[Music] of the Township of Washington Planning Board. Adequate notice of the meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings acted by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on January 3rd, 2025. And this meeting has been posted on the Township Bolton board
electronic message board WCTV and on the township website. >> Thank you, Grace. to the flag to the flag of the United States of Americ [Music]
>> here. >> Mr. Murphy is absent. Mr. Pledo >> here. >> Mr. Tulle >> here. >> Mr. Toro >> here. >> Mr. Wransky is absent. Councilman Alman >> here. >> Mayor Kari >> here. >> Chairman Z >> here.
>> Let the record reflect also in attendance our attorney Lulu Lamatina, engineer Paul Aelina, and board secretary Grace Cage. >> Thank you. Can you please read the public portion? >> To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the link below to join the webinar. You will be asked to state your name for the
record and we ask that only one person speak at a time. This public comment portion is only for non-aggenda items. Time is set aside later in the meeting to address questions or comments about current agenda items. If you are participating by phone, press star I to raise your hand and star six to unmute.
At the end of the general public portion, no further general questions or comments will be accepted. >> Thank you. Do we have a motion to open the public portion? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? Hi. >> Hi. >> Hi.
>> Uh, there is no one in the audience this evening. Do we have anyone on video that would like to make a comment? >> No one is in the comments. >> Okay, we have no no comments from the video. Do I have a motion to close the
public portion? >> So moved. >> I'll second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> Okay, on to new business. The um application uh that was supposed to be presented
this evening uh has been deferred to a future meeting. >> November 5th. >> November 5th. >> Yeah. Our next meeting. >> Next meeting. And so there is no new business to be discussed uh this evening. going on.
>> The uh attorney has waved the time of decision on the rule and there'll be no further notice of that date for the record. Okay. >> Okay. Also, um has arrived.
>> Okay. Make the record uh show that Mr. Mojinsky is here. >> Excuse me. Um, I didn't understand that he's waving the his right to notice or he doesn't have to notice. >> No, the the time for us to make a
decision. In other words, if I don't know if it expires, we have 120 days to decide the application and if it goes beyond that, he's waiting. >> Thank you. >> Grace, I believe. >> Yes. >> And then there's no further notice like he he's not noticing for the next
meeting. >> Does he have to? No, not announce it at this meeting. >> Thank you. >> Okay, on to old business is the discussion of the DR draft ordinance 25-20
regarding the uh demolition demolition ordinance. As everyone on the board is aware, we have previously approved the demolition ordinance. who went to the mayor and council and then came back to us uh with additional comments that the mayor and council
wanted the planning board to address. Since that communication, there's been a number of meetings between the town administrator, the uh town engineer. Uh, I think Lou, correct me if I'm wrong, you were also involved in some of
the conversation uh in addressing the mayor and council's comments in addition to obtaining uh uh obtaining input from the the town's town's attorney Siobhan
Siobhan Bailey. So based on all the compensations which have occurred and input over the last couple of weeks, uh the draft ordinance that is before the planning board this evening, uh the objective is for the board to review the
draft as it stands today having gone through review and approvals as I just mentioned. Uh so at this point what I'd like to do is solicit the input of my fellow board members as to the
completeness and accuracy of the draft as it stand as it stands this evening. If approved, it will then be sent back to the mayor and council for their review and approval. Council. >> Yes. Uh section one step one
uh the length of existing dwelling at first four floor level. Um is that is there a common understanding of what that means? Meaning is it measured at the like the sill plate? Is it
measured at the top of the first floor? Is it measured a foot from the grade? Just out of curiosity, is that defined uh or how is it defined and does it need to be defined?
Uh the exemption at the bottom of section one uh does not include the task garage, storage, set, gazebo, etc. just um if there is an enclosed porch
that's unconditioned or a threeseason room that's unconditioned, is that part of considered part of the structure or is it not? Uh and then lastly,
you know, I guess the this talks a lot about prior to doing the calculation or prior to the work commencing and if I recall the uh issues some of
the issues we've been dealing with are changes to the plan, expansion of scope, things of that nature. nature. I guess Beach Street and Ridgewood. So unless I miss missed it, is there a
lever here that says if there is a change to the approved that they have to come back to the zoning or plan, you know, the zoning um or
construction uh and say, you know, we found termites and we have to take down another. So, should we put a lever in that requires that? Those were my comments.
>> Okay. So, I guess your your fir your first comment for the exclusions. We could put deck in there as well. >> Uh, right. That would solve that issue that you're the question that you're >> Well, I we probably should include debt.
>> Yeah. I'm agreeing with you saying, >> right, but in the exclusion, >> but should >> enclose portion. How how are those treated? If there is an enclosed porch or a threeseason room, >> well, an enclosed porch has a roof, right? And that's a drainage area,
right? Well, how would you >> would think that would be part of the structure? >> Lou, I think this was your, if I'm not mistaken, didn't you come back to to to the team with some of these changes? >> No, I think uh I'll pause before. I was
going to say Paul >> that's me. Yes. Yes. Basically what I did is I put into words uh the procedure that I had employed when I was doing the building department reviews. And
there is some level of judgment that the zoning officer or the construction official would be making but here it's spelled out what we're talking about. So, uh, I would consider an enclosed porch part of the structure. So, whether
you're measuring it at at the the sill plate or the top plate, it's going to be the the same. >> So, >> um, it really is, I think, simply put is just the perimeter of of of a structure. >> Okay. >> So, not not including the deck, right?
the deck. >> Well, when you said deck, you you're not talking about the >> I'm not talking about it. I'm talking about a a deck that's attached to the side of the house, >> right? No. So, that would not be included because that's not part of uh the bu the building. It doesn't have a
roof. So, the way building is defined in our code >> has a roof. Okay. Well, that's that's your that's your answer right there, right? >> All right. Thank you. >> So, I I believe that this will this will work. uh like any ordinance there there is some uh judgment involved that the
the zoning officer or the construction official will be making and they'll then direct uh the application to the appropriate board. Um so I I think this will work >> in the definition for building that's earlier in in a in the ordinance, right?
>> Correct. That's in our zoning. Okay. >> Yep. in from in your pers from your perspective and maybe it's you know it's not uh within your specific scope but uh
change you know changes to the plan or expansions of the scope would that typically be maybe in some of your other towns that you work with would that be >> really that that's the the construction
official that that's his purview. So he he would have to be aware of you know what the approvals were and then um but that's not to say if you know if it were a planning board application that
we were involved with u but typically if it's at the planning board they're saying they're knocking it down so um there wouldn't be any uh vagory. So, it really would be the zoning board applications or or the direct building department applications that would have,
you know, the potential for for something to um go ary. But, um I think with any ordinance, there's really no such thing as a perfect ordinance that there's always going to be something um you know, if there's some some language
that you wanted to incorporate, I'm I'm sure that uh that that could be accomplished. I mean, >> but that was not brought up. in >> the current review. >> Sure. >> I mean, I don't know what if there are other comments.
>> Any comments? Well, >> I keep saying I look at I say I look at Paul who's much taller than me. I don't know if you noticed that or not. >> Yeah. Well, Paul, so are you comfortable with the way it's written right now that it
addresses councilman's concerns or questions? >> I I believe it does with the exception of the mechanism for for things when they're when they're not done according to the original approval. There's nothing in here that speaks to to that.
>> I I would agree. >> You have section for paragraph E that gives a discussion for official discretion. the event is danger of collapse. So I think when you tell councilman if you have 50% 40% of the the structure going down and they say oh
my goodness if this isn't taken down it's going to fall down call construction code official he says fine and they can take down whatever else they have to take down. If they don't do that they're in violation and it should be something that that's the that's the the trigger where you know they just
can't go beyond what's proof. That's like any application >> understood. how you know I guess and maybe it's not for the the code maybe it's for the process but it it
seemed to me that we've had you know two or three in the last year that have been before the board where the scope has creeped or something has happened and I'm not sure that there is
uh you know, transparent transparency with the applicant or the owner or the, you know, the construction company to let the town know. And, you know, going from, you know, 45 to 55
>> may not result in it uh being a issue of imminent danger or collapse. It may be that, you know, they want to make the uh front entrance, you know, a little bigger. I, you know, it's a it's a what
if, you know, it's a what we've had is people say, well, this wall is so bad, we took it down because it's not viable. I think under this ordinance, you have to contact the construction official to say, hey, come on out here and look at this. He or the he or she then says,
"Yeah, you're right. so long as it'll allow you to take that other 20% down because it's not viable. I think I think that's in there for paragraph E. Paul, do you agree or Luna? You agree with those two? >> You agree with both paragraph E?
>> Well, I I I think that that's understood under the uniform construction code uh that a contractor is obligated to to make the construction official aware of any any changed conditions. Uh so the one thing that I did add to to this
ordinance uh to kind of guard against somebody that um may want to do something under two, it says calculate the total length of any portion or segment of the existing dwelling perimeter requiring its removal on either a temporary or permanent basis to
to guard against somebody that takes down an old wall, puts the new stuff in that very same day. Um, you know, that would be a basis for, you know, when the construction official comes out to do the framing inspection, he can say, "Well, wait a second. This was shown to
be an existing wall and now you've uh changed it out with with new with without notifying him. So, had they observed the the decay and and deterioration, um, they would have called him first and
said, "This is the condition." and then then they would not be in violation if if they got disapproval. So that that's I think sort of addresses what what you're looking for there, Michael. >> Okay. I think you're always going to have bad actors is what you have. You know, some some contractor just go out
and say I don't care. They can find me. I don't care. I'm going to lose $5,000 of my weight. So they're not going to find me. That's what's going to do it. That's what I think we have. You're an ordinance is not going to prevent that. it's a bad actor and they got to be fined and the word's got to be out
there. You just can't ignore the ordinance. As I remember the the reason to do this is because the other ordinance was vague >> where someone came in and couldn't tell what 50% was. Now it's clear crystal clear >> y >> perimeter measure 50%.
>> So I think it I think it it serves the purpose to clarify what 50% >> and the rest it's enforcement. If he does it, if he if he can catch them, you can't catch them. >> But Councilman, I think the three
properties in question, I thought they were, if I'm not mistaken, were they caught by the construction official who went out there with the plans and found saw that >> I think they got called. Some people called, started seeing it, and then they went out there and found out that they had cut down more.
>> Yeah. >> Took down more than they should have. Yeah. Any other comments from >> just just one uh and forgive the question if it's not where it should be. It just came upon me. Uh Paul, would it be reasonable to say if you're
demolishing more than 40%, we we should do an inspection when you're done with the demolition to make sure that you didn't cross into the 50% range? >> Certainly. I mean, if the building department is is able to accommodate
that schedule, >> yes, you could could definitely do it. Um, >> so I I I think once they do the calculations, they they should have an awareness as to, you
know, this guy's at 49.5%, right? >> Maybe you should watch it. >> Yeah. And like L said, you know, it's to catch the bad actors, unfortunately. I have a following question. Thank you, mayor. So, with that, uh, do I have a motion?
>> Wait, Mr. Chairman, I I have a couple things, please. >> Please, Mr. Toro. [Music] demolition. >> Agreed. >> Demolition demolition is a different term.
>> It's is it describing the 50% verse demolition of the whole house? >> Oh, that's a good point. Okay. I I'll leave that to the person who wrote it then. >> Paul, maybe. Oh, that's not me. That's the
Maybe a comma should go in there after destruction, comma, or demolition of 50% or more. >> Or full demi either. >> Or we could say full demolition. Yeah. But I mean de a full demolition is demolition of 50% or more.
>> So if if we need to spell that out, then maybe on the first part it should say full demolition. >> Yep. >> Raising, dismantling, and so on. >> Got it. uh full full demolition. Okay. >> Okay. And then um in step one, the word
the word perimeter is used correctly there. Um the definition of perimeter is um the total length of a of the outside of a two-dimensional uh object. I don't think the word perimeter is used correctly in step two though because
what if part of the demolition are inside walls? Inside walls are technically not calculated as part of a perimeter of an object. I'm not trying to get technical here, right? But
the the proper definition of a perimeter because we talked a lot about surface area in our last meeting. The proper definition of a perimeter is the um total distance around the outside of two of a two-dimensional shape.
Can we get caught up in the technicality if we leave that in there as is and somebody goes and starts knocking down in inside walls and says, "Well, that's not part of the perimeter. We didn't touch the perimeter." >> Can we can we say something like length
along the perimeter of removal? something to that of that home. >> If I may, interior wall demolition was was never part of the the discussion. I mean, that that was not really an issue
for for the board. It was always really the whole house. I mean, as long as you leave >> the perimeter in place, I I don't think the board really cares what you do inside the footprint. So, >> okay,
>> that was my understanding of of you know what everybody's concern was was okay >> coming down as opposed to, you know, somebody making this room bigger than the other. >> So, so taking that an inside wall, we're not concerned with >> correct. Okay.
>> Yeah. All right. >> All right. Understood. Got it. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Toro. Any further comments? None. So, do I get a motion to approve the u the draft ordinance considering
the insertion of the word full before the word demolition in section 1B? >> I'll motion that. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. >> It's improved as consistent with the
master plan, which is what our job is to do. So you're approving the ordinance of that as being consistent with the master plan. >> You need a reot motion on that word. Okay. Just >> Mr. Carol. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pledo.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Tulle. >> Yes. >> Mr. Toro. >> Yes. >> Mr. Wansky. >> Yes. >> Councilman Olman. >> Yes. >> Mayor Kari. >> Yes. Chairman Sabino. >> Yes. Okay. Draft resolution passes. Next
step is to present it to the mayor and council for their review and approval and grace pass and appointed and Susan to get into the agenda for the next mayor and council meeting. Okay. Uh last agenda item for this
evening. Is any board member have any comments? >> Oh, I missed that. Okay. Uh, do we have has everyone does anyone have comments on the September 17, 2025 minutes?
None. >> No. >> Okay. Do we have a motion to approve? Motion. A second. Mr. >> Harold. >> Yes. Mr. Pledo, >> yes. >> Mr. Tulle, >> yes. >> Mr. Toro,
>> yes. >> Mr. Moansky, >> yes. >> Mayor Kari, >> yes. >> Chairman Spina, >> yes. >> Okay, we're done with that. Um, any board member have any issues, comments, concerns?
>> Epiphanies two, please. >> Yeah. Um, just for the board's knowledge, if you didn't see or hear the uh ordinance on
uh parking of boats, of commercial vehicles, RVs, uh was on the agenda and uh was not uh entertained by the council. Uh so it uh is not going
to move forward. Uh just for your information uh they give a reason why >> uh I think there was uh >> we had a lot of people attend that meeting who were not in favor of the changes. >> Mr. P. >> Yes.
>> Yeah. Comments around >> tradesmen that live in our town. >> Okay. and their what the impact the negative impact to their business >> if they were not allowed to park their their tra in the driveway
>> and the shielding uh caused a lot of concern uh as well as the lake association or uh >> or and individuals who are on the lake
uh had concerns because they store their boats on their property. >> Okay. >> Uh so uh it was not brought forward. >> The the second item um do we have a process to identify
uh board members who are not participating at a certain level. and we would look to remove them uh due to their lack of participation.
And the reason I bring that up is it came up in the uh the zoning board uh and they brought a uh they asked the council to hold a hearing. >> Yep. >> Uh because there was a number of
absences by a particular individual. Y >> and I guess my question is do we have a process for that? Do we have a threshold and and do we want one or is it you know
when someone feels that >> chasing us? >> We're almost done. >> When someone feels that uh you know it's become an issue that they raise it to the board. Y >> no and Councilman Alman that question
has come up before and there was in the past you remember May we had one one planning board member who due to work commitments the neither call in called in or nor attended in person and myself and the
mayor spoke and that person that member did resign from the planning board. I think Mr. Pledo, you replaced the person that had had resigned. >> Yes, I >> So, is there a formal process in place? Do we have like a procedure? No, we
don't. But it's something that the mayor and I >> I believe Councilman is referring to if that person refuses to resign also as was the case with the zoning board member, right, Michael? >> Yes. So, it's not I mean, I realize that we had a turnover because of that
recently. This is more, you know, if someone on a a rolling 12 month period doesn't show up at 50% of the meetings and chooses not to resign themselves, you know, do we do we
want something in place or is it, you know, is it so infrequent that, you know, we're just creating a burden uh, you know, an overhead that's not necessary and just address it as is or when if >> yeah I mean my personal view my point of
view is that it's working and I I don't believe we need a formal process or control in place but >> but thank you for raising it. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Okay. Great. I just have one other
>> that it came late. I'm glad you showed because you were on the list. >> Yeah. I've been tracking it. Believe me. >> Yeah. And I'm glad I've been calling from all over the world. >> Believe me, you were close to them. >> I know. I I can imagine. But I just want
to bring the board members up up to speed on one one topic, which is the master plan. So, the committee did meet uh maybe about a week ago with with Joe Burgess. Joe Burgess is making progress on the master plan. And as you know, one
of the major elements of the master plan is the affordable housing plan that he continues to work on along with with uh the mayor, the council to uh uh uh again submit the uh required documentation to
the state and have them review it. So while that process is ongoing, Joe and his team is still working on the master plan. Joe mentioned the meeting that he hopes to have us a draft sometime in early November. And at that
point in time, we will schedule uh public meetings uh on the the draft map. Mayor, anything to add? >> No, you covered it well. >> Okay, great. So, I know it's taken a lot longer than we all anticipated, but uh
Joe's Mr. Burgess's uh firm got bogged down with preparing I think what do you say 50 or 60 >> affordable housing plans >> all his clients in addition to presenting the housing plans to the various
>> and the state has challenged many of them which is taking more of his time. >> Yeah, exactly. So, uh, there's nothing else. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion. All in >> favor? I
>> I >> Thank you. >> Well, good night everyone. >> Good night. Good night.