Yeah. >> Okay. Welcome to tonight's meeting of the zoning board of adjustment of the township of union which is being held pursuant to the open public meeting law C231 laws of New Jersey dated 1975.
Notice of this meeting has been posted in the local source in the newspaper of record and notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the municipal building adjacent to the municipal clerk's office. Roll call. >> Mr. Mr. Wy >> here.
>> Miss Martins is absent. Mr. Bentega is absent. Miss Scott >> here. >> Mr. McNeel is absent. Miss Little >> here. >> Mr. Graves >> here. >> Miss Ricketts >> here. >> And Mr. Champion >> here. There being a quorum present, this meeting is now declared open. At this
time, I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes from our January 28th meeting. May I have a motion and a second? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that the meeting minutes of January 28th, 2026 be approved as written and dispensed with
their reading. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> opposed. So moved. >> Are there any communications? >> Uh there are no communications. >> Hearing none, we'll continue with tonight's meeting.
Our first order of business this evening will be the adoption of a resolution for Addteris Adternis Construction LLC calendar number 3464. Location is 20 Windsor Avenue block 4803
lot 24. Applicant wishes to construct a two family dwelling with insufficient setbacks and lot depth. At this at this time, you've all had a chance to read the resolution.
Are there any board members that would like to make changes, comments, or modifi modifications to this resolution as it has been written? Hearing none, may I have a motion and a second to adopt the resolution? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that this board
adopt the resolution as written and as accurately memorializing the previous findings of this board. >> Second. Roll call. >> Mr. Wy, >> yes. >> Miss Scott, >> yes. >> Miss Little, >> yes. >> Mr. Champion,
>> yes. >> Our next order of business this evening is calendar number 3463 CRF Development LLC. Location is 1307 Stason Avenue, block 2210, lot 41. Applicant wishes to construct a
three-story. I believe now it's a 12unit residential building. >> Correct. Mr. Chairman, >> councelor, would you like to begin? >> Yes, please. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, professionals, attorney Rosemary Stone Dowy with the
law firm of AY Strauss. Here tonight on behalf of the applicant, CRF Development LLC. We're here tonight on the property located at 1307 Stson Avenue, also known as block 2210, lot 41, located in the DT
downtown transition zone. Just to give the board a quick little summary and a road map of our plan presentation here this evening. Um, as the board members are probably aware from the application packet that I submitted, originally we had a application for a mixeduse
property that did have one hearing in front of the planning board back on April 24th, 2025. That mixeduse building had been 14 residential units, 10 one-bedroom/studio, four twobedroom, and over 1,000 square
ft of retail space located on the first floor, which is encouraged under the DT transition zone. However, at that meeting, there were also some bulk variances that were required with being over on building coverage, being over
over on impervious coverage, and also being short on parking as well as waiverss for parking as to the width of the parking spaces being 8 ft instead of 9 ft. tandem parking proposed and also only having a 1-oot buffer which exists
today um from the adjacent residential property. However, at that meeting there were several members of the public that were in attendance. We carried that meeting. Since then, since again April of 2025, almost a little over almost a
little under a year, there have been several meetings with several of the residents, particularly the residents that are immediately adjacent and closest to the property, as well as several other members along Maryanne Way who all expressed serious concerns about
having any retail use in any building even though it is permitted under the DT zone. So with that being said, we went back to the planning board with literally right not to the planning board. Um and we went back and we looked at what can we do to make this project
better. And that's through conversations um and revisions and changes based on review letters and comments that we have received. We're coming to your board now asking for a D1 use variance because now we are purely a residential building. We
do only have one unit located on the first floor that was done strategically to comply with ADA. Otherwise, the first floor is amenity space and we've eliminated the variances with exception of imperous coverage, which you'll hear
in the engineers testimony why we're slightly over on impervious coverage. We reduced it from 6.9 to 5.2 over. We eliminated all tandem parking spots. We reduced the number of residential units completely. Eliminated the retail.
Reduced the building footprint to make it comply. And again, we also moved the parking spaces that are currently 1 ft away from the adjacent neighbor to now 5.3 ft away. We added a no right turn
exiting the property at the request of the neighbors who live on Maryanne way who don't want any accidental traffic coming down their culdeac. We eliminated the ingress egress off styent. We're putting another very valuable on street
parking space back onto styent and we really bolstered up the landscaping plan significantly. And we also understand there's a current streetscape design ordinance that's pending which you'll hear in testimony tonight that the applicant would fully comply with if the
board were to grant approval. With that being said, that's just a quick rundown. I have with me tonight three professionals. I have Mr. Giovani Manilo. He is our engineer from Mantara Design. I plan on calling him first to give an overlay of the site. Then we
have Mr. Paulo Dantis of Dantis Carter. He is our architect and he will discuss the building plan. And then lastly, we have Alexander Dowardy who is our professional planner who will hopefully tie this all together assuming how we proceed tonight. So with that being
said, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call our first professional. I don't know if you prefer to swear them in one at a time or >> Yeah, I'll swear them in. This is Rob Pansul, the board attorney. For the record, I did mark uh the materials and and I know we had an original app, but
but what I did is mark the amendments as they came in. So, uh A1 is the amended application as it was submitted. Uh A2 is the one-page survey. A3 is the revised site plan which was revised through January of 2026 that consists of
seven sheets. So, the current site plan is marked A3. A4 are the architectural plans which consist of five sheets. They also were revised through January 7th of 2026. A5 is the storm water detention calculations. A6 is the sanitary sore
assessment and A7 is the environmental impact statement which had revisions as well through June of 2025. So we have A1 through A7 marked. As part of the record, can I ask the witness to swear or affirm that the testimony you provide this evening is the truth and the whole
truth? >> I do. >> And for the record, could you state and spell your name with your affiliation? >> Sure. Uh name is Giovani. G I V A N I. Last name Manilio. M A N I L I O. Um civil engineer and owner of M Tower
Design, the engineer for the project. >> Thank you, Mr. Manilo. all your credentials and licenses are up to date. I know you've been before this board. >> Uh yes, sir. >> Okay, we'll accept his credentials. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manilo, just by way of background, you've had the opportunity to visit the
site in question on numerous occasions, correct? >> Uh, correct. >> Okay. And you prepared the plan that was already marked by um board counsel as A3. >> That is correct. >> And that's what you're showing up on the screen right now, correct? >> Yes. And we do have two exhibits that
I'm going to introduce tonight as well. Do you want me to introduce him now or wait until we get to testimony? >> Um, I I would say let's just wait till you get to testimony unless board council would prefer to mark them now. >> We'll cross the bridge as if we don't do it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> We're going to get to the first one now.
>> Okay. Okay. Well, why don't we start with uh why don't you give an overview of what exists on the property today? >> So, yeah. I'm going to go to my first exhibit which is entitled 1307 Styson Avenue exhibit uh with a date of A8.
a date of January 28, 2026. Uh so it's a general uh aerial of the vicinity of the site. The site is highlighted in yellow as seen in the middle of the screen uh with the uh zoning shown as well in
the surrounding area. Uh so as mentioned earlier uh it's known as 1307 Styson Avenue block 2210 lot uh 41 which is located DT uh downtown transition zone as you can see here. So that's this whole entire area right here where my
cursor is is the DT zone. Uh to the uh north you have the NC neighborhood uh zone and to the south you have the DC zone and then on either side of that DT zone you have the RA which is the residential zone. Um, as you can see that the lot is um surrounded by uh both
residential and commercial uses. Um, the site itself is is slightly trapezoidal. Um, it's not a perfect rectangle. It has a lot area of 12,652 square feet or about.3 acres. Uh, so currently on the site was the old WER
building. Um, so as you can see here, that was a two and a half story uh, building for a real estate um, agent. Uh there was a and there still is a parking lot in the rear for 15 parking spaces. Um the house itself, so if you know the site, the site kind of slopes up to where the building is and the
building is actually on the highest part of the um property. As I get into my testimony, you'll see that the new building will be lowering the grade uh along that area and dropping that grade. So um for the neighbors is actually going to be a little lower. Um currently there is a couple of
pre-existing non-conformities. one being the um lot width of this the site and other is the design um exceptions for being too close to the property lines. Um currently it's about actually I think it's zero ft from the property line for the park and the driveways.
Uh next exhibit I'm going to introduce is entitled 1307 Styson Avenue site rendering with a date of January 28th, 2026. Um so this is essentially the site plan that was submitted uh colored so it's a little easier to follow what's being proposed. Um, and it also shows as
well. Uh, so >> so hold on one minute, Mr. Manilo. >> A9 for the >> uh so what's being proposed is a three-story multif family building with a total of 12 residential units uh consisting of seven one-bedroom units and five two-bedroom units. Uh the dark
brown represents the uh the the building or the main floor of the of the building. As you can see, it's it's it's close to uh Styverson Avenue and Maryanne Way uh as far as setbacks concerned, but that does comply with the setback requirements. Um and hard to see
here, but the um light blue actually represents the um the overhang of the upper second and third stories as well. Uh the existing driveway that was on Styson will be closed up uh which will result in one additional space that's available on Styson Avenue for parallel
parking. Um it's not we didn't take in account when we did our our parking analysis on the uh zoning table. Uh but there is one additional parking space that is going to be resulted by that. Uh so the way that the site worked now uh that entrance off of Stipson was a oneway in and then on Marian Way was a
two-way um driveway an ingress and egress and essentially we're getting rid of that Stipson Avenue uh driveway but keeping this the Marian way one uh and shifting it over a couple feet so it's essentially in the same location but moving a couple feet to uh better fit the site and the uh layout of the
parking lot. As mentioned earlier, we are going to have a sign at the driveway of Marian Way uh saying no right turn. So, it's going to make sure that all uh traveling public goes to the left. Uh the good thing about this is it's not a commercial or retail site. Uh it's an
apartment or multif family site. Uh so all the residents know the area once they move in. Uh so they're going to know not to make a right on Marian way because they're not going to be able to get out that way. If this was retail and then a customer came in, sometimes we'll make that right and they would be an issue for the um residents. But again,
these are people that know the location, they won't come in and out um as normal as a routine for them. >> And Mr. Manella, before you switch the play um the uh page, can you move up on the exhibit to show the um portion of the building along the Styus Avenue
elevation? >> Correct. So that's this area too. that's that's well landscaped along that front edge. Um and also mentioned earlier, not shown on this exhibit, um there is plans for a streetcape improvement um along this portion of Styson and the applicant has no issues complying with that and making sure that that streetscape is
implemented as part of this project. >> Okay. And Mr. Mel, also one of the variances we have is on imperous coverage. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. And with the trapezoidal design of the site, it made it a little bit challenging as far as how the building
and the parking would lay out. Correct. >> Correct. The parking wants to be um rectangular um to fit a parking and a building essentially would like to be rectangular as well. It's the most efficient way to lay out a building. Um but just being on Styson, the whole point of of being in the DT zone is to
have uh a good frontage along the main uh thoroughare over there. Uh so that's what the architect did and they they utilized that by having building all along the frontage. Uh so it essentially becomes a downtown type of of building >> and that it obviously generates a little more impervious as it's not as efficient
as a rectangle. >> Now I just want to touch on this one variant with you and then we'll hear it again with the architect and the planner. There was a look at possibly trimming the front of the building, correct? And not have it follow styent, which would have eliminated the
impervious coverage requirement. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And it really wouldn't have changed number of units or any counts because as you'll hear with the architect's testimony, these are actually pretty largeiz units. Correct. >> Uh that is correct. >> So can you kind of show the board with
your mouse like what we were talking about cutting off on the building? um and why it was the opinion of the team to leave that to follow the streetscape >> again. So yeah, so this corner or this triangle portion of the building could
be eliminated uh to make way for um the overage on the impervious coverage. But again, as you can see, even the neighboring property, they're all along and parallel to the front property line. Again, it made more sense um for our property to do the same. Um, I also do want to note we didn't get to the storm water yet, but we do have a storm water
system as part of this project that's actually uh per uh Mr. Dave's review. It's actually oversized uh per these town ordinance. So, um even though we're over on purpose, we have an oversized storm water system that will capture any increasing improvements. >> Okay. But just going back for a moment
on the streetscape, that is the streetscape when you designed the uh layout to have the building follow not only the property adjacent to us, but also further down as far as how they front along Styson and how they follow
the street. Correct. >> Correct. And you can see it here how all these properties um have the same parallel and even the Wiper building itself has a parallel just set back a little further. >> Thank you. Can can I just ask I don't like to jump in Rosemary but but we're
going forward with what amounts to an amended site plan as it were based on the history that your attorney gave from the planning board time to the original submission here and now we're here with an amended submission here. Can you just
spend a moment addressing what exists on the site and how it relates to what you're looking to change it to because it seems to me that that's relevant for the board to consider uh especially in the D1 context. So I I think it's it should be
uh started with the notion of what is there by way of a structure and how it compares to what it is you're proposing to do. >> Uh sure. So I I think I did touch on what's there or what was there was a two and a half story wer the old wer building. Uh so I'll break it down a little bit further and I have the
existing conditions of the site plans that were submitted. Uh so shown here where my cursor is is the two and a half story uh building like I mentioned earlier as the way that the site grades uh from the corner of Styson Marianne it actually grades up to where the building is. of the building is elevated compared
to Styson. Um, and there's an existing driveway uh, ingress only off of Styson shown here where my cursor is. And the driveway goes around the building and then there's a parking lot, sorry, in the rear of um, with 15 parking spaces. And then as you get to Marian Way,
that's an ingress and egress driveway. So you have essentially the same size of actually maybe a little larger uh, parking lot. you see on the right uh in comparison what the parking lot is compared to what's out there today. Um and then the building itself is is going to occupy this portion of the uh the
property which is the front portion along Slavson. Um >> but that that ties into some of the expansion of the impervious area correct from what exists there now to what you're proposing to do. >> Correct. And you can see here the existing parking lot um touches the
property line to the the neighbor to the east and new. >> No, I understand you referenced it, but that that to me, I think, is important for the board who's familiar with the site, but but the context of what exists now to what you're proposing to do, it
it adds to the facts as it relates to the impervious coverage tied into your D1 variant. So, that that's what I wanted to make sure was clear in the record. Thanks. >> You're welcome. >> Uh so, just going back to A9, which is the site rendering. Um the architect will go a little more detail about
what's being proposed in the building, but I do want to just touch on a couple items uh as it relates to the site. I'll zoom in a little bit. Uh so as mentioned, we do have one apartment um on the ground floor which will be ADA accessible showing here where my cursor is. Uh we do have a lobby and amenity
space located in the middle of the building. Uh there'll be built entrances from the rear parking lot and also uh access from Stson to allow um the residents to to walk that corridor as well a little more easier. Uh we do have
space for a management office and then in the rear is the uh refuge area which is located inside the building. uh and during trash pickup and and recycling pickup, those will be wheeled out and and picked up by the um private hauler and then brought back in uh by by
property vans as well. As mentioned earlier, the driveway is going to be closed along Styverson, adding one more parking spot. Uh we are proposing uh in the rear 18 physical parking spaces, so three more than what's existing out there today. Uh
and of those 18 parking spaces uh one of them will be ADA complying with the handicap requirements for ADA parking spaces and we are proposing uh three EV parking spaces again which comply with the requirements from from the state mandated ordinance for EV. Um and the
way that works is you have to make them actually you have to install one spot uh at the time of CO one additional spot within three years of your CO and then the third spot has to be installed within six years of your CEO. So you have to make sure that they're they're equipped they have the conduit and have
the cap capacity to to have an EV charger placed in those spaces. Um, and some of the obviously, uh, nobody here was at the planning board meeting, but some of the concerns we have from the fire official and the planning board was originally the EV was underneath the
canopy of the upper floors. So, this new plan, we eliminated that. So, all the EV park spaces have open air above them. They're not underneath the building for fire issues or fire concerns. Uh so the way that the state uh actually
has a mandate as far as how many EV parking spaces are required for a site they also provide you a credit um so by planting or placing an EV parking space you get a two for one credit on those parking spaces up to 10% of of the parking spaces. So essentially even
though we have 18 physical parking spaces out of the state code we actually provide 20 parking spaces for this facility. Um I know there was actually some I think uh might have been a comment from the the board engineer about number of parking spaces required say that 22 parking spaces are required
per the town ordinance. Um so I'm not sure if it's actually required. If you read the ordinance, um there is an exception there. It says except as otherwise provided in this chapter for all new buildings or uses or additions to existing buildings or uses in all zone districts except downtown
core and downtown transition district as described herein. There shall be provided a number of park spaces required for the specific use. So the way that's read is that or we interpret it is that it's required for the um all the zones except for downtown
transition district. uh we are in the downtown transition district. Um so we believe that the parking requirements in the minimum or in the town code uh doesn't apply here. Um they also state RSIS is another uh way of of calculating
parking. So if you read RSIS again RSI doesn't say how many parking spaces you need. It tells you how many maximum parking spaces can be requested by a board by by municipality. uh that calculation like I said it actually comes out to I believe 21.5. So
if you take RSIS or the town code um we will be short 1.5 spaces but again I don't believe it's a variance of the way that the the code is written. Um and if we want to go a little more detail if the board has concerns about the parking um we could go into a little more detail. Our office also did do a parking
study. Uh so we did walk um Stson along that downtown uh transition area. Um and we did do a parking and see how many available parking spaces are there during the PM peak hours and weekends when um the parking will be utilized the most by the residents. >> When you say your office did a parking
analysis, are you the witness who is going to support that data? Yes. >> Cuz I didn't mark anything by way of a parking analysis and you know the the Collier's report is clear about what it's saying. you're explaining it, but but the way it's written, at least as to me as the
lawyer, and I have to educate the board on this, suggests that there's a deficiency on what's expected there by way of parking. Correct. 22 is what they're looking for. 20 is what you have. >> That's what I think Mr. Nab wrote, but I don't know if that's the way the ordinance is written as far as the
downtown transition area. Did you follow up at all with him since the issuance of the report to try to get an idea of why he feels that it's non-compliant and you're saying that it should be compliant or deemed compliant? >> I that's a problem as you can imagine. >> Yep. No, I haven't reached out to Mr.
Dave on >> but just for clarity of record, Mr. Davi actually did not write the report. >> Your team has had several conversations with Mr. Davi going back from the planning board to now. Correct. The report was actually issued by >> Joe Venezia.
And so there has not been any communication with Mr. Venzia. It's all been with Mr. Davi. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> No, but I you know I still I raise it as a concern because you're you're you're kind of glossed over. You offered an
explanation. I'll grant you that. But the board is driven by its professionals at least in the first instance for sure. and and right now the way it's teed up is I think Kers is wrong. Therefore, you should allow us to do what I'm saying
and not what they're saying. That's a problem. As I said, you know, I think I need some clarity from Collers if nothing else um to try to address that discrepancy. The EV calculations notwithstanding, it seems to me there's a shortage of two giving you the credit.
Right. That that's fair to say. >> Correct. And I could give you additional testim like I said as far as the parking slay that we did do. uh along that that corridor as well. >> Well, I do think we should add that testimony because the way I read the memo that was provided, it actually says in bold testimony should be provided
clarifying same which is what um we're trying to do at this point uh board council as far as you know what it is our position that it is not a variance under the DT zone. Um we can certainly
you know he he read the uh section of the ordinance on the record and uh we'll go through the uh parking counts and parking study analysis that was done >> it by by someone else though correct not you is >> no our office did the parking study >> oh it was you okay I I but we haven't
submitted the data right we don't have that correct information >> we did not submit the data >> I mean I I would suggest that leaping to other stages of the engineering testimony before we have that issue squared away almost seems like a a fault that we would approach it that way. Um
because it's in bold and it's highlighted and it's a variance that we're kind of juggling as it were and we're looking to move on and I don't know how we could I mean I'm not clear as I sit whether Collier is right or your engineer is right but I think this
board needs clarity on that issue. Um, I don't know the best way to consider that at this point, but >> I mean, in all due respect, council, we had many discussions with Mr. Davi after
the planning board. Um, there was a similar comment in his previous review letter in front of the planning board and it was our understanding that the DT transition zone doesn't have an actual requirement. It has suggested
recommendations that are applicable to other zones when you read the way the ordinance is, but we could certainly, you know, ask them to do a follow-up memo or report. >> Well, I mean, I'm I appreciate your explanation, but the thing that's
lacking is any continuity with this board. You're mentioning the planning board and you're mentioning conversations that your professionals had with our professionals. I as the board attorney and this board has a void to fill and tonight we're starting a hearing with this huge void
that you could fall into in my opinion and I don't know how >> no understood and I mean it is a little disappointing that um the board engineer couldn't be with us this evening because that was >> yeah he attends the planning board meetings he does not attend here unless we need him you know or if it was alerted to have him subpoenaed we could
do that to us right so I mean >> I mean it's rare that we do that because normally We don't deviate. I mean, because this is the zoning board and not the planning board and this board considers D1 use variance the significance of which you understand. This board certainly
understands it. It's hard to gloss over in my and I'm not suggesting that the engineer was flipper or anything. Believe me, I'm I'm just I'm reacting because I'm hearing it for the first time. >> No, understood. And part of the conversation that I had with Mr. Davi is that if he feels he needs to attend, he
also reaches out to the board as well. >> I I think what has to happen is was we need a supplement to nip this issue in the bud now from Kyer. So I'm you mentioned Vince. I don't know if Vince works with Joe Venia.
>> Yes, he he works with >> Maybe they're in agreement with your professionals ultimately. I I heard what he read, but I can't overlook until I research it further and and deal with it with Congress of why they're so adamant and bold to suggest that they're not in
agreement that there's a deficiency for the required parking by two, you know, which the I do know and it's not so much this board, but the planning board has a number of major residential projects going on in and around the downtown area. And one of the things
that are being highlighted townwide is analysis of traffic, parking, congestion. So, it's a very relevant topic and one that I can't gloss over and sit here and suggest that uh this board would even be wise to consider glossing over it for in a D1 context. Uh
that that's my reaction to what I've heard so far. And I didn't mean to cut you off. Uh I know it's your witness, but >> No, understood. I think it's a it's a hurdle. >> I mean at at this point in time council I mean if we have to argue in the alternative we could request the
variance for parking. >> Well I mean that's I I can't see how you cannot and that's my concern. So that's another variance that you're seeking in the D1 context with the coverage >> right with the >> and with the width in the park. >> Yeah. When the width is pre-existing I
get it. But a pre-existing deficiency of a width still is factored in by this board in the D1 context. I mean, if the site isn't wide enough to contain what you're proposing to do, then in in my history and opinion, maybe this site isn't
suitable for what you're looking to do. I mean, that's it's not simply, oh, it's it's it's not wide enough. Everyone suffers from that deficiency. Well, not when you're putting 12 units on it. Maybe you don't put 12 units. and the impact from that with deficiency becomes less of an issue. I mean that I'm just
talking out loud, but that's why I think it's important. >> I've been I mean obviously we haven't gotten to the point where we've had our professional planners test provide his opinion as a planner in that aspect >> and you speak to Oh, you better get closer.
>> Speak to it was me. I should say I'm trying not to >> I'm trying not to zone you. >> I didn't see anybody back there. I'm so sorry. Um now I can't see your Sorry. I'm trying not to be rude. Um, >> you can take it off the >> It comes off. >> No, I heard you.
>> Um, is what I was going to say is um, you know, in regards to the width, I I understand that the board obviously under a D1 use variance is going to factor all of the conditions in the application as a whole. It's their duty as a board to do that. Um certainly when
you look at things about width, there's other things too that can trigger concerns like if there's sideyard setbacks, rear yard, front yard setbacks, etc., which this application doesn't have. But in fairness, um at this point in time, you know, until the
planner has an opportunity to put on his proofs and opinion, I understand council your concern and your concern for the board. I'd like to see if we can get through the engineering a little further and then maybe circle back to those concerns. Well, like I said, I mean, it's a concern and I just don't want to
waste everybody's time. The other variable that I'm thinking is we have six members tonight. We didn't say it publicly. We spoke beforehand. >> Yes, >> it's a D. You need five votes. So, correct. One of my concerns in that regard
is you have the right to reserve to have a full complement of members. This case has a life not through any fault of yours, >> right? >> It's been carried quite a few times. there is some public here as well. Um, but what I don't want to see and set up,
it's not going to be voted on or completed tonight. There's no doubt. Jumping right to that issue. >> I don't like to tee up too much information for board members that aren't here to then have to go to try to review and certify to be able to even participate in the continuation date.
That that's I don't want to get too far ahead of ourselves in that regard. And I understand that and that's a valid concern. And in fairness to our client, the applicant, that's one of the reasons we were carried previously on a similar concern because of the being able to have enough board members. And there's
no guarantee the next hearing we have enough board members either or the next one. At some point, we'll either have to pull the trigger or we're going to have to hope that, you know, we could drive and pick everybody up and nobody has any plans. >> No, understand. I'm not drawing fault to anybody but
>> the difference in my mind >> with the applicant driven adjournments in the past not only the lack of members I think that was only once >> right but before too if you recall we renoticed when there was a conflict for you council and that renotice was actually just done in December
>> but what what has happened driven by the applicant is there has been changes to the plans it's not simply >> that this is being adjourned adjourned adjourned because the board's not here we have a full and I didn't even mark the original submission because it's changed >> right >> the renotice probably was legitimate in
that regard quite frankly and and over abundance of caution better that we renotic quite frankly uh I don't know if there's objectors out there or not but just from all our perspective applicant and board notice is the cornerstone of what we do so I'm I'm comfortable that it had to be renoticed I know there's an
expense and a delay >> no we weren't saying it that way council I was just saying it hasn't been carried as many times as you might recall because we did do the renotice. Okay, that's fair. December, um that's all I was pointing out with that. And I would just make the comment that um the
applicant hasn't been, you know, just carrying to carry. anytime there's been a carry whether on our side or other sides due to scheduling issues the applicant has used that every single time to look explore
work with the um professionals and see as you said ways to make the application better and better and better. Um, so it has >> and I don't doubt that. But you know the void that's not being filled tonight as we sit is a lot of that information we
don't have. This board doesn't I imagine some of it is going to come through the microphones tonight. But this issue in particular just struck me as he was testifying because we were moving on from parking to site plan other site plan issues which you know I just have a
concern uh in that regard. >> I don't know if any board members or anybody else has a comment on them. >> Any board members want to comment? >> But we only have >> You want to make a comment?
So, Mr. Chairman, if I may, and don't want to be rude, uh, council, I spoke to, uh, my, uh, clients. Um, is what we'd ask then is one additional carry with no notice. Since we did renotice in December, we'll go back to um, Mr.
Donabi or Mr. I'm going to butcher his poor name, Mr. VNIA and ask for clarification on the parking variance issue so that can be resolved before we come back to this board and >> I think that makes sense
>> and if I may council if there's any other large issue that you already from review would tell us you know or direct us to have the engineer address I'd like to go back to them with the whole wish
list if they are unable to come to the meeting or if the board you know scheduling um whatever the case may be just so >> engineering wise >> I mean the the difference in zoning board as compared to planning is we normally don't have the engineer here >> no understood understood that's why I'm
saying >> I reacted to it because the way the testimony went in is Collers is wrong and we're right >> and that's a problem as I sit for this board because I'm not sure I agree with the engineer or collers at this point I
need more of information from both of them, you know, as the lawyer, >> right? >> And I don't have it because I'm not in I wasn't >> an opportunity to reread the >> right. I didn't participate in those meetings, nor was I consulted, nor was I asked to weigh in on any of it. So, I'm sitting here tonight and hearing it for
the first time. >> Understood. Understood. >> I mean, I read the report. I assume that the applicant said, "Oh, yeah, Collier is right. You know, we're we're short two parking spaces and we need a variance." You know, that's the way I read Kier's report. And unless Collier
comes back and says, "We met with the applicants engineer," and they're right, then this report needs to be amended. >> Understood. >> For this board to be able to vote, you know, and that's that's my reaction. >> Okay. >> I mean, were you planning to get a vote
tonight with six? I mean, that's the other variable here. I know it's it's it's another consideration for us tonight and I don't want to waste time as a not that this is a waste of time. I I don't want to go through the process more than once. >> Well, the problem is I can't even now
answer that because if we're already at this point we are now. I mean the hope was originally when we carried to this date that we would have seven members here. Obviously life happens. We know that you're all volunteers and we appreciate your time. No, we had seven
up until shortly before the meeting. So I think it might have been illness driven unfortunately which >> understood zero control here. That's why he keeps stepping out with the temperature tonight. But >> yeah, no, we had nine last week. So I mean it's >> understand understood. Um you know, but
the other issue was I didn't know timing wise with board cut off of testimony if I would even get to the point between the professionals that I'd even be to the point of possibly calling for a vote or not. Um, you know, so I I I can't even at this point. Hindsight's 2020.
>> Yeah. No, I know. And I'm hitting you kind of blindsided. >> Wouldn't have gotten that far. >> I I appreciate that cuz I >> it is a blind side of sorts. I mean, coming from the lawyer, especially, I don't like to participate to this level unless something needs to be raised by me and I felt this was important enough
for me to raise. >> Understood. >> So, if we may, Mr. Chairman, >> do you have some kind of date in mind or? >> Yeah, I mean, let's start there for you guys. Make sure your people are >> Yeah, I mean, >> um I know we're looking at March, right? Because I'm already here on March 4th
for something other than this. >> Yeah. >> What date? >> March 18th. March 25th. >> I know March 25th doesn't work, right? Hold on. >> So, Mark that down
tonight's meeting. We're going to carry it to continue hearing on a date that we give and carry without with no notice. >> Good for you. >> Good for you. Okay. March 25th it is.
>> Okay. I'm gonna Will just so we're clear, Rosemary. Um >> March 25th, >> we Anthony, who is the board secretary, not only the zoning officer, >> yes, >> will follow up based on tonight's testimony to ensure that we either get a written response. Yes, they're right and
we're okay with it. Or no, they're wrong and here's why. >> If we need to subpoena him here, we could arrange that if needed. But I I think in the first instance, we need an answer >> him. But if you if you if you like Anthony um Mr. Sorry.
>> That's okay. That's quite all right. >> I will um send you over that section of the ordinance and just kind of recap conversations that our team had regarding the DT because we did ask for clarity on the ordinance previously. So,
>> and put it in an email form and I will make sure that he sees that email and we have a discussion over it and then I'll reply back or I'll have him reply back to an email. This is the first session that we actually started too. So, to the extent we have three board members not
here tonight, they will have the opportunity to at least review the startup, you know, all of whatever it is almost an hour uh that will be certified to have them eligible. So, that's at least something I know. one uh two are on vacation so they would they'll be
able to fulfill that uh service. >> All right. >> So, Mr. Chairman, unless any board members have reaction to what they heard or even uh questions, >> any comments by any board members at this time, >> it looks like an adjournment to March
25th would be an order to supplement again the record >> and carry without notice. Right. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, at this time, I'm going to ask for a motion in a second to adjourn tonight's meeting uh for calendar number 3463, CRF
Development LLC. We're going to carry it till March 25th and will be without notice. Can I have a motion in a second? >> I assume the applicant would wave time constraints to realize the adjournment. >> Yes, we consent to be carried for decision to act by March 26.
If you'd like, I can put that in writing to Miss Bronte's as well. >> So noted. >> All right. So we will adjourn the meeting carry with no notice or continue hearing to March 25th, 2026, 7:30 p.m.
>> Second. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Wy, >> yes. >> Miss Scott, >> yes. >> Miss Little, >> yes. >> Mr. Graves, >> yes. >> Miss Ricketts, >> yes. >> Mr. Champion, >> yes. >> Thank you again. For the benefit of the public,
the meeting will be held on March the 25th in this room at 7:30 and it be you will get no notice. Just want to make that clear. Can I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn.
>> Second. >> All in favor? I >> opposed.