Good evening and welcome to the October 6th, 2025 meeting of the city of summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Miriam Zan and I am the vice chair of the zoning board of adjustment. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10,
adequate notice of this special meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has 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 interested public, this meeting is being livereamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast channel 34 and
Verizon channel 30. A transcript of this meeting is also being taken using the video and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in the room. Please note that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where
you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, please call the role of members. Vice chair >> here.
>> Mr. Yuko >> here. >> Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Nelson >> here. >> Mr. Curran >> here. >> Miss Chief >> here. >> Mr. Fes is expected but not yet present. Mr. Chantuli >> here. >> Mr. Nearing >> here. And Chairman Lloyds is excused.
You have a quorum. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law in the hearings tonight. Oh, that's out of a corner. Back off track here. And is the key
interface with an applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on the applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board
secretary also does not vote on applications. Also present are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input to the board. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikis from Burgess
Associates, our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They do not vote on the application. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearings
tonight, but a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you'll 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 the variances are needed. The board experts followed by board members may ask
questions of the applicant, their attorney, and the expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so that we can 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 is not the 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, but 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 is 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 the second opportunity to speak. And 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 the board members discuss the case and vote.
You will be able to listen to our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in it. I ask that each applicant and their attorney, if present, come up and give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight. Although I think we're just going to I think we'll just roll with the agenda tonight. um knowing
that one is definitely going to be more than 30 minutes and um we'll be starting with uh 80 Elm Street tonight. So, who Yeah. All right. And if you're testifying, I'll if you could raise your right hand, I'll swear you in. Do you swear affirm
the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> Yes. And one at a time, please state your name, spell your last name. >> Um, my name is Henry Coats. My last name is spelled C O A T E S.
>> My name is Jacqueline Ser. >> Thank you. And can you tell us a little bit about your application? >> Um, we uh are uh requesting Well, first of all, thank you for hearing a request. We are requesting a application to
rebuild the garage behind our house at 80 Elm Street. Um Jackie and I are the owners of this house. We've lived in Summit for 15 years and at this location is only 13. Um the uh garage space now
is dilapitated, needs repair. It floods uh during certain rains. Uh, we would like to correct the lighting problem as well as reconstruct scuba garage. >> If I could just interrupt for one second. I'm being told. Could you um
either if you'd like to stand, you can go to the podium, but we just need everyone to speak into a microphone. If you prefer to sit, you can use that one right there. Yep. >> Um, we'd uh like to construct a suitable garage that uh suits our needs. Um, I'm a business owner in Summit and uh I have
a specialized automotive repair shop. Over the years of my career, I've uh restored and collected a few classic vintage cars that I'd like to keep on my own property. I currently rent a space for this and pay insurance and rental for that space. Um, the garage I have is
not suited for that as the flooding is an issue. Um, the property is narrow and deep. I would like to have a longer garage to 28 feet um to accommodate a little more depth to put a staircase in the back of the garage so I could put
stuff in the storage loft upstairs and not use a pull downstairs as I have neuropathy and a bad back. Um, and with this in mind, um, uh, I would like to leave the, uh, the rest of it to my architect, Elizabeth, um, Rush, and the
engineer, Andrew Clark, and they can speak on my behalf from this point on. >> All right. Um, does anyone have any questions for the owners? Anyone on the board? >> Yeah. Does anyone from the public have
any questions for the property owners? Seeing none, I guess we'll move on to the first witness. Is that your architect or >> Yes, it would be my architect, Elizabeth Rush. >> Oh, or the engineer. >> And any engineer, Andrew Clark. >> Okay. >> All right. Do you swear from the
testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> And please state your name. Spell your last name. Andrew Clark, C L A R K E. >> And I know you've appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No, sir. >> I imagine we'll accept you back once
again. >> Yes. >> All right. Go ahead. >> Thank you. So, I'm just going to This is working. This is working. Okay. I'm just going to walk through um the overview of the existing and proposed conditions and
then um Elizabeth's going to get into the details of the garage itself. Uh I conducted the survey. I'm making reference to the topographic survey that was submitted as part of this application dated December 16th, 2024.
Um I conducted the survey of the property. Um the existing property as was uh indicated before is narrow and deep. So it's 37 and a half feet wide which is again even by
summit standards or even Chattam which often has narrower lots that's a pretty narrow lot. Um and and the lot is 100 about 181 ft deep. Uh there's a house a dwelling that's situated on the streetscape uh with a
front enclosed porch. There's a sizable deck in the back and then the driveway comes sort of straddles the line and services both lot two and our property. So the neighbor just to the right or the south of us and our property and then
turns into the property once you clear the houses and accesses the detached garage which is um quite far back on the lot on this deep lot. So it's uh set back in the rear of 5 1/2 ft. Um,
it's a paved driveway. There's a little paver brick patio at the bottom of the deck, uh, landing. The topography itself is quite flat. Um, there's most of my contours. There's two contour lines on here and the rest of it is spot grades
because that's how flat it is across this lot. Um there is, as was indicated, a little bit of a drainage issue in the back because the area in front of the garage and the garage itself is a bit lower. Um it's about the same elevation
as the street, but the driveway comes up slightly and then comes back down. So water on a heavy inundation, I'm sure, collects um in front of the garage and and affects the garage itself. I've seen some photos and videos that the owners
had provided me uh in advance of this project. Those are the existing conditions. And now I'll describe the proposed conditions. This is shown on uh the drawing entitled variance plan uh also dated December
16th, 2024. Um what we're proposing to do is replace the the existing garage and the details of that will be discussed by the architect, but it's obviously uh got a larger dimension in the depth than
what's permitted. Um it's 28 ft where 24 is permitted in terms of the largest dimension by the zoning ordinance. Uh the reasons for that as indicated are to allow for stair access in the back to a storage area on the upper section of
that the loft area of the garage. Um I think there was a question about the floor area ratio impacts and things of that nature. Elizabeth will testify that but I believe that it doesn't even hit 7 ft in the ceiling height anywhere in that upper level.
So, we're proposing this garage at the same 5 and 1/2 ft in the back and four feet off the side. So, at a conforming setback. Um, what we're planning to do is make some adjustments to two main things. Remove the brick patio and then
we're going to make an adjustment to the deck and cut the deck back. It currently goes to where on this plan there's a dash line out there that's sort of at the end of where the proposed steps are. That's where the existing deck is. So,
we're cutting uh a little more than a third of the deck back. Um I've referenced it as a proposed deck. I'd say it's more of a modification to the existing deck. Probably put some new decking on it. Um but but substantially reduce the size of that deck and then re
relocate the stairs along to the edge of it. Um, then the driveway. We're going to just smooth out the the driveway as it enters into this backyard area. And the owners were interested in having a
paved area directly in front of the garage, but also to help with some of the storm water issues and create a little more pvious condition in the driveway. Um, they're interested in having this middle section of the driveway as pearavevel. um that works
for them and they're perfectly comfortable having that as the driveway surface. Obviously, that still counts as coverage and we've counted it as such, but it should provide some improvement to the um storm water profile of the driveway area as it currently exists.
So, there's this paved area in the front, the pearl. We're cutting the deck back. There were a couple of questions. I obviously am am designing a dry well here and we're going to put it right in the pearavevel area and then pick up a
drain in the corner that's going to collect that water that naturally collects in this low area of the driveway. Um the drive the dry well was sized to basically handle more than double the
standard 3in rainfall uh for the garage and that portion of the driveway that feeds into it. I think uh Miss Rafay had asked a question and wanted some verification on the sizing of that drywall and what part of the
driveway is contributing to it. I did double check that and I think the numbers are a little bit higher than what I had initially calculated. There's a high point in the driveway that's right about there. So, if you count all that driveway and all of this driveway
in here, um we're still exceeding the 3-in rainfall. But with some more discussion with the owner, they may want to bring the size that up a little bit more because one of the things that they want to address here is um protecting the garage and having enough storm water
management for their own purposes, let alone to satisfy the ordinance. In fact, by the ordinance um we're slightly reducing the impervious coverage. So technically, we wouldn't be required to do it, but it's an important aspect of the project for the owners. So I will
need to adjust that calculation a little bit after some more discussion, but right now we're more than satisfying um the requirement and providing a substantial amount of storm water management where none exists right now. The
there were a couple more questions that I can address. Uh just to hit them right off the bat, there was I think Mr. Snikas' memo um had to question or or brought up the issue of the deck itself and whether or not that's actually a
setback variance. Um it is a modification to the existing deck, I probably should have labeled it a little clearer on my plan. However, if the prudent thing to do is to recognize that deck being in a non-conforming sideyard
setback condition and calling that a variance, I think that's probably the the way to proceed on this application is to recognize that deck as a non-conforming setback and a variance. Uh the other indication was about the
driveway itself. I had originally placed the driveway limit where the edge of the patio is now. So, it's it's very close to a zero set back to the line, but in some discussion, reviewing the plan, and discussing it with the owners, uh we
have no problem pulling this curb line in. The whole purpose of that area there, it's only 12 ft deep. The whole purpose of it is to be able to maneuver a K turn out um and come out nose first on the driveway onto Elm Street. We can
do that with less than 12 feet. So we could align that with the steps that are there and get about 2 and 1/2 ft off the line, which would then be a conforming set back to the sideline and save us about 36 square ft of block coverage. Uh which we're already slight reducing, but
any any little bit helps in in this case. So that's a modification we're proposing now is to move that driveway in. So it's about 2 and 1/2 ft setback and oh and then there was a comment or question also in that memo about
confirming the exterior equipment and whether it's in a compliant location. There is no groundmounted equipment on this site. That's unusual in this day and age. But I even went back to double check before coming to the meeting and
then spoke to the owners. They're as as he said old school and they have window units and fans. So there are no ground mounted units and no plans to install them at this time. And I think that covers most of the things I wanted to address in Mr.
There's Snikus' memo unless there's something else you have there that I missed. >> I'll let you finish. >> Okay. Okay. And with regards to Mr. Rafé's memo, I did um speak to the comment number 10
about the sizing the dry well. It's adequately sized, but we may actually want to increase it slightly above that. Um, there is a doorway. There's another comment on the next page on item 14.
There is a doorway that's proposed on the left side of the garage. And at this time, the owners have indicated they they don't have any compelling need for a walkway there. I think that if um at some point or if during the course of this they thought that it would be
helpful to have a few stepping stones that would bring you to that doorway, that could be done. And in fact, if we left the lot coverage request as it is, it would be offset by the change to the driveway. So it would be basically the same numbers as we have now if they in
fact did put a few stepping stones in, but that is not currently part of the project. And then I guess I will leave it to questions at that point. Marie, Ed, you have questions first. >> Okay. Um,
so the could you talk about the shared driveway and um the water doesn't know the property line. So could you talk a little bit about that? >> No, it doesn't. Um, yeah. So, so right about I'll say right about where between the
zero and the W in the in the sideline meets and bounds labeling is the high point. Right. >> Granted, it's a very modest high point. That's, you know, 10 in higher than than the sidewalk out front. So, that's about the high point. And that water moves
towards the street. The rest of the water comes to the back, but at some point in here, some of that water goes onto the neighboring property and some comes onto our property. So, that's where I revisited the numbers based on your comment and and carrying that
across to the curb line and to the high point. If we count all of that and the garage, it's about 2100 square feet. So, the the volume of the design dry well would handle about 2,800 square ft at 3
in. I think the goal is to get a little more than 3 in so that during one of those bigger storms, they don't have a problem with their garage. So, that's why I say we're I'm going to revisit with the owner if we want to increase the the size of the stone or the depth of that uh even beyond what I have on the plan.
>> Okay. And um are you putting the um the roof leaders from the garage there as well? >> Yes. >> So, that's that's been accounted for as well. >> Yes. >> Okay. And it's from the garage. It's not from the house. >> Just the garage. Just the garage. Okay.
Um I'm assuming you'll be doing a Have you done a soil test for that? >> Not yet. Not yet. That that's always required. >> Okay. And um there was a discrepancy in the height and I don't know if this is that you want to talk about that or the architect
wants to talk. Well, we can both talk about it, but we did discuss it and obviously I have an inset um on my plan for the proposed height analysis for the garage detailing the data points that were used and all the particulars. I think um Elizabeth has updated her
drawing to match with what I've got so that we actually have a 17.9 foot proposed height. >> Okay. Because I think according to the chart, maybe Ed might be able to this better that the max the the maximum height allow is 18 ft. So you
>> right right that that was yeah >> plans showed 186 so I >> yeah it's pretty common process for me that architects start at a certain place and then I start working on the grading and end up with a grade plane calculation and then I feed back to them
well here's what you got from the floor to the the ridge in order to stay within our height. So that's that's what we did. I think it just got missed in the end stages in terms of getting the consistency that we needed. >> All right. I think that's all I have.
>> Thank you. Uh with regard to two things, the deck because it's being modified. That's why I think we we should recognize that at this point the driveway modification, is that along the northerly side of the property line? >> Correct. >> Okay. So, so where it's nearly at a
zero, um, we're going to pull that in in line with the edge of the deck stairs that are there. So, it moves it in about 2.7 feet, but say 2 and 1/2 is is conservative. So, it'll be more than 2 feet off of the line. >> Okay. And so, that correspondingly will
reduce your maximum lot coverage as well, >> right? By about 36 square feet, I figure. >> So, therefore, that number will drop down a little bit further as well. >> Correct. >> Okay. But yeah, we don't know exactly what that percentage is yet, right? >> No, I didn't run the percentage. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. We just wanted to note
that for the record. That's all the questions. >> Questions from the board? >> I have a question. >> Code 15 unless >> Mr. Nearing, can you move your mic? >> The code actually says 15 ft high for an accessory building unless it matches the
dwelling height. And I don't see any connection to the dwelling height. >> Oh, for the height. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that's probably an architectural discussion more than more than the site plan. >> Okay. >> Any other questions from the board? >> Just a real simple one. So So I know
you're designing that the uh >> dry well to be bigger than needed. What happens if it's not? And what happens to that water if it overflows? Where does it go? >> Well, it doesn't really go anywhere. That's the problem that the current owners have is that it it kind of ponds
in this area and then gets into the garage. So that's the whole point of adding a dry well to this whole thing to make sure that there's a capacity to manage, you know, so I think a 4-in storm is probably a better target in terms of the area that's contributing to
that. But yeah, I mean, if you get if you get a five or six inch storm, you're going to have some ponding. um you know, unless we put two tanks in there and and really go all out, which if they decide that's what they want to do, we could do that, too. It's, >> as I say, usually there isn't a problem
making these things bigger. >> What happens if you do the soil test and you find out that it's all >> Well, that's a different situation alto together. Um I mean, we're still in the place where we're not increasing the coverage, so we shouldn't be making it
any worse. Uh maybe we'd revisit the the surface material and look at making more pearl out of out of the driveway versus the paved area. Um we'd have to really do some thinking because there aren't a lot of good options out here. It's not only is the site flat, but the streets
pretty flat through here, and there really isn't any storm water that's in front that we could uh take any advantage of in terms of getting a relief pipe out to it. So that's part of the problem of this this this neighborhood and this property >> is and is there any going to be any
maintenance required for the dry well with the peg gravel around it? >> Well, there there's going to be a solid cover on it. So that should keep a lot of the pearl from getting in there. And then in the drain, um I have a sump
introduced there. So the pipe's going to be up off the the bottom of that inlet a little bit. So that should help with that. I mean, it's not impossible that after a certain number of years, you might have to take a look in there, but that's why Summit requires the the full
cover so you can actually open it up and take a look and see if something needs to be done. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Anyone from from this side here? I I'm just wondering why you haven't done the perk test yet because this whole the whole premise of this garage
and the garage is bigger than what's allowed by by zoning, right? Bigger than what what the ordinance allows is to be able to park the cars in there to make sure there's no flooding. And it looks great, right, to have this dry well, but
if it doesn't work, you know, then there's not really a plan B um yet. So, I'm just I'm I'm feeling like this we should have we should have the results of the process. >> I mean, it's it's not the normal course of events in in in a project or any
project, certainly one that goes in front of the board where you don't even know whether you're getting permission to do it or not to spend a couple thousand dollar which it would take to do a perk test. You have to bring a machine out. You have to dig a hole, you know, 10 ft deep and then restore it
all. and you may spend that money and not be able to do the project anyway, >> right? And if this is per if this if this gets approved by the board, you may spend the money and it won't be appro and you won't be able to do it anyway. So, I'm just I feel like that that's a
really big part of this design since there's no other place for the water to drain, >> right? >> Yeah, I recognize that. I I think that I mean they still need a new garage. their garage is in disrepair and it needs to be replaced. Um
they they have the situation they have with regards to storm water. I've seldom found a case very very few cases where there's no good alternative for storm water. What often will happen is if the perk rate isn't ideal, then you have to
make an alternate design. And usually that accounts to or or ends up being uh a shallower and bigger footprint because it gives you more surface area that you're perking with. And when you have a lower rate, that's really what what you
want to target. Obviously, we don't have any storm water to tie into in the street, and that's usually not preferred anyway. Um, so I mean look, it it it's always a good idea to do those things first, but it's very uncommon to actually do them first
and there will be some alternatives. I don't expect a complete um zero perk or groundwater to be encountered in this neighborhood. I've done some other jobs in the area. The only one that I had trouble with was
rock as you went up closer to Oakidge, but not at the bottom of the hill here. Um, so I, you know, I mean that's that's the best answer and that I can give you in normal sequence of events.
>> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Just one more for the for the deck. Looking at your plan dated um 1216 24. >> Yep. >> Where it says proposed deck, >> then the stairs are to the left. What is that to the right? Is that
>> patio or is that deck? >> That square. >> The area around it. >> No, no, no. If you see where this see where the new stairs, new proposed stairs are immediately to the right of that there's a white square. Oh deck that dashed line, >> that dashed line is indicating where the
current deck >> extends to. So that's that's the deck that's coming out. >> Okay. >> And that's going to be landscaped in there. >> Gotcha. >> Any other questions from the board? Any questions from the public?
Seeing none, I think we can move on to uh the architect. Hi, good evening. >> And if you could raise your right hand. Sure. >> Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Please state your name, spell your last name.
>> Elizabeth Rush, R US. >> Thank you. And you two have appeared before us relatively recently as well. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? >> No. >> All right. I imagine we'd accept you back once again. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Great. Thank you. >> Well, I think that the owners and Andrew
did a great job of explaining the reasoning for the project. Um, you know, I do have a little bit to talk about with the the background, but I can jump right into I think the key points that you probably want to discuss. The footprint, the size of the footprint, the reasoning behind that, the height
obviously. Um, so I'll just jump into that. So going through the zoning comments, the first comment in section four was the accessory building height where maximum height of 15 ft is allowed with the exception of 18 ft. Um
there is an exception to allow 18 ft if it complements the existing structure. It doesn't necessarily have to match the height of the existing residence, but if it complements the architecture and roof slopes is how I interpret it. I interpreted that. the um just want to
make see if I can get this going so I can pull up the rendering. So, as you can see on uh the front elevation, the front garage elevation on sheet A1, the architectural plans, the main gable um of the garage excluding
the dormers, that's an 8 and 12 roof slope. The existing home ranges, it has a it has a few varying roof slopes of 8 and 10 to 10 and 10 or 10 8 and 12 and 10 and 12. Um, so we stuck with the 8 and 10. That starts with the 10-ft
ceiling height. That was a very specific request from the owner. He really wanted the 10-ft ceiling height to allow for large historic style um carriage doors as well as lots of larger windows to match the existing home and to allow
daylight into his garage. Um so if we start at that 10ft ceiling height with the 8 and 12 roof slope, we do end up right at that 18t ridge height. Um the dormers are slightly less. I think I
believe that they're about 4 and 12 or 3 and 1/2 and 12. And we did um decide with the um with the side dormers, we did set those back about 5 ft from the front facade of the garage and that's in an
effort to minimize that height from the front elevation. Um so those go along either side. The second I'm not going to really call it a second floor. It's a storage loft area because it does not qualify as a second floor. I believe that was one question in the zoning
comments. Um there is an interior stair. There would just be electric in the in this garage. No plumbing or um heating and cooling. That is purely for storage. Um I believe that on the first sheet, the section um shows the bottom of the
ridge beam being just about six feet. So none of that um area is over 7 feet to um contribute to the F. Um so that was another question on the on the zoning. Um
I think the next thing was noting the maximum dimension of 24 ft and 500 576 square ft in size. There is the proposed dimension of 22 by 28. We felt that to get Jay and Jackie the 28 foot depth in
the narrow lot to allow for that walk up stair for him, we compromised and and made the garage slightly narrower. He can still fit the two cars side by side. Um, and I believe that nets out to about 16 616 square feet, which is
35 somewhere around 35 square feet over the allowed 57640 square feet. Um, so it's it's it's a little it's slightly larger, but um, you know, that that's that was a specific request, the 28 ft from them. Um,
I wanted to go over some of the exterior building materials and then I'll kind of walk through some of the renderings and the views that we took. So the I don't believe you guys have this um this sheet, but this is just the rendered elevations.
Um so we can start at the front the west elevation. Again we have some um h sidehing carriage style historic um you know hinged opening garage doors not overhead doors. The entire structure will be clad in Hardy board siding which
was suggested by the HPC. Um five quarter by six corner boards 5/4x4 window and door casing. A historic sill on all of the windows. Um all of the windows will be simulated divided lights just for that little bit more
historic feel. Um and again the carriage doors um you know on the front and as you can see from the side elevations you can see where we set back that dormer to sort of minimize so you really only view the the front gable from the from the
driveway. Um the HPC I do agree with them. They commented um I take their reports very seriously. I love that they review all applications and have a voice in these these applications in front of the board. Um they did mention that, you
know, this is a 1900 built house. Um it does contribute to the streetscape which is near downtown. It's near the middle school, the art center. Um as you can see to the left there's um a blue house, to the right there's a white house. These are all it's a tightly tightlyknit
street. Um, and then you can barely see the garage peeking through at the back down the down the driveway there. Um, so that's the streetscape view. This is showing I probably could have put this up when Andrew was talking about the shared driveway because I
think it illustrates the pearavevel area, the paved area in front of the garage. Um, and then also as you can see on the left where that blue residence is, there is an existing garage. It seems to have been built. I obviously don't have the records for this, but it
does seem somewhat newer. I would say within 25 years probably. Um, it, you know, it has a similar architectural dormer on the side, the shed dormer, no windows, but um, similar architectural dormer, slightly higher in height. Um,
and then the one on the right is, um, you know, closer in the height to what we're proposing. Um, and one large garage door, which we prefer to have two. Um, and then this is another view of the the grass, the inlet drain that
Andrew spoke of, um, for the drywall and then the garage. Um, the only other thing I wanted to clarify, I think I mentioned the utilities in the garage will only be electric, no plumbing, and the owners um have said it will not be used for any
sort of residence or rental capacity. >> That you mentioned that the um at least a portion of the presentation wasn't provided yet. We'll mark the whole electronic presentation as A1 and if you could just make sure you get a copy of that to Jessica after the hearing.
>> Absolutely. Thank you. Okay. >> Is that um is that it? Are you ready for questions? >> I'm sorry. Just before I don't cut you off, uh Marie and Ed, do you have any questions? >> Um and maybe I missed it, but did you
talk about the the height on the um on the architectural plan? >> Yes. On um so originally we were on we were docketed for a hearing I think it was August or September maybe. Um and there was the discrepancy
the 186 that I think you saw. Um we carried to this hearing and the architectural plan this architectural plan A1 dated August 13th I think it says. Um that is shown as 18 feet and just the I submitted all
of those to the board. So the board should read those. >> Thank you. >> I think that's all I have. >> Okay. Um, with regard to the garage space and the interior dimensions of it. >> Sure. >> What is it about that size? Right now you have a 22 foot width, right? And then you go back 28 ft.
>> Correct. >> Um, why the 28 ft? What is driving that? The need for that. >> Sure. Um, so normally if someone came to me and said, I wanted a twocar garage, you know, going by the ordinance, it's
normally about 24 by 24. That's kind of your perfect size garage to fit two cars comfortably. Um, I suggested to the owners, you know, we can do a pull downstairs and as the owner u mentioned earlier, they don't have much storage in
the main house. Um, and so they really wanted to use this for Christmas decorations and, you know, easily accessible storage. Um, he has, you know, some physical health problems that prevent him from using a pull down stair easily. Um, and so they really requested
the walk up. I gave myself four four feet for an interior stair which brought the the dimension in depth to 28 ft. >> Okay. From the 24 ft. So it's really the width of the wall staircase, >> right, >> for the storage space. And the 10 foot height within the inside of the garage.
What was the purpose for that? >> The 10 foot height. Um, they're used to I think your ceilings are nine and a half ft in the house. Nine. Yeah, nine and a half ft in the house. They're used to nice tall ceilings. They have very large windows. They love daylight. Um Jay is going to
be spending a lot of time in this garage and that was really important to him. Um you know, I I spoke to them about the 18 foot absolute maximum height if if it does complement the architecture of this existing home and that's you know, that was one of their requests. So just to
allow for a higher head height on the windows and larger windows. >> And you talked about the slope of the roof itself. the uh rise over the run. >> And I guess in view number three of your exhibits, it kind of gives you that that front elevation.
>> Yeah. >> The rise over the run. Is that the 10 on 12? >> This one? Yes. Mhm. And then I believe the there's some hips at the back. Uh the hip dormers, I think the sides of those are eight and 12. And then the the
front edge is 10 and 12. >> Okay. And you can see in that same view the rear garage as it exists. >> Correct. >> No, that is the new garage. >> That's the new garage you actually simulated. Yes. Okay. Yes. Thank you for that. >> I was going to say it looks very much the same. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Well, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Questions from the board? >> I have one. So, this might be a question for Ed, but the Arctic can chime in too. So should we view this as a no variance for the height of the garage or do you think I mean you seem to have some
skepticism in your report about whether that pitch issue is satisfied. Do you Yeah. The reason why we had that skepticism in our report was to make sure the testimony was going to be provided as well as what they provided now in these illustrations. I think the illustrations help to show you the relationship to the existing building.
And that's something we didn't see initially and so we were asking that question. So, it's really up to the board to see if in fact these slopes look like they match and that's the reason for that relief, the additional three feet above the 15 ft. So, that's what I would on.
>> But is your skepticism somewhat satisfied, you think, or >> Oh, it is. Okay. Stand from the standpoint of especially that front view that I was talking about in view number three. You can see the 10 on 12 there. That is more of a stronger peak line that you have. And I think the intent of
the ordinance as it's identified in the regulations is to allow some flexibility when the architecture exists in that manner. So it doesn't just result in a flat roof or squat as far as concerned. It's somewhat complimentary to the rest of the
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Have a question. Do you know anything about the um the existing garage? Was it built the same time as the house? It looks like or was it built >> later on? like style-wise it doesn't your
>> opinion. Let me just pull go back to the >> I actually don't know. I can't for sure say if that was built at the same time. I know you know the the house has a record of 1900. Um I did not check like the maps in the
zoning office to see if the garage was there in 1900. Um, >> in your professional opinion, I mean, was does the is the current garage match the style of the
>> No. Um, to me, um, like this gentleman mentioned, the roof slope is very flat. Um, I think it's probably a 4 and 12 or 5 and 12. Um, you know, this is like a Queen Anne residence like there it's
steeper roofs, so it doesn't match at all. Thank you. >> Excuse me. Maybe you don't have to answer this. It's up to the board attorney to tell me to be quiet. Was there any discussion about stacked parking with the 10-ft height ceiling? Is that what something that the your
your client might have contemplated for car storage? >> Um I don't think so. >> Okay. >> Stacked? No. >> Just asking. Um, with regards to the 28 foot depth, um, 4 foot stair width seems awfully
large. Like even most houses don't have 4 feet of stair width. So, um, can you give a little more like explanation of why why it's four feet? I mean, I would think that a typical garage stairway would be, you know, somewhere >> Let me just go back >> closer to two and a half feet or
something like that, not four feet. Um a stair by code has to be 36 clear um handrail to wall. Okay. >> Um so if you take the outside dimension of a stair at 48 and then you set the new post and the handrail because again
this is a turning stair as you can see on drawing five. So you would go up land at a landing and then continue your way up. Do it. Um so you go up in the corner you land in the corner and then you continue up. So if you set your new post
on the inside of that 48 inch dimension, that's going to take up six inches. And then you have a handrail that's going to take up another two and a half. So effective clear width is probably about 38. Um to carry things up, I I wouldn't
feel comfortable doing anything less than a clear 36 just for tripping and c getting caught on things. Thank you. What is driving the turning staircase as opposed to just I mean it's it's a garage. So, a lot of what we're talking about the light um you know
>> it's it's a garage, right? It's not a house. So, I feel like some of that is >> um >> you know want not need. So, I'm just trying to Is that a style? Is that what is what's driving the >> It's really just about accessibility. Um if you refer to drawing 07 the section
um you know with stairs you have to land you have to arrive at your highest clear head height. So if you look at number seven the the section at the bottom middle we have to we have to land we have to arrive in the storage loft at
the highest peak in the middle of the garage. Um, in order to achieve that height, if I continued the stair in one straight run and I didn't turn it, you you would there would be no way to enter the stair. It would be against the wall.
Does that make sense? Sorry. Um, so it's like a little tricky, you know, keeping the keeping that ridge height set at that height. Um, arriving the stair arriving at that midpoint of the gable. Um, you know, that's really the only way
the stair could go. >> But if you dropped the ceiling height, you could potentially would that how would that impact like if you didn't have 10 foot ceilings there, how would that impact? >> I actually looked at, you know, a lower ceiling height, you know, 8 feet. Then
you have the issue of a 7 foot garage door, which isn't really that usable in today's with today's vehicles. um even collector cars, it's really just not that usable. I looked at the 9 ft, then you would have an 8 foot
um ceiling or 8 foot garage door, which is a little bit more common. But again, it's all puzzle pieces and a balancing act because if I dropped the ceiling, you would have more headroom in the second floor. So, you know, we settled on the 10 feet and they gave up more
space in the storage, which I thought was the best um best use of the space. and without giving too too much square footage to a second floor storage loft.
>> And just uh question about the uh sort of the aesthetics of this from your in your professional opinion. Does this how does this impact any of the neighbors the the added depth or backyard neighbors side neighbors view like from the street? What is your opinion on
that? >> Well, I personally think it's an improvement to the streetscape. Um, if you do like I guess you know you could look at the top right existing photo. Um, in addition to rebuilding the garage and making this a nicer structure that's
more pleasing to the eye, they will be doing, you know, some beautifification to the entire backyard and the and the driveway. Some cleaning up. I also think it's, you know, I always love to see start cars stored in a garage and not sitting in the driveway. So, that will
um obviously be a benefit to the neighbors. um and to the streetscape. Um I guess that's sums it up. >> Thank you. Um any other questions from the board?
Any questions from the public? All right. Um seeing none, I think just uh if you have any closing thoughts that any of you'd like to share, then we can take that. Otherwise, we'll get help. >> Yep.
>> Talk about conditions and how many votes we need. >> Right. >> Anything in conclusion? >> Thank you. >> Anything to say in conclusion or should we proceed? >> All right. Um, so I just have a couple points that I want to confirm what we're
doing with. I guess the first is the accessory building height. I know we've talked about it. Um, our planner has applied that it seems to be meeting the intent of the ordinance and therefore they're allowed to go up to the 18 ft, which is what they're doing. Does anyone on the board have a
different opinion? Do you find that that matching the consistency of the roof has been met in this case? >> I think so. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, then no variance would be required for the accessory building height. Um, I do also want to follow
back up um on one of the comments that the applicants engineer made that the technically a setback variance could be required for the deck. I if they are removing and rebuilding the deck, I think that is the prudent course of action. Um, and I do we have a
measurement on what that setback will be. >> Well, it's the same as the house. So it's 2.8. I can confirm exactly if there's any difference, but any difference will be down to the inch. I'm
sure might be 2.9 or 2.75, but 2.8 is the house I think consistent with that. >> All right. Um, so that would be required and I believe that's all I needed to
confirm. So as for um votes, we're only dealing with C variances. So four votes are required to approve the application. I do have two conditions noted. One is our usual compliance with those conditions uh in the board engineers memorandum. And the second since we
talked about the potential revision of storm water management and new plans that those revised storm water management plans shall be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. And I'm just I'm just wondering about that perk test if there's something that needs to be captured there because if it
I I do feel like if it you know it's a a garage that's size larger than what we typically would allow and there's a lot of explanation for that. But if the if you don't meet the perk test and we're trying to put in a garage that's not flooding and we're actually putting in a bigger garage. Um I I almost with
condition of approval would be that you can satisfy the perk test to me and if not then we probably want to see some other >> um >> another set of plans >> because because the I mean all of this this lot is over and we're we are
increasing building coverage on the lot too. So in order to just sort of satisfy that this is not creating any other issues, I think I'd like to um put that as a condition. >> Okay. So if the perk test reveals that the soils are not suitable for the dry
well as proposed, revised storm water plans shall be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. Is that appropriate? >> Good. >> And are you okay with um if you if you were to change this this the type of um
collection it is. Right now he's got a big tank and you know those shallower like coldtech chambers those upside down like bathtubs those are shallower and if he were to put that in and capture the same volume are you okay with that? Does he need to um
>> I think I think exactly on the plan I >> I think if it I think if it addresses the storm water the amount of storm water and I I realize you also have the a pinch point in the width of your property and where you can place these things. So, um, but if it has to be
shallower and wider and you can your engineer can come, you know, find that something that satisfies that, um, then I I'm fine with that. >> Did we open to the public for any comments on the application? >> Yes. >> Did we? Okay.
>> I can't remember. >> We did. We did. Yeah. >> Thank you. Excuse me. I just want to make sure. There was just one part of the testimony earlier that I was unclear about. They had mentioned a 3-in storm versus a 4-in storm. What are they designing to?
>> So, >> Summit's standard is for >> No, I understand that. But you had mentioned potentially going to a 4-in storm. This is a a mitigating factor for this exception to the variance. >> So, I'm just being very clear. 4 in was
the target that that I was carrying out in the design. And based on a little bit more area, I'm going to just have to talk to the owners if you know make an adjustment or maybe even go a little bit bigger. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other comments?
>> So, um do we have a motion to approve? Did we discuss it first? >> Oh, wait. Wait. Yeah, that's it. Yes. I thought we discussed it. Sorry. Questions. You're right. Yes. Who would like to start executive session? How about we do that? >> And before we start, I will just note
Mr. Fesin did arrive late, so he can comment in executive session certainly, but he will not be eligible to vote on the application. >> I can I can start. Um I think given the fact that it needs to be rebuilt um and
the architectural improvements to the garage are I think benefit especially from the street. Um then giving some accessibility to storage which is requiring a little bit larger than a normal garage would be approved in the expected storm water
management. Um I can support >> yeah I I can support it too. I mean, I think to some extent it sounds like the applicants asking for a lot and some of it sounds like it's to accommodate your interest in cars. So, I mean, which is not a not a bad thing, but so some of it
some of it is for that. Uh, but I I think the fact that the applicant is committed to storm water management, um, which I gather there is none there now. So, what whatever ends up being there will be an improvement. Um, and the fact that is much more attractive than than
what's there now. Um, it fits the design of the house more than the current garage does. Uh, so I I can support it. >> Anyone from the other side? No, >> I agree uh that it does isn't more attractive than the existing garage. It
does fit the style of the house a little bit better. I was a little concerned about the height, but if the interpretation of the law or the ordinance is that it matches it, not necessarily continuous to it, I'm okay with that.
Um, I am in a similar uh of a similar view. I think that there's an aesthetic improvement there, but um on top of the aesthetic improvement that storm water management is something that is um an improvement overall probably helps your
neighbors too. Um, I don't see any particularly negative impacts to um your neighbors or the neighborhood by extending um the garage by a couple feet in the back. And for sure you have
helped balance that. You know, you've reduced your lot coverage by a little bit. Um maybe even 36 square feet more than what you show on the plan. So, a little bit more than that. Um I think it went from 57 to 56 and maybe it'll be under 56 when you're done. Um the
building coverage has increased a little bit but you have um you've balanced that with the storm water management. So I could support this application and anything else we now do we have any >> motions? I'll move to approve.
>> Second >> vice chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yugo. >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran, >> yes. >> Miss Chief, >> yes. >> Mr. Chanuli, >> yes. >> And Mr. Nering, >> yes. >> Thank you.
Next we have the continuation of Beacon Unitarian Universalist Congregation. Those the papers I dropped. >> Thank you for cleaning up my litter. >> Thank you.
>> Long as he tours next year. Thank you, Roger. >> Still a fanatic. Goodbye. Yep. >> Good evening. >> Uh, good evening. Roger Mayor, Linda Ber, McCormack, Custom Cooper. The
continued hearing for Beacon Unitarian. Um our last hearing in July uh you recall uh motorcycle uh was a little disjointed. Um um Miss Dolan was a little bit under the weather and we got a little bit out of sync but um so we
are going to I am going to eventually recall Miss Dolan just to summarize her testimony not to go all through it again uh because we did obviously watch the video and know you know where we are. Uh, same thing for Miss Keller, the um planner. Just to briefly summarize her testimony, run through the variances one
more time. Uh, we did have one hangover issue for Mr. Cherry, the architect. If you recall, there was some testimony about a very limited time period when there was a limited bit of glare from a small area of glass in the front of the building that would have potentially
affected the street, not the houses, but the street for about a half hour window for some number of days in June every year. So, we agreed that we would go out and find a treatment for that area of glass to reduce that glare down to um
levels that are uh in accordance with appropriate guidelines. Uh even if it were a high glare seriously impacting safety issue, we'll take it below that level. So, um we've actually gone a little bit beyond that, too. But I'm going to just recall Mr. cherry having
him discuss uh what's been done to to uh ameliate the glare issue and we did file a couple of exhibits I think related to that which you can run through while we're while we're testifying. So I would recall Mr. Cherry first. >> Absolutely. And I will note that um you
were sworn and your credentials were accepted at the last hearing. You remain under oath. Uh Mr. Mayor, I believe though the exhibits that you sent in were not supplied more than 10 days in advance. So, we'll just have to make sure any new exhibits are marked at the year to see. >> Okay. We have hard copies, too, also,
but I think the board has hard copies. Am I right? >> I don't know that they do. >> Okay. >> So, John, do you have additional copies? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Does everyone on the board have them? >> Yes.
>> Okay. I'm just going to give copies to Mr. Simon. Okay. So, Mr. Cherry, could you describe um the uh steps you've taken to address any glare issues with respect to the glass in the building and and what they are and how they function?
>> Yes. So we um just revisited the uh exact area that was in question and um and identified that there was a little bit of ambiguity about that um on the previous exhibit. So it's very
clearly delineated exactly what that spot is um on the the new exhibit. Um, we also tried to just clarify the precise area and let me
well I tell you what I'm just sort of summarizing the changes then I'll go through the the um the sheets. Um, we also clarified the period and time of day. There was a little bit of discussion about that last time that it's actually it's because the t the
sunrise changes a little bit every day during the month of June. It's a 15minute period of time when this one and a half second exposure to the glare occurs. But that 15 minutes shifts over the total of a half an hour. So
that that's why it was a little ambiguous in that first exhibit. Um and then we've uh uh submitted two changes to the glazing of this one panel that is creating
glare. And the two changes are that we've modified the glass specification from a 19% reflectance which is considered medium. It's not very low reflectance
and it's not considered highly reflective. Um, highly reflective would be more in the 25 to 45% range. But the lowest possible amount of reflectance that is achievable
is 10% and that is below any standard that you would find where it's regulated or recommended such as um DOT standards, lead standards for um concern. So we feel like this is the absolutely best
performing in terms of minimal reflectivity that that we could have. In additional to that, we are adding a film that has a um printed pattern on it. And this was something that had been under discussion
uh for a long time in terms of preserving bird safety because a lot of bird deaths h are because of crashing into glass. And on this particular site, there's a real interest in making it uh supportive of the habitat and being uh
responsible towards nurturing the wildlife and the species that live on that um site or in in visit the site. U and so that has the added effect of
diffusing the reflection somewhat. So the fact that it has this pattern that breaks it up um further helps to make it less glare. So we feel that given the limited timing, the duration, the now
reducing the quantity of any kind of reflection that this would be a um good solution. >> So the film is being applied in more areas than just the area that actually was the glare area I will call it. >> That's right. the film would be um
applied to that whole side of the um first floor of the building where where most of the glass is. >> So that will both reduce glare from that entire area if there were any and also protect bird light. >> Correct. >> And then the area in question that you delineated as being the source of this
brief period of really a flash out in the street. Um what uh you have also in introduced a different type of glass coating. Is that correct? >> Right. that that makes it um less reflective. >> Okay. So that combined with the film,
what that the glare area as I'll call it again, what is the level of reflectivity of that reduced to? >> Well, the if you're going to put a number on it, it's still 10% but it's just it's aated by being more diffused
with the pattern. So it doesn't actually change the numeric value. It's more of a qualitative value. Okay. So this is has made that area now the lowest reflectivity that really would be required in any >> that's right >> uh sensitive situation way beyond the
sensitivity of this one. Is that correct? >> Correct. That's right. >> Nothing further. >> Okay. >> Is that it for your testimony regarding this matter? Just >> Yes. >> Okay. So do we have any questions from our board experts?
>> Um the measurement of the 10% how is that actually engaged. Is that something done that's a standardized testing method? Yes. You're drawing that from. >> It's part of any specification for any glass. That's always a published number. >> Okay.
>> For that. >> Is that measured based upon some sort of standard is what I'm trying to get to. Um such as lighting, uh things of that nature are based on a certain accepted standard. >> Yes, it's an ASM standard. >> It's actually an
um The wing safe uh patterning is that being done on all the glass >> on uh the glass um on the east and south sides on the first floor >> east and south >> just one question. What is the um the
the lifespan of the glazing that's on it? Is there something that has to be renewed on it or is um is that something that the life of the Yes. Um, it is not as long lived as the glass,
but it has a 10-year warranty. >> I just have one question. The the one you said one panel, does it vertically go up the entire or is it just one pane? And does that visually have any different aesthetic from a lay person's eye? >> Um, I don't think you'll be able to see
it. surprised me when I actually saw the the side by side, but no, it's it's not really visually apparent. >> Yeah. So, this this wing safe um I know you said this, I didn't quite catch it. Is this a coating? Is this a film? Is this
>> It's a It's a Yes, a a plastic film that has a printed pattern on it and it's applied to the outside of the glass. >> And how much of the building will this be on? It will be on the the whole um gla glazed kind of curved section that
is the lobby um and the entrance. So it's it's the >> John maybe we could just put up one of the renderings um >> might be easier. Yeah, just to piggy back on that question specific >> is just to clarify what the first floor
is because I think there was some reference to putting the the wing safe only on the first floor and I'm not sure what is being considered the first floor. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So this this exhib exhibit shows the the paint in question and it doesn't
it doesn't show the entirety of it but all the glass that you see in this and then it continues around on the right side that would all be covered with that patterning and yeah I'm looking at at the sheet one of this I guess it's a two sheet wing safe exhibit there a bunch of numbers
here which me just numbers but I'm seeing reference to solar energy and energy distribution and thermal energy is any positive or negative effects in terms of energy usage or or >> No, not really. No, no, >> it's more or less not affecting
anything. >> I have a question. So, all the glass So, in the the the upper picture that you have there, every panel of glass that we see is not going to be covered with this wing safe. Just just certain parts of them. No, all of all of
the glass on the first floor that you see in this corner wrapping all the way around to the entrances. So, let me see if I can show it on. >> So, all the glass panels that aren't windows are going to be covered with this.
>> Can you see my cursor? >> Yeah, I'm trying. It's very jittery. So all of this this whole area all of the glazing all the glass is would be covered with this film where it's large these are large panels. >> So any anything that's a that's not a
window per se that is a large glass panel is going to be covered with this. >> Correct. Okay. >> Right. So on that street side, street facing side where the the sort of what I'll call describe as like a waterfall looking tall glass that's going to be the whole thing cuz I think first floor
I think it's >> Yes. >> cutting off at a certain level. Okay. >> Yes. >> And it's that one specified pane that has the additional coating >> that has the the um lower reflectivity. >> And just highlight where that is again
just so I I'm clear where that >> go back to that one. If I can also add, you're referring to the exhibit that was submitted at September 25th, 2025. >> Is that the same? >> Yes. Yes. And uh so you see here the red
outlined pane. >> Yeah. Where it says D2. >> D2. And then you see the sun. It the sun reflection is shown there. That's that is the panel. >> All right. Let's just clarify now for the record. The first exhibit that was
submitted is this the glare revised glare study as just discussed. I believe we're up to 812. We'll mark that as A12. And then the uh the wing safe exhibit
will be A13. >> Um just just to not to overly question this, just to make sure that I understand. So panels now on page six of eight of this glazing area. So panels B and C are they having the wing safe on them?
>> No. >> Okay. >> Those are not really v vis um v able to see uh and so and there they're such a small slot that I don't think they would require it. And the
fact that they're curved would also make it kind of trickier >> just because they're they're opaque. You can't really see through them. Is that what we're just saying? >> Well, they're they're just tucked in there. So, they're not really exposed. >> Yeah, I don't think they're opaque. >> Thank you. Um, any other questions from
the board? Any questions from the public for Mr. Cherry? I guess I thought a meeting like this. >> Hello. >> Got it. >> Uh, Mr. Cherry, good evening. >> Good evening. >> Thank you for your testimony. um
starting at uh at A13 um you didn't contribute to any of the uh figures or calculations that are um set forth in that St. Oane exhibit. Correct.
>> That's right. And um with regard to A12 um items 3 through 8 through 8 through 8, did you create um those images yourself?
>> I'm sorry, which which pages are you >> on pages? I apologize. Uh on A12, okay, which is the glare studies revision notes. You with me? Um >> this this one the this is A12 this glare
study the the top of >> Okay. Okay. That that's what the exhibit is called. Correct. Okay. Yes. >> Yeah. Sorry I didn't clarify. >> What was your question? >> So on A12 um the first two pages are narrative. First page is revision notes and the
second page is glare studies. You with me? >> Yes. >> Okay. Did you um create the narratives for a for the first page and the second page yourself? >> Um I worked with a staff member and we
collaboratively created these through several iterations. >> Okay. When you say a staff member um how much of this was was your work product and how much of it was the staff members? um collaboration is very difficult to to
quantify in that way but I'd say half and half maybe. Yeah. >> And with regard to pages three of 8 through 8 of 8. Um did you create those images yourself? >> No, I did not.
>> Okay. And where did you get those images on three of eight through eight of eight? Um we created them um just as we have created all the images in the project
with um computer models and renderings and um photograph you know software techniques to combine and add graphics. >> Okay. So three of 8 through 8 of 8 is all computerenerated. >> Um
no it a computer is a tool but I would so I would not use the term generated. It was created using a computer. Um, let's start with three of eight where it states, "This image identifies all the glazing areas that are fully
visible from Springfield Avenue and were included in the glare study." Um, first of all, are all the glazing areas included in the glare study? >> Um, no.
So, which glazing areas were not included in the CLA study? >> There are a number of um window openings in some of the meeting rooms and office
and uh areas around the the back of the building. And and let me just point out that the glare study was um created to address a specific concern that was brought up by the board to a answer a
question about uh possible glare as it relates to Springfield Avenue. So when you state on 30 of 8 all the glazing areas that are fully visible from Springfield Avenue, you're just referring to
uh vehicles that are traveling on Springfield Avenue. >> No people or houses or any any that the whole surround of Springfield Avenue. That would be apply to all of that. How did you determine
what areas of pedestrians, cars? >> May I interrupt a second? Excuse me a second. >> Yeah, I'm sorry. >> We went through the entire glare study and there was an opportunity to
cross-examine on it two hearings ago. Now we are here for a limited issue which is the treatment of certain glass focusing on one particular panel that was part of the glare study that issued glare and now we're revisiting the entire glare study. I think we're way
past today's testimony. >> I think he's asking about the specific panels that are addressed in this revised stud. >> I'm just referring to A12 and A13. I didn't introduce them. This witness did. It's it's this it's these were covered in our testimony two hearings ago about
the glare study and I >> we covered entirely which panels were were not whether it affected any houses whether it affected the street >> and and now we're just down to this ailaration of basically one panel so I
think revisiting the entire study is just stringing out time for no reason. So, is page three >> essentially exactly the same as what was provided before without revision? >> It's exactly the same except we added a
D2 to pinpoint this one panel. Other than that, it's identical. >> Okay. Um, Mr. Simon, if you could focus the questions on these specific revisions to this. Well, he I did not
introduce an eight-page exhibit for A12. The witness did. And all I'm doing is asking questions as to what is submitted for the first time today is A12. >> But his testimony is it's not for the
first time today. It's exactly the same as last time we did for that. ly discuss the visibility of the window panes from Springfield Avenue from pedestrians from houses at the last hearing. So if we could just focus on these specific
changes the the new areas of study and limit the questions to those I think that would be the the most uh efficient and relevant questions. Well, note my objection to the extent that it is
evidence that's attempted to be introduced that I'm not necessarily be given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness about, but I will continue. Um, with regard to
the area of D2, the identify area of effect that's on page 408, did you make that determination yourself in terms of the path of glare? Um, as I have stated a number of times,
I work with the staff. There's nothing practically nothing that comes out of my office that is solely my creation. That's not the way architecture works. It's like a team sport. If if I asked you, sir, how was it determined that on
page 40 of 8, area D2, which is the area that we're talking about apparently this evening, where it states on 40 of 8, area D2, it directly reflects the sun to a viewer standing in place in the path of glare to the southeast of the property and looking back to the
building or west along Springfield Avenue for a 15-minute interval. You see that, right? Um, hold on. Which which page four of eight? >> Okay, hold on. >> Okay. So,
yes. How did you determine that that's the path >> where what's that? >> Yeah. >> How did you make that determination? >> Uh, it's very straightforward. The sun
is very predictable where it is, where it comes up, exactly at what time. We modeled the sun and we when the sun is at a perpendicular angle to that pane of glass, that's when it has that
reflection. So, it's a it's very precisely calculated. Have you um utilized this 19% light reflection value, this glazing in any other project? >> Sure. And um have you
performed an evaluation of its effect after it was installed? >> How do you mean effect? >> Like in other words, have you gone out and done post installation studies to determine the the glare level?
No. Um, with regard to the panels at issue, which is on the east and south side on the first floor, correct? That's where the this >> it's just the east side. Is it >> just the east side? Because I thought you said east.
>> Just the one panel. >> Okay. So other than the one panel on the east side on the first floor where you're putting in this glazing, you're not putting in the glazing anywhere else. >> Correct. >> And in terms of the light reflected
value for the other panels that are not this one panel, is it fair to say that those will be at 19%. >> Correct? Yes. And you have not done any type of evaluation
as to what someone from the outside would see through any of these windows or panels on the building um after sundown with lights on in the building. Correct.
>> We haven't done calculations or I mean we I think You haven't done any type of of of of illumination or light values. >> Excuse me. Again, we've testified about the interior and exterior lighting
>> in in complete detail. That's already been covered. That has nothing to do with the testimony tonight. Absolutely nothing. >> Have you have you done that evaluation in connection with the 14% glazing that you're proposing here? >> It on one panel to have it less
reflective. >> Yeah. Yeah. Have you done the evaluation, sir? >> You can ask the question. >> I'm not sure what your question is. Evaluating what? >> In terms of what one would see from the outside. >> Uh I I did a um empirical evaluation. I
took I actually have the two pieces of glass and have installed them in my office to compare them physically side by side. Yes. >> Looking looking out and in. Okay. All right. Nothing further. Thank you.
Um, any other questions from the public for Mr. Cherry? >> Seeing none, do you have another question? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um, on page four of eight, the So, the glare study just um just need some
clarification. The glare study was done for a car traveling on Springfield Avenue. the glare for the car, >> right? >> But on page four of eight, it says area D2 directly reflects the sun to a viewer standing in place in the path of a glare
to the southeast of the property and looking back to the building. You saying the view would be the driver of the car? >> Yeah, standing is maybe not I mean it would be if you were standing there, but you'd be standing in the road, but um
yeah, it was it's based on a a driver. Okay, >> so just to clarify that's there was some reference earlier that about pedestrians and the houses but it's not really about this is just for the cars. >> But the the thing that's important to
note is the this um pa path that you see that the red that is for that's it. There are no there's no other glares going in any other directions. That is it because the sun you know the sun is it low it's shining that it's a it's a
spot you know it's a bright spot and it comes directly back at you know the same angle of incidence and reflection are equal and so that's that's all of the reflection so in terms of any houses it
would just be anybody that was in that path but then if you stand there which I did today just test this whole idea is you it wouldn't no window would see it along that path. >> How um how did you test it today with
>> by standing there? >> I know there's no there's no glass there right now, right? >> No, no, I but you can see if if you stand in the point where the the sun's path would be, you can see that path. So, I I approximated that path and it's
it's very I mean it it's it's not going to impact anybody's house. >> If I may try to say that a little differently and correct me if I'm wrong, this this orange slice of pie for lack of better word where we're crossing Springfield Avenue and maybe it's house over there. You're saying there are no windows in this path.
>> Also, is that what you're saying? >> Yes. But also the thing to keep in mind is the only reason we have this condition is because of that very low sun angle. As soon as the sun is well
it's also going uphill there. So at some point that viewpoint from the person in the car down the hill that solar path is hitting the side of the hill. So it's not even ever getting to somebody's window that's up higher. It's a fixed
point that's being projected. So it it really it will have zero impact on anyone's house. >> So I guess what we're not seeing is the vertical dispersion of this. Is there is there a >> Well, there is
this is this is showing us a sort of a bird's eyee view of where the path is, but it doesn't show us sort of the height from the ground up of where you might see the reflection. >> Exactly. That's true. Yeah. >> Is that something you have like I'm not sure what what model was used for this?
But typically there would be sort of the ver because I believe like last time Mr. Chief one of the questions she asked and that resulted in some of this was like is this for a truck or is this for a car? Like where where is the glare? And I realize that on that one panel there
is a a now glazing that should be um minimizing the glare, but it just this is not kind of showing that height, >> but it's still taken from a driver's just a particular car's perspective, which we don't even know what kind of >> because it's uh it's coming down a hill
and you know it's in a plane or or in a you know it's at a fixed position. At some point you're going to encounter it as you come down that hill depending on the height of your vehicle, but everybody's going to encounter it at more or less the same spot because it's,
you know, kind of fixed. >> Um, yeah. >> So, it's your testimony that this glare will not affect any of the residential houses on Scrimp Avenue. >> Absolutely. >> And how can you how can you verify that or prove it? I verified it by testing all of the so solar angles and after
this last meeting we again looked at you know it it cannot reach in anyone's house. This is it. It's this in very small incidence of this bright sun reflection is is just
>> the reason why I asked that question is you it it says it's for the month of June the whole month of June and about a week before and about a week after. So that's six weeks. Now when the sun's higher in July, the reflection off the window will not be at that angle, so to
speak. It'll just be somewhere different. Right. >> Right. And >> now what about in October? >> Same. It It does. This >> sun's lower. Right. >> Well, here's the thing. It's not only got to be low, it has to be exactly in the right, you know, the position north
to south because it's changing its position north to south every day of the year. And so it's just really as it's passing that one spot on the horizon at sunrise um during that month. That's the
only time that anything has that ability to reflect anywhere. >> Has there been any thought to just take that piece of glass out, put a panel, and that'll solve your whole problem? Probably less expensive. >> Um absolutely. We did think about that, but
that's a pretty important corner. And I feel like to to mitigate it to a threshold that any regulatory um uh body or it it's below every threshold that anyone would ever
consider to be um worthy of mitigating. So I mean yeah you could do that. I just I don't think we need to. >> Thank you. >> I have a followup question. So, I appreciate you taking this effort and going to the exceeding the regulatory
thresholds. After the study was done relatively recently, did you go back and look at landscaping to see whether or not, from my view, it appears that there could be landscaping blocking this as well, at least when everything is in bloom. Now, granted, you have one little
angle here. Did you guys think about adding landscaping to also mitigate this? We did absolutely look at that and um again it's such an important view um that we really didn't want to do that. Um you could you you certainly could do
that. Um >> even on the I guess it would be the east side of the drive. >> I don't think we have space there to do it. That would be great if it but it's really just a small little area that we we have there to work with.
Right. Um any other questions from this is public question that board came back to a little bit. Yes. >> Sure. >> Um I'll just come up here. >> Mr. Shar, um why is that such an
important view? And when you say view, view from whom? Um that is the in terms of the public's um encounter of the building and um
having a um a presence that you can read like oh here's how you enter this building. >> Mr. Cherry, can you just speak towards the microphone? >> Sorry. >> Yeah. Um it that um that approach is very
important and that's where the kind of expression of the building all comes together at that corner. And so it's kind of the most important visual uh marker and and sort of moment of
seeing the the architecture. And often you we want to shield some areas and we want to open up other areas. And that this was an area we felt like it was important to have a a clear view of that of that uh entrance.
>> And that's for for pedestrians and vehicles. >> Yes. >> Any other questions from the public? Okay. Seeing none, um, do you want to move on to the next? Are we going to move on to the traffic study or? >> Yeah. Yeah. So, we'll recall Miss Dolan,
please. >> Just noting again for the record, you were previously sworn at the last hearing. You remained under oath this time and your credentials were accepted at that time. >> Yes. Thank you. >> Thanks. >> Okay. So, um, as I said, we were a little disjointed last time as Dolan was
a bit under the weather after trying to get here from South Carolina for three days. >> Yeah. >> In a bunch of storms. But, um, so I would ask just not to rehash your entire testimony, but if you could just briefly sort of summarize your testimony to remind the board and then we can open
you up to question >> questions. Right. Um so the report that was submitted uh dated November 18, 2024 uh when I was here last I talked about the the two areas that we focused on in this report. And the first was the driveway analysis where we combined
actual traffic counts on uh Sunday uh with driveway projections and then analyzed the site driveway intersection with Springfield um and found that to be at acceptable levels of service. The report was based on the original 300
seats that had been proposed um and that yielded um trip generation that was then reduced um because we've gone from 300 seats to 236 seats. And I also talked
about the fact that the um analysis assumes that those 131 vehicles will all enter during one hour and then all exit the site during the the uh later hour when the service is over. But because we don't have that many parking spaces on
site, that's a theoretical number and therefore produces a very conservative or overestimation of driveway volumes. Uh but regardless um the analysis was based on higher trip generation and assumed all that traffic would enter and
exit the site. We calculated levels of service A and B for the driveway um intersection with Springfield. So that was the first part of the assessment >> and you use standard um reference materials. >> Right. is uh the the traffic counts were
performed uh every uh based on 15minute increments during the periods when we expect the uh congregants to arrive and then uh during the departure hour when they would be leaving. So we counted the traffic and we estimated the driveway volumes using the institute of
transportation engineers trip generation manual and that is the accepted methodology appropriate methodology for assessing um site traffic impacts. Um I had also said that the overall traffic to and from the east and to and from the
west uh would be less than a 100 vehicles and that's another IT guideline or measurement that uh if you have fewer than um 100 new trips in a peak hour that's not likely to cause a negative traffic impact.
So the second part of the testimony was regarding parking and again the report was based on the original plan with 300 seats which required 100 parking spaces. Uh the uh number of seats has been reduced to 236
that requires 79. We have 46 on the uh the site which would mean uh at max attendance or max capacity we would need 33 spaces on the street which based on um multiple visits
to this area on Sundays we found that there would be that level of parking available on the street. Um you heard also about the actual attendance is 161 based on um regular
attendance at the existing uh church. So that divided by three would uh suggest we need an actual demand of 54 spaces or eight parking spaces out on Springfield Avenue. Um, so the conclusion of my testimony was that
there is sufficient parking on Springfield Avenue to accommodate any overflow and that the overflow would be more on the 8 to 10 uh spaces offsite versus the 33 that's based on the ordinance.
>> And your testimony was that even if we did require 33 spaces that that was available and legally permitted street parking. >> That that's correct. And um I've been out there several times uh since the preparation and issuance of the report and I've seen at most four vehicles
parked on Springfield in the vicinity of the uh subject property. >> And is it your professional opinion that the parking lot as designed functions safely and efficiently? Uh yes, because of the the loop design and I do believe that at my last uh when I was presenting
the direct testimony the last time, I had indicated that that uh the the over projection of driveway volume would also account for people who come in, poop around and maybe drop somebody off and then go park out on the street. So the um the circulation allows those vehicles
to turn around on site and then if anybody is being dropped off or picked up uh those vehicles are then uh facing southbound or towards Springfield Avenue along the uh sidewalk in front of the building. So, it's an appropriate layout. And uh you've heard from the
engineering testimony that the uh dimensions meet recognized design criteria to allow those spaces to function um and to allow the the vehicles to circulate through the site. >> And is it also your professional opinion that the uh street parking that you've
described in your study is will function safely and efficiently if used by the yes people attending church? >> Correct. Um, parking is permitted and as I said, uh, Sundays there's not much parking out on the street and actually on weekdays I haven't seen much either passing through. Um, but so the, um, the
parking is permitted along Springfield Avenue and is uh, routinely used um, and it would be if uh, this is approved would be regularly used by the uh, congregants on Sundays. >> That's that's all I have for Miss Dolan.
Okay, good. Questions from our experts. >> Um, uh, are you still planning on using the tandem parking spots within the parking lot? >> Yes, those four or eight, uh, were that was a a design modification made uh,
several months ago. And um, if there wasn't testimony already, it it would be that the um the reverend and and any staff would be arriving early. They'd use those um forward spaces. Uh and then people could park behind them.
>> Okay. And um did you say that um you did account for people that might be coming into the lot turning around and going back out into the street? You said that was accounted for in >> Sure. I I think because we we we took the IT number 131 people coming in at
the beginning or before the service. Um but because we only have 46 bases on site, that's definitely not likely. So it would account for some pickup drop off activity certainly. >> Okay. All right. So that was taken into account. Yes. So you almost were more
conservative with your numbers that were >> Yes. And and the fact that >> exiting >> Yeah. They they'd be considered conservative and then even more so because we reduced the seating capacity which reduced the trip generation. I see. >> Um All right. I think that's that's all
I have. I'm just gonna jump in and ask my questions. With regard to the uh parking on street that you testified to along Springfield Avenue, I presume you're talking about on the norly side of Springfield Avenue. Taking a look at
that site >> both, but but in particular, yes, because that's most convenient for >> for use for this site. When you look at the 33 spaces that were short on site and have you looked at where in fact
they would fit the 33 spaces, is there uh what did you use as your measure for those spaces in order to identify that there's enough room? >> Sure. Driveways and how far they would have to go. >> I I did not do that specific exercise. Um, but we did inventory um about 2,000
ft of uh linear area along Springfield. Um, just get my other notes. We started at Harrison to the west and then we went um up to Fair View uh which is just past
Oakley just to the east. >> Okay. you counted for driveways in that area um as far as where people could park and the distances from driveways, >> right? I didn't do a specific analysis of that, but based upon being there multiple times and seeing where people
can park and for example, there's hydrants and those types of things that you know would be obstacles as would driveways. >> Okay. And then a normal parallel parking space would be what? 22 feet wide. >> Uh 22 ft long. >> Yes. Thank you. Um Therefore, you would
have potentially people would try to gravitate to near the entrance for the overall driveway, I would imagine. And so there's enough distance if you were to split that in half on both sides of that driveway in your opinion. >> Um I think I had done a quick
calculation. Yeah, I think we can easily get about 60 plus um uh vehicles between Harrison and Fair View >> between that distance accounting for driveways and potentially no parking, >> right? Because if you took the distance
and then um you know divide it by 25 for even a longer module and then cut that in half um to account for driveways and and things like that. So we didn't we didn't
stripe it out across the entire stretch, but I do believe that there's more than 30 spaces routinely available. >> That's all the questions. questions from the board. >> I have a question. >> Um, according to the DRRO, so houses of
worship for parking requirements, three seats, um, one spot for every three seats or 10 square feet of gross floor area, whichever is greater. Can you um, so you did the calculation for the three seats, which came up to the 79 spots based on
the 236 seats. Can you do the calculation for the 10 square feet of gross floor area? Which >> I think it's over a thousand spaces. >> So, so that's it's so the DRRO says whichever is greater, >> right? And and this is this is a a
common theme with houses of worship and ordinances. Um because the um the ordinance sort of implies that the entire building area will be occupied at once. But you heard from operations that uh and and the architectural testimony I
think was helpful too that there's been a lot of um amenity space. Uh there's janitorial space, there's storage space, there's that um seating area, there's the gathering area and so on um an office space as well. So not all of the
space is being occupied at one time. And in older editions of the IT's parking generation manual, they said that they said that, you know, there can be a big swing in parking requirements based on what space is provided in addition to
the sanctuary space. So in this case, the if it's one per 10 square feet, and I'm not sure what the gross building area is, but I think we're looking at hundreds if not over a thousand parking spaces based on that ratio. So the
so the first floor you're saying is the the square footage of the first floor. So you're saying that has is counting office space all. So can I mean I'm just I mean I just I'm just knowing I just know what the DRRO says. So I'm not sure why. So if
if you're saying that because there are spaces that what you're saying makes sense but the fact that it's specific for house of worship. It doesn't, you know, the DRRO doesn't say but only for the spaces that are used for
um services, right? >> So maybe one of our experts can explain that >> or even just looking at the sanctuary space, which is over 3,000 square feet. If you were going to apply the DRRO to a portion as opposed to the whole
building, how many spaces does that require? >> Do we know exactly what that square footage is? I I have from the plans 3,30 330 33 >> number. Nobody would be able to build a house of
worship at Summit if that were the case. >> And no house of worship is that testimony or is that >> No house of worship that I've represented a number of them for 40 plus years has ever been held that. >> But we we know that we're under parked. So, let's just what I'm trying to
clarify is how much are we under park? If you use one of the calculations, which is three seats, um >> one per three seats, >> one for three seats, we're at the >> 79 >> 79.
>> If we use the gross square footage of the whole building, we're a lot higher than that. for using just the sanctuary space where so we just want to you know I just want to you we you know that it's really how many spaces are we under parked we know we're under parked just
how many are we under parked I think we really need to look at both calculations and then see whichever is greater and really use that as the number >> well we're talking about anywhere from 330 to over a thousand parking spaces if we use the one per 10 square feet and
that's a I've never seen a ratio that high Um, as I had mentioned, I've had this happen in many other house of worship applications and um and and it usually then goes back to the seating capacity because that's where you're
going to have the greatest demand. We've talked about holidays um or funerals or um that are highly attended that Beacon can't handle at their existing facility. So now we've gone to this facility with a seating capacity, but that seating
capacity is what's driving the parking demand and one per three seats is is the typical requirement. >> Yeah, I'm just confused why the DRRO's written and it doesn't say or you know, but this only applies to certain things. So I'm I'm really confused.
>> There are houses of worship that don't have seats >> for comments on that. I've been on applications for instance a mosque where they don't have seats and they just use prayer rugs. I think the ordinance is trying to capture that situation if that
was the case on how many people per that sanctuary space. It doesn't clarify and I agree with you. It seems to ask for a lot of spaces at one space pretends of course. Um so I think it's going to be a question. They're they're deviating from
the ordinance. It's going to be a question of what we think is going to be the maximum demand based on usually it's the sanctuary space during peak high holy day of some type. So therefore you would look at the number of seats in this situation or the maximum number of
seats that accommodate in order to arrive at what you think the maximum will be and it's still going to be a deviation as you pointed out. I think that's one of the things with their ordinance unfortunately because 10 square feet seems to be a lot for the entire structure. That's just my opinion.
Thank you. >> Question. >> Yes. >> Yes. So I and I we may have asked this several hearings ago uh very early in the process. So Roger, maybe you can help us remember help me remember. Um clearly Sunday morning is going to be the busiest use of this facility for
obvious reasons. >> Um are there other events? And if you don't know the answer, that's okay, too. Are there other events on the on the proposed schedule events for this for this church that might need street parking? Um, and what attendance cut off
would that be? Roger, was there testimony early on? >> I think I think the first night, unfortunately, it was a while ago, but >> but I I think when um um Reverend Tanner Yes. testified. You might have a you
might have a funeral on a Saturday that draws more than 40 cars. It's possible. Uh the church has a couple events during the year. Those were covered in her. >> Yeah. But my recollection is and anybody limited though. >> Yeah. Very was very limited and certainly no regularly scheduled events.
>> Oh no. >> During the week would need street parking. >> No. >> Yeah. >> What is remind me the maximum capacity for the sanctuary. So we're we've reduced the seating now to 236 as a maximum. >> I mean just like for fire code related
>> that I don't know. Was it seven square feet per person? Was that what somebody had referenced in the last meeting? >> That that occupancy is just for the the sanctuary that doesn't rooms. So it could considerably be 500 people.
>> Oh, and that's that's maybe more of an architectural question or back to that 10 square feet. Um >> I think the architect covered that a while back. >> I think that I think I thought it was seven square feet was the occupancy was based on each person >> depends on whether they're standing or so.
>> So that's if I recall that >> you said that's based on building code and sometimes that's also influenced by the actual floor design where the doorways are size of doorways things. So for seven square ft if you take the whole sanctuary space um that would be
like 433 people capacity >> standing. >> Yeah. So >> may I ask some questions? So in your testimony you said that you went out to the site and you saw that parking was a problem was not a problem. Why do you
think that is right now? >> Well there's no church there generating a parking demand. Uh if you remember, there used to be a flower shop on that street which was demolished and some houses were built. So it is it is a residential neighborhood which >> leads towards that less parking on the
street. Um so in your professional opinion, will this these uh excess parking on Springfield Avenue be of a detriment to the neighborhood or a plus to the neighborhood? >> Well, I I don't know that it would be a detriment. I certainly wouldn't call it
a I I think you said a plus. Um it's limited to Sundays and it's we're talking in in practical >> it's not limited to Sundays. There's a possible funerals. >> That's true. Yes. >> Religious education meetings at night. So it's more than just Sundays. Let's let's face reality.
>> So So the street parking is permitted. Um the church needs additional parking for heavier attendance. uh whether it's weekly services or a a funeral or uh a wedding, maybe a larger wedding, even though there's not much of those happening at the existing church. So,
yes, the parking is permitted on the street. Um and I would think that this use would take advantage of that, particularly particularly on Sundays. >> Have you I don't know if they still play games at Wilson School for for uh athletics. >> I don't know. I've been out.
>> Yes. So, have you done any studies on a Sunday when they might have games there? >> I have not seen um I have not noticed a specific situation where games have been played and the street parking was as I observed. I I
didn't go back into the park. I know you're not allowed to park on the west side of Oakley, for example. I had not been out there and seen excessive or much use of the street parking on Springfield. Can I follow up to that? >> When your visual inspections are those
traffic studies done, what days were those done? >> The um the parking studies were done. Let me just go back. Um okay, so we started in February, Sunday,
February 25th, 2024. then April uh 21st and then um March 16th of this year, June 29th of this year. Um so four or five different times. And
then the counts were done um on Sunday o uh April 7th. Let me just get the right Yeah. Sunday, April 7th, 2024 from 9 to 10 and then from 11 to 12 and all the parking uh counts were
generally around the 9:30 10:00 time frame. >> Um may I >> Yes. >> Um as far as the um I don't know what the word to use, the the the people that work there, how many parking spaces are they going to take up on a on a Sunday?
I think the testimony >> you said four but >> yeah the testimony from um from the very first hearing when Dr. Tanner testified Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, I have in my notes 10 to 16 people throughout the day.
>> How about on Sundays? >> Um in in terms of the reverend plus other >> yeah whatever whoever has to help out. Um I'm not sure >> because that would affect the um parking on the property and then would increase the parking on the street.
>> Well, the 1 three ratio typically accounts for the the people all all people. So, however many people are working or assisting the reverend would be part it's sort of like um trip generation includes delivery activity.
So, the parking generation is based on everybody being there. Um, so I have a couple of questions. One is, um, I know you did the study from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. and 11 to 12
based on when, uh, you know, people are expected to arrive and depart. But given that there's just going to be one service a day, if that time frame shifts for any reason, um was there any study done between 10 and 11 a.m. like it
seems that 1 hour window just to give any other on the traffic? >> Uh no, we we just isolated those hours because of the the way the application has been structured with the goal of combining the two existing services into
one 10:00 service at this site. Okay. And then I'm not Can you walk us through this? Um I'm not sure what this is telling us. >> Sure. Yeah. Um so if you go to
>> it's a it's on It doesn't have a page number. It says church. It says 560 in parentheses veagal trip ends versus seats. >> Right. that that is summarized on um
table one page three of the report. It's the trip generation estimates and the the book allows you now to plug in the number of seats and it applies the uh the trip rate and then it prints it out.
Um, and so at the bottom left of that page, we've got 300 on the vertical axis. Um, and then we've got 262 and 270 as the resultant um,
trip ends, total trips, um, that would be estimated during one hour. So we used the 262 based upon the refinement of the data which equated to 131 entering and 131 exiting. >> So
>> So okay, how I'm just I'm so I'm confused. So there's a a range here and I know it's not that big. It's eight count but 262 to 270 and you chose to use the lower one. Uh and then
but this is okay. This is based on this is based on round trip does it say it doesn't 50% entering 50% exiting. Okay. >> Yeah. They don't show the entering and exiting on this printout. Um we append these printouts because most of the reviewing engineers like to see the the
data plot. >> Okay. And why what does it mean? I'm sorry. I just I'm just trying to make sure I understand where what these what this means in here where you came up with these >> um you know these projections what they what they're really based on. So what
does it says the number of studies is four. What are those four studies? Is that four days that you took data or or is it based on some external studies somewhere else? >> Yeah, I don't know if I've got the specific answer. or I might have the
page with me, but it's based on four counts at different churches. Um, okay. So, different churches and is that in summit? >> No, no, no, no, no, no. This is the IT databases throughout uh the country and
even in Canada. >> Okay. And then so US and Canada. Okay. And then it says the average number of seats is 524. So in this study you had there the it has four churches
and they based on what they learn in this study they come up with like an estimate um because four is not a very big >> study group. It's a pretty small group. So, how do you think that the correlation I
between having 524 seat? I mean, I don't even know if it's linear 300 seats versus 500 seats. Um, it sounds like it is, but sometimes things like that are not. What's your experience with that? So, so to get into that that 262 versus
the 270, I was just checking at the bottom right of that page, it says there's an R2 equal to 0.85. So, that means that they've created an equation that's a better fit than the actual rate, which is why we use 262
because the book tells you when you've got a high R squar value, the equation is a better fit than the rate. So we use the 262 versus the 270. Those are the two results you get. Those those um
estimates are based on 300 seats. So we started with 300 seats, we've now reduced the seating and so that reduces the trip generation. So even if we keep the higher trip generation, we're still at a level of service B coming out of
the driveway. If we were to double that, we might get to a C or D, which means, okay, people are waiting a little bit longer to leave the site, but in reality, they're not all leaving the site because they are going to, if there is that high level of attendance, then
they are going to have to park on the street because we only have 46 spaces on the driveway. So the driveway theoretically is not going to generate hundreds of of vehicles in a peak hour simply because the parking lot is
limited to 46 spaces. >> What is the R squared? What does that mean? >> That gets into a lot of statistical stuff that I um have forgotten about really. Um, but it's a it's a it's a regression equation
that is developed to better fit the data plots than just the straight use of the 0.9. But in this case, even if you were to use the 0.9 trips per um seat, it's only an additional eight trips. So it's
it's pretty close either way. >> Okay. >> So really what you're saying is you're moving the congestion out off the property and onto Springfield Avenue. If if we were to generate that level of activity, you know, we're talking about 160
um as the usual um attendance number and we're using 130 in the analysis. Whereas the one per three would have it about 5560 trips. if it if you hold that ratio uh
from the parking into the the trip generation >> and then sorry and then then there's another table that says vehicle trip ends versus a th00and square feet GFA and um what is GFA
>> gross floor area >> gross gross floor area okay so in this study in this you use 19,000 square feet or 19,2 264 ft or did you use the sanctuary space? What was this comparison? >> 18,000 and change.
>> Okay. And so for 18,000 square ft it says that you need you had 235 trips basically, >> right? So
number one, we typically don't use the building area for house of worship trip generation, but for this land use for the church land use, you can see that using the number of seats produces a higher peak hour trip generation
estimate than bless you than using the uh building area. >> Yeah, I was just ex Okay. So, for an 18,000 foot building, it says you would only need 23, if I'm reading this right, you would need a maximum.
It's it's not based on people. It's based on space. And it says you would only need 235 spaces on that one. >> No, no. This is this is not parking. This is trip generation. >> I'm sorry. Sorry. Not parking. You'd have 235 people. Well, about 50 entering, 50% leaving, right? So,
aboutund. So it' be about 118 cars entering and 118 cars exiting. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions? Um >> yeah, I got I got one. Um, so you you
would anticipate that you need to use street parking typically every Sunday to accommodate >> based on based on the historic attendance levels that have been testified to about >> considered like um you know in the
winter months Springfield Avenue could could become a much narrower street with snow on both sides of the roads. And you know, even if we only have a few storms, sometimes the snow lasts for
quite a while. And I I I just think with that road becoming narrower in the winter because of storms, it it's going to create a little bit of a problem. >> Um, sure. And >> that snow is not cleared by the city, >> right? And so
>> the only clear snow in in town. >> So if the snow's not clear and the roads are bad, >> No, no. I'm talking about they're cleared, but the snow gets piled off up onto the side of the road. So, it narrows naturally narrows the road on both sides. >> And if that happens and parking can't
occur, then the the people may not go to the church. They may opt to go with a virtual option. >> If that was considered, >> no, I mean the the the public parking is available um for, you know, any use. And certainly those types of situations will
limit the parking to a degree. Um, so I'm not disputing that. That's that's a fact. But then when the weather's bad, people may not go to church or if there's still the visual option, they may choose that. >> There is. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> Any other questions from the board? >> Um, questions from the public? Yes. You get to come up to >> me. Turn this thing on. >> Is there a switch for this? You want
>> Um, I think there's a button >> on the side there. >> Hello. There you go. >> Um I have a lot of questions because I think this is the most >> Can you just state your name and your address please? >> 103 Park Avenue.
>> Um so I I'm interested in this monitor. I think this is the most this is the most important issue regarding this application. So you said you said you had not measured how the cars would fit on one side because I had gotten to
Rhino and lined up cars through a model and put 32 cars and I got from one end of the block to the other allowing the 5050 space. Is that unreasonable or my number is way off? >> Uh I'm I'm sorry. I I missed some of that you that you measured it in Rhino.
>> Yeah, it does sound like test. >> Well, I'm asking if this is real. I'm asking her if this is reasonable, if this is a reasonable number because she said she didn't she didn't know um how far they would go with that. Is that a reasonable estimate? >> I I really don't know because as I I was
questioned earlier, I did not I did not specifically measure out 22 23 foot length modules along the um along Springfield Avenue. I did not do that exercise. >> No, this is seems to be a very key key issue that no that's that's somehow the
cracks. Okay. So, now the car I'm I'm driving in. Let's say I'm going down. I'm going west on Springfield. I'm I come into the parking lot. It's full. I pull out. I go out. Now, um if I I can go um west or I can go east. And now
I've got to go park. Um now on the on the streets, I'm presumably going to park closer to the um church than than than the ends, right? Okay. Um and then I'm have to walk. So now, are these people now going to go walk up the
entire block, go up to the crosswalk, come back down, or are they going to make the mad dash and become roadkill on Springfield Avenue? >> Um the the the congregants currently are are parking on streets and walking to the existing church. So where where they
choose to park and how they choose to park um and how far they're willing to walk um will will all come into into play. I would think that most people would want to park on the sight side or the north side of Springfield Avenue. So, they're not crossing the street.
>> But if you come down if if you go coming coming out um if just inspect gone into the parking lot, found there are no parking spots coming out. You only have one choice. See that you you two choices are one to park on the north side on going west, the south side going east.
And am I correct? There's no um park there's no sidewalk on the south side. Is that correct? Uh that's correct. There's sidewalk across the side carage. >> So now we'll have all these people parking there. Okay. If um now they've got to cross the street, cross street legally, then they've got a fair distance they've got to walk up to the
corner if if they actually do want to do this legally park the cross go up to the corner to go up the go to the crosswalk or instinctively are people going to cross right where they are and take the shortcut right across the street? >> They they may do that.
>> Okay. I mean, so it's like we're gi giant safety issue. We haven't even talked haven't discussed yet. >> Could you just make a little clearer what the question is? >> My question focused on >> the question was people are people who parking are they in who park instinctively were going to
instinctively park near the ch church building. Are they going to instinctively cross the street at the church building or are they going to go up to the walk up to the corner, cross at the cross, go around and come down in the middle of busy street? And if we're
going to have people crossing the street of Springfield Avenue, which is not a exactly a low low volume place, I'm I'm pointing out that this is >> So this sounds like something more of a comment that you can save for the end.
Well, I'm asking her if this is the this what's going to happen. Are people instinctively going to go across the street at that location? You know, traffic heard we heard the question and you're you're just asking a hypothetical about what people would do, which is not something that she can answer.
>> Well, she's the expert. What do traffic people? What are they what do they do? >> You can save that as a comment for the end, but you're asking if people are going to break the law and cross where they can't cross. you know people are required to go cross at a crosswalk I
think is the only answer that you can give. >> Okay. So so basically we're saying we've not accounted for this in any >> you can give your comment at the end. This is a portion for questions of this witness only. >> I'm ask question they have this has not been accounted for in any of the planning. We don't have we don't know
measure. We don't have a measure of how far these cars extend. We don't know where the people are going to walk. We don't have Buckus here and we're talking about about traffic planning. Okay. Thank you. >> Um, other questions from the public, Mr.
Simon, >> I'll defer anybody else who has questions. >> I I don't see anyone else at this moment. Yeah. >> If you have a question, please come up. I just ask the question you didn't really ask. >> I think he was trying to
>> Well, please state your name, spell your last name, and give your address. >> Tommy, and I live at M A N E Y and I live at 30 Oakley Avenue. My question is, where is the crosswalk? For the people who park on the opposite side of the street, there is the closest
crosswalk where somebody does use those parking spaces as outlined could legally cross to come to the other side of the street. >> Pine Grove Avenue, which is further east of Fair View Avenue. >> That's about
>> It's about 600 feet from Oakley. >> Six to seven. >> Yeah. So you expect I don't want to give an opinion >> and don't >> Okay, that's where it is.
>> Any other questions from the public? >> Yeah, if I sit Mr. Dolan, good evening. Good seeing you as always. So, um, when were you first retained for this application? >> Um, well, I worked on the prior Beacon
application at Waldron. Um, and then in 2022, I opened my file for this project. Um, but it took a while to get kicked off. So, I really started working on the study in 2024.
>> And when in 2024, do you recall? >> Uh, well, we started the counts in April. So, um, >> so you you talked about a prior beacon beacon application. Um, what are you referring to? >> The existing Beacon uh church is at
Springfield and Waldron. um and they were looking to do an expansion at that location and I believe that the um the application was withdrawn once they found this site. >> Um how far away is that site where the
expansion was proposed from the current site? >> Um >> excuse me. What's the relevance of this? >> She answered the question. one to establish a foundation as to her development history with this applicant.
>> I don't think s the prior application is relevant here. >> Well, we'll find out >> and I I don't know if it's a a mile or two. >> And um >> that far. >> And you said that this the application was withdrawn because they found this
site. >> Uh that's what I have in my notes. So I think Roger had given that as an overview. Yeah. >> Um and was the application at Springfield and Waldron actually applied for. >> I can stipulate that was applied for. It
had been through a number of hearings. The hearings were not completed. The church found this site decided to withdraw that application and pursue this application. >> Thank you. Roger. Um Betsy, with regard to um
that application, did you prepare a traffic study for that application? >> Yes. >> Um was it in the form similar to the traffic study you for for this application? >> Um to the best of my recollection, I I
haven't looked at that file in a while. >> And and do you recall whether you performed a parking study in connection with that application? We we did because we inventoried available parking on various streets
approximate to that church uh to try to determine if there was sufficient on street parking uh for the expansion. And did you participate um since your
retention in 2024, did you participate in the design or orientation of the proposed improvements on the site that's before the board? >> Uh no, John, our engineer, uh was the
person most instrumental on that. I I've reviewed the parking, but I have not uh participated in the design. So, you didn't participate in the location of the driveway or the parking spaces, correct? >> That's correct.
>> And you didn't participate in terms of the um circulation incident into the application. Correct. On site. >> That's correct. And um other than um Miss Dolan, your written traffic impact
study dated November 18th, 2024, you haven't sub uh presented or submitted any supplemental studies or reports. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And and you you talked about um earlier even this evening, you visiting the
property. Um I believe you did you yourself uh visit the property? >> Yes. >> Okay. And how many times have you visited the property? >> Um, I've visited the the property uh on the property one time. I have been uh
through that area to evaluate parking on four different Sundays. >> Okay. So, when you were at the property one time, what what date was that? >> Uh uh I don't know that I have that. It was um it was it was after the plan was
revised to eliminate the parking I'm sorry the pedestrian connections into the park to the rear because I wanted to see how that parking was being questioned for possible use. Uh so it was it was sometime in the past few months. I don't know. So, other than
visiting the property once in the past few months, you had not you have not been um at the property itself, correct? >> I've been in front of the property and behind the property um in terms of looking at the parking uh in the area.
>> Okay. And when when you're talking about the parking, are you talking about um were you present during these four parking studies done on February 25th, 2024, April 21st, 2024, March 16, 2025,
and June 29th, 2025. >> The the not the first one, the rest of them. Yes. >> Okay. And you conducted that study, the parking study yourself on those three different days, the April 2024, March of 2025, and June of 2025. Yes.
>> And are those the studies where you concluded that there were only um I guess between two and four cars parked? >> Yes. >> And did you submit those studies to the board?
>> The um the first two are referenced in the report but not the supplemental ones. No. And the first two that are referenced in the report, you didn't submit any data or recorded information
from those studies. You just it's all just stated in your narrative. Correct. >> There is a a sheet within the appendix. Uh it's it's after figure three. We've got a sheet that includes the traffic counts. And then after that, we've got a
sheet that summarizes Sunday, February 25, 2024. Number of cars parked on each side of Springfield Avenue in halfhour intervals. >> And what page is that on? >> So it's it's let's do it this way. >> Oh, I I got it. >> Okay,
>> I got it. So So you actually um this looks like it's computerenerated. Um, did you actually make handwritten um, evaluations of the number of vehicles on Springfield Avenue during those times? >> Um, these were done by by camera, by a
data collector. Um, the other times when I went to supplement, I just jotted down notes of how many vehicles I saw between those two um, intersections between Harrison Court and um, Oakley and and Fairview. >> Okay. That that information wasn't supplied to the board in terms of those
>> No, that was not. And um with regard to what you're talking about um regarding the recording, that's the Sunday, February 25th, 2024. >> Yes. >> Okay. And and that's based on what? A camera observation. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And so other than those uh times, um you have not been to the site, correct? Uh I've excuse me as I've said a few times I've been there uh on different occasions uh during the work
week um and specifically noted the different Sundays I was there uh to look at the parking on Springfield Avenue. Okay. >> In terms of the counts that were done on that one date, April 7, 2024, you were not present for those counts. Correct. >> Uh no I was not. Um and it appears in my
review of the your traffic submission that those uh traffic that traffic count that day wasn't done by anyone at Dolan and Dean but rather was performed by a third party vendor. Correct. >> Yes. >> And the vendor or whoever that person
was who collected the data um he or she's not identified anywhere in the report. Correct. >> Correct. Um, have you do you have information as to the um the
prior use of this property? >> All I know is it was a Red Cross facility. I don't know much about the operations. >> But so you don't know anything about um traffic, parking, circulation in connection with that? That's correct. Correct.
>> Yes. And there is no information in your uh report that talks about any um recently approved or contemplated development or
related background traffic data. Correct. >> Uh there is a reference to background traffic data because we did use a growth factor. Um so that's the that's the one item that you just mentioned that is in the report. >> Right. Other than your percentage growth factor with 2 point something percent,
correct? If I recall, correct? Yep. >> Um, other than that, you haven't identified any specific approved or contemplated development in the area, correct? That may be using or accessing Springfield Avenue. Correct. >> No, I have not. >> Um, and you haven't reviewed any uh
police reports in the area or uh related accidents or data. Correct. >> I've not reviewed accident reports. Just the there was a police review. who I think it said no comment on the application, but that's the only thing from the police department that I've seen. >> But you didn't you didn't open any type
of police reports uh in the area. >> Accident reports? No. >> Um and you haven't performed any type of uh origin or destination analysis uh for this study, correct? >> No, we did a 50/50 split based on the traffic counts and um understanding that
people are coming from various areas, not just in uh in town. Okay. >> Um, I'll ask you about that later. Um, in terms of other than the what you testified to as to your observations
as to the number of vehicles parked on Springfield Avenue at various times. You haven't done any um pedestrian uh circulation evaluation or cyclist evaluation for the area in question. Correct. No, other than noting the
crosswalks in the area and the um sidewalk obviously across the site front. >> Um a member of the public just asked you about the nearest crosswalk and I believe you said Pine Grove Avenue uh which is about 600 ft from Oakley. Is that correct?
>> Yeah, maybe closer to uh 750 800 um from Oakley. Um and and that's that's the nearest when you say cross what I'm it's my fault when we're talking about crosswalk you're talking about a crosswalk between the north side of
Springfield and the south side of Springfield >> as was questioned by the the residents correct >> and um you had mentioned earlier even this evening about the fact that um less than
100 trips um is not um indicates via it that uh no tra formal traffic report should be submitted something along those lines. >> Uh yeah, that's the that's the measure and it's been adopted in the state highway access management code where
where new development adds 100 or more trips in a peak hour that intersection should be analyzed. >> Right. You're you're aware of course that per even per the IT um that in many jurisdictions in uh rural I'm sorry
urban areas and and suburban areas that they tend to use lower thresholds for initiating a transportation impact analysis of somewhere between 30 and 100. Correct. >> Uh there's uh yes absolutely at the discretion of the board they're reviewing engineer or if it's a a county
or DOT. Absolutely. >> Right. and and also to take into consideration whether a formalized traffic uh study is to be conducted also considers localized issues such as sensitivity of adjacent neighborhoods or other areas that may uh be affected or
affecting pedestrian access or off-site parking. Correct. >> Those are general parameters. Absolutely. And with regard to the um operation that you uh apparently performed a study for
in the past for um the existing location of the church. Um do you recall how long ago you performed that study? >> That was several years ago. I I don't recall. And and and is the church still
operating at that location to best of your knowledge? >> Yes. >> And when's the last time you observed vehicles entering or exiting uh that property uh on a Sunday? >> I have not. Um and the amount of traffic
entering and exiting is limited to um employees. There's there's no uh any of the the people coming for service park on the street. Have you performed any type of observations as to the amount of vehicles parked on a street for a
particular service on a Sunday at the existing facility? >> Uh again, this is several years ago. We counted the parking accumulation. It's very difficult to count which cars on the various streets were associated with the church.
We were we were looking for available surplus parking to accommodate the proposed expansion at that location. Um >> M. Dolan, at that time, did you perform a pedestrian circulation study to determine um how many folks were
actually walking um whether it's from their cars or from their homes to the church for various services on a Sunday? >> No. And um you also didn't perform any type
of study as to um the vehicles that did park um to attend services where they were coming from north, southeast or west. Correct. >> Well, again, it it was virtually impossible to do that. I suppose
nowadays with several drones, you might be able to capture it, but but it would be very involved because there were multiple streets where uh we were inventorying parking and we did not know which cars were associated with the
church or other businesses or resident um residences in the area. Um and currently the sanctuary space uh is proposed to have a capacity of 236 seats. Correct. >> 236 is the new number. Yeah.
>> And and what's the the current um membership if you know of of the church? >> The membership was testified to by Dr. Tan are 454 members and friends um and
161 regular participants on a weekly basis and if if there's 161 participants um on a regular basis, do you know um as a traffic consultant why uh there's a
proposal for a sanctuary of uh up to 236 seats. >> I think that's been testified to by >> different witnesses. That's not you know, if you know, I'm saying from a a traffic perspective, you were not consulted with regard to that. Correct. >> No. And um with regard to um the
testimony that was provided as to um various activities that might take place on a Saturday from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Did you perform any observations of the current church activities on a
Saturday? >> No. And did you make any observation of any use of the existing church property on days other
than Saturdays or Sundays, whether for um nonprofit groups, meetings, or the like. >> The the existing church at Waldron Avenue. Yes, ma'am. >> No, I did not because they don't have a driveway, so it's it's hard to capture
um the vehicular activity because it's co-mingled with with all the other activity on the streets. >> And your evaluation that's set forth in your report, and your testimony did not take into account um any activities uh between 3 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. on
Saturdays for memorials, weddings, dedications, and the like. Correct. No, we focus on the routine Sunday uh peak attendance. >> And your evaluation also didn't take into account uh the building being rented out, leased licensed or otherwise
used voluntarily for any third party activities uh or events. Third party meaning non, you know, church sponsored activities. >> I don't believe the church is planning to lease out the uh the space. And there's there's as has been testified to even uh weddings for people who are
members of the church uh typically aren't even held at the site. People prefer a wedding venue. >> Right. So is is it your understanding from from your evaluation of of the traffic that there's going to be no activity at the site uh for any events
during the week? >> This this was all covered in Reverend Tanner's testimony. >> Yeah. No, I I I reviewed that testimony. I'm asking Miss Dolan whether >> she doesn't run the church. Sir, >> do did your report take into traffic and circulation and parking report take into
account in any way, shape, or form any activities performed during the week? >> No. And with regard to the um ingress and egress and I think uh in the Kier's report there may uh in Mr. Rousard's report report there's no
mention of this whether there was any sight distance evaluation that that you conducted in consideration of uh roadway configuration trees hedros park cars and the like >> um I did not our engineer John would
have done that and the county is going to require clear sight lines so that there are no obstructions um and there's ample vis visibility >> right but but in terms of your traffic and circulation evaluation and your performance of a level of service and as contained otherwise in your report. You
didn't perform any type of evaluation as to uh as to proposed or appropriate sight triangles for this site. Correct. >> I did not. >> And you didn't uh perform any evaluation of either intersection or stopping site distance in connection with this report. Correct.
>> No. Again, I would defer to the engineer because that, pardon me, has to be on the site plan for county review. And um with regard to vehicles
um exiting from this site um onto Springfield Avenue. Um did you perform any evaluation as to um the amount of queueing? When I say amount, the
distance of of queuing cars looking to exit the site trying assuming that they are all potentially going to be making a left to go east on Springfield Avenue. >> Yeah, the the queueing calculations are in the um the level of service
calculations and they're basically one to two vehicles. Um but we would expect in reality more queuing than that. um if there's a heavy departure at the end of the service, >> right? And and not only is there a heavy departure, so you use the peak hour
factor of 87 to 0.90, right? In analysis of the driveway, >> 087.90. Yes. >> Right. And that if they're entering and exiting, like you said appropriately, Miss Dolan, within let's say a 20-minut time period, um the peak hour factor should have been closer to like 33 just to be conservative.
>> Uh we we certainly could have used a lower peak hour factor to model that, right? and and and if the lower peak hour factor was used to model that and you had vehicles not you know as you uh presume in your report um 50% making a left and 50% making a right but rather
um a greater percentage making a left and having a longer wait time um did he do an evaluation of the length of the queue um for vehicles exiting the site and the reason why I'm asking I'm not trying to obviously never trick you but because of the location I don't even know if we can put it up on the screen
the location of the parking spaces that are closest to Springfield Avenue on site and the distance between the nearest parking space or the nearest parking
spaces and the beginning of that Q line seeking as we just talked about a moment ago uh waiting to make let's assume a left-hand turn onto Springfield Avenue. >> Sure. I I think that the the the queueing area before the first parking space is is going to allow for three to
four cars to queue um on the approach to Springfield Avenue. So certainly this is something that happens um school dismissal uh the end of a church or other service at a house of worship. And so there's going to be on-site queuing.
Um the good thing is is the the volumes on Sundays aren't as high as during the uh peak hours on weekdays. So there may be some on-site queuing uh and people have to wait to back out of a space if there's a queue.
>> And um you didn't as part of your study perform any type of evaluation where folks, you know, who are members or or who regularly frequent the church where they where they live or where they're going to be going, you know, after after church activities. Correct. No, that
that's sort of the the um the uh you know, you had mentioned before, could there be more lefts than rights? There could. We we did an even split based on the street volumes and based on the fact that people may be coming and going from different directions or may have
different destinations as they leave uh the service. >> Right. And and you didn't perform any type of study as to how long it's going to take to empty the parking lot with 46 vehicles. No, that's that's an on-site
um situation. It's it's not um >> it's not impacting the through traffic on Springfield Avenue. People leaving the church have to wait for a gap in traffic before they can leave. So, uh that's to be expected at this type of
use. And um I didn't see in your report any evaluation of the use of the parking spaces in conjunction with pickup and drop off activities. Is that contained,
you know, that are happening at during that time period on a Sunday? >> Um it was not in the report. I did provide testimony earlier perhaps in uh response to a question about the the loop. Uh maybe it was Miss uh I'm I'm not sure who it was, but I had said that
if people go in and turn around at the end of the loop in the uh at the end of the uh parking lot, then they're traveling back towards Springfield Avenue and they can drop off on the um the building side uh the sidewalk there.
So I think that that's the way any pickup drop off would work. >> Right. So, um during the during the church service, there's also going to be um Sunday school activities in the building. Correct. >> I believe so. Yes.
>> Right. And so your report doesn't take into account pickup or drop off for any children who are going to be attending Sunday school, but their parent or caregiver isn't
necessarily going to services on on Sunday. Correct. Well, as I had testified, I believe the um numbers that we've used, the trip generation numbers are much higher than what would realistically occur, but then it would
take into account that type of pickup drop off. >> Right. I'm not talking necessarily uh Miss Dolan about trip generation in terms of level of service. I'm just talking about an evaluation of activity. So, you have 46 cars parked and you're
also going to have um a number of vehicles who are going to be also entering the site to uh pick up or or drop off for Sunday school activities. Correct. >> Uh I I believe so. Yes. And then with
regard to um not only pickup or or drop off, but there's also going to be circumstances based on your experience and and by the way, this is my bad. I should have asked you earlier. Um you've done performed testimony for other
houses of worship, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And you've performed testimony for other houses of worship in Union County, correct? >> Um I'm trying to recall right now. Aside from the Beacon application, um I right now I can't I can't think of
one. >> That's okay. But you've performed uh >> throughout New Jersey. >> Throughout New Jersey. Okay. And so you're familiar with the fact that on a Sunday that you're going to have this this pickup and drop off activity during
uh at times where there's going to be Sunday school activities. >> Yeah. And I as to the specifics on this school and this operation, I'm not quite certain how that times out. >> Okay. >> But I think, excuse me one second. I think if you look back at Reverend Tanner's testimony, the testimony was
that that's not going to happen. >> That there is not that pick up and drop off at the same time that people are coming for church. Well, >> so it's a little different from some of the other churches that maybe you're familiar with, >> but that was the testimony.
>> Miss Dolan, did you perform an analysis one way or another regarding pickoff and drop off in relation to uh vehicles parked at the site? You did not >> only only with regard to what I had said earlier is that the site is designed so that people can come in, turn around, do the pickup, drop off on the passenger
side, and then leave the property. And um there also will be presumably based on your experience working on houses of worship pickup and drop off for circumstances where you have someone who
is unable to walk from an offsite parking spot because of um age, illness, injury and the like. Correct. >> Yes. And you also will have circumstances where people will be
dropped off or picked up because of weather related issues, whether it's raining, whether it's flurrying or or the like. Correct. >> That could happen too. Yes. >> And you have not personally observed um
Sunday school drop off or or any type of drop off and pickup at at the current church location. Correct. No, there's really no convenient pickup drop off location and I've not made a specific um study of that type of activity on the
neighboring streets. >> And and you haven't done any type of study of drop off and pickup or queuing or amount of queue and uh length of queue um for this site and how it may impact uh parking spaces for people
looking to get in or get out. Correct. only with regard to the fact that it's all onsite. It's going to be an on-site situation. Um because I would expect anyone who's being picked up and dropped off, whether it's because they're
younger or because they've got uh physical limitation or because of weather, uh I would think that it would be preferable to drop them off closest to the door as opposed to on Springfield Avenue. >> Right. But the the but because you have
not done any evaluation or study of pickup or drop off activities. Um you haven't done an evaluation of the extent to which there will be the required 24
foot aisle for parked cars leaving or coming into the spaces. Oh, if if there's a couple vehicles queued on the uh westerly side of the driveway as they're dropping off children or people with mobility limitations, then they're
cutting into the 24 ft. Absolutely >> right. And what about for pickup when it's not just a quick I'm dropping off my kid or I'm I'm dropping off my mom to go to services, but rather I'm actually waiting for my child or waiting for my
mother to emerge after school um or services and I'm just you know waiting there you know not idling of course but just sitting there and the line gets longer and longer. You haven't done any evaluation of that correct? No, but I don't think that the number of attendees
for that type of activity is all that much. I'm looking back to the operations testimony from Reverend Tanner and she was talking about uh youth groups with maybe up to 40 kids. Um so I'm I'm again
I have not done any specific queuing assessment because this is all on-site, >> right? So, if those 40 kids and and and let's say there's no brothers or sisters, hypothetically, that means we're talking about, you know, potentially 40 vehicles queuing and
lining up to uh to pick up those kids. Correct. >> Well, they could use the parking spaces because for that particular activity, it says there's five to eight facilitators. So you'd have 3540 spaces available that parents could
use and and they wouldn't necessarily all be queuing up along the side of the sidewalk adjacent to the building. >> So but what about during services and they those aren't those spaces to be used for for people attending the service? >> Sure, but I think the kids are coming
with the parents uh on Sundays. >> You haven't done any type of evaluation or study on that, correct? I've not done a queuing study for pickup drop off. >> And with regard to um I I noticed uh from the Langan uh plans that there's a designated fire lane as there needs to
be on the site. You recall seeing that in your review of the plans? >> I'm looking at the plan. I I don't see the notation, but I'm sure that they were added. >> Okay. Did you type did you do any type of evaluation of the circulation,
parking, ingress, egress, queuing, pickup, drop off in consideration of the location of the fire lane? >> No, I would leave that to that's the the design that's been um developed by Langan. >> Okay. and and you have not done any type
of evaluation based on the design that's being proposed before this board as to um adequate access for emergency vehicles to get around the site when the site is fully parked. Correct.
>> That that was addressed by our engineer. I think John explained that the larger vehicle would have to pull in and then I think back out. >> Right. So, but Okay. But have you I'm sorry, Bessie. Have you done it? You haven't done any type of independent evaluation. >> No, no. The the engineers now all have
the templates uh in their software. So, we kind of taken a backseat to that. >> Okay. Um and uh with regard to um parking spaces, and I know we we talked about it and I thought the board um asked some frankly awesome questions as did some members of the public, but just
so I can sort of crystallize the issue. Um you're familiar with the ordinance section with regard to parking, correct? >> Yes. and and it the requirement under the ordinance says one space per three seats or one space per 10 square feet of gross floor area or whichever is greater. Correct.
>> Correct. So um based on that calculation the one space per 10 square feet of gross floor area is greater. Correct. >> That's that's correct. Yes. And um if somebody in this case the applicant
violates um that requirement in terms of their proposal before the board, they require from your understanding a variance for parking. Correct. >> Parking variance. Yes. >> And do you know what the uh parking
variance is that the applicant is requesting since you did a parking study? Uh there's been testimony tonight that depending upon the gross floor area that is considered and in my understanding gross floor area means all space that's
habitable which in this case would include the basement. So it would be I think 1,800 spaces, >> right? So, so whatever that deviation is from the 46 spaces would be the variance technically technically based on the
ordinance that would be required to be requested. >> Well, I don't think we've conceded that and I think that's a a legal conclusion and I think that's beyond this witness's area of expertise to interpret that requirement. >> Well, I'm I'm not asking. >> Would you agree council?
>> Yes, I would. And as Mr. Simon was just about to say, I don't think he's asking her to interpret it, but I think he's saying heard the testimony tonight that that was >> right. I And and just to to lay a proper foundation, Miss Dolan, you regularly in
the course of your um work as a traffic engineer and parking um evaluator uh look at applicable ordinance standards for uh parking requirements for municipalities. Correct. Yes. Across the state of New Jersey. Correct. and you
reviewed many parking ordinances um for various uses including houses of worship. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um and based on your experience um in performing those evaluations uh based on based on the ordinance um your your
testimony, you provided testimony both as to one space per three speeds seats, excuse me, as well as one space per 10 square feet of gross floor area. Correct. >> Yes. And um the IT I know we talked about I believe the chair actually asked
you some questions about the um information for trip generation from IT that you provided in your report. You didn't mention IT parking generation six edition in your report at all. Correct.
>> I did not. And um right now uh the parking based on you're proposing 79 I'm sorry 46 spaces for 237 seats or under the ordinance um based on one space per
three seats 79 is required. Correct. >> Yes. Um you because you haven't done the evaluation as to the current location. You don't know whether one space per three seats
is necessarily um appropriate given current activity arrivals and departures. Correct. Uh again, if if the existing beacon site had a parking lot and a driveway, we would have counted that. But because it's co-mingled with other on street parking and other
activity, it was, as I had said, virtually impossible to count that. So, we couldn't we couldn't do that study for this church. and um based on the IT parking generation uh sixth edition and you you've used the IT parking
generation sixth edition for uh other types of applications in your work correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And um they provide in those um evaluations both an average number of uh parked cars
as well as what's called an 85th percentile. Correct. >> Yes. and and can you just describe for the board the difference between the two? >> So the average is the the typical demand and the 85th percentile is the amount of uh because it's 15% of the time that is
um the the number that um is required or the parking demand. So they do give you the range as we were talking about in trip generation. They give you the average. should give you the 85th percentile. >> And so, um, based on
a, um, the size of the building, um, have you done an evaluation as to what the 85th percentile parking demand is based on it? >> So, the problem with the IT 6th edition is they eliminated all but one research
site. So you're down to one data point and um then they tell you caution small sample size. Um so the sixth edition I'm not comfortable with for a church. Um as I mentioned in my testimony earlier the
fourth edition recognized the the range of rates was probably associated with different spaces beyond the sanctuary. Um so for for that reason um I have not relied on the sixth edition for
churches. Okay. Um but isn't it true that the independent variable under the IT six edition for parking based on both size of the building as well as the
independent variable of attendees each have not one but four data points. Is that correct? >> Um I don't have that in front of me. I I just have some notes that it's um 65 spaces per se is the average from the
sixth edition which would be 154 for 236. That's the only information I can give you because I don't have the book in front of me. >> Okay. So, so if I told you that in terms of attendees based on four data points, um 85th uh percentile
u I'm sorry, the average would be um 135 park cars and the 85th percentile would be 168 park cars. Does that >> that sounds about right because I have 154 from the sixth edition uh the average rate,
>> right? So, so based on um the IT um 85% of the time you would need uh based on the independent variable of you know 237 uh attendees that based on the number of
seats you would have an 85th percentile peak parking demand of 168 parked vehicles. Correct? >> Again based on a limited uh sample size. Um, and for the sixth edition in terms of the the square footage, um, have you
done that evaluation based on the four sample points? >> No. Um, if I told you that for 18,000 square feet of a building, um, it's almost 200 spaces, 198 spaces, does that sound
approximately correct or you just don't know? >> Um, I don't know. I haven't looked at it, but I would expect that for 18,000 square feet, we'd get uh a pretty hefty number, same as we've been talking about with the ordinance. And um
assuming for the moment that the board determined that the what is being require what it's required is not these larger numbers but rather based on it of course but rather 79
parking spaces with 46 spaces provide provided excuse me or a 33 space deficiency. Are you aware of a parking deficiency
of greater than 33 parking spaces for any development application within 1,000 ft of this site? I >> I think you lost me a little bit there. I'm sorry. >> Incredibly poorly worded. So, are you
aware of a parking deficiency for which an application was made for a variance that was greater than 33 spaces for any application in Summit over the last 20 years? >> I I I don't know.
>> So then you don't know whether that those they existed or where they're located. Correct. >> If if there was a parking variance granted for another application nearby, I don't I don't know of of anything about that. Okay. And um in terms of the
party 46 parking spaces provided um that includes handicap spaces, correct? >> Yes. >> And how many handicap spaces are proposed here? >> I think we've got two. >> Three. >> Three. So three handicap spaces. And um
how many uh charging stations? >> Oh, I think there's four. I don't I don't recall. Paul, I know we didn't take the credit for them in the calculations, >> right? But there's there's four start charging stations, Miss Don, >> I believe. Wait, let's see. Number
three, maybe there's only there's I believe there's two. >> Two. >> Yeah, >> there. Oh, John's telling me there's four. >> That's okay. So, um I I assume are any of the charging stations um associated
with the handicap spot? >> Um I believe one of them is. Yeah, I see the four now and they're they're all together and the southern most of the four is a handicap spot. >> Okay. And are um is it your
understanding that the charging uh parking spaces are to be uh limited to those who have electric vehicles or hybrid vehicles? >> Uh that's the idea. >> And with regard to um
the tandem spaces, I know you you testified uh to that and the use for those. Are are those use of tandem spaces permitted in the R15 zone? Oh, I I really don't know. I know that that came out of the the the traffic review
from Collers and then the um design team worked to to provide them. Uh but I don't know whether they're permitted or not. >> And um the ordinance itself, you know, we we've been talking a lot about off-site or on
street parking. The ordinance doesn't allow you to satisfy a parking requirement in whole or in part with off- streetet off-site parking for this particular application. Correct. >> I don't think so. >> And um you know, according to your testimony, I believe um you stated that
33 parking spaces are available along the north side of Springfield Avenue. >> That's my estimate. Yes. and and that's where you get the 60 vehicles
between uh Harrison and Fair View accounting for driveways and hydrants both north or south and south. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and I know you stated, and I'm not going to repeat the question because it was answered, um, that just to be
clear though, you did not perform any measurements taking into consideration driveways, hydrants, legal parking spaces, um, or the, uh, width of Springfield
Avenue and the available area for parallel parking. Correct. Um, again, I did visual inspections and I've said a few times that I did not measure out or scale off uh those spaces. >> And um
is there any signage um that are that's along any of the local roads preventing parking on the weekends? >> Uh yes, definitely on Oakley on the west side. Um I think it's 9 to5 on um
on Sundays. I'm sorry, weekends. I have it in my report. >> Yep. Anywhere else? >> Um there's an emergency authorized vehicles just to the east of the site. Um and then on Oakley, as I said, it's 9:00
a.m. to 5:00 p. p.m. Saturdays and Sundays on the west side. Right. Um, and other than your parking studies done on those four occasions at the times you've identified, you're not aware of any other parking studies done
by by you or anyone else uh in the in the vicinity of the project. Correct. >> Uh the only one I have performed is this one and I'm not aware of others. And the you talked about the um
the 660 I'm sorry 60 vehicles between Harrison and and Fair View. Um what's the distance from Harrison to the property? >> Um it's about 1,700 ft depending upon where you measure it from.
>> That's 1,700 linear feet, right? >> Yeah. And then what about the distance between Fair View and the property? >> So I've got about 275 between Fairley and Oakley and then maybe another >> You mean Fairley mean Fair View?
>> I'm sorry. Fair view. Thank you. Fair View Avenue to Oakley and then about another 200 or so to the property. So four or 500 feet. And um I think there was a question asked about um the park and the school.
You've not done any type of uh evaluation of um parking along the local roads during any events, activities or use of the park or the school. Correct. No, I was here and I heard commentary from the
public about that and concerns about parking on Beakman and concerns about possibly parking at the park and then walking to this site. Um, and so the the plan was revised to cut off those pathways. >> Um, and you haven't done evaluation of
the uh width of the Springfield Avenue shoulder in the uh between Harrison and Fairview. Correct. >> It's the shoulders there, but I haven't >> You don't know how wide? >> I haven't. It's probably eight or nine feet deep. >> And um have you done any evaluation of
the uh topography of the roadway on Springfield as it uh comes to this site from both the west and the east? >> Uh there's a downgrade in the westbound direction. Right. Um, and have you done
any type of evaluation of um, I guess that would be stopping sight distance. Um, if you're coming over the hillrest, what I'll call the hill crest, and suddenly you're encountering someone on that right hand side or on that I guess
that's northern side trying to parallel park. >> Uh, no. Again, I had had mentioned earlier that the site distance and the site triangle have to be plotted and that's a county issue. I've not been involved with the county application and so I've not been a part of that or uh to
your specific question evaluated site distance associated with parallel parking. >> Right. Just so the board's aware when I'm what I'm talking about in terms of of can you just explain actually I think it would be helpful the board um explain um what the dis difference is between
>> stopping sight distance which is what I'm talking about and what you just referred to as sight triangles because they're two separate things. >> Sure. Yes. And sure. Um okay. So the the sight triangle is measured at the site
driveway in the eastbound and westbound directions um roughly 350 ft in either direction. So when a vehicle is approaching Springfield Avenue, that driver has to have ample visibility to see vehicles coming in both directions.
And so that's the sight triangle. The stopping sight distance is um if somebody is traveling along Springfield Avenue and they need to stop because there's an object in the road or a vehicle exiting the site driveway. Um they need to have a certain amount of of
time to stop and that stopping site distance again is about 300 350 ft for uh Springfield Avenue at this location. >> And that would be to the driveway. Correct. >> Pardon me. >> Is that for to to when you say 350 ft? Is that to the driveway?
>> That's the stopping site distance. It's it's roughly 10 times the speed limit. Or if you if you go to 40 for a design speed, it's about 400, >> right? And it's 400. Um, and that but that's just at the driveway. And that's
not taking into account like I just described, which is going over the Hillrest. And now all of a sudden you're um experiencing somebody trying to parallel park on Springfield Avenue as you've come over that hill crest and
you're going down the hill at a design speed of 40 miles an hour which is 35 plus. >> Yeah. So, no, I've not done that analysis. >> And um with regard to let's see asked you about that. Um
Oh, so there's only sidewalks on the north side of Springfield Avenue, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, if you're traveling from west, I'm sorry, if you're traveling from east to west along Springfield
Avenue and you intend automatically without first checking whether there's any available parking in the parking lot, you just want to park on Springfield Avenue, you could pull into Springfield Avenue as close to the site as possible and and you would park on
that road. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So if I'm traveling from same same location from east to west but I want to try to get one of those 46
spaces and those 46 spaces by the way that includes the tandem spaces. >> That's correct. >> And includes of course the handicap spaces and the EV charging stations. Correct. >> That's correct. So, if I pull in and I look around and I do the loop and I
don't find parking, okay, and I and I I'm ready to eress the site to go find parking on the roadway. Based on your experience as a traffic engineer, um, am I not more likely to make a right than a
left because it's a quicker exit out of the out of the roadway coupled with the fact that the sidewalk is located to the north >> and it's the sight side. Yes. >> Sight side. >> So, yes. >> Right. So, I'm going to be leaving the the site. I'm going to be making a right
and trying to find parking between um the site driveway and Harrison, which is 1,700 linear feet away. Correct. >> Yes. >> And
if I am coming from the um east to the well, let me back up. If I'm coming from the west to the east and I'm traveling along that southern side of Springfield Avenue and there's no sidewalks on
Springfield on the southern side of Springfield Avenue. Um and I want to I'm going to be parking to walk to the church. Um, am I You have no idea whether I'm going to be parking and then walking uh within
the road or whether I'm going to try to find a way to go into a side street and then turn around and then go back onto the right on the north end side. Correct. I don't know what a driver would do, but I think that it would be easiest to enter the site, loop around,
turn right, as we just discussed, and then park on the north side or sight side of uh Springfield. >> So, that's what that's what you anticipate happening based on your experience and the and the design of the site and the
proposed parking off site. Correct. I think for someone heading in the eastbound direction, that's probably the easiest uh maneuver. Turn left into the site. And if there's no parking, then turn right out and park on the street. Um, and if they if somebody is parking
on the south side of Springfield Avenue, um, to cross, they would cross legally, they would have to go find that, um, that stripe crosswalk, uh, which is, uh, at Pinerove. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> Okay. And you haven't uh performed any pedestrian I know you did in terms of parked cars, but you haven't performed any type of pedestrian study or or cyclists along uh this area in question along Springfield
Avenue on Sunday morning. Correct. >> Um anytime I've been there, I have not seen any cyclists or pedestrians. >> Um just give me a second. I think let's go back.
Um, >> no further questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. >> Um, are there other questions from the public? >> Yes. Hi, Jeff Sullivan, Pic 12 Pacic Avenue.
Uh, I just had a about the parking lot itself. >> Uh, just a question about the configuration of the spots. Mhm. >> Are they perpendicular or are they like kind of at an angle which would, you know,
>> um suggest you could only park and reverse in the spot one way? >> So So because of the curving driveway alignment into the into the rear of the property, there are some spaces that are um narrower at the top and wider at the
back. Um, but the parking spaces closest to Springfield Avenue or on the southerntherly half of the site, those are completely 90 degree, but the configuration is perpendicular to the drive aisle. So, you're going to be pulling into them for the most part and then backing out of them. >> So, you could pull in and backed out
either way. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> There any other questions from the public? Okay. I think we have one or two questions from the board that have come up. Right. Um
me. >> Yeah. >> Um I have a couple of questions. So just for clarification, so of the 46 proposed parking just I want to So there's four of them are tandem. >> Yes. >> Right.
>> Three of them are handicapped. >> Four Four are handicapped. >> Four are handicapped and four are >> Oh, I'm I'm sorry. I was going to the EV. Three handicap. >> Three are handicapped. Correct. >> Are um EV charging station. So that's 11
total spots that not >> So the four tandem's going to be taken right away, right? So those are for the you said the clergy, >> right? >> They're going to arrive early. They'll So four spots are gone. So that's seven spots. So as a you know somebody comes
to come to to the um services they are basically have 40 46 minus 7 right so there's only 39 spots that the person who's not handicapped or has EV can park in is that correct
there there are three EVs three handicap and one of the handicap is also alo an EV. So that's I think you're talking about six spaces in addition to the four in the in the uh
tandem. So, if nobody's attending that service, a service on Sunday that is either has a handicap parking spot um pass or an EV, those spots will remain vac, correct? Or so so basically what
I'm saying is my my question is is it's really not 46 spots. Correct. Well, you can argue it either way because I think we're only required to provide two handicap and we're providing three because a lot of places want extra handicap spaces, they
don't have enough. And so, legally, we're required to provide not only the handicap but also the EV. So, while they may or may not be used or there may or may not be people coming here that are uh needing a handicap spot or an EV
spot, they do count towards the total. Um, and I think that the the there's a lot more EV vehicles in the population. We used to talk about compact spaces. That's not an issue anymore. Now, it's EV spaces. So, um I would think that the
providing three EV spaces that probably is is the right number, but I I don't know and I haven't pulled the, you know, or talked to the reverend about how many of the the people attending have EVs or or handicap placards. >> So, so you're so you're going over. So,
you basically could gain two more spots if you went to two handicap, which you're saying is is required. And the is it two EVs that are required? I'm not >> I I don't know the requirement. I think that that the four that are here is that
should be the requirement because it's the New Jersey law now that you have to provide the certain percentage on um parking lots. >> So is that percentage based on the number of spaces that are required the 79 spaces or is that percentage based on
the number of spaces that you are providing? It's the spaces in the lot. >> I would concur. It's actually been clarified from DCA that it's the number of spaces that are being proposed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um there real quick one.
>> We talked about parking, excuse me, on Springfield Avenue. And you mentioned that there's a fire hydrant. >> Yes. >> It's in front of the building kind of to the >> to the westerly side. >> Yeah. West corner, northwest corner. >> Yep. >> There's I would assume this is a fully sprinkler building. So there's probably going to be a stand pipe, I mean a
sprinkler connection associated with that out of your purview, I guess. Right. >> But what's the typical what's the requirement parking away from a hydron on each side? Isn't it 25 10 ft? >> Yeah. >> So there's 20 ft and if the stand pipe connection is is or the sprinkler connections close by,
>> that's probably going to be no parking as well. >> Yeah. I don't know anything about the stand pipe. >> Yeah. So, um, my assumption is, and excuse me for assuming, but you're going to lose those spots, which is going to re which is right >> going to kind of screw up your distance for people parking in front of the building a little bit.
>> I think I think in between the driveway and the property line, you may may get six. >> Yeah. >> And then you mentioned the emergency access to the to the west of the property that we're that's under discussion tonight. Um, I would assume that there's also going to have to be
some sort of um no parking. So access >> that that's correct spaces >> and even um you know very close to the driveway uh there there may need to may also need to be uh limitations >> because it a sight distance >> sight distance and make sure that a
vehicle can turn in and out. Yeah. >> Um I just had one question just to clarify because I think there was a conversation about the sixth edition IT between you and Mr. Simon >> and uh yeah right and in the sixth in
the sixth edition the range of parking spaces would be 135 to 168 based on average to the whatever the 85% if I'm getting that right for Mr. Simon. Um and then Miss Dolan you mentioned that you
had gotten an average of 154 parking spaces required. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? I I know that's separate from the ordinance count of you know where when you did one per you know every three seats to get to 79
but the 154 what is that average based on? >> Okay. So so the one per three seats is sort of like a rule of thumb and it's very common in many ordinances that that I'm I'm familiar with throughout New Jersey. The IT keeps updating these
parking generation and trip generation manuals. So if you go back to the fourth edition, they had a generous supply of studies that were used to develop a ratio.
They then issued the fifth and the the ratio is pretty much the same. When they went to the sixth edition, they got rid of a lot of the old studies and so they they as Mr. Simon had indicated there
are four studies um for building area. I believe if you're looking at seats it's only based on one study and that ratio is very high. So that's where I got the 154 because it was more than
65 per seat. So it's much different than the um the one per three but again that's based on a limited set of data. So it says hey use this with some caution and apply
engineering judgment. Um, so because the sixth edition is so different from the prior editions, I have not been using it for church applications, uh, because it is showing a much higher ratio than had historically been in the
prior editions. >> Do you know why they got rid of um, some of the studies that were previously included? they wiped out the older studies >> but for any particular reason like >> I I don't know um they they do in the
publication explain that they they um they got rid of older studies but how and why and who it almost is is if the sixth edition for this use for this use um it's not I don't think very helpful
to traffic engineers, planners, and and and for board review because it has been scaled back and there's been no supplemental studies. Like if you go to the warehousing, there's all sorts of new data because everybody wants to know what's happening at warehouses. But
churches, this one per three rule of thumb, typical ordinance is um I guess it's not as much of interest to to planners and traffic engineers as uh as other land use data. So what would the
parking be for from the fourth edition or the fifth edition of it? Just curious. >> So yeah, so for the fourth edition uh 48 for the fifth edition
um 73 uh I'm sorry 52. the average supply would give you 73 which is about one per um three seats but just under that. >> I'm sorry I'm confused about what the
fifth edition your average supply versus >> Yeah. So the average rate which is what we're talking about consistently. >> I thought we're just talking about the number of parking spaces. >> Okay. Not the rate. >> Fourth edition the average parking demand would be 48 for 236 seats. Fifth
edition would be 52 spaces for 236 seats. Sixth edition would be 154 because they thinned out the database. >> Maybe they realized they were wrong. Yeah, >> I well, you know, that there's there's
been these updates and I think a lot of land use data has been um provided, but I think some of the other adjustments um and it's not just for the church land use, but there's some other land uses that uh I'm not so certain they they should have raced to the finish line.
>> And I'm not I'm not accusing you. It's just But it sounds like we can pick whatever addition fits best to our project. Well, I think what we what we're supposed to do is look at the ordinance requirement, >> which we have right now saying that's not functional,
>> right? And so I've given you the range of what it would tell you over the, you know, the updates to to their edition and that's consistent with what the uh questioning from Mr. Simon was. Uh, but that would be 154. So, could it be possible with the sixth
edition they decided to let the local authorities dictate the parking as opposed to going back? >> Uh, no. They tell you that they um, as I said in the in the intro, they said that they've they've weeded out a lot of the older data, which that makes sense. I mean, things do change, but
church services, people are, you know, generally still going. Virtual has changed some of that. So I know that they've reduced the data but they also say this is a tool to help you gauge parking demand. We don't know it's not
an exact science and the range of rate shows that. So we've talked about a whole host of ranges now. It 48 to 154 um and then the one per three and then of course whatever is decided and it'll be I guess a legal discussion
or planning discussion on the one per 10 square ft. >> Okay. >> Can I have has there been any survey done by the church or study by the church that just current state how many people drive to church?
>> Uh I don't know. Would that be difficult to do? >> Um, we can we can certainly ask >> be good to understand that >> there other questions from the public, I think. Yeah.
>> Oh, yeah. Please come up. >> Hi, I'm Hillilary Academy. I live at 684 Springfield Avenue. >> Can you spell your last name, please? >> Sure. K H A D E M I. Can you hear me? Is it on? Yeah. Okay. >> Um I had a question because you talked
about traffic driving people coming to service. >> You will need to grab >> Oh, I'm so sorry. >> Hi. Um so if people are coming to the service and they are driving east to west
or Okay, let's say you talked about if someone comes in and they come into the parking lot and they can't find a spot, so they come back out and now they're going west on Springfield Avenue. Um, and there's no more spots. So now they're thinking, "Oh, there's spots on
that side." There's no streets. Are you aware that there's no streets to turn around between Pine Grove all the way to I guess that's Payic? So now we're looking at people who may consider pulling into driveways.
Um, and if those spots are already taken, so now we have cars backing out of driveways where they cannot see because we've got parked cars. Have you taken into the safety factor of that? Um, I'm not sure if you're aware, I do
live right across from the place and on Sundays in Summit, we have farmer market and many people walk to the farmer market. So, we do have a lot of pedestrians. Just wondering if you've considered any of that. Um so with regard to the first part of the
question, um these are people who are going to be familiar with the site and they're going to be coming to the site hopefully every Sunday. Uh so I would think that they'll time out their trip or they'll find their preferred place to park. Um it's not as though this is, you
know, a a destination like a a a store that um people are trying to get to and then have to make a U-turn. I would think that the people who are affiliated with the church are going to be familiar now with this location and they're going to pick their preferred place to park so that
they don't have to make those U-turns. Uh because I agree with you, there's no once you go west of the site, there's no street to turn around. >> And most people are not going to just keep driving past all of these empty spots. I would assume they're going to
want a U-turn. And I don't know, you obviously stated you didn't see cyclist, but again, we're Can I finish? Sunday mornings, there are many cyclists on that street. I live right there. That's when people go cycling. >> It's facts. I don't know. I don't have a
study, but there's lots of cyclists and there's lots of people walking to the market asking a question. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Um, so my question is, are you concerned about the safety of the neighborhood and the pedestrians and the cyclists that live there? >> Well, of course. And I know at one of the prior meetings somebody talked about
um you know the sharing the road and that's exactly the the point is that the road is is for not just the cars but the cyclists. And so if there's one car or four cars parked and the cyclist is in the lane um that's that's an existing
condition or a future condition whether or not the church is here. Um, and having the sidewalk on the site side, I think makes it much more attractive for the Beacon attendees to park on the north side of Springfield. >> Right. But if there's I'm just if you're
concerned about if there's parked cars on both sides now, where are the cyclists going to be? >> They're going to be in the in this travel lane. >> That's okay. Thank you. Yes. Another question.
Uh Jeff Sullivan, 12 Pac Avenue. Just going back to the was it the IT? >> It Yes. >> So between the various additions, fourth and fifth edition, you were saying to clarify, it was based on 231
attendees. um in all >> that the the required parking was I think it was 40ome and then the other addition was 50some >> um for for the 236 seats it was 48 for the fourth edition
52 with the um fifth edition and 154 with the sixth edition >> and you were saying your preference was the to use either the fourth or the fifth edition. Well, my my
it's not my preference. It's the the the IT tells you when there's a limited sample size to apply engineering judgments. So, you just don't go to the book and take the number and say this is it. I think what we've all been doing tonight is evaluating possible ranges in
in the parking. But the fact that they've taken the sample size down for this particular land use is why the the rate has gone up. So if you think about 236 seats uh with 40 sorry again 40
>> 40 40 48 >> 48 that would be over four and a half people per car. >> Yeah it's it's it's it's high. >> Do you think that maybe this is why they eliminated those old studies in the sixth edition? It it may it may be and I keep going back to the ordinance
requirement of one per three which is a a standard ratio for houses of worship as well as um um gathering places or for example a catering facility one per three seat. So that's a that's a standard that we see in a lot of
ordinances and because these IT numbers are all over the place. Um I think more data is is probably needed to uh for for churches for the next edition that's released. >> Okay. Oh, so that's what that one to
three means. It's one >> one space for every three seats. >> So it's expecting three people in a car. >> Yeah, that's how the ordinance is written. Okay. Correct. Okay. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Mr. Simon, you have another question.
>> Just real quick. >> It's not possible. >> I was just going to say that. [Laughter] Um you've you've not done um any studies in the last 25 years regarding houses of
worship generally to assess how many um passengers are in a particular vehicle coming to a house of worship. Correct. >> I've not done that. And in terms of one space per three seats as just asked that
assumes that all three uh passengers in that in that vehicle the driver let's say in the front seat and somebody in the back all three are actually going to be attending the service as opposed to maybe the driver and the person in the
passenger seat are attending the service and the person in the back seat is maybe going to Sunday school. Correct. >> Right. The one per three doesn't specify. It's just one per three. >> And and your fourth edition, fifth edition um data that you've just stated, that's based on average and not 85th
percent. That's correct. Correct. >> Yes. >> What And do do you know what the 85th percentile numbers? >> No, I don't have those numbers. >> And with regard to the ordinance standard of one space per three seats, um do you know if that's based on the
average or the 85th percentile? I don't know that it's based on it. I think it's that's the typical parking demand that we're supposed to be striving for. >> Okay. And do you know when that ordinance was was first enacted? >> I don't. >> Thank you.
>> Are there any other questions from the public? Um seeing none, I think we're going to have to uh take a pause here and carry this to another date. It's pretty late. We're not going to finish today.
And the board still has other business to do. >> December 17th. >> December 17th is the uh next available date. >> December 17th. >> December 17th. Is that a Wednesday?
>> No. Um I mean Yes, this is >> I have a complex I think I think we'll be in the same place that night. Um I >> I I second >> um I say I could potentially send
someone to my municipal hearing but um >> so is is it January then? organization. >> What What's November look like? >> November looks booked
as well as December 1st. Yeah, we're looking at January 8th or 21st special meeting, >> early December. >> We could talk about it, I think, for
right now. We would have to gauge board availability for all the members, but right now we should pick one of those dates and if we can accommodate an earlier meeting, we can discuss that as well. >> Okay. So maybe you should carry this for
scheduling purposes so we don't have to renotice if we do a special meeting. >> That's fair. Um we've certainly done that before. Any >> concerns with that? >> Fine. >> Just carrying it to the next meeting. >> To the next meeting with the
understanding that there will not be any hearing. It's simply for scheduling it so that we can try to evaluate whether we can accommodate a special meeting at some point between now and January. >> Okay. >> So, >> we did that back in May.
>> Listed on the calendar, but >> everyone here understand that at the next hearing where it comes up, there will not be any testimony simply for scheduling purposes only. >> So, >> what's the date of that meeting? >> The next meeting is October 20th.
>> Okay. So, you don't need me at that meeting? >> Um, no, we would not if we can >> because that's not possible. >> Scheduling. Okay. So, if you can let me know dates, then I can check, you know, we can all check.
>> Yep. We will try to compile some dates that can work for the board if if that's possible and I'll reach out. >> Okay. I think going into January just not be good for anybody. >> We'll see if we can avoid it.
>> All right. So, is there a motion to carry until October 20th without notice? And I assume waving the time frame to wave. >> Thank you. >> Some moved. Can I just ask that if there's going to
be discussion between now and that date for purposes of scheduling? We'll ask you. Yeah, >> sure. >> Thank you. Just so be consulted. Thank you. Yes. Appreciate that. >> I just have a question is >> it will be listed on the website.
>> Y I heard a motion. Was there >> second? for scheduling >> too. >> Vice chairs on a minute or two. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes. >> Miss Chief.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Fesin. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. Just for members of the public, we are still in session. So, please take your conversations outside. >> All right. For resolutions for
memorialization of first we have 112 Essex Road zoning board application number ZB-25-2292 the eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko Mr. Nelson Mr. Nearing Mr. Curran and Mr. Chantuli could we get
a motion to approve >> so move second >> face chairs on >> yes >> Mr. Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes. >> Mr. Naring. >> Yes. >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes. >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Up next, we have four Hughes Place zoning board application number ZB-25-2284. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Nearing, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion? >> Some moved.
>> Second. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. >> Yes. Mr. Nelson, >> yes. >> Mr. Nearing, >> yes. >> Mr. Curran, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Next up, we have 58 Valley View Avenue, zoning board application number
ZB-25-2287. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Nearing, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion? >> So move. >> Second. >> Vice Chair.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko. Yes, >> Mr. Nelson. >> Yes, >> Mr. Nearing. >> Yes, >> Mr. Curran. >> Yes, >> Mr. Chantuli. >> Yes. >> And then we have 609 Springfield Avenue, zoning board application number ZB-25-2297.
The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Nearing, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion? >> Some moved. >> Second. >> Vice Chair. >> Yes. >> Mr. Yuko? >> Yes. >> Mr. Mr. Nelson,
>> yes. >> Mr. Nearing, >> yes. >> Mr. Curran, >> yes. >> Mr. Chantuli, >> yes. >> Thank you. And then we have minutes for memorialization from August 4th, 2025. The eligible members to vote are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Nelson, Mr.
Curran, Mr. Chantuli, and Mr. Nearing. Could we have a motion? >> So moved >> and a second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any opposed? Okay, thank you.
>> So, we need a motion to adjurnn. Anyone? >> I just have one question. >> What did he mean when he said if it moves to January, it's not good for anyone. >> I think they just don't want to wait that long. >> Okay. >> Gaps between meetings and having to
refresh your recollection on what happened months ago. Not ideal. [Music] I actually have >> motion to adjurnn. Oh, no. >> We have a question also. Is there any I should ask before any more testimonies for um
>> Yes, there is at least planning testimony from the applicant and planning testimony from uh the objectors as well as any public comment. >> Okay. So, it's like like a half like a full a full meeting. >> Hopefully, just one more full meeting.
We'll see. Motion to journal.