e e call the to board me meeting for December 16th 2024 to order first item on the agenda is the approval of the agenda Patrick what you got uh there are no additions or subtractions from staff Mr chair uh the board have anything I have no additions or deletions no I have nothing all right hearing hearing none I'll move to approve the agenda as noted second I'll in favor say I I opposed all right item three is payment of the bills you sign off I signed off move to approved payment of the Bills second all in favor say I I I all right item number four this is the approval of our meeting minutes from December 2nd 2024 anybody have any changes corrections I looked through them I saw really nothing so I'll move to approve the minutes of the December 2nd 2024 meeting and I will second all right motion man second all in favor say I I opposed that motion carries all right item five is a consent agenda item we have a number of them I believe we have a consensus we want to pull at least item 5f yes Republic Service contract anything else no not for me all right I need a motion to approve the consent agenda I'll move to approve the consent agenda items uh 5 a through E I have a second I'll second that all in favor say I I I all opposed all right let's go right to it um Patrick you want to give us an overview of this Republic Service contract that's our refuge huler sure uh Mr chair please it's board discussion regarding the utility commission's ongoing discussions of the of renewing Republic's contract in lie of going out for our 5-year cycle of RFP which the Utility Commission has made as a recommendation for us going forward uh no matter who the carrier is but we are now we are in the third uh third year of our F or of a 5-year contract with Republic with the the last two years being options um for the board to extend that contract and during those discussions um we went heavy into um what the impact the overall impact was going to be with our residents in reupping for service with Republic for these last two years before we have the opportunity to go to RFP on the 5year site um what you have on I believe in your republ in the Republic I guess you can call it the Republic fluff piece if you go to the very end you can see the base rates for 2-year extension um what was initially proposed and we the negotiating committee which consisted of myself and uh Paul gan who is our board chair or commission chair um met with Republic representatives and came up with a couple of options that we hope will be um Less impactful on our residents so the initial one if you look under the proposed 2-year extension going across the board for 32 gallon 64 gallon and 96 gallon um compared to where we're going to be ending up at alternate option version two which is the one we are recommending correct Trent correct Trent is one of our commission members has chosen to join us this evening um and then you can see in year two um the impact on our residents is a little less the problem that we ran into and Trent correct me as I move along the problem that we ran into was um frontloading the firste alternate option one was actually going to hurt us on the back end of year two correct trench corre thank you um alternate option version two came about when Paul and myself met with Republic yet again you can see that the impact um compared to alternate option version one and the proposed the version two is less impactful than the proposed and then as you go down to the final box there bottom right hand corner for the year 2 for trash you can see that it is less impactful than it would have been in option version one alternate option version one it's very confusing I know we had to go over it several times before we got to where we were uh Republic was also gracious enough to knock what was the total 70 or 80 grand off the total 60 60 on the last year year two to make it work better for us so and just as an aside too um we also had extensive discussions at the Utility Commission regarding um um snowbirds which has been or Snowbird service holding service R for our residents which has been in front of the board here several times over the last year um and Tom correct me if I'm wrong the Utility Commission because of the timing of the contract negotiations and the posting requirements for changing an ordinance which is where this language is in uh we have decided to opt into um discussion discussions in Earnest about um getting Snowbird service held once again so that it would be available to our residents the beginning in the fall 2025 and into winter 2026 so we held off on making any changes to that this year in our ordinance um in lie of uh the final year of the contract and what you have in front of you is a recommendation from the utility commission based upon several months of negotiating um and a lot of input from our boards and some flexibility from Republic alternate option version two is what uh we have in front of you as a recommendation for the final two years of the contract that it that's it isn't that enough so the alternative not options either one or two these are for year calendar years 25 and 26 of the 5year contract yes the last two years yes and so I'm clear what is anything being changed in terms of service yes no so the three bulk pickup or three item pickup will still be all whatever is negotiated in the 5year term is still there it is uneffected clean up day is still there yep okay so it's just a price price point you got it Trent good that is correct yes I've been at the Utility Commission meetings when this is discussed it's been a pretty thorough discussion and Pat's been working with the Republic Bev over there so we think although it's an increase obviously we think this is a pretty good deal for two years and then during the two-year period we'll be talking about uh going out for correct RFP RFP for just as a other side that's sorry Steve um one of the the main talking points that the commission was really really keen on or on focusing was they wanted to tie any into this contract to our customer service reps impending retirement um and we felt that we can't put a dollar value on her input help um assistance and dealing with any all of our really complicated uh concerns from our residents um and we really wanted to keep her available to us for these last two years um before chancing the open market so if we um agree to this and not address the snowbird issue because it's mid-contract term uh how do you intend to notify our citizens the one particularly because they've come before us and and we said when we're in the next negotiation that's a negotiation item so we're how we going to address it so my the the primary individual who has been uh raising the most issues with this um when he gets back from uh his winter home uh I will explain to him that the commission because of timing with the renewing the contract we are going to be having as supervisor mun used to refer to as robust discussions regarding uh changing our ordinance as it directly relates to snowbirds um that's how it'll be so in the interim um I would recommend you put something in our News and Views because oh you're talking about for this year well I think okay they're expecting at least I believe some residents are expecting changes uh soon and what we're hearing here now is is not going to be soon so we should at least update either on our either on our web portal or News and Views or both okay just FS there under uh I think there's a tab where they can go to waste collections or something yes we can just put something there so that we know what it's ahead of us we're just not going to deal with it today yep no problem okay well I know a lot of their expenses is dip charges and with this in the middle of the contract are we guaranteed that we won't be affected by any of those for the next two years not if we've got the contract specified okay because I'm sure that's part of their increases that all that's getting expensive I think uh a lot of it had to do with accounting equipment um fuel um labor it was was a big bump everything's getting expensive all right what questions just one quick question if the county decides um to move forward with uh composting MH as part of this was there any discussion that that would be because I assume they would be the ones picking up the compost also within the next two years because I think it was on the County's initiative to have it in sometime in 2025 I think you're right Trent did we talk about that you want to go up to the podium just give your name and address for the record otherwise they're not going to pick you up on on the overhead so I'm just interested in the compost piece yeah I mean we always talk about that the Utility Commission we try to stay kind of current and relevant with the different things I think Bev didn't really indicate that there'd be anything in the Horizon for that and so but we certainly talked about it considered it and if it comes up as something we have to do then we'll have to bring it up again and see what we can do to build that in but it's not in this proposal here but we'll certainly look at it when it comes up thanks sh all right any other questions or comments I need a motion to approve this accept the recommendation from the Utility Commission I would move based on Utility Commission recommendation to approve the contract extension with Republic Services for two years as discussed in recomend or which alternate alter option two alternate version two caveat or friendly amendment to that with the understanding that the commission will engage in ordinance change discussion regarding snowbirds for 2025 26 I will accept that Amendment I'll second that all right all in favor say I I I I'll opposed thank you board all right moving on uh item seven we have a couple of public hearings the first is uh 4155 Summit Lane uh I need a motion to wave the reading I'll move to wave the reading that was properly published second all in favor say I I I'll opposed and then I need an option to open the public hearing I'll move to open the public portion of the hearing second favor say I I I opposed all right uh Evan you going to do this certainly chair so before you tonight you have a variance for a fence the applicant is looking to construct a 5ft tall fence within their front yard they had a fence previously that was 3 and 1/2 ft tall you're allowed to go up to 4T tall and so what they did over the last fall was they took down that 3 and 1/2 ft fence uh they applied for the variance in the interim they did correct a 4-foot fence so uh in the event that this variance were not to be approved at minimum they would have a code compliant 4ft tall fence uh your building code ordinance 8 outlines fence requirements uh does note that fences between the front of a building and your front lot line cannot be higher than for ft tall uh so that is hence why they need this request um other areas I would note in your property can have a fence up to 6 feet tall so around most of the property it will be 6 feet tall but then uh in the front yard it then has to drop down to 4 feet under our current code what they're looking to do is just drop of that 1 foot to 5T um the appin slot is unique and it has Frontage on two roads so it has Summit Lane as well as Force Court um this is what it's typically called as a through lot it goes through two different roads um that front yard set back again is 35 ft so if you think about the Optics of a fence that is 4 feet tall and then 6 ft tall that would be where those would be located at there's not too many of these examples of this type of lot in the township um there's maybe only a handful throughout the township and most of those are platted um 60 or 70 years ago at most or at minimum um I would note in addition to the uniqueness of the lot layout uh your ordinance does cover corner lot situations where you are again allowed a 6-ft fence in what is uh typically referred to as your front yard uh so where the township views both lot lines at about a road as a front yard um you are allowed one of those sides have a 6-ft fence again in this situation uh they do have two frontages but since they're not a corner lot uh these exceptions would not be able to apply to them uh the applicant did provide a narrative as well as a site plan before you in your packet tonight the computer is not showing on the TV before you but you can tell where portions of the fence would be in the front yard and then there would be vegetation around it um the area that they're requested to have that 5ft tall fence is essentially their backyard uh their front yard is off of forest course that's where the driveway and uh the garage access are located at the variance criteria the Planning Commission readed them at their last meeting uh they found that the findings were met for approving the variants uh they did make a recommendation to approve with conditions and those are in your memo and a draft resolution before you tonight so the options you have are to approve with or without conditions you can also deny with findings for denial or if you wish to review it further you can always table the request um question comment I drove by it today and took a look at it uh so that's it's 4T on the Summit Lane side correct which seem to be pretty tall or they trying to get more privacy because it's kind of on a hill not too far from the street got a huge yard and it's fenced in the back there um uh I guess that would be my main concern would be along the uh Summit Lane right of way there you're at I was at the Planning Commission meeting and they oh cheating not done yet no my computer just died so so 15 foot 6 from the front lot line on Summit yeah they don't give that Dimension believe they're going to make it an opaque fence versus the picket fence too is that the way really nice fence and and I think the discussion really had to do with it was kind of a unique piece of property uh as it was sitting there and they felt that it was appropriate to allow her to do this um much issues because it is not a regular corner lot it's a pass through lot so just keep it unique and then turning back towards the garage it just be the same fence line well plus two when you drive down there's summer lanes that very narrow Lane a very narrow road it's a RightWay kind of mess through there narrow is an understatement I say any snow storage issues look like a 51 ft of Boulevard there for snow storage past the fence or on the street side of the fence I should say so well I know we've allowed a larger fence in the front yard right on outake Road in H2 that was a while ago but I think the concern there was we a huge traffic of deer in that area and they're trying to deter the deer from jumping in their yard six foot won't work well but they still we still for some reason I if I remember I think we allowed a six-footer on that one corner corner MH and then we changed the ordinance after that to allow those in some Corner situations yep so it's a little bit different animal still but and I like I said I drove by to it it doesn't seem out of character for the neighborhood but uh I I still struggle with after Thea variances I mean this is this isn't after the fact but I mean when they uh Mike had to uh go by here and and literally tell them to hold off on the project because there was no permit originally I talked to him today about this so otherwise they would have just went ahead and did whatever was their mind to do but all right Steve you got any other questions comments I do not no I don't have any other questions all right I need a motion to open this up for public comment I'll move to open the hearing up for public comment have a second second motion man second all in favor say I I I all oppos uh the applicant here for the fence uh she was on vacation the property owner are there any neighbors here of the fence issue well no one wants to speak to this pces are a Hot Topic come on all right while hearing done then I wouldn't I need a motion to close the public portion I'll move to close the public portion of the hearing second all in favor say I I I all right what's pleasure of the board unless there's any other questions to staff well in this situation I I think it makes sense to approve the variant so I'll I'll move to adopt a resolution approving a request for variance to construct a fence at the height of 5 ft tall within the front yard and I'll second that all right motions made second all in favor say I I all opposed all right that motion carries all right moving on another uh public hearing this is uh 4025 birchal drive again I need a motion to wave the reading I'll move to wave the reading there was properly published second all favor say I I all oppos and then I need a motion to open up the public hearing I'll move to open the public hearing second all in favor I I all right Evan you going to take this one too certainly chair so this is another variance for you tonight uh this one is after the fact uh so a little bit of backstory the applicant hired a contractor to get a driveway extension which you will be seeing here on the site plan before you tonight um the contractor applied for a permit uh staff reviewed it noted that it was within the required sidey yard setback of 10 feet we also noted that they did not at the time when the contractor applied did not give us any impervious surface coverage numbers uh so we're unable to verify that at that time uh the contractor installed the driveway anyway uh staff was then made aware that the installation took place uh Mike sent a letter to out to the property owner uh telling him that there was two options one you could remove obviously the addition or you could request a variance and see if the township would approve it through that Avenue and so the applicant uh the owner here tonight uh they did get to the survey which you do see here before you tonight and they are requesting that variance to allow for that driveway to remain uh so technically they are requesting two variances one for that setback uh the nearest point it is uh right on the property line so it would be zero feet um it is also um over the impervious surface coverage of the lot and based on our calculations it was already over the impervious surface coverage before the installation occurred so uh that driveway extension kind of brought it even further out of compliance so there's technically two variances before you tonight uh the applicant has provided a narrative addressing some of their thoughts as to uh the backstory behind it and then kind of their rationale on how they could uh Pease some of the concerns the board may have uh they did note one that they would propos a encroachment agreement between them and their neighbors their neighbors do happen to be their parents uh to help address any future issues with maintenance on on that driveway being at a zert setback uh they also propose removing parts of the existing patio which you do have there highlighted on the screen before you tonight um so if you were to remove uh different portions of it um essentially everything west of the front of the garage uh you would actually bring the property back under that 30% threshold for impervious you would potentially bring it back into compliance um they noted they could then replace that with a perious surface if needed so that would be one condition they would propose um the variance criteria are before you tonight in your meeting memo um initially during the Planning Commission meeting staff noted that they found that it was not meeting the findings for variance uh so the recommendation was to deny uh based on those criteria not being met uh the commission did review this request uh they came up with two recommend ations one was to deny it with those findings for denial that vote was a 2 two tie so that did not obviously pass um the other recommendation was to approve with conditions of approval including the removal of portions of that patio that also was a 2 two split so that did not pass either so the commission did not formally make a recommendation to the board tonight uh so what you do have before you tonight is two resolutions based on those um two different recommendations from the Planning Commission one is to deny with findings that the criteria are not met uh the alternative resolution is recommending approval uh with those conditions that the commission discussed at their meeting in November it I would note if you guys do choose to table this request uh you would need to extend the review period in additional 60 days for state statute Steve you were at that yes um we you know being it was originally it was TI the second motion was made for a different as as Evan pointed out I personally believe that this thing should go back to the Planning Commission um I and I think we should have the extension I was not in favor of passing this because I don't think it's said enough of a review I to me the it's after the fact it's in violation and I I'd like to know how many other variances around there how many other properties have the same issue that um you know it's we've dealt with so well especially when you're dealing with zero lot line yes I mean varant are even if they are granted they try to improve the situation not make it worse and I I do get this is unique from the standpoint that the neighbors are the parents so I mean I just think it needs a little more work from the Planning Commission well and also there was what only four members in members normally there's seven I think we have a we have one vacancy don't we Patrick y but it would be nice to at least get a full comment or a full board to have this reviewed again I I I kind of agree with that what do you think Tom I'm fine with that um that's lets me off the hook voting wow but we've got a planing commissioner who's taking over so should be familiar with it couple things with this when I met with the applicant today and looked at it think I counted for zero lot line setbacks for driveways uh on birol three of those were side loaded garages so you understand turn around but this is not a side loaded uh it's pretty common in this neighborhood not necessarily burol but the Manor Park Beller neighborhoods 5 foot sidey yard setbacks a 10 foots of requirement but 5 foot's kind of this Norm now uh because many of those homes were built with single garages this one's a two car uh I guess I'd like the Planning Commission part as part of their if this goes back to them for review look at a 5 foot sidey yard setback for garages maybe some discussion at the Planning Commission for that option doesn't let you off the hook completely probably some trimming but maybe something we can look at as a option to discuss with the Planning Commission um and Chad the other consideration have we ever done a license agreement for something like this if a unique situation with uh you know a little Bridge connection with the folks house next door I don't recall any for a variance but has that ever been an interesting point because actually the uh the agreement they have is a license because it can be revoked at any time okay but keep in mind that can that's under the control of the neighboring property yeah so I've never run across a case like that okay but does mean you can't do it well maybe that's another consideration that this could be permitted by variance for a period of time until your folks decide to move or somebody moves anyway just another angle to look at for discussion if we're going to turn this back to the Planning Commission well plus two if Evan if you survey the whole neighborhood there I I i' would like to have some some findings of fact before we allow a variances egregious to the property line but if it looks like that's kind of conforming with what the neighborhood is going to then it it makes it easier for us to make well you do have two resolutions with findings for both options I would note that and and and even with I know parents as neighbors that's great but people buy people sell you never know what happens and all of a sudden the next person does not like this Arrangement and then we're back in where we are now and trying to i' just like to make sure that we're uh do our due diligence so when we whatever we decide to do we have good facts about it so they can't come back to bite us so I'm clear we don't we don't have to take either resolution we can just correct we can extend the time and push it back to the Planning Commission that's what I'd recommend doing like I said I would feel comfortable that giv Evan a chance to scout the whole neighborhood and get it a better feel for what's going on over there if this is common or if these are all predated or when was that tell you remember when was that platted was the 60s I thought so that's before our minimum lot size yeah the town zoning was not adopted until 72 I believe yeah somewh mid 70s yeah so it was County zoning at the time well there any other questions of Evan no all right hearing none I need a motion open up for public comment I'll move to open the public comment portion second all in favor say I I I all opposed I know I believe the applicants here if you want to come up just get your name and address for the record and give us give us your version uh my name is Mike dham 4025 birol drive and thank you for taking the time to listen to what I have to say uh so first first off uh I've lived on birol Drive virtually my entire life my folks bought the proper property when and moved in when I was a week old lived there all through my childhood went off got married and 5 years into marriage uh the house next door came came available and so we bought the house next door to the neighbors and we're able to uh able to uh raise our family there we knew it was a great neighborhood the opportunity to have my children grow up next to their grandparents seem too good to pass up and so in 2004 this is sailing to the board is that we we had a we hired a contractor and they installed the patio that uh that's on that on that drawing now what that drawing does not show is that the patio actually extended about a third of the way from the fence to the bridge and so there's already exist there already has is existing concrete within the setback uh quite a bit of it and there's impervious surface as Evan noted above the 30 30% so if we were to Simply deny this we're still faced with what was existing which is both setback and impervious surface and furthermore this was simply a repair and replacement of the of of the uh aging driveway in concrete and so that was the initial uh impetus for this we then decided because it was three Paces from the edge of the existing concrete to the bridge it made sense to to extend that so that my parents would not have to trip uh because we go back and forth between the homes on a daily basis my dad has a garden and my parents have computers and I'm in the it business so there's lots of reasons to go back and forth on a daily basis uh over that bridge and I don't want my folks to trip in addition to that uh it's really the access to the backyard uh we have a boat and during the winter we also have a snowmobile trailer and so uh we're regularly backing the car up and uh directly in there given that that's uh less than a 10t space and we've got an 8 and 1/2t wide trailer we need to come in Fairly straight in in order to make that happen uh so so from an access perspective uh certainly I believe this constitutes the reasonable use of of the space and given the layout of the property B built this back in the 70s and to be quite honest you know if you talk to any of my neighbors which I've done over the past few days they'll talk about the the fact that the lot lines are uncertain and things like that so all that being said what uh what we what we wanted was for Myriad of reasons being the access access to the backyard for the storage of the boat as well as the uh as well as the snowmobile trailer the regular parking of my children uh particularly now that Birch Drive is 4 feet narrower uh keeping them off the street is a good idea for everybody uh being able to go back and forth on the uh between the two properties on a regular basis uh all of those all those things made it seem like a good idea so we called up a contractor and asked them would you please uh take oh and the other pieces that uh because the boat had been there in the truck there that all the grass was dead and we were watching our watching our yard go down into the street every uh every rainstorm and so decided that for all those reasons to handle the erosion to handle the uh the foot traffic to handle all those things that made sense to extend it so we called up a contractor and in good faith we said could you please do this and the contractor said well we're you're going to be within the setback and I said as far as I know we're okay we're already within the setback and we uh uh and we have permission from the neighbors so go ahead apply for the permits install the concrete Let It Go and so they did and unfortunately the contractor blundered he didn't have the approval that I thought he had and so now I'm on the hook for potentially well already a couple thousand dollars for the survey and the variance fees on everything else that we've we've put into this and now the potential to incur additional cost to have to rip that out and replace it either with landscaping or some other type of surface and the net of it would be that we'd still have several hundred square fet of concrete within the setback and we would have the uh perile surface so simply returning to previous would not benefit anybody and so thinking on this it occurred to me that part of the reason why we did this project as we did was because concrete is pretty expensive right now I heard the comment earlier tonight that costs are going up and things are expensive and so we broke our project of wanting to replace our patio and driveway into two pieces and so this actually would present a potential opportunity if we were to replace our entire back patio the blue section with a permeable patio we would take us from 33% of the used used space down to 27% of the used space so it would be a significant reduction of the permeable space which obviously to my mind is the more important one it's for the environment everything else but in addition to that it would also be reducing the amount of of pavement that is inside the setback so it'd be a net win for all to allow the driveway to Simply exist and to to Simply look at replacing the back patio so that was my suggestion trying to find a solution the uh obviously I would ask for some time to make this happen I've my daughter's graduating with her MBA this week and my son has one more year of college so if we could spread it out a little bit I'd appreciate it but nonetheless that was my suggestion is that this might be a net win for the township that it would that it would decrease the amount of concrete in the setback that it would decrease the amount of perious surface on the on the lot uh significantly in fact take that portion be down below the uh the 30% which would obviate the need for for a variance that this could be the most elegant solution for for all involved I had the opportunity to speak with my neighbors and they were thrilled with the fact that we had gotten rid of our aging driveway and that they thought the new patio the new uh new driveway was lovely and they thought it would help the property values uh as as was mentioned earlier there are actually eight properties on our street of the original 24 which would make it third by m math uh that have their driveway within the setback so we're certainly not unique and and as as was pointed out there are three just on Birch Drive there Al also others on Portland and some some of which have you know have been poured within the last 10 12 13 years so uh there are certainly some properties here that would would make this in keeping in character with the uh with the entire uh characteristic of the neighborhood and so I think we have a pretty pretty wellth thought out solution that could again make this better for everybody uh and not force us to have to incur the additional cost of removing what we had had done in good faith and would also address the uh again make making things better for the neighborhood for for our reasonable use as well as for the township so that was our side of the story Steve Tom um the only thing I'll I'll say is that's that's that's a good story that you just told not arguing that a bit I I think may be a good approach but I still think it belongs back to the Planning Commission and and you do you just keep talking about incurring costs which are true you would incur those costs until you uh go after the Builder or the uh contractor who did this because you have a cause of action against the person that did not follow the plans so temporarily your costs if it doesn't go forward temporarily your costs you may have collectible uh all those costs against some atal party just keep that back there so that's good to know we're clear clear record that you know if you if you had a contract that you supposed to get permits etc etc didn't follow those you have a cause of action in my opinion I'm not I'm not a lawyer but I did handle claims so that's all I want say Tom yeah I think you made a pretty good case for additional Planning Commission discussion yeah yeah well the board appreciates you got you know considering pulling that impervious to try to get this thing in back into compliance I we like that you're willing to negotiate this issue now that it's after the fact um I one thing about variances every neighbor could say no that doesn't mean anything we can still say yes every neighbor can say yes doesn't mean anything we can still say no but I I am curious when I talked to the bilding inspector today I didn't ask him did he look at a drainage issue because of this concrete right there because I understand if you're watching your driveway wash is it going to back up and now not drain properly because of where the concrete was placed no because we've got a swail on our South line so everything will drain into a planting area that we have underneath the bridge okay so I mean but uh Mike Johnson was aware of that because us usually with drainage the water can't leave your property and your neighbor's water can't leave their property it's supposed to be a mutual runoff sure so I just want to make sure this isn't creating an issue for either one of you no no the Swale the Swale channels the the water from both properties so okay that was my only other comment and again like I I think this is prudent to give our uh Town planner a chance to review that whole neighborhood just to make sure we're not this we always worry about setting examples and precedents and then somebody down the road's going to come right back to us and say you allowed that we want that and it's it's hard for us to say you can't have it now but that's why we need to make sure that we're pretty confident how we deliberate on this I that makes complete sense to me and I've put a lot of thought and effort into that exact how would you say no to the next guy right and truly what this boils down to again is the character of the neighborhood the fact that there are there there are properties in this neighborhood that are already within the setback and the main reason for it being that this place was laid out in the 60s while the while the township didn't have these these statutes in place and the board realizes that this the wrong time of the year anyway to try to start to do this to correct it so it's not going to happen till next year anyway so I I we're very comfortable with giving us 6-day extension so we get a chance to go back to the Planning Commission and then come back to us and if that works for you folks that'd be a great starting point right now so we can get this resolv yeah our goal our goal is to resolve this as well and again we want to do we want to do what's right but obviously we we do love our new drial I know but I I've been a contractor for 40 years it still makes me very mad when some somebody like that just re when that's what permits are for to keep this from happening so sure understood at the same at the same time it may be worth mentioning the uh you know the property as being owned by my parents um M do you care if I disclose that it's in it's it's in trust so ultimately it'd be going to me anyway all right any other questions to Mike no all right thanks sir thank you is there any other anyone else like to speak with this yes sir come on up just state your name and address for the record please hi right I'm Doug Jones the 4035 birchal drive on the north side of where Mike lives and I've talked to our other neighbors cross from me down further and there's not one person that objects to this driveway it looks 100 times better than what it did before when there was nothing there it was just runoff runoff runoff dirt and mud now it's not like that and it looks a lot better and I think it improves his property value which in turn helps you guys out too does it improve your property Doug it doesn't affect my property okay if it did I'd be here saying that but it doesn't uh I think it's a great driveway and it it serves his purpose what he's trying to do with getting rid of you was getting rid of a few things and helping his parents out at the same time but if you guys about come around and Survey the neighbors I welcome you well that that's why we have a town planner okay I'm just here to say support Mike and what he said I can't argue any bit of it appreciate it you thanks Doug thank you anyone else none of the students want to jump in here or no all right hearing none I need a motion to close the public portion of the meeting I'll move to close the public portion of the hearing second I'll fa shy I hi now we if we were to move to uh send it send this back to the Planning Commission do we have to take an action to wave the 60-day prior to that yes you do so that would be the so we need the first motion to do that yeah well not you're not actually waving the 60 day what you're doing you're authorizing you're actually um asking the applicant to no you're not asking that either okay you're simply um give me a second here you're exercising your statutory right to extend the period for an additional additional 60 days that's lawyer talk that's what my motion would be I'll second that if you lawyer talk but that's the statute calls for all right motions made in second all in favor say I I opposed now will only be able a motion to uh send it back to Planning Commission I can make that motion uh that would be what's the date on that Patrick for or yeah that be January what January 23rd you're not having one in December we do but the agenda is finalized okay yes it's 23rd of January as said here you go I'll second the motion to move this back to the Planning Commission and on their agenda for the January 23rd 2025 uh schedule all right motions May in second and all in favor say I I I would hopefully have staff uh Reach Out Try to we try to get a full compliment of folks there got it so we get a a better uh any some kind of uh consent on what they're what they're doing there so all right thanks folks we appreciate it especially you know trying to work with us we we'll get a result all right we're moving on um item eight new business look like we're going to go to our Tom Kelly our Chief Financial Officer this the number one is the transfer of certain funds yes these next few items are uh required uh for bookkeeping purposes uh the first one uh you have a resolution 2457 uh which is approving transfer of certain funds every year in our budget we have a number of funds that we uh transfer uh the first one being from the Eda uh to help fund Township day so it's a a transfer from the Eda uh into our general fund uh items two three and four are transfers from our water sewer storm water fund and on item number three polar Lakes Park Improvement fund uh transfers for their portion portions of the uh 2019 2020 and 20121 uh Improvement bonds uh to make the bond payments uh transfer number five is for our seal cating uh it's a transfer from the general fund uh to the Improvement fund where we pay for the uh seal coding and then item number six is is uh based off of our Capital Improvement uh plan uh the improvements that were needed in the Parks so it's a transfer from our general fund Park maintenance budget uh over to our Park uh Improvement fund uh to pay for improvements to the parks the last two items seven and five were transfers based off of our uh 2024 uh Street Improvement projects uh again it's the water uh sewer and storm water funds uh share of those uh project costs and so uh in order to make these transfers uh we need the town board to approve a resolution uh adopting uh these transfers all right Steve questions comments I have n do this ever year I just got one Tom um on your spreadsheet here where it says Township days is 15,000 but back where I just saw it you had 7500 it it's 15,000 uh in the past he used to be broken up uh 7500 for Township day and 7500 for uh helping maintain the historic town hall and so that's what it's actually for so that's lumped into this yeah that's all that's what makes up the 15,000 okay all right I think that's the only discrepancy or at least question I had any other questions or Tom on this no I have none hearing none I need a motion I'll U make a motion to approve resolution 2457 approving the transfer for certain funds for the town of white beer second all in favor say I I I all opposed motion carries all right next one is the fund balance classifications yes uh gby the governmental accounting standard board uh defines uh fund balance into different categories uh the town board uh depending on the classification uh does need to approve these uh and actually the 2024 uh uh classifications really haven't changed uh that much from uh 2023 uh the first one is a restricted uh fund balance uh in the park acquisition of $638 a number of years ago we were uh given a donation uh and the money was to go towards improvements at Rutherford Park and so uh to meet that uh donation requirement uh we need to restrict uh uh the balance of that so that's the 6, 385 in the Eda fund uh we have what is called a nonspendable fund balance because uh it's not in the form of cash it's actually uh land held uh for resale uh it's uh the land is currently uh valued at a,1 124,00 312 and uh as I said it's nonspendable because it's in land the form of land and it's hard to spend land the final one is uh one that we've had uh for a number of years it's $250,000 in the uh storm water fund uh this is one the board has just set aside uh so it's classified as an assigned fund balance and it's uh 250,000 for uh the future Stillwater uh drainage uh improvements that are needed on that one and again these are uh required by gby and just takes uh a board uh approval uh it does not take a resolution to uh uh set these funds aside so with that I guess I'll take any questions no uh just one uh the Eda fund I imagine at 1.1 most of it is the property this building sitting on uh most most of it is actually uh the property out on Portland oh oh stable properties yes okay all right that's all I had did did that uh amount is that the land that we recently sold down the road here was in yes okay so thank you all right there no other questions I need a motion on the fund balance I'll uh move to based on the finance officers review and recommendation approve the 2024 fund balance classifications second motion man second all in favor say I I I opposed that motion carries all right this exciting money talk let's go to HC debt reduction all right uh in your packet is resolution 24-58 uh it reduces our debt Levy uh we have uh three bonds outstanding uh all of them are for Street Improvement projects uh again it's the 2019 uh 2020 in 2021 uh Improvement bonds uh when we issued those those bonds um and provided the funding sources uh between the three bonds uh the town uh for 2025 uh could Levy up to uh just over $560,000 uh to help uh pay off that debt however if the town has other funds it can use to pay off that um the bond payment in 2025 uh the town board can reduce uh the debt and uh there's certain language that's required which this resolution uh has stating that we have excess funds and that uh we will use it to pay the principle and interest uh so uh the resolution is actually reducing uh the debt uh by $8,699 uh debt Levy for 2025 of 45187730 and uh again this is something that is required by uh State Statute uh and uh the county will uh needs this resolution in order to uh reduce the debt Levy Tom was this part of of the budget it is part of the budget and part of the resolution that uh you will uh approve as the 2025 uh property tax levy will this be done in March then uh no this will be done uh at the end of this month we have to certify the levy to Ramsey County for 2025 it'll be payable in 2025 uh in um May and in um October okay um anything nothing uh just quick clarification in your uh reference material on uh reference and background it says in total the town would be required to Levy 560 48222 and property taxes in 20245 is it 2024 or 2025 2025 okay so let the levy year is 2024 but the payable year is 202 in property taxes for these debts is is 2025 yes so let the record be changed to show that that is really 2025 no question all right hearing no other discussion need a motion I'll uh make a motion or pass a resolution for uh uh 24-58 reducing the tax levy pursuant to Minnesota statute section 475.00 second all right motion made second all in favor I I all right moving on the property tax levy okay again uh you have resolution 24- 59 uh it is the amount that we are uh going to certify to Ramsey County for property taxes to be paid in 20125 uh at the March meeting uh annual meeting uh residents voted uh for a tax levy of 6,535 336 we could not exceed that amount going forward as we went through our budget process we certified a preliminary Levy which was used in the tax notices that went out in uh mid November uh that amount uh was 6,342 39 94 and then in uh just a couple weeks ago when we held our uh special Town budget meeting uh residents approved a uh final uh tax levy of 6,212 324 uh since that meeting uh we did uh get the uh amount that uh uh Northwest Family Services or Northeast Family Services uh is requesting for 2025 uh which was $2,000 less than uh what we had budgeted so I reduced the levy uh down uh to 6,210 uh $324 uh for 2025 the breakdown of that is uh for our general operating Levy uh we've got 5,321 th000 even and then uh to that we get to add uh the fiscal disparities Aid of 437,000 and then finally that debt Levy that you just approved of 45187 which gives us a total tax levy of 6,210 324 and the uh operating portion the 5,321 th000 and the fiscal disparities uh that will fund our operations uh for our 2025 uh general fund budget all right I know we beat this one to death but Steve got anything yep just the numbers I'm the resolution has a different number in it does it not and that number you're recommending uh shouldn't 6210 I see 653 then 632 which one is it oh not to exceed 65 then not to exceed 634 394 okay it's dropping down yep all right now I'm I'm good I followed him now so you're asking us to uh not to exceed 62112 324 I'm asking not to exceed 6,210 324 which would be our final Levy just left off a comma here or there okay got it I'm done well that mean you're ready to make a motion I'm ready to make a motion to um I move to pass resolution 2459 adopting the amount to be raised by property taxation for the year 2025 second all in favor say I I I all opposed all right moving on now we have the operating budget yes now that we have a uh property tax levy to fund our operations uh the board has gone over the uh 2025 budget many of times again this was presented uh just a couple weeks ago uh at the Town U uh budget meeting again uh what was uh recommended at that budget meeting was 6,740 N7 9 uh for a general fund operating budget again because of the Northeast uh Family Services reduction uh we're now recommending uh the board approve a operating budget for 2025 of 6,738 679 and uh I did provide a listing of the different Revenue uh classifications and sources and and also uh how that money is broken out uh expenditure wise between Personnel Serv uh supplies charges for services uh capital outlay and then transfers uh and again revenues do equal expenditures so it's a balanced budget for 2025 we're not uh proposing the use of any reserves and we're asking that you pass uh the resolution adopting a budget of 6 million $ 38,9 79 Tom do we have firm numbers on the police and fire contracts uh yes okay and the fire contract does or the fire budget does include the amount that is uh being disputed all right Tom got anything nope very thorough St nope ready to make a resolution I'll move to pass a resolution for 24-6 adopting the operating budget for the year 2025 in the amount of 6,738 n79 and I'll second motion made in second all in favor I I I all right moving on to Capal Improvement plan uh before you uh is a summary of the 10-year uh Capital Improvement plan uh the plan is for 2025 through 2034 uh the uh Capital items that are listed as 2025 are included in the 2025 budget and uh however uh as they move forward they still have to go through uh the normal um requirements for uh receiving bids or quotes uh uh they have to go through uh Town board approval uh so just because they are in the budget and approved in the capital Improvement plan they still need to be approved by the town board when we actually get to the point of either purchasing or completing those Capital Improvement plans items that are listed in 2026 through 2034 are there kind of as placeholders as to what we feel uh we're going to need uh uh or when we're going to need to replace equipment or do improvements and what we think they uh will cost as we're developing future year budgets they can be adjusted accordingly uh moved around uh and so forth um for uh 2025 uh you can see in the summary plan uh we have just over uh 14 million uh 160 almost $62,000 uh in capital uh Improvement projects uh or equipment purchases and uh it gets adjusted each year accordingly uh but uh what we are asking for is uh the board to adopt our uh 2025 through 2034 uh Capital Improvement plan and again the board has seen this plan at previous uh meetings no because we have seen it numerous times and yes we go over everything in detail before we approve the expenses for that calendar year so no exactly right uh need a motion I'll um make a motion based on the finance officer review and recommendations drop adopt the 2025 d2020 2034 Capital Improvement plan second all right motion made second all in favor say I I I all opposed all right let's you off the hook Tom we're going to move to our town engineer for Port lewood Street Improvement 20242 you going to take that one there yes Mr chair thank you I had this up and now it's not technology is great when it works sign have the kids get their stuff sign there we go no pressure we got it we got it all right um so we have two uh um reports we'd like you to review and accept the first one is for Portland Woods Street improvements I have a short PowerPoint to kind of go over this with you oops why is it showing don't look at me your time his just went down and I figure it out my battery did yes plug it in once in a while I have it in plugged in constantly it's the people in the household that unplug it and don't tell me and I don't notice it so it's on me these are tough on batteries that's take care of the students [Music] more there we go now we got there we go I apologize so so Portland Woods uh We've uh completed our feasibility study it's in your packet um I want to give a few details and um our findings for the report and talk about next steps um so Portland Woods originally constructed in 1988 um there were Seal Co projects in 20 2005 and 2011 it's a residential property it's uh short 0.1 miles in length um I'm told that this may have been a private stre at one time that the town board took over um which um you know there's a number of things with this street that don't meet Township standards um the pavement rating in 2021 when the area was valued was was uh 1.2 and uh today it's uh 0.8 there is concrete curbing on the street uh it's called b612 but it's irre it's it was it was seem like was hand formed there's areas that are it's up to 8 in tall and so it's irregular and um um um makes for difficulty navigating and plowing um the street width is 21 ft in width um the bituminous depth uh ranges from 5 in to uh 6.5 in and you can see one of the cores here um at the bottom layers are are are brittle and cracking and falling apart um this picture here kind of shows the the curb um I got there's another photo here that coming up that I'll show it as well from a a wider lens um so the feasibility study as you know we uh we do a lot of research and data collecting as a part of the um feasibility report including soil borings pavement coring which you just saw pavement core wetland delation storm order upon maintenance review utility evaluation um questionnaires and property order feedback um that we collect property own feedback on issues um and then we use that data kind of to study the improvements and uh provide our recommendations to you in the in the form of the report the report includes cost calculations funding assessments and uh the schedule for the project So based on our review of things um we're recommending a a Reclamation project due to the overall condition of the pavement um it's uh the deterioration is such that um doing a Mill and overlay type Improvement would not be um provide value um we also are recommending um replacing the curbing gutter with a surmountable type curb um this uh street is narrow and we we looked at evaluating widening the street to provide um to provide more space you can see on the photo here that you know cars do Park on that roadway um however you can see how narrow the corridor is there's RightWay constraints there's uh trees and utilities that um impede the ability to widen to uh what we we'd like to see normally a 28 foot wide Street in this area um so as part of that you know we'd like to replace the curbing gutter for the the because it's it's awkward looking it's awkward to navigate plowing issues and then also to have more of a surmountable type curb so that um people can can navigate if they need to along the edges to drive up over the curb to get around somebody that might be parking um um on the street and then we have some minor utility improvements as well um as the board knows uh curban gutter when we're doing improvements curban gutter is critical to building a correct street that um last a test of time controls that drainage um this is a a look of the type of curb that we' propose here it's a a surmountable angle type curb that um would be available on all all the streets we wouldn't have a barrier type um curb in the area but the kerbing gutter also would Define the street um reduce that edge failure we're seeing in some other streets that don't have kerbing gutter um in this case would R reduce the plow damage and improve the Aesthetics of the of the area um public comments we we' seen on this project we did have a neighborhood meeting um on November 13th and we had questionnaires responses there was not a lot of response on the questionnaires but this is a short segment of road with only eight uh eight homes um no drainage issues were reported um there was suggestions as a part of the the comment that um was asking for surmountable curb and then they had another comment in there about um concerns with speeds on nearby Highway 96 I won't run through these uh this uh PowerPoint is also intended for the upcoming neighborhood meetings and and public hearings but um the board is aware of of what these projects entail and what what residents can expect but there's a few photos of uh of the activities that would be undertaken this this photo on the on the left is the Reclamation process where we're grinding the pavement into the the aggregate base below to provide a new product that we build upon and this is some photos of uh curbing work and then Paving operations at the end you can see this uh um this shows what it would look like that that uh Street with the the different um style curb so we'll get into costs uh we're estimating at this point uh $464,000 for this project U you can see we do have some contingencies in there we are kind of planning for the worst and so hopefully these costs uh would come down as the process unfolds um includes a a project um indirect cost of 25% to cover engineering Town Administration financing and bonding um assessments are a part of this project as you know um assessments are distributed the property owners and we are um estimating $112,000 per residential home in this in this project area and that's based on appraisals that we've completed on other similar projects in in in recent years we would perform appraisals on this specific roadway um if this project moves forward um assessments are spread over 10 years on for a project like this and uh Corner lots are assessed at point five units each for each improved side so this is kind of the distribution of the assessments so of those overall cost of 664 th000 um 370,000 is accessible um um however using that $112,000 um assessment with 8.5 units um that's $12,000 so under the assessible amount this is the assessment map showing the different properties on the project um and those that would be assessed on the project of note uh the property at 5272 is uh subdividable so we would assess one plus a half unit for for that property and these are the funding sources so you can see assessments 102,000 Township funds 268,000 um the water fund would pick up any water main repairs 65,000 sanitary fund would pick up any sanitary sewer Improvement improvements for the project 6,630 and storm utility would pick up any storm water improvements 21,000 um this project would follow our uh communication program for um Street Improvement projects and with a our website being a clearing house for a lot of the documents that we uh prepare for the projects and the the Powerpoints we prepare the feasibility study would also be there if uh if people are interested in that and then uh um we also have three information meetings planned the questionnaires as we mentioned if the project moves forward to construction we'd have newsletters mass emails and updates on the website and then of course we're happy to meet with folks uh individually if they have uh um individual concerns um so with if the town board approves tonight we would look at holding a neighborhood meeting in mid January likely the week before the public hearing which is um preliminarily um recommended for January 22nd um and then if the project moves forward after that you know we'd have another open house to view plans and uh the plans would be when the plans were complete they'd come to the board in in April awarding a contract in May and construction obviously the summer so next steps uh for the board um are simply to accept the report and call for a public hearing on January 22nd um tonight the board doesn't need to provide any opinions on on the uh improvements they just need to Simply um accept the report call for the public hearing you may you may learn things through the process through the public hearing that might sway your opinion so there's there's not a need to provide an opinion um and then next steps if it's approved tonight is uh the neighborhood meeting in mid January and the public hearing on January 22nd thank you where would the call for the assessment fit in that timeline if this goes forward I not the assessment the appraisal um you could we could start it excuse me Larry once the feasibility report is accepted we we'll deliver that to the appraiser who will then conduct the appraisal do not do we do not order that till the till the uh till you approve the or adopt the project and the feasibility reports adopted all right sorry Larry that will confirm the assessment amount then so we're in line with okay all right Steve got any questions no Tom nope all right hearing none I need a motion for the adoption of this resolution I'll make the motion based on the town engineer review and recommendation adopt the resolution accepting the feasibility report and call a public Improvement hearing for Wednesday January 22nd 2025 beginning at 700 p.m. no second all right motion being second I favor I I all right one more there this is Anderson Lane Street yes so similarily Anderson Lane is a um a Street located off of Centerville Road um this it's it's just another short Street it's a point about a quarter mile in length um it was originally constructed in 1986 uh a utility pro project occurred in in 1999 with seal coat improvements in 2005 and 2011 again this is a residential property um the the payment rating was 1.1 in 2021 and um evaluating today it's uh 0.7 um binus curbing is failing or is is gone or eroded the street width here is also narrow it's 22t wide and um um and then we found that the binus underneath that street is only 2 in thick which is likely contributing to the degradation of this roadway um so you can see the pavement core here that's a 2-in Mark um this is a uh a look at the street itself probably doesn't show up on your screen very well but um it's uh breaking apart uh um r rapidly um again I I won't go through this again but you know the same Fe feasibilities um process including all the the data Gathering and uh property owner feedback we received um to prepare the report that's in your packet um again we're recom recommending a Reclamation project for the area due to the U minimal payment depth and overall pavement condition um we're recommending addition of concrete curb and gutter to control that drainage I'll talk about that in a in a second um increase the width from 22 ft to 28 ft um addition of storm sewer for the area and some minor utility work um this is an example of what a 28t roadway looks like in terms of trying to navigate a a fire truck while people are parked on the roadway um again that that concrete kban gutter um this this street really doesn't have curban gutter it's it had bituminous curb in areas but it's not controlling the drainage um which you know the the drainage is really causes that degradation it provides for um when you're not controlling that drainage the the moisture gets underneath the street and causes things to move and and uh freeze and thaw um exacerbating the degradation um this is a map showing what we're proposing for storm sewer in our report there's a Culver Crossing underneath uh Anderson Lane kind of closer to the culdesac we would Place replace that but also add catch basins in in the roadway to collect that drainage and get it to the the pipe and then we're also proposing some pipe on near Centerville Road to collect that drainage and um drain it to the pond um the we also held a neighborhood meeting on November 13th um well attended by the Portland I'm sorry the Anderson Lane residents um we also received questionnaires and the questionnaire responses I I listed some of the things they they mentioned some drainage issues um they mentioned construction traffic for nearby development um was using Anderson Lane at times um culdesac not being large enough to navigate um some question the project need um there's questions about or concerns about sen C Road and mainly as you're exiting Anderson Lane taking a left um at certain times of day are is difficult um utility concerns and then last week we received a petition from a majority of the the residents on the project and there there had two petitions um one requested that the assessments be no more than 25% which we'll talk about in a bit um the other questionnaire requested a Mill and overlay um requested that the street not be widen in and not and and with no curban gutter so some of these requests are contradictory to what I'm recommending so it's something we'll have to navigate through the public hearing process these are similar pictures to similar simar take a project I won't go through them so our preliminary cost for this project 961 th000 for the project again includes that uh those indirect costs and some contingencies um again we're recommending it's the same project Sim similar project to um Portland Woods recommending that 20 or $112,000 for each residential unit which would be confirmed confirm through that appraisal process um on this project we have 19.5 units and so that um that assessment amount 19.5 units time 12,000 is 234,000 of that 961 th000 um project costs of those project costs the assessible amount is 765,000 this is a map showing the Parcels that would be assessed in in one of these units is a a Township owned parcel um so we'd be also be uh up the township be be on the hook for that 12,000 for that parcel um so this is the funding so then of of course the 26 or 234,000 for assessments um the bulk of the rest of that uh assessible amount would be paid for town by Township funds and Levy and again this the water fund would pick up water main improvements sanitary pick up um sanitary improvements and the storm fund would pick up Storm sewer improvements including the that new pipe we were recommending again uh we have a a website for this project um on the tonship website and we'd follow our our standard communication protocol and this would follow the same schedule as the Portland woods so again looking for acceptance of the report tonight and calling for a public hearing for January 22nd um and no need to discuss the petitions at this point or is this the time we talk about that all we're doing is accepting the Fe feasibility reports I have no questions St I have no questions uh just one Larry you talk about going from 22 to 28 ft wide is that road in the Cent center of the RightWay now for the most part it so it be 3 fet on each side right so that's not still going to interfere it'll still stay in the RightWay yeah there's a I think I have a photograph on here this uh photograph on the upper upper corner kind of shows it's it's it's a lot more open than um Portland Woods there's not the rightaway issues that we are seeing on Portland Woods um well because I did notice when I drove it a couple days ago there was a couple of trees that were taken down pretty big stumps looks like right next to the road that's what I was asking about if it's going it shift one way or the other or stay right in the middle we'd like to keep it right in the middle and just widen on each side all right that's all I got what's the board's pleasure I'll make a motion based on the town engineer review and recommendation adopt the resolution accepting the feasibility report and call a public Improvement hearing for Wednesday January 22nd 2025 beginning at 700 p.m. now second all right motion to M second all in favor say I I I all opposed all right that concludes our regular agenda we have no more item 10 is open time that's where if anybody would wish to come up state your name and address and tell us what a great job we just did or or not questions what we did no all right seeing no one approaching um item 11 is the receipt of General supplements I need a motion for that so moved second all in favor say I I I all opposed then I need a motion to adjourn at 8:28 so moved second all favor say I we are adjourned thank you board