry did anyone have any other thoughts on the minutes you yeah yeah you and if not I'll take a motion to approve anyone what was that motion to approve the minutes so move oh wait I'm sorry we're excluding U Mr Stern and Mr Spar so you can't no way so moved thank you Mr F second reference that could on PRI thank you Mr for all those in favor I any opposed okay motion carries I think we've done it all M good job everyone thank you so much meeting adjourned e