I call to order the Birds Township Planning Board meeting for July 22nd, 2025. Please all rise for the flag salute. I pledge algiance to the flag United States of America and to the republic
for it stands one nation under God indivisibley and justice. This is the open public meeting statement for 2025. Inance with the requirements of the open public meetings law of 1975, notice of this meeting of
the planning board of the township of Burns was posted on the bulletin board and the reception hall of the municipal building Kolier Lane or Kier Lane Basking Ridge, New Jersey was sent to the Burnsville News Whipony, New Jersey
to the Courier News Bridgewater, New Jersey on January 22nd, 2025 and was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice. The following procedure has been adopted by the Burns Township Planning Board. There will be no new cases heard
after 10 p.m. and no new witnesses or testimony will be heard after 10:30 p.m. Could I have a roll call, Miss Sllayman, please? I heard absent is Mr. Leazinski, Miss Manduk, and Mr. I did not hear from Miss
Chairwoman. Mr. Angelo here, Mr. Frame here, Mr. Poso here, Mr. Rorio here, Mr. Rabino here, Mr. Tangi here, Miss Ali here, Miss McManis here,
Mr. Toriello here. Mr. Schl here. And for the record, Miss Slayman is present. And we have a quorum. Uh, thank you, Miss Slayman. And I have a motion to excuse the absences of Mr. Lazinski, Miss Manduk, and Mr. Bill, who
have already noted for us that they would be absent today. I'll hold on Miss Smith. She may be coming a little late since we haven't heard from her. May I have that motion? Thank you, Mr. Tangi. May I have a second? Second. Second, Mr. Kuzo.
Um, all in favor? Opposed? Stain. Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is the approval of minutes for the regular session of May 20th, 2025. These were minutes were
distributed in advance. These are version number three. Um I assume that everyone has had an opportunity to review these minutes. Does anyone have any comments, edits? Seeing none, may I have a motion to approve the minutes as drafted?
So moved. Thank you, Mr. Rino second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Tenry. I think we need a roll call on this. Can I have a roll call? Yes. Mr. Clo and Mr. Eoro are not eligible to vote on the minutes as they were absent for the 520 meeting.
Mr. Crane, yes. Mr. Rabino, yes. Mr. Tree, yes. Miss, yes. Chairwoman Mango, yes. Thank you.
Uh the next uh item on the agenda is an ordinance referral and it is ordinance number 2582 an ordinance to amend the revised general ordinances of the township of Burns chapter 21 hyphen 27.1
soil erosion and sedimentation control. At this time I'm going to ask our planner Miss Mcanis to come up and give us a brief overview of this. Are you comfortable with that? Absolutely. And um then we'll take any questions
from the board. Okay. So, this ordinance is uh is uh addressing just the your soil conservation ordinance and it primarily addresses or perhaps not primarily it only addresses the administrative
functions of it or the administrative aspects. does not for example alter the requirements uh for how a site disturbance shall occur. Uh and so what it does is essentially I think the the headline of the ordinance is that it
transfers uh responsibility to the Somerset Union Soil Conservation Service as opposed to uh having enforcement being conducted here uh inhouse by the township. It transfers that responsibility to the to the county or the the by county agency to conduct and
it and so uh more specifically it does that for uh major soil disturbances with at least 5,000 that are at least 5,000 square feet. For soil disturbances that are between 2500 and 5,000 square feet
that stays in house here at the township uh both for administration as well as enforcement. And then um existing but unchanged in this proposed ordinance is anything less than 2500 square feet it's not subject to the ordinance and so ultimately it is transferring that
enforcement responsibility for these major projects 5,000 square feet or more to the to the Somerset Union Soil Conservation Service and I I should note it also provides uh uh submission requirements for those permits that are going to stay in house
between 2500 and 5,000 square feet. And so the ordinance is not particularly long, but that's those are the topics that it addressed. It's really about uh amending um uh some applicability language which I think is is lesser but
maintains the uh the overall intent of the ordinance and then as I said transfers that responsibility and so I issued a memo on July 10th of this year that provides a summary of that. Um, the other thing I did in the ordinance, excuse me, in the memo is provide a master plan consistency review. And so I
reviewed the the township's 2023 master plan to determine if there are any goals, objectives, objectives, rather, and any policy statements that might be relevant. And I think that there are. The township has a number of goals and
objectives that uh speak to uh protecting the environment. Uh uh for example, we have a goal addressing uh stating to uh to minimize the impact of development on the everyday environment. Uh there are conservation environmental
resource uh objectives that are relevant such as planning and managing land use to preserve, protect, enhance surface water, groundwater quality uh etc. and uh additional language in your conservation element that I think is also relevant. But again, it speaks to
protecting the environment. And while this ordinance doesn't change the technical requirements of how the environment should be protected, it's certainly very very relevant to the township's efforts to making sure that development's uh impact is limited to
the extent possible from an environmental perspective. And so, um, ultimately I would say I don't think there's any conflict or any inconsistency in the township master plan with the 2023 master. Yes, correct. Um, and is this something that all towns
are doing within Somerset? I I don't know the answer to that. I personally haven't reviewed any other ordinance taking these. Yeah, that's kind of unfair to ask you that question. Um, I know we might have some questions here. So, Mr. Would you like
to kick us off? Can you describe the difference between the penalties between the new ordinance and the old ordinance? Is the new ordinance more punitive? Let's see. Uh so ultimately I will say in terms of penalties, one of the things
that this ordinance does is it takes the penalties that were specific to this topic and eliminates them in favor of the township penalties that exist for uh many if not all of your land use uh provisions, zoning provisions. So, the
penalties uh in the in the overall township ordinance uh I think range between a fine of $1,000 and up to jail time presumably if uh if somebody were unwilling to comply with uh direction
from the court as opposed to uh penalty of uh between 25 thou excuse me $25 and not more than $3,000. So, the short answer is yes. They're much greater penalties in the uh in the proposed
ordinance uh as a result of referring to the township's existing penalty section. And that's under section 21-65.1. Correct. So So a homeowner could the homeowner could go to jail. Not that the judge would ever do that, but at least it
would be hanging over the service of 2500 to 5,000 violation. Yes. just like uh I think that's a it's that's a true statement. It's a pretty harsh penalty. Um for better or worse, I
I will say it's consistent with the other penalties for violation of of zoning permits and development uh requirements. It is consistent. Yes, it there may be I did not go through the township's entire land use section to determine if other items have
penalties, specific penalties, but the the majority of your land use land use ordinance uh points to section 2165, which is the penalty section. That 2165 purposes $1,000 tree removal
in our tree removal ordinance. It's only replacement with the tree ordinance over the 2165. I would have to take a look at that. I I didn't evaluate that. Yeah, we don't have that tree ordinance in front of us though.
No, just in general, maybe it's illegal. So, can you frame your question again? The question the our tree ordinance says if you cut down a tree, you have to replace it based on the schedule. And that says you cut down a tree, it's
$1,000. So with the tree ordinance overrule this ordinance? Well, I think that's kind of an unfair question for Miss it's well I'll answer it this way. It's not applicable because the tree
ordinance is not for your review. So the penalty that is being discussed as presented by the planner is that there was a specific penalty as I heard her presentation with respect to soil erosion. That
specific penalty has been removed in favor of a more consistent broader penalty that falls under the general umbrella of land use violations. Right. Yes. It's not applicable
because she's not reviewing the tree ordinance. I think it's a valid point that maybe at the end of the year we when we review ordinances, we often make suggestions to the town council that we could bookmark this as something that we find
inconsistent. So I I think it's a great catch, but I don't think it's my view applicable to our soil erosion right now. I would I mean I'm I'm trying to if somebody's in violation of
I'm not sure I understand specifically what the concern is with respect to the penalty for this violation which would generally be applicable to other
land use violations separate and apart from the specific. I'm not sure what the concern is in terms of I'll try to describe what I was describing later to
maybe committee later on. Can I can I just give a little education about so might be I've been involved with soil since the 70s
most challenging sites manage the soil districts usually control the force almost all towns throughout the state burns town few rare town
did the pering and the not the no the enforcement the permit is being provided by the soil there's three stages of compiance soil
juris at least our time 2500 to 5000 there's the soil districts throughout the state basically starts at 5,000 And then once you go anchor, it goes to
EPA. EPA is a whole different world. Unbelievable. They have multi-million dollars. So that's that's three stages here. Our town also fusion town has 25 to
5,000. Most towns don't start 5,000 square feet. I just want to give you a context soil the three levels of hopefully that's informative. So, are
you asking for some kind of um I my recommendation to the township committee is that they rectify that the homeowner should homeowner shouldn't have threat to look at this ordinance. They didn't they didn't have that threat before this
ordinance because you're saying in the prior ordinance it was not there. Correct. It was just a fine which the fine to 3000. That's the soil erosion standards that the towns were allowed to do now that we're out of
transfer to the district to understand that threat starts at a threshold that's lower than what seems to be standing throughout the state. Yeah. And just the other thing, so the soil districts don't put people in jail or threaten people in jail. The EPA
could threaten you to put in jail, but they get to put anybody in jail. They had multi-million dollar settlements $80 million. It's a real stretch in my mind for a homeowner 2500 to 5,000 to have that
hanging over their head when the big boys big match builders don't have that. So just put it. So what I understand is you would like us as a board to make a recommendation
and we'll frame that. Does anyone have any discussion on that? Does everyone understand? Mr. Schlide, do you have anything to add to this? No. Uh, well, I think Mr. McManus
already said it. The the jail time provision is in the uh the section of the ordinance that applies to everything else. Everything. Yeah. So, we're asking them to carve out just for the Yeah. I mean, there may be some other
sections that have I didn't look at every single one of them, but generally speaking, if a if a section does not have its own specific fines and penalties provisions, it defaults to 2165, which is what um Mr. Crane doesn't want
to see as part of this soil erosion section. The problem will still exist elsewhere. We could modify this ordinance to penalties just just like the old ordinance and it wouldn't default. The penalties would be what's written in the
proposed ordinance just like it was 25 to 3,000 if you kept that eliminate the whole jail. Correct. It would it would eliminate having it to go to the general provision. So you would prefer to have a specific penalty noted in this just like the past.
Okay. So would you like to frame that for I'll let I'll let the attorney. So So what I heard you say is the recommendation to the governing body is to revisit the penalty provision to provide a specific penalty provision
that does not include jail time and does not fall under this type of separate section which is well that's why it okay specific penalty specific penalty which Thanks for making
Yeah, I I see your point. I appreciate that you caught that, Mr. Um, Miss Slayman, did you catch what was written, what we've talked about so that we can make this recommendation to the town council? Okay. Um, I would just like to have a a
um No, not a stroke. I would like to hear I would like a roll call on this. So the the motion I'll call it is as stated by Mr. Toriello and uh does anyone and so I'll you'll make that
motion Mr. Crane I'll second that motion and let's have a roll call attorney my wording that's so good. So, we're gonna um make a motion. He's made a motion to refer the stated
language to the township council for the amendment of this ordinance um under the penalty provision. And we're going to And there was a second by me. Yes. And we're going to do a roll call. Okay. Mr. Crane, yes. Mr. Kos, yes. Mr.
Yes. Mr. Rabino. Yes. Mr. Tani, yes. Miss Ali, yes. chairman. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions of Miss McManis on this? I
don't think we open to public or sorry, it's not a public hearing in terms of the, you know, comment. Any other questions for Miss McManis? No. Okay, good. Um, I'm going to move
on. I had skipped accidentally the resolution that was on the agenda before. This will just go out of order. Oh, thank you. Yes. Thank you so much. So, um, Miss McManis has said in her memo
on page two under the master plan consistency review that the ordinance is not inconsistent with the township's 2023 master plan. So, Do I have someone to make that motion um that we find it inconsistent?
Unless anyone not inconsistent. Not inconsistent. I caught myself. I'm making sure you're on your testing. How am I doing? You're doing great. You're doing great. We're going to approve your order. So, not inconsistent. Could somebody
please make that motion for me? Unless somebody wants to speak about it. I'm sorry. I just want to ask a question. Yes. Is it is it important to note whether you're deeming it if you're saying it's not inconsistent is that regardless of whether the
township committee makes your suggested change from a legal standpoint I think they're not they're not tethered together that that this board has two functions they can make recommendations if they wish but they need to make a determination of
the ordinance whether it's consistent or inconsistent as it is presented right now What's that as the ordinance is drafted? I would say yeah. I mean the could because that the recommendation doesn't have to be accepted right by by
the governing body but it's this board's prerogative to make recommendations but the governing body it's their ordinance. So I would say you're so okay but thank you for the question. So
the the again it's that it's not inconsistent unless anyone else would like to chime in. You have something to chime in. Go ahead. I think there's items in the master plan that tend to call inconsistent when you
have over regulation and lack of flexibility. Four or five things that in my opinion would be consist. I'm going to vote for it be consistent be an argument that this is over
potential improvements to the community. Okay. But despite those objections, you're still going to say it's not inconsistent. Okay. Well, your remarks are noted. I will not ask you to make a motion. Would someone else like to make a motion
to deem this not inconsistent? This so moved. Thank you, Mr. Rino. May I have a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. T. And I have a roll call. Miss Mr. Crane. Yes. Mr. Yes. Mr.
Yes. Mr. Rabino. Yes. Mr. Teni. Yes. Miss Ali. Yes. Chairwoman Mango. Yes. Motion carries. All right. So, the um I did go out of order and apologies, but I don't think
anyone was too bent on that. Um the next item would be the resolution number 257. It's a change order number two and an increase of $6,000 in the professional services contract for our 2025 planning
board attorney. Planning board attorney awarded to Jonathan E. Period. Drill Esquire, professional services contract for 2025. Planning board attorney of the firm Stickle, Koig, Sullivan, and Drill
in a new not to exceed amount of $8,500 excluding matters of litigation, including matters funded by escrow. I'm going to read this resolution, so bear with me. Whereas the Bernard's Township Planning Board adopted resolution number
253 on January 2nd, 2025 in the amount of $20,000 appointing Jonathan E. Drill, Esquire of the Firm Stick, Kate, Sullivan, and Drill as Planning Board attorney. And whereas the chief financial officer has certified that funds will be a available in the 2025
current professional legal services of the planning board. Other expenses account number five-01-21-180- 204 and now therefore be it resolved by the Burns Township Planning Board of the Township of Bernance Somerset County, New Jersey. The purchasing agent is hereby authorized to issue a change
order to Jonathan Erill esquire of the firm Stickle Conig Sullivan and drill in the amount of $6,000 for a new not to exceed amount of $8,500 including litigation. Now therefore be it finally it finally resolved by the Burns
Township Planning Board of the Township of Burns Somerset County that this resolution be placed on file and available for public inspection in the office of the Burns Township Planning Board. May I have a motion to approve this
resolution number 257? So move. Thank you Mr. Tenry. May I have a second? I'll second. That was Mr. Thank you, Mr. Yorio. Can I have a roll call? Miss Slayman. Mr. Crane? Yes. Mr. Poso? Yes. Mr. Yorio?
Yes. Mr. Ravino? Yes. Mr. Tangi? Yes. Miss Ali? Yes. Chairwoman M. Yes. Motion carries. Uh, next will be on the agenda, comments from members.
Mr. Crane. I'm on a roll. Commission. You're always on in the beginning of the year. I suggested an ordinance references a subsection that we should be providing that.
Fortunately, tonight we have that help. We had a similar situation. Not that it's a land development or chain. You were going to jail for 90 days and $2,000. You cut down
tree of the property which most of the property owners could have done this for the past 200 years. So the couch committee did not know that and when that was brought up to them that they changed. It's a $500 potential fine but
you can you can try you can fix it before the $500 fine. I think in the future if we get those documents so we can read the whole thing because most people read that not realize that what had happened this was
more more restrictive I think in the future yeah that's a point well taken so miss if there is a reference to other um subsections or other sections of an
ordinance if we can just include those um I'm sure if we don't Mr. Crane will tell us to include that even to like it's on 360. Just click on Yeah, but that's a great point. Um, thank you. I would personally like to
welcome our new board secretary. This is her first planning board meeting. I know that she's been baptized over by the zoning board, but um and she's still here. Yes. And now you've had the Mr. Crane baptism. So, but um
But welcome. We really are a friendly board and um you know it's a great group. So we appreciate you. Yeah. And and you can always look forward to our holiday sandwich in December. Um any other questions or comments by
members? This is going to be the fastest meeting on history. Any comments from our staff? No. So with that, do we have any other applications? Oh, yeah. What do we have in the future before? You're right. Before we adjourn,
I'd like we should see what's coming in case we we have a fellowship village memo in front of us that was just circulated. Um is that been
we're waiting on fellowship to um replenish their escro account before asking uh Mr. Good to report on that parking report submitted by Fellowship. So um looking at the schedule
that um that matter fellowship village parking report is probably September. Okay. um in our it's probably maybe the second meeting in September since the first is the day after Labor Day. I don't know. That's getting kind of far in advance, but we have no nothing in
the very near foreseeable future as far as planning board business goes that we either have or is anticipated. Okay. Is that your um position as well, Miss Layman? That we don't have anything on the agenda right now? Yes.
Okay. So then I'm going to cancel the next meeting, but I'll hold in advance the following meetings until we know. So the next meeting would have been you just Yeah, it's the first it's going to be
the first of first Tuesday after the first Monday. So any Actually, I have it here. I've got it right here. It is August 5th. So, August 5th meeting will be
cancelled. Hold on the on the 19th. And I'm hopeful that we're going to be able to cancel the day after Labor Day because I don't think we're going to get a lot of um attendance on that day, but we won't do that yet. So August 5th is officially
cancelled and possible August 19th. Okay. Thank you for bringing that up. All right. May I have a motion for minutes at this? I'll make that motion. Thank you, Mr.
Thank you, Mr. Favor. I