[0:03] Welcome to the planning board. We're having the planning board meeting of June 29th, and we're going to do the pledge of allegiance first.

[0:35] Actually 10, colon 4-10, adequate notice of this meeting has been provided to the publications

[0:41] of record and has been posted here in City Hall for the benefit of the interested public.

[0:46] This meeting is being live streamed to the city's YouTube page and also broadcast on summits

[0:51] government channel which is Comcast Channel 34 and Verizon Channel 30.

[0:56] Any hearings on applications for development in this meeting are quasi-judicial proceedings.

[1:01] Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board

[1:05] Court may legally consider in reaching a decision and

[1:08] decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times.

[1:12] Please note that fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered.

[1:18] The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired.

[1:21] If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the necessary equipment.

[1:24] Here at the dais and return it immediately after our meeting.

[1:28] Back to you, Madam Chair.

[1:29] Thank you.

[1:30] You will need to do the roll call, Mr. Delmoso.

[1:33] Thank you.

[1:36] Chair Wilson Alvarez.

[1:37] Here.

[1:38] Vice Chair Hamlet.

[1:39] Here.

[1:40] Ms. Vellan.

[1:41] Yes.

[1:42] Councilmember Christopher Lee is expected but not present.

[1:45] I am here.

[1:48] Mr. Fellman.

[1:49] Here.

[1:50] Mr. Morrison.

[1:50] Here.

[1:51] Mr. Sala is excused.

[1:53] Mr. Stern is excused.

[1:54] Mr. Staunton.

[1:55] Here.

[1:56] Mr. Golden.

[1:57] Here.

[1:57] We have a quorum.

[1:58] We may proceed.

[1:59] Thank you so much.

[2:00] Okay, so our first here's Councilman, welcome.

[2:07] Our first item on the agenda is the master plan re-examination discussion.

[2:12] We're just going to talk about the schedule because we've discussed this over and over and

[2:16] we know we're going to be doing this and take away general.

[2:19] Okay, very simply.

[2:21] And you know, we're doing a very quick re-examination report to make sure we meet our early November deadline.

[2:28] What we intend to do is our submitting documents to you on probably three of the five questions

[2:36] that the statute asks, that will be done probably in early August, or maybe late July,

[2:46] because it depends on when Tom's going on vacation.

[2:50] And we would like to see, well, on the way from most of the month of August, and Tom will

[2:57] finish it up. When I come back close to Labor Day, I will then review it and try to get

[3:04] that final draft to you in early September for a late September hearing on the document.

[3:11] If we miss by one meeting, then we would have our hearing in early October, which still

[3:17] gets us well in advance of the time deadline. And then after that, we will presumably immediately

[3:24] at least start on the comprehensive master plan that we had discussed previously.

[3:29] Yep, thank you very much.

[3:31] You're welcome.

[3:33] The next item on our agenda is discussion of DRO edits, typically this is based on feedback

[3:41] that we get from users of the DRO and also from applicants that we get and applications

[3:47] that we get.

[3:48] And this is something that we had looked at last fall, I believe it was, and we're coming back to it.

[3:56] There's nothing really that extraordinary in here we've edited it before.

[4:01] But I'd like to go over some of those suggested edits mainly for clarity.

[4:08] And if anybody has any edits that they'd like to make or suggest, we can go through each item.

[4:16] Just so the public knows what's in here.

[4:19] The first one, did you want me to do this?

[4:26] I think we can discuss.

[4:27] We can share that.

[4:29] Very good, very good.

[4:31] So the first item that's in here is there's all the

[4:40] warehouse clauses and I think we should add a warehouse other

[4:43] There are edits for clarity as described below because I don't think we had actually all

[4:47] of them in the whereas clauses.

[4:51] It's on the second page, at least the way mine printed out, so it depends on the font

[4:57] you used.

[4:58] But it's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

[5:06] After that I would just add, after the 12th whereas I would add other edits for clarity

[5:12] as described below, because there are not every single one is mentioned in the warehouse.

[5:18] That's kind of catch all, if that's okay.

[5:24] And then I don't want to just run the show.

[5:27] I mean, does anybody else want to start with edits before I get into it, or do you want

[5:32] me to just take the lead?

[5:34] Madam Chair, I do have some comments or relate to the board secretary from Mr. Stern.

[5:44] Yeah.

[5:45] Addressing some minor edits that he's captured here on the section for accessory structures and uses, a bullet point under the square footage of B2, I believe.

[5:59] Yeah.

[6:00] It's 35-9-8B2.

[6:03] Yeah, absolutely.

[6:05] So has anybody found that accessory structures?

[6:08] Okay.

[6:09] It states the 576-square-foot by 24-foot cap limits floor area and length, but states no height limit.

[6:17] Right.

[6:17] Be good to confirm the height, but it is governed elsewhere under section 35-9.11.

[6:25] My recollection, and we'll have to check, is that accessory structures aren't supposed to, I think we changed it from 15 feet to 17 feet because the roof pitches on garages were so flat and didn't really often weren't compatible with their own

[6:38] building, for example, a very attenuated queen

[6:40] and with steep roofed pitches would then

[6:42] have a really flat roofed garage.

[6:45] So I think we extended it to 17 or 18.

[6:48] I'm not sure.

[6:50] But I think he's right that we should, if it's not covered,

[6:55] and we could repeat it here, you know, what the height is.

[7:00] Oh, we can.

[7:01] We just have to make sure we get the same number.

[7:03] Yes.

[7:03] I think it was 18.

[7:04] 18.

[7:05] OK.

[7:05] So we're going to add.

[7:06] Let's look at it.

[7:07] at the height there just to reiterate.

[7:10] Okay, very good.

[7:11] That was my note as well.

[7:17] Ken.

[7:18] Ken.

[7:20] Accessory structures.

[7:21] Accessory structures have a problem.

[7:23] Yes.

[7:24] Yes.

[7:25] That's not all day typical.

[7:28] I know people with swimming pools oftentimes

[7:30] their accessory structures will have a bathroom.

[7:33] They don't want people drooping through the house or wet.

[7:38] Generally, I don't believe on an accessory structure

[7:40] like detached garage, it wouldn't generally be permitted to have functioning electrical

[7:47] or plumbing to prevent a secondary dwelling unit being created there.

[7:53] Yeah, typically in our zoning enforcement it wouldn't be permitted.

[7:57] We've seen, well I know that the office has seen applications in the past where some applicants

[8:03] would propose an accessory structure having either heating, cooling, plumbing, or functioning

[8:11] kitchen. And generally, we request that they seek variance relief for that kind of stuff.

[8:16] So I don't think it would be permitted by.

[8:18] Okay. I know a number of what I'll call up scale municipalities will allow a bathroom

[8:24] by specifically prohibit the things that you just mentioned, but they do permit. That's

[8:29] up to you if you want to provide for it that way.

[8:32] or yeah, I think that we need to do a little, you know,

[8:35] make sure that we understand what's allowed now

[8:37] and what we want to have allowed.

[8:39] Yeah, no, I remember somebody showing me their accessory

[8:42] structure and saying that it was not.

[8:44] And I don't remember off the top of my head

[8:46] whether it was, you might, or yeah.

[8:52] So we'll, let's look into that for the next round.

[9:00] I'm pretty sure that, I'm not sure we could say.

[9:02] I mean, I went through somebody's house

[9:04] where they weren't allowed to put it in. So, accessory structure. So, I don't know. We'll

[9:09] have to check. Deiro, next round. There's always something for the next round.

[9:23] All right. So, moving on.

[9:36] I had a question about the existing air conditioning units.

[9:48] I

[9:48] The locating, I

[9:54] just want to make sure I've got this right, the air conditioning units

[9:57] being replaced in kind should only be in residential zones.

[10:00] And I don't think that we have a change to the commercial, so it shouldn't be referenced

[10:06] in here.

[10:07] As being changed in the commercial and the residential zones, it should just be in residential

[10:12] zones.

[10:13] We're allowing that because we still want the reviews for the commercial zones because it

[10:16] these so much more impactful potentially.

[10:23] So, I have

[10:34] a comment on the rooftop amenities going back to my noise ordinance obsession right

[10:42] now.

[10:43] Which section?

[10:44] Are we going in any order right now?

[10:47] I'm just on page seven, so the one thing I noticed about being this was, oh, here it

[10:55] is.

[10:57] I mean, if I'm on Maple Street and I know some of my friends who live on Maple Street

[11:02] and Elk's has, I haven't heard too many complaints, but 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. live, which I think is

[11:12] reasonable, Monday through Friday, 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. or by the close of business. I think

[11:21] close of business is a little bit, I mean, I think the neighbors there are probably going

[11:25] be a little irritated if they're playing music until 12 a.m., you know, and I also think

[11:34] there's not really, it says enforcement, but there's really not a mechanism, right?

[11:39] So because for so many people in the audience that are watching, right, the police don't

[11:46] have a desk full meter.

[11:48] So you'd have to literally coordinate with the board of health that night.

[11:50] So there's no enforcement that you can do, and what are people supposed to do?

[11:55] Who are they called?

[11:57] They just make it complaint?

[11:59] All right, we're writing stuff but we're not really able to force it.

[12:03] So years ago, 15 years ago when I was on board, I re-wrote the noise and we removed the

[12:09] decibel requirement because there was no way an active measure that we instead replaced

[12:13] it with certain types of noises, you know, mechanical equipment, you know, or a generator

[12:19] or abstract, etc., alarm systems, later music, because you're right, nobody in some

[12:25] has the equipment to measure it. So is there for unenforceable?

[12:29] Right. But if they're playing music, past 12, according to this, you know, choice 12

[12:36] at 12 a.m., then they're in non-compliance. Right. But do we, I circled 12, because my

[12:44] My May recollection was when we did approve the Alcs, it was 11.

[12:48] So whether 12 is what the norm is in other municipalities, that might be why this is 12.

[12:54] But if the summit wants to make it 11, because we have people who have residences in neighboring buildings,

[13:02] and I vaguely recall that when we did approve the rooftop deck, it was 11.

[13:09] And so that's why I circled it also.

[13:11] So any recommendations, Joe, from what you see in other municipalities?

[13:15] Some municipalities who specifically prohibit amplified music, especially some do it after

[13:21] a certain time, like 10 o'clock.

[13:23] So like with a speaker?

[13:24] Yes.

[13:25] Okay.

[13:26] So it could be like a guitarist without it.

[13:28] Yeah.

[13:29] Something quiet.

[13:30] That's an interesting.

[13:32] Yeah.

[13:32] One, if I may, from a legal perspective.

[13:35] One thing, one or two things to keep in mind.

[13:38] And any noise ordinance in order for it to be enforceable must

[13:45] comport with DEPs, model ordinances, and which do have

[13:52] decibel levels, 50 DBA at nighttime, 65 DBA during the day time

[13:59] being the maximums at the perimeter, if I recall correctly,

[14:03] of the lot, the subject lot.

[14:05] But so we certainly need to double check to make sure ours is, that's the general noise

[14:14] ordinance.

[14:14] You could have other limitations with respect to certain activities and hours, etc.

[14:20] But the noise ordinance itself has to come forward with DEP and be approved by DEP in order

[14:26] to be enforceable.

[14:27] NJAC-7 calling 29 is the reg.

[14:32] Secondly, if I recall correctly, in Joe Helmix,

[14:35] I used to have this memorized.

[14:39] The difference between the nighttime and daytime

[14:43] 12-hour period, I believe, is it 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.

[14:50] Is the 50 DBA, the lower noise threshold

[14:56] for the evening as opposed to

[15:00] 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. being the higher 65 d.b.a. threshold of during the day. Not that you have to tie everything to the 10 p.m. timeframe. I'm just pointing that out for context. So Steve, the one thing I noticed was 99% sure our ordinance is based off of NJ D.p. But the one thing Joe and I were talking about is how to enforce the D.b.c.

[15:27] the DBC and that no, no, there's DBA, but then there's DBC.

[15:32] So the DBC is also modeled after the NJDEP, and so I think it's important as we talk about the data centers.

[15:40] I think it's my version.

[15:41] It's the vibration.

[15:42] Oh, okay, nothing.

[15:43] Sorry, it's like continuous airborne sound, I believe it is.

[15:49] One second.

[15:50] Continuous airborne sound, so it's the C-weighting.

[15:52] The DVC is the sound level as measured using the C-weighting network with a sound level meeting.

[15:57] The C-weighting network is more sensitive to low frequencies than the A.

[16:01] So we're going to talk about this later, but now that the public is talking about the data centers,

[16:06] I think that we should think about putting the DVC recommend that to the council.

[16:11] And then for the newly, well, for the data center ordinance, also for

[16:17] just in general, both of the prod zones, because if the DEP is recognizing that the C already had, we can already measure it.

[16:29] I'm sure there's actually a sound group at the DEP, we should probably just call them, they're great.

[16:35] But I think we should engage them and talk about that because now that the public's aware of that low frequency humming,

[16:40] I think it's appropriate to recommend to Dan and council that we can potentially change that door's ordinance.

[16:47] And at the same time?

[16:52] Yeah.

[16:53] I was just going to add that.

[16:54] That exact question.

[16:56] And if anyone joins us, I don't know.

[16:59] Mechanisms.

[16:59] Yeah.

[16:59] Does the health officer help?

[17:01] It's usually the health officer, right?

[17:03] Yeah.

[17:03] It helps.

[17:04] I was a lot easier for the people that are already on the ground

[17:06] or in the town.

[17:09] I think the first step is just find out the closest one.

[17:13] But again, I don't think the actual, the regular meter is not

[17:16] going to catch the sea.

[17:18] That is correct.

[17:19] So the irony is we have a noise ordinance and we could have a DVC, you know,

[17:26] addition to our ordinance and have no wage. But the DEP requires us to do so.

[17:31] So I just don't know the process by which we end up, the process by which we ask the

[17:37] council to buy a meter. That's an enforcement. It's a recommendation, especially if we have it in our

[17:45] DROs and we can make a recommendation.

[17:47] Why don't we also just ask Joe to make a reach out to the sound team?

[17:52] Yeah, Joe, how do other municipalities handle this?

[17:55] All right, I don't want to burden the police with being part of an anti-state.

[17:58] I want to have it, you know, following established norms here.

[18:01] Some towns will bring in an expert and noise expert and deal with it that way.

[18:06] Yeah, but I can make a suggestion.

[18:10] Yeah, like overlook is done that overlook brings in the noise expert, you know.

[18:14] I mean, you could have issues with a police or call to patrol some of these party next door.

[18:21] I don't know, it could be, they could have other repercussions.

[18:24] What was your recommendation, Joe?

[18:27] You know, I know we want to get this DRO over to the governing body for adoption quickly.

[18:33] We're doing the re-examination report right now.

[18:36] We could add this as a thing to look into and then make a recommendation to the governing body through the REX.

[18:53] If someone goes for a variance, if somebody goes for a variance, for a roofed up door, and the variance is given stipulating no music after six o'clock. That trumps this, right?

[19:07] Yeah, if it's an application for a hearing that he would.

[19:13] The help application had a time limit attached.

[19:18] Because it goes and that would go with the property whoever owns that building, that

[19:23] restriction would go with the property.

[19:25] There's a land use board approval and that's a condition of the approval that runs with the approval which grants with the land.

[19:35] So, Dan, I'd like to just make a quick comment.

[19:38] We're not trying to enforce a nanny state.

[19:40] There are neighbors at overlook and at BMS that have been dealing with something that you

[19:43] and I can't even hear.

[19:45] A police officer is not going to, there's no nanny state, there's, what our goal is, let me

[19:50] finish.

[19:51] What our goal is, is to address the neighbors down in the prod zone and near overlook that

[19:56] hear this low humming sea volume.

[19:59] So as, and I understand we're coming from Susan, maybe we need a meter, maybe we don't, but

[20:02] But I want everybody to understand the point.

[20:05] The point is to somehow figure out a way to protect these neighbors from the sea level

[20:12] noise.

[20:13] There's no nanny state that you can barely hear it unless you're down there.

[20:17] So I just want to make sure we're-

[20:18] My understanding is more of a vibrant-

[20:19] Yeah, it's a good vibration.

[20:20] Well, if I may respond, sorry, I've been interrupt.

[20:25] Dealia, I acknowledge that issue.

[20:26] I don't want to cause unintended consequences of fights between neighbors of a house

[20:32] party who knows right no, but if the police have a decibel meter it could be used you know

[20:40] for the purposes.

[20:41] So I just want to be clear that we're not creating an attempt on this.

[20:43] But we can have a further discusion about this in our reacts process and let's get back

[20:48] to the deer.

[20:49] Are we good?

[20:49] We can talk about the neighbors who are jackhammering up on mountain for months and their

[20:54] families are being tortured like that. This would be a great way to have an easy access to a meter that maybe we would have had.

[21:01] So I do want to. I can raise the question. If I can.

[21:07] That's an enforcement issue. Okay.

[21:09] Madam Chair, I can raise the question. So in dealing with sound management and future developments. Have you seen any kind of regulations or design regulations?

[21:20] Let's say there's a new intense use put into town, or something that can help mitigate.

[21:27] We're talking about a couple different things.

[21:30] Construction is one issue, and construction, I don't want to say to get the complete pass.

[21:37] But in terms of the noise it generates, it does get a pass.

[21:41] Your entitle to limit the hours of operation, they can't start before a certain time,

[21:46] they have to end by a certain time.

[21:47] But in terms of the noise-during construction,

[21:51] that typically is not regulated.

[21:56] It's a kind of noise issue that during your first

[21:59] product there was something that can be regulated.

[22:02] That's why I said, let me do some analysis.

[22:06] It's part of the REX, so there's some information

[22:09] before you, so we can all discuss it with some background

[22:13] information.

[22:14] That would be very helpful.

[22:15] I think that's appropriate. Don't we all agree? Okay.

[22:19] Oh, we don't want something meaningless.

[22:22] I mean, if we're putting something in here,

[22:24] where we know I can't be divorced.

[22:26] No, we're saying they can't play music past a certain time.

[22:31] Right, and that's what that means.

[22:32] Right, so I think we should just discuss actually what time that is.

[22:37] Do we think 12 a.m. is appropriate?

[22:40] But I'm going to need an eight.

[22:41] I would say I kind of feel that way too because I think I'm correct that it was 11 if I live next door to be 11

[22:49] Sorry if I live next door to be 11

[22:51] Right exactly and we have to think of this

[22:54] You want to go there as well?

[22:56] And to remind everybody in the master plan, we want to encourage residential downtown as well as active, you know

[23:03] Space so it's it's about

[23:05] Just one question and not to relitigate the whole thing about the master plan reacts

[23:11] But I think Susan's talking about the devices and the mechanisms that would go along with what we write in the in the reacts those are

[23:21] Related but potentially two separate things

[23:23] So if there's noise issues happening from commercial properties or other things that people are bringing up right now

[23:30] Can't wouldn't we be visiting them separately even if they're in parallel like the reacts won't say you know

[23:37] The city should use this type of device or that type of device through this means or that means it will just define

[23:44] DCA DVD where it's coming from and will still be still potentially with the same

[23:50] Comment that Susan just made which I agree with which is how are we how can we effectively measure the noise ordinance that we have on our books right now?

[24:00] And I'm not saying we've to solve that tonight, but I think that's something that was brought up with the council meetings that relates to

[24:06] the data center type stuff and I've lived down by the BMS property so it's a

[24:13] current issue I've been there for 12 years so I think that deserves its own

[24:18] discussion which may or may not be part of the re-act, right?

[24:23] Okay

[24:26] so back to this do we feel that 8 a.m. to 12 a.m. Thursday through Saturday is

[24:35] is appropriate. That's a very specific recommendation.

[24:41] Where did we get that from?

[24:43] I think that when Tom wrote this up, he looked at other municipalities.

[24:49] No, it says 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Monday through Friday.

[24:53] That's right. And then a little later on.

[24:55] 12 p.m. to 12 a.m. or am I reading?

[25:00] Well then, sorry, I'm jumping because I circled the two.

[25:03] But anyway, one is, yeah,

[25:09] anyway, is 12 a.m. too late.

[25:11] I think Susan says is too late.

[25:13] I'm leaning towards 11.

[25:14] 11, too late.

[25:16] Yeah.

[25:16] I hear a neighbor.

[25:18] Sorry.

[25:19] What's it open now, I just don't know.

[25:23] I think from a music on an open forum, yeah.

[25:28] So let's, for now, say 11 and then the governing body

[25:32] can discuss it further.

[25:34] but this is our recommendation okay thank you moving on so it'll be until 11

[25:44] yeah 11 p.m. yeah 11 p.m. did I say I am okay 11 p.m. okay so I think we'll

[25:54] cover this later but something that we have to amend to be consistent with our

[25:59] our recent legislation is to, I mean, ordinance is to remove the primary use of data centers,

[26:11] computer centers, et cetera, but I think we can, I think that that's an easy recommendation

[26:16] to make to be consistent because it's inconsistent now in the fraud zone and the prod two zone.

[26:21] It says principle uses could be computer data centers, et cetera.

[26:25] That didn't mean what it means now.

[26:26] now, and so now that's just an accessory use, which is to come out of, I added it, yeah.

[26:34] Because it wasn't, it's become topical now, and it means something completely different,

[26:39] so that's why we added our deer up, but that's all I have.

[26:45] What else did you all have?

[26:46] Two and a half pounds and then the regulations, I don't know what the policy means because it's all over the room.

[26:55] I mean give the key through other pounds, say anything about those.

[27:02] Usually it comes under the order of an accessory structure, so it's 15 or 17 or 18 feet, that would mean the cap.

[27:11] I'm just wondering if it seems to me that might be a buyer.

[27:14] I can't say I've ever seen a specific regulation for those heating elements, but if you have a recommendation, then I didn't know if they were a fire hazard.

[27:28] Perhaps they go off if they fall down.

[27:30] Well, it's actually a good question because on Maple Street, one thing we didn't talk about during the Maple Street audience.

[27:36] and you could probably speak to John Gerricks on to those heaters back there with all those businesses and I'm trying to take care of them.

[27:43] They are all propane fire.

[27:44] They're all propane fire hazards.

[27:46] They are all inspected by our fire official from the fire department.

[27:49] So how many they love to have?

[27:51] I don't think there's a limit to be honest.

[27:54] What is that a problem?

[27:56] Like if one catches on fire, how many?

[27:58] Yeah, I mean the fire code is going to basically address, you know, do the block means to be aggressive?

[28:04] But just for the layman, if there's 15 propane heaters and one blows up, is that a problem?

[28:13] It's blowing up and everything is a problem.

[28:16] But unfortunately, I don't think that's a problem.

[28:18] So I don't think that that is a plan for a topic, unfortunately, because furniture is not really something we can cover.

[28:26] Yeah, maybe, right. I was thinking.

[28:28] Doesn't mean that you can't pursue this issue.

[28:30] Yeah, it's okay. I'm good.

[28:31] On another path because it sounds important.

[28:33] And did you get your original question?

[28:38] Your original question on the heater.

[28:40] We're good with that.

[28:41] No, I just didn't know if the refire hazard,

[28:43] and we should be thinking about that,

[28:45] because technology marches on,

[28:46] and maybe they make one of the touches.

[28:50] I could look into it.

[28:54] But I've never seen an ordinance

[28:56] that has a cap on one of those heating elements.

[29:00] It's a good question.

[29:04] I understand the question.

[29:06] Thank you.

[29:09] Did you all get a chance to look at another part of this DRO request is to or suggested

[29:16] that it's to put the design guidelines in the meat of the document.

[29:21] It's referred to in every single zone, the design guidelines, that each zone has to be compatible with the design guidelines.

[29:28] why make it hard to find and Joe mentions to me today that we're one of the last

[29:32] municipalities to not put it into our meat of our DRO. So I think it's tough. And we

[29:38] also received thanks to Mike Dioran. How do you say that? He's an architect in

[29:48] town and he's really nice and he helps with HBC volunteers there and he drew

[29:53] this up for us, just to, because illustrations really help to educate architects.

[30:01] We're talking about various issues in our DRO and in our design guidelines. So he was kind

[30:08] of enough to do this and we went over all the notes. Hopefully you all were able to read

[30:15] them, but it's trying to clarify how to treat facades of historic buildings, what sorts

[30:22] of treatments do you want to see in infill buildings. And I think it's just we have a lot

[30:28] illustrations in the design guidelines as you will note a lot of them

[30:32] they were residential some of them are commercial but most of the

[30:34] residential so it's nice to have another commercial example so if you have

[30:40] any questions ask away if you have any edits let me know but I think we would

[30:47] add this to the section on the more you describe and explain the more tools the

[30:57] the rhythm and solid voice section.

[31:00] So Jennifer, I think it's a great idea.

[31:02] I think there are examples of buildings

[31:05] where if attention had been given to the design guidelines,

[31:10] it would have saved heartache subsequently,

[31:12] including a recent very high profile case.

[31:16] And so I agree.

[31:18] I understand that they were developed years ago,

[31:20] is it worth a refresh of the design guidelines?

[31:23] They were developed years ago,

[31:24] and then we edited them heavily and got them

[31:28] incorporated into Dero what five years ago

[31:31] or something like that.

[31:33] I don't even know if that's CVD.

[31:34] It was in 2020, we got it.

[31:36] The central business district plan

[31:39] was done a good 10 or more years ago.

[31:42] Yeah, right.

[31:43] We had some of this information.

[31:46] But you're right about a refresh.

[31:49] If I could suggest that we're going to do

[31:50] this comprehensive new master plan,

[31:52] And that would be the perfect time to update that document as part of the overall comprehensive plan.

[31:59] Yeah, that would be great.

[32:00] Something like this would fit in.

[32:01] It would always be enhanced.

[32:04] You know, I just, I asked my a long time ago, hey, can you do some of your great sketches?

[32:10] And he's kind enough to do so.

[32:11] And I don't see why we wouldn't add it now.

[32:14] And then, yeah, if we want to redo it again,

[32:16] and all the better, make it more consistent,

[32:19] as far as the appearance of it,

[32:21] but the actual meat of what we suggest,

[32:23] I think it's pretty good.

[32:25] Thank you.

[32:28] What else?

[32:30] Yes.

[32:31] Sorry.

[32:31] Another comment on section eight,

[32:34] the electric vehicle charging stations.

[32:37] Oh, yeah.

[32:38] And it says there's a bracketed reserve.

[32:41] And what is intended to go there?

[32:44] Yes.

[32:45] Yes, the consistency.

[32:47] Okay.

[32:48] Page five.

[32:49] Section 8.

[32:50] I don't think we're trying to warn this.

[32:50] Or EV.

[32:51] Yeah.

[32:52] Yeah.

[32:52] So the state has requirements back in 2021.

[32:56] Yeah.

[32:56] The state does in fact have the model ordinance now.

[33:00] And we had said originally that the electric vehicle stations should be repealed and replaced

[33:12] with something.

[33:14] But the municipality just has never proceeded to take that model ordinance.

[33:19] The model ordinance, yeah, is 10 pages.

[33:25] It actually very specifically identifies where you cannot make adjustments and where you're

[33:32] entitled to make adjustments.

[33:33] It's a very simple document to follow.

[33:35] There are Joe though, if I recall correctly, there are some discretionary areas of the ordinance

[33:42] as well.

[33:43] Yeah, that's very far into it has a number of discretionary and a number of and also identify that it's a remandatory. It's just a matter of

[33:54] being directed to send it to the governing body filled out. Nobody's ever done that for whatever reason.

[34:02] I think the one thing that we were talking about last year is in our previous

[34:06] this electric vehicle charging station,

[34:09] we weren't allowed to have advertising.

[34:11] And I think just my opinion, I don't think it's a terrible thing.

[34:15] City could make money off some advertising.

[34:17] If it's not, initially, I don't think anybody wanted advertising,

[34:20] but does anybody really care if it's in the parking lot of DeForest?

[34:24] And can we get an extra charger or two?

[34:26] We don't have to pay for it.

[34:27] I don't care, but maybe people will not like that.

[34:30] I'm okay with it.

[34:31] But I think that's the one big thing.

[34:32] I don't remember what the other changes were.

[34:34] I can't remember off top of my head, but I'm not opposed to it, so the more the better.

[34:40] I think the design of it is key, like if the whole thing ends up being a big add, you

[34:45] know, lit up, I think that would not be compatible, but it's just a little screen that has,

[34:52] you know, or something like that.

[34:54] I don't think we even have, do we have an EV charger in the, um, the one next to the

[34:57] transition?

[34:58] So it would be a perfect opportunity for the city to get one with an advertiser, pay for it, and be done with it.

[35:05] I want to pay for it. I'm sure these are seven done, but I think that was the intended by bringing it up.

[35:11] I actually missed one at it. I have a couple of things going on.

[35:16] General, what were the next steps to move that forward? Is it on council's lap or...?

[35:21] I think that you're going to insert the language before you...

[35:25] I can do that before you send a recommendation.

[35:28] That's what I got.

[35:29] So you lift up the state language and you put in the ordinance

[35:31] and there's some discretionary and some mandatory

[35:33] and that's how it's written and there's some counsels.

[35:36] Great.

[35:36] Yeah, it's fairly simple and straightforward.

[35:39] Great.

[35:39] Can you just pass it to us?

[35:40] We can just take a peek at it before.

[35:43] I just don't know what's in it.

[35:45] Yeah, the state language.

[35:46] I just haven't looked at it in a while.

[35:48] OK.

[35:49] I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.

[35:50] Oh, can we just flip that to us?

[35:52] What we can do, I guess, is just circulate

[35:54] the state model, and then working between

[35:58] on considerations of whether we'd allow

[36:00] or advertising or not, so we can have that forward

[36:04] to the board.

[36:06] Thank you.

[36:07] You're good.

[36:07] Wonderful.

[36:08] Under porkers, Sheriff Section 9,

[36:10] I forgot that I crossed the south.

[36:12] I think that the first part is fine.

[36:15] A roof structure attached to the principal building

[36:17] designed to cover an entrance for sheltering persons,

[36:20] entering, and exiting vehicles.

[36:22] It says existing, but it means exiting.

[36:27] And then the rest of that vehicle, it says a covered gateway, et cetera.

[36:33] This is so rare and could lead to a more commercial appearance, could be just done so wrong that

[36:40] I just think that needs to be taken out up to where it says property to an interior courtyard.

[36:48] We are at that part, all of that should be deleted and then and is not intended as covered parking area provided.

[36:56] It shall be designed consistent with the fraffessade of the dwelling because typically

[36:59] porkershares are at the same style and materialized.

[37:03] So that is something that's been out there for a long time.

[37:06] People have wanted a definition of a porkershares, this is it.

[37:10] But I don't think we should get into this gateway business for a courier because it's a little different.

[37:14] Just for far we're selling.

[37:16] Now we're corrupt.

[37:19] I know.

[37:20] Anyway.

[37:21] That's an old part of the Bureau that's not there.

[37:24] One typo or not?

[37:25] Sorry.

[37:26] The second typo versus entering an existing.

[37:29] Yes.

[37:30] Entering and exiting.

[37:32] Is what it should be.

[37:33] Exactly.

[37:35] So there was only one other thing before we send the, I mean, recommend that we put the design

[37:43] guidelines in the meat of it. There's one edit I have on page 14 of the design

[37:47] guidelines. Oh yeah, that's a question for John. Do you guys ever run into this

[37:52] with fire trucks or ambulances when people have work for shares at their houses?

[37:59] Worth a width in the height, yes. Yes, so certainly it's an institutional structure

[38:05] that should be a minimum height of 10 feet. You know, never run to it in your

[38:09] residents. Okay. Usually it's there's more than one way to get around the

[38:15] partnership. Oh that's good. That's a good question. Safety theme. That's good.

[38:23] Understorm water I just have a few edits to make that a must because it had it

[38:30] says the City of Summit encourages but instead of that it should say project shall

[38:34] the design to manage all stormwater on site.

[38:42] Techniques to do so include natural

[38:46] landscape elements including fire smells, landscapes, more trees, buildings and it goes on and

[38:55] on. That was just the main change. And also, you could also simply reference the talons

[39:01] stormwater management. Yeah, and we could do that. That would be great. I remember seeing

[39:05] We see I don't believe the design guidelines were attached because it's covered but I think

[39:13] this is more about the different ways they wanted to incur different ways of dealing with

[39:21] it's in the DR role.

[39:23] I'm just saying the store where we're managing the plan is where it gets updated periodically

[39:29] so there might be more.

[39:34] I mean, this was put in from, uh, anyway, go ahead, ask for a portion.

[39:41] I'm just trying to think about how this, I mean, Augusta, you probably can read my mind

[39:45] where I'm going with this, as we go out to, if one, if one house is being built on top

[39:49] of another and all the storm waters draining into the other properties house and they don't

[39:54] have their, they don't have their gutters and like, how are we even going to enforce this?

[39:57] because they can't put landscape again, right, at this point.

[40:03] The design guidelines are for,

[40:05] because new work, you know, pre-existing non-conforming, you know, you can't

[40:11] run around and make people conform if they're not changing their building or changing their property.

[40:15] I mean, all of the stuff in the DRO is for new work.

[40:19] Yeah, and to that same example, it wouldn't be an

[40:23] active enforcement of a passive, for example, you could change the circumstances of stormwater controls within the DRO to say a new residential development of a single family home needs to include X, Y, and Z.

[40:35] So that would become for anything new, and you would assume that over time it fixes the problem very slowly.

[40:42] You would see progressively as opposed to some kind of active enforcement on that stormwater.

[40:48] But it doesn't mean that you, you know, a resident doesn't have the capability of going to City Hall and talking to, you know, the Department of Community Service and things.

[40:57] I need help. There's a problem, you know. But when it comes to the DRO and the Design Guidelines, this is about future work.

[41:05] Okay.

[41:07] I don't think I have anything else.

[41:09] So, fixing one photo, which is just a better photo under the solar panels, was really that

[41:16] photo.

[41:17] So, I will circulate that.

[41:21] I sent an email out to, I think it was Joe, Jennifer, I was wondering if we just

[41:27] pass it to the board after you've looked at it, Joe, the height-sensitive side yard controls

[41:31] and residential sky exposure in the R5 and R6 zone, it was actually given me by a resident

[41:38] I think it's actually pretty interesting, very smart resident.

[41:43] Summit's residential zoning regulates a lot area, a lot coverage, building coverage,

[41:47] front yard, rear yard side yard, total side yard, flurry, racial stories and maximum

[41:51] building height.

[41:54] However, they don't fully regulate the vertical relationship between a new or expanded structure

[41:59] and the second story, Windows of an immediate adjacent dwelling when smaller lots are developed

[42:03] close to the maximum permitted envelope.

[42:06] It's a lot for one meeting, so just take a look at it.

[42:09] It's prepared by Ellie a fisherman, when you're bored over the

[42:13] forefinger like how they take a look at it, but I think it's, I think it's pretty interesting, I'm curious to see

[42:17] everybody's thoughts on it.

[42:19] Yeah, so we can look at it and see if there's anything we can put in the deer on it, yeah.

[42:25] It's basically like a smaller lot, as the houses get smaller and these other houses,

[42:30] you know, there start to be three stories, either blocking the, I'm sure they're nice.

[42:35] Yeah, I'm sure something reasonable, but I can be wrong.

[42:40] I'll let our planner and our smart staff see if it makes sense.

[42:45] I mean, the question to like the

[42:48] proportion to the neighbors.

[42:49] Right.

[42:50] Is that what this is?

[42:51] Is that part of the work that people can hear you at home?

[42:55] Sorry.

[42:55] I'm just trying to clarify what we could look at later,

[42:59] but does it sound like he's talking about just like

[43:02] a new development relative to the neighboring structures

[43:06] in that basically both sides of a neighbor

[43:10] could be overshadowed by a development.

[43:13] That's probably a zoning thing that's looked at

[43:15] on every application, but maybe it's just not spelled out.

[43:18] Especially if they're asking for a side-yard variance,

[43:21] that's really coming to play.

[43:25] You have seen ordinances where the heights

[43:28] are allowed to be lower as you get closer to the side property lines.

[43:42] I guess this is in the DRO bulk height in R5 and R6.

[43:47] It's relevant in any zone.

[43:49] It's going to have topics like in New York.

[43:54] they did a new zoning in 1916 where they required setbacks to skyscrapers because of light-nare

[44:03] issues.

[44:04] If you ever walk around downtown where Wall Street is, it's the canyon because there's

[44:09] before a lot of that was before the 1916 zoning change and then you go to other neighborhoods

[44:14] and you see all the stepbacks, it's a little more open and it's a long-term planning issue.

[44:22] So we're looking at there's a particular issue in the R5 or R6 so we'll look at that the next round

[44:30] I think that's what this area is kind of down is that what they're referencing is down here like magic mountain area where there's some the lots are tight

[44:37] There's some smaller older homes and then they're fully down going and all of a sudden you're

[44:46] Thanks all right, so do we have any other suggested edits for this round of DR

[44:52] suggested changes to the City of Council.

[45:00] So I think we are ready to recommend sending these up. Hopefully Councilman Christopher Lee can get it through. I'll read it more, I'll take them up. Do your best. One suggestion. Not really for the deal though, sort of general policy. And I see this does not last but not consistently. So when do we make a change to rezone an area or even receive an application?

[45:26] The fact that the Constitution, rather than simply the third to, you know, block 207,

[45:29] which is 379 and 10, maybe we could just add commonly known as five close friends

[45:34] to the avenue. That would be so much easier for the public

[45:36] for what we're doing. And some of us too, I mean a couple of us probably have

[45:41] memorized, but many of us don't. Right. Right.

[45:44] That's a great idea. Is there any reason why we don't do that?

[45:49] There's nothing legally stopping you to do that. And most

[45:52] you know, once we get an ordinance or something, usually has both. But yeah, just for general

[45:56] parliaments, that's a good idea. Good idea. I like it. Okay. So moving on, we

[46:06] have, yes,

[46:09] we did, Dan, would you like to introduce this? Sure. There's been busy at work. Should

[46:15] there be a motion formally referring this back to the government body? Oh, yes. The DRO.

[46:23] We're not coming back with a clean, we're doing it now.

[46:26] I think we're good.

[46:27] I mean, I trust them to make these at.

[46:29] They're not substantial.

[46:30] They're not.

[46:31] And these minor changes we could add to it.

[46:33] But you would say, for soon to our...

[46:38] I think that's fine.

[46:41] And it's not a resolution.

[46:43] So emotion, second, and voice vote is sufficient

[46:46] to our surrogate clerk this evening.

[46:50] So moved.

[46:52] Oh, you could also make the most of it.

[46:55] All in favor?

[46:56] Hi.

[46:57] Hi.

[46:58] Opposed?

[47:00] A lot of different hats.

[47:01] I know.

[47:03] Okay.

[47:03] Now it's official.

[47:05] So that's done.

[47:06] Yeah.

[47:07] Joe's been hard at work because the planning board members and Dan wanted to help out with the

[47:16] The data center

[47:18] Ordnance and

[47:20] Dan, would you like to?

[47:24] Are we going to a private session yet? Or no? Sorry? No. Oh, because we're not on the agenda. Okay.

[47:28] No. We're off-piece. Kind of deoro-ish, but it's different.

[47:33] It's really.

[47:34] And it's really for the information of the planning board. I'm introducing this memo, which you should have a copy of.

[47:40] And for the public, I requested it to be put on the planning board website as soon as possible.

[47:46] It's a memo from Joe Burgess and Tom Barons.

[47:50] They're doing the leading land development and design experts in New Jersey.

[47:55] The memo provides input to some of its ordinance banning AI data centers.

[48:00] As you're probably aware, and the public hopefully is aware, the ordinance was determined by the planning board to be consistent with some of its master plan.

[48:08] And as such, the existing ordinance that we passed provides additional protections against undesirable land use.

[48:14] beyond the current, beyond the prior DRO provisions.

[48:19] During the public hearing at the council meeting on June 16th,

[48:23] comments by residents suggested the ordinance

[48:25] could be further strengthened.

[48:27] I requested this memo from Mr. Burgess

[48:29] to provide comments on the recently enacted ordinance

[48:33] and the light of those comments from residents

[48:35] and I'm providing the memo to the planning board

[48:37] for transparency to the public.

[48:39] As I said, I'm requesting that the memo be made available

[48:42] on the planning board website.

[48:44] Thank you.

[48:45] Yeah, so we had a meeting and just the three of us

[48:50] talking about, you know, how can we help with this?

[48:54] And Joe recommended that we really lay out

[49:00] the thinking behind it.

[49:01] And I think he does a very good job of, you know,

[49:04] because he's such a good planner,

[49:06] describing the positive negatives, defining things,

[49:09] you know, current thinking on this, how things have changed,

[49:12] how things may change. It's just a very comprehensive and thoughtful memo that

[49:18] discusses the topic at hand. And he's made some specific, very good, I think,

[49:25] very clear suggestions on changes. And I think we should definitely make the

[49:35] changes that Joe suggests, which are on page seven and eight.

[49:42] And I'd like input

[49:43] from the board on the memo and the suggested changes.

[49:49] If I can make a comment or so?

[49:50] Of course, you can make some comments.

[49:51] Okay.

[49:52] You know, this evolved.

[49:54] We had a great conversation with Dan in Jennifer and myself.

[49:58] And one thing that came out or a couple of things came out of that conversation, one of which

[50:03] was that there's, you know, as we say in this memo, a number of board members and council

[50:09] members have a lot of knowledge as well as members of the public, but some people don't.

[50:16] So that's why I decided it might be prudent to lay out some of the background information

[50:21] so everybody knows exactly what we're talking about, when we talk about different types

[50:25] of data centers, for example, so we define all of that.

[50:29] But we were specifically asked to amend the adopted ordnance definition of data centers.

[50:41] And when I first went about trying to do that, I knew right up front that a lot of people

[50:48] were upset with one particular component of it, so that was an easy thing to deal with.

[50:53] But as I tried to amend the ordinance and based on the fact that we've done a lot of

[50:59] ordinances for municipalities throughout the state on this topic and done a lot of

[51:04] research, I realize it might be better to just offer a brand new definition and that's

[51:12] the one that spelled out on page 7, I believe, 7B to be precise.

[51:20] So we identify a definition that I think is fairly straightforward and needed to read.

[51:28] And then in the current ordinance that you have, you have a definition of data centers

[51:34] which, for lack of a better term, is really designed to prohibit the large-scale AI data centers.

[51:43] And then you had a definition of computer centers, which was basically designed to reflect

[51:51] the fact that most businesses today will use AI in some fashion, and I remember joking

[51:58] me said to them, heck, my daughter does it, uses it to do her homework, for God's sake.

[52:03] And everybody uses AI today in some fashion.

[52:07] So we wanted to make certain that we allow for that.

[52:10] When I started to look at the ordinance consistent with the current definition, I began to realize there's a whole host of other changes in the code that had to be done to get rid of inconsistencies.

[52:25] And that was spelled out on page 6. But then as I put together the definition that we did in page 7 item B, I realized that if we just say, here's the definition of a data center.

[52:38] and here's what's not included in that definition.

[52:42] We basically identify in that exclusion section

[52:47] those businesses that AI is not their principal use.

[52:53] It's just ancillary to the business that they do.

[52:56] And it was a lot simpler and that's what's straightforward,

[53:01] which helped the process.

[53:03] So what I was intending to do after tonight's meeting

[53:06] was simply a mend to this memo, that item B on page 7 into page 8, that text in ordnance form and just stayed in this memo that at the end of the appendix of the report, here's your specific ordnance for you to contemplate when you meet on July 7.

[53:34] Next Tuesday.

[53:36] Next Tuesday.

[53:37] So they'll have it, you know, the whole text, the information purposes, the text of

[53:43] the ordinance, and then the ordinance itself, which this draft does not have, that last

[53:48] component.

[53:49] At least that way, you have to cut and dry and consistent with what the governing body

[53:54] actually asked for.

[53:56] Very good.

[53:57] Very good.

[53:58] I had a question.

[53:59] I have a question for Mr. Warner.

[54:00] So we're going to speak in a consistent way.

[54:05] I thought it was very important when we had to approve those ordinances that the language

[54:13] that we used as a planning board was the data center ordinance and the detention facility

[54:23] was not inconsistent with the master plan.

[54:28] That's what we agreed to.

[54:29] Not that it was consistent.

[54:31] So, is that language important?

[54:35] Whenever, whenever.

[54:37] Well, yes.

[54:38] You can let this in.

[54:39] If it's a water, please proceed.

[54:42] With the chair's permission.

[54:44] And that is in the end.

[54:46] It is not always well.

[54:47] Yes.

[54:48] So, when somebody gets up

[54:52] And it says you sit on the planning board and you said we said it was consistent.

[55:00] We never said it was consistent.

[55:02] We said it was not inconsistent.

[55:03] If I can help with the chair, the couple of different things.

[55:09] First of all, a consistency review does not relate to the specific language of the ordinance.

[55:17] It's whether the content of the ordinance is or is not consistent or inconsistent,

[55:24] let's say, not inconsistent or is inconsistent with the master plan.

[55:29] The reason we use not inconsistent, not because we like to use double negatives, we don't.

[55:35] But because under the law, the municipal land use law and governing case law, substantial

[55:41] consistency close is enough.

[55:44] substantial consistency is the bar that one must surpass in order for the

[55:51] ordinance to be sufficient to proceed to the governing body. So the governing

[55:57] body introduces the ordinance, comes to the master plan, to the planning board as

[56:01] the master plan gatekeepers. There's nothing wrong with saying it's a firmitively

[56:07] consistent if that is your determination but you don't have to go that high a

[56:13] You have to say that I a bar, you just have to surpass the bar of finding it not inconsistent,

[56:19] which is another way of saying it's substantially consistent, it's sufficiently consistent, and

[56:25] that's what the case law says.

[56:26] So that's generally why we give you that language at double negative.

[56:31] At certain times you may say this is dead on perfectly consistent, we want to say something

[56:36] more.

[56:37] We want to say it's affirmatively consistent.

[56:39] And you could do that, but the bar is not inconsistent,

[56:44] which is equates to substantially consistent,

[56:47] if I may one second.

[56:49] Again, now, other, as far as the language

[56:51] or the policy behind the ordinance,

[56:54] that's not necessarily our scope of authority.

[56:57] That's something different.

[56:58] You're only weighing in on the relationship to the master plan

[57:02] as you're guided by, I think we just heard he's the expert

[57:07] in some state of New Jersey, and I would agree on planning along with these colleagues.

[57:14] And can you add to that, you know, the process of evaluating consistency is very narrow,

[57:22] very, very nice, we're not changing the language, we're not rewriting anything, we only

[57:28] say whether it's consistent or not, and it was minimally consistent, you know, and we're

[57:34] learning as we go, we all are.

[57:35] Now, there may, and that's with respect, and that was based on the guidance, I believe

[57:40] you were here that day as well, Joe, not Tom, that you got from your planner.

[57:46] You don't have to follow your planner's advice, but that was the advice of the planner at

[57:50] the time.

[57:51] Okay.

[57:51] So, the question, so if the planning board thought it would create a higher risk of an undesirable

[57:58] the land use, would that have been deemed consistent?

[58:03] Ultimately, you have to look at the master plan in its entirety, take the advice from

[58:09] the planner and make a determination, for example.

[58:13] You may have one or two provisions of the master plan that you think it's inconsistent and

[58:19] maybe a few provisions that you think it's consistent with, as well as the overriding intent.

[58:25] That's a judgment call.

[58:27] I would always guide you to not listen to me.

[58:30] I'm a lawyer, listen to the planner for the advice

[58:33] as to whether it's consistent, whether it's not inconsistent

[58:39] or actually inconsistent.

[58:41] If it's inconsistent, as you may know,

[58:44] it then goes back to the governing body.

[58:46] The governing body can still proceed with the ordinance,

[58:49] but they have to do two things.

[58:51] There's a majority of the, it has to be a majority

[58:55] of the entirety of the governing body has to pass it notwithstanding the inconsistency as well as have a reasons resolution explaining why notwithstanding the planning board finding it inconsistent the governing body decide to go forward with it anyway.

[59:11] So, for the question, if this ordinance had been found by the planning board to be

[59:16] doing harm to the city, would it have passed the test?

[59:22] That, frankly, harm?

[59:26] I'm not planning to carry on with it.

[59:28] I'm not planning to carry on with it.

[59:28] We're getting the semantics here.

[59:30] If it did something against the interest of the master plan, against the good interest.

[59:35] But because you're trying to limit, and the goal number one in the master plan is to maintain the character of summer.

[59:44] Thank you.

[59:45] So, there were some attempts at limiting, you know, something that might be way out of scale, or way too noisy, or used too much water, whatever you want to list.

[59:57] which would be economic, economic benefits.

[1:00:07] That's why in our report, we identified, we tried to be balanced. So we did identify some benefits

[1:00:15] to data centers, but we focused a lot on all the negatives. And the negatives really are

[1:00:24] tied to some of the goals and objectives of the master plan and probably, you know, putting

[1:00:29] aside the negative impacts on the surrounding property owners, which this address. Probably

[1:00:36] the most critical one is the master plan going back to the last comprehensive master plan

[1:00:41] in 2000 is replete with comments about encouraging more employment opportunities in the municipality.

[1:00:49] So we've provided the statistics in here to show that for example, well, data centers can generate a lot of construction jobs.

[1:01:01] What's that bill? There's no jobs.

[1:01:05] And I think the numbers were, you know, they generate one job for every 5,000 square feet.

[1:01:12] Whereas for a warehouse use it generates one job for every 500 square feet of floor space and for office use it's like 3.3 jobs for 1000 square feet.

[1:01:25] So you get to see that the loss of a site to AI may generate a use that's of interest to a certain extent.

[1:01:37] But in terms of your master plan which says we want to encourage more employment

[1:01:43] This clearly is not a winner

[1:01:46] So you know, and therefore that's why we conclude that by prohibiting this use

[1:01:53] we

[1:01:54] Allow the opportunity for this for any tract of land to be developed with the more but our full intense use in terms of employment

[1:02:03] Opportunity

[1:02:04] And that's what the master plan is seeking

[1:02:06] So that's how we can conclude what we concluded that helps.

[1:02:11] And ultimately a consistency finding by the planning board or a not inconsistency finding

[1:02:18] should not be equated with the we bless the as the planning board we bless the ordinance

[1:02:22] because that would be beyond the scope of the planning board's authority in my opinion

[1:02:26] and I think legally to do it.

[1:02:29] We don't usurp the role of the governing body.

[1:02:32] The planning board is a hybrid as a little bit of legislative to it.

[1:02:35] and a little bit of judicial quasi-judicial quasi-legislative.

[1:02:40] So, but if we're going to equate to the other.

[1:02:42] But if we're going against the master plan,

[1:02:44] it would have not been approved.

[1:02:47] We just wait for her to have been trying to ask her question.

[1:02:49] I mean, this is the key point.

[1:02:54] Got it.

[1:02:55] Get it.

[1:02:55] Now, to follow up on something Mr. Golden had asked,

[1:03:00] you want to get another crack at the apple

[1:03:02] because assuming the governing body adopts this and introduces it from the

[1:03:08] seventh it comes back to this board of course for another consistency always always

[1:03:13] and any any lines use organs after introduction always comes back to the

[1:03:19] planning even if we recommend even if we write it comes back to us so up to you

[1:03:25] guys who wants to go now just a quick one based on everything that's being said

[1:03:29] So just from what Mr. Warren said, Suburgis, what I'm hearing.

[1:03:33] So the inconsistency review, just the premise of what we're asked to do as a planning board.

[1:03:40] When something like this comes before us, is it the intent in consistent or

[1:03:46] consistent with what the master plans goals are?

[1:03:49] We're not being asked to rewrite the ordinance, we're not asked to close the loopholes,

[1:03:54] or not asked to be legal developers, litigators,

[1:03:58] to try to find ways to make it worse or better

[1:04:01] for that matter.

[1:04:02] But we are asked to make a,

[1:04:04] based on the professionals advice in our own knowledge,

[1:04:07] we're being asked if it's flowing

[1:04:09] in the right direction that would allow us

[1:04:11] to make that kind of pass-falt test.

[1:04:13] Is that accurate statement?

[1:04:15] Because it's a do-a-count.

[1:04:16] And the, you know, the primary function

[1:04:18] of the consistency review is to assess the goals

[1:04:22] and objectives of the master plan to see how the or through afterward or proposed

[1:04:28] ordinance comports with those goals that objective right. Yeah that's what I

[1:04:32] thought. That's what I think. And now we're revisiting it unrightfully because

[1:04:35] of all the attention and some of the things that have come up from various

[1:04:39] individuals, residents, Dan, or members. I have to say I neglected to say okay

[1:04:45] yes, Joe. No, I commented about the conversations I had with Dan and Jennifer

[1:04:52] for right off the head of this conversation with Ryan

[1:04:54] over the weekend about the same, same issue.

[1:04:58] That you have to inform me.

[1:04:59] On the board, yes, very well.

[1:05:01] Yes.

[1:05:02] I guess with that being said, we can always provide

[1:05:04] recommendations.

[1:05:05] And the governing body has, they can either take those

[1:05:08] recommendations and redo them, or they can now.

[1:05:11] So this is sort of an after recommendation after a

[1:05:14] planner.

[1:05:15] The other thing I want to mention, I'm not sure.

[1:05:17] I think this is a great memo, Joe.

[1:05:19] And I think some of the things you caught, especially

[1:05:23] incorporating the computer centers as defined in all the other zones were phenomenal.

[1:05:26] So thank you for doing all this and Augusta, thank you for doing all your work on the

[1:05:29] ordinance.

[1:05:30] I would say, though, I know we're not talking about recommendations for the next ordinance,

[1:05:34] but I think unless the city really amends its noise ordinance, like if you look at right

[1:05:39] now in performance standards for non-residential uses, even in the vibration, it just says there

[1:05:44] will be no vibration, which is discernible to the human sense of feeling beyond the immediate

[1:05:48] site on which such is conductive. So I think we again just let's go back to

[1:05:53] DEP and figure out what that C level and somehow try to incorporate it into the

[1:05:58] next level of some ordinance whenever we change it again. We can either do a

[1:06:03] ordinance just for that or we either work the governing body student or add it to

[1:06:07] the noise ordinance make a recommendation for that. I think that needs to be okay.

[1:06:11] All right that was it. With regard to the memo I did have a question about whether

[1:06:17] it's appropriate to even have the accessory uses on page six permitted in the ORC zone,

[1:06:27] which is office residential character, which typically looks like little residential.

[1:06:31] No, but in that zone, you do permit offices.

[1:06:36] True.

[1:06:36] So, therefore, once you're permitting offices, I felt that you needed to...

[1:06:40] But the scale of those particular ORC zones are so tiny.

[1:06:44] The one change that was brought to my attention.

[1:06:48] Isn't the name, residential character, you know?

[1:06:50] So I just didn't know if that was a good fit.

[1:06:54] It's in your order and so I had to include it that way.

[1:06:57] But quite frankly, since we're going with what I'll call section V.

[1:07:03] Yes.

[1:07:04] All that is moved.

[1:07:07] I think this is your list of accessory structures.

[1:07:10] The sections where the accessory structures are allowed.

[1:07:14] Yeah.

[1:07:18] Okay. Okay. Never mind. Then fine. There is one question raised about. There's clarity. Yeah. We're not going to allow it as a primaries, but principally, but we are going to allow it as an accessory.

[1:07:31] Correct.

[1:07:32] Okay.

[1:07:33] I have a question.

[1:07:34] Okay.

[1:07:34] You get to page 7 about that.

[1:07:35] That's the same.

[1:07:38] In one, if I may, before.

[1:07:41] The prime principle is it now.

[1:07:42] One page 7.

[1:07:44] One of the exclusions from the being a data center is that the item 2A, the floor area devoted

[1:07:52] to such use does not exceed 20% of the gross floor area of the principal building.

[1:07:59] It should read of all principal buildings on site,

[1:08:05] or 15,000 square feet, whichever is

[1:08:09] less.

[1:08:10] It was my own page, page seven, to very bottom, to A of 20 percent's written out.

[1:08:17] And we had used 15,000 square feet, I had been under the impression that at Bristol

[1:08:25] wire squid that they have such a facility of about 12,000 square feet. Now, we could

[1:08:32] just say 12,000 square feet. I used a little larger number because I wasn't sure of exactly

[1:08:38] how large their feature was, but it was. Right. I heard a lot of that. I heard a lot of that

[1:08:45] at 15,000. But I mean, it would be grandfathered in any way because it's pre-existing, non-conforming.

[1:08:51] Yes, so and and because we've had you know ongoing neighbor discussions about even with this giant setbacks on that property whether it should be less than 15 square feet.

[1:09:04] It can be I don't think it could be less than 12, though because that.

[1:09:09] Thousand.

[1:09:10] 12,000.

[1:09:11] Yes, but we'll get another shot.

[1:09:13] But clearly it should have said all principal building.

[1:09:16] You want to recommend 12.

[1:09:17] If we get another shot, we change anything

[1:09:19] or we have to go back again, so we will.

[1:09:22] These are, again, recommendations in a memo

[1:09:24] to remember the change in the,

[1:09:26] it must have been out now.

[1:09:29] Yeah, I would think we should discuss it at least

[1:09:31] because that's a key number, 15 square feet.

[1:09:37] I mean, it's prohibited as a principal use,

[1:09:40] but for accessory uses, 20% of the gross floor area

[1:09:44] of the principal building, or no-growing.

[1:09:47] I know a whole principle of all prints of all Mark Yes. Yes. In the aggregate. Yeah.

[1:09:58] I think 15 is reasonable.

[1:10:03] I don't know, with the history there. I'm concerned should

[1:10:07] be less. Any other thoughts on that? My thighs on page seven. So I'm holding my fire.

[1:10:17] You're concerned about 15,000 versus 12 or 11 or 10, I actually wrote 10 because I thought it should be less than 10.

[1:10:24] And bring it down based on the history of one particular site in town.

[1:10:30] Right, so I agree with the giant setbacks.

[1:10:32] I think we should bring it down.

[1:10:33] That nobody else will probably ever have.

[1:10:34] I agree with you.

[1:10:35] We're going to talk about setbacks.

[1:10:41] I agree if you're looking for.

[1:10:42] Yeah, okay, I don't want to I don't want to hand for businesses, but on the other hand, I

[1:10:50] That's a very large complex that we're talking about and they they had 11 or 12

[1:10:55] I don't see it as being that a lot of people too many other other places anyway, you know being nothing remember

[1:11:04] They can always come for a variance for a principle use even they can come for a variance

[1:11:08] I mean people who can come for variance is for anything

[1:11:11] for it does say or 20% is gross for sure true I so tell us why you think it should stay 15

[1:11:19] again.

[1:11:20] What if the data center for their internal use for that whole I mean it can be reduced

[1:11:26] to 12 because I don't think they have okay why don't we do that then that's a compromise

[1:11:32] Let's do 12, how do people feel about the 12,000 for a fee?

[1:11:39] Okay.

[1:11:40] I don't know just directly on that example that I sent to Mr. Berges and I got to do, I can just go real quick.

[1:11:50] If we could just make it continuous building structures for the accessory use.

[1:11:56] So for example, if you have a large commercial property

[1:11:59] with multiple buildings and they did 12,000 now,

[1:12:02] I guess it is, and they had that for an accessory use.

[1:12:06] If there was multiple, 14 or 15 buildings on property,

[1:12:11] we'd want that to be part of it.

[1:12:13] Yeah, I actually like your language better

[1:12:15] than what I just said, because I said all principal buildings

[1:12:19] in the aggregate, but I'll use your language.

[1:12:22] OK.

[1:12:23] Yeah.

[1:12:24] Cool.

[1:12:24] So, this is so they don't do 10 accessory structures over and over and over and over and

[1:12:29] It's good.

[1:12:30] It's a good change.

[1:12:32] Thank you.

[1:12:33] So, what's your question?

[1:12:35] So, my question is on page 7 Part B, shall we need a building structure of premises primarily

[1:12:42] used?

[1:12:43] Here's my problem with that language.

[1:12:45] I'm not an expert on this, but I did happen to sell, I've had a client for 13 years

[1:12:50] who's a cable company who does a lot of data centers.

[1:12:54] And I sold seven of them last the summer.

[1:12:58] And of the seven, four were buildings 60,000 to 200,000 square feet.

[1:13:07] And the way the brokers and the lawyers thought of them was what's the power coming down the street up through the basement.

[1:13:14] That's how they did their valuation, right?

[1:13:17] The more power coming up through your basement, the more data center you can have, right?

[1:13:23] But in seven of those or five of those seven buildings, they also had people.

[1:13:31] They had, and I'm thinking of one in Northwest Arkansas, they had a big thing in the basement.

[1:13:36] And then they had probably 200 people working on the second and third floor.

[1:13:42] And if I were a smart JLL broker or a smart lawyer, I'd say, well, primarily we're

[1:13:49] employing 200 people.

[1:13:52] Well, no, that's not true.

[1:13:53] Primarily you're having a data center.

[1:13:55] We need to tighten that up.

[1:13:57] We need to simply delete the word primarily.

[1:14:02] Right.

[1:14:03] Because what you don't want is somebody, we're all very smart.

[1:14:06] But we're not as smart as the people who do this for a living.

[1:14:09] And if they saw, we want to make sure that they can't do something like that, that they

[1:14:15] were doing in Arkansas, because the people in Arkansas was at 200 jobs and a very loud

[1:14:23] data center.

[1:14:24] We don't want, I think, what I'm hearing from our community is we would rather say, very

[1:14:32] sorry about these 200 jobs, but we're not letting you get around it that way.

[1:14:37] And I'm just wondering, I don't know how you draft around that.

[1:14:39] We use primarily because I was thinking, we're not specifically mentioning office use because we don't want to encourage just an office use, you know, to cover the data center.

[1:14:55] That's how we use primarily.

[1:14:56] And we thought that was a part of the effect.

[1:15:01] So, we just simply delete the word primarily, and then it covers what a data center is without worrying about the issue. Great. Yeah. Very good. Thanks. All right. Thank you. Good change. Sure. Any other comments or edits suggested edits on your go? Are we good? So, I will make those edits. I will attach the

[1:15:32] section B in the ordinance form to the as an appendix to this for the

[1:15:36] governing body and I'll send that out tomorrow. Oh, I had one other little thing

[1:15:41] here at the end.

[1:15:48] Chairwoman. It's okay. Yes. I have a question for Augusto. Okay. He's

[1:15:53] received separate input from residents and particularly a resident who is well

[1:15:58] versed in AI technology, curious if a customer feels that those comments are reflected in this

[1:16:08] kind of revised ordinance.

[1:16:13] So leading up to this point, it was kind of a delicate balance of separating the, you

[1:16:20] know, a subordinate use in a computer center or conventional data center server room.

[1:16:24] So it's been complex in identifying the specific electrical or water utility requirements

[1:16:33] that an AI data center as we envision would require its scale, size and type of technology.

[1:16:41] That member of the public recommended to us that we include the specific terms of the types of AI workloads and data clusters that are used.

[1:16:52] Right. Because these facilities, their real purpose is to generate and complete AI workloads,

[1:16:58] right? That is what they are used for. And so we had to set the distinction that

[1:17:03] the principal use is for those AI workloads, and it meets a characterization of the types

[1:17:12] of water, electrical utility, heat venting systems, interior, exterior cooling systems,

[1:17:20] which there was a revised draft, circulated to Joe, and today to other members of some members of council,

[1:17:31] which incorporated those more technical and that technical language.

[1:17:38] Now, I don't think it, it's not fair to Joe. I don't think he's had the opportunity to look at that feedback from the member of the public.

[1:17:45] honestly there's a lot of cooks in the kitchen and organizing everyone so

[1:17:49] quickly in such a short amount of time has certainly been a challenge but we're

[1:17:54] looking to to meet it so on the side of the technology it's I wouldn't say

[1:18:03] that it is here but it's something that can be easily included right because we've

[1:18:10] We've been looking at this thing entirely from the perspective of a zoning officer has

[1:18:16] to see the criteria and reasonably determine what is falling inside of the ban.

[1:18:24] And if a zoning officer, either an administrative decision or an appeal of that

[1:18:29] decision to the zoning board, can fit either an AI data center into the AI data center

[1:18:34] definition or a computer center as a subordinate use to another business into those two categories.

[1:18:43] That's what that's what the whole perspective was.

[1:18:45] So I think that once we get that language from Joe, it would be very easy just to touch

[1:18:53] based on some of those items and carry it forward to to counsel, make some of the public

[1:18:59] What we submitted by this individual, I think I'll look at it tomorrow morning.

[1:19:04] Yeah, I, yes, yeah, absolutely.

[1:19:08] I'll have it sent.

[1:19:11] So it wouldn't be an issue.

[1:19:12] So some of that language was specific.

[1:19:15] If we're characterizing a data center,

[1:19:19] what is the technology infrastructure inside that data center?

[1:19:26] or how is it defined, or how is it structured?

[1:19:29] They have a cluster of graphics processing units,

[1:19:32] for example, that was a line that was recommended

[1:19:35] for that purpose.

[1:19:36] What would you say to that?

[1:19:37] The discussion we had earlier about

[1:19:43] vegetable readers and how you deal with that

[1:19:47] for the building official or the zoning officer

[1:19:51] to understand how to collect that kind of information,

[1:19:54] and evaluate it and make a decision maybe

[1:19:59] beyond the scope of their ability.

[1:20:05] So that's why we tried to simplify the definition

[1:20:07] as we did to make sure that it can be easily analyzed

[1:20:15] without having to go outside the municipality

[1:20:19] and hire others to evaluate it.

[1:20:22] Well, that was one of the

[1:20:24] Issue areas with

[1:20:26] we're trying to

[1:20:28] live in between clean English understanding of how a zoning officer would apply and enforce this definition versus

[1:20:37] a potential developer using

[1:20:41] Different terms to define what they're putting in a building right so you don't want it to go

[1:20:48] You want JLL to say, okay, not something, I'm going to go to the next town.

[1:20:52] You don't draft it in such a way that it's not a trend.

[1:20:55] That's what I'm saying. Let me take a look at what you said.

[1:20:59] We want to have our definition be broad enough that they can't just call it something else.

[1:21:03] Right.

[1:21:04] And still build it.

[1:21:05] Yeah.

[1:21:06] I don't know.

[1:21:08] If you would agree with me, Joe, with the current, the current and, you know, proposed amendments,

[1:21:14] They are casting a wide net. The definition is broad and it's trying to capture as much as possible the real issue

[1:21:21] We're facing right now is how do we not capture the wrong thing?

[1:21:25] So

[1:21:27] You know, I leave those right hand. They shouldn't the job. Let me take a look at it. She was he wrote and then he or she wrote and then how

[1:21:37] He decided to stay what are we going to file tomorrow?

[1:21:40] Through you, Chair, just a quick question on the zoning determinant of what it is.

[1:21:45] Is that only done based on the new application, or can the zoning officer go back after

[1:21:55] time if it's determined that based on the criteria, something changes, and it appears

[1:22:01] to meet the principal use in any definition by the way.

[1:22:04] So do we as it's that you're only going to know after it's built and running and you have a chance to audit it

[1:22:10] So you have like a one shot at it. Is that and not I'm well

[1:22:14] There's two ways to look at it

[1:22:16] So if we're by setting a new definition on something that's prohibited

[1:22:20] Yeah, the zoning officer wouldn't particularly be going back to look and see for enforcement matters

[1:22:26] He would just be prompted that when there is a new development application

[1:22:30] then he would be using that definition at the time with the time of the application against that.

[1:22:36] So if there was like an application for just data, just sorry, warehouses and that was the principal use.

[1:22:47] And then six months later they started putting, I know that that's part of what came up and some of the other feedback.

[1:22:54] And they started to kind of convert it with that, like basically.

[1:22:58] They should get a permit.

[1:22:59] Yeah, with that issue, a permitting thing that would come through to be captured in the principal use.

[1:23:03] If we assume that the person who owns this warehouse is very trustworthy,

[1:23:08] they would file a permit to retrofit the space and that would trigger a change of use because

[1:23:13] identifiably, from the son of criteria that exists in the adopted definition and

[1:23:19] this new definition, the zoning officer would say, well, on these plans, you're demonstrating

[1:23:24] high density servers right over here.

[1:23:26] You know, this is what you mark them on your plans as, your identifying closed loop cooling system,

[1:23:33] your identifying intensive HVAC system.

[1:23:37] And the next step is the zoning officer would generally call the applicant and say,

[1:23:42] okay, when you're putting in here, what is the technology?

[1:23:44] There's an entire line of questioning.

[1:23:47] There's tremendous back and forth at times.

[1:23:49] And then the zoning officer would just render a decision on that development application to say,

[1:23:54] OK, well, you're denying you're going to the zoning board

[1:23:57] or he's made the reason for the determination

[1:23:59] that it doesn't fit the category of an AI data center.

[1:24:02] So those situations get caught in the administrative process.

[1:24:07] And so what this adopted and proposed revised ordinance

[1:24:13] is just trying to make it simpler, fit into the niches,

[1:24:18] understand that we want to preserve the server room

[1:24:20] and give the zoning officer, future zoning officers a clear avenue for interpretation.

[1:24:27] There's been a lot of concern to say that, well, there's been a large misunderstanding to

[1:24:32] think that, oh, if someone doesn't fall into one of the criteria that their

[1:24:36] example is somehow permitted, it's like that's never the case, right?

[1:24:41] Yeah, no, so that means that's true.

[1:24:43] Yeah, that's really helpful, it's talked about like the conversion process would

[1:24:46] basically it would show itself through permits and applications and that's how that's

[1:24:52] part those.

[1:24:54] Realistically, if I wanted to take a completely separate example, we run into situations

[1:25:01] where let's say there was an office use which did not have a commercial kitchen before and

[1:25:07] then an applicant comes in and says I want to put in a commercial kitchen.

[1:25:11] We've gotten into the line of questioning with that applicant to say all right well who's

[1:25:15] your commercial kitchen serving, is it subordinate to the office use for employees only?

[1:25:20] Yeah, exactly.

[1:25:21] You can put it to the test administratively, and based on that, the sum of that zoning

[1:25:28] criminal application, we would know where to send them to.

[1:25:31] So in this case, we determined, well, you have an office use your, say, a financial industry,

[1:25:40] a financial services company, but now you're serving food after the general public in a cafeteria

[1:25:44] or you're one that's not just for your employees,

[1:25:46] because a lot of you'll get a variance, right?

[1:25:48] You see, that's right.

[1:25:49] So, thank you.

[1:25:50] You're a big help.

[1:25:51] You know, this is a standard process.

[1:25:54] Yeah.

[1:25:55] There's a famous case in Hasbro, right?

[1:25:57] I think you're probably now where the applicant

[1:26:00] was proposing a restaurant with an attendant entertainment.

[1:26:04] Oh, yeah.

[1:26:06] No, no, it was a strip club.

[1:26:08] Or the co-hibit is.

[1:26:10] It's kind of a story.

[1:26:12] It's a, okay.

[1:26:13] That wasn't New York's trip.

[1:26:14] That's right.

[1:26:15] That's what it was.

[1:26:16] State.

[1:26:17] It was great.

[1:26:18] It was good for me.

[1:26:19] OK, so next thing on our agenda, we're all good, right?

[1:26:24] Next thing on our agenda is, well,

[1:26:28] do we have to do anything official, like as far as you're

[1:26:30] going to finish this?

[1:26:31] We don't have to.

[1:26:32] No, this is out.

[1:26:33] You're just going to forward it up.

[1:26:34] I'm just going to kind of go aggressive sometimes tomorrow.

[1:26:37] I'm going to go forward it to the government.

[1:26:39] It's going to be addressed to the governing body and go forward.

[1:26:42] No, I just wanted to thank everybody for their input to this.

[1:26:45] The interest is to protect some of it.

[1:26:47] That's been the interest from the beginning.

[1:26:49] We appreciate the collaboration and it's valuable.

[1:26:52] Thank you.

[1:26:53] Nice to collaborate.

[1:26:55] All right, so that's what we're here for.

[1:26:58] We have to go into executive session.

[1:27:02] I can do a quick resolution.

[1:27:03] Yes, go for it.

[1:27:04] Madam Chair, it's necessary for the planning board of the city

[1:27:08] summit to discuss in a session, not over to the public.

[1:27:11] look certain matters, authorized by the Open Public Meetings Act, specifically pending litigation,

[1:27:19] attorney-climbed privilege discussion of pending litigation,

[1:27:22] tatlock community preservation association,

[1:27:25] the City of Summit at L, docket number, well, UNN L-4748-25, it's been consolidated,

[1:27:33] as well as pending litigation in the matter of the application of the City of Summit,

[1:27:38] that docket number UNN, DASH, L, DASH 3, 10, DASH 25.

[1:27:44] It's anticipated deliberations conducted in closed session,

[1:27:47] maybe disclosed to the public upon determination.

[1:27:49] By the board that the public interest is no longer required

[1:27:52] to be served by such confidentiality

[1:27:55] and this resolution shall take effect immediately.

[1:27:59] So if we are going into executive session,

[1:28:02] now Madam Chair, we should have a motion,

[1:28:04] second, and roll, roll, roll on that resolution.

[1:28:06] So moved.

[1:28:07] I have a motion.

[1:28:08] So moved.

[1:28:09] Second.

[1:28:11] Second.

[1:28:11] Sorry.

[1:28:12] Thank you.

[1:28:13] And I have to act this, right?

[1:28:15] Roll.

[1:28:16] Go ahead.

[1:28:17] We're going to make, go.

[1:28:18] Yes.

[1:28:19] Mr. Dumas will work a little harder.

[1:28:21] Adjunct.

[1:28:23] Bored Secretary.

[1:28:25] Impromptu.

[1:28:26] Vice-chair Hamlet.

[1:28:29] Yes.

[1:28:30] Ms. Bowman.

[1:28:30] Yes.

[1:28:32] Councillor Remember.

[1:28:33] Chris Fouley.

[1:28:34] Yes.

[1:28:34] Yes?

[1:28:35] Myself, aye.

[1:28:38] Mr. Feldman.

[1:28:39] Yes.

[1:28:40] It's Morrison.

[1:28:40] Yes.

[1:28:41] Mr. Stern.

[1:28:42] Oh, so apologies.

[1:28:43] He's excused.

[1:28:44] Mr. Stanton.

[1:28:44] Yes.

[1:28:45] Mr. Golden.

[1:28:46] Yes.

[1:28:47] Chair, Balson Alvers.

[1:28:48] Yes.

[1:28:49] Okay.

[1:28:50] All right.

[1:28:51] So we are entering.

Summit Planning Board Meeting: June 29, 2026

Transcript