too. >> Uh, happy new year everybody and good evening. It's uh, January 8th, 2026 and it's an open public meeting of the Bedminster Township Land Use Board. Notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings
Act. And Janine, um, has everybody who had an oath requirement signed their oath? Yes, everyone who needs to sign their oath did and everyone has signed the um ethics page as well. >> Great. Great. So, u Denine, please call
the role. >> Mayor Jacobs, >> I am here. >> Command Hickey >> here. >> Mr. Walter >> here. >> Mr. Leonard >> here. Chairman Gutra. Oh, uh Har Miss Goff, >> I'm here. I am here.
>> You're right. I did. >> You're not officially chairman yet? No. >> Um, >> Mr. Orbana >> here. >> Mr. Rodelius >> here. >> Mr. Gini >> here. >> Great. Congratulations everybody and we'll do the pledge of alle allegiance.
will stand and raise and uh uh I pledge allegiance >> to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Thank you everybody. And we'll now take uh do the nominations of the officers of the board for 2026. Are there any any nominations for the position of chairperson for 2026?
>> Uh, I'll make a motion to nominate Carol Gutshaw for chair of the landing board. >> Second. >> And is there a second? >> Thank you. >> And are there any other nominations? There being none, we will treat this as
a motion or nomination motion to nominate and appoint Carol Gutel as the chairwoman for 2026. Please call the role. >> Mary Jacobs, >> I committee. >> Hi, >> Mr. Walter. >> Hi, >> Mr. Miss Orana. >> Hi,
>> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi, >> Mr. Redius. >> Hi, >> Mr. Gini. >> Hi, >> Chairwoman Daw. >> Hi. >> Congratulations, Carol. And now it's on to you. >> Oh, thank you.
>> Okay, I guess the next thing is we need to have nominations for vice chair. >> I'll nominate Jeffrey Leonard for vice chair for the Bedminister Linings Board. >> I'll second that. Tim Walter.
>> Okay. Are there any other nominations? Okay. Guess we have a roll call. Mayor Jacobs. >> Hi. >> Hi. >> Mr. Walter. Hi, >> Mr. Arvana. >> Hi, >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi, >> Mr. Odilius. Hi, >> Mr. G. Janei, >> hi. >> Chairman Macho, >> I
congratulations >> and uh thank you, mayor, for your confidence in me to continue on. >> Thank you. Thank you for those who have revolunteered and we have a full board still.
But congratulations. Okay. Um I guess we have some minutes to approve. Oh, maybe some public comments. Do we have any public comments before we go on? >> Nobody's on right now.
>> No one is online. and um >> there's anyone in the audience that is public besides the >> Okay, we'll close to the public and we will um look for a motion for the um
minutes for >> December 4th. >> December 4th. >> Jack. >> Yep. >> Second. >> I'll second. All >> in favor? We need to do a separate one for the
close session, Tom. >> Uh, I'm sorry. Say, oh, yes. Do the close session. Um, well, you do a separate motion for them even though it's the same night. >> Okay. >> We need a motion for the executives.
>> So, move. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Anyone opposed? minutes are both approved. Um, now we have some resolutions we need to approve.
Uh, first one is our professionals. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-001. >> Second. >> We need a roll call on this, don't we? Mayor Jacobs. >> Hi, Commicki. >> Hi, >> Mr. Walter. Hi, >> Mr. Orbana. >> Hi, >> Mr. Leonard. Hi,
>> Mr. Reil. >> Hi, >> Mr. Din. >> Hi, Chairwoman. >> Hi. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, resolution is approved. Okay. And our next resolution is our meeting dates
2026002. I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Mayor Dix. >> I committee. >> Hi. >> Mr. Walter. >> Hi. >> Mr. Orana. >> Hi. >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi. >> Mr. Reinius. >> Hi. >> Mr. D. Jveni. >> Hi. >> Chairwoman Dutch.
>> Hi. Resolution is approved. Okay. We need um uh resolution 2026003 for board secretary. >> So moved.
>> Second. >> That's it. >> No debate. No discussion. >> Listen, other nominations are open. >> Can you hear to the left again, please? >> Mayor Jacobs. >> I
Mr. Walker. Hi >> Mr. Orana. >> Hi >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi >> Mr. >> Hi >> Mr. Djini. >> Hi >> Chairwoman. >> Hi. >> And the next resolution is 2026004
the annual report. had a chance to look at that. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-004. >> I'll second Jacobs. >> I >> Mr. Walter.
>> Hi. >> Mr. Hi >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi >> Mr. Hi >> Mr. Din. >> Hi Carol. >> Hi. >> Okay. Determination of completeness for 18 people. Uh, Madam Chairman, this is
the application to modify the lighting over at the site that AT&T is now occupied. Um, after more than one round, they've submitted sufficient information that subject to the waiverss, the application deemed placement.
>> So, if the board is ready, it would be a motion to wave the remaining items for completeness and deem the AT&T lighting site plan application complete. Is there such a motion? >> We need a motion. >> So moved.
>> Second. Second. >> Jacobs. >> I committee. >> Hi. >> Mr. Walter. >> Hi. >> Mr. Orbana. >> Hi. >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi. >> Mr. Reidius. >> I think I have to recuse myself. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> I do as well. Probably.
>> Yeah. Yes. Let's mark both of them as recused. This is just the procedural vote anyway. But but they'll they're marked recus and their vote doesn't count. >> Okay. Thank you. And m Mr. Dini. >> And here I
>> uh I was in touch with them and they will be taking the March 5th spot out the area. >> Okay. Told me that yes, they will be postponed. >> Okay. All right. So, we're at the um hearing for Cherki. Is that how you pronounce
it? Cherk. >> Yes. Tom. >> Tom will swear you in. Yes. >> Yes. Uh please raise your right hands. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. >> I do. >> And please state your names, spell your
last name, and give us an address. >> Eric Tansy. T U R I A N S K Y 545 Larger Crossroad 76. Parker Pville, New Jersey. >> Madam Chair, >> thank you.
And the board the board recognizes and accepts Stephen Parker's qualifications as a professional engineer. Um so please go ahead Ben gentlemen. >> Yeah my my name is Steve Parker. I'm the engineer for the project. Um and I'm just going to introduce it and talk a
little bit about this but uh this is a an application for approval of accessory dwelling unit which is a conditional use uh that's allowed in the R10 zone. Mr. Tans is the owner of the property. uh he's going to be constructing that uh drawing unit um for his mother-in-law
right now who's out of state and she'll be hopefully moving in here uh very soon. Um and um the architect for the project is also available. He's in the audience if there's any questions coming. I don't think we need to go into that much detail on the plans for the the
structure itself. Um as you said, this is property at 545 larger cross road. He lives there as his residence. Um and he would like to propose to construct the accessory dwelling unit um just pretty much adjacent to the existing home about
75 ft away. Um it's the parcel itself is large. It's about 26 little over 26 acres. Um and this is as we said it's in the R10 zone is a conditional uh use that's allowed uh of course meeting the certain conditions. We'll go through
those conditions and we'll indicate how we we do meet each and every one of those. Um so that this is something that the board uh can approve. Um so why don't I just go right into the letters. There's a few letters from Mr. Ferrer's office. There's also Mr.
Banish's office. Um we'll start I start with Mr. Ferrer's letter uh dated December 8th of 2025. Um and we'll just go through those and I think as we go through that we'll touch on all the points I think that that'll be important for the board to consider
uh in the application. Um so in the letter dated December 8th the um first comment just says the plan uh that's submitted from our office the soil erosion plan needs to be signed by the applicant um before being filed for board. So we'll make sure it's done. Um
the second comment is about the limit of disturbance. Uh it's just under the threshold for requiring approval from the soil conservation district. Uh just which is 5,000 square feet. Um and so it's really just a comment or a note that if it goes beyond that uh if the
disturbance during construction goes beyond those limits it will require approval soil conservation district. Uh so we plan on keeping that within those limits. Um the uh the third comment just says based on the representations uh of the
architect in the cover letter uh the accessory dwelling unit complies with the conditional use standards and that should be a condition of approval by the so it is and it will so we would certainly agree to that being a condition approval. Um
moving on to Mr. Banish's letter which is dated January 5th. I think the first couple paragraphs are really just comments uh about the location of the property, the the plans that were submitted. Uh this is a 26.6 acre property. It's located in the R10
residential zone district. Um there is existing an existing dwelling on the property. There's a pool, there's a tennis court, uh there's some detached garages. Um and then of course the proposed the location of the proposed accessory dwelling is shown as well in
the area of the uh existing development on the property. Uh there are no variances that are requested as part of this application. Um and so we're just looking for the conditional use uh permit um which requires approval from the board. So I think um the comment
number 3.1 in Mr. B's letter just basically says that we must demonstrate the applicant must demonstrate that all the conditions the accessory dwelling unit conditions are met um and um otherwise a D3 uh variance would be required but we in fact do meet all
those requirements so we'll go through them he mentions we'll go through them um and so moving on to the next page uh these are the conditions that are required to be met uh for uh for this uh project uh first comment says no more
than one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on any lot. Uh and no and such unit may be constructed in an existing or new structure. So we're proposing one new structure. It's it actually it's going to be located in an area where there was a prior structure there. There was a a detached garage and
some driveway areas there. It's going to be in that same area. Those structures have been removed. Uh and it's going to be right in there because that's where it's it's close to the house. They can they can share the same driveway and use the driveway access. Uh and it's very convenient. uh a location for that. Um
the second comment of an accessory dwelling unit shall be at least 600 square feet and no more than 1,200 square feet. This is proposed to be,040. So it falls within that range uh that's required there. Um third comment any lot containing both a principal and
accessory dwelling unit shall be at least 14 acres in lot area. This lot is 26.6 acres. Fourth comment. Each dwelling unit shall have its own separate septic system unless otherwise approved by the board of health. Um so this is this uh
dwelling unit will be connected to the existing septic system that's out there. That system was recently constructed within the past two or three years. Um it will need to be expanded of course uh for this. Um and uh we did secure approval from the board of health for that. Um so the plan that's in front of
you shows that work that's already been done and approved. Um but it will be constructed as part of that and we do have board of health for that. Uh so that we meet that requirement also. Um fifth uh condition is no rent may be charged uh for any accessory on unit.
That's Mr. Tansy will agree to that. There's no rent to be charged for this at all. Um so that certainly meets that condition as well. Uh the sixth uh condition says that uh the accessory dwelling unit, the detached accessory
shall be located within 150 ft of the principal residence. And it does. It's about 75 ft of it. So it meets that requirement as well. Uh it's going to be its own separate structure, but it will be within 75 ft. And again, the reason for that is so that they can share the driveway. So it's convenient. uh you
know the whole purpose between for having the build building this unit is to have some you know privacy and private space but you have yet be close enough to care when that becomes necessary. So this building will be 75 ft away from uh the main house. Uh and then the seventh
comment the access to the accessory dwelling unit must be by the same driveway as the access to the principal dwelling dwelling and it is there is only one driveway out here. It's going to be the same driveway. Um there are a couple things we want to talk about. Um as part of the application, you can see on the plans uh that were prepared by
our office, a portion of the driveway is going to be removed. Uh I think that was a driveway that formerly went onto the adjacent property to the west. Um but that portion of the driveway is to be removed and part of the reason for that is one for storm water management
purposes so we can keep uh the uh the construction under that threshold for storm water management. Uh but also that's one of the comments that uh I spoke with one of the neighbors uh Mr. Paragano and he asked that that be highlighted to the board that be in condition that that be removed. So you can see on the joint prepared by our
office there's a cross-hatched area. It's about 415 square feet of driveway that will be removed uh as part of the application. Um we're also proposing to put a um some plants or a buffer between the accessory dwelling unit and the
property to the west. Not sure what the lot I guess lot 21. So Mr. Tansky plans to do that anyway. He wants to have a nice landscape area between this dwelling unit and the property for the west plot 21. So um we'll be providing that. Um and then
just the last comment uh Mr. Paragiano was concerned about was the fact that you know all construction access for this dwelling unit be through the driveway in this property. And so of course that you know that's we're agreeing to that as well. Um so those are really the conditions I think um Mr.
Banish brings up some discussion points. Um in the last paragraph or last section of his letter he talks about the fact that it's going to go in the area of an existing detached garage uh to be removed and the reason that's of course reducing disturbance utilizing existing
layout of the site and for the convenience of having it located you know in proximity to the house. Um 4.2 two uh talks about any um impact to neighboring properties. Uh no, there won't be any impact. Any any visual impact might be mitigated by will be
mitigated by the planting of trees and the buffer between this dwelling unit and the property line. So, um other than that, you know, it's just going to be normal residential lighting and uh so there won't be any impact. The site drains onto this property, so there's no change in the drainage onto the
adjoining property as well. Um I think Mr. Ferrell may have some comments, but I think we've talked about the septic drainage and storm water management already. Um, so that's really the extent of the application. Um, there's not much to talk about. It meets all the conditions of the export conditional
use. Um, so we're requesting approval from the board for that. >> Anything further? Madam Chair, my only comments are that in my letter I talked about getting the limit of disturbance staked out prior to construction and the fact that you need a uh township so
movement permit that'll have to be submitted. >> Yeah. And we'll agree to that. Of course, you have to state out the limits of the service and get a permit to >> that's all I had. And since I'm acting as Frank tonight, I think all the the conditions of the conditional use have been met, but they should also be
conditions of the board's approval. >> Okay. Okay. Anything else for the board? First question. >> Just a quick question. I'm sorry. >> I was going to say the garage that's noted to the north, is that existing or will that be built new? >> That's exist. >> And then how does the septic expansion
work? Is that done prior or even some >> before the co? >> Okay. >> They'll need a certificate of completion on the set before they can occupy those. Now, did you say mother-in-law is going to be there? >> No, right. >> I have a question.
>> You didn't say your mother. >> Wait a second. >> Go ahead, though. >> Um, you don't have on your plans how how far this this um is set back from the property line?
Yeah, the um I can I can scale that off right now. It's it's up is going to be about 56 or 57 feet away from the property line. >> 57. And do we have a a property line setback for that fall? >> It's it's in compliance.
>> It's in compliance. >> Thank you. >> It's actually shown I think it's on the Z1 architectural. This is a soil plan. Seems like everything is in appliance. Height, size. >> Yeah. >> Make it easy for us. >> Yeah.
>> That's okay. Anybody else on the board? >> Okay. We'll open it up to public. >> No public. No public. >> There is no public that I >> There is no public. So, we will close it
to the public. And uh if anybody has any other you have another uh witness or no >> I don't think we need the architect is available if there's any questions about the building. >> Any questions? >> No. >> I have one more question. Is this a one
one story or twotory building though? one story >> that means >> it just has it just has an attic space her mechanical and then the living space is I see people >> I'm sorry I'm sorry about that who said that
>> me >> was that Jeff >> no who's who said it was one story did >> the engineer >> the owner >> the engineer >> the owner >> oh the owner did. Okay, he was sworn. So, thank you. Uh, yes. So, everything
is in order. If the board is ready, it would be a motion to approve the conditional use site plan for an accessory dwelling unit on the Toransky property as described this evening, subject to the standard conditions, sub
subject to Paul and Frank's reports, and subject to the conditions discussed and offered this evening. Uh, the limit of disturbance shall be marked in the field. That was number one. Uh they'll also u complete the um expansion of the
septic system in accordance with the board of health approval uh prior to the co for the accessory dwelling unit. They'll obtain a township soil movement permit uh prior to starting work. Um all constru next condition all construction
access shall be via the uh existing driveway to the principal residence. Um, and that's all I had. Uh, Madam Chairman, >> Tom, just a quick question on the um the no rents and
>> Yes, that's in the ordinance. >> That's in the ordinance. So, how is that? And and this may be just a general question. How is that enforced um >> going forward?
>> It it it is an ordinance that applies. U sometimes we've asked people to put a deed restriction. Um that might be a good idea here, but it is um something that requires um self self enforcement and uh honesty
by people. Would you like to add a deed restriction that Mr. Turansky will record? It it's just uh you know just it's just a remark based on um the planning uh
comments and just curious to see that if when you have pre-existing ADUs before the ordinance then they can be rented out but um when ADUs are constructed um after the adoption of that ordinance
then that no rent provision comes in and I'm just >> practical measure. Yeah. >> And and I I understand the policy, but I'm just wondering how you enforce that. >> Yeah. It's it's hard to enforce. I can tell you the the the part about the pre-existing ones being able to continue
was the fact that there were many many pre-existing accessory dwelling units that were rented >> and the idea was not to take those uh rights away. And the the tax assessor actually has documentation on which ones pre-existing.
But it is it is certainly an enforcement problem. Um, usually you can tell when it comes up on a realtor listing that there's a problem with the rent. >> Yeah, but without uh without a deed restriction. I'm just I mean >> yeah I mean the ordinance violation but
then >> but even with even with a deed restriction they can still >> right >> you know to a certain extent it's you know like Tom says it's a bit self- enforcing you know and if there's a deed restriction what all that does is give a
future buyer notice future buyer would also have notice of this resolution that says >> no deed know is a little more yeah you know it's a little more apparent than a Right. >> Than a resolution of approval that no one's ever going to look at again after
the CO's issued. >> Right. Yeah. It doesn't it doesn't make any difference to me. I understand the issue. >> I think that the deed notice is more for future buyers >> than it is >> That's right. >> Yeah. But then then the future buyer
knows that, hey, you know, I got this second >> I got this second um dwelling on the property. you know, but it's rented out as a as carriage house or something else, it's in the deed, it runs with the land,
then you know, that's a little more sort of glaring um prohibition. Then once again, buried into a resolution approval that once again the CS and I'm not saying this as a policy
issue. I'm just saying that, you know, it's obviously in our in our books now. There's just I just don't see realistically strong way to enforce it. >> Is it worthwhile asking? >> My my commentary is over.
>> Notice doesn't really help our enforcement though. it. No, but it just gives for the future owner that they should not be assessing that or a bank should not be assessing, hey, we're going to build that into uh the equation for, you know, issuing
mortgage on the property. >> I think it's a good idea. >> Is it is it would you be willing to do that or I don't think it's a good idea. I think it's an extra burden on this gentleman here. He wasn't told about it until right now.
>> Well, he was told about it because it's in the uh the comments from the planner >> about the no rental. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We just we just >> but but not about but not about a deed restriction. >> He was told and he knows he wasn't told
that you're going to have to put a deed restriction in. That's just my thought. >> Okay. I just have another comment. I think the bigger problem, we saw this with a a one family house that was turned into two family, is that it's
marketed by real estate brokers as a as a rentable income or, you know, an accessory home that could be used. And that's where the real problem is because we had the situation on Summerville Road where that one family was turned into two family, who knows when, and then it
was sold as a two. >> Yeah. And once again, look, that that's the difference between putting a deed notice in that if it's in the deed notice, then >> it's apparent to anyone and everyone who's going to be looking at it. >> Once again, I I from a policy
standpoint, the distinction between having no rents, I can understand that, you know, uh, and when did that ordinance come in? Do you know? I I don't remember the year, but it's many years ago.
>> Almost 25 years ago, I think. >> It's got to be a long time. >> I mean, has there been a problem? >> Is there any specific issues that you can point to that it's been a problem? >> Let me ask you this question. And I'm
sorry to interrupt, George, but I'm just trying to think of a process. You know, the word deed restrictions make pe make the hair on the back of people's neck stand up. Is it possible to record the resolution as a notice with the deed?
>> Yes. Yes, that is that is common and actually is recommended and is you know an attorney doing land use would know that that is be expected when an approval takes place because
although arguably everybody in the world should be looking at all resolutions relating to the property they buy, people act dumb and act like they don't know even though they are technically charged with the duty to know about the
resolutions that apply. A deed notice is recommended as a way to give the purchaser who does an a title search an awareness of the restriction
coming from the approval and this is a requirement of an ordinance. So it is it is clearly known to people that you must not charge rent. So that's called a deed notice and what
it means is that the resolution gets recorded with the deed with a deed before the co is issued. Very common. Um you've done it a few times for some some situations. I can't remember if you did
one for an accessory dwelling unit, but you might have. And uh I just can't remember the particulars when we've required a deed notice, but it is it is common and I don't agree with the case law, but the case law is basically says that's the
only way to give notice. >> So once again, on a policy standpoint, I mean, I don't know necessarily what the policy was behind that old ordinance. Um, and and I'm not saying that I agree with
having that in there, the difference between having uh, you know, have to go back 20 years ago if that was Mattelski era or or something else. Um, you know, the the intent may have been
to preclude certainly was precluding uh, looking at ADUs as investment versus, hey, we're going to build an ADU for the mother-in-law, for the mother, for the kids. Uh, we've seen it for the nurse,
and then, you know, you go there, okay, >> in five, six, 10 years, it may not be a mother-in-law situation, right? or for the larger properties and and the one it's uh contemplates um for people working
uh the farm the farm hands uh other agricultural workers right that's sort of built in there uh but what is the difference and and maybe this is something we the planning board takes up
separately uh but right now we have an ordinance that says that I'm not looking to I it just and this is why I'm not asking Mr. Transky to agree to a deed notice. I'm just asking the question, how is this enforced? And most likely it's not.
>> It's very very hard to actively enforce it. >> Yeah, you have to sit there and you'd have to monitor uh Airbnb, VBO, all the listings, >> you know, and I can do it. I see some
circumstances where the owner has to submit a certification every year that they're not renting the property, you know, but that requires more management, more tracking, more >> Yeah. >> reminding the people they have to do it >> and not necessarily, you know, once
again process. I think maybe what you're talking about is the bigger picture of >> should that no rental be in the ordinance. >> Yeah. Yes. That's >> which is really I think the point you're getting >> and that's
>> well another way to look at it though is I do think it was based on a policy of not encouraging it as an investment property but encouraging it as um or relatives or workers but not charging
rent for it. and that maybe what you'd rather do is just not allow them because if you're concerned that there's too many of them or you're encouraging them, then you would best be just to remove the entire uh conditional use,
let people apply for >> So that's why I I don't know what was there. This is probably, you know, if Frank was here, Frank, you know, wait. >> Yeah. Well, the if if you if you look at it, you'll see that the 14 acres was sort of developed as a way to um
distinguish it from the minimum 10acre lot, but to recognize that a large tract of at least 14 uh with potential potentially two septic systems or in this case an approved expansion of one um would be an appropriate additional
use of the 14 acre plus parcels. I'm envisioning that there there might be more big there might even be much bigger parcels but they only get one. >> The 14 acres standard came in after the original accessory dwelling unit.
Originally, I believe that line said 10 acres and it was increased 14 in recognition of um some nitrate dilution standards as on the property which is why it was kicked up to 14 minimum 10 which the 10 acre zone was based on
nitrate dilution. So that's why the the 14 acres was put in there. a couple of the other conditions like the um within 150 feet the same driveway, those were later added on years years later.
>> To the issue of uh whether or not there's been a problem, I mean, if you're putting whether you're putting one or two or three or four people into an ADU, that's not necessarily subject to the ordinance, right? Um, and whether
the burden to the community is greater with Mr. Kansky's mother-in-law or to Walter's mother-in-law, >> it would be mine. Yeah. >> So, I mean, I just I I just, you know,
from a policy standpoint, I just, you know, I I I see that in Frank's comment. And a I think it's difficult to enforce and I don't necessarily know that, you know, whether it's Mr. Transky's mother-in-law or
someone else living there that it really has a >> Yeah. And I and and those were some of the discussions that were had when this was originally done. And the idea was to recognize that these existed, allow them
on the farm agricultural properties in the western part of town, but not but try to control them and reign in. But as with any or every ordinance, as the board knows, you live with these things over time and sometimes you change them because times change. Because now there
is back back when this was done, mother-in-laws weren't living. These were four people who worked on the farm. >> Exactly. >> You know, now it's mother-in-laws. Now it's extended families. >> But in a couple years, >> in a couple years, >> if it's your mother-in-law, it may not be your mother-in-law. And and that's a
different situation. Once again, without knowing the policy behind the ordinance and whether that policy is >> the policy was not to have the >> as investments >> as investment and revenue producing units on these larger properties,
>> but the one that was um off of Spooka, right? Uh that was for nurse. >> It was I thought that was all potter. It was all that was so >> yeah but you know some circum
>> at some point >> circumstances >> circumstances change. You're right. >> And then rebuilding or you putting someone in for free or it it's I don't so sorry to uh to bother you as you run through this policy issue, but this is um you know
sort of uh I mean I I think Tom's solution to uh put the resolution with the deed and it's part of the permission we're giving
the conditional well permission we're giving you. It says you're not supposed to rent it out. So, as opposed to a deed restriction. Well, it that is a deed restriction. >> Well, but it's not a deed. It's >> No, no, it's not a deed restriction. It
what it is a deed notice. >> It's a deed. There is a >> it's a deed and you use it for that. That's >> And I think that's that's right. But that's >> to me that seems reasonable, >> right? >> It's not a workound. It's the same thing.
>> Yeah. It's just it's just notice to the world that that's the basis of the approval and and it doesn't mean you can't change it. It means it mean what it means is you a buyer from this property of this property are
also subject to that and if you seek to change it you have to go back to the board to amend the resolution to get relief from the condition and because it's an ordinance of a conditional use condition of a conditional use that
means it would trigger a use variance to amend that condition. So whereas a deed restriction, the difference is a deed restriction, this gets kind of complicated, but I'll try to do it quickly. A deed restriction would say something like this. It would say uh
this property is subject to a deed restriction that it shall comply with all the conditions of the conditional use, including the condition that you shall not rent the unit for rent. Uh this restrictions, >> this Tom, I'm going to disagree with you. Um this I am very familiar with
this. I'm very familiar with this is what this is what I do for a living for 50 years. So basically if you say and then you when it listen to this a deed restriction that's enforceable a little bit more enforceable than a than a deed notice is a statement that these deed restrictions are enforcable by the
township of Bedminster as a third party beneficiary that grants deed restrictiona enforcement rights to the to a township. I'm not recommending that here, but it could be done and that is a deed restriction, not a deed notice.
That is the difference. The appellet division has said that deed notices should be done for situations like this. Deed notices being not necessarily deed restrictions. They're noticing the world, which I don't think you need to
do because actually it's in a book. This resolution is going to be in the records of the township of Peepminster which are valid forever and which are enforcable forever technically, but the appellet division says the notices are the way to let the world know about that. I think
that's the wrong ruling by the appellet division, but that was their ruling. And so >> if you would like, >> so any >> if you would like it if you would like to be more enforcable or to be known to the third party, which I think is already known because it's already
public record and it is the resolution, you would you would it's called a deed notice and you record the resolution with a deed noticing of that of that resolution. That is not the same. That is not a deed restriction enforceable by the township. That is enforceable by
zoning. >> Just the township. >> So Tom, I hear you and uh I still disagree with you. >> Absolutely. But we're not attorney. >> We're not we're not we're not going to keep going on it. >> So um
>> so is is it that the resolution is recorded? I think it's already part of the public record. I don't think it gets us anything other than if the current applicant sells the property and the new owner comes in and
says, "I had no idea." And we're going to have the same conversation we had a year ago when we said, "Well, you should have known because it's in the public record. It's not our problem." Right? Like I don't think it gets us anything else. Well, I think longterm we have to have a policy issue about whether or not
whether or not that ordinance whether we still need that. Can >> rather than a deed notice or deed restriction, can we just put a comment or aster or something like that an extra sentence in the resolution saying that the person agrees and understands that
it's not >> it's already in the resolution. >> It's going to be there. >> It's already there. >> Okay. >> Yeah. It's it's actually an ordinance. This is this isn't This isn't just a condition of a resolution. This is an ordinance.
Everyone who uses that accessory dwelling unit going forward is subject to this ordinance. So, I think we're we're worried about something that is not a real issue. You know, you have a violator, you you give
them a zoning violation >> if you ever find it. >> If you find it >> and you'll never >> Yeah, but but that's >> Well, no. You you'll know. You'll know you'll know from the real estate brokers real estate brokers advertisements will tell will hint to the zoning officer
that somebody's violating it and you'll give them a summon and they'll have to come in and explain to municipal judge. >> All right. So, a motion. So, we we we put a motion out there. >> Yeah. If you if you move it as as it is,
it doesn't have a deed notice. So, if you So, the mo is there a motion and a second? I'll move the motion as it was previously before this right >> for this conversation >> before this conversation was proposed.
>> Tim Walter second >> Mayor Jacobs. >> Hi Hickeyi. >> Hi >> Mr. Walter. Hi >> Mr. Orbana. >> Hi >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi >> Mr. Odius. >> Hi >> Mr. Dini. >> Hi. >> Chairwoman Ga. >> Hi. >> Congratulations and good luck. Sorry to
put you through the policy, but uh but we we look we look at these applications as examples of ordinances and policies that a reason way back when and may no longer be pertinent. >> Makes sense.
>> Oh, >> sorry. He's the only person who actually is here in the office. It happens constantly that someone comes in and says, "Well, when I bought the house, that's not what the realtor said." Yes, the realtor's word is God. >> That's what I said. >> And we always say, "Well, files are
here. You could have come in and looked. You didn't do your due diligence. Sorry. It's not >> you're not allowed to use it for that." >> And that isn't that a good reason then >> to do Tom's notice because then wouldn't a title
search pick that up? >> Yeah, but it But we're still in the same problem. >> You're good. Get up. >> You're ad picks it up. Then at least >> you get your client out of here quickly
before the buyer would know. >> Yeah. But the buyers could still say the same thing. >> Yeah. Like honestly, like I don't >> the the buyer's more likely to if it's a deed notice, they're more likely to see >> they're going to come in and say the
same thing when when they get caught. >> But when it's meant when it's in their title report, that's different than sitting in the land use it. >> But yeah, but we also don't care. >> But that's the larger issue that then why do we have this ordinance? And one
of the things that I'm going to get into now, which is I'm going to ask the township committee to look at things that don't make sense. >> I agree. anymore. And that's going to involve the sign restrictions and some
other elements that affect this board because I think that we've seen uh from applicants and from uh some of the property owners that we've got some antiquated
positions that need to be changed. >> Makes sense. I have always thought that these sorts of ADU non-renal restrictions were a little wonky and especially now when we're talking about 14 acres and the kinds of homes that are being built on them, a thousand square
foot rental unit is not enough to >> right and and do we care if it's his mother that he's or mother-in-law or if it's tents, you know, >> here's the one of the things that exists today when this was never around when
this thing was conceived. Somebody puts this up as an Airbnb. >> Oh yeah, >> that's rental. >> They're doing it all the time. >> You know, and what do you do? And we had an Airbnb in town where it was for a tent in somebody's backyard. Stop. >> Wow. >> I put Airbnb in my guest room.
>> We've seen >> It was on Somerville Road. >> We've seen the Airbnb. >> Oh, yes. >> In even worse situations. And I've unfortunately had the experience of seeing it. No bathroom. >> Oh,
>> yeah. >> Amazing. >> Yeah. >> There's a horse wash station. Come on. There's a horse wash station downstairs. >> One of those places with no windows, right? >> Yes. >> Oh, boy. >> So, so I I think there's certainly merit to looking at this again because the whole concept of an ADU is different
than it was Yeah. 25 years ago. >> Look, we we know that there's been um Airbnb and temporary rentals that you have issues in the hills. We have um but that's in the hills. It's a little bit different when you're sitting on 14 plus
acres. >> Who cares? Who cares who's in there, right? The property owner should care. Um and that's about it. Maybe the neighbors. >> Yeah. >> Whether it's once again someone living there rent free or not rent free. What's
what's the impact to the community? >> Well, it's always going to come down to enforcement. No matter what you do, you know, they they can do it. But I think I mean I just >> Right. But why have the rule if if nobody cares? >> Nobody cares and and it's difficult to enforce. Why have the rule
have the rule? >> I thought he said it. If you look at the size of this, it's almost self-regulating. >> The size of these units. >> That's true. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I just went through have a deep restriction. The only thing is you're
going to you you know the more you open up the doors to what is effectively uh two family use of lots the more you encourage people to do it
in other ways illegally too. So you have to if you are going to allow accessory dwelling units but you're not going to have conditions that help minimize it. you're actually opening up doors to potential
multifamily or duplex use of large structures. And so you have to sort of balance this policy. But so you know and and think about the consequences. There's also there is a way I'm not
saying you should do it in Bedminster, but there is a way to try to get credit in Mount Laurel for accessory dwelling units, but they must be dee deed restricted to be affirmatively marketed for affordable housing uh families or uh
you know use only by families who are does it you know proven to be uh lower low very low or moderate income, which can be creditw worthy by the municipality for the municipality. We
don't need that. Uh so I and it's not a very easy thing to do. It's actually very hard to get through and it's very hard to get people to put that feed restriction in and to get them to comply with it is even more difficult than what
we're talking about now. So, just be aware, you know, maybe the simplest thing is just don't allow accessory dwelling units. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, >> don't allow short-term rentals, >> right? That if you there's a lease, they're need >> Well, why why do you want them?
>> The ignorance that says every time upon a lease termination, lease renewal, they're supposed to come back in for fire inspections and everything else, >> which should be a way of uh addressing that. And for a while we were um we did
have our zoning officer check Airbnb listings and yeah we were seeing them. Um now we don't see them as much but I'm sure they're still out there. >> Enforcement. >> Yeah.
>> Anyway, >> anyway, >> happy new year. >> Happy new year. Anything on the board anybody would like to talk about or >> Yeah. >> No, >> no, that >> that's it. You covered it. >> Happy New Year.
>> Okay. >> We have a full slate. >> Yeah, we do. >> Uh February 5th is Tesla. February 12th is Somerset Airport. March 5th will now be uh AT&T. And we have um some others that haven't
come in yet. >> Krie is expected to >> What are they doing? >> I don't know. They got calling today. >> The engineer >> also fiddlers. >> Fiddler. >> Fiddler. >> Yeah, Fiddler's supposed to be coming
in. I thought they were supposed to be coming in. >> Yeah. So, we you know, so we've got first the next three meetings booked and we definitely have other people that are Yeah, I asked K to give me a heads up.
>> Right. Right. >> Okay. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? >> So moved. Second. >> All in favor? >> I I >> All right. I'll see you. Are we >> Good night, everybody. >> Good night, Tom. >> Do we have next week? There is no next
week. >> Yeah. Yeah. Sure.