board justice meetings at 160. Members of the public we should offer commentary questions email news by posting copy board meeting all March 134 attention board any matter 11 p.m. any
regular special meeting of the board unless the motion tactic meetings chair members of the public will be permitted to address applications and comments as appropriate once invited to do so. Any hearing conducted on the board is the applause individual
proceeding. Any questions or comments issues that are relevant to what legally considered reaching a decision for must be maintained at all times apologies >> Mr. Deluso >> here >> Mr. Green
>> here. >> Miss Kramer >> here. >> Miss Leler, Miss Paxton, Mr. McDow >> here, >> Mr. Milo >> here, >> Mr. Salard >> here, >> Mr. Sloum >> here, >> and Mr. Trainer >> here.
>> You have a quarum, Mr. Turner. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so we have meeting minutes from Are there any additions or corrections? >> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. There second.
All in favor? Opposed? Are okay. two things. We have a plan here.
Um, and we have a letter from returning for dogs which is attached to the resolution. So we are
atmorial. So the applicant has requested us to remove the application. He approved it a meeting does deter. So I'm going to read that in
under old business here. Whereas the application for use varian approve approval has had previously been filed by Liberty Parks LLC here and after designating the applicant for Burough Berning Board adjustment here after designated the board for property located at 21 Liberty Road Burnsville,
New Jersey more specifically known as block 113 lot 13 on the tax back burnersville here New Jersey was said use being not permitted in the art by itself and whereas a public hearing was held before the board on December report and March
4th, 2024, December 4th, 23, March 4th. 24.4 for with regard to this application and whereas the board heard the testimony and evidence presented by the applicant witnesses consultants and with public having had a full opportunity to participate and whereas at the conclusion of the hearing the board voted to approve the applications with
conditions and whereas subsequent to approval the board through its administrative officers in Polardo received a correspondence dated June 3rd 2024 from the attorney for the applicant a copy which has been attached here to and incorporated herein and whereas the June 3rd letter indicated that the
applicant was now precluded from proceeding with the approval for the property and therefore needed to abandon set approval. The letter also indicated that the applicant understood that by abandoning the approval the approval will now become null and void and that the applicant would not be legally able to proceed with the use of property as
previously approved. Now therefore be resil on on 16th day of September 2024 made a solid conclusion approved one based upon the attach fin attorney of June 3rd 2024 the board has
determined that the prior approval granted to the opposite by the board shall hereby be terminated and because no further force or effect the approval has been deemed abandoned fell void and the property that had been the subject of this application shall no
longer have the benefit of require to >> Anybody have any questions on this >> I assume they're not doing anything right >> well they're they're not allowed they're not allowed to have the farm business
>> daycare visit running have sight. Anyway, >> I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second, >> roll call, please. And I think it's probably here. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> So, Mr. Delaruso,
>> yes. >> Mr. Green, >> yes. >> Miss Kramer, >> yes. >> Mr. McDow, >> yes. >> Mr. Sier, >> yes. >> Mr. Sloum, >> yes. >> And Mr. Milo, >> yes. Motion carries. >> Okay. And on the
on the agenda here, um, it's only about Kramer Ser. >> Yes, I made a mistake. One of the board members brought it to my attention and I redid it and that's why I read from my sheet here. >> Okay, good. Okay,
>> I left two names off there. >> Well, that's fine. Thank you. Thank you. >> Okay. So now we go on to your application state of birth of Rushman Farm. Who's here to represent that
application? >> Yes, Mr. Chairman. My name is Susan Rubbright. I'm an attorney with Brock Iller in Rosland, New Jersey. And I am here tonight on behalf of the estate of Bertha E. Rushmore. >> Okay.
Um so first I'd like to just give a little description about the property and I know we have to go through completeness. Um one thing I would like >> Sure. >> Yes. >> Um I know we have to go through Mr. Brightley's report for completeness. Um
I would like I do have an introduction which I think will help address some of the issues that Mr. Brightly cites in the completeness letter. So I would like to um go ahead and do that if if um if the chair would permit that.
>> Um I think we need to go through the complete discussion. >> That's certainly your your choice. Um that's certainly your choice. >> Without that we're not we can't hear the application. >> Um well there's some certain and I
appreciate that. Um there are some certain items that we are asking for um waiverss for completeness purposes only and um there are some factual issues that I want factual items that I wanted to bring to the board's attention that would help support the um the request
for the uh for the completeness waiverss. Um, for instance, um, if I might, while the application is styled as a subdivision with variances, um, I want to repeat that there's there's nothing that's going to be developed here. So, a number of the waivers for
completeness purposes that we're asking for. We'll go then into more detail um, with the testimony as to why we're asking for waivers for that. One of the items are >> I'm sorry. >> Let's discuss that. Fine. That's fine. Appreciate it. Okay.
So I will um I I do have um our site engineer Richard Schelmer from H2M who can discuss I guess some of the issues as well. >> Raise your right hand please with regard to this matter. Do you swear the
testimony you're about to give? Show me the truth. >> I do. >> Could you state your name? Last name, please. >> Sure. Richard Schulmer, last name S C H O M E R. >> And you've been in front of this board before and qualified as an engineer.
>> I I have uh it's been a while just trying to remember the past application, but it was over the past 40 years. I've been before this board a number of times. >> But I'm happy to proceed. Would you like
to watch Mr. Shaw by himself? That's fine. It's been around the block. Your license is still >> current and active. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> So the first one here uh checklist requirements. The subdivision
applications are required to provide the following information under the section of all structures including buildings, etc. within 300 ft of subject. And this was
I'm looking on before. >> Yeah. >> B. >> Okay. So, let me just make I think if you can just go through and site the number of the of the of the comment and
then the letter and then the number as well because I'm not sure that it's being picked up and this is being recorded. So I would ask everybody to keep your voices up including rescue and and the professionals but yeah just just indicate what it is that you're that you're referring to and and responding
to. >> Sure. >> So um and I did a response letter uh to the board uh dated August 27th 2024 and um and and basically reiterated the
comments in Mr. Brightley's uh uh review memo review letter dated June 19th and then I went through Mr. Zable's uh review letter he did issue a subsequent review memo. I think ours kind of
crossed in the mail almost but um so uh so the I think the first one you're really referring to and it's uh it's item six in Mr. Brightley's letter. Uh, and this is under the review checklists
for concept plan. >> Actually referring to Mr. Zambo's letter, not Mr. Brighton's letter. >> Okay. >> Mr. Chairman, you may um since our reviews kind of coincide. I would I would suggest that we work off Mr. Brighton's report and cover everything
including Jefferson and me on some of the engineering aspects of this. So I think it would be appropriate to to to further his review even though we kind of share that responsibility and I covered much what he did. he has certain issues and questions and this is
important because there there are two aspects in this application if I might the frame there's a use variance aspect of this the applicant for the board for use variance of the raspberry case uh where the courts have issued a determination
that when there's a subdivision that reduces the size of a a non-conforming use that it requires a new use it's an intensification um however this This is a B1. The reason it's a B1 which the higher Medici
standard simply because this was this use the glitter factory is associated with a use fair that was granted as far back as 1959. It doesn't meet the definition of pre-existing non-conforming use for a D2 kind of application. Uh and I think the
applicant will is aware of that will address that. So there's a use aspect and whether or not the board feels that the reduction in the size of the property impacts that factoring in such a way that it's no longer viable or can continue to operate as it did in the past. That's one aspect. The second
aspect and responsibility of the board is to review the subdivision against the major subdivision standards of the Bur. Uh and the main main issue is under section 10.8 8 10-8.1
the lots have to be viable that ties to uh Mr. Brightly my review in terms of what information is required or should be presented to the board to determine what to comfortable with in order to make that determination as to viability of these properties. the last few great
still here, but you also planners looking ahead. You want to make sure that the last suitable and that will be on the applicant. I'm sure the engineering plan will address those issues as well. But it ties to completeness and Mr. Brightly had issued
a letter that expressed some concerns and my recommendation is always to grant waiverss but always with the concerns of the board engineer because there may be things that I don't believe but he may so just wanted to provide that little contest.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. And we'll start on page four. >> Okay. >> Page four of your report, Mr. Bley, or the response. >> Yeah, I would say it's the same,
>> right? >> Yes. It's also >> so we're all on the same page, >> right? Okay. Um, and let me just in terms of context, I know everybody's trying to put some context. The waiverss were seeking are
uh for completeness only. Well, if during the course of the discussion and and hearing the board says we'd like more information on that, that's fine. We we'll seek to give you that information. So, it's not we're really hoping to be able to get past the checklist waiverss so we can proceed
with a discussion of the application. Um, and and I think when you hear more, you'll you'll understand better again the context of the application. I know what Mr. Rub was was going to say with respect to the application in terms of
there's no development proposed with this subdivision. Now, we're carving the property up into some new lots, but we're not proposing a typical We're here to seek a subdivision to build on each of these lots to build new homes. That's
not what the applicant is here for. The applicant is here to satisfy the requirements of a will and settle the estate. There are three and and M rubight can tell you this and I think probably where she wanted to go in her opening comments
but there are there are three beneficiaries of the estate and the objective and the only reason this application has been filed is to settle that estate. So, we're simply trying to carve up the lots and I probably shouldn't use the word carve it, but subdivide it to create lots so that each
of the beneficiaries can settle this estate and move on. The uh there's I know that from the prior applications and uh and and approvals that were issued specifically for the glitter
factory. We'll talk more about the glitter factory, but the the industrial use on the property that there were limitations imposed. You couldn't subdivide the property further. You couldn't develop the property further so long as the glitter factory stayed
there. That's fine. The applicant is fine with that. We're fine with that. We're not seeking to change any of that. We're not seeking to build over here while keeping the glitter factory over there. Again, no change is proposed. They're not not seeking to have any
development or build something on any of the lots. This is again the the sole objective and the only reason this application was filed was to settle this estate. So I think that context is important to to
keep in mind along along those lines. So because we're not seeking to build anything, not seeking approval to construct anything now or for the foreseeable future, uh the applicant's
willing to impose conditions so that the board and the bureau is comfortable in maintaining the status quo. The objective is to maintain the status quo in terms of uses and activities on this site. There's a glitter factory. There's a farm. There's some residential
uses. All of those are proposed to stay as is, no change. There's large large farmland areas. Those are proposed to stay as is, no change. So, as we go through this and we and we talk about
some of the waiverss that we're seeking, I think we want to keep that in mind. The applicant's not saying, "Well, I want to build here while keeping this over here. the applicant would like to keep everything just the way it is. But there's a there's a mandate and and Miss
Ruby can address it much better than I can a mandate with respect to settling this estate uh which has been um I'll say open for some period of what I think 2009 or something like that. Um, so that's really the objective here
and and and we'll talk and you'll hear us tell you that several times probably, but that's one of the driving forces behind why we didn't want to go through and why we're seeking waiverss for doing some of the stuff that otherwise I'd be
in Bob Brightley's camp if we were coming in to say we want to build lots on these, I'd say, yeah, we should be doing these things. I would tell the applicant we ought to be doing these things but because of the nature of this application because of the purpose and the goals and the objectives the only reason why we're
here we thought let's seek waiverss so that we can move on get the estate settled again we're not seeking to try to get away without doing something if during the course of this discussion the board says I'd like more information on that we'll we'll seek to do that and
before anything could get built on any of these lots, all of this work would have to be done. But we don't know when that might take place. And so one of the things we've said and and we we'll go through each of the I'm happy to go through each of the each of the waiverss
individually, but this reason I'm giving you this explanation is because I think it applies to many of them. If we were to seek do a a hard wetlands delineation, for example, now, well, those have limited lifespans. uh they're
going to expire and wetlands haven't have a could change over time. So doing that now and having that locked in uh when nothing is going to happen and the LOI is likely to expire for example uh and wetlands may change in the future.
We don't really see the value in that. Uh you'll see that the lots are all way oversized compared to what the zoning requirement is. and and that and that's again simply because we're trying to create specific parcels to go to uh the beneficiaries of the
estate. That's again that's why we're here. Um you know rules change over time. So we could you know we could try to do something now that might say okay let's let's meet the current rules on demonstrating something. Um but those rules might change and again we're not
seeking to build anything now. whenever anybody might ever come to seek to build anything on the property, those studies, those investigations, those proofs will have to be made. So, um that's kind of a a little bit of
a again in context of the application and some of the reasoning why we're seeking many of these waiverss and happy to go through them. I mean we'll go we'll go through them but I think uh as we talk about uh many of these and you
know this is uh you know starting with this first one that uh that we were just looking at um we're not there's going to be no impacts from developing this site because that's not what is proposed
usually with a subdivision I'm going to be up there talking about the roadway and the drainage and you know things like that. None of that applies in this case because even though we're going to create a lot, those lots can't be built so long as say
the glitter factory stays in place. Again, that was a restriction that was placed on the property, we're not seeking to to take that away. We're not seeking to change that. So, um, to the extent we can provide the board with
some comfort as to that. And so you're and and so you're satisfied that okay, you're not trying to, you know, do something about without doing something else. Uh we want to try to do what we can to to make the board comfortable and to the extent we can work together
towards appropriate conditions that the applicant is and I'll speak for uh but that the applicant is absolutely willing to to do that. So I I'll leave it there, Mr. Chairman and board members and happy to go through these individually and in more detail. uh as
much as you like. >> Well, before you step away, um >> Okay. My concern is that what this board does um has to do with lots and their future
use and whatever this board does that sets bound boundaries, guidelines, whatever for future use of pieces of land. Mhm. >> And when you say nothing's going to be done, so we don't need to do these bits,
I have great concern. So my comment is, would the applicant be willing to accept a condition that says nothing can be done >> until these are until >> No, nothing can be done. >> If you want if you want to be able to do
something in the future, >> you have to answer the board's questions today. Otherwise, we can't act. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, if I I'd like a little clarification on um the question and then also just to to represent on behalf of the applicant, which is the
estate. Um and and I appreciate Mr. Schmer's summary. Um it is part of what I was going to discuss. Um so that's helpful to give the context. Um the lots are being the lots are very large and we fully accept and understand the
condition that has been imposed on this property since 1957 when Mr. Rushman appeared before the board at that time and was not able to and was looking to have the the the glitter factory use.
Put glitter factory in in in quote marks um in order to help sustain supplement the income and sustain the the ability of the far of the farm to remain. And that's all in the resolutions. This isn't you know me saying so it's in the the prior
resolutions. The reason why the property has been able to remain the pastoral scene that we all love is because of the glitter factory. And that's why because it was it was a viable use and it it remains a viable use. So, we are fully
um willing and and advocating to accept the condition that if there was going to be any further development of the lots that have to be created in order to um complete and and finalize the the administration of the estate. That
condition would be that there could be no further subdivision of the lots um that are being created um that were originally part that were originally burdened by the condition that there could be no subdivision while the
factory was operable. We are perfectly willing to accept that condition. We offer that condition. Um it's not an unreasonable condition. So for instance, some of these lots are 34 34 acres. This is a 3acre zone. Um the reason why this
is happening as as Mr. Schmer indicated is that Mrs. Rushman in her will set forth the general parameters for uh deeding or or or um providing um dis the
lots the the parcels for her three heirs her three children. And the allocation was done such that um the the parcels were um divided based on where the family members were living at the time or near. For instance, um one of the me
two of the two of the of the heirs live on the property currently. One lives adjacent to the to the to the property. Those are the three general um divisions and the lots were created to um in an equal value as equal a value as possible
so that the heirs could be deed that property. The reason why there's eight lots is because the railroad runs through the middle of this property and I went to high school and I took that the train and you know went on that rail on that that train line. Um as I'm sure you know most a lot of people know
people that that did that as well. Um, so yes, and I'm really that old. So >> you did you did it, too. >> You still ride. So you've been through the property. Um, but that's the reason why there's eight lots and one lot. Um, and we will talk about the the factory,
why it's on that lot. We wanted to keep as much of the pasture land available as pos as possible. So, it went from the entirety of lot 2, which is 150 something acres, down to six and a half because we wanted to keep it it it
um concise and have other the as much area as as possible still devoted to the pastor land. Um to continue the pastoral views that we all enjoy. Um so when you say this is all getting to your question
to your condition when you say you can never develop this property I think that that's uh a little bit beyond the can of what the board can can can um dictate at this point but certainly we do not want to change anything. Um
the heirs to my understanding do not want to change anything that's going on on this property. They love this property. blew up on this property. And um to to require us to go into do a lot of invasive testing and expensive
testing when there is no there's going to be a condition that the property cannot be further subdivided while the factory is in business. um is is I think I mean I would submit
to you is reasonable asurances that we're not going that nothing will happen to this property unless someone comes back to this board and does all of the tests that you're requesting or that Mr. that Mr. Brightley has brought to your attention. So when you say you divided the property
up in relatively equal values, how did you come up with those values if you don't know how the property can be developed forward? >> Good question and I think Mr. Schmer can can address a number can can address that because we did spend a lot of time um doing uh trying to achieve equal
value and I would also um indicate that there are pro other properties that are part of the whole equal distribution um valuation but with regard to this specific property um I'll let Rusty discuss um how that was done. >> Sure. So we did look at uh is it is it
helpful to maybe look at a plan? I think it was >> um so th these issues involving property have been around for approximately 15 years. You mentioned Miss Ren died in
2009. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. She was pred uh her husband predesceased her and she she passed away I think 2009. >> 2009 >> 2009. >> Okay. In that time has there been any keep in mind this is land use board and
we're not in chancery where we're weighing weighing siblings issues that have been is there any litigation that we need to be aware of involving this family that would impact what we do I haven't seen
anything >> not to my knowledge um no there's no litigations Okay. And that that is all I ask. >> Question is the main federal state. Is that
>> our job is to when I consider a subdivision like any other subdivision application. This happens to have ancillary issue involved uh symptoms. We look at we need to look at this as
great subdivision. We would handle and with with variances with a use variance and we handle it and consider like any other similar application. I mean, we're not here to to to make everybody
static. That's possible. But but we're we're here to consider this a language application. >> Yeah. And and it has whatever we do has future implications and that's what I'm concerned about. >> Um Mr. Chairman and Mr. Rego, I just I would just like to supplement um the
response to the board members question. The reason why we raise that is in support of the fact of why we need to subdivide which is technically is in violation of the condition with in connection with with the with the
factory. So what we're saying is that we need to do this. It's it's like two different interests, but we need to do this to wrap up the estate, but then it violates the prior condition of having no further subdivision while the factory is in business. So what we're agreeing
to of course is that if the board grants the sub it's part of the rationale for why we need the subdivision basically is that we need to wrap up the estate and we are agreeing that we would condition any approval on no further subdivisions
being required unless >> the factory goes away and we would have to come back here as well for further subdivision. >> Just another um I've not seen the will. I don't know if we need to, but but is there a condition
in the will that says there can be no subdivision? I thought I read that somewhere. As long as these litter factors in operation, if there is, before we look at this, do you need to go to court to allow that? >> So, I I understand the question. There
is nothing in the will. I I mean I'm not the I'm not the the estate attorney, but um the the will sets forth the general parameters of where the dis upon her passing that the distribution
is to go to the three heirs and in the approximate location of where each of the three live or live near and and take care of. by the way as well. Um there's certain um uh there's the one certain
property uh that fronts where where a lot of the cattle are that fronts along um the quarry road and that that air that that child that child even though they're all adults um is being devised that because he takes care of that
property and lives on that property. Um it's a general allocation that we then had to >> but can we does the bill say that the property as it is now which is a big problem. Does it say that
that it cannot be subdivided legally unless and until the glitter factory goes out? >> No, it does not say that. It's it's it's it's not in the not to my not to my knowledge and and I have reviewed those relevant sections. >> Correct.
>> I have a question. Uh it's a boo I think. Um is there a way to essentially bifurcate this application to hear what really is the crux of the matter which is the rationale for why they're sub they're starting to talk about it already which is sort of what does the will say? Is that a legitimate reason?
you know, to support, you know, it could be variances that they're requesting and deal with that issue first before we spend a ton of time dealing with a lot of engineering issues. And I think the engine makes a good point about wetlands, you know, do we need to consider it or not, it almost seems like
that would be like once we deal with the issue of whether this should even be forward from a from a legal standpoint around whether there's a legitimate rational. >> Okay. What is what is complete? Because that's where I'm trying to get to. Yeah. Is there a way you could sort of say we're going to like hold on completeness
from the from the subdivision standard standpoint and and deal with essentially the use variance first and then >> which is why I was asking about further development because we don't have enough
>> we don't have enough information to really talk to lots. >> Yeah. So all this stuff is missing. So, how do we handle that with conditions or restrictions on the property? And if there's a decent way to do that, then we
can grant waiverss for the missing elements. And that's where I that's the path I was trying to go down. >> Right. Can I ask a quick question? >> Certain rich and I asked John to chime in too. Delaney's law allows an applicant I don't know if we can force
it, but it allows an applicant to say I'm going to split this. Let's deal with the use first and the subdivision all that second. But I mean, you're not developing anything here. So, I'm wondering what the second part would be
other than here are the lines that were that we're proposing. What I don't want to do, and I know you mentioned the will, but I don't think this board wants anything. >> You don't agree with me. >> Do we even care about will? >> No. My my point is so I don't want to
know what the will says. I'm told it's this property is just to be uh divvied up three ways. Uh we we can't deal with who's how much one's worth as opposed to the other. We're looking at this and
land here. Here it is. And I can understand if nothing's being this was a lot being developed. I think we'd probably be here for a year to you know hearing this thing. But it it's not. So I think um and I understand the chairman
here. We want to know what what is there going to be another card being turned over here. We don't know that. Whatever's turned over here has to come back here anyway. I mean if we >> we need to make sure that the resolution states that and the applicant accepts that condition in the resolution.
>> There's a subdivision here. Three three lots and then you're talking about eight lots. It's a lot of moving parts here. If if the board ultimately decides to grant the relief, um we're not going to do it based on
who's happy and who's not happy and who wants another rake or who doesn't want another rake. This is the plan. If the plan gets revised, wonderful. If all the siblings get together and do whatever they have to do to be happy and you revise the plan and come back and
everybody's happy, I we're looking at the the lines on the on the plan and we're looking on Yeah. our experts reports and why we don't need to know as Ed said the will is not our concern. This is a straight no maybe not so
straight subdivision application without development at this point without anything changing on this point other than putting lines on the lots and the lines on the plan and as long as everybody knows as the chairman said
other than that we're not going any further. I mean if if anyone wants to develop this or build on it, you have to appro approach it like any other like any other land use applicant in burn that's what we consider. So we're not >> you just can't get a subdivision and go
off and build something follow the process. You know that Susan and the chairman wanted to make sure that that that was clear that we're here >> to again I don't personally care about the will. I just want to know if there
was any litigation that involved us which I've not heard of. >> Right. >> So, um other than that, how >> I'll the best way to proceed without wasting, you know, uh right now contour lines and
all this and well, it just what do we what can we focus on to get this moving? Can >> I just ask one question? I've heard this a couple times. that if the glitter factory was to go away that they have to come back to the board and for what reason?
Yeah, I I I let me let me try to to clarify the condition of the approval and the condition in the the several resolutions of approval um that were drafted by this by older iterations of
this board >> state that the property cannot be subdivided any further or could not be subdivided. If and if it were then the glitter factory could not operate any longer. That's the
connection. And you're looking at me. I don't think I'm answer question. Well, I understood you to say that if the glitter the glitter factory use, right, it's abandoned that you'd have to return to the board to do any other development.
>> No, no, that's not what I said. And if if I said that >> creating further subdivision, >> right? Further meaning Okay. No, good question. Okay. So, let me clarify that. So, what we're seeking to do and we can we put this up because I think this would really help if we could put this
up visually. We are seeking to subdivide lot two, which was the prohibition in all of the prior resolutions. We are seeking to do that because we need to subdivide in order to divide the
property according to the wills. >> So what we're saying is that we would agree that we would not. So there's one lot I think it's 34 acres. If if someone came in and wanted to subdivide that property into three ac
>> 10 lots then >> they they would have to obviously come back to this board but the glitter factory would cease to exist. So that's, you know, that that's what that's what the connection is. >> Well, not this application is >> that's not this application.
>> So the way the way I see it, what I'm hearing is that we divide this up into eight lots. Conceivably, somebody could put up a single house on each one of those lots because it is residential, >> right?
>> And they would not need to come before this board to do that. they just go get their building permit because obviously they have an adequate size lot circle whatever >> and that's and that we do show that on the plan but you know obviously they would need to get all of the other
>> if you want to subdivide then the only time the subi subdivision could occur a subdivision application could occur is once the glitter factory ceases to exist >> I don't think the subdivision application causes the the glitter
factory to cease to exist. I think the glitter factory has to cease to exist before a subdivision application could be made >> on any lots. >> And once that once the glitter factory ceases to exist,
there are six, eight lots, whatever the number is, and those would go before the planning board, not the board of adjustment in order to be subdivided. I think that's what I'm hearing.
some clarification from what kind of variances are >> they're they're going to go through the use variance and there's conventional variances well not building anything but there's existing structures that require certain
>> setback which they'll go through setbacks because we're creating new lot lines. >> Yeah. as an example. >> There's nothing but >> Mr. Was my pontification accurate. >> Uh yes.
>> I I without without >> confirming that it's pontification. >> Ah this is great. Okay. This this I think will be really help right now. >> Okay. Understood. No, but I think this would be helpful to show and do you have the other one that shows such
>> so one? >> Yes. Two questions. One is when um they're saying that kick litter factory goes away. Does that mean cease to exist and or does the building go through the dirt and it becomes you know a buildable
lot without uh without industrial structures on it anymore or does it become a warehouse or Amazon or something? That's my question. First question. Second question is um
I've heard and plus what I've read many times it's this thing is basically based on the will of course but that equal value equal value to say twice tonight in the paperwork it's equal value but I'm having I'm struggling with how could
you mine happen to be on the floor but how can you how can appraiser appraise those blue lines for equal value if in fact he doesn't know where the wetlands are. He doesn't know where the slopes are. He doesn't know where
>> that one is is not our concern. Equal value is something for the estate lawyer to take care of. >> I don't want to talk about equal value. Okay. >> We are a land use board. >> And again, that's >> we don't establish the line.
>> They can put the line where they want. the uh but you bring up a really good point >> with the glitter factory and >> even the glitter factory glitter only% the building was operating in just 2% we
rented the rest out to Amazon that's the same concept the the the resolution from 1950 whatever was written to the glitter factory but oh by the way at this point it really ought to be any commercial
concern on that piece of property, not just the glitter factor. >> I I think it was very interesting as as a land use attorney for these many years and a planner prior to that to see the um conciseness and short I don't know if
this is the correct way to say it, but the shortness of the resolutions compared to what a lot of resolutions and the way boards think today. The resolutions were not that long. Um >> they were recommendations. there were actually recommendations that went to
before we got the the MLUL in 1975. Um those are conditions that the board could posit um you know because it's not stated it just says the motor factory >> but I think there's simplicity work if you looked at the overall picture
whereas this is a farm supplement my income I'll keep this pastorial as long as I can operate this commercial as I guess you too that'll supplement but again once that goes away then it becomes a minimum of eight houses could
be 50 houses you know that's a whole different what I think Mark what I think is important is that the glitter factory becomes in definition a commercial concern right >> so I don't want to tie to just the glitter factory I would like >> any commercial
>> any commercial concern that there's no subdivision as long as the commercial concern still exists but chairman >> exactly Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that the use variance that was granted by the burrow to the glitter factory
would extend to any other would have to come back. >> Yeah, that's that's true. >> Again, you're right, John. >> You're right. Absolutely. Because it's a residential zone. So, change the use of that property. >> Okay.
>> It would still have to be on there asking what they're doing. But I we can we can claim we can very clear by saying any commercial we're basically starting from scratch, right? Because the the subdivision voids the original
>> variance void. >> Well, it does but does >> a part of your application as a whole new variance for the existing factory on six pull it in. >> Exactly. So then we can we could define commercial property or Yeah.
We needed to we needed to clarify these issues rather than them coming up two months from now. We need to get them on the table so we all know >> are those kind of things that would be acceptable the applicant so that we could move forward. Um
>> yes yes they would be. >> Okay. So, well, let's go through the rest of the items here that Bob noted. Most of them are >> so I'm sorry. >> Pardon? >> No, I was just going to looking at the
laborers, Mr. Ch. So, you want to go through those take a look at those? >> Yeah, I'm looking at the other checker, which which are the things that are site work, which would all have to be satisfied in order to do a subdivision. As long as there's no subdivision that's
allowed, we don't need to do the site work at this point, which is what I think the applicant's posture is. And given the size of the lots and we did we did supplement the plans with some additional information. We showed
for example the soils information. Uh I mean I can give you information about the slopes and and what those slopes are. uh so that you that helps the board understand the property a little better. Um so I don't know if you want to go
through them briefly item by item or um >> I'm just I'm just looking through the checklist myself and um everything in section six if I'm reading it correctly Bob item six is all really site work
that would have to be done for a subdivision. This is Yeah, I know it's subdivision, but if it were to be further subdivided in order to put houses on it, you really need to do good stuff. >> Well, um
the board's going to have to make that decision. The property does contain contain flood areas wetland the bearing buffers both 300 and 150 and probably a lot, you know, some steam
swallows. I think those are the issue. Those go to the and then whether you can get septics on where the wells are. How how are these lots going to be service? Are the I think there's seven
dwellings on the property right now based on prior applications. So where are those sets of systems? How are they getting their water? Are they property? So there's issues I think. But what I'm thinking is that if you wanted
to put one house on that lot, if it didn't have a house on it already, >> you would have to pass through board of health, you'd have to pass through where it going to be, where's your well going to be. You couldn't do if if you were
violating the steep slopes ordinance back here, um just to put a house on an empty lot. If the lot already has a house on it, you can't put a second one without coming here.
So, there's enough um barriers to further develop where all of the things that you're mentioning are terribly important, but would have to be satisfied either by the building inspector, by the health department, by
engineering, somebody. And it would get reviewed when you're trying to put a house on a piece of property. >> That's that's true. That's going to be the city board estimate. >> Yeah. >> You know, whether some of these lots you're looking to develop maybe one
quarter and that's going to require front yard setback variance, side step back, >> according to that, >> but but we can discuss that when we're looking at the lots. Right now, we're looking at checklist waiverss. In in the past, the way we've done it
was um we'd ask John, we ask Bob, here's a checklist, what what do you think? And they either said we need to know that or we can go ahead and hear the application, but we always would like to ask more information when if any issue comes up. If we're if we're two hearings
in and we have issues as to flood planes or or sleep, certainly ask them. just to get over the the initial hurdle of completeness, move ahead. So that's where we should be. So I think that's
what item six really started discussing. Um, and I think that we might have enough checks and balance in other areas of land use where we could hear it without
specifying all of this stuff. But >> not a huge time, but at least to memorialize it. >> Well, we we graduated. So we go through we
>> certainly welcome to go through the waivers. Um >> and it sounds like the applicant is okay with us granting waiverss and and sort of reserving the right password later in the application if we then seem like a big risk.
>> Yeah, we we agree with that. And I just wanted to get a feel for the board's ability to hear this application given all the items that are missing in the application that Bob and John have noted. And I think that they're all important. I really do. But I just want
to make sure that we've got the protection we need so that anything we do will um make sense, will be legally binding. It's not going to get overthrown by the superior court.
>> And that's where I was coming from. >> Yeah. >> Make sure that we keep up everything we do >> um strictly legal first. That's not for this board is about
states, but Uh elevation as soon as disposal do you know but how is that is it I don't know if in the sewer service area. >> But you know those those that's when you
that's when you come up with development plan for the subdivision. So we know we can't just pass the last element house here. We never protect the slopes. We never protect the streams. We don't have to protect the slopes. And we don't have screens
because oh by the way in order to put a house up you got to get all the other approvals. So when the building inspector looks at the plans and seen what the slopes are if you're disturbing more than 250 ft or 30% it's here. So I mean all those all of those
protections are already in the zoning ordinance sub confirmed by the tax subdivision plan should be revised to reflect the anticipated lot which
conversation assessment did that. >> We did that. >> We did that. >> Um that the rest of your report really isn't dealing with waiverss that you're talking I
go through the report and and identify the variances. >> Yeah. Typically what we do there's not a lot of technical comments because no development at this time. >> Okay. But the main the main
the variances the wages are mainly about the things that will be required for environmental constraints is the main focus of our completeness. Okay. And as long as
the applicant is comfortable with no further subdivision, as long as the commercial concern exists, and any further subdivision would then have to go to either the planning board
too, depending upon what it looks like, then all of those questions would get answered at that time. Well, I'm not looking at future subdivision. I'm looking at this subdivision where these lots at some point down the road can fit
a single family house lot 2011. It's got flood planes, wetlands, buffers, and it's going to have an accessory bar. Where's the access to that lot coming from?
>> Where's the house? Is there a place for it? >> Okay. So, if not, we're creating a lot that can't be built on. So, does it make sense then to have those items identified during the hearing process?
>> It's going to continue to be my recommendation that would at least be an environmental constraint. You never you never stated that they need to go get an LOI, but they did get a wetlands expert to approximate where the measurements are.
>> Okay. >> The other information is really there already. It's you know they show the buffers are not correct. I mean they aren't plans. They don't have plans. >> I missed that. Could you repeat that question? >> At least on the first
it wasn't really a question. And it show they showed buffers but they weren't correct on the original plans. Maybe they corrected them now. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, we did. That was that's in my response letter. >> Not sure. Okay. Okay.
So during the course of the hearing, if you find that the information that's being presented is remains incorrect, is it acceptable to have it be corrected before? >> Yeah, I mean it's it's on the plans. I think the board has a better
understanding that these large lots can easily accommodate a five home. >> Okay. you know, not a little accessory apartment bubble.
>> So, question to the board. Um, are you comfortable with granting the waiverss that the applicant has requested? Do you feel we've covered the issues enough that during the course of the hearing if there's something which you're uncomfortable with, we can ask
more information? That's when we That's a question of the board. >> What did you say? If we grant waiverss for any application, we always reserve the right the applicants agreement. Yeah. >> To ask questions down the road, you we
didn't think of something in the front and something where it said we can ask for uh something traffic uh environmental that maybe wasn't wasn't obvious in the beginning, but it pops up now. But we certainly like so if you
grant waiverss and move ahead and we get stuck on something we can get information from them and I'm assuming Susan. >> Yes, absolutely. We agree. >> That's a a standard. It's a standard condition.
>> I'm comfortable with that. Okay. This is not a standard. >> Any other comments for anybody else? >> Welcome. >> Basically, what we're doing is she's putting block lines on it. >> Y
>> and we're not getting any approvals to do anything. >> If there problems down the road, they need rent approval when one of the locks doesn't have access. If they want to do something with it, they got to get access somewhere somehow. >> Yeah. >> Or whatever.
>> I'll make a motion to grant the requested >> subject to our um receiving information if need be down the road. >> What?
Okay. Is there >> that mean that we're just going to put lines down? Well, they're going to make a case. Yeah. >> And their case ultimately is going to be we want to have this property subdivided
into three >> total of eight parcels. And yeah, I mean, we're not dealing with any construction, any sewage, any where the wells going to be, swimming pools, anything like that. Um
in fact if you read the environmental commission and I'm always it's they want a lot of this to stay open but uh but that's down the road. Yeah. So we're basically dealing with just dividing this property into uh eight lots as they
requested and we can certainly question uh you know if there's no access I don't know if at this point we would they're not developing anything you know they're not asking for any changes other than putting lines that aren't there now
>> and uh for purposes of resolving issues. >> Yeah. >> And and Luke and have you all your years on this board, have you ever seen any application come in to subdivide a lot
at least some bare minimum information meaning that we just have lines on a piece of paper basically. >> Well, what what's the here and other other boards I represent? There are there are applicants that come in. They don't want to build anything. just want something to buy something to buy a
piece of property. Maybe down the road, the normal situation I hear would be to sell. Now, I get a subdivision, I sell it to developer, and I'm happy and he's happy. Um, yes, I've seen people come in with they just want to divvy up lots and usually
they're building lots. This is this is different in a way. This is easier in that sense because we don't have to worry about road connections, uh, driveways, landscaping, trees. They're not doing any of that. So, yeah, this is not
run-of-the-mill, but it's within our >> within our bail. And and Mark, I know that people have come in specifically when the tenant zoning was enacted and before it actually was enforced, there were people who divided their property
piece as well. >> Yeah. In the five parcels. >> So I know that that happened. If they never did anything in those five parcels, but essentially brand is abandoned. >> So the lines are based on what
>> lines are based on what people want to put on. They want they're gonna tell us what they want to do, >> how they want to do it, show us the thing, and um if it makes sense, and it doesn't uh uh involve anything that's
going to hurt Bernardsville, which I can't see, but but So, it's basically it's it's their ball game. They're going to tell us what they want to do. We listen, we ask questions, and when all is said and done, the land's going to look same now or the way it looks now is
going to look the same way if we grant the subdivision because they can't develop. They don't want to develop it. So, it's going to look the same. It's just going to be developed legally certain family members and and we are going to put controls in there so that
it cannot be developed until the commercial learning goes away in which case then the stuff goes to the planning board but it still has to go to a board in order to be in order to any further subdivision. And that's what's
important. I I don't want to just grant something and have it be acceptable and and nobody ever has to come back to any board. They just do whatever they want. Wrong answer. Yeah. Or if someone wants to build a non-residential structure down here, they have to which is not
permitted. They have to come here which so it might be a heavy lift, but the point is we're left with lots. That's it. But you can't do anything with them without coming back to a board if
granted if you haven't heard it. And so without the subdivision information that Bob is recommending, and I understand why it's terribly important, but if you can't subdivide it, if you can't do things, then we're
relatively protected in just dropping down. >> Yeah. >> And that's what I'm hearing. So, will you grant these waivers? And it's been moved and seconded. >> Um, all in favor of granting the waivers.
>> Okay. So, the application is only complete because now Susan, what are your game plan? >> Um, I have Mr. Um and I also have um environmental consultants here if we need them, but I think
>> um >> but no planner yet. >> No planner. No, >> I think um >> Sean Moransky is our planner. >> He's not here tonight. >> He is not here. He is not available this evening. >> Okay. those rusty and
>> and then if we need um which I'm hoping we don't for their sakes and mine and yours um but they I have um Francancy Stella from my office who's an environmental attorney and Joe Sorgi um for Verdon from Verdantis who um are uh
available to testify about any of the um issues concerning any environmental questions that may be raised and um with with regard regard to the factory if there's any questions about that >> and the normal rules apply. Your witness
testifies, the board asks questions, the public can ask questions of the witness >> regarding his testimony >> regarding his testimony and you move on. So, you're still on the road. >> Yes, sir.
Okay. Um, so um, we did that. Did we qualify? >> Yes, I thought you did. Okay, great. Okay. >> Yeah. So, um, what I what I'd like to have Mr. Schmer do is, um, just describe
using some of the plans and the the very nice aerial photo that is up on the screen now. um go through some of the existing conditions and then or or or the the relevant existing conditions and then discuss um the um existing physical
characteristics and then what we're proposing to do in terms of the lots >> and if you use any if you have any exhibits that we don't have let us know some otherwise we're going to assume you have >> yeah I think you should have everything
except what's up >> actually you have this You have that. >> Oh, that's the one. Okay, that's the one without the proposed lotines. I see blue lines and I think it's >> Yeah. Okay. So, we will we will have that shown. I think we did see it
briefly and so we will submit that to Miss Florida. >> Okay. All right. Um >> so Rusty just go through as I noted the existing conditions, the location, the lot sizes and layout, the zone, the
access ways which the property does front on um Mineberrook Road which is also known as 202 and um let's road >> and Kilhead. >> Okay. >> And road.
>> All right. just kind of take take the board through this then um with with all of his >> okay >> queries in mind. >> Sure. >> So what I have on the screen is a plan that was submitted. So you should have
this um and it's an aerial photograph. It's entitled aerial map with photo locations dated February 21, 2024. uh was submitted with the subdivision plans and uh so using this and I'm going
to zoom in because >> so who prepared >> I can't I can't see this that well >> this is an aerial photograph that >> it's an aerial photograph that we that we obtained and then we overlaid uh uh information from the survey of the property um to show the properties. So
um so let me just kind of go through a description of the properties and um I'll kind of start bigger scale and then I'll zoom in as we go along. So just for orientation and and before I do that
this contains also a number of photographs which are keyed into uh numbers in the yellow circles here. We can look at any of those. But if you have the map and you've had an opportunity to look at it, it does give you a pretty good sense of what the
property looks like today. Um, and that is a lot of open space, open fields, farmland, um, is what you see largely from the exterior. Number of the photographs are keyed into where the the glitter factory is, and we can look at
those as we go along if you like. So, uh, in big picture, this property is 215 acres, just over 215 acres. Uh, as you can see here, and just for orientation, um, north is I'll just
scroll down. You can see the the north arrow is up here. So, north is up the page. North is going up the page. Uh, I would and Route 202 or Mine Brook Road runs along the top of the page, if you will,
if you could follow kind of where I'm where I'm showing with the with the cursor. Um, I always think of 202 running north and south. It actually kind of runs a little more east west here. Um, so, uh, route 202 is at the
top of the page. As Susan said, the property is biseected by the railroad new NJ dot department transportation railroad, formerly the Eerie Lacawana Railroad, runs through the property uh
in this uh uh sort of circuitous manner, if you will, um through the middle of the property and then the rest of the property is to the south of that. So we really have two parcels that make up the total 215
acres. This northern parcel which fronts on Mine Brook Road and it also fronts on fronts on Nikker Road over here on the left or sort of the uh the west west side. Uh that property is
124.5 acres. It is block 96 lot 2. And that is the entirety of this uh northern parcel bounded by the railroad and route 202 and Nika road to the left and actually goes up to Corey Road to the
very very top there. So that that is one parcel on the north side of the railroad tracks 124.5 acres. On the south side of the railroad tracks is a separate block and lot. It is block 100 lot one and
that is the entirety of this portion here uh on the southern side of the railroad all of this and that is 90.67 acres. Uh so that's in total that's where we get the 215 acres between 124
and a half and the 90.7 acres on on the south side here. >> So let's look a little closer >> and oh I'm sorry. Yes. So, um, and Pillhill Road, uh, it has frontage on Pillville Road down here on the south
side. So, that runs along the southerntherly border. So, we have frontage on PH Road down this. So, as you can see, it has significant frontage on a number of streets, Billill on the south, Mer on the west, Minebrook on the
on the northwest, and a little bit on Quarry up to the north northeast. Um, so let's take a little closer look at um these lots and see what's going on here. So looking at this block 96, lot two,
124 and 1/2 acre parcel. Okay, what we see is and where the pictures are. We can look at those if we like, but in the center basically in the center of the property is what's going to refer to as the glitter factory. Uh there is a
factory building. There are some other accessory structures. There is a and we can zoom in and look at these. So the main the main factory building. Uh there are uh um there's an office garage uh over here with an apartment.
Uh there's a building called the crearyy building, one called the greenery building. There is a main cow barn and a smaller cow barn and a horse barn. Um so those are the other accessory structures. uh those are on in right in
the vicinity of the factory uh and those so we have the factory operations and there's also the farming operations so some of these uh structures are associated with the meadow metobrook farm activities if we look a little bit
to the west of u the glitter factory which is kind of in the center we have a more residential use so this is a dwelling for Roberto Roman Uh and clustered in this area are three
other accessory residential structures. There is a there's a guest cottage. Uh there is a what's called a farmer cottage over here. And then there is a a garden cottage. So and we've identified these on the subdivision plans. Uh but
there are we got the main house uh three other accessory residential structures which are existing and a number of other accessory structures. There's a greenhouse uh there's a couple of chicken houses. Uh
there's a goose house. There's three garages on the property and a pool and a pool house toward the back of the property. So those are really again clustered in the area of this particular residential use sort of to the west side
of the glitter factory. If we move a little bit to the east side of the glitter factory over here then uh we're looking at where there's another main dwelling and this is the residence of of Peter Rushman. Uh and associated
and around there is a pool and a deck. Uh there is another one other accessory residence on the property and that's actually called the Pond Cottage uh which is up uh further to the uh to the north and east. Um
and then around the dwelling uh is uh is a workshop uh near nearby is is a workshop. Um a pool bed, a feed house, a calf barn up uh a little bit above it.
Um there are a number of small sheds uh and a barn in the back and a roofed area which which is which is over here. Uh so again that is really the activities that are taking place on um around that
residential uh structure surrounding uh all of these improvements. And again you've got the glitter factory in the middle and a couple of residential uses on either side surrounding all of these. And just to back out again, so those are the kind of in the center. Surrounding
all of that is active farmland with mostly open fields and some wooded areas. So there you look at the uh look at the area, you can see all of this area to the to the west uh is largely open fields. You can see where some of
the wooded areas are at the perimeter along along a driveway along some tree roads which you typically see with farming activities. Certainly some trees are in the house areas. uh some other areas where there's some trees, but a lot of open space and a lot of open
farmland. Um so that's what you see on on this 124 and a half acre parcel on the north of the railroad track. Looking at block
100, lot one. Uh it contains basically open fields associated with the farm use and some areas of woodlands. There's no structures, no homes, uh no buildings. And I should have mentioned actually going back to the north side, there's a barn on the
west side over there is a barn uh commonly called the white barn. And then there is a small shed over uh near one of the fields. It's it's called the field tool house, but it's a shed.
But the uh but there are on this going back to the south side though on on block 100 lot one there's no structures on this side of the railroad tracks. This is all open fields. Um again
associated largely with the farm use. um to the to the west. Um uh as Susan pointed out, uh I mentioned Robera Rushman's house and Peter Rushman's house to the west and just offsite but
adjacent to this lot on a separate lot which is lot 1.01 is the residence of the of the third sibling Henry Russian. So his house is over here. Uh this tract is already subdivided out. It's not part of this application, but just kind of pointing out where the the siblings
dwellings are that Susan indicated are on or near near the property. Um, but the the lot that is part of this subdivision is this lot. You can see some wooded areas, but most of it is
being open field. Um, so that's the that's the entirety of the property, the 215 acres. Uh the entire property is in the R1A residential zone uh which is largely intended for single family residential use. Uh minimum lot size of
just over 3 acres. 137,500 square foot is the minimum lot size in the R1A zone. Uh so basically we call it a threeacre zone. Uh as of course these lots are are very large. Um
the property is really kind of a a valley. Uh the mine brook runs through the property from north to south. So starting at the north end, mine brook enters the property, runs through the site uh kind of through the middle of
the property and then exits the property on the south end. And that's obviously flowing along through the lowest elevations of the property. Uh and similar to where the railroad is. So the railroad and the and the mine brook will follow something of a of the same
pattern in terms of where they're located through the center of the property. So then if we uh go from this low point in the valley, the property slopes up towards Mbrook Road uh 302 and
then it slopes up toward Pillville Road and to the uh to the east um towards adjacent properties on the east side of the property. So it's high on the sort of on on the bottom of the page, higher on the top of the page near Route 202
and as I say really sort of a valley uh running with mine brook running through the center uh of this of this property. Uh we do show on the subdivision plans that were submitted plans I didn't put them on here because I was concerned about too many lines but
we do show a repairarian zone associated with the mine brook. Um so D would would assign a a repairarian zone to the stream. Um and uh we showed that at 150 ft and 300 feet depending on where you
are. Um one of Mr. Brightley's comments in his review memo talked about uh making some adjustments to that and we did make those adjustments on the plans that were that were submitted. So we show that on the subdivision plans that hopefully all of you have. Uh so there
is a repairarian zone along there. Uh and the site does contain areas along the stream primarily does contain areas of freshwater wetlands and we we've shown on the plans an assumed 150 foot wetland transition area. That's the
maximum wetland transition area that the D would assign. uh the repairarian zone and the freshwater wetlands that we show on the plans are what we've taken that have been mapped uh by the NJD under the NJ geo web uh information. So we've
shown that consistent uh with what's mapped on the NJ geo web. Uh we also show on the plans a a flood plane associated with mine brook and that is based on the FEMA flood mapping
uh in for the burrow of mine brook. We've looked at those we've taken those into consideration. That's been part of what's gone into a study of this property uh over that we've been working on literally for the past couple years uh
to look at how this property might be might might be used and and developed. Not that that's not what the applicant was proposing to develop it, but we've looked at it for what might happen and and that went to the purpose of how does this get divided to meet the
requirements of the estate and was used for valuation purposes. I know that's not an issue that the board would get involved with, but I'm just explaining that we've looked at these environmental constraints looking at the impacts on the on the property as to as to how um
that would impact the further use and development. Um we have we've visited the site on a number of occasions looked at uh where many of these constraints are and the mapping that we show on the plans I think is generally representative of
where they are. We haven't done a specific on-site wetland delineation, but we have looked at areas and such this area is would certainly be classified as a wetland. But having said that, there are areas outside of those uh environmentally
constrained areas where um looking at the lots that we'll look at in a second. You could put a house on each of the individual lots that we've shown here. And I know that's what what Bob was concerned about looking at the subdivision as is. Could you could you support a house on here? And in my
opinion, you can um and we'll look at lots more in a minute. Uh we added to the plans uh Tom suggestion added information about the soils um and the and the soils mapping. Um and in doing that you can what it
what the soils mapping also indicates is the topography. Um what I can tell you is I'm sure everybody's familiar with the site. been by it 100 or thousand times. But on the uh uh in the in the
lower reaches closer to the stream and this this northern uh parcel um is flatter uh through that area. Uh so that the topography in this area is generally mild to somewhat moderate slopes. Um and
the and those slopes are actually closer a little closer to Route 202 um through the center where the stream is, it's pretty flat. When we look at the um when we look at um
look at lot 100, lot one, the the southern parcel um that has uh that topography is moderate to somewhat steeply sloping. the soils classifications which is in the shaman mount lucas silt zone of 6 to 12% and
then in some areas it indicates it goes up to 18%. So there are areas of some steep slopes but nothing that we think is prohibitive in terms of use or development. So when we look at the lots again which we think are very oversized
and not intended for development but certainly they could they could support a dwelling and I think to to Bob's comments uh we can be comfortable that we could provide that each each of the lots that we show can support a
dwelling. Um not that that's what's proposed but that that it is a suitability question and and and a valid one. Um, the property, as I mentioned, does have significant frontage on Route 202 and Pillh Hill Road, uh, as well as on Mika
Road. Primary access into this site. Uh and again really the uses are clustered in the center here. There's a primary access coming in off of Minebrook Road, a driveway that comes in and provides access uh leading to the glitter factory
and leading to the other uses to the to the dwelling uh to the to the west and the dwelling to the east and the other structures. Um no changes proposed to the access. Um we're not proposing anything. Uh
there there are I should point out that because of the presence of the railroad there are actually two permitted legitimate uh crossings of the railroad. Uh one is uh sort of on the on the right
side or or more northerly side and then one is further uh to the to the south and and west. So there are two legitimate and permitted crossings of uh new of the railroad there and that's really to access the farmland that's on
the south side of the railroad because the the facilities and structures are on the north side and the and there are simply as I mentioned just fields on the southern side. Um and then there are internal driveways of course
to get access throughout the site. Um, in terms of uh sewer and water came up as a question, the properties are currently served by on-site septic systems and wells. Um and and we've shown those on the plans uh to the
greatest extent that we know where all of them are. Uh but we do know that the the existing dwelling u Robera's property, Peter's property are served by individual wells and septic systems which are in place. Uh so those are
those are functioning. Um the the factory use has its own uh septic system. I guess we're planning to retain on its own lot that we'll look at more in a minute. But the uh but all all of those are in place and I think it goes
to demonstrate the suitability of the property to be able to support wells and septic systems for single down residential use for the for the zone. Um there was a a question that came up and Bob you had raised it um about an
Egypty's permit and there actually is a current um permit New Jersey pollutant discharge elimination system permit for the factory. Oh, there's two. Okay, there's two permit. Sorry, I'm correct. >> My expert.
>> Okay. All right. So, those are in place and no changes for both of those. That's simply because you have a commercial type going through a septic system, but those are in or functioning and uh and those are no no change relates to that. But I know Bob had raised that question.
Um, as as we've said and continue to say that the goal is to keep all of this as is uh keep it in its current condition, but really just to just to create some different parcels uh so that we can um
take care of the requirements of the wilderness state. What I'm going to go to next is another I picked the right one. Yes. Okay. another exhibit. >> So, you're going to talk about the proposed >> the proposed the proposed layout um and
a little bit more about the lots as as we've shown them. >> Uh this exhibit you don't have Luke um and I will be happy to forward it. >> Okay. Nice.
>> This is and I'll tell you this exhibit is entitled aerial map with proposed subdivision and it's dated September 13, 2024. We prepared this one more recently for for this presentation. What was the what
was the date? 13. >> 13. >> We can provide copy. >> We will today. Yes, I I'll email that one to you, >> please. And yeah, and visual. >> Okay, let me know how many hard shot. So, >> um it's really the same aerial that we were just looking at. Um but we've
superimposed on here. In blue are the proposed lot lines. So, same orientation, same layout, route 202 at the top, the railroad through the middle. So, you can see the factory, the glitter factory use
here. So let me just kind of briefly go through the various lots. Um so lot and and these proposed lot numbers uh we've assigned we think they make sense. Uh we did make a correction to them or an adjustment to them per for
Bob's memo. He suggested changing lot numbers and so we've done that on this exhibit and on the plans that he >> and what just what were those are you going to go through that? >> Yeah I'll talk about those. Yes. So, um, kind of starting from the left hand side, the westerly side here, proposed
lot 2.01 is this lot, uh, with frontage on Mineberrook Road and frontage on Miker Road. Um, so, uh, this lot is 34.95
acres. Uh, there's it's open space. Uh it does contain uh the white barn that I mentioned earlier. So that's down in in this corner and the there's a shed that I mentioned uh on the property as well.
But basically it's farmland. Uh 30 30 acres basically. Uh the mine brook runs through here. Uh if we look at the subdivision map which I have if you want to look at individual sheets but uh if we look at that you know we do see um the areas in the low part by the brook
which contain the bulk of the environmental constraints. Um there is there is an area to the west and an area uh to the north uh which is uh not really encumbered. Uh and in my view,
there's sufficient space in there to put a single family home uh compliant with the requirements. Um particularly closer to Minebrook Road, uh you're you're well uphill. You'd be outside of flood planes and away from those areas of the
greatest constraints which are which are frankly associated right next to to the mine work itself. Um moving to the right, proposed lot 2.02 02 35.6 acres. Uh this is the one that I
mentioned contains the single family dwelling and we rush house and the other structures that I mentioned here. Also contains farmland. Uh there's a farm pond over there. Uh so that would uh that would uh be a 35 plus acre lot.
Again, frontage on uh on Route 202. uh and um and would and would house those structures and and really no direct. Uh lot 2.03 and 2.04 were the ones actually we switched. We had a number uh the
other way around but per Bob's suggestion we change them. So lot 2.03 uh would be where the glitter factory is. It's a 6.5 acre lot. We show it with a staff leading to Mine
Brook Road. So, it has frontage and access onto Mine Brook Road and that would be where the existing driveway is. Um, we wanted to put the factory on a separate lot so that that use that
factory use would be separated and be on its own lot. And so, that's uh that was how this was done. Um the shape of these if we were doing a normal subdivision for you know single family homes with developments you wouldn't see these kinds of lot lines. It was really uh
constructed to accommodate the existing features on the site. So for example uh the glitter factory there is an area which has parking area which is used where trucks come in. um we want to have
access and we wanted to retain that use and activity on that lot where the glitter factory uh currently exists. Uh so that's why you see some you know different shaped lot lines in this area. Uh and then we went up between some of the buildings again to try to separate
those activities which are more associated with the glitter factory use to stay on that. Um at 6 and a half acres, it's more than twice the size of the minimum lot size required in the zone. Um and uh and and
well, when we talk about variances, what you will hear is that variances are not being requested because we're building anything new. The variances are associated with existing buildings and structures uh and because we're creating
a new lot line. So when we put a lot line for example on this uh west left side or the westerly side of the of the factory uh building or we put one down to uh uh keep the factory use on one lot
and try to create the other uses on the other lot. The lot line ends up being close to uh some buildings. So we're seeking setback variances to allow those existing structures to remain. uh and it's really a setback to the new to the
new lot line. Uh so that's that's going to be the driver and the reasons for what when you hear variances and you'll hear sounds like a lot of variances. Well, there because there's a number of structures and again it's simply because of the proximity of existing structures
to to new lot lines being created not to build any new buildings close to a lot. All of this is is you can see here and of course we zoom out. You can see it's very internal. Uh so this is nothing that is uh is apparent. Um I know I'm
sure for all of you and and for me as well, you drive by this property and you see fields. You don't see a factory. You don't you don't see really much activity um you see open fields and a lot of open space. Um and and that the goal is to
keep that not change that. Um but with the activity really being centered in the middle when we do create a lot line that that we'll you will hear about variances for those. Uh so that's lot that's lot 2.03 lot
2.04 4 was a a separate um primarily vacant really a vacant lot um six acres so it's almost twice the size of the minimum lot size required for the zone has frontage on Minebrook Road when we when we looked at these we certainly had
to make sure that every lot had frontage and access to a public street in order to meet the statutory requirement um for subdivisions and under the municipal land use law. Um, so but this is really farmland today. Lot 2.05
is the rest of this northern parcel which goes all the way up uh and contains 41.4 acres. Uh, and this is where Peter Rushman's house is located that I
pointed out in the other exhibit and facilities right and and structures and activities right there. Um and those are those farm farm related >> they're farm related structures. Um it had the other one other cottage and
other farm farming activities on that lot. But that's a 41 acre parcel um that would be created. So then and that's so those are the lots on the northern side of the railroad. And then if we go to the southern side
of the railroad there are three lots that are created. Lot 1.0 03 uh which has frontage a little bit of frontage on Mer Road and frontage on Pillhill Road. Uh lot 1.03 is just over
24 acres and as you can see it is farmland and the wood woodland in the center portion. Uh moving to the uh to the little bit to the north and east um
the next lot is lot proposed lot 1.04. 4 that's 24 and a half I'm sorry 26 and a2 acres again open field farmland with some woodlands and then proposed lot
1.05 5, which is just over 40 acres. And that's the balance of the property on this southern side of the railroad. And that is, as you can see from the picture, it is really uh farmland for the most part. Has some perimeter areas of some wood and some and some pretty
lines. >> Does that line also have access on Phil? >> It did. And it is. Thank you. It has frontage on Phil Hill Road >> just in that in that >> in this portion here. Correct. So, um, so those are the lots that we're proposing, the areas and some of the
features that are situated on those. Um, the environmental constraints we took into consideration. Um, on the southern side of the railroad, we don't really have much of a concern with flood plane um, or other significant environmental
features. The steep slopes are not prohibitively steep um, as I mentioned earlier. And if you look at the soils classifications, they're it's generally six to 12% with some up to 18% at the border is how they're classified. And there may be some areas
of steeper slopes, but not slopes that would be prohibitive wherein you could not place a single family dwelling on any of these lots. all of these lots in my opinion are suitable for construction of a of a single family dwelling which goes to to Bob's concern which which is
valid that you want to make sure the lots you're grading are suitable for for the zone purpose and again not that not that we're proposing that but you as the board want to want to have that comfort um we do show on the um subdivision plan
and I didn't plot it on here but I can tell you that we do show on the plans a number of easements Because we have current existing activities on these different properties and we want to maintain those activities. We want to we want the
owners to be able to cross one property to over another property to get to properties on the other side of the railroad for example. Um so u there are easements to allow crossing for example
of say lot 1 point I'm sorry 2.05 5 um to get across. Remember I mentioned that there are a couple of railroad crossings. We can't cross a railroad anywhere. We're limited to two spots. So, one of them is is in this location here. Uh and there's a driveway that
leads across there. In order to cross there to get to farmland on the other side, we would need an easement across lot 2.05. Uh similarly um uh we want to have access along an
existing farm road here to get to other parts of say lot 2.02. So there's an easement to allow that to occur. Uh the easements are to really needed and necessary and desirable to maintain the
existing activities on the site. to maintain the farming activities. We need to get to the field that's uh on the other side of the railroad for example, but we need to cross somebody else's property. This is again is once they're divided up and they're in different owners. Um so that's the reasons for for
the easements uh that we show on the subdividend plans and I have the subdividend plans if we want to look at those in more detail. Um and and we recognize that there are uh utilities that cross properties and and the plan is that there would be some
common cross access and utility easements that would have to be put into place um for for the lot configuration and that's understood again to maintain the existing conditions on the site as you see here today and as as I've described.
um when it since there's no you know normally doing subdivisions I have to talk about you know what we're going to what we're going to build and and and you know storm water management and things like that but that doesn't apply here not we're not doing anything we're not building anything so that makes that
part a little simpler um I think that's really most of what I had to go through questions that I missed or certainly >> you covered everything was going to ask you utility easements, but you just covered that. Um,
access you covered. Yeah, I think we're good. >> So, >> so we would open it up to the board for questions. >> I'm sorry. >> Yeah, I have probably asked several questions. You ended on storm water
matter. So, it's a good question. How do we any development on here? It's going to be funeral. How are you going to allocate the improve surface the service? The first property that gets built probably
an acre and maybe less anything else is going to be a major development. So how do we anticipate allocating that? Are they all going to be considered majors? Any houses built on there?
that we don't we have no as we've said we have no we have no plans for doing anything and I don't even have to think about what's going to happen in the future we we have we have no plans for for doing anything so I I can't predict so I ask you two years from now they
comes in they want to build a house on lot 105 >> they can't build the house on lot 105 until the tax is that somebody can't speak here Yeah, if I can interrupt that, I think you
want to >> I mean I think once it's subdivided, it's subdivided. So I think I mean, >> correct me if I'm wrong, >> but but it's no long it's no longer one
parcel. It's no no longer one property. It's a separate lot. So, and if they have to go through, if there's either a subdivision where it would come before the board or if it's just one house, it
would be going to just let me finish. Um, if it would go be one house and it would go for all the building permit and all of those all of those reviews and I would assume that you would be reviewing it as well. So, that's you know that's a decision in the future because
>> I want to talk about what going to the future board. My question is this property is it's one property. You have three lots on on one side. If someone builds a house on lot 105,
they could conceivably stay under the threshold for a major development. The other lots coming are also going to now be kicked into major developments because it's cumulative over the whole property. I'm asking the question if
there's any thoughts on how it's going to be allocated or the just first come first serve you know >> I think it depends on how you property >> well you know it's not it's not combined anymore >> it doesn't matter what management
purposes >> yeah in a little while so there's no plan how it gets allocated. Somebody comes in to build on lot 1.05, they'll have to conform to the regulations in effect at that time,
>> which could be different. They might subject it to a different standard. >> That's right. >> And the household law >> and and the standards may well be different then they are today. So they'll be subject to the standards in effect at the time. and and if then
future development requires some other some additional requirement that'll have they'll have to deal with that. >> You understand that it's human? >> Yeah, I think this is where my questions to start with were and I think we need to build something into the resolution that
controls it. >> I have one question. They'll have to come. >> Will the property once it's subdivided say in whose name? Will each one of the three airs get s
three and how will it how will >> the ownership will change because they'll go to the three heirs. So they'll be the lots will be in different names.
So Russy, just to clarify that then um we will be recording the plaque, correct? And then we will also be issuing separate deeds for each of the lots. We're not going to each each lot will
have its own deed and it will also be recorded um as a as a subdivision flat >> as a major sub as a major subdivision. We'll have to have a f final major subdivision that gets recorded, but uh
the ownership will change because there'll be new lot and some may go to one person and some may go to another, but that's simply the ownership of those individual lots. >> Was that answer your question, sir? I could
it would stay in the metal throat stay up. >> Correct. That's correct. >> Um, so couple of things come to mind. the railroad crossings
that are currently permitted by New Jersey Transit. Does New Jersey Transit have to be informed of all of this subdivision activity? >> We did notice them for the hearing, but you're asking if there's something
separate. >> Yeah, since there are crossings, un unsecured crossings, whatever the term is, they're open crossing. There are no gates there, >> right? >> Um it's certainly something that we would look we can look into we can
confirm or you know confirm with them. >> Yeah, I I think we need to confirm with them what needs to happen if anything with those crossings. I think that's an important station. >> This subdivision will require NJ for that. So
>> yeah, but I think this something >> I think we need to ask a question before NJ transit look to improve things. I don't trust them. >> Well, they will comment on access. >> Yeah,
>> they do. I'm sorry. They do or they don't. >> I anticipate that they will. >> Yes. >> Second thing um comes to mind, the driveway, the existing driveway off of 202 that you're showing
whatever glitter factory lot. Is that driveway completely contained within the glitter factory lot? >> Yes. And there would be an easement over that driveway for access to the office. Yeah. That's and that's indicated on the subdivision tax.
>> Okay. Next question. Um is was any of was the prior resolution that permitted modification to Peter Russian's house did that have any effect on
this subdivision work that you're doing? >> No, I know there was an addition to the house um and that was completed. There was some septic work that was done that's completed um but did not doesn't affect this subdivision. >> Okay, next question. There's a whole
bunch of what look like trailers >> um up from the Peter Rushman house. Yeah, up in that area. >> Yeah. >> What is that use? >> Uh to my knowledge it's associated with
the farm activities. Um but specifically I I'd have to find out further about that. and it's probably within the repairarian buffer. >> Uh there are existing activities in there's no question there are existing activities occurring in the repairarian
buffer um which uh existing activities are permitted. I mean, the D recognizes that you have a repairarian zone and there's activities currently going on there, but if you want to build something new or something like that, that would require permits, but existing
activities um are are ongoing. There's no >> any soil contamination from those existing activities. >> Uh I can't answer that. I don't I don't know enough. That's not my my expert. >> Let's get that answer. Okay. I I've noted that and we'll we'll look into
that. >> Okay. Um those are my initial questions. >> Can I ask you one? >> Sure. >> Rusty, given given the size of the property, the entire property was I'm assuming that there would be
ways to to modify the lot lines to avoid a lot several of dimensional variances. Could that happen? So, so there's not sideyard setbacks. >> What you find is most of them are associated in that area I mentioned
where there's clusters of buildings around the factory and none of them. So, we want to separate the factory onto its own lot. >> Um, >> right. Those lines be adjusted to not require. >> We've we've looked at that. We've tried to minimize it as much as possible and
try to be consistent and where it's going between buildings to try to provide at least some minimum some minimum setbacks. Right. >> All right. Any other questions from board members? >> Yeah. >> Could you explain the rationale? Um you
spoke of all large lots which they are they're all you know 35 acres whatever and then you spoke specifically of the six acre weather lot but why then is that additional sixacre lot why would that to minimize
I assume more state land >> yes it really had to go with again we we looked at how they get divided up and kind of what goes where and it just wasn't consistent because that one's smaller, I understand. Yes. But it's also on the other side of the of the um of the
factory lot. So there's the the factory lot has the staff that goes up to 202. And then there's we needed to create another parcel. So that ended up having to be a separate parcel. >> And the other question is when you said that there's going to be if as shared so
the farm can continue itself. I don't know is there any um shared water right that can be built in other words and also with shared use of the pond I'm not sure how your farm bunches but is let's
say someone north here is farming need access to the pond I don't so is that something that also >> that would be have to be into any easement documents between the properties Right. >> Let's go back to the New York transit
crossings. Are those be set in stone or is there the possibility, you know, if needed could there be an extra one say between 205 and 105 north or is there no there's no way to transit?
>> Yeah. >> All the lawyers and prof we're all we're all possible. No, I'm I don't mean to be. No, it's very difficult to get those the fact that we have these two and to retain be able to retain these two is we don't see
the ability to gain any new ones >> and and just that to supplement that most of the time if they do give an access it's a license for a year or two revocable. >> So so to that point then so the law 105
the intended access could only be held down and you have to have a long driveway. Yes, that's correct. It's only frontage is unfilled hill. >> All right. >> Is there anything in that license that causes us to terminate? >> These are not licenses. These are these
are permitted crossings. I heard she had a thing saying if you got a new one when when New Jersey Transit issues them today, they just issue like temporary license a couple licenses, but these are these are new.
I have to read the ease in the language, Bob, but they've been in place for many years and are permitted to stay. >> Interesting. >> So my question is that one of the lots becomes a residential lot. It's no longer
>> I'm not sure. We have >> We can check. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I I think that's something we'll have to look at. I my understanding is that the those crossings have been there for 81 years
>> probably. But as soon as you change the land >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> they may no longer be allowed. So >> no, I understand that. >> New Jersey Transit on that one. >> Yep. Got it. Understood. >> So the easement has shown in that >> that provides access across the one
crossing to 105. Is that easement for farming activities? Yes. >> For future resident to come and drive. >> The the intent we weren't thinking of, you know, yeah, for access for residential uses or anything like that.
It was to maintain the existing access to get across to be able to farm that other. >> So any future results properties would have access for either Phil Hill. >> Correct. Correct. And my guess is once New Jersey Transit hears about what's going on, they would
say, "Okay, so in the future it would have to be secured. You can't use it anymore." I would expect. >> Yes. >> That's why that's why they need to ask the question now.
>> I one more question. Will it maintain the farm? That was the subject. >> That's the intent. Yes. Let me let me follow up on on Uh chick's point, I'm assuming bulk of these properties are farmland assessment
and I know in the old days you needed at least five acres of active farm. Two of those lots are six six and a half acres. Are they going to be I guess going to be qualified for farmland? Um
the lot of the factory >> is that going to have five active acres of farmland. Otherwise, she might get a little roll back on that on that lot. not but I just wanted to get that
>> I would expect for commercial. >> Yeah. But as you know you know such books and things says okay this much is res and the rest my guess is there's probably already a commercial component
there but that's a tax problem that what's the topography because you know can you describe the topography of lot is it similar to that land by the subdivision there that you know that you
just took away. See that land there? I believe what is that land like? Is it slope? Is it is it a beautiful flat field? I don't know. >> It's sloping. It's sloping. The high point the high point is to the right side here. So the high point is over on
the on the right side as we look at the plan or sort of the the eastern side and then it slopes down toward the railroad. >> So that's all down. >> It's Yeah. And it's a it's a it's a beautiful. >> In fact, I could I have a picture of it if you'd like to see it.
>> Well, you have is there elevations? >> No, we don't have topography on the plans. Uh but the one the earlier exhibit that I mentioned that has the photographs. If you look at that, there's a photograph near that standing near the crossing looking up towards
that area. I don't know the number of it, but it's on that exhibit that you have there. elevations. >> I'm sorry. >> Does it make sense to >> elevations at the corners?
>> I'm not sure what you mean by designate what the elevation of the property. Oh. Uh, I'd have to get that information, but I could I could try to get that. So, you had some So, you had some try to get that
question at this time. All right. I see 10 minute recess bathroom break two hours, I think. and then we'll come back. Okay, cool.
Bob, you said >> yes. I I wanted to ask a question regarding various structures if they know which ones have facilities and where the plans
do show some separ garage. It looks like they show a line coming out of there with an S on it and it goes through the step block 205. So
I don't know how many other systems are like that. How many of the other structures have septic systems? So I guess the question is are all structures that have
the requirement of wastewater disposal identified? That's number one. And number two, have you identified where the septic systems are for each one of those structures? So, we've shown and
and the latest plans have been updated, excuse me, with some additional information that that we've received on on septics. So, we do show septic systems uh on the lots and really there's we're really looking at three
areas. Uh so, we're uh >> my my question was really a yes or no question. >> Okay. Oh, sorry. Well, we show we show the septic systems on the properties. Um, we show sewer lines and tanks uh on
the properties. Uh, I don't have a uh an inventory of which which one each, you know, has a a sink or a bathroom, but we know that for example, the factory goes to a septic system uh which consists of
tanks and then is pumped up to >> Okay, I'm not solve that. Okay. So, you're looking for >> all structures that have the requirement for wastewater disposal. >> Okay. >> And where the septic systems are for
each one of those structures >> you're going to need if they cross property, >> right? Which I indicated earlier. We expect there are going to be some cross access e cross access and utility easement. We'll look into that. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. That's obvious. You asked the question perfectly. Okay. >> Any other questions from the board or professionals? >> Do we have questions from the public? >> No question.
>> Please come up and identify yourself. >> I'd like to slur myself in. >> I'll swear. >> No testimony. This is questions on testimony for Mr. only. Okay. We're not
doing testimony. Just questions only >> of this witness >> of this witness. At the end of the hearing, which is not going to be tonight, you'll members of the public can come in against give some testimony, but not now. It's too early. >> Okay.
>> I would just ask you, you gave a description of the plan. >> Hold on. Please identify yourself. Oh, Henry Reichman, neighbor of and owner of probably onethird of what's left of the estate.
And uh >> okay, >> I live at 261 Pillh Hill Road, >> little corner up on the lower right, lower left angle, >> and that description that they gave is totally wrong. Also, >> question, where did you get the information for most of your testimony,
Gary? um a review well look several several areas um our study of the property if you have a specific question yeah >> yes the compass headings you gave are totally wrong
>> okay >> you mentioned south and west and confused most of them for example the mine brook road the mine brook doesn't go north and south or does
Well, I was, if you recall earlier, >> what you said was wrong. >> Let me answer question. >> Okay. My question is >> that I don't think you looked at the real facts when you made this demonstration and I'll give my testimony
later, I guess. Thank you. Question. >> Thank you. Would you like to finish answering the question? That's okay. Okay. Um, are there any other questions for Miss Williams?
>> Okay, somebody's coming. >> Can I stand on the X? >> Okay, Alex. >> Sure. Karen Hazelton, 397 Line Brook Road. I'm sorry. I'm looking through my notes trying desperately to find the uh name of the particular type of permit to
that had to do with some kind of discharge of wastewater that was associated with and it was >> nippities. >> The ngypities exactly and I had trouble spelling it and now I can't. So yes. So I just wanted to ask like a little more detail on that and you know
is that what that's associated with it is is part of the factory or >> Yes. The New Jersey pollutant discharge elimination system NJPEs nippities like call nippities is a permit issued
by DEP for discharge of waste to in this case it's considered groundwater because it goes into the ground the septic eent goes into the ground um so it's a permit
issued by D and in this case deals with anonymous residential uses. So that's what it's about for the factory. >> So it's going into the septic system for the factory. Yes. Not directly into the mic. >> Correct. >> They I'm sure they wouldn't allow it. All right. Thank you very much.
>> Sure. Can I ask a follow question regarding that? Sure. Is it possible to get a calculation various uses existence? >> Um we could we could estimate that. Yeah, because I guess
if you have a T1 approval, is that going to go away? Um, >> once you break this track up, I guess you're not going to be over 2,000 gallons and then correct. You have We haven't heard any comments
from the port health department on this. We have not >> has been sent to them for review. I assume in these you >> okay they might be able to clarify the question.
>> Okay. Okay. Anything else? Okay. We are at 10:00 now. I would like to continue this at the next meeting rather than continuing this application.
We have other businesses. >> Interesting. That's that's fine. That's acceptable. So um that I'm going to add let's see seven and
already spoken for right >> yes let me just went over Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah, we have it. >> Um >> 21st of
>> October 21st. >> October 21st. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Um, you know, generally in these instances I ask because applicants can have issues where they can't get to a meeting. So, generally what I like to do
is adjourn it to October 7th without need for further notice and then at the October 7th meeting if we can't get reached I mean we'll know ahead of time then you would just make an announcement at the October 7 meeting that it's being adjourned without need for further
notice to the 21st. But we're not going to hear it on set. >> You're not. Okay. Then that answers the question. So if no one come I mean if if the two applications that you have on don't proceed then you just won't have a meeting. >> It's unlikely because they've already noticed. So
>> Okay. Okay. Understood. Been doing this a really long time as we all and it it does happen where where I said for for many of us. Um and it does happen where but I I respect your your comment. So we'll adjourn without need for further
notice to the 21st. >> Yes. If that date for you. >> Okay. Cool. Thank you. >> How complicated is it? John, right? Okay.
What's your name? It's because I haven't seen any patient Mr. Chairman, it's an addition to the existing res. >> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. We could get to you. >> Oh, wonderful. Wonderful. Okay.
>> So, we're gonna adjourn without need for further notice through October >> 7 to get you be the second application. >> That's that's fine. As long as we we'd like to try to keep moving. >> I understand. >> No, we appreciate it. >> Okay.
>> Thank you very much. >> All right. Carrie, this application will carry to October 7th. No further notice. >> It will be the second application. >> Okay. They're squaring the building. They're
what they're swearing off. >> Okay, very much there should be something. >> Okay, thank you. >> So now we go on to take care. Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> See you on the set. >> See you on the >> Thank you everybody. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> I'd like to say good night to the board
and thank you for looking into this so thoroughly. We owe our fond to the first four boards of adjustment and I personally was at to get the variance the way it is which has protected us for 80 well
for all our life >> and God bless you all. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay, I'll make >> second. >> Okay, roll call, please.
>> Mr. Delaruso, >> yes. >> Mr. Green, >> yes. >> Miss Kramer, >> yes. >> Mr. McDow, >> yes. >> Mr. Saliger, >> yes. >> Mr. Trainer, >> yes. >> Mr. Slokum, >> yes. and Mr. Milo.
>> Yes. Motion carries. >> Don't put that on the record. Okay. So, pending applications, we have perennially pending pumping fines which has been pending for what, two years? >> Lord knows what they're doing. Um, talk
to me about Gonzalez application. They're going to Yes. So, I um I spoke with the property owner and she was
upset with her professionals because apparently she had told them that she was withdrawing the application and nobody notified me. So, I said to her, "Well, we need something in writing, so I'm waiting for that." >> Okay. She said it was becoming uh too
complicated. So I think what they're going to do is um instead of constructing a new dwelling, they're going to make modification to the existing >> consider wait.
We want to see >> because you want a chair. >> Yeah. me in. >> Oh, darn it. >> You know what? They still may need variances. >> Okay. >> You never know. They may change their
mind again. >> They're irreplaceable, by the way. >> No, just just pinch hitting. That's it. >> Not irreplaceable. Nobody is irreplaceable. >> Nobody's irreplaceable. Okay. So Steinberg we're hearing on the 7th
and >> and this is and and this one is is this any relation to um former speaker? Oh jeez. >> Constructed addition to the existing. >> You got any comments on that one? John,
>> which which one is that? >> Fenton and post. >> Yes, we have all those reports. >> Okay. >> I would rather not comment on the record until they appear. >> Yeah. Well, and that one >> sad.
>> Yeah, the last one is still incomplete. >> Yeah, I mean the incompleteness items for the seats are not usually the big issues and I generally will say let's just see that these subject engineer, you know, they're usually
minor things but it's up to schedule. >> Yes. So, just an FYI, all as soon as applications come in, as soon as they send me the application, it's supposed
to come with the digital. Okay? If it doesn't, it's usually within a couple of days. They're on the website. So, this application's been on the website since it was received in July and then as reports are received, they're loaded into there. >> Okay.
>> So, yes, whatever I've got so far. Yes. Okay, super both. >> So you can always sneak peek in advance reports are there too. >> It's a great feature. A lot of times they're doing that now. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So you can always kind of, you
know, it's on here, but then you can also take a peek online and see what's >> Good deal >> in the application. >> Anybody have anything else? >> I like to say something while we're off
the record. That bad, huh? >> Yeah, it is. >> I I just felt, you know, you don't make a motion to go ahead. >> I make that motion to
second one. All in favor?