e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e think we're ready to [Music] go good evening and welcome to the March 12 2025 meeting in the city of summit
Zoning Board of adjustment my name is Scott wet and I am the chair Z please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the for stands
Nation indivisible and justice for all thank you in accordance with New Jersey statute 10 colon 4-10 adequate notice of the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record been posted here in City Hall this
meeting 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 decorum appropriate to a Judicial hearing must be maintained at all times for the benefit of the public this meeting is being live
streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcasts on summit's government channels which are Comcast channel 3 before Verizon channel 3 transcript of this meeting is also being taken using video and audio so we need all the speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room please note that
there are fire exits to my right your left and at the back of the room where you entered the city has a listing system to assist the hearing impaired anyone needs hearing assistance please obtain the system at the days and return it thereafter M CA could you uh call the
role of members Please Mr Kieran here Mr Malay is excused Mr Nelson here Mr Steiner is excused Mr Yuko here miss Zan here miss Cho here Mr feskin is excused Mr Chuli here Mr ning here chairman lits
here you have a quorum you may proceed thank you Andy ball is the zoning board's attorney is he he is not here tonight but in his place we have his partner Zach zinski yes um Zach will advise the board on
matters of Law and is the key interface with the applicants attorney he has not vote on these applications Nicole cotiga is a city employe employee and is acting as the zoning board secretary our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications planning
our agendas and keeping meeting minutes the board secretary also does not vote on these applications also present are are experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input to the board tonight we have Marie RAF from cers Engineering also present is Ed snikes
from Burgess Associates and he is our board planner these experts are seated at the table to the right of the board The public's left they also do not vote on these applications our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates all members can participate in the hearings tonight only a maximum
of seven can vote most applications require a simple majority to be approved before we enter executive session to vote on the application you will be advised of how many votes are required each case will begin with the applicants or their 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 those variances are needed the board experts followed by the board members may ask questions of the applicant their attorney and their experts due to recent cases running
access ly long we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to get brief and concise testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible in a given evening once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning the public will have an opportunity to ask questions this not
a time to tell us what you think about the case that opportunity comes at the end of the hearing please be careful as to how you phrase your questions they should not be proceeded with a statement about the case which should be a direct question to the witness also 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 all Witnesses have been heard members of the audience have their second opportunity to speak at that time you may express your opinion positive or
negative about the application then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session where board members discuss the case and then vote you'll be able to listen to our executive session but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion I will ask that each
applicant Andor their attorney if present come up and give give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight including the number of witnesses whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes all right I'm going to switch up the order
tonight um due to the scope and scale of these respective cases so if we could start out with um and this is just to tell us uh how many witnesses you have and if you think you can finish in 30 minutes or not so 28 London Dairy
way come on up hi hi I'm Don januk Coit hi I'm the resident one of five at 28 London Derry way yes and do you have any Witnesses with you tonight I do not yes you do well my my partner in Christ my
architect all right perfect so you have one one yes all right do you both believe you'll be able to finish your testimony within 30 minutes I'm hoping 15 perfect that's we love that all right thank you so much we'll get to you very shortly thank
you hello Mr chairman members of the board James Weber of Alonso and Weber samanth Alfonso cannot be here tonight she has the flu and as a result I will be filling in for her in the continuation of this hearing we have two
witnesses uh 30 to 60 minutes okay great thank you Mr Weber so 28 London are way approach we're g to swear you in okay do I just raise your right
hand I haven't done this before no no problem just St and your name first name for the record and spell your last name please so it's Dawn Janu Kitz j a n u k o w i CZ do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be
the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you so if you could just give us a quick overview of your project and then we'll have your architect St in we'll square him in and then he can do the heavy lifting great so first of all I just want to thank you
so much for including us in the agenda um and I wanted to let you know that my husband unfortunately while he wanted to be here he is also a bit under the weather so he has made the decision to stay home um but just a little bit about our project so we've lived in Summit
since 2016 um we started with renting here in town and really fell in love and so we bought our current home in 2019 um as I was pregnant with our third child and we're really excited to make
this our forever home um we love the street we love of the neighborhood um our neighbors being next to the Arboretum and just the appreciation of the nature um and love the home itself the traditional style of it um the
character and Our intention is very much um to preserve all of that as our three children have grown um and we are you know living in this home we are truly uh starting to bust at the seams and so
really what we are proposing and what we've worked with Steve to put forward is a plan that really preserves the Integrity of the home that works um within the existing footprint um but really that allows us to grow into this
home and again to be here forever we're proposing the addition of two bedrooms one of which will serve as a home office SL guest room for um me I work from home 2 to 3 days a week my husband is
Australian we have family in Australia and friends that um are excited and eager to visit and so you know that space will allow them the ability to come for longer periods of time and we'll also allow each of our children to
have their own rooms um while also giving us um some space optimization and more space for the kids to play and for us to have the distinct spaces as we really work to um the long term so I
probably will hand to Steve unless there are any questions um for me but again what you see really um again attempts to satisfy our long-term family needs while really minimizing um any kind of optical
changes for the home itself and certainly um within the neighborhood so thank you for thank you hearing us any questions from the board for this witness our board professionals no any
questions for this witness from the audience seeing none all right I think it's a good time to tr hand it off to your you state your first name and spell your last name for the record please yes my name is Steven Hawkin s ven h o c k s
i n I am a principal of ahm Architects 281 Main Street Milbourne New Jersey and my license is current the board like to accept this as expert you just tell us a few boards that you've testified sure I've uh I've testified in front of this board not very recently but I have I
think some of your members are still here from way back I testified in front of Milburn chadam Summit Springfield Westfield and um I've been licensed for well over 20 years perfect we will accept your credentials welcome thank you can you just please ra raise your
right hand you swear from the testimony you're about to give is going to be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes thank you so at your request I'm going to make this as quick as possible um the house is currently a single story house with
on a slope lot um with a walkout basement in the back and what happens is uh because of the way the lot is sloped when you do an addition on a on a property that has a steep slope on it as you push out towards the back there is a
um uh a thing called the the uh it basically makes it where the basement is considered finished space or not um and so there was some discussion as to whether that lower level was considered a story or not and after uh we originally presented our plans uh the
board engineer said that he thinks that we may need a d variant because we were increasing the size of the house even though we were doing a small addition on the back because it's on the lower part of the line thought it would trigger the basement as be considered as living space um after some going back and forth
we had a to topographical survey done um which I was asked to I have a copy of it I'm going to hand in I don't know if you want to mark it um and the um after going back and forth the engineer and the planner agreed that
it is considered a basement and consequently we don't count that as floor area and because of that we are retracting our D variant we only need the C variant so I don't know if you want me to mark this yeah so that's not
part of your original submitted um I don't uh Chris told me he didn't get it in time so we should submit it this evening so yes please1 yes you you all have a copy of it but he just said it wasn't in time
better safe than sorry that's fine that's a A1 A1 okay Mr chairman we we also received it and reviewed it and we concur okay what is the date of the document the date of the document
is um February 21st okay thank you and that was prepared by it was prepared survey civil engineer uh yes uh licensed professional engineer and they submitted it and uh it
was distributed to the planner and the and the uh Town engineer so with that being said um it is a single story house it's in the r uh I think it's R15 Zone where they require
15,000 square fet um we only have 10,678 square ft so the lot is substantially undersized um there was only one house adjacent to the property if you look on page there's a house on the east side
but on the west side and in the rear as the property Resturant it's against the arum so there's really uh no buildings next door that are imped by this and what we're proposing to do is there's a 10 by 16 family room on the first floor
and what we're going to do is we're going to take that down um there's an unfinished or unconditioned torch underneath we're going to remove that and we're add a uh 16 by make sure I get
[Applause] right uh sorry to get the right size it's yeah gr only on the first Flor we're adding a um a 16 by 176 family room which is a
mod siiz family room and then we're also taking down the existing deck and replacing with a another deck thank um there are currently three bedrooms on the first floor um uh and and two B two
bathrooms in the house a kitchen dining room and living room and as uh you can understand well there's one in the basement yes um on the first floor I'm talking about and um so as you can as as dawn said they're
really outgrowing the house so one of the things that she asked us to do is figure out how to add on to this house and have it look like nothing was done from the street so everything that we're doing is in the back of the house um so what we're proposing is to do this
family room on the first floor and then on the lower level [Applause] we're taking down this scen patio and we want to put two bedrooms and a bathroom on the lower level so that they they'll have room in their house for their
family and also for the office that Dawn mentioned um we also want to finish the basement area here make a recck room because with three children there's really nowhere for the kids to play that are independent of where the parents are so it's nice to have a separate space
between the the kids and the parents um the other thing we're doing is there's a very very deep garage so they needed a mudroom and a laundry room so what we're doing is we're going to take the back part of the garage and we to put a mudro and a room down there and as you can see
I showed the vehicles they easily still fit even with storage space in front of the one of the garages um the house is adjacent to the Arboretum so we're really not impacting any neighbors because um there's no
there's nobody there the neighbor on the right right is the furthest away from the addition that we're doing um and the um you know like I said there's no impact and like I said it's important to maintain the aesthetic so we're limiting
the addition it's 128 Square ft and of that and also a deck and of that building area is 344 squ ft of deck and the way Summit counts a deck is if it's over uh a certain distance from the ground they count that as building even though it's outside space so that is
really what's causing us to go over in our building area on the property so I just want to go over the variances like I said I'm going to try to do this fast um we need a uh a side yard variance
because we're extending a non-conforming side yard that's 7 and 1/2 ft work extending it eight more feet um it's a modest extension again it's only one story so it's minimal impact so we need to extend
aside art variants um the building coverage because of the deck and the building we have um we're going from 20.6% to 21.8% and 18% is required so we're asking for a little increase in building
coverage um we're also asking for a rear yard set back if you look at the site plan there's a curve at the back left corner of the lot and because that curve encroaches on the building if this was a rectangular lot we wouldn't need this
because we're we're cut off at that corner there we need a minor rear yard setback as well um and then lastly we're asking for a lot coverage variance um the existing lot coverage is non-conforming so what we're doing is to
trade off for the addition that we're doing we're going to take away driveway so even though there's no net change in the coverage because we're already over we still have to ask for a variance but there's no increase in lot coverage um and we believe that these
hardships of an undersized lot um the pre-existing non-conforming sidey yard uh the curve at the back of the house that I explained um and the fact that the building coverage is only 128 Square ft um and 344 ft of his deck
uh we think that's also a reasonable request um we really worked hard to maintain the scale of the house if you look at the front elevation there's no change to the front the the before and after are identical
um the rear we're just taking this family room that's there just extruding it towards the back another 88 and 1/2 ft um on the side sorry thanks as you can see we're just uh taking this extension and we're just
adding 8 and2 ft on to what's already there we're not going any higher um the historic commission uh noted that um the only thing that they had requested is that we maintain existing materials and after talking to Dawn she said that even
the slate roof are willing to do the slate roof on the addition even though you can't see it from the street they're going to do the addition with a slate roof and so they really like to have maintain the character of the house um the other comment was there was a a a a question from the um the planner about
the grading on the side because it was a little different than um what was presented here so I have an amended side yard which is in in the report there's an extra copy for you and um I don't know if you want to
mark this A2 this is um an amended side yard which just shows a change in the grade a little bit from what you have and because of that we're going to have to put a little window well in but because we don't go out more than 3 feet with the window well it really doesn't change
the grade plane so I I'll I can hand that in as well um and that's really the only things that affect as far as the staff comments um and we really think that this is going to have a positive impact for the owner and there's really no
negative impact to the city or to the neighbors because we really have a very minimal impact and hope that was fast enough that was perfect thanks board professionals do you have any questions for this witness I do yes
um so thank you for noticing um the the conflict with the window on the side yes and um it by putting in that window well you're then pushing it out three feet closer to the property line which I don't think affects your setback at all
no so I'm not suggesting that but that changes how you grade that property and I I don't see that on the grading plan then um I believe this I don't know if you have a copy of this one this is what we asked
to oh that you do have that the same one um you mean the window well is not yeah yeah it's not shown on here so if you're pulling that out three feet um we're just going to do a little well there and so um uh if that's uh you know we we'll agree to amend the grading plan to show
that um if this is approved when we present it would that window well need to be an access window well for erress from the that's why we're doing it and so it's only could to be down like about a foot and a half or so on the high side and it's almost level with the grade on the
back side I have an extra one of these I I have I actually need one thank you so we had actually the the plans that you have in front of you we had um received and reviewed even though you know because I knew this kind of conversation was going to come up and
when I looked at how that grade was impacting the the sidey I was really just looking to see as drainage going to be um impacting the neighbor at all even though it's the Arboretum like what's going to happen with the drainage um do you want to testify to anything on that
um we'll work with the town engineer if there's anything special that he wants us to do as far as drainage but I don't believe that it's going to really impact the drain drainage in anyway just that little three foot by you know 3ot area way is not going to affect the the
grading the drainage so our our review of it was that you know as as presented on the engineering plan that you're looking at the toppo plan was that you know it appeared that the the drainage was fine um I I do see that if you put a
window well in there and still try and grade it it is going to impact how that that water flows around there um so we are going to have to come to some agreement I'm okay with fixing the the grading on the side well we'll we'll work with the town engineer and do
whatever they ask to to you know address any you know so we don't adversely affect the neighbors we're fine with that we can make that a condition of approval in addition to following everything in the engineers letter that we specifically Mark the the drainage
impacted by the window well as approved by you or the town engineer okay so get that cover I would I would think that if you were inclined to approve this that would probably be a good way to go um that okay okay um and as um as you heard
stated there was no increase in um an impervious coverage on the property because they're they're giving a little and taking a little so there's really no storm water drainage that's um required on this I think that's really all I
had thank you just a few questions with regard to the setback variants you're asking for um there's a little bit of a graphic difference between your rating plan and the actual site plan you show on your first on your cover sheet what is the actual projection of the addition
being proposed um it's 8 and 1/2 ft that's 8 and 1/2 ft okay so you're projecting that additional 8 and 1/2 ft is there any other why does it make sense of this location from an architectural perspective um well first of all on the other side of the house is the driveway and the garage so we
couldn't get into the garage if we did it on that side and um I I do have an amended cover sheet um which which I'm going to uh submit which takes out the devarian and shows that um so it really I and also the interior plan the way it works that that it's where the family
room should be it would be in back of the bedrooms if it was on the other side it just didn't make sense it would affect the flow and the configuration of the building okay um the deck itself I just wanted to double check something because in some of the plans it was a little bit confusing you're replacing it right we're taking out the decking it
but you're replacing we're replacing it and also I don't know if you noticed we're going out just a little little bit past uh with the edge of the deck and and really because Dawn and her husband like to sit there and see the arum so they want to be able to go out and like kind of see around the corner and see into that okay I just want to that point
um let's see you talked about the impervious coverage I know covered that as well um the AC units where will there be any AC units yes they will and and we're we're uh probably going to put them in back of the addition because we don't want to go into the setback so
we'll put them in back I think that's all the questions I have great any questions from the board for this yeah I have just one question that I don't really know the answer but I'm just curious if somebody else does it
every time I've seen one of those uh ESS window wells I've seen plenty of them they've all always had drains in is that a requirement or is that by choice um if it's a if it's an independent well with
it's high on all sides um we would probably have to put some kind of drain on but if um if you look at the the the sketch that we handed out one one side of the well is actually the daylight so it's really almost like a little two-sided retaining wall the only reason I'm asking because every time I've seen
one they they've always had a drain in so I I don't know if that's required or it was just choice so we're going to get an amended site plan showing the window well right correct with the grading proposed around it correct so then if if
it needs a drain we'll flag it and make sure that they and this is a little unique because it's not like you typically see a window well which like it's a hole in the ground this is on one side it's actually open to grade thank you any questions from the
public for this witness seeing none all right do you have anything like to say in conclusion just thank you for
um sorry thank you for considering our proposal and um yeah we we I I think the main thing is we're willing to work with the asks and the observations that were put forward um to make sure that everyone's
comfortable with the plans that we move forward with great and I do have is there anything that the board member members would want to ask me that would affect them in some way that I need to answer the questions you kind of expressed your your why the deck is bigger I was going
to ask just make the deck smaller then you don't have to worry about so much of the of the is it the building coverage or lot coverage but you kind of answered that question I know it's kind of a give as opposed to it's more of a a want than a need right but um that's fine and
again because the deck is so high up it count is building even though you know it's it's a little awkward for us to but they do want to be able to go out there and see the beautiful backyard it is pretty shallow but they look straight out the back is the Arboretum correct right and it and the arboro kind of
wraps around their whole property thank youc any public comments at this time seeing none um I believe we'd like to know um how many votes we need for this only
four votes four votes all right let's go into executive session who would like to start no comment start there um well I just I want to say that I really appreciate the the thoughtful
plan that you put forward here um you know driving through your neighborhood I definitely noticed sort of the character that of the houses on the street and that you're really keeping in um you know you're you're trying to accommodate your family but still keep the house and
the character of the neighborhood um I did see people hiking in your back off your backyard today on one of those Arboretum Trails so I can see where you know could be pleasant to have the The View there um I do I appreciate the um
removal of some of the driveway to kind of make it a wash on the current situation where you're your existing is non-conforming for lot coverage and rather than exacerbating that by even a couple feet you you found a way to keep it in where you already are um I don't
see any issues with impacting neighbors again you're really not bordered by anybody on um two well three sides of the house if you count the street um I I could support this plan thank you mayor I just have a um I
I appreciate that you did take the historic preservation commission's um comments um in play and that you are um following the recommendation thank you so I can support this application anyone on this side I can support the plan as
well for the previous comments made by my fellow board members thank you uh I too can support this application I sympathetic to the undersized lot I believe your uh
addition is vast Improvement to the house and certainly restrained as you described fairly visible ible from the street is always something that gets our attention as a board um and I I am too sympathetic to the Penalty that you're
experiencing due to the elevation of the deck uh you know triggering that calculation of building areas so with that I think we are ready to take a vote can you call the role Please Mr
Kieran yes Mr Nel yes Miss Z yes Miss Cho yes Mr Chuli yes Mr ning yes chair chairman leas yes was there a motion to approve I was G to say I was just getting ready to make the
motion excuse I'll make the motion that we move this second all right I was just getting ready to we need to vote again we yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Nelson yes Miss
Zan yes m Cho yes Mr Chuli yes Mr nering yes chairman lyas yes thank you luck thank you Mr Weber what we got for
us continuation of the hearing thanks sorry I if I may Mr chairman yes thank you James Weber of Alonso and Weber on behalf of the applicant at 573 Springfield Avenue
this is a continuation of the application that this board heard on January 8th we have two witnesses originally Charlie oper and uh uh Rudy uh toon Holzman uh testified so we
concluded with the principal and the civil engineer tonight we are proposing to have the architect and the planner testify with regard to the proposal by way if I can just remind the board as to the variances that are associated with this application the variances stem in
the orc1 where the uh purpose is to maintain a residential character but it also has as one of the principal uses to try to use the existing building as part of that the uh building has been been
examined by Tom beac our architect and then during the period of time that this was adjourned given the board's in uh uh expressed desire to have applications move more quickly what happened was that
uh Charlie and Tom had a structural engineer come and look at the property that structural engineer also filed a report with DCS and has been and that report has been distrib distributed among the staff that advises the
city uh among those reviews was the HPC and the HPC acknowledged that yes the building cannot be salvaged but they do request that consistent with the uh orc1 that it be maintained that the new
building be consistent with the design criteria set forth in the Dr that's also requirement in the rc1 and that is something that the applicant agreed to and it has been designed in a way consistent with the design standards of
the orc1 with regard to the variances one of the variances is the bill is the lot coverage and as testified to by Rudy that is a
function of an area that at the back of the property when we look at the North arrow on the right hand side at the back of the property there is an easement that easement is been paved by the northern
property owner as a result that is counted in lot coverage but it's not used by the property owner here so in other words you have your neighbor they have a driveway on your property it's been paid
as a result that contributes 472 Square ft to lot coverage likewise there's an ADA ramp that's been construct that will be constructed as well as the open front Port when those are considered in lot
coverage they increase the lot coverage to the point of 67.1 when they are not included that brings the lot coverage down to 6119 existing is 65.3 with regard to the floor area RTI
IO the structure itself above grade constitutes around 4,400 sare ft and would be a f of 31% where in this Zone 40 uh 40% is the limit however because in the
non-residential use you count the basement 1,500 sare ft is used for an assembly room in the basement and as a result that bumps the F up to 41 .3 if I'm not
mistaken as a that's where that 1.3 excess comes from with regard to the side guard setbacks and the buffer that's required this is an existing configuration you have a driveway going in you have a driveway going out uh and
that has uh uh presented a lawfully existing condition that inhibits the extent to which the property can be used with regard to other variances I don't recall any additional
variant ah yeah the off street parking 20 spaces are required 15 are provided but given the nature of this real estate practice it's prominent properties so the be International the uh need for uh all of
that space to be used is just not there so with regard to the particular use it is something where the office space I think that Charlie testified there were probably three employees that are full-time at the site otherwise the
Brokers and the real estate agents come in on appointments or to use the uh facilities every three weeks or thereabouts there is a onehour meeting of the entire team some joined by way of
virtual and that virtual appearance again for one hour you're talking around 20 uh hours a year for this site uh they would be here around maybe 10 or 12 because they also would show up at the
corporate headquarters in Madison I believe that covers the variances and as a result unless the board what I was thinking uh with regard to the structural report that does accelerate the questions that were uh raised by the board who's going to
testify as to the structural Integrity of the building I believe that may have been satisfied uh to the board's uh uh satisfaction so we might be able to move past Mr beack unless the board has any questions of the architect we could go
right to the planner for the planner's testimony on the application does anyone want to hear from the um I actually would have a question about you know one maybe one question I think the only thing that I would ask is since since now you're telling us the
structure is not is not salvageable basically you want back to that clean slate which you wanted anyway so why not just build a building that conforms and maybe the architect can answer that very good yeah and actually I just I do have one question because I me related to
that because I think you said like even the historic preservation committee said this structure had to be demolished and and I don't believe they said that unless is there another statement besides what's in here let I think they said the HPC does not object to the proposed plan but I don't think they
said that they agreed that it needs to be demolished I think there's a distinction there so I just want to know is there some other um document that we don't have I would believe that would be the case up [Applause]
John Winson also read the uh structure report he has yes it's irrelevant sorry very thorough and interesting reading okay thank you Mr Linson here we are Caroline King HPC buildings of this vintage General
typically have the need for structural enhancement and investment so Demolition and new construction re wire as well with respect to 573 Springfield Avenue the 1880 property has been altered such that many of the original features have not been retained the HPC does not
object to the proposed plan provide the new structure aderes to the design detailing and material standards in the dr's development design guidelines thank you Miss Z yeah okay so that was the only statement all right thank you unless
there's any questions of me I'll call Tom Mr Weber I just want to make sure yeah just questions for Mr Weber just some clarifications with regard to the variances could spell that out um there were 14 spaces proposed right I think
there's also an EV space EV space okay so you're taking credit for the additional EV okay thank you um in addition to the um the parking variants there was a variance for screening of parking I think that was uh at 5T
and then a landscape buffer uh requirement minimum loading space sign yes loading space thank you yeah and then the sign setback is as pre-existing I think you wanted to maintain the pre-existing sign correct um and then the dumpster
location they're keeping the same uh small trash area but it will be upgraded okay thank you I just want to questions any questions from the board for Mr Weber before he hands it off to his
architect I have a question for the applicant will I be able to ask it later yes we can always recall okay you want me to recall Mr offer now sure sure why not Charlie can you come back up these Witnesses are still remain
sworn in yes um I have a question um for the the parking you're proposing it's it's going to be underp parked and uh my question for you is I mean that works for your business right now what is do you have a
a license for this business how do we I mean what's do you have any obligation to stay in this I mean you have no obligation to stay there there's no reason that you can't build it and then just knock you know sell it to another somebody else who might need the parking so is there do you have a a franchise
like a set license that you know that you will be in this building for so many years if I can uh respond with regard to the franchise but there is something within the drro that will address the board memb concern okay yeah we we're
are franchise operation of uh sou bees which corporate name is anywhere which is the corporate headquarters in Madison they own Century 21 Cobalt bank or soube so on and so forth um we've been in business 33 years we just opened a new
office in South Orange this is just an upgrade because of the um desire of our current landlord to develop their property so we began to look for an alternate site which is how we ended up at 573 and we're building this to uh
keep our operation going in Summit as far as the parking that you had asked about we currently have seven spots we're not looking to move to the space and a automatically double our sta F because we now have more parking um we've always been a smaller broker by
Design where there are companies with hundreds and two 100 200 agents in a company we've maintained in the neighborhood of 40 to 50 per office you see this project as proposed as meeting your needs of your franchise well into the future yes
okay and then with regard may I then with regard to miss tfo's point of view from the board's perspective if there is a change in use that generates a higher parking requirement pursuant to the drro then that triggers a site plan review so
if for example this was going to be converted to a dentist office then that is going to increase the off street parking requirement at that point it triggers the site plan review and they have to come back in front of the board that's I'm I just want to ask Mr
Burgess is that true because I I don't mean true is wrong the wrong question is I just want to understand because the use is now commercial and if a dentist moves in it's still commercial use so if I'm sorry yeah I I appreciate the
compliment Ed snikes instead of Joe bur oh my gosh I'm so sorry yeah I'm I'm going for yes I'm sorry right yeah um but yet the uh typically when you go from a medical type use from an office primarily professional office in this instance going to a medical use yes that
would trigger if you go to another professional office that's a that's a different Nuance um I'm not so sure they would be required to come back here in that regard so really from an office to an office perspective that's probably how you need to think of this if you think of it as a medical office it would
have to come back because it's much more intense uh the use in turnover parking space it's change views yeah pretty much thank you hi welcome back hi uh my name's Thomas Jack uh I'm a licensed architect for Brian seagull
Architects can you spell your last name please b as a boy i j AK and you were previously sworn in I was not sworn in previously I was not here I was actually sick that day you raise your right hand please uh do you
swear from the testimony you're about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes and can you just State your qualifications for the board please uh I'm a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey uh in good standing with my license uh I have presented before this board a
little over a year ago uh as well as other boards of uh New Providence chattam bur chattam Township moris Township uh in the general areas around here great we will accept your qualifications welcome back right thank you uh I if anybody has any questions
there was some well if I can Mr be let just you're familiar with the application that's currently pending before the board I am and how did you achieve that familiarity well uh our firm Brian SLE Architects was retained by Charlie opler um in order to evaluate
the property at 573 Springfield AV um and so you're the design architect on this point yes we are all right and you're familiar with the city of summit in the development regulations ordinance of the city that's correct we've been practicing in Summit for well over 20 years so we're familiar with the drro
all right I just wanted to set the your familiarity with the application you were going to say I me are there any questions pertaining to you know there were some other yeah I have one question and um just there are a lot of houses in Summit that are
historic um this this building has this amazing slate roof and some really cool you know on the third floor there's some pretty cool finishes um and you know I I've seen a number of homes where there you do have this problem with the loli
columns and you have to replace the Lolly columns and you know there's uh soft ground underneath one part of the house and they have to do some structural improvements they jack up the floors they do all kinds of things
um just wondering what you know could that H could you do that on this building and well with this building oh sorry yeah just just wondering if if if that's a possibility well the historic nature of this building nothing really original besides
the roof is original to this property in the 1970s in addition it was done where it was converted from a home to a commercial space and during that time they stripped it of all of the original character um they've got aluminum siding
aluminum WRA trim uh they installed casement windows pushed to the corners of the building uh they added this wraparound addition that has a flat roof um on the interior they basically stripped all of the original character
of this home of any original finishes so it's all like 1970 finishes of the trim the railings it's got uh drop ceilings with florescent fixtures um really nothing is original from that eror of
the original house um as well as over the years to accommodate the commercial aspect of the building uh in the Attic they installed HVAC systems and all the duct work has basically been cut through
the existing structure and has really undermined the the existing roof that was like basically the only part of the original uh structure um and you know there's there's leaking and to to say to repair
this it there's nothing original to the to the character of that original building left thank uh and to mention also the the foundation is an old rubble stone foundation that in the areas that it's exposed you can tell that there's settlement there's been patches where
they've tried to add brick and concrete to kind of accommodate and prop it up but when you stand in the middle of that building all four corners it slopes a good 2 to 3% grade to all Corners so everything is settling and you know
that's based on the foundation fil uh so that was the the purpose of when we evaluated this uh property to begin with um that was the intention but very quickly we realized that it was you know unsavable thank you were the Dormers
added in the 70s I think they might be original to the building um although the windows have totally been changed because that date an original 1880s home would most likely have had uh double hung windows
and with all the casement windows installed um all that original character has been removed I have a question so the style of the original house was queenan yes okay and have you been able to find any sort of pictures I mean I know the the
registry um that we have at in Summit our our Online Registry has the the the building with the addition already on have you been able to find anything like I have not found anything I mean we found records of the original building but then that that one story addition
being added in uh the late 70s um that was all that we found was that considered to maybe at least even if we couldn't if you couldn't Salvage it to at least keep it in that style in the style of Queen and you know a queen
anoran like style hope um I mean anything is possible but you know this is something that the home owner I mean the homeowner the the uh the client you know kind of uh wanted to uh do something similar with this uh you
know Center Hall colonial style building that looks very residential now you've taken photographs of the uh conditions of the inside yourself besides the structural report yes let me see if I can find those
isfied I mean I think I'm I'm good with the testimony yeah yeah been it's the building's pretty bad so my question is you're basically starting with a clean slate yes you're you're asking to stay in the the orc zone so why not just build it to what's required re ired or
match what was already there sizewise you're actually if you if you're starting with a clean slate we're asking for 177% over lot coverage and then the floor area ratio not a big deal it's 1.6 but why not just
try to meet the what's there I know it's probably going to boil down to usable space exactly they're going from from a very small building to something that's a little bit bigger it's it's why not just in the sense of being a good neighbor just try to meet what's already there I don't know if it's really for
you or more for the owner or the the manager because you're you're knocking the house down so really you're you're starting to zero yes I mean the the only thing massing of the proposed structure that is really affected is uh the F and
massing above grade it's 9% under what would be allowed if it was just the first and second floors uh the basement is what really kind of drives the F being over and that's all Subterranean space but it says here maximum building
coverage is 20 excuse me where was I maximum lot coverage 50% and you're at 67.1 well in the setbacks as well right you could build it within the setbacks starting from the beginning you don't have to be well the setbacks are met
what they're talking about the side yard and the the G the garbage and there are a lot of things that don't conform with the new it's because generally you have the existing driveway in you have the parking lot and you have the driveway uh going out again you're back to a clean
slate so you can remove all you're it's a clean basically you're buying a loot because then once you start a building down it's gone and the zoning that that's stop I shouldn't say the zoning but it's gone it's a clean slate you could remove a driveway you could do
whatever you want to do and try to meet the requirements of the of this orc Zone cuz I'm struggling with going over 177% so even if you went back to the 9,400 square ft which is 65 you're matching what was already
there could you speak to the practicality of removing a driveway or or trying to park the site a different way uh if you were to have a quote unquote Clean Slate um if you could just talk a little bit about the conditions
of using this as a commercial space in terms of the existing usage that has proven since the 70s to be effective so having the single driveway in and then having the single driveway out has worked in terms of the amount of parking
that has been something again is has worked in terms of the size of the house that was previously there that was around 2100 Square ft 2100 just so it was 2096 this building in terms of coverage
is at 22 so it's not that much of a 2246 if I'm not mistaken 2246 correct so in terms of the increase in the size of the building in terms of coverage it's not that significant so if it's not that significant why just meet what's if it's
not significant then why do it because what you're having is a structure that is approximately 4,400 F feet above grade in floor area ratio so floor area ratio isn't the issue what we're talking about really and building coverage is
met so in terms of the structure itself it is for on intent and purposes compliant with your standards what we're talking about is having a lot coverage which includes that front porch we could take the front porch off and takes the
Ada uh ramp that also increases it and then we have lot coverage that doesn't even get used by the property 472 Square ft when you take that away then you're back at 61% which is less than what's there already in terms of the driveway
you're going to have that driveway exist because it's subject to a Carriage Road easement so that Carriage Road easement even though the northern properties don't have access I mean they've stopped using it nonetheless they have claimed
it and they continue to claim that right so they don't want that easement removed likewise the neighbor to the west has the right to use that EAS so you're so you're saying that the right of the neighbors to use that property is really the the stumbling block is it it is that's yeah thanks for that
clarification you're welcome Mr just wondering why we should not you know if it's a commercial building a handicap ramp is required right the Ada space is required 20 parking spaces are required so there's a variance for not meeting the number of parking spaces but
and I get that but then also to say well if you didn't count the Ada ramp I just have a little trouble with that can you like I don't I've not heard that before in a in any other kind of application um just
wondering I don't know if that's really a a if that's really the argument I can understand the vice chair's point of view with regard to the Ada ramp uh what your the point that's being made is that
as with the front porch right when we say we'll take the front porch away obviously front porch is not being taken away because it's an architectural amenity what we're saying is in terms of that kind of consideration by the board the Ada ramp is something that yes
necessary but but it does add additional coverage that wasn't necessarily there before in terms of that ADA ramp it's 170 square ft if we don't count the 88 ramp then the number instead of being
6119 and I have to do some math here so kind what's 61.1 n I'm sorry I see 67.1 then it goes down I
think driveway that's in otherc so do you have your so I've highlighted and still not showing up am on 91 14 1448 we talking
about back so and what Mr B is working through the lot coverage 9723 Square ft when you have the rear portion and here I've been able to bring it up as you look at the
rear lot you'll see that this area here that the cursor is moving over is paved that is not their use it's separated from their property by the Landscaping but it's used by the even
access it no right and it's used by the neighbors to the north for their uh multif Family behind them so that's where and that comes to 492 ft which brings us down to 9231 minus 200 is
9031 divided by 14481 thank you Mr sneakers do math for you if you don't mind no worries I was writing it down I was waiting for your answer so 9031 9031
416 uh 62.3 so uh attending to the vice chairwoman's stute comment if you uh remove the Ada ramp for the from the calculation what is created that adds to
the lot coverage you have the front porge and you have the uh area in the back of 472 and that gives you an lock coverage percentage of 62.3 so you're still below what's there existing but the point price chairman
has made is good well the 65.3 all right and again you're dealing with the fact that we have pavement that we don't use that's the big thing the r of way the Carriage Road how wide is the front porch how many 15
something 168 square feet approximately we show it on ours as 200 square ft the back oh we're talking about the back you know what I didn't was the staircas 200es the front steps as
well 200 exclusive of the front steps it keeps the front steps except for that first truck is anything above 12 12 Ines above grade is counted as building coverage thought I'm making that smaller to the extent well I know I know
it's architecturally yeah that's the whole point I know it's a then the point of view was come on machine I like the way it look so just to I guess clarify just one thing here
um because I think the concern is really putting in a building that's bigger than the building that's there you're starting from scratch and it's it's not bigger right the ex or it's just it is it's 400 square ft bigger and that includes the porch so if we're just
looking at the building coverage you know is it possible to you know make this that you can have the same amount of building coverage you know is as opposed to lot coverage you know what I mean where you're not really areen they
still under for building coverage we're good on building coverage yeah you're good on building coverage yeah so that's right but that helps the lot the whole thing you know it's a the porch is the whole residential character kind of of the building if you that was the intent you know that was
the intent to try and true to the by the real estate uh agents the front porch is not going to be that much used it's really there is a true architectural amenity say something it was really for
the look more than anything else because the parkings in the back rarely will anybody come in the front door because if they Park they'll go right into the back door where the entrance is so it really was the intent was to make it
look residential with the porch and just to give it uh some character for the for the area it wasn't it wasn't to you know sit out there and and watch the traffic you know you know when the agents are there they're working I think that's a trade-off the
trade-off is the positive appearance of of the of the patio the front porch versus just having a just having a bear yeah or would a portico do you think can you tell us if you think a portico would look um how a portico would look on this particular structure as opposed to the
front porch just because it would be fewer you know there are a lot of porticos in some I mean Colonial you've seen plenty of them with just a portico on the front but uh just the wider porra was something that um is just that aesthetic that we are looking for in orc
residentials we also have a a front sidewalk that goes from the sidewalk on Springfield up to the front so again an amenity something that gives that residential character which is so important to the RC one and that's again
something that as Charlie just indicated parkings in the back people are going to be used in the back of the building to get in and out but you're going to have a front sidewalk it gives that appearance of okay resal um are you planning on putting furniture on the front porch
or is it just going to be bare we might put something there just to have it look there maybe plant you know some plant Potters or something but we're not going to put a ton of furniture we just made we don't have to put Furniture I just thought we put think if it doesn't have furniture it looks it live in look it
looks Barren so we were going to put you know like a a bench on each side and some planters um yeah a number of our offices are in residential neighborhoods Ridgewood haddenfield Saddle River and and this is traditionally what we try to
do to give it a residential look for the for the neighborhoods that we're in and just are the windows for the basement usage are they all erress um we do have egress I mean we have a a rear um stairwell out the back
for to meet egress um the windows on the side the the uh west side of the building is really because that's the assembly room um that we're intention I mean planning on being used you know minimally like uh
Mr Weber was mentioning a couple times a month um and that was just simply to get some daylight into those areas of those window wells your ESS will be toota yes um board professionals do you have
any questions for this witness or the prior Witnesses no I do not thank you um now just real quick where's the handicap ramp it's along the side to the rear to the rear over the stairs for the rear
act opposite side of the stairs okay I see it yep got it okay very good thank you Ed no questions thank you any questions from the public for this witness or the previous witnesses that
testified seeing none thank I would ask that John Barry call to the stand sworn in to give testimony in this matter good evening state your name for the record and please spell your last name sure
John Barry b a r r e e thank you do you swear from the testimony you're going to give is you're about to give is going to be the whole truth uh sorry do you swear from the testimony you're about to give is going to be the truth the whole truth or nothing but the truth I do thank you and could you just please give your qualifications briefly sure I'm a licensed professional planner in New
Jersey member of the American Institute of certified planners I have a master of city and Regional planning degree and have been practicing as a planner for a little over a decade I've been before this board and others as before this board as recently as last month a few weeks ago nice to see everybody again
thank you you're familiar with the application I am how did you achieve that familiarity I uh was brought on board by the the client reviewed the plans met on several occasions with the team visited the property and reviewed the professional reports and I watched
the YouTube video of the meeting from January and you're familiar with the city of summit's development regulations ordinance and its master plan I am indeed you uh had a chance to prepare a report in connection with the uh
proposal that's been presented to the board tonight I have yes would you be willing to share that with the board sure so um the board is well aware at this point of the parameters of the development uh the proposal to demolish the existing structure we've heard about
the structural conditions report and the response and other testimony offered there too the subject property is located on Springfield Avenue uh it's in the orc1 zone which is um an interesting Zone in that it only includes this property and the immediate neighbor to
the west so the The Zone only consists of of of the two lots that actually share a common driveway here that we heard about the um existing building um dates back 1800s it was converted to a commercial use in the late '70s more or
less um in reviewing the city's historical records the 1989 survey of of properties that was prepared you can see the building much as it is with the addition on the front um I believe M chfo was referencing that report earlier
and at that time in the 1989 report the determination was that much of the historical character of the building had already been lost so as to um the relief that we're seeking we're we're we're here to discuss a D1 use variants um kind of an unusual one in that the use
itself is permitted in the zone professional offices which have been located at this site for going on close to 50 years have are a permitted use but the caveat being that they be located within an existing structure as of when
the The Zone was put in place so um the ask is really to seek a new structure to house a permitted use and we've heard the the justification from other professionals about why the existing structure uh does not seem able to be saved and a better alternative from a
planning perspective and from a public health and safety perspective would be to construct a new building on site so as to the the suitability the site for the use um it's proven itself suitable over many years in terms of operation as
a professional office um we've heard representations that both attorneys and accountants very similar trades to Realtors have occupied the property over the years and the site has other improvements that that lend themselves
to being reused that speak to its suitability to continue as it has been used so the ability to reuse the drive ways and circulation patterns that will not introduce changes to Springfield Avenue the the county road system are um certainly speak to the suitability of
the property as to um special reasons to to Grant the D1 use variants uh we look to the the purposes of zoning purpose a deals with guiding the appropriate use of property to promote the public health
safety morals and Welfare um the use as as on its face is permitted in the zone so it's certainly appropriate for this location and as far as advancing the public welfare the building which has conditions that have over time deteriorated and would likely if they
were inhabited as they are today pose a hazard the elimination of of those conditions and the replacement with a new code compliance structure um all handicap accessibility and so forth that is not fully present today um certainly represents a benefit in that context
furthermore um purpose G of zoning to provide space in appropriate locations for a variety of commercial uses the property is suited for this commercial development per the zoning this type of office use um it's located just outside the central business district so it
provides a lower intensity commercial zone for an office use that can be compatible with its residential neighbors because of the form of the building so and we're trying to preserve the intent of the uh orc1 Zone by providing a residential style structure
then finally uh as far as other purposes purpose I to encourage a desirable visual environment um we have reports from the historic preservation commission who have reviewed the proposed design and while they've you couched in some terms they view it
favorably and are supportive of the proposal and ultimately the design with its residential character of the porch even though it does increase very slightly the footprint of the building that exists today does give give it a residential character which is certainly consistent with the intent and purpose
of the orc1 Zone uh the other D relief that the application requires is a D4 variance for exceeding the permitted floor area ratio 40% is permitted in the zone where
41.6% is proposed The Zone treats floor area ratio differently whether the structure is residential or commercial so if this were a residential building the floor area ratio in the basement would not be counted but because it's a commercial building we are considering
it part of the the floor area so um without the basement we'd be at 31.0 2% um purpose of floor area ratio controls is generally to control the bulk mass volume of a of a building and also the intensity of the use on the property the
area in the basement is not perceptible from the street it's not contributing to that bulk and mass of the building and as far as the intensity of the use goes it's really the kind of as needed auxiliary space for the periodic Gatherings it's not contributing to
increased Staffing at the building so it's not really an intensification of the office use um and so with that in mind it's it's my opinion that the site can accommodate the use despite the exceedence of the the floor area
ratio we had a summation on the other C variances I'll try to go through them briefly um we talked uh we heard about parking based on the square footage and the requirements of the city's drro 20 spaces are provide are required uh 14
physical spaces plus an EV credit so 15 spaces are proposed for the use you've heard about the operation and the typical day-to-day traffic and the typical day-to-day occupancy of the building um it's based on real life examples of this business operating
elsewhere in Summit they've successfully operated for a number of years with seven on-site parking spaces so this represents this would represent an increase from what they're used to today um and really the only to the extent that on those 10 to 12 occasions a year
when a large meeting is necessary there are other options for street parking across the street there are other options to car pool which is something that folks are familiar with today and certainly many people join virtually so the site can accommodate the use in
terms of the parking and you've heard about to the extent that any future use occupies this the parking would have to be reviewed prior to any change in occupancy um the lock coverage we have extensive discussion on the lock coverage so unless everybody wants to do
the math again I will spare you extend on that I will just add that um the if if there were a world where we were preserving the existing building it's likely that there would have to be some some expansion to accommodate accessibility requirements and other
modernization improvements so not that we discount the Ada ramp fully but acknowledging that any modernization of an older structure will tends to involve a little bit of flex to the overall footprint of coverage and
disturbance um existing conditions that are either being maintained as they are or enhanced in some way we have a parking lot screening requirement of 5T where not being met in some locations but new plantings are being proposed
along the rear property line if I can uh yes I'm not sure that it is 5T when I read ec1 it's a 10t landscape buffer shall be required along each sidey yard and along each rear property line so it should be 10 ft I apologize I think no
no no I think we've heard 5T before and I was just taking that opportunity so it is a 10t and so when we look at the rear to see that from the lot line you have a more significant uh setback in terms of the landscape and one of the points too
I'm sorry to interrupt Mr Barry that's okay this if the board approves the application it's going to be subject to an enhanced landscape plan that's been required by Mr linsen even though there's a landscape plan that's been shown here uh the original discussion uh
with regard to Mr lenson was that we needed that landscape plan enhanced because he wanted some trees removed he wanted to address the property to the east we can't do anything about the West because that's the Carriage Road easement but certainly it's something that can be uh further improved so I
apologize for that Interruption the five ft that you're talking about is what the five feet is existing now well you got you got it out want excuse me ask the chairman commission to speak with regard to that I think what we had identified
in our memo was in your park in the parking not necessarily rc1 but in the parking standards it requires a minimum 5 foot buff that's why that that variance was triggered so I think it might be appropriate to identify I think you're
addressing it but it's a matter of for the technicality yeah and thank you Mr sneakers there yeah two two separate but overlapping standards essentially with the 5 foot parking screening which also we have to consider to the the neighboring properties to the sides um
there are there is existing vegetation on the East Eastern property line and on the East easterly neighborly neighboring property um and the area that the rear parking lot on the subject property is essentially located near the parking and
loading area behind the the town townhouse development and garden department development nearby the um landscape buffering we just heard about um is is stacked with the the parking screening and the existing buffering will be enhanced
through the the new landscape plan um we heard operational testimony about loading loading spaces technically a required but for an office use like this uh typical parking space is adequate to accommodate the periodic FedEx Amazon
Etc type of delivery that would occur um the existing sign is setback 12.1 ft where 25 ft is required in the front yard that's going to be reused in in the same location just have a new sign face put on to to identify the business the
trash disposal location is required to be 10 ft from a residential Zone uh the existing location is in is proposed to be reused again where that is located on the east side of the property oh I have the
cursor so it's right right in this lo location here if we can see that um it really abuts the back driveway side of the neighboring property so it's not right next to someone's Windows or right next to someone's uh usable yard
area and then lastly we have uh existing an existing light pole that will remain that exceeds the permitted height um there may be some upgrades to the fixture an additional shielding added just to modernize it because it's a little bit older fixture but the intent is to reuse that in kind um with with
modest updates so as to the as to the C variances the um purposes of zoning outlined for the the use variants continue to apply there's several hardship issues associated with existing conditions that are legal on the site
but I won't belabor that point um with regard to the negative criteria can the proposal be granted without substantial detriment of the public good I would posit that it certainly can the use is consistent with the Zone it's consistent with the recent all of our memories of
the the property I'm sure um so the um use and compatibility with its neighbors is not going to change the updates and modernization to the building will will provide benefits and then with regard to the consistency and any detriment to the ordinance and master plan um the use is
permitted so there there's certainly been an anticipation that it would be located here and the purpose of the orc zones is to encourage investment and to the extent feasible encourage the retention of existing residential buildings failing that to promote
residental character in an office environment and that's what we're doing here so we're right on point with all of that so thank you thank you Mr uh board professionals any questions for this witness I do have one um did you say something about the light pole on the
property will remain yes it did yes and that it's um it's taller than allowed is that right yes okay so um and will it comply with um with all the light the other lighting requirements spillage
onto the adjacent property um so the the intention is to comply to the extent that there may be uh 02 foot candles rather than 0.1 I would offer testimony to the effect that it won't be a substantial detriment to the neighboring property and in the location the light
pole is in is in a similar location to the uh refu enclosure so again it backs up to what's more of a service Side Access to of on the neighboring properties and there is substantial vegetation in that area on the neighboring property as well as this
property so if the final lighting design as it shakes out from the manufacturer comes at 0. 2 rather than 0.1 or3 rather than 0.1 um it'd be a dominous exception and the applicant will do everything possible to shield and prevent that from
happening okay so is there the possibility that it could the pole could meet the um requirements of the zone height we've had that looked at and the requirement is at 8ot full uh height so
you end up where you have additional 8T hles throughout uh this has been a a lighting fixture that has been there as far as we can tell since the commercial office building uh conversion in 1970 uh we have had it uh uh some light
scan done and currently it exceeds the uh the lighting requirements under the ordinance so when you heard Mr Barry say we're going to do the best that we can to bring that into compliance right now it's a pre-existing non-conforming pole with a pre-existing non-conforming uh uh
spillage but again as indicated uh it's been something that has not proven to be uh a detri so it's something that they will attempt to bring into uh conformance but as was indicated uh you're working with something that has
been there for 50 years years so to and and in fact the rc1 actually wants shoe box uh light fixtures shall be of a shoe box for similar design so it it's interesting that the rc1 wants a shoe
box type of light fixture and the shoe box is just the uh rectangular uh fixture on top not very residential but so the whole point was to make sure it doesn't spill like
upwards uh okay thank you Ed thank you um when you talk about the office residential character what is it about the proposal that exudes that from a planning standpoint um to address the
purpose sure so um I think largely we're we're focusing on the architecture here um the typical colonial style with the front porch the front walkway connecting the front porch to the sidewalk is um reminiscent of a a residential structure
um the lack of parking in the front yard certainly tucking the parking behind does not give this the appearance of a heavy commercial use or a sort of more of an older style of um office use so I think putting the parking out of sight
giving the building a residential character the exterior features and the enhancements with the porch the window treatments um roof line so forth all of that speaks to fitting into a residential neighborhood without screaming this is a commercial use this is an office
building okay when we look at the parking variance that's being proposed um there's a differential here between the I guess 15 parking spaces and 20 parking spaces is required um you had noted in the regulations that if there was a change of use it would require a
review of parking but yet if it was a change from a professional office to another Prof office it may not require that um what is it that would help Safeguard um that standard from creating a condition where people be parking off
site and creating issues so um it would certainly depend on the the type of office use so you mentioned before the medical as a more intensive potential use and the the drro does have different parking standards for medical use so if that type of use
came in the parking variants would be exacerbated and we would trigger further review if a different type of professional office came in um a engineers's office or something of that nature then um I don't believe it would be subject to the same scrutiny I think
it would fall under the same type of professional office and have the same parking requirement uh and at that point um you'd have a new tenant coming to a site with the hopes that they would understand the operational needs and limitations of the property that they're
coming to and be able to accommodate it um there are off-site parking options available parking is permitted on the other side of Springfield Avenue which is not ideal because you don't want people running back and forth across Springfield Avenue if you can avoid it but there are places to park if needed
in in an overflow capacity and as is um not uncommon in downtown areas where you have large parking lots associated with uses that use them rarely such as the a church there's a church several Doors Down that May provide a future
opportunity for overflow parking on a as needed basis not necessarily for this tenant because it's not needed but a future tenant May explore that for their own needs looking at the parking calculation did the parking calculation include the basement as well it did yeah I think it did um in that basement area
you're using like a third of that basement area is that correct for actual Gathering space the rest is being used for storage yeah so my understanding is the center Center Hall roughly of the basement is the circulation if you're looking at the drawings the right side
is generally storage the left side is the meeting or assembly room that's used on a occasional basis not a not a day-to-day office space um regarding the master plan you didn't quite touch on the goals and objectives of the master plan uh we
identified a few things in our report sure wonder if you can address that sure I was trying to spare everybody's some time but I'd be happy to go through them um compl yep absolutely so um there are um specific goals related to the orc
Zone in the 2016 reexamination report that um talks about maintaining and encouraging effective transition zones between commercial and residential areas and zones um at the time there was a a desire to assess the RC Zone to determine if maintaining the transitional character and incentivizing
reinvestment are being met um the desire to maintain the prevailing character of the city's neighborhoods which I think um we're doing here and then the more broad master plan goals uh balance growth and development opportunities with the established pattern of development and existing infrastructure
reinforce the city as a desirable location for office research and other employment uses within its existing pattern of development encourage a balanced development pattern which will protect and enhance long-term economic and social interests of present and future residents in order to maintain and improve the city's overall quality
of life support the upgrading of substandard properties in the city through code enforcement efforts education ordinance amendments and other initiatives promote a desirable visual environment which dovetails with the municipal land use law purposes through creative and flexible development techniques and to clearly Define
commercial and industrial areas with natural boundaries and effective buffers which uh I do believe the application is working within all of those those goals and objectives thank you you're welcome thank you questions from the board for
this witness um when when we talk about possible other occupants I mean other tenants moving into the space and having the understanding of the limits of the of the property um a little taken back by overflow parking being suggested for
other you know one of the things we try to avoid in town is exactly what you mentioned where we overflow parking has to use somebody else's parking spot so so if this is occup if the occupancy does change there's no loading spot there's no loading zone so if they have a more intensive use even though it's
same type of use but more intensive um where would you propose that a delivery truck uh you know uh stationary deliveries pens paper there's no loading zone so if it does change what we're asked to do is give away a z loading
zone now but if it does change down the road that loaning Zone doesn't exist so with a with a professional office use and the circulation pattern we have on site we have a driveway in that loops around the back of the building and out um have being a
occupant of a similar scale professional office use that gets deliveries on a regular basis I can offer some personal experience we get twice a week maybe we get a Staples or WB Mason box box band kind of thing and they are able to pull in and
around stop they don't need to park in a parking space because we're not dealing with a volume of people coming and going as we might be at a 7-Eleven or a some other kind of retail establishment folks come into to work in the morning and leave in the afternoon and if you have an appointment maybe you come and go
once during the day um so to the delivery people are on a on a schedule crunch they're not interested in lingering they'll be able to park the van maybe they block a space for 2 minutes as they run in a quick hand truck of light office materials and back
out because of the nature of a professional office use that's the scale of delivery that any professional office use I can think of would be likely to get um the biggest delivery we get we get five gallon water jugs delivered a hand truck can hold four or five of them
roll it in roll it back out takes 90 seconds maybe um so that that type of loading in my opinion doesn't necess necessitate overbuilding the site uh same way we're talking about trying to limit coverage
we don't want to expand coverage to provide a loading zone that's unnecessary and then lead to more storm water related issues and other things that go along with coverage down the line so sizing the parking lot for what is a relatively low impact use in terms
of commercial uses and not providing a loading zone just for the sake of providing one although in some instances it might be needed in this case for a professional office it's my opinion that it it would be surpress just a question maybe building off of
Miss rafy's um question about the light pole um what's the the hesitation to I mean since you're ex me basically demoing the house right and rebuilding it what would be the hesitation just to put in a compliant light pole so I think
the issue to so to put in shorter light poles we would have to put in more light poles which would then lead to an issue of trying to as as you have more lights it gets harder and harder to not have spillage so the intent here is to reuse
what exists screen it and upgrade it as as best we can and maintain the existing pattern that's existed on site okay I missed the point that you bring it down and then you need more right because we have to maintain a minimum standard for the parking and drive area for safety
purposes okay now thank you top yeah I I was going to ask a similar question about the light poles but I still have a question about the light poles do we need to add a variance for that um I I haven't seen that discussed it's a pre-existing
non-conforming uh status so it's doesn't need a variance uh if it ends up being lost then they have to replace it with a conforming one granting a variance for it uh then you can exercise more
control uh but then it also gives it the right to remain so if the board's interested in saying okay let's let let the poll go so say it gets knocked down in a windstorm they can't put it back up they now have to come back in either as
for a variance to put it back up or come in with the 8ot poles uh throughout the site to achieve that yeah I I think in the past I've been inclined to want to at least consider granting variance to that just for exact that exact kind of reason I don't how how my colleagues feel that I would rather see giving that
variance now since it's there and recognizing it then have to come back later on well certainly the applicant would appreciate that yeah because then if it is damaged in any way then it's just repaired as is and when it's and again the uh when
you look at the orc1 there's a requirement within it that it be brought up to certain standards and the city has adopted a 3500 Kelvin level for the lights so while you can change the bulbs you have to change them consistent with the 3500
so you're not getting the 4,000 uh bright you're not getting the 4500 you're going to get a 3500 or lesser so you're going to end up with that warm white in there but you're still going to need the lumens so I would suggest adding that variant I don't know if anybody else we can add that I might
have a different thought on that but I think Mr Cho had a question well I I want the question before we move on the other question I have is about the number of parking spaces are and I heard Ed Mr Nas you said 15 bur says 14 what do they the reason being is that according New Jersey Law you're allowed
to pay credit for the EV parking space as two parking spaces so therefore that one space counts as two so therefore they have a total of 15 technically in the total number even though I don't appreciate that that rule by the state it's so what what should the variant say
then should it say 15 or 14 it should say 15 okay compared to 20 okay I'll add M Chief yeah I have a question about the parking so the way the current um property is there is looks like there's what 14 15 parking spots that's how many parking spots
there are currently correct I have to take a look at it looks I mean it looks like counted them up I think it's almost the same 145 to get was there a way to build the building to it it was the way the
building was that we required 20 is there a way to build the building so that you could stay within the 14 is that I mean am I am I wrong with the 20 is coming from because the way the building's built correct yes okay the total square foot so you could if you
didn't build a building as as large you could be conformed to the 14 parking spots because there really is no other place way to lay this out you really need to compare it the 15 not 14 well 15 whatever whatever comp but 20 I'm compar like but I'm saying is
the 20 is coming in because we too big of a building so if the building came down how many how how much did the building have to be reduced in order to so build to fit into the parking spots that you have the exact same 19 spaces
because you're count the one as two oh okay yeah yeah the exact same building with no basement and actually I was going to ask that because the basement has to be counted the basement the basement's being counted both toward floor area ratio and toward parking and that is the
exact difference between the provided parking and the required parking so the base but it's not office space not really office SP right what's what's the square footage per it's uh spot it's one per 300 I believe one per 300 yes and
the the square footage of the basement is 1,548 so it's exactly five spaces what would the the building as it is today require for parking spots I don't know that I do we have the total
square footage we have the footprint yeah we foot it's kind of all over the I'm not sure exactly was I'm afraid and when we did the research to try and find the resolution all we came up with were the uh
Deeds well I I guess so what would you building coverage or or FL ratio what it doesn't say so goes the the parking goes Flor area ratio right divid by 300 and since you're 6,000 ft it requires 20
spaces you have 15 um to Mr snes's point I guess you know there was something you were getting at with the question about the the lower level and I guess you know maybe the mechanical room's really big and you know if you didn't count the
mechanical room in there you might only need 19 you know you might need uh 18 spaces or 19 spaces because I guess if when I'm looking at this and I'm looking at future tenants right if somebody else comes in here what these three assembly
rooms could easily be offices the storage room could easily be an office so I wouldn't necessarily be inclined to say that that shouldn't you know count towards the parking requirement but I'd say the mechanical room sure you know it's kind of big that saves the space
would someone want to purchase or lease this building if they couldn't accommodate parking for their employees I don't know I mean if it's an engineering firm you could easily have 20 or 30 people working in here to the point of not changing the use but if you
had a 30 person firm what would make you want to buy this there are plenty of buildings in Summit that that have office space for more employees than their parking soots Park argue that in Summit well as soon as you go out to
River Road the building right near the Short Hills mall that uh has been now vacant HUB insurance building yeah across right no not the CH but the one on the river I think it's 180 River Ro yeah 180 and that's just sitting and the
one of the benefits Summit has is the downtown has been working for offices as soon as you go outside the downtown of summit uh you go to Berkeley Heights their office uh complex it's
empty vacant Lots so the the use here because it's within the area it's close enough to to the crbd that it's it's it's something that is going to be uh useful but there's plenty of other office space
throughout that's so if the basement was not did not have office bace then that would have to count towards the parking so but by of existing we have the basement exists as a structure have SL that's that's the only way or you
make the FL smaller make the dimensions of each floor smaller yes to meet to meet the original 50% of the lot which goes back to you have a clean slate and the basement's not existing because it's a new building right right
is that cuz you just said oh it's existing so it counts but it it's counting because you're I I did not say the basement it's proposed it's not ex there is an existing basement to the building right but so we're going on the proposed basement
yeah um I did have one other question besides the parking and the you know can you shrink the building that and the light poles I'm a little hung up on the light pole because how how much taller is the light pole than is allowed uh we
how 15 okay so the difference between 15 feet and 18 feet 8 feet is 7 feet higher that that light you can see it when you're walking across the street at night whatever you know kind of um I think the purpose of the 8T is to not
have it be a nuisance for cars and people walking driving you know just having seeing that like a beacon even if you make it compliant with the amount of light it's still at a higher elevation and possibly going to be viewed by other people
I I don't understand why you wouldn't put in three compliant light Poes if you need three light Poes right why why stay with one light pole that's noncompliant why not just put in what you need to be compliant this is a completely new structure
and feel like there are a lot of asks here of variances seems like an easy one to make compliant especially when you're knocking the whole building start well certainly since we have to put in I mean on on the one hand the existing
light pole we don't have any neighbors so if there was an issue with regard to that pole being uh obtrusive then we would have had people here uh addressing that it is a shoe box fixture and The Shoe Box fixture does Focus the light
directly in the area uh it works it provides that uh amount of light without now creating a series of additional light poles that would then be required to provide that remember too with the lighting they're also using the lighting
that's on the building to help illuminate the parking space so you're ending up in a situation where you are providing that Safety and Security uh and you're using something that has worked so are the lights this is an abandoned building right now so are the
lights on every night right now I mean that I don't think they are they on right they are every night lights are from the street uh I I haven't seen it it's at the back if we can show where it is um
this is the existing conditions so back toward the back of the property of a a tree along the side of the driveway and then another tree and the light pole is tucked behind the existing refu enclosure uh adjacent to the tree that's right along the property line and there's some the tree adjacent to the
light pole taller than the the light pole itself I believe it is yes and you're going to replace the head on the fixture there wasn't a plan for it it's shows that on the site yeah shows that you were going to replace the
head of yes yeah the the intention is to upgrade that fixture and provide C offs and to the extent needed to comply with the spillage requirements sh cut off sorry what's the pedal off so if you had an old style street light with a dome
effect where you can see the entire glass bulb hanging down versus having something that chops it straight off so that that is recessed above so that when you look at it you don't see that light fixture hanging down that's not one of the trees that has to be removed or being asked to be
removed is it that's taller than the light pole no the um if you refer to the plan I have here the trees to be removed are these with the X's right around the perimeter of the building construction right yes but John linston said that there are some trees to the north side
of the property oh right yeah there's some there's some stuff he mentioned in in this area this is the north side and that's part of the request for an enhanced Landscaping plan because as the old and damaged and dead and invasive stuff is removed new good stuff is put
in to refresh that buffer when you talk about invasive you're talking about a tree of heaven and that's the spotted Lantern flies it is yes they're they're preferred source of yes Choice any other questions for this witness any questions from the public
for this witness see none Mr weer have anything conclusion uh just to go over proposed conditions Mr chairman please the uh uh condition was from the first hearing
having an updated landscape plan that would be uh made the approval of John linsen that the storm water would be enhanced consistent with the report of Marie rafet since there was an opportunity to improve the storm water management and that also goes to the
issue with regard to lot coverage so that there is that opportunity now even though it's not required the applicant has agreed to to attend to that with regard to the light pole uh the board would uh
either uh approve that as a variance or if they're going to keep it as a pre-existing non-conforming structure then it would be subject to uh compliance when it's installed uh those are the only two conditions
that came to my mind with regard to this application Zach do we have any other conditions uh just the basic of uh compliance with the board Engineers memorandum uh provise storm water management and then the enhanced Landscaping plan that's what I got I also remember that the HPC wanted to
assure that the construction would be consistent with design guidelines so that the materials are appropriate and the representation been made that the plan that has been prepared by the architect on wake up there we go uh when
we look at the style we look at the color that has to be a representation that would be included in the resolution thank you Mr Mr chairman can I ask one more question of course um and maybe you guys
don't know the answer to this um are there any plans for the property to the to the e to the west of this one uh I know it's a vacant occupancy now it's that's also zon for office use do you know if there's it is vacant I think it's being used dentist office I think
the same building it's a yellow building yeah I could have sworn when I when I drove through the parking lot I could have sworn it was not occupied okay I think it back then I apologize that's General waldi I think owns it yeah there's generally two or three cars
there on okay I could have sworn it was vacant Cape codish thing right yeah sorry any uh comments from the public seeing none Zach can you tell us how many votes we need for this uh because of the D
variances we're going to need five votes affirmative five affir five affirmative votes yes I'm sorry okay so we've heard the conditions we know the number of votes with that let's go into executive session who would like to begin um well when I first um heard this
application my one issue was that it was an a historic house that was being knocked down and why couldn't they save the historic house um the testimony today really helped me understand I mean because I a half those pictures could be from any old house but the fact that
there was really nothing left historical with the structure was really what sold me on that okay that that makes sense isn't just that we're just talking about a shell um I have a problem with the parking um we don't know like you know we
looking we can't just look at what's going to happen for this tenant you have to look down the you know down the line in the future um and there's no no reason to say that this could be become another um office building for commercial use
and even if it's not the realtor they maybe people are going to be in the office more I just think the underp park um aspect of it is is bothering me and I think that the property the building should have been made you know reduced
in square footage to to conform to the parking so um I can't support this application for that reason thank you Mr car yeah I think um couple things I I think the positive
criteria outweigh the negative criteria um I think if they're going to put substan investment into trying to save the existing property the parking issue would still be an issue um to some extent I'm not sure what the requirement would be with the existing but it feels
like it would be more than 15 um and I'm not sure if that was made clear or not but so you know considering the structural the failing structural condition that they will rebuild it or or need to rebuild it um in the benefits
to public health and safety ada8 compliance I think there's and you know for um having a business that's in town stay in town you know I can definitely support this Tom yeah this is a very tough tough
one for me I mean I I came in normally when I see an application that's a tear down I my first response is why are you asking for any variances I mean that that seems like a perfect situation to build everything in compliance um I had the concerns about the tear down as well uh um but based on
the structural report you know I see the I see no reason to be worried about preserving that building it's a very attractive design it would maintain the the residential character um and it's certainly an improvement of what's there it's consistent with this very small
orc1 Zone that we have um you know and I and I think the um you know the the f a lot of the F variance is driven by the by counting the basement which I know we have to count but you know it's Le and the proposed use I guess could change in the future but it's right now the way
they're proposing it it's not really going to be active office space but we have to count it so the F variance is there I accept the planner's argument that the property can support the f um I don't see any adverse impact on on traffic or the neighborhood um I have
major concerns about the parking um you know I share those concerns I accept that the current use doesn't need it current use might not even need the seven you have now you know behind behind your building or what where whatever the number is back there I've parked there a few times it's pretty much always empty
um but you know I for me the all the other positive aspects outweigh that concern I wish we didn't have to address the parking but the positive aspects for me outweigh it so I I think I will support this application thank you Tom Mr Nelson uh I have the same concerns
parking is a is a is a concern for me um you know we've been dealing with parking in Summit forever and while it's not this this uh projects responsibility to solve it they shouldn't contribute to the problems moving forward um however you
know I I this is a great looking building I wish it was back to to Mr Yo's comments about it's a blank slate and I've been saying this all night you could build to what's required there you know what the minimum is there uh as opposed to trying to stretch it out I
get the use I get the idea parking has me struggling but I think um overall it's it's a improvement over what's there um it is kind of that buffer zone between residential and Commercial so to speak or the transition
zone um so in L of my concern for the parking I can support this project moving forward Mr CH Julie any comments um I mean I you know I have some concerns about the parking
also um but again um like Mr Nelson said it's a vast improvement over what's there now and there it's not the only property
on that street that has this type of use and um but but aside from the parking I could support it thank you yeah I think uh I I agree that the uh you know what's there now this is a much
more aesthetically appealing building I also appreciated the architect telling us about really that there is no detail as Miss chfo said the pictures are you know they don't really tell that story that that there's a lolly column that's rusted doesn't tell you that there's
nothing left of the original structure um in the way that um Mr B Ed but um I think that I think I would like to see those light poles be compliant I think that with everything that's happening here I'd like to see some kind
of um compromise there to to bring that into compliance I'm a little torn about the parking I'm wondering whether if they could have more multiple EV spaces is do you get credit for more than one or do you just get one Space Credit you
get up to no more than um 10% of the total required so two two two could have two count as four which right which would maybe just make it seem like a little bit less of it I mean I I it's not 16 spaces no matter what um which I
the math doesn't add up I that bothers me but as you said that is a state rule um I'm I'm just wondering if there's any kind of compromise that could be you know achieved to help bring that parking a little closer to compliance certainly
the applicant could add another EV ready space the would another EV space contribute to the parking problem help the parking problem because how many have anyone could park in it it would be reserved for Ev but anyone would be able to use it okay and remember too when
we're looking about that the parking and whatnot uh there is an ADA Compliant parking space as well which takes up additional space but yes anyone would be able to use it so but we could make an EV an additional EV
ready Mr I'm concerned about the parking as well and also the lighting I don't know why you wouldn't put in the compliant light poles when you're tearing the whole place apart to me that seems It's Working no one's complaining about it how do we know no one's complaining about it I have no problem
then the app another light pole some place on the property because you're going from 15 to8 so you don't have the coverage of the parking there's going to be more more one more poll that would probably be necessary it's probably
Mike I would ask that uh the applicant uh respond to the observations of the vice chair Mr ning and the other board members if you take the pole down that's been there for 50 years from 15 fet down to eight you're going to need a second
pole because you won't have the coverage of the lot um that that exists now so you'd probably have to put one where the where the 15t pole is now behind the receptacle and then probably put one on the other side of the lot so you'd have
a second poll that would have to be there I know it's an additional expense but I think it's with all the other money you're thrown into place that makes me feel better um would the board like to see this change it's just it's just one to two it's not like one to many one to how
many I I think it would only be two and we have two spotlights generally on each corner of the building that's just on a sensor If somebody walks in or walks out the condition be however many are required but based on you know the calculations for the parking lot we'll work with the
town yep all right so we'll hearing from Mr Holman he's saying you're going probably need three and because you have the right of way cutting through the driveway so in order to illuminate the
driveway you have to illuminate over the property line so there would create technically a variance associated with that spillage so in other words on the W the westly property so in other words because I've already taken
it l you have the Carriage Road to the west of the property and so you have a property line that goes down the middle and so you have to illuminate the entire driveway you can't just illuminate half of it so you have to illuminate and because you have the property line you're going to
spill are there other ways to illuminate the driveway can you do light ballards or something off the building I couldn't hear that he said that you would need po the B would go ahead Mr please
stand I Rudy Holman who's been previously sworn as a civil engineer on this project respond to the question with regard to the yeah I recommend light poles for Sight lighting I um the Ballers would probably provide more um just just a number of
them I think would provide more spillage and not be required I would suggest the poles poles mounted lighting mounted on poles is the way to go so would that open a can of worms now with the visual light from
offsite know where poles are placed I think we need a condition we need a condition that is reviewed and approved and yes so these could be in the landscape bed in the back all right so we're
adding compliance with current standards for the light poles as a condition the board should retain jurisdiction if I can I don't mean to say that but I mean to say would the board consider retaining jurisdiction over landscaping and
lighting it would be two years yes would be my recommendation and just be clear so we're saying three light poles that are conforming in terms of height is that what we're saying correct and recognize that there's going to be spillage so we can ask for an
anticipatory I don't often to get to use anticipatory variants for spillage of a nominal degree on the Westerly proper line on the Westerly poer line okay uh wait I have a concern so when
this application went out and they still to do the 250 you know so the property to the West Was was notified of this now we're changing it and we're adding these light PES that the the owner of the
property might have not had a problem with the way the application was written now we're adding something that would affect that property and they're not able to speak up so I'm I'm a little concerned about so either we have that condition or we go back back to approving the existing
nonconforming uh light pole as a as a variance well there's a little bit more if I can Mr chairman yes the notice that was provided thank you Miss K uh the notice that was provided indicates that the plan can be amended at any time even
during the course of the hearing so to the extent that you have somebody who's interested in the application when they read the notice it says it can be amended so and that includes during the course of the hearing and we did have neighbors here the first night so we did
have people uh and Samantha Alfonso spoke with them and uh assuage their concerns so they were they were fine with that so everyone any of their concerns about lighting none it was about the Carriage Road they wanted their Carriage Road don't touch the
Carriage Road and then there was another property owner down the way who just had a general question B is being proposed Mr chairman I would assume the owner of the property to the West would have to be notified of construction taking place on their property no isn't
that wouldn't the light is the light going to be on their property outside or no when you see the uh I mean is a proposed light do you know even know yet the well certainly what's there now he's uh I think that there's some very powerful spotlights already Illuminating
uh so I'm sure he'll be welcomed to see it reduced in a uh an appropriate residential setting I mean I I would just add that I I know the property to the West because that's my dentist and there's no nobody lives in the house yes
just an office right any other comments so um I really appreciate the applicant's efforts in trying to illuminate the board to their
intentions and their willingness to work with the board and their concerns I do believe that this is an appropriate um not reconstruction but change to the
architectural style um of this building and um I I understand everyone's concerns about the parking but let's keep in mind that they do face uh a penalty of roughly 500 square ft towards
the back of their property um that they cannot park on and that's obviously eating into their ability to um meet with the ordinance and I am sympathetic to that um
impediment and so uh I really believe that they've showed constraint um I know everyone asked maybe reduce the size of the building but they actually could have built a bigger footprint um because they're under for Max building coverage so to
that end um I think they they were trying to maximize the program uh but still stay under in terms of the mass and the size of the building that they could have built so I think overall this
is going to be a positive contribution to the neighborhood that's surrounded by very large buildings especially across the street and to the East and uh obviously it's uh welld designed and in
architectural character keeping with the spirit of the drro so with all that I can certainly support this application and I would ask for a motion to approve I'll move to approve
second should we just go can we just go over the conditions one more time as I just want to make sure we're all knowing what they are because we added some you just sure reiterate the conditions for us we have the design standards that'll comply with the orc1 Zone the uh enhanced landscape plan will be provided
for the approval of John linsen and related to that uh the board will maintain jurisdiction over the landscaping and lighting for the next two years uh the uh applicant assured uh assured us that the uh sorry that along along with the HP
hpc's uh desire the construction would be within the design guidelines and the applicant will add an additional EV parking space uh additionally from the plans provid EV ready I'm sorry and the light poles yes and then uh along with
uh the light poles the replacement of the current light pole with three light poles that will comply with the current requirements and the engineers in the standard uh condition of compliance with the engine report and there was also um storm water enhancements yes and the
storm water it's yes thank you Z thank you all right so we got a second is that right second yep Nicole can you call the role Please Mr Kieran yes Mr Nelson yes
Mr Yuko yes Miss Zan yes Miss Cho no Mr Chuli yes Mr ning yes chairman leas yes thank you thank you appreciate it we don't have any can I just I don't
know if it matters I think we had one extra vote there I think we called eight people to vote oh got yeah we need seven we need seven yeah so don't oh five seven to vote seven are allowed to
vot five affirmative vot yes and up to seven can vote so I think we have we have more than enough yes so we have a bu just in case excellent all right board we don't have any resolutions or minutes from
memorialization so can I get a motion to adjourn so move second all right good night night night for