Thank you. Hoping that the Oh, there we go. Say I'm hoping that the monitors working. Now they are. Good evening everybody. I'm here for a couple different presentations tonight. And as was just read into the record, we will start off with the block 2903 north
area in need of redevelopment study. Um you can see on the um monitors that this is um kind of the end of the block of of your um Morrison and Styverson Town Center area. Um it is a total of 1.08 acres with all
the lots combined. And oh I didn't put how many lots it is. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine lots totaling just over an acre. Um, it's at the southwest corner of Styverson and Morris with secondary frontage on Panel Court. Um, and it is adjacent to an
already designated redevelopment area. Um, the existing zoning is the downtown core, which um permits a lengthy list of uses, primarily retail, sales and services, restaurants, and offices. cool down. Um, and the current minimum lot area is 10,000 square feet and a maximum
building height of 52 feet and four stories. Um, I just really like this picture, so I wanted to show it to you. Thank you. Um, oops, what just happened? So, I'm just going to breeze through
these aerial photographs um, just so you can see the course of development generally. In 1954, there was development there, but by the 1970s, it was much more intense. Um, and when we get into the 2000s, we
start to see the other redevelopment areas. Um, particularly 2022, we can see that happening. Um, adjacent to the site along Bell Court, for example. So many of you may be familiar that when we do an area in need study, um we have
to look at each lot, analyze it, and determine which criteria it qualifies for um in order for the board and um ultimately the township committee to designate the area. And so that is just what I did here. I'm going to go through
each of the parcels. Um I'm going to just give a high level summary but I welcome your questions for more details um if if you have any. Um the first lot is lot 16. This is um the movie theater lot and it has primarily
has very small frontage. Um one area was a pedestrian pass through and the other was the box office and the area that was the theater is in the back of the is is in the middle of the block really. um and has now been repurposed for a
parking lot. Um lot 17 is a two-story mixeduse building. It's on an undersized lot and it exceeds the permitted lot coverage. Lot 18 is a one-story building with three storefronts. Um it is also on an undersized lot and
exceeds the permitted coverage. This is something that you will see time and again on this analysis. Lat 19 is the Falls building. It's a um easily recognized building at the corner of Styverson and Morris. It's a
two-story mixeduse commercial building. Um some offices uh on the second floor, some retail on the ground floor. Um and it exceeds the permitted coverage. Lot 20 is a one-story commercial building with two storefronts, again
under sized and exceeding the lot coverage. Lot 21, a story commercial building with three storefronts exceeding the lot coverage. And on that one, you can actually see the uh building being constructed behind
it. Um lot 22, one-story commercial building with three storefronts, undersized lot. You see the lot coverage. Lot 23 is interesting. It's a one-story commercial building, but it's set back from the street with a surface parking lot in the front. Um it's kind of a
strange um layout that parking lot. It had some curb cuts. Um a curb cut from Morris that has been sort of blocked off with the um wheel stops but not officially closed. Um there is
um a second entrance from Bonell Court that was kind of looks like it was used as kind of a loading area for the business. Um instead I observed an inoperable vehicles being stored there. Vehicle there was one. Um the lot is undersized
and exceeds the permitted coverage. And lot 24 um off of Bell and kind of also facing that interior parking area is a two-story office building and surface parking exceeding the permitted coverage.
So the local redevelopment and housing law gives us a number of criteria that we can use to apply to any analysis of a redevelopment area. We don't need to use all of them. we can use one or if something doesn't apply we can use none. Um in the case of this analysis
criterion D was pretty much universally applied. The criterion reads areas with buildings or improvements which by reason of dilapidation, obsolescence, overcrowding, falting arrangement or design, lack of ventilation and it goes on um are detrimental to the
safety, health, morals and welfare of the community. Um, criterion H is that the designation of the delineated area is consistent with smart growth planning. And section three is a redevelopment area may
include land, buildings or improvements which themselves are not detrimental to the health, safety or welfare, but um the inclusion of which is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area. Um, criterion D, which is the one that I
first called out, um, is the one that we kind of use shorthand saying that it's obsolete. Um, a vibrant, um, active downtown needs more than
one-story buildings in order to sustain itself. Um, it may have worked once upon a time, but with only ground floor uses and occasionally offices upstairs, you're just not going to have the customer base and the sidewalk activity
to keep the area active. Um, by today's standards, a more substantial pattern of development needs to activate um, a neighborhood and that's including the inclusion of residential uses in a downtown. Um the neighborhood has seen
and will continue to see limited customer traffic and the businesses will suffer. Um this lack of economic activity is detrimental to the welfare of the community as a whole. Um both to its businesses and to its vibrancy to the to the vibe it sets off. It's just
not positive. every parcel within the study area was um has excessive imperous coverage exceeding the 90% that's permitted. So you already have really high impervious coverage um
and many I'm sorry 80 many exceed 90% the limit is 80%. So not only are they exceeding the 80 but they're even higher. Um excessive lot coverage is problematic. uh it does several things.
One is that it does not um support the um drainage of water when it rains or um storm water runoff. It also contributes to the urban heat island effect. um wherever urban where where the urban
heat island effect warms neighborhoods and where excess imperous coverage exacerbates storm water runoff, the impacts um potentially endanger both the immediate and greater area. Um the parking arrangement on lot 23 is unstructured and disorganized, creating
obsolete layout and a faulty arrangement and it's hazardous to pedestrians and drivers. Um, criterion H is the smart growth criterion. This the redevelopment of this site will speak to smart growth in New Jersey where development is intended
to be um put in traditional centers um and built at a more intense um design than what would um otherwise you know the alternative is is sprawl. So we
do not want that. Um lastly, section three is the ability to include parcels that may not themselves be detrimental but that are important to the overall site. And uh I have classified the office building shown in this picture. Um as such the
there was nothing particularly wrong with the site. Um it doesn't generate a lot of activity but it seems to be in good shape and well maintained. However, including that um is necessary for the development of the site, especially considering that there are um the
redevelopment area would otherwise potentially completely surround the site um and this would stand as an island. It just wouldn't be effective to keep it out of the redevelopment plan. So, that's my analysis of all of the sites in the proposed area in need of
redevelopment. Um, I'm happy to take questions, but the the board's um job here is to um decide if my analysis, if you agree with my analysis um and send your recommendations, either favorable
or otherwise, to the township committee and then they would adopt a resolution with their decision. Okay. Thank you. Uh questions from the board. So um Mr. Stewart on page 14 uh the
design standards and the site layout section two speaks about veh vehicular access and concludes with no curb cut shall be permitted along. Are you talking about the area and need study the redevelopment plan? No that's not that's not what this presentation was.
Sorry it's it's Do you want a copy? I don't think I have it. Never mind. Okay, back off. I'm a dog with a phone. Any other questions from the board? My microphone worked. I would speak
louder. Then um the question one of the questions that came forward when you were talking about the impervious coverage um certainly I understand that there's new design standards and I'm assuming that's where your remarks came from. Um has there been evidence of in
the past impervious coverage problems and flooding within the center? I'm not familiar with specific um flooding issues to put on the record. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Questions from the public?
Okay. Hearing none, um can I get a motion to concur with the findings of the study to deem the area in need of development uh and refer this back to the township committee for final adoption?
So move. Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by uh Mr. Frame. Roll call, please. Sorry. There you go. Okay, we're ready. All right. Mr. Alexander, yes. Mr. Cohan, yes. Mr. Frame, yes.
Mr. Miller, yes. Miss Perkins, yes. Committeewoman Frasier, yes. Committeewoman Terrell, yes. Mayor Chairman Lei. Yes. All right. Um we will now go to the next presentation on the uh Stson Avenue
redevelopment plan. Yes. Okay. So now that um 10 seconds ago you um found the area in need in um in need of redevelopment um to to um to qualify um and assuming that the township
committee concurs um they would be able to consider and adopt a redevelopment plan for that area. Now, the existing downtown town
center um already has a redevelopment plan which um you are probably quite familiar with. Um you can see on the map in front of you that there are different colored areas
for the different phases that you have seen in the past. um sort of in an administrative sense with this amendment I have they they had all previously existed as separate documents, separate
pieces of paper that in my opinion kept getting mixed up and confused and lost. And so I have as part of this amendment combined them into one document without changing the content of any of them but
just putting them all in one place so that administratively um it should be easier to deal with. Um so if this document looks different to you that is why um but I have throughout the document um noted all of the changed
text in in red font if you are lucky enough to have a color print out. Um if not I I can provide you one um on PDF or you can um in the meantime hopefully take my word for it. Um the
area on the map that is circled um at the corner of Stson and Morris is the area that we just spoke about um for the area need study. Um, as I mentioned at that time, it's nine parcels, just over an acre. Um, and it's adjacent, as you
can see here, to other redevelopment plans that are already um working to revitalize your town center. Um, again, I don't probably don't need to remind you since it was now 60
seconds ago that criterion D, and section three were used to justify our our findings. Um now as I mentioned this is really an existing redevelopment plan and we are expanding it. So the point of the
redevelopment plan is to have fairly consistent regulations across not only um across what exists and what we're doing now. So to the extent possible um all of the old rules still apply to these new nine lots that are being
absorbed into the redevelopment plan. Um for example the principal uses are for ground floor retail sales and services multif family above ground floor business businesses and offices um
restaurants and a mix of of any of these that was in the plan before and that will carry over to these new nine lots that are being added. Um an accessory use though um importantly that will be
permitted in this um subdist shall we say um are roof decks and plazas. Um the applicant or the developer I should say is looking to have a substantial plaza at that corner of Morris and Styverson
um as really a community gathering place. And while the details of it um will become more fleshed out at the time of site plan and at the time of designation, there are requirements in this redevelopment plan that it be there
and that there are some, you know, minimum baseline um regulations for that plaza. Again, more um elaborate requirements will be established as site plan comes comes to
be. Um, the bulk requirement, um, maximum building height is 85 feet. Um, building separation, oh my gosh, I need glasses. 30 feet. and um yard setbacks
um zero feet, building depth 88 feet, and then step backs from the building line, which means as the building gets taller, it is set back further than the stories below it. And what that does is
that it gives a um it reduces the feel of the massing and the height of the building because at the angle that a person would be looking up at that building, it's actually not visible. Um so at the fifth floor along Morris and Bonell, we have a 12-oot setback and at
the sixth floor, um along all frontages, uh another six foot setback. um maximum building coverage 75% which is um I'll remind you that the um existing properties have an 80% coverage limit
and most of them were actually closer to 90. Um and so this is lower than that and and will um certainly we hope um improve the potential threat of um storm water issues and um and the urban heat
island effect. As I was mentioning just a moment ago, we have um this plaza that will be a requirement at this intersection. Um, and many of the details are still forthcoming, but it will have a minimum
area of no less than 20,000 square ft. It will have enhancements with pedestrian lighting, trash, and other amenities. Um, and minimum hours of illumination will be basically an hour before sunset to an
hour after sunrise. So, it will be a safe place. Um certainly I expect at the time of site plan that they will make sure that those lights aren't glaring into windows but um it needs to be illuminated for safety and I want to assure you of that. Um also roof deck
standards they will be set back from the building edge um and will it not exceed 25% of any roof area. So you're not going to have an entire very large um building that is party central up on the roof. That's not going to happen. Um it
will be a a modest um roof area that will not be up to the edge of the building. So you're not going to actually see people and people will not be able to be hanging over the edge. It's not that type of situation and age.
Um those are the highlights of the changes. Again, all of the other design standards that currently exist in the Styson area um in the town center will continue to apply. So, I haven't gone over them tonight, but I'm happy to take
questions. Questions from the board. Well, now I'll direct my question to you regarding uh A2 on page 14. Uh I recognize based upon your your testimony just now that this is was part of the
original redesign plan. However, as these additional phases have begun to roll out, it's becoming more and more apparent that there's great density and more parking and more vehicles. So, I've expressed a concern
that having Bonel Court be the only ingress and egress to all of these properties and the residents that will be living in them. Um, I believe that there's a a a real challenge and a real potential problem there in the future. So, I'll ask you the question again.
Why does it say no curb cut shall be permitted along Styverson Avenue and is that subject to amendment? Um, it says that because um I will say best practices are that you do don't want curb cuts um in a town
center where our priority is intended to be walkability. pedestrians and um having conflict, which is what we call when a car is crossing a sidewalk, um is is just not
safe and not ideal. Um it's it's also kind of a a a way to express what our priorities are. And the priority in the town center is pedestrians. Um, I don't disagree with the concern that Bonell Court may
be taking too much traffic and perhaps there needs to be some sort of if there's a way to make Bonell Court um carry traffic better. Um, that would be I don't I don't know how to do that, but I'm not a
traffic I'm not an engineer. Well, at this point there are fixed buildings on both sides of the streets. There are, but maybe Um I don't have an answer on the spot like this, but I will say that um you asked if it was what did you say?
Subject to amend amendment. So um there are two yeses to that. One is that such a requirement could potentially
receive a variance from this body when you review a site plan if that was if that was um requested by the applicant. And the other is that redevelopment plans can always be amended um at the approval of the township committee. So,
if they were in favor of modifying that requirement, um, a this redevelopment plan could certainly be opened up to make that change at a date in the future. Right. Thank you. I I frankly I find your your testimony regarding um the the
goals, the priorities, and it being a walkable space to be compelling. However, that doesn't ameliate the traffic problem. I understand I understand that it doesn't make the traffic go away just because that's what that you know that's the vision. Um so
per perhaps there's a design tweak that um that an engineer could come up with or perhaps there's just ch turning movement um controls that would help change things. I'm I'm really not sure off off the top of my head how to deal with that. But I hear what you're saying,
but I also want to do everything that we can to make the town center um a place that people love to walk around. Thank you. So, if I could just confirm procedurally is that even if we adopt this as is
um and let's say with some of the concerns that have been shared with by Mr. Cohan and I'm sure shared with other board members as well. The applicant can come back with a site plan that potentially might deviate from that but it would but we would have to then assess to grant that as a variance.
Yes. So, um, if you were to recommend this to the township committee and they were to adopt it, um, when the applicant comes to the planning board for site plan, just like every other site plan that you see, um, the planning board is permitted to grant what are
traditionally known as C variances. Um, so unless they're asking for a Dvariance, that's like you cannot get Dvariances in redevelopment areas. that would necessitate amending the redevelopment plan if if the township
committee so chose to do so. Um but for design things or variances that are not um classified as Dvarianes, in other words, they would traditionally be C variances, the planning board has the authority to grant those. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Any other questions from the board? Mr. Ross, I just have a question. the uh parking lot. Just make sure you're speaking the mic. Okay. Is there any chance that parking lot
um can you clarify for me which parking lot you're talking about off of it between Benell and and Styus? Can you point to Sure. It's not on the subject require agent
that's outside of the redevelopment plan. Okay. If if I'm looking at where you're looking. Yes. Um so so what was your question? So my question is I call this the uh the apartments by the uh by the gas station
the old Fran Meta building. Yeah. Couldn't those parking lots be connected to somewhat alleviate traffic going out on Banell? Um, so I can't answer that on the spot. Okay. But
theoretically, um, let me answer this. And if a property owner had a an easement or a means of access other than what is shown, other than what they
currently have, it would certainly be a possibility. But that prop that parking lot that you're pointing to is presently to my knowledge not owned by the developer of the existing like this property on Bonel Court.
Um but if there was a way for them to acquire it and if the turning movements and the traffic movements and the circulation all made sense like theoretically. Sure. Right. That's my question.
Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Perkins, do you have a question? Okay, one quick question. Um, page 14 statement A3 which says about pedestrian connectivity between Styson and Bonal
Court um must be maintained through the development using an alleyway and prominade between buildings and with a sidewalk based on the same treatment as the Stson Avenue streetscape. Um, I just want to make sure that
would that also cover any conditions to ensure that any kind of alleyways would be lighted appropriately to prioritize, you know, safety um, pedestrian safety as they're walking through maybe when it gets a little bit
darker out. Let me let me pull up unless it's addressed somewhere else. I don't spec I do understand the question. I don't specifically remember um it certainly um
certainly should be lit. Um there's no doubt about that. Jing. Oh, there is a section lighting. Uh, yeah. Okay. So, streets and plazas, site, street and so I would say that at
a minimum J1 states and this is existing text. This isn't new text that site, street, and pedestrian lighting shall be in conformance with the standards of the redevelopment plan. Uh pedestrian walkway through between Styverson and Bonell would certainly count as pedestrian lighting.
Okay. Um, I would also say that if there's in the unlikely event that um a developer that that that would not be obvious to obviously necessary to a developer, the board could certainly raise that at the time of site plan and
um and insisted on it. Um, great. Thank you. Uh my other question and again I'm not exactly sure if it's addressed either in design standards or somewhere else but um with um
redevelopment plan that would introduce more units and definitely would provide more density in that area um and more uses in that area. You would think um any kind of noise that would be generated. Is there anything within the plan that would ensure that whatever
developments would be built there would be built in a way to reduce any kind of noise pollution that would affect either the the residents that would potentially live in that area or the businesses or so forth. There's often
statement. Yeah, there's often a statement to that effect. I'm not seeing it somehow in this one. Um but I would um sort of hope to alleviate your fears by saying that that would also be rolled into a redevelopers agreement. Okay.
Um and it I I will um kind of check the the template that I often use to make sure that it is included in the future just so that it's kind of coming at them from both angles. Okay. Nevertheless, um it can certainly be included in a in any sort of agreement. Okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Any
other questions from the board? Questions from the public? Okay. Uh, can I get a motion to uh defer um concur with with the uh redevelopment plan and um refer back to the town committee for
final adoption. Make a motion. Moved by Mr. frame. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Miller. Roll call, please. Can I make a brief comment? Uh, just hold on. Roll call. Mr. Cohen. Yes. I I just like to ask that our uh
colleagues, the the two committee women that are here uh share some of the concerns that were expressed regarding traffic as the the township committee considers the adoption of this plan. Absolutely. Thank you.
Thank you. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander, yes. Mr. Cohan, yes. Mr. Frame, yes. Mr. Miller, yes. Miss Perkins, abstain. Committeewoman Frasier, yes. Committeewoman Terrell,
yes. Chairman Le, yes. All right, one more left. The Clinton Manor Redevelopment Plan. Okay. So, I don't know a year or so, maybe two ago, we had adopted, you had adopted the
Clinton Manor redevelopment plan. Um, this was, as this picture on my um screen suggests, the former Clinton Manor Hotel. Um, at the time of the original redevelopment plan, there were um big dreams of it becoming a new
hotel. um with also on the site um a cannabis business. Um that has not panned out. And so we are going to what I am going to show you this evening
are some changes to um allow for um different use of that site. Um to orient you, this is um along Route 22 right near the municipal border. It's identified as block 3402, lot 2011. It's
4.3 acres. Um, and it was back in 2020 that this was determined to be an area in need of redevelopment. And yes, the redevelopment plan that I just mentioned was from 2023. The site I will mention has been
demolished um in the recent past. So the um former isore is gone. Um the new amendments that I will be presenting to to you tonight do remain consistent with the municipal master
plan. Um we need to show that when um significant changes when we have a new redevelopment plan or significant changes are taking place. For example, the one that we just did moments ago did not really have any significant changes. That was really just adding properties.
Um so this one has the goal of supporting desirable non-redevelop non-residential development. Um identify zoning ordinance improvements that can respond to changing economies and market demands. The goal of
establishing realistic market driven and financially feasible redevelopment plans. Encouraging the improvement of properties in disrepair. um encouraging sustainability and resilience um inclusive of EV charging.
Um adjacent communities, Springfield is um immediately adjacent to this site. Um and they have the goal of taking advantage of redevelopment opportunities along the Route 22 corridor, which is exactly what we're doing. And the county has a goal of directing new growth and
development to suitable areas and revitalizing urban centers and corridors. So um the redevelopment plan guidelines on the right hand side you can see what was previously permitted. Um we have
amended it with what is on the left hand side and the new uses that we are recommending are automobile sales services and outdoor storage of the vehicles for automobile sales basically
um public utilities and wireless towers. Public utilities and wireless towers are kind of standard almost um everywhere at least along the 22 corridor. So what we're looking at here um is basically um
an auto dealer. The bulk standards um I have highlighted um that which is um most significant with the new amendments. Um
the lot area is 4 acres. Um it was previously 40,000 square feet because they were going to subdivide that to have the two uses that I mentioned. Um and so there were um some lots it was it was a different it was a
different vision and therefore different um bulk standards. So with the new one we're looking at one use on the lot um a maximum building height of two stories or 45 ft. Um setbacks of the principal structures from the curb 70 feet rear 25
bearing in mind that they're basically backing up to a wooded area um and side or other lot lines five feet here bearing in mind that they're actually adjacent to another similar car business um on one side and wooded area on the
other um and maximum building coverage of 35%. Um the parking will be required at a rate of one per 500 square feet of showroom and office area and three per service bay. The site plans will need to demonstrate that the loading areas will
not obstruct site circulation. Um and they will be allowed to phase the development. um you know they will need to show that sort of information when they come to the planning board for site plan approval but it's possible that you know
not the the entire project could may potentially not happen all at once. They may have temporary um vehicle storage on there as a building is getting built or something to that effect. Um and this
does um you know accommodate that. Um signage refers to the existing code. We're not changing anything. Um and we did um create some language that says display vehicles shall not be located
closer than 18 ft to the Route 22 curb line. Um, a lot of times, and this is this is a problem um that has been identified along Route 22, is that those display vehicles, while we understand that the um dealers want to show you
what you can get there, um it's really up along the road and can be distracting or confusing to people driving. like is that car, especially when they're at ground level, it's a little bit less confusing when they're raised, but like is that car merging onto this road or is
it there for display? So, we're trying to control for that a little bit. That's really the gist of it. Um, again, this is an amendment to an existing redevelopment plan, but with a whole new vision of what can go there after the last um, you know, potential developer.
Um, didn't work out. So, I'm happy to take questions on this, but the the big picture is that we're looking at um, a a car dealer. Questions from the board. Mr. Russell will will they be doing any
type of development in the back with regards to the No, it's expected that the back will be storage of vehicle inventory. I mean to to prevent the the river rising. Oh, well that's you know the property back there is owned by uh
county. The county. Yeah. So I mean this property owner is really not even supposed to be accessing back there. Okay. Um, okay. Yeah. Thank you. Any other questions from the board?
Hearing Oh, uh, question from the public hearing. None. Can I get a motion to concur with the the findings to of concur with the redevelopment plan for Clinton Manor and refer back to the township committee for final adoption? Moved by Mr. Cohan. Seconded.
Second. Seconded by Mr. Frame. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander. Yes. Mr. Cohan. Yes. Mr. Frame. Yes. Mr. Miller. Yes. M. Perkins. Yes. Committeewoman Frasier? Yes.
Committeewoman Terrell? Yes, Chairman Lei. Yes. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Have a good evening. You too. All right. Under new business, we're actually going to hear one application, but there are two others that just need to carry over. So, um, can I'm just
going to switch around the agenda just to get those two carried over. Um, can the representative for 811 Chestnut Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Stephen Hail representing the applicant for 811 Chestnut Street. Uh
just by way of uh update, had an opportunity to speak to Vince from Collars. We submitted revised plans not all that long ago. Um what we're going to do is right now request it be adjourned uh without okay without uh a new date and when the new date when
Collars completes their review we get a new date we would read notice so it'll be uh there be no notice there will be notice of the next hearing to the property owners. Okay. Um can I get a motion to adjourn the application
uh with no further notice until a date is due to be with notice without the with notice required to with sorry make that motion without sorry Greg for stealing your thunder I did that moved by Mrs. Perkins is there a second
seconded by Mr. Frame roll call please Mr. Frame second okay Mr. Alexander yes Mr. Cohan yes Mr. Frame yes Mr. Miller. Yes. Miss Perkins. Yes. And I'd like to clarify in case my verbiage wasn't clear. I did not say
without notice. I said with that notice. Thank you. Thank you. Yes. Committeewoman Frasier. Yes. Committeewoman Terrell. Yes. Chairman Lei. Yes. Thank you very much. And Mr. Haley, you're also the representative for Merrick Landmark. Yeah. We obviously did
have great to hear Kristen's presentation this evening. Uh but yeah um we're uh so they could the board could hear that presentation. Uh we request that this be carried to the I know we we struggled to find try and find a special and uh weren't able to do
it. So uh this will be carried to or we requested be carried to the October 23rd meeting uh with no further notice required. Okay. Can I get a motion to carry over application 2025-11 to October 23rd with no further notice?
So moved. Moved by Mr. Cohan. Is there a second? Second. Seconded by Mr. Alexander. Roll call, please. Mr. Alexander, yes. Mr. Cohan, yes. Mr. Frame, yes. Miller, yes. Miss Perkins, yes.
Committeewoman Frasier, yes. Committeewoman Terrell, yes. Chairman Le, yes. Great. Thank you so much and have a great night and thanks for taking your time uh during the conference session. Thank you very much, Mr. H. The air works. All right, last and new business is
application 2025-18 Diane Atwell. May the representative please uh come forth. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and board members. Good evening. I am Diane Atwell. I come before you tonight in hopes of obtaining
a subdivision for 17 story place. Miss Atwell, would you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Thank you. Proceed. The purpose of the subdivision is to
provide two lots that would be utilized as backyards. Uh for lot 31, 30 and 31. Uh proper procedures have been undertaken
to obtain a survey of the property and all applications have been submitted. Notification was provided in the newspaper as well as certified and
regular mail. So I ask you to consider and give approval. Any questions from the board? I just want to cite from the engineers letter and if you could just confirm
that on on your end. The engineers letter just says in 2.1 um that the intent of this minor subdivision and lot line adjustment is to provide larger backyards for the existing lots on Ohio Street. No additional primary buildings are intended to be constructed on these
pieces being offered to sale. That is correct. Okay. Any other questions from the board? Chairman. Yes. U Miss Abwell, do you have uh uh informal agreements with your neighbors for the purchase of these lots? Yes, I
do. They're actually here. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Questions from the public? Yeah. Uh you would need to uh approach uh I guess this mic here. Um we'll just need
your name and address for the record. And then just the question to Mrs. Adwell. My name is Cheryl Walker and I live at 269 Oricon Street in Vox Hall. I just want to ask for those two lots that you
are asking to purchase or the beautiful lights or are you just moving your backyard back further? No, my backyard is 382 feet straight back. The properties that run along Ohio Street, my property is approximately six
houses deep. Yes. The backyards of those houses, they don't exist. They may have 10, 15 feet. That's all they have. So the purpose is so that they can go and have a cookout and enjoy their family and have, you know, have an opportunity to stretch out
a little bit. Okay. But I'm not purchasing them. I'm actually providing them for my neighbors. Oh, okay. I got it. Because that those backyards, those lots run on Oregon Street, our backyard, and then there's a lot that runs between our backyard and
then the next lot that runs between that backyard, and then it's Ohio Street and their backyards. So, you're just asking those two empty parallel lots. You're just asking to open that up. When you look at Oregon Street, that's an entirely separate lot, right?
My lot doesn't run all the way over to Oregon. No, it doesn't. No. No, it doesn't. From the backyard of where I live, there's that strip of land. A house is there. Then there's another strip of land that I think runs in back of probably your house.
That's on the other side of my lot. Yes. And then there's another strip that you get to all higher street. So just wanted to get clarity that it's not development or anything. It's just matter of I guess open and accessibility. It's the ability for the neighbors to have a backyard. Okay, that's
got it. Just wanted to check wanted to make sure we weren't having any construction going on. No one had to come across the land. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions from the public? Okay. Hearing none. Comments from the board,
comments from the public. Can I get a motion to approve application 2025-18 7, please? Move that, Mr. Alexander. Go ahead, Mr. Miller. Right. Sorry. You want to second that?
I will second. Okay. Moved by Mr. Miller, seconded by Mrs. Perkins. Roll call, please. M. Perkins. Mr. Mr. Alexander, yes. Mr. Cohan, yes. Mr. Frame, yes. Mr. Miller, yes. Miss Perkins, yes.
Committeewoman Frasier, yes. Committeewoman Terrell, yes. Chairman Lelay, yes. Thank you. Thank you all. Have a great evening. You too. All right. With no further business, can I get a motion to adjurnn, please? Moved by Mr. Fra. Is there a second?
Second. Seconded by Mr. Alexander. All those in favor say I. I. I. Meaning your turn. Poor lady sat there kind of let sit there. We said every week.