It is the difference between smaller than this substantial. Okay, we're calling to order. Uh Grace, could you uh read the statement, please? Welcome to the public meeting of July 2nd, 2025 of the Township of Washington
Planning Board. Adequate notice of the meeting was given in accordance with the open public meetings act by the board secretary to at least two newspapers on January 3rd, 2025. And this meeting has been posted on the township board and board electronic message board WCTV and
on the township. Okay, we'll do the salute to the flag, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it standy and justice for all
you want to do the roll call please. Mr. Carol yes here. Mr. Murphy here. Mr. Pledo yes. Mr. Tul here. Mr. Toro is absent. Mr. Weransky here. Councilman Omen here. Mayor Kalomari here. Chairman
Sabino is absent. Let the record reflect. Also in attendance are attorney Lulu Lamatina, engineer Paul Aelina, and board secretary Grace Gish. Okay, Grace, could you read the public portion, please? To participate in the general public portion of the meeting, please click the link below to join the
webinar. You'll be asked to state your name and address 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 9 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. Okay. Can we have a motion to open the public portion of the meeting?
Second. Uh all in favor I I Okay. Um public portion of the meeting is set aside for any comments or questions uh that are not on tonight's uh agenda. Does anybody
have any questions or comments? No one. Nobody's online. Nobody in here. Okay. Uh I guess not. Then um can I have a motion to close the public portion? So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? I I
Okay. Okay. Under new business, there's an application of 663 Burke Street LLC for demolition of an existing house for a new proposed residence to be located at 663 Burke
Street, block 21109, lot two. Um, can I get a motion to open Are you here for 661? Are you here? Are you here for 663? Okay. Okay. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Madam Secretary, counselor,
uh, Mr. Anelina, Charles Sarlo, S L, attorney at law on behalf of the applicant, 663 Burke Street, LLC. This is for block 219 lot 2 with common address of 603 Burke Street. um as the chairman read the um the matter into the
into the record. This is for a retroactive demolition permit as I um understand it and uh the brief history of this particular matter is my client purchased the property was going to do a uh addition to the property. I think it
was it was a a ranch um older ranch and he wanted to make it more modern um retrofit. So, he was going to add a second floor um and an expansion with no variances. Um he did receive a zoning permit at a point in time after he submitted the plans and he got he um and
a um he you know started started to work on on the on that the house um obviously to put a second floor on the roof had to come off. the roof came off as his workers were um you know working. He was not on the site. The um like I said
reported back to him that some of the you know wood beams were rotted in an older house and he you know basically said you know replace them and they said you know we should just remove them all take it down to the foundation and that's what that's what occurred. Um and
then um and rightfully so in accordance with the township ordinance uh the uh zoning officer construction official came out and put a stop order on it um for total total destruction um and you know needing a demolition permit. So um that's you know a re abbreviated
history. Uh just a quick comment on the you know total destruction you may or may not know. So total destruction, it's actually not defined by state law and the municipal land use law actually does not total destruction and every municipality defines it differently.
Some a lot of towns do do 50% some do 50% of the value um and others do it in many different ways. My client is an experienced developer and he works in you know different towns and at the time I get you know whatever he was thinking um but I guess he wasn't thinking about
the 50 more more than 50% you know destruction rule. Uh the other thing is just as an aside in terms of you know how this all came about and you know somewhat of the innocence of it uh is the fact that um you know many as you know many many of the definitions at least you know when I look you know for
defined terms total destruction I'll look in the zoning code I'll look in the definition section um this particular provision 540-84 um is actually in the burrows or the township's uh site plan or land use
development in site plan uh approval and one in two family homes under municipal land use law are exempt from site plan approval. So if you're a if you're a novice, if you're a homeowner and renovating a house, if you're an experienced builder and somebody tells
you and you know that site plan, it's not required under the municipal landing law for one and one and two family homes, that would be the last place you would look for a definition of total total touch. you know, you would typically look in the zoning code in the
definitions. So, you know, with all that um history and um kind of misunderstanding on the part of my client, um it was, you know, flagged by, like I said, by the zoning office, construction official, rightfully so. So, we are here asking for a um retroactive demolition permit in
accordance with 540-84. That particular section really talks about the burrow's interest in protecting trees and storm water runoff. Uh there are no I could uh represent to you. I do have the project architect here John Brychek uh who will testify in
a minute. There are no trees being removed. There is you know a relatively small in addition to the second floor there's a relatively small addition being proposed and um again there was no really intent for um uh total duction
new construction of a of a new house. So it was not designed to have uh new pitch pits for storm water, you know, control. The existing storm water runoff was to remain, you know, on site. It's just almost like a second floor addition. Um but obviously as the events unfolded and
it fell into the definition of total destruction, basically new construction. Uh we do have to now do a storm water um seepage pitch like Mr. Aelenei had pointed out uh in his review letter. Um we do have Mr. as Lane's review letter, dated it June 30th, 2025. Um, I've
reviewed it, my client has reviewed it, Mr. Brych has reviewed it. Um, and we're, you know, basically we can stipulate that we're okay with complying with all those conditions. Um, but with that said, I will call Mr. Bryche to give the the board members the benefit
of really what is um being proposed here on 663 Kirk Avenue and then maybe quickly go through Mr. asini's uh letter and you know confirm that we can can you know address all those comments. So I'd like to have you sworn in Mr. B. Raise your right hand repeated for me to swear
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. So I'll be gone. I do. Briefly state the qualifications. I'm a licensed registered architect in the state of New Jersey uh state of New York. I'm also professional planner in the state of New Jersey. I've been um
licensed since 2008. I have my own practice since 2012 and I've testified um on a monthly basis before numerous boards, planning and zoning boards throughout Northern New Jersey. Okay. Anybody have any objection to
Could you spell your last name, please? Yes, it's spelled B R Y J A K. Thank you. Okay, you may proceed. Okay. So, I'll just take the board through the drawings
that were submitted. Uh, the first drawing is drawing A0.1 and it has a drawing depicted on it. Drawing A proposed site plan and on the site plan we have the property meets and
bounds. The property is 109 ft wide by approximately by 200 ft deep. Um, the gold lines represent the existing structure on the property. It's currently or was a one-story frame
dwelling L-shaped with a few uh with a wood deck and a concrete patio at the rear driveway along the left hand side. And so what this drawing is proposing, it's proposing to remove the existing
wood structure that's on the foundation to allow for the construction of the uh twostory addition and then additions towards the uh left hand side and rear of the structure.
The next drawing is drawing T1.0. Uh the main drawing here is labeled A, which is the site plan. There's also abbreviations for the
uh uh for the other sheets found here, work requirements. It's more for the building department than the planning board here. But again, what's depicted on the site plan is the existing structure is there, the L-shaped
structure. Uh the diagonal hatched represents the second floor addition. The cross-hatching represents the first and second floor additions to the left of the existing structure. And then the hatching going bottom to top along the
right hand side here or left hand side rather is the onetory addition proposed towards the rear and left sides there. Also, we'd be um relocating uh the driveway slightly to the right. Uh 22
foot wide driveway proposed. Um also, we'd be doing a proposed PA patio towards the rear and be removing some of the existing concrete and macadam drive that was towards the rear and uh left
hand side of the property here. Um going through the site data, this was again submitted before the ordinance was changed. So some of the information here um is not accurate per the current zoning uh ordinance. Um so the lot area
is required to be 21,780 ft. Our existing lot has 21,799 square ft. The lot frontage is required to be 100 ft. We have 109 ft. The lot depth requirement is 95 or was 95 I
believe. Um existing we have 200 feet depth. The front yard setback uh requirement was 50. We're providing 50.58. Um although the we did have a we do have a porch. The dimension to the porch is
45.79 ft. Um which was allowable per the previous ordinance. I still believe that's allowable except the square footage is now um there's a limit on the square footage of the porch. Um left sideyard I believe the new requirement is 15 ft. Previously was 17.5. The
existing left side yard is 30.49. Uh we'd be uh proposing 17.84 ft. The right side yard also 17 which I believe is 15 now. Existing is 32.5. We are not proposing any change to that side. The
rear yard requirement is 30 ft. Existing is 84.94. We'd be proposing no change to the rear yard. The height 30 ft max height. The existing is 17.5. We'd be proposing 29.27 for our building height. Number of
stories two and a half stories required or max existing is one and a half stories. Proposed 2 and 1/2 stories. Um the building coverage requirement is maximum 20% existing was 8.94 we'd be
proposing 13.54 uh% coverage maximum pvious coverage 40% existing is 32.44 we're proposing a a reduction slight reduction to 29.18%. Um, also incorporated into the drawings
here are the areas that are altered of the basement, which we're altering the entire area of the basement, which is underneath the bottom portion, if you will, of the Lshape here. Uh, so there's about 707 ft there. We're altering all of it. The first floor alterations,
uh, or 1,71 ft. So that's the entire first floor that's being altered. We're adding 478 ft to it for a total of 2,177 ft. Second floor, there is no second floor. We're adding approximately uh 1,268
square ft of second floor space. Um porches, um we're not altering any porch, so we're removing some porches, but then we're adding some porches back. So, total area of porch is 172 ft. Area of the garage, we're removing garage, and then we're adding a new garage. The
area of the garage is 476 square ft. Uh the next sheet is D1.1 which shows the uh what was to be demolished. Our office uses a keynote system. So I
don't want to waste the board's time by going through all the keynotes, but for example, keynote number one depicts the existing deck that's to be removed in its entirety. walls that were to be removed were also depicted on the demolition plan. So those two drawings are labeled A basement demolition plan
and B first floor demolition plan. We also have the plumbing riser diagram here. And for Mr. Aelina's review letter, um what's labeled here as an existing sump pump should have been labeled as an existing sewer and ejector. um what was there as part of
the existing conditions. There was roughing provided within the slab uh by the previous owner uh for a future bathroom. So, we'd be utilizing that existing roughing and to install a new bathroom. And he is right. The um the cleanout is up at about midle. It does
not go into the slab. So, it' be going into the ejector and then going out into this side um rear rather midway of the rear uh wall. The next sheet is labeled A1.1.
This has two drawings to it. Drawing A, the west elevation or the front elevation, and B, the south elevation, the right side elevation. So again, we use a keynote system to depict all the materials we're using. Um, for the exterior finishes, uh, what we see here
very lightly is the existing roof line, which is there, the existing gutter line of the existing home. Um and also a side porch that was there as well. So here we see the addition to the left, the twotory edition, the the second floor
edition over the uh main front part of the home. We are proposing the front porch and we're proposing a mix of materials um consisting of uh vinyl siding um some standing siding and as well as a feature panel uh constructed
out of fiber cement. Uh the roofing material will be asphaltic roof shingles. The drawing to the bottom the south elevation on the right side we see the existing building there or what was the existing building. The roof line of the existing is
depicted there. We see the second floor addition and then we see the additions or partial existing structure. We see the existing roof line there. The existing garage and then our new roof structure proposed over that one story.
The next drawing is A1.2. Again, we have two elevations here. The upper drawing is labeled A, east elevation or the rear elevation. And again, we see the existing structure, the gutter line of the existing structure, the roof line of the
existing structure. Uh we see the second floor addition, second floor addition beyond the two-story edition. Uh the first floor expansion is located here. Again, we see very lightly dotted the existing garage in this area here. And then the addition to the right of there,
we're drawing to the bottom labeled B, north elevation. Uh the left side again, we see the existing roof structure here. We see the existing porch that's on the side. There's an existing roof that extends across and ties into the existing or what was again the existing
uh garage roof structure. And so we're proposing a side porch here as well. We see the second floor addition and then the new roof line over the what would become now the new family room.
Next drawing is labeled A2.1. It consists of one drawing a the basement floor plan. So what we have depicted here is again the existing basement that's located here. Um all the walls are not hatched. Any new walls are
hatched either with a diagonal cross-hatching or a shaded gray area. So, all the stud walls are hatched in a gray um hatching. Any masonary walls are done in a cross hatch uh pattern. So, for the basement, we'd be relocating the
stairs to here. We coming down into a hallway space. There'd be a theater room. Uh the the roughing for the bathroom would be re utilized for the new bathroom, utility space. And again, it's labeled here as an existing sump, but that should be labeled as um a
grinder ejector. Beyond this space would be the exercise room and then mechanical room towards the bottom front corner there. This would be the foundation for a slab-on gray garage. And this also be the foundation for the uh twostory addition.
To the rear uh we see the existing crawl space that's there, which would be reutilized uh for the new constru new structure. We also have the existing slab on grade that was the old garage and then we see the extensions of the foundation coming off of the existing
structure there to the left. Next drawing is labeled A2.2 which is the first floor plan. So again the existing structure is here and then we had an extension to the rear
there. So again, similarly as the basement plan, all new walls are hatched with a a a gray color. Uh all the existing walls are done with a with no hatch. So we have the front portico. We have the entrance. We have an entry,
twotory foyer, stairs leading to the second floor as well as stairs leading to the basement. Beyond we have an open area consisting of a bar, dining room, a hallway leading to a powder room, an office, bedroom number five with closet
and its own bathroom. Going towards the rear, we have the new kitchen relocated to this space. Here we have a mud hall that leads to the side porch as well as pantry. And then the area beyond is a uh family room with fireplace and large
opening into the rear yard. And also we have the garage located here. Two-car garage with access from the mud hall. The next drawing is a 2.3. And this shows us the second floor
edition. So we have the stairs with the open foyer. Stairs leading to the second floor. Here we have a balcony overlooking the foyer space. To the left we have the primary bedroom suite. So, we have the primary
bedroom, two walk-in closets, a primary bathroom. Going back into the hall, we have bedroom number two with closet, have a hallway closet. We have hall bathroom. We have the laundry room located here as well as two bedrooms at the end here.
And bedroom number four has its own bathroom and closet space as well. So, that is the the um full uh set of drawings. Thank you, Mr. Bch. Is there any comments with regard to Mr. Alex's
letter you want to touch on or pretty much in understanding what Mr. is asking for and no questions no issues? No issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have no further questions at this point in time.
Okay. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. I check it before he sets down. Yeah. Speak. Is there a generator going to be on this on the premises? No, it's none is proposed. Okay. So, is there during a
power outage that that random operational? It'll probably have a battery backup to it. Anybody else have any com comments just on the ejector pump or the grinder? Does that come out under pressure? And is there
any concerns from a sewage perspective? Um it it is a pressure system. Um they are designed it's going into a cast iron pipe because this is an older home. So um I I don't see any issues with with
the pressure from an existing system that is is already there. So, it should be fine. Okay. I don't have any questions on the presentation, right? I did have some more general questions. I don't know. Do
you want to wait for Mr. Aelene to go through his letter first? Sure. Okay. Mr. Alina, could you go through your letter first, please? Very briefly. I think uh Mr. project did an excellent job of bringing the board up to speed with with his drawing set. So I take no
no exception to what what was stated to to be the proposed condition. The only question I would have for Mr. Project is so the the plans were submitted to the building department as a addition alteration. Do you now have to revise these plans to to bring it up
to the current building code for new construction? Yes, that is correct. Yes. Okay. So that once the board approves that, if the board were to approve the application, uh subsequent application to the building department would be uh required. Um so going through my report very briefly, I believe Mr. Slo touched
on the reason under page three of my report under number 10. Um he explained the the cause of the taking down more than 50%. Um, the only thing I'll say is most uh framers these days would know that before doing so they should contact
the construction official. Obviously that didn't happen here, which is why uh the delay that's been been incurred by the applicant. Uh location and description of the property. I believe everybody understands and knows where the property is. Very level type of
property. So I don't see any drainage issues necessarily being associated with with the project. I I do note that there's an existing inlet uh on on the plan. It's not defined. We don't know where it is. So, my recommendation to to the
board was that some form of investigation be done. I mean, there may be a sepage pit network on this property that we just don't know about, but I believe they can put a a camera in the pipe that's coming into or out of that structure and we'll we'll know a little
bit more. So if the applicant is agreeing to to that condition then uh we can go forward with whatever additional measures um may or may not be required uh for the stormwater management.
Uh moving on to the zoning. So the um the change in in the code relative to porches, front porches used to be a what called a permitted projection under the former code where you could project 10 ft into the front yard with the uh
ordinance that was passed this past September that was uh changed such that no part of the the structure uh including porches could be closer than than 50 feet. So that's the the variance condition that I'm saying theoretically would exist under the the current code,
but uh under the municipal land use law, we would be looking retroactively at what should have been the case. And so that's why I'm not saying it is a variance condition. I'm just making the board aware that it it's it's a condition that's going to be uh present
on the site. Uh under page six to 10 architectural plan review comments uh building height code requires uh survey with topographic information spot elevations at 10-ft intervals around the the foundation uh visited the site
multiple times. Uh I'm confident that the average elevations that the architect used to to calculate the building height uh as being the foundation the first floor is uh approximately 2'4 in uh above the
existing ground elevation which will not change. Um and then the other dimension is 2611 from the first floor. From the first floor to the highest ridge gives you a building height of 2927 which is less than 30 ft which was the requirement at the time. That height has
actually been increased under the current code. So theoretically you know if it were under the current code it could be to 32 feet high. So height is not a not a concern, but I do recommend uh that any uh approval issued by the
board if it were to be issued uh that a as built be uh provided for the ridge elevation, you know, prior to any roofing materials being placed on on the on the roof. Uh B tree removal. So there were no trees removed. There's an existing large deciduous tree in the
front yard that's still there. uh plans are uh speak of landscape bed but don't provide any details. Typically you're going to have a you know at least foundation plantings and some other plantings on the property with a with a new home just not specified. So if that
is their applicant's intent that that should be somehow noted on the plan as well. Uh stormwater management we we've spoken about that uh building sewer connection. So uh with the clarifications offered by uh Mr. Bryce about the injector pump uh versus sump
pump. So that would be uh addressed at this point. So I did note that there is a a 2-in pipe coming through the curb line which typically is for a a sump pump. So, um that should not be a
continued uh case that that that should be directed to any storm water management system to be provided on on the property because what happens is the the water flows down the gutter line goes across the neighbor's driveway because the the grade of of Burke is
toward Washington Avenue. So, with a not a very large uh pitch on the road, so you do have a potential ponding icing condition uh with with any sump pump. I'm not aware if there's a continuous uh groundwater problem on this property,
but you know, if the former homeowner had a sump pump, assumably there there is some some groundwater condition. Uh driveway modifications. So, uh Mr. Bryce spoke of some of of the driveway being removed along the norly property line.
Can you provide a little more detailed description of what you're you're taking out? Yes. Um so what we're removing just we're doing this to comply with the 22 foot uh wide driveway. So our garages
previously the garage faced the sideyard here. Our new proposed garages are facing the front. So, our driveway would be moving over to align with the garages there. Um, we also would like to have the um ability to have pavement here so
someone can walk over and access the porch there. So, we'd be eliminating any cars driving into the side here by proposing the landscape uh bed to the left there. So, we're removing this front section of driveway uh to allow
again to maintain a 22 24 foot wide curb cut and a 22 foot wide driveway. So, my uh question though, so you're keeping it's in the driveway that may have existed is kind of trashed with with the construction that that took
place. So, I I don't know that you have a driveway anymore that extends uh to the back of the house. I I was thinking that perhaps you would want to replace that with a you know a standard walkway as opposed to what is a full width
driveway 15 feet or so but as I said it's in not great condition at this time. Yeah. So we probably just replace it with either pavers or or concrete or or macadam to to what width though? That's what I'm saying. The existing driveway is 15 feet wide. That seems I
believe there's a an existing curb that's there. So we'd like to maintain that width as much as possible. All right. So impervious coverage is actually not an issue on on the property. It's a very large lot. So um if it does if that can just be better
defined on the revisions to the plan so that we know exactly what the what the limits are. Okay. Uh utility service connection. So um this is a substantially larger house home than what was on the property. Um, are you upsizing any uh services, gas or water
to to the home? U, we'd have to consult with our professionals with the um um with the plumber and the electrician would have to be consulted there with size um because under state law for a single family home, uh an electrician can provide his own calculations. So,
we'd consult the electrician as well as the plumber to make sure that those if it's existing is adequate then we maintain it. If it needs to be updated, then it' be updated. The the primary focus of that comment would be if you you the utility company needs to go in the road, there's a road opening permit
process in town that they would need to adhere to. So, understood. The and public service aware of that. Just making your uh your client aware of that as well. Uh standby emergency generator, we we discussed that already. Um, other than that uh this application will be
subject to the development fee uh requirements under chapter 5 513 and with that said I believe the application uh is clearly presented by the applicants. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Anybody else have any questions? Uh Councilman, did you have some comments? just um was uh notice required for this hearing? Uh yes, a notice was provided and
certified mail return requested as well as the legal publication. Believe my client. Okay, we do have that. Okay, thank you. I apologize. I should have made that statement in advance. No problem. Um
and then uh in terms of demolition, the permit I believe requires certain um testing. I think asbestous and lead as well as uh utilities have to be
disconnected which I'm assuming have has happened. Do have we met those or do they have to meet them uh since it's being done sort of on the fly? Not not in a uh negative way, just the way it's evolved. Right.
Right. Um unfortunately um I can't speak too much about the demolition permits and wasn't involved in the process at that at that point in time. Um my client is on is on Zoom. Um he was on his way over here. It got caught in traffic and rather that missing the whole meeting. He he got out onto Zoom. Um, I don't
know if there's an ability to have them answer that question if that's important. I don't I don't know what was done. We do know a zoning permit was issued, but I don't know what presumably everything was done to satisfy it, but I can't speak for that. I can I can Yeah,
I mean, you know, can we make that a condition of the resolution or something that all the permits have been taken out? That that's fine. you know, just um you know, we we're in the demolition. We
have uh permitting requirements. Um you know, want to make sure we're either meeting them or if we're not that it's being acknowledged. So, if we could find out if that uh demolition permit has been issued and all the criteria have
been met, that would be great. So, Councilman, my client just did text because again he is listening in. He said the utilities were disconnected and quote anything required by the town was done for the demo permit. Okay. If is that possible that we could just make
that a um condition of the resolution? Sure. Okay. And then um just and not particular to this but maybe we can discuss it at the end of
the meeting uh in a general session but uh again we have another partial demo into full demo and you know uh what can we do uh to address these situations?
you know, they they all come with uh valid arguments uh or justifications. Uh but you know, we also have uh again uh regulations uh ordinances on file and uh
you know, should we be doing something more proactively to address this up front? Okay, Bill, if I may comment on that, I think the building department because it's come up a few times is uh putting something more when people come in for
something that even could get demolished even if it doesn't look like it's going to in the beginning to call to people's attention. Yeah. I I think in the meeting that we had uh that was discussed, you know, perhaps we get an
update on where that stands because you know, clearly if they're taking off the roof, uh the situation certainly could arise and it did. So, uh correct. Just, uh yeah, transpar not transparency,
that's the wrong word, but uh education. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else have any comments at this point? Ju just a quick question out of curiosity. Uh is a developer developing this for sale eventually or is someone
going to live in it who currently owns it or uh it it would be a for sale. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else? Any any comments? Okay. Yeah. Okay. I need a motion to open for public comments.
So moved. Moved. Second. All in favor? I I Any comments from the public? No hands raised. No hands raised. Okay. I guess we'll have a motion to close
public comments. So moved. Second. All in favor? I Okay. And I guess at this point we get a motion to approve
or disapprove. Will we begin uh updated by insurance set for this? That's that's part of the the the Mr. Aelena's letter and which they have agreed to do right was revise the drawings
to update. Is that correct? Yes, that's my understanding of testimony. Right. Typically, it would be u resolution compliance to address all the comments M does in these MA's letter states that. So,
is the board is the board going to see that revised set of drawings to make sure it's Well, if you would like to, I guess we could get you a copy of that. Yeah, I'd like to. I think so. I think that'll be appropriate.
Yeah. So, we need 13 cents. 13. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Mr. Chairman, the resolution will also indicate as Mr. Aino said about the uh existing driveway. That clarification
on that as well. Yes. Yeah. Clarification on the existing driveway. Correct. My only concern Yeah. And just as as a counterpoint is that
uh the documents so they've uh agreed to they've stipulated that they'll meet the no items. So if we want to see them again it's another cycle delays their
approval. Uh I mean my only concern is uh you know getting this approved if there's agreement as expeditiously as possible. By the time I went through this process, I had to show revised plans. Okay? I've never I've never gone through the
process where I was given the benefit of the doubt that I'm going to be making these changes without proving. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And Vladimir, excuse me, I'm not discounting what you're saying, but uh I don't need a set of plans. So if
yeah if certain board members don't cuz these aren't necessarily produced. I'm sorry it could be electronic. I don't need the paper copy. What I mean whatever you know whatever whatever their board members whoever wants to see you know the resolution. I mean we you know typically we Mr. Broadche will work
with Mr. Aini's office and you know resubmit and have him review it again and he'll issue another updated letter. I'm okay seeing electronic set PDF sets fine. I don't need a paper copy. Okay. Is anybody else requiring the paper copy here? No. So, I guess one electronic um
and dealing with uh Mr. Aelina's office. Sure. Um so, do we envision coming back? Uh I don't think we've done ever really done that. We've had Paul reviewed plans. Yeah. Paul Paul should re revise plans and then you usually work it out
with the builder if Yes. So, so then as Mr. Solo stated the resolution compliance process would be plans would be received by me, reviewed by me and then I would do a report to the construction official saying they've complied with any condition which is normal procedure
back here. It doesn't need to come back here. It's fine. It's fine. But he he can he can take a look at so he knows what's going on. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um but we're not doing the actual resolution tonight. So, if you
can get them timely before we do the reszo, that way it does give Vladimir one more chance before we actually do the resolution. But I don't know how that works out timewise to get new plans. And yeah, I mean, obviously the site's not being productive and it's
costing my client money. So, he wants to move the process along as quick as possible, which is only a benefit to the neighborhood, but it certainly depends on Mr. Bright's schedule, Mr. schedule. Um but typically the resolution as council knows it would be a condition that you know we're going to comply with
all the requirements. Okay. Anybody else have any other comments at this point? I guess we can hold on to motion to approve. Yeah. All right. We're gonna uh need a motion to approve the uh
plans and resolution. And anybody want the application? Yes. I'll make a motion for that bill. Okay. I'll second it. Second. Okay. Okay. So, yeah. Grace, do I do roll
call, please? Mr. Carol? Uh, yes. Mr. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Pledo? Yes. Mr. Tulle, yes. Mr. Wanssky, yes. Councilman Alman, yes. Mayor Komari, yes. Congratulations.
Okay. Thank you. Have a good evening. Been approved. Good day. You, too. Okay. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Uh, I guess next we go to old business. and reauthorization of uh
ress PB24-09 for Peter Aziz Gaziz Esquire of RNS Prime Properties for LLC for a minor subdivision of 680 McKinley Avenue block
3103 lot one and Um, okay. Yeah. Mr. Oelina, do you have any comments on that? Uh, just that there was some uh issues relative to timing of
the subdivision deed and the back and forth with corrections required. Uh, all of which was kind of done at the 11th hour. you have 190 days to, you know, prepare a subdivision D for recording. Uh things were submitted kind
of in a disjointed manner and so they they got right to the deadline and they they didn't make the timeline. So it's really uh an administrative uh process. So they're asking that it be extended so that they can in turn record the deed.
Okay. Any particular reason why they felt they couldn't get this in in time? Did they give you any legitimate? Well, as I say, it was kind of done uh toward the end of the 190 days and then my recollection is that uh I believe the
chairman was out of town on on business at the time and um just think that was the the primary issue. Okay. Um so we got a couple of comments. Yeah. Okay. and need a motion to open public
comments on this issue. So moved. So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Okay. Anybody with any public comments? Anybody online? No. Nobody online? Anybody in here? Nobody's in here. Okay.
Uh motion to close public comments. So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Okay. And I guess we go to a motion to approve the resolution 25 PB25-11.
I need a motion to approve. Motion. I'll second it. Okay. And Grace, you want to call the call? Roll call. Mr. Carol. Yes. Mr. Murphy.
Yes. Mr. Pledo. Yes. Mr. Tulle. Yes. Mr. Weransky. Yes, Councilman Alman. Yes, Mayor Palomari. Yes. That was approving the application. Now they have to approve the resolution.
Okay. Okay. So, I need to get a motion to approve the resolution. Okay. Now, I need a motion to approve resolution for that uh reauthorization reauthorization PB25-11. I'll motion that.
Okay. I'll second. Okay. Uh, Grace, would you like to roll call? Roll call. Mr. Carol, yes. Mr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Fledo, yes. Mr. Tulle,
yes. Mr. Woreransky, yes. Councilman Alman, yes. Mayor Pal Martin. Yes. Okay, that's approved. Resolution. Okay. And then that's so this is this one, right? Yeah. Same thing. Okay. Uh
resolution approval of the application for GE Builders LLC for demolition of existing house for new proposed residence to be located at 311 Walnut Street. Block 4415 lot 4. Are there any comments
on that resolution? Everybody have a chance to read that? as when it came. No comments, any questions? No. Okay. Um, okay. I need a motion to approve the resolution.
I'll second. All in favor? I. Okay. And Phil, can you approve or does that need a roll call? You should have roll call. Yeah. Okay. So, do roll call.
Okay. Okay. I need a roll call vote. Okay. Okay. Mr. Carol, yes. Mr. Murphy, I can't vote on it. Oh, that's right. Mr. Fledo, yes. Mr. Tulle, yes. Mr.
Weransky, yes. Councilman Alman, yes. Mayor Kamari. Yes. Okay. And um May 21st. Okay. Okay. Okay, we got approval for the
minutes for uh May 21st, 2025. I'll need a motion to approve. I'll make second. Second. Okay. Anybody have any corrections or any I had one. Anybody
else has on page three. Uh just a typo. Um Mayor Calamary mails a motion should be makes. That's the only thing I could find. Anybody else have any corrections or comments on that?
Okay. Motion to approve. Okay. Now, we need a motion to approve the minutes, please. A motion. Yeah. I'll second that correction. Okay. Okay. Grace, you want a roll call? Mr.
Carol? Yes. Mr. Murphy? Yes, Mr. Fledo. Yes, Councilman Alman. Yes, Mayor Komari. Yes. Okay, we'll do the close session, right? Okay.
Okay. Then we have to do the minutes for the uh close session for May 21st. Does anybody have any comments on uh on the minutes after they read them?
Corrections? Nothing. Okay. Uh, I need a motion to approve them. Motion. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. Okay. Uh, roll call, please.
Mr. Carol, yes. Mr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Pledo, yes. Councilman Alman, yes. Mayor Kari, yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. Um Okay. June 4th, planning board
minutes. Um any questions or anything on the the minutes that were presented to everyone? No questions. Okay. Um we got a motion to approve the
minutes. I'll make a motion. Second. Okay. Uh, roll call, please. Mr. Carol, yes. Mr. Murphy, yes. Mr. Pledo, yes.
Councilman Alman, yes. Mayor Colari, yes. Okay, that's approved. Uh, we'll move on to planning board minutes for June 18th, 2025. Um, anyone have any questions or
corrections or anything on on those minutes? Yes. Um, a couple of items. One on page three, uh, the full paragraph from the bottom.
Uh, I believe I inquired if there were formal written agreements or commitments. I don't think I don't believe I confirm that there were. Okay. I don't know if I would have uh required if there was that
uh the last paragraph. Uhhuh. Um so I had made a request of uh the administration uh Mr. D. Carlo was on the line uh for
uh an accounting or proof or whatever, however we want to say it, stated it uh that the 325K was paid. Uh I did receive something from Mr. D Carlo. Uh but it was uh
uh the dollar value that was presented which was much lower than this. Okay. Uh I sent a followup uh just today to Mr. D. Carlo asking if he had any made any progress. We had talked about the documents he had provided to me. Um
and I didn't receive a reply. It was short notice. Uh but uh you know Okay. So I'll just say that you request some more information. Well, no, I requested it. I think you received it. we receive I received something but it didn't prove
the 325. So I think okay that goes you know to what we state in the actual uh fair share plan and does it need to be amended further. So uh so I did make
that but it has not been provided at this point. Okay. Um and then uh on page four, the next page, the first paragraph, uh I guess I had inquired uh how the
numbers were arrived at. Uh were they actual or ex extrapolated? Uh I didn't confirm that. I guess Mr. Burgess confirmed it. I don't know if that's is if the he is me or the he is
him. Okay. So we can change that to Mr. B. Yeah. Yeah. Uh and then just in general on page four, five, and six, um
you know, typically we don't have uh that many individuals coming to address the board. Uh I know in the case of uh
the council as well as other um minutes where we've had uh public uh issue comments, we note who they are. uh you know the the uh the individuals who
addressed the board and we don't have that uh here in terms of who's uh who came and spoke uh what their concerns were and what the replies were. I I know that these don't have to be verbatim but I think it would be
beneficial to see or have a record of who came okay to address the council. Okay. Okay. So, I could put their address, but I can't put their name because of that Daniel's law. I thought you could put their name, but not their address.
Um, I think it's I'll confirm which one it is. Okay. Okay. And then I'll just redo these so we don't have to approve these tonight. Okay. The o the last thing is
um I had requested uh a number of uh I had raised a number of questions with the document the actual plan. Uh the majority of them were addressed uh things like
uh or I guess the largest or the most important uh was the fact that uh stone mill wasn't redeveloped. Uh but I also requested that the uh subcommittee
uh be included in the document. Uh I believe uh it was agreed that it would be included. Uh I don't know who uh prepared this final document, but it's not here. So, uh, you know, the council,
excuse me, the board, um, you know, approved this with the, uh, understanding that there were amendments that needed to be made. That was one of the amendments. It hasn't been made. Uh, I'd like to see it made and have it, uh,
submitted. Okay. I don't think I don't have authority to make that change. Well, I don't know who does, but the board actually authorized it. So, the the document does not reflect the board's
wish. I don't know who who owns that document. Uh I don't know if it is the board that owns the document, if it's Mr. Burgess who owns a document, if it's the council who owns the document or the administration,
but uh you know a member of the board requested an edit. There was no uh disagreement or uh really any discussion other than to
figure out how to put it, you know, who's going to provide it and add it and it's not there. So, uh, it doesn't meet, it doesn't reflect the will of the board
and I think it should. So, that's my, you know, I'd like to see that corrected. We'll be happy to look into that. And also um um administrator D Carlo took a couple vacation days today and tomorrow. So,
you know, he's usually very prompt getting back, but No, and he was prompt in providing the initial Yeah, but if I say if you sent him something this morning, that's probably why you haven't received a response. And I I appreciate that you're it's going to be looked into, but I don't know what the I don't
know what's being looked into. I mean, it's a standing member of the board made a request. The vo the board voted to accept that request, so it should be in the document. Okay, that's a that's a
we'll check into it. Yeah. Okay. So, this will have to be re redone. So So, we won't need to go any further with this till we look into this further and uh get this straightened out. Okay. Um,
anybody on the board have any other issues or comments. Okay. Um, I guess that's it. Okay. We can adjourn. Uh, can I get a motion to adjurnn? I'm sorry. I thought you were just asking for June 18th
additional Oh, well, do you have any other comments other than June 18th? Are you not on June 18th, but I had two issues. Okay. To discuss. All right. The first is um well, Mr. uh excuse me, not Mr.
Mayor Kalamari addressed it. Uh but do we know if there's a timeline or uh on that education or the notice? I mean, I don't know. I don't think we really came to a conclusion at that meeting as
to what it would be, but it just seems, you know, I think this is the third or fourth one this year where it started as a partial or repair or whatever and now it we're Yes. on the ground. Yes. I I made a note
so I'll check with the building department and have an answer for the board at the next meeting. Thank you very much. Sure. And the second is um with regard to the application last week or last meeting, excuse me. Um you know
clearly it met the zoning requirements, the height, the setbacks, the this that um and so it it didn't require the variances uh or variances. So it moves
forward. I guess my concern is that it's a massive house for that lot. Um, and is there something that we can do as a board to
sort of limit that? So, they had a full basement, a full first floor, a full second floor. um you know and I'm wondering although we have um zoning guidelines is that really the
type of house we want built in town uh that type of mass and you know is there a way to control that or would we want to control that? So I would say maybe we want to try to control it in terms of uh total square foot. I don't know if
that's a uh an approach that we could take. Uh but you know I didn't I don't know if any other board members have any feelings on that. We we have we have a coverage requirements or maximum and we have the height maximum. So that I think
that would give you your square footage maximum, right? Well, not not necessarily. I mean, yeah, I guess uh you know, you can have a a two and a half story building, right? And
that's X wide to X deep and it meets the requirements but it it doesn't you know it seems that they are trying to maximize their investment. They are correct. They want
the maximum square foot that they can add. I mean I think it's how many five bathrooms they had. Uh how many uh bedrooms? uh so again doesn't have to be decided today and maybe no one else has
a concern. I just feel you know is there something we can do as a board uh or is it not a concern of the board? I can trust you. Yeah. Basically if it conforms to the ordinance this board
can't deny the application it's being due so it would be arbitrary and precious. So if they meet everything and don't need a variance, the only remedy would be the mayor and council changing the ordinance which just we just went through. So uh that's basically the answer. It would have to be maybe
recommendation from this board that hey we don't want to see houses this big and that then be up to the mayor and council to take that up to decide whether the change is on change the ordinance. So they, you know, as as my colleague
here said, they they're looking to maximize their profit and that's their right under. I I fully agree. It's, you know, again, it met every requirement we have, but at the same time, you know, it is I don't
know what was it uh 5,000 plus square feet. 4,800 ft. That's this one you're talking about. Yeah. Uh the one from No, the one from last week Wallet Street Wallet. Yeah. You know, uh
three completely developed, you know, it's not a uh a crawl space basement or unfinished basement. It's, you know, two bedrooms, a bathroom, uh first floor with, you know, uh
bathrooms, uh you know, media rooms. I I think it's great. people want to invest in town, but I guess the question is, do we want, you know, a monolith that's square and has every, you know, available square foot Yeah. uh
developed? That particular neighborhood has been developed quite a bit. I mean, there were a lot of small houses there years ago and they've all been blown up. So, that particular lot looked kind of funny because it was the smallest house left. Sure. So now that they put that in
there, it's going to kind of I think it'll settle in, but you don't know for sure. I know what you're saying, you know, but that it doesn't mean that's always going to be the case. You know, other neighborhoods that may be the first house to be blown up like that and then it's going to look odd, you know.
So that that can happen one house, everyone else. Exactly. Yeah. So it makes it hard. So, I think the problem too is that we set a precedent now that this house is going to be okay. And if we now backtrack and change the
ordinance to make it smaller, the next guy who move moves in and wants to do it, he's going to say, "We okayed that house 5 months ago, 8 months, 10, whatever it may be. How come it's changing now?" So, it's a slippery slope as far as that. I think I appreciate
your point of view. I think the, you know, I would counter that we see what people are doing and, you know, we're reacting to it. Uh, and again, this may be, you know, I may be the only one barking up this tree, which
is fine. uh but you know I felt it worthwhile to bring forward because it is a concern of mine that you know we are getting like max max max uh development.
Yeah, Phil, if I may make a comment. I certainly understand your concern, Mike. Uh however, I'm a big proponent of let the market decide. Also, if people are building these houses and then putting up for sale, if people are willing to buy them, um, you know, who are we to
dictate, assuming it meets all our criteria, you know, if if the market should turn around, people may start to build smaller houses. Uh, but right now, the market is extremely hot still. And if people can get the money they're asking for these houses, Yeah. Okay.
Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. Anybody else have any comments generally? No. Then I guess uh we'll go to adjournment and I'll need a uh motion to adjurnn. So moved. So moved. Second.
Second. Okay. Okay. All in favor? I Okay, we adjourned. Thank you, gentlemen. Thanks, Bill. Thank you.