Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the Planning Board. We're having the Planning Board meeting of June 29th, and we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance first. We're gonna do the adequate notice statement next.

With your permission, Madam Chair. Yeah, thank you. In accordance with New Jersey Statute 10-4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the publications of record and has been posted here in City Hall. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livestreamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast Channel 34 and Verizon Channel 30. Any hearings on applications for development in this meeting are quasi-judicial proceedings. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision, and decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. Please note that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment. here at the dais and return it immediately after our meeting. Back to you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. You are welcome. And we need to do the roll call. Mr. Delmaso, thank you.

Chair Wilson-Alvarez.

Here.

Vice Chair Hamlet.

Here.

Ms. Bellarmine.

Yes.

Council Member Christopher Lee is expected but not present. I am here. Mr. Feldman? Here. Ms. Morrison?

Here.

Mr. Sala is excused. Mr. Stern is excused. Mr. Staunton? Here. Mr. Golden? Here. We have a quorum. We may proceed.

Thank you so much. Okay. So our first here's councilman welcome. Our first item on the agenda is the master plan re-examination discussion. We're just going to talk about the schedule cause we've discussed this over and over and we know we're going to be doing this and take it away.

Okay. Very simply, as you know, we're doing a very quick re-examination report to make sure we meet our early November deadline. What we intend to do is start submitting documents to you on- The zoning board has in the more, yeah, in the rhythm and solid voids section.

Jennifer, I think it's a great idea. I think there are examples of buildings where if attention had been given to the design- So identify those that are mandatory.

It's just a matter of- being directed to send it to the governing body filled out. Nobody's ever done that for whatever reason.

I think the one thing that we were talking about last year is in our previous electron electric vehicle charging station, we weren't allowed to have advertising. And I think just my opinion i don't think it's a terrible thing the city can make money off some advertising if it's not you know initially i don't think anybody wanted advertising but does anybody really care if it's in the parking lot of the forest and we can get an extra charger or two we don't have to pay for it i don't care but maybe people will not like that i'm okay with it but i think that's the one big thing i don't remember what the other changes were i can't remember off the top of my head but i'm not opposed to it so

The more the better. I think the design of it is key. Like if the whole thing ends up being a big ad that's, you know, lit up, I think that would not be compatible. But if it's just a little screen that has, you know, or something like that.

I don't think we even have, do we have an EV charger in the one next to the train station? So it would be a perfect opportunity for the city to get one with an advertiser, pay for it, and be done with it. I want to pay for it. I'm sure it's easier said than done, but I think that was the intent by bringing it up.

I actually missed one edit I had. Go ahead.

I'm sorry, Jennifer. What would be the next steps to move that forward? Is that on council's lap or...

I think that you're going to insert the, the, uh, the language before you, before you send our recommendations. That's what I thought.

So you lift up the state language and you put it in the ordinance and there's some discretionary and some mandatory and that's how it's written. And that's the council. Great. Yeah.

It's fairly simple and straightforward.

Yeah. Great. Can you just pass it to us? We can just take a peek at it before. I just don't know what's in it. Yeah. I just haven't looked at it in a while. Okay.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

If you could just flip that to us.

What we can do, I guess, is just circulate the state model. Yeah, perfect. And then work in between on considerations of whether we'd allow our advertising or not. So we can have that forwarded to the board.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Under Parker share section nine. I forgot that I crossed this out. I think that the first part is fine. A roof structure attached to the principal building designed to cover an entrance for sheltering persons entering and exiting vehicles. It says existing, but it means exiting. It should be. And then the rest of that vehicles, it says a covered gateway, et cetera. This is so rare. and could lead to a more commercial appearance, could be just done so wrong that I just think that needs to be taken out, up to where it says property to an interior courtyard, that part, all of that should be deleted, and is not intended as a covered parking area, provided it shall be designed consistent with the front facade of the dwelling, because typically port co-chairs are the same style and material as the building itself. That is something that's been out there for a long time. People have wanted a definition of a port crochet. This is it. But I don't think we should get into this gateway business for a courtyard because it's a little different. Just require a sign, not a carpet. I know. Anyway, that's an old part of the DRO.

There's one typo in that. Sorry? A typo where it says entering and existing.

Yeah, entering and exiting. Yeah. Is what it should say. Yeah, exactly. So there was only one other thing before we send the, I mean, recommend that we put the design guidelines in the meat of it. There's one edit I have on page 14 of the design guidelines.

I have a question about the Port Courchers again. Oh, yeah, sorry. It's a question for John. Do you guys ever run into this with fire trucks or ambulances when people have Port Courchers at their houses?

More the width than the height. Yeah, so certainly if it's an institutional structure, within a residence.

Okay.

So no pun intended.

Usually there's more than one way to get around the port cashiers. That's good. That's a good question. Safety theme. That's good. Under stormwater, I just have a few edits to make that a must because it had, it says the city of Summit encourages, but instead of that, it should say project shall be designed to manage all stormwater on site. Techniques to do so include natural landscape elements, including bioswales, landscapes, more trees. It goes on and on. That was just the main change.

And you could also simply reference the town's stormwater management plan.

Yeah, and we could do that. That would be great. I remember seeing it, but I don't know where it was. Please see.

I don't believe the design guidelines were attached.

Because it's covered, but I think this was more about the different ways they wanted to incur, you know, different ways of dealing with. It's in the DRL.

I'm just saying that the stormwater management plan is what gets updated periodically, so there might be more

Yeah.

Can I ask a question? Yeah.

I mean, this was put in from from. Anyway, go ahead. Ask.

Well, I'm just trying to think about how this I mean, Augusta, you probably can read my mind where I'm going with this as we go out to if one if one house is being built on top of another and all the stormwater is draining into the other property's house and they don't have their they don't have their gutters and like, how are we even going to enforce this? Because they can't put landscaping in right at this point.

The design guidelines are for proposed new work. Pre-existing, non-conforming, you can't run around and make people conform if they're not changing their building or changing their property. All of the stuff in the DRO is for new work.

Yeah, and to that same example, it wouldn't be an active enforcement of it. It would be passive. For example, you could change the circumstances of stormwater controls within the DRO to say a new residential development of a single-family home needs to include X, Y, and Z. So that would account for anything new, and you would assume that over time it fixes the problem. very slowly, you'd see progressively as opposed to some kind of active enforcement on that stormwater.

And it doesn't mean that, you know, a resident doesn't have the capability of going to City Hall and talking to, you know, the Department of Community Service and saying, I need help. There's a problem, you know, but when it comes to the D.R.O. and the design guidelines, this is about future work. Okay. Okay. Okay. I don't think I have anything else. except fixing one photo, which is just a better photo under the solar panels, because it's a really bad photo. So I will circulate that.

I sent an email out to, I think it was Joe, Jennifer. I was wondering if we just pass it to the board after you've looked at it. Joe, the height-sensitive side yard controls and residential sky exposure in the R5 and R6 zone. It was actually given to me by a resident. I think it's actually pretty interesting, very smart resident. Summit's residential zoning regulates lot area, lot coverage, building coverage, front yard, rear yard, side yard, total side yard, floor area ratio stories, and maximum building height. However, they don't fully regulate the vertical relationship between a new or expanded structure and the second story windows of an immediate adjacent dwelling when smaller lots are developed close to the maximum permitted. envelope. It's a lot for one meeting, so just take a look at it. It's prepared by Elliot Fishman. When you're bored over the 4th of July holiday, take a look at it, but I think it's pretty interesting. I'm curious to see everybody's thoughts on it. We can look at it and see if there's anything we can put in the DRO next time. It's basically like a smaller lot. As the houses get smaller and these other houses start to be three stories high, they're blocking the And I'm sure the light near. Yeah, I'm not sure. Sounds like something reasonable, but I could be wrong. I'll let our planner and our smart staff see if it makes sense.

And I mean, the questions are like the proportion to the neighbors, right? Or like, is that what this is?

That probably would be part of that. People can hear you at home. Sorry.

I'm just trying to clarify, we could look at it later, but does it sound like he's talking about just like new development relative to the neighboring structures in that, you know, basically both sides of a neighbor could be overshadowed by a development? That's probably a zoning thing that's looked at on every application, but maybe it's just not spelled out.

Especially if they're asking for a side yard variance. That's where that would really come into play.

Yeah, I've seen ordinances where the heights are allowed to be well, or I should say they're lower as you get closer to the side or to the side property lines.

Mm hmm.

Yeah, I've seen that too.

Yeah, I guess it's in the DRO bulk height and our five and our six. Okay.

And it's relevant in any zone. Yeah, it's been a of topics well like in new york they did a a new zoning in 1916 where they required setbacks to to skyscrapers because of light and air issues if you ever walk around downtown where wall street is it's the canyons because it was before a lot of that was before the 1916 zoning change and then you go to other neighborhoods and you see all the step backs it's a little more open And it's a long term planning issue. So it's worth looking at if there's a particular issue in the R5 or R6. So we'll look at that the next round.

I think this what this area is kind of down is that what they're referencing is down near like Magic Fountain area where there's some the lots are tight and there's some smaller older homes and then they're fully demoing and all of a sudden you're you know, you I'm sure it's another area.

OK, thanks. All right, so do we have any other suggested edits for this round of DRO suggested changes to the city council? Is that no? No. Okay, so I think we are ready to recommend sending these up and hopefully Councilman Christofoli can.

I'll take them up.

Do your best.

One suggestion. Not really for the DRO, but sort of general policy. I see this done sometimes, but not consistently. So when we make a change to rezone an area or even receive an application, rather than simply refer to block 2107 lots 379 and 10, maybe we could just add commonly known as 512 Springfield Avenue, that would make it so much easier for the public to follow what we're doing. And some of us, too. I mean, a couple of us probably have it memorized, but many of us don't.

Right. That's a great idea.

I love that idea.

Is there any reason why we don't do that?

No, there's nothing legally stopping you to do that.

Once we get an ordinance or something, it usually has both. But yeah, just for general parlance, that's a good idea. Good idea. I like it. Okay. So moving on, we have, yes, we do. Dan, would you like to introduce this?

Sure.

Joe's been busy at work.

Should there be a motion formally referring this back to the governing body?

Oh, yes.

The DRO.

Yes. Yeah. DRO changes. Sorry about that.

We're not coming back with a claim where we're doing it now.

Yeah, I think we're good. I mean, I trust him to make these that they're not substantial. They're not.

And these minor changes we get to add to it. But you would say for pursuant to our meeting .

Yeah.

I think that's fine. And it's not a resolution, so a motion second and voice vote is sufficient to our surrogate clerk this evening.

So moved.

Oh, and you could also make the motion.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed?

A lot of different hats. Thank you for the reminder. Okay. Now it's official. So that's done. Yeah. Joe's been hard at work because the planning board members and Dan wanted to help out with the data center ordinance. And Dan, would you like to? Say anything?

Are we in private session yet or no? Sorry? No. Oh, because we're not on the agenda.

OK. We're off piece. It's kind of DRO-ish, but it's different.

It's related. And it's really for the information of the planning board. I'm introducing this memo, which you should have a copy of. And for the public, I requested that it be put on the planning board website as soon as possible. It's a memo from Joe Burgess and Tom Behrens. They're two of the leading land development and design experts in New Jersey. The memo provides input to Summit's ordinance banning AI data centers. As you're probably aware, and the public hopefully is aware, the ordinance was determined by the planning board to be consistent with Summit's master plan. As such, the existing ordinance that we passed provides additional protections against undesirable land use. beyond the prior DRO provisions. During the public hearing at the council meeting on June 16th, comments by residents suggested the ordinance could be further strengthened. I requested this memo from Mr. Burgess to provide comments on the recently enacted ordinance in light of those comments from residents, and I'm providing the memo to the planning board for transparency. To the public, as I said, I'm requesting that the memo be made available on the planning board website.

Thank you. Yeah. So we had a meeting and just the three of us talking about, you know, well, how can we help with this? And Joe recommended that we really lay out the thinking behind it. And I think he does a very good job of, you know, because he's such a good planner, describing the positive and negatives, defining things, you know, current thinking on this, how things have changed, how things may change. It's just a very comprehensive and thoughtful memo that discusses the topic at hand. And he's made some specific, very good, I think very clear suggestions on changes. And I think we should definitely make the changes that Joe suggests, which are on page seven and eight. And I'd like input from the board on the memo and the suggested changes.

If I can make a comment or two? Of course, you can make some comments. Okay. You know, this evolved. We had a great conversation with Dan and Jennifer and myself. And one thing that came out or a couple of things came out of that conversation, one of which was that there's, you know, as we say in this memo, a number of board members and Council members have a lot of knowledge as well as members of the public, but some people don't. So that's why I decided it might be prudent to lay out some of the background information so everybody knows exactly what we're talking about when we talk about different types of data centers, for example. So we define all of that. We were specifically asked to amend the adopted Ordinance definition of data centers. And when I first went about trying to do that, I knew right up front that a lot of people were upset with one particular component of it, so that was an easy thing to deal with. but as I tried to amend the ordinance and based on the fact that we've done a lot of ordinances for municipalities throughout the state on this topic and done a lot of research I realized it might be better to just offer a brand new definition and that's the one that's spelled out One page. Seven, I believe. Seven. 7B, to be precise. So we identify a definition that I think is fairly straightforward and easy to read. And then in the current ordinance that you have, you have a definition of data centers, which for lack of a better term, is really designed to prohibit the large scale AI data centers. And then you had a definition of computer centers, which was basically designed to reflect the fact that most businesses today will use AI in some fashion. And I remember jokingly said to Dan, heck, my daughter uses it to do her homework, for God's sake. And everybody uses AI today in some fashion. So we wanted to make certain that we allow for that. When I started to look at the ordinance consistent with the current definition, I began to realize there's a whole host of other changes in the code that had to be done to get rid of inconsistencies. And that was spelled out on page six. But then as I put together the definition that we did in I realize that if we just say here's the definition of a data center and here's what's not included in that definition, we basically identify in that exclusion section those businesses that AI is not their principal use. It's just ancillary to the business that they do. And it was a lot simpler, and I thought straightforward, which helped the process. So what I was intending to do after tonight's meeting was simply amend to this memo item B on page 7 into page 8, that text in ordinance form and just state in this memo that in the appendix of the report, here's your specific ordinance for you to contemplate when you meet on july 7th next tuesday next tuesday so they'll have it you know the whole text for information purposes uh the text of the ordinance and then the ordinance itself which this draft does not have that last component at least that way everything is cut and dry and consistent with what the governing body actually asked for

very good very good i had a question i have a question for mr warner so we're going to speak in a consistent way i thought it was very important when we had to approve those ordinances that the language that we used as a planning board was the the data center ordinance and the detention facility order was not inconsistent with the master plan. That's what we agreed to. Not that it was consistent. So is that language important?

Whenever, you can let the planner answer.

Mr. Warner, please proceed. With the chair's permission. And that is at the end of this memo as well.

Yes, so... So when somebody gets up and says, you sit on the planning board and you said, we said it was consistent. We never said it was consistent. We said it was not inconsistent.

If I can help with the chair. Sure. A couple of different things. First of all, a consistency review does not relate to the specific language of the ordinance, it's whether the content of the ordinance is or is not consistent or inconsistent, we'll say, not inconsistent or is inconsistent with the master plan. The reason we use not inconsistent, not because we like to use double negatives, we don't, but because under the law, the Municipal Land Use Law and Governing Case Law, substantial consistency, close is enough. Substantial consistency is the bar that one must surpass in order for the the ordinance to be sufficient to proceed to the governing body so the governing body introduces the ordinance comes to the master plan to the planning board as the master plan gatekeepers there's nothing wrong with saying it's affirmatively consistent if that is your determination but you don't have to go that high a bar, you don't have to set that high a bar, you just have to surpass the bar of finding it not inconsistent, which is another way of saying it's substantially consistent, it's sufficiently consistent, and that's what the case law says. So that's generally why we give you that language, that double negative. At certain times you may say this is dead on perfectly consistent, We want to say something more. We want to say it's affirmatively consistent. You could do that, but the bar is not inconsistent, which equates to substantially consistent. If I may, one second. Again, as far as the language or the policy behind the ordinance, that's not necessarily our scope of authority. That's something different. You're only weighing in on the relationship to the master plan as you're guided by, I think we just heard he's the expert in the state of New Jersey, and I would agree, on planning along with his colleagues.

Yes, and can you add to that, you know, the process of evaluating consistency is very narrow, very, very narrow. We're not changing the language. We're not rewriting anything. We only say whether it's consistent or not, and it was minimally consistent.

you know and we're learning as we go we all are now there may that and and that's with respect and that was based on the guidance I believe you were here that day as well Joe not Tom uh that you got from your your planner uh you don't have to follow your planner's advice but that was the advice of the planner uh at the time okay so a question so if the planning board thought it would

create a higher risk of an undesirable land use, would that have been deemed consistent?

Ultimately, you have to look at the master plan in its entirety, take the advice from the planner, and make a determination, for example. You may have one or two provisions of the master plan that you think it's inconsistent and maybe a few provisions that you think it's consistent with as well as the overriding intent. That's a judgment call. I would always guide you to not listen to me, I'm a lawyer, listen to the planner for the advice as to whether it's consistent whether it's consistent, not inconsistent, or actually inconsistent. If it's inconsistent, as you may know, it then goes back to the governing body. The governing body can still proceed with the ordinance, but they have to do two things. A majority of the it has to be a majority of the entirety of the governing body, has to pass it notwithstanding the inconsistency, as well as have a reasons resolution explaining why, notwithstanding the planning board finding it inconsistent, the governing body decided to go forward with it anyway.

So, further question. If this ordinance had been found by the planning board to be doing harm to the city, would it have passed the test?

That, frankly, harm... That's not a planning term. Okay, we're getting into semantics here.

If it did something against the interest of the master plan, against the good interest... Then it would be inconsistent.

There you go. But because you are trying to limit and... Goal number one in the master plan is to maintain the character of summit. Thank you. There were some attempts at limiting something that might be way out of scale or way too noisy or use too much water, whatever you want to list, which would be- The economic benefits of the prod zones.

If I may, the plan is who you should listen to. That's why in our report we identified, you know, we tried to be balanced. So we did identify some benefits to data centers, but we focused a lot on all the negatives. And the negatives really are tied to some of the goals and objectives of the master plan. And probably, you know, putting aside the negative impacts on the surroundings, property owners which this addressed. Probably the most critical one is the master plan going back to the last comprehensive master plan in 2000 is replete with comments about encouraging more employment opportunities in the municipality. So we provided the statistics in here to show that, for example, you know, while data centers can generate a lot of construction jobs, once that's built, there's no jobs. And I think the numbers were, you know, they generate one job for every 5,000 square feet, whereas for a warehouse usage, it generates one job for every 500 square feet. floor space and for office use it's like 3.3 jobs per thousand square feet so you get to see that you know the loss of a site to AI may generate a use that's of interest to a certain extent but in terms of your master plan which says we want to encourage more employment this clearly is not a winner So, you know, and therefore that's why we conclude that by prohibiting this use, we allow the opportunity for this, for any tract of land to be developed with a more, but I'll call intense use in terms of employment opportunity. And that's what the master plan is seeking. So that's how we can conclude what we concluded that helps.

And ultimately, a consistency finding by the planning board or a not inconsistency finding should not be equated with a we bless the, as the planning board, we bless the ordinance. Because that would be beyond the scope of the planning board's authority, in my opinion, and I think legally, to do. We don't usurp. The role of the governing body, the planning board is a hybrid. There's a little bit of legislative to it and a little bit of judicial, quasi-judicial, quasi-legislative. So one doesn't equate to the other.

But if it were going against the master plan, it would have not been approved. I've been trying to ask a question. I mean, this is the key point.

Got it.

Now, to follow up on something Mr. Golden had asked, you want to get another crack at the apple because assuming the governing body adopts this and introduces it on the 7th, it comes back to this board for another consistency review.

Always. Always. Any land use ordinance after introduction always comes back to the planning board.

Even if we recommend it. Even if we write it.

comes back to us so up to you guys who wants to go now i just have a quick one um based on everything that's being said so just from what mr warner said mr burgess what i'm hearing so the inconsistency consistency review um just the premise of what we're asked to do as a planning board when something like this comes before us is that the intent in inconsistent or consistent with what the master plan's goals are We're not being asked to rewrite the ordinance. We're not asked to close the loopholes. We're not asked to be legal developers, litigators to try to find ways to make it worse or better for that matter. But we are asked to make a, based on the professional's advice and our own knowledge, we're being asked if it's flowing in the right direction that would

allow us to make that kind of pass-fail test is that is that an accurate statement in the you know the primary function of the consistency review is to assess the goals and objectives of the master plan to see how the or draft or proposed ordinance comports with those goals and objectives right yeah that's what i thought that's what i said and now we're revisiting it rightfully because of all the attention and some of the things that have come up

from various individuals, residents, Dan, board members, that's right.

I have to say, I neglected to say.

Okay, yes, Jeff. No, I commented about the conversations I had with Dan and Jennifer. I also had a nice conversation with Ryan over the weekend about the same issue. That helped inform me a lot. Yes, indeed.

Yes. I guess with that being said, we can always provide recommendations. the governing body has they can either take those recommendations and redo them or they can now so correct this is sort of an after recommendation after a planner um the other thing i want to mention i'm not sure i i think this is a great memo joe and i think some of the things you caught especially incorporating the computer centers as defined in all the other zones were phenomenal so thank you for doing all this and augusto thank you for doing all your work on the ordinance i would say though for I know we're not talking about recommendations for the next ordinance but I think unless the city really amends its noise ordinance like if you look at right now in performance standards for non-residential uses even in the vibration it just says there will be no vibration which is discernible to the human sense of feeling beyond the immediate site on which such is conducted

so i think we again again just let's go back to dep and figure out what that c level and somehow try to incorporate it into the next level of some ordinance whenever we change it again we can either do a an ordinance just for that or right either the governing body excuse me or add it to the noise ordinance make a recommendation for that i think that needs to be done okay All right. That was it. With regard to the memo, I did have a question about whether it's appropriate to even have the accessory uses on page six permitted in the ORC zone, which is office residential character, which typically looks like little residential.

No, but in that zone, you do permit offices.

True.

So therefore, once you're permitting offices, I felt that you needed to...

But the scale of those particular ORC zones are so tiny.

The one change that was brought to my attention.

It's in the name, residential character, you know? So I just didn't know if that was a good fit.

Well, it's in your ordinance, so I had to include it that way.

Okay. All right.

But quite frankly, since we're going with what I'll call Section B... Yes. All that is... Moot.

Yeah, moot, because... No, I think this is your list of accessory structures, the sections where the accessory structures are allowed.

Okay, okay.

Never mind, then fine. There is one question raised about... Just so there's clarity. Yeah, we're not going to allow it as a primary use, a principal use, but we are going to allow it as an accessory use.

Correct.

Okay.

I have a question when we get to page seven about that same...

On page seven, one of the exclusions from being a data center is item 2A, the floor area devoted to such use does not exceed 20% of the gross floor area of the principal building. It should read, of all principal buildings on site, And it says, or 15,000 square feet, whichever is less.

Which page is that?

Page seven at the very bottom to A. Oh, 20% is written out.

And we had used 15,000 square feet. I had been under the impression that at Bristol-Myers Squibb that they have such a facility of about 12,000 square feet. Now we could just say 12,000 square feet. I used a little larger number because I wasn't sure of exactly how large their feature was, but it was being suggested that they're clearly not at 15,000.

But I was, I mean, it would be grandfathered in anyway because it's preexisting nonconforming. So, and because we've had you know ongoing neighbor discussions about even with those giant setbacks on that property whether it should be less than 15 square feet it can be i don't think it could be less than 12 though because that's a thousand but we'll get another shot at this but clearly it should have said all principal buildings do you want to recommend 12. if we get another shot and we change anything it would have to go back again so we will these are again recommendations in a memo now yeah i would think we should discuss it at least because that that's a key you know Number, 15 square feet. It's prohibited as a principal use, but for accessory uses, 20% of the gross floor area of the principal building or no greater than 15,000.

No, of all principal. Of all principal.

Of all principal. Yes, yes. In the aggregate.

Yeah. I think 15 is reasonable.

I don't know, with the history there, I'm concerned. It should be less. Any other thoughts on that? My thought is on page seven, so I'm holding my fire. This is on page seven. Jennifer, you're concerned about... $15,000 versus $12,000 or $11,000 or $10,000. I actually wrote $10,000 because I thought it should be less than. And bring it down based on the... Based on the history of one particular site in town.

Right, so I agree.

With the giant setbacks that they have that nobody else will probably ever have.

I agree with you.

Are we going to talk about the setbacks? I agree, if you're looking for. Yeah, okay. I don't want to hamper businesses, but on the other hand, That's a very large complex that we're talking about, and they had 11 or 12. I just don't see it as being that applicable to too many other places anyway, you know, being that big.

Remember, it comes to the zoning board, right? For a variance. Right, exactly.

Yeah, they can always come for a variance for a principal use even. They can come for a variance. I mean, people can come for variances for anything that's not allowed.

Jennifer, it does say we're 20% of gross floor area.

True, true. So tell us why you think it should...

stay at 15 again well what if it's a data center for their internal use for that whole complex i mean i mean it could be reduced to 12 because that's basically what they have okay

Why don't we do that then? That's a compromise. Let's do 12. How do people feel about that? 12,000 square feet. Okay.

I have another one just directly on that exact bullet that I sent to Mr. Burgess and I copied you. I could just go real quick. If we could just make it continuous, like continuous building structures for the accessory use. For example, if you have a large commercial property with multiple buildings and they did 12 000 now i guess it is and they had that for an accessory use if there was multiple 14 or 15 buildings on property we'd want that to be part of it yeah i actually i like your language better than what i just said

because I had said all principal buildings in the aggregate, but I'll use your language.

Okay.

Yeah.

Cool.

That's just so they don't do 10 accessory structures on one property. Exactly. Over and over and over. So it's good. Okay, cool. It's a good change. Thank you. So what's your question?

So my question is on page seven, part B, shall mean a building structure or premises primarily used Here's my problem with that language. I'm not an expert on this, but I did happen to sell. I've had a client for 13 years who's a cable company who does a lot of data centers, and I sold seven of them last summer. And of the seven, four were buildings 60,000 to 200,000 square feet. And the way the brokers and the lawyers thought of them, was what's the power coming down the street, up through the basement? That's how they did their valuation, right? The more power coming up through your basement, the more data center you can have, right? But in seven of those, or five of those seven buildings, they also had people. They had, and I'm thinking of one in Northwest Arkansas, they had a big thing in the basement, and then they had probably, 200 people working on the second and third floor. And if I were a smart JLL broker or a smart lawyer, I'd say, well, primarily we're employing 200 people. Well, that's not true. Primarily you're having a data center. So I'm just trying to think of a way to tighten that up.

We could simply delete the word primarily.

Right, because what you don't want is somebody, we're all very smart, but we're not as smart as the people who do this for a living. And if they saw, we want to make sure that they can't do something like that that they were doing in Arkansas. Because the people in Arkansas would say, well, there are 200 jobs. And a very loud data center. We don't want, I think, what I'm hearing from our community is we would rather say very sorry about the 200 jobs, but we're not letting you get around it that way. And I'm just wondering, I don't know how you draft around that.

We used primarily because I was thinking we're not specifically mentioning office use because We don't want to encourage just an office uses, you know, to cover the data center. That's why we use primarily. And we thought that was it. If I were so we could just simply delete the word primarily and then it covers what a data center is without worrying about the other issue.

Great. Very good. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Good change. Any other comments or edits, suggested edits?

I'm your gal. Are we good?

Okay. So I will make those edits. I will attach the Section B in ordinance form as an appendix to this for the governing body. Yep. And I'll send that out tomorrow.

Chairwoman? It's okay. Yes? I have a question for Augusto. Okay. He has received separate input from residents, and particularly a resident who is well-versed in AI technology. I'm curious if Augusto feels that those comments are reflected in, you know, this kind of revised ordinance.

Leading up to this point, it was kind of a delicate balance of separating the, you know, a subordinate use in a computer center or conventional data center server room. It's been complex in identifying the specific electrical or water utility requirements that A AI data center, as we envision, would require its scale, size, and type of technology. That member of the public recommended to us that we include the specific terms of the types of AI workloads and data clusters that are used, right? Because these facilities, their real purpose is to generate and complete AI workloads, right? That is what they are used for. And so we had to set the distinction that the principal use is for those AI workloads and it meets a characterization of the types of water electrical utility, heat venting systems, interior exterior cooling systems, which there was a revised draft circulated to Joe and today to other to members of some members of council, which incorporated those more technical and that technical language. Now, I don't think it's not fair to Joe. I don't think he's had the opportunity to look at that feedback from the member of the public. Honestly, there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen, and organizing everyone so quickly in such a short amount of time has certainly been a challenge. but we're looking to meet it. So on the side of the technology, it's, I wouldn't say that it is here, but it's something that can be easily included, right? Because we've been looking at this thing entirely from the perspective of a zoning officer has to see the criteria and reasonably determine what is falling inside of the ban And if a zoning officer either in an administrative decision or an appeal of that decision to the zoning board can fit either an AI data center into the AI data center definition or a computer center as a subordinate use to another business, into those two categories, that's where the whole perspective was. So I think that once we get that language from Joe, it would be very easy just to touch base on some of those items and carry it forward to council.

If someone could send me what was submitted by this individual, I'll take a look at it tomorrow morning.

Yeah, absolutely. I'll have it sent. So it wouldn't be an issue. So some of that language was specific. If we're characterizing a data center, what is the technology infrastructure inside that data center, how is it defined or how is it structured? They have a cluster of graphics processing units. For example, that was a line that was recommended for that purpose. What would you say to that?

The discussion we had earlier about decibel readers and how you deal with that for the building official or the zoning officer to understand how to collect that kind of information evaluate it and make a decision maybe beyond the scope of their ability. So that's why we tried to simplify the definition as we did to make sure that it can be easily analyzed without having to go outside the municipality and hire others to evaluate it.

Well, that was one of the issue areas with We're trying to live in between plain English understanding of how a zoning officer would apply and enforce this definition versus a potential developer using different terms to define what they're putting in a building.

You don't want them just to call it something else.

You want JLL to say, okay, not something. I'm going to go to the next town. You need to draft it in such a way that it's not a

Well, that's what I'm saying. Let me take a look at what he sent.

We want to have our definition be broad enough that they can't just call it something else and still build it.

I don't know if you would agree with me, Jill, but the current and... you know, proposed amendments, they are casting a wide net. The definition is broad and is trying to capture as much as possible. The real issue we're facing right now is how do we not capture the wrong thing? So, you know, I leave those great recommendations to Joe.

Let me take a look at it. He wrote and then he or she wrote and then I'll make a decision as to what I'm going to file tomorrow.

Through you, Chair, just a quick question on the zoning determinant of what it is. Is that only done based on the new application, or can the Can the zoning officer go back after time if it's determined that, based on the criteria, something changes and it appears to meet the principal use, in any definition, by the way? Do we, as a . . .

So like water use that you're only going to know after it's built and running and you have a chance to audit it?

So you have like a one-shot at it? Is that .

. . Well, there's two ways to look at it. So if we're, by setting a new definition on something that's prohibited, the zoning officer wouldn't particularly be going back to look and see for enforcement matters. He would just be prompted that when there is a new development application, then he would be using that definition at the time with the time of application against that specifically new filing.

So if there's like, for example, if there was like an application for just data, just sorry, warehouses. And that was the principal use. And then six months later, they started putting I know that that's part of what came up in some of the other feedback. And they started to kind of convert it with that. Like, basically, they should get a permit.

Yeah.

With that issue, a permitting thing that would so it would to be captured in the principal use.

If we assume that the person who owns this warehouse is very trustworthy, they would file a permit to retrofit the space and that would trigger a change of use because identifiably from the sum of criteria that exist in the adopted definition and this new definition, the zoning officer would say, well, on these plans you're demonstrating High density servers right over here. You know, this is what you mark them on your plans as. You're identifying closed loop cooling system. You're identifying intensive HVAC system. And the next step is the zoning officer would generally call the applicant and say, okay, what are you putting in here? What is the technology? There's an entire line of questioning. There's tremendous back and forth at times. And then the zoning officer would just render a decision on that development application to say, okay, well you're denied, you're going to the zoning board. He's made the reasonable determination that it doesn't fit the category of an AI data center. So those situations get caught in the administrative process, right? And so what this adopted and proposed revised ordinance is just trying to make it simpler, fit into the niches, understand that we want to preserve the server room, and give the zoning officer and future zoning officers a clear avenue for interpretation. There's been a lot of concern to say that, well, there's been a large misunderstanding to think that, oh, if someone doesn't fall into one of the criteria, that they're exempted or it's somehow permitted. It's like that's never the case, right? So that remains true, yeah.

That's really helpful. The conversion process would basically

um it would show itself through permits and applications and that's how that's the part that i was specifically realistically if i wanted to take a completely separate example um We run into situations where, let's say, there was an office use which did not have a commercial kitchen before. And then an applicant comes in and says, I want to put in a commercial kitchen. We've gotten into the line of questioning with that applicant to say, all right, well, who is your commercial kitchen serving? Is it subordinate to the office? Is it for employees only? I put it to the test. Yeah, exactly. We put it to the test administratively. And based on that, the sum of that zoning permit application, we would know where to send them to. So in this case, we determined, well, you have an office use your a say a financial industry, a financial services company. But now you're serving food out to the general public in a cafeteria for them. That's not just for your employees. That's a restaurant. Okay, well, go get a variance. Right. That makes sense. Well, thank you, Mr. That was really helpful.

You know, this is a standard process. There's a famous case in Hasbro. I think you would probably know. where the applicant was proposing a restaurant with attendant entertainment.

Oh, yeah. Turned out it was a strip club. That wasn't New York strip. That was state. No, it was not.

That's so funny. Okay, so next thing on our agenda, we're all good, right? next thing on our agenda is um well do we have to do anything official like as far as you're going to finish this we don't have to no you're just going to forward it i'm just going to send it to augusta sometime tomorrow and go forward it's going to be addressed to the governing body and sorry no i just wanted to thank everybody for their input to this the interest is to protect summit that's been the interest from the beginning we appreciate the collaboration and it's valuable thank you

Nice to collaborate. All right, so that's what we're here for. We have to go into executive session.

I can do a quick resolution.

Yes, go for it.

Madam Chair, it's necessary for the Planning Board of the City Summit to discuss in this session, not only to the public, certain matters. authorized by the open public meetings act specifically pending litigation attorney client privilege discussion of pending litigation tatlock community preservation association the city of summit at al docket number well unn l-4748-25 it's been consolidated as well as pending litigation in the matter of the application of the city of summit a docket number unn-l-310-25 It's anticipated deliberations conducted in closed session may be disclosed to the public upon determination by the board that the public interest is no longer required to be served by such confidentiality, and this resolution shall take effect immediately. So if we are going into executive session now, Madam Chair, we should have a motion, second, and roll poll vote on that resolution.

So moved.

We have a motion. So moved. Second.

Second.

Sorry. Thank you. And I have to lack this, right?

Roll for vote. Oh. We're going to make Mr. DeMasa work a little harder.

Adjunct. Board secretary, you're impromptu. So official. Vice Chair Hamlet?

Yes.

Ms. Bowen?

Yes.

Council Member Chris Foley? Yes. Myself, aye. Mr. Feldman? Yes. Mr. Morrison? Yes. Mr. Stern? Oh, I apologize. This is an excuse. Mr. Staunton? Yes. Mr. Golden?

Yes.

Chair Bolson-Alvarez?

Yes. Okay.

All right, so we are ending.