e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e good evening and welcome to the June 3rd 2024 meeting of the city of summit Zoning Board of adjustment my name is Joe Steiner and I am the chair of the zoning board please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the United States of America to the stand indivisible Justice thank you uh in accordance with New Jersey state statute 10 col 4-10 adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to a newspaper of record and has been posted here at City Halls 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 live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also being broadcast on summit's governmental Channel which has come 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 uh you may think we can hear you and that's true but they won't be able to hear you on the uh as they take the take so make sure that you come up and use one of the microphones I probably should do the same uh please note that the fire exits are to my right your left and the back of the room where you entered the city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired if anyone needs the uh hearing assistance please obtain the system at the dis and return it thereafter uh Madam Secretary would you call the role please sure chairman Steiner here Vice chairman lyit here Mr Yuko is excused Mr Nelson is excused Miss Zan is excused Mr Kieran here Mr Malay here miss to here miss chiefo was excused Mr feskin here Mr Chuli here you have a quarum you may proceed thank you Andy ball is the city's zoning board attorney he will be advising the board members on matters of Law and is key interface with an applicant's attorney he does not vote on the applicant Stephanie suos is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary she works with applicants on preparing their applications planning our agendas and keeping our meeting minutes uh Miss zulos also does not vote on the applications also present uh is Marie rafy from CER engineering our board engineering firm who is seated at the table to our right your left in the front also seated at that table is uh Ed snikes from burdis Association Associates our uh board planner those experts provide input to the board and also do not vote on the applications 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 executive session to vote on the application you will be advised how many votes are required each case begins with the applicant 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 that the applicant may have to help explain the application and why the variances are needed the board members may ask questions of the applicant there attorney and the expert Witnesses once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning the public has an opportunity to ask questions now this is not the time for you to tell us what you think about the application the uh that opportunity will come a little bit later before you ask your questions again come forward use a microphone and clearly state your name spell your last name and name and provide your address it is important that our court reporter is able to keep a clear and accurate public record after all the witnesses have um 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 you will be sworn in in order to do that 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 our discussion our zoning officers have asked that we remind all applicants that they must read carefully the resolution that documents the zoning board's decision and pay particular attention to the conditions that may be contained in that resolution if a landscaping plan is required you must obtain one and submit it to John Lind in the city's Forester if there's a grading plan required you must have one prepared by a civil engineer and submit three copies along with the application fee to the city's engineering division failure to satisfy all the conditions in the resolution will result in the delay of approving your application as it will cost extra work for the City Zoning staff the resolutions documenting the board's decision will normally be avail ailable one month after we decide the case uh we're now going to go through the applications quickly and uh ask a couple of questions what we're going to want to know when we call you up is how many witnesses you have and whether or not you think you can get this done in a half hour so let's begin with 15 Caldwell Avenue which is a carryover thas AR come forward again okay Thomas beo architect for the applicant we are here and I am the only witness aside from the homeowners and are the applicants here tonight yes they are okay uh okay thank you you think you'll do it in a half hour I'm hoping under five minutes okay we'll try uh second one is Aaron and Lindsay Britt two kings Hill Court good evening Mr chairman members of the board Samantha Al o and we have two uh direct Witnesses and we also have the engineer in case there are any questions of him but we don't plan to call him unless there are specific questions and 30 to 45 pardon hopefully 30 but uh potentially more like 45 30 to 45 okay thank you we'll try to expedite and next would be Marcus and Jacqueline Rani at 235 Oakridge Hi Marcus richan owner of 235 Oakridge Avenue uh we do not have any Witnesses other than ourselves um we expect to hopefully beat his five minutes um that's okay you can try to beat it when we'll see what happens and uh the last one on our agenda tonight is Bristol Meyers squid and this is for the 556 moris Avenue yes good evening Mr chairman members of the board my name is Kevin Moore with the firm of Stevens and Lee I represent Bristol Meers squib company I'd say 30 to 45 minutes I how many witnesses three okay okay so then we now know what we're going to do and so we will begin with 15 call well this was heard um this was heard at a meeting that I was not at and those uh members of the board who have who were not here have signed off on certificates that they have either has everybody signed off they're coming down and uh that that way they uh they will they've read the transcript and or watch them the video of uh of the hearing uh so it's my understanding that there are basically three open items that need to be clarified so uh I turn it over to you to clarify them um do I stand sworn in yes do you were sworn previously and your credentials as an architect were accepted at that time you remain under Ro are you going to testify sir uh yes okay he's going to testify swear you in at this point do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and please state your name spell your last name first name Kevin last name is a v e d i s i a n thank you okay so we stand before you with um a revised cover sheet so first and foremost you have a revised cover sheet the plans are are not changed they were the same plans approved in August of 2022 the avidians were not able to make the last hearing and are here tonight to provide any additional testimony you might need I have since met with Christa Anderson and I've agreed with all her numbers and I concur with the May 17th zoning board memo to your board that our lot coverage is 49.9% our building coverage is 30.3% the FL area ratio is 38.888421100000 okay my reading of the text was different that there was supposed to be testimony tonight I I don't know that it was necessarily going to be tonight I know we had questions about the drainage and I believe the indication was that you planned to comply with submitting a storm water management plan that meets all the city's requirements I guess that's still the plan you're not asking for any deviations from those no it's just it's going to require a meeting with the town engineer and we'll accept whatever the engineer conclusions are we have a deck an addition replacing a lot of the existing debt so that will happen and we'll comply with it Marine so um I was not at that meeting as well but my notes from my colleague um seem to agree with that and I'm I'm curious if anybody else had a different take on it that um they would be providing seepage pit calculations for engineering and um that they would have to remove their old pit so just so you know that if if it goes for engineering it goes to the town engineer and not to me as the board engineer so so these would be conditions that would be right that when they when they submit for a building permit that they'll have to submit something for engineering to review not me engineering but um City engineering and I know we did discuss a condition last time that the applicants would submit a storm water management plan to the city engineer specifically uh for review and approval that's correct as testified it looks like they're planning on complying with everything it won't be any Dev whatever the number the city engineer says they'll meet it otherwise they have to show up back here and ask for more relief you don't really want to do that I don't uh any questions from the Tom do you have anything no nothing to add okay um any questions the board members okay and are we are we happy with the numbers that Christa we used Christa's numbers I presume so um I did not we our office did not review this application okay so I don't I can't really Aline on it but you're certifying that you're using Christa's numbers yes okay as some of you may know Christa retired and so Mr chairman if you could just recap what they've asked for and the conditions as a final okay just for the record and to make it um the conditions are that we would accept Christa Anderson's memo to your board from May 17 2024 we will be applying for an engineering permit from the city of summit and a building permit at the same time and we'll be providing cross-sections and drywell calculations for what the decision between myself and the engineer is and um there was an open matter about the movement of the shed it's currently on the property line a little bit over I've spoken with homeowners they've agreed to move it that one foot into the property so decide completely on our property I don't think there were any conditions other than those three uh also so we have four noted from the last hearing one is our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum uh second as you just mentioned the applicants shall relocate the encroaching shed so that's one foot off the property line the shed shall be screened uh third the applicant shall submit a landscaping plan to the city Forester for review and approval and then fourth as we've just discussed the applicant shall submit a storm water Water Management plan to the city engineer for review and approval okay those are accepted and then to recap um just the the specific variances the applicants are looking for lot coverage is 49.9% 45% is the maximum building coverage they're proposing 30.3% 20% is the maximum floor area ratio 38.888421100000 to the proposed deck is 21 foot 7 in and then technically they would also need a variance for that relocated shed uh with the one foot rear yard setback MH okay I I have a question onback for thank is that what you understood to be okay okay any further any yeah I have a question on the setbacks for the shed um I always thought those numbers were more I always thought a shed was like seven off the rear and four off the side and that's why they're asking for a variance cuz it it currently encroaches on that's still the case it's at 7 and4 is that what it is I can't remember the number off the top of my head but uh I could try to look it up as we're discussing but that's why they're asking for yeah it currently encroaches onto the neighboring property they're proposing to move it back onto their property and have a 1 foot set back from the property line that almost Rises to where the benefit is to the public we would improve something that's been there for 40 years MH and that's an old check chair okay any other questions from the board yes sir just one followup question with regard to Christa being retired do you require to do any changes to your actual uh zoning table as part of the document that's been submitted no that's a new document I did subm you have a new submission yes with Christ's numbers thank correct that cover sheet that was submitted to um sios last uh two weeks ago is the hand thank you and you you you those numbers were reviewed and they they okay just trying to make sure we don't see them again um okay um anything else you would like to present no sir anything from you sir we swore you in so we exceeded my time limit okay uh um then uh we will uh we read we've already okay is there anyone in the public that would like to ask a question of these Witnesses seeing none others there I'm going to skip right on over to is there anyone who would like to express an opinion in regards to this particular application seeing none we've already given out the we've all heard the conditions we get them a little bit out of order and uh so we will move into executive session how many votes are required there is a d variance so five votes are required so five votes are in order to pass it who would like to kick off our discussion in executive session well how about I I I can certainly support this I think we've set a record for diving down the rabbit hole beating a dead horse um pick pick your your ride um but they have we we have finally dotted every eye and crossed every tea and agreed on the numbers behind the approval applicant got almost two years ago so I would be very happy to put this to bed okay anybody else looking at the uh zoning uh uh zoning Bo officer uh I see that all our uh concerns were addressed and they accepted the uh revised uh on May 17 memorandum so I do support this application okay anyone else okay I think we've uh We've we've looked at the public safety end we've looked at the drainage uh We've hit a lot of the uh the the issues that we need to make sure have been uh covered so that we can support this if ever ever challenged so uh I would accept a motion to approve this application so move second roll call vote please Vice chairman ler yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Miss to yes Mr fkins yes Mr Chuli yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you thank you chairman thank you and again uh please read the resolution and follow we'll do thank you thank you okay uh Aaron and Lindsay Britt to Kings Hill Court good evening Mr chairman members of the board Samantha again uh fanso and Weber yes thank you thank you um here on Aaron on behalf of Aaron and Lindsay Bell uh this is regarding their property at two kings Hill Court everybody can see uh the rendering that we're showing on the screen is what we are proposing uh substantially similar to look like this from the street this is really to fill out the Second Story they're adding and a second story addition over what is an existing split level home uh the current home is not cons consistent architecturally with those around it and in the neighborhood this is really meant to bring it more inconsistent with the neighborhood while providing a more functional living space for the family with that uh to realize those improvements they will require two variances one for floor area ratio they propos 31.6% or 25% is permitted and a combined sidey setback of 27% where 35% uh is required and 27% is existing so that is being maintained the the side back the sidey yard setback is not changing they're really just vertically adding an addition um but they are asking for that variance here because it's a continuation of the variance since they are adding in line the combined sidey yard setback is really direct result of the trapezoidal shape of the property pull up our plans the latest revision May 28th 2024 and that was to address some of the comments um they were minor comments but we wanted to try to address them for the board this evening okay so there you can see the uh trapezoidal funky shape of the lot um that really makes this combined stard setback necessary because it is based on the widest part the calculation is based on the widest part of the lot but it uh you know it applies to the entire lot including the the um narrowest part near the home okay okay and the f is really uh mostly a function of the attic space that is over 7 ft um it was the we still needed a variance at 28% originally before we had included the attic space uh mistakenly we were told by the zoning officer and then uh filed a new plan showing all of the attic space that is above 7 ft to confirm uh that we we needed 557 Square ft additional in f space that is not usable space um not livable space excuse me it is usable but it is access from a pull down ladder still okay and that is to create the eight on 12 roof pitch that is uh recommended and suggested by the DRL we have the applicants and their architect here to provide testimony and I'd like to start with the applicants if I can I see we're going to swear you in at this point no questions from the board then I'll swear you in if you could each raise your right hand whoever's testifying stand sure do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth and one at a time please state your name spell your last name Aaron Bell b l Lindsay Bell with an ay thank you thank you Aaron Lindsay you own the property together yes and uh tell me a little bit about your existing home and what brought you here so our current home is uh 1960s split level um built on the side of a hill in the Woodland Hills Division of summit um we have three bedrooms on the main floor and uh a Master Suite on the top floor which kind of feels like we're onun different levels from each other um it uh it has an awkward shaped lot right which uh Sam is already provided in the in the drawings and um you know at the moment you know we have uh we have our entire Master on the top floor we have the kids down on the bottom floor um so that's how kind we're set up at the moment it's basically one main floor and then a master by itself up top and I noticed Aon when I was driving by when you go up to Kings Hill Court you're going uphill right correct and then behind you your rear yard is also yes pretty steeply sloped yeah it slopes towards the front of the house and down the hill so it's kind of two slopes yeah you're kind of tucked into the slope right cor thank you correct um can you please describe your proposal yeah sure so our um as I stated our current home has um the kids three bedrooms on the main floor right and um in 2016 we tried to open up our house a little bit we um our kitchen was compartmentalized into a dining room and a tiny kitchen and we had a third kid and realized we didn't have enough space so we tried to we expanded our kitchen expanded that side of the house house and uh you know kids grow up and they get bigger and your house starts to become very small very quickly so we realized we needed to uh expand in some manner right the uh the renovation 2016 did not do what we thought it was going to do so what we have decided to do is to bring the kids' bedrooms upstairs to our floor right this was a a Confluence of a few different events one that the kids uh need a proper study space two that you know there have been some uh uh burglaries in our neighborhood we had our son in bed with us for a couple weeks because he was scared to sleep on the floor by himself down there um and we feel that you know Lindsay and I are almost living on a different level than the kids at times you know especially at nighttime um a lot of the closet space in our bedroom is 1970s walk through closets where you have to walk through a closet to get to another again we have I think four or five different closets in our Master four closets that and they're them are near each other and they're yeah they're spread out all over the place it was just built a long time ago so we're trying to get the property more uh with the times commenor with the neighborhood um looking similar to the uh the nature of the rest of the houses uh around us thank you um and did you have a chance to review the administrative reports of the board's professionals yes we looked at all of them and you agree with them uh subject to the comments of your professionals yes absolutely thank you and did you have a chance to speak with your neighbor we did yeah we spoke with with all the neighbors that are barding our property um most of them I think all of them were in favor of it there was one neighbor that had a question about the height of our roof and we gave her architect's name and assured her the height was I think she might be T right thank you so if you have any other questions okay okay and uh that's all I have for our applicants at this point any question questions for the board questions from our Professionals for the applicants um so there was no engineering comments there's um really a very small amount of um additional impervious coverage so um there was no engineering comments we don't have any problems with drainage or anything okay um I know you accompanied the U the uh report from in L of cress I don't know if you have comments on that or not no questions for this witness okay thank you all right questions from the audience this is the time to ask questions of these two witnesses seeing [Music] none do you have other Witnesses yes thank you we have our architect good evening good evening I'll swear you in 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 Richard J Pierce p i r CE thank you and can you just when was the last time you appeared before the about a year ago I believe last fall or last summer um any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here no I imagine the board would like to accept you once again yep let's go ahead great thank you uh again my name is Rich Pierce I'm a residential architect I work at at Cranford the bells approached me a while back a little while back about expanding their pretty much dormered second floor it is a split it's kind of an odd split it's not half level difference uh it's only a couple of steps difference but it is a split and their master bedroom was on the upper level basically a dormered second floor um that's kind of what they're talking about with the attics and the I'm sorry with the closets being spr spread out they kind of wherever the roof height was high they would put in the closet and wherever was low they they had to build out and had a little little space to go in and out their master bedroom right now is almost a full floor a full floor away from the three other bedrooms and that was a a driving force in this uh along the way this the variances that we are going for one is for the combined combined yard setback which because of the trapezoidal shape of the lot and because the calculation States it should be from the front of the lot we don't meet at meet it at the narrower portion of the lot um if you took the halfway point of our house I think we meet it at that point so it was about the average uh we are not looking to decrease our existing non-conforming condition we're looking simply to go straight up um and make it a full second floor driving around the neighborhood it's a predominantly 2 and a half story neighborhood almost all of them are full second floors or mostly full second floors with a lot more horizontal uh expansion there's not really much of a chance to do any horizontal expansion on this site because of the trapezoidal shape but also because of the extreme grade on the site I remember when they called me the come I believe it was uh early in the winter and we had a storm and remember looking on Google Earth going I'm not sure if we can make it up there they got a pretty steep driveway and a steep site um but we were able to get there um in the back of their house back of their property is very limited because they have a pretty large retaining wall um so there's a decent size lot but not a lot of usable space so uh going up was also we not only worked with the program but they were also looking to conserve what little bit of level space they have in the yard the f um is if we didn't have to have a full-size attic with a steep roof um and we also have a two-story space above the entryway which has to count to its floor area also uh if we were not having to those two items we would be close to the I think 25% F uh without it I believe we're at 33 if you took the attic out of the calculation I think we'd be at 26 or 27 so a little bit more than what is allowed but they uh wanted to get the four bedrooms in on that main floor they from the beginning it was about the kids and getting their bedrooms on the same level as the parents and giving giving everybody a decent amount of space giving them a proper master bedroom suite to match the neighborhood and what's um what is out there so basically what we're looking at is trapezoidal site not increasing any existing non-complying conditions and a slight bump in the F basically to accommodate the plus 7 foot areas of the attic which is not there was no stairs to this attic it's just to pull down so it's just going to be for storage uh and that area above the main entrance which we had a two-story space um so those are kind of what the bump ups at the f are comes here any any other questions from you from the attorney any questions from our professionals uh just two quick questions um you had mentioned where the combined side set actually complies you say there about Midway on the side of the it complies in the front about the Midway is where the ex where the calculations coming correct so it's the rear towards the rear correct and if you're looking at it from the street obviously you cannot tell lot Lunes from the street it looks fine it's just that the side property lines are converging towards the rear okay what in the architectural design in the second floor provides the leaf from the mass of the structure typically F we also look at the mass with the size MH um we did work on articulating the front um on the left hand side bumping it out a little bit to match the garage below we also have the roof Eaves um that it's part of the existing house above the garage we tried to replicate that um on the second floor and then on the right hand side at the entryway and the um above the right hand side of the house small roof EES and slight setbacks to break up the massing we're also also looking to keep the exist brick on the lower portion of the house um to break up the larger expansive siding or anything else okay lower okay um you had mentioned the twostory space plus the attic it brought the number down to approximately I had 28 the open St it may be that didn't include this portion though yeah there is a small two twostory space does I think it brings us down to 27 I'm sorry you're pointing to this portion we circular window is over the over the uh sorry I couldn't see circular yeah uh that area is above the entryway it's a two-story space we you know it's whatever 40 50 60 square feet um and I don't have it off top my head when you walk in you walk in you see but unfortunately the zoning all right one at a time we can't really record it if you are all talking at the same time I'll take it from the witness please the area above that is even even though there's no floor there it is Count there as floor area in the floor area ratio calculation no further questions thank you thank you questions from the board yes sir Oh I thought good I was going to um the the um Miss Alonso had spoken about the attic existing to get the roof pitch correct if you didn't if you did not add the additional floor error ratio due to the attic what would the rough pitch look like so right now it's on about 8 8 by 12 8 and a half on 12 pitch to bring it down lower um yeah it would be a lot flatter I mean down to maybe three and a half four and a half on 12 which is the minimum for an asphalt shingle roof not going to work really not going to look really great with this style definitely not going to look like anything in the neighborhood um it would probably bring the F down quite a bit because we would not really have almost any 7ot space spaces in there so it's also now not usable much as storage MH okay thank you other questions yeah had a similar question but what was what was the height of U what's the current height on the left side versus the proposed height on you mean the on the garage side yeah yeah I think the the difference in the existing highest point in the roof and the new highest point is about 6 ft and we are under um the maximum height and I had one more question that probably belongs to the engineer but you're the one who's sworn in now um and and you did speak to to The sidey Yards um because the survey States the lot width is 13617 um but that's not indicated on the survey and I don't have my cute little triangle ruler thing to verify that so do we know that we do have Clark here who did the survey I know it just seems like a lot to swear I'm in for that one somebody else can answer it that's taken yeah that's taken at the required front yard setback which is what's called out in the ordinance yeah at the their actual lot width is 154 well but that's before the front of the house so that's the front that is the width at the front lot line okay right but but but Christa Anderson had always insisted that the the calculation be done at the front of the house at the setb at the setb at the set back correct and that's why it's only 137 that's it that's the one y thank you he knows can you go through the massing that you are proposing on the roof or the second story how you you know got to that point I understand you're talking about backing out the attic space the two Lev foyer it still leaves you about 600 ft above can you just go through the thought process the design the elements that you ended up going to this layout why sure as I always tell my clients to try to work from the inside out work with their programs and see what we can do and we we're trying to get four bedrooms uh one of them being a master bedroom suite I believe we have the laundry up there and then each of the kids have their own substantial closet space um and then there's the additional bathrooms um we really shrunk everything down trying to get everything on shrunk everything down to fit the existing second floor uh first floor space so we're basically using the existing perimeter um of the house and going straight up is that for use of constructibility or is that from design a little bit of both um definitely from design the fact that we were trying to make sure we can get all this space within the uh existing footprint uh we do can the lever out the back about 2 feet um for the middle portion of the house just to um make the back bedrooms work uh no real existing non EX no existing um impervious surface because it's over a patio that's down below but um you know a DI minimouse in building coverage 2 foot by about 15 or 20 feet on out the plan open is that the bump out in bedroom one correct and if you look at the first the existing first floor below that there already is a bump out we were just doing slight can leer further you really can't addx correct uh they don't have that much level space in the backyard they have a very large probably a good third to half of their backyard is taken up by the retaining wall they do have a small patio area they want to remove any of that for recreation space so now the recreation space is on the level above the garage compant on everything else right lot coverage building coverage correct well Jay does that answer your question I keep thinking about if we forced you to how would you sh shave some square footage off I think we would ultimately have to move one of the bedrooms downstairs um I mean they are quite generous size bedrooms 15 by 19 17 by 17 they're not they're not overly huge for second second and third bedrooms um but that that's what we would have to do probably move one of the entire bedrooms down to the other level and that's the whole reason why this project was started good enough works thanks any other questions okay any questions from the audience for this Witness I see [Music] none uh you have any other Witnesses um I'd like to see like I'm sorry I'm having trouble hearing you here anyway I know thank you I would I would to the board's uh discussion and okay all right so um conditions actually none noted so far there's no engineering memorandum so we don't have our usual condition here I didn't hear anything noted okay then we will ask the public if they have anything that they wish to comment on this particular application positive or negative seeing none um I gather we should move into executive session how many votes are required there's once again a d variance five votes are required once again we're at five okay who would like to start Jay you have the longest question uh so there's two proposed uh variances the side Ard St back to me is a no-brainer it's been strained lot trapezoidal the overall massing I think they're trying to explain what they're really asking for but the reality is they're building the same story up design wise it makes sense constructability makes sense um I can be in favor of this okay anyone from this side I do support this uh as well uh I see that most of the issues are existing conditions and the setbacks and it's a minor change and this uh the the the this house will look much better and will be more uh suitable for the neighborhood and I do support this application okay any other comments I you can support it I think much of the f um variance is driven by the roof pitch and you're sort of caught between two different portions of the drro this is the better looking result um and although it really isn't a major factor um the backyard is well screened and the the proposed renovation will clean up a lot of jumbled roof lines and fenestration in the back of the house um that at least the residents will be able to appreciate so I do can support this application okay the uh the one thing that hit me real hard is the safety consideration No Child in the City of summit should have to sleep in their parents bed because they're scared um and if this solves that problem um I don't have any more to say about it this is what we should be doing so uh hopefully you can add that in somehow and uh I would accept a motion to approve this application some second give it to him he's got a louder voice than you do um Vice chairman lit yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malay yes Miss to yes Mr fkins yes Mr Chuli yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you thank you thank you good luck we're going going to keep on trucking um Marcus and Jacqueline R this is for 235 oakd Avenue yes uh Marcus richani owner of 235 oakd Avenue last name richani r i c c i a n i you want s you in and if both of you testifying that if you could each raise your right hand all right we we'll do both of you just to be sure if you could each raise your right hand do you swear air the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes and one at a time please state your name though we got your last name already Jacqueline richani r i CCI i a n i Marcus richani r i CCI i a n i um so 235 Oakridge Avenue is a new construction new build um we are in the final phases of getting a CO the one item that's preventing us from getting a CO is what we're here to talk about um in our driveway when you pull up to the driveway we have three garage doors and then we have a people door space behind that is a retaining wall the property slopes from backwards to frontwards so there's a retaining wall that holds the property in sort of holds the dirt and then you have a space that has the people door to the garage and then three three um garage doors during constru and then if you on the original plans on the far right corner there was a large planter there during construction question from the contractor was do you do you really want this planter there because it kind of gets in the way and and so we didn't put it there we omitted the planter um not understanding why the planner was initially put in place um but we omitted the planner because it it got in the way from from a person pulling out of pulling out or into that third garage Bay um attempting to to get our CEO we learned from zoning um that was there I guess apparently to block a potential parking spot um because you're not permitted to park that close to a property line is my under is my understanding um so our application here is to Omit that parking spot it it's not visible by our side neighbor it's not visible by our back neighbor it's definitely not visible by the neighbor on the other side of the house um it's consistent with all of the driveways a few to each side of us um and functionality it allows us to back out of that third garage door without hitting the what would be a planter um and then our in the near term we will have a 17-year-old driver um and that person will not be parking in the garage cuz one we don't want or two and two there's no space left in the garage um but she will pull her car up to the far right um at night versus parking back in the driveway or having to leave it on the street s yeah I obviously from a safety perspective we prefer to to um drive down our driveway front first when we exit rather than back into the street and um if that planter is there we would not be able to do that when exting that third garage Bay we would be forced to to back down the driveway um which I personally prefer not to do and I definitely would not want um necessarily my my children are my my babysitter or my husband okay you've submitted uh photographs to us which uh I'm not sure if I I'm reading them all right but uh they they're supposed to demonstrate the hardship yes so the photos that you have so exhibit one is just an illustration of of the space the retaining wall you'll see the white chalked ground that's where the planter would be um and then further back you see the view of of what it looks like from the road um which as you start to look at some of the other exhibits and Exhibit 2 the the neighboring properties from the road view you'll see it's a it's a similar style driveway up to some sort of an ending there's aerial views to the best we can get them and then there's the there's the street view the exhibit three um is an illustration it's a very high-tech fancy illustration of um if the planter were there represented by the garbage cans the third garage door would you back out of that you cut the wheel you turn you would you would hit it which would then require you to pull forward pull back pull forward again in order to get out of there and these photographs were taken when and by whom and the photographs were taken by me there's snow on the ground so you could see it was taken in the January February time frame okay and and just to be sorry to be clear that the variance allows it to stay as it is nothing would get constructed upon receiving the variance it's not forcing you to put it in correct okay all right and you have no Witnesses right correct okay any questions from our professionals No I um no I have no questions um it it looks to me like there's a a minor increase in the impervious coverage they have a seepage pit and that um they demonstrated that they can that the P can handle that so um there's any concerns from a drainage standpoint okay questions from the board I'm just confused you made a statement I mean 21 sare ft from service doesn't concern me the functionality of a k turn is okay I get it but you said it was denied when you you put it in because you weren't allowed to park there from a zoning point of view so maybe I can jump in so the variance that they are asking for is because the parking area is located outside the buildable area so that that's the reason the planter was proposed there is to prevent that small area from being used in theory for parking so that's the variance that they are prompted by removing the planter if you park there though don't you basically block the third garage door so if I if I have a if I have a fourth car there we have someone turning 17 shortly if I have a a fourth car I have to put it somewhere the third garage door is the least used car um so that car is well it's the first one out in the morning because she's going to school um but I got to put it somewhere yeah so the option is to put it as far up and as I can um and then if I have to do a k turn to get that third one out I I do but but in if if that planner is there then the third car would be sort of behind it and then you would block Gro driveway or Gro door two and three and one is one you can probably manage around it looked like you could probably just back out if all the way out if you had you out of that third garage door right even with the car park there yeah I mean I mean technically but it's uh I wouldn't we've had a car park there and it's easier to move the car than to try and maneuver we should mandate that they buy a smart car guar you she's gonna have a t the high schooler will end up in the tank I was actually confused when I I went when I was at the property I thought you were talking about taking down those existing Planters and not you're asking not to build a PL I don't we want to leave it as it is okay okay um I'm just a little curious about the history because you stated you know at the beginning of your testimony that you didn't understand why it was there although somebody had to get this building permit was it I mean did you build the house did you buy it from a builder we we designed it we we built it um during construction the the retaining wall is a two-tiered ret retaining wall um because a flat wall looks terrible right um and during that our our goal was to have two- tiered and sort of put the flowers and all that that you see there because it's more aesthetically pleasing our assumption was the architect went a little overboard on Planters so yeah that that's that's sort of how it came about we thought it was Aesthetics until we went to close out our permit and found out it was not Aesthetics it was instead to prohibit the parking of a car there but we had never discussed that with the architect so where is the basketball in that moving right now it's in the plan right now it's in the planter let's hope if people start using it it'll probably get moved left so it's in the center of the driveway well that'll be in the way when somebody tries to get out of door three it'll be in the way no if you're in the if you've got in the center pushed back in front of the stairs or next to the stairs okay just my on okay but again we're looking at it for the future going on any other questions you didn't have any no what I was going to offer is this is adjacent to the retaining walls so those retaining walls are actually holding the soil back from the neighboring property so essentially this area will be lower neighbor there's also very thick trees on top of the you can't see at all yeah the picture no other questions any questions from the audience from the public no questions from the bumbling they were all shaking their heads um and did we put any conditions in just our so we have a usual condition of compliance with those conditions noted in the board Engineers memorandum that's that's all I have noted okay and number of votes needed uh just four there's no D variance here so it's majority of four okay um if anyone from the public would like to tell us what they think about this application this is now the time to do that no questions no comments anything you'd like to say in conclusion no okay who would like to we're going to move into executive session um would anyone like to start I can I can support this application I think the um impact to the neighbors is the minous um Improvement to safety and functionality of the home I think makes sense so can be supportive okay anyone else or have we covered it we've covered it we've the only thing I could add is I mean although any decision we reach is not precedent um this is not the first time even this year that we have approved parking outside of the buildable area where it was not visible to any of the neighbors right um and we're perking in the buildable area say if your daughter pulled in direct ly behind garage door 3 um becomes awkward at best so we're making an awkward situation better yes sir works for me is there a motion so second Vice chairman lit yes Mr C yes Mr Malay yes Miss to yes Mr feskin yes Mr Chi yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries good luck we will now move on to Bristol Meyers I suspect this is going to be a lengthy one could we stretch our legs for five minutes you want a five minute break you got it I do let them get re assort they'll get all the all the easels up yes something like that so we'll take an easel break you did e e e e e e e e e e e e e back in session and the next case is Bristol Meyers squib and their attorney is before us thank you chairman members of the board good evening for the record my name is Kevin Moore with the firm of Stevens and Lee and I represent the applicant before you this evening Bristol Meers script company um I provided uh notice to all owners within 200 ft by certified mail and all others required by law to receive notice on May 7th 2024 and it was the notice was also published in the May 10th 24 edition of The Star Ledger I would request that the board take jurisdiction of this matter yes we can do that and Council before we get started I did just want to note for the record um we had a memorandum from our zoning officer and our planner noting that a D1 variance was required I just want to clarify as we had emailed back and forth um and confirmed with everyone on the board side this is in fact a D2 variant it's an expansion of a pre-existing nonconformity uh so we're on that lesser standard of a D2 and not a D1 is that thank you Mr ball um the property which is the subject of this application is 556 Mar is 556 Mars Avenue here in Summit it's block 700 Lots 1 92 93 and 94 on your city tax map the property is 9.09 acres in area and it is in the city's PR planned research office development Zone as uh we are seeking three uh items of relief from you this evening the first as Mr ball alluded to is a d to usarian from section 35- 9. A 3B of the drro which prohibits above ground accessory storage tanks uh throughout the city uh and we are seeking the D2 variants to permit the addition of two accessory liquid nitrogen storage tanks uh in the existing to the existing four tank storage facility that is already in the vicinity of the building S12 parking lot we are also see seeking a uh C2 bulk variance approval from section 35- 9.8 C2 of the drro to permit the two accessory liquid n nitrogen storage tanks to be 29 ft in height where a maximum height of 15 ft is otherwise permitted we are also seeking amended preliminary and final major site plan approval for the addition of the two accessory liquid storage tanks to the existing storage tank facility uh and finally we we don't really think it's required but to the extent it is required we are seeking a design waiver SL exception from section 35-41 P2 of the drro for the screening of the storage tank facility I have three Witnesses this evening my first witness will be Mr Christopher Sera uh who's our with Langan engineering and Environmental Services Inc he's our project site civil engineer and he will describe the overall site B nitrogen storage tanks and their location my second witness will be Mr Andrew drad of uh he is the CTO Capital project manager for Global product development Supply Cell Therapy operations for Bristol my squib company and he will describe the operation of and the need for the liquid nitrogen storage TX finally my third witness will be Mr James Kyle of Kyle uh plus mcmanis Associates and he is our Pro project planner and he will provide the planning support for the D2 and C2 variances and to the extent required for the design exception waiver we'll be presenting eight exhibits to you tonight I've given Miss zulos and Mr ball uh copies of the exhibit list they are pre-marked uh the first one is exhibit A1 and that's entitled BMS N2 expansion uh Transportation Route for ln2 delivery truck within BMS campus drawing number A1 prepared by Mr Sera it is dated today uh and it's also the overall vicinity map for the site as well exhibit A2 is the overall site plan it's sheet cs100 mounted and colored basically and it's prepared by Mr Sera dated February 9th 2024 exhibit A3 is the DMS uh site layout grading and utility plan uh cs101 ALS prepared by Mr Sera also dated February 9th 2024 exhibit A4 is uh BMS Summit N2 expansion construction details that's cs501 that was also prepared by Mr Sera and that is also dated February 9th 2024 exhibit F A5 is a photo array we entitled existing photos also prepared by Mr Sera dated today exhibit A6 is a second photo which we call existing photos 2 also prepared by Mr Sera also DED today exhibit A7 is uh BMS N2 expansion sections is Seline section so we'll show that the tanks are not visible to the neighbors from the property line it is likewise dated today then exhibit A8 our final exhibit is entitled BMS uh N2 expansion Transportation Route for len2 delivery truck within the city of summit uh drawing number A4 prepared by Mr Sate also dated today would also request that the board incorporate into the record all the submitted applications plans and materials uh into the record this evening and with that I'd like to call Mr sarak uh I have a question for the uh owner any questions for the attorney yes I have a question first of all uh I see that uh you have there are five existing uh four because the application shows five and the drawings they show four so there was a discrepancy in the application that we have on the first page okay but the answer I got it now they are four when were they when were they installed and were there any variances related to those um I don't it was they were installed so long ago uh that I do not know if there were variances if that prohibition was even in effect at the time this facility has been around since 1981 and somewhere between now and a long time ago they were installed nothing documented Mr chairman believe if I can add to that for your information um the drro was amended more recently and and it removed permitted uh outdoor tanks from being they're actually specifically prohibited now and so that is why they're here tonight those priors were pre-existing and were approved and permitted at that time thank you so much uh the other question here I see that uh the facility is using just two of them of the four as per application currently two are in use why what's wrong with the other two aren't they being used or are they going to be decommissioned at a uh they're not going to be decommissioned uh are as as we'll get to when Mr drad from BMS testifies we are in we are experiencing a dramatic increase in the use of liquid nitrogen with our cancer research and so we want to keep those two tanks uh they're not in sufficient size to meet our current needs and we want to keep them in case we still have further additional needs particularly since now they are prohibited uses but they are being used no two of them are being used and two of them are not being used are prohibited or I didn't understand really I'm sorry what's the condition of the other two they are in good physical condition but they are not being used oh okay thank you you're welcome that answer other questions from the board for the attorney ask my questions okay questions from the uh the only public here is BMS at this point so you know well sorry we'll still ask the question anybody wish to uh anybody want to tell their boss no I no I'm kidding um okay moving on okay I'd like to call Mr Sera if you could raise your right hand do you SAR affirm the testimony you're about to give this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please state your name spell your last name my name is Chris last name c i r r o t TI thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board sure I have a uh bachelor's degree from rers University in civil engineering 1989 I've been a licensed uh New Jersey Professional engineer since 1993 I've been practicing uh as a civil engineer for some 35 years now um I have appeared before planning boards zoning boards on similar applications and matters all across the state of New Jersey and I've been here uh before the summit planning board not before the board of adjustment on other matters related to actually the Bristol Myers campus thank you any questions from the board would you like to accept his credentials I think we can accept his credentials andk you he's your witness Mr s can you describe the application for us this evening sure um I'm going to begin um with actually A2 exhibit A2 and that is our overall site plan um so the property uh as you may know it is the Bristol Meers squid Campus located along uh several public streets paic Avenue to the West River Road fronts uh kind of on the North End as well as moris Avenue a frontage on Lincoln Avenue Madison Avenue as well and I think there's a piece on Evergreen so that that's the campus um the location where the existing tanks and the proposed tanks are are I'm pointing to it on the left side or the west side of the S12 building uh this building is um probably most close to faic Avenue um that existing uh uh tank pad has again as was explained it has four existing tanks on it currently um and uh the existing location of that is approximately 351 ft from the Westerly property line and approximately 647 ft from the southernly property line uh that's that's the location of the really the existing and the proposed pad um there's terms of access points to the site um there's really two three primary entrances there's a contractor sort of service entrance off of picav uh there is a signalized entrance off of pic G for um employees and visitors and and there is a um an entrance off of moris Avenue um so that's sort of the orientation of of the campus um again as I mentioned the uh the proposed tanks are uh to the west of the S12 building uh they will I will move to my next exhibit which is 83 a little closer so the orientation of this is sort of uh uh North up same orientation as that overall plan on the right hand side of the plan is that S12 building uh immediately to the to the west of the building are is the existing uh concrete pad where the four liquid nitrogen tanks are currently the proposal is to expand and to construct A New Path adjacent to it uh where two new uh tanks would be constructed uh they are uh 9 7 in in diameter they are 29 ft tall and they have a capacity to store 9,000 gallons of liquid nitrogen um the two tanks combined have an area of 141.5 square ft so that's sort of the the building area uh as for this application um the pad that they'll be located on is uh 640 Square ft it's on an existing paved area so currently this these are five parking spaces that are that are paved in previous cover uh these pad the pad will sit on uh three about about two and 3/4 of those five spaces and then we will uh just uh hash out uh the the adjacent space uh and take away those two parking spaces but leave it is paved maneuvering room adjacent to the pants uh so no additional impervious cover uh there will be a new fence we'll take down the piece of fence between the existing tanks and this new tank um area and we'll construct the new fence uh chain link fence be vinyl black vinyl coated uh chain link 6 fet tall there will be two gates one is a man gate two gates are required by code one is a man gate at the southwest corner there'll be a sliding gate for uh delivery and and access into the into the um uh the the pad area on the North side um there is no uh proposed lighting with the application the existing Lighting in the parking lot is uh not changing um there's no signage as part of the application um and next up I want to just kind of look at some of the sight lines and the visibility of the tanks um from uh various Vantage points so I'm going to move to exhibit 85 and the four additional lighting stanions that were shown on the site plans uh they'll be removed as part of condition compliance correct yes they they're not no no longer going to be proposed so this is exhibit A5 and this is entitled our existing photo exhibit number one so these photos are taken from uh there's there's nine photos here I guess 10 if you count the double on number one um these are taken from V various Vantage points but from the interior of the campus so the key map here on the on the top kind of shows where each where each of those photos were taken from and I'll just walk through them kind of one at a time so photo number one is taken from the edge of the parking area it's about 2/3 of the way towards the Residential Properties and as you can see the uh the location of the tanks I'm pointing to it right here it's in the center of the right hand photo uh the tanks are uh again quite some distance from even the interior uh edge of the parking lot uh from location two which is a little bit further south kind of looking at the back of the tanks uh you can see the building in view the tanks uh in VI in that location I should mention the existing tanks two of them they're approximately 10 ft in height the uh two two of them are about 10 ft in height and two of them are approximately 15t in height those are the existing tanks um from location three uh this is a little bit more um further north but still along that western edge of the parking lot that's this location here a lot of landscaping you really you can just about make out the the tanks behind the landscaping and the burm there again this is from the interior of the site uh photo number four is looking up the main access aisle that is where um there is access into parking again probably the most most prominent view are locations 4 and five they're actually similar where in the parking lot looking right up the drive aisle the tanks are you know right up close to the building um photo location six is uh from the uh the southern parking lot kind of looking at the back uh again tanks tanks visible there uh this is the closeup which is number seven taken immediately in the in the small parking area where the where the tanks exist uh currently um location 8 is uh our most North and and sort of East Vantage Point again from the parking aisle looking through the parking lot at those tanks and then lastly photo nine is from the due south of the of the tanks where actually there's some screen wall other uh building elements to kind of screen them from VI um so that's the existing uh condition and I want to move now um to umer to exhibit A7 believe that's a six these are three photos that were taken um uh from the property line uh they were taken from from uh a point uh photo number 10 is the most southern photo it's um taken from where I'm pointing here to the to the um sort of extreme Southwest of where the tank pad is um photo 11 uh is sort of the most uh uh proximate point along the residential property line and then photo 12 is a little bit further north and you can see due to the screening that has been uh put in place in in each of these locations combination of the the wooded um natural buffer that's there already uh the the facility has erected a fence with screening on it uh this has been in in concert with various um consultations with with City officials over the past few years as part of plans before the planning board when we put in got the approvals for the solar canopies and sitewide lighting plan we did an extensive Landscaping plan of decidious and Conor for trees with which Mr Linson worked with us extensively on and approved so th those those uh plantings are now starting to you know to be in view there are there are new Evergreen plantings on the on the outboard side of that but as is evident from these photos there is no view at all into where we are some again from the closest point uh 304 350 ft from the residential property line so that's this just sort of illustrates that view and then I wanted to show um EX 7 which are some sections that we've drawn just to give you a sense of what is in between those Residential Properties and the uh the proposed tank location so the first section here is section AA it's its location is this longer uh section it's kind of kind of U I'll say perpendicularly out from the building um and that section as you can see here the home on the left uh the the extensive uh existing Woods the the fence and the new plantings that are in the Woods parking areas some other BMS additional parking more landscape and then this is the location of the the new tanks sitting next to the the the two rows of of the existing tanks so the four existing tanks on the far right similarly uh the section BB which is again at that minimal distance to property to the residential property line location um that section shows the existing home again a band of existing Woods approximately 20 uh it's from two plus it's about 150 ft uh of of wooded uh a wooded buffer there and then the parking uh additional plantings in the parking lot and the tank farm um and that sort of U just illustrates what the views look like um wanted to um move to a this would be A8 first right that's right the so this is exhibit A8 the Transportation Route um the uh the supplier for the liquid nitrogen this is their current route they basically come from Route 24 come along River Road uh and then enter the contractor entrance uh into the site and they maneuver then uh through the interior of the site which is on a and on exhibit A1 a little bit hard to see perhaps but we show two lines here green line which is the inbound group where they come in through the uh the contractor entrance uh Traverse through the parking lot come up to where the tanks are maneuver back into to the K turn take care of the filling and then depart along the same room out the contractor entrance to say again so it's pretty it's pretty direct um and uh so that's the circulation in terms of how the deliveries are made now and would continue to be made with the new T thank you Mr serat that concludes Mr sera's direct testimony he's available for questions from the board and the professionals Shall We Begin with our professionals first um how about we talk about this site circulation first um I recognize it's the same circulation on site as it was before is it the same size truck now or is a larger truck that'll be I I can Mr Dr said will testify to that but it's the same size truck as now okay all right so that's helpful um um do you have any idea about um how that changes some of the delivery schedules is it yeah that'll all be in Mr drop stead's testimony but right now I will tell you that currently at this time uh deliveries come to the Tank come to the site every 7 to 10 days after the expand if we get the approval tonight from the tanks they will come twice a month if we do not get the expansion of the tanks they will come every 3 to 4 days I you know just so the board knows I just want to put it on the record that um you know since this came before the the planning board first um my review memo states that it's addressed to the planning board um so there was no there was no sense I think we discussed it there's no sense in me writing a whole new memo on it so you'll have to excuse that it says it's addressed to the planning board I just want to put that on the record I do um you know I can maybe help expedite with your memo um comments uh 1 3-7 and 10 through 12 are informational I believe yes yes comments 17- 21 the applicant will comply with um comments 8 n 8 and n and 13 through 15 before we finish tonight we'll have will have provided the requested testimony and then with comment two the applicant will accept for the requested variances follow all requirement provided in the city of Senate development regulations including but limited to Chapters 35-1 13.17 and 14.17 and with respect to comment 16 the applicant will submit the requested materials to the city building department as part of its application for a construction per I'm good to go chairman just a few questions um regarding this may be for the other witnesses as well but why do the tanks have to be so high is that something another uh that'll be Mr drop stead but it's really that's how they come okay compared to the 10 and the 15 right existing it's the fact that's that's how 9,000 gon tanks that's how they're made okay um as far as the photos who took the photos um berer if you want she's Mr s's colleague we can call her up where her is just wanted to validate that and they were taken when uh they were taken last week right actually yeah last week okay and they Mr Sera indicates last month last and you would certify that they and you would certify that they reflect the conditions of the of the of the areas of they're they're shot of okay you can't testify he can I I can S I can I can vouch for that sir yes and then the striped area that's next to the tanks the purpose for that um it's just it's just to not take away maneuvering room you know the tank tanks come in there uh I should say the tanker trucks come in there we just thought that it would make sense not to not to change it and just stripe out the area so cars AR parking there okay no question okay questions from the board I wonder if the variance we're uh agreeing to includes the four existing or not no the four existing as as your planner explained were constructed before the town the city adopted an ordinance that prohibits All Above Ground storage tanks so there is no need for variance for uhing that's why called okay other questions a couple of general questions and if you're the right person that would be wonderful if not we can defer um can you confirm or advise on whether or not you know n liquid nitrogen is any kind of hazardous flammable or explosive material uh I believe Mr drops that will testify that but it's an inert guess okay and the second thing is are there other options instead of doing a 29 foot Tower versus say three shorter facilities was that ever considered I'm just thinking of the sight lines being a very tall structure uh I don't know what other options were explored maybe maybe Andrew can elaborate on that but you know on one side it's blocked by the building and then as Mr s's testified too you can't see it from the uh property line for for for those of us who haven't had chemistry and I don't know know how long um my understanding is that nitrogen is flammable Am I Wrong Mr drops that can address okay okay um because I I will have questions about that and your insurer and a few other things okay okay they're publicly traded I think they could be self- insured they don't though insurance companies drive a lot of safety changes all right um I know all right let's stay stay on thank you um any other questions okay um who who who was handling lighting were you handling lighting or okay um either I misread the uh the uh the fixtures I was looking at but next to the the tanks that are there I saw beyond the fence Poes with lights lighting up the tanks and you're saying you won't be doing that on the new tanks correct we're not changing the lighting that's already there the lighting that's there is you think that lighting that's facing this way is going to protect or is going to handle these decks behind them the the the ambient light in that parking lot is it we determin that the the lighting is additional lighting is not necessary the lighting is for the parking it's not to light at the tank it's it's sight right it's sight light well except that they're pointing right at the tanks they're the lighting was probably in place before probably just want wondering why why you would have why would you keep keep lights that you don't need why you would illuminate LG tanks at night there's no re there's no reason other than if you have to do service and you can do that with a portable light it's probably it's a preferred way to do it it it's very sort of um you know these type of facilities you know they would light them up with spotlights and things like that we don't we don't want to do anything like that we've already gone through a lot of effort to have the lighting conformed to the city's ordinance and we want to keep it that way so we're not proposing anything else to be added okay there was an extensive lighting plan for the whole campus approved by the planning board and you don't want to revisit we that but but we haven't seen it and you're now here um any other just a follow on your um attesting that you won't be able to see a 29 foot tank and maybe I missed it in the pictures but you know being over there I mean first of all the pictures are like the leaves are that there like I'm not sure in the winter if you could see right through it or not but standing on the street like there is a sight line it's not that you can't see it especially if you're around Lots is approximately like 77 through probably 81 or so right it's a combination of things I mean the the grade is also the grade is also dropping about 10 ft from the from the back of the properties to where the tanks sit we're at we're at an elevation it's at probably a little bit more than 10 ft so just a drop in Brave but but the vegetation itself kind of kind of really restricts your sight line to like way up in the sky I mean you can't even see the building which is taller than the tanks in in the views from from the neighborhood even with even without leaves on the trees because you've got this the screening on the fence you've got evergreen trees and the sight line you know looking over that by the time you go out the 350 ft you're looking up at 40 ft in the air maybe I'm taller than I thought but I I could see it um I'm looking for it too obviously right so um yeah yeah I mean I mean I think I think that again there is there is quite a I would just represent there is quite a bit of vegetation even even without leaves there's a lot of wood to look through um just branches limbs uh Etc um there is also the um you know again the screening on the fence the fence has got got fabric on it to to you know mitigate a lower View and you know looking from from the property line over that fence you really are looking up above you know again because the Dr ground drops down above the elevation of the tanks I think they're well screened and that's our purpose is to make sure that they are thanks other questions yes sir you know the color of the t uh it's Lally white it sometimes helps with the visibility if it's lighter color it's not as visible if there are no further questions for Mr Sera I will call my next witness I still haven't asked the public I know they're all yours we still going to ask them anybody have a question great application please move I'd like to call Mr Andrew drop dead if you can raise your right hand do where airm the testimony you're about to give this matters the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please state your name spell your last name Andrew doad d o p p St DT thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board yes I'm the CTO Cal project manager for the cell therapy operations group for Bristol Myers quit thank you great and we know what that means right not asking to be qualified as an expert so okay is strictly factual about the operation got it absolutely thank you great currently BMS receives deliveries of liquid nitrogen at the site every 7 to 10 days these deliveries are made by tractor trailer tanker trucks with a 6,000g trailer mc- 388 tank trailer with CGA 341 exemption for low temperature cryogenic liquids BMS is experiencing an increase of 45% in liquid nitrogen use which is causing an increase in deliveries if the two tanks are not approved then BMS would need deliveries every 3 to 4 days if the two tanks are installed BMS will receive deliveries once every two weeks also by the same type of truck our supplier tries to schedule deliveries between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday usually on Fridays however when the need Rises there are occasional deliveries made outside of these times and on an occasional Saturday the tanks don't make any noise if the two tanks are installed there will be fewer truck deliveries which will also decrease noise and liquid nitrogen is inert and does not present a fire or explosive Hazard can I'm just not sure I got the right numbers here if the tanks are approved how frequent would the deliveries be once every two weeks or twice a month thank you that concludes Mr D head's direct test that concludes Mr drop Dead's direct testimony he's here to to answer any questions the board or its professionals have we'll start with the professionals I think I have my questions answer can his witness just provide a little more thought about why so tall yes so the idea around the two 9,000 gon tanks is to have future capacity for additional demand for our operations questions from the board oh yes oh yeah so if you put in say you were to install four new tanks would you only need a delivery once a month four of the same size yes correct why don't people bury LG storage tanks Underground I do not the answer to that question I would say it has something to do with the pressure inside the tank and potential dangers of happening undergr two gas that's in okay um can't you have your capacity issue and storage issue solved with more tanks at a lower height is that not true it would be possible but it would be less efficient for the use of the liquid nitrogen can you explain that yeah so there would be evaporation coming from the system so the more tanks we had with more lines or branches having to go inside the facility it would be less efficient if there' be more evapor to the atmosphere so just natural seepage leakage yeah okay are sorry which is the most dangerous part of the operation is the expansion of a uh Nitro liquid nitrogen that's when it is uh expanded it might uh F first of all it depletes the oxygen around it and it might uh cause human uh freezing and uh these are the dangers of it uh anyway uh I'm I'm more concerned about the I I I think the uh the height is not my concern mainly is the time of loading and up uh and filling and refilling I mean when you in uh reduce the the number of fields that is a better solution of course uh however uh have you considered any other option I'm not sure I don't want to speak what do you mean by other op other options of having the same uh height of Tanks but uh uh uh losing some of the uh Excavating little bit to lower them below below the existing uh uh uh ground that could be also a solution it might require some additional excavation that will be costly but that will reduce the height without you know they're deep within the campus we've already had testimony from Mr Sera they're not visible so there's really not a reason to do that okay I had a question about the deliveries um if the I mean when when you get a delivery what are you saying now once a week or so and it one truck at a time yes and the delivery truck holds 6,000 gallons which you said you're going to continue to use but the tanks are 9,000 gallons so we're not going to let them go all the way down to empty yes so we keep a reserve capacity in the tanks and right now those those tankers that we're using we're not using all the liquid nitrogen that could be brought with the 6,000 gallon okay truck okay um and more chemistry for me um because what you haven't mentioned in any of this testimony is right next to these nitrogen tanks are some really large diesel tanks and I if something goes wrong on one side or the other I don't know if you com if things combine and you get a fireball or things go boom excuse me things go boom things go boom things go boom so I think it exhibit A3 that shows the tanks I'll give a bit of background okay because what's between them right now is a chicken wire fence yeah absolutely so on the Eastern side of the existing four tank pad those are two liquid nitrogen 3,000 gon tanks right and then the other two on the pad are two CO2 tanks and then down below right there is our generator system and to the left of that we have a 9,000 gon dies diesel tank yeah I think with the distance okay I mean I don't know I just looked at that and and um are there are any of the parking spaces in the vicinity EV charging stations no they are not just you're still going to allow people to park in close proximity to these tanks so right now these areas this area is blocked off and the plan is that no one will be parking in the vicinity of this location on top of the additional fencing that would be put in place but but the existing parking lots parking outside of the immediate vicinity yeah there there's there's a lot of cars there just want to go back to your statement um earlier your I believe your attorney testified that there to Mr mle's comment that the four tanks you just stated that two are CO2 and the other two are nitrogen correct okay that was going to be one of my questions so you're materially increasing your capacity from you said two 3,000 to correct we currently have two 3,000 gon tanks we're looking to add to 9,000 okay it's a lot more yes hopefully for the future but you'll still be using the existing four once we install the two 9,000 gon tanks those be the primary ones in use um as of right now it has not been determined what the use of those those two other tanks would be whether it would be to keep them up or decommission them or just keep them there as an emergency tank if there's any issues that happen to come with the two 9000s but right now once those two 9,000 gon tanks are installed those would be the ones primarily used to supply the building of course can you repurpose those tanks for other uses afterwards meaning can you put them as CO2 or some other gaps I would have to look into that but I think there's a possibility I think a lot of them are CS commercial offthe shelf tanks that may be able to be used for different purposes if it's gas or liquid so perhaps why why can't these tanks be built horizontally so they're what 8 or 10 ft tall and 29 ft long I think that's also an option that could be there um I think right when we decided to do the tanks this way we were talking with our engineers and it was decided that this would be the most efficient use of space as well as uh the most efficient way to connect them to the existing branches for the two existing tanks if you L them horizontally would they be exposed to more thermal perhaps yeah perhaps now when I look at these reports that we got from our experts you would have thought the fire department might have looked at this a little closely that surprised and you find and you kind of thought that the police department would want to make sure that nothing goes boom uh cuz then they have to go and direct you know deal with all that and the environmental commission no response you know no no no no comment nothing well the fire department particularly build the code when code specifically says you can't build it um was it was it Tad frustrating our zoning yeah our our zoning code says you can't build it construction code will have requirements Mr chair we're picking up the slack what we're picking up the slack tonight I'm just trying to figure out how we just did these guys not look at this report you know I mean I mean I understand Eric's busy a fire house the downside is if you don't have these just more deliveries correct right I just want to hammer one point there are no shorter fatter tanks well he said that these could go on their side put on the side so they get a lot there was a lot of study taken I mean we we worked for a year to get to this point in ter interally and I do not even know um we don't have an engineer I do not even know the tanks that can be put on their side actually exist these are I mean storage tanks like this are usually perpendicular to the ground rather than horizontal I'm not an engineer or a scientist I can't verify that for sure but uh in all my years of you know representing facilities of this size I've never seen them horizontal any other questions uh any questions from the public no um anybody want to tell us what they think of this no we still have the plan we still have another witness we still we still have another Witness oh we still have another witness I missed that I'm sorry that's okay why don't we go uh if you're done with this one we'll go to the next maybe we can get the right answers here I don't I'll try Mr if you could raise your right hand do you sore airm 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 sure first name is James last name Kyle Kyle with Kyle mcmanis Associates and we're located at two East Broad Street in New Jersey thank you and can you briefly describe your background and experience for board I'm have a Bachelor of Science and environmental planning designed from recers which I received in 1996 I've been a practicing planner for 25 years I'm licensed by the state as a professional planner I'm also a member of the American Institute of certified planners uh our office currently represents about 24 Municipal clients much like Mr snik is's office does for the city of summit I've also appeared before over 240 boards in the state I was part of the project team for the planning board application for the solar canopies and the lighting upgrade at the campus thank you and just to be abundantly clear you said licensed by the state I assume that means state of New Jersey correct state of New Jersey yes thank you any question two states that license planners Michigan and New Jersey so any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials I think we will accept your credentials and uh turn you over to your attorney thank you Mr chairman uh Mr uh Kyle can you just uh give the plan for the variances we are requesting this evening sure so just to let the board know in preparation for this appearance tonight um as with every application that I work on I've reviewed all the application materials uh been to the site looked at the drro as well as the master plan there's a couple of re-examination reports and then going all the way back to the 2000 master plan also reviewed the memos that were issued by the board's professionals um and we've obviously met as a team and discussed this application the comment letter so we've we've had extensive discussions about uh this application and the comments that we received from staff so the reason uh as Mr Moore said that we're here tonight um and as Mr snikers indicated the tanks that were there were built at a time when there was not a restriction or prohibition on above ground storage tanks in the drro so that change requires us to come here to get a D2 variance and the difference is this is for expansion of a legally existing non-conforming use so we have legally existing non conforming above ground storage tanks we're seeking to add two more so we require a D2 variance uh as your board attorney indicated there is a little bit of a lesser legal standard for D2 um and the courts have said in New Jersey that when you look at the negative criteria on a D2 variance you look at it with a little less strict view because you're talking about a condition that already exists at the site or within the community rather than a wholly non-permitted use being built you know as an example a commercial use in a residential neighborhood something like that so we do require the D2 variants for that um there's also a corresponding bulk variance for the height of the tank 15 ft is what's permitted under the drro we're proposing 29 as Mr morid said there was also uh a potential design exception or a waiver um for loading area screening we can talk about that one though at the end so for the use variants we're required demonstrate both a positive and negative criteria on the positive criteria that is generally derived from the purposes of the municipal land use law so there really are two that are promoted here um the first is the general welfare so as we've described uh through Mr Do's testimony we've confirmed that the addition of these tanks here at the campus will greatly reduce the frequency of deliveries of liquid nitrogen to the site the benefit to that is you saw the truck route um exhibit that Mr Sera put up that's going to reduce the number of trips that we having have coming through the city from Route 24 over to the site and in so we'll go from if the tanks were not approved as many as three to four excuse me one delivery every 3 to 4 days to one deliver every 14 days with the tanks installed so the benefit there is that we're reducing truck traffic through the city uh that's needed to get this product to the site um for use as Mr Moore said this is critical to the cancer research that happens on this campus so the benefit to that um also purpose G is to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses um here again these tanks are associated with existing research that that happens on this campus um this is an appropriate location to permit these accessory tanks you know particularly given the suitability of this site to accommodate them so this is an an office and research campus that's a permitted use in this zoning District um there are tanks that are already there on the site and as we'll get into a little bit more in the negative criteria testimony there's very limited visibility um and I myself went out there with Mr doat today and we we looked at this and I've also obviously review these exhibits that are before the board um so the the visibility here is fairly limited so this is a really good location on the campus to have these particularly since they're servicing that that building that we talked about building 12 which is immediately Jason I think that also the site's particularly suited to these um as we've seen through the exhibits that Mr Sera introduced the line of sight diagrams the closest residential house that we have along pic Avenue is about 400 ft so we have about 350 to the property line to the closest property line and then we have about 400 feet to the closest structure along paic Avenue um we have a dense Woods that are kind of in between those residential uses and the location where the tanks are proposed if I know a few of you went out to the site and saw it um today so the fence as part of the planning board application Mr Moore had indicated we prepared a pretty extensive landscape plan that was submitted to the planning board and we worked with Mr linsen extensively um on appropriate species location number of plantings you know there's a pretty uh herculian effort that we went through on that that Landscaping was recently installed so much of what you saw the Hol the arbor all of that that was behind the fence that's on the BMS property really needs a couple of years to get established and start growing so that it comes up beyond that fence and really establishes that Evergreen that buffer that we need to kind of supplement the Deciduous buffer that's there so if you saw you know as Mr Sate pointed out it's pretty dense woods so the the trees the limbs do provide some screening but once we get that Evergreen screening along the back of the fence established and that grows up that's really going to close off that view in the winter time so you probably get filtered views to your point Mr Curran um in the winter once that Landscaping is established we we'll have a pretty solid buffer all around there so I think given the location as Mr s said we also have if you were there today you saw there's some bming around some of the parking areas that also Shield view of of that tank location with additional vegetation on top of that so it's it's a pretty isolated location in terms of any visual impact the other thing I want to point out too is that building S12 from really any of the views that you have on that West Side really provides the backdrop to those tanks so these tanks are not kind of out in the middle of a parking lot where they're widely visible really what you're going to be seeing when you look in that direction is is building S12 and that's a I think it's 37 ft tall so we're about 11 ft tall than the tanks the 29 ft tanks that are proposed so that's really going to be the backdrop that most people on the west side of this would see and the tanks will kind of not be these Standalone you know soldiers standing in the middle of nowhere that's really the backdrop that you have so I think for those reasons um it's an appropriate location for a particularly suitable location on the property to put these tanks so that covers the positive criteria and the negative there's really two aspects that we're looking at the first is and is there any substantial impact to the public good and that refers to impact to adjacent property specifically under the case law the second in this case is any impact to the intent purpose of the Zone plan um here we always talk about this in the planning world where is the enhanced proof required for D2 is it not um I think Mr snik this's opinion is that it is so we'll address What's called the enhanced proof and that's that the Grant of the relief is not inconsistent with the intent purpose of the Zone plan and essentially reconciling why this use should be allowed here when it's specifically prohibited under the drro so as far as the the negative criteria the first part any substantial detriment to the public good um as noted previously we have about 400t to the closest dwelling we have substantial Landscaping in between landscaping that's only going to grow in further and provide additional screening uh as the years go on we have the fact fac that's on the fence uh that provides a pretty solid visual buffer I think that fence is 7t tall so we have that kind of at ground level which is most of the views that people are going to see from those backyards along paic Avenue so if you're at ground level that 7ot fence at the you know in in Board of the property line is really going to block a lot of that view at the ground level um and then of course as I said building S12 is the backdrop so that kind of provides some something that you know these are not Standalone features that you kind of just see in the middle of nowhere so I think for those reasons um there will not be any substantial impact of adjacent properties's visual impact um from this proposal and the grant of the variant as far as the intent and purpose of the Zone plan and the enhanced quality appr proof uh I did go through all the reexamination documents also the master plan um there is no discussion about the intent of this standard now from a general planning perspective it's probably visually related um you know tanks popping up at random locations different businesses in town want to make sure we address any potential visual I'm sure there was some safety concern as well so when you look and we've talked about this evening as far as the visual impact it should be fairly limited um the buffering situation again will only improve in the coming years as that plant material is established you know we took great care on the planning board application to make sure that we were addressing concerns of neighbors BMS has met with many of those neighbors and that landscape plan that was approved by the planning board you know went through a number of rounds of discussions and specific discussions with property owners adjacent to make sure that we were addressing any visual impact concerns so I think there we can address the visual safety-wise as you've heard this evening there there's really no concern um over the the gas itself there's no explosion Hazard so there's really no safety issue with the location of these these tanks in any proximity to either Park cars or adjacent Properties or you know existing buildings so from that perspective I think we can um safely say that there's no substantial impairment to the intent of that standard and then really as far as the reconciliation required under the enhanced proof the benefit to the community here is that we're going to reduce the number of truck trips to the site by installing these additional two tanks um there is in my mind it's not really a trade because I don't I don't believe there's any significant visual impact but that's really the the potential tradeoff is can we reduce the number of truck trips can we address the visual in my view and having been out to the site seen the exhibits uh and knowing what's going to occur with the maturing of the buffer in the coming years I think that we can meet both of those goals and I think there is a tremendous benefit in reducing the truck traffic to the site and that's really how we can reconcile the grant of the variance in this case as far as the bulk variance um honestly the positive and negative criteria considerations are are really the same here um for that increased height again 15 ft is what's permitted we're proposing 29 I think the the positive criteria it's the same same public welfare benefit same appropriate location purpose G the negative criteria it's all the same visual considerations as the use variants and we think we've adequately addressed it with the location and the existing buffering um and then as far as the intent purpose of the Zone plan again there's no real discussion of the 15t limitation on Accessory structures that's a pretty common height limit for accessory structures if you think about sheds and things like that um so in this case I think given the location of the tanks and again all the visual considerations we talked about tonight there's really no substantial impairment to the intent of that standard I do want to talk quickly about the potential waiver uh for screening and really what it says is that loading areas shall be screened with land landcaping fencing BMS walls or any combination thereof and any any such screening shall not be less than 6t in height um the screening shall be sufficient to obscure the view of Park Vehicles loading platforms and loading activities and it talks about U walls Gates of compatible color and texture with the building uh buffered by deciduous and evergreen shrubs and trees so as not to be visible from neighboring properties in the streets so we are not proposing any additional landscape buffering in the immediate area of of this loading area where the tanks are however as I described we have a pretty substantial buffering plan that we've put in place along the perimeter so I think really what it does is Achieve that goal of these areas not being visible to neighboring so if a waiver was if the board f a waiver was required the standard is that it either creates a hardship or that it's impracticable impracticable doesn't mean we can't do it it just means it would be wise not to necessarily so in this case given the buffering that we have on the perimeter I think the waiver would be justified because we're really meeting the intent of that standard by providing that buffer along the perimeter rather than around the immediate loading area Mr chairman that is all I had in the way of direct I'm happy to answer any questions the board may have Mr chairman that was a very thorough presentation I think addressed all my questions and also statutory criteria boards information can nothing for me is there any way you can show us how these uh tanks look like a photo or are they identical to the ones we saw out there yeah they're similar just tall yeah they're pretty close iib that's basically cont but similar to the ex I I can hardly see that yeah you want to see the sections closer up yeah yeah actually I think we actually have that in our in our files we have that dra cs501 okay but this this one here actually the section is is up cs501 I have it here yeah is much better than this is thank you other questions I have one question for Andy given that the drro the I get the existing non-conforming we've done that a lot in the past where we've cleaned these up should we include confirmation that the other existing ones are completely clean from a a bar point of view no we don't need to that as Ed noted it's clear that this prohibition came in after those tanks were installed so legally they are entitled to stay as a pre-existing non-conformity okay I think Chris's office has also addressed that okay any other questions from anybody I'm just I'm still struggling a little bit to understand you know whether or not you can turn those horizontal or not I've seen them around you know horizontal but considering the capacity that you're looking to build you can just take one and lay it down and it would have ample capacity if you're keeping the other one other two um so there's I don't see any reason why You' go up 30 feet if you don't have to especially when it's unfortunately I wish we had an engineer or scientist here to answer but we put like I said put been a year of time into creating this solution and candidly we're in a situation here where we're in a crisis and we really do need this approval as soon as we can get it to continue the cancer research I I hear you I understand the sense of urgency you said you have two tanks that are not being used today so it doesn't sound like it's much of the crisis is is you're stating but we have to be used once we get these tanks but we we just have to clarify because I think there was some confusion on that as Mr do said clarified two of the tanks are CO2 two of them are liquid nitrogen so this would just add more liquid n nitrogen capacity the CO2 tanks are going to stay and are continuing to be used correct yeah so okay so all four being used correct there was a little confusion on that in the beginning yeah that's not what we read in the application but we're representing to you now finally got and I apologize application my fault um that all four are being used now two for CO2 two for liquid nitrogen that's an important part of the application I think he's testifying to it right now that's what matters that will be uh Tony documented in the uh I mean that's what we reviewed prior to coming here right that the testimony is what you have to take into account it nothing's changed whether the the application misstated something I don't I don't know but we've heard the testimony tonight that's how they're used two for nitrogen two for CO2 it's a Maia change for me they're Bound by the facts as they're presented during the hearing itself can a CO2 tank be used for nitrogen can they be switched the the volume of what goes in them well I think both gases are used currently so there's a need to continue the CO2 tanks for use in the current research and in the labs yeah so it's it I don't think you'll see a situation where the CO2 will go away and be replaced potentially with liquid nitrogen I think both will be continued to be us or the other way around correct um is I'm I'm thinking of a tank that goes up in the air and probably has how many stanions to keep it up which is you know four or five something like that and then you'd lay it down for 29 ft that's going to have all kinds of fixtures into the into the cement Etc which and I guess I'm assuming they don't rust or anything like that but they all have the potential for it's 29 ft attached to the ground versus 29 ft up in the air which one's safer and I don't know would have been nice if we had a engineer who can testify to all this yeah we don't and and you know we we don't have the ability to substitute our judgment I assume that engineer was a part of this yearlong process but I'm sure sure he was I'm sure they were I'm sure it wasn't one person I'm just wondering how important it was well the other thing I'll say um so if you look at the drawing there if if we were to take those two tanks and lay them down side by side Mr chairman as you had said 29 ft along the ground right now we're installing ballards um along the front of that installation to protect the tanks from any damage you know from a collision so right now the the tanker truck comes in and then backs down and and fills the tanks if you were to lay them down first of all it takes up obviously much more room on the ground to your point more attachment points to the concrete more supports things like that the way this layout is more efficient is that those tanks can more easily be protected there's less area you know for for potential um I don't want to say accident but it's it's less of a it's probably not the right word Target you know per se so if we stand them up vertically it's just consuming less area on the ground there's more area we would have to protect so you would need more ballards oh for sure yeah we would have to put ballards along the whole Frontage there where the truck comes in and and delivers you know this is a much more efficient use of ground space there and I think UL look at the end of the day the the real question here is is there any substantial visual impact from the increase in height and the location and I think that you know based on what I saw physically and I know a few of you were out there as well today the distance to the residential the existing landscape screening all that is is really going to address any potential visual impact from this installation and the height and really anything you're going to see from the west side is with building S12 as the backdrop you know these these aren't going to stand out to any great degree you know if you view them from the properties long Bes right uh you said that you and you you this isn't your question probably for the attorney um you said you had meetings with the neighborhood so can we understand from what their reaction and I don't know if I'm allowed to ask but I'll ask it anyway are we allowed to know what they thought obviously they're not here if they were opposed to it they'd be here I I know that but what what did they say to you what was their issues I to call Mr only a to add any concerns spoke with Mr Mr Co can you give your name for the record Peter Co K and I'll swear you in if you could raise your right hand do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes thank you Mr Co can you tell board what your position is in Crystal myo company senior director of facilities and are you basically in charge of the facilities at Summit West Campus yes um and then can you talk about the email and telephone Communications you have with the neighbors on this application yeah the neighbors asked me about the height of the tanks and they asked me about the height of the building that was primary request and what was their reaction to your answers well I didn't give them the answers because I didn't have the answers at the time um so I I knew that we were going to be coming here tonight I told them that we would be here an hour before um the meeting and that we would be able to answer any questions that they had we would have the engineers and we would have um everybody involved in the project here except the engineer we have the civil engineer just not the the engineer we need okay okay and questions for questions from you guys no no thank you uh that concludes our presentation um I know there's a little concern about the height but I think we've addressed the height I think Mr Kyle and Mr Sera have addressed the height it's uh very benevolent purpose cancer research the size of the tanks will substantially reduce TR traffic coming to the site and with that I urge you to uh Grant this approval thank you very much for your time and thoughtful consideration thank you um I guess at this point I'm supposed to ask if the public has anything to say conditions so we have our usual one condition that we've noted before compliance with those conditions noted in the the board Engineers memorandum right that the ones that we noted that we're agreeing with that weren't informational and then one of them we just clarify that it's the time of construction permit rather than yes compliance yep yep you you either did the testimony or whatever to satisfy the requirements that's all we have that's the only one yep okay who wants to start I'll start um I'm still struggling a little bit with the position of if you can't see it it doesn't matter right so the 15 foot um limitation and potentially options around well certainly options around multiple tanks maybe less efficient but still a possibility um that were similar in size to the ones they have or a larger tank on its side which again it's hard to I don't know if that's a possibility or not but but I think there were some options that could have been explored or at least spoken to um and you know being there today standing from the street again I'm not not standing next to someone's fence and then trying to get a visual but from the street down you know there there there is visual I'm not in the house it might be different um and I'm sure when people are in their house looking at the Second Story you know do you want to see you know a 30 foot you know cylinder versus a building probably not um so just not sure where I am right now anyone else I'm again going to bring up the issue of Health if I was waiting for a cancer cure and these are the special cures that they're doing uh and I was waiting for one I'd be a little upset if this got delayed too long and we didn't get these people what they need it's one thing I think of it's it's certainly they're going to get it what this is not going to stop delivery it's just it'll be more frequent so this is not going to okay disrupt any cancer research or cancer I would hope it wouldn't that's actually not true and I can get Mr doad to verify it but with in with connect potential interruptions in the supply train the it could it it could have a very negative impact on our operations if we don't get this you did testify to the fact that you thought it was going to be a problem if you didn't get it yes and I really would like to know what that problem is if we're deliberating they're not testifying are we asking to come back up and supplement that yes I am asking if they would do that if I may if I'm not allowed let me theair yes we have one supplier for our liquid nitrogen um if there was an issue based upon that frequency of 3 to 4 days let's say there was a you know we had an average of 7 to 10 days previously now if we are focusing on the three to four if we're hitting three more often uh based on the Telemetry of the tanks we may run into an issue if a truck's not available to meet that timeline we could run out of liquid nitrogen which would have an impact on our overall product um it would be a loss I I don't think anyone on this board is disputing the fact that you should increase your capacity yes right uh that's not the issue the issue is it seems that that there's a very real concern of this board that you've not properly considered all the options for storage and you didn't even bring an engineer to testify to how you got to this point with two three story tall build size tanks on the site um and I think that's what's an issue here I I think you know what we should do is have them go and sharpen their pencils a little bit show us what options are available in terms of storage and then come back with a thorough explanation of what's possible on this site I I don't know that we should be just blindly accepting that two 30 foot tall towers is the only solution and you know the one that works best for them also happens to work best for the neighborhood and the City I'm not convinced of that what I would like to do and I would offer is that we continue this hearing to the next uh month's hearing without any further notice and we will bring the engineers with us who made these decisions and then we will be able to explain the decision we made hopefully to your satisfaction I think that would be extremely helpful we'll be happy to do that and uh if possible uh revisit the application and eliminate all the discrepancy that threw me out what date were here it comes here comes your date July 1 July 1st um all right so July 1st it is July 1 it is is there is there a motion to yeah we uh and you you would wave the time to the board act and all that all that other wonderful good stuff needs me to send something I'll send it but here on the record I represent that the time period is extended okay and without uh without further notice yes is there a motion so moved second Vice chairman lyit yes Mr Kieran yes Mr Malai yes Miss to yes Mr fkins yes Mr Chuli yes chairman Steiner yes the motion carries thank you thank you very much see you in July 1st oh yeah uh and if anyone didn't go to see the facility we'll make arrangements if they want to go see it thank you Mr if that ever if that comes up we have some other business to do resolutions for extensions 119 Oakridge Avenue and 503 Springfield [Music] Avenue I I moved to extend 190 Bridge or can we do them together and extend one at a time okay Y and I mean both of these were fairly standard requests um I don't know does anyone on the board would you like any further explanation of them or you all got the letters yep is there a motion um move on 190 Bridge yep second doesn't matter okay oh is it do we need to roll yeah chairman Steiner yes Mr Malay yeah Mr Karen yes Vice chairman lit yes Miss toad yes Mr fkins yes Mr Chuli yes the motion carries okay 503 Springfield Avenue which is bed rosans I'll move okay second okay chairman Steiner yes Mr kieren yes Mr Malay yes Vice chairman lyit yes Miss to yes Mr fkins yes Mr Chuli yes the motion carries resolutions okay so we have 24 Windsor Road that's block 5203 lot 22 Z B- 24-22 33 that's Andrew Brown and Bianca Marino do we have a motion uh who are the who are the eligible voters oh I'm sorry the eligible voters are uh Mr Yuko Mr Nelson Miss z Mr Malle Miss to miss chfo and that's it so we got two of them here yes do you want to move or do you want a second Aon okay M okay and I'll second okay Miss to yes and Mr Malay yes okay the motion carries and then ad0 Bel 0 Belleview so that's block 1104 lot 9 zb- 24-22 36 Michael and Kristen applebomb the eligible voting members again many of them are not present it's it's Mr Yuko Mr Nelson Miss Zan Mr Malay Miss to miss Cho and that's all we have okay okay second okay Mr Malay yes and Miss to yes the motion carries the annual report Vice chairman it's in front of us yes you guys want to vote on it tonight yes all right is this the fastest it's ever been done it's the most time it's ever been on the agenda um that's a good question I does anyone have any comments the fiercest critic of this report is not here tonight so I feel a little defl we're not up to verbal job the the one thing I'll say because I think I know who added it or who who put it in in the recommendations initially um for stacked parking is actually addressed in the drro and therefore I suggested that we didn't need to say let's put it in the Dr and that's that was a great I was looking for something else and there it was yeah but in fact I was the one who was supporting it I guessed that and uh the uh therefore I wasn't that happy with the uh I wasn't uh uh the D drro speaks about it but uh still that's why we had issues with the building that they tried to use the drro the existing Dr to uh bypass the requirement for parking to use the and it was a very bad idea that was uh established we're going to see it soon when the building goes up and uh I remember the fire uh uh fire chief wasn't happy about it uh we uh I I don't I don't I'm not sure if you remember the the the background about this issue that I opposed very strongly I was against it and uh I still think it was a bad idea uh I mean big facilities uh that require stack parking or self uh you know or uh uh robotic things should be addressed separately by the by the city not by uh developers and that was my point of view this is we're allowing developers to create their own to circumvent the requirements of the Dr and I was very strong about it uh didn't work and now having it being removed from the annual I have to uh vote no that's my opinion I'm not familiar with that case but from a developed mind not you're right I think it predates me every other city is doing stackables we have to every other city is doing stackables at this point you go up and down the Eastern seab board every major new development in urban setting in a semi-urban setting is embraced stackable stackable parking so it needs to be done in a thoughtful manner but but not not not on uh on a private on the city I mean the Citywide uh for example if you're building a a parking garage by the state by the uh theater by a uh the garage like here that's fine they could be stacked but not a private developer and the only purpose or the uh is to circumvent uh the uh amount of parking spaces required by the drro I found this is a just uh a play around the uh the Dr that that was for this certain case we have another case here in Summit which is in Summit Avenue and uh I I wasn't involved in that one that was is an old one I don't know if that's you you familiar with that one in Summit Avenue yeah the beacon yeah but that wasn't as bad as this one with valy parking at this corner where the senior citizens building is uh you will all see it in the future and you remember me well I mean i' i' I I've got the the I have the drro on my phone as one does excuse me it's a favorite it's my f it absolutely is one of my favorites that in the master plan um but it does specify um what is in stacked parking and it does says that the feasibility of such parking systems to accommodate the the their associ Associated land uses shall be subject to the planning or Zoning Board of adjustment review and approval so that anybody who wants to put back parking into a building has to come to us it's the plan or the planning board the planning board and the planning board and the master plan should show where there is a need for that uh exception but with that each case is developed individually each case it's considered individually right not not bulk so if I if I want to have a parking in my backyard that's fine you have to come to the planning board or the Z Bo yeah isn't isn't that what you want is that the kind of control and review that you want no no this should be planned uh at the level of the city not by the private that's the change we wanted and I worked with Stephen with that thing that's what we had you know mind no I'm sorry just are you suggesting that like where we have R5 r10 R15 that we have a district that allows this is like I'm just not sure I understand of course yes of course I mean by the station by a a public let's say we're building uh a u a hotel that the it requires that uh but just to add and and in this case we we want uh the developer just wanted to add more Apartments that's another good reason for me to allow stack parking to give him more apartments that is a bad idea I um I don't know if you agree with me I don't I don't know don't yeah I don't I I don't know to mandate uh stack parking in certain districts I talk about two one of them is built the other one's proposed that hasn't even started construction yet but they have our approval yes right but you you you want to mandate no I did not say the word mandate please don't put words in there okay are you saying prohibited in other districts I didn't say prohibited I said what was done here in this uh situation was wrong and I worked with Stephen uh as he was the chair last time and he's now on the planning board I guess and we we had this stack parking that needs to be reviewed by the city by the governing body so they see where they could be uh acceptable they should not be acceptable for everyone Mr if I can offer are you saying that they should be offered just may may I suggest that as long as we've taken it out this year this is an annual ual event I can ask uh and you can ask last year's chair yeah and you have the wording from that and let's submit it back to the committee for next year and we can bring it up again I I don't mind I think I think this pass this and move it forward I mean we should approve this annual because it's too late right I mean it's about it's a lot ear only thing that was removed moved from that is what I supported mainly and that's why I feel bad about it okay well we'll bring it back I guess I misunderstood where you were going with that proposal I thought that the drro had already addressed it and I apologize for that I'm sorry thank you Aman can you what is the um the this one that hasn't been built yet that you had concerns with just so I can understand CLE Park would you like discuss that of if you like we can talk uh about that at the later stage because this is something that is important for the city we don't want uh stacked parking to grow everywhere I hate to see that in summit summit has a tradition do you want it in your backyard do you want it on your I don't want it in my backyard but I think that surface parking is is is a very inefficient use of space and that the more cars you can get off of a surface parking lot the better that that that's not what was uh uh implied in that application in the variance that we we approved and I rejected of course uh and you will see the building uh you know where the uh old chevr was the uh that was on Morris Avenue that block yeah I know where it is yeah that's exactly where they wanted to use 5000 to get enough spes to allow for more apartments for the developer to make more Apartments which I I think that wasn't uh a good idea just so understand need that stock parking at that within the grro do you have structured parking allowed like they did on um farle like a garage is that a permitted thing or is that something that's an exception depends upon which no okay I think every garage has gone through the planning board of the okay we even even the one downtown we put through The Zing board all right okay we'll bring this back to the committee but we'll pass the report tonight don't worry about it I'm going to vote no for that but I hope you will uh uh process that because it's about time yes we we will definitely make sure it goes to the committee thank you for clarifying your position I was reading too quickly is there a motion to adopt the report moved second second phone call chairman Steiner yes Mr Karen yes Mr Malay yes Vice chairman lyit yes Miss to yes Mr feskin yes Mr Chuli yes the motion carries and my thanks to Scott for putting up all the all the things and getting all the things out and uh everybody got their their say and we want to make sure that we continue that process as we move forward next year Mr chairman can I recommend that the next time we go through this process we have a letter schedule that we actually um BL out some time to go through all the proposed um annual report notes and points that various board members are trying to make so we can have this discussion but on a we can fully participatory basis hopefully we won't have as many um new board members next year and where we had the training sessions we might be able to take a uh an early evening with some uh you know some dinner and uh have the um have all of those things come out in an hour and a half excellent terrific that sounds great just next meeting is next Tuesday with no it's next Monday 10 it's Monday it's a Monday uh and uh we will be here for a special meeting you all got a nice big package tday and I uh would have a motion to adjourn moved all those in favor I good night