good evening and welcome to the January 22nd 2024 meeting of the city of the city of summit planning board of I'm sorry the city of summit planning board my name is Stephanie sulos and I the secretary for the planning board please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pled to the flag of the United States of America and to the rep for it stands one nation indivisible withy and jusice for all thank you in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 colon 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here in in City Hall this meeting is the official reorganization meeting of the board and is a Judicial proceeding any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board May legally consider in reaching a decision and a quorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at at all times for the benefit of the interested public this meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcasted on summit's government Channel which is Comcast channel 34 and Verizon channel 30 a transcript of this meeting is also being taken so we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room please note that the fire exits are to my right your left and at the back of the room where you entered the city has the listening system to assist the hearing and preped if anyone needs hearing assistance please obtain the system at the Das and return it thereafter five new members have been appointed to the board by the city council with the new members please stand and be sworn in by legal council Steve Warner it's my privilege to swear in Steven spur Patrice McGee Ryan Felman our class one council member dilia Hamlet our class three and Alternate member Susan Bowen please raise your right hand and repeat after me I state your name I Stevens do solemnly swear doly swear that I will support that I will support the Constitution of the United States Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and the constitution of the state of New Jersey and that I will bear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to same true faith and allegiance to same and to the governments and the governments established in the United States establish the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people and I do solemnly swear and I do solemnly swear that I will Faithfully I will faithfully impartially and justly impartially and justly perform all the duties perform all the duties as a member of the planning board as a member of the plan board according to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability so help me God me go welcome and welcome back than you at this time we will elect the chair of the board for the calendar year 2024 are there any nominations yeah second she didn't say she didn't say I thought you said I thought you said I was barely listening but chair right yeah yeah Mr Zucker I would like to nominate Mr Zucker because he has even temperament he's a good listener he has the experience and we'll run a good meeting I second that okay are there any other nominations at this time okay seeing none let's do a vote Mr spur yes Miss balson Alvarez yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss McGee yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes Miss Bowen yes the motion carries congrat much thank you very much congratulations I will do my very best uh to represent the the the the panel and and the city thank you very much right oh you're up and now I'm up at this time at this time we would take nominations for a vice chair do I have any nominations Miss hmer uh yes I'd like to nominate Jennifer balson Alvarez um do I have a second second terrific uh if I may may I just make one comment I should have probably done it earli you would thank you um most of you probably have seen seen Jennifer up here for quite a while uh Jennifer worked her early career in the private sector on phenomenal projects like the restoration of the New Amsterdam theater with Disney and the GM uh tech center in Warren Michigan which was a very modern campus uh that project alone was nearly a billion doll project uh most recently she has been reviewing the rehab of the American Stock Exchange uh she has spearheaded initiatives locally as well uh she advised on the restoration of the lcj SMS Auditorium and the CPC Church uh she now works for the National Park Service reviewing the private sector development projects that involve the rehab of historic buildings and complexes and I'll I'll stop here shortly but I I'm just uh I think she's one of the most phenomenal members we have in this community so it's it's our my my opportunity to give her some praise here um I think there were so many members of the board from 2023 that could successfully have served uh under Mr Zucker as Vice chair however the passion purpose and enthusiasm that Jennifer has for the planning zoning board and historic preservation board uh along with her experience and dedication to Summit uh make her far well qualified for 2024 so wow thank you so much now that's a nomination very grateful for your comments thank you do we have any other nominations hearing N I think we should take a vote sure Mr zooker yes Mr spur enthusiastically yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr yes Miss McGee yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes Miss Bowen the motion carries thank [Applause] [Music] you next okay um and at this time we we have a nomination for board secretary um we um I'd like to nominate Stephanie suos who has been uh an incredible asset to the board and uh we all count on her and she has done an exemplary job and uh I don't do I need a second I'll take a second second a second we all love her we love her thank you a vote okay Mr zooker yes Mr spur yes Miss balson Alvarez yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss McGee yes Mr formelli yes Mr Stern yes the motion carries terrific next up are the votes for the professionals hired by the planning board for uh 2024 uh our um the professionals that that have been selected are Steve Warner our returning attorney uh K kers as our Engineers uh have come back and the B and Burgess is our planner and uh we're welcoming them back too um we uh at this point I guess we can just go right to a vote yeah we could do it as one resolution one vote roll call vote unless anyone needs to call out any of the individual professionals no I don't think we no I think we're good happy to bring you all back one one vote I'll do it one vote a motion second and a roll call so moved second all those in favor I I any opposed thank you for your continued conference thank you thank you yes no we look forward to a great year um next up on the agenda is to adopt the calendar for 20124 which was no no we're done oh we took that off okay all right um I just like to take a moment for the sake of the uh residents in the room the public who are watching and uh those who might be new new to the process to just quickly walk through how the planning board operates um we've just appointed these professionals um and I just want to explain their functions Mr Warner is our attorney the board attorney he advises the board members on matters of Law and is the key interface with an applicant's attorney Mr Warner does not vote on applications Stephanie sulos is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary I'm sorry the planning board secretary Miss suos works with applicants on preparing their applications uh planning the agendas and keeping the minutes for our meetings um she does not vote on the applications either also present is Marie rafay um for the engineering firm uh who's seated at the table to our right and um and next to her is Joe Burgess from the planners uh they provide input to the board and also do not vote on applications our board consists of nine regular members and up to two alternates all members can participate in the hearings but maximum of nine can vote most applications require a simple majority to be approved when we review the conditions being considered on the application we will announce the number of votes required each case will begin with the applicant or the attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and the variances that are required we then hear from any additional expert Witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why the variances are needed the board members may ask questions of the applicant they return and the expert Witnesses once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses this is not the time where the the the public gets to speak up about how they feel about a project this is just the point where they ask the witness's questions to learn more and understand the process there'll be an opportunity at the end for the public to then give their view of the overall project um before you ask your questions please clearly state your name spell your last name and provide your address it's important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record after everyone has been heard um the public will be sworn in if you want to make your opinions known whether it's positive or negative about the application and then the public hearing is closed and we on the board enter into executive session where we discuss the case and vote you'll usually be able to listen to what we're doing but you would not be able to participate that's just our our conversation um the professional staff has asked us to remind all applicants that they must carefully read the resolution that we produce after their hearing and to pay particular attention to the conditions con contained in the resolution for example if a landscaping plan is required you must obtain one and submit it to the city Forester if a grading plan is required you must have one prepared by a civil engineer and submit copies with the application fee to the city's engineering division fail failure to satisfy all conditions in a resolution will result in a delay in approving your application it causes extra work for City for the city's employees the resolutions documenting the board's decisions will normally be available one month after we decide a case so anyway that's our sort of short preview of how how we work and how we operate and I hope that's helpful Mr chairman if I may and I apologize for interrupting but with your permission I wish you would uh there would might have been just one typo in there uh it just want to clarify for members of the board and public um there was the word executive session used for voting on applications we come out of exec we come out of executive session to vote that what you meant to say I meant to say yeah yeah it's the the deliberations and the vote are done in public session there is no executive session at all with respect to the hearing process including the deliberations and I just want to make sure there was no misunderstanding by any members of the public we do everything right here in front of everybody AB thank you Mr chairman thank you all right oh next up our committee appointments all right we have um there are several five actually five standing uh committees uh in in the city and the planning board is asked to um choose a designate one of us to serve as as a planning board's representative on each of these committees um this is uh is it extra work yeah it's a little extra work but it's also very interesting and you get to participate in in in decision-making uh and these committees are the environmental committee the affordable housing committee the park line steering committee the shade tree advisory committee and the historic preservation committee um I'm going to open it up uh and and and and ask if uh first of all is there anyone interested in par in a particular committee that they have a passion for because we we'd be happy to sorry Matt yes no if I may Mr chairman um for the affordable housing committee um uh I as the municipal housing leaders on already sit on that committee common Council will be forming a Mount Laural committee which will be a confidential committee as we wind down round three and prepare for round four and it would be helpful um to have someon other than myself or in addition to myself from the planning board that would serve on it because any work that we do would produce a fair share housing plan that would have to come back to this board anyway and it's unfair when councils come to planning boards and say here you have to pass this without there being any any involvement so we would be looking for someone in addition to myself to serve on that committee up from the planning Bo understood I think that makes a lot of sense yeah I have my own request and I would probably nominate Mr spur I'm sorry I'm putting you on the spot I didn't talk to you about this so you can deny us but um having served as the zoning board chair and uh um somebody who I know to be both eloquent and thoughtful and really does his homework I think he would do very well for the stakeholders of summit to serve in that that work you can say no I didn't mean to do got me BL I'm sorry um but if anyone else also is interested it really would be up to anyone on the planning board do we have any other choice well what I what I would say and if I may I talked with Steve about this um the reason we have we're establishing a Mount Laurel committee is um in order to have attorney client privilege and it's not that I don't think Mr spur would be amazing in that affordable housing position but I also think he'd be equally um Stellar U within the Mount Laurel committee and since we haven't decided that yet I would say let's have a quick discussion because I think Susan boen uh you would also be terrific on the affordable housing committee and although we haven't picked the Mount Laurel uh if there's one representative who I think would be terrific on that it would be Steve spur but we're not haven't discussed that yet so so as we're so so where we are right now is when when Mount Laurel comes up right Steve's in the wings waiting to join that I'll keep my powder dry on the other committee you'll keep your power you keep your powder dry and Susan Okay do we have any other affordable housing interest okay I'm just I'm assuming that Joe Burgess is going to be really involved in all of this right correct be okay meet Mr Burgess but Matt thank you for bringing that up I think it's really important for the community to recognize that he was s serving dual roles so freeing another uh resident up to help it is is really great okay um can I ask about the environmental committee do we have any anybody who's itching can we have Rick do it even though he's not here absolutely that's the price of that's the price of he's not here to decline so you got him uh and I actually you know if if we we don't have anybody immediately tonight uh interested I will actually take it up with Rick after yeah it is his passion and he's on it and he's been doing it so he could continue I think okay sorry Rick we got Susan we have Steve in the wings we have um I'm going to jump over to Historic preservation which I think is very much remember when I was volun from the diet you were you were volunteered you were volunteered I'm happy to continue I'm all right so J Jen balson Alvarez thank you this is how the sausage is made Folks by guilting people into volunteer um shade tree advisory which is something I had served on in the past and I actually I'm going to I'm going to just it's hard for me to give that up but allow someone else to please oh you are giving it up though yeah after after all my time on edac and that I think I can uh I can give some space to someone else and just to Enlighten folks who might be interested uh you know what what did you feel the time commitment was um one meeting a month pretty pretty light pretty light yeah and uh pretty informal right and it's a and it's a focus on uh preserving and encouraging it's a very important initiative I mean it really it's it it shapes the scope of what this town feels like like so I I I'm being a little humorous but it's it's an important right I mean and and they focus on um encouraging people to plant plant certain species that are native but also just to replant things that are that are torn down they create incentives for the for the public to um to replant and to plant more trees shade trees uh that give they give the city its feel and its character right shade and and also just uh environment locally appropriate species Trees Too to make sure that they grow and they right ask a quick question um within the shade tree committee do you ever discuss projects that have been approved here uh where we would have to put in or developer would have to if they were removing x amount of trees I mean I know it's the city forester's role but is there oversight within sh tree that I mean with with the planning board um the it it operates I mean there maybe maybe at some point in the past it has operated more closely but it seems to be it's sort of operate somewhat autonomously but very responsibly right thank you I see nodding his [Laughter] head um what about Park line has someone lined up is there is there a Park line specialist is there a Park line specialist here park line oh I think we're volunteering for Park line yeah what's what's that is that once a month well I think you have to pay for it it's so yes you're I'll jump on the park unless that's great so if we don't have a sha tree taker um I can do it John oh well thank you thank you Paul problem all right moving right along um we have resolution uh to be adopted for our official newspaper and the rules and regulations of our board uh so first um we'll go for the adoption of the official newspaper there is a resolution designating two newspapers um which shall be the official newspapers let's see the Union County local source and the Star Ledger this is what we traditionally do to provide uh notice to the public um can I have a motion so move seconded Voice vote their resolutions with we'll do a roll call with the chair's permission sure okay chairman zuker uh yes Mr spur yes Vice chair balson Alvarez yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss McGee yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes the motion carries thank you next up is the um proposed rules that we uh review and pass every year to guide our own practices and our our own procedures um I understand that uh some people may have some thoughts about um the current the draft that we've all been we've all seen um I've raised a couple of typos or questions actually there's one question in particular if you don't mind I I'd like to start with Steve um sure let me pull it up it's a pro it's it's a reference to a uh section one colon 1-10 which is the uh removal of a member and if you uh while we certainly hope we never see this scenario it says a member of the board may be removed from the office um during the term of such office for qual by Common Council after a public hearing if such public hearing is explicitly requested by the board member which sounds like a board member would be requesting a hearing to have themselves removed it's actually consist of yeah I may be wrong read no no you're you're right the the uh uh the municipal land use law provides that uh prior uh if a board member is sought to be removed uh either land use board uh that board member is entitled to request a hearing before the governing body and if they do make that request it's it's an obligation of the governing body to conduct such hearing uh for that removal uh so so that's why it's worded the the way that makes sense but I don't think that's how it reads though because I think it says it says a member of the board may be removed from the office during the term of such office for cause by Common Council after a public hearing so in other words it's suggesting that they you can remove them after a hearing the hearing can only be instigated by the person to be removed it's it's after a public hearing if a hearing is requested if a hearing is not requested then it doesn't require the public hearing but we can clarify I think that should be clarified because I think I think this provides that the only way to remove someone with the hearing is if they ask for it nope not at all it's uh it's uh but it must be done if they do ask for it so we'll we'll clarify the language get but they can say no I don't want to leave and then have they can say yeah all right um I open it up to anyone else has any thoughts or questions I I do have a few um in the packet we received a draft from 1621 is there an the ones from last year would we be able to get a copy and see a Redline version versus just to make sure so there just to be clear there was no changes from last year it's it's my understanding that we haven't changed them since 201 21 and that's um they were yeah so I think we should just take a look at that because since 21 there's been some changes within the ML and we should just make I think we should just take a minute and just make sure that sure I don't I don't believe there's been any changes in the municipal land use law that would impact the rules and regulations uh but that said uh we can always double check also uh frankly if there's any other additions or subtractions that the board wishes to make so long as they don't violate the Municipal and you slow the board can do that fair enough at any point in time can we in in uh section 2 colon 3-9 conditions I like most of this however I was wondering if we can add more discussion around so if you start reading around where it says oh sorry such conditions so for educate the public when we pass a planning board application and we say there has to be conditions um such conditions s shall be deemed exclusive and the applicant shall be subject to subject to the terms and conditions of approval that are expressed and implied at law including those imposed pursuant to ordinance as applied uniformally to every development application the right to impose conditions is an inherent power of the board that exists regardless of whether the ordinance grants such a right to the board the board shall have power to require that conditions be fulfilled within a stated period of time but can we add something in here about enforceability um some examples that I've seen are um sorry right here uh the right to impose conditions is an inherent power of the board that exists regardless of whether the ordinance grants such a right to the board to be enforcable a condition must be part of the record so I would just look we don't have to maybe do it tonight but I would look for some sort of clause in there on how do we enforce the condition okay uh if there's any specific suggestions generally uh uh uh conditions of approval uh are enforced through the compliance period which is post approval those that are required generally city employees be they Engineering Building Department construction uh to to monitor uh and and ensure the enforcement of those conditions uh in order for the applicant to actually perfect the approval and to be act able permitted to to develop uh the property the way in which uh they uh sought it and got the approval um so it's fairly specific a lot of different examples but if there's any particular language the board wishes to add to that it certainly could be give a example I do this I get three or four a week of either a specific project that the planning board approved or it was a something that went through the Construction office so to take this example if you all approved something last year and they're building it right now a lot of times the residents who are being impacted by the construction that we all had just approved they don't understand who they go to to enforce it so if the city the city might say well it's not our it's not our it's not in our area because it was you know maybe it's col or should be enforcing it so I'm just looking for some guidance for residents who are concerned about you know is it appropriate Mr Warner or just in the language here to cite some examples with regard to storm water management with regard to construction um understanding that the language that exists in the resolution is ultimately what's going to bind and guide the public as well as the applicant on on the matters that the board does identify we we could do General examples uh that are frequent enough that we know generally who in the city is going to be handling uh the compliance without limiting uh uh the board uh to only utilize you know specific conditions Andor specific for lack of better term enforcers um because there are times when the board may wish to have the board engineer or the city engineer or a combination of the above for example uh uh uh review and approve certain plans or changes or or or or facilities so in short we can do that I don't know if you want me to take a uh initial stab and provide a a draft to the board I would frankly uh probably communicate with some of our City personnel to make sure uh uh uh we're all on the same page and accurate uh but I'm happy to do that this would be to go into the rules uh this just as I understand resolution yeah no no the the resolution ultimately will will will govern and it will be extremely detailed and and specific and case specific sure but this I I understood to be more by way of an example to help educate the public or and and assist to the extent that this document can be utilized as a not only a teaching uh tool but an informational tool for the public is how I understood the request I also think maybe to to add to councilwoman H what's common is where it says the board shall have the power to require that conditions would be fulfilled the board could say you know stop or we'll say stop again that requiring um somebody to act doesn't really give the board any any kind of ability to enforce it's really just left to the authority that lies within construction or engineering or Etc so are you you'd like something stronger here that the board would have power on or cuz I get you're saying I mean like for example a lot of times construction is somebody puts One Nail in a sheetrock once a year in a sense from the ucc's perspective they are maintaining their permit even though when you're living next door and it's taking um 42 years to get something done that can be very that can be very frustrating for people or even when um there's site work being done where drainage is being worked on and again it's taking a year to do it and everyone's being flooded out in the interim I think is where as a board we're the ones telling you you can go do it and then unfortunately in that action um there are a lot of people that become displaced by those efforts and there's no recourse for us we can't go back into the after the approval and say you're not doing it yeah the bo the board doesn't have the authority we're not the enforcers continue the bad term but but uh it is the essentially City personnel uh in a broad sense um but ultimately uh there can be uh the a return to the requirement that someone returned to the board for further approval or to address you know if they're making a change or if they're not meeting a time constraint we have extensions we have a request this evening for an extension of time uh so there are ways in which it can come back to the board but the board doesn't have the authority uh uh to be proactive and go around and say you're not meeting your obligations are you aware of any um where it says here that they have the power to require that conditions be fulfilled within a stated period of time let's say a new house is being put in and they are um installing a water management drainage management system does the board have the authority to say that that portion of the work must be done within six months of there uh there are some there's some Authority the board has and some that doesn't unfortunately but but the for example uh there are vested rights periods that uh uh uh applicants are entitled to Avail themselves of if it's a site plan approval final it's 2 years if it's preliminary three years where their their rights are maintained um but by the same token where it's reasonable the board can impose any condition that is reasonable uh particularly to the extent that it relates has a Nexus to it relates to A variation or site plan exception that uh relief that is sought so uh we can put time constraints in to an extent frankly I can't go through every example but I'll be here um when we do it each time uh and if the board ever uh uh uh exceeded its Authority i' I'd chime in okay and as long as it board doesn't exceed its Authority the board has the discretion to to put those conditions in to maybe put some guidance for residents to know who they can contact if they have an issue with a specific part of the resolution if it's drainage here's who and maybe it's not it's holistically for any resolution drainage you contact this person construction you contact this person so that the public knows when they read the resolution if they have an issue with a part of it because they think it may not being followed they know exactly who the call we can definitely participate in when the resolution is written figuring out where and whom within the city would be the person is that or it may and this is a policy decision for the board to make the request and and for the city to to to attend to but maybe it makes sense uh I throw it out there uh to have sort of a one page or maybe it's more than a page hopefully not too many pages and it can go it can be attached to every resolution you know drainage that you come here uh uh uh you know architecture will come here what what have you building you know whatever the items are in a general sense uh because it it wouldn't change uh the I'm going to use the term for a third time shame on me the enforcers are the Personnel at the city uh so it would be uniform it would be the same for all applications all resolutions of approval and it should be noted that the city's Authority lies in the laws that have been passed that set fines and those kinds of things exactly yeah we had the ml all other applicable codes and Provisions regulations laws and uh uh the our own ordinances authorize us uh when I say us as as a city uh to do these things except for and for the Public's sake you see which is a state operation to which they have an office in Summit City employs the UCC professionals but they're Guided by their own set of rules and times and and fines and such but I think we we can certainly I I'd like to see such a sheet and I'm sure we can attach it to resolution made a note of that another comment it sort of ties in with that and I I asked Mr Warner this question today but um from it's my understanding that the um uh there is not prohibition on land use board for allowing public comments for for for anything that is not on the agenda and where I'm going with this is um would you say that you've worked with other planning boards who have allowed public comments for things that are not on the agenda related to planning projects and the reason why I think that sometimes that matters is because would it be better for them to come to a council meeting or a planning meeting because at a council meeting I'm going to be calling you the next day or you the next day or you the next next day but if we allow for some public comments and we put it on the record that they're really having a problem with something that was approved you know would it hold our government accountable and hold us accountable and so it's just for some discussion I'm not married to it but I I think it's an interesting conversation whether or not you allow the public to make comments obviously not on something that is at a hearing right yeah no there's there's no prohibition I believe governing bodies have to have such a common period but there's no prohibition against a land use board having such a comment period uh for public comments again as you stated matters uh not related to the agenda and in particular the board can't discuss uh uh uh outside of a properly noticed hearing on an application for development cannot discuss that application so for example if there's a case on an application hearing on one evening and the next two weeks later or a month later it's not on the next meeting uh people can't discuss and it's still pending people can't discuss it uh because that has to be done only when we have the proper mlul notice for that particular hearing that particular night uh so with those exceptions uh there's nothing wrong with the board having should the board want uh a uh an agenda item a public comment on matters unrelated to the agenda or something along those lines and some boards do have that would you counsel though Mr Warner the board members the board professionals to not engage in a dialogue with the public on those issues I I know you'll um you'll understand and appreciate and uh uh not get upset at me if I jump in and stop someone from speaking if they appear to be about to say something or discuss a matter that they shouldn't I do try to make sure that I think the existing board members will tell you I'm anything but a Wallflower I have one suggestion that's simple especially if we have the list which I think is a great idea to have a stock list and pure all the contacts it's a great idea is just to say something about enforcement is done by the city of summit because the city of summit Administration and the staff have to be have the the flexibility to know in this project so and so is going to be monitoring you know the construction somebody's else is going to be monitoring the water and the the mitigation for for runoff and all of that so that it it's not uh too specific honestly in the in the language there I would think just saying the city of summit is in charge of enforcing the resolutions and the conditions and we'll take it from there because things might change behind the scenes as far as Staffing and departments and Department names things like that sure it should also be noted that cers is the inspecting engineer on projects um this was a confusion during um the habitat project where people were observing like why is this happening and it wasn't City inspectors to some degree so we have spoken to cers this this is interesting because we brought it up before cers works for us though there are Consultants so in essence it's the city of summit for the planning board yeah cers works for the planning board they do not work for the city and that's where there's a disconnect where while we fund the planning board it is the Quasi judicial appointment of this body and what we discussed which I think is good practice and to your point to support you is that we've told cers there will be instances where we will use City inspectors rather than the Coler inspectors to ensure that we're inserting ourselves in a way where there may be infrastructure or the things that we want to be more closely monitoring so I'm not not disagreeing with you I think it's good for everyone to understand that because I frankly know that earlier but I think that for the purposes of our conditions and our resolutions it's it's the broader city of summit planning board's under that Administration staff everybody's under that umbrella so I think that you know yes that that's what the law or the rules should and and Mr Warner and I talked about this a little bit today and I said some of the the things that I'm seeing as a council person is that in our resolution we state that the project correct me if I'm wrong can be is it did you say inspected today Andor so by the city engineer or our planning board engineer correct it could be either way it could be Andor so and I think if we take out I think it has to be very specific and for that exact reason we need to identify in the conditions who's going to be inspecting that in the resolution I'm sorry in the resolution yeah okay as long as the board can can can make that distinction we'll we'll put we'll put the specific it might be a longer conversation I'm not sure we're gonna I'm not sure we're gonna do because it's those those issues are not often a binary onof yes no black and white answer so it's probably the discretion of the city to say based on the scope of whatever it is or the default is cers if we as the board think that the project elevates to a level that the that we're going to get a lot of Engagement from the residents and are concerned about the project take habitat for example um we can say well in this case we want cers and the city or just the city right I think it should be a upon us to make that distinction but the default should probably be cers to avoid any confusion and then and to your point Paul unless stipulated specifically by the board where a project comes before that the board feels that there should be Andor Etc that makes sense but ultimately the city's responsible right I'm you know I'm just I'm of two minds it's unlikely too that the Public's going to interact directly with a coler's engineer it's probably going to interface through DCS which is more want that too for just greater control and and awareness that's right and yes I agree with you Jennifer I like the idea of having the list it's awesome I'm sure Stephanie has this written on a Post-It note in front of her computer she takes these calls all day long it's really really smart yeah that'll be helpful to a lot of people and I'm pleased that uh board me uh class two board member deloria has agreed to take the rowing or with the initial list yeah no I think I I'm all for that I mean you have to provide people information and tools to be able to help themselves and to put them in contact with the right people especially don't with the public if they know who they can contact if there's an issue there's no you know hiding theut so and chances are they're already frustrated with the situation and government can be very bureaucratic and difficult so giving them a quick access to who they need to speak to can be of great service I have a quick question if in in that case if they contacted someone in the city staff would that then be made available to the public so then there neighbors would know is there like a recordkeeping of who's falling out of line in terms of conditions that can then be made public does this is alling on on the website with all of the you know reports and amendments and opinions and does does anything beyond the resolution ever make its way onto the website and the portal that has all the information about the project well now now you're talking post approval and and it's for the most part out of the board's hands but that's a good question for mat I I would say that while we have discussed maintaining prior applications of the board um Council mhammad brought up a good point about people being able to access something that had happened although everyone is able to operate document um those records are public but certainly without having to contact the city you would be able to go on and see an application that took place which is really good I don't think we have the person power to maintain up dates on multiple approved projects um but like if for example kers performs a inspection three months after we've approved it and they're say they're inspecting the drainage right does does a report get uploaded to the portal well it's generated by cers to the city so that City engineering staff can review it and but then does it make its way onto that the the project site there is no project because like right now you can go on for the Park View right you can go on and there all this material is on never makes it way to that yeah Beyond that's just that's that's just our application no I think what he's saying is in the zoning board or planning board there are projects they have the application the comments he's saying take reports that the engineering uh firm might produce and place them there so if you wanted to any documents that are generated or records or reports on that you could follow along with and see that they are meeting satisfactorily or not based on their observ you can see an sdl in the the um what what's that stand forat that spatial data logic is the permitting software but but cers will produce um sometimes detailed reports that go through the various conditions that they observe on the site those you will not find in sdl I think what Mr Stern is recommending is that be created into a PDF and then that existing application even though it um passes its appeal period which is typically when we take them down to then go into a repository where you could see past applications and then you would see subsequent reports of by the various professionals until it would get a CO or it would come to final conclusion and somebody would have to manage that well well yeah that would have to be that would have to be add it so I would I'm definitely going to bring that back to my leadership and see how and what they want to do it um but I think it's very useful I happen to feel that the more information you give people the amount of calls you reduce and increase to give if someone's concerned about something that someone else was already raised an issue a report that that was commissioned in order to to rectify or hear the problem you could solve an Irate phone call from someone else yes you will generate 20 more calls from the report so it is a bit of a balancing act but I do certainly appreciate um the more information people have sometimes that will definitely reduce or keep people uh informed which is very important so those reports live now in the permitting file like I'm I'm sure that then it turns into a permit file with all the permits for a project so I would think it would live there but where do um while we've made strides in this the Department of Community Services has multiple divisions right now sdl which is spatial data spatial data Logics which does a lot of the construction permitting um and handles other kinds of Permitting is separate from an engineering database so historically engineering had its own permitting and recordkeeping we we've inherited the yesty year trying to bring it very quickly into a swipe right which the public expects but the infrastructure isn't really there so we are the birth Maids of a new government to try to make it more available so I really do appreciate what you're talking about but for example you couldn't go on to any platform right now and see an update on an engineering specific project like this the engineering department does Road and other infrastructure projects that they do update but not not at this level so I'm going to take all this back I think it's very good feedback and like I said The more information we share there's more value to and a couple of thoughts Matt uh I know we're supposed to meet about sdl but maybe it would be beneficial for you to give an overview at a planning board meeting just a suggestion onl it's actually a really powerful tool for the community to understand as well um secondly uh I spoke with our secretary today and I do think it's very very important to have our past um applications still up on the website so if our technology committee can get those back up it saves me from calling I had to call about one last year so it's going to save less emails and and to your point be more transparent to the public this is the it committee so no I mean uh Council andyer council member as the technology committee so maybe we can ask him if they have some might be a really good thing put to put on their agenda I haven't talked him about it yet great love it thank you other more comments about the rules uh I I would just move that we pass them tonight but that we have um we talk about it again because I I think we should all just take a look at absolutely we can come back and and address it the future yeah Ju Just so I'm clear I mean uh ml Section 8 uh uh requires we have rules and regulations and it's appropriate to reopt them are we reopt the prior version uh uh and then we're going to make changes and presumably adopt that revised version or are we reopt a revised version with with the expectation that the new verbiage is going to come later what's that can we not operate without a version getting approved right now it it's uh my recommendation would be that you readopm and with the appropriate language and then you can there there there's no limit on how many times we'll just take up the we'll take up the revised rules at a future meeting at a future meeting yeah okay so we have we have one motion to to adopt uh the rules a second we have a second Paul give us a second uh if we could do a a roll call only because I think we we do these by resolution as well but we should chairman Zucker yes Mr spur yes Vice chair balson Alvarez yes Mr felet yes coun council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes m McGee yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes the motion carries thank you all right next up we uh we're going to go a little bit out of order we'll take the resolution for the extension um on Ed go back to the roll call we going go back well we didn't do the roll call so we should go back and do the roll call and then we could go all right okay I'm sorry for the yeah no problem oh because of right okay so I'm just going to go through the attendance chairman zooker here present Mr spur here Vice chair balson Alvarez yes here Mr felmet here council member Hamlet yes Mr delori present Miss McGee here Mr formelli here Mr stern here Mr Bell here miss Bowen here you have a quarum we can proceed all right thank you so um the next up is a um resolution for an extension of a prior matter um on Edgemont Avenue Mr Weber I believe you provided us a letter dated January 12th 2024 with regard to a project at 19 the the address of 1923 and 27 Edgmont Avenue um let's see this this is a resolution extending the time to file the final subdivision PLA and I'm sure You' would be happy to explain to us what's going on with your project good evening Mr chairman members of the board James Weber of Alonso and Weber on behalf of the applicants for 25 26 and 27 block 2006 Edgemont and that would be George and Brenda Shepard Liam and Susanna Carr and Shannon mahany this is a lot line location where between the mahanes and the cars they're exchanging one square foot net uh with regard to the Shepherds they're conveying around 3,000 square ft to the cars and this all stems and I'm going through this Mr chairman because I see that there's new board members so I just wanted to walk through what the board had originally approved and Mr chairman all board members can vote on this though it's a the extension request they need have been participating in the prior uh hearing back a year or so ago and what uh you have is a long Edgmont the original uh uh lot lines cut in front of the properties so that the cars who have the middle property when they walk out their front door and they go to the street they're standing in the shepherd's property likewise when Shannon mahy walks out of her door she goes down to her driveway she's standing in the cars property as a result the uh neighbors have all agreed together to shift the lot lines so that you have a street view where the front of the house actually measure uh matches up what you would expect when you see the property so we uh prepared those subdivision Deeds we've had two and the reason we've had two is we had one that was originally prepared signed by the chairman and the secretary but in order order for us to be able to achieve this we need US Bank and Chase Manhattan to sign off and to release the little tiny pieces of property that let the neighbors move they did not agree to do this consecu uh concurrently instead they wanted one to go first so US Bank said no you go first Chase said no you go first finally US Bank has given us the release of the part of the mortgage premises for the mes and we have that we've given that to Chase Chase is now saying we're almost good we have Mr Clark who has to provide another document they chase did not accept the signed subdivision even though the board had approved it it signed and sealed by Mr Clark adopted in a resolution they said no we want a certified survey so we're giving chase a certified survey plus we're updating our title and we need a little bit more time so once we get the releases of all the mortgage premises we can then go through to closing and that's what we're asking the extension of time for does anyone have any comments I have one question or two the maximum amount of extensions permitted by the ml is how many well actually I I think the uh for the Perfection of the Subdivision dedor plat they already have one extension of 190 days and I believe technically uh there's a limit of one year if I'm not mistaken Mr Weber can uh uh chime in although let the record reflect he nodded in the affirmative but he can chime in that's correct so the first one's 190 days uh we thought we'd be here we actually believed that we were going to complete it uh so the next one would only be five months yeah it it would take it would be a one year total is now the request even though the initial request may have been for another 190 days uh uh the advice and I think the the stipulation from the applicant or Amendment of the request is to take it to uh uh where would that be July uh 7 2024 is that the one year I'm relying on your associate as to the time so the total amount is one year one year extended but in the in the in the law so I understand in the law the maximum amount is 2 190 or no okay one year is the maximum got it okay I'm clear they thought we'd be done by now yeah so so that is in essence what they're requesting the uh uh one year minus 190 days roughly five months uh if and I'm not even doing the math yet but hopefully it's about five months I'm taking Mr Weber on his word there um the the standard as the board knows having uh granted one extension uh previously uh is that the Developers to prevent it directly or indirectly from filing because it delays uh uh uh uh essentially outside of their control yet nevertheless they're promptly and diligently pursuing the required approvals um you have the letter you heard the representations made by Council on behalf of the applicants uh uh seeking to have a little more time to file the subdivision deeds and that's what's before the board now it's a majority for passage as is virtually everything the board does as a planning board so uh five out of nine so let this be a lesson to anybody who wants to do something rational and we say yes the bank may say no or take its take its time I guess um um can I get a motion uh oh by the way the we did circulate I apologize a a resolution uh for the board in the event it was to be granted uh uh and if it wasn't going to be granted the resolution would have had been modified accordingly I do though uh want to point out that I will modify it and the board can vote on it now uh because we did not have the paragraph with respect to the one year uh in there uh and would we would add the paragraph whereas pursuant to njsa 40 colum 55 D- 47g in section 35- 5.17 F2 of the ordinance uh the board is restrained from granting an extension of minor subdivision approval for a period exceeding one year from what would otherwise be the expiration date of such approval and then the the very last uh uh now there fore Clause instead of saying it would be another 190 days and having that date uh it would read with set extension to expire on July 7 2024 because that would be one year post the original approval so the board can still adopt the resolution uh uh should wish to Grant the extension with those revisions and we'll get the revised version to Stephanie tomorrow morning as she knows because we always do all can I hear a motion uh for passage of this resolution with Mr Warner's uh amendments so moov second second chairman zooker yes Mr spur yes Vice chair balson Alvarez yes Mr felmet yes council member Hamlet yes Mr delori yes Miss McGee yes Mr forelli yes Mr Stern yes the motion carries thank you good night good night Ry you're doing okay yes all right good um well then we can uh next up is a public hearing on two Park View Terrace if the applicant would step forward and Mr chairman with your permission if I may while they're getting ready uh and I think you did just call the application correct I just did call the application okay have an opportunity to review the notice found the content of the notice to be sufficient found it to be timely served and published uh served by certified mail on January 8th published on January 11 uh and uh our board secretary assures me she cross reference as certified mailing slips uh so the service and publication was at least 10 days prior to this evening uh so I say all that as the board knows so that I could say the most important part which is the board has jurisdiction to hear and decide the application thank you Mr chairman thank you um and I welcome the applicant to begin no actually it's it's it is on but if you could just put it directly in front of your face and if you could leave into it as best you can there you could introduce yourself and tell us tell us what's going on uh probably not you you have to get right up on it as I'm demonstrating to you sir yeah if you want to just bring it all the way forward and get it as close it's embarrassing but yes get it right up there um lawyer okay uh good evening Mr chairman and members of the planning board my name is John and guado of Dempsey Dempsey and Chen attorney for the applicants Michael and Susan ballow uh who are the present owners of the subject property uh this application concerns the property located at two Park View Terrace further identified as existing Lot 23 block 4706 which property is situated in the R6 single family residential zoning District we are here tonight respectfully requesting minor subdivision approval and C Varian relief to subdivide existing Lot 23 into two lots to create new Lot 23 and new lot 23.0 one this application aims to redistribute the oversized and odd L-shaped existing Lot 23 to create two New Lots that will be more conforming and aligned with the lot area and lot Dimensions permitted in the R6 Zone and will result in lots to more similar to neighboring properties surrounding the site in order to realize these improvements the following relief is requested classification of the subdivision final minor subdivision approval C uh variance relief for minimum lot area for new Lot 23 to permit proposed lot area of 7,880 Ft or 12,356 ft² is per is the permitted lot area in accordance with the calculated neighborhood average variance relief for minimum lot width for new Lot 23.0 1 to permit 66.6 2 feet where 80.4 feet is permitted in accordance with the calculated neighborhood average variance relief for Min minimum total side yard for new Lot 23 to permit the proposed total sidey yard of 31.8% where 33% is permitted and variance relief for maximum building coverage for new Lot 23 to permit 24.3% where 20% is permitted the testimony presented by the applicant and the applicant's expert will demonstrate and provide the proofs required to justify that the oversiz and odd shape of this property creates an extraordinary and exceptional situation that imposes a practical difficulty in undue hardship upon applicant in seeking to develop the property as otherwise permitted that the proposal advances the purposes of zoning and that the benefits to be gained by the surrounding neighbors the R6 Zone and the City of summit far outweigh any potential detriment that this proposal will enhance and establish permitted use in the R6 zone is consistent with the character of the neighborhood will be an improvement over existing conditions and will not affect the values of surrounding properties and that this application will will cause no substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the development regulations ordinance or master plan tonight's presentation will include testimony by the applicant Susan ballow and engineer uh surveyor Andrew Clark I thank the planning board for hearing this application and absent any questions upon behalf of me applicants are prepared to call its first witness and Mr chairman with your permission I can swear in the witnesses as well as our board professionals please do thank you certainly if all four of you uh the two applicants Witnesses and our two board professionals are raise your right hand do all four four of you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do yes thank you all okay uh I'd ask that uh Susan ballow be called as the first witness uh do you want to Susan mow uh s b a l o g [Applause] h ask the question yeah um okay uh please tell the board the name of the current property owner of two Park View Terrace the property that is the subject of this application sure so uh myself Susan and Mike bow um and we live at two parut ter and how long has the property been under your ownership uh we bought the property uh late 2017 and we moved in in early 2018 um we actually moved to Summit back in 1997 so we've been in the in town for for quite a long time um I'm sorry can you can you wait one minute you might there might be a problem with the mic if you want to use the handheld mic sir to you're right and then this way ma'am if you want to move that microphone as close to you as possible sorry about that no it's okay did you get any of that or okay okay so um this is for you can use the handheld yourself sir yeah this way you're welcome so like I mentioned just for a little bit of background so we've been in town since 1997 um in uh the Memorial Field area which we really love actually our kids went to braon and to laon um and uh yeah I guess that's it but we've been in Parkview for the last since uh 2018 uh and can you please describe the existing conditions of the property yeah so Parkview is a tutor style house it's um two stories with the attached garage um the inside and it's like a stco exterior um the insides uh I I guess I would call it tutor as well it's got um really nice stone fireplace beams on the ceilings you know nice like built-ins beautiful wood floors so quite quite Charming um so I mean I love the house we have no intentions of we haven't done any we have no intention of doing anything with the house the existing house um you know we love it and uh that was part of why we bought it actually uh and can you describe uh maybe existing conditions with the property that uh are the cause for you uh seeking this subdivision yeah yes so the house I apologize the house so it sits on a corner lot on the corner of uh laid and and Park View and then it's like kind of an L almost like a u actually if you really think about it but it's an L-shaped um property and so that the part that goes back behind towards up towards Mountain Avenue um is what is what we're looking to subdivide so we can you know utilize it's really kind of not utilized um so we just think we could better use utilize that property if we do subdivide it at some point although I have we have no intentions of uh uh in any near term of building anything on it but it's just more of just getting it subdivided so that we could at some point uh use that land uh and can you please describe what is being propos to the board with this application the did we we didn't talk about that um the subdivision yeah yeah yes so B basically I guess it's a what everyone's calling a minor subdivision so that we create a separate lot that can be a building lot for a single family home um as opposed to today where it's just kind of a large piece of property that sits on the side towards the back of the of um of the property that we're really not utilizing do any more of that matter no no that's great okay um and and did you engage experts to assist you with this uh subdivision uh project yes yes um so we've been working with Andrew Clark from ABC surveys um to assist in inspecting the site and to put together the subdivision plan thank you uh and did you have an opportunity to review the reports uh of the board professionals yes okay you need a comment on that I figur we do that as we go along right oh oh that I find them yeah yeah I read through all the comments understand them and and find them acceptable okay uh I have no more questions for for the witness um if uh the board has any uh questions so I drove by as we there was a a tractor in the in the backyard has any work been done ongoing it's odd to see a track yeah no that was actually for well it was there but that was we had been using that for the property 105 laund which we own but also we just had put um some wood chips down just to keep the weeds and keep the property like so it's just an open piece of property to keep that looking nice and so it's it's it's just there for the moment yeah no there's no work being done on the property no do you know how um and seeing it in person myself as well there's maybe three or four trees on it but it's largely without trees had it always been uh that way or was it wooded at one point it was it was you know it was wooded at one point I um I think it was maybe the year after we bought it or two years ago um we had uh a lot of the trees a lot of them were not in good shape were not healthy so we had the trees taken down but we you know obviously through the city and you were saying that occurred two years ago no I know like two I think it was um it was maybe three years ago it was just before or sometime before it was in two different sections actually we took some of the the trees that we were very concerned about cuz they were quite tall to be honest with you they had not been taken care of so it was actually quite a there are trees and it was overgrown it was just a very overgrown lot I mean I've lived I've lived I have I live at 105 well I don't live there right now but I own 105 Lon so I've had that lot behind me for the last 20 25 years um so it was just a very overgrown Mary and Paul didn't use that piece of property the the previous owners of the house that we whom we bought the house from um so we did have trees taken out in two different occasions um the majority of why because we were nervous they were going to fall on the house so you live at the tutor now yes I do since 2018 are you aware of any existing drainage that um occurs on the empty lot now in like does water in regards to any existing Water infrastru Management infrastructure that you put in there there's um drainage in the corner that that's been there um that was that was there um as part of what we the one you know what we did at laid um just to drain water but no not not aware of anything else will Mr Clark nothing that we put in no will Mr Clark be able to speak in Greater detail to the conditions of the site yes okay thank you there's a um a note about an easement on the property has that been resolved or is there more information on that I'm not aware of anything that has to be resolved but yeah I think U Mr Clark's testimony he'll be able to touch on that I'm sorry can you speak a little louder to the we can't hear you uh Mr Clark will be able to touch on that a little more uh in a little more detail during his testimony okay and has there been any I mean you say you don't intend to do anything in the near term has there been any thought around but would you engage someone to build something would you sell it I mean that I think for me personally one question that comes to mind is right you're going to the minor subdivision is pretty easy right but asking us to to approve that without knowing what could go on that piece of land right because it's one thing if it's you owning both pieces of land you're obviously going to do what is best for both right if you are only the owner of the tutor and you sell that piece of land then they're then going to go to the zoning board potentially ask for variances that we're not really aware of we're you're we're being asked to make a decision here somewhat in a vacuum because we don't know the size of the house is going to be how it's going to impact all the neighbors how the drainage is going to be I mean we're all aware that you know when you build something issues get created right so you know without having a potential site plan or knowing what something could look like it's a little difficult to understand what the neighborhood could look like and right our job is to ensure that the neighborhood is consistent yeah that the residents aren't going to be issued so just yeah if there's any insight around what you could build or well I don't intend personally now I don't intend to build anything in the in the near term there like I mentioned I own 105 lnet that's ultimately where um um when we're we're slowly renovating that home and so that is my intention is to to live there and at that point um either rent or um sell Park View that's you know down the the future but now it's not my intention personally right now to build anything on on that that property but in order for me to you know if for me to to move in you know back into long Ed to sell Park View then to have that property usable that's you know what I need to do I can't really sell them well obviously I'm not going to sell the I wouldn't sell the property before doing the subdivision so is that a question for to make it use you know that property to be usable is that a question for Mr Burgess I mean we saw a building envelope which was a s um is that something that you as the planner would project to offer some given the context of the neighborhood some potential future Construction we could extrapolate engineering implications what yeah there's a number of issues that you're raising um because someone is entitled to subdivide the property without necessarily having building plans however in this particular instance there are there is relief that's being requested for the lot size so you have some control over it I know in our memo we had raised a couple questions about the proximity of the building envelope to a silver whether it's a sewer eement a sewer line that runs along the proposed subdivision line and I think when Mr CL Clark uh when he testifies he'll be able to answer some of those questions because it may help you decide whether there should be some adjustments to the building envelope itself uh and thereby reducing the overall size of the build building envelope however there's not a possib ility of you dictating the complete character of the house that can be developed on the site I think there's case law to that effect that maybe Steve would want to comment on Mr Burgess is correct yeah absent variance belief um uh if the applicant is otherwise entitled to a subdivision they're not necessarily obligated to show you the house that they intend to build or even commit to keeping it themselves or selling it the who is the occupant we we can only approve and Zone uses not specific occupants um but uh but in that there is variance relief at issue uh it it gives the board a little more control as Mr bur just as the applicant's attorney at least reflected Mr Warner right our expectation is that there's no substantial detriment to the public good conformance with the drro and the master plan so maybe the question Mr Clark you can ultimately address is would we expect if the subdivided lot were to be developed could a structure be developed in conformance with the character of the neighbor neighborhood that's at least it's a low bar but that's a start I think the the board would be interested to understand yeah once it's a subdivision you don't once if and when a subdivision is approved uh they can build if something conforming sure uh they would have to get relief if it's non-conforming obviously uh either from this board or or or or the board of adjustment depending upon what that relief is probably board adjustment but but uh uh and they can sell as a buildable lot so what they are asking you for irrespective of current intentions is can you allow me to subdivide this lot so that I have an additional buildable lot uh buildable I.E a single family dwelling that comports with all the setback requirements and all the other regulations for subdivision excuse me for single family dwellings in this District that to follow up on Mr Stern can I not that I want to or or would but I want to know can we condition it to say as a condition of getting this lot line your the the lot will then be restricted to meet zoning not get variances not only can you say that but that's the law they couldn't do anything other than what is uh as of right so they couldn't go for a variance at the zoning board for larg they can't they can't they can't do anything with the property uh uh that would require variance without getting the they have to I I understand that no what I'm trying to say is because Mr Stern's concerns which I understand and we're asking for a lot line change if the board wanted to could they say yes you get the lot line change but but whatever gets built on this lot ultimately has to meet its current current code not go for a variance you can't require them to wave their right to go to the Zoning Board of adjustment for for Relief you cannot do that now okay so we cannot make a condition to be we can't make that a condition correct I mean I don't even know that the applicate could stipulate to it frankly think it's a bit of a FLW looks like Jo Joe wants to say something yeah go ahead no recognize that and we raised an issue with respect to the required lot size because you have not only a minimum lot area requirement but you have your lot area averaging standard they had indicated it's 12,000 something Square ft in our analysis it's actually a little less than 12,000 Square ft but recognizing that you've got a 7880 foot lot proposed and a 9923 foot lot proposed so you know there can be some discussion about internally where the setback lines are going to fall but you can not preclude them from seeking relief at the zoning board after the lot is created yeah again having said that the master plan and the zoning ordinance is replete with comments about how you want to establish the development that is consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood yes so maybe we could ask some question to Mr Clark about that when he testifies thank you do we have any further questions or should I open it up to the public to question this witness at this time I'd like to take anyone who would like to make ask a question of this witness regarding her testimony that she just provided yeah hi my name is Christine so have to wait you come to the microphone so we could all hear you my name is Christina Amon I live at 109 Larned Road and I've lived I've been there since 1997 and excuse me could you spell your name pleas sure Christine CA c h r i s t i n a amonson a m u n d s o n sorry I don't never have to think about it anymore I've been married for a while um so anyway um I've lived in this neighborhood since 1997 we bought our property just I guess shortly before you and my V yours right and my concern I'm I'm sorry the interruption but with the chair's permission the procedures for this hearing any land use hearing or this is the time for asking questions so we about what they said right I understand but I'm trying to get to that no testimony okay testimony of the witness I need one speaker please please wait till I'm done thank you uh the the the um I understand that you may want to have a predicate to the question explain before we get to you do have to make sure it's a question to the WT the question is that I do not understand and maybe I would like some more information about how they have derived this average lot size for the neighborhood and what they are considering the neighborhood because you know when I think about the neighborhood I look at sort of our block and around the block and across the street and if I look at the existing Lots most of them there's one exception right now most of them are over 11,000 so feet square feet okay misson I think they can answer the question you've asked how how what is the standard by which they formulated the neighbood and how what they have included and I believe there is a Formula that is followed and you're free to it's in the ordinance yeah yes maybe I maybe I could help with that answer the uh the zoning gance is very specific it says that in ter to calculate what's defined as the average neighborhood lot Arrangement you look to the three lots to one side of you and the three lots to the other and the three lots directly across the street you look at those nine lots and then you make your calculations and in the case where uh there's a park across the street so you have to use different Lots because there's nothing it's residential lots excuse me because I know there's the park across the street right well it's residential lots so it's the three lots um on where's my North hour to the west of Long Park View it's the three lots immediately to the South along laid and then the three lots directly across the street across Lage as well those nine lives were looked at to make that determination that's how you made the determination does that answer your question well how and also I would add the the zoning officers did a nice job of including section of the Dr 9.6 e which is exactly the formula for how neighborhood area calculation works okay so if I go back to my neighborhood then and we're looking at this particular house the lot for this house is 18,000 or so now the three houses next to it on Park View are an average of 9400 maybe 9500 Square ft and then all of the houses on laret going down the street on the other side are over 11,000 most of them are 15,000 so again I don't understand how the number got calculated except for the park I have no idea how you deal with the park you don't deal with the park at all you just go up the street which in I'm sorry Joe you speak to the m resal okay they're roughly similar to what we have calculated but the average I'm sorry you Mr chairman yeah this is a hearing and none of this is being recorded so you have to we have to make sure everybody speaks into the mic asks the appropriate questions if someone's test TR to identif sorry I need one speaker ma'am please let me finish we're trying to make sure that the hearing happens properly so that the board can hear the hear the case and decide it the the um uh Mr chairman if you wish uh and only if you wish uh you have the discretion to allow me to swear Miss Alon in almanson uh in uh and then that way if she uh put testifies a bit in the context of asking questions uh at least it has the weight of testimony oh since she's brought evidence of her own uh calculations I will allow it yeah that seems to be happening as well fa right please raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give as well as the testimony you've already given is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes yes thank you and and Council you have no objection to uh her providing testimony correct enough thank you and um there if there's a document that's already been submitted to our planner that's different than something that was previously uh part of the record Joe was there writing on that uh yeah she has handwritten notes as to the lot sizes of the Lots I just mentioned it's going to have to be uh with the chair's permission it's going to have to be entered into evidence as we'll call it with the chair's permission 01 uh just so that the applicant has an opportunity to see it as well these are like judicial hearings if I may very quickly Mr chair please the the the the uh so in other words everybody has due process like under the Constitution and the right to question and confront and what have you but everything has to be clear and on the record and everybody has to be able to see all the documents and hear all the testimony so now this has already become a part of the record because it's been given to our planner uh so if you don't mind parting with it or if you have an extra copy I will make a copy somehow and get it to you but right but but for now it'll have to be marked 01 and you will have to give the applicant with today's date the applicant an opportunity to review it because that's due process under the Constitution which is what we have to abide by but I did hear Mr Burg say that these are approximately the same C they yes we have we have done our own calculation and again whereas the applicant had indicated it's a little greater than the the neighborhood figure is a little greater than 12,000 Square ft we actually calculated at 11,000 465 Square ft in contrast as I said earlier one proposed lot is going to be 7880 Square ft and the other is 9923 square ft is that is that close enough for what you're trying to demonstrate or because what I wanted to understand was what is used to calculate the average and now I've got the answer I okay in case you're wondering the super secret document I'm holding is basically you know sort of a bird eye view of the Lots near where we live and it just has somebody's handwritten calculations of the acreage so right if you don't mind just sharing with applicants councel thank you have a question Mr BG how can you just help us understand how there's a difference between what they're using to calculate the average and what you're calculating to compute the average I would have thought that before the meeting that there would have been at least consistency in around I can explain if I can get up on yeah to say if I may ask if we could reserve this Mr claron would give pretty detailed expl okay absolutely I think that would be fine can we put this up somewhere like look at it or do you have somebody have a survey so we can like if I feel like we all need to look at something or can we put it on the can we put something up so that we can all look at it Mr inada did you bring an electronic do you have a computer that can are you asking for the actual subsection we have the plans right here which include the the average okay let Mr Clark free come on um if there are no more questions from the public for this witness oh we do have one sorry why don't we finish up with the with the public questioning of the first witness then we'll we'll get over to Mr Clark I don't think use a flash can we just put the paper copy wants two boxes right here but you can't see it we need this we would but I don't have the cat pile with me now we we have updated averages that Mr Clark's going to provide he has a letter size that he's going to give to everyone as well during his which I think is kind of what you're looking for is it well is it what is it any different it's you're welcome to we'll be there for a while it's a different sheet it's not significantly different it's just bigger it's bigger a okay okay right ma'am would you like to come forward yeah Eleanor Readington 165 Mountain Avenue Summit r e d i n g t o n but first of all I want to thank all of you fantastic people for what you do and making the city of summit the place that it is so I appreciate it um I don't believe that lock 23 And1 these variances have a question M rington thank you go with the question okay um I have a copy of the main s line from the engineering department and the line runs I'm sorry Mr chairman do you want me to swear uh Miss before we do miss Readington I'm almost positive that your question will be perfectly answered by Mr Clark because it has to do with the the the engineer the engineering and the sewer line which is on the property no I understand but we have another they have another witness they're bringing forward to explain all that and so I think um I'm I'm I'm just suggesting that you might want to save the question I want to propose that question as to how because the engineer said it cannot be built on or a certain number of feet from this s line Mr chairman maybe to help again to remind the members of the public we're going to hear from an engineer next who can also be asked questions and then there's a public comment period where everyone can be sworn in who hasn't already been sworn in and ask questions and submit evidence you can also in the context of asking questions utilize evidence and if need be as you saw I can swear you in so that we abide by the US and New Jersey state constitutions um but but so but I but we haven't yet heard from Mr Clark so you may want to save that question in that doent for Mr Clark after he provides his direct testimony then you can along with everyone else can question him and you can use that document Mrs Readington okay further question to Su um s sorry Sue I've never known how to pronounce the last name um and that concerns a statement that she made regarding the water table and the reason for or the fact that all the trees have been taken off both properties that she owns or they own um just you know there is neighborhood lore that it Creek runs behind that property and that was the reason why Mary Zimmerman who Mary whoever lived there before had maintained basically a forest to help deal with the water table we will hear later on presumably about that but it is not correct to say that there are no water issues is is there a question well the question was how could she say there are no water issues in the neighborhood because they're already are just on that I was referring to that property I I don't have a water issue on that property I'm sorry you can't you can't shut out from the audience it's a hearing it's like in court somebody was yelling okay the question was asked and answered so that that neither one like laured that property and my property don't flood or don't have water so that was what I was responding to Christine I'm not I think that do that answer the question it's an answer I mean this testimony yeah you can call your next witness thank you um I'd like to call uh my second witness uh Andrew Clark engineer survey surveyor better on my feet Andrew Clark a n d r e w c l a r ke so um um if I could start um Mr Clark can you please describe your qualifications to the board certainly I'm a licensed land surveyor and civil engineer professional engineer in the state of New Jersey um I hold bachelor's degrees in both um I got my civil engineering degree first and then went back to school for my surveying degree uh my license is in good standing I've appeared before this board um the beginning of 2023 for the application that was just extended actually um but I appear more frequently in front of the zoning board uh where I was just earlier this month in Summit uh I frequently appear in front of the chattam burough zoning board the Madison zoning board and um Floren Park occasionally uh those are sort of the most recent summary of uh my testimony experience and and Mr Clark you've been accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering and land surveying by this uh board previously and the zoning board in the city that's correct okay thank you I think we can accept Mr Clark's qualifications okay please proceed for clarification we're accepting him as both engineer and surveyor correct we are and just to also be clear uh your degree is not in urban planning or um that is correct certified or licensed as a planner you're not providing planning testimony that's correct thank you okay uh Mr clar can you please explain the steps you've taken to prepare yourself uh to give test testimony tonight in this matter certainly um it all began a couple of years ago um when I uh was contacted and then conducted the survey of the property uh I and actually surveyed all three properties um but the subject of this uh application is Lot 23 which is that corner lot so I conducted the survey um I did the survey myself so I've walked the entire property um in depth and and in detail I then um after the survey was completed there was some discussion we went through a couple of different things that we were looking at and then uh I developed the subdivision plan based on those discussions and our meetings that we had okay thank you uh and did you prepare subdivision plans in accordance with the requirements uh of applicable city ordinances and the ml yes uh and can you please uh describe the existing conditions of the site certainly um so as we've already started discussing in some um introductory manner the property is known as Lot 23 in Block 476 it's at the corner of lned and Parkview and directly across the street is Memorial Field and surrounding the property on all sides are other single family residential lots in the r six Zone as this is located um this property is as you can see sort of in the key map with the shading you can see the sort of uh configuration it's sort of an upside down L and is oversized uh relative to most of the properties or all the properties in the vicinity the existing Lot 23 has a house situated on the on that property it's um about 30 foot on the setback from Park View and about 30 foot slightly over 30 foot in both um uh setback from Larned there's a non-conforming uh sidey yard on the LED side of 5.2 ft at the nearest Point and on the other side it has the entire um property that extends all the way over to lot 22 so there's a sizable sidey yard on there um there's a front-facing garage attached garage with a driveway serviced off Park View and a walk that comes from near the corner to uh the front door there's a very small walkway in the rear of the property the area that's undeveloped uh is BAS basically it's gently sloping from the south to the north so it's gently sloping from the rear of the property towards Park View Terrace in terms of the drainage patterns uh there was a question in one of the comment memos um as to steep slopes there are no identifiable steep slopes on the property is pretty gently graded as I said I mean it it's got some Pitch but it's not um dramatic or out of the ordinary at all um there is as we began hearing a sanitary sewer line that runs close to the rear boundary of Lot 24 so very close to where this proposed subdivision line is going there's a manhole out in the street and I didn't enter the properties in the rear to um find the other end of that manhole but I'm sure that could be done in order to uh confirm its location that um sanitary sewer if if I'll just take a slight sidebar on that for a moment um I did in reading through the comments um do a little bit of digging uh the record research in Union County is dated meaning you can't go back past a certain date somewhere around the late 70s where it's electronically accessible then you have to go to the courthouse um I did track down through a uh title agent that I know who was able to access the background on the title report that there were two references to deeds in the title binder for the property to the easement I read those they were from 1946 and 1954 uh both identify an easement so what they don't do though is give specif specificity to that so they don't say how wide it is or who the uh owner of the easement is based on the little bits of information we've seen already which I'm sure are are accessible it sounds like that's a city easement so that that it's actually part of the city sewer system which means the city of summit holds the easement but I would have to go dig a little bit further in the deed records back prior to 1946 to try to track down the granting easement uh the granting deed for that easement but based on the fact that it's in the record from what I reviewed I'm confident it's there uh even if it's not stipulated how wide that is that's something we could decide it happens with some frequency today I run into storm drains or sanitary sewers and Summit that are not in easements and whenever applications come up either for permits or for variances the engineering department requests that an easement be uh developed and and granted to the city if it doesn't already exist that's very common uh usually it's a 10-ft wide 10 to 15t wide easement depending on the nature of the the utility that's there so there is an easement the details of it might be sufficient or it might need to be augmented depending on what that showed uh I'm comfortable with uh either Avenue on that front but that's that's sort of a little bit of the backstory on the on the easement you look like you had a question yeah I I this I I can only handle so much information that's fine I was going back and forth with Marie today around this easement uh in our findings right Mary we the city of summit could not find an easement correct so that that's correct they couldn't find an easement um and and in speaking about it then the town would want to have some easement for that um and because it's so close to the property line I I don't know if you can see it on there but I mean I can I can take a like a scale to it it's um it's kind of skewed but it's it's about four to seven feet off the property line and normally uh Summit wants to have 15 fet of easement so this wouldn't be in the center of the easement but it would be something that um that the board should consider as as some condition of approval the other thing is that there is across the back of the property line the um the sewer record show that there is um a a sewer line that runs across the property line in the back of the property so across that back of the L I know on your map it's showing that it's continuing into the next property but it's actually going across the back property line so meaning I should probably request like a 7 and 1/2 foot e easement on this property yeah I mean can't actually go into the other property what's what's usually the best way to handle easements when there isn't something formally on record is to actually locate the physical elements of that sewer so so it would be to track down the manholes that are there and and actually identify where the location is and then and then use that as the centering of the easement I'd say in the context of what we're discussing in this proposal today the good news is where this is located um if it was located in the center of the lot then we have a bigger issue the fact that it's located at the along the sideline and even along the back line means that you couldn't really build in that location anyway based on setbacks so this one it's a little bit close but uh so you might have to you know make some accommodations for the sewer above and beyond the setback that's you know also quite common with easements um it's very possible given the age of the deed records that I saw that these may have started out as private easements with the you know properties that were here in order to sewer their houses they may have just had easement agreements between the private owners to allow that sewer to continue and be maintained um whether or not that ever manifested into a right that the city holds I guess is is the question and and again I've run into this on a number of times frankly more in Summit than most other towns I work in so can you clarify Mr Clark sorry if a 15ot Eastman were to be granted for that sanitary sewer line how would it impact the building envelope so we're skipping ahead a little but that's okay because there was a comment about um from Mr Burgess about the building envelope that's shown and what I was going to point out is that I show the minimum required sidey yards of 8 ft there is however of course a combined sidey requirement in Summit on a subdivision plan and if I was doing a whole neighborhood of subdivision plan I still wouldn't designate where that extra sidey yard would be because you would want to leave that flexibility to the developer or whoever is going to propose something for the property so one of these sidey yards or both of them would have to be more than 8 ft in order to meet the combined sidey yard so if if for example you you were to propose a single family dwelling and you were to be closer to the 8ot that's farther from the sewer then you'd have a greater setback on this side of course if we formalize and commit an easement on paper and and described with meets and Bounds then that becomes a further constraint regardless but what it wouldn't do is diminish that area to the point where there isn't a legitimate building envelope there's plenty of space there for for development even with an easement assigned to the sewer line that that that's to construct a single family dwelling that is fully conforming with all existing regulations yes I'm sorry that's and I'm just doing some Mental Math here I me if I'm looking at the sanary sewer line as is as is noted on the survey if I'm extrapolating 7 and2 fet on either side I'm assuming an encroachment into the building envelope something around five maybe 6 feet approximately 20% of the anticipated building with uh building envelope with if you don't mind matal I'll Sor I'll just jump in there what um in speaking with the engineering um it would be 15 ft from the property line is what the is what the town would want because that because you can't you can't take s and a half ft from the property next to it right um that and I guess that's block um that's Lot 24 you wouldn't be able to take 7 and2 ft and it would be going into that property so what would an easement look like in this case for this particular property that we can control in the application how would we construct the easement what would it look like we would we would take um a line 15 ft from the side property line side property line right in so what that that that pipe wouldn't be in the middle of it just gives you enough construction room enough access to it and in terms of actually so then the building envelope is a little gray then right because you would anticipate encroaching into the eement right I'm so joking you you're sharing a mic what did you say no I said the building envelope on that side of the property would shrink by about 7 ft because they show an 8ft setback now and you guys said um 7 feet from the rear because of that so Ry or did you is it also 15 in the rear that would be that easement there uh no because that pipe is right on the property line it would um you would take 7 and 1/2 ft from this property in question okay the idea would be to get get an easement on the other side but that's that's not up for discussion tonight Mr chairman if I may before we uh we're not going to leave this yet but I just wanted to clarify my understanding is the applicant stipulating as a condition of approval should there be an approval uh to providing both a 15ot wide easement I lost track of which side it is on the one side and a 7 and 1/2t wide easement on the other uh uh to the city should the city so desire it yeah well I would say should the city so desire uh I I recently just finished an application where uh it didn't even come up during the variance process that we were in but it came up afterwards um that there was a sanitary sewer cutting across the property and one of the comments in the review for the permitting was hey there's a sanitary sewer here we need an easement and so we we're producing that easement um and and in that case the request was for a 10-ft wide easement so if it was determined that 15 was the best width that's fine if it was determined that 10 ft was the best width that's fine in any case I mean look as a practical and legal matter there's an easement there anyway it's called a prescriptive easement the fact that there's a sewer there is something that if you adjudicated it it would be found affirmatively to be an easement so instead of going going through all of that I think most reasonable people say yeah no there should be an easement we'll Grant the easement you would be willing to grant that easement in this case wouldn't you yes okay and and just un clear I thought it's two easement isn't it not just one well I mean I I think that it's an easement for the sanitary sewer service that's there but it's a little different I think I think what's being discussed in terms of the the easement along the back if this comes to here and then runs right down the going be narrower that that that we what's in front of this board is not the neighboring property so so if this is running right on the line all we can grant is 7 and 1/2 ft or 5T of half width of whatever that easement is no no I got it so an easement it would be one easement it would be one easement but with slightly different characteristics at the rear versus the side right when it makes the bend on the L upside down L I got it that's uh okay and the applicant has stip so the board understands they have that stipulation uh should they so desire and and in the event there's an approval well the city I would imagine will want uh as a condition of approval for there to be easements for that infrastructure I would imagine the same thing um Mr chairman would it be would this be a time where we could go back and memorialize an easement and amend the application accordingly I think that uh it would be memorialized at approval at the end if we if we it would be condition that we would approve at the end it would be one of the conditions of approval that an easement would be required and what the setbacks are for that at to the satisfaction of the city Marie is stating tra traditionally that the one in the rear is a seven and a half only because it sits on the property line but that 15 would be to the left of the to the left correct so that would be a condition of approval it would have to be it would have to be memorialized um Mr chair ask a question to um Marie from col regarding the um you had me I'm I'm curious as to why you found the sewer in the back and Mr Clark you didn't find the sewer who's responsible for giving the board the right information I'm just the one that we didn't that's not on your survey like how did you find that sewer I I um I reached out to the engineering department for this sewer map and and found that one across the back so there Ines my question and and and the sewer maps in my experience the sewer maps are a little bit approximate so it it's not for certain until you prove in the field exactly where the line is that it's running right down the line it might be 8 ft on the other side or 4T on this side um they they they indicate on their mapping but I didn't I didn't explore the rear line in terms of the records and the research I already knew that this sewer was here and it was clearly indicated in the records and on my survey um but I didn't I didn't go exploring the backyards and I didn't contact the engineering to get it at the initial survey I wasn't even clear we were doing a subdivision at that point um but you know the the records are there and I I don't know the city I don't think posts those online it might be helpful if at some point that did happen because I do that in Madison every time in Madison I go look at whatever their whatever their mapping is they have I check it all out and I don't have to call anyone or contact anyone but you know we can investigate that the fact is that it doesn't other than memorializing the easement and correcting a record that should have already been there um it it doesn't impact any potential development on this property in a material sense especially if it's right on the line CU you couldn't build within 30 ft of the backyard anyway I mean the only thing you might put in there is a fence along the line and there's already offence along the line well you you know you do bring up a good point that um you know this this sketch that I have is is not exactly you know proving to me that the pipe is exactly on the property line that might have to come out in you know some some survey that you do well and that's what I that's what I did on the property that I referenced a moment ago on the recent application where when we went to permitting they said oh it's there and I said I don't just take from their drawings I go out and go okay well there must be a manhole and I go poking around and digging and metal finder and I find the manhole and I survey it and then that's how I map it out so there maybe I I guess my my brain is going to the next step like well what if this you know sewer pipe is actually a little bit more in the applicant's yard and I'm saying oh get 7 and 1/2 ft I'm really meaning 7 and 1/2 feet from the center line of that sewer so if that sewer ends up being you know a little bit more in your in your um your property we'd want 7 and 1 half ft from the center line of it that's what my experience that's how we would have to noted in our condition yes that's not that'll be a condition also I had had a question about on the diag maybe read wrong there a little square that says drain along the yeah what is what is that well it's I mean people call different things I label it drain um Inlet uh it's it's you know it's a rectangular graded cover where water can enter and then and then but where it's going I didn't again I didn't I didn't investigate that carefully but my guess is from my experience and in ition is that it's probably connected to the What's called the B Inlet out in the street which is you know some people call that a catch Basin I think so so that drain is most likely connected to that catch Bas is there any context for how when that drain point there I don't have any context for that um you know when When I Survey things I I locate what I find uh but I don't often have a history of it um you know my guess is that there may have been some water that trapped in that location right there at one point and somebody said hey we need to put a drain in here to get this water out and put the drain in I'm sorry so that that's the corner so when we were renovating our 105 lnet and Barry and Paul were still living at Park View there there was water coming down and and park viiew used to uh flood and get ice in the winter and the city was always on Mary and Paul to deal with the ice on the road and we didn't feel like that was quite quite appropriate honestly so when we were doing laid we had that that sewer put in at that corner to catch water and it goes out into the street and therefore we no longer get ice down on Parkview so that was before we owned Parkview that was part of our 105 Le it so is that is that drain I'm sorry if iard this is that drain connected to the other sewer line we talking about or is that a no no sewer the sewer line we've been discussing I'm sorry should I say we understood okay thanks yeah the the sewer line we've been discussing is a sanitary sewer that's what I just I I tried I try to distinguish when I talk about them cuz storm drain is is you know storm water that's so the drain is storm water all right I think Mr Clark will'll let you continue now with your testimony where was I um so drifting into some of what we've already been discussing then the proposal is to strike a line um in line with the back of Lot 24 straight out in fact this piece of property in looking through the old deed records as I had and that I mentioned before was it a separate property at one point in like the ' 50s 40s 50s so so this property was acquired in in parcels and this was one of them and this was one of them and then they were I'm sorry when you say this and this can you describe I'm sorry uh so well what we're showing is proposed lot 2301 and then the uh the the new Lot 23 on the corner that would result from the subdivision those were separate Parcels at one point in time um and and and so effectively what we're proposing is to restore them back to the separate Parcels so that's what this subdivision line would do um in terms of the variances that result the simple ones to discuss are the resulting Lot 23 which is the corner lot the the offside offset now to the proposed subdivision line would be 8.1 ft which is of course conforming to the minimum required sidey yard but it's not conforming as to the combined sidey yard for that lot with a subdivision line added um so we have uh for that lot 31.8% or 33% is required so we're just a little bit under what would be the requirement for that combined sidey yard the other variance for that corner lot that arises from the introduction of the subdivision is that the without doing anything to change the property the driveway walks house that are there the reduction in land area creates a a lock or a building coverage variance not lock coverage lock coverage is actually fine even with the subdivision so the lack coverage with the subdivision is 34.8 or 40% permitted so we're a bit under that but the building coverage goes to 24.3 where 20% is permitted and that's just again simply by reducing the lot area by by uh adding that subdivision line so that's for the the corner lot then the lot area for that lot also becomes a variance due to the neighborhood average I think as Christ's memo pointed out it meets the zone 6 6,000 square fet and in fact for the corner lot it even meets The Zone requirement to be 20% more for the Cor Corner Lots but it doesn't meet the neighborhood average for that for that lot area so that's the corner lot for the for the new lot that would be created lot 2301 we have the lot width which is 66.6 2 ft again that meets the zoning requirement of 60 ft but does not meet the neighborhood average so that would be a variance now now we get into the fun of the neighborhood average um so there's been some discussion about it already and hopefully we can bring that together and clarify so as many of us as possible will understand but um in Summit the neighborhood average is defined as was brought up before as the three lots on one side three lots on the other and three lots directly across the street now when I started looking at this for subdivision I scratched my head for a minute and said hm this is kind of unusual and so whenever I run into that the first thing I do is put something together an email to Christa and say please give me a call about this because I'm not sure how to handle it and so we had a conversation about it and she said yeah this is pretty unusual and I said so how should I attack this how should I interpret that ordinance for the neighborhood average in this case what the result was is what I've shown here Christa in our discussion said and felt like it made the most sense to treat it as sort of two neighborhood averages and take the resulting Lot 23 that would be the corner lot and do the average for that which in this case if this if we're just looking at this corner lot it would be these three lots to the left and the three lots directly across the Street lot 14 15 and 16 and then do the average here include the actual house that's on the corner and then the three to the other side we have nothing across the street that would be relevant because the Memorial Field is there so that's how I ended up with two different um tables that analyze the neighborhood average as two separate things and that made sense to me it seemed like a logical way to approach it for a number of reasons one is that the house on the corner we don't get into the front setback cuz it's already there it's it's a house that's existing so we're not proposing anything new so there's no no reason to engage with the front setback and for the newly created lot what's most relevant and and makes the most sense is the direct comparison with the street skate that you have there and so what you want to do to fit in a new house house into this neighborhood is as we've been discussing already uh make it uh blend in and conform with the character of the neighborhood that's there so having the average setback that's comprised of the street skate that's here is really the most relevant front yard setback for example because that's what you see that's what you perceive the lot area similarly is is most relevant in this direct streetcape so you know these three lots here and then the one on the corner those are the most relevant in terms of anyone who's looking at this property or passing by walking by with your dogs playing with your kids or living there those are the lots that you're related to what results here in this subdivision is absolutely consistent with the streetcape and with that averaging approach now Mr Burg just brought up a different way of looking at at it and I have no problem with that because fundamentally what we're talking about are how are we getting to the numbers that are required and Mr Clark if I could just interrupt for one moment um and these and what you're referencing is that uh part of uh what was in the planner report that was administrative comments okay and and so that's that's the report um that's dated January 8th 2024 correct uh I believe so that's correct okay you yeah and so I did I did look at that analysis and the the primary difference well there's a couple of things one one thing that I think was if I'm using your analysis Mr burgess's proposed analysis for the neighborhood analysis it would take the three lots on Park viiew the three lots on L and three across the street although you indicated 13 14 15 I felt like 14 15 16 were more directly across from the subject property so so that was what I looked at first the truth be told if I used 13 14 15 instead the numbers aren't much different actually we we did use 14 15 16 oh okay so so if you use that then the required uh lot area by that average is 11,465 and so the only change from what we have here is that the new lot which in the analysis that I just reviewed that Christ and I discussed that lot complies in area with that averaging but if we look at the nine lot Arrangement where we now include the ones cross Larned and up lned there this 11465 we then don't comply with that were were a little under what what that requirement would be so that would push the laot area for the proposed law 231 into a variance condition also which is not what we're currently reflecting the and and Mr Clark real quick uh and with respect to these recalculations um you you've prepared um that updated yeah I did neighborhood average uh consistent with what was asked in the planers report correct that's correct I I have a chart of that and it's on letter size if you want to take a look at that we can hand it out Mr chairman I would ask if we could just enter this as exhibit uh A1 A1 yep A1 and and just uh today's date or what dates on it uh it's well I have to write it on there I I produced it today that that that's fine and just a short title for it uh amended neighborhood average analysis thank you and so in that analysis with all those nine Lots the the um lot width requirement is 76.1 instead of 80.4 so that number is a little bit less but it's still still variance condition for the lot width the front yard setback I can't actually analyze the neighborhood average for the front yard setback cuz I don't have the front yard setbacks measured for those across the street because I didn't think they'd be necessary based on my conversation with Christa that of course can be accomplished but it isn't part of this analysis I did take a look at the information I had and it looks like those houses across the street are about 40 ft setback so if I just estimate that with 40 ft then the front average front yard setback requirement would be closer to 36 ft than the 33.5 that we have so an extra 2 and 1 12 feet in front yard setback what the says now again I I I'm not married to any particular analysis I I explained how I approached it when I was trying to understand how I should present this and what would it look like Mr burgess's analysis is another way of looking at it I think in either case um the variances are the S maybe the degree is slightly different but what is required for variances are the same except for the proposed lot 2301 lot area becomes a variance in Mr burgess's analysis versus what I presented does that make sense I know it's a little confusing I don't know if we really got Mr burgess's um explanation as to why he thought the the the Lots across all nine Lots were and I that's how I thought we rewrote the drro in 2020 I mean I started circling the ones I thought would be included as well so if you could explain your point of view that's exactly it um the specific wording in the ordinance is such that I thought this was the correct way to do it I understand how CH and Mr Clark has come up with their explanation or their analysis because in large measure it makes sense that you want to look at the frontage of the street itself that your your ENT here we have two different streets two different frontages but the wording of the ordinance doesn't account for that right so to be as conservative as possible We examined you know the this alternative approach and in the end the numbers are not not significantly different but it does result in that one proposed lot non being nonconforming by a small amount may be a good opportunity to refine the drro in the future well you know I think it's just because of the nature of the corner and then not having houses across the street as well makes it tougher to Unique I think the inclination as M always is is to say well you know we need better clarification on this language but no matter how good your language is in an ordinance you're going to run into cases that you're kind of like what do I do here and and you know that's when I turn to the to the Christa Andersons of the world and say what about this you know and and ultimately under normal conditions well for variance but certainly for permitting or any other normal submissions that's who's going to make the decision ultimately anyway is the zoning officer so that's why I turned to the zoning officer to try to try to get those answers proactively and and this is an odd condition I've run into a few odd conditions um with this neighborhood averaging but honestly it's still better than what was in place before because what was in place before uh maybe it would make one of the neighbors Happy who seemed to be suggesting it but it involved the whole block now that may sound like it makes sense but have you looked at the tax maps in close detail because I do and sometimes the whole block is just it it doesn't give you a uniform picture of anything at all um you know you get different zones that are within a block some blocks have weird shapes to them and when you try to average that whole thing it's it it doesn't end up getting you to the result that I think we're after which is does this fit in with the neighborhood right so this neighborhood average does a much better job of that you know and different towns do it differently you know like Milburn goes five houses this way and five houses that way and nothing across the street some do 200 ft um there there there different ways to look at it I think this is a good uh balance of that and it does what I think as I said the goal is is to try to try to put something in conformance with what's around it Mr Buress you had something to say uh yes um for for Mr Zucker and the few who have been on the board for a while this ordinance was adopted in 201 20 and at the time it was adopted we talked about after a certain period of time where we are working with this ordinance we should talk about whatever adjustments might be necessary this specific provision actually is a carryover from the old ordinance because we still didn't want to deal we still weren't ready to deal with it is that what you're saying I think it might be time I know we've been keeping a running tab of things that have been questionable over the years so maybe at some point during the year we talk about got some adjustments to this code if you if you agree that yes this could be adjust Vice chair said yes yeah no that's a fair point and you know if I'm giving two cents I'd say the the the across the street part of it starts to get a little questionable um particularly with the front setback because the front setback on one side of the street and the prevailing setback may be different than it is on your side of the street and and this is actually a good example of that you have these Lots across the street street that are wider and much deeper than most of the Lots in this neighborhood in the area so so the areas are bigger and the setbacks are more and it skews the averages when you do a neighborhood average like this skews it away from what is right next to it to be honest um you know the houses right next to us are around 34 ft setback the ones across the street are around 40 ft so it's it gives a different look and feel to it if we had to put our house at 40 ft it would look weird next to the other houses um so you know yeah I I I might say that's worth another look and thinking about it a little bit too but it doesn't do a bad job I've seen a lot of towns do a much worse job of trying to trying to meet the goal here so that describes a subdivision oh go ahead in the analis why is lot lot 23 in the I'm with you yep yep the chart on the B in the here and not the here right so when I when I had the dialogue with Christa rather than looking at this as one property she suggested that it would make more sense to look at the two resulting lots and do the neighborhood average for each of those so so that's why when you see on those charts that you're looking at the the one that you were just referencing was the neighborhood average analysis for the proposed lot 2301 right and then the one above it is for the resulting Lot 23 oh I see so that's why and and and in looking at the one for the proposed lot 2301 it made sense for us to include this resulting Lot 23 on the corner as part of that analysis question uh F question so for the remaining Lot 23 the width is9 that's what it has is that is that right well the W it depends that because the lot width is measured both streets so so on a corner lot you have a lot width on each Street and it has to me meet the lot width on both of those okay and and then and then the other two yards are both side yards and there's no rear yard Corners are re yeah it's a little a little quirky and then and then same thing with the combined side yard you have to take the front yard and this side yard and evaluate it here and then evaluate it here you have to do both of those on a corn lot quick Break um at this time I think we're going to give our stenographer a quick break because she's been working really hard for more than two hours and um so this take five minutes and we'll come right back sure thank you we're back in you don't want me I got to use my gble guys come on we're back in all right we're going to let Mr Clark pick up uh on his testimony hello uh in the back of the room hi thanks we're going to continue testimony now sorryim Neighbors The Ruckus Crow all right um I mean I think I largely explain the subdivision but I just want to touch on a couple of things that are in the review memos uh so they don't get missed um one of the things in Mr burgess's memo well I'm sorry but if you can just go one at a time tell us the date which memo and what page and what comment uh and if you're going to leave anything out uh are we to assume that you're stipulating uh based upon Mrs Bow's comment earlier that she read all the reports understood them and has no problems are we uh safe to assume that you'll be stipulating to all conditions of approval that are set forth in all the reports if we don't hear otherwise that's correct thank you and that again as a reminder to the board that's only if there's an approval if it's a denial there are no conditions okay understood so uh I'll first reference uh the Burgess memo of January 8th 2024 uh many of the items that were brought up have been discussed um but I'll just touch on the ones that I think maybe haven't been and should be addressed um there's a comment about fencing and the stockade fencing page number oh I'm sorry page number three comment number four at the top of that page says fencing thank you and it references a 4ot height of fencing it it looked like the fencing was within a few inches of 4T in the front uh forward of the house the neighboring house but to the extent that needs to be remedied that would be okay um just so I'm clear that remedy uh as a stipulated to condition that doesn't require any variance relief correct Joe it does not that's a pre-existing condition right the pre-existing condition and it's really just a suggestion if you can adjust it understood comply yes so if it complies no variance required thank you and then the next two comments five and six for tree removal removal and storm water management I would say that as part of this uh application um nothing is proposed with regards to either of those and both of those would have to be addressed in any um permit application that might follow from from a positive result here um with regards to the bottom of that page begins section five zoning uh we did discuss the neighborhood calculations uh which are the last paragraph on that page the next page four at the very top uh there's indication that uh the zoning table should also be updated to include the rear yard for the proposed lot 2301 that has been done and uh we'll hand distribute that as a another exhibit it's a letter size sheet of paper uh called an amended schedule of space regulations and if we can mark this exhibit A2 yep with the chair's permission always please yes and that reflects uh the updated neighborhood uh averages as well as the rear yard requirement for that proposed law 2301 sorry I have a question is that okay at this time yes I think so sure I just can we just go back to what you're submitting and why you're submitting it I'm not clear with respect to these yes these are just comments uh included in the planers report such as uh you know provide uh updated zoning but I guess what I what I'd like to learn is like can we can we look at that and talk about it yeah yeah of course out oh okay it just it just includes a a rear yard uh row it does not it's not so so on my original drawing I have the schedule of space regulations yep what what this is is an amendment to that in response to Mr burgess's comments not only with the neighborhood average calculation which I did according to uh his interpretation of that so that's now included in this amended chart as the standard but also he pointed out that I was missing a rear yard for the proposed lot 2301 in this table of space regulation so I added that line in there to to indicate you know in in in in a revision if if this moves forward and we revise the plan to perfect it according to conditions that would have to be in this table so anyone's on notice there's of course a rear yard requirement for that lot okay thank you thank you and I actually think that covers uh the comments with regards to Mr burgess's memo if there's anything I missed let me know I mean I'm going to sum up you know some of the the variant I was just going to ask about discussion but I wanted to then just wrap up this memo then I'll go through um the engineer MMO quickly Mr bures this is a point of clarification yeah as a practical matter if we were to Grant the the the application if you look at building coverage maximum percentage for example for proposed Lot 23 after the subdivision are we in a sense proactively granting then to that lot if they were to tear the home down and rebuild a uh an allowance for greater building coverage within that new Lot 23 kind of absent whatever future development may occur on on the application on that site rather sorry uh technically yes because right now they're at 10.8% building coverage and the ordinance does permit up to 20% now whether they could get 20% and meet all the setback requirements is a different question okay so it might not enable them to get to 20% okay thank you so do do you have a question on that chart before we go on I think I'm okay thank you okay so then the other memo is from Colliers um Marie RAF January 4th 2024 uh again I think that we've covered most of this some of this are statements of fact um oh there's one item about um which one is it count on last yeah uh on the last page page three of the memo comment 16 indicates that uh a submission needs to be made to the Union County planing board that has been done I think this um board should have record of the uh letter that was returned from Union County indicating um that they see no issues and have no concerns with the subdivision it'll be a if I may Mr chairman it'll be a condition of approval anyway even to the extent it might already have been satisfied yeah of course I'm just pointing out that it's that's been received okay I don't I don't know if I have that candid condition but the board has it that's fine SC so you can it's addressed to Christopher no I didn't I I think you covered everything okay and if you're not covering if I may Mr chairman if you're not covering the other memos again we're going to assume you're going to yeah they come conditions uh to the extent they have any uh items of concern or questions or or excuse me conditions the applicant has stip knowingly stipulated to them uh in the event the board grants your approval Mr chair I have a question yes yes uh Mr Clark can you talk a little bit about you you say that it slopes there's no steep slopes but how are we that just sort of like a guess like how are we actually looking at that information if the topography hasn't been provided well you're you're taking my testimony at this point as a land surveyor and civil engineer here and um yeah I can read a green pretty well and I can I can eye topography pretty well so you know people a map like isn't it like you can I see them in the engineer it's um what's it called you need a you need a topographic map to to prove it out but um I've done a lot of this and so I'm often out on people's properties and and I immediately go Oh you got steep slopes right there it's most people can't tell the difference to be honest with you but I can because I've done enough of it and in this case I I recalled a lot and I drove by prior to the meeting again just to double check that I wasn't mistaking something and there's definitely no no terrain on that develop a portion of lot that's more than 15% okay thank you I have a quick question um I think one of the residents mentioned something about a stream running through the back and said that might be talked about is there any comments you want I think what I heard is that the neighborhood lore says that there's some kind of stream running through there was what I heard um and and and and that maybe I'm certainly not disputing the neighborhood lore by any stretch but um I have also seen plenty of cases where neighborhoods were convinced of a certain thing that was explainable by other by other avenues I'm not saying there is or isn't anything I didn't see any evidence on the ground during the survey that showed me that there was some sort of you know percolation that was surfacing now surface runoff is its own thing and and and that is something that we all contend with all the time I contend with it as my job um and I do that in Summit quite often um so that sort of ties in in with some of the concerns that I was hearing from the board and the Neighbors about you know what happens next you know construction happens how do we know this is going to be done right how we know it's going to look right and and these sorts of things understandable concerns all around I think that what I can tell you is that what would happen next is a subdivision were granted and deeds filed and then two years from now 3 years however much time someone buys this lot to build a house on it they would then have to hire someone like me to come do a topographic survey with Tree locations and and get the starting point and since there's nothing there now anything that goes in has to be managed in terms of storm water so in Summit the the rules for storm water management are that you have to manage any increase that's more than 300 Square ft of new impervious coverage in this case it's all new so that means you have to manage all of it so what that would mean in all likelihood is a a drywell system in the front that will capture the entire roof area and probably as much of the driveway as you could given the you know terrain and and the way the grades lay out you would capture all those hard surfaces in a drywall that's sized for 3in rain event and then you would have an appropriate overflow in this case there is a storm drain right in front so it it can serve as that overflow in the case where we get the 4-in rainfall and the tanks a little over taxed but I can tell you that it won't get through permitting without having a comprehensive and well-developed storm water management plan doesn't happen even if we didn't need a variance no Mr you mentioned the driveway are are we as part of the subdivision uh intending to review curb cuts for 2301 is that part of our consideration no I don't think so because you know I think I think you know that all ties in with the top level summary of of what do we get here at the end of this this proposed lot 2301 in my view fits in very nicely with the neighborhood in fact creates a more conforming Arrangement and lot configuration than the L-shaped lot that's there now that's oversized and awkwardly shaped what we end up with instead is a very regularly shaped lot that's consistent with if not slightly larger than the three lots that are adjoining it on Park View uh it is a little bit larger so it's in terms of the what the Zone contemplates not looking at the neighborhood average but the Zone itself contemplates a 6,000 ft lot this is a 9900t lot so it's 50% more lot area than what the Zone considers and what many Lots in this neighborhood are in fact closer to 6,000 square ft um so so I think you have a a nice lot if not a little bit generous in terms of lot area the lot width exceeds the 60 fot that's the minimum so you'll have plenty of room in terms of building envelope even if we apply when when we apply the easement you still have over 40 ft of of building envelope width which allows for a nice floor plan for a 40ft width so so I think what you end up with is a is a very uh functionally developable lot and of course that would all be done within the context of the zoning rules and the storm water management rules and so forth and part of the concern I heard from from this side over here I think was well can we say that there's no variance is allowed afterwards and that's a good point and a good concern and maybe top level that's another discussion for the board as to how how you can control that but I will say that if someone came to me with this lot for forget about the subdivision said hey I got this vacant lot I want to build a house and then they proposed something to me that had variances involved I would say you're out of your mind and they would say what do you mean I know the zoning board I know how they operate I know what they look at how what what argument could you possibly have for variant when you have an oversized lot with a healthy building envelope and it's regularly shaped and good topography you can't claim hardship there's no hardship argument for that at all so you can't say well we want more building coverage because of hardship well that doesn't exist neither does the size or shape of the lot so all the normal arguments that you might attach to trying to pursue a variance don't apply in this case because it's becoming so regular I would say that leaving it in the L you have a better argument for hardship in in you know if someone came along and said well I'm going to tear this down and put a new house up you could you could angle your arguments towards hardship with that lot but not not with the resulting lot that's here so while I see it's a concern I don't I if if someone asked me I'd say you're not going to get it you you won't get a variance you know generally speaking new new construction most towns aren't giving you building coverage ever or F you know they might do setbacks depending on if you could establish that the whole neighborhood had that those setbacks on the side yards but that's about it so I'm a little concerned Mr Clark that if you look at proposed Lot 23 after the subdivision in order for it to exist as it does today WR no modification to the physical structure it requires uh variance on total sidey yard minimum and building coverage maximum can you comment on the surrounding properties do surrounding properties as a matter of pre-existing non-conformities require similar similar overages to side yard setbacks building coverages F Well I didn't do an exhaustive study on on the neighboring Lots in terms of those aspects so I I don't have data on all that um I think that you know it's it it's certainly this corner lot is consistent with the Lots next door the only disadvantage to that lot as it's situated is the existing configuration and where the this the rear yard which is a side yard is um you know I think I think if you tore that down and were rethinking the whole thing you'd probably do it differently you know so if someone came in and said this was a lot now and and it's over on building coverage and the combined sidey yard if if if someone was looking at this to develop a new property I'd say they' probably fronted on lned and have sort of a narrower deeper house with a garage that came off the side and leave a little bit of backyard there that's probably how you would approach that but that's sort of a clean slate approach and I know that doesn't directly answer your question in terms of the neighborhood but I'm not sure I really can in a you know fact-based way understand and I wonder right if and we're taking a couple steps ahead into the future and we're not quite there yet but if development were to occur in 23.0 I think naturally an architect would be looking to in this case following other properties that have been built like Lot 23 in that case to maximize floor area ratio to maximize building converion which is all allowable for sure but we just want to understand that that is a likely outcome in the case the sub Division if we do take those couple of steps forward so maybe that's more commentary than question no I think you're right I think you're right I mean I think there's a limit to what could happen on this resulting lot 2301 if you weren't tearing it down and starting new and then if you do that it opens a whole another can of worms in terms of what you can and can't do but you know I mean it's already a two-story house it's over on building coverage there's there's very little you could try to achieve I guess maybe you could try to say we'll put a second story area over the garage and then I didn't evaluate the F numbers but it probably be over on F just just to clarify um this this corner lot would be new Lot 23 new lot 2301 is the one above yes okay yeah so so just for a matter of public record just to confirm we are not sure whether or not the lots that we're looking at tonight surrounding in that neighborhood average are conforming or not we don't we don't have that well I don't have the data on the other Lots with regards to their conformance on building coverage and sidey setbacks which I think was kind of what we were talking about I I don't I didn't do a building coverage analysis on all these I mean I would speculate that the ones across the street probably don't have a problem because they're oversized Lots the ones that are probably close or the ones that are directly next to us on lned uh cuz there's smaller Lots the smaller the lot the more likely you're going to have a building coverage you know squeezed or over uh especially if it's an older house and you know may preate zoning even and just just to be clear under the ordinance with respect to Neighborhood average calculations it only concerns lot with lot area and front yard uh uh uh average uh Mr chairman I I suspect the board members were inquiring with respect to the variance relief that's sought particularly for the building coverage uh uh uh at the um the setbacks Visa the negative criteria the first prong being no substantial detriment to the public good IE is or is not the deviation substantially out of character with the neighborhood not the specific neighborhood for purposes of neighborhood averaging for lot area and lot width but the quote unquote neighborhood that Mr Burgess will Define for us what that exactly is that's my suspicion do we have any more questions for this witness um if no if and when no board members do I did have a couple okay M War uh the uh well and this one's actually for uh the applicant Council uh because I know there was some prior Communications with Christa Anderson and uh is there a a an intention to utilize to have Lot 23 utilize proposed lot 2301 there is one uh for gardening and uh a terminable license agreement to be recorded in connection there with so that the owner and occupant of Lot 23 can Garden in on lot 2301 so so um we we've discussed this and so there's no plans at this time for uh terminal uh license agreement um Miss bow maintains a small little uh gardening in the rear of what would be 23.0 um but it's not uh like the structure or or anything like that um uh she had considered whether or not to put maybe a shed at at the rear of that yard as well and that's not she she she's not going to um do that either okay so okay so there's not going to be any use of the osed what would be a vacant lot at least initially 2301 by the owner occupant of Lot 23 is that correct well she right right she she maintains a small garden already EX on the existing Lot 23 uh that would be uh new lot 23.0 so she would my point is right now it's all one lot lot 23 correct so she has a garden on her Lot 23 right uh and maybe it's if I may with the chair's permission maybe it's a question for the planner if if she's going to be utilizing a portion of proposed lot 2301 if there's a subdivision even for something as arguably innocuous as a garden is is is that uh a use of that lot does that have any implications for the sport well the or does not identify Gardens as a permitted principal use so there's that issue uh like guess the real question is how is the ownership of those two properties going to be dealt with with the subdivision in other words is it going to be under common ownership or the or or separate ownership yeah or will her name be on both deeds and I can't hear you I'm sorry um name be on both Deeds or is it an LLC or something no no the the new lot 23.0 one would also go under uh her her and her husband's name as I understand it so there'd be Comm common ownership of the two deed of the two lots excuse me okay then assuming that Mr Burg just then that's okay that's okay thank you just wanted to clarify that issue um can I ask something um how long can the town typically watch two lots owned by the same owner next to each other are joined remain is there is there a tendency to merge them or well that's the merger lochner merger Doctrine lochner is the case that Lo V Camp Hoy um but if it is approve An approved subdivision uh that it's it's not an issue you wouldn't have a merger uh uh uh by operation of law under that circumstance they would be formally subdivided by the action of the sport if that occurred I I if with your permission Mr Burgess would do concur I would agree with that doesn't expire right it's one one of these days Mr Burgess and I won't agree with each other but that day has not yet come actually I remember one time do you story for another it for your book John my apologies for choking but it's under it's understood right that if I remember correctly you can't have a shed on the other lot if you don't have a primary building that's corre have a second Building without a priv frankly I think that's what gave rise to this discussion that I just had with Council to get clarification as to what if anything would be going on on the other lot and the impacts of saying you're exactly right and the conclusion was that gardening is permissible gardening is permissible structures would not be oh I'm sure you any questions um uh for the engineer land surveyor uh even though it's a planning type question question um the the the uh and and maybe it even delve into advice but uh I'll ask it start with a question um you mentioned uh uh uh perhaps what would be arguable basis for uh the bulk variants relief what I refer to as the C2 uh uh uh basis a better planning alternative with respect to the layouts and the size of the lots and not being awkward I think was your term um would you agree that a C1 undo hardship alternative basis would not be appropriate in this circumstance because the applicant is proposing to subdivide the lot and therefore would be creating the deviations and therefore under the law that would constitute a self-created hardship for which uh one cannot ask for a C1 undo hardship uh variance would that be accurate yes I think that this Falls much better under the C2 in terms of uh restoring some some regular lot configurations that are more consistent with what zoning and the master plan would consider and respective of whether this board would or wouldn't find that it it it satisfies the C2 criteria Mr with the chair's permission Mr Burgess uh would you concur that a C1 would not be appropriate because it would be a self-created hardship by virtue of the subdivision correct you the C2 argument and the terminology comes right out of the statute it's 4055 D 70 C1 which is a physical features test or C2 which is the public benefits test and often times you talk about the public benefits in terms of a consistent lot arrangement with the neighborhood so when the board starts to deliberate the one one of the things you should discuss is how you feel about these two lots as individual Lots um do they represent a more conforming land use pattern for the neighborhood as a whole in contrast to uh having a 177,000 plus square foot lot as one individual freestanding lot in this neighborhood thank you for that um at this time then I think I would invite the public to question this witness again uh specific questions related to the testimony that you heard because there will be another opportunity at the end to give your general View of the application so if anyone has a question for something they heard please come forward I have a question oh you want before we start with the public you want yeah just at the time you first surveyed this property in 2020 was um the property still wooded no so it had been denuded by then um there there were the same number of trees as there are now yeah which is looks to be very very few yeah there's about six there's there's about five or six in contrast to the neighbors they're most they're mostly at the street and and around this corner of the property now so I would think that that would give you give us some data um in this period now where it's sort of laying fow for how the drainage is working and then some further data for if there's a large or some house on it that would be even worse drainage just a comment it's I was just wondering when you first looked at it at 2020 it the trees had already been removed that's correct okay okay if You' like to come forward my question reles state your name one more time sorry Christina amonson 109 Larned Road l r n d a m u n d s o n Christina usual spelling my question relates to the slope you specifically stated that you just walked the property so you did not take into account where within the city the property is situated then well I'm not sure what you mean well the house is located one block from the top of the second Wang Mountain we live on a mountain and my house isn't even in the middle and I'm the other Corner um so there is definitely a slope from my home to the corner lot and there is definitely a slope from their backyards to the property so whether or not the particular property is relatively I think is what you put it relatively level is it your opinion that it doesn't really matter what the rest of the neighborhood is doing well I didn't say that and and and I'm I'm not I'm not trying to infer that either um what what I said was that the the land is moderately sloped that's iter so so so it's we're not on the side of the mountain here the side of the mountain is a little farther across mount a um where it really gets steep what what most of the questions I was responding to were whether or not there are steep slopes on the property and so in Summit a steep slope is defined as anything more than 15% grade which means that in 6.67 fet it goes up a foot right and of course you don't take into account the grading work that's already been done to the property before you even show up because you've already dealt with the tabularasa so to speak of the denuded lot right it's all would yes I don't control when people contact me to go do the survey so no I I and I really don't have control over the property at all okay that's clear thank you any other comments on the I mean any other questions from the public um if com questions related to if it's a comment about the General application there'll be an opportunity if you have a question or a comment okay thank you we'll get to that okay oh we got one more Patty proor 108 l Road Summit New Jersey obviously um you name p r o c t o r um I'm concerned now I don't even know if maybe I'm out of order asking this question right now but if you sell that piece of property please speak it to the mic thanks if you sell the piece of property um for somebody to build on or if you build on it and then sell it um if you build on it would it be occupied the reason I ask I live across the street from your other house it hasn't been occupied in 20 over over 20 years now it's an yes it has my mother I'm sorry you got you you you need to ask if you're asking a question she can ma'am ma'am yeah sorry you for purposes of the hearing if you can ask the question uh and if and if you want her to answer she'll answer and and then you can ask another question okay okay so I don't look at her is that what you're saying well no well you could look you look at each other everybody play nice but but speak into the microphone and then let her have an opportunity to answer the question um anyway my mother was living with us at the time she died 20 years ago she would spend her day looking out the bedroom window watching the construction across the street which is your other house on lned road it has been empty ever since no one has ever lived there so I live there I live there before we started the construction my children I lived in that house well once the constru I'm talking about question I'm talking about since the construction it's been under I'm not going before that I mean it's like one at a time speaker it's not a conversation it was my turn excuse me it's not a conversation just ask thank you anyway so the construction went on for a quarter of a century No One still lives here my concern is that that could happen again I fear that that would happen again with this new lot is your question how can I be assured that's not happen again and that's your question to her and now may she if you would okay okay yeah so I I can go into 105 lned but um I'm not building on the new lot that's not my intention so if I sell the property uh you know I'm assuming someone will build a house we we we I we lived in that house we started a the renovation and construction of that house and then with my job I got moved to London then I got M to Salt Lake then I got moved to Texas and now I'm back in New Jersey so that's the reason for the delay but oh your H the Builder so you answer please I'm sorry but that's also why we made sure we did the outside of the the house as quickly as we could so it looks nice but it's not inhabited but why aren't you selling it why are you letting an empty house sit there well I'm not going to go into my personal reasons for a while because want to live in that house but that's Mr chairman Mr chairman that okay ma'am that that particular lot that I believe you're referring to that's not part of this hearing this hearing is for the board to decide whether or not uh the applicant has proven an entitlement to subdivide 23 into 23 and 2301 what is or isn't happening on 24 or happened before isn't respectfully relevant to this application before the board this evening but on the other hand if it's being sold eventually which I assume that's the reason for this subdivision and and she builds on it or her husband Builds on it another house I mean it'd be nice to have the whole family in that I can understand that but to have another empty house in the neighborhood just sitting there I mean there aren't even curtains on the Windows there's like foam or or shaving cream all over the windows you can drive by 105 LED Road it's been like that forever that's my fear so that's my that's the reason I asked the question all right thank you very much okay if if I may Mr chairman um what is important and every year I say this if anyone sees any home in any part of summit or anything that is not maintained that is where the city steps in so this isn't particular to your house house ma'am as much as it is if anyone sees anything it's the city's obligation to investigate anything that isn't maintained so that the city can understand uh not having curtains in a window does not unfortunately fall within the code but if the house is not maintained um then that would be something that code enforcement would take a look at it's and if I if I may from what I understand this question concerned 105 larid which is not a part of this specific we discussed that okay um I think at this point we can uh take final comments from the public and then summation from applicant uh and any input from the board professionals the board wishes should we do the summation before we take you summation technically should be after the public comment applicant gets the first and last word if you will like a plan if in court there you go all right so uh again if anyone if there's an opportunity now to uh tell us how you feel and I believe I have to swear you in I know I swear you in so if you'll raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is a truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do thank you and your name and address again for the record pleas Elanor Readington 165 Mountain Avenue in Summit and we have the rear yard facing uh 2301 uh and it's been very nice but yes trees have been cut down um there is a steep slope our water runs down from drwood Hill and Magnolia down our driveway into 2301 and Mike has tried for the last year and a half to deal with surface water by bringing in dumpl loads of wood chips and using that equipment machine you see on their property to spread it and he has told us that that is to try to deal with the surface water water also to build up soil so that is um that's what he's been doing and it's effectively raising the level of the soil and backing up into our fence which is the 4 foot fence on the back of the property and maybe blocking up the water so that's a concern and I'm glad you brought up the surface water issue so that's kind of it Mr CH ask a question to the um the resident sorry may I ask a question uh yes my one question is can you tell me a little bit more about is there soil erosion coming into your property or is it just water no our property is above their property so water is coming down from our property and Christina said probably the other neighbors onto the property that face that's on Park View and there is a slope and Mike has been trying to lessen the slope by all the wood ships and I I did see the excavator and so Matt my question through you Mr chair would be mat Matt delori how do we deal with um do we get soil conservation involved in questions like that or how do we give residents like this how do they solve these problems yeah engineering yeah I made a note okay because I'm not really clear on um moving soil versus wood chips or any kind of stated intention of raising soil levels I don't excuse me I don't think I don't think there is a steep slope now I mean it's very gradually F but there was well I think what she's bringing up is that anytime you start to move dirt or soil or things on and it's a certain amount you can begin to impact where water does go so Council mam just wants to make sure that the city and I've made note of that is aware that that is or isn't happening and I'm not an engineer so I couldn't tell you the parameters of what does and doesn't constitute um what wood chips would mean by bringing them on a property but I made not of that okay thank you all right and with all the issues I really don't believe that lot 2301 can support all the variances thank you um if I may make one more comment um Mr delari can we just make sure that that storm water drain has been cleaned at some point the one that's right here can we make sure that DPW is because the one I looked at up on on a different project the other day was completely full yeah I just I don't know um I know that mauie spoke to but I'm just not clear on the ownership of that and sounds like it was put in privately so I just need to get to the bottom of of that and may I did make a note of it and I will definitely inquire tomorrow may I make a comment on the comment is that is that permissible to comment on the comment I just want to reflect that well you you you you can have redirect from your or Mr chairman he can have redirect from one of his Witnesses uh uh uh uh with respect to public comment or if there's a representation that Council can make that that that's acceptable from a legal perspective is this a representation uh I would like to uh uh ask Mr Clark a a kind of a question in response to that redirect uh uh Mr Clark and just so we understand from your testimony you're confirming that there is no steep slope uh and that from what you uh saw from visiting the site there's no visible stream water source uh described correct not that I observed thank you hi um again Christina Amon a m u n d s o n 109 lned l n Road make remain under oath as you know thank you thank you yes I continue to be under own um I want to address the neighborhood lore of the creek um in particular I want to address comments that were made to me by somebody who was working on my home in 2004 who used to live in some Summit and he said he played in the creek behind Mary's house so there may have been a Creek at some point I don't know what happened to it or whether the trees that were on the property at the time sucked it up or what but the general concern of my husband and I um the amonson as well as our next door neighbor Brooke uh Brooks Wilson who cannot be here because she's in Florida right now at 107 lnet Road I'm sorry ma'am I do have to interrupt you because again I just have to remind the board as the board knows um uh uh this uh lady can testify from her own personal knowledge on her own behalf she can't testify on anyone else's behalf because they're not here to be cross-examined so just for clarification you're speaking about what you know and on your own behalf yes the concern continues to be what is going to happen to whether it's surface water or whatever you want to call it the water in the neighborhood when and if something is done to this lot I think that's what Patty was trying to get at and she didn't quite get there that is the big concern because it is maybe not a steep lope in particular lot but it is a Hillside and therefore we understand that if something gets done at the bottom it's basically like a dam and the water backs up right so we've already witnessed multiple issues in our neighborhood based on one new house that's being built and so we're particularly concerned about further um water issues being created in our neighborhood I don't know how better to put it that's pretty much the concern what is going to happen to the water when stuff gets moved around and frankly I don't want to get behind the reason for subdividing this but it seems to me if you have a single common owner and your remaining single common owner you don't necessarily want to subdivide so the the sort of future is in the carts that at some point it will not remain in a sing Single owner's hands that's it thank you thank you are you ready for summation um I'm sorry more Sharon there's one more may I make a comment real quick on that last uh resident um the one thing I could say um and we can you can email myself or Matt delari after this meeting I this the last storm waterer manager plan I think was done in jeez Matt was it I was just looking at it 2020 I think I think it was 2020 the last storm water management plan um you know if I may I think it might be a good idea for us to put this in committee so the committee that I run is um the uh the Caps committee which handles all things like that so I think we should make that um what's called a discussion action referral at our next council meeting and really look into why this neighborhood is having uh these issues and and we can put that in committee that' be great y thank you so much sure thank our meeting's on Thursday so hope to not okay can you expand it to the entire city have my own drain absolutely uh John raor r a p p o r t I'm at 167 Mountain couple quick questions comments I don't know who to speak first godp speed all of you if you could raise your right hand for me oh sorry thank you raise your right hand do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is a truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you please proce thank you godspeed um so couple questions and comments um I just quickly looked up Google Maps the slope is very different than what it looks like today so I don't know what grounds that stands on um the applicant previously mentioned that there was no water issues ever but then they installed a drainage on their property so I just don't understand how that works out and lastly just because you've mentioned this is like code of law what's once again Layman I'm not you guys so in the future will applicants be able to subdivide their property and be 68% less than neighborhood average is that going to be the new Norm going forward or is that now precedent like a court of law Mr chairman with your permission I can answer the gentleman's question um okay there there uh in land use there is no such thing as precedent uh because every property has in almost infinite number of Dynamics to it so that every property is very different from every other property even though you look at two properties and you say oh that's roughly the same and then uh uh the characteristics the Dynamics of where the lots are all the circumstances and then the variance relief uh there is no such thing it's recognized in land you saw there's no such thing as the exact same case they they don't happen twice I've been told uh uh that uh snowflakes all look alike but apparently they everyone is different I don't know I I'm not I'm just a lawyer but but that's the analogy I use so there is no such thing as precedent in land use okay uh every case is different Mr War but it would also be fair to say that uh this would then alter the future average in the neighborhood well it certainly could have an impact for for purposes of yeah where this property or these couple of properties would would end up in looking at neighborhood averages for other nearby properties for nearby properties that would affect the average that that it would yeah thank you okay there's no Mr chairman I think the applicant would have a sub opport right I'm just looking to see if that you're ready to provide a submission uh yeah I believe so um okay so um in summation uh this application proposes to subdivide the existing underutilized and odd lshift corner lot to create two new lots more aligned and conforming to the lot yard Dimensions permitted in the R6 Zone more similar to Lots in the neighborhood surrounding the property the statutory requirement has been met sf4 in the testimony and evidence presented here tonight by applicant and applicant experts which demonstrate that Lot 23 is burdened with lot yard dimensions and lot size as inconsistent with the the size and shape of the surrounding properties in the neighborhood and inconsistent with proposed uh the purposes and intent of properties located in the r six Zone as described in the testimony you heard this evening the the subject property is an odd L-shaped and oversized corner lot uh and this extraordinary and exceptional situation imposes a upon applicants practical difficulty and undue hardship uh in seeking to develop the property is otherwise permitted uh th if this application is approved it will result in the creation of two New Lots that reflect a an aesthetic Improvement uh desirable visual environment that is consistent with the character of the neighborhood uh and will improve the streetscape by bringing the current oversized L-shaped lot into alignment with the adjoining and nearby properties in the R6 Zone moreover this application further advances the purposes of the zoning in accordance with the ml specifically this application will promote the general welfare will provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for residential uses in order to meet the needs of New Jersey citizens will promote a desirable visual environment and will provide adequate light air and open space as already stated tonight by the engineer surveyor in more detail the benefits of this application to be gained by the surrounding Property Owners the R6 Zone and the City of summit outweigh any potential detriment this application does not substantially impaired the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinances and master plan but rather promotes a variety of objectives and goals of the master plan reexamination report and R six purpose uh R six Zone purpose as mentioned in the testimony tonight thank you again to the planning board for hearing and considering this application okay thank you um at this time um testimony has been concluded and we'll go into a a session just close session for ourselves to discuss the matter session um I invite is that fair yeah I would just I apologize Mr chairman but I wouldn't use the term close session or executive session it's deliberations ah see I moved away from uh executive I moved to close but now open open open we're here we're open thank you thank you so and anytime I'm happy to give a motion and all the excuse me I'm happy to go through the relief and all the conditions stipulated if and when the board so desires that that helps actually you know what before we do this uh can we get a a sum total of the number of variances being asked for yes the um the ordinance requires a the um roughly 11,600 square foot for the average neighborhood averaging um proposed Lot 23 is 7880 square feet and lot 2301 is 9923 square ft on Lot 23 along Park View terce the combined side yard is equivalent to 31.8% where 33% is required um building coverage on that lot is is at 24.3% where a maximum of 20% is permitted on L 23.0 one I already gave you the uh nonconforming lot area the lot width averaging on Park Urus um is Le a little less than what's permitted they're proposing 66.6 to feet um I think the sidey issue has been resolved because they have agreed to move the the line 15 feet off the property line and the I think that's it if I Mr chairman of course also the minor subdivision is separate relief that's required but Mr Burgess the uh uh lot 2301 the lot width neighborhood average uh Park View uh is 66.6 vers is what is what required we had 80.4 at one point but I think it might have changed I believe it was it was roughly 80 ft I don't have the exact figure and that didn't change as a result of when the neighborhood average Chang yeah it may even be on one of the exhibits yeah I don't know if you want me to chime in but as I understand I believe it moved to 76 ft 76.1 correct 76.1 correct yeah that's that's I thought okay thank thank you Mr so is that a am I am i counting six variances by number two three four five six yes and just just so I can is is can I just have that reated one more time just so I can understand what the six are just is lot area for both Lots in the neighborhood averaging it's lot with averaging for Park UT teris uh on for lot 2301 it's the combined side yard along Park View terce for Lot 23 and it's the building coverage for Lot 23 five variances and one minor sub there was no Frontage lot area and oh yeah lot area i h down twice okay yeah two lot area variances oh there's two lot area variances yeah for each individual lot right so that's a six yes that's the six okay well I believe that would be five it'd be the two for the lot area lot area for each lot and then lot width for lot 23.0 combined sidey yard for Lot 23 and then building coverage for Lot 23 which would be five okay yeah it is five all right five now having said that recognize that and I believe there is case law on this issue that the number of Varian is not as important as the as the corre significance of correct and the proofs provided Mr Burgess is right again I like the written transcript sry right so so frame so before Mr Warner compliments Mr Buress again do we have does anyone would like to make a first comment or op I just have a quick question I'm looking at the um the ordinance and I think this is the correct one uh in the drro for uh grading and drainage and I I think it would be helpful for the board if I may to have a copy of that um I think there's some really important things in there that we should all be thinking of um number one are there any restrictions as far as the date of the survey because right now if they were to go and pull a grading permit I believe the survey would have to be current so why I guess my question is why are we looking at such an old survey and and with if storm water and drainage is a concern of the residents then we why wouldn't we make that a priority to have an updated survey I know it's not too old but four years if if if this is subdivided and someone goes to build a house a new survey would be done with topography and Tree locations and any of the other elements you would need for permitting and then that would be submitted so there'd be a new current survey done that has more information on it than what this this is a boundary survey and all of that would be thoroughly reviewed and and analyzed the way every permit application that happens in Summit get stop would the applicant allow a condition of approval that a survey be prepared I mean sure because it'll have to be anyway okay and then also is it is it accurate to say that the city engineer could would this be an exception for him or her to not approve that he could wave the grading permit I guess is what I'm asking because what I was reading in the ordinance was that they can sometimes wave a grading permit for a subdivision but if it's one or two homes that that wouldn't be the case I think um I think that is referring to when there's a building being put on that subdivision right now they're not asking for any anything to be built on it so when they and I and I think I think he testified to that before that if they were to come back and put even a conforming building on there they would have to capture all of the water on it so right now they don't have to because it's it's there's nothing being proposed they're just actually doing a subdivision on it okay thank you any other comments yeah if I could have Joe just explain because I think what I'm hearing is a legitimate concern about the future of water management which is very real and obviously the decision we make to subdivide does open a door and that is it creates another lot which then we can assume then creates more more de development so if you could as the planning board to Marie's point that is ask being asked about a subdivision what our purview is on deciding that versus what future development could happen there so we're we're aware that we make the decision on the right legal um path that sense U first of all as we have already discussed we did talk about the fact that because they're asking for certain variance relief that you are entitled to make some adjustments one of the ones we spoke about was the 15ot set back from the easterly side yard that will shrink the building envelope to so the best width of the that a house can be placed on the site would be a maximum of 42 2 ft adhering to that 15t on one side and 8 ft on the other if you were to approve this subdivision you know that ends your responsibility with this property however when they go in for a a building permit or file plans the building department would then take over the process and do the evaluation uh with the town engineer rather than carers um but the same kind of review that carges would do for you the building department would be doing then for the applicant analyzing you know the water issues and the slope issues and all the other issues that you typically would be reviewing so the fact that it would not be before this board any longer doesn't mean that a full analysis wouldn't be taking place internally in the municipal building and if it's determined that there is going to be a variance required based on whatever reason you know their plant required it it would then go to the Zoning Board of adjustment and they would seek relief there so that would be the process and the manner in which the application would be reviewed and you sit with the zoning board so if they were to ask for a variance they would end up being reviewed by carers other than the easement what other thing what other because they're seeking a variance what other things do boards planning boards put on applications I know you'd mentioned the E easement which we have put as a condition from from my planning perspective you know that's probably the most significant one um there are by shrinking the envelope at shrinking the envelope there are other engineering issues that you might want to touch upon you know if there are any I don't I don't know that in this case there are any I mean I I think that um I think that easement is is a significant um encumberment on the property um that they can't build anything in there because the town has a right to you know access it for any any future use that they may need um repairs or Replacements um maintenance and things like that um I think that you know to Joe's point I think that reduces your um footprint on there um and I think it's also important to remember that when a a building goes on there because there's nothing on this property they have to manage all of the storm water on it for all they have to manage all of the storm water for all of the impervious coverage that they're adding whereas when you're somebody comes in for doing just an addition they may if they trigger having to put in some kind of storm water it may be only for a small portion of that property and you're you're you're getting um you're getting more uh storm water management on that Future Property fairly or unfairly right they're not proposing development on the site as part of this application you haven't they haven't conducted a perk test for example we don't know the ability of the site to accommodate storm water management as is traditionally kind of understood that is correct that's a bit unfair because I'm sure we'd all like to see actual development in addition to the subdivision but I don't know Mr Warner what standard should we guide ourselves by assume the worst assume the best well you know punt the question down the zoning board what I think what you have to assume is that uh unless and until someone's going to develop it you you don't know exactly what's going to be on it but they have you've given them the right to construct a single family dwelling that meets with all uh uh uh uh bulk requirements or or all zoning ordinance regulations um and uh and they would have to go through the usual process with uh engineering and and the building department to get the appropriate permit to do so even as a right that's what you have to assume um and you also have to assume that if they deviate uh from any s uh any uh regulations particularly zoning ordinances they're going to have to get the appropriate relief from the appropriate board which generally would be the uh Zoning Board of adjustment at that stage do you think we can judge there's a a greater likelihood that variances will be sought if and when development proceeds on a subdivided lot you you really shouldn't uh I mean you're not to speculate uh uh you're giving them a right and the right is to build without any relief uh if they can do it uh and that's you know and that's it that's single family dwelling that is that's really all I think you should assume are we able to in a revolution clearly articulate concerns that we have with what may happen in the future given it's not going to come back to this board well you can we're pretty detailed in our resolution we might even be uh accused of being too detailed uh so I think the concerns are going to be expressed in the findings uh portion of the resolution and the recitation of what occurred um but I don't believe you can can put in conditions we're afraid of this we're afraid of that uh that's not really a condition of an approval if that helps if the board's really concerned and we feel like we're more familiar with it because we're giving the lot line I just checked with you it it appears that we could request as the condition that any variances that are sought in either lot or both Lots could come to planning board instead well I guess a couple things one certainly we could never handle a deuse variants uh because we don't have that jurisdiction but assuming we're talking about bulk uh uh uh regulations the first thing I would do uh is ask applicants counsel uh that in the event uh uh there is an approval with the applicant stipulated to jur stipulate to jurisdiction remaining with the planning board uh for purposes of any uh development on proposed lot 2301 uh that would require uh variance relief both assuming it's a not D variance relief and I don't know if Mr Burgess you want to weigh in on your thoughts with respect to the ability of the board to accept such a stipulation um I'm troubled by it but I have seen other boards do that because the application started with the you the one board the planning board it's more often the case with site plans frankly uh under a case called pulio in particular uh but um can I just ask Mr burus what what troubles you by that the the way the way the municipal land use law is structured a single family dwelling application that requires variances goes to the Zoning Board of adjustment so long as it's a yeah not a deuse variance so long not try to put a factory on the residential lot but yes I I have seen some boards and some attorneys allow a an applicant to come back to the planning board where there was a subdivision of property um because this board is the one that's familiar with the application in the property I'm not sure how proper that has been but I've seen it a number of times it's only common [Laughter] sense with common sense but but nevertheless if it's stipulated to by the applicant I don't know if it is or it isn't yet um we're waiting to find out for Marie um uh board members maybe we want to hear if the applicant will Sate to it uh applicant is agreed agreeable to S and that would be for both uh devel on both plots okay 23 and 20 yeah so just so if I sell that property and somebody and someone's building a house they're gonna come to see this board instead of the zoning board if only if they're not only if they're not complying with the existing zoning if they have a right to build something but the second they exceed that and have to be heard for Relief by a board the consideration is that it must come to this board is that what we're that STI that's the stipulation that's being for the N variant or n variant variant yeah and and this condition that's being stipulated to if it's still being stipulated to uh uh it's my recommendation to the board that it constitute a deed restriction in other words it be uh a recorded in the county clerk's office uh so that any subsequent purchaser is on notice o of that requirement that they have to come to this board rather than the zoning board whether it be the entire resolution or simply a deed from the property owner to the elves uh uh uh is normally how it's done with the these these this particular condition and then that deed is recorded the county clerk's office because as the board knows resolutions aren't recorded in a central indexing system like the county clerk's office but Deeds are so so my recommendation would be we have that deed restriction so with all that said does the applicant still stipulate to this board retaining jurisdiction for subsequent development on 23 Andor 2301 and same being deed restricted yeah I think applicants are agreeable yes still Yes okay okay thank I would just wanted to ask Maria oh go ahead I just have a question to that point um through through you Mr chair uh to Mr bures uh if we were to run this scenario so we have a similar situation going on in the city right now where um new building goes onto an empty lot it's conforming so it doesn't have to go to the zoning board for storm water management you know goes through the typical construction process but what we're finding is that that area just simply can't handle the water and the resident below is now you know underwater and so would this example be that they we would be able to maintain more control over storm water management if it came back here around the specifics around what they would need to do if it was conforming not necessarily I would I would put my faith in the town engineer reviewing those plans um because they were going to do the same detailed analysis that cers and this board would do presumably in reviewing those that application and in in your scenario there's no subdivision that preceded the creation of the lot or not preceded but it's part of that process and that and agreed to it you still have to follow like when you submit a permit right to build a house right the engineer is going to want to see a grading plan chances are especially given the location near Mountain Avenue even though there's not a steep slope by definition seems like there was one at one point and then based on that right whether drywell or some other system or it seems like you could even tap into the city System since it's right there would need to be be whether or not there's a if it's conforming or not conforming comes back to whether it's this board or zoning board right exactly a zoning permit would be required The Challenge on that particular case is that let's say engineering approves a plan that will actually address the water now in the middle of constructing it you have three fouryear storms in two weeks they are still in the middle of constructing and the authority of the city is not to say well you have to to have that done tomorrow and so they are permitted a certain time frame unfortunately as it's raining while they're putting the system and it is causing harm and you can see how everyone is put off by that the city doesn't necess have the authority the Builder trying to build people that the water spilling on our suffering and I can hear a lot of the concern of you know we approved this thing as a board and then the next thing you know we might feel responsible that we're putting people in a position where now they're having water problems where they weren't before so it makes a lot of sense um but sometimes it isn't always in control or it's certainly in the purview of this board I appreciate the kind of stipulations that are being put in here and I hope the public appreciates people really wanting to make sure that there is these considerations to do their best but there is a confinement of what Authority and law allows us to and I think that's being pushed rightfully so by people on the board to make sure there's very good stipulations in place can I ask Marie one more question okay so it seems like there's some current issues somewhat happening on this lot because the the owners putting chips and it sounds like there's maybe some conditions and there's also as Mr ferelli pointed out that drain so maybe there's some drainage that's on the slot already what kind of condition can we put or what kind of Investigation can we do to just see if that's functional and do you have any advice with regard to cuz maybe there's drainage there that's not working and you know I don't know how long it's going to sit like this so I don't know if that could be part of our discussion or not yeah um one thing that I I I did hear before was that there was I I think the applicant herself said that there was a drain up in the corner I didn't I didn't see that on the um the plan itself I mean it's worthwhile to Mr forell you pointed out a drain right along the sewer line where the L the corner yeah I I and and that I was aware of I was thinking that the applicant had said that there was one up in the corner of the property so um if you could use a microphone just so people could hear you grab the Bob Barker version somewhere two um so this is what I had mentioned there was you know again we've been there since I forget when we moved in we lived in lned so when we we started the construction the renovation of larid we put in two um uh water whatever what do you call it just you know the W not the sewer just water um connecting out to the street so one is on larid in the corner of 105 larid the back corner towards Park View that back corner and then we put one in uh Park View we didn't own the property we talked to Mary we did that for Mary because as I mentioned which I did say someone said I said there was never water I don't remember saying that but that's okay water was coming down through the back and the uh Park View would flood and in the winter it would ice over so from literally from the the corner to uh Memorial Field the street with ice and so Mary and Paul were getting uh this city was coming to them to deal with that water the water is as Christine and others said actually coming from up above right so Mary and Paul were the ones getting the water and having to deal with it so when we did laid we put those two uh storm drains in to capture you know the water and help um and then you know what what when I was saying you know there's not a water I'm not seeing like a stream water coming down um in that you know in what would be 2301 right now is it exists and obviously you'd have to deal with that with any building but that's so there are two there's one at LED and there's one I think we've reopened the hearings haven't we yeah I think they they they with Mr Clark and okay okay we've answered oops poop might deliberations so we're also at 11:20 yeah I think I think it's time to uh I think we have enough information now can I just make a quick comment I don't mean to I just I I was reading the city drainage report from 2020 and the one thing I think it is interesting to um to say is that we did do work and it does say on Park View Terrace Street flooding and Ice hazards exist in the block along Memorial Field and near number 41 and 42 properties along the South Side have groundwater issues this project was completed during the winter of 2010 and then if you look at the bottom of the drainage report um it talks a lot about uh tou up to Mountain and to Laurel Avenue and it says due to significant groundwater ice accumulates at the curb line on tulup Street between Mountain Avenue and Laurel Avenue existing storm sewers uh are on tulup a few 100 feet away but I think it's important to maybe just take a breather and look at some of this information because the city may need to I just think it's important to look at all this information and the things that the engineering office has done uh and maybe we can come to a solution that makes sense for everybody just my thoughts so are you suggesting that this that the board should carry this this this this application pending another report I mean considering that it doesn't sound like we're building anything what's the rush I mean is it going to hurt to I'm not sure how this all works it may help the applicant to have a resolution accept approval with the conditions which may be helpful to hear or or denial potentially yeah and it may be and I'll defer to our real experts our engineer plan but but but uh these other issues may have more to do with an ongoing circumstance than this particular application before this board which we're obligated to hear and decide so um it's an ongoing storm water issue we governing body issue or city issue that's something different related but different and I was I was kind of going along with that you know idea that this seems like more of a global problem especially reading what you just said and I was kind of looking of where those roads were I'm like well that's more of a global thing and honestly this this is down at the bottom of the hill you know how do we how do we alleviate the water problem that's on that property well it's coming from the top of the hill so I you know I I I think that might be that might be a difficult thing to regulate in this I just know that I'm the one that residents come to when they have water in their basement I truly I get these calls all day long and I take it very seriously I'm dealing with three or four right now um that Mr Clark surveyed last year and I'm dealing with some some massive issues from all these rainstorms and I I take it very seriously and I I just ask that you know would it make sense to take some Paws and I feel passionately about that and it's up to the board but I I think it might be a global issue and it might you know I don't know that it's fair to hold up the to hold up the decision tonight I do think that um we are we have heard that um any application to construct uh would certainly require uh storm water management um and that's that's our responsibility that's the city's responsibility to provide that um we we're imposing a series of of um restrictions and uh from the easement to um what else what else are we what else are we asking in terms of concessions well well in addition to all the conditions set for and all the various reports and the easen should the city so desire with respect to 15ot wide easen along the uh uh uh e East thank you and uh along the rear uh would be uh uh well at least 7 and2 ft from the center of the uh sewer once it's located um we also have a stipulate to condition of of uh the a new survey being done was was agreed to uh or offered as a stipulation and we do also have uh a stipulation that the board could retain jurisdiction for any further development on proposed Lot 201 if there's a grant of subdivision approval and Associated variance relief uh uh and that that would be a deed restricted so that any and all successors en title would be on uh actual notice of of that requirement of course the absence of a Steve we we say the applicant agreed to have that restriction on both Lots both lots I'm sorry did I yes both lots I'm sorry I said 20 yes 23 and 2301 um I believe that's all I have by way of uh I think Miss Alvarez asked another question earlier I didn't get the answer which was related to the current um where the house isn't 2301 there's drain there's water issues with the wood is there anything that can be done in terms of sending somebody over there or remediating that and can that be looked at is that well that that I think she was asking I'm sorry um I I don't I guess I could you know work with the engineering department no I mean I'll I'll in I'll I'll let the engineering department know it's probably on their radar but that an investigation should take take place there in deliberating with my fellow board members looking at it even from here to have a very large l lot in the middle of a neighborhood that clearly the Lots used to line up in a very normal fashion it is a very the subdivision itself seems like from an experiential streetscape walking down the street having this weird lot that's empty is is not in line with the neighborhood so just in deliberating in the subdivision to have an appropriate house built there would probably create some wholeness that would probably benefit the entire experience of the neighborhood personally not to negate the water issues that as Paul Stern pointed out would have to go through an Engineering Process and through anything to be built so I think the concessions that the board put forth in combination with that um would lead me to to to vote in a certain way because we're uh if anyone else has any comments I I'll otherwise entertain a resolution I I just like to offer just you know some quick commentary um I think at least this has presented here two things I would just say as headlines is there's great potential in what is arguably two lots here in its developed form I would argue um also that we've been working awful hard here and there are many unfortunately underlying questions for the ultimate developed lot which again is not exactly at under consideration here but I'm left with concern that with concessions that are necessary the Varian is requested specifically around the neighborhood average calculations the toll side yard minimum building coverage maximum percentages just to Simply subdivide that the practicality of building a conforming structure on 2301 in a future State while is possible the dimensions a lot allow for it what have you I'm concerned that um the substantial sanitary sewer encroachments are going to restrict the ability of a future owner or potentially the current owner um to build something that not just conforms but fits the character of the neighborhood and I think on reflection of if you go into the drro under the r six Zone an excerpt from the purpose of R six say a compatible relationship between new or expanded houses and traditional neighborhood houses that reflect the best of the neighborhood character particularly in terms of scale sighting design features and orientation on the site is encouraged so whether it's here before the planning board or potentially the zoning board whoever gets the Good Fortune I think a subdivision with a development application would address all of these questions and more and really ultimately win the support I think of of neighbor of the Neighbors in the community so for current form I could not support the application she doesn't okay any other comments often in the past that's what we would get when we got a lot line get the whole we get the whole application we would get something to look at it's true so it's not it's not a bad idea but on the other hand if this is going to be off in the future I don't know if we can require that or we I don't know yeah I I agree completely Steve I think Steve makes some great comments and I think that when you and like Matt delari said you it seems like the the lot does make sense to have a house on there at some point um because it's an empty lot right now so but I do think if we can get the the public Buy in and and solve some of these storm water management issues and I think that would be really great I just add that I think some of the you know not knowing what's being built on on 2301 and then just to repeat the what's been talked about and um the limitations around some of the variances that are being requested are put us in a precarious position as board members to to approve this based on everything that's said and I doo think that it's I I wouldn't want to be standing behind something that uh could potentially harm neighbors and things like that so I um probably will not be supporting this as is Mi Mr chairman if I may appropriate I think that um in speaking with applicant we we'd probably like to seek uh to carry this um to a later hearing date to better maybe assess some of these uh concerns so that um you know what we put forth is is appropriate and and uh taking into account concerns we've heard here tonight um what sort of proofs were you thinking of of providing at a future date um you know perhaps um or or maybe adjourning is more appropriate um I think just to consider a little more perhaps deg grading or uh you know some concerns that that were raised here um I think we've put an awful lot of time in tonight to do this uh as no I mean I think we've heard um arguments on both sides I think if the applicant is willing to journ in a way that both sides might find satisfaction peripherally we feel like the subdivision makes sense and at the same time things that Steve said also make a lot of sense and if they are willing to address that um and come back I think that could be a middle ground that could be um supported in my in my opinion and I would leave it to my fellow board members I'm I'm I'm agreeable if we could if we can find a middle ground there any other thoughts thoughts on this we okay I don't know anybody I'm agreeable to if it's permissible I'm agre it's I would say there's nothing to prevent them from coming back in the future at some point and trying to readdress this I me I just don't think we can warrant anything here in terms of how we're going to I'm not sure what we're going to learn depending upon how that whatever that is that well let's say let's say to Mr Spur's point that they do in fact decide that the subdivision with more detail on intentions there could shed more light on the the concerns that are being raised and the holistic approach of all that that that might lend itself to a more um informed decision you could the the board the board hasn't voted yet uh the board the the the uh the the hearing was closed but the board nevertheless not having yet voted uh on the application uh can allow the applicant uh to uh adjourn and carry uh I understand the concern what you're not you're wondering what if anything's significant is going to change by way of proofs or modifications of plans but uh we could find out uh so the board does have the discretion to carry the matter uh at the request of the applicant I guess this comes down to um does the board need a fully developed um site plan proposal to be able to vote on this which is a different question than coming back and getting some some proofs and some some some reassurance on on on drainage and things like that and if and when we come back of course everyone you know we we continue the hearing everyone has an opportunity to question all Witnesses everyone has an opportunity to public comment again Etc um at least on the new information the you know new testimony modifications so it's not just to come back and hear something different I'm sorry Mr chairman go ahead no okay um I'll take a motion then uh well we could do we could poll the board and see if the poll the board wishes to accept the request of the applicant to uh have an adjournment of the matter and uh then we can carry it to a date certain and get an extension of time to act is the question of not notice also uh something to be discussed it's my assumption that if the applicant were to return with substantial revision to the proposal it may Merit another round of notice yeah there wouldn't be in my op not be a requirement for it but would it be appropriate to re notice depending upon the Judgment of the chair perhaps as to the significance of the change that's occurred in we're not going to know the significance frankly until we get here and hear it right and but but generally uh if the matter is going to be carried without uh uh if the the matter is going to be carried to a date certain time and place it'll be announced now that constitute the not notice to the members of the public who are interested in the application here uh if they were to come back and say that we're going to put a factory on the lot well then that would require notice I don't think we'll need new notice just worried Mr Zer that if they were to come back it would require such substantial revision that it'd be a practically new application so either adjourning the application or deciding the application frankly not it may be prudent just to send a clear signal with regard to what's been presented in the application and this board's position around this type of proposed development or just say subdivision so you're you the poll result uh com my poll is let's decide my my vote is to decide on the application this evening I don't expect any material revision to the application even if it's carried just with due respect there's only so much you can do with this in terms of moving lot lines you can't really impose storm water management controls on an empty un improved lot not sure what to expect I don't know if anyone Mr Burgess has an opinion here there there's two things at play here because obviously it sounds like what the board wants you want to see a house and what it's going to look like if you were to deny this application the case law is clear that unless there's a substantial change to the proposed subdivision they can't come back the issue of race Jud deada and the case has already been decided would apply so if you were to deny this in all likelihood you're going to have an L-shaped lot forever does the applican have the ability to withdraw the application at this point absent of vote the the applicant can withdraw an application but if the applicant wants to preserve the right to return with what I'm suggesting is let them you you know carry it and let see what they come back with and if they don't like what they come back with then you'll you'll vote accordingly okay I think allowing them to carry it to see what they can come up with I understand Steve's concerns but um makes sense I think that's a middle ground that is probably deserve I just have a quick question I am new here say she goes back and gets site plan and construction drawings and that's her new presentation and she sells the property there's no way to ensure that the new purchaser is going to follow through with what she's developed and sold here well it depends on what the conditions of the approval are at that time but uh if it's based upon certain information that's provided uh then those plans may in whole or in part uh uh be be an obligation of any successor Who develops the property wouldn't be specific to uh uh this particular owner any approval we give is irrespective of who's doing the development so so it can be covered thank you sure I'd make a motion just to carry the application of the February 26th date with no further notice waving the time which the board has to act well yeah the only thing I would say is is is it's at the request of the applicant and we can figure out date time and place and they could give us an extension of time to act but yeah that's effectively the same thing my my question is will the public be Ren noticed then no we're going to this is the notice we're going to announce it once we have a date okay it doesn't have to be Ren noticed because we're carrying the same application but the board has the board has an opportunity to put in a Reen noticing if the chair or collectively we want that correct conceivably you can uh uh you can ask for that stipulation or require it but but again we're not going to know what the new what the what the changes are going to be if any what additional proof there's going to be until we get here what we're doing let me try to keep it simpler uh what we're doing is we're carrying an application this application when you carry an application you don't require the applicant to Ren notice unless they're going to carry it for six or eight months or they're going to do a new application uh so if we're carrying this application we're carrying this application and the notice is the announcement once we get there tonight hopefully uh to a date time and place and they hear it and that's that's the that's the notice I'd like to request that we Reen notice the Neighbors in this instance because they may take them six n months and you know new people move into town I think we're giving I think we're picking a date that might be in February I don't know if that would be enough time for the applicant well let's find out yeah right okay um I mean I think at this time I mean it would be helpful if uh maybe we could confirm have a maybe discuss an amount of time that would be appropriate I'm not sure that a month might not be enough but if we need to rec carry from February to carry again we carry meeting to meeting to meeting what if we say if it's carried until X date no notice if it's carried Beyond at dat they need to re and say I don't know three months okay I like that and I think that could be a standard I think the challenge here is that in the new world we live in the last thing you want to do as an elected official or somebody who represents Authority is to have a resident come to you and say I just didn't know now at the same time as a resident is your responsibility and the law does allow us to do it but I also feel that in some level you do want to have when the decision is done to go to bed at night now and like look um we did we did notice will the applicant stipulate to re notice it yeah I don't I don't think we have an issue with that okay the applicant stipulated to re noticing even if it's in two weeks so or four weeks so we're good okay so we have a motion motion to carry until February 26 the next scheduled meeting and and just to clarify we would be able to carry P that again if we feel that a month is not long enough correct right but but you you're doing it with a new notice so uh we're not carrying without further notice we're carrying to February 26 7 :30 p.m. right here with new notice so the members of the public are going to get a new publication notice and a new personal service of 200 foot Property Owners because you just stipulated to that however selecting February 26 if they decide to carry but then decide that the I don't know March 3rd meeting is acceptable as long as they notice it would be them telling us when they what meeting they'd like to get we can then carry it on February 26th to Mar whatever or whatever we want and they have until uh at least 10 days before the meeting to really know whether they they need more time or not because the notice only has to go out just slightly you know 10 days before this point we have to decide whether we're requiring to them to re notice or not I just got the stipulation they're going to re notice I I think that we we're fine stipulating to a ren notice um you know stipulating to re notice but I think that if if that's the case we would we would uh kindly request that the carry date be probably ear in March or April so that we have sufficient time to at least he doesn't make February why have everyone show up you know so so what's our Stephanie what's our date in March uh the 25th okay is is that what you're requesting the 25th yeah that that's okay and the board's the board's accepting that request to carry with further notice to March 25th okay is that correct right Steve you put a motion up do I have March 25th carry with notice with notice do I have a second second chairman zooker yes well it's all in favor is fine we don't have fav but it won't count board member Bowen with all due respect all so Voice vote it's just a Voice vote for the nine members all in favor I all right again if it isn't clear and at this point who knows if it is uh this matter is being carried with with further notice uh to uh February 26 7:30 p.m. at this municipal building with further notice and the applicant will give give us an extension of time to act at the end of the month of I'm sorry I said February 26 March March 25th March 25th uh the applicant will give us an extension of time to act through the end of the month of March via email uh to me and to Stephanie extension of time to act okay Council thank you we're good now Mr chair all right thank you I think uh do we have any other wait we got to do the minutes oh we have to approve the minutes I'm not sure if this is out of order but thank you so much for being so careful about us thank you um final note for those who were here the minutes the minutes of our last meeting were basically non-existent we we said hello but uh if anyone had any questions uh otherwise um or fine fault otherwise I'll take a motion to approve all right I had I had Jen and and Pauls for all those who were not here yes so we're going to have our new members abstain from voting which is Mr spur miss mcky Mr felet Miss Hamlet and Miss Bowen so all those in favor I any opposed osed okay the motion carries and now we're adjourned we need a motion a motion to adjourn so all right oh you're in there probably