Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the April 6, 2026 meeting of the city summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Scott Luggets. I'm the zoning board chair. Please rise and join us in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 104-10, adequate notice of the special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record has been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider reaching a decision. Decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being livereamed on the city's YouTube page. It's also being broadcast on Summit's government channel, which is Comcast 34, Verizon 30. Transcript of this meeting is also being taken using video and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in this room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. City also has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system at the deis and return it thereafter. Miss Sans, can you please call the role of members? Vice Chair Zan here.

Mr. Yuko here. Mr. Malay here. Mr. Mullen here. Mr. Nelson here. Mr. Curran here. Miss Chief here. Mr. Fes here. Mr. Chantuli here. Mr. Bell is excused. Chairman Loyets here. You have a quorum. You may proceed.

Thank you, Miss Sans. Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans, who you just heard from, is a city employee and is the zoning board secretary. Board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, and keeping our meeting minutes. The board secretary also does not vote. Also present tonight are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight, we have uh Carl O'Brien doing his best Marie Rafé impression. Thank you, Carl, for joining us from Collier's Engineering. And then we also have Ed Snikis from Burgess Associates and he's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also do not vote on these applications. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All the members tonight can participate in the hearings, but only a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on these applications, you'll be advised of how many votes are required for approval. Each case will begin with their applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date and what variances are required. We then hear from any additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application and why these variances are needed. The board experts then followed by the board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and their witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts to give brief and concise testimony so we can get to as many cases in a possible given evening. Uh once the board members and the board professionals have completed their questioning, the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. It's not the time to tell us what you think about this case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please careful as how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded with a statement about the case. Should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, please clearly state your name, spell your last name, and provide us your address. It's

important that our court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all witnesses have been heard, members of the audience then have their second opportunity to speak. This is the time where you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then we vote. You'll be able to listen in our executive session, but not normally be able to participate in our discussion. I'm going to ask for each applicant and/or their attorney, if present, to come up and just give me a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony, how many witnesses they're going to present, and whether or not they can finish their presentation within 30 minutes. And then just for uh the applicants following 695 Springfield Avenue, please know that uh we're concluding a case that we've carried several times tonight over the span of one year. So we're going to go right into what we'll call closing arguments and then we'll have our deliberations after that. Uh cases two, three, and four, 52 Huntley, 16 Shady Side, and 31 Mele Place will um go in regular order then. So, if I could have a representative from 52 Huntley, please.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board. I thank you for your time tonight. My name is Evan Pickas. I'm with the law firm of Pickas and Aronson in Spotswood, Middle Sex County, and I'm here representing the applicant on the 52 Huntley project. Uh the pro uh the uh the project that we're proposing is uh renovation of an existing property. We need a variance uh for disturbance of a steep slope. Um we're removing a driveway from one side and putting it on the other side and because of the construction that's being done there, it affects the steep slopes and therefore a variance is required. I don't believe that the uh application will take more than a half an hour. I have one witness who is our engineer uh and I believe he'll be able to tie everything up for us. That's great. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir.

I would say we'll get to you soon, but then I'd be lying. I'll be right back. Okay. If I could have a representative from 16 Shady Side, please. Hi. Hi. I'm Gman. I'm the homeowner. I'm here with my architect. Um, I don't think the testimony should take very long, but yeah. Great. Thank you so much. And finally, 31 melee, please. Hi, good evening. Hillary Als from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen uh representing Von Harlem LLC 31 Millie Place. Three witnesses and we can definitely do it in 30 minutes or less.

Great. Thank you, Hillary. All right. And with that, we're going to attempt to conclude our carried hearing of 695 Springfield Avenue. So I believe uh as the chairman noted we are just to the point of closing arguments at this point. As we mentioned in the last hearing we are not accepting any additional testimony or public comments at this point. Uh so Mr. Simon as the objectors council you can go first. Mr. Mayor will follow. Uh and then we will proceed to deliberations where it will be closed to any further comment uh unless we specifically request input from either the attorneys on potential conditions. for example. So, go ahead whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Uh Andrew, good evening. Uh Rob Simon here on behalf of uh my clients who I've identified earlier from Herald Law. Um so I want to first start by commending the board and its experts uh as well as the applicant and its experts and of course uh Mr. Mayor for everyone's participation, professionalism, and courtesies throughout this matter. Um, I also want to commend those members of the public on both sides of the aisle who have participated in this proceeding with your attendance, with your intelligent questions and comments. The land use application process as we know is always benefited by significant public present uh participation as was the case here for this application regardless of one's position for against or providing commentary as to the application. And as this board of adjustment knows, applications are routinely denied where an applicant fails to provide the board with reliable and complete information so to allow the board to comprehensively assess whether the applicant has met its burden of proof under the applicable ordinances for the relief requested and the relief required. Other applications are denied where competent and comprehensive evidence has been presented, but the applicant still fails to meet its burden of proof under the local ordinances under the municipal land use law for the relief requested and the relief required. And here unfortunately under both

scenarios um you have a procedural failure a substantive failure and that is why this application in its current state must be denied and candidly as I will explain in a little bit um it is disappointing candidly that the applicant has only minim minimally revised its site plan. Despite the many concerns appropriately raised by board members and members of the public, there are still numerous ordinance violations, numerous unknowns with the current currently proposed site plan. violations and unknowns brought up in testimony, brought up in cross-examination that the applicant could certainly have corrected or tried to correct via a revised application and plan or amended application and plan, but chose not to do so. So, I'm going to start my commentary with something that Mr. Snikus raised early on in his memo which is the Raulupa law and there's no debate that faith communities enhance the city of Summit. That is why so many members of the public, including those living in the subject neighborhood, told you that they were supportive of the church's mission. And as you also know, and you'll hear from Mr. Ball, Mr. Schnikus. The Raulupa law, the religious land use and institutionalized persons act is a

federal law and it protects houses of worship. It also protects individuals from discriminatory zoning laws. And what it does in essence is prohibits government regulation that substantially burdens religious exercise unless that law or regulation is justified by a compelling governmental interest using the least restrictive means. Now, I understand also as as you know, a board of adjustment attorney in other communities not too far from here that a board of adjustment does not assess the legality or illegality or the comprehensiveness of any zoning ordinance or site plan design ordinance. Board of adjustments here to call balls and strikes. Checks the variances, checks the design exceptions, checks the site plan application, the conditional use application, various use variances as in this case, and determines whether an applicant meets their burden of proof under the positive and negative criteria as applicable for that relief required. But nevertheless, it is important to mention because it has been raised that and I believe actually Miss Keller in her testimony as the planner for the applicant raised it as well that we believe certainly that the regulations at issue here do not substantially burden religious exercise. They treat the applicant on equal terms with non-religious assembly or institutions in the city of Summit. Whether it is buffering, whether it's setbacks, lot area, building coverage, lot coverage, parking regulations, and even if many existing houses of

worship in Summit, for example, have inadequate parking, they, as we all know, predate zoning and have public parking lots nearby, just as an example. And here what we have is an applicant who intends to work with a clean slate after demolishing the existing building at the property. And we believe all those factors lead to the conclusion that certainly there is no substantial burden on the applicant to provide the required requirements under buffering. height, lot area, building coverage, etc. Taking into consideration the surrounding residential and public properties, the traffic on Springfield Avenue, the lack of crosswalks with no sidewalks on one side of the roadway, and the significant distance to the property entrance from available off-site parking. And there is indeed a compelling governmental interest to provide adequate on-site parking, buffering, setbacks, etc. for the protection of the surrounding public and the protection, which I'll get into shortly, the protection of the surrounding public land. This applicant knowingly picked a property that is undersized. And then what they did was they proceeded to design the site to nevertheless require variance relief for a whole plethora of categories both under the conditional use standards that we'll talk about as well as the bulk standards

in the ordinance. And this is especially I'll use the word egregious given that some of those ordinance standards that are being violated are expressed as based on the actual size of the property or building that one wishes to develop whether it's lock coverage whether it's building coverage whether it's parking. So it's not like you have a number in those cases that you have to meet. You need to meet in those cases either a percentage of the lot area or in the case of parking based on square footage of building number of seats in the in the sanctuary. And as you'll hear, certainly we contend that the building space beyond the sanctuary space seating can certainly be reduced to either meet or come much closer to meeting the deficient bulk use parking requirements and still allow the members of the church to engage in the intended religious exercise. So, let's start by talking about the design of the building and the layout. Despite this property being used for non-residential purposes since the 1940s, there has been no effort by the governing body to reszone this property over the last 80 years to a nonresidential use. Always been residential use. currently in the R15 zone. And that's likely the case since when you have a pre-existing non-conforming use, Red Cross use, the goal under the inmissible land use law,

is to return it to a conforming use as soon as practicable. In this case, a use that is permitted in the R15 zone, such as a single family residential use. And in fact here as we all know by driving by the building at the Red Cross cross property looks like a house. No one no one that is driving by this property let alone those who who are not from the area thinks that it is a nonresidential property housing a nonresidential use. But instead of incorporating the existing residential building design into the design of the church, the applicant went with an unusually spaced, unusually spread out building design that our planner, Mr. Ste, described as a piece of sculpture. Based on the testimony of the applicant's witnesses and even its members, it's clear that the proposed building and the related campus amenities were sized to the applicant's wants and not simply its needs. Notwithstanding that this undersized property for a house of worship in the R15 zone is, and I believe one of the members of the public mentioned this, approximately 10 times the size of the property where the Beacon Church is currently located. And you also heard that the church does not intend to be increasing the number of attendees or the number of its membership. The building includes six rooms include identified as classrooms, meeting rooms,

work rooms, and a very large foyer, lobby, commons area in front of the first floor. And I asked parenthetically why one would need a building that has a capacity of 880 people per the fire code. If you only have approximately 450 total members, an average of 161 attendees at any one time, and are not intending to increase the number of attendees or increase its membership. As we now know, the proposed design is not based on any recognized requirements of the Unitarian Faith. No evidence was presented to this board that the Unitarian Faith influences, let alone requires the proposed nautilus design that is materially inconsistent with not only the surrounding neighborhood development, but the the design of other houses of worship in the city of Summit. And there's no evidence that was presented to this board of another nautilus design for a house of worship, let alone one of the Unitarian faith or one immediately surrounded by a public park anywhere, New Jersey, another state in the United States. The architect that worked on this project on behalf of the applicant had never worked in New Jersey before and he never designed a house of worship in the state of New Jersey. And in fact, upon

questioning, we learned that the architect never first looked at, let alone considered the either the zoning standards or the design standards in this community. Despite deciding to work with what I've referred to as a clean slate, the intended design not only violates many applicable zoning standards, it also violates the city of Summit's design standards set forth in the ordinance. And I'm going to come back to this, but I think it's incredibly important for this particular application that instead of starting with the use variance requirements that need to be met here with a higher burden of proof, I'm going to start with something that has not really been mentioned hardly throughout these proceedings, which is the design standards in the city summit in section 35-14.1 general design requirements. This is in the summit ordinance. It states, "The design requirements set forth in this chapter are intended to guide all development in the city of Summit in a manner that is harmonious and consistent with the existing character of the community, including the architectural styles, forms, massing, orient orientation, structures and site configuration. It goes on to state buildings and

additions shall not be dominant but shall be proportionate to and complement surrounding development. Site improvements and buildings shall be incorporated in a comprehensive development plan that ensures safety, functionality, sustainability, and aesthetic enhancement in a manner that respects the site's physical features and relates well to the design vernacular of surrounding development. The design standards go on under section 14.5 to state that non-residential buildings shall be harmonious and architectural style with other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. And then there's a discussion about orientation that the primary building orientation shall not be toward a parking lot but rather facing at least one adjacent public street. Now, it would have been nice if the design architect for this project had took three minutes to read those sections before he began to design this project. We humbly state that there's been no effort whatsoever, and I'll get to the proofs in a moment, but there's been no effort whatsoever to comply with those requirements that I just read to you that are set forth in the site plan section of the city of summits ordinance. nor has exception relief been been requested of this board from those standards.

Let's talk about the visual impact study. The plans and the renderings provided by the applicants professional team we submit do not show the true impact of this project on the surrounding neighborhood. not even showing on their plans the lots directly across the street from the subject property on Springfield Avenue. When you deliberate, you look at that site plan and you see how many homes you see, how many lots you see across the street from Springfield Avenue as presented to this board. The visual impact study was not from all vantage points, whether it was the park, whether it was across Springfield Avenue. We didn't see winter views where there's no foliage. And that is significant since the park property and the subject property mostly contain deciduous trees with few evergreens. And as we also know, the trees from the visual impact study that that the applicant is relying upon to provide some screening from neighborhood properties are not all on the applicant's property. They're partly on the park property. And you know as a board of adjustment member that you're not allowed or you shouldn't be relying on buffering from adjacent properties to provide buffering that is required under the ordinance. We have no idea whether the trees depicted in the visual impact study are dead, diseased or dying or will be around five or 10 years from now. There's the neighboring properties, including those across Springfield Avenue, will be able to see those solar

panels in the building and the parking lot, especially during the winter months and including, of course, at night when the unders sides of those carport solar uh panels are illuminated. Even during the day, the carport panels will be visible from the second floors of homes both adjacent to the site and across Springfield Avenue. So certainly the visual impact study that was presented to you we believe does not adequately represent the actual impact of the building, the parking areas, the solar canopies to the surrounding community. Now let's spend a minute and talk about the master plan. And I mentioned to you in a prior meeting that the master plan actually identifies this property specifically and it actually states the refers to it as the Red Cross property and it states the Red Cross property on Springfield Avenue is surrounded by Wilson Park and would potentially square off Wilson Park and be a logical explan expansion of Wilson Park. That is a direct quote from the master plan. And what is significant here is that the master plan recognizes this specific property as important to the community since it is surrounded on all sides by Wilson Park. not a property that we humbly contend should be developed inconsistent with the

surrounding public park uses while at the same time violating so many sections of the ordinance. And the applicant never even took the time in all these hearings to present evidence as to the nature and extent of the surrounding public park areas. Who's using the area? When for what activities, number of kids per activity, related parking requirements, etc. This is, as you heard from the public commentary, the end of the case, this is an active public park. Neighbors mentioned to the board, soccer activities, baseball, softball games and practices, even summer camps taking place at Wilson Park. So, now let's turn to the municipal annu law. As we know as board of adjustment members, you need to meet both the positive and negative criteria under the MLUL for the required variances. And if you meet the negative but don't meet the positive, you lose. If you meet the positive but don't meet the negative, you lose. The burden of proof is on the applicant at all times. It's not on the board. It's not on the board professionals. It's not on the members of the public. and it never shifts. And we also know that municipalities should be making zoning decisions by ordinance rather than by variance. And it goes on in terms of the case law to state that sometimes when you have so much relief that is being requested by

an applicant that a grant of those variances in bulk would cause and they the term they use is an arrogation of the governing body authority. when you have that much relief that is being requested by a particular applicant. And of course, there's also a heightened sensitivity when looking at a project requiring not just six or seven bulk variances, but eight conditional use variances, a separate use variance under D1 for for the solar arrays, conditional use approval, bulk relief, and exception relief. So, we contend that there's a lot going on here in terms of what this board is faced with in assessing this application. We'll start with the the D1 variance, the use variance for the prohibited solar carport use in a residential zone. Ordinance says it's not permitted, so it's expressly prohibited in the R-15 zone. And the law says that a D1 variance should rarely be granted especially where there are surrounding and adjacent residential neighborhoods because is it is presumed that the granting of such use varants will be inconsistent with the zone plan and zoning ordinance and will adversely change the character of those residential neighborhoods. case law. The Supreme Court states that variances to allow new non-conforming uses should be granted only sparingly and with great caution since they tend to impair sound zoning. And only exceptional cases warrant use variance relief. And it also goes without saying

that solar carports are also not customarily associated with the house of worship and no evidence has been presented to this board to the contrary. Now we will acknowledge of course that solar panels are considered inherently beneficial uses under the municipal annuity law. is in a definition of inherently beneficial use and therefore it meets the positive criteria under the municipal land use law. So this board concluded that these solar car ports meet the positive criteria. I take no issue with that. I'd advise you accordingly. However, the applicant still must satisfy the negative criteria under the four-part seeka balancing test for a D1 variance for an inherently beneficial use. And before I go through it, I'm going to remind this board that there is a ranking in essence or a hierarchy of public benefit in any balancing analysis under the SECA test. And at the very top or toward the very top certainly is the head trauma center which actually was what was at issue in the SECA case. And I would contend that at the lower end for inherently beneficial uses are uses st s such as the storage of school buses that are also considered by case law as inherently beneficial uses. So you may tolerate some negatives under the law associated with a head trauma center that you would not for a school bus storage lot. just to give the board some

foundation as to what we're talking about when you assess the seek balancing test. So there's four issues. You identify the public interest at stake. You then identify the detrimental effect that would ensure from that would ensue, excuse me, from granting the variances. In this case, being out of place in a residential zone within the required buffer, being too tall, having a bad design, choosing a bad area to put them in. Number three, determining if the detrimental effect could be reduced by the imposition of reasonable conditions on the use. Now, there's no reasonable conditions that are proposed by the applicant related to the solar carport arrays, and any additional landscaping would actually only further screen the panels and make them more ineffective for their intended use. And then number four, you weigh the positive and negative criteria to determine whether on balance the granting of the variance would cause substantial harm to the public good. where this board is to consider the extent of the public policy need for these solar panels balanced against the harm that would be caused by locating them in an area where their presence contravenes the local zoning ordinance. And also recall that even for inherently beneficial uses, an applicant has the burden of proof to meet the negative criteria under the municipal land use law no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the zone plan and zoning

ordinance. What we have here is that the solar energy is only benefiting the applicant. There hasn't even been, I will contend, comprehensive evidence by any solar company provider as to the extent of energy savings for this applicant. We do know that there's tall trees on the east side of the pro of the public property that will shade panels over the parking lot, making it seem that any savings uh may not be what is intended. The solar car ports will be contrary to the residential dwellings and properties that are characteristic of the surrounding neighborhoods. They will be in direct contravention of the ordinance and municipality's master plan which provides as its planning goal and policy to preserve the residential character of the community. And we believe that any minimal increase or so-called benefit in having solar electric at the property will only benefit the applicant is overwhelmingly outweighed by the substantial detriment associated with the number, height, location of the solar carport structures, including the adverse impacts on the residential neighborhood and the violations of the related setback and buffering. restrictions on an undersized lot. And I'm going to remind you that based on Mr. ST's uh exhibit 01, all of these carport arrays are located within the required buffer. So whether you think they're inherently beneficial or not, which they are under municipal amuse law, the fact remains is that they're being proposed in an area where

there where they are not permitted by ordinance. And so therefore, we believe that the variance, if approved, would not promote the purposes of the master plan and the zoning ordinance and that the applicant falls well short of meeting its burden of proof as to the negative criteria under that seek a balancing test and the municipal land use law. And we do believe that the application for the solar car ports under the D1 criteria certainly should be denied. Mr. Simon, if if I may jump in for just one second. I do hate to interrupt you during the statement, but

as to the SECA balancing test, I just want to clarify. You mentioned the third factor, the imposition of conditions that the applicant has not come forward with conditions as to those solar canop piece. It's not the applicant's burden. You're contending to come forward with conditions. It would be the board's prerogative to come up with those conditions. Is that right? I do not agree with that.

It is not the and I said it earlier, Mr. B. The board does not have the burden of proof to meet in this case the negative criteria for a D1 variance. It is not up to the board to decide whether there are reasonable conditions that are to be imposed. It is the burden on an applicant who was seeking a D1 use variance under the third step of the seek a balancing test to propose reasonable conditions. If I'm an applicant and I'm or I'm representing an applicant for a D1 variance, I will tell you that every single time when I go through the see balancing test, I will explain the number of conditions that the applicant is agreeing to to mitigate the detrimental impact associated with this D1 use variance that my applicant is seeking. It is not up to the uh board to fill in that blank under the third criteria. I believe that that is not what the law states. I don't I I believe it poses an unfair burden on a board and it uh relieves the applicant of the burden of proof certainly with regard to that third prong under under the see a balancing test. It's my legal opinion on that. um with regard to the D3 conditional use variances. So we know the proposed house of worship is a conditional use in the R15 zone. a planning board and I'm going to quote actually because there is language that we also haven't spoken much about at the beginning of the conditional use

ordinance and it talks about general requirements for conditional uses which includes a house of worship and what it says even before you get to the criteria it says the planning board this is section 35-11.1 1. The planning board shall not approve a conditional use unless it finds that the use meets all all of the requirements of this chapter. does not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties and does not substantially impair the character of the surrounding area and does not have any substantial adverse effect on surrounding properties. No building structure or premises shall be used unless in conformance with the conditions listed below. Then you go down in the ordinance house of worship. There are 12 requirements enumerated. This applicant violates not one, not two, not three, they violate eight. They violate eight of the 12 requirements. Minimum lot area. Starting with that for a reason. requirement is two acres. They're at 1.74 acres and that represents a 12.5% deviation from the ordinance standard. So I will tell you that when there's an application for an undersized lot and you're short whether it's 5% 10% in this case 12.5%.

The first thing you know in planning and zoning 101 is that when you go and design that site on an undersized lot, you better sure take into consideration the fact that you can't just act as if this is a fully conforming lot in terms of lot area, let alone exceeding it. that you have to take into consideration the fact that it is smaller and you're working with less than what the ordinance contemplates in most cases. So what this means to me is that at a minimum that all the standards with a couple of exceptions which I'll talk about in a minute there should be an or if you're going to deviate from the ordinance that deviation should not be greater than 12.5% from the requirement. going a little bit smaller other than for lot coverage and building coverage. And I'm clumping them together because in your ordinance, the standard is based on a percentage of lot area. So regardless of what your lot area is, you're only permitted a maximum of a certain percentage in relation to the size of the lot. So, you should be meeting that requirement whether it's full-size or a little bit smaller. Same thing goes with building height because building height, it doesn't matter how big or small necessarily the the lot is that you're going vertical and so you should be meeting that height

requirement because it has nothing to do with the proposed lot area. Well, what do we have here? If you look at maximum lock coverage, the maximum lock coverage that's permitted is 40%. And they're at 48.9%. My math tells me that that's not a 12.5% deviation or less, but rather a 21% deviation from the ordinance standard. maximum building coverage. That is a 9% deviation from the ordinance standard instead of meeting the ordinance. And again, because it's expressed as a percentage, you be you should be meeting these requirements. Building height, they need a variance for building height. And again, these are conditional use variances. Minimum sideyard setback. They're at a 52% deviation from the ordinance standard, not 12.5% or less. Minimum side buffer, they're at a 77% and 79% on the other side deviation from the ordinance standard. So again, I have a little bit smaller of a lot. Okay, I'm not going to be able to fully meet the buffer standard. I'll probably be off by 12.5% because I'm 12.5% less than what the minimum lot size requirement is. But instead, they're at 77 and 79% of a deviation. Minimum buffer of 50 ft in the rear, 70% deviation. Again, not a 12.5% deviation. Even minimum parking setback a 25% deviation not a 12.5%

deviation. So the applicant is not only failed to comply as to minimum lot area maximum permitted lot and building coverage and maximum permitted height which they have the ability all to control because their percentages are they're they're not affected by the size of the lot. But they haven't even complied with those. And they also haven't accounted for the deficient lot area by scaling down its development in proportion to the extent of the lot area deviation for the other standards. Instead, they've gone the wrong the other way, the wrong way. And now we're at a a scale from between 25% of deviation, which is double the 12.5% up to almost 80%. And again, since the applicant has chosen to demolish the Red Cross building, it is not prevented from fully complying with these conditional use requirements other than admittedly lot area. Even though we do find fault with them not checking the ordinance apparently and purchasing a lot that they know has deficient lot area that they need to work with to comply with the ordinance or at least making sure that they are going to propose deviations to this board seeking variance relief that they are minimal in con in line with that 12.5% deviation. on lot area and not between 25% and almost 80%. Now, with regard to the conditional use standards under the Coventry Square case, and I know Miss Keller talked about it, Mr. Ste talked about it, Mr. Snikers talked about it, Mr. Ball talked

about it. You know, the board's focus must be on whether the site remains appropriate for the conditional use despite the failure to conform with not one but seven or eight of the ordinances conditional use conditions. And then you also need to meet the negative criteria that I talked about earlier. And I want to focus on the negative criteria with no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the master plan or zoning ordinance. When we talk about public good in the first prong of the negative criteria, we're not just talking about the impact to residential neighbors in this case. And of course, the first prong does account for does it have a substantial detriment on residential neighbors. But here there's even more. And that's because the property is surrounded on all sides other than on Springfield Avenue by a public park. And we contend that under the case law, under the municipal land use law, that the public good that you need to protect against for the negative criteria isn't just Mr. and Mrs. Jones that lives x feet away and has their second floor windows looking down at the site. But it's also the many members of the public that enjoy the public park, visit the public park, visit the the school building and that public entity campus. And keep in mind too that buffers

work both ways. The example that Mr. Ste gave in his exhibit 01 that showed all the buffers that are being infringed on by this development. Buffers also not only protect the church property, but they protect whatever the adjacent property is. and properties in this case not only residential properties but the park property itself and we're not just talking about residential properties here. So the focus is whether conditions go back to conditions whether conditions can be imposed in any approval of the application to ensure that these multiple deviations from the conditional use requirements both individually as well as collectively do not cause substantial detriment to the public good or substantial impairment to the master plan and zoning ordinance. And keep in mind that again, it's the applicant who has the burden to propose the conditions. The only conditions that the applicant has agreed to as part of any approval of this application, at least based on my notes, if I'm wrong, I apologize, is that the church will not be used as a homeless shelter, and presumably that means that there'll be no one, whether homeless or not, staying overnight at the church building. Two, no use of the Wilson Park parking lot. and number three, the installation of special coating and a portion of the glass facade of the church building to prevent glare to Springfield Avenue drivers on a

particular time of day. I don't need to tell you that none of these conditions mitigate, let alone eliminate the detrimental impacts caused by the many deviations from the conditional use section of your ordinance. No additional conditions have been offered by the applicant. And that's because I believe that conditions cannot be imposed here. material conditions, not not something cosmetic, but real conditions to ensure that the deviations from the conditional use requirements do not cause that substantial detriment to the public, including the public park, or a substantial impairment to the master plan and zoning ordinance. And why? because we believe that in its current iteration, the proposed project is not compatible. It's not protective of the neighborhood character given its size, given its layout, given its height, given its design, given that it is immediately adjacent to a public park, immediately adjacent to publicly owned land and residential properties. We believe that it's not respectful of the environmental capabilities and limitations of the site. Whether you're talking about the size the undersized nature of the site or the fact that there's there's such a deficiency in terms of providing um adequate setbacks and buffering and that there's no I guess logical nexus between trying to enhance vegetation and what they're actually showing by way of a lack of a

buffer. not providing adequate parking and not being respectful of the natural features of the site. But we're not done then because we still have other variances that go beyond what's stated in the conditional use section of the ordinance and those include landscaping where you're putting the EV chargers etc. I want to talk about those in the interest of time. I'm going to talk about parking talking about the number of parking spaces and I'm also going to talk about the location of parking spaces. So now we move on to what's known as as you know a C2 variance the flexible C and what you need to do is satisfy your burden of proof in terms of showing that the purpose of the miscellaneous law will be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements that the benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh the detriment and the negative criteria that that the grant uh The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment to the master plan and zoning orders. Substantial zoning benefits resulting from permitting the deviation for a C2 variance. And now we're talking about parking must be beneficial to the community. They must result in improved zoning and planning to benefit the community and not merely for the private purposes of the owner. So put another way, the way I describe it is,

hey board, are we better off with granting this variance under C2 or the variances under C2 versus having the applicant fully comply with the ordinance? Is it better? Is it a zoning benefit for a better zoning opportunity for the property and the surrounding neighborhood as compared to full compliance with the ordinance provisions? And conversely, a C2 variance must be denied as a matter of law where it does not provide a benefit to the community and would merely alleviate a hardship to the applicant which he himself created. In this case, by choosing de to develop on an undersized lot and designing their project, building, parking, circulation, etc. in a manner in which they designed it. So here we have two things I want to talk about. The minimum parking requirement where the site will contain of a total of 46 parking spaces where at least 79 parking spaces are required. That's based on the one per three seats. We also spent some time earlier in the hearings talking about the fact that the ordinance actually says one per three seats or one space per 10 ft of gross floor area whichever is greater. Talk about that in a minute. And the other requirement is that all parking areas shall be located either in the required rear yard or in the buildable area of the lot.

In this case, less than half of the proposed spaces are located in compliant conditions. So with that as the backdrop, parking The house of worship that is before you has approximately 450 members. Um they state that there's an average of 161 attendees at any one time on Sunday. What average means in my world is that 50% of the time it's more 50% of the time can be less. Not to mention the memorial service, wedding or other dedication um every 12 weeks where they have an average of 100 attendees. And what the applicant has done here is proposed their parking variance just based on seats. You know, the 79 spaces for 237 seats versus 46 spaces on site. and they say, "Well, we have we're going to provide 33 site uh spaces offsite." Some of the spaces also, namely the tandem spaces don't m meet the ordinance requirement as to access or spacing. We also have despite the extensive testimony and I went back and I listened to a lot of the testimony on the YouTube videos and what was never really described to this board was how pickup and drop off is going to work for Sunday services and the simultaneous children's programming

that happens on Sunday based on the testimony during cold weather, during inclement weather, whether it's queuing, length of time for a queue, how many parking spaces will be blocked by a vehicle queue, including handicap spaces, and even if you believe that one space per 10 square feet ratio that's in the ordinance for an 18,000 plus square foot building would result in way way too many required parking spaces for this application. And parenthetically, I agree. Okay. However, it's in the ordinance. And the other thing though that is significant is that based on that ordinance standard, you can't just say I'm going to ignore the rest of the building and I'm only going to even though the ordinance says I shouldn't. I'm going to ignore the rest of the building and I'm conveniently going to only focus on the sanctuary seats. Keep in mind that there is functionality and use of this building outside the sanctuary space on Sunday morning. There are f you can look at the floor plan. There are five classrooms for children. There was testimony that there are um described adult facilitators for those classrooms. There's a large foyer. There's a large lobby. There's a large common area. There are offices. There's a kitchen that all could

potentially be used on Sunday morning outside of the sanctuary space. And by the way, if you add it all up, because I did just those areas, I'm ignoring every other area of the building. And we and putting aside the sanctuary which is already accounted for in terms of the calculation we're talking about approximately 5500 square ft or approximately 1th3 of the building. So whether you think 1 per 10 square ft is probably not a a good or accurate way to calculate parking. A, it's in the ordinance. B, it's demonstrating that there needs to be consideration of not just what's in the sanctuary, but what's beyond the sanctuary, especially if that space is going to be used at the same time the sanctuary is being used. Functionally, one space per three sanctuary seats is not close to being adequate for this proposed use. I'm going to explain why. First of all, there's been no evidence, studies, or data, and I asked Miss Dolan this a number of times in a number of different ways. Despite the church having an existing location, there's been no evidence, studies, or data that at their current location, each car arriving for services has at least three passengers. Further, I asked this of Miss Dolan as well. According to the IT, Institute of Transportation Engineers parking generation

manual latest edition lo using an independent variable of 237 seats for a house of worship for this particular use. The peak parking demand on a Sunday is an average average of 135 parked cars. It's more than 50% of the time up more than 50% of the time down. But what traffic engineers, as Miss Dolan admitted, typically look at is not that average or the 50 50th percentile. What they look at is the 85th percentile peak parking demand, which means that there'll still be more than whatever that number is 15% of the time. But traffic engineers typically look at it and say, "Well, 85% that that's pretty good. That's unless there's like the Friday after Thanksgiving for a shopping center." Um, that this is pretty good indicator as to the the peak parking demand. And in this case, what we're talking about under the IT, which is recognized by the NJ DO and nationally, is a demand of 168 parked cars and that's compared to 46 spaces being proposed. So, while the ordinance says 79 parking spaces for 237 seats, the 80th percentile peak parking demand based on it for a house of worship is 168 um parked cars for 237 seats. And we also know that the ordinance does not allow you to satisfy parking requirements with off-site parking. Um there's been no traffic or

parking studies provided by the applicant for Sundays during the time. Not just, you know, picking, you know, 7 to 10 on two particular days on a Sunday morning, but actually going on the internet and finding out in Wilson Park, are there going to be activities on Sunday morning on this particular day? Because I'm going to go out there and I'm going to do some parking counts when there's a soccer game, when there's a baseball game, when there's a softball game. That was not done here. Springfield Avenue, a county road, is not designed for overflow parking. It is very busy. I would argue that it is dangerous to parallel park anywhere on Springfield Avenue when you have a 35 mph speed limit, which means of course that folks are driving in excess of 35 miles an hour. You have a narrow sha uh shoulder le less than eight feet wide plus you have a hill crest to the east of the site. If you're driving you you're not going to know first of all until you enter the site whether there's parking available on the site. So you have to drive into the site, go all the way to the end of the site, loop around the that culde-sac circular driveway, come all the way back out, and then make a right turn or a left turn on the Springfield Avenue to find offsite parking. And even if they make a right-hand turn to park on the north side of Springfield Avenue where there is a sidewalk, I would contend that there are only a certain amount of linear space available

to safely and adequately parallel park if you desire to do that within a reasonable walking distance to the entrance of the church. And of course, there's no guarantee that only the north side's going to be used for off-site parking. I would contend, and we heard some of the commentary, that it's dangerous for pedestrians to A walk around along that south side of Springfield Avenue, b cross Springfield Avenue, and c cross Springfield Avenue at night when it's dark at dusk. And we also know that the nearest crosswalk is nowhere near the subject property. So we believe that the applicant cannot meet its burden of proof to obtain a C2 variance for parking, especially where you you have such a deviation that's inconsistent with your own ordinance. It's inconsistent with it because we believe that the deviation is actually greater and significantly the benefits do the benefits of the deviation from the parking substantially outweigh any detriment. I would contend that it is absolutely the other way around and there's certainly not a better zoning opportunity for this property and the surrounding neighborhood by granting a variance for the deficient number of parking spaces that's currently being proposed by the applicant and requiring visitors,

parishioners, etc. to parallel park on Springfield Avenue and then walk whether it's on the right side of the street, I'm sorry, on the north side or or the south side. And again, this deviation was self-created by choosing an undersized lot and designing the project the way it has been designed. I read to you at the very beginning the design standards in our in the city of Summit's ordinance and about the fact that buildings need to architecturally be related to the neighborhood and be harmonious and we talked about the massing and all those things. I'm not going to repeat myself. What I'm going to talk about though is if the applicant were intending to seek relief from those standards, which they haven't done to date, what do they need to do? Well, when you seek site plan approval, in this case, preliminary and final site plan approval, which the applicant is required to seek under the ordinance, they need to comply with the site plan standards in the ordinance. And if they don't, they need to under section 51 of the municipal land use law seek a design exception. What is that? Well, a design exception is where you demonstrate as an applicant with the burden of proof that your variation from the design standard is reasonable. because if you don't think it's reasonable, you don't go on to part B, C or D. So if their deviation from

the design standard you believe is not reasonable, you stop right there. Let's say arguably that you find that the design, the massing, the architecture, the orientation that it's not supposed to be facing that that's it's supposed to be facing the street and it's not. It's facing the parking lot, etc. Let's say hypothetically that the board finds that all of those deviations under these circumstances are reasonable. Then you move on to the next part of the design exception criteria. You have to determine whether the literal enforcement of the ordinance as to those standards is impracticable. Not impractical, impracticable. and impracticable means you can't do it or will exact undue hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question. I would argue that the proposed development is not harmonious and consistent with the existing character of the community including the architectural style, massing, orientation, etc. It's not proportionate to nor compliments surrounding development. It does not incorporate aesthetic enhancement in a manner in a manner that respects the site's physical features nor relates well to the design vernacular of surrounding development and it's not oriented to a primary

entrance facing at least one adjacent public street. I will also offer to you that all those violations individually, collectively are not reasonable. Gi especially given that the applicant is working with a clean slate after it demolishes the existing building on the site. But even if you find that it's reasonable that the literal enforcement of those design standards is not impossible in practice to do our or carry out. Of course, it's possible to design a site and a building to comply with those requirements. Houses of worship are conditionally permitted not just in the R15 residential zone, but other residential zones in the city of Summit, let alone in other communities in in New Jersey. And they are in residential areas. And from our side of the aisle, which you'll hear about in a moment, we're not stating that houses of worship should not be in this residential neighborhood, but it doesn't meet the ordinance requirement. Nor will violating these design standards result in undue hardship on the applicant because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question. So, there's nothing peculiar about this 1.74 acre piece of property that precludes an applicant from complying with those design standards in terms of making sure

that its design, the height, its features, its massing is not inconsistent with the surrounding landscape, the surrounding neighborhood. And again, a lot of this probably has to do with the fact that the architect under oath stated, "I didn't really consider the ordinance requirements when I designed this site." So, we believe that the applicant is also unable to meet its burden of proof for any design exception necessary for approval of the application. So what are we left with? What we're left with is the following. So despite the church supporters and the residents, as it turns out as often in in this meeting room, sitting on opposite sides of the room, you know, the the public hearing process in New Jersey for these kind of of applications, believe it or not, is not intended by law to be advers serial. That's the Smith vers Fair Haven case. The goal of all these applications is for the board to obtain all the facts from all different sides. hear the law from all different sides and then make a decision which best accords with the rights of the applicant and the interests of the public. And as

you heard from the neighbors, including my clients, they are all supportive of the church not only remaining in this community, but being part of the subject neighborhood. Provided that the applicant first comes much closer to complying with the ordinance than what is being currently proposed. including providing a smaller building which leads to more opportunities for more parking, better buffering, better layout, eliminating the solar carport proposal, reducing the height. Unfortunately, the applicant so far has not reciprocated. It is and has not appropriately considered the impacts of the many variances and design exceptions on the neighbors. Nor has it proposed meaningful substantive plan revisions to provide those appropriate buffers, setbacks, coverages, height, building orientation, and parking. I will contend that the governing body did not intend for a house of worship to operate in the R15 zone with so many deviations from the zoning ordinance and the site plan ordinance. And it certainly goes without saying that the current project

runs a foul of the summit master plan's goals of preserving residential neighborhoods and providing a desirable visual environment. So while those who brought bought homes in this residential neighborhood may have been aware that houses of worship were conditionally permitted in the R15 zone. They believed that they were protected by the local ordinance from the negative impacts associated with deviations and not just as I stated a while ago now the 12.5% deviation to take into account the deficient lot size but substantial deviations up to 80% associated with the conditional use standards including the not only minimum lot size, but all the setbacks and buffering, the height, coverage, deviations as to parking, etc. So, what the neighborhood is now left with, at least under its under the plan's current iteration, is a building that's too large for the site, too tall for the site, lacks necessary setbacks, it lacks necessary buffering, that needs to rely so much on off-site parking. and includes prohibited solar panel parking canopies. Conversely, the applicant certainly can design a house of worship to meet all of its program needs without so much deviation and the extent of so much deviation from the requirements of the ordinance so that it can achieve building sustainability and functionality without being inconsistent with the scale and aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood. So, what are we left with? Um,

we believe that there's still a clear path forward for the church to be developed at this site, a clear win-win for the applicant, for the neighbors, for this board, and for the city of Summit, providing that it first undertakes the applicant that is first undertakes a meaningful meaningful not cosmetic project redesign that addresses these issues that I have articulated this evening that have been brought forth through the testimony and evidence before you. the the many in which includes many intelligent and thoughtful concerns raised by not only members of the public but but members of this board so that the building and the site design are much more closely aligned with the city's site plan and zoning standards and are harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. We believe humbly that the applicant can do better. We believe humbly that the applicant should do better. Unfortunately, the applicant has not undertaken these efforts to date. And unfortunately because of this lack of meaningful effort, we believe that the board um really doesn't have a choice that but to consider the evidence brought before it and based on that consideration determine that the applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof for the extensive relief it currently requires at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Simon.

Mr. Mayor, you want to break or do you want We We are powering through. All right. We'll we'll break after our deliberations. Throw you a lighter. I think if we take any more breaks on this, we might not make it to the next application. Might not come back in.

Uh Roger Mayor, Linda Barry, McCormack, Esther Brook, and Cooper, uh New Providence, New Jersey, represent the applicant. um Beacon Unitarian. Um you know, I had u my wife and I had our oldest daughter, her husband, her 18-month-old, and their dog all weekend. So, it's nice to be in a stress-free, quiet, uh relaxing environment for a change. Um it's been a long, long process here and thank you all for sticking with us. Um and I thank the people at Beacon for putting their confidence in me. It's been an honor to represent them and I appreciate that and it's it's always fun to appear before this board. I've been doing it since the late 1970s. I hate to admit uh I had more hair back in those days. So, let's talk a little bit about what this case is really about because my view is always let let's keep things simple. I think uh stuff test stuff gets lost in the fog of a long application and things get over complicated. But it's a house of worship that's been in Summit for well over a hundred years. And you heard the early testimony that uh while it's managing to function somewhat in its existing uh location at Waldron and Springfield Avenue, it's got no on-site parking. It's got tremendous limitations on its old sanctuary. Cannot have one service which uh uh churches of this size and denomination look to have. And that's what we're trying to accomplish. And you all live in Summit. You know there the opportunities to build a church somewhere and find two acres plus of land to build it on are uh slim and none tending towards none. Um now with respect to this property there have been lots said about you bought this property knowing that you needed variances and so forth. Well, yes, that often happens. But, uh, you'll remember there was a gentleman who came out from the audience and talked about his own redevelopment business and he said,

"Well, I always conferred with Christ Anderson because she would tell you the real deal and give you the background." And, well, guess what we did first in this matter the day we saw the um for sale sign on the uh uh on the Red Cross property, conferred with Christa, who was very, very supportive. thought this was a fantastic location for a church and that kind of spurred the congregation on to explore purchasing this and and pursuing it. So, we've talked a little bit about why we our current uh location is really not working any longer and the need for this. And I'm not going to belabor that. I think Reverend Tanner covered that in great great detail if you recall her testimony. Um, but I think that we have to look at the constraints of of the property and look at the design process and listen to the testimony. I don't think that I've ever worked on a matter that had a better design team or more thorough review or more responsive uh approach to the board's comments to professional comments. Now, interestingly enough, the church tried for a long time to engage the neighbors through writings, through meetings, many, many efforts and and Reverend Tanner talked about that early on. The end result of that was really zero. So, late in the game to say, let's engage and redesign the church. Well, where were you? You know, we've spent a lot of time and a lot of money, and now here we are. So, I did want to sort of get that on the record. So let's talk a little bit about what's before before you. Um the church is a modern design. There's no doubt about it. Uh you heard testimony from the architect who's not just an architect,

not just a member of AIA. It's a fellow of the American Institute of Architects. That's only the top 3% of architects in the country get that recognition. That's an important credential. and implies somebody who is recognized in the profession by his peers. And the idea that he did not take into account this neighborhood, this particular piece of property, it's clear throughout his testimony the planning process he went through. And it's also clear that this design while not the church has never asserted that this is somehow required by the book of Unitarianism uh that the building look this way but it's meant to reflect the values of this congregation. It's meant to reflect the way they worship and it's me reflect what's currently going on in Unitarianism. So Unitarian churches are no longer building by and large brick boxes with steeples. you know, the churches that we all recognize from growing up and still in many cases attend and like very much, but that's not what they're building now. They're building buildings like this that are meant to be up to-date, modern, and accommodating for their needs. This building is not a big building. It has a sanctuary that's been reduced in size to 246 seats. has a lobby gathering area because anyone who attends religious services know you wander around get a cup of coffee and talk a little bit which is one of the reasons you don't want to have two um services because you got people coming going and it's it's overlapping parking. This is a much uh less impactful way to do it and better for the congregation, better quite frankly for any neighbors uh because you do not have the parking over one. Um I think Mr. Simon said, "Ah, they have six other rooms." Well,

that's not a whole lot in which to run an entire uh religious uh organization. You know, there's uh religious education, there are offices for clergy and other staff, and that's pretty much about it. And 246 seats is not a large sanctuary by any means. um the site design itself. I think you heard, you know, very detailed testimony and thoughtful testimony about not only the site layout itself from the engineer John Cody, but about the landscaping. In fact, the comments, if you look back at the comments from the environmental commission, they basically say, "We haven't seen anything really designed quite so so thoroughly and with such u uh attention to environmental concerns and green concerns. You know, we've got a portion of green roof and we've got solar panels, which we'll get to, but these are eminent people. I mean, you heard from Tavis Duck Deckweiler, the uh landscape architect. She serves on advisory boards that that help take care of the parks in Philadelphia. I mean, she's a she's worked with, you know, I can remind you about her her um credentials, but she's a pretty eminent person in her field, too. So you also heard John Cody, our architect, talk in detail about drainage and how that was completely compliant with current standards which keep upgrading and you know they've changed not that long ago and again we are compliant with those. So, our design team, I think, was very responsive and very responsible and took great pains to try to work within this site to do the best that could be done balancing the size of the site, the needs of the neighborhood, and the comments of professionals. In fact, those tandem parking spaces, which we

thought were we had thought about and thought, well, I don't know if we want to propose those or not because, you know, maybe that will be something the board won't like. Well, the board's own engineer proposed them and we said great, we will try to design those in a way that work and we did. So, we moved the whole front of the building back. So, there was no front yard variance required at the same time that we reduced the size of the sanctuary to the 246 seats. So, that was a substantial reduction because the original proposal was 300 seats. So, you know, I'm not going to do the percentages in my head right now, but that's a pretty big chunk. So with respect to the variances, I'm not going to talk too long. I think that in some instances inaccurately, but mostly accurately, Mr. Simon talked about the uh uh various statutory standards. Uh I had I'm going to suggest and I had uh that the board consider the solar panels uh separately because that's our only D1 variance. And of course that's actually a little bit controversial from our standpoint because our assertion is that's really a C variance because they're accessory use. But we're preserving that argument but we're addressing them as a D1. That's the way what the board asked us to do. But we think that should be considered separately as a separate voting item and then the rest of the application can be in one.

Okay. As we begin our deliberations, we'll have a conversation about that. Okay. Thank you. Y um but yes, it is an inherently beneficial use. No question about it. And let's kind of stop the cuteness. They aren't carports. I mean, carports are structures, you know, meant to shelter vehicles. These are solar panel arrays in the parking lot. And they're discreet. They're not covering the entire parking lot,

but they are inherently beneficial uses. And if the only detriment is that maybe you can see them a little bit through some of the trees in the woods in the middle of the winter, then I have a hard job thinking that's a substantial detriment to anybody given the inherently beneficial nature of these things. Now, let's talk about the D3 variances a little bit. They really, as our planner testified, all really stem from the size of the lot. I mean, we have variances for setbacks for buffers. Um, but they really all relate to the fact that we have a bit of an undersized lot and we have made every effort to get as much parking on the lot as we possibly can without starting to propose huge retaining walls and paving the front yard, which no one would want, particularly the church would not want. So they really all are sort of related to the same thing which is the fact that there's really very limited places I would say none where the church could build in summit except this kind of property which I think is from our standpoint seemed ideal. So I think that with respect to the D3 variances, I mean first of all the the the real question is can the site accommodate the use even with the variances requested under D3? Well, sure it can. I mean we showed extensive views all around this property what it would look like in the middle of the winter with no leaves on anything and how limited the visual impact of this was going to be which is what buffers are all about. I mean once you have we have limited sight lighting we have lights that will turn off at the required times uh under the ordinance that's the only

impact that you can have I mean what else is there but visual impact and it's minimal absolutely minimal so I don't see that there's any substantial detriment here with respect to any of those D3 variances and certainly certainly the site can handle it you heard that from all the testimony of our experts. Um, with respect to the C variances, um, you know, there are some bulk variances. They're very similar to the D3 variances. Again, they relate to the size uh of the of the lot really and the need to create some parking and the sideyards and so forth. But the um most consequential or most important ones really parking. Okay. So we have 79 required parking spaces. We have 46 on site. We are on Springfield Avenue. It's a wide major street. Has striped up legal street parking on both sides. I mean, Springfield Avenue has legal parking on both sides of it for miles through Summit, through New Proidence, through Berkeley Heights, all along its all along its uh its length. And it's legal in all areas around this development. And you heard from our parking expert, expert testimony as to the expected parking, how it would work, the fact that it would work safely, there would be sufficient parking for the people expected to attend the church. And there was no expert testimony in opposition to it. And there was no negative comment from the police department of Summit, who was our own public agency, who's charged with protecting our our safety. So there are no facts other than those facts that were put on record by the

applicant with respect to parking. Now, we did have a conversation and and I know we'll maybe you'll have a conversation about conditions and certainly uh the church would be supportive of adding a crosswalk and we will, you know, would undertake a condition to request when we go to the county, uh if we're approved, we go to the county, we would request that the county put in another crosswalk adjacent to the church. probably makes most sense at the corner uh of the intersection, but but we would certainly be supportive of that and agree to do that. We don't we can't control the county, but we certainly would make the request and and advocate for that in front of the county. So, let's talk a little bit about the objections here. Um, it's hard to know where to start because I I view a lot of this as as um, you know, we probably mostly had the horrible experience of being forced to read Shakespeare at some point in our lives. And I look at a lot of what happens in these kinds of cases as sound and fury signifying, well, not a whole lot. But let's talk about it. The objectors only presented one witness. One witness, Mr. Stack who's a planner, well known as an objector's planner, and he goes to meetings in New Jersey, objects to things. Um, he admitted that he hadn't really reviewed the entire record in this case before he rendered his opinion. Um he concocted an exhibit that purportedly showed that the solar panels wouldn't work. That was not an asbuilt condition of the landscaping, but his his um you know cribed version of what he was able to take off Google Earth shoving some

trees, you know, and alleging that it was going to shade them. And he also had an exhibit showing a red building envelope on the property and asserting that the church can build within this. Well, I'd like to see that design in that box with a sanctuary and parking and some offices for and classrooms for church function. And and he asserted that we could do everything and conform. You know, the three people that would fit in that sanctuary get to know each other pretty well, but that would be about it. Uh so that I think goes to his credibility tremendously. I I really don't think his his uh testimony is anything that should sway this board in any way. And let me just point out something else. I'm going to talk about Raulupa for a minute, but Mr. Ste is kind of a good segue into Rupa. Um you probably know that the uh cautionary tale of the mosque in in U Burn Township that uh after 30ome nights of hearings was turned down. uh and the mosque appealed and there was a action brought by the US Department of Justice under Raul Lupa and after a pretty tough decision by a federal judge, the township paid $3 and a4 million dollars to settle the case. So, one of the things that that war relied on in its denial was testimony by the objector's planner, Mr. step remarkably similar to some of the testimony he uh provided in front of you all. So I would say that's not somebody I think that I would rely on if I were going to make a decision. Now let's talk about Raulupa a little bit. Um I've already alluded to it. uh a

relup is always what's hanging over any decision that a board makes about a religious organization. I will say this um there's qual and relupa focuses on you know is there some compelling governmental interest that makes this regul this zoning regulation legal to apply to this house of worship and there's case law that says aesthetics is not one of them. So when we get into saying, "Well, this church should look like this, that, or the other thing." Guess what? Federal law is saying, "No, there's a recognition here that churches should look like their congregations want them to." I mean, within reason. I'm not saying you can build a helport on top of it, but but in terms of style, in terms of aesthetics, I think you have to be careful treading on that when it comes to a religious organization. Now, let's just talk a little bit about some of the other objections. And you know, I'm not going to I find myself physically incapable of talking as long as Mr. Simon, but I'll talk for a few more minutes. Um again there was no expert testimony as to there a lot of objections to design but the objectors have no design professionals who testify. There's objection as to parking but there's no traffic or parking study or expert on the other side of this case and there's no objection from the police department either. So where does that leave us? Forgive me for a minute, but I'm took a

lot of notes. I think there were a couple misstatements. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Ball. It's not the applicant's job to come up with conditions under the seek a test. It's the board's job. I think that's pretty clear. Um, so it's funny, that's my note, not our job. Okay. So, I think that was misdated. Now, let's talk a little bit about other things that should impact what I think your decision should be. Um, municipalities get in trouble when they treat different denominations differently from others. And it's true that some of the churches have been around for a while, but you heard from our planner that many many of the churches in Summit are deficient in almost every way. And if you go through Summit from a zoning standpoint, I'm talking if you go through Summit, there is no those neighborhoods around those churches are not deteriorating. There are not, you know, houses that have gutters falling off of them. I mean the the best example is a decision of this board back in the late OOS's on the Jewish what was then the Jewish community center of summon which is now Temple or Shalom. So when that application and you know right where it is on Kent Place Boulevard, that application has an undersized lot. They had enough property actually to make their lot conforming. But what they agreed to do was subdivide off a little piece to use for their buyer retention area and take the remainder of a lot they had acquired with a really deteriorated old big Dutch colonial house on it. old baish house uh had raccoons living in it and uh agree that if their application was approved they would sell that property not

knowing if they would get 10 cents for it and who would do something with it. So that application was approved. It had 63 variances. It had C variances for various things like setbacks. It had a parking variance. 98 spaces required 50 provided. of very close to 50% parking variance with the rest of the parking overflow parking on on Kent Place Boulevard. Okay. And a height variance, too. And it's a very modern building. As you know, the the sanctuary that was approved is a dome. And that was an architect from New York City, another foreigner. And he he designed that dome as an iteration of you know architects are beyond me sometimes but iteration of folded origami like structures coming from the star of David. It had a it had a religious connection to that design just like our building. And the objections were the same. It's too big. It's too close. There's parking. The design. Oh my god. It's going to ruin the neighborhood. So, what happened to that house next door? That house is next door to the parking lot. Not even the building, the parking lot with its light stansions and so forth. Somebody bought that house, got renovated it, and it's gorgeous. I mean, and as you go down Kent Place Boulevard, all the houses are beautiful, you know, they're expensive. They're And it's really a model for what can happen. And it shows you what the adverse impact of a house of worship is in a residential neighborhood. Right here, totally visible, not buffered by anything, not surrounded by a lot of trees. The impact has been minimal. Minimal because that house would still be empty and full of

raccoons if this were such a detriment to a residential neighborhood. So you should bear that decision in mind because that case and this case very similar very very similar. So I would just tell you this. I mean I think when you're thinking about the public good there's a lot to think about. There's a lot to think about because we live in a town that's not a town. It's not a township. It's a city of Summit. It's a small city, but it is a city. So, a city is, you know, kind of a lot of different things, I think. And a city is certainly more than a bunch of subdivisions or a bunch of houses. Okay. My wife and I moved here in 1978 because not because we found a house. We could have found a house anywhere. But Summit had a hospital. It had not only great public schools, but three well regarded independent schools if you decide to go that way, which we didn't, but lots of people do. It had SAGE. It had what is now New Jersey center for visual arts. Had a YMCA. It had what was then the YWCA, now the connection. It had the Arboritum. Had a public library. Had the Playhouse Association. It has all these things. Sage. That's what makes this a community. All of those kinds of organizations. All of them. Now, I've been lucky in my life, in my professional life, because I've gotten to represent a lot of them in front of you all or in front of the planning board. The why, the connection, the art center, Overlook back, a long time ago. I did a lot of work for OAL. Um, the art center, houses of worship like Christ Church in the JCC

and the Playhouse. Uh, I was the volunteer lawyer for the Arboritum. I know all these organizations and we cherish them all and they're what makes this a community. Oh, I forgot one. I actually represented the Elks and got them the approvals to build the rooftop bar which probably is going to be on my tombstone. You know, it's the most popular thing I ever did. and some. But those are all things that contribute to the public good and to make this the community it is. And to take a religious congregation that's been here for well over 100 years and tell them to hit the road, which has been suggested doesn't seem to me to be that kind of community. Seems to me to be the polar opposite. So, I would tell you that I think this applicant has bent over backwards to red design a responsible plan, has reached out to the neighborhood without much success, but tried, has been responsive to every comment we've gotten from the board and the board professionals, and I think has done quite a complete and um comprehensive job in doing the best it can with a site that's admittedly a little bit undersized, but it this is not a wishlist project. You heard that from various witnesses. This is what we think will take us through hopefully for the next hundred years. But if we could build anything we wanted, it would be more than this. But we can't. You have to work within the constraints of what we got. So I see frankly no negative impacts here. See everything is positive. You have an inherently beneficial use. You really cannot treat them differently from the way other houses of worship have been treated. summit. I think they have more than substained their burden of proof here and I would respectfully ask you to approve the application. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. MAYOR.

MR. BALL, can you let us know the conditions and the number of votes required to approve? Absolutely. Um before we do that, I did also just want to chime in on the point about the seek balancing test that I raised during Mr. Simon's closing. Um I can't hear you.

My apologies. So before we get to the conditions, I wanted to chime in on the see balancing test uh that I was discussing during Mr. Simon's closing. Uh sitting up here with a laptop, I have the benefit of being able to pull up the SECA case. I I just wanted to confirm specifically that that case the text of it reads as to the um four factors. Third, in some situations, the local board may reduce the detrimental effect by imposing reasonable conditions on the use. If so, the weight accorded to the adverse effect should be reduced by the anticipated effect of those restrictions. So being the board's obligation to come up with these conditions, I'm I'm going to advise you that you should take that into consideration uh during your deliberations. U it's not the applicant's burden to suggest conditions on its own application. It is in fact the board's obligation uh obligation to do so.

Um see just to can you just reread that? It says may. Does that in the in in legal ease does may mean can or must? Just so that I understand. I'm recommending that if you find detrimental effects by the application that you do consider any possible conditions. If it's your conclusion that there are no conditions that can be imposed to reduce those impacts. That is a possible conclusion. But you should examine that. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. as to the potential conditions that we've discussed so far. Um, I have a couple questionable ones, but I'll go through them now. So, first, we have our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second, that the applicants will not operate a homeless shelter facility or host homeless people except for their sanctuary program on the site. Third, the applicant will not utilize a parking lot from Wilson Park to accommodate parking during services. Um, I did have one condition early on that the applicants wouldn't potentially install a coating over the area of glass that would result in a glare, but I believe that's subsequently been addressed um by their modifying the application to include the glare reflection uh reduction coding rather. And if anyone on the board feels that additional glare reduction is required, let me know. Otherwise, I don't believe that's necessary. I did just want to mention it as being raised previously. Um, the next condition I have noted as a possibility is uh one that I believe Ed raised at one point that we could potentially limit other uses of the church while the main service is occurring on Sunday in an effort to reduce any uh detrimental impact from the parking. Uh we did not explore that much further other than that suggestion, but that is something for the board to consider. Um, and then the final condition, again, possible condition I have noted that we hadn't formally agreed on, as just represented during Mr. Mayor's closing, was that the church will request that the county put in another crosswalk near the church. Now, I will note that as to that crosswalk, it is complicated because we as the zoning board do not have jurisdiction over a county road. We cannot compel a

condition where we do not have jurisdiction over a county road. But as phrased, we can agree to a condition where the church makes that request. Unfortunately, aside from making the request, we won't have any way of ensuring that the county agrees with it. The county could say no and that condition would be met. So, it is something that we can condition it on. It's not something that we can guarantee with the condition. Can we condition with a financial comp uh requirement? because I know in various other jurisdictions the county can say yes but here's the cost and they won't pay for it. Um, but the county can also say no, right? 100%. If they agree to it,

condition is meaningless because the county can just say no. That that is a possibility. And if the church were to agree to that condition that if the county says yes and there is a cost imposed that they will pay it, that is something we could condition it on if the church were to agree. And one clarification on the one about the homeless people subject to the sanctuary program. There was a caveat that the sanctuary program has to be done with members there. Just want to make sure that that language is there something we'll talk about later.

I believe that was the testimony and I imagine Mr. Mayor that if the sanctuary programs in use the condition you would agree that a member of the church would be present during that sanctuary. We would be bound by our testimony. Yes. Okay. Any other questions or thoughts on those? Is this the time to the question about splitting the solar? Is that now or is that in a moment? Let let me go through the uh number of votes and then we can get right into that. So there are devariances involved. Um five votes are required to approve the application. All right. Thank you, Andy. Um anything else?

No, I think now's the time we should discuss about the potential splitting of the variances. I have a something that I I thought about with the solar canopies. Um they're over car they're over the parking spots. What is the distinction between them and a carport? I mean it's a carport with the solar roof. So it's we're calling solar panels, but why can't why is it Why don't we we'll we can Okay, your question split up. What are we splitting up? We spinning up soul piles or whatever the only those Roger correct me if I'm wrong only the ones that are in the parking lot not

correct but if we if we consider them a carport then it is a then that does affect splitting up I think it would be better to call them a solar canopy. Yeah, I I believe the definition I don't have it off hand at the moment. I can look it up as we discussed, but I believe the definition of a carport is one that um yeah, I did just pull it up. A roofed structure providing space for the parking or storage of motor vehicles and enclosed on not more than three sides. Yeah.

So, this is not enclosed on any sides. I think that would be the clear distinction. is that really it's it's a metal pole that comes up and provides just a canopy with the solar panel on it. Sounds like it's subject to interpretation, but I calling it a canopy is fine to me. Like I Yeah, just Yeah. I I don't believe that we would consider those to be carports under the definition of the code. Yes, it's not enclosed on more than three sides. In theory, a car could park under it, but because they're separately considered as solar canopies under the code, I believe we would treat them as that.

All right. Before we even decide to bifurcate that, I just wanted to say something to open our deliberations and uh this is to everyone who's attended the meetings. Um, I really appreciate your particip participation in this very long drawn out process. Um, I know it's a lot to come here after work, uh, and to sit through what can be very dry and technical testimony, um, even at the best of times. And just know as a board we are grateful that both sides kept the discourse civil and uh took the time to participate. I I think when they thought about um the public being a part of the decision-m that goes into running a city or or municipality. This is what they had in mind. So thank you to all of you for doing that. I I am very grateful. I know the board is grateful. Um, and I appreciate you staying with us until the end here. So, thank you for that. And with that, I'd like to open up deliberations. And I think the first point of business will be, should we bifurcate our votes and have the solar canopies be voted on separately from the rest of the variance requests?

So, I believe that this is a good idea because solar panels are developing now we have in five years maybe we have a new different type of them so it might be beneficial if we separate that wood I'd agree I mean I think the solar canopies are not intrinsic to the application itself the the main church building and I think there's some controversy associated with them that might be might require some different analysis than the main part of the application.

I'll just chime in. I I often caution the board against uh splitting up variances when they are, as Mr. Mullen just noted, intrinsically tied to each other as part of an application. Here, I think it's pretty safe to say that the variances associated with the solar canopies are basically standalone. Um the use variance associated with it, it it's really the only variance that applies. uh it's not like it triggers any of the other um provisions of the conditional use that apply to the church building itself. So I think if the board is inclined, it is safe to consider it as separate and safe to separately vote on that. All right, I'll make

one one question before we do that. Is there any issue given the opposition here with doing so? Any notices or anything like that that we would have to discuss? No. Thank you.

So are solar canopies considered an accessory structure? So that's where it gets a little nuanced. Um, and I I will point out that as uh the applicant's planner has argued and Mr. remainer has argued there is the possible interpretation that they would not be treated as a D1 use variance that it could be considered a C variance because the language under subsection D1 uh applies to principal uses and principal structures. Uh I I think there is that possibility for an interpretation here that the solar canopies are considered an accessory structure to which a D1 variance would not apply. So, what I will do to be safe is ask the board to first consider it as a D1, the stricter standard. Uh, if the board were to decline that application um that analysis and vote no on that variance, I'll ask you then to consider it under a C variance standard and analysis here um to see whether that makes any difference in your opinion. Um can I just ask a question about that because um the you're saying that you know the applicant is suggesting that it could be a C variance. I'd like to know what our how our planner interprets this variance. Is it can interpret as a D1 or a C from your um perspective because I think that's I'd like to hear all the assessments

if that's okay with the board. Yes, please. Okay. Um yeah um we had identified it in our report as a D1 variance because it was not technically it actually says specifically prohibited in the R15 residential zone. So therefore that's how we came to that determination that it was specifically prohibited. So can I ask a follow- on question to that? Sure. If it wasn't explicitly prohibited would you consider it a C variance? Interesting. It is nuanced as we talk about. We could say if it wasn't, but it says that specifically. So, how do you how do you We're going to grant the bearings without

we're just going to go against what our own ordinance says, which I know that's what bariances are for, but specifically it says solar array copies are considered accessory uses that are expressly prohibited in residential zones. Correct. Well, I think it goes like more importantly is is do we even do the C variance vote or is it a D variance vote and where it lands it lands. I think that's the um you know and it sounds like our planner's interpretation is that this is a D1 variance and so I mean my preference would be to leave it to the one vote unless there's you know another reason to

I'm not trying to make it harder than it needs to be but he's our expert more than I'll ever know about this and it's specifically written right here. I think let's my recommendation is going to be let's first treat it as a D1 variance. Let's see what happens. If it gets approved, then it's no issue. Um if it gets denied, I think maybe Ed and I will have a quick conversation on how we should proceed.

Okay. Okay. So, with that, I'm going to open up deliberations on solar canopies and solar canopies only. So, with that, who would like to begin? All right, I'll go first. Um, so as I think we can all appreciate that solar panels are generally viewed as a positive benefit as as it promote the use of clean energy and intended to meet the power needs of the applicant. However, as we've just been discussing, they're pro prohibited in the zone and therefore you need to look very closely at this issue before approving them. Um, I'm not convinced that that they meet the the the D1 standards. Um, I I'm not convinced by the applicant's testimony that they would not have I hate the double negatives. I'm not convinced by the applicant's testimony that they would not have a negative visual impact on the neighboring properties. Um, visual inspection of the site as well as the objector's planners testimony that sunshine in the panels might be limited leads me to the conclusion that the positive benefits of the proposed canopies in this location do not override the negative impacts and neighboring properties to a great enough degree to prove the variance for the solar panels. Um, therefore I don't believe in this case it might be in other cases that they would serve the public good or promote the general welfare. Well, now and let me chime in on that because uh solar panels themselves they are inherently beneficial. So we have to operate under the presumption that they have met the positive criteria and that they support the general welfare. Uh but with that then uh there is still the analysis of all right what are the detrimental impacts uh of these solar canopies and then if there are detrimental impacts what reasonable conditions can we as a board consider to reduce those if any. Well, that the detrimental impacts for me are are the the visual the visual nature of them um in this in a residential neighborhood, which is I think why they're prohibited in in the

residential neighborhood. And I can't think of a reasonable condition we could impose, you know, short of eliminating them. Sort of eliminating them, right? Um or, you know, some massive screening, you know, to make them look like they're trees or something in like these fake cell phone towers or something. Um, I can't think of any other reasonable condition to impose.

I had the same struggle with this when I was thinking about it. I'm a big fan of solar. My first non- snow impacted electric bill today with with solar in in the mix and it was very low. So, I appreciate the benefits they can uh give to the applicant. But ultimately, you've got these structures that are going to be fairly fairly high. I remember visiting I was walking along Oakley Avenue to kind of look at the property and sort of visualize what this would look like. And with, you know, the lack of foliage in winter, it was hard to imagine me not standing there and staring at those canopies all winter long and probably not being too thrilled about that despite, you know, the efforts at screening. That would be the be the case for several years as things grew in. So, I I don't know how you mitigate it. And I think with that, you know, given what the ordinance says, I think it frustrates the zone plan and has a material negative impact to the neighbors that can't be mitigated.

Jay, the challenge that I have with this one is simply from the topography of the site, I don't think it's going to be visible as much from certain angles. That being said, the only way to to truly mitigate the visual impact of something that is expressly prohibited in the area is to enhance the buffering and by utilizing the neighboring property, which we can't impose restriction on property that is not theirs. The only requirement would be to move them. And I think I actually gets me back to I don't necessarily know if you can approve this without looking at overall site modifications for the original total application itself. Um so as a result I don't think there's a way to get around the visual impact that it will have on the fact that you have deciduous trees that they're not being able to use the buffer from their neighbor because I don't think legally we have that jurisdiction. Pretty clear we don't.

Right. I so I have trouble with this one.

I I I tend to agree with my cohorts on the board here. It's it's though we're treating them as a separate variance. It it is all related. And um I mean I'm a pretty simple guy. I mean I like peanut butter and jelly. I'm a pretty simple guy. It says it's not allowed. We have a clean slate. And I know this is going to go back on everything, but we have a clean slate and um it would be great to incorporate maybe you can incorporate more solar arrays on the roof of the building if there were a way to do that. I don't know. Um but it just says I know you're seeking a variance to to use a solar um canopy. Um, I don't think there's been enough justification in my opinion to their um, uh, successful outcome for the project, if that makes sense.

Don, I I think you said it best without saying it. We're not denying them solar, right? They have solar on the roof already. Uh, what we're denying is something that's specifically prohibited, and I can live with that. So with that, can I get a motion to approve? Approve. What are we approving? Uh or would it be a motion? You can also make a motion to deny that variance. Okay. Can I get a motion to deny this D1 variance? So moved. Oh, can I get a second?

I'll second. Yeah. Who did we give that first and second to? Don first. Mr. Nelson. Mr. I was going to say, am I just from a voting point of view, do does it roll down far enough for me? No, not you. Okay. So, I can't second. Yeah, I can't second either. I'll second. Okay, Miss Z. Vice Chair Z, just remember a a yes is to deny. That's what I was checking. So, yes, Mr. Yuko. Yes, Mr. Malay. Yes, Mr. Mr. Mullen. Yes. Mr. Nelson. Yes. Mr. Curran. Yes. Chairman Leitz. Yes.

So, Mr. Ball, do you want to converse with Mr. Snikus or do you want to move on to the red meat of the matter?

I think we should consider reviewing this as a C variance as well. Uh my hesitation in just relying on that is D1 refers to a use or principal structure in a district restricted against such use or principal structure. And if it's interpreted that this is an accessory structure, it is neither a use or a principal structure. Um the applicants could in theory appeal that decision and say we made a bad decision in treating it only as a D1 use variant. Um I'm not aware of any cases which address this unfortunately because I don't believe it's ever been addressed but do you have any other thoughts? I I would recommend that the board at least go through that analysis and consider it. you know, I wouldn't want to uh impose a legal opinion here, obviously not being an attorney and able to interpret that, but yet the way I saw it was principally uh specifically saying that it was not permitted in the single family zone. So, I had to uh rely on that requirement, but I understand your point that if you're not considering it as a use specifically and as an accessory structure, how would the board feel about that? interpretation in other words. So we're really not making that interpretation officially I think of the board. It's more of considering it as a C variance in that instance. Um so there's similar arguments for the the sake of that sort of variance whether or not it aesthetically or uh physically has an impact as a result of it being accessory structure. So with the evaluation of the negative uses

change in a D1 versus C variance still the negative criteria still applies in the C variance. Yes. Whether or not I just maybe the cliffnotes version. What is the difference in the criteria in this case for if you know why would someone change your mind from one from

certainly um in this instance you would be considering this in my opinion under the C2 criteria. there really isn't any any existing physical features that cause a hardship in other words in order to conform. Uh and remember that these canopies were also in the buffer requirements as well. Um that was pointed out. Um, and so under the C2 proofs, you look at the positive criteria, but yet in this instance, I think still the they're they're somewhat inherently beneficial in the fact that they're providing the solar uh solar generation of energy. But in addition to that, you look at the negative criteria as a impact to the public good or impact to the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance as well as the master plan. Um so under the zoning ordinance, it talks about the need for buffers and impacts such as that. So that is something to be considered. I don't want to vote for the board or opine for the board. I just wanted to give you that framework of the criteria. So based on Andy's analysis, why don't we have a deliberation based on our view as it's a C2 and see how that goes and then vote on it.

Is everyone comfortable with that? I'm just not following if we if the board viewed the negatives. Your deliberation can simply be that your opinion has not changed from the negative criteria and they override. I'll kick it off then. Great. That made it easy, Andy. Thank you. Just add that it's in the buffer zone on top of it, which was insinuated but not explicitly stated on the prior deliberation. Yes. Yeah. Wait, say that one more time. Good. Good addition, Mr. Feskin. That with an assist from it that it's within the buffer as stated under the the regulations. So on top of being the visual impact and expressly prohibited, it's also in the buffer zone. So we've gotten more negative,

right? where I believe 20 feet is required and it's they're sitting within the I believe 15 feet at least portion of it. Yes. Correct.

Well, I'm happy to um you know kick this off so we can move through this one. Um obviously as stated that these are in the buffer zone. So we'll just you know put that on the record. Um, as far as there's a visual impact to the neighbors, um, I know I I heard some, uh, reference to from second story, but I was on Oakley today and it's, you know, April 6th and I believe you would see those from the street level as well. Um, uh, just looking through right now, you can see the site through all the brush. there are no leaves. And so that's probably five to six months a year where you would be seeing these solar panels when there, you know, when there aren't a lot of leaves on the trees. Um, and they're industriallooking and not harmonious with a residential neighborhood. So those are sort of the visual um impacts. So the fact that it's an inherently beneficial use for me um is is secondary to the negatives. And it sounds as if the only condition we could impose is moving them substantially to the point where it would make the site navigation impossible u from a car parking standpoint.

Oh yeah. Can I add that I believe that there was testimony that there was actually no room to screen these on site. So, I know that we talked about offsite, but I think that was specific testimony that there is not room to screen on site. So, that's another um negative. And Mr. Ball, how many votes do we need to uh deny a C application? Would need four positive votes to approve it. Okay. All right. Great. So, with that, can I get a motion to deny? So, moved. Can I get a second? Second Miss Sans. Vice Chair Zon. Yes. Mr. Yuko. Yes.

Mr. Malay. Yes. Mr. Mullen. Yes. Mr. Nelson. Yes. Mr. Curran. Yes. Chairman Licks. Yes. Thank you. and then we can start deliberations on everything else. Every other variance that's been discussed over the past year, it's now open for conversation and debate. Who who wants to I'll jump in have the burden.

So, uh I've been think we've we've been at this for you know almost tomorrow will be almost 12 months. you know, we had a lot of delays during this with the setbacks and things like that. Um, I drive by the property a lot. Um, you know, I think I asked this of pretty much every applicant. Why can't you just build what you can build on a lot and not have all these variances? Um, we the lot when I used to do investigations for cause and origin, there were things that we used to say like what can't I overcome? What's the bottom of what's what caused this to happen? And the only thing that I see that's causing all these variances is the fact that the lot is too small for what the intended purpose is. The conditional use is a 2acre lot. The lot is in 1 and 3/4 acres. Now, if the if the campus was built um applying the the building requirements for a 1.3 or 3/4 acre lot, maybe we wouldn't have so many variances. Um I I just I just cannot overcome the fact that the lot is too small for the conditional use of the property. That's really that's really the basis of what I'm I'm I'm trying to figure out a good way to to to solve this problem. But there isn't the lot is just simply too small for the conditional use.

So Mr. Nelson. Yes, sir. Just keep in mind again inherently beneficial. They they are a church in this case. So it is they meet the positive criteria. the fact that they're requesting variances alone is not I guess the right key to decision but I'll just ask you to chime in and clarify if you see detriments associated with it and what those detriments are and then what conditions okay

going to try and get into that now when this uh conditional use I guess was designed it was to uh ultimately I think get this property back if it were ever sold um to a more traditional use. Um, one of the things that I've been trying to figure out in my head over the last year is does inherently beneficial mean or apply when property does not meet the conditional zoning requirements? That's a question that I'm trying to answer to figure out. Um, I understand it's inherently bene beneficial to the community, but does that mean that all zoning requirements can be um manipulated? And maybe that's a bad word to use. Um,

yeah, I moved around. So, I'm not If I could come up with some conditions to help resolve this issue, I certainly would. Um, I just don't know where to start because I know the variances are not really the the uh um how am I gonna say this? I can't we can't rely on a number of variances, but it's just that does inherently beneficial always mean that the zoning ordinances can be disregarded.

I wouldn't say disregarded, right? But I would say the key step that if you feel there is a detriment, we first need to identify that detriment. Um what is the impact that these variances have on the surrounding?

And okay, listen, let me let me expand on this. Um we talked about parking um and buffering and uh I don't believe that we should be allowed to to use uh neighboring properties as a buffer. So, it's a detriment to the neighborhood use relying on that. Uh, I think the parking issue uh has not really been officially resolved. So, the the though though it's legal to park on Springfield Avenue on both sides, is it safe? Uh, even if we install a crosswalk, which again is up in the air, uh, is that going to be a benefit to the neighborhood or will it make it more of a detriment to the neighborhood with, you know, more accidents? I can't answer that because I'm not a traffic expert, but I just can't see um the the the detriment parts that I I can't overcome again are the impact to the neighborhoods, the impact to the surrounding school system, the school, and the the the impact to the park property. And really the biggest one is that the the impingement or maybe impingement is the wrong word to use, but it just seems like the neighborhood is going to change based on the fact that parking is going to increase. Um capacity and use is going to increase. And I know there were some examples given of the Jewish Community Center, but I'm not really sure the Jewish Community Center expanded. They were already there. I think the plan was to expand by buying that house. Um, but this is a clean slate and that, you know, there's there's a great way to to review it and maybe get it back to a more um conforming size so it's less of a detriment to the neighborhood.

That makes sense. Don, if you were to be able to impose conditions that would reduce those detriments that you mentioned, one being parking, two being buffers, right? Then how would that affect your pro decision-m process? Well, I think it it's all interrelated. If we were to if we were to put some conditions on the buffer, how do you do that without making the project small? Yeah, I think that's a hard question to ask without offering a redesign. I mean, I think the conditions would be Can we put limits to the to the parking? You know, only parking on Sunday. Is there only a couple hours on, you know, is there is there times that we can limit parking to?

Well, I mean, we we could we could add a condition saying that but that's a county road. So, how do we know supply 79 parking spaces? Doesn't mean they'll agree to it, but of course, yeah, it's it's a condition that you would view as reducing the detriment. Mhm. Okay. Well, I'd like to, you know, if we could limit parking somehow on the street, hours, days, you know, no parking on Fridays or whatever the case might be, whatever their busy days aren't. I don't know. I mean, so those are things that I think would would um maybe benefit. Tom,

let me try to st take a stab at this maybe from a slightly different angle. Um, as has been mentioned, but I just want to put on the record because this applicant is proposing one of the most positive possible uses for the property house of worship, the inherently beneficial use standards need to be carefully discussed. uh with the positive criteria presumed to have been met by virtue of this being an inherently beneficial use. To turn the applic to turn down this application, we need to determine that the negative impacts of the variances outweigh the significant positive impacts of the proposed beneficial use and that the negative impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated through the imposition of reasonable conditions. Besides the normal local land use standards, we all seem to be cognizant of the federal religious land use and institutionalized persons actupa. That federal law along amongst revisions prohibits local land use restrictions that place a substantial burden on religious exercise unless the local government can prove it has a compelling interest and is using the least restrictive means to restrict the religious use. In thinking about its application, I've divided into well now we have two subjects left since we've discussed the solo canopies. the house of worse structure itself and the requested variances for lot size setback lot coverage buffer variances needed to build the structure and the parking space variances and the fact that a significant number of worshippers will have to park both will have to park off site on both sides of a busy county road with the nearest legal crosswalk I think the testimony was 750 ft away and I have significant concerns with that later issue but let me talk about the house of worship structure first it was only my position that new construction, which this would be, should comply with all land use restrictions, unless there are compelling reasons not to. Regarding this application, I believe the applicant has made a good argument that this property can accommodate their proposed structure with the modifications that have been made during our hearings. I accept the expert testimony from their planner that the property can reasonably accommodate the variances needed to build a house of worship. There are three major reasons why I believe this to be the case. The

house of worship is an inherently beneficial use that provides positive benefits to the community. The publiclyowned non-residentidential open space on three sides of the property helps mitigate the negative impacts of the setback and coverage issues. The screening provided by the applicant provides additional mitigation of these negative impacts. The negative impacts of granting these variances are also mitigated by the fact that the property will be most intensely used on Sunday mornings and much less so based on the applicant's testimony at other times. I would likely have a different view on the variances related to the size and location of the house of worship structure if the immediately adjacent lots were residential properties with homes close to the property lines. In addition, we had expert testimony from the applicant that the modern quote nautilus design of the of the proposed new construction reflects and is informed by the values of the unitarian faith. We did have other testimony that questioned that position based on the appearances of other unic unitarian church structures, but it appeared to me that with that was mostly with regard to older houses of worship, some of which may have been repurposed from the use by other faiths. And Fredo Rupa gives deference to allowing great latitude for congregations to design a building that fits their their view of faith and a design that they want. Therefore, I believe the negative impacts of the variances for lot size, parking spaces on site that the setback variances, lot coverage variances, and other buffer issues are not significant enough to overrule the inherently beneficial positive impact of the house of worship use of the site. However, the parking and related safety issues, um, this is an area of the application which I have a lot of concerns, namely the realities of parking offsite of this location and potential safety issues created by that off-site parking. I commend the applicant's efforts to include as much on-site parking as possible. I believe that this aspect of the application is a significant improvement over the applicant's current location where there is no on-site parking for worshippers. And therefore, I believe this switch to

some extent would be a benefit to the overall community. Therefore, I would be inclined to support the parking aspect of this application except for a significant issue related to pedestrian safety. While I believe that Springfield Avenue could readily handle the amount of overflow parking on Sunday mornings and in smaller numbers on occasion at other points during the week, I'm concerned about pedestrians being able to safely cross the church or access the church and cross from the opposite side of Springfield Avenue. The objector's planner has noted and visual inspection confirms this that the nearest crosswalk is a significant distance from the applicant's property. I agree with the objector's plan that few if any worshippers will walk to that crosswalk to legally and safely get across the Springfield Avenue. Excuse me. If it were possible to us to impose reasonable enforceable and reasonable and enforceable conditions to either restrict parking to the church side of Springfield Avenue or condition the application on county approval of a crosswalk between the corner of Oakley Avenue and the opposite side of Springfield Avenue, I would be able to support this part of the application. However, I'm not sure condition that users of this applicant property only park on the applicant side of Springfield Avenue would be enforceable regarding a potential crosswalk near to the proposed house of worship. Refer testimony that we do not have the power to impose that condition requiring actions by the county government which appears would be needed to install such a crosswalk. Um, you know, I'm just going to throw this out there. Could we add a condition that says we're approving the application condition that the events should do get county approval and if they don't then they can't move forward but I I doubt that would work. Um based on that I'm leaning towards what I know in this application uh because of uh the safety concerns about the about the parking

regarding the parking.

Thank you Tom. I want to chime in because I have direct experience at two houses of worship in town that have a somewhat analogous situation with parking that we're contemplating here. So, congregation or shalom, I've attended services there and anyone who's attended services there on the high holy days knows that their overflow parking goes onto Kent Place Boulevard and andor the Kent Place School if school isn't in session that day. And if you've ever parked at the Kent Place School, no one actually walks up to the corner of Mars Avenue and Kent Place Boulevard to cross because the sanctuary entrance is about 100 feet before Mars Avenue. So everyone scurryries across Mars Avenue as the as in between light changes and you know hopefully doesn't leave their children in the middle of the road, but I haven't heard of any incidents yet. I'm also a member currently of Congregation Beth Hatikva which is located on Chattam Road which if you're not familiar they they installed the traffic light there at the intersection of River Road by the by the Broadway Diner and that road is fairly busy with a lot of truck traffic from DPW some of the businesses on that street as well as JCPNL's uh substation.

Mr. Mullen, if you could just make sure you're speaking to the mic.

And I can tell you, you walk the entire length of that road on on the high holy days with no no sidewalks and people make do and it's not a safety concern. So, when I think about Kent uh Springfield Avenue here in this case, it being on a Sunday morning, a bulk of spaces on the same side of the street as the church with a sidewalk buffering there and then probably some parking being done on the other side of the street. I I think the safety concern that we're talking about theoretically in practice will be much less. So, I I'm relatively comfortable with this from from my own personal experience. Um, regarding the other aspects of the application, I I know the applicant knowingly bought an undersized lot, but I think Mr. Mayor brings up an excellent point. Show show me a twoacre lot for sale in Summit. And uh I think that would be a rare site. And this board, I know, you know, certainly during my prior term here, we saw plenty of cases where you had someone come in knowingly buying a non-conforming lot and then sort of assuming they were going to get variances, and that met with a somewhat chilly reception. I think in in this instance, they were making the best of the situation. I I recall their prior application in town for a 600 seat sanctuary with no parking. So when I think about that compared with this, this is a vast improvement and I think it'll serve the congregation's needs very well. When when I think about all of the bulk variances, Mr. Simon does bring up a good point there. There's a lot here and it does raise questions as to all right what are they what do they need to have to execute their design versus what are the nice to haves here and it's it's hard to draw that

distinction. I think in my mind the nautilus design exceeding the maximum height by 3 feet you know I could probably go either way on that. I don't think that is some grounds I would deny an application on, but it it certainly feels borderline from the testimony we heard. But overall, I think there has been thoughtful attention to detail in terms of minimizing any negative impacts. So when I think about potential negative impacts cited weighed in a strict scrutiny test that RUPA imposes, I feel like the applicants have met their burden. and that's why I'm inclined to support the application. So, can I can I add something? Sure.

Because I I am open to more discussion like what Mr. Mullen just said about the safety concerns, how realistic the safety concerns are. We have testing about it. You know, Mr. Mullins says in in reality, his opinion is it it would not be an issue. I'd be very interested to hear what other my colleagues think about that. Allison, go ahead.

Yeah. some parking is my major concern with this this application and however you calculate it. But the three seats, let's we're going by that number should you know we should have 79 parking spots and they're only going to be providing 46 um which is which is you know which is like like I said that's only the sanctuary seating whatever. We're not we're not even looking at the gross area which we were told we're not supposed to look at that. That's that's a whole another thing. Um, I think it's a major concern if on, you know, we saying Sundays. I've had kids that played ball there, you know, baseball baseball there. I'm sure that's when I mean that's when kids sports are are on Sunday mornings also. So, it's going to be there's already that traffic already. So, I don't know what the streets look like. The the residents would know best what the streets look like normally on a Sunday. Um but that area of Springfield area um Avenue, even if we did say if they if the applicant said they were going to ask the county for to consider a crosswalk, it is a curve. I was just just yesterday I wrote down it and realized, you know, it's a big curve and I walk a lot um in the morning and I'm always using crosswalks. I don't see not being a traffic expert how you can even put a crosswalk anywhere near that area. Um the crosswalk now is on Pine Grove because that's an area where you can cross safely across Springfield um because it's it's this the line of sight is easy for a car to be able to you know to see the crosswalk. Um I think it's a it's a major issue um the parking and I think that you know we didn't see another plan. We didn't see a smaller a smaller um building or a building with less outdoor gardens and such. I mean there is a lot of there's a lot of outdoor space which is great but given that you're they're underparked maybe there should be more parking and less outdoor gardens you know that outdoor

space you know um there is a way it it seems like there is a way if to to figure out a way to put the building get rid of the all the outside outside space you're surrounded by parks so to put all your own the the landscape I'm sure it's beautiful but there's other parks public parks around there So, um I think the parking needs to stay on on on site and I think you know to be short 33 spots you know like I said if you if you do that type of calculation is just a lot a big burden on the community. Thank you. What about stackers? Don't start. Mr. Malay is going to jump across the day. Um,

sorry. Train station is not too far. I have um which is an advantage. The train station. Yeah. No problems. Go ahead. Sorry. Let's have

Okay. Um, so I have, you know, I recognizing this is an inherently beneficial use. This has definitely um been challenging and you know I appreciate everybody's who's you know voiced opinions, testimony, expert testimony um you know and at in at the end of the day I'm primarily relying on the application itself and then the visual observations of um things like oh I I believe you could see the solar panels which we've already voted on. Um, so you know, if you're looking at like SECA and when I when I look at that, I'm like, there's obviously a public interest. It does benefit the community. So that's a that's a positive. Um, are there detrimental effects? That's another question. And for me, the answer is yes. Um, to appropriately accommodate the proposed design, a much larger lot would be required. And I say that for, you know, specifically because it is about this design and maybe there is a smaller design or a different parking situation as uh Miss Chief said less park space more spaces that could be um proposed where it would work on this site. Um I think for me the parking is a huge issue um and I think it needs to be reiterated. Our ordinance requires parking spaces by using the result of the greater of two calculations. One space per three seats or one space one seat per 10 square feet. It's you know it 10 one space per one seat per 10 square feet is a enormous number. Um and that's only if we're looking at the sanctuary alone. So, and I'm not saying that that's you we

need 300 parking space that that would be the requirement, but I think the answer is maybe somewhere between the 46 there are now and that what would be required for the sanctuary alone. There's a lot of space that could be used in this building besides the sanctuary. And um I say that because the first the sanctuary is a flexible space. Um, I think we heard testimony that the seats can be moved. There are 236 seats shown on the plans, but this can be reoriented depending on the programming. And in addition to that, you have other space besides the sanctuary which has the potential to be used simultaneously. And I think we need to figure factor in that. And and this this is something I'm struggling with and is that what we're seeing right now is a snapshot in time, right, in terms of what the church's intent is, what the needs and wants of the members are. And there could be a change in that envision programming, but the requested variances go with the land, not the programming. And I think that's an important thing to note because if the congregation grows, if the congregation merges with another congregation and you have this opportunity for flexible seating or you know using more of the space, you may need more parking. Um and so that the fact that there's not even enough parking on site to handle the 79 spaces that are required is is a big issue for me. Um, the other thing that I haven't heard anybody bring up, and maybe this was just something for me, though I am um surprised Mr. Nelson didn't say it, but maybe you were going to. The emergency vehicles turning around. Um, they can't turn around on the lot unless car if there unless there aren't cars parked in the spaces based on the testimony. And

that's a little bit challenging. We always like to hope, you know, we hope that there won't be any emergencies, but that's something to think about. Um, and then there's the combined height of the building with the building coverage, which I think lends itself to a massing that is in in my opinion, it feels imposing and not in keeping with the residential neighborhood, which um conflicts with the goals of our master plan that say the building should not be dominant um but should be proportionate, complimentary. I think if the building were a little bit smaller, um, this would help with the number of parking requirements. It would help, um, keep it feeling like it wasn't dominant in the neighborhood and more proportionate. So, those are um those are my concerns. And then, you know, I did think about what conditions can be imposed. The difficulty is that I can't redesign the the building or the parking. I can't say take away your green space and know that you're going to fit 30 more parking spaces. Um I I feel feel these conditions that would be required are so um technical. They they require a lot of thought and design. It's not just it's not an easy solution for me. So, you know, right now I'm uh at this point I I'm leaning towards uh voting against

Thank you, Mayor Tom. Oh, just a couple other comments. I just reminder that the police department had no objections to plan. The fire department have any comments? I don't recall. I don't think they did. Uh, yes, they did. I'll leave it at that. Well, one of the things that was missing though, and maybe I missed it, is um how wide is the parking alley between the cars in order for certain apparatus to operate in that area. So, what were I mean, I I don't recall what the fire department said.

Like, it was just a turnaround was okay, you know, backing in and out. Maybe I missed it and I'm sure the chief was more than thorough on it, but I didn't see the width of the alleyway between parks and spots, how wide it was. The certain apparatus needs 28 ft out. But I mean, did they have any objections to Okay, Mr. Current.

Thanks. Um, well, first thing I just want to be clear like the congregation is welcome in Summit. Um I it I heard uh someone mention something about kind of get out that's that's they're an asset to the community and and belong in Summit. So um you know I could get my head around kind of stacking of the variances um balancing kind of the residential character safety. the the two things that I've been missing are it'd be nice if there was a thorough traffic study um because we're left to just make up our own observations around you know traffic and and safety issues but um I do think there's a condition we could um propose around I think Mr. Mole even just referenced it there could be a shuttle from a public parking lot to the congregation. And I believe there's one mass planned per per week, even if it's a couple. I don't I just don't if you're on the south side of Springfield Avenue with no sidewalk and there's cars parked along uh along Springfield, if you're in one of those, say 6 to 12 houses and you're trying to back out of your driveway or your kids are trying to pull their bike out, like they're very limited and I think it's a real safety issue. And um I struggle with being like if we were to approve it just that that's a a sizable real risk along with just people who are biking and running along uh you know Springfield Avenue daily. So you know if if we if we were to come up with some sort of a condition where there was a shuttle no parking on Springfield right just it would be a shuttle from a a public lot or some alternative. Um, it would be something I think worthwhile considering.

We Andy, correct me if I'm wrong, we can't condition no parking on Springfield because it's a county road. Is that correct? I think it's next to impossible to enforce left post police officers there checking to see who is parking on the open spaces on a county road and seeing if they go into a church. Uh, yeah, it it is legal to park on Springfield Avenue. Yeah. Right. I'm but I'm saying some can't make it a no parking can. It's a county road. It's not our jurisdiction. Tell the county not to allow parking. Could it be a condition to have a shuttle or kind of transportation?

If the applicant were willing to agree to that, that does sound like a an enforcable condition. I had another question for you, Mr. Ball. Um, one of the challenges I've been having is with the scale and I'll get into my deliberation side of things, but do we have the ability to set a stated occupancy for the sanctuary? No, that's a function of the building code or fire code, maybe both, but we can't override that. It's a state requirement based on size. Right. Jay, do you want to

Yeah, jump in. Thank you. So this one's been a challenge for me and we can talk about the inherently beneficial use. I think we've all done that agnosium here. The reality is I think the design here, interestingly enough, I have no concerns with the design. I think the design itself, you know, I am not in a position to determine, you know, whether this design is with the faith or with not with the faith. And frankly, I think it's a beautiful design. Personally, there are certain parts of the design that I actually have no concern with. the concept of this spire curve going up and being the de facto steeple. There's an argument there on both sides. Frankly, that doesn't bother me at all. But what does bother me is that they're taking what I felt like throughout this entire presentation and the testimonies and everything going on and saying, you know what, this is what we want. And it's never been very clear to me of what is the absolute requirement. And all of these things it it always comes back to the desire, the want and the need, but never the absolute requirement. I look at the on top of that I look at this selective use of facts and figures. The parking study, the traffic study I think was not incomplete, but it was very selective at best. There was no traffic going down the street. They chose to use four points of time. and whether that's required by by the the regulations. It doesn't address the fact that they picked maybe one day during the sports time. And I don't know this site full year, but I can tell you that when I go with any near any sports field, there's concerns of that. I think the the conditions that I would get really comfortable with this are, you know, they mentioned that we scaled back the front of the building. Well, it it shaved what 2,000 ft off the

building. It's less than 10%. Or it was about 10%. And it shaved roughly 20% off of the occupants. I just don't believe that they're going to frankly utilize this space given the existing size. And I keep back and forth. Um I think the design again is beautiful. I think if by shrinking this the Cong the main building down, giving you space for parking, if there has been better testimony to that effect, I would have been a lot more comfortable. And I think that's really what it comes down to is the fact is they're imposing themselves on the neighboring properties by encroaching in the buffer zones. And as an extension of that, they have no space to make up a lot of the issues that we all have concerns with or many of us have concerns with. Sorry, don't mean to speak for everybody. Um, so I think ultimately where I feel comfortable is enhancing the buffer, which would require moving the parking, which could potentially restrict the amount of parking. While we can't address it, I would have felt much more comfortable with the stated occupancy, but an extension of shrinking the common area and the overall footprint more than a token 2,000 square feet probably would make me a lot more comfortable. Okay.

Anyone else? No.

Did we always compare the uh this proposal, this application to the previous uh location? Uh the location they have uh in the middle of town. It's close to the uh summit train station. They have no parking at all. And they I remember the old application that was denied. Uh I think this is a better location and uh especially uh there's one thing that I hate to see. I hate to see that building which is uh uh a nice building being demolished. Uh but the new newer location is way better. uh uh it has more space and it's adjacent to a uh okay the on the other side we have the playground but the other side is really empty uh space it's I think it's a city property which is like a lowland kind of steep slope on the on the I think that's the east side and uh that will compensate in a way for the uh uh for for for for the lot being undecized.

So uh go ahead Tom. I would sorry Mr. Mal so let me ask a question. I we kind of alluded to Mr. Malay's suggestion of of a shuttle service and as possible condition. Can we I didn't hear what you say as well. Can we impose such a condition? I mean, if the applicant were to agree to it. So, I think at some point we will need to call Mr. Mayor up to see if they're willing to explore that type of condition. And where would that shuttle operate from? And would there be some restrictions on what that lot is or where

that is something they would need to have control over or the authority to use? Um, so I think at this point Maybe. But is that something that that's I thought there was a question about that being enforceable. Well, that's what I was going to say. How do you how what what requires the shuttle to be used? Is it, you know, Friday night wedding or is it a Sunday mass? Like what what to use? And and what about potential future changes to programming? Like how do you

Actually, I think that raises Don and you both raised a very good question. I don't think from an enforcement point of view, we should really be care concerned about the typical Sunday um service mask. I'm not sure what the appropriate term is, but I know for the high holidays, particularly on on Summit Avenue, there's usually traffic cops there for safety. Fine. I get that. But for special events, I think it's something that we've conditioned on a variety of other applications that they do a valet or a shuttle service. That is a very standard thing that we've done from a safety and a control point of view. I'm just remembering some of the other private institutions that we've recently gotten parking waiverss for. Maybe that's we address it as any special event or major uh holiday.

But I don't I don't understand. So where so but the parking you still can park on Springfield Avenue? I don't Yeah, correct. And you don't have the jurisdiction to control it. How do you Yeah. So So why so why is anyone going to park in a lot? And how do you differentiate from residents as opposed to confidence? I I don't I don't know that that condition is realistic at this point.

One of one of my concerns with the parking is um there's going to be a fire buffer zone in in the front of the building where there's a stand pipe or sprinkler connection. So, you have to park away from that. I believe there's a hydrant that's going to be near that. So, that's 50 ft 25 ft on each side. So, you're losing some frontage in front of the building. So, you can't park there. So now you're going to have to extend further down Springfield or up Springfield. And you know, we all know how that works. People, you know, everybody says someone has a parking problem, but only if you want to park in front of the store you're going to, right? So it's it's going to kind of be I see that as being the same thing. There's going to be an area in front of the building that you can't park because of the fire hydrant and the sprinkip connection

as well. No park. Yeah. Yeah. So, we also didn't see where the 39 like offsite parking spaces were when you factor in that there are a lot of driveways. Um, I mean that the houses are fairly close together in that part of Springfield. And so, there's probably, you know, I'd like to know how far away the 39 cars would have to park or 33, whatever. That's 33 additional spaces required, I believe. Um, if you use the 79,

I walked it and I was counting off like parking space like approximations and I think you you satisfy the vast majority of them in front of the parkland so you're not impacting any driveways. Uh, that's on both sides, right?

Yeah, on both sides. I mean, I think we just really need to be really really careful about overindexing on the parking here. You know, most if not all of the houses of worship in Summit are deficient in parking. Somehow find a way to get by. I don't see I don't see why this one can't. Well, I the only way my response to that would be is those are pre-existing conditions. They're not you're not building a new structure here. You're building a new structure. So why not make it and I know it's we got into this discussion before but it's a new structure. you have the opportunity to say, "Okay, I need X. The best I can do is Y, but the Y now is not even close to X."

And the traffic pattern is, and you know, easier than most of the other churches. They're kind of like fun. I mean, same, you know, we don't need to get into each church, but if you look at the vast majority of churches, they have their own parking lot with the exception of the current location for this congregation. And I mean, I can't think of another church that doesn't have its own parking lot that works. Granted, there's overflow. I mean, I I'm go to St. Teresa's. They have a huge parking lot and you on Sundays they park in the street, but that's a pre-existing condition. They're not building a new structure.

It's also a 12,000 square foot building. So, that's a really big building. So, I think asking for 79 parking spaces for a building of that size is not a lot because it it does, you know, even if even if every Sunday you're not using it that these variances go with the land, they don't go with today's programming and it's a 12,000t building. I think that has and I I think that goes to Mr. Fescin's point. If the building were a little bit smaller, it would be easier to, you know, any of that could be make it a little easier to try to wrap your head around having less parking. But I, you know, there is the potential need for a lot more parking than even 79 spaces.

And I and I I know I said this, I just can't get I just can't overcome the initial problem of two two acres. Well, there's probably it's not a detriment. I know that. I get all that. Well, that's the issue. There's no plots of land available in town that could satisfy that. That's sort of that's not true. Zoning, but that's also not our um that's a that's a very flippant and arbitrary response.

So, Mr. Nelson, I I know you've reiterated that a few times, but what can you just elaborate? What are the detriments that you find associated with that? I I just want to be sure that if you know depending on however you vote on this thing that your reasoning is clear on the record. Well, the I wrote I took some notes earlier. It's a detriment to the master plan and it's a detriment to the zoning orders which which then reads over to the detriment to the to the public good. But but specifically what is it? The lack of parking. It's the lack of parking. It's the lack of buffer. It's the lack of you know front set I mean the rear yard setback. All those are to me those are all detriments to what's going on there and

which then reflects back onto the neighborhood. Is it safety associated with the parking? Because I mean you you talk about the parking, the lack of parking that that is a variance clearly, but it doesn't necessarily speak to what the end result is and what

my my concern is for the safety with parking. uh safety with the ball fields in the back because you know that there's no buffer between the between the properties you know a very limited buffer. So those are some of my concerns. So there there's a reason why they want two acres for a house of worship, right? It's it's the intensity of the use. We're talking about a building that's 18,000 square feet. What would you guess the average size of the surrounding homes are? 2,000 square ft. 3,000 ft.

Probably 3,000 square feet if not a little bit bigger. So you you have a lot more cars, a lot more people, a much higher intensity of use, and you try and mitigate that with this requirement of 2 acres, which should hopefully house a larger building and have adequate parking within the setbacks that are required in the R15 zone. Correct. Um, so I think that's where the problem with this application begins is they were dealt this hand self-inflicted of acquiring a 1.74 acre site that's less than to two acres. And their response to that was not to try and conform, but to build something even bigger. And I think that's very concerning. So that's bigger in height. It's spilling over the setbacks by tremendous margin. It's it's it's um it's just really um having a negative impact on the surroundings because of its oversized nature on the site. And this idea that because there aren't residential uh uses immediately adjacent to the site, I think um does a disservice to the people that use the park, that use the school, that use the playgrounds. Those areas are used. Um, so you would want to have those buffers in place

and the fact that the buffers are reduced uh is problematic and a detriment. So, you already have an undersized lot and because of that, instead of designing a building that uh can more reasonably fit within the site, you go over the requirements and then that has a cascading effect of impacting the amount of parking that you can provide on the site. Now, I think in all our years of being on the zoning board, we can safely agree that uh storm water and parking are two of the most important issues to the citizens of Summit. Um so, we are woefully underparked. We have insufficient buffering. Um and then we are overbuilding on the site with our coverage and our setbacks and our height. Um so that's in my mind a classic definition of overdevelopment which is definitely a negative um impact on the town. Uh so you you combine the parking uh being underserved on the site also triggering this need to park on Springfield Avenue which I respectfully disagree with my colleague uh Mr. Mullen. I I think it is a safety issue. Um, we've all been up and down that road a thousand times and I do not think it's a safe place for pedestrians full stop. Um, so there there is no scenario where they're not going to park on Springfield

Avenue and I think that is a negative detrimental impact on the neighborhood. And so if you also throw in the traffic issues caused at peak times uh through their holidays or special events having a negative impact on the neighborhood. Um not to mention the fact that we've spent almost no time talking about the fact that there is residential use right across the street. We focus very much on the surrounding parks uh and the playground and the school, but there's a row of houses as far as the eye can see of residential use that's at a different intensity of use at a different scale, right? That's substantially different than this church that's being proposed. Um and given the fact that it does not conform through almost 12 different variance requests, I do believe that if we um approve this application, we are setting a dangerous precedent that this idea that you can almost null and void our zoning code, right? because you want to hide under the shield of inherently beneficial use. I'm sorry to say it's not a blank check. It just doesn't work that way. And um you know I I don't want to be responsible for setting that precedent. Uh, I do believe that they can build a house of worship here that will meet their needs that conforms to the zoning and could substantially increase the

number of parking spaces. Um, because Mr. Mayor has told us their architect is very capable. So, I do believe they have that ability. But as designed currently, it clearly says that we will just do whatever we want. And you know, I I did not appreciate the inherent threat that came from the mention of um you know, the judgment against Bernards for the mosque. Uh that does not sit well with me at all. So, um I think as presented, I'm going to have to say no to this application.

I do want to follow up on a couple u potential conditions that we've talked about. One was it seems that traffic is a significant concern at least for many members here. One was a shuttle. I get the sense that we have concerns about the enforcability of a shuttle given the fact that it is free public parking on a county road immediately adjacent to the church. Um I believe Mr. Kern maybe was the one who noted uh the possibility of having officers stationed during you know whether it's special events or regular Sunday service. Do we think that is either of those are something that could adequately address the parking concerns?

No. Well, I'll I'll just add I think it might if if because I think it would discourage behavior to see a police officer right there. I think would discourage people from blatantly jaywalking. Mr. I agree with you. The only question I have is do we require that for every service or just special services? And I I don't know the distinction of like where do we draw that line, you know, what what is the practice now? Like the I the where where I see it most often is at the the the Jewish temple on Summit Avenue. That's where I most often see police. Is that every Saturday? I I don't I don't know. My understand it's only the high holidays. Only high holidays. Yeah.

There's one point here. The most important thing. Are we going to approve less than two acres?

Interestingly enough, Mr. Malay, I actually think the 2 acres is not my concern as presented. It's actually more of the intensity of the application on the restricted. So, if this was designed in a with more constraint instead of the wish list, I would feel much more comfortable with it. Instead of an 18,000 foot building, it was 15,000. And I I'm just throwing these numbers out here. I don't I haven't think through that fully, but I'm looking at the overall intensity on the smaller lot. And you know, when you get into it, the reality is even if it was a 2acre lot and one of the variances went away, it it ends up still being 10 variances of on on density and and and the intensity, the design over overdevelopment.

I totally agree with that. Uh however the location where these two two acres uh are uh is very important and here they are not adjacent to uh except the playground and a very steep slope that is uh beyond the uh limit of the property which gives it kind of exterior buffer. Yeah, I I agree. I'm not concerned by the two acres I and I I I think those side properties do provide visual buffer if not legal buffer. So my my concern is is solely on the parking on the street and the safety issues there.

My my like if I were building a house, would I be able to use city property and say that's going to be my buffer? No, you can't. You could ask. You could ask. I don't know what we would say, but you can ask. So, it's nice that it's there, but I would still have to conform and and I I'm I'm removing the um inherently beneficial title right now. If I were building a residential structure on those properties, I'd have to conform to the zoning or ask for variance or ask for well, but would the variance would could I ask for a variance to use city property as a buffer? You certainly can. You can ask you would be getting a buffer on your own

property. I think if the if the if the say let's just say the lot coverage was 40% of 1.74 acres instead of 48.7% that might help bring some of the other things into compliance. It's not only the buffers, it's the lack of parking. It's for me it's it's all of it. So the 40 difference between 48.7% and 40% lot coverage in this property is about 6600 um square feet. So that's that's big. That's the footprint of three average houses. Bigger than the footprint of three average houses, right? It's it's big. The the difference in um lot in the building coverage that it's over is about 900 square feet, right? So all of these all of these those are places where I think a design could be made where we tried to comply. We're not meeting everything and but it helps you get closer to the buffers. It helps you get closer to the parking because maybe you have you have extra space now to deal with to offer some of the parking. I mean our zoning code prohibits the use of on street parking as to satisfy your parking requirements. I don't think anybody said that here

yet today, but but that's a that's an important factor I think is that all of the parking that's required is supposed to be on site. And I and I think 79 spaces for a building this size is not asking for a lot of spaces if that's the size building you want to have. I'd just add to that. I think there's been an obvious steadfast commitment to the design, right? And if there was flexibility in the design, I think they could design a building that would meet the current congregation size. there's no anticipated growth and get enough parking spots on on the site. I think it's possible to

but but it it would break the the design, right? They would have to redesign something that would accommodate the current congregation. It would be a better site than where they are today, right? But not exactly what they're asking for. Correct. But just want to make sure the terminology is correct. When we say design, it's the the building of the building, not the not the design of the building. Right. Right. the layout where it's set in the site, not the the look of it. That's that's what I struggle with. That's I mean,

it's not it's not the way the building looks. It's not. It's just Yeah. You I wish I was eloquent as you were when you when you spoke about meeting, you know, the detriment to the neighborhood and all that, but that's I would love to see this thing fit into the neighborhood based on the size of the property they have, if that makes sense.

Yeah. I just want to add a couple things on the parking. Um, it was mentioned something about conditions for um maybe putting a patrol officer out there to direct traffic times of service. I I don't think the patrol officer would post at the driveway to cross people without the presence of a crosswalk. I don't think the the police aren't going to do that. They're not going to stand in a busy street without a crosswalk. I I just don't think they'll do that. They will do it for traffic. Maybe not for for pedestrians, but from a traffic cars in

and to ask the county to put a crosswalk. I'm quite sure the county would never approve putting a crosswalk on a on a curve and that I mean that building sits right at the curve and you know to to put a crosswalk past the curve where the church is you're almost going down to where the other crosswalk is. It's it's quite flourish. Anything else?

So, do we believe there's any other conditions that you want to ask the applicant about at this point? Anybody

hearing? None. Oh, well, I'm shooting from the hip here. And maybe it's not a condition, but before we vote, would the applicant be uh open to uh revisiting what they're doing on a lot. That's not a condition. That's up to the president, I think, to make that choice, not me.

Yeah. So, Mr. Chairman, up to you on whether you want to proceed with a vote. I know we've gone a year worth of hearings and we're at that point. Um or if you want to ask the applicant whether they're willing to consider a a resubmission at this point. I I already know the answer, but I'll ask Mr. Mayor anyway. Would you like to go back with your team and do a redesign?

Well, that's that's going to be up to my team. It's not something we considered before tonight. So, I don't know. We'd have to discuss it. I mean, I was We'd have to confirm. We need we need a little time to decide that we were prepared to respond to the condition. So suggested Mr. Mayor, if you could just come to the mic. Sorry to send you up there.

It's getting late. I didn't really want to get up. Um um we we need a little time to confer about a potential uh design change. Uh we were prepared to respond to those couple of conditions that were floated but um we do have other applications on do we is it something where you would be able to I think we have to go outside for a few minutes and then come back in and say yes or no you know. Okay. Maybe if you we could even just interrupt what was going on for a minute and do it so we didn't have to wait. Well, we'll try and time it so it happens either right after our next hearing. We've been told that the next two are relatively quick. Yeah. So, I think I said that in one point.

Do we want to take a fivem minute break anyway? Yes. Um I'd rather power through, but I have a question. Anyway, okay. So, why don't we do that? Five minutes. I have a I have a question. Yes. So, the redesign question is is like a blanket question. Yeah. like a redesign like are we we going to give any sort of um suggest not suggest whatever conditions on your redesign the redesign should have this this and this or

we can give suggestions if you would like I I think we've been doing that for the past so I'm saying okay so they're going to base it off of our suggestions we can't tell them you must submit an application with x lot coverage they have the right to come back they would be able to come back with an amended application for us to consider at that point. It's, you know, do we want to make them start from scratch with a brand new application or do we want to allow them that opportunity to submit an amended one based upon our comments tonight? What's in a new one? An amended. If for example, this application were to be voted down, they could come back with a new design anyway and, you know, submit it as an entirely new application.

Correct. versus an amended application based on you know the submission which would be a redesign essentially saying it's the same thing the same you got the same result same end result more or less but it's easier and quicker if we let give them a chance to res submit an amended design and start from scratch yes correct yes because we're not going through but we'd have to still be able to go through some of the experts would have to still come back and everything so it's really starting all over again depending on what the redesign would be yes exactly So that's what Yeah, that's why I'm I'm not really sure what what we're agreeing to. We're agreeing to redesign and we might be here for might be going through another year's worth of continuations.

At what point does this this application does it ever time out? You submit your application. It can go on. Don't we have a limited time? Keep they have extended the time frame for us to act under the statute. If we keep getting extensions and if we keep allowing them to come back with amendments, it could go on further. And I assume we'd require renotice if they I was going to say there's be reset the the clock on uh time to act almost. That would be consent. Yes.

So I I think at this point I heard some requests for a bathroom. Maybe we take five minutes, see if they have a response at that point and see what we want to do. Okay to see if we should Okay.

Is that what it was? Maybe this is okay. Maybe I just missed it then. All right, Mr. Mayor.

Um, Mr. Chairman, we have a a response for you. Um, first a couple things I want to put on the record as to the conditions that were bandied about just so everyone is clear. Hiring a traffic control officer for every Sunday and other special events, weddings, funerals that might tend to put quite a few people in the sanctuary. We would do that. We're immunable to a shuttle service from public parking, which is all free on Sunday and open to everyone. Just have to pick a location. We would be willing to do that. And I want to reiterate, we did make a representation and it could be embodied in a condition that the maximum number of seats in that sanctuary would be what are shown on the seating plan which is 236 I believe. So we if you want to adopt a embody that in a condition please do because that was our representation. Um as to doing a redesign we are not going to do that at this time. If at some point in the future the way things work out, if this church decides to file a new application that's different, then that becomes necessary. That would be an option. But at this point, I think with those uh clearing uh the record as to the conditions that we're willing to uh suggest or accept that we would actually prefer to take it to a vote. Thank you.

That's what we'll do.

And and now just to clarify because I believe it was Mr. Feskins who raised the question about occupancy. My impression was that you were asking about maximum, you know, amount of people in the building. Is is that right? Or were you asking about seats? Because we can address seats as just suggested by Mr. Mayor. I thought you were talking about limiting the maximum occupancy of the building itself. So the issue always resolves around in my mind resolves revolves around the occupancy load in the sanctuary which would be my presumption is the highest density use the stated occupancy threshold of what I'm contemplating here is to make sure that there's not an event that takes all these seats out and puts a 500 person wedding in there and so that that's why I'm not sure the distinction here. So, so that particular you know occupancy from function of building or fire code perspective that is a matter of state law but you know if we felt that limiting the number of seats was something that we wanted to see we could do that we can't alter you know maximum state occupancy based upon the square footage of the room itself.

We don't have the ability to restrict it below. I would expect us not to be able to go above but we can't we don't have the ability to restrict we could say events of you know no more than x amount of people as a condition um then it becomes an enforcability question but right we we can't say occupancy of the building itself we could say sorry let we we can't say change the fire code occupancy requirement we could say four special events have a cap, but again that just gets back to enforce enforcement

which FYI the fire codes 880 is the is the fire code occupancy notes just the sanctuary. No, the whole building total occupancy you think that's just the sanctuary. The total the total occupancy uh it's what 10? Yeah, I think it was the sanctuary because they they do a was it one per seven square feet? So many square feet if you're sitting. Okay. So I had the fire code was 880

with with those representations. Do we believe that any of those conditions um traffic control uh a shuttle service or limiting the number of seats uh or potentially the number of people attending special events? Is that something that changes anyone's thoughts, anyone's opinions on this? The the traffic control officer on the shuttle would change my vote. I'm Yeah, I'm just still still confused about the shuttle. The shuttle is after if there if people are parking and they're they can't find any parking on the on the in the parking lot on the street on the side streets, then they're going to the shelter. That's why I'm so confused because

the the condition can be whatever you want to make it but again it becomes an enforcement question of you know we can compel them to have a shuttle. We can't necessarily compel people to use it because there is free parking there. If you think that that would not I realize it's hard to enforce but maybe a wording like we the church will encourage people to use the shuttle. That's possible. If you if you think that providing that would alleviate some of the concerns, you they've offered to agree to it. And and the traffic control officer, if I heard Mr. Mor correctly, at all services, not just significant ones, but all services, all major events, but that's just really directing the cars in and out of the driveway. It's not It does not affect the It doesn't

It doesn't do anything with the pedestrian without Well, no, no, it's not going to do anything to pedestrian. It's just it's just going to be directing the traffic just like they do like on Southern Avenue. Stand out in the middle of the street without no No, but if they had to get, you know, stop the traffic to like the cars into in and out of the driveway. But I don't it's not it's not going to affect it's not going to um alleviate any of the pedestrian um safety concerns because people still going to be parking on the streets and you know on the surrounding you know on the streets. I don't think anyone's going to be using the shuttle. I mean, I think it's human nature to sit there and talk through. You said palk as close as you can.

Well, I might comment stamp that that would that that would affect my vote. It does not affect my vote. All right. Well, because it would affect at least one vote um and because the applicant's offering it, I'll I'll note that we should consider the application subject to those conditions as offered. uh that they will provide traffic control officers during all services and special events and that they will provide a shuttle service um as well during do we want to hear it during all services and special events as well?

I like Roger's wording. I think he said all all services, all all weddings, all funerals. I exactly what he said, but words that effect. Okay. Is it major events or something? major events.

There's absolutely no way to do any kind of requirement. This is just best efforts. There's no request of the county to change. So, they they have agreed that they will request the county put a crosswalk in near the church. But again, it we are limited on our jurisdiction to compel the county to change the their traffic on a county road. Are we adding the financial should I mean requesting and the county says okay great pay us 25 grand and they say no. I I I'm seeing a nodding from Mr. Mayor. So that will be part of the condition.

I didn't understand the question. If the they make the request and if the county says you have to pay X amount of dollars to install the crosswalk, they will they will pay for the installation of the crosswalk. Okay. If the county wanted to put a crosswalk in, wouldn't they be contact would they just do it based on the um the congregation's request or would they go to the surrounding? I know they wanted to put like a stop sign near my house. So, the surrounding properties got um we're asked for input also. So, I'm not really sure how that works.

The request has to be initiated by somebody. The county won't do it without somebody requesting. So, it's initiated, but do they go do do they tell the other neighbor, you know, does everybody else have a say in it? It's possible. Yes. Depends on what the exact request is and what the county comes back. They may come back and say, "Guys, there's some points that there's a curve here. It's unsafe." They may come back and say, "Yes, but it's better to put it at this location to the south or to the north or east or west, whatever the location is." Is there a sidewalk on the other side of Springfield? There's not. Right. So there you're not going to get a crosswalk because there's no place to cross to, right? So that's I I mean it's kind of it's it seems rather pointless because there's not usually a crosswalk has to go from one

sidewalk to another sidewalk and there's no sidewalk on that opposite side of Springfield. Can I know that Summit can't um control parking on a on a county road, but can residents then contact the county and say we're requesting that there's no parking on Springfield Deming just like they did on Ken Place by all the residents because the high school kids were parking there. Can that be done in the county level? which I mean I guess right we could can can you can you petition the county and say listen anything they want. So then we really have an issue because now there's so the residents say let's get let's get let's petition to the county. The county says okay that's a great idea because this is a curve. This is not a great place. It's it's an issue on Sundays with the parking. Now there's no parking.

Now we're back to we could use the shuttle, but that's like I mean I guess there's a lot of that's a lot of hypo lot of speculation people we have no control over. Again I'm just trying to do the best we can to show that we're trying to mitigate the negative impacts. That That's my goal. Okay. I think that'll do it. All righty then. Can I get motion to approve? Yes. So moved. Seconded. Miss Sans, can you call the role, please? Vice Chair Zon. No. Mr. Yuko. Yes. Mr. Malay,

yes. Mr. Mullen, yes. Mr. Nelson, no. Mr. Curran, no. Chairman Lyz, no.

All right. So, the application is denied. So, anyone who's still remaining, if you don't want to stay and you want to get carried, please come up to the de and we'll take care of you.

Motion second. All right. 52 Huntley Road. President, municipal staff. Thank you for your time tonight. As I said before, my name is Evan Pickis. I'm one of the attorney with the law of Pickers and Arington Spotswood, Middle Sex County, and I'm here to advance the application uh regarding uh property located at 52 Huntley Road, which is lot 6, block uh 361. Uh just to give you a brief overview of what we're we're seeking here tonight, uh my client owns this property. Um he'd like to do some renovations at the property. Uh and part of those renovations involves uh removing a driveway on one side of the house and moving the driveway to the other side of the house. Unfortunately, because the driveway sits in an area that's determined to be a steep slope, there would be a disturbance of of some steep slope area which requires a variance from the board. Um I also will point out, Mr. Well, um I do notice that uh the each sideyard regulation is 8 ft and I do notice that we have a pre-existing condition of 5.4 ft. That's not changing, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention also because you might want to include that as well.

Are you asking for a variance for that condition? For the pre-existing condition. Okay. Okay. We will consider that. Thank you. Um, so at any rate, we have a a singlestory house here that my client's looking to renovate, make a two-story house. He has a beautiful plan put together. Uh, all those plans were submitted to you folks. Uh, I do have, uh, the comments of of your engineer and your planner and all your uh, staff members which we are prepared to address uh, hopefully very quickly. I I have one uh, witness to testify tonight. I'd like to bring him forward so he can be sworn.

Great. Thank you. Before we get to the witness, can you just confirm it? So, the additional setback variance that we're talking about 5.4 ft uh in existing condition to what exactly? It's a there's a minimum each sideyard requirement on the left side of the house. It's currently 5.4 ft to the house itself. To the house. Yeah. Thank you. And the second floors are directly above it. That's correct. Please. Great. So, ladies and gentlemen, this is Hamzo Remmon. He's a uh he's an engineer uh with offices in Spotswood. Uh if you'd be kind enough to swear him and then I can give you his curriculum detail. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matters the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

And please state your name. Spell your last name into a microphone, please. Sir, thank you.

All right. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and the members of the board. My name is Hamza Rayman. um the president of HRE engineering uh representing our client uh Nikki Tvaris for 52 Unley Road. Can you just spell your last name for the record? R E H M. Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board? I'm a civil engineer uh with HRE engineering. Um I specialize in land development, um commercial and residential, uh based out of spots, New Jersey. Licensed in New Jersey. Licensed in New Jersey and New York. Great. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept those credentials? We would. Welcome. Please proceed.

Okay. Thank you. Mr. Emmen, could you give the board a brief overview of the project?

Sure. Uh so basically we have an existing uh property at 52 Huntley that our client is uh looking to make into a twotory uh with basically adding a second floor addition and also some addition to the back of the property. Um, as um, uh, the attorney had mentioned, we're basically taking out the existing driveway and reducing the, uh, imperous coverage to build a garage, which does interfere and uh, to our steep slope disturbance. Um, according to the ordinance, uh, if we are over a thousand square feet of disturbance, it regulates a variance, which is what we're seeking for here. Um, we are over 300 uh to the exact uh uh 359 over,000 square ft that would be disturbed. Um we are not changing the grade as per the design plans. We're just um disturbing it to be able to mitigate uh the storm water to the existing conditions that are currently on the property. Um and that's pretty much kind of in a nutshell.

And in fact, Mr. Remen, isn't it true that uh we're actually the plans call for reducing impervious coverage on the property? Correct. We're reducing it about almost uh I would say 3%. So it's about 200 square f feet. Correct. Okay. All right. So we received comments from your engineers and your planners and we'd like to go through those comments quickly just Yes, please. Thank you.

Okay. So um the first letter I have is from uh Burgess Associates planners. Um so I guess uh if we start with number one uh Mr. Remen the uh confirm the extent of the proposed improvements. Uh yes. So basically um just uh all the comments that uh Burgess Associates had in regards to the property uh uh we concur with. We don't have any um issues with that. We'll address all the comments that they have. Uh which um I mean would you like to go us with No, we we trust you.

You trust us? Okay. So then we we we concur with all the comments by the planner and we will comply with all requirements. Right. And that'll be a condition of approval that

100%. Um, next I have uh from HRE uh what's next from Marie Rafé at Kier's Engineering. Okay, there are 17 comments. Yeah, some of them were just um comments uh and some of them um were just um um basically we concur with all the comments that they had. We'll address anything that needs to be addressed from Kier's engineering. Um some of them was just uh remarks stating

I just want to clarify one issue because there was a a concern raised about tree removal. Correct. Okay. Is there any tree removal on this site for this? There is no tree removal on the property. there is one main tree in front of the property which will get um the adequate tree protection which is provided by the soil conservation district uh to protect the tree. So we'll open up questioning to our board experts. So if there's something specific within the engineering report, Mr. O'Brien will certainly address it as as well as if there's anything regarding the zoning, Mr. Snikus will address it. Okay. But I just like to point out that uh you know as I stated we will comply with all the requirements and all the recommendations made by your by your your your staff experts. Great.

If they have questions now Mr. Be happy to answer them. Let's do it. Gentlemen, what questions do you have for this witness? I have no questions. All right. Thank you, Ed. I have one or two. Sure. Thanks, Carl. Thanks. Uh the retaining walls on site, are you modifying at all or keeping? No, we're not an existing feature. We're just maintaining the existing feature on the property. Perfect. Um and then as far as the steep slopes go, we didn't have the calculations. Yeah. So I did update the plans which which the applicant will submit with the steep slope uh table. Um and just to clarify on the steep slope, um we're actually reducing the percentage on the steep slope. Okay.

Um so uh that's why we're also seeing the variance because we have to disturb that in order to basically tie into the existing on the property. And then as they testified the impervious coverage, they're decreasing the amount of impervious coverage. So it's actually beneficial to storm water. Um and then anything that you're doing with your driveway where you're tying it to the city, you're going to need a permit for that. Correct. Um you know, when you go to build building permit, but a road opening permit because you'll be curb cutting. Yes. Out of beyond our correct. Yep. That is all I have from engineering. Great. Thank you, Carl. Uh, board members, what questions do you have for this witness? Mr. Yugo,

a couple questions. One of the comments in Mr. Sneakus' report was about the ask you to address the functionality of the two-car garage. It's 20 by 20 ft, but there's a stairway that sounds like impacts.

Yes. So, um, we do have a stairway, um, on one side of the garage. I believe it's on the right side of the garage from the architectural drawings, uh, which is about, uh, 4 feet. And that was just to basically be able to get into the house. So I think um in terms of you know looking at an average size of an SUV right um 15 feet 16 feet I mean I think that you still have it's basically the twocar garage serves as one compact area of the garage and one full 20 by 20. So I mean I I from you know sizewise I would think I mean you know I mean so I'm confus Are you saying it is a functional two-car garage or

it is a functional twocar garage. So I think the stairs don't have any objection in from a you know building perspective if I had to look at it that way. That's just my opinion. But um you know so you can park two cars in that car. You can't park two cars an average. Ed would you agree? Do you Is there any option to move the stairs? Um I don't architectural plans say stairs to be removed. Am I not reading that correctly? No, that that's for um in in the garage. Oh, okay. Because one one side of the garage serves as a compact end of the other. What is the effective dimension?

Oh, I see. That you have the size of the garage. Just so we can understand two different. So, it's a 20 by 20 and then 20 by 18.

Should permit two. So the the door opening is No, that's okay. into the house. Okay. I just need that garage door opening wide. The front garage. Yeah. 8 by 8. So eight wide, eight tall. Oh, there's two doors. Okay.

And and one one other question, if I don't if you're asking questions, but one other question, and I know you said you comply with all the points in in in uh Mr. Senis's letter. Um but so you're going to confirm the location of all the existing proposed exterior equipment and confirm that no variances are required. Is that was also a question in there. So you're not asked for any variances on location of exterior equipment or um any relief for that. Yeah, we don't need any variance for outside. Okay. Sorry, I had two questions regarding the variance from outside. We mentioned the 5 yard 5.4 four yard setback but also the combined yard setback looks like it's existing non-conforming because we're building the second floor we should put that in there I would assume

I suppose so assuming you're you would like variances for both 5.4 4 ft and then what is the resulting combined or I guess per this 22.7 ft or 34% whereas 33 is permitted 22.7 is that right? Am I reading it right? Mhm. To be 22.7 ft or 34%. Correct. Okay. So we would consider both of those not only the sideyard um setback but the combined sideyard as well. All right. And just to confirm for the record, the second floor is identical to the first floor footprint. That's correct. The first floor is getting extended further back

just and then building up the second floor on top of it. That's correct. But not the side of the house where we're talking about the second. That's correct. Well, either side for clarity, right? Correct. So intensity but not in infring. Correct. Correct. I have one question and I'm I'm feeling you know like I'm I'm missing something but where exactly is the steep slope disturbance? I see disturbance a lot of disturbance but the steep slope's not really okay

pointed out. So the steep slope disturbance that we really have um I would say is uh souththeast or basically it's the the proposed driveway and to the right of the driveway within those two areas that are designated on the grading plan called area one and area two. This is doesn't look like a steep slope when you go to the property there. I mean based on the contours and and the slope that I have existing slopes that I currently have on the property there is 19% and 13%. Yeah. So the trigger this is the backyard though right? No this is the front of the property of the driveway and to the right of the driveway it right here

based on the existing contour. So Carl just to confirm those two the new driveway. It seems very I'm surprised visually it doesn't seem that that large. Yeah. So we're seeing it because it's over. I get you. I'm just saying from a visual appearance. That's why I was I was struggling with that. See the backyard being all Yeah. Plus I guess you have the retaining wall back there to help you there. Plus what's happening. They're converting it from driveway to grass where the driveway is now going right in front of the house. So it disturbing steep slope.

He's disturbing steep slopes. I can't say that. Too late. Steep slopes, but he's putting grass back in that one area. Bless you. So you're removing completely the old driveway. There's not going to be any parking area there or anything. So it be all grass. Yes, it's going to be all grass. They just move the driveway over. That's correct. Now, I don't know if I can ask this question, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Go ahead. Are you involved in the property next door? I'm not. Remind me. Is there something with a front-facing twocar garage? Yeah. DRO. Yeah. I I thought I saw it, but it's it's not in any of the comments.

I think the lot width is 90 under 90 ft. You can have a wide You can have a front facing garage. Start with um HBC's comments. Discuss that. Any other questions from the board for this witness? Seeing none, any questions from the public. Seeing none,

just for the record, I'd just like to put on the record that I believe that uh this application and the variances that we're requesting uh advance the uh the the the priorities of the municipal land use law. Um we're creating uh much more of a more positive visual experience on the property. We're also adding more open space and I can't really fathom any negative aspect uh to to this project in this application. You are tearing down the old the old shed that's going to disappear. Is there a shed in the corner? Sh. The right property. No w the next one.

Wait, you talking Wait, this is the one we're doing now. The the I was there. went out the No shed. No shed. No shed. It's a late night. I'll remove that. It's a late night. All right. Mr. Bahal, can you read us through the conditions and the number of votes required? Yes. So, I have two conditions. One is our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Uh, and then the second I heard there was mention of the updated plans. So, that revised plans with updated steep slope calculations will be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. Yes, sir. All right. um only C variances even with the additional setback variances are prompted here. So four votes are required to approve the application.

Thank you Andy and not seeing any comments from the public. So we'll go right into deliberation. Who would like to begin? Mr. Curran, I think this is um this is pretty straightforward. I think it's a smart plan. I have no issues. I can support it. Thank you. And I agree. I just noticed a positive benefit of the impervious area being reduced by 200 200 feet I think it is. So that's a positive impact. Absolutely. Any other comments? No. All right. With that, Miss Sans, I mean, can I get a motion to approve? I get a second. Second. Miss Sans, you're up.

Vice Chair Zon. Yes. Mr. Yuko. Yes. Mr. Malay. Mr. Mullen, yes. Mr. Nelson, yes. Mr. Curran, yes. Chairman Lett, yes. All right. Good luck. Thank you. All right. Can we have 16 shady side, please? Oh, this. Okay. Are you going to double recuse and then just sneak out of here? That's a good idea. All right. No, you don't have a bad acting attorney. I will note for the record that Miss Zan has recused from the application and has stepped down from the deis.

Uh and Mr. Malay is stepping down as well. All right. So, I will first swear you in if raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. And please state your name, spell your last name. Uh, Encore Manar M-N I A R. Thank you. Can you briefly tell us about your application?

Yeah. Um, and thank you for the time. I know it's getting very late. Um, so I I moved to this house back in 2020. Uh, moved to Summit back in 2020 to be closer to my family. Actually got really lucky. I found a place that's right up the street from my niece and nephew, so I get to see them all the time now, which is fantastic. Um, and it's just a perfect neighborhood. I love the proximity to town. you know, those of you who know Shady Side, I will say that um, you know, it's a reputation for friendliness. It's very well warranted and I'm just very grateful to be part of that community and, you know, just really be able to contribute to stuff like, um, you know, we do this great Halloween and we have the block party and all. So, you know, neighborhood's great. Um, you know, I would say the house, it's 120 years old. It needed a lot of work. Unfortunately, the prior owner hadn't necessarily kept up um with all of that. So, um, you know, first few years I really focused on the outside. I focused on the landscaping and, um, then I turned my attention to the rest of the house and, you know, just making it more functional, refreshing the look of it. Um, you know, maintaining the historical character of of it was really, really important to me. I'm very cognizant of the age of the house and the neighborhood. Um so you know did a lot of work improve the structural u framing of the house modernized the electric the plumbing added insulation things like that and now there's a few more changes that I'd like to do. I think it would really add to the enjoyment of the property. Um so starting with the front of the house I'd like to add a big window. There's this really really small bedroom that I currently use as my office. I think the bay window would just add a lot of light. It would make that really small room feel a lot bigger and you know from the front of the house and the street side I think it would you know just add a lot of interesting character. I think it would fit in really nicely with the rest of the neighborhood and the style of the homes there. And then moving to the back of the house um the way out of the kitchen into the yard right now is this old

crumbling um concrete platform. U I'd like to replace that and add a deck so that way I can you know sit outside, enjoy the weather. We get these beautiful sunsets off shady side um and you know we sit out there like my neighbors do and um you know enjoy that. Um at the grade level you know it's kind of like a walk out basement. Um so in order to accommodate this deck and the new stairs I'd also be rebuilding uh the patio and and making that work with the shape of the deck. And then um you know lastly I think this is what you were referring to. Uh, so there's I think it was a garage that got turned into a shed and now I'd like to turn it back into a garage. Um, you know, just so I could park my car there in the winter and you have an EV. Just being able to charge it and all in there would be great. Um, so great. So, um, board experts, you have any questions for this witness or you want to wait for his expert?

Uh, expert's fine. Okay. Board, any questions for this witness or do you want to wait for his expert? I have a question for you, please. Okay. So, it's it's a con construction zone right now, right? Correct. Unless I was at the wrong house. Yes. Correct. Is everything that has been done so far is has been to code and and everything you're asking for now is stuff that has not been started yet. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. Okay. That's that's that was my one question. Just another comment. Sure.

It was a very messy construction zone. just just as as for respect to the neighbors and and honestly somebody that could easily report you that driveway was a mess. Um so I would just recommend you clean it up while you journ construction if I was able to say that. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Chief. Uh any questions from the audience for this public from the public for this witness? Seeing none. All right. Oh, yes. Yeah. All right.

Apologize for Miriam on 65 Woodland Avenue. Um I am your backyard neighbor, up downhill neighbor. Um and um I know the engineer noted in his um uh staff comments about uh water in the neighborhood. And one the one thing I will note and I don't know if you have any elevations on your driveway, but most of the other driveways in Shady Side are pitched. I don't know if you're doing work on your driveway. That's the question. Um because it's flat and so it's there's a possibility for runoff. Do you have any plans to to do the redo the driveway while you're doing the work for the garage?

Yeah, definitely in terms of like fixing any problems. If you could just speak into the mic. Sorry. Sorry. Uh definitely in terms of fixing any problems with the driveway and then I did see the comments too about adding some planting and all to prevent water from flowing backwards towards the hill. I guess I have comment. Okay, great. Thank you. So, why don't we meet your expert witness?

Michael Sharella, architect. If you could raise your right hand, do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And please state your name. Spell your last name. Uh, Michael Sharella. My last name is spelled Z H I A R E L L A. Thank you. And I know you've appeared before us relatively recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? I imagine we'll accept them back once again. We will. Welcome back. And please proceed. Thank you. Okay. So, um a little rapid fire here. You need to use the microphone. Thank you. Thank you. Does this work? Yes.

Okay. Um, so this is a plot plan uh that I want to uh reference to. Uh, what we want to do is we want to propose um a a small deck that steps down into a small uh patio. Um, there's an existing shed um to the right of the property. Um, and we want to convert that shed into a garage. And then we want to do a little twoft bumpout just to get um uh like a required garage bay width of about um like 10 10 and 1/2 ft. Um and then we also want to put um uh a second floor bay window over the um porch just to extend a very small bedroom that's on the second floor just extend it to make it a little bit bigger. And uh we want to also uh introduce uh a basement window well um for fire code reasons. Um and lastly, we want to put um an air conditioning unit on the left side of the uh of the house. Um all these things are triggering some u variances that we're asking for. Um the first variance having to do with building coverage is due to the bumpout for the uh uh for the garage and uh the deck. Um one thing that I want to point out is there's an existing platform which is about half the size of our proposed deck and um that that platform is in violation of sideyard setback um by about 16 in. And so what we want to do is we want to correct that. And um the addition for the shed is so that we could get a a onecar garage. Right now currently on this property there's no garage. So we

want to uh make um uh make the property more conforming by introducing a garage. Um, want to say that the deck is about the size of a parking space, a typical parking space, just to give you a sense of what we're asking for. We're really trying to um uh not ask for too much. And um and let's go to um lock coverage. Um because of the patio, um we are also going to be violating um lock coverage. And again, what we want to do is we want to get just like a small outdoor area that's on the grade on the ground. Um, that's something other than than grass. Um, right now they currently do have a patio, a larger patio than what we're asking for. Um, that's uh indicated by this dashed red line, if you could see that. Um, and the existing patio is almost to the sideyard property line. So, we want to improve on that. Um and um again this patio is about the size of a an accessible car bay parking space. Um and um now let's go to uh setbacks. U first front yard setback. When we when we think about putting a bay window addition in the front, we're actually in violation of um front yard setback. But um we're not going any further into the street as with the current porches. We're just putting a small modest bay window sitting on top of the existing porch roof. And and actually we're going to do some improvements for the porch roof, too. Going to make it into a shed. Right now, it's just it's a it's a wonky little hip roof. And we want to make it into a more positively pitched um uh

shed roof, which is more in keeping with the shed roofs of the rest of the house. sideyard setbacks. Um, funny thing about this property, um, the the width of the property is 45 ft, um, in a zone that, um, where this where the the golden standard for the zone is an 80 foot wide property. Um, so that leaves us, it's so substandard that it leaves us about 29 ft of actually building with that we could build in. So practically anything anybody does in this property is going to be violating site setback in one form or another. So right now um the existing uh shed is in violation. Um we are not touching the existing shed say by save for putting a garage door in the front instead of a door instead of a people door. Um but because we are converting it from a shed to a garage we're kind of like changing the use of that accessory structure. So um you know the powers that be think that we should reapply for um a variance for that for that sideyard setback even though it's a pre-existing condition. Um, we're also in violation of cider setback with our proposed patio. Um, the the the thinking here is that this portion of the patio is actually uh like I consider it to be like a dedicated sidewalk, a dedicated walkway that goes from the patio to the side of the house. And that and and and if you think of that portion of the patio as a dedicated uh sidewalk, then it's it's inconformance because we're allowed to extend um uh like up to six feet of

sidewalk into the into the sideyard. And um the b the uh window well is also in violation of sideyard setback um by about um 2 feet. And um so we asking for relief for that with the idea that it's a it's a positive thing for um for firemen getting in and out of the basement. And um lastly, the the air conditioning unit um currently is on the there's one unit on the right hand side of the of the property and it's encroaching into the into the existing driveway. It's actually not a great not not a great thing. So, we want to actually improve that and you know with the idea of of a car possibly hitting that that air conditioning unit um that we want to relocate to the other side of the house and uh we will be in violation of um sideyard setback for air conditioning units by again by about 2 feet and we would be putting planted screens um in front of that air conditioning unit.

Okay, great. Quick question. I'm sorry. You're pointing to the to the left plan left for the basement window. The basement window is right here. Yes. Yeah.

Just this plan is showing the basement windows essentially where your AC is.

Yeah. I should do a little housekeeping too. Um there's been some questions about um the zoning summations and uh there is a um a a zoning summation sheet that was part of the original application and um the uh subsequently the civil engineer on the project, Bill Hollowos, has updated his his drawings to um agree with that with that zoning sheet. Um I I think the only the the issues were that um he neglected to to count the window well, the air conditioning units. Um some overhangs got tripped up a little bit. So he straightened that all that out. Now his um his um uh plans now agree with that that zoning summation. Um Jessica Sans might have already received a PDF from Bill for all I know. Um I asked him to do that. Uh but he you know we'll we'll update the the application with his drawings.

Thank you. Uh board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? Um as far as engineering goes the steep slopes. You appear to be okay with um lot coverage for storm water mitigation. uh you have your architectural notes and your uh engineering. They're off a little bit from the total square footage of imperous coverage. So, not crazy numbers, but it's off a little bit. So, that's just going to have to be looked at. Um

Okay. And the engineer might have already corrected. I do have a copy of his updated drawings. For example, your your existing conditions for architectural plan say 2514 square ft where the engineering plan say 2469. I mean, you're talking peanuts here when it compares to everything, but still you're going to do it do it right. Are the get it fixed that way? Are the figures for the variances that we have in our uh in the planners memorandum I guess the more conservative of those numbers or do those need to be updated?

I got to double check that. The architectural plans are the more conservative. The proposed on the architectural plans is 2634 per square feet of total impervious where on the engineering it's 25.98. So it's an additional 36 square feet on the architectural plans. Would it make sense for me to submit the engineers revised drawings which I have here into evidence?

Um because I Yeah, because if you're looking at the engineers drawings that you have there Yeah. He's already modified that and updated those those those calculations. Yeah, I I would be fine with just having the review letters as condition of approval if the board looks to move on this. Um, and anything with the engineering letter we can handle during uh building department review. What I I just want to make sure that when we're talking about variances for deliberation, we're all on the same page as far as those numbers does, so we know what we're actually approving here. And then the applicants don't have to come back later and say, "Oops, we need another, you know, 1%."

Right. It appears the architectuals are the more conservative approach, but I'll default ahead on that. Yeah. If we could just confirm that the maximum building coverage is you're asking for 24.2%. Yes. Okay. And then the maximum lot coverage you're asking for 43.4. 43.2 I think. 43.2. Hold on. I'm just going my memory now. 43.4.4. There you go. So we'll need to update. Yeah, it it's just those two that we're talking about. Just building coverage and lot coverage. Okay. Those the two that were revised. Yes. Okay. So can you just confirm for me again the percentage on building 24.2 two two and

43.4. Thank you. Okay. And then uh if you're finished, I am. Uh with regard to building height, you also are asking for deviation there as well.

Yeah. So um yeah, let's talk about building height. Um we're not we're not changing the height of the building. um meaning we're not raising the roof or anything like that, but um by definition, the height of a building um is taken from what's called an average grade plane, which is the average grade around the perimeter of the of the building. When we added the deck, when we when we when we consider our proposed deck, we're in effect changing the perimeter of the of the footprint of the building which the average grade is taken from. So, so by building the deck, we're actually lowering the grade plane by a couple inches. And so, that means that our building height actually gets a couple inches higher. So I think I think currently it is already in violation um at um at 36'8 in and now we're asking for it to be 36' 10 in.

So we're asking for a 2 in but obviously this is just a technical violation and the actual height of the roof is not changing as a result. It's not changing. Thank you. Thank you. um the AC unit setback that'll be on the sideyard. What's unique about that situation as it relates to the neighboring property? What's on that side of the building? Um as it relates from the AC unit to the neighboring property, is there a driveway next door? Mhm. Yeah, there is. Okay. So, that would obviously not be right next to another building, be next to their driveway. Okay. Okay. Um

excuse me as I get through this. Um, you indicated the patio setback. The garage dimensions that would still function as a usable garage with the proposed width of 11.5 ft. Yeah. So, the interior um dimension of the garage, I believe, is going to be 10 foot 8 in. Okay. And there's a technical variance associated with the fact that you're changing the garage. Therefore, you should deal with the minimum side setback to the existing garage, but that setback's not being reduced, right? Um, any tree removal required in proposed changes? Uh, no. Uh, that's all I have.

Thank you. Board members, what questions do you have? Mr. Current. Did you consider um or is it possible to get the AC unit under the deck so it's not encroaching on the neighbors? I mean, these houses are pretty close together and they can be loud. I don't think we can put an AC unit under the deck. We've only got up about like maybe five and a half feet between the the ground and the underside of the deck anywhere in the backyard. I tried. We looked into so many places to put that. Um and it seemed like um it just seemed like where we located was the place that made the most sense.

Tom. Yeah. Um, I was trying to follow all the number changes and it's kind of late at night for me to follow number changes. I have a question for our engineer. Um, did any of those number changes impact the conclusion that there's no need for storm water management? We're still not No, it does not. Okay. And do you have any comments in respond to the city engineers and our, you know, the neighbor mentioned this too, the city engineers comment about complaints of drainage, some complaints of drainage currently from Shady Side to Woodland. And is there anything you think this applicant could do to address that? Let me see. I'm showing him the comments. Okay. And then I was going to ask where the window well drains.

While he's doing that quick question, the existing AC unit, does that need to be approved as well? And is that staying? I'm sorry. Are you having two AC units? Yes. So, does the existing one need a side step back as well? Yeah. As a pre-existing violation. Yes. Oh, on that same side. Yes. So the comment from the city engineers office

is about uh the applicant should should deal with a means to offset uh the storm water through plantings, maybe possibly some storage or redirecting the existing downspouts to the front of the property. All that should be considered. This way you're not shooting it down the street. Um I would tend to agree with them. There's no capital project planned in that area. So, they're not the city's not looking to do anything in that area to to uh potentially have a positive impact. Um, but you know, if the if the concern is having water drain towards the backyard, rerouting the the uh roof leaders toward the front makes sense. Possibly in a planting bed, something of that nature, that would probably make some sense, too. Are you immuneable to those suggestions by the city engineer?

Yes. All right. Andy, can we add that as a condition? Y I have a I have a question. You were talking about the the walkway from the deck to get to the side of the property. So, why do you need that there? If you have the driveway on the other side and you can't get through because there's a then there's the window well and then the wind the air condition. I'm not really I'm not following that. Well, the walkway is is the way to be able to access the air conditioning unit that's right here. You need a whole walkway for that. And I'm just just I just doesn't seem like you need a whole walkway to get to that air conditioning unit. It's usually

So, so maybe we should back up just a little bit. Once you use this as a patio and uh we want we want the patio to be like about 16 and 12 ft. um because that'll be that'll make for a nice usable patio. We're going to be in violation. Um if we if we did have a walkway that's continuous with the patio, it would not be considered a violation. Mr. Charilla, could you use the mic, please? Second. Thank you.

So, is it a patio or a walkway? Just call it. Yeah, it it's it's going to be a patio. It's going to be a patio, but um a walkway in that same location would not be in violation, but it's an extra wide patio. So, I'm saying is you could Okay, so you're Let's not talk hypotheticals. Yeah. So, so the idea is if we put like a 1T planted strip right here um and just and just separate the patio from that area, it wouldn't even be a zoning issue, a a setback issue. It would be it would be conforming. uh if if we if we made that strip five inches, four inches, three inches, two inches, it would not be it would be conforming.

So, it's it it it's just playing with definitions a little bit, but it is a vi is a patio that is in violation. But my the point is that um it's not in violation any more than um what a what a conforming what a conforming walkway would be off of a patio. You're allowed to have a walkway in the sideyard like this. Yes. Yes, you are. Sorry. I'll just ask a very pointed question. If we if I told you I don't approve of that sideyard setback for that proposed patio, could you live with it?

Yeah, I guess we would make that modification. Well, then I think we I think one of the things we would ask is at what point do we um you know, historically the the zoning department doesn't qualify. Yeah, I know. I mean, if you're if you're just going to access the air conditioner, put down step stepping stones, right? Walk on the grass. Yeah, guys, I'm trying to make it quick. It's midnight, so I'm looking at all these other things here, which candidly really simply makes sense.

So, I have to really ask the board this. Does that really bother you? In other words, the there's a current patio right now that's almost up right up against the property line. We're correcting that violation and we're making a a less it's still a violation but it's but reducing the the amount of violation that the current patio has. Then explain to me why 16 1/2 ft is the better version of versus a 4T less at 12 and 1/2 ft. Why is that four feet difference make a difference? Think about a patio that's less than 16 ft. Uh yeah, I can

I have one. So, I have a narrow lot like this and I have stepping stones to my air conditioning units. Yeah, if if you want to I mean that sideyard's basically useless because you got the air how far is it from the air conditioning units and the window well to the property line? 3 to four feet. It's not very much. So, you you're extending a patio, which I get it. I understand that. But don't call it a walkway when it's just really a patio and you just happen to put steps so you can change the elevation to get up to the air conditioner. That's kind of what he's saying. Yeah. You know.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I get that. And it is a patio. And um I'm just trying to rationalize uh my thinking as I uh you know as as I work with the the the zoning ordinances and um I try to work with it and this is a way to to work with it. There's a lot of variances. Yeah, there's a lot of variances. Like again, like I said, uh a lot of a lot of these sideyard setbacks have to do with the fact that it's a 45 foot wide property.

Uh you you you you cut back the the 16 ft of we're only talking about 29 ft of buildable width on this property. It is a hardship and I think maybe that should be taken into consideration. And that's you know 29 ft is again using my my parking space analogy. It's about one and a half cars, one one and a half car spaces, parking spaces, uh, end to end. It's not much. The fire the the basement window or window well uh, is the basement currently compliant with fire code? It is. Okay. Because you mentioned something about

Yeah. So, if um if if if there's a space down there that uh that they want to develop for a bedroom um which I think they want to do, then um you need to have a egress window within that bedroom and then you would that that would need to be code compliant and that and that's the reason if if if um I I I I'll be honest with you the wanting of that of that window is is coming more from me than my clients. So, I just want them to find some Yeah. positive aspect of it. So, if and if you were to say like that the the window well is a bridge too far, maybe we'll eliminate it.

I don't I don't have an issue with that. I just wanted to understand it. Yeah. Well, that how how far from property line is that? Is the window well is the window well or the patio? Well, those egress those egress window wells, they're they're quite large. This will be this will be coming three feet out from the u from the foundation. Yeah. Sometimes they need to be larger if if you go down far enough. Two foot, but but this is going to be a shallow wind, you know, a shallow window well. So So Neil, can you speak the width the width of them? There's not I can't remember what the minimum but there's minimum width

I think we I think we have 3'4. You only need a a width of 3 ft. Again there there's no there's no required ladder for this. Sometimes if they're deep enough you need to have um a a permanent ladder. Um and then you need to allow for that and and and the window well needs to be wider otherwise. Where does that drain to? it it's going just to drain into the ground. We don't need to have um a like a dedicated area drain for such a small window. Well, I think anything under 12 ft. I think

uh questions from the public for this witness. No seeing none. All right. Is there anything you'd like to say in summation? Do we need public comment? Yeah, I was going to do that after. Go ahead. No, I just really appreciate the uh the board's time and consideration. Um, you know, I know it's a lot of variances, but you know, as Michael uh explained, it's just a really small property and trying to do the best I can with it, but thank you. Ask one just one more question to the owner. Yeah, sure. So, we visited the site and you've got all new windows. Yes. So, I guess this is a change of plan halfway through your construction.

Um, yeah, and some of that was necessary to be honest. Um like in the winters there were some rooms that were getting to 50°. Um there was just no insulation. The framing was horrible. So some of it was just born from necessity just updating all that. Thank you, Don. I have one question. So the existing basement plan shows a bedroom with no um window well and the new one, the proposed shows the bedroom with the window well. So one of them can't be called a bedroom if it wasn't Would that be bringing the There it is, David. There's your benefit. I like it. Legalizing a non-conforming bedroom. That's we go. That's it.

Yeah. The left one. There's no window. Well, that's the that's the the existing. Right. Right. Is it really a bedroom or is it just a room that you have a Yeah, I I I I called it a bedroom because we we foresee it becoming a bedroom with my point is the window well is it a need or a want? I mean I just feel like it is those egress windows are doors are really big. So do you is that really necessary? I think it's a need if you're going to put a bedroom down. Yeah, if if if they do want to use it as a bedroom and at some point like this is for me now as an as an architect, let's just say that

um Anchor does not want to use he wants to use an exercise room. He sells it. Somebody else moves in, they make it into a bedroom. Yeah, that's that's that's the next that's the next um owner's Right. application, not this one. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. But just as far as an architect. Okay. I'm just saying if this looking for like things to cut down a little on the variances just just giving you suggestions and I don't think that um would mind if we illuminated the window well yeah I'm not using as a bedroom right now it's just a room

yeah like I said this was really coming more from me as an architect trying to be life safety conscious thank you uh public comments That's

name, address, spell your last name. Miriam. Oh, swear you in first. If you could raise your right hand. Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And please state your name, spell your last name.

Miriam, 65 Woodland Avenue. Um, so I shady side is very tight. A lot of houses close together. So I understand that there are a lot of variances here. I actually did not study the variances since I'm recusing myself. So I have no real comment on most of it except that I would like to point out that um what looks dimminimous. 200 square ft of imperous cover over what's allowed is not dimminimous on my property. I'm at the bottom of the hill. So you take one of those crazy 4-in storms and 200 square f feet generates enough water to fill an eightp person hot tub just for a visual that ends up in my backyard. So I say that because I it's very important to me the engineering comment about the um downspouts and regrading the driveway so that those down and making that perhaps a condition so that that driveway is pitched to the road. Currently, it's flat and what happens in severe storm conditions. Um, I'm getting street runoff from a shady side via your house down into my essentially ends up there. It's a very steep slope. I don't know if anybody noticed, but it's kind of like a half the property is like a cliff, right? So, you have your usable part and the rest comes out to me. So, um I would appreciate it if um there would be some stipulation that the driveway be pitched and that the downspouts be pitched towards the road, not the backyard. Yeah, I I would recommend their engineer to look at maybe putting a high spot maybe halfway down the driveway so that the high spots kick in towards the roadway and whatever is beyond that is your natural uh transgressions in the backyard, front yard like the city engineers office said about rerouting the down spouts put in with some landscaping going towards the

front of the house. It makes sense. Thank you. So just to elaborate on that condition a little bit because I know we have the language from the engineers report that says they'll offset the impervious coverage increase through planting storage or redirection of existing down spouts. Does that need to be specified to address both? I would also add in there about the driveway as well. So pitch adding a high spot in the driveway. Yeah, add a high spot in the driveway so it runs off towards the roadway approximately. Yeah, approximately about a mid at least at the midpoint. Yeah. If not more. So you understand

those comments and do you agree to that as a condition? So So the civil engineer wasn't able to make it tonight. That is that something that you would want to get his testimony on one way or the other? I don't think it would require his testimony. What I think it would need is the updated plans which would incorporate those additional storm water measures would be I I didn't get to the sentence yet where the revised plan shall be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. So you would incorporate those changes uh or additions into the plans provided to the board engineer and as long as he's happy that it addresses any potential storm water issues on the property then you know he would approve it and that would be we wouldn't need to come back for an additional hearing for engineering testimony.

Right. and and and the civil engineer might have like alternate ways maybe like a you know a a detention pit in the backyard where we don't change the land during resolution of compliance and building department jurisdiction to I imagine we will want to do that but are you married to the idea of a high spot in the driveway or married to it it's the it's their okay design they have to as long as they address negatively affecting the neighbors.

All right. So, we'll we'll phrase it appropriately so that if there's a better alternative, as long as it addresses the storm water um you know, and is subject to our board engineers review and approval, that's what we'll be looking for. Okay. Got it. Okay. All right. And retaining jurisdiction. Yeah. Yeah. That that comment with storm water is actually item number 16 in our review letter. it it handles the storm water and it's a mineral.

Okay. Um so our other usual condition when storm water issues arise like this is that the board maintains storm water jurisdiction for a period of 2 years after completion of the improvements. So that means if there is a detrimental impact on the neighboring properties within that 2-year period those neighbors can ideally first raise it to you and you can address it. If it's not addressed, they can bring it back to the board and you would need to, you know, submit revised plans or address it in some meaningful manner subject to the board's approval. So, you understand that and are there any issues with accepting that as a condition as well? Um, no issues. All right. Thank you.

Great. Mr. Ball, uh, I know you're already just talking about some conditions, but can you review all of them and tell us the number of votes required, please?

Certainly. Um, first is our usual compliance with the conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. Second is that revised plans with the updated zoning calculations will be submitted to the board engineer for review and approval. Uh, third, as we were just discussing, the applicant will offset the impervious coverage increase through planting, storage, or redirection of existing downspouts. The applicant shall add a high spot in the driveway at approximately midpoint or other storm water improvements sufficient or subject to the board engineers review and approval. Um and then fourth and finally the board shall maintain storm water jurisdiction for a period of two years after the completion of the improvements. And we are only talking about C variances here

and removal of the window well. Did we I I guess we didn't address that, but C variances we would only need four votes to approve. Does the board feel strongly about that window? Well, would they like it removed to avoid that setback variance or I would notate to remove that? No, I don't I'd rather not put us in a situation where there's an unsafe scenario. So, keeping it as is. All right. With that, we can open up to deliberations. Who'd like to begin?

Since we were talking about the window, well, I I think that improves the uh the safety aspect of the of the structure. Um there are, you know, a number of variances, a lot of them owing to the existing nonconformities. Um the proposed improvements while it does exacerbate a few of them, it's not particularly material. And I think, you know, owing to some of the uh difficulties with the exceedingly narrow lots on Shady side, I I can I can get behind them with also recognizing the improvements to storm water management and the board's retention of jurisdiction. And I'm sure we will be quite close to if any issues do arise, I can support the application. I think with the amendment of the storm water um concepts here, the concerns I had about the patio being a little bit larger than really was clearly identified as a requirement. I I don't see any issue here. All the other ones, this AC units are exacerbated by the hard the hardship of the fact that it's an overly narrow lot. So, I think what you're doing is improving it. We're improving the safety and we're improving the storm water. So, I support it.

And just also note that it does appear to be consistent with the neighborhood. They're all narrow lots, but this I don't think this house will stand out as being too large for the neighborhood. Thank you, Tom. Before we get to a vote, I I the comment about the AC units just made me want to double check. We have two. One is being maintained. The other is exist uh sorry, the one that is being maintained is not in compliance. Correct. That's correct. Um and you're asking for a variance for the setback figure to that. Can you give me the the um distance from the property line? Uh sure.

Believe you're impacting it by two feet. I think so. So therefore, you're 3 ft away from the property. Yes. So is that the the same as would be the same for both ACs? Okay. It should be the billing doesn't change. Um the Yeah. Let's say let's say it's the same for both AC units. We're okay with that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. All right. Can I get a motion to approve? So moved. I had a second. Second. Miss Sans, can you please call the role? Mr. Yuko. Yes, Mr. Mullen.

Yes, Mr. Nelson. Yes, Mr. Curran. Yes, Miss Chief. Yes, Mr. Feskin. Yes, Chairman Ly. Yes. All right. Good luck. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have to remind myself. Understood. Thank you, Mr. N. next door. He used to be two houses away and then he bought the house next time. At this point, he came in his old house, didn't

Oh, that used to be his house. The one that the people came in for their Yeah. Mr. Fair. Yes. You want to get concerned? Please. Miss, we're ready to go. State that we are now in April 7th or sorry, before you go, I will also note that Mr. Nelson over. Great.

Thank you for staying um and hearing our case tonight. Hillary Als from Dempsey Dempsey and Sheen appearing on behalf of the applicant von Harlo LLC with respect to property located at 31 Neely Place also known as block 403 lot 13 in the R six zone. The applicant is the owner of the subject property and proposes to raise the existing dwelling to its foundation and construct a new two-story single family residence with an attached garage together with associated sight and outdoor improvements. By way of background, the existing home is in need of substantial modernization. The detached garage is in a state of deferred maintenance and lacks any functional integration with the principal structure. In addition, the property is burdened by pre-existing non-conforming conditions, including a deficient southerntherly sideyard setback um and the average front yard setback condition. In connection with the proposed improvements, the applicant seeks variance relief for a sideyard setback on the southerntherly side of 7.8 ft where 8t is required. Um 7.8 ft currently exists. A combined sideyard setback of 20.1 feet where 20.8 feet is required. An average front yard setback of 27.9 ft to the bay window. 29 ft to the garage addition and 29.9 ft to the existing foundation where 25 ft is the minimum required in the R six zone and 30 feet represents the average setback. And finally, an F uh variance of 38.2% where 35% is permitted, which represents

an overage of 205 square ft. The applicant, civil engineer Andrew Clark, architect Daniel Kelly, and planner Michael Tobia are here tonight to provide testimony in support of the application. Um, unfortunately, the applicant's principal, Mr. Griev, is unable to attend this evening. His father who lives in the Netherlands received last rights on Sunday and he traveled there yesterday to be with his family during this difficult time. Nevertheless, I along with the applicant's expert witnesses are prepared to proceed and address any questions the board has. Great. Let's hear from your witness. All right, Andrew Clark.

Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Please state your name. Spell your last name. Andrew Clark. C L A R K E. Thank you. And you've appeared before us a number of times, including recently. Any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? No changes. I imagine we'll accept you back. Welcome back, Mr. Clark. Thank you. That's amazing to be here at after midnight. Go ahead.

All right. So, I'll uh walk through this as briefly as is warranted. Um on the right side I'm going to indicate to the topographic survey that I prepared and was submitted with package dated December 30th 2025. Uh describing the existing conditions uh it's a primarily primarily rectangular lot in the R6 zone on Mey Place. Uh it's about 60 ft wide 63 feet wide by about 100 ft deep at the middle. Um, one of the comments pointed out, which embarrassingly is true, that the meets and bounds, the dimensions of the lot are missing from the drawings, uh, turned out they're on a frozen layer when I printed it, and I didn't notice, and nobody else did except for Mr. Snikas when he reviewed the the plans, but that'll be corrected. Um, so the existing conditions consist of an existing one and a half story dwelling with a porch in the back and a detached garage at the rear right with a driveway uh that services the garage as indicated. Um, the garage is in very poor shape. Um, the house is generally in a in a uh deferred maintenance state as as we sometimes say. Um, the site grading it's very flat in the back. I had to use spot grades to distinguish uh any change in elevation in the back and in the front it pitches gently towards me place. Um that is the existing conditions. I of course show the neighboring dwellings for context. Um and then I'll walk through the proposed conditions. The existing dwelling is going to be brought down to the foundation with a course of block added to give a little ceiling height to the basement. Um the portion on the right side and the porch in the back will be removed. The garage

will be removed and then there'll be an addition added about four 4.25 ft to the back across the rear and then enough to get the onecar garage on the right side um will be the addition and then a portico and a bay window in the front as well. The driveway will be uh accessing now the front-facing garage and the walk will access the front portico from the driveway. In the back, we're going to add a landing and steps down to a proposed patio. Uh we're placing the emergency generator in a conforming location in the rear right and two AC units to the right of the uh garage edition um which are also in a conforming location. Those will be landscaped as required by the ordinance. It's not indicated on the plan, but there'll be a a note added in the revision that will be coming. Um, but there is landscaping planned for the property, so that's easily incorporated in that landscaping. Um, one of the other points that was raised in the memo is what's happening along the rear line. I think Mr. Linson might have indicated it would be helpful to have some screening in the back line. Uh, we did discuss that. There were no specific decisions made about whether that would be a fence or a row of um vegetation, some sort of a hedro. Um that hasn't been decided, but one of those two things will be enacted along the rear line. The site grading is going to continue as as in the existing pitching slightly towards the road from the front of the dwelling. Uh, since it's so flat in the back, I'm going to try to introduce a very modest swale that pulls a little bit of the water from a high point here. Um, bring that around the left side and out to to the front. Uh, there was a comment about the roof leaders just asking for some clarification on those

with regards to storm water. Since we're slightly decreasing the lot coverage, uh, no no storm water measures are required. uh per the ordinance and per the requirements. So, what we're planning to do is take the new roof leaders that are going to be installed for the dwelling and bring them out. Um they'll either go to the curb, but I'm almost certain, I checked on this um earlier today that this manhole that's in the front of the property is actually part of the storm line that runs down there. So, I'll coordinate with engineering at permit closer to permitting time. we may be able to connect directly into the storm line with those roof leaders, which would be my preference as long as they have no objection to that, which normally they don't. Um, so that would be the handling of the of the roof leaders. The driveway pitch is gently towards the road already. Um, so with regards to the variances, quickly on the left side here, um, as I indicate on the plan, that's where we have the 7.8 8 ft where eight are required. That's existing. We're not getting any closer there, but we are extending 4.25 ft to the back and up. So, that is uh still expanding that non-conforming sideyard on the left side. And because we're maintaining existing foundation and then adding to the right for the garage, we need a certain width in order to accommodate that garage. the resultant sideyard, while we're more than compliant on the right, uh, over 12 feet on the right sideyard, the combined sideyard falls a little bit short. So, we're about 8 in short on the required combined sideyard, which is again just like the left side, a very minor deviation. In the front for the setback in the front, we have 27.9 to the bay window.

The portico is 26.6, 6. But as it was indicated in the planning review, that is permitted. You're allowed a a permitted encroachment into the front yard with a portico, and we're within those parameters for that. So, that's not technically a variance, but the bay window and then the garage is at 29 ft. Again, the zone requires 25 as a minimum, but the average, the neighborhood average is 30 ft and is pretty consistent. So, while we're not perfectly matching that, we're pretty close. The main body of the house is right at that 30foot line, but this garage and the bay window project a little bit into that front yard. So, those are the three main variances with regards to the yards. And the other one is the F, which I think uh the architect and planner would touch on, but it it it is also a minor deviation from the requirements. And with that, I would u welcome any questions. Board experts, what questions do you have for Mr. Clark?

Uh, storm water, we're good. They're decreasing uh total peries square footage. Uh, as far as the roof leader goes, I like the idea of punching into that manhole if we can. Y uh my suggestion would also be add a cleanout on the front lawn portion of the property. Yeah. Yeah. But within right away, but with private property. Um, I think that's about it from engineering. Great, Carl. Thanks, Ed. Any tree removal?

There is one tree on the property which is just to the right of the detached garage. We did discuss it a couple of times. Um, it's not entirely clear. I don't know what kind of shape it's in. There's no reason or intent to remove it at this time. uh if somehow there was a conflict with the demolition then maybe it would have to come down or if an arborist looked at it and determined it was no longer a viable tree it might have to come down at which point we would submit for a tree removal permit as uh any resident would need to do no further questions. Thanks Ed. Board members, what questions do you have for Mr. Clark?

Seeing none. All right, Hillary, next witness. Uh, Daniel Kelly. Thank you guys for accommodating for us. Of course. Raise your right hand. Do you so affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? The truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. And please state your name, spell your last name. Daniel Kelly, K E L L Y. Thank you. And can you briefly describe your background and experience for the board?

Sure. I graduated from MGIT in 2013 and have been practicing mostly residential since I graduated up to now. U most of it has been in New Jersey, a little bit of work in New York as well. I have presented in front of the board of Redbank and have assisted other architects in Milbour, uh Livingston and Fanwood. I may have missed it but licensed in New Jersey is in good standing. Yes. also an architect American Institute of Architects member as well. Any questions from the board or would you like to accept his credentials? We would. Welcome. Please proceed.

Thank you. So, as Andrew has uh accurately introduced this project, it is located on Mey Place, which is a very interesting street. There has been a lot of development over the past, I would say, 12 or 13 years for multiple homes of different sizes and different shapes and different architectural styles. Um, our client purchased 31 mealy place and we had to review the existing conditions and work with what was on the site. So, essentially it's a one and a half story cape typical house and we're going to plan on actually building a new foundation block over the existing to get additional basement height. So we are going to do that and essentially take down all the first floor, all the second floor. We are going to use the existing foundation and we are going to demolish the existing garage which is in disrepair to a substantial degree and attach a new garage onto the side of the house because the requirements of the zoning board are 10 ft by 20 ft which is what we are going to propose. uh that attached onto the side is why we have the combined sideyard setback variance requirement of approximately 8 in. We are proposing extending the rear of the house as the straight towards the back which is shown on the floor plan approximately yeah 4'3 in on the back of the house. So on the left side, the existing nonconformance is going to extend further back, but we are not encroaching further into the sideyard. We're just extending it. Um the 10 10 by

20 minimum garage size is what we're proposing and that triggers the sideyard combined setback which I mentioned earlier. We do have a floor area ratio variance because we are going to have a walk up attic and it is considered a half story per our analysis in our um design and we also have space above the garage for an additional bedroom. So because we are asking for the small setbacks the client wanted to have a little bit more space for storage. So, this bedroom is on the smaller side, so it can also be used for additional storage. The front yard setback, we we incorporated a bay and the garage to mark very minor encroachment on the front of the property. The existing house is 29.9 ft from the front property line that is existing. We're building a new wall on top of the existing wall. We're going to put the 8 in block to get the basement height and then we're going to add a new wall on top of that.

The only v the only more non-conforming area is the bay and the garage as noted on the plans. So, we also do have a rendering which would help you get a better understanding besides the elevations. So the rendering I guess we can tag that as an exhibit of A1

A1 here is what the house would be looking like or the intent that we are coming up with. So we have front gables. Uh we have a front g front to back gable roof with dormers and the portico and the bay to give a unique character to the area which is constantly evolving because of all of the other houses that have been built within the last over approximately 10 years. And as Andrew noted, we're going to have either a fence or treeline shrubbery along the back. And we're going to use field stone with a water table, double hung windows, which are common in the area. Uh front portico, which is actually almost in the same spot as the existing door, and appropriate um shingle style siding as well for the intent. And then just to confirm, the garage is conforming.

Yes, the garage is 10 by 20 and we are going to be using fire rated type X gip with 5/8 inch. So that will be on the walls and the ceilings that will be separated. Um and then the additional F is going to be within that attic space. Um but we still have a conforming building height. Yes, we are conforming with our building height and actually the building is the building coverage is being reduced as well as the impervious as Andrew noted because we are removing a substantial amount of driveway and stone driveway and the garage which is further back on the property. So, it's actually becoming more conforming.

Okay. And these are we all kind of agree these are very dimminimous variances that we're requesting. So it's it's very it's not very visible or it won't deteriorate the surrounding community. Okay. Board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? I have nothing for the architect. Okay. Uh my questions are answered. Okay. Great. Thanks, Ed. Um board members, what questions do you have for the architect? Are there any houses similar style on Maiden currently?

Yes, there is one house, I believe it's 17, which is similar to this. And actually, I designed the project years ago under a different architect on 12 Mey Place, which is the more steeper roof uh line, which is closer to the Pancake um restaurant. Great. Thank you.

Great. Um I just it's the fifth bedroom at the in the the attic that's driving the F. Um what is that bedroom needed? Is that you know is there a family that has a lot of kids or is this I don't know you know what the Cuz you have four bedrooms. There's also potential to convert one in the basement if you put in a window. I'm just wondering if that's needed. I mean, I would say that um it com there's a lot of homes in the area that are five bedroomedroom homes and again the building height is conforming. So if you're looking at it from the outside, you won't really tell you can't really tell um that there's additional F on that third floor. Um it doesn't increase the intensity of use. Doesn't add to the bulk or the mass of the building. I think the dormer adds to the mass of the building. It, you know, visually it does add,

right? Yes, that's correct. But we didn't want to have uh just an overabundance of roof. We wanted to make it more welcoming and the dormers are definitely a little bit more of a brighter uh design intent. I think the planner will talk about it. Great. Thank you. Any questions from the audience? Mr. Mr. Clark, do you have questions for this witness? All right, good. Please. No. Say none. All right, Hillary, let's get to your All right. Mr. Nelson, I'm so sorry. Do you answer the fire department question? Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give in this matter, the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes, I do.

Please state your name. Spell your last name. It's Michael Tobia, T O B I A, Applicants Planning Consultant. Thank you. And you two have appeared before us relatively recently. any changes to your credentials since the last time you were here? No, sir. I imagine we'll accept you back. Definitely. Welcome back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Hello, everyone. Um here on April 7th, um I passed around a handout. We'll do a quick uh uh walkthrough of the property. We marked this A2. Okay. U Mr. B. And it's all photographs shot by me. And we have um 10 pages to the exhibit. Okay. Um,

so if you go uh to slide two, um, you see what's out on the property now. Standard issue Cape Cod about 1953. Uh, thousands of these went up across the country postwar for folks coming back from uh from the war. Um, it's about 1,200 square ft. Um, modest uh neglected, small by today's standards. And as Mr. Kelly explained, "We want to save the foundation, okay, which has value um in terms of lowering the cost of development, but basically the rest of the thing really needs to be updated." Uh slide three is the northerly facade. See a little bump out there that used to be called the dining room back in the day. Um and um slide four, a garage. It's detached. It's at the back of the property. Um, it's in really poor shape. Um, we don't like detached garages, okay? They reduce the utility of the backyard for families. They extend driveways farther than they normally do for an attached garage. So, one central benefit of the application is removing that and then bringing in the required attached garage to the side of the house 10 by 20 as required. Um, next slide. Slide uh five is the garage in closeup and um it's seen better days. Okay. Slide six is the rear facade of the house. Um one thing they did with this old place was put a new roof on it recently. Other than that um it's um reached its u useful lifespan. It's interesting to note if you drive around Neely Place and Plain Street next door, there are 17

uh gut renovations or demos and replacement with new homes. They're starting to outnumber the capes that were originally built on the street historically. So, this is the trend. Uh when Mr. Kelly put up the rendering. Um, you see this basic type of larger um, well articulated architectural product uh, throughout the two streets that form the neighborhood. Slide seven, there's the backyard now and it shows you what a detached garage does to a yard in terms of reducing its usability for families. Um and then slide eight um and final slide um just shows the southernly facade of the property. Okay. Um slide nine is what you see up on the display board here which is the rendering. Um so we have an F variance uh mison. All it does okay it's 205 ft over what's permitted. All it does is give us more space up in the attic under the gable roof. Okay. We like controlling F because we don't want homes to get too big, too high, too close to other homes. In this case, all you see of the entire AT is that dormer. And we like dormers because they add architectural interest to homes and they add a lighting opportunity to bring window space into the attic. The dormer covers 33 square ft of floor area. Um we think it's minor. The problems normally associated with floor area ratio variances as houses get too big and out of control. In this case, almost all well, in fact, the whole attic is invisible because it's under a roof that would be there anyway. Uh, so the dormer, we think, is a nice

architectural element. Softens the look of the house. It's consistent with Mr. Kelly's other dormer on the garage element, and we think um this is a really minor floor area ratio variance. Okay. Um the front yard setback we can also talk about through this rendering. There are two minor encroachments into the 30 foot requirement. One is our garage bumps out one foot into the required 30 ft. It's 29 ft off. Um and that's for a couple of reasons. One, Mr. Kelly properly has put a nice little break in the facade so that garage doesn't form a flat plane across the front of the building. two, we needed that extra foot to get the required 20 ft of length in the garage measuring front to back. This garage is now compliant as to both its width and its length and its attachment to the house. Okay. Um, we have another front yard setback which is for the bay window. The bay window comes uh 2 feet 2.1 ft into the required 30 foot setback. Uh all it does is add a heck of a lot of visual interest to the front of the building. U without it you start getting more of a flat uh bland colonial design to the building. We're requesting this because the benefits of the bay are an attractive architectural product with microscopic impacts on uh the front yard setback. Okay. Uh the portico another nice design element is permitted without any need for variance for front yard. So that's the front yard setback. The main plane of the entire building is conforming. Okay. Um sideyard's been discussed. Um

planners once in a while um get criticized for using the term dimminimus a little too much. Um in this case it really applies. We're short by 2.4 in on the left side southerntherly side of the house because we want to save that existing foundation and we don't build 2-in jogs in our new additions to comply with zoning. It would create a really awkward looking building. Just about no one does a jog like that. Our combined sideyard setback counting the 2.4 in on uh the left side as well as a 6- in deficiency on the right side or northerly side add up to an 8.4 in sideyard setback variance for the two sideyards combined. Microscopic in terms of its impact. imperceptible even to people like me who work in this field all the time. And importantly, what it allows us to do is create a properly sized garage in terms of its width. We don't want to push that in 6 in or 8.4 in for technical compliance and then have a garage that is um uh less wide than ideal for the uh foreseeable future. Um, so those are our variances. Um, really easy to adjust adjustify this because it's just a greatlook building. It promotes a desirable visual environment. Um, and it does so with just minimal impact on the neighborhood. Um, this is the the trend in the neighborhood. these rebuilds um that are super attractive and they have followed a broad planning trend for decades now which is houses have gotten larger and larger with each uh passing decade. I don't think this ends up being a five- bedroomedroom house. It's

probably going to end up being a three or four with a home office, an exercise room, something like that, especially home offices these days, which Missan is probably what the attic's going to end up being used for. Okay. For these reasons, we promote goals A, C, G, I, and M of the municipal land use law. Um, and the conclusion, um, for the reasons stated is this will not be a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. It's going to be an enhancement. Uh, because our variances are so minor, it will not be an impairment to your zoning ordinance. as well. It's uh one of the very few cases I take where we can actually say building coverage is going down and so is lot coverage both by slight amounts, but we're pulling up other uh material like the garage and the patio and the um uh driveway. So coverage is actually going down on this project.

That's what I got, Mr. Chairman. Excellent. Thank you. Board experts, what do you have? question. Um, with regard to an F variance, you're looking at also the site site's ability to accommodate, right, the bulk. What is it about the building? So, what's happened here is um we do have a conforming lot and a conforming width and um it does accommodate this F because as I said, we need building coverage, we meet lot coverage, we need height. These big indicators of overdevelopment are not met here and yet somehow we've managed to have this slight bump up in floor area ratio without impact on the neighborhood.

I also noticed in the architectural design is that the second floor is not taking up the entirety of the building footprint. Right. So the garage side is a partial second floor which reduces massing as well. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. No further questions. Okay. Thanks Ed. Uh board, what questions do you have? Yes, just a point of clarity. I thought the sideyard or the combined sorry sideyard is 2 2.3 feet increase versus I forgot what you just the math you just did but it was less than that increased over the existing condition. Is that the question? Yeah.

So because of the garage it does increase. Um right now that existing building is 22.4 4 ft with combined sideyard and it decreases by 2.3 ft. It's on the zoning chart. Yep. Okay. And just to just a point, I mean that it looks like a reasonable plan, but uh were it not for saving money around pouring a new foundation, we probably wouldn't see you here today. Say I I didn't hear that. you probably wouldn't see. We probably wouldn't see you here today because it would be easier easy ways to avoid all variances,

but you're reusing the foundation, which I totally understand. It's it's a value, okay, to do that. Keeps it out of out of a landfill. We like that. Um I don't know about the uh northerly side where the garage is. We may still have a variance there. Um unless if what you're getting at is rebuild the whole foundation, then you're correct. Yes.

Thanks. Okay, any other questions? Seeing none, uh questions from the public? Seeing none. Okay. Just real quick, this application uh represents a reinvestment in an outdated 1953 home that no longer meets modern standards, replacing it with a well-designed single family residence that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. And um I would submit that the variances being requested are minimal. Okay. Thank you. Uh, seeing no one for public comment. So, we'll go Oh, wait. Andy, conditions and number of votes. Yeah, there's one. There is a public.

Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. Don Nelson, 20 Plain Street. If you can raise your right hand. Right hand. Your other right hand. Do you swear? I'm left-handed. What can I tell? Do you swear from the testimony you're about to give, this matter is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Uh, I noticed that the um engineer mentioned that there was a generator. Is there some sort of a condition we can put on that so that we can it's only tested during certain times? That's already incorporated into our code. Perfect. So, no condition necessary. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.

Okay. Now, I'll get to conditions. Thanks. Um, first is our usual compliance noted uh compliance with conditions noted in the board engineers memorandum. And second that the applicants shall revise their plans to reflect either additional plantings or a fence to help screen the rear property line. And I think I I got that right. Correct. It was rear property line that needed the screening. Yes. Great. I assume no issue with that conditions. Thank you. Um and because there's the F variance, five votes are required to approve. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ball. Who'd like to begin our deliberations?

All right, I'll begin. How's that? Just um I This is clearly a house that needs to be um raised. It doesn't even look like it can be renovated as is. Um so, you know, it looks like a a very thoughtful design. Appreciate the comments about the F. Um, one thing I will say that in in the neighborhood I do see that some of the houses do have a massing that seems maybe a little bigger than what it should be and sometimes it starts to dwarf the remaining ranch houses on either side. Um, that being said, I think, you know, one of the one of the improvements of this property is that you've actually condensed it a little bit, you know, on the on the driveway side. you've taken that driveway out and kind of um you know, you moved it over like attached it to the house and it's made it a little bit um a little more in some ways um it looks like with the grass a little more breathing room between the house and the neighboring house. So I see that as an improvement um too. And um yeah, I I think that most of the the variances being requested are minimal and imperceptible. So I can support this.

Okay. Anyone else? I don't think much else to be said. Great job. Um, can I get a motion to approve? So move. Can I get a second? Second. Vice Chair Zan. Yes. Mr. Yuko. Yes. Mr. Mullen. Yes. Mr. Curran. Yes. Miss Chief. Yes. Mr. Fes. Yes. Chairman Ly. Yes. All right, good luck. Thank you. All right. Despite this being way past my bedtime, I just want to say thank you to all of you for fitting us in and hanging in there. Appreciate it. Thank you for hanging out.

Breakfast. Yeah. To fill somebody. I'll take them. All right. So we don't have any resolutions for memorial memorialization but we do have two sets of minutes for approval. First up we have the minutes from February 18, 2026. The eligible voting members are vice chairs on Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, Mr. Feskins, Mr. Chantuli, and Chairman Lyz. Could we get a motion to approve? So moved. Second. I'm sorry. Who was the second? Mr. M. Thank you. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. And then lastly, we have the minutes from March 2nd, 2026. The eligible voting members are vice chairs on Mr. Yuko, Mr. Mullen, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Curran, and Mr. Chantuli. Could we get a motion to approve? So moved. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Motion to adjurnn. Second. I. All those in favor I just go to sleep down here.