##VIDEO ID:RjGXskZk5Eo## 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 all right time to call meeting to order good evening [Music] everybody room to play all right okay we'll going to call the meeting to order now and I'll ask the uh secretary to please call the role sure chairman zooker here Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez here Mr spur here Mr felmet here council member Hamlet is excused Mr dalmaso here miss McGee is excused Mr forelli here Mr stern here Mr Bell is excused Miss Bowen here you have a quarum you may proceed thank you um this is time for the adequate notice statement in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 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 your left and the back of the room uh this is a scheduled meeting of the planning board there may be other meetings currently running simultaneous with this meeting if you're not here for the summit planning board your meeting may be upstairs or elsewhere in the building um at this time we can stand for the pledge I pledge Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all I'm going to uh make a small change to the agenda and move the minutes up to the beginning of the the meeting um for reasons that'll be apparent later um so at this time I'd like to ask if anyone has any comments or additions or changes to the minutes from last meeting uh hearing none I'll take a motion to approve so mooved yeah second second thank you all those in favor yes any opposed the motion carries all right thank you um first on our agenda is a public hearing uh the Reeves are bedum is proposing uh to construct an accessibility ramp and I'll ask the applicant to come forward at this time going I'm going to recuse from this application Mr spur is recused good evening um my name is Jackie condal I'm the executive director over at Reed Arboretum and um the uh plan that we are putting forward as um chairman Zucker mentioned is we're looking to put in an accessible path um right now we have about 2third of a loop that makes its way around um through the gardens this um last piece will be um joining uh the existing accessible path we'll carry everybody through our historic Gardens and back up to the parking lot so it'll make um the you know most of the core grounds um available and accessible to people of all AB abilities thank you Mr chairman if I may ask a question or two quickly please uh um can can you please repeat your name oh sure and your association with the uh with the arber it's Jackie condal KO n deel and I'm the executive director at re Reed or reom thank you and and if Mr chair just to remind the board this is a and please correct me if I'm wrong Mr Burgess a master plan consistency review correct correct and and as such it is not technically a public hearing uh as it is not an application for development uh so I need not swear in any Witnesses I didn't want anyone to think I forgot to swear in uh Miss con I didn't um the uh and the primary issue of course is uh whether or not uh this is consistent with the master plan or not inconsistent with the master plan this particular Capital project proposal is Mr Burg has set forth in his memo of November 18 uh nevertheless we do have certain recommendations and what have you and certainly uh all information pertinent to the application would be pertinent to the board's discretion particularly since uh the applicable provision uh allows not only for master plan consistency review but also any other recommendations and maybe paraphrasing a little bit off uh that the board wishes to make with respect to the uh proposal I'm done for now thank you Mr chair thank you Mr War um Mr Burgess um would you like to take us through your memo very briefly uh we had prepared a report dated November 18th and it been indicated this is a consistency review I know the board's familiar with that process um the most significant modifications of the plan and it's a minor one is that the lot coverage is only being increased from 5.02 to 5.5% whereas the code permits up to 30% coverage so they're not even coming remotely close to the maximum um with respect to the consistency review we typically look at the goals and objectives of the master plan and as we note in our report there's a number of goals from the master plan and a subsequent reexamination report that are being affirmed by this application one goal talks about maintaining and upgrading uh the availability of Community Resources and amongst the things that list it does list recreational uh facilities uh the another goal talks about encouraging a balanced development pattern that serves to improve the city's overall quality of life and certainly for the handicapped that is true in this instance other go goals talk about uh encouraging a more desirable visual environment um providing an effective array of recreational and cultural facilities for all segments of the community and beyond all that there's an acknowledgement that this is a historic site and is designated as such in the uh master plan as well as the national and state registers of historic places so having said all of that uh it's clear that it is consistent with the ma with the master plan your obl your obligation is not to ENT my phone uh um your obligation is to report back to the governing body uh to identify whether or not you agree with this uh the suggestions in our report and then they will take the application from there and make the final formal determination with respect to consistency thank you very much although at first blush I think that although the Zone may allow for 30% lot coverage I don't think in ARB burum would be a place we would want 30% lot coverage so that is true I'm glad we're safely below that level um does anyone have any comments or questions about um Mr F's report all right any any other comments does anyone like to take us through the plan any further or Mr chairman would if before we proceed the there are a couple of recommendations from the various staff members I yes but why don't we listen if you want to listen to the their presentation on I'm sorry I thought I didn't know how much for sure when at the appropriate time know where they were in the process it's up to you where you I was just going to say I'm going to introduce our landscape architect jar cast who will walk you through the the plans just going to load up my computer here just a brief presentation again your name and business address for the record uh my name is Jared kest I'm a licensed landscape architect in New Jersey uh and while it's a master plan consistency review your license in New Jersey is in good standing and you've been accepted as an expert landscape architect in the past that is correct yeah thank you refer to the chair uh we can accept Mr C as an expert y okay so I'm just going to walk it through uh some visuals that we put together for for the project would it help if we just Mark the entirety of the PowerPoint as exhibit A1 for reference purposes and for the resolution that'll be drafted if unless we just do a letter sorry good great thank you we'll refer to the PowerPoint as A1 thank you so our firm which is J Kon company uh we've been in Summit for the last 10 years uh we reside over The Summit House on Springfield AV up until very recently where we just moved so we're very familiar with the area and have presented in front of the board several times uh zoning board mostly planning board a few times so we were hired by the Reeves Reed Arboretum um more than two years ago uh to help them develop a plan to make the arboro more accessible so we explored several options uh also being mindful that it is an arboretum you know how do we keep this you know as green as possible and the phrase that came up most of the time is with you know the lightest touch possible right so what we're going to show you here today or what I'm going to show you here today are some 3D renderings of the proposed design that support you know the construction plans that we submitted for your review so this is a Google Earth image of the existing property uh you can see the amphitheater and the series of gardens currently you know about 2/3 of it is not accessible by wheelchair or any kind of you know Mobility challenged person so our goal was to connect the loop which is existing on the left side of the image you'll see a asphalt which is a prvious pathway which is an accessible path which takes you all the way down to the amphitheater and we want to continue that Loop all the way up to the parking area which is basically the entrance to the Arboretum this is the proposed area for that transition of grade we have about 7 and A2 fet of vertical grade that we have to navigate so which is quite a bit when it comes to you know meeting ADA requirements and so on um happy to report that we were able to do that I think gracefully and elegantly and still being mindful that it is an arboretum that we didn't want it to end up looking like a series of ramps that you might find in a institutional type setting so Garden like is really what we were going for uh this is the plan you have in front of you um just going to quickly move to the next slide since you have that in front of you so project rendering number one is a bird's eyee view looking down at what you'll see as the accessible ramp with a beautiful Rock Garden staircase moving through Lush land scaping and at the bottom of the slide you'll see a curv linear ramp which you know is 6ot wide and certainly able for someone to be going down the ramp in a wheelchair but also having someone else walking side by side so the idea is that it's comfortable it doesn't feel um different than any other walkway uh and it has opportunities for rest a little bit closer in view you'll see that beautiful staircase in the middle you know places to rest so there's multiple ways to navigate those seven and a half feet you know we're enhancing the upper area which currently exists you know so it'll be a better place for tables and chairs but it also opens up the Vista of the Great Lawn at the Arboretum so this we believe is one of the best views on the property and it's enhanced through this project a further zoomed out view you'll see the aelia Garden centered uh in the image there in the lower left you'll see the other Gardens where we are adding at grade walkways so these will be pervious pavement meaning water will percolate through uh that pavement which is matching what is existing out there so all of the acrade walkways will match what is currently out there which is perious pavement the constructed ramps will be exposed aggregate concrete and that's mostly for uh maintenance reason it's highly durable but it also has an aesthetically appealing look to it so it has decorative cobbles on the surface of a uh durable concrete surface and one more view here uh looking down you can see the six foot wide uh path which is the exposed aggregate uh pavement I was just mentioning and we have these beautiful rod iron railings uh which also match you know the aesthetic present on the property you know in the end our goal is for a visitor of this property to not know what we did here right we wanted to look homogeneous with the existing architecture with the landscape and so on so we've worked closely with the staff and the board over this more than two-year period to make sure we get every detail just right and that we're also providing you know not only just a way to navigate 7 and2 ft but we are providing a beautiful garden experience for a visitor of the arbor uh last two slides this is the upper patio Visitors Center is off to the right and you can see this Vista being opened up uh to the lower Great Lawn and then another beautiful addition to this area is the area in front of the greenhouse which currently is not accessible so right next to the accessible parking spaces uh you can come right into the greenhouse very easily and there's also an outdoor classroom with an information kiosk uh guiding you through the project and through the property and with that that is the end of our presentation and open it to any questions thank you very much do we have any questions on the board from Mr C yes I have a question please uh the Construction office and I I did not drill down on this was asking about lighting I lighting for the is it low probably in there but I didn't yeah so we are matching the lantern standard that is currently on the property so we have I think nine or 10 I think it's 10 total lanterns so it's a vintage you know style lantern with a candleabra on a cedar post which is throughout the property currently so it'll be the exact same standard it has a shielded top so it doesn't have the glass top that is an option and that keeps the kind of the night sky uh under consideration right I don't and there are no variances required at no for for the retaining walls or anything like that okay now there's one retaining W that's 5' 8 in or 5.8 in feet yeah and but it's under the six ft that's permitted right okay retaining walls are okay but the Construction office also asked about if there are any areas that um they just wanted to make sure that there weren't any retaining walls that were built that didn't have guard rails a guard rail or something yeah so yeah his I can answer his you know comments and they're all pretty standard things so the walls in some cases not all uh are greater than 4T which do require a submitt to the building official and for review and we've known that all along so they all are structurally engineered walls and any wall greater than 30 in does have a 42 in high guard rail that meets all building code requirements good okay all I have well great terrific thank you so much for that yeah you're welcome it's it's a phenomenal I think it's a phenomenal design fits with the historic building the historic s setting it's really well done and I don't think there's any question that it advances the interest of the master plan right and and and is not inconsistent with it am I correct Mr Warner not inconsistent our favor double negative we like double negatives consistent um uh at that point uh can we go to a Mr Warner a vote to yeah I guess the only thing might be the uh City Engineers report just to confirm uh consistency with the 11 items there if the board so desires I didn't get a copy of that I can comment on that I think it's dated no I don't want to state state the date yeah I didn't get it I emailed it because they gave it to me a little oh okay I missed I printed out all the other thanks oh and a might be Mr chairman simple enough as to if the answer is will comply with the 11 items that might be simple enough just it is that simple I actually spoke with Aaron shreer this afternoon and we went through those items and it is all that actually simple um it's just a couple calculations that he's looking for on the plan some invert elevations and showing him that the sistern that we're proposing is Right sized for the impervious that we are creating all right very good thank you so uh with that in mind anything else Mr burus uh the only thing I want to say I got to compliment you would your uh presentation the drawings really impressive oh thank you great so I'll take uh a motion that we would find that the plaintiff's application is not inconsistent with the master plan and we would recommend uh that to the council okay and I'll just assume unless I'm told otherwise that all the recommendations that were made in the reports that were stipulated to by the applicant uh would go along with that consistency finding yeah we plan to comply with all the comments all right thank you very much do I have a motion so moved thank you and and the second second thank you okay and a vote sure chairman zooker yes Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez yes Mr felmet yes Mr dalmaso yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes Miss Bowen yes the motion carries thank you thank you very much we should invite Mr spur back into the room wherever he is [Laughter] hiding i' also like to thank Mr Warner for sending around at the end of October if you haven't noticed um a compliance deadline sheet for the various issues we'll be dealing with um if you guys haven't seen it if you didn't notice it in your emails thank you my pleasure it's those deadlines are as they're saying baked in the statute [Music] so you want me to F Mr yeah if you don't mind thanks we'll send it back have a good Thanksgiving you too what we doing next resolution yeah next up oh memorializing the Summit Community programs that would be the the cross wall yeah they they it's and then Cinder I think he if drawings say it's concrete that's part then I think they might have testified that it was cinder block which means it should be painted because just gray black so we just need to verify then make it consistent and also that it's not just based on three SES that's true need to okay let's let's do that all right next up uh next up is a review of the um resolution for memorialization on the LaCrosse wall uh the resolution was circulated earlier for our comments and Analysis and I believe we have at least one comment from the board already so Miss Balon Alvarez if you want to yeah um do you all remember I think um there was uh on the drawings it said that it was going to be a concrete wall with the brick face on three sides and the concrete on the one side parch but then didn't did they testify it was going to be cinder block after all didn't they say that because in the resolution we have concrete and then we have cinder block in another section and I'm trying to remember what is it actually been built out of and want to make it consist that's a question to us do we recall how do we recall I feel like it was on the drawing as concrete yeah they said it used to be brick and then Chang standing right there block right I think you're right I think on the drawing it showed concrete and they changed the scope to cinder block but they're still facing it on three sides with brick on the the the pera side right okay so let's just make it all say concrete block I think we should say painted concrete block or parged concrete block I'm not sure which because on the drawing it was concrete that was parged now it's cinder block presumably also to be part or else it'll not be as attractive for the Neighbors I'm going to need to know so I'll tell you all right all right so on page two yes uh number two partway down it says the proposed wall itself would be constructed rather than concrete you would say uh concrete um or parged concrete and then faced on three sides with brick why am I missing where it says conc I haven't gotten it yet it says oh three there we Areo construct of concrete okay so it says constructed of concrete but but we all remember that it changed it was actually going to be constructed of cinder block cinder block Okay so I think you should say parged cinder block and then faced on three sides with brick and then that's an accurate record of what they're actually buil okay got the and uh I'm anticip does it need to change in any other spaces there's a concrete me there no there's a correct cinder block mentioned later on later on on page five would be constructed out of cinder block I don't think we have to describe it again though do we once we said it correctly it's a factual finding and the plan would dictate anyway yeah but the plan's wrong it says concrete says like poured with with rebar and all that it's consistently referred to sorry it's inconsistently referred to inconsistently so we just we need to write it consistent at least right so we have it Cinder blocked on page five and at the bottom number 12 we trust you to fix that yep we'll go we'll go through it and make sure it's cinder block throughout the one of the thing that seemed inconsistent to me was was the the actual ground coverage um in terms of the footage and the materials and so we should I think we should at least try to dou again double check that and and be consistent on that because depending upon the moment in the conversation we were at last time if anybody remembers right there was any from I'm going 1,000 ft of covered with pavement to 3600 ft of P there a radical difference and and what that was covered with was also not consistently answered there and while none of us including myself incredibly pushed back on that it was it any I I was left with the impression that anything could happen I think it's going to be paided within the fence L right well but I but it wasn't said that it was going to be that way at the beginning it was like it was implied that it was a small portion for that and then the rest would probably be or something like that then that I brought the drawing so you want confirmation of the ultimate square footage and the material we want we want UL confirmation on the ultimate square footage of the entire area not not with regards to what necessarily is covered but just what is that I think it was a 60x60 space corly and then within that what is what is where is is is it making is it 500 ft is it 1,000 ft is it, 1500 ft of of a hard surface that they would bounce the ball off which which was implied would be we talked about we said shouldn't it be Turf and they're like will you actually get a trer bounce off of concrete yeah right but do you need to do that bounce from 35 40t away or is it 5T away yeah yeah and so all that never really came together in a way okay our engineer Okay so so can we I have one other yeah didn't they said it was going to be like on on page 11 on the timing when it was going to be open or available for use it was going to be at some point from during the the hours of the day that it was light out this says 7: a.m. to 10 p.m. I don't know that's not what we that's not what we discussed yeah that that and thank you that is and seven page seven right don't I'm with you the the the that I was tied to the D noise ordinance which is our noise ordinance as well however we can make it earlier based on their stipulation that's something like sun up to sun down and like we Sun up through that's right and so then somebody I think said why don't we use our our noise ordinance which is a good one and I think that starts at 8 not seven oh okay well then we're ahead of the D but that's all right the the uh we can uh we can make it a p.m. uh 8 a.m. I'm sorry I'm sorry 8 a uh 8 a.m. I'm sorry uh well actually it's not lit right I mean there's I mean there there decorative lighting there's decorative lighting but not and the uh nighttime who knows what happens with the other light he said sunset what time do you want what time do you want directly put in a signant I'm sorry that's okay that's right we we'll get there the the the the um what time would you like the uh between the hours of what and 8:00 a.m. cuz night prob I Wasing before the latest Sunset is like 8:30 so however long I it doesn't get dark immediately 9:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. I I think um well so if if if the latest in the summer Sunset is 8:30 it should probably be 8:30 9:00 implies there's to me that there's going to be lighting installed at some point where if you look at some like like this the high schooler actually you know what if you go to the Jefferson baseball field since I was involved with baseball for many years the rule was always that that light had to be out at 9:30 and if it wasn't lit then you had to be done at Sunset that was sort of the rule for for how baseball I would imagine a similar thing would probably apply if there was lighting or if there wasn't you want to let me know what you want so to I think I think Sun I think Sunset is the answer right so win said 4:30 but why did we decide not to do sunset I don't remember maybe because of so they we said they said uh sun up to sundown or we said that they're like well Sun up is too early we'll come up with something so why don't we do 88: a.m. to Sunset if that's what everybody sounds like they want to do seems to make sense Sun okay between the hour it'll be prohibited between the hours you know so they can Sunset to 8:00 a.m. Sunset to 8: a.m. yeah prohibited from Sunset to 8: a.m. per the signage that's easy enough because there's no light so yeah it's on seven and and 11 at least yep no I I got it on both Pages uh the uh as far as the arguable vagueness left for the time being with respect to the square footage Etc um the uh it's up to the board 's Comfort level as to whether you wish to adopt the resolution uh and entrust me with the additional modifications or if you wish to see it again after those modifications I think it's within the discretion of the board it's it's somewhat vague not too V it's a consistency review so does anyone want to see yeah it's a reasonableness review and it's not an application for development I think we trust you there you go I'll take it thank you I agree so then with those changes yeah okay do we have a a motion oh uh to memorialize right do we have a motion to memorialize with these changes I'll take a motion from anyone a motion thank you Mr and a second second okay I'm GNA take chair uh Vice chair bson Alvarez as the second so our eligible voting members for this are chairman zooker Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez Mr spur Mr felmet council member Hamlet Mr dalmaso Miss McGee Mr forelli and Mr Stern so we have our motion on our second so I'll do the roll call chairman zooker yes Vice chairwoman balson Alvarez yes Mr spur yes Mr felet yes Mr domaso yes yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes the motion carries all right thank you there's there's another item that's not on our agenda but uh the or the the draft ordinance uh updates were circulated yeah so um I'd like to go through with everyone and uh see if these capture the agreements that we uh we reached so I hope everyone's had a chance to look through we spent enough time on it um I do want to stop for a second actually um Mr damaso do you am I correct that you have some insight a little bit about the a recent uh ordinance discussion about accessory units or is that not something you want to talk about or or am I off Bas yes I um as many people know the league of municipalities was last week and they had a very informative seminar on Accessory dwelling units of which I was one of the few in Summit or the only one from Summit to attend so um I took down down some notes I can share offand but you know at the end of the day as Mr Warner would say it's written in the the policy you know you got to look there first but yes I can uh provide some insight oh no I think we'd all be interested to know because we're also here I noticed that we you know we're still starting to talk about it in our drro but sounds like we may be preempted or there may be something well it's um the state policy is going to be entirely opt in so you either adopt the state model of which there will be two options of a model to adopt uh or you do not if you do not adopt either of their models accessory dwelling units become illegal in your city and you cannot have an accessory dwelling unit according to State LA them at any point uh you can adopt it at any point that is correct and there are um various ramifications to it uh for example as was stated uh if you do adopt one of the models for accessory dwelling units the zoning requirements tied to accessory dwelling units or would be dictated solely by the state law or model adopted and not the local zoning ordinance so for instance an accessory dwelling unit would only have and minimum side yard or rear yard setback requirement of 5T independent of what the municipality's zoning ordinance may say so there's a lot of items as such um another example is that uh if let's say you have a multif family home and you can designate either an attic apartment or basement apartment which Summit currently does not permit I believe um uh you could designate one of those or an attic as an Adu if it meets a minimum height requirement per the state model and the city would be forced to adopt that accessory dwelling unit either in a basement or attic uh regardless of what our zoning might say so uh it's the model are quite an imposition and require a more refined eye and these are the just the things I remember off the top of my head so you can't have your own version you have either adopt theirs or not have and and so anything we currently have in the books becomes illegal uh yes and it is no it is not permitted your ordinance version needs to be approved by the county commissioner's office and then it is informed to the enforcing body of the state that we have a valid ordinance got we cannot just uh have our own it's got to be consistent with their but I'm saying if we have one now that is non-conforming or if we don't adopt it do they have to vacate it they would oh it would not be valid they'd be completely illegal in town yes if I may Mr chairman Mr Damas this is you uh correct me if I'm wrong is this a a bill but not yet enacted but it's a pilot program in certain municipalities if I recall correctly that is correct it is a bill for proposal um uh some towns the model that were they were closely based off of was Princeton and um I can't remember where the second model was based from but Princeton already has a robust Adu policy um and they allow you know it helps them shape their Community works for them not say I'm entirely convinced with the city Summit but uh it would be quite an imposition if we were to have one and it it if I may it if from the legal perspective uh since it is not yet enacted as the law uh the uh should you so desire to proceed with a recommendation I'd defer uh to our planner uh on that but from the from that perspective but should you so decide to go forward with the recommendation with respect to access dwelling units uh there's nothing prohibiting you at least as of yet right and if and when that particular statute were enacted uh which it very well may be it's a pilot program in some places so uh it's not Pie in the Sky necessarily but uh then uh no harm no foul the ordinance would have to be amended and uh to be compliant or or and uh uh the existing ordinance effectively would be vacated um but uh this is something that might happen in future yeah we understand we appreciate the summary thank we have no obligation to accept either right right Joe do you have any thoughts on it no I think between the two of them they summarized everything very well um I also want to talk a little bit about some things that took place at the league but we could do that after we finish okay all right so let's thank you for that sorry for the interruption but right I thought it was interesting um okay so going through those um does anyone have any comments on the drafts as they currently exist and I have one or two comments on the draft as well okay do you do and that's primarily because Tom could not read my handwriting do you want to give us your edits first go ahead go ahead Joe yeah why don't you give us yours first okay um on page three my notes do reflect irrespective of Tom's ability to understand my handwriting that on Section 35141 J1 line one two line four where it says from view of a public Street we there was a general agreement that the words or from surrounding properties at grade were to be deleted that's to be deleted right yes okay okay so from the or on is deleted correct correct and then on the last second to last uh excuse the last paragraph under 35141 j4e existing air conditioning units and then we were to insert on residentially developed Lots that's what I had okay good and then it continues and then on the second to last line where it says subject to the words all other development and was to be deleted as well I'm sorry subject to building code requirements including correct just take out all other development because that was too vague right all other development and gets deleted okay subject subject to building code reement and you're you're putting the on residential or in residential zones right after um existing air conditioning units the wording that was agreed upon was on residentially developed law okay that works and I think the only other item was the parking standard for daycare centers um there are two standards in the it parking generation handbook that we were looking at um Tom included the one that related to staff and right primarily because he was the Cent ordin talked about staff I thought there was actually a different and better stand and easier to work with because the number of employees can always change but um it also uses a standard of 3.75 parking spaces per thousand square feet of floor area which is much more manageable easier for the this oh yes much more predictable yeah yes so I would suggest we consider that I was going to ask you that because why would yeah that's good and I also like that it's square feet rather than classroom because that's another way of doing it and classroom you know size well that's not a classroom and that's not a classroom and that's not but it's all school like okay anyway so does the 3.75 Round Up in practice actually I rounded it up from 3.74 there were they and there were what was interesting in the it handbook they tell you how many studies were done for different things and here it was either 45 or 47 different studies so was a decent number because in and just as as a quick aside when anybody ever quotes the it handbook always ask well how many studies was that based on because sometimes there's only one or two studies that are you know the base basis for a nationally and who knows the size and one could be rural Iowa how relevant is and I'll say anecdotally from my experience on the on the commercial side is often with a with a an office building it'll be four spots per thousand is sort of sort of rule of Thum that so anything in that range sounds sounds about right to me yeah but this with either 45 or 47 and it said and this was in uh just urban/suburban communities which I think something that kind of fits that bill so um that's why I was very comfortable that 374 just sounded odd that might air a little light because some people are Walkers if it's Urban so I'm talking more more not non super but like Suburban like like if you went to any of the offices on the perimeter of town I would suspect that're parking would we be would we be considered too conservative or arbitrary if we said four per Mr forelli well no the the term Urban Suburban is defined as something like a summit it's a suburban community with some Urban okay characteristic to it so you're comfortable yes you think we'll be okay we won't have a like our last yes and then lastly you had asked I wasn't sure of some somebody raised a question should we put pictures of the ptic casare in the ordinance and I wasn't sure in my note I had a question mark and I wasn't sure if that was a specific directive or there was just discussion and there was no discussion about that as to whether or not I'm not so sure it's useful in in the sense that we're saying that it's it's a covered area but it's not meant to be a covered parking spot but if you show a picture of it it could be a covered parking spot I mean it doesn't really a picture there's a a cover but the imper it's open on three size obviously and that's why there's a distinction that most ordinances will use when they talk about ptic shares and they they don't tend to be a full car length yeah like I said long really they're Carriage length long is it four SPAC for SPAC yes you can have a p crocher that's four spaces long yeah it could be as high as 12 hands yeah 12 hands exactly um I did have an u a couple of it does anybody else have added you want to share go ahead you got a couple of them I think uh on page three you want to when you're describing what you're doing you're underlining the additions and the deletions are crossed out you not bracket it so you probably want to do a cross out and a line through it thus because that's what we did yeah the final product will show that yeah and um at the top top of three I don't know if this is necessary or if this is understood but where it says in residential zones no accessory building or structure with a roof shall have a floor or ground area in excess of 576 Square ft nor shall any Dimension be longer than 24 ft I put any plan Dimension or you know it's the footprint that we're talking about or a wall length um but then after that in the ordinance they talk about height so maybe it's just covered like maybe it's not a problem I think it is but I that so never mind okay um you added residential to the the air conditioner thing on the on page four flat rooms are prohibitive above the uppermost floor of a single or twostory dwelling I actually on makes sense to me because I feel like above might infer like another something you know up there is isn't the roof on the floor on that floor but what do you guys think on or above I think it's above I think the roof is above you want to say a top it's off the uppermost floor if if it makes sense for everybody that's fine oh um and I change I I thought that number two under roofs it might be clear if we just wrote where 50% or more of the existing roofs on existing dwellings with pitches less than 6 1/2 ft rather than trying to say it the backwards did I read that wrong no where 50% or more of the roof framing sorry I read it wrong where 50% or more of the roof framing has been removed the re the reconstructed roof shall have a minimum roof pitch of six SL you know 6 to 12 I just thought it was confusing because why do you have to say or removed entirely if you're doing more than 50% if more than 50% is removed so I'm trying to just simplify it okay okay yeah word reconstructed on that last Clause just needs to be substituted with repaired where 50% where the roof framing we don't need removed entirely because if it's over 50% cross exactly been removed so if you just say where 50% or more of the roof framing has been removed the reconstructed roof shall have a minimum roof pitch up well you just changed it because because you're saying 50% or more I know it's silly but and this says we're more than 50% right but I I just got I where I why I started to fix it was just because we're removed entirely got me well no cuz it's not you should say removed or removed enely it says 50% is just 50% and so the removed entirely is the is the greater I think I think that's the intent that's the intent yes that's why 50% or more if it's gone you've got to comply that's basically what I'm saying so there's no monkey minimally 50% yeah there go okay and the on Section Five we just have to change attachment one to appendix a because that's where that's where that's the design guidelines sorry what was that J um section five just below um it's appendix a not attachment one yeah so we're defining the kosare but are we now saying it's not a they don't need to come for a variance for it now because we're defining it before they had to come because it was clumped in with a carport so is that what that does in terms of coverage no in terms of building one yeah it used to be precluded Chris Chris way back the zoning officer just just like carports Port koshares I don't care what you call it they're not allowed they have to get a variant and I guess she you know had a reasons there must have been some really bad ones out there in town um I had been under the impression you wanted to allow it yes and acknowledge the fact that it's not intended as additional uh cover a covered parking area it wasn't really worth it because it came up so after we discussed I thought it was an interesting question but maybe doesn't come up enough kind of like the Dormer to bother with but it's a nice definition I think we're going with it and uh okay yeah so it means they that it'll be allowed it'll be allowed the only thing that we had discussed that's not in there is that the Porco shares historically they have the same materials the same style they they're really part of the design and it matches we can certainly add that that's so that's what kind of different you know carport usually is metal poles and doesn't look like the building often okay design consistency right I I have something like design consistent with the overall character of the front facade yes I'll work on that a little bit design and materials is what I had in my notes I don't have anything else do you have anything no I think that covers it the the one other thing I did want to bring up somebody had asked about on the rooftop um entertainment space or whatever I was going to say bar issue yeah right um so and somebody specifically said well Hoboken has a number of regulatory controls and they do um they have all sorts of time differences for example you're allowed they start as early as 8:00 a.m to 11:00 p.m. on Sundays and Wednesdays and th Thursday through Saturdays 8: a.m. to midnight I'll leave it up to I thought 8: a.m. was a little early used to be in those things at night not for breakfast but um they also have uh they live acoustic music limited to specific hours 4: to 10 p.m. except on Saturdays and Sundays when it's noon to 10 p.m. they allow any or they prohibit any but muted TVs or video screens muted M they must be muted and of course no flashing or moving lights I didn't want to start putting all that in an ordinance until I got your that that's what you were looking for conc Reon but it's a area what rcbd is dancing if there was more residential like a hobo suddenly all these things become very important to the yeah to the the surrounding buildings the one thing it did not have and it was the big topic of conversation at the last meeting with a limit on seats now in the in the draft in dress we had 20 seats uh Hoboken and some others that I looked at had no limitation on seats um I know a couple places that I go to they don't have that many seats but they have areas where you could stand next to a bar around the whole perimeter of the space right but there's a fire marshall rule like how many people you can get out of there so there will be some Max well that's it I think I honestly think maybe it's just me that our conversation about seats and things was our attempt at thinking about noise control and crowd control uh Hoboken chooses to do it by muting the televisions and not caring how loud the people talk or you know making sure they have acoustic music and not Amplified music all these things are fine I mean I don't maybe we shouldn't second guess and try to control things with seats if people want to have an entertainment space you know Let the Fire Marshall control the um you know what's safe up there so I'm you know I'm okay with uh if people are open to leave not being too strict on these things add these kind of regul these Provisions but delete the seeding capacity if you're right it will be the Fire Marshall in the end it can yeah I don't think we have to guess the seat restrictions as long as that's enforced that the fire marshal C then I think we're we're in pretty good shape so yeah I would I would recommend that if we're okay I just worry about you know light noise I mean light pollution and in there and noise yeah that's in there too yeah but even even television screens I mean they can just be angled to aim into the into the entertainment space I mean it doesn't have to be you know a side projected movie to the neighborhood right because we still want to encourage residential on upper floors in our downtown you I keep going back to the uh the new hotel just because that is in a residential neighborhood and I'm wondering if they are going to do a roof deck what this this is where this really matters a lot I just think well you could limit it to yeah certain districts and areas um they are they have a lot of great specificity and they identify certain specific Redevelopment areas where they permit it right and they they Nam them they also have other regulatory controls and it was clearly for specific things that are even going going in lower Manhattan where they know they're going to get crowded so they identify those um specific dates where it's more restrictive so but I don't know that that applies here okay would your recommendation be to keep it to the downtown zone for now and see how it goes I think that would be most appropriate and see how that plays out first yeah the challenge that was encountered on zoning through a number of applications was the risk that that the downtown application of these kind of rooftop spaces was where you ran the greatest risk of noise light infringement what have you but there was for sure interest outside of the central business district with tonnell Park was the was the most recent application on Morrison River Road where they they have grills and a dog run and now granted the uh density of that area as a result risk for infringing light or or sound for example was was less but wherever There's an opportunity developers these days appear to be interested didn't finding some way to offer it as an amenity of sorts it's one thing to have an amenity for the dog runs and seating areas for an apartment building this is geared to restaurant and bar space on the roof right which is what I thought we were talking about yeah yeah but we can adjust it the the uses it's been described again a number of zoning applications that I've seen is enter entertainment right it's not low intensity individuals couples small families um the nightmare scenario is kids birthday parties or you know after hours entertaining or whatever that might be um and what Summit had been lacking and I think the hours is probably the is probably the missing piece because there's a light ordinance in place there's fire code in place um to help kind of address those things it was the hour of operations that was you know really if anything missing and that we not being consistently applied then kind of left to the recommendation of the oper is that a use may have residential and Commercial and accordingly have a different application more intense during the week or weekend and we just didn't have a kind of a consistent standard to apply when considering variance relief you and so maybe we should be providing for for both you know the typical bar SE versus an apartment building that want some manity on the roof yeah and I I'm familiar with a couple of those in the city and they they work well in their quieter spaces so why don't I put together that when we do this final hopefully the final draft I think that's smart because an apartment building rooftop I mean I've been to them you've been to them it's typically a grill and and a table and families go up there I mean if they really want to have a birthday party up there it's up to the Building HOA maybe to even allow that which they often probably wouldn't um but it's not going to be a regular nighttime party scene that's going to wreck everybody so and it's not yeah so that's having two different ways to look at it is fine okay sounds good thank you do we need to take any further steps on this that we're kicking it back to Joe no okay it's ultimately going to be a recommendation to the governing body okay with respect to introduction and adoption and Mr Zer I just wanted to recognize too I had an email exchange today with the environmental Commission on this to recognize for anyone who is hopefully watching us this evening at 8:30 from the environmental commission or the or the other boards um that this is at least in my limited time here the first what I expect to be an annual process of reviewing the drro soliciting input from a variety of different stakeholder groups um so in their instance right the EV ordinance is being pulled back in in exchange for the model ordinance offered by the state but doesn't preclude us from exploring modification as is necessary so this is hopefully just the start of a recurring regular uh process of review for which we're eager to invite uh input from the broad community so okay thank you for that Mr spur for sure very true everybody keep a list all year all right so um on next up on our agenda is a discussion of the um rfqs on our um professionals and for that we're going to go into a closed session Mr Warner I think can explain a little bit of the process certainly U the uh before he excuses himself sure that's right I will be and and perhaps Mr Burgess will be excusing himself as well well I don't know before before I excuse myself I just talked one minute about the league oh yeah please I'm sorry yes we you mentioned you wanted to give us a couple things um I appreciate WEA going to the one that he went to I was focused on affordable housing in the state plan oh did they address that at all though um the state plan um was interesting because they had uh the the players who were involved in the saate plan there and they swore up and down that the saate plan is going to be released this week now I'm thinking this is a two and a half day week so I'll take my bets on that but it sounds like it's coming very very soon if not this week I'm sure next week so that's a good thing because we need that the information from that state plan to do all the cross acceptance secondly today the DCA issued the U mapping that will allow us now to complete the analysis for uh determining what our um vacant land adjustment will be and the realistic development potential number will be so that's two big steps in that direction yeah actually actually the GIS mapping came Friday I got my hands on it today but uh but it also does Focus not only on the BAC and land adjustment which splits up the RDP and the unmet need uh but the first step as well it could inform certainly as to the accuracy or lack thereof of dca's number uh with on the land capacity factor which is one of the three factors uh from which is derive the affordable housing obligation for every municipality most importantly our city um and that's the one that the DCA uh is candidly admitting uh is a uh very uh broad guesstimate literally from several uh 100,000 feet up uh and uh but we and we alone know what's really on the ground yeah well the the the problem with the well there as you said there's three different components the first two are very census driven so unless there's a mathematical error we're not going to be able to adjust much there but when it comes to this third component land capacity we're finding already some significant errors for example in one municipality and the reason for that is that they're using uh 2020 Aerials well in one municipality um that we represent there's 115 or so unit development it's just completing construction started in 20122 so in their Maps they're showing it as vacant property it was in our Third Realm plan so we get it getss counted for the third round and then according to DCA it's going to get counted again for the fourth round so we have to really check all the mapping to see what's been approved and built following 2020 to see how we can reduce the number similarly there are significant errors in the um rehab numbers um for two quick examples um in one like you a high income community in the third round they had a 4unit rehab obligation and for some inexplicable reason that jumped to 78 units with the fourth round um as somebody as we were talking about it somebody said in that town if you have a uh if you don't have a Subzero fridge and a wolf range that's a deficient kitchen so um in another town it went from 21 to 159 so there's a lot of ARS obvious ARS in there that we'll have to look at for you um and I guess I pretty much covers the main there may have been also some if I may some Reliance with respect to land capacity Factor on mod for uh tax assessor records and designations that are not administrative administratively prepared for this reason so therefore certain land may be listed as vacant I think it's number one is the designation uh whereas it may not be or perhaps there's a string of lots that are associated with one master lot under common ownership the first lot may be vacant but they're all listed as one vacant when in reality they may not all be vacant so there there and that was all recognized by DCA including the literally the people who did it uh worked with the data sets they work with they recognized that very candidly uh at the sessions and and you know they essentially said we did the best with what we were given and told to do with what were you know the subsets and the data in the time provided but um there's an understanding it is far from 100% accurate and it's incumbent upon municipalities such as ours to see where they were inaccurate and if that the magnitude of that difference can actually significantly impact uh the number that is required to be uh set forth in a binding resolution by January 31st all right three months two months yeah they they they whittel us down they they they gave us the number 3 months and and 10 days in in advance and then which was the statutorily prescribed time short time for us to deal with it uh and then effectively took the most uh not by Design I'm sure but the most important data set the mapping uh we didn't get until almost a month and a half into that uh 3 and a half month period so yeah our time is is is what it is yeah but the important thing is we're we're going to be asking for a vacant land adjustment anyway so you know we can accept their number but in the resolution that the governing body adopts it just it must say that we accept the number however just like the previous rounds we're going to be seeking a vacant land adjustment and we're going to try to figure out something about this rehab issue the real critical concern I think your number is 59 59 let's make it 60 for the sake of the discussion your obligated is a round number yeah you're obligated to set aside the equivalent of $20,000 per unit for a third of that number that's a lot of money they if your number is six rather than 60 yeah now you can see the difference that that would involve so that's critical if I may and the city may wish a two-prong attack uh because the vacant land analysis certainly is critical once you have a net number uh from which to divide what is the realistic development potential and must be actively addressed with units versus what is the unmet need and can be more passively addressed say with overlay zones or other mechanisms um but before you get to that net number one has to address by January 31st the gross number and if the gross number is somewhat significantly more than the net number perhaps it's best to see if we can reduce that gross number to the lower net number uh and then bifurcate that lower net number between realistic development potential and unmet need um at least in my opinion no need they're not mutually exclusive you you want to do both if you can if it's worth it um lower the the number and then split it up as best we can between realistic development potential uh which is a more difficult process and on that need which is uh less difficult all right thank you so we're going to move on now to um our R rfqs um and for that we're going to go and close session and I can offer a very abbreviated even for me uh especially for me a very abbreviated uh motion because uh uh it'll be a motion to go into the executive session session pursuant to the contracts and Personnel exception to the open public meeting Act and the minutes of the executive session uh will be released uh when the need for confidentiality no longer exists that is the motion can I hear yes so moved so moved second heard Jennifer mov I thought I said okay all those in favor yeah um I I opposed all right Happy Thanksgiving thank you guys thank you everybody okay make sure the recording is sh off to yeah I'm telling them that okay for