Hello, >> Mayor Jacobs. >> I am here. >> Mr. Walter Hen, >> Miss Orbana, >> here. >> Mr. Leonard, >> here. >> Mr. Rodelius, >> present. >> Mr. Gini, >> here. >> Mr. Wild >> here. >> Chairwoman Gacha, >> I'm here. Adequate notice of this
meeting of the Bedminster Township land use board was filed with the township clerk sent to the Bernardsville News and the Courier News and to all subscribers and posted at Township Municipal Building 1 Miller Lanester, New Jersey on January 9th, 2026.
Stand to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nationisible and justice for all. >> You okay? You all right? Did we say that? >> Yeah, >> we did.
>> I did. >> Before the >> Yeah, it's before the flag. I missed it. I guess I was out. Okay. Um, I'll open it up to the public for anything that is not on the agenda, comments or questions.
Anybody online? Janine? Uh, there are people online. Yep. So, if you have a comment that is in regards to anything not on the agenda tonight, you can either unmute yourself, you can raise your hand um to start to speak. But
again, for anything not on the agenda, >> no. Okay, we'll close it to the public for now. Um, we have um a letter from Robin Ray at Minster Township Municipal Clerk
regarding the adoption of the ordinance 2026-004. >> Yes. Which the mayor told us about last week on the agenda. >> Yep. Thank you. Okay. We have a determination of completeness for bed one. Paul.
>> Yeah. Yes, madam chairman. This is for modifications to the site previously two previously approved KR site plan for bid one. Um they submitted all the documentation. There are a couple of waiverss I identified in my letter. I
have no issues with those letters. It's my recommendation the application be deemed complete. >> Okay. >> We need a motion. >> Yes. >> Yes. Make a motion to deem the matter complete.
>> Anybody move second Jacobs? >> I believe with the >> it will be a D variance. So not >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Mr. Walter. Hi. >> Mr. Arana. Hi. Mr. Leonard. Hi. Mr.
Rodelius. Hi. Mr. Diny. Hi. Mr. Wild. Hi. Chairwoman. Hi. Motion is approved. It's >> my understanding they're looking for the second meeting in May. >> May first
not >> Okay. >> All right. We can continue with the summer step service. For the record again, my name is Christopher Quinn here on behalf of the applicant. Um, where we left off at the
last meeting, we presented uh our engineering testimony. there was some additional uh wrap up we needed with respect to that as as a result of Mr. Burrow's review letter. So the engineers met and discussed some of the points from that review letter with him and
then we can discuss that tonight and then we'll also go into our planning. I think that's pretty much the extent of this where we are in terms of project. Uh if there's any no further question we can just get started right. >> Okay. >> Okay. Again Mr. Kenny's here. >> Good evening.
>> Hi. I'm still under oath. I understand. >> You are. >> Excellent. All right. So, I'll just give a quick overview of where we left off the last hearing last month. Um, as we talked about with my testimony and then the other two
witnesses, airports existed since 1946, the three runways. Uh, the discussion about the need for additional hanger space at the airport. uh new buildings for the or new buildings for the improved maintenance facility uh for
more modern planes. Uh limited areas for expansion due to the configuration of the runways, circulation of the existing development areas, and then also the safety standards for runways and taxi. The proposal is to remove eight smaller
hangers that are on the property right now and replace with five new hanger buildings. uh a center area which was three hanger spaces in one building. The east side with 14 hanger spaces and two buildings and the south side of the
airport with five hanger spaces and two level five buildings. New maintenance facilities on the west side of property. There's no expansion or changes to the runway. existing airplane hangers, 80 that's on
the property today. With the new airplane hangers, what's being removed and what's being added, it's a total of 94. So, the delta we're talking about is 14 hanger spaces. The delta between existing and what's being proposed.
Since our last meeting, we met with the glassman design team met with Paul Ferrar and his staff to review the drainage reports. There was a fair amount of comments on very specific items in storm water management which we're all dealing with with the 19 or
2023 regulation changes. We agreed on the analysis points. We reviewed the draft results that we had with those analysis points. We came to the conclusion that we can comply with the comments in the review letters. a lot of details to the actual uh the
calculations themselves, the detailed calculations, but we had a payout at the end that the plans can comply with the municipal and state standards and that's for recharge. That's for water quality and that's for peak rate reductions that
are required. What it includes is five smallcale bio retention basins with under drains, one small scale bio retention basin with infiltration and then two areas that have pvious pavement systems that were there constructing all
um of those uh eight systems uh will be able to comply with the standards. So we're comfortable with that that we can make that work. As far as the plane and the zoning and we'll go through that and the variance that's required for
this application. We are in the R10 zone. The use of the airport is permitted as a conditional use. There are two conditions according to 13601.3. The maximum runway length of 3,000
linear feet. We under that 2700 change. and it needs to be on a specifically existing block 61 lot six and we comply with that. So the two conditions in the standards are met. The other zoning requirements for
setbacks building coverage are all met other than some pre-existing setbacks that we talked about at the last meeting for some side setbacks for pre-existing buildings that are not changing. The only due variance is created by the lock coverage standards and the request for
that relief for a maximum lock coverage in the zone of 10%. And we are at 10.62%. The existing coverage itself is at 9.26%. And as I said, we're going to 10.62%.
So it's an increase of 1.3%. When we did the research, what we did notice in the 1993 resolution, the lot coverage was approved at 9.9%. Uh there's actually lot coverage that's been removed from this site um in the last about five years, maybe to 10 years
of different runway areas or taxiways that were able to be more efficient in removal some of that water coverage that was originally approved, constructed, and then since uh removed. There's also two design waivers, one for curbing along the driveways in the
parking area. That's consistent with previous design waiverss that have been approved for this property in in um previous approvals. And then a design waiver on the tree replacement. Uh we obviously uh cannot be planting trees around the runways, the taxi ways.
There's very limited standards on that. But as I testified at the last meeting, there are significant areas that are wooded on the property. There's an active woodland management plan that includes significant replanting in the woodland management plan and we'll continue to do that on this property
with the tree removal that's being proposed. But we cannot plant trees in those safety areas around not only the runway, the taxiways, but the buildings themselves. As Steve Parker testified at the last meeting, the business started in 1946.
It's a small airport. It'll always be a small airport as he testified. 30 years since the last expansion of the hanger space that was in uh 199394 that was approved by this board for additional hanger space that was there.
As you heard in the testimony from both other witnesses, planes are more sophisticated, more expensive, less desirable to leave outside. Large investments for owners. Sub wings spans are slightly larger and need wider hangers that can't fit in the existing
hangers that are here. Now, more hangers are needed to accommodate the demand on the current um uh uh airplanes that are based there. We heard about security of the airplanes. FA recommendation of a two lock system instead of one lock.
Lock on the plane, lock in the building. A two lock system as opposed to one lock with it being outside. Maintenance. You heard about planes being more complicated. Uh need better facilities for the program, need better facilities for the flight school,
working in too small of a space, and the building that is proposed for the maintenance is farther away and is actually away from the density along airport road and the Bridgewater board. The options to provide additional hangers and maintenance buildings is
limited based on the configuration of the three runways. The configuration of the existing circulation both vehicle circulation as well as airplane circulation. You saw in the proposal that we created a series of four pockets of improvements basically east, west, north and south
for these improvements. You saw on the north side it's a remote building that requires additional circulation. We have to go around the runways around safety areas. We can't go across the runway with a driveway, but we can't go across the runway with taxi way. So, we have to go around. That increases um impervious
coverage to the site. And we provided in areas that we could provide buildings made it most efficient. Building U is an existing area circulation that we're able to put right in I'll say the parking area that is there today. So,
we're able to renew some space and put the building there. So, there's no change to our coverage there. other areas as I said on the north side where we have the um maintenance building proposed that has additional
lot coverage uh due to the fact that we have the driveway and the taxi way that had to be added. We also have parking that we can't share. It's too remote. So the parking needs to be satisfied itself to your standards there either 16 or 19 parking spaces that
all these conditions cause an increase in lot coverage to the 10.6 62%. Our opinion is the variance doesn't change the character or the operation of the airport. Not increasing the capacity, not increasing the usage. As we talked about the last meeting, the
runways control the uses. No change to the runway service. 30 years ago approval for 80 hangers and also in that approval was a very specific requirement that was agreed to by the applicant and this planning group
was 150 tie downs a max. So 80 hanger space plus 150 tie downs and that limitation was for five years only five years in the negotiation with this board and the applicant at that time the owner at that time. So again, if you add that
up, that's over 230 hanger spaces that could be either in the buildings or tie downs on the property itself. We're nowhere near that number testimony. Nowhere, you know, planning on anywhere near those numbers at all. So usage or intensity use may have been high in the
past. I don't know that. But the point is is this board approved up to 80 hanger spaces inside buildings and then an additional 150 tie downs for a maximum up to five years. Um,
as you heard at the last meeting, moving the hang or planes into the hangers reduces noise impact, reduces visual impact, uh, more activity within buildings as opposed to out on the site itself. So we look at those standards or those
conditions not those standards and apply it to the municipal land use law and the relief for the justification under 4055D70 C2 the flexible city and we'll talk about 4055D7C1 which is um a hardship. We'll talk about
both of those as meeting some standards with this specific application. The first thing on the C2 standard is it needs to relate to a specific piece of property. Well, obviously this property is unique. It's 200 acres. It's only for the airport. It's been the airport since
1946. It's not applied anywhere generally over the town. The conditions of the condition use are specific just to this block. So, it's very specific to meet that criteria. The next element is of a C2 variance is
the per purposes of the municipal land use law needs to be advanced by this and I'll point to a couple of the standards in 4055D2. The first one a is to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use development of allians
in the state in a manner that will be promote public health safety morals and general welfare. Section E is currently establish appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the wellbeing of persons, neighborhoods, community regions and G to promote
sufficient space of appropriate locations for the variety of agricultural, residential, commercial and industrial uses to meet all the needs of the New Jersey citizens. In doing this and preparing for it, I looked at the New Jersey recently adopted New Jersey state development and
redevelopment plan and simple as the questions of what does it say about airports and it says that the redevelopment plan from the state of New Jersey emphasizes enhancing airport infrastructure to support economic expansion and regional connectivity.
Right? And it's specific in one of the studies about smaller airports promoting them to continue in the state and not lose those smaller airports in the state of we have to show that the benefits of the deviation with substantially outlining
detriments again improve visual uh improve noise impacts improve security and safety itself. When I look at the C1 standards, um the the unique shape of how the property was developed, the three different runways,
the triangles that they're created for those, it limits the ability to actually build new infrastructure on the property. And again, as I stated previously, it spreads it out and it can't be concentrated in just one area
that we could put all the hangers in one area on the project. If we're able to do that, we can make it more efficient and likely get under that requirement of with this plan under the requirement of the tempers. But because we have these more, I'll say remote areas north and
south primarily on the property that causes uh additional lot coverage. Public benefits, general aviation is open to the public. Okay. Changes to the complexity. airplanes are needed for garaging those spaces. Uh will allow
obviously for less storage outside, more storage inside. When we look at the negative criteria, no substantial detriment to the public good. And we look at what's the effect to the surrounding properties. There's no increase in the run length, no increase
to the general air um I'll say traffic associated with this. Um we clearly are improving storm water management not only for the new impervious coverage but many of those areas that are not treated
right now will drain into the storm water management features as well to get an enhanced benefit beyond just the new impervious covers that's being proposed. We're using new techniques such as porous pavement by retention planting material for water quality that are all
part of those management standards. What we look at no substantial impairment to the intent purpose of the zone plan and the zone ordinance in 2003 is when your master plan was rewritten. That's the majority of your master plan as a whole. You've done a lot of updates
for sidewalk, a lot of updates for your affordable housing plan, but as far as the whole community itself, the last update was in 2003. And it recognizes this property as a general aviation service airport designed to serve smaller gener general aviation aircraft
for businesses and pleasure since 1946. The master plan goal was to regulate airports, not to induce growth in the countryside. That's the word you're using, reduce growth, not to the country. Sorry. And we believe this plan, even though we're asking for the relief on the lot coverage, does not
induce additional growth into the countryside. It's around the airport itself. It's not going to other properties. It's not going to environmental strain areas. It's staying within the general development area that is on that property today. So, our conclusion with this is that the large
cover variance can be granted without any impact to the zone plan, the ordinance. that does not cause an increase in the usage of the airport as testified by the owner earlier. So I believe that this board can look favorably upon the relief that we're
asking for for the 10.6% on the >> I have no further questions. >> Well done. >> Uh Paul, are you satisfied? >> Yeah. I if you remember at the last meeting I raised the issue about the
restrictions on the tie downs and I looked at the same resolution that Ron did and it was a restriction but it did expire five years after that approval. So close to 20 years ago that restrict expired close to 30 years. Can we hear you?
>> It's a picture. >> There you go. >> You're mute. >> You're on mute. >> Unmute. >> This gets harder. This gets harder every year. I don't know what's going on, >> actually. Um, I think that was fairly compelling
testimony and I don't think there's anything I would criticize about what Ron just said. He did a pretty thorough explanation of particularity of the site and the purposes of the land use law and the reasons for the variance. So, I don't really have anything to add to that. He turned out to be a pretty good
planner after all, like like Ferrari, you know. >> Okay, board. Anybody have any questions or no? Okay, we'll open it up to the public
have anything to say or ask Mr. Kennedy. >> And this can be you might as well make a questions and comments too, Madam Chairman. >> Okay. So again, if you're in the meeting room, you can come up to the mic. I moved the podium over so we could use the good mic. or if you're online, you can unmute
yourself, raise your hand. Tom is going to need to swear you in. So, just, you know, let's do one at a time, but let us know if you're interested in making a comment or have a question. >> Uh, mayor headquarters, you have your hand raised. Do you want to go first?
>> Uh, sure. Thank you. Yeah. Good evening. My name is Mara Tippet. I'm speaking >> Mara. Please, please raise your right hand. >> Yes. Do you swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you God. >> I do. >> And please uh spell your last name and
give us at least a business address. >> Sure. It's Tippet. T I P E T. First name M A R A Mara. Raritin Headarters Association. We're located at 2121 Larger Crossroad, Bedminster, New
Jersey. >> Thank you. >> Sure. Um, so thank you for allowing me to uh to to provide some comments this evening. I I am speaking on behalf of of RHA. Um, we appreciate the board's careful review of this application and
and would like to just highlight some environmental and planning concerns. Um, so so first the board is required to determine whether the benefits of the proposal outweigh the detriments. Um, it seems in this case the primary benefit appears to be convenience for airport
users by moving aircraft indoors. That benefit must be weighed against the potential long-term impacts to water quality, flooding, and habitat in a sensitive headarters area of the North Branch Ritton wershed. The applicant is seeking a variance to exceed the 10% lot
coverage limit proposing 10.62% and that limit exists for a reason. In headwater areas like this, even small increases in impervious surface can alter runoff patterns and reduce groundwater recharge and increase pollutant loading in nearby streams. And these lands play a very
important role in protecting drinking water for downstream communities. Um the proposal relies on porous pavement and bio retention basins to mitigate the additional coverage. And while these systems can work under the right conditions, their effectiveness really depends heavily on soil conditions and
ongoing maintenance. And testimony indicates that the soils in the site are not ideal for infiltration and that there may be seasonal high water table and in those conditions porous pavement can fail to become clo can fail or become clogged effectively functioning like standard pavement and increasing
runoff into nearby waterways. The concern is compounded by the applicant's request for a waiver from providing water level elevation data for surface waters and wetlands within 200 feet of the property. And without this information, the board can't determine whether the proposed storm water systems will function properly relative to the
water table. This is a fundamental piece of engineering information for a site in a river corridor. Um, there also flood risk considerations. The end of the runway already lies within the FEMA 1% annual flood risk zone and within the FEMA plus three flood elevation standard required under New Jerseys inland flood
protection rules. And these rules were adopted to address increasing storm intensity and flood risks. And adding additional impervious um within this flood risk framework warrants very careful scrutiny. Um and while the nearby waterway is not designated as a
category one, it's still part of the north branch and wershed which supplies drinking water uh to millions of New Jersey residents. Uh the township's environmental protections and impervious cover limits exist to safeguard these headwater areas. They're also important wildlife consideration. The property
contains two documented bald eagle nests and the surrounding forest and river corridor provide critical habitat for these protected birds and increased development and lighting and activity in close proximity to these nesting areas raises legitimate concerns. Um, several
requested waiverss also deserve close attention. The applicant is requesting relief from preparing a formal landscaping plan. um instead proposing to rely on the forestry management plan and and the forestry plans will address forest health, but they don't replace the purpose of sight specific
landscaping designed to provide buffers and native plantings and mitigation of development impacts. There's also a waiver regarding outdoor lighting details and while the FAA safety standards must be met, local boards typically review lighting to minimize spillover effects on surrounding
habitats and nearby residents. And finally, the applicant is requesting relief from providing performance guarantees for the improvements at this stage. And because the proposal relies so heavily on these specialized storm water systems such as porous pavement, it's important that the township have
financial assurance that these systems will be properly constructed and maintained. Um the applicant characterizes the project as a modernization uh that will not intensify operations. The construction of a 12,000 square foot administrative and maintenance facility and expanded
parking raises legitimate concerns about whether the nature, scale, or intensity of the airport's operations could change over time. Um, so even if the number of based aircraft remains the same, expanded facilities and services may enable more frequent activity in different types of air aircraft
operations, which could present an intensification of the existing use. So the board must consider as I'm sure you are the cumulative impact of the requested variance and waivers. Their proposal exceeds the established lot coverage limit and relies on storm water
systems that performance is uncertain given the soil condition and seeks waiverss for important environmental data and site protections. Um, taken together, these factors raise concerns about whether the application satisfies the negative criteria required for granting a variance, which requires that
the deviation not create a substantial detriment to the public good. So, we respectfully urge the board to proceed cautiously and ensure that any decision fully protects the watershed, wildlife, habitat, and environmental goals established in the township's planning framework. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Madam Chair. If I can, I would just because and I'm only saying this not to advocate for the client, but just to provide some clarifications on the waivers that were requested because there were waiverss requested for completeness and I did that completeness
review and made some certain recommendations. The first waiver that was discussed was the waiver from providing water surface elevations in surrounding wetlands and stream corridors that I recommended that waiver and frankly that waiver has little to do
with groundwater elevations. So it's the elevations in the river um at ponds and those sorts of things that that really do not impact the areas of development. There is a requirement that there be uh soil testing done to
establish groundwater elevations. Uh these there were a number of comments in my stormwater review about additional uh geotechnical and soil testing work that needed to be completed. We discussed that with uh the Gladstone team when we
talked about storm water and they've agreed to do additional testing and and get that. I can I've had this conversation at least twice today where virtually every application that comes in has insufficient soils work and the
reason why that is is because soil testing is done the site is designed and then there are changes to the site and additional soils work is required and then there are comments and there it's it's effectively uh a loop and eventually you know you
have to come to a design level where you can do that additional testing. You do have to do additional soil testing out there to demonstrate the groundwater elevations. Uh those groundwater elevations have to be a minimum of 2 ft below certain types of storm water BMPs.
We're going to be looking at that very carefully. Uh so that is absolutely something we're going to look at. There was also a waiver requested for a site lighting plan. And if you recall, the initial waiver request was saying, well, all the all the lighting is is dictated
by the FAA and controlled by the FAA. Through the the last hearing and additional comments based in the review letter, they have provide provided lighting and testimony as it relates to the lights on the site. And the board has that information. If you call at the
last meeting, there were some lighting plans uh that were shown that showed the level of lighting through the site. Um with a respect with a res with respect to the waiver on landscaping that that there was a waiver requested for
completeness purposes. The board determines that a landscape plan more extensive than what is proposed is required, then the board could do that. keeping in mind that there are certain limitations on the uh available areas
for landscaping giving the given the clear clear zones around the runways. >> So that that's my commentary on the waiver requests and uh perhaps I'll leave it to Ron to respond to anything else in the in the in the comments that were made as well as some of the
specifics in the variance testimony. >> Thank you. Paul, real quick, do you feel that the storm water measures are adequate once we >> bas based on the meeting we have we had and the agreements we've come to, it's definitely feasible. They have more work to do. They have to demonstrate a few
more things. Um, but it it's it's doable. I I couldn't say that at the last meeting because we were not thinking along the same lines as the design team, but we've gotten over that hump with our meeting and um we're on a path to to getting it to the point it
should be. I can tell you that they agreed to comply with my letter. They comply with my letter. They comply with the state standards. >> Okay. So, they need to abide by everything before they can start building regards to >> Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. They're not going anywhere until they address all
the comments in the letter. >> Okay, Rod. >> I I do think I think there there's an important factor there that I I want to make sure that we are doing and that's the continuation of maintenance. Okay. So, this notion that things are built and they don't work over time. There's
an extensive storm water operation and maintenance manual that is produced for this application. It will be updated on the final design, but it'll require very specific checklists after certain events or on a regular basis that needs to be
recorded on this property for these storm water management features. And the primary item is we can design anything, but if we don't maintain it and it doesn't work, it doesn't help the environment. So, we can come up with these great designs. We can go a lot of detail. We have thousands of pages of
rules that we have to go through right now and design things very specific. And as you've sat here for the last couple of years, storm water management is a lot more complicated than it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 30 years ago. And one of the systems now in place is
that operation maintenance. And if it is done and it's enforced now by the municipalities because they're being asked to be enforced by the state of New Jersey by the Department of Environmental Protection, then those things are in place to make sure things like porest pavement. When we talked
about porest pavement 10 years ago, everyone looked at it and says this is never going to work. But now plants are building these. All right, making this product now. And it used to be more in the south. Okay, that I think it was Maryland was the first up in the mid-Atlantic states that was really
promoting that. But in New Jersey now, because it's such a common technique that is being promoted by the storm water man rules of the state of New Jersey, the market's responding by building that product now where five years ago it was really hard
to find someone that could really build that product that made that the poorest pavement work. Now it's so common. I don't think very few of the designs that we do do not have a design of porest baby that we're working with. It's just more of a technique that is being again
pushed by these regulations. So if it's designed under these new green infrastructure rules and it's built correctly and you have an operation and maintenance manual so it's being maintained correctly then those elements that are being promoted by design can
work. So I do think there's an element of that that is part of this program that's important for the board to understand the public to understand is there'll be extensive maintenance requirements on this program. >> It's simply not there. >> Who who from the township run is
responsible to to look at the the results of you know these test? Two different things, George. The responsibility up front is the the to make sure the operation was complete and consistent with the design rests on Paul
from the town. Right. As far as the right now, I'm not sure where you are, and Paul can speak better to this, the MS4 program or whatever it is, there's there's statutes that the municipality now has to follow that they have to file with with the state, the state goes up
to the federal level that you're consistent for all your discharges and all these and amendments. Some towns are promoting it to the point where they're putting their own storm water utility authorities in place to fund some of this. Other towns are required to. So I
guess all some cases it's your public works director. I'm not sure where Bedminister is in the process right now of those. But every application now that we have to do that's considered a major development uh for storm water management needs to produce these
operation >> and and this this is a challenge. is one thing that we need to do every year is as a municipalities report certain information to the D relative to major developments. We have to um
let the D know what our program is for ensuring that there's proper operations and maintenance of basins. I can tell you that there have been some letters sent out over the last couple of years for because we don't get these reports like we're supposed to. we we we simply
don't get them and it's it's a challenge to do that because we have to follow up with all these individual property owners and tell them that they have to file the report. But I will tell you that compliance with the on andm manual is always a requirement of the um the
approvals that this board would grant and it's also filed as a dnotice on the property. And one of the items in the on andm manual that I always insist on is that the reports the inspections reports for each year are filed with the township engineer by I think March 1st
of each year. So the previous year's reports need to be fa filed by March 1st because May is when we have to submit our information to the DB on the board. Okay, we'll open it up again to the public if they have any questions.
>> Hi, this is Jim Christie. I'm trying to raise my hand but uh it's not working. Can you hear me? >> We can. >> Yes. Yes, Jim. Please. Please raise your right hand, Jim. Do you swear affirm tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? >> Yes, I do.
>> And Jim, please spell your last name. And uh you don't have to give us an address. We know where you are. >> My last name is spelled C H R I S T I E. James. Uh been a Bedminster resident for
30 years. Um I've also been a pilot and I learned to fly at Somerset airport. Um, I'm blessed to have a hanger at Somerset, uh, which, you know, is tough to get these days. So, I'm kind of speaking for the Bedminster pilots and
pilots in general that want to have hangers there, uh, because planes have gotten much more expensive these days. And, um, I think this plan that they've laid out is a is a smart plan. It's great for Bedminster.
uh Somerset Air Service has been a wonderful um you know business and a good neighbor to Bedminster and I think I totally support this application. I really just want to pass it on to you. So thank you very much.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else? >> Yeah. Yeah. This is this is Bill Monday. Uh I'm an attorney and I represent, as I indicated last meeting, the uh Two River Farms owners. I have a couple of
questions. Um, and if you'd like comments, we could certainly do that or I could save comments till later. But I was um I I thought that some of the testimony or that was quote summarized tonight didn't seem quite consistent
with what the testimony was at the last meeting. Uh, so I wanted to get that clear. Uh I think it was said if I'm not wrong that there is going there will be no increase in capacity and no increase
in use. Um I I thought that the testimony last time was uh and I know that's in some of the documents but I thought the testimony was g that was given by the applicants
representatives was contrary to that. um that I thought that uh and and I'd be interested to hear um uh I don't know whether they're they're there or not, but I I'd like to hear that testimony again because I think it was uh
inconsistent. um in particular um the uh tonight if you have I think you have to you can't you know how to do it. If you want to cross-examine this witness now
you can. I guess the other witnesses were presented and they were cross-examined. So you have any questions for Ron Kennedy? >> Sure. Um Ron indicate Ron you did indicate did
you not that uh in the past there were 150 tie downs uh and 80 hangers. Is is that correct? >> That's correct. >> And you also indicated tonight that there's going to increase the number of
hangers to 94. Is that correct? >> That's correct. So, uh, simple math, there'll be up to 214 spaces now when there was, uh, I'm
sorry. Yeah. 214 when in fact there was uh only uh uh you know we're adding 14 spaces or more based upon the testimony from last time that the hangers although they said
for 14 going to 94. They indicated that possibly additional numbers of planes could be hangered depending upon space uh space and and uh size etc. Is that not correct?
>> It did. That's correct. They talked about potentially some of the larger hanger spaces could accommodate an additional or two smaller planes in those spaces. Not often, but I think that the
representation by the owner was the fact that it's possible that some of those hanger space, a single unit could have two planes. Not probable, but it's possible. Uh is isn't it also correct that with
respect to prior testimony it was indicated that um additional flight school capacity uh was intended here. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> But again >> yes that was talked about but that's in the instantaneous that's compared to what's today. But historically, there's been fluctuations to how many planes and
the usage that's been on this property. And the only metric that we've been able to find is the 80 hangers from the 1993 approval and the 150 tie downs from that. I believe the testimony by
Mr. Parker was there was 24 tie downs today that exist today. So that's significantly less than 150. And we know by visually looking at older aerials when there was other services there,
including a glider business, there was substantially more tie downs that show up in older aerials than even the 24. So, we're talking about a larger time frame when there's been
either the business or the tie downs or the number of planes has fluctuated. Again, the only max that we've seen was 150. We've seen no indication that it came close to 150, but that was something that was in that resolution.
So, if Mr. Parker was talking about increasing some of that business that would not be anywhere near the max that was certainly with the total number of planes that were
>> thanks. Um so I I have one additional question for you. in your recitation of your review of um the the variance criteria both C2 and C1 um did you take
into account the fact that this airport is sort of right in the middle of uh and Abut's uh extensive dedicated farmland and is that consistent with what appears
to be the township's um uh approval or at least concern with regard to open space and dedicated farmland. >> Um yeah. Yes. And it's an interesting concept. I mean I I've been working in
this town for quite some some years. And what is interesting in what this town's called the hole in the donut, which is western Bedminster in the areas that are the R10 zone that have many lots that are much much larger than
10 acres, including this that it's been able to coexist with these large farms, these large estate houses that have been there for many generations. and the inclusion of other
non-residential uses that are large lot users in that zone. And where in bed you have an airport on 200 acres. You have three golf courses that are on 700
acres, 500 acres, and 500 acres that are within Bedminster. And this coexistence of estates of farming and then I'll call it other recreational uses of of airport
of golf of other equestrian activities that are commercialbased US um that coexist within this environment of the R10 zone and it's not new it's existed this way certainly on the
airport since 1946 fiddler's elbow since the 60s and the other two in the last 25 years the two other golf courses. So I I I think Bedminster in their master plan has allowed for those uses. They were permitted uses. They required variance
as well for different aspects along the path of of these uses that exist. But these uses do coexist. And I think it what makes Bedminster pretty special that it's not just a farm or estates. It's this mixture of residential and
non-residential that weave itself together. So I do think it's very consistent with with what we're asked for this relief here being consistent of how other non-residential nonfarming activities
have woven into western bed. So Ron, um, responding on on that planning, um, I' I'd also like to hear from Frank Banish since he wrote the master plan for Bedminster, including the open space plan. Uh, to get Frank's
comments on uh, that question from Attorney Monday. And also just a quick question for attorney Monday. You mentioned Two Rivers Farms. Um, but you did not identify where that's located in proximity to the uh the airport.
>> Um, across across the Ron River. I think that's uh south. Uh, but I may be wrong about the direction. >> It's it's due west. >> That's what I said. To west. >> West.
>> The the other south. They're south and the other south. Okay. All right. And is that right across Rivers? That's the uh the First Branchburg property. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Partially. It's partially in in both municipalities. Yes.
>> So, Frank, if uh you're there, if you can also address what um Mr. Monday asked about the uh interplay between the airport and the agricultural properties. >> Sure. Thank you. Uh,
my perception of the fit is so much like what Ron just said that it it scares me to think that I'm going to repeat some of the things he said, but the truth of the matter is it's not just a large lot character. There are a lot of towns in New Jersey that have developed a theory
about larger spaces for residential units. It's the estate character, the very large lock character that still characterizes most of Western Bedminster that is I I believe easily accommodates the impacts of things like the airport.
And I think we have to recognize that the state of New Jersey is prioritizing trying to retain small airports like this. They're not we're not building new ones. They're going away. the containment approach that B that the township has taken since the regulations
that I helped to write here, which made sure that there would not be jets taking off from here and that the character of use would remain generally similar to what was going on since 1946, I think did a really good job and the and that of course with the operator working with
us along with those standards. So that as I listened to the testimony about the substantial detriment that was going to occur because of the coverage, what I consider a dimminimous coverage impact. I really needed to know more
about you. The statute uses the word substantial impact for a reason so that it's not just some negative impact. The board has to be able to find that it has a compelling aspect to it. So, I'm not sure that I've heard what that would be, but I do think
that with regard to the character of the land use in this mosaic of large lot and other recreational type land uses, the airport is a pretty good fit rather than a bad fit. I hope that answers the question. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Frank. >> Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> No, Mr. Monday, do you still have questions or comments? >> Um, I the the comments really are were
sort of implicit in the questions. Um, uh, I know that the neighboring at least my client and and we believe some of the other neighboring property owners who we've spoken to uh about uh what's going on are concerned about the increase in
uh noise, the increase in use that that Um we we believe and and that you know will occur um and particularly flight school um that's a particularly
noisy and obtrusive um part of what goes on here. I understand pilots have to be trained. Um but uh it's a it's sort of a constant up and down in many times often in the early evening. And um uh the the
concern really is to try and keep the airport um it's there. It's been there a long time, we acknowledge, but to try and keep it in in a way um that doesn't extend or exacerbate um the existing
uh detriment uh that occurs there in the surrounding properties. So, um, and that's really the concern of of at least my client and and certainly we've we've heard from some other property owners along the same vein. >> Thank you.
>> Come up to the mic if you would. And you'll be sworn in and then >> Do you do you swear, affirm, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth to help you God? I do. >> And please state your name and address and spell your last name.
>> Janet Harvey, 350 Burnt Mill Road, Branchburg, New Jersey. And what was the last thing I was supposed to do? >> Uh, spell your last name. >> H A R V Y. >> Thank you. >> Um,
as I just said, my name is Janet Harvey. My husband Joe and I own Fort Two River Farm, which is a 420 acre preserved farm across the river from the airport and we are directly in the line of the takeoffs
and landings. Uh we share a lot of the questions and concerns of others that were brought up about the noise, the traffic, and the environmental concerns. And we believe that we can speak for at least 2,000 acres of land owner in our
area who also have these concerns about increased flight activity and jets. Two river is, as I said, a preserved farm which benefits the neighbor by preventing development and decreasing traffic. Increased flight activity is
diametrically counter to the goals of farmland preservation, a successful and prideful program in New Jersey. In Bedminster, 7,000 acres or 46% of the land is preserved. It is hard to reconcile increased flight activity
which extends beyond the land of the airport to the goals of farmland preservation. We and prior owners, especially the founding couple of the Hides, have history with the airport. Specifically, legal actions were taken to try and
influence flight paths, which resulted in a handshake that pilots would not fly directly over our main farmhouse. This has had mixed results in our nine years of ownership. Regularly on Saturday and Sunday at 7:00
a.m., there are extremely loud takeoffs over the house, which we assume is flight training, but it is a disruption to us. However, we don't complain about it because of the need. A few years ago, we were steamrolled by tree cutters
needing to access the adjoining Forbes property through our property. In an egregious action against the Forbes, they were forced to pay to cut trees for the benefit of the airport. Since the tree killing, we have seen a decrease in
wildlife in the on the river and in the adjacent woods and fields. At Two River, we don't just have a forestry plan. We are actually planting trees. As a reminder, New Jersey trees, including those in Bedminster, are already
fighting the ashbor crisis. We don't need to be cutting more trees down. At the same time, the airport completely and ridiculously dismissed the fact that there are two American bald eagles nest active along our stretch of the river.
We see them every day both perched in a tree in their nest and sometimes flying quietly over our main farmhouse. We've also worked with Rarin headquarters to help restore Kestpro hawks with great success. We do not want the airport
activity to counter those initiatives to which we are very committed. These actions raise major red flags which should be paid attention to. We have no problem with building renovation and upgrading, but we believe this board should put boundaries around flight
activity levels, noise levels, and types of aircraft, including jets, in order to advance this plan. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? My name is Ted Schiller. I'm attorney with Schiller Pittinger and Galvin in
Scots Plains, New Jersey. I'm here with Mr. Bowen who will be doing some summing up later on, but I have a few questions if that's okay. >> Okay. >> Uh so, Mr. Johnson, you uh you started off by recapping the testimony from last time and the second point you brought up was um there was a need for this. You
know, I have this convers. So, I've had this conversation a number of times. What's the difference between need versus want? >> My wife asked me that. >> So, so, so the real issue here is number one, is there a real need? And when you
talk about a need, we're not talking about Mr. Parker or customers. We're talking about how does this need benefit this community? Okay, you're familiar with Cal versus Warren Township. All right, that specifically says it has to be a community based need.
Um, how big is the largest hanger? >> The specific space of that hanger itself or the building question. >> How much coverage? In other words, we're talking about an acre of additional cover. Correct.
>> We are. >> Okay. So, We I don't how big is this biggest? >> I'm sorry. Can you make sure that you use my attorney and planner are online and it will also be part of the recording if we can't hear you. >> So you want me to How about I do that?
So the biggest building is 14,700 square. >> Uh 1428 about a third of an acre >> 1428 56 would be it's 43,000 square feet an
acre. A quarter of an acre would be >> 12,000. >> Okay. Yeah. So it's bigger than a it's more than a quarter of an acre. Yeah. So you have a straight How tall was it by the way? >> Uh those structures to about 30. >> How tall is the tall tallest airplane when it's sitting on the ground? >> I mean again less than that because it
fits in >> significantly. Correct. >> So from a visual perspective looking at an airplane is a lot less ob uh obtrusive than it is to look at a building that's 30 or 40 feet high and a quarter of an acre. >> Am I correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. So from a visual perspective, you
testified that this would be a benefit. I don't see how it's a benefit. I don't think you can disagree with that. It's actually a detriment. It's a worse visual perspective. Correct. >> Well, the the the planes that are there now are generally along the runways.
Okay. The proposed hangers are generally in the areas that we're talking about are hidden and behind significant wooded areas from the public roads or any of the neighbors that could see those. So I
wouldn't f say that along airport road and when you look down the driveway there are hanger spaces along there but the hangers proposed again are behind significant wooded areas from airport road or the surrounding resist I
wouldn't characterize specifically that but obviously >> a plane by itself in the middle of a field and a building in a field building >> sure but that's not the case >> you also indicated that there would be a decrease increase in noise. I'm lost. You're talking about the same amount of
business. And by the way, we're not even talking about increases, which I I suspect there would be, but let's just assume it stayed the same. How has noise decreased because you have to open and close hanger doors to move airplanes in and out of them when if you
didn't do that, you just tie them down? How's noise decreased? There are maintenance testing that will happen inside that's currently happening outside. I'm not saying with the flight pattern themselves no change to that.
All it is is the simple fact is there's things that occur outside around the plane today as it's high that if it's inside there's less noise. >> Okay. But we're talking about 14 planes. Correct. The >> delta. Correct. >> And those planes could be moved in and out of hangers as needed for
maintenance. Correct. If if you have an individual space, the pilot itself does it own maint. I'm talking about the general maintenance that occurs. >> Okay, let's talk about that. Tell me what noise the general maintenance that
a pilot does on a plane causes >> starting the plane that would happen. >> So they're going to start a plane inside a hanger. >> Just outside the hanger. >> Well, it's outside, right? >> No, but it's not in the middle of the field. >> Okay. in the middle of the field.
>> Got it. Okay. And you've done some noise analysis to determine that noise outside of the hanger is less obtrusive than noise in the middle of the field. >> I have not. >> Okay. So I I'm not sure this whole concept of decrease in noise. Now those are the two things you indicated were the
correct >> they are points that I made. >> Okay. Well, let's assume for the second that the first thing you have to demonstrate is that there are benefits before we look at what the substantial detriments would be. Correct. >> Correct. >> Because if there's no benefits, we don't
need to look at the detriments, do we? >> Correct. Okay. And you've identified the two benefits as noise and visual. Correct. >> They weren't the only two benefits I just forgot the rest. What else was there? >> Well, I'll have to back for my second.
By the way, I mean to be rude, but I have I did forget the rest of you. I'm old. I forget a lot of stuff. >> I'm catching up. >> Yeah, >> so additionally, I've talked about general aviation in the airport that's open to the public, right? general benefits of the public aviation. That's
a purpose that is stated in the redevelopment plan of the state of New Jersey. >> Okay. So, we have an airport that's fully functional right now. >> Can do you have anything else to say? I mean, >> no. >> So, we have an airport right now that's
fully functional. Correct. >> It's functional, right? And and by the way, Mr. Parker testified when he held up that big folder about how many customers how many additional people want to get space in this airport. So it's not like um this is going to that
these c it's going to do anything for these other people is it? I don't understand the question. He's not growing his business. He said that. Okay. But he has this of other customers. So if but my point is who's who benefits here? The customers of Mr.
Parker and Mr. Parker community doesn't benefit >> the the people that are residents one just spoke now there's a resident in the community and there's other residents in this community that use this airport that that's a benefit to the people in this community >> how many
>> I I can't quantify that it's no different than the benefit that a golfer in a golf course that's in Bry >> but we're not talking about a golf course we're not parallel >> let me ask another question are there any airplanes at this airport that move hearts for heart transplant Yes. >> How many? >> I I I don't know that, but I can ask the
person right behind you that's on the thing. >> I asked you. You said yes, there are. >> Yes, there are. I know that for a fact. >> Okay, good. So, is this going to affect that in any way at all? >> I don't know. >> Okay. The um
the issue of jets. Now, Mr. Quinn indicated that there would be no I I I thought I heard him say that this there would be no jets here. Now, just to be clear, Mr. Parker testified that jetlike airport airplanes have landed here in
the past, and as jets become more capable of landing in smaller airports, they would land here. Correct. >> You're asking beyond my >> No, I'm asking you if he said that. >> He he talked about jet light.
>> That's what I said. Not jets. >> Okay. >> He talked about propanes that use jet fuel. He indicated that as jets get more sophisticated and are able to use shorter runways, the jets could land here. Correct? >> Okay. That's okay. It's all right. I got
it. Um there would be clearly no decrease in any activity at this airport. Correct. >> Decrease. >> Don't know that markets change constantly. Even if this is builds, there be changes in activity levels.
Prices go to $400 a barrel. that there's going to be less people ever. >> But if there were a decrease in activity, it might be a benefit, right? >> Could be. >> Okay. But we don't know. >> The goal of this application was to put not necessarily on the runway, add on to
the business. It's to put planes inside. That's aspect of this. >> So, so let's just isolate that. If that is the general aspect of this application and you're asking the board to grant a variance to let you put up an additional acre of hangers. Okay. Tell
me who benefits benefits from that. The 14 people whose planes go in that hanger space. Mr. Parker, does this township benefit from that? I don't see it. >> It's a viable business existing in the
town that's important to the town. different than any other business that's allowed in the town that the use is permitted. What we're we're we're debating is is the intensity of the lot coverage on the property and my testimony has been is that 6 additional percentage of lot coverage will have a
dimminimous effect on the zone plan that's out there and on the property that's out there. But to characterize it as 6 is elusory because we're talking about an acre of of additional hanger space. An acre. >> Okay.
>> That's additional additional. >> It's not building area. >> Well, how much is the building area going up? >> Uh I have to less than that obviously the building. >> I apologize. I thought that we >> No, no, it's an it's an acre total of
cover. >> Okay. The point being that the benefits that you listed are the think you said noise, you said visual and you said airport somewhere on the right. You said safety too. I mean safety of putting again what my testimony was based on FA
recommendations is two lock systems instead of one. There's a safety benefit associated that's a benefit to the public >> to the airport and to the people who own the planes, >> right? This isn't a car dealership where people use cars every day. Everybody in
this room has a car. We need a car. This is an airplane. This is an expensive hobby for many people. This is not something that the general public is going to be in and out of this place using. This is this is an expensive hobby. You drive a car. I drive a car.
You probably have more than one car because everybody need everybody needs a car. Everybody in the family needs a car to get somewhere. We don't need these planes. It's a hobby. The people who benefit from what's going on here are the owners of the facility and the
people who want to use it. Okay? No one else. So, if there's no benefit, we don't even have to look at what the detriment might be. You don't have to weigh it. All right, I think that's it. Mr. Bowen will
sum up later on or whenever it's time to sum up. Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. >> Anyone else? >> Anyone else online? Uh, >> I'm not sure if anyone else online has anything to say. A lot of them are
actually people that are professionals or in the meeting and they're logged on. But if anyone else does want to speak again, unmute yourself or raise your hand, whichever works best for you. Or if you're in the room, you can come up to the mic.
Doesn't seem like anyone online is is saying anything and no one else has come up to the mic. >> Okay. So, we'll close it to the public. Thank you. Um, excuse me, Madam Chairman. I I think there's been a I I think Mr. Schiller said Mr. Bowen's
going to come up and and and give a summary. >> Oh, I didn't know if we had another witness that we were going to do first. >> I would assume that first. >> It's It's I've never seen it done that way. The applicant always goes last. >> Okay. Yes.
>> Madam Chair, the the this board cannot and should not grant the relief sought by the applicant for four reasons. First, the there is no evidence from which a board can conclude that any of the existing nonconformities
shown on the plan predate the zoning ordinance. Uh and I'll get into the details of that. Second reason is conditional use approval is required was not applied for was not noticed and was not the uh ability to get it was approved. Number
three, the applicant has not established entitlement to a bulk variance for excessive lock coverage. And number four, plans call out a design waiver from a deviation from your uh resource constraints uh limitation
which in fact I think is a variance. So let me go through those four. the there are many conditions shown on the plans that are labeled as pre-existing conditions
such as um the zoning table which shows a non-conforming sideyard of 65.7 ft or 100 ft is required. There are notes on the plans talking about insufficient lot frontage and insufficient lot width both
1500 feet required and 1,430 ft existing. The notes also say there's insufficient principal building sideyard sets back referring to the hangar building on the south side of the property where 100 ft is required and 82 ft is existing and
insufficient accessory structure site setback where 50 ft is required and 12.9 ft is existing. Recall that when Mr. Kennedy was first testifying, he said that the term pre-existing on the plans meant pre-existing this
application. He did not have any knowledge when the condition first arose. The applicant presented four prior approval resolutions, none of which establish any nonconformity such within the plans existed at that time but was
approved by that resolution. There is simply no evidence on this record that the board can conclude that those conditions pre-existed the ordinance. Number two, conditional use approval is required. The airport, as has been
mentioned, is a conditional use. The standards for that use are set forth in 13-601.3. There has been no evidence presented that conditional use approval was ever granted to this airport. Again, there were four resolutions provided. None of
them gave that use. And even if there had been a prior grant of conditional use approval, this is an intensification of that use and there should be a new or amended conditional use approval. And I
will refer to your ordinance 13-601. The conditional use standards for the airport are set forth in and and they talked about the subsection A requirements that it's beyond this specific lot and that the runway length
not exceed 3,000 ft. However, subsection B says that the airport will be regulated by 13-41A4, which specifies lot size and yard requirements that the
proposal does not meet, and 13-521, which says that the airport shall be required to adhere to all provisions of the Bedminster Land Development Ordinance. So by that language, your conditional use standard is
incorporating all of the bulk standards and any variance from those bulk standards would be a variance from a conditional use standard. So conditional use is approval. It can only be granted if they get a variance
under 405D-70D3. Number three, the applicant has not established entitlement to a bulk variance for excessive lock coverage. They have suggested in Mr. Kennedy's testimony that
under C1 there would be a hardship because maybe the existing configuration of the lot makes it difficult to uh put the same number of hangers in less space there. There there's been no engineering
testimony. There's been no plan, nothing that says if we didn't have this runway, we could comply with your ordinance. But I I think the biggest issue with the bulk variance relief is all been focused
on the C2. C2 only applies where the zoning benefits from permitting the deviations benefit the community, not merely the owner. The applicant has not established any
zoning or planning benefit. It must represent a better zoning alternative. The testimony was the testimony that you're probably used to hearing when you wear your board of adjustment hat. You go to section two, tried out a couple purposes of
zoning and say this satisfies it. Um, for example, Mr. Kennedy talked about appropriate population densities. Population densities are for residential. Um there is no evidence that the lack of
the number of how many hangers of these 14 additional hangers they want could be established on a compliant lot coverage situation. No evidence that the lack of whatever those numbers are will be a
detriment to the airport. And finally, um, the plans, my last point, the plans call out a design waiver for a deviation from section 13-526,
which establishes the intensity of non-residential development by netting out certain um environmental features such as wetlands, steep slopes, conservation easements,
And the calculation is indeed on the plans. I didn't hadn't seen them last meeting. I have found them since. Now at Mr. Kennedy's testimony at the last meeting was that was a mistake because that only
applies to F and F under your definition only applies to heated space. I disagree because the use of the FIR is not the last. It is one step in the calculation. The
final step is what tells you what the intensity what the amount of square footage of floor area is. Now, your ordinance has two definitions of floor area. It has gross floor area and it has net habitable floor area. There's an
ambiguity as to which floor area applies. In a zoning context, you should apply In a case of ambiguity, you should apply the stricter standard. So for those four reasons, I submit you cannot grant the
relief sought by this applicant. Thank you. >> So I'm going to let Mr. Kennedy answer a few of the questions that were just raised. Um couple points that were mentioned though. I just wanted to address a couple points head on. First of all, the notion that there was nothing in the application or the notice
or anything else with respect to any existing non-conforming conditions. Actually, the notice does say to the extent required uh we would have seek variance relief for any continuation of existing non-conforming conditions related to the required lot frontage, lot width, cider setbacks, distances
between buildings. So that is actually have been included within our notice. So that was contemplated in this and I think uh the test was given as it was by Mr. Kenny and he'll talk a little bit more about that as well just so the board is aware of these conditions as they existed today
previously but uh not part of this application. Second of all, with respect to the conditional use questions with respect to your ordinance, your ordinance is actually very clear. Um, section A says these are the following conditions. Point number one, point number two, and those are the points
that were discussed by your planner, by Mr. Kennedy has been across the board. Separate to that when it doesn't list part of the conditional use requirements then the next section after the conditional use requirements that are expressly list in the ordinance the ordinance then says an airport must also
be regulated according to subsections as as said in the ordinance. So that's two separate points in your ordinance. One is a conditional use requirement that sets forth two conditional use obligations and one is an additional section that talks about other obligations to the applicant to satisfy the spectrum error.
the deviations that he's referring to is refer to the second one, not the first one. So there's would be no such requirement for a D3 conditioning use variance as part of this application. Uh the interpretation of that or just disagree that's not accurate. Uh with respect to the uh existing
non-conforming conditions, I'll let I know Mr. Kenny had talked about that some additionally previously as part of his testimony. I'll let him just mention that again right now. Uh just give the board some color on that. Yeah, my initial testimony that there is, you know, two buildings, building S
and R on our plans that don't meet the 100 um foot setback standards in the current ordinance. Now, uh I I know that in all the previous applications, those buildings existed that I saw uh looking back the aerial photos at least past
1990s, those in the early 90s, they they existed. don't have that approval when those were approved there. Um, but they they have been there. Um, whether they were granted approvals or not, they had to get building permits. They had to get cycling approval at some point in in
this process. This isn't a mistake. Someone built a shed in the backyard of a house and all of a sudden there were before your board apologizing that they built a shed in the backyard. These are substantial buildings that were built back. I'm going to guess in the 80s uh certainly before the 90s when I lived
that would have had sight I don't have that I don't uh the second part of it is this resource conservation calculations that we put on our plans when we did go back and review the uh 13526 for the
resource conservation calculations in uh uh AP 11 when it talks about the maximum density it is based on the floor area ratio not the floor area when I look at
your definition of floor area ratio that is based on your habitable floor ratio not your gross floor that's why we came to the conclusion at the last meeting and my testimony the last meeting we did not need that relief because it's based on floor area ratio which is net haval and
not gross so we came to the conclusion at the last meeting that we do not need that design waiver for that specific criteria. And the last item, oh, the lot frontage. Again, that was just uh from the application that was
submitted. That was just a a mistake on the plans. The more than 1600 foot lot frontage on this application, it shows on the survey. It's shown on there. And that was just something that was put in the zoning chart incorrectly. and we
corrected that at the last testimony saying we do not need that relief for either lot frontage or lot >> thank you and again just in terms of some summation to I'll be you've heard this extensively um I think Mr. He did
an admiral job of putting together the proofs on this case. Uh to say that there's no benefits to the public. It's contrary to the evidence that was given testimony was given. It was also talked about by planner. Um I'd submit that this is a realistically this is an application that the use has has been
there existing. The operations are changing. It's really the only variance relief that's being proposed here as a function of lot coverage. And not only is the applicant going to great lengths to work within the stormwater requirements to make sure there's no negative impact on that as you heard
first of all uh from even reviewing Mr. Brow's letter but then also the amount of work that's going to be entailed since the last meeting and ongoing as part of a additional approval that will have to satisfy all the conditions to comply with storm water requirements of the state of the township as well. Uh
that's typically the issue that you have in terms of addressing any deviations. But in addition to that uh Mr. Kenny did talk to Mike about the benefits both uh the positives in terms of the uh general health of the community but on top of that also with respect to C1 in terms of
the uh issues with respect to how again without having to to propose buildings on top of an airport and show that the buildings on a runway is impasable. Clearly they have to be separated from from the operations of the runway for safety purposes of the runway and that
results in additional um disturbance that results in additional uh pavements for for cars and planes to go across. Uh that's really a function of why this is uh has exceeded the the ordinance requirements. Um, again, it's a fairly
um I'd submit that it's a fairly minimal uh uh increase uh especially from what was previously approved at 9.9%. So, it's even less than which had gone down over the course of the years. Uh I'd submit that the applicant has satisfied its obligations and its proof
requirements under the variance relief. Um, one other point I would ask again is if this board does so favorably uh under the MLU because of the size of the property uh the the applicants entitled to ask for additional time in terms of um building out this project. It was
discussed it's four phases. One phase would be uh constructed uh immediately. The other three phases would be built in phases at depending on need, depending on market, depending on funding. Um, but we'd asked uh for a 10-year approval period in order to construct those approvals and come back to the board for
uh any extensions if so needed. Um, but we'd ask this board of favor on the application. Uh, and hope we've addressed all of your concerns. Thank you. >> Tom, is it 10-year extension? Is that common? Um it is common on large tracks like
this and where there are many phases of a development and it is authorized. So that is something we you have authority to do if you so desire. They can also um use the existing provisions of the
statute which are uh three years for preliminary but two years for final plus two one-year extensions. We t typically grant finals. So basically four years plus there's arguably another one for other governmental approvals. So 5 years is a
fairly typical number that results from typical extensions. Um you know something of this size 200 acres with four phases of future potential development and potentially not development um is up to the board.
it's within your discretionary authority under the statute. Might might be good thing to be able to plan the property, but that's up to you. Um, are there We should just check that there are no
other witnesses or arguments. I just want to make sure we close the public hearing. >> Yes. John, do you have any more witnesses? >> No. No. >> No. No more witnesses. and the two other attorneys. I I didn't understand do they
have any witnesses, Brett or Jay? >> No. >> So, if the board is ready, I'm satisfied that you do have jurisdiction to decide this case uh and to grant an approval. Madam Chairman, if I if I could, I I
just want to put a couple of things in the record to to so the board is aware of this because um Frank and I both have the the gift of age of having been around since all since many of the most recent things started on the airport.
>> We do appreciate >> there there's been a lot of discussion about this airport since I first started dealing with it in 1990. It's been a long time. And things that have come along since 1990 are things like the current current ordinance that
talks about the airport and made it a conditional use. That was a very deliberate action by this board after a lot of discussion, a lot of testimony, a lot of working with the airport owner as well as other interested parties
municipality. And it was very clearly the intent of the board and the governing body when they introduced that ordinance is that there were two conditions of the conditional use. The length of the runway and the property on which it is situated. Those were the
conditional uses. Everything else was a bulk standard. And it was while it was referenced in the section that talks about airports, they were not conditions of the conditional use. That was that was made very clear. Another thing I'd like to talk about is the resource
constraints ordinance. Um, as the board may recall, because this is a little more recent, that was deliberately established not to create a floor area ratio variance that was designed to be
set up as a design waiver and the it's in a design standard section of the ordinance for that purpose. Deviation from the floor area ratio is related to the entire property. deviations from the resource constraints ordinance is a design waiver. Again, that was the very
strong intent of the ordinance. Um, and I'd like to make one more point and and Frank can yell at me through the screen for pretending that I'm a planner, but there's been some cont some some discussion about the benefits of the
project and the community development community benefits of the project. I submit the community is not the municipality particularly as it relates to a regional use like a public a general public use airport like this is the community
extends far beyond the boundaries of the municipality and that's very clear in what the the state plan talks about relative to airports like this. It's been discussed in our master plan. This is not a
p this is not a site whose sole purpose is the benefit of residents of Bedminister Township. It is the community in general and it extends far beyond the municipal boundaries. That's that's my opinion about the community benefits or the community that may be
benefited by this project. I taught him what night think I think I would also refer back to a couple of the purposes of zoning the NJSA4 55D2 where subsections G and H talk specifically about providing sufficient
space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses and rattles off a bunch of names but clearly trying to meet all the needs of New Jersey citizens and encouraging the location and design of transportation routes that'll promote the free flow of traffic. That
transportation isn't just on the ground. And I do think that what we're talking about relates to those very specifically. Uh and the third part is where it says the objective under eye to promote a desirable visual environment.
In this instance, the very large area of this site and the very large areas of the lots surrounding this site make a very desirable visual environment for everybody just by being the places that they already are. So, I don't know necessarily that there's I'm still
looking for substantial detriment and I'm not trying to undercut anything that's been offered by anybody else in the testimony here, but Paul and I have been through this. We wrote these regulations as he said we very explicitly kept the conditional use standards to those two core elements
which were the things if you change that you can't do anything more at the airport but you can do within the envelope that's permitted or the slight deviations that are requested here I think you can do things to keep civil aviation alive in this part of some
county and I I think that there are definite public benefits for the health safety and general welfare of the population. That's all I've got. >> Thank you, Frank. Um, >> Madame Chairman, I have to say, uh, uh,
I'm I'm old, too, like Frank and Paul, and Frank and Paul's statements are exactly on point with the history of the zoning of Bedminster Township and of this uh, conditional use. And you have made multiple
interpretations over the years on this property and on in other settings with the constraints ordinance and it the deviations that when they are deviations from the constraints ordinance are design waiverss and that has been
established and also that's the way the ordinance is written as being a design set of design standards. on the conditional use. The applicant is has asked for an approval of the airport as a conditional use and the plans show that and we know that it's a conditional
use. Um there is no doubt that they have the authority to have a site plan approval relating to a conditional use and that's what they're seeking and that is in effect an amendment to the conditional use. But they do not need any variances from the conditions of the
conditional use. And the references to other standards are not standards relating solely to conditional uses. And in the municipal land use law, the statute is clear that the D3 provisions only applied to variances from the
conditions the relating solely to a conditional use. That being said, I propose to you a motion to approve the preliminary and final site plan of the Somerset Air Service as described in the hearings
subject to the standard conditions uh with with the variance variances and design waiverss being granted and with a 10-year period of protection on the approval um to allow the construction in phases as
is authorized in municipal lands law. um the u standard there'll be the uh comp comply with the conditions of Paul and Frank's review reports that comply with the standard conditions and those are the only specific
conditions that I have for the resolution. There will be a written resolution. Is there such a motion? >> I'll make the motion. >> I'll second. Mayor Jacobs.
>> Hi, >> Mr. Walter. Hi, >> Mr. >> Hi, >> Mr. Leonard. >> Hi, >> Mr. Rodius. >> Hi, >> Mr. Dini. >> Hi, >> Mr. Wild. >> Hi, >> Chairman. >> I thank you very much for your time, sir.
>> Thank you. have any comments? >> I do have a comment. >> A comment question for the rest of the board. Um, if you remember back several months ago, we did an application for a home on Pyville Road that was in my
memory to be uh an addition on Firesville Road to that home. And I just wanted to clarify because I have not had time to go back to the resolution. Does anyone have the same memory as I did that it was an addition to the property? Um, this is the one
where the uh the neighbors were complaining about the weeds being overgrown. >> Um, I don't remember the name of the resolution, but yesterday they knocked the house down. And my memory was they were building an addition not knocking the house down. And I just wanted to see
what anyone else thought about that. >> Welcome to >> welcome to Jadine's health last 72 hours. >> Okay. What can you tell us? >> I I I can tell you that my read of the plans, my understanding
the testimony was that it was to be an addition to the dwelling. >> That's what I >> That was part of the justification for the variance. Right. >> Frankly, perhaps if the if the plan was to demolish the dwelling, maybe the board would have
told them to make it more compliant with the setbacks. >> Exactly. >> Yeah. >> Um the building an application came in for a demolition permit and it was issued and the building was demolished literally within 24 hours
issued. >> But don't they have to conform to standards now? Well, how was it issued? Was it >> I I issued >> it. It was It was issued >> to to knock the whole thing down or do the renovation? >> No. >> Well, wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait
a minute. Let's not go too far into the case because you may end up getting an appeal in this case. And it's up to the zoning officer and Paul to decide how to enforce on this. So, Paul, do you really want us talking about this tonight or what's going on? I I I I think there has
been enough discussion for me to understand what the board re remembers about the application. >> Right. Right. I I just caution everybody that Paul and the zoning officer will and Janine obviously will be involved in an
enforcement or an application process and uh you may end up having to hear an amendment for a new uh case. And I want you to be able to hear that and therefore you shouldn't be making
decisions or judgments or discussion of it tonight. But thank you for pointing it out, Lou. And apparently other people have pointed it out as well. So let's let the zoning officer do it her his or her work. >> I just have one more comment and it's a
common question. Um it part of um part of Potterville I believe is historic district. >> Yes. >> And I don't know if that house was >> It is not. >> It's not. >> The only person >> I already had complaints from Persville
residents like what's going on? Why' they knock this house down? Because it was a it was a longstanding home of very kind of in invol in involved people. >> We we've heard it all. >> Okay. All right. >> Not my job.
>> Okay. >> Uh, any other comments? >> There's anything going on the TC level cover adoption of the uh housing uh spending plan and the affordable housing
housing fair share plan. uh expect the uh the court to uh respond by April 15th. That's the date by which will be over for fourth round.
Um anything on the calendar? >> Uh Janine, we have any applications? >> We do not have anything. >> Okay. Uh there is one application that Paul hasn't finished reviewing yet which
is an interpretation by can't imagine she'd be ready for the first being in April by the time he reviews it notices maybe the second I I don't know at this point otherwise we don't have anything till which makes
sense >> Tom is notice required for an interpretation >> um it's it's an interesting subject Paul and it the the the answer that I would give is well tell me what the does it in
any way involve uh a claim of pre-existing nonconformity >> uh in some respects yeah >> okay so the answer is absolutely notice it is required and necessary
not because the statute says it but because the case law says it and >> the reason why I ask is that shortens the time period where we got to turn that thing around for completeness if they're going to be heard in April. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. They really need to notice because of this case that justice Steuart Pollock wrote which makes a lot of sense that uh if you don't notice and you you and you do need a variance and you have you interpret that as requiring a
variance then you you would foreclose someone from being able to be aware of the application even if it's not explicitly required in the statute. So they should notice and it will be a
hearing and uh you know probably need >> if it's a if the applicant is looking for a determination on a pre-existing >> well it's not necessarily a
determination of a pre-existing non-conforming use. It's an interpretation of an ordinance that discussed whether or not certain pre-existing non-conforming uses were permitted to remain. >> Oh, thank you. >> So,
and I hope that makes it simple. >> That's much that's much clearer. >> Exactly. >> Exactly. So, is that um is that planning board or zoning board of adjustment? >> Larry's looking for a night off. Yeah, if if there's any way in the alternative
that they're seeking a devariance, then you are not eligible. But if it is just simply an interpretation at this stage and not a request in the alternative for a devariance, which a wise applicant would do in the setting that this
>> uh the then you are eligible, but but you determine whether you whether you're coming or not. would be not >> from what I know it does sound like it would be a T. It would be a non it would be
>> that don't don't rule on it yet. >> They only requested the interpretation. They did not request a variance in the alternative. So if the board determines >> that it's not a permitted use, they have to come back again application. >> All right. But they but they still need
to notice for this case lo which was a very an interesting decision by justice pollock and uh it's not even in clear you know it's it's a good question that Paul asked but the opinion that I think is a clear answer is notice is required
for this application. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No, I don't mind coming, but it was just it was just interesting because it is a is it a well, never mind. >> You're going to you're going to decide all that next at the real hearing.
>> So, the the answer may be if you really want to perfect what you think you have, >> you need to make >> No, you're coming to the zoning board regardless. The board of adjustment makes the interpretation. It's the land
use board functioning as the board of adjustment. That's right. >> If required, then you and Colin step away and it's still a board of adjustment. >> That's right. It's an interesting nuance. >> Is that
>> we can interpret and say you need >> I'm eligible to >> Yes. Yes. That's that's what's you know it's interesting. The mayor the mayor and the committee person are eligible everything except D variances.
Okay. Okay. Uh the only other comment I would say is that uh I think there are some I don't want to say if they're significant, but there are number of um applications that will be coming to the
board over the next uh couple months. >> That's what I understand. >> So I think there will be a busy um late spring, early summer agenda. >> Agree? >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> That's good. We like work.
>> Yeah. >> Fiddler. >> We like work. That's good. >> Okay. >> Maybe maybe >> maybe. Okay. And uh we still have uh 20 Route 206 on the agenda here.
>> And we'll continue to do that. It's just takes up the paper. >> Do we takes up the paper >> continuations? It's been six years. Put that question to Tom because Tom Tom has been asked that question multiple times. >> Yeah, he's been >> I ask it like every
>> right >> Tom. That's on Alpier. >> Oh. Uh yes. >> Yes. >> Um I would I'd rather not talk about it in the public record, but I would I would recommend that we carry for, you know, a few more months and uh they
should they should decide what they want to do. But we we will ask them do they why do they keep carrying and then let's talk about it in a couple of months. How's that? Just trust my trust my just
my unstated reasons for delay. So >> you can call me. >> Yeah. George, >> who has seen the eagles over there? Anybody? >> I don't know. I have seen >> because you live right
>> I have seen one once in the 10 years I've been on birds >> because I've heard rumors about nests over there and I and I've there a lot that I never seen >> they're afraid of you George >> huh
>> they're afraid of you >> I I I've seen I've seen bald eagles fly I've seen them around >> Yeah around here but I don't I just haven't seen the nest, but I I've heard they're there. So, >> I have seen more, >> but but they're coexisting with the airport now. >> By the way, by the way, we've seen bald
eagle nests on um on bridges. >> Sure. >> Major bridges and and thank you for making that point because that was one of the notes I was writing down. They're obviously coexisting with the airport and um
>> she was the point. >> In fact, we we heard testimony. I know we're getting beyond it, but we heard testimony that FAA controls the intensity of the runway use and we're only controlling the structures.
>> Okay. Any >> Okay. Anything else? >> No. Do I have a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. So all in >> favor. >> Good night everybody.
>> Good night. No, I >> You want to see?