multiple [Music] Hope we don't have the engineers left. >> We're going to turn first and then go. Yeah. >> Steve. I mean, I have no problem getting
What happened? I cannot believe next week is >> happen. Got to hop in. Good. How you doing? >> All good. Thank you much. >> That's okay. Thank you much.
>> Okay. >> I don't think this chair is moving. I got to fix it down in a minute. I'm good. We're still good. Uh good evening everyone. Welcome to the township of union planning board meeting for July 24th
uh 2025. Um sunshine notice please. Pursuant to the open public meetings law, notice of this meeting stating the time and place was satisfied by the filing of an annual notice with the local source and the star ledger newspapers of general circulation within the township of union
and posted on the bulletin board of the township of union municipal building. >> Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander >> here. >> Mr. Cohan. Miss Espinosa excused. Mr. Frame >> here.
>> Mr. Miller, Miss Perkins >> here, >> Mayor Bowser >> here. >> Committeewoman Terrell >> here. >> Miss Khan, Miss Kayla Caleb >> here. >> Chairman Lei
>> here. Um, our first item on our agenda. Uh, can we swear in the engineer, please? >> Mr. D, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth? >> Yes, I do. Our first item item on the agenda is the
approval of the minutes from the June 26th meeting. Can I get a motion to approve? >> Motion. >> Moved by Mr. Fra. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Miss Khaled. Uh, roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander? >> Yes.
>> Mr. Frame? >> Yes. >> Miss Perkins? >> Yes. >> Mayor Bowser? >> Yes. >> Chairwoman Terrell? >> Yes. >> Miss Calid? >> Yes. Chairman Lei. >> Yes. Uh, next item up is the adoption of the
resolution for R um RCG realy. Uh, can I get a motion, please? >> Motion. >> Moved by Mr. Frame. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Seconded by Mrs. Perkins. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Frame. >> Yes. >> Miss. Perkins. >> Yes. Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Scalid, >> yes. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. Uh, the next resolution is uh
2025-09711 1174 Morris Avenue. Can I get a motion to approve the resolution? >> Motion. >> Uh, moved by Mr. Frame, second. >> Second >> by Mrs. Perkins. Roll call, please.
>> Mr. Alexander. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frame. Yes, >> Miss Perkins. >> Yes, >> Mayor Bowser. >> Yes, >> Committeewoman Terrell. >> Yes, >> Miss Calid. >> Yes, >> Chairman Lei. >> Yes. >> All right. Uh, next item on our agenda
is a presentation from Kristen Russell uh for our 2025 master plan re-examination. Mrs. Russell. And can we swear in Mrs. Russell, please? >> Right. Read your right hand. You swear the testimony about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. I do. >> Good evening everybody. Kristen Russell with Collier's Engineering and Design. Um I am here to present to you this evening um a 2025 master plan re-examination. Um, as just as background for uh to refresh your memory, um, master plans
are governed by the municipal land use law and they require that a municipality update them every 10 years. Um, you can also, um, inter in the intervening time. Um, adopt master plan amendments. You
did this in 2021 and um sorry, your last master plan was updated in 2021 and your last re-examination was updated um just last year in 2024. Um there is no limit on how often you can um amend and revise
your re-examination reports. Um, and so now here we are a year later, um, doing another re-examination amendment. Um, another re-examination. Um, the last re-examination looked specifically at
your NC district and some, um, resoning in the TOD and CI zone. So, it was very focused. Um the one that I will present to you this evening, you'll also find is very focused um on just about two issues. Um
re-examination reports do have certain information that the municipal land use law requires be included therein. Um that includes um identifying the problems and and objectives um that have um happened since the time of the last
master plan. the extent that those um problems and objectives have reduced or increased, the extent that there have been significant changes in the assumptions, specific changes recommended to the master plan and recommendations um related to
redevelopment plans. The scope, as I said, is very focused on this re-examination report. Um, and it focuses strictly on um modifications to NC and RA boundaries and I'll go over
with you where that relates to um as well as a um recommendation to look at some of the bulk requirements here in Union. I did we do have to look at how the objectives um have changed and so I
pulled those which are related to the scope of this re-examination report um and I will identify those the goal there's one goal of maintaining the character of the existing residential neighborhoods while providing opportunities for housing types that
meet the needs um of all ages and abilities that that um goal remains and then objectives which are subsets of the goals rules um include I'll just I'm going to paraphrase these preserving the integrity of established single family and two family neighborhoods and preventing inco in incompatible
non-residential uses. Both of those still remain accurate and will be um we we will those objectives will remain. There's also a goal of supporting desirable non-residential development. While that goal remains, there is um an
objective of identifying zoning ordinance improvements that can respond to the changing economies and market demands and this is to be revised. Um, as you may recall, um, we recently
eliminated residential uses from the NC zone, and an appropriate revision to that goal would be to revise bulk standards related to the height in the NC zone to reflect the previously adopted permitted uses. And while we're
at it, um, a reduction in the height and feet for two-story residential districts should be cons should be considered to control the roof line aesthetic. Um last there's a goal to eliminate residential uses in the NC district which is what I've just um mentioned we
dealt with last year and so that remains. So what are the changes in assumptions that bring us here today? Um the master plan as it relates to the change um from NC2R. The master plan envisioned commercial growth at the southern end of
Chestnut Street near the Rosel Park Burough border. And that was based largely on the fact that the area is with a 5 to 10 minute walk of Rosel Park train station. At this point in time, um Union does not see that as um a realistic um
development pattern and the vision is to now retain the existing single family residential uses in that area. A second change in assumption that we see is that Union is facing unique challenges and threats to become more
urbanized. preserving its existing suburban character in all non-down areas is a priority for the community and has been cited as a top concern among residents. So, what we're recommending in this re-examination report is that a comprehensive review of the bulk
requirements including height, setbacks, and coverage be undertaken. And the goal will be to identify what the massing is and how that can be codified to ensure that overpowering development does not alter the existing traditional
neighborhood character. Um modifying lowering the recommended bulk and height limits for the NC zone specifically follows the 2024 recommendation um to eliminate the residential use. So going on the bulk changes re the
recommendations for bulk changes it is recommended that the NC district maximum height be lowered from 3 to two stories and from 35 to 27 ft. Um because the residential uses have been eliminated from that NC zone which is where you
would have seen ground floor commercial and residential above it. Well if that residential isn't going to be there's no reason to have a three-story building. So, we're recommending that that be pulled down to two stories in the next the next time you amend um the zoning
code. We are also, as I mentioned earlier, recommending that the bulk and height limits in um townshipwide, but with a particular focus on residential zones be studied um to consider reducing height and study the existing setback
and coverage limits. Um what we're really going for here is to do an analysis of what the neighborhoods look like now and make the zoning match them where where you know where the existing conditions are something that we want to preserve, maintain and have continued
with any new development that should happen in those neighborhoods. That does require a study in order to come up with the exact numbers or the exact zone boundaries that would be appropriate. So I don't have that study has not been completed yet. So, I can't tell you what
the um findings are, but this re-examination report recommends that that study take place. I told you I'd explained to you where the NC to RA resoning is on Chestnut Street. This map may help orient you. Um it's primarily along primarily along
Tucker Avenue, Sinclair, Carolyn Road, and Chestnut Street and Mercer Avenue. Um, again, there had been some expectation at the time of your master plan that the NC would kind of start to
grow in that area and that's just no longer the vision. Um, and so we are going to recommend that those residential lots that are circled um and are and are listed in the appendex of the document um be made RA in order to
preserve that residential neighborhood. I think that's it. So in summary, there are two recommendations built into this master plan reexamination. The one is the zoning um reszoning of the parcels
that are still on the map now from NC to RA and the other one is to undertake a study um as to the bulk standards and if how and where they should be modified in order to preserve the traditional neighborhoods that we see in Union and
not have new development come into those neighborhoods that is out of character, an intrusion and really just doesn't reflect the scale of the existing neighborood. neighborhood. Um should you choose to um adopt this um re-examination tonight um I expect that
that study will um go forward um within the next month or few months and I will be able to appear before you um within let's say one to four months I
don't know and and present to you um what recommendations we have more specific speifically to amend the zoning code. >> Thank you for your presentation. Uh questions from the board. just kind of an overarching question um
with the uh slide that you had on the proposed recommendations um you know for the NC zone with regards the bulk um the bulk changes that you're proposing ultimately all this is here to
help support of the goals that you've referenced in in your re-examin ination um report with master goal um master plan goal one and two. I know that those are unchanged um uh before the board here. U but I assume that the the
intentionality and the big picture of it is that these recommendations help further support and align to those uh specific goals. Yes, they they support, they align, and they um clarify or maybe
slightly redirect. Like you're allowed to change your goals in the master planning process. And what the the reason that we need to do this is I mean if if the board is on board um is that
zoning needs to reflect the vision of the master plan. So, we need to make sure that if we were going to make zoning changes that the master plan supports those and this clarifies exactly the vision that we have for the
community and the zoning should um layer on top of that and they should kind of hold hands. Um so right now the master plan goals as um as I had earlier you know you saw most of these goals that I
identified um they remain unchanged and that and that's what you're pointing out and indeed like that's kind of what I'm trying to show you is that there's not a major shift going on here with our goals. se several of them are to remain.
The one that is primarily changing is the um and I'll I'll paraphrase it, but to to help preserve the character of the neighborhoods. Um and if we and if that's going to mean if that goal is going to mean changing significantly the
bulk or the zone boundaries, that needs to be specifically called out in a master plan document. So that's why we're doing this tonight because I anticipate that it might result in changing some zone boundaries or some bulk requirements that are significant
enough that we need to be um that we need to kind of announce it and this is that announcement. >> Thank you. Any further questions from the board? I do want to point out to the board just so there's no confusion that master plan documents including re-examination
reports are under the sole jurisdiction of the planning board. So when you adopt this tonight that's that's it. It does not need to be referred to the township committee. >> Got it. >> So you would adopt this tonight and then you could um you know have a resolution affirming that. But um this is really
you're you're the sole body that that has um authority over the master plan documents. >> Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Um, just want to make sure uh questions from the public. >> Okay, just have to go then. Comments
from the board. Comments from the public. Okay, hearing none. Uh, can I get a motion to approve the re-examination and amendment uh report uh to the master plan? Motion.
>> Moved by Mr. Fra. Is there a second? Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Alexander. Uh, roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander. >> Yes. >> Mr. Frame. >> Yes. >> Miss. Perkins. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bowser. >> Yes.
>> Committeewoman Terrell. >> Yes. >> Miss. Called. >> Yes. >> Chairman Lei. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Um, can I call the representative for Puyo Compro? Uh, application 2025-13.
>> Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman of board, members, members of the public. Stephen Hail representing uh PO uh PC uh the the new place out on Route 22. And I know we had an opportunity to speak and I did speak to Mr. Tavi from
Kers. No, Collier. Is it not on? Yes. Um uh Kers is still working on the report and we'll have it shortly. So, we talked about adjourning this matter without further notice until the August 28th, I believe, meeting of the board.
So, I don't think we're close to the time period for extension of time, but we would stipulate any such extension as needed. So, >> okay. Uh, can I get a motion to adjourn uh application 2025-13 to the August
28th meeting without further notice? >> Make that motion. >> Moved by Mrs. Perkins. Is there a second? Seconded by Mrs. Khaled. Um, roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser,
>> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> M. Calid, >> yes. >> Chairman Lei, >> yes. >> Thank you very much and have a great night. >> You too. >> Keep cool. >> All right. Um, going back to the order of our agenda, we will now go with
application 2024-07. Chestnut uh 367 LLC. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Stephen Herman of the law firm of Jabra Valley Wargap Khan Hicks Khan Wickstrom and Sinnins
appearing on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Chairman, before we uh proceed, uh I would like to ask for a quick sidebar with council uh with regard to a legal issue that has really just arisen and then I'd like to come back after he and I have a conversation uh with regard to
it. Is it a quick conver conversation? A >> quick conversation. >> Okay. I was just assessing if we do need to recess and you haven't. >> No, no, no. It's going to be a very, very quick conversation. I assure you. >> All right. Thank. Okay. He's going to I quick to paper for
them to carry it. It's good. We're good. 2 minutes. I wonder Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> No problem. >> Well, heard a lot of things about the NC zone. We're going to talk about the NC zone. This may be the last application
for a residential use in the NC zone as based upon what we just heard. >> For the public, would you explain what you understand the NC zone to be, sir? >> Right. The NC zone is a neighborhood core zone. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And that is in fact the zone where this property chest 367 chestnut is
located. It is currently a onestory. >> Mr. Just make sure you're you're close to the mic. So y >> I know it's difficult for me to stand still. I will try my best. >> You can hold it if you want. >> I know but if I do that I'm going to wind up all the way in the back of the room and that's not that doesn't play well either especially when we know
there are cameras all around. So what we have here is we have a one-story commercial building. It currently uh houses uh commercial use and we're seeking to convert that to a mixeduse commercial on the ground level uh with residential apartments on the second and
third level. Um the uh testimony this evening uh will be done by our engineer John Milana um our architect Paladantis. We do have a representative of our applicant here to answer any specific
questions. Uh but uh our cleanup hitter will be our planner and that'll be Victor Venegra of Harbor Consultants. So without further ado, recognizing you do have a long agenda behind us, uh we're just going to jump right into this and I'll call my engineer.
>> Sir, would you raise your right hand, state your name, and spell your last name for the record, please? >> Uh sure. Uh legal name is Giovanni Manilio. G I O V A N I M A N I L I O uh with Manta Design. >> Sir, do you swear the testimony about to
give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> John, can you give the board the uh benefit of your background in education? >> Uh sure. I have a bachelor of science and civil engineering from Syracuse University. Uh have been licensed in the state of New Jersey for the past uh 17
years. Uh licensed to good standing, testified in front of numerous boards throughout the state. um and in front of this board um on a couple of occasions as well. >> Board stipulates. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um could you tell the board what your involvement has been in this overall project?
>> Uh sure. So, our firm uh are the civil engineers for the project? Uh we're in charge of putting together the plans and the uh the site plans and the various plans and the zoning um for the project. Just give me one second. I'm just bringing up some exhibits which will hopefully help with the
presentation. So, if if you don't mind, I do have two exhibits for tonight. Uh, one is entitled 367 Chestnut LLC Union aerial exhibit uh with a date of June 26, 2025. It's a colored um aerial of the site
with the site highlighted in yellow in the middle. It also shows the surrounding streets and the uh surrounding um zoning. Um, as mentioned earlier, the property is located in an NC zone, which is a neighborhood core zone. Um, and this pink line, uh, kind
of illustrates the, uh, limits of the current NC zone um, on Chestnut Street. Uh, surrounding us on the north, west, and south are other commercial um, and offices, including a bank, uh, professional offices, and medical offices. Uh located to the east of us is
the RA zone which is a residential zone and obviously there are residential uh structures to the east of us. Uh the lot is essentially rectangular in shape um with uh frontage on both Chestnut and Newark Avenue. The lot's approximately 100 ft wide and 120 ft deep as you go
along Newark Avenue. Um, as mentioned earlier that the lot currently consists of a one-story retail building uh which I believe is Fast Signs is is in that building right now uh with surface parking for um 22 parking spaces on on the site and there are currently three
curb cuts along Newark's a and one on Chestnut Street that are currently there. Um the site is non-conforming in memory in uh numerous aspects. Um I'm not going to go in too much detail but I'll just list some of the um non-conformities. One being lot area
11,936 square feet is existing where 15,000 is required. Lot width that's approximately 100 feet wide where 150 ft is required. Uh front yard setback uh requirement of 10 feet is required and the current
building right now is about8 or 0.9 feet from the front yard along Chestnut Street. a sideyard with the property to the north of us. Um 10 feet is required and the current building is 26 feet. Uh impervious coverage uh requirement of
80% is permitted uh where 98.7 is currently present on the site. Uh there's currently no loading zones on the property. Um it's deficient in um setbacks for parking uh both from residential use from property lines from the building
uh buffers associated with the parking and um parking dimensions and aisle widths in the parking lot don't don't comply. And I'll show you real quick. So I'm not sure if the board or or some of the public can see I'm going to go to uh the second page of our plans that that was
submitted as part of the application. Um, just note here on the left side is the existing conditions. Oops. I don't know why this thing keeps popping up, but um, this is the building on the bottom left corner as you can see here and the parking lot uh, to the east of
the building next to the residential zone. Uh, next I'm going to refer to um another exhibit entitled 367 Chestnut LLC Union uh, site exhibit uh, with a date of June 26, 2025. It's a color
rendition of the um site plans that were submitted as part of the application. I'll just briefly go through what is being proposed. So, as mentioned earlier, the proposal um and I'll just go over some of these colors. So, the light brown represents the current
building that's there. The dark brown represents what's being proposed. Uh so, what we're proposing is on top of the existing building is to build two stories above it. Um so, everything is going up on this. Um, as you can see, we're not going all the way to the uh side property line where the existing building is. We're actually going to
inset it um a little bit off the property line, and it's approximately 4.9 ft or 5T um as you get closer to um Chestnut. And as you get to the rear, the setback from the property line is about 6.5 ft. Um we are matching the
front building line, which is 088 ft. So, we are asking for relief on that. uh given that the existing building is there and we're building straight up. Um as far as the proposal that we are proposing um residential above and the architect to go over the layouts as far
as what's being proposed, number of bedrooms and the unit counts. As far as um site improvements, we are proposing to close off the curb cut on Chestnut right here uh and maintain the two um current curb cuts on Newark A and
modify the one that's uh further to the east slightly just to make uh this parking lot in the back uh more conforming. Uh so what we're proposing to do is to restripe that parking lot uh make it conforming with as as much as we can. Um so previously the um the
driveway was not 22 feet wide in the aisle. Uh this one is 24 feet along the whole aisle which is fully compliant. Um we did restripe it. Uh we got rid of um other areas where we didn't see that it was useful to have that impervious. Um so as you see here as closer as you get
to Newark Avenue we got rid of some of the extra pavement. We're able to put landscaping there. Uh thus reducing the impervious slightly from what's currently out there. Um and we are proposing um so this is an overhang over um on the second or third floor that overhangs the pavement area. We are
proposing to strike four spaces on that area as well. Um of those spaces three of them will be EV parking spaces uh which complies with the requirement for EV. Um so total we're proposing 21 physical parking spaces. Uh per the
state um regulations we are allowed to take a credit for providing EV. Uh so the total number of parking spaces provided is 23 parking spaces. Uh based on the use of the commercial and the residential uh 22 parking spaces are required. So we are over by uh one
parking space. As I mentioned earlier, we do comply with the uh parking um aisle on the eastern parking lot with 24 ft being proposed. Um the parking aisles in in this area are not they they vary from 21.1 to I believe 22 feet. So
that's a little substandard. Uh but I I do have another exhibit that I will show which is a turning exhibit for those parking spaces. Uh since we do have two curb cuts there, it does facilitate the turning in and out of those parking spaces a little easier. Um so I'll show that in in one second. Um and then
lastly with the parking um all spaces will be 9 by8 and then three of them, these ones on the far I guess southeast corner will be fully compliant with the uh 9 by 20 uh size. And then the majority of them also do have the
two-foot overhang uh with the exception of I believe seven of the parking spaces along the east uh property line where we have that retaining wall between our property and the neighbors. Um and the overhang on that side varies from um
6 feet as you can see this angles uh to 2 feet. Uh so 9 by8 is is typical standard for RSIS which we comply with but we do not comply with the uh town's requirements for 9 by8 with a twoft overhang. Give me one second. I will bring up the turning exhibit because I
think it's important to show. So this is I believe a new exhibit as well. This is entitled um 367 Chestnut LLC Union turning exhibit with a date of June 26, 2025. Um, as you can see here
on this lower parking lot, a vehicle could easily park into the spot. They would back into the the um the curb cut slightly and then make that turn and come out. Uh, so no issues with getting in and out of those parking spaces. Um, shown on the eastern part of truck
turning is a truck turning exhibit for the garbage pickup and drop off. Um, so they would utilize the um the aisle of the ADA space to make that turn if if need be um to get out of the u the parking lot. Uh going back to that, I'll go back to
>> Let me let me just stop you there. You mentioned the the garbage and like the the assumption is is that a private hauler is going to be used. >> It will be a private hauler. Yes, that is correct. It'll be a private hauler. Um and it'll be up to the um the applicant or the owner to to coordinate the pickup, the pickup times, the how
many times per week. Um, but we do have a I would say a good size uh refuge and recycling area located outside the building. And that's where my cursor is right here, but I I'll show it on the um on the colored exhibit as well. So, that's shown right here on this corner.
And that's approximately 18 by um I call it 22 feet in width. Um as mentioned earlier, we're going to remove the excess pavement that's closer to Newark Avenue and add some shrubbery uh to give it a little bit of green space. Uh we are proposing new lighting.
New lighting is consist of uh building mounted lights and canopy under canopy lights over here as well. And we do comply with the uh lighting requirements for the town. As far as zoning compliance, uh we do have um account for pre-existing non-conformities which are
going to stay uh which are not being touched, which is the lot area, the lot width, uh the loading areas um for the retail space. That's not changing and we're not proposing any new loading areas. and the landscape buffer um with the um east uh property line uh 1.5 feet
is um existing proposed where 10 feet is required. Um as far as variances are being requested, we are seeking a new variance for the front yard. Even though the building is 888 or 0.9 ft from the front yard, we are going up uh two more stories and that's staying at that same
plane. So we are requesting a variance for that where 10 ft is required on the sideyard. Currently the sideyard is 26 feet. Uh the new addition will be 4.9 feet at the closest point where 10 feet is required. Uh building coverage 30% is permitted uh where 35.4% is being
proposed as part of this application. And lastly, impervious coverage. Um the requirement is that we're allowed to have 80% of uh the lot be impervious. Currently, it's 98.7 or we're dropping it by approximately 2% to 96.7%
or equivalent of about 246 ft of reduction of impervious coverage on the site. Uh we are asking for design waiverss for parking setbacks. Again, as mentioned earlier, uh there was a zero foot setback, I believe, on the sideyard originally. Um and 1.5 ft is being
proposed at this time to to the property line. Uh same with the residential 1.5 is was existing and 1.5 is staying for the setback for the parking. Um and then set back from a building requirement is uh 5T where 2 feet is proposed on the I
guess west side of the parking lot and again that's to facilitate um the 24 foot aisle in that drive aisle to make it safe for cars to turn in and out uh which is uh insufficient at at the moment in that parking lot. Um and then lastly, we're asking for
design waiver on the dimensions for the U parking spaces where 9 by8 with a twoft overhang is required where we do have seven spaces on the east side that are don't have that two foot overhang. They range from 6 ft to 1.9 ft of overhang.
That concludes my testimony. >> Thank you. You've had an opportunity to review the Kier's report of April 16, 2025, have you not? >> I have. Um, are there any issues with complying with all the recommendations? >> Uh, no issues at all.
>> Uh, just specifically, I want to, uh, take you through the technical comments. Um, uh, 8 8.1, the opinion shall upgrade the inlet head and grade on on Chestnut Street, uh, with an N eco head and bicycle safe.
>> No issues. >> No issues. Um, we're going to need to upsize the utilities. Uh yeah, it's it's uh going to be upsized as far. >> Right. So so we're going to be supplying an additional utility plan as part of our construction drawings.
>> Correct. And any road opening permit which is associated with it. >> Okay. ADA regulations will also be noted on the plans for purposes of resolution compliance. >> Correct. >> Um now we haven't shown any um uh signs on the property. Uh all driveway shall have stop bars and stop
signs. >> Yeah. I'm not that's my apology. We didn't have a chance to put it on our exhibit, but yeah, we would put stop signs at the exit and a stop bar at the exits as well. Currently, >> there's also there was also some uh discussion about posting a sign authorized parking only uh on site. Is that still the applicant's desire so
that everyone knows specifically with regard to the EV spaces that they are this is private property. It's not public. >> Yes, that is the intent. I'm going to leave the uh the garbage to our architect because that's an inside issue. Zoning tables obviously have been
updated. The design waiverss, everything that has been asked for will be done. Um Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this. >> All right. Thank you. Uh questions from the board. >> Yes. Um I understand this is a
commercial and residential park develop private parking for commercial. >> Um we could designate spaces for commercial um given the uh parking requirements to look here real quick. >> You know what that would be and would
they be sufficient for the proposed >> like I said so for the all the uses we're required to have 22 and we have 23 parking spaces. Uh so for the retail um actually that's the the biggest driver of parking. Um >> yes >> of 13 parking spaces.
>> Yeah. So we can designate the spaces for retail um after we fulfill the uh the parking for the residential appears to be about 10 spaces or nine spaces. I'm sorry. >> Too big. I just wanted to clarify the statement about authorized parking. We we um we
recognize uh this is a commercial use. Uh we recognize obviously the ordinances requirements with regard to parking. Just want to assure you and the board uh that it is the applicant's intention uh that as this site is going to operate in the future only those cars that are
associated with the use are going to be parked on the site. That is why the sign is going to be put up authorized parking only. We do anticipate because this is a uh shared parking arrangement uh that there may be more residential parking on the site at night. So some of the people
may be parking in those spots that are that may be designated for the commercial uses. But there is a shared parking arrangement. So we do anticipate uh that there are sufficient spaces. I didn't want to give the board any indication that there weren't sufficient
to cover both the residential uh and the um and the commercial uses. And we're going to leave some of that uh to our our planner, Mr. uh Venegra, at the appropriate time to talk about the necessity of shared parking arrangements on sites like this. Thank you.
>> Thank you. And I just to further I think my recommendation would be to to um sign the 10 parking spaces in the rear for residents only and then any overflow could be between the the other um commercial and re >> in the areas that would be designated for residents only sufficient. I
understand that. Um however then what I just heard was however some people some residences some residents may choose to use the commercial space. >> Correct. or perhaps they're visitors >> which is sometimes a problem but
>> and okay >> which again yeah the shared partner should work out >> any further questions from the board >> yeah I have a question with regard to the uh commercial space is it one or will could it potentially be multiple um
>> I believe it's just one retail uh space retail space >> and that's what's being proposed correct >> and then the parking for the residential spaces is it one spot per unit or is it multiple spots designated per unit? >> Uh so per the uh town's regulations it
depends on the number of um bedrooms. >> Um >> so we would designate it accordingly. >> So we don't know yet how many >> it won't be one for one. No it won't be one for one but it'll be more but I don't know what that that count is as far as per bedroom off top of head. We're going to have the architect come
up and he's going to explain how many bedrooms are in each apartment, how many people we anticipate residing in the unit. So, I'd ask that we defer that question. >> Uh, and again, Mr. Venegra, our planner at the end, will tie all these concerns up. Thank you.
>> Yeah, I guess I'm just looking at the parking requirements right now. So, for a onebedroom, um, essentially 1.8 or two two parking spaces are required per one bedroom. And then for the the two bedrooms, uh, two parking spaces are required as well. So essentially, it' be
almost two parking spaces per >> 1.8 is how the state comes up with their numbers. >> But I think it will be up to management to designate. I mean, obviously, if a tenant only has one car, they're going to get one space.
>> May we know what the commercial entity will be or is that not >> to know what is this going to be? We anticipate that's going to be the same >> person who who is there now and it is a sign that
>> that's what I want. >> So >> yes sir, >> how are you doing? >> Very nice presentation. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your time. the EV parking >> that is under the overhang
that was approved by the fire department. >> I don't believe we received anything from the fire department to be honest with you and we did not. >> But we have no issues moving it. We can relocate it to the the front of the building and move the ADA and the other
spaces there. So that's not an issue >> because I can tell you for a fact whenever I speak to C Captain Guzman or Chief Ricardi, they do not want the EV parking under an overhang. >> Yeah, it's a it's a big issue we're having in a lot of municipalities. >> Yes.
>> Is this building going to be sprinkled? >> I believe so, but we have to refer to the architect. I I don't want to state 100%, but I'm almost positive it is. >> Okay. And an elevator. >> I'll give that to the architect as well.
>> No. Okay. How about the in the back? Is that going to be a retaining wall? How we how we >> this uh brown? So, that's an existing retaining wall that's currently >> that's stain. >> That's stain. Not touching it. Correct. >> And we're not putting any buffer in there at all. >> Uh no. Uh if the board feels strong that
we can add a fence to provide some type of buffer, but there's no change to that retaining wall or to the area where parking is happening today. >> Okay. And to the left, as you're on Chester Street and looking at the building to the left, >> Dr. Glenn owns the uh the dental
practice to the left. >> That little building between your building. Who owns that? Is that the water company? >> Yeah. Not too short. >> Okay. >> So, I'm just asking there isn't an issue with anything with any of your plans there?
>> No, we're not touching it or affecting that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Mr. D, >> just a quick point of clarification. I I think that we talk about the sideyard setback on the paperwork from the attorneys and and on the plan. You're
seeking relief to 888 ft. It doesn't look like you're now building to8 ft. That was the the existing setback. Are you pulling everything back including the first floor? >> No. So on the front it's staying 888 ft. on the side of the building uh to the
north which is shown right here. Um the existing first floor is going to stay where it's at which I believe is 26 feet. >> Okay. >> But the upper floors are going to move in um approximately 4 to 6 ft. >> Okay. So what are you seeking relief for?
>> So on the sideyard I I guess it would be the new proposed building which is 4.9 ft on the side. >> Okay. All right. That's not what the what the paperwork indicates. I think we're we're showing the 26 or whatever that number is. So just just to clarify, I want to make sure that you guys are
asking for relief to the the 4.9 or 4, you know, the smallest setback that you have there. >> Yeah, we can modify our paperwork to show that. Um, obviously unless the board feels that we need a variance for the existing building. Some boards do that. I'm not sure. >> Okay. >> Support X.
>> I have one more question. >> That's all I have. >> Committee woman. Um, with regard to the parking again, can you tell me how many spaces there are altogether and how many of those, how many are slightly undersized? >> Uh, so they're all 9 by8. So that meets
RIS requirements. Uh, but the the town has a different requirement. They have you can have 9 by8, but you have to have a twoft overhang uh past your car. Um, so out of the 21 physical parking spaces, we have 14 that fully complied.
Um, and then we have seven that partially comply. They they meet the 9 by8, but they don't have the two feet. It varies from uh I guess 7 in to almost uh 23 in where 24 is required.
>> Mr. Frank >> sir, did anyone speak to the owner of the first house on the lefth hand side on North Avenue indicating if they wish to have any type of offer? Are they okay with what's going on? >> Um, I didn't have a conversation. I'm
not sure if anybody from the applicants team, but not not to my knowledge. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions from the board? I have some questions on my end. Um the first area that I want to go to is the um you presented an exhibit with regards
to turning uh vehicles turning into the parking spaces on the property. Can you show that exhibit again, please? >> Sure. >> Yeah. So, um, can you clarify, um, when when the cars are turning into the parking, uh, the parking spots to the
right of the building, those black bars, are there, are they just like, uh, aprons or what what what are they actually get turning into um, on those dark black lines. >> So, that dark line represents the uh,
the press curve or the drop curve that's out there. >> Okay. >> So, that's your apron. Yes. Essentially. >> All right. And so there are two of them um right there besides the other one that leads to the bigger parking lot. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And those are currently there. >> And I I know uh per citing the engineers
letter I think um comment 8.4 about uh stop bars and stop signs. Where are we proposing to put those signs? >> Uh so the signs would be right here in the sidewalk. We might not even have signs. We might just have striping on those just because of of the tightness
and that you have all pavement and sidewalk there. They'll probably get hit with the cars. Um the other idea is we can even make this a one-way circulation where this is an ingress only and eress only which might help with the uh the traffic.
>> How does it help the cars the EV cars >> get out and in? >> Uh it's the same movement. They would they would still make >> So basically to move out of that space, one has to back one's car out into a street. >> Not into the street. No, they would they
would go into the rightway a little bit, but they they' be able to make that turn. Yes. >> Is the rightway not a street? >> Uh, >> sorry. Pardon me. >> I'm a little confused. >> No, right is not considered a street.
If we may, the the area that your cursor is in right now, right, that is the sidewalk area. Is that correct? >> Uh, a portion of it is still pavement and then there's a portion that's sidewalk. >> That's sidewalk, right? And then there's a depressed curb after that. >> Correct.
>> So, that entire area is basically either driveway or apron or sidewall. >> Correct. >> Thank you. just am requesting further clarification because I know we identified potential
methods or scenarios of of of this turning. Are we proposing it being that turning mechanism only for for those parking spaces? >> Um that's the only one we ran. I'm sure there's other turning movements that could occur to be honest with you. >> Okay.
>> Um and if the board feels strongly we do have room to move the parking closer to the building. Um, looks like we have about five feet. So, if you want to move it two more feet, I I'm I'm comfortable doing that. So, where where my line of questioning was on is that if if someone who needed
to um enter the property was coming from Chestnut Street um and they see the first opening in terms of a parking space on that right side, more than likely they would use the first depressed curb to enter the property
rather than the further curb. >> Uh possibly possibly. But but given that that's so close to that intersection, by the time you make that turn, you might actually want to make that second one. It' be more comfortable to make that movement. >> Right. And then and then conversely, if if if
um a commuter is taking the turning um mechanism that you have outlined in your exhibit, they're basically exiting the property just right next to the intersection itself of uh Chestnut and Norc, right?
They if they're coming they're backing up on this side. So >> like basically what you have here. >> Yeah. And then they they're coming out on this driveway as closer to >> Is that really typical for for a car to exit and turn out of a parking lot so
closely to um to a regulated intersection that has basically a stop sign right right on that intersection from Avenue onto Chestnut. That seems very close. >> It it is close. I'm not going to say it's not close. Um, but given I mean
Newark's not a major through a fair through this through the town. Um, obviously Chestnut is busier. So if it was coming out of Chestnut where that existing driveway was and that's why we removed that driveway and decided to keep the one on on Newark. >> And essentially all cars are probably
going to make that that right out of that driveway and onto Chestnut. >> So that's why we thought that movement was okay. >> And you're referencing to Norc Avenue being a residential street. Correct. >> Right. But Chestnut Street is a county road. Correct. Okay. Um,
how would we assuage those type of concerns if if we have a county road um that is inherently busier than a residential street and then we have a bank that probably has some patrons all throughout the day and then we have
commercial and then we have residential on this proposed property. How do we mitigate the risk of accidents potentially happening? >> Yeah, I don't see an increase in risk. So, given that the site currently has all those driveways that we were talking about, it actually has another driveway
that's near the intersection along Chestnut. Um, I think we're actually uh making it better by getting rid of one of the curb cuts. >> Can Can you explain how and why? I'm I'm I'm >> Well, more curve cuts you have is more
uh points of uh conflict you may have coming out of the driveways with traffic. >> So, we're getting going from four driveways to three driveways. We're reducing the number of conflicts and I Okay. Um, I'm I'm still
I still have quite concerns about that that um that curb um decline area right next to the intersection. How how would you address kind of
several human behaviors of potentially a person taking a left turn from Chestnut but then an individual trying to navigate out of that parking lot area onto Chestnut Street from Norc Avenue.
>> I'm sorry. Can you say that? So if if if uh if a res if someone exits that parking lot um using that that >> black line right there to try to get to Chestnut Street from Norc Avenue and
then by any chance you have opposing traffic coming from Chestnut trying to make a left turn. How can we reconcile that without potentially causing some kind of accident? >> Mr. Chairman, if I may. Yes. Recognizing the the concerns you have and I also
have some of the same concerns, I've just spoke to the applicant. Uh we're going to amend our proposal uh to indicate that the Chestnut Street driveway is going to remain open. That closer driveway to the corner on Newark uh would be closed. So the movement that
would provide for a better movement onto the property off uh directly off Chestnut, not having to go on to Newark. It also provides a direct access to exit the property directly onto Chestnut. Recognizing, Mr. Chairman, as we do, that Newark is a residential street.
Yes. >> And the goal is to make sure >> that all of the traffic >> goes down and out onto Chestnut and not go down Newark. So, we recognize that, Mr. Chairman, and we're going to make that proposal and we will amend the plan accordingly. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I want to go to
another area with regards to um that retaining wall uh on on the north end. I know Mr. Fra had some questions about with regards to the retaining wall and it aligns with the comments um comment 1.5 in the engineers letter. Um
so there is a retaining wall but there's also a chain link fence existing on on that end. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. And so the comments provided in comment 1.5 would you agree is accurate in terms of what the variance is and what is
existing there and what is being proposed. >> Uh correct. >> Okay. So alongside with that um with acknowledging that the proposed future use of the property is to add on residential on top of commercial
existing commercial use. the nature of the parking lot and and the flow of of cars going into the parking lot would would change ultimately by having an additional use for that property. Right. >> Got it. >> You would you would have residents coming in and out, morning commute,
going out for errands, whatever, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So my question uh relates to the fact that you have uh I do believe a 1.5 foot uh 1.5 ft buffer between those
parking spaces to the property line um that hits that resident um that that residential zone. Um, in your lighting plan, did your lighting plan consider
uh the lighting that would come from the car beams coming in at night? >> The lighting plan though does not take account the um vehicle lights, but I do want to note, so just looking I'm zooming in right now, the parking lot itself um is approximately for I would
say 50% of the the site is 4 feet below the neighbor's property. So the wall itself will block any lights for that. And then as you get further to Newark, um it keeps going down and then it's about um at the very end it's about one foot. Um but it goes from like I said 4
feet of wall that's higher than the parking lot down to one ft once you get to the end. when when it comes to uh I'm not sure what the number of hand um uh half candles or or whatever the measurement the illumination uh units are for you
know um a headlight from a car but knowing that the headlight itself is not directly on the ground it's it's elevated how how confident can can we say that if we have a bunch of cars coming in in the evening uh when it gets darker when
people start using their headlights that the house um north of the property wouldn't get all these strobing effects hitting that property. >> Yes. So, typically the headlights are about 2 ft off the ground. So, I would say any portion of the of the wall that's 2 ft or higher uh would be okay.
But, as I mentioned earlier, the applicant has no issues with putting a solid fence along that that wall on top of the wall. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. My my next question pertains to the height in the setback and uh thank you for the clarification on the um sideyard
setback um that is no longer 26 ft. My question lies within the intensification of the setback on the front end of the property that um is adjacent to or parallel to um to Chestnut Street. So if
if c can can you just reconfirm that what what this application is proposing is that setback being 888 ft and basically the the second and third story is basically lined up with the first
floor in which you're basically pushing up the entire building where all three stories are basically 888 ft from the property line. >> Yeah. So, I'll touch on that a little bit, but I think once you see the rendering and the elevations, it might make it a little clearer as far as what's being proposed and how it looks from the street.
>> Um, but yeah, so we are essentially uh holding the front of the building. And as you can see here, um it's it's in line with the neighborhood as far as the buildings that are currently there to the north and to the south where those buildings were built right at the uh you know uh sidewalk line.
>> What what's the proposed building height that that you're you're proposing for this application? uh get the actual number. Um it's 32.63 feet where 35 is permitted. >> Okay. >> And then I know you mentioned the I
guess the office building north of it. By any chance would you know what the height of that building is? >> I do not. >> Okay. Or the Bank of America building south of it or south. Okay. >> All right.
Uh those are my questions. Um question any qu Mrs. Khlet and then Mr. Frank. >> So my question goes to the EV parking. Um will these spots be exclusive for electric vehicles only? Um if so um will
that be for residents or that or um for people that are visiting the um business? Um because if a resident does not have the electric vehicle, will they be allowed to park in those spots? Essentially um causing situations that
are limiting parking. >> Yeah. So essentially the EV is a state mandate. Um so the only cars that are allowed to park there are vehicles that are uh electric vehicles and being charged I believe. >> But um with with regard to that, these are EV ready spots.
>> Yes. So we're not indicating that these will actually be EV spots when the building is is erected. >> Well, all right. So the state code does have requirement on that as well. So uh prior to CO 33% or one of the spaces has to be um a charger uh following three
years from the CO another one needs to be installed and then within six years of the CO the last one that needs to be installed. >> So it will be only initially one EV will be >> correct >> in in use and then the other two will come online in accordance with the state statute. Correct. And again, these are
all statemandated. >> I would just like to go on record that the uh EV parking spots not be under the building. >> Noted. >> That is that is not an issue. Those uh will be moved. Obviously, we have we have to talk about the circulation now
that we're talking about the change of the driveway. So, the movement of the EV spaces will also be part of that redesign. >> Thank you. Any any further question? >> Just want to just throw one more comment. I actually do have the property owners list. It's the telephone company,
not the water company. >> Okay. >> All right. >> So, as you add more EV spots, it reduces the number of overall spots available to commercial and residential. >> So, are we accounting for that over time? Will we still have enough or will
they still have enough? I could answer this with a philosophical answer. I don't think anybody could really uh give facts because we don't know what the future's going to hold. But we believe that what the future's going to hold is that more and more people are going to be obtaining EV vehicles. Certainly up
until a very recent time, there was mandates and other things which were leading us down the road to more and more EV. this legislation, these regulations are based upon what that path was. And Councilwoman, we've been
involved in a whole bunch of stuff over the years. We've seen all sorts of changes that have gone on. So, we can't really anticipate that the EV is going to still be required three years from now, but we know it is now. >> Um, what we believe again, and I'm going
to leave that to Mr. Venegra at the appropriate time to talk about shared parking arrangements. This is a perfect shared parking arrangement for this site uh because of this. But the EV spots when they are dedicated and operating, they will only be for EV just like a
handicap spot is only for a handicap vehicle. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Sorry, one more question. Um if you can go back to the egress and the end uh picture. Yeah. Um can you explain to me
again um why part of the handicap section would need to be used if there's a big vehicle there? How does that work for somebody >> that's trying to >> Yeah. So technically the the handicap the the purpose of the aisle is to facilitate the um movement of a ramp or
or uh the lift for um a wheelchair. So it's not intended for parking. >> No. But if there is someone parking that that does have that attached to their vehicle. >> Yeah. Uh so the turning movement is both of those movements are not um I guess
static. You don't have the ramp that's down or lift that's down at all times. It's usually done when they have a wheelchair that unloads or loads. And same thing with the turning movements for the um uh the garbage truck. And again, usually the garbage truck doesn't come midday. It's usually um a little
earlier, you know, off peak as far as the retail hours. >> Okay. But you are considering that space for that type of use. >> Yeah. I mean, we can show you how it's being done, how the actual garbage man comes in and does the movement. It's kind of hard to tell them how to do it.
>> Thank you, >> Mr. Frank, >> sir, where would the movers park their truck? >> Um, so typically how it works on these smaller sites, um, they would have to deal with the management or the landlord. Um, and usually that's planned ahead and then they would designate a spot out in the the driveway where they
would let the the the tenant downstairs know, um, and the tenants upstairs know that there's going to be a moving truck that day. >> Okay. How about a delivery truck for fast signs? Where did they park? >> Um, I don't I don't know what size um trucks they get. I'm assuming it's
smaller trucks as a small retail facility. Um, so I'm assuming it's going to be the same as a FedEx or UPS truck that would come on the site and park temporarily and come off. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any further questions from the board? We'll now go to questions from the
public. Yes, if you can please come up uh to the microphone, speak into the microphone uh name, address, and then uh as as the game show Jeopardy is, state your state it in the form of a question. >> Okay.
>> So, my name is Tammy Zurka. I live at 231 North Avenue. >> You can bring me close. >> All right. Rock on. Um, on the first picture where it shows like the yellow North Avenue, Chestnut Street, I am the fifth house on the right from the opposing side of where they are going to
be putting the building. So, I do have a couple of questions. Um, in any of those pictures, has anyone taken into consideration the current stop sign, the telephone pole, or the fire hydrant? There's a fire hydrant right on the front of Chestnut Street about 10 ft
away from the telephone pole. The telephone pole is on the Norc Avenue side by the stop sign. And if you're going to talk about putting the parking, you know, one way in or one way out, you have those important things right there. And if you're going to go one way in
from Norav and another way out onto the other part of Norav, so if in this little diagram right here, your stop sign is right here, your telephone pole is right here. If you pull in over
here and out over here, how is someone going to get that angle to be straight to that stop sign before they make that left or that right onto Chestnut Street? Number one. Number two, if you take that one away, now you're putting more of
that traffic up on Norc Avenue. I've lived in Norcav since I'm four years old. So that's 44 years now. I've owned the house for 25 years. And in the past couple of years, we love our neighbors on Norcav. It is an amazing residential
area. Um the little commercial building that we have right there, they haven't bothered anybody in all of these years. But now all of a sudden, Google Map says that there's a synagogue on New Jersey Avenue. And again, we love our neighbors. Everybody says hi. We're
super friendly. But these pictures right here show the o is there overflow parking going to happen now from the synagogue parking that Google map says is there. Where is that overflow parking >> going to go?
>> I know there were a bunch of questions in that. So we're going to give him in time cuz I got a couple more after that. >> He might need you to, you know, just restate some of some of your questions again just because >> So the first question was about the stop sign, the fire hydrant, and the telephone call. can't remember most of them and I think our council wants to
jump in as well it sounds like. Um but so yeah, our council had me mentioned earlier that the one driveway curb cut on Newark A is going to be um eliminated and we're going to maintain the one on Chestnut Street. Again, I'm not sure what the um concern is is with this with the uh fire hydrant and the items you
mentioned since these are all existing curb cuts and we're not proposing anything new that would be something a new traffic pattern that's not out there today. Um, >> we don't really see too many people coming in and out of that Chestnut Street. Everything is the onto avenue.
So, I don't know. >> That's number one. As far as um parking from off-site um uses, I believe our council had mentioned earlier we're going to have signage on the site that it's only intended for the uses on the site. >> Okay. Okay. So then my next question
would be how will you enforce the private parking? >> That would be up to management. >> May. >> Yes. >> Obviously these are questions that are directed at the engineer but I am I am here and I more than happy to answer.
>> You are the applicant's representative. >> Thank you. Number one, um, with regard to, uh, statements that were made with regard to what's going on on the property on on New Jersey, um, while, um, this site is not
associated with that site. This site has uh, no uh, obligations, no leases, no licenses or anything with anyone to allow people to park on this site at any time. Right. Um, has been going on
stop because of the approvals that are being taken. If there is any any issues with regard to this, number one, the applicant is going to authorize the Union County Police Department to come on site and to enforce title 39. They
don't have we don't have >> Okay, >> but we're going to do that. So then my next question would be, are we going to give permit parking to everybody on North Avenue for the front of their houses to make sure that nobody else is parking there? >> That has nothing to do with this site, but this site is going to be
self-contained for these two uses that we have indicated here. We are indicating that it is private parking for only those authorized vehicles. Any unauthorized vehicles would be subject to being towed because of that. Now, as far as any
other parking that exists relative to this other usage you referred to on New Jersey Avenue, I wish I had an answer for you. I don't. Right. But the answer that I'm giving you relative to this property is that and this has been discussed with you and I certainly wouldn't be standing here and making
these representations to this board um if this is what I believe uh has been agreement. Um but um I am aware of it. Our office is across the street. We still go by hail and hell. Okay. We knew we didn't put up traffic. Love it. But our offices are right across the street.
So I'm very aware of your concerns of the neighbor's concerns and as this project had uh initially been um developed uh we haven't even discussed it yet, but I'll put it out there. This application had been previously brought before the board of adjustment a couple
of years ago uh with a much larger um application which was deemed to be over inensive which that application did not go forward in this application that now is as inconformity as it could possibly be with the uses that we were asking
for. U so that's what we've done because we do recognize uh the impact on the neighbors especially parking it's a problem unfortunately it's not our problem I'd like >> in the form of a question whose problem
is it going to be >> unfortunately I can't give you an answer for that because Uh again, we're developing this piece of property for the residential and commercial uses. Right now, all you have there are the commercial uses. So there is a void that
nobody is parking in that parking lot on Saturdays and Sundays. So that's what apparently has happened. Well, I know I know parking on the on the site relative to the use and that is going to stop. >> So I give you that. >> Thank you.
>> And we totally understand where you're coming from on that. And and I wish I had a solution to the over parking problem that exists. And we understand it exists late Friday afternoon through late Saturday night. >> And again, right now it's not there's no problem. There's not a problem now
because everything is just easy breezy. So, okay. So, how will we enforce the parking? Still questioning. And madam, I I we're going to limit the parking to authorized vehicles and we're going to authorize Union Township to come on
site. And if a vehicle doesn't have the necessary marking of being an authorized vehicle, they will be cited for being on that property >> on that property. But that's going to push that up to our street and everybody else that's up there. And again, that's not your problem. That's not your
problem. but a homeowner for 44 years. Well, 25 years for me and 44 years for my family and another 60 years for my grandfather who was down the street. I'm going to be walking all the way down to Washington school when I come home from working road rules driving school after being a teacher all day. And then I'm
going to be walking five blocks in order to park a car. >> Yeah, it's going to be a problem. >> Yeah, I I get it. >> But they're not going to enforce it for me. They're going to enforce it for this new lovely building and parking. >> No, that that's not true. And mayor
mayor's right here. Mayor's right here. >> Help us out. Mayor conversation. >> He's going to hold my foot to the fire on this, I'm sure. >> Right. >> And ma'am, I I think when you asked the question about permit parking, um while it's not the jurisdiction of the planning board to authorize it, we do
have the mayor and and the committee woman here, and I'm sure that they they've caught that question in their ear. >> Thanks, mayor and committee woman. this is going to be a problem. >> Thank you. >> Oh, by the way, they're they're aware of of the problems as they as they currently exist. What I'm indicating to
you is what we're doing here isn't really going to contribute to the problem. The problem exists. >> Yes. It's just going to push the problem further up North Avenue. >> Sure. And and on on another note, all right, up to the board, etc. be more
than happy to allow additional parking on our site when it's not in use for that overflow. But it there has been no agreement and our position is that unless something dramatically changes and as
you stand here my wheels are turning that maybe we should take some of those vehicles and allow them to park there so that they don't take up parking on the street. But again, this is an ongoing relationship. >> Okay. It's fluid. I got it.
>> It's fluid. And we certainly would would not have an issue >> of accepting parking on our site to get it off the street so that it doesn't affect you. But this goes well beyond that because it's not just the 10
cars that are on our site >> on Saturdays, right? It's other cars in other places. Like I said, right now there is zero problem, >> but it's the it's the foreseeable situation that's going to be >> coming quickly. >> Yeah. And I work late, so it's going to
affect me. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> And just note as we have other um expert witnesses coming up, you will have also the op just like any other member of the public to ask questions for the architect and the planner and so forth. Thank you. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Any further questions for uh from the public for the engineer? Yes. >> How you doing? Uh Eric O's um 1083 Mayfair Road Union. >> Good day. How are you? >> Good. >> Um I'm going to grab the mic because I want to kind of point. Could you bring
up the exhibit, the site plan that showed the colors, the brown and so on? Yes, please. Okay. So, am I to understand it? Do you have a structural post here and here in the striped area for the handicapped?
>> Uh, that's not handicap, it's EV. But that is >> Excuse me. >> It's EV, not ADA parking space. >> I'm sorry, pardon me. >> EV, pardon me. >> Yes. And that's in the hatched area. So, that's not a parking space. Correct. >> Okay. So, it's not a parking space. But are you concerned? Can we go back to the vehicular circulation plan?
Do you have a concern that as a car is pulling in here that if possibly in the night or at any other time they could overshoot and possibly damage the structural support for two stories above it? >> Uh no, I'll I'll defer to the architect
as far as the structure, but usually it's a concrete encased um steel column. Um and as a safety factor, we we have no issues providing ballards if that's a concern of >> Okay. Yeah, that's it. >> It's it's not uncommon. >> Okay. Any further questions from the public?
>> Okay, Mr. Murman, you want to call your next witness, please? >> Call Mr. Paul. >> Just give a moment to get his files up. Yeah. Mr. Paulonis, >> can you can you spell your name for the record? Your last name for the record?
>> Sure. Uh, Paulo Dantis. Paulo's first name P A U L O D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D A N T A S O D Okay, Mr. Dantes, uh, will you raise right hand? Do you swear the tr the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, >> Mr. Chairman, I'm going to submit Mr.
Danttos as an expert. I know he's testified before the board on numerous occasions, but both for my firm and for others. And again, recognizing the lateness and what we have to do >> board stipulates. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, Paulo. >> Okay, >> let's rock. >> Sure.
>> Show us the show us the outside first and show us the inside. >> Very good. So, what we're looking to do is provide a three-story unit uh three-story uh building with five units of a residential apartment above a ground existing commercial building. Uh the main entrance to these residential
units will be accessed not only from the side but also at the rear on our a sheet A100 in our exhibit that was provided uh to the board. Uh the building use group is going to be a mixed use. It's going to have an R2 on the second and third
floor and we'll have a B use office on the first floor. Construction type will be a 5A and will comply with all the latest building code requirements with sprinklers and fire ratings as necessary. Our ground floor currently is
uh 2562 of commercial um area and we're looking to uh take away approximately 505 square ft at at the moment. um in order to provide residential accessibility uh to
the second and third floor. >> Can I just go back to that from go back to the rendering when I look at the rendering and and now that we've had the discussion with the board about um leaving the the Chestnut Street uh driveway uh open. Um when when this
rendering was done, the assumption was made that the um that would be closed, right? >> That's correct. >> As a result of what uh we've now discussed, do you envision having to move the posts from where they are in this rendering? >> Yeah, they'll be slightly underneath the building.
>> Yes, they'll be slightly have to be altered um the conditions of the structure, but uh I think that's um feasible. Right. So, so, uh, so the plan, as we've indicated with regard to the parking to allow for the circulation to come off Chestnut, you'll be able to
accommodate that um, uh, on redesign, uh, of the the building just by moving the the posts. >> Yes, that's correct. >> Great. You also heard the question about, uh, those posts. I want to get those out of the way right now. Um, there was some questions about how those
posts are going to be constructed. >> Sure. >> Okay. So, why don't we lay that out so that the board is >> Sure. There's there's uh two types of beam construction that we do these post. Either we do a steel columns encased in concrete with a couple ballards, Miss
Manilio explained or we could encase the the whole entire pier uh as a concrete item as a monolithic. >> So we we are accounting for the rare occasion when somebody may strike one of those. >> Yes, it will definitely accommodate for
the the collision if it does happen. uh sheet A200 uh we have is uh our two primary areas uh this residential entrance to the rear and also to the side um and we also have the existing commercial area uh currently as it shows
and our res residential portion of the ground floor. We're looking to enclosed a fire rated stair uh also having accessibility to the two residentials above. Uh we're going to have a main vestibule uh that has accessibility not only to the rear but also to the right
uh to the underneath of the building towards uh Newark A which also provides accessibility for an elevator. The commercial portion of the ground floor is to um is existing and we're looking to also maintain as as it is. Our second
floor plan A300 uh we have three residential apartments. one one two-bedroom uh apartment towards the left side. Uh um one unit, two bedrooms and then we have two units one uh one
bedroom. Uh along with that we have a open plan concept, the living, the dining, the kitchen areas along with the bedrooms, bathrooms, uh encased mechanical closets and laundry rooms. We're looking for the onebedrooms to be
approximately 800 square ft² and then the two bedrooms are approximately 1,500 for the two-bedroom unit. Mechanical rooms have been provided uh to proposed to house the necessary mechanical systems. All units within the second
floor uh will be uh ADA compliant. the third floor. We have two two-bedroom units and each apartment again will take the same concept as the one below. We have the living, dining and kitchen area with
open plants, the bedrooms, bathrooms, mechanicals. Um this is also going to be approximately 1,500 per unit. Um and this also will have um all all the bed all the units to be ADA accessible
and our building elevation. Uh if I could just do it. Let me just go to the building height so at least we confirm the height at the top of the parapit. We're looking
at 34t 10 in. And then I believe, just give me one second, and then we're looking at 31 ft uh 31 and 11 in to the top of the plates. So, give and take another foot 33 ft uh to the top of the the building
itself. What we're proposing in our design is to integrate some modern architectural components and elements incorporating design trends and aesthetics. Um we're looking to avoid uh a monolithic look. Uh we are going to have some protrusions
and recesses within the building itself. Um that's to avoid um of a continuous structure um and create various facade depths. Um this is intentionally is done um not only with um with recessing the
building but also the material selection and broken down of the facade itself. Some of the materials that we're looking to incorporate is a brick facade that's within the existing already building itself. uh some fiber cement, clapboard sighting,
uh aluminum panels, vinyl windows, um doors, aluminum storefronts, and maybe even aluminum windows on the front portion of the building. >> Um we indicated that uh there's power pit,
>> a slight small parapit. Yes. >> Where are the utilities? >> So, we'll have all the condensing units on top. It will definitely be screened at that point. Um but all our condensing units will be on top for the >> So that's really that's really the purpose of the parapit is to hide the utilities that are that are on the roof.
>> Yes. And then these condensing units are pretty small in size. It will be hidden pretty easily. >> So but the roof the roof line itself is is at what level compared to the power pit? >> The roof line I think is about 2 feet lower or 3 ft lower. Give me one second
just to confirm. So, we have our top plates at 32 and we're looking at our top of the roof at 3410. >> You you are familiar with the Bank of America building that that's next door across the street at Newark. >> Do you anticipate that this building is going to be any taller than that
building next door? >> I would have to I would have to assess it once I see it. All right. So, so you haven't been able >> but we are Yeah. But we are keeping within the 35 ft of these >> as as indicated by the ordinance. That's that's it. And and the the property uh
that was referred to the dental office that's a two-story building to the other. >> It's a I would say it's more like a two and a half um with a roof pitch on it. Um, one thing I didn't hear, uh, there are laundry facilities in each of these
five >> within the apartment itself. Yes. >> Uh, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this witness. >> Questions from the board. >> Sir. >> Yes, sir. >> When I look at this picture, this render, >> are you going to level the parking lot?
Is that leveling the parking lot? >> No. I think the way um the way the parking lot is, it's slightly going upwards and then it kind of levels a little in the back. >> So, we're not So, I'm not looking to uh regrade the the property.
>> So, what is the clearance? The ground clearance. >> You're looking for the ground clearance overhead. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Just wanted to clarify. So, we're going to have approximately uh 10 ft 4 in >> 10.
>> And there's going to be signage there indicating we don't we don't want any tractor trailers, >> right, >> to come in and not the first floor of our building. >> Does this building require a fire escape? >> No. >> It won't be fully suppressed.
>> Okay. Where will the FDC go if it's fully suppressed? >> Uh, we're looking to have it somewhere hopefully either in the back or we're going to have to pipe it to the front depending. We have to work with the the fire department on that. >> Okay.
>> I still need to, you know, redo the the sprinkler system and getting all that system completed pretty much and then we'll get that. Any idea what size orfice that's going to be for the sprinkler? >> No, usually we have our sprinkler
engineer to size those things. >> All right. >> And uh >> but this is just a five unit. This is not you know. >> Okay. >> The uh the park the lights in the parking lot.
How what are we doing? What's the loom? What's the operating level? How how bright are they? So, I think uh Mr. Manilia explained that we're going to provide a lighting plan. A lot of them, especially on the overhang, will be uh ceiling mounted and then uh the ones in
the back will be uh wall mounted. I believe that's the way he proposed. Um the only signage that we have that may be lit up is the signage of the the address and and the name of maybe of the building. >> But how about the light in the park lot going towards the first house on North
Avenue? >> That's something that the engine is the appropriate person to respond to that. So he's still under oath. >> All right. I'm just curious how that's going to affect that that >> we want to give you your answer, sir. >> So we do have a a lighting uh plan that's shown on our uh submitted
documents. Um so you can see here um the lighting levels at the property line are zero um with the neighbors and at the furthest part I guess about five to 10 feet off the property line it's about.3 foot candles. So less than a half a foot candle. >> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome.
>> Thank you for that. Thank you. >> And you did say there would be an elevator, correct? >> Yes, it is. >> Any further questions from the Yep. Yeah. Mr. Frank, go ahead. >> How was that accessed? That's in the back for the access for the elevator. Back of the building. Have access to the
>> Yes. Elevator. So you could come from the rear of the building and then go through a a vestibule and then have accessibility to the elevator there. >> Okay. >> Thank >> you. >> Any further questions from the board?
>> Just >> um in the front of the building, if you can go back to the diagram, >> the rendering. >> Yes, please. The rendering. Um, it says apartments there. Is that how many is that? That's gonna say
apartments. >> I'm I'm sorry. Say it again. >> It says apartments there. Is that Is there anything else going to be on the building? Is that can I >> Oh, you're talking about the sign maybe? >> Yes. >> Oh, no. We just wrote >> we just wrote apartments and then
they'll they'll depict um what the name and so on. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Just giving um a proportion of scale. Let's just backtrack on the rendering. You wrote apartments on these elevations that you did. Go back to the elevations where you identified the
building. Same spot. It just has 367 on it. You're going to have to go over to the right. >> Yes. >> There you go. >> So, that really is the what we're proposing uh is just to put the the building number uh in the corner there. >> We don't need to write apartments.
>> This isn't Rosel Park. >> Can I say that out loud? Well, hopefully they're not watching, right? Uh, any other further questions from the board? I only have a two-prong question on my end, but just want to make sure.
>> So, my question, um, pertains to the architectural style. Um, number one, um, are you familiar with the surrounding area of what architectural styles that they have? And the second
part to my question would be how much of this proposed architectural style either conforms to the surrounding area or makes this stick out. >> So the surrounding area that we not only
have been in the board to have approvals have taken this type of aesthetics and also on the corner of Chestnut and Colonia I believe it also has this type of style. So what we're looking at is does it fit with the existing fabric?
But we also have to also consider the trend or the allowance of the trend that's taking place in union. >> Okay. Any further questions from the board? Questions from the public?
>> Oh, sorry. Sorry. Let's let's get Mrs. Perkins. >> Just just very briefly, um I heard you say that it other buildings in Union are like this. Could you give us an example of where you >> I just mentioned Chestnut and Colonial has that particular >> there was a building I'm sorry I don't
know that area specifically well uh so there there would be what appears to be clapboard there would be brick and there would be >> I guess I think you mentioned aluminum or something >> it could be paneling yes
>> just a follow-up question this might be for more for Mr. It's very different. >> Yeah. >> No, I understand. >> This might be more a follow-up question for Mr. Nave. Um the mentioning of of the I guess the building on Chestnut and Colonial that is claimed to have a
similar architectural style. That building did not come before the planning board. Correct. Because I don't even recall approving that in my seven eight years on here. the architectural style. You're saying >> the the there was a there was a building mentioned um in the testimony on
Chestnut and Colonial that has a similar architectural style >> on Chestnut that got approved zoning board >> and I I don't recall that this was that building in particular was approved by the planning board. I just want to confirm that on the record with you that
you haven't that it wasn't under our jurisdiction. >> No, it was under planning board. A zoning >> zoning board of adjustment. Okay. >> All right. Any further questions from the board before we entertain questions from the public? All right. Questions
from the public? And if you could just cite your name again for the record just to help with the minutes. Thank you. >> Tammy Zurka, 231 North Avenue. Um, again on this picture right here, my question is about the telephone pole that's not
listed on here. There is a telephone pole that is probably Google shows it a couple feet off of where that driveway is going to be on Chestnut Street and maybe two feet back.
So, if you're shutting down that first parking spot on the side of Norc Avenue, that means that when people are pulling out, they can't use the under part of that building as a pull out because those are all EV parking spaces. Correct?
>> Yes. >> Okay. So, then that means they're going to have to go around the building if they're going to use that Chestnut Street exit. That means the cars are going to be on the sidewalk because that telephone pole is right there. And the way that they're going to have to pull out, that should probably only be a
right turn only because they're going to be if this is how you're pulling out onto Chestnut Street, that telephone pole is going to make them have to pull out that way from where that sidewalk area is. So, I think that rendering really should have that telephone pole to show people the true way that cars
are going to be pulling in and out because that's going to change the whole traffic flow of Chestnut Street, not just Norc Avenue. So, the question is where is the telephone pole to show people how the traffic flow is going to be in and out
of that building if we're shutting down the side on North and only using the Chestnut Street. I think they'll be demonstrated on the silver drawings. >> Okay. >> Any further questions from the public? >> Okay, Mr. Mman, uh, would you like to call your next witness?
>> My last witness, our planner, Victor Venegro. Mr. Mr. Venegra, can you just spell your name? Last name for the record. >> Yes. My name is Victor, middle initial E, last name Venegra. V I N E G R A. I'm a professional planner state of New
Jersey and I've testified before in this board. >> Wait, Mr. Venegger, you you raise your right hand. You swear the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Again, I'm an associate with the firm of Harbor Consultants located at 320 North
Avenue East in Cranford, New Jersey. I have done performed numerous projects in the township of Hillside and I've testified before this board in the past. >> Board stipulates. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Um Mr. Venegro, can you give the board a a brief synopsis of the
materials that you reviewed prior to uh testifying here tonight? >> Uh briefly reviewed the architect's plans, the engineers plans uh to look at and the requirements, their bulk schedules. So, you reviewed the ordinances and the master plan of this
uh fine township of union in preparation for your testimony? >> Yes. >> Um could you uh run through the planning proofs uh that we need to present to the board with regard to the bulk variances that are presented? Well, currently the pro the pro the property as we know is
located in the NC zone of the neighborhood core zone and this is a excerpt from your zoning map. Uh we show the five points here and the parcel is located at the corner of Newark Avenue
and Chestnut. And this is the parcel I'm highlighting right there located in the NC zone. And currently the NC zone, as we all know, permits both commercial on the first floor and residential on the second and third floors. So this is exhibit uh I don't know if
we're numbering these exhibits tonight or >> Well, this is going to be applic one because we didn't number any. >> Yeah. So, we'll call this one then. >> A1. >> Okay, let me close some of these other ones out.
This is a photo board performed by my firm. It shows that the parcel in question A is the existing frontage of the building. Again, it has a mansard roof. Simple structure. Uh B is a
sideyard. C is the curb cut out to Chestnut. D is the existing parking area. E existing parking area. F is next door, the grass parcel. G existing paring area. H is the I guess it's Bank of
America building next door. Uh what what this is an odd piece for the neighborhood in that I've performed other projects on on Chestnut. This is probably the only property I know that's overparked with parking spaces. It's
almost entirely asphalt probably built, you know, 50 years ago. It's overparked vast vastly overparked. I guess that's why people in the neighborhood are here tonight that because it is vastly overp parking spaces, people do utilize that
for for parking. So, as you can see here that the existing lot here in B is just a sea of asphalt right now. So, what the applicant is looking to do is take ex take the mansard roof off that building,
build, as the architect has testified, two more levels, and to build five apartments. And again, in my opinion, as a planner, five apartments. It's not a big project. It's a small project. Uh, not everybody, in my opinion, wants to live in a massive 100 unit apartment
complex. And some people want a little quieter. It's nice small you five five units with a private with an elevator and it has ample parking and the residential site improvement standards now state these are no longer minimum space these these are maximum spaces so
really the facility is one space over and a municipality we're kind of handcuffed I'm a planner and engineer for multiple municipalities and the state has now handcuffed the municipalities and says we can't require more We that that's a maximum. Now they
changed the language in the RSIS to be used to be a minimum. Now it's a maximum. So we're actually one space over. The engineer has testified. Uh the one nice thing about what the engineer has done is closing this driveway along
Chestnut. So we're removing a a driveway curb cut. >> We've actually just indicated that we were changing we were going to keep the curb cut. We're going to close the curb cut closer to the >> Okay. Newark by the stop sign. >> So, so we're going to but we're going to do a one-way circulation pattern. Is
that correct? >> So, the engineer was testifying as a one-way circulation pattern. So if we're going to do that, I would recommend possibly I'm not the engineer on this project is have the ingress from Chestnut to egress
coming out onto Newark that you know, but we'll let the municipal engineer along with the site design engineer come up with a circulation movement for those driveways. But no matter what, we are eliminating a single driveway on this project.
Close that. This map here shows the building coverages and I'll go into some of the front yard setbacks of the neighborhood. The firm briefly did an analysis and this is the property
known as >> we're going to mark this A2 for the record. >> Mochi's fast food and this facility here is approximately uh 3 to four feet from the front rightway line. building next door. We have um the
twotory structure. That parcel we have about 4 feet from the property line, 3 to four feet. This is the property in question tonight. As we're stated, the architect is roughly around 1 foot from the U front setback line. Next property
up is 3 to four feet from the property line. Across the street is Mr. Hail's office. That's zero feet from the property line. As we go up, we have St. Luke's, which is on the property line, built on the property line. So, and as we go further north along Chestnut,
north of Washington Avenue, most of these structures are uh within a foot or zero up to the property line. So, the older buildings constructed on Washington Avenue are very close to the rightway line. It was an old urban design up to the property line. And a
lot of the structures north of uh Washington are very lacking on parking. You know, they were constructed many many years ago, possibly before there was additional parking requirements within the municipality. It's an older section of Union north of
Washington. So, we do have a mix of residential and commercial in the neighborhood. Some are single family, two families, some just straight up apartment buildings, some are straight offices. There is a mix of front yard setbacks. This is not uncommon, this
building here, with the other buildings in our neighborhood. So, right now, what we have here tonight is a conforming building as far as use, and they're looking to again expand upon the building. The advantage here is that
they didn't have to add any additional parking spaces. the lot is large enough to supply enough parking for the uses proposed, which is again very unusual for this area. So, in fact, the engineers testified that they're going to reduce the impervious coverage and
add some additional green space to the area. So, that's going to help slightly in the drainage design. The engineer is going to review that. I saw in the testimony also that about the retaining wall. the retaining walls on the neighbor's property and it has the chain
link fence on top, but the engineers testified that he could put a solid fence, which is a good recommendation to match the height of the fence next door, not to exceed the height. So, I think a a stepped fence next door to match the height so it looks in keeping with the
neighborhood. Again, that would help with headlight glare. So if there is a bit of headlight glare that's not would be captured above that wall again it's not the applicant's wall it's the neighbor's wall it looks in good condition has weoles in it so and we can
do an aesthetic boundary fence that's solid again because that fence there now steps because the wall steps up as the engineer testified to about a height of average of four feet he could match that with his new barrier wall there that
would again control any headlight glare. Also, the engineer designed a plan that any glare from the exist proposed lighting go away from the homes. The new modern lights are LED. The engineer designed a lighting plan that has the lights illuminating towards uh Chestnut,
not towards the house on Newark. >> So, Mr. Vel, you you you heard the uh outline by the engineer, did you not? As to the bulk uh variances that are uh being required for this project. Could you just run through those and and give us the uh
>> uh >> Yeah, I'll just go um again where we're where the property in question is number 367 Chestnut Street in the neighborhood core existing one-story commercial building with a mansard roof. We're proposing threetory building, 20
existing spaces that are kind of mishmash on the site. There are three curb cuts along Newark Avenue, one on Chestnut. Uh the proposed development is five units and the the unit sizes are quite nice. They're they're not overly small.
So I think the architect did a good job of not trying to he could have probably tried to add additional unit make it six but he didn't because the apartment's a pretty good size. The ability what's nice about an apartment the apartment density for
parking ratios is about half that as office. So if you have one per 300 square foot for office uh these apartments are some of them are 1,200 square feet. If that was an office space it would need almost triple the parking so or double the parking. So the
beauty of having an apartment with only two spaces per apartment is that it's less it has a lower parking requirement than office. So if the applicant was to come here with a three-story office in it would need much more parking than two
levels of apartments above above one level of commercial. So what we have here is um it's a C variance I'm going to say both there's two different levels of C variances on this application both the C1 and the C2.
The C1 is the hardship because there's certain things that cannot be expanded upon or it's a pre-existing non-conformity with the with the lot and the C1 variances are going to go to minimum lot area required in the zone is 15,000 square foot. The existing
building is a little less than 12,000. The existing lot is a little less than 12,000 square foot. Minimum lot width required within the zone is 150 square feet. 150 feet existing 100 feet. So, we're 50 ft short. Again, pre-existing non-conformity.
Maximum impous coverage per the zone 80% existing it's 98% and the engineer is bringing that down a few percentage points with the new plan with adding some landscaping. Minimum front yard in this area is 10 feet.
Existing. Existing is about an inch short of one foot. Minimum sideyard 10 feet. existing is a couple of inches. It's really three inches from the side. I do like what the architect's doing on the proposed
uh new variances for the new building on the sideyard. They're pulling it in to 4.9 ft, which is so so the second and third story aren't in line with the existing building. So he's giving it some distance in and by doing that also
it permits all windows on that side because normally with building codes you're three foot one inch to have an apartment. So by pulling that second floor in now we can have glass for all those apartments along that window. That's really a benefit for the users.
The other again front yard setback is uh 10 ft. Again, I think, you know, it really aesthetically plea much more pleasing to have the front in line with the front instead of having the first floor sticking out and pulling the back
in. And again, it's that's a board opinion. The architect, I think, did a pretty good job, very good job of matching the front. I think if you tried to pull the front end, I think it really makes the building look a little chopped up. But that's my that's my opinion as a planner, which we do some downtown planning. Also,
>> Mr. Mr. Venegra, under the u the standards that we have to present before the board, we're required to show the board um two uh separate standards. First is the uh positive criteria. We also have a couple other we have building coverage. The maximum permitted
in the ordinance is 30%. The existing is 25.8% proposed we're at 35%. Uh when we did look at the neighborhood, so we're we have a 35% proposed building coverage. There are
many lots in the area and um that have within a block on Chestnut. We have lot nine, which is Mr. Hail's office at 40% block coverage, which exceeds ours. Again, we're at 35. We have another lot
36%. We have one at 63% 35%. There's a number and I'll enter this as evidence uh with with the testimony that there's I have one one two three four five six seven eight nine
lots in the general area that exceed the coverage of this lot. Again, they're older lots. It was developed quite some time ago. So, the building coverages on these lots are exceed what we're proposing here today. So that that is in essence meets the
neighborhood what we're looking to achieve in a neighborhood and again this is a permitted use in the zone. So when we go further maximum impervious coverage permitted is 80% existing we have n it's almost n it's 99%. knocking
it down um two percentage points to 96.7 landscape buffers 6% or fence as I testified right now we're going to go we're proposing a solid fence to match next door and also that retaining wall
is a bit you know bit discolored it's old cement block looks old cinder block and again it's not ours to touch we can't go in there and spackle over it so but we can hide it a little And um to to
match the existing fence height, we also go loading zones uh one is required, zero is proposed. Um so that's it for the variances. Design waiverss parking set back from the property line we testified to already require 10
1.5 proposed parking from residential zone 10 1.5 proposed 24ft aisle as the engineer testified you can achieve the 24ft aisle that gives you ample backup space parking spaces
that the engineer testified he does have the overhang in the majority of the parking spaces they're 9 by8 And the for the most part the majority of parking spaces meet the overhang over overhang requirements. U until I until
the testimony from your planner tonight the master plan referred to this area as references for smart growth. Uh it envisions in 2021 the future growth and development in union will come from maintenance, revitalization and
redevelopment of existing landscape. This is exactly that. It's redevelopment of an existing corridor of an existing site that's almost 100% impervious and that this building will meet the ordinance and will also meet a lot of
the issues within the ordinance help. So it's again a smaller building. It really it really relates more to I think some of the local some of the local businesses may people who are employed by the local businesses who do not want to live in a
large building can can again rent in this building and walk to work because again this is a mixed community. There is some multifamily. There are some offices and there are some mixed buildings. So in your goals for your master plan on
page 62, mixeduse development, transit oriented development, increase accessibility of retail, shopping and services, restaurants and office spaces to residents of all incomes and ages. And page 62, the land use element seeks to promote smart growth. Uh in your
goals, the mayor's plan to maintain the character of existing residential neighborhoods. Again, this is residential in an area which is a mixed zone. provide adequate parking which the site does. Again, the positive criteria
uh we meet it because we are permitted use in the permitted zone. Uh we are mixed use in the mixeduse zone. Uh the the bedroom sizes are a nice I think they're quite large. Uh the onebedroom units at 8 825
28 square feet is is a nice square footage. I think the scale meets meets the neighborhood. Again, uh the third story, there's only one or two buildings that are that large. Uh the office building further up on Chestnut is
threetory. And where the cafe is has uh it's a it's a three story. It's three stories of residential kind of mixed way was built, but there are some three stories in the neighborhood, but further north on Chestnut.
Uh again, we we we meet the parking. We I have the EV is a statement. I have EV. My office has the EV parking spot. When it's not when cars aren't charging, I try to keep it open. Employees can park there. You know what's nice about the
EV, somebody within the building who works there can charge. Uh I I think it's a good idea to move the EV space outside, not from under the building where the handicap is in case you have to service the charger or in case something happens. as we all know that has happened. Uh I haven't had any
issues but there have been issues and I do work with fire departments and other municipalities of trying to have figure out ways to have these lithium situations that arise and the the best situation is not having a
building. The engineer is going to move the EV spaces and parts of the municipal land use law for the positive criteria. A to encourage municipal action to guide appropriate use and development of all lands and state to promote the public
health, safety, morals and general welfare. Uh and G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential and recreational use. Again, we are
permitted to do the residential and residential zone. I to promote desirable visual environment through creative development. I think right now it's just my opinion an old dated uh office building with old dated roof
an entirely developed parking lot with no landscape. I think this is an improvement aesthetically in my opinion uh from what's there already. And the negative criteria uh the vast majority of the variances are pre-existing conditions.
uh we comply with the density and F requirements. We comply with the parking. We will do some enhancements to some ground landscaping and we feel there's no substantial impairment intent to the purposes of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
That's uh if you have any questions. >> I have no further questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh questions from the board. >> I just have one question. Um, so the fence that you're proposing to put against the retaining wall, can you can
you just exp I'm not clear on what that's going to look like. >> Is it going to be >> It's going to be It's going to be a white vinyl fence right on the on the edge of the retaining wall. It's going to have the same height >> start as the as the retaining wall fence
and it it will gradually come down. We haven't designed it yet. This is the first time we we talked about it. But that is the concept. >> I just spoke with the architect. So we I think we want to go maybe with an off-white because the white the white fences are very stark in my opinion the
vinyl white. >> But it's going to it's going to be the vinyl. It's >> going to be a solid a solid. >> So my followup question is >> is there an impact to the size of the parking spaces? >> No. >> Okay. >> Because it's going to be on the other side of where the uh wheel stops are are
located. So it's not going to affect the actual parking. >> Okay. Yeah. What's going to be we're going to put it right up right up against the other so we don't The biggest problem I have sometimes is if you put a fence next to a fence, you get a tree a weed growing between. >> We're going to move it as close as we
can up to the property line. So we don't have >> there. Right. >> Right. So it'll be more or less a budding where the cinder block wall is. >> Again, that wall's been there again that looks like about a 40 a 50 year old wall. It's still good. It's not It's structurally sound. It's been there for
quite some time. >> I have a question relative to something I don't believe was mentioned. I know it's been a lot of time spent some conversation. Um, we talked you talked about a private carter to come in to remove trash. Is there a trash enclosure?
>> Yes, the trash enclosure was testified to earlier by the engineer >> that that it's located if we could uh on the site plan. Can we pull that pull that up, John? >> I believe I saw but no one died. I just want to make sure it's enclosed. >> I don't think we discussed it very much.
We just pointed out where it was. It It was not a It was not a very large discussion. >> I don't like to talk about garbage too much. >> The the the one thing that we did do in there will be trash. >> There will be trash. There's always going to be trash, but the one thing that we did do is we moved that closer
to the building. >> Um so that and here it is right there. Right. >> I thought northwest corner. >> I saw that in the plan. understood that it was >> but we did move we did make sure wanted to make sure that it was not going to affect the neighbors in any way. It is up against the basically vacant property
that is actually still listed under New Jersey Bell Telephone. >> Wow. >> Yeah. Go find them. Right. >> Right. >> So, um so it's next to that vacant basically vacant property uh and it has no impact on the neighbor to the >> and I believe that it will be enclosed
certainly and >> rat proof. Okay. >> As best as we could do, it's going to it's going to comply with all required ordinances from both the board of health as as well as any other ordinances that would apply. >> Thank you. >> Appreciate it. And if you if you're
closing one of the entrances, is it going to impact the ability to get to that? >> No, because the entrance that we're closing is the one closest to the corner. Okay. >> The entrance that's proposed for uh the truck movement is the one furthest in on
Newark Avenue. So that's the that's the most impact that we would see on to in uh Newark Avenue would be the garbage truck. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Any further questions from the board? Questions from the public?
If you could just state your name and address, please. Uh Jennifer Oavdo, 226 North Avenue. >> Okay. >> Um so there's two pedestrian crosswalks right in the corner there. There's one crossing North Avenue and then one crossing across Chestnut. With this now
threetory building going very close to the corner. Is that going to block vision for people crossing that crosswalk because it's already a pretty dangerous crosswalk crossing across Chestnut there? >> I would say no. Again, the crosswalk
again is up against the curb line >> but on the other side. >> So both sides because again when you pull up with your vehicle you have a stop bar. >> There is a stop bar there and you see the crosswalk. It's painless crosswalk. You can have a 50story building there. I
mean we do in in urban areas. So no, it will not obstruct a crosswalk. >> That's not going to make it any less safe for people trying to cross. >> I would say no. >> Okay. Okay. >> Any further questions from the public? >> Okay. Uh, Mr. Murman,
>> Mr. Chairman, I think I spoke way too much there. I'm going to submit I think the board's heard the the testimony. I don't think I need to run through and and restate everything that the board's heard. I think we've met our motions of proof uh with regard to the variances. You heard
Mr. been able to testify as to the positive and negative criteria uh with regard to that. So we met our burden finally >> the the issues I think that the suggestions that have been made by the board uh are valid and we accept them and we're going to uh implement them.
We're going to work with your engineer on the redesign of the uh parking lot um so that it would uh meet the requirements obviously of what we all testified here to tonight. So we would have no problem uh with certain conditions being placed in the uh
resolution of approval relative to these agreements that we've made this evening and certainly I will enterain if there are other suggestions that the board would have. My client is here and we certainly would entertain any additional uh suggestions. So far I haven't heard one suggestion that I've rejected. So I
think you guys are doing well. Thank you very much for your time. All right, we will now go to comments from the board. >> No comments. >> Okay. Uh I I do have some general comments just looking at the application holistically
as a whole. Um and I know that there are various variances being requested. I know that there is an existing variance with regards to a less than a feet for the front yard varants um front
yard setback. The intensification of having a threetory concerns me on a basis of of you know open air space concern especially if you're taking into account
that frontage especially if you're taking to account that this is a building of a newer architectural style that might stand out. I think if you tie that also in with the fact that you have a threetory
that have a I think five or five or so units combined with a commercial that puts forth these demands for parking. I think where there is much more flexibility to reduce potential detriments to the
community and also considering and I'm trying to even reconcile the presentation that we just had and to better meet our master plan goals and the mentioning of
reduction of building heights and things of that nature. I think there's so much more flexibility if the proposed building was it's still mixed use. I mean that that's just grandfathered in, but there's so much more flexibility. And I think the
public's concerns and some of the concerns that I have about open space and light and air if it was a two-story building, which has more flexibility with the parking, the maneuvering of the parking, and some of the potential safety concerns that the public would
have. That's where I am with that. Um, but I will also allow the board to provide some of their comments as well. Okay, we will now go uh comments from the public. >> You've been very patient.
Um, my name is Dagmar. D A G M A R. Last name is Porfio. P O R F I R O. >> And I live at 226 North Avenue as well. Um, my family's own that house on Norap for over 60 years. Um, over time, the
character and design of the neighborhood has remained the same. Um, preserving the charm and sense of community that makes that area so special. Um we have the bank located on Norcav shopping center across the street um remain largely unchanged throughout the
decades. We all support those businesses over there down on Chestnut Street. Um the consistency of the testament of the careful planning and zoning guidelines that Union has established to maintain this cohesive and pleasant environment in our corner of the town in the five
homes area. Um what used to be a quaint little real estate office has become Bring this up again. Sorry. Um an unregulated parking lot for 212 New Jersey Avenue. On a regular basis, it's just not Friday and Saturdays. There is 10 to 20 vehicles parked in that parking
lot. Um vans, I've seen trucks there. I've seen a cargo van. I've seen school buses parked there. Um some of them remain overnight. Um, I've even seen the parking lot used as like almost like a flea market twice. Um, people having
like shopping carts, shopping for products in that parking lot. So, I don't know these activities were not related to the businesses there. Um, so they seem to vi violate the intended use of the property. So, with this variance
request and the applicant seeking to add five apartments on top of it is already a it's already a problematic and mismanaged site. So, where are those people going to bark? Where is this where is this all going? So, um the
once these residents move in, um the businesses will be open. These vehicles will need to find an alternative parking spot. And as my friend brought up, um we don't have parking on North AB for this. So, and there's not parking on New Jersey AB for it either. So, um you
know, I who's gonna who's going to maintain that? So for us um we all use our street parking um on that block. Um so you know even though those parking requirements are being met allowed several design waiverss such as reduced
setbacks, the absence of a loading zone, undersized parking spaces are necessary to achieve that. Um, granting these variances would be a troubling president, potentially opening the door to other further exceptions that weaken the zoning regulations
designed to protect our community over there. Um, I know I speak for several of my neighbors when we say we don't want it to turn into Union Center. Um, you know, we don't want the three-story buildings over there. Um, it's just it's just not what we do. You know, it's not what it
is over there. Um, so I respectfully urge the planning board to deny the request to the variances and uphold the current zoning standards. I agree that there is a lot of parking there and something needs to be done with that lot. I mean, it is some you could do something to it, but I
just think it's over. It's just too much. Um, A is a busy street. I don't know if anybody's ever been down there, but um, we have people fly down that street. Um, there is those crosswalks are problematic. Um there's people I try to cross that street all the time. We
all do. We go over to the shopping center. Um so you know just something needs to be done. That's all. Just thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Yes, please. >> That's my promise.
>> No, the floor is yours. >> Still Tammy Zurka, 231 North Avenue. Um I just replaced my garage. My house was built in 1926. We've owned it since 1982.
Back in 1926, the codes were a lot different. So, my original garage was pretty much on property lines, and I, as we replaced it, had to get my permits, had to go through all of the zoning codes and make sure that we were set
back from everybody else's areas. I would have loved to have had a bigger garage that was still maintaining the same lines that were originally put forth in 1926. I understand things change, but I would have liked to have had a bigger garage still with some of
the lines that were there before, but I had to follow the codes. And those codes, like my best friend said, are set forth for a reason. So again, I in other other pictures that were shown, and I know it sounds trivial, but that
telephone poll was not listed in any of those pictures. And if we're now saying that that's going to be a one-way in and a oneway out, that really needs to be shown to show how this is really going to affect that traffic on a gap, on Chestnut Street, and for people pulling
in and out of that building. And again, I do urge that we try to keep our little corner of the world as is. And if you want to go up two floors, that's fine. But we still have to find a way to work that parking and we still have to find a way to get that traffic flow because at
the last meeting we were at, they were talking about another building over on Morris Avenue with lights and crosswalks and other things. And that became a big question there. Right now, there is nothing that's saying how this is even going to flow now if we shut down that one part of Norc Avenue from the ins and
outs without even showing where that telephone pole is with the stop sign right next to it. So, thank you again for your time. Have a great night. >> Thank you. Any further comments from the public?
Okay. Um Mr. Roman, uh, any if if you want to rebut or or provide it. >> I just I just need to correct the record. >> Okay. >> We did not indicate one way with regard to the driveways uh in any way, shape, or form. What we indicated was we were
not going to be closing the Chestnut Street driveway now. and we were going to close the first driveway on Newark Avenue to make sure that there was no movement onto Newark Avenue that would interfere uh with the uh stop sign and
and that. So, I don't want the board to think that we've agreed now to a design of one way in, one way out. That's not what we had indicated. What we indicated is that we're going to have to redesign the parking lot to accommodate now
because this design had chestnut street closed. That's the way we presented it based upon the board's comments. We certainly can continue uh and we would feel very comfortable moving forward with the plan as originally proposed, but we are uh trying to accommodate
obviously the the concerns of both the board and the public with regard to this intersection. Um there's there's really not much for me to to say uh with regard uh to this. Mr. Chairman, uh I think we have presented uh the the necessary
information uh for the board to reach its its conclusions and appreciate everyone's time. Recognizing the lateness of the hour, I don't want to take up any more. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. So I think with that um just want to open floor for any further comments from
the public. Okay. Uh, is there a motion to to approve the application or does this board need to move to adjourn or table it potentially just to give it additional thought? I don't hear
a motion. >> I I need to make a motion. Yes. I think that the um testimony has been significant, important. I think that certain um concessions, if you will, have been
made. Um I understand the desire to build this property into something that's much more recent. Um visually, I would personally prefer a twostory building. However, the U variances are
minimal and the height does comply and therefore I would like to move that we accept and pass the >> You can't speak up. >> Yes, excuse me. I'm sorry. Yeah, I believe that we we need to accept and
pass the uh application 367 Chestnut block 1019, lot 15 to accept. >> Okay, >> there's a motion by Mrs. Perkins. Is there a second? >> I'm sorry, chairman. I didn't hear the motion. >> The the motion was made to approve by
Mrs. Perkins. >> Was appro to approve. Okay. Thank you. >> And I guess it's the uh planning board number 202407. >> Is there a second? >> I don't hear a second. >> Um I think we're a little bit at a
standstill here. I think there is some reservations from the board. I >> can I >> You are a member of the board, so you can second. >> Okay. >> Oh, you're second the motion to approve. >> Okay.
>> Seconded by committeewoman Terrell. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Uh we'll do a roll call. >> Mr. Alexander? >> Yes. >> Mr. Frame? >> No. >> Miss Perkins? >> Yes.
Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. >> Ka, Miss Calid, >> no. >> Chairman Lei, >> abstain. >> Okay. >> What's the votality?
>> It's four in favor and two opposed >> and then >> and one abstension. >> Okay, Mr. Pasquali, that is that is that affirmative vote? >> That is. >> Okay. All right. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the board.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. >> I have the next application. I don't know if you want to address the application. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chair ask for a five to 7 minute recess please.
>> Yes. Uh we will recess for 5 minutes and we will come back at uh 9:31. >> A lot of drama. >> There's a lot of drama. >> There's a lot of drama. It seems this going to be like this for every application. >> Okay.
>> That's the first time we've had yay and usually. Yay. Yeah. Yay. So, >> it's okay. Uh, the board uh has resumed session from recess at 9:38 p.m. Um, can I call
if I could just grab my agenda? Can I call the representative for um >> drawback >> drawback? Yeah. Good evening folks. Uh Nino Kovella representing uh drawback application.
>> Yes. >> Um given the agenda and I I don't want to make it a long night this for you folks. Uh I guess we're going to carry this to uh >> Oh, there's 28. >> Um we don't I don't plan on noticing anyone and hopefully you'll put that on
the record. >> That's fine. >> Uh Greg, if there's an extension necessary, which I don't think is required just yet, but we'll grant it if necessary. Uh just for >> I just want to make sure we have a quorum on the 28. >> We do.
>> I'm pressing against some contract issues. >> Yeah, I do. >> And I know it's a summer month and I don't want to >> impose upon you folks and I appreciate you being here on July and and >> more in particularly for August. But I'm I'm hoping also that um I understand
that there's an application before us, >> something to do with a chicken restaurant or something like that. That would that would be after you. >> It would be after you. It would be after you. >> I just want to make sure that I'm the next you you have an ongoing application. Once that's completed, I want to make
sure I I go next only because I'm pushing against some >> Okay. Yeah. Uh can we get a motion to adjourn the application without further notice for August 28th? >> So move. >> Moved by Mrs. Perkins. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Seconded by Mrs. Khaled. I'll give it to her. >> Uh, roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes.
>> M. Caleb, >> yes. >> Chairman Lee, >> yes. >> All right, we're all set. >> Enjoy the rest of July. >> Thank you, and thank you for your time and thank you for your patience. Um, can we get the representative for
application? uh 33 Montlair Avenue. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman. Stephen H. Members appearing on behalf of the applicant. I'm going to avoid saying the name of the firm. Mr. Hail kicked my butt before because I got it wrong. >> All right. Well, it happens every once in a while. Thank you again. I'm going
to make this one very quick. This is a minor subdivision application. Tonight, we have uh two witnesses to present to you. I have Jay Badish uh and Robert Hudach both from uh Insight uh engineering and planning. Uh Jay's going to do the the engineering testimony.
Bob's going to do the planning testimony relative to the C variances that we have. We have just presented to the board uh an exhibit that was prepared today. Jay, why don't you identify what that exhibit is and we'll mark it right now before we start the application.
>> Sure. So this is the lot size exhibit dated today 72425 no revisions. >> Okay. >> Lot A1. >> Okay. >> Uh with that Mr. Chairman I will call Jay Badish as our first witness. >> Okay. Uh can we swear in the witness
please Mr. Pasquali? Can you can you raise my hand? You swear the testimony about to give is the truth. The whole truth is nothing but the truth. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> So I'm Jeremy Badish. B A T E S H professional engineer with Insight
Engineering 1955 Route 34 W New Jersey. I'd like to be qualified as a professional engineer. I have 14 years engineering experience of science and civil engineering from the University of Buffalo. Um I've been a professional engineer for eight years in New Jersey. I have not appeared
before this board, but I have appeared before several others. Roselle, Rosel Park, Hillside, Garfield, East Ruthersford. >> Board stipulates. We're all good. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh Jay, why don't you uh Well, first off, since we
gave them this exhibit, why don't we explain the exhibit and then we'll we'll get into the the abs the application itself. >> Sure. So, hopefully this is relatively simple one. Um the properties in the RV residential zone. Um it's zone for one and two family properties. The
requirements for the lot width and lot depth are 50 ft wide and 100 ft deep. The existing property is currently um 88.58 ft deep. So slightly short and 94.1 ft wide. So where we need 50 ft wide, we
have 94. Um, I'm going to leave all the other issues to our planner to discuss, but really the crux of this application is striking a line from down the middle of this property that subdivides it from one property that's almost twice the size it needs to be to two properties
where the existing house that's there today will remain. It's going to have a 50 foot wide frontage on the existing house that's in conformance with the zoning requirements. The new lot will be 44 feet wide. um that is slightly smaller than what's required by the
zoning ordinance, but we think it matches the zone more appropriately. The intent of this exhibit shows the subject property in green with the lot line down the middle where we're proposing to subdivide. Um and it just gives a nice graphical representation on the tax map
how it fits with the neighborhood. um on Montlair A itself. So this is 33 Mont clear a >> just on our side of the street on the east side of the street there's seven other properties just on our through street that part of it that have
undersized lot widths as well [Music] eight sorry um so it does conform fits nicely with the neighborhood >> why don't we throw why don't we throw up our survey so we could we could show the board how how this uh property is going
to be subdivided what the conditions are. >> Sure. So, this is >> right there there there currently is a house on on the property. >> Yes. So, this is submitted on the minor site plan that was uh part of the application package. This shows the existing property on the left. The
proposed condition being just the subdivision on the right side of it. Uh talking through the existing. This property has a home driveway. It actually has two curb cuts along the 94 foot of frontage. Um the second part of the property has a driveway and a
parking area on it currently. That's the portion that will be the new lot. Um we did confirm with the tax assessor if this is approved be 19.01 for the new one, 19.02 for the existing. Um I say this is simple because we're not proposing any improvements at this time.
This is simply just to create a new lot on a property that's almost twice the size of what it needs to be to match the rest of the neighborhood. It's essentially an infill project. Um the other variances that Bob's going to talk about our planner are relative to setbacks, lot coverage, lot area, the
lot depth. The majority of those are existing. Um again, this really just creates one lot. The bulk of it really comes down to the lot width being six feet shorter than what's um required by the ordinance. So,
>> so um if you run just through uh the var there are no variances or are there variances with regard to the lot that is going to keep the uh existing structure. >> So the existing structure still does have variances that are associated with
it. Um as outlined in the engineering review letter the majority of them are existing nonconformities or existing variances. So, the proposed lot 1902 is the one that maintains the house. Um, it's going to be slightly under on the size because
of the depth. The front yard setback or the front yard width will comply. No changes on anything. Um, the sideyard setback the for the garage decreases because the garage is essentially in the center of the property. From the new
property line, it's uh 5.8T still complies. It's three feet required. We're still compliant there. Regarding building coverage, um since the new lots have the smaller area as a base of reference, no improvements are proposed. There's no change to the
square footage, but with the smaller lot area to divide it by those do go up. Um building coverage can't get all the way back. I just want the building coverage goes up to 27.8% still compliant underneath the 40. The
impervious coverage, however, will be slightly over using the smaller area for the lot. It'll be 72% where 60 is permitted. Um, our goal is really minimal disturbance on the lot. We don't want to change it. We just want to make a new lot that fits in. Um, the
applicant has owned this for almost as long as I've been an engineer. And his goal is to build a house on it. And him and his kids are looking at talking to architects trying to come up with designs. And this is really the first step in their journey is to really create this lot next door to the their
existing home. J my best I'll put it out right now. The desire of my client to subdivide this property and build a second house next to his own for his family. His family is expanding. Two of his sons are sitting with him right now. He already has grandchildren. He's
been a um 40-year resident. Is that what I heard of of Union? We're 20 22-year resident of of Union and he wants his family to stay in Union and that's the purpose for this subdivision. I just wanted to get that right out there. Of
course, Bob will uh testify as to special reasons later for the variance variances, but I think the board needs to know that this is an applicant who's not doing this to sell this lot. This is not a money gra um Jay the um the second lot newly
created lot I I I see on the zoning chart as you have it up here a whole bunch of NAS right >> yes >> purpose of this is we do have let's show them the the second lot we have set out
the building envelope have we not on this uh this subdivision map >> yes so the >> all right so let let's go over what the building envelope hope is going to be and how that uh will affect these two properties and the neighboring property. >> Sure. So, the property on the left,
existing home, not touching it, not disturbing it, keeping it as is and peaceful. The lot on the right is the new one. Um >> my god. >> Once the applicant has a design for the house, he's going to have to go through the normal channels submitting for zoning, being reviewed by the town, getting all the permits. He doesn't have
the plans now, so we're not showing anything, but it will go back to the township as far as approvals go. Um, there's an existing driveway on there. Parts of it are obviously going to have to be removed in order to accommodate the new dwelling. There's curb cut that's existing today. The engineering
review letter um hit on everything that needed to regarding back filling for, you know, road opening permits, utility connections for the new dwelling, back filling for that. um any storm water requirements. There's one thing that uh
I did call Collier to confirm. It says to do a seepage pit on both flots. Um I think it should just be for the newly created one and the new improvements because nothing's changing on the existing one. We're not adding any additional impervious coverage on that part of it. So I would agree to work
with the engineer to come up with the uh seage pit the drywall requirements for the one inch of rainfall over the roof area. Um nothing else stood out as far as being an issue with it. Everything will will comply with everything else. Um permits, slow erosion, hopefully exemption under
5,000 square feet and then providing the deeds to the township to review before filing with the county should this be approved. >> Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions on this. >> Questions from the board,
>> sir. On the vacant property, that they want to sell. What's the difference? What's the distance between that vacant property and the nearest structure? How far >> from away?
>> Don't have the dimension to the neighbor's house. Um, but we are showing the five foot setbacks that are required for the sideyard setbacks. So, those will be a requirement as far as the new structure goes. It will have to comply with the sideyard setback requirements front and rear also.
Thank you. >> What's the square footage on the proposed structure? >> The structure is not designed yet. >> So, it's going to be limited by the building coverage and the setback envelopes. The really the building envelopes that he can build in, but that will go back to the town ultimately for
a zoning permit. As far as the review goes to ensure compliance with the ordinance, >> it's I think I figured it's roughly the buildable buildable envelope. I think it's like 1,500 square feet or so. Once you take into consideration the setbacks which would really just be one floor
>> but that that would be basically one level. So if it was a two and a half story building you can multiply based upon on that what the maximum square footage would be for the structure itself because it would take into account obviously for total square footage but the but the
envelope itself is 1500 square ft. >> Okay. >> Any further questions from the board? Questions from the public hearing none. Next witness, >> Mr. Bob Hudac. >> Can we swear in the witness?
>> Mr. Hudach, will you uh swear that the testimony about to gives the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Do you want me to state my credentials? >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Um Bob Hudac, I I was here last night. In fact, that's why >> I did that intentionally. Mr.
Could you please give the board the benefit of your education and professional background? >> Absolutely. I've been a planner now for over a dozen years. I worked for Inside Engineering. I served as a municipal planner and a uh representing private clients throughout that time. Most
recently as last night here before the >> poor stipulates >> the zoning board. Sorry. >> Proceed. >> All right. Um could you just tell the board what you reviewed uh in preparation for your testimony here today? Yeah, I reviewed all of the plans that have been submitted, all the
exhibits. I also reviewed the master plan and the municipal ordinance. You >> heard uh Jay outline the variances that we need. Um you also discuss the uh I'll use the term adaptive reuse of the existing structure as being one of the
guiding uh factors behind where the subdivision line was drawn. >> Yes. >> So from a planning perspective, could you just do an analysis of this particular property? >> I have quite a bit of testimony here. I'm going to try to shorten it up significantly, but essentially with respect to the C1 variances we're
seeking tonight, uh I noted that there are a number of existing non-conformities as Jay had pointed out, uh you have the principal building front yard setback, you have the sideyard setback and the rear yard setback for the building that is going to be existing on lot.20. Uh those are not to change. However,
because you have a new lot, you need new variance relief. Um so I argue under the C1 criteria, the hardship criteria that these can be granted specifically um because the existing shape of the lot dictates the depth of the two lots to be created. We can't acquire more land from
adjoining properties. Everything else is developed and because we're intending on keeping the existing house and accessory structures. Hence there is a practical difficulty. As noted in the Harlo case, the existing structures represent a unique condition affecting the lot and
removing these structures would present a practical difficulty. Thus, I feel those variances could be granted under C1. Under C2, these are cases where the benefits outweigh the detriments where the proposal is better for the community uh than the zoning requirement where the purpose of the MLU will be advanced. I
offer that the benefit the first benefit is the efficient use of land utilizing the oversized lot as you've heard to accommodate housing within an already developed area. The master plan notes that quote to preserve the integrity of single and two family home neighborhoods by preventing the intrusion of more
intense uses. In fact, we're actually providing a permitted use on this lot. Uh we're taking an existing lot that has a um if you will I don't want to say it's non-conforming it's used as parking right now and we're cleaning it up so to speak by putting a new home on that
property. Also as uh was noted earlier in exhibit A1 you could see eight out of those 21 lots are undersized significantly the two lots to the south of our lot are about 36 feet in width uh each. So there are a number of these
undersized lots in the area. It's not like we're creating something that's out of character entirely. Also, um because it is infill development, which both your master plan and the state development and redevelopment plan support, we're providing housing in an area where we're
leveraging the existing uh the lot, the existing infrastructure. We um we have an existing curb cut. It's not like we're going to eliminate parking. There is no parking allowed on that side of the street, but there is an existing curb cut. We don't usually find that, but we have that situation here. And the
lot uh the building that we are proposing, if you will, although we don't have the architecturals, but what we're intent our intention is the building on lot point lot 19.01 will conform to all the bulk requirements. So, we're not looking for any variances for that building at this time. uh the
only variances with respect to the buildings are the existing non-conformities on lot 9 19.02. So as just to reiterate, we advanced the purpose a the general welfare purpose of zoning because the proposal offers a better zoning alternative serving the
community's general welfare by proposing housing opportunities that are consistent with the neighborhood's character and are infield development. Purpose E, the appropriate population densities. Overall population uh results in appropriate and compliant development consistent with current the current neighborhood. And purpose I desirable
visual environment because we are making a significant improvement to the area. And also I'd argue under the under the criteria outlined in the Grasso versus Spring Lake case for preserving property values which is also noted as its goal of zoning. So in my opinion the variances can be granted under the C2
criteria. Of course, you can't uh simply grant a variance under the positive criteria. You also have to take into account the negative criteria that the proposed development will not cause substantial detriment to the public good nor in the intent of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance. And I argue that they
are there are no real significant detriments. We're maintaining the existing home on lot 19.02, which won't affect any of the existing non-conforming setbacks on the lot. Uh the proposed subdivision will create a lot that better fit within the neighborhood in spite of the nonconformities.
Uh there's no impairment in my opinion to the zone plan and zoning ordinance because we are actually fulfilling the goals of the master plan. So I believe our proposal can be the variances we're seeking can be granted under the C1 and C2 criteria as I outlined it.
>> Is that quick enough? >> Thank you. Mr. Mman, do you have any questions? >> We have no further questions. Okay. Uh questions from the board. Questions from the public? I assume we're good with the summation
here. We can proceed with the board with any general comments. >> We can as long as as long as long as the board accepts the representation from me of my client's intent. Otherwise, I can have my client come up and indicate to the board as I have indicated that his intent is not to sell this lot but to
gift it to his family. >> I think that suffices. Um, just a very short statement with a minor subdivision. Obviously, an approval is just to subdivide the property. It's not a pre-endorsement or pre-approval of what would be proposed to be built
there. Obviously, if it becomes a separate application site plan, it would go before whatever board based on the variances that would be sought. So, that that's just my comment. All right. Motion to move the uh the approval of the subdivision application. >> Motion,
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, you just didn't Oh, I think he did ask for the public comment. I just want to make sure. >> Oh, any any comments from the public did. >> I think he did. >> He did. >> He did. Yeah, I think he did. >> I just Okay. >> Um moved by Mr. Frame. Is there a second? >> Second.
>> Seconded by Mr. Khaled. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Alexander, >> yes. >> Mr. Frame, >> yes. >> Miss Perkins, >> yes. >> Mayor Bowser, >> yes. >> Committeewoman Terrell, >> yes. Miss Calid, >> yes. >> Chairman Lei,
>> yes. Thank you for everyone's patience tonight. We await the resolution. >> Wonderful. Thank you for everyone's patience and um engagement tonight. Can I get a motion to adjourn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Seconded by Mr. Alexander. All in favor
say I. >> I. >> I. Meeting adjourned. Get out of