Specifically on January 15th, 2025, proper notice was sent to the Courier News and the Star Ledger and filed with the clerk at the Tatch of Bridgewater and posted in the municipal bulletin board. Please be aware of the zoning board of adjustment policy for public hearings. No new no applications will be heard after 9:30 p.m. and no new
testimony will be taken after 10 p.m. If you're able, please rise for the salute to the flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Hi there, Maria. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Chairman Fouse >> here. >> Mr. Widelli >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney >> here. >> Mrs. Amin >> here. >> Mr. Bonno
>> here. >> Mr. Gasi is not here. Okay. Mr. Fresco >> here. >> Uh, Mr. CCAT is absent for the record and Mr. Vesio is also absent for the record. Mr. Kulak
>> here. and Mr. Gabbott >> here. >> Um, Mr. Aller, board attorney >> here. >> Mr. Burr, board engineer, >> Miss Smad, board planner, >> and Mr. Rashed, board traffic engineer.
>> All right. Thank you very much. I'm going to open up the meeting to any members of the public that would like to speak on any land use issue which is not on our agenda this evening. You can come forward. Okay. Seeing none, we're going to close that portion. Uh we have two sets of minutes to adopt tonight. Let's do June
24th, 2025 first, please. >> Any comments or changes? >> June 24th. Mrs. Amen. >> I have some comments that are on the transcript that is attached to the minutes. >> Okay.
>> And minor comments. So I think here to the senator. >> Mr. Chairman, I reviewed those. They are, you know, fairly minor in nature and I think we could just give them to the board secretary and include those
amended right as the board minutes. >> Okay. Because they are transcript and we want to make sure that we protect the integrity of that. >> So with the changes, I move that we >> all right. That was Mr. Woodelli. Do I have a second please? >> Second. >> Mr. Fresco. Thank you.
>> Mr. White Ali. >> Uh, yes. Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Amen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. >> Mr. Kulak.
>> Yes. >> Mr. Devesio. >> Oh, I'm sorry. He's absent. So, that would be Mr. Gabbit. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Fouse. >> Yes. >> All right. Next up, we have July 8th, 2025 minutes, which are again a
transcript. >> Eight or nine pages. >> Okay. >> So, similarly, minor modifications as amended could be moved. >> All right. With that, any other changes? I have a motion, please. >> I move with the change. >> All right, Mr. Melli. Is there a second,
please? >> Second, >> Mr. Fresco. Thank you, >> Mr. Widelli. >> I Yes. >> Mr. Sweeney. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Amin. >> Mr. Fresco. >> Yes. >> Mr. CCAT.
>> I'm sorry. Mr. Kulik, >> yes. >> Mr. Gabbit, >> yes. >> And Famine Cho Fouse. >> Yes. >> All right. Next up, we have no resolutions, right, Rich? >> Correct. >> All right. So, let's go to the applications and uh Mr. Kley, good
evening. We have 821 and then JCC, Mr. Cohen as well. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh Kevin Kley on behalf of 821 Bridgewater, the co-licant along with uh the Jewish Community Centers of
Somerset, 100 and Warren counties, and represented separately by Mr. Howard Cohen and with me is my uh colleague Hershel Rose uh this evening. Um so um we were last here in in May. Um since
that time um we've made one significant change in the plans which will be testified to tonight and that is to uh add 13 affordable units to the to the project. And >> Mr. Kley, I'm very very sorry. I just want to put on the record Just for
housekeeping, we did attempt the board, Mr. Aller and Maria and some of the board professionals. We did attempt a special meeting for you because we were having trouble with the um the time element of this case. Um unfortunately, Mr. Cohen wasn't available. I appreciate him trying to make the effort, but I
just want the record to reflect that this board did try and schedule a special meeting for July 15th, and thank you to everybody involved for trying to get that together. Again, I apologize for the interruption. >> Okay. Uh yes, I I acknowledge that was true. Thank you.
>> So, um uh on July uh 25th, we submitted uh a revised uh uh site plan to the board which shows the 13 affordable units and maintaining the 51 market units for a total of 64 units, which if
you recall correctly was the number of units that we started this application with, which was 64. And uh so it's still at at 64. And uh uh Mr. Michello is here this evening. He's the project engineer.
He he actually started the application with his testimony last August. And uh he's here this evening to uh to testify about a number of things including the uh the new site plan and including the
uh emergency access uh program. Um so um we look forward to uh moving his testimony forward. Uh let me just say a few things be a few other things before we we move forward. And that one is that
um in this case now obviously involves affordable housing. It involves an age restricted complex. And so these these affordable units will be age restricted affordable units. So when the
legislature passed the law in 2024 with respect to um affordable housing, uh they added a a an important provision uh somewhat unusual, but I'd just like to call that to your your attention. So you
have it keep that in mind while you're uh listening to the testimony. And that is paragraph Q of section two of the law where the legislature found that the population of persons aged 65 years and older in the state has grown
approximately 13 from 13% in 1990 to 17% in 2021. and that such such growth in conjunction with expected future growth makes it appropriate for the legislature to allow up to 30% of the units towards
a municipality's perspective affordable housing obligation to be satisfied through the creation of age restricted units. So, um, that's a a significant provision both with respect to the finding, I mean, if you do the rough
math, that's a 30% increase in in, uh, uh, people over 65 during that that 30-year period. And then secondly, for them to say a municipality can satisfy its fourth round affordable housing obligation by by having as much as 30%
of that um be devoted to uh age restricted housing for uh seniors. So that's that's one point I'd like to re make. >> Mr. Kley, not I'm sorry to interrupt you. This is Mr. Koulhack here. So, you're saying that as you read from the
law, the age restriction on the community allows for 30% of the market rate units to be counted, or am I misunderstanding what you're saying? >> Yeah, I think you're misunderstanding a little bit. Um, Bridgewater has an obligation for the fourth round of about
441 units. >> Mhm. So 30% of that obligation is approximately 125 units. >> Yes. >> So as much so I mean in this project as proposed there's 13 affordable units. So
it's only 13 of of a of a an obligation of 400 and something. But you can you can get credit for these these units in the affordable housing uh approval process up to 30%. In other words, you
could have up to 30% of the of the units be age restricted affordable units. So as it applies to this specific application, you have a proposal to incorporate another or I should say
13 affordable units. Yes. >> Which you're adding to the 51 market rate units for a total of 64. Those 13 would be counted toward Bridgewwater's um affordable housing requirements. And I'm still missing the point here on the
30%. So, please help me. There's a there's the the legislature said as much as 30% of your obligation could be in the form of age restricted affordable units. >> I see. the total amount for the town.
>> Yeah. Of the town of the town's total obligation which is in the 400 40 >> so 30% of 421 >> right >> which would be >> okay >> we're not anywhere near here there tonight we're just but it's a it's a drop in the bucket
>> I understand >> I just wanted to add some clarity to it. The other question I had for you is originally you had proposed to this board that you would be paying a um cash sum in lie of building affordable units. Can you tell us why you changed your strategy there?
>> Um the you know at the last hearing uh I heard very strongly from the board that that was not a desirable uh proposal. >> Is that something that is no longer permitted under the new legislation? No, I believe it's per I believe it's permitted for the for the municipality
to collect subsidies from developers. Um, and that's what how that would work. Uh, but we're not proposing that now. >> Right. So, you changed your approach and you're incorporating the 13 affordable units into your proposal.
>> Correct. >> Yes. And Mr. caller. Is that your understanding as well that the 13 units that were proposed um as opposed to the cash donation I I was under the impression that the cash donation was no longer acceptable under the new legislation.
>> Well, you my understanding the township is that the the township has a third round settlement that requires the affordable units to be built on site. Mhm. >> And under your ordinance, um, you can require up to 20%
if the units are for sale, 20% of the units to be affordable or 15% of the units if they are rental units. >> Okay. >> But they must be built as opposed to the cash country >> on site. >> Right.
>> Right. We in fairness, I think we had an agree a disagreement about what the fourth round allows. the fourth round, which is the 20 2025 2035 round of affordable housing. >> Yes. >> And we we think uh that that it's
allowable to do a subsidy, but that said, we're not doing a subsidy. >> Understood. Thank you. >> I have a question. Just I'm sorry to interrupt. Um, >> do you know how much if you had decided not to put in the affordable housing,
how much you would have had to pay to sort of buy them off? >> That would that would be up to the uh governing body. >> Okay. I'm sure they they would try to do it reasonably, etc., and be and cognizant of the e economic value of the
subsidy, but that's their decision ultimately. And um do we know what that amount would have been? >> No, I don't know. >> But there's been substantial debate if that's even allowed. And >> you know, Darlene, I know has talked to you about it.
>> Yes, Darlene and I have spoken about it. I have my own opinions on it and and as Mr. Oler had mentioned, um there we do have an ordinance that was effectuated as part of the third round settlement that does require a set a physical set aside of the units. the amount in the ordinance for units outside of that from
previous years about payment in Lu leaves it to the discretion of the council. Um although the COA regulations do require that it should be established by ordinance. So the idea of this payment in loo kind of doesn't work across the board because of the insufficiencies there. Um, and
regardless of that, regardless of the payment and loo model here, we have an ordinance that requires the units to be >> in place. >> Appreciate it. Sorry. >> Okay. All right. Um so the second kind
of general point and it all relates to the to the same thing and that is that the township is uh engaging in creating or has has created a plan called the housing element and fair share plan and
it has filed that um as of the end of June and it's it's their proposal as to how they would satisfy the the fourth round obligations. So, in looking at that plan, what what struck my attention was, you know, this
is a comparison that we're making here. We're we're telling the the board and the residents that this is a modest project. Um it's it's a density of five units per acre, a little bit over five units per acre. But in the in the housing element
and fair share plan, the um um plan reported that what the developers were proposing to the municipality in terms of of uh density. And I have I have the
you know several pages marked. I'll I'll hand them out to you. Um but in in general the uh there were nine proposals and of the nine proposals uh seven were over 10 units per acre
density and most of those were 20 units per acre density or 16 or 18 very large numbers. Now, I'm not saying that the the township is pursuing these proposals, but I am saying that this is these are
the proposals that developers who are going to do affordable inclusionary projects were were proposing and it's in black and white in the plan as compared to this proposal which is, you know, a little bit over five units an acre. So,
if if you want if it's uh okay, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hand out those few pages from the report. >> Sure. >> Why don't we Kevin, why don't we mark that as a >> A. Thank you. >> And Mr. Otherwise, he needs one
>> right here. >> Here. Here. Here, Bruce. >> You got it. You got it. >> Got it. >> Thank you. >> Anyway, okay. With with that, unless you have any more questions, I I just Mr. Kley, I want to just do something for
clarification from when Mr. Kulak was talking. I believe it's Mr. Kulak used the word when we talk about the 13 units for um the affordable housing. He used the word replace units. It's an additional units. I believe you're adding in.
>> Well, it depends. >> You're adding in to what we talked about at the last meeting. You're adding in more. The word replace was used. We're not replacing. We're adding in those 13 years. Well, I mean the the sequence was uh M Mr. Widell, it was it was 64 units
to start. It was reduced to 60 units at some point. It was then a plan was submitted showing 52 units. >> Right. So the last meeting we were 52. Let's use that. You you're not replacing you're adding in 13 additional from our last meeting.
>> We're adding back 13 units. >> Right. I want that clarified based on what Mr. Kulak when he's gotten clarification on the 30%. >> So up to 64 again. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions?
>> Just real quick. So you're you're showing that these are part of the affordable housing plan that's being submitted to the state that developers have until the end of this month to challenge >> challenge. So by August 31st, if there's
no challenge, this kind of becomes the de facto plan for Bridgewater Township to achieve our fourth round goal of 421 units. >> Yes, it's been adop it's adopted master plan and so uh whether or not it's challenged, it is active right now. >> Okay.
>> Um and the challenge period will be resolved by the end of December if there are any challenges. >> Gotcha. But we don't know any other details about this, what the psych is like, the slopes, the surrounding traffic. You know, this is just basically you're
saying you're trying to compare units per acre of this project versus what's proposed in our fourth round settlement. >> Yes. >> Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. clarify as well so the board is aware there are other kind of nuances to some of those projects that have been included in the
housing element in that they have set aides of 25 to 28% they have off-site additional units that they added they have bonus credits that they've been eligible for so um just so the board is aware there are other nuances to some of those sites rather than just the density per acre
>> okay thank you very much >> I think it's also fair to say maybe you correct me if I'm wrong is that the the town has not uh uh pass the 30% allowable use of uh age restricted affordable.
>> Katherine, would it be fair to say that the fourth round in each town including Bridgewater, you know, it's designed to be more challenging? It's designed to create higher density projects because in the first through third rounds essentially that the lowhanging fruit was already built. So, you know,
essentially that we would have to go up in in units per acre. In some cases, yes. Um I think Bridgewwater has been very proactive um in addressing its obligation and the remaining the remaining obligation we have here in the fourth round was not a sight. We
were fortunate in that we I mean they're still they're still I I guess you'd say higher density projects, but they're also located on previously disturbed sites in some cases. They're located in commercial areas along Route 22, right? Um so you know I think it's it's a tough
comparison to say that this the sites that were chosen in this in this um for the plan to to satisfy the obligation are comparable to to this application um just even even on just a density to density basis based on the context of
those sites how they already exist today maybe there some of them are in three or four story office buildings already on route 22 so um yeah there's I think there's some differences. Um, so it's hard hard for me as a planner to look at just just the straight density calculation. >> Gotcha. >> I think that's a a really valid point.
And so therefore, the only point of comparison that Mr. Kley is making is the density per acre. And then without considering all of the other mitigating factors or contributo factors that may make those sites better than, worse
than, same as, and so on. Is that fair, Mr. Kley, or not? That's a fair fair statement, but density as the law reflects and that's the the Fair Housing Act is one of the principal components of the method by
which a a board or a municipality creates affordable housing, density variances >> or density bonuses, >> right? >> High density. >> And but it's not the only way. It's just one way,
>> the only way. But if it without that, you don't have a you don't get affordable housing without density variances. >> Well, I won't make such a blanket statement, but I think we agree in principle that you're saying it can be a tool that the township can use to
achieve its housing goals. And in fact, in some cases, it's the only tool they have available, which may or may not be the case in this case. >> Every case is different. I I appreciate that. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Um, Mr. Michello, you want to >> Yeah, Mr. Fresco.
>> Oh, go ahead. >> I feel like I feel like this was was thrown on us. So, can can we talk about this for a second? I specifically the one at 55 corporate drive, which I I think is relevant. Um, correct me if I'm wrong. That is on
routes 2026. >> Right. So the modified request I'm I'm reading the second bullet. The modified request was not accompanied with any information on high buildings or net density. So does that mean that this particular one is
the only one on this list that was not density was not provided? >> I think density was provided as to every other one. >> Okay. So this is one that is on the same corridor as this applicant
is requesting us to review and there is no density on this one even though it's just a few miles away. I just want to make sure I understand that. >> So just to clarify this list as required by law every housing element in fair share plan on any municipality is
required to list every property owner that showed interest. This list is is not not all these sites were included in the township's third round fourth round housing element. These were just interested developers. >> So make it very very clear that the site
you just identified was not included in the township's housing element fair share plan. >> Okay. But it was presented by the applicant to show density. Yes. >> Correct. By his he is it >> density that the one that is only a few miles from this case does not have
density. That's all. >> You know can I correct myself >> please? Yeah. >> And that is it does appear that in the 1 2 3 fourth bullet point it says and resulted in a net density of 41 plus
or minus units per acre. >> Okay. >> And and just to be clear these are these were proposals not before board. They were proposals as permitted by the law to during the period where the township was preparing its housing element to
consider. These are all proposals that the township had to consider. So these these density comparisons, just so you know, are not comparisons to what the township has accepted in other places because that some of these sites are not in the housing element. They are not sites that have been considered for resoning according to the housing
element. They have been considered but rejected ultimately. >> Okay. Thank you, Katherine. Um, so this is in the Seni site which is up the road in a fourstory building. So that's that's probably why the density, but thank you for clarifying that. Okay,
great. Thank you. >> Okay. All >> right, Mr. Michelle. >> Yeah, Rob, would you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this board will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Thank you.
>> And Rob, just for the record, would you state your name, please? >> For the record, it's Robert Moshello, M O S C H E L L O. And my business address is 265 Main Street, Gladstone, New Jersey. >> Thank you.
All right. So, I believe we're up to a is A9 the next one in >> A9. >> A9 will be next. Great. All >> right. So, you were previously uh sworn, correct? >> Yes. >> And uh you you previously were qualified as a expert in the field of civil engineering. >> Yes.
>> Does he continue to be qualified, Mr. Chair? >> Absolutely. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, for the record this evening, this the first exhibit I want to enter. It's going to be A9. For the record, it's actually this exhibit itself is actually dated November 12th, 2024, but I'll mark
today's date for when it was entered into the record. And it's entitled Emergency Access Exhibit. So, I want to start off this evening before we talk about the project and the modifications that were made to the project for the affordable housing component. I want to go back a little
bit first and talk about the emergency access. This was mentioned in some previous testimony about the project and how it was going to be tied into the JCC property. So, just to reorient everyone, Route 202 206 on the right side of the plan, you know, running in a north south
direction. The JCC property is on the left side or the western side of the plan um shown here. And then, as we talked about early on in this application, there was going to be a threeacre subdivision, if you will, to create a threeacre lot that would ultimately um be utilized by the JCC,
which is shown here on the plan outlined in yellow with this red line that creates the subdivision of those three acres. And on that lot would remain for now the existing residential residential structure um and and and gravel parking areas and so forth um ultimately to be
utilized by its future owner, the the JCC. But one of the things that was talked about was um emergency access between these two properties and how that would be effectuated. And so what we've shown on this plan here is essentially an emergency access connection on the southern portion of
the property, I'll say the southwest corner of the property that connects from the back corner of road A of our development and travels in a southerntherly portion and then a westerly direction to where it connects with the existing driveway of the JCC development. This emergency access would
be um made out of stabilized turf material. Um we've used that before in town for other emergency access drives. Um it would be 15 foot in width and it would be controlled by a series of I'll say ballards with a chain that goes across it that would have a box attached
to it to allow emergency services personnel to open the gate if need be in an emergency. So, for example, if the entrance off of 20220 206 becomes closed for whatever reason and the residences cannot get out through the use of emergency personnel, these gates can be
opened up and they'll be able to utilize the JCC driveway to exit the property out to the southern road. I forget the exact name of it. Is it Talmage? >> Talmage. Thank you. Talamini. Thank you. >> You got it. >> Thank you. Um, and in the alternate, if something were to happen along the JCC
driveway, they would be able to open up those same two emergency access points and the JCC would be able to utilize the access out to 2026 in the event of an emergency. So, it's reciprocal in in both directions. Um, should the board ultimately act favorably upon this,
there will be the need for some, excuse me, um, reciprocal easement agreements and so forth for this to occur, but that's details that could be worked out later on. Um, so that that's the essentially the emergency access and how it would function on on the site. It's it's
shaped in this way because this way the it instead of coming straight across the property, we shaped it like this so that the area of the property could be fully utilized by the JCC in the future without cutting off a portion of the lower area and take and and and restricting their ability to utilize
this green space on the property here. >> Mr. Michelle, uh there's an agreement, correct, between the JCC and and 821. That is correct. >> It's in writing that this would happen. >> Yes. >> The easements would have to be recorded subsequently. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> Is that roadway you just described, the emergency access roadway, is that appropriate for emergency vehicles like fire trucks and ambulances or just for vehicular traffic just to get in and out? >> It is designed to handle um what I'll
call 80,000 lb vehicles, which is your maximum typical emergency service vehicle weights. So, it can handle a fire truck. It can handle an ambulance. It could handle police. Um, you know, res residential vehicles to get in and out. You don't anticipate using it unless you're in an emergency. So, it'll be turfed and it'll be there for that
instance. >> I don't have any problem with the turf part. I'm just looking at it wondering if it's big enough. You're saying it's substantial enough and and does that curve interfere with their ability to navigate it? No, you typically in this case it would be uh it's 15 foot wide, so you'd have access basically um
controlled access in either direction where you'd have to have some type of control on it to let vehicles come through in the instance of an emergency. It wouldn't just be opened up and left open. You'd have to have >> You're talking about the design of the roadway that is curved substantially.
And I'm asking if that interferes with the ability of a let's say a firetruck to navigate it. No, it will be able to navigate that turn because the fire trucks can also navigate the site as well. And we checked it to make sure it can get it could get through that. And >> as you're pointing to the site, do you have all 64 units accounted for there or
>> No, this this this layout is an older layout. Don't don't look at this. So, I'm going to put up another exhibit that shows the revised layout in a moment. This plan was done back in November of 2024. So, this this actually represents >> a 60 unit layout that we were talking about at that time. Okay.
>> Thank you. Any other questions on this one before? Okay. >> Who holds the keys? >> Excuse me. >> Who holds the keys to the lock? >> So, since there'll be a Knox box at both locations, we were just discussing this before, the fire department would have a
key, the police would have a key. Um, the JCC would have a key and presumably the HOA would have a key as well. So, there'd be technically four keys. So that this way if there is an emergency out of those four organizations they'd be able to open up the gates. Usually in
a case like this the police would usually arrive first so they would have the ability to open it up. >> Thank you. >> Welcome. Okay. The next exhibit I have this evening will entitle this A10 for the record. And this one is dated August 13, 2024.
Hello. August actually it's dated the original date on the plan is August 13, 2024. Site plan rendering revised through >> July 21st, 2025. I'll note today's date for the record. And this is um uh the a print of the
plan that we actually submitted to the board. So I even though I entered it as an exhibit, this was submitted to the board as part of the submission. >> We'll mark it there >> that we did. >> Yeah, we mark it. We A10 >> for the reference for the record A10. So this is the site plan rendering of the proposed project and and you'll notice on here, this does not show the
emergency access again because that was shown on a prior exhibit, but for the purpose of this plan, we want to talk about here is the revised layout. So we looked at the we looked at the number of units and we looked at the ability to add affordable housing. And what you're looking at here on this plan is essentially the unchanged road network
in terms of the access and circulation is remains as it was before. Um what we've done is we have now 51 townhouse units on the project and we have a 13 unit affordable housing building that we've located in interior to the project site along road A. This particular
building that we show here has the opportunity for off- streetet parking with with garages, but depending on the final disposition of the buildings. Some of those may not have garages, some of them might, but this building shows a 13-unit affordable housing building on this portion of the site with access off
of road A. We've also added additional on street parking as well to the project site to balance that to balance that out um as well. So, basically, right now we have 253 parking spaces on the overall site. 48 of them are surface spaces
spread out along both road A and road B, both parallel and pulling spaces as well as pulling spaces on the western side of the site. Uh 48 in total, but 253 overall when you count the two-car garage and driveway combinations on the townhouse units and the driveway and garage combinations on the affordable
building. We've also added to this plan an amenity space um which basically right now is is a large patio area patio area with seating between the townhouse building and the affordable building um to show that we have the ability to support that on the on the site. We also have um there were comments in prior
letters about adding um connectivity walkway connectivity around the site. We did that on both the interior of the site with sidewalks and on the exterior as well with sidewalks that go around the project site. So, we've added additional crosswalks with some there were some comments about that in one of the traffic engineers reports as well.
Um, and so we we've enhanced those features on the site plan to this point where we are now with the uh project layout and we have not made any further updates to the storm water management system on the site. We are showing eight storm water basins right now that are there. we did submit to the uh board
engineer and and the board a soils report that was done back in October of 2024 to show that the site does have infiltration and to also show that groundwater is not a concern for the basins but ultimately there'll be some additional calculations and design work that needs to be done to finalize the
storm water system which we would look to do as part of a site plan application if the board acts favorably upon this um application um but that would be addressed later on. This plan does show landscaping both internal along the loop road as well as some perimeter landscaping on the site. There's about
180 um trees shown on here right now. Um in the mix of evergreens and deciduous, there's probably additional room for additional enhanced landscaping around the buildings and so forth, which we would certainly look at as part of a a site plan application. Just before you go on the storm order, um the affordable
units, 13 affordable units are these single single bedroomedroom units. Correct. >> Um they they can be they could be either the mix as described by the state or they could be single bedroom. They can they could be either either or one, two or threebedroom units. >> So Katherine, can they have all singlebedroom affordable units
>> because it is age restricted? They can. They have to the number of bedrooms has to at a minimum match the number of units. So they can't have stu if they have a studio it has to be offset by a twobedroom but they could have theoretically all onebedrooms or all two
bedrooms or a mix of ones and twos. >> In order to squeeze the 13 affordable units into that space. How many stories does that building have to be? And are the units going to be multi-story on one story? Could you describe that a little bit?
>> Right now, based on the preliminary footprint that we were looking at, it was a two-story building with one story, you know, units being on the first floor and then units being on the uh on the second floor of that layout >> than a townhouse. >> Correct. Yes. >> Okay. Thanks.
>> Welcome. Um in terms of some of the uh the zoning um numbers here, Mr. Kley talked about the density um for this project now based on the acreage. The density for this project is 5.6 six um units per acre um for for the 64 units we show here. The floor area ratio um
based on the lot area that's calculated when you take into your hillside um development ordinance and the units mix that we have here now which I believe includes basement as well as the affordable building that's shown on the plan. The F is 0.42 42 on on the lot on
the lot where 0.15 is permitted. And then the lot coverage for this project with the layout we have now with all the walkways, the roads, the driveways and so forth that we show here with the affordable building and the amenity space that's there now we're at 48.7%.
Rob, just going off of prior calculations, you had a total disturbance of 10.27 27 acres at the last time it testified. Where are we at here in terms of acreage that's disturbed? >> It's because we really made the change interior to the roadway. It's it's about
the same. It wouldn't it wouldn't be much less because we're still keeping >> the the storm water basins where we show them and the grading behind the unit. So, it's it's about the same amount. >> But I'm having trouble getting to your 5.6 units per acre. I'm at 6.23 on a 10.27
acre disturbance. it it's not based on disturbance. It's based on lot area. So the remaining lot area is um 11.91 acres and then we had to do a slight adjustment to that because of the hillside development ordinance because a couple there's some small steep slopes. So it actually works out to be um
11 you use 11.467 acres as your as your overall acreage. >> You so you're really disturbing over 11 acres here. disturbing 10.7, but the site the the project site's 11 point the overall project site's 11.9 and we're disturbing about 10 point 10.7 of it.
>> Does the 11.9 include the road entrance coming into >> Yeah, 11.9 >> all the way to the right >> 11.9 includes this includes the rightway dedication here and the the the line along here and then the the the 3acre subdivision line. >> Right. So, one of my original meetings,
probably going back close to a year ago, whenever this started, was where you had the driveway coming in. How much acreage is that compared to the whole project? And so, I was trying to calculate how many you
>> this area here. >> Yes, >> I back. >> Yeah, we we looked at it. I I want to say it was just >> it looks almost the same size as the JCC property. >> Yeah, but it's not quite. That's three acres. This this would probably be just under two acres because some of this
we're not disturbing because it's within it's within the uh the wetland area. So, it's about an acre of non-disturbance there, give or take a little bit. >> It's probably about just under the same size that you're disturbing then. So, be just over an acre then. >> Yeah. Of disturbance there with the with the basins in the front here and a little bit of grading on this side over
here. >> Okay. I have a couple of questions >> real quickly before I forget. So, um, impervious surface that's created, I had it at 5.5 acres from your last testimony. Where we at here? >> It's it's still f right now with the
current layout, it's 5.581 acres. >> And last question, I have the removal of 576 trees. >> The tree removal number right now based on our count one. I have 407 trees to be removed based on
our count based on doing the tree survey and and doing that calculation. >> Just 407. >> Yes. >> And you had about 250 you think you can get back in there. >> We have aboutund one second Mr. Chairman.
We have about there's about 185 shown on the plan right now. And I think once you go through your final site layout, you can you can go north of 200 on that with the plantings. Thank you, Rob. Welcome. >> Sorry, Mrs. M. Go ahead. >> I have a question regarding that one
building that has the affordable units. Is that like a apartment building? What kind of is it separate like the other houses are? >> It's not so much as an apartment building as it's more of a uh a condo building. So you would have, think of
this being cut up into basically there's 13 units. So it's an odd number. So you're gonna have like maybe five on the f you might have six on the second floor and seven on six on the second, maybe seven on the first or vice versa to get to the 13. But you you'd have it sliced
up this way and you'd have a door typically where you'd come in and you come in on on a lobby and you'd have a staircase going up to the second level and a door to go to your first unit. It wouldn't be a common hallway in there with with all condo units off off of the hallway for a building like this. >> And and that's still this is this is a
preliminary footprint that could be modified slightly, you know, if in in the future, but that's generally what you would have for a building of that size. >> And the building that is to the right side, a white colored uh square that you have, what what what is it? >> That that is an outdoor amenity space.
It's a patio area right now. It could be it could be um a gathering space for the development. And I think we showed a uh I think we showed a gazebo in here with some um with some tables and chairs right now. >> Outdoor amenity space for the for everybody to use in the development.
>> Okay. And the last question I have is that on your drawing it shows total 64 units, right? Out of that 12 are that one building with the affordable units, right? So the remaining 52 are for
regular. It's actually 13 affordable 51 town houses. >> Okay. >> I have a question. Is there going to be one HOA for the affordable and the other units
>> if they're sold um as they are likely to be. So there will be a homeowners association for the 51 and then there will be a condo regime for the 13 because of the structure of the building. Um so they would probably have
a a separate condo board that would be a and that would be a a participant in the HOA board. >> Well I think Mr. Kley DCA regulations >> this is an expert. I shouldn't even be talking about this. Mr. Oler is >> all right. I don't mean that, but it's
the DCA regulations require at least one of the board members to be elected by the affordable housing units. Doesn't mean that it'll be a house affordable housing unit owner, but they get to elect one of the board members and
typically it would be set up in one condo association. >> Is then the affordable housing is that a separate entity or part of the same entity? Well, >> same amenity. >> Same amenity >> unless they're rent they're renting them, but I don't think that's the
proposal. >> The plan is to sell, >> right? >> So, these town houses and please forgive me if the one of the roofs goes every everybody has to pay for that for >> that would be a common expense probably.
>> Common expense you draw the regime. Yeah. And I guess I'm concerned that you're going to have a separate something for the affordable housing versus the regular units because we have something like
that now in Bridgewater and it created a few problems. I wish you would rethink that. >> Rethink what? What? That's right. For >> what do you mean? I don't again I don't mean to speak for you but it's it would be one condominium
association >> with affordable housing >> no and in total there would be one association >> there would be 51 market rate units and there would be 13 affordable units in
the association >> I that's I didn't get that I thought they would separate >> listen they could do it separately I suppose I haven't seen it done that way, but technically you could. But the the um the regular way to do it would be, as I
just said, with one condo association and you have a mix of the units, right? And the affordable housing unit owners are represented by the fact that they get to elect one of the board members on the board. >> All right. I I'm just aware that
crossroads had two separate HOAs >> and it created a lot of problems for the township. >> Yeah, I could I could see that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, if this is approved, would you be okay with a condition to do it as one association?
>> Yes. Yeah. We're we're not we're not fine-tuning that. >> Yeah. I mean, really, that's probably more of a site plan uh discussion. All right. Thank you, Rich. I think >> at that time. Yeah. Um, as far >> right, any more questions on the the
layout of the units? >> Well, let me let me ask you then about the storm water. So, you you did a preliminary storm water report, correct? >> Yes, we did. >> And then uh the board asked you to do a uh a soil study. >> We did the soil testing. Yes. >> Did and which firm did you use for that?
>> As a matter of fact, I actually forget the name of the firm. might have to go back and check. >> All right, don't worry. We'll we'll >> back in October. I remember the name of the firm. >> Can't I can't remember a lot of things, believe me. Um so, uh and then then Mr. Burr wrote a comment letter, >> correct? >> And uh you reviewed that, right?
>> Yes. >> So, um and will D have to give a permit for storm water management on this site? Well, because this site is going to require um some some D permitting for the access drive, which we mentioned early on in in the process, um we will
need to have the D review the storm water as well as Mr. Burr's office. Also, >> based on on the saw report that you obtained and uh uh your preliminary report and and reading Mr. Burr's analysis, do you believe that the that
storm water can be appropriately handled on this site in accordance with the regulations? Yes. And reference in Mr. Bird's February 20th, 2025 report where he mentioned his review comments. We reviewed those comments and we feel that um we be able to address those comments in in a site plan application um if if
if they were to be made conditions of approval to satisfy his his technical his technical comments. >> Any more questions on storm order? >> I just want to confirm with Mr. Burr because you know the slope is substantial from north to south. the
three units to the south and I guess they're on a private driveway bill. If you look at the the site, the aerial it is boy, I can't even read it. Lot 42. It's three houses to the south of the
property. And then you have Grae Forest and then two other additional properties on Talamini. So, you're going to have six properties directly involved that if this doesn't go well on a rainy day, this could be a bad situation. just what's your what are your thoughts on that?
>> Yeah, it it's a good question, Mr. Chairman, and I think it's it's one that really is is only going to get vetted properly once we get to a site plan, >> right? >> That that in my opinion is somewhat of the unfortunate situation here. And
that's why I asked for additional information on storm water and that's why we issued the February 20th memo on storm water because it may very well be at the end of the day this thing can be designed from an engineering perspective to protect all
the downstream property owners. But based on the the 12 or 13 comments that I raised in February, there's still some uncertainty there. >> Yeah. Would you consider this an interrelated issue to approval? Would you consider this an interrelated
potential problem? Uh, you know, in a bifurcated case that we don't have >> Yeah, 100% they're interrelated and that that that's part of the issue that we can't fully get to the bottom of without having the site plan, right? >> Um, and and again, you know, I I said it
at a prior hearing. Uh, certainly Rob's office and the applicant has done some preliminary work that probably goes above and beyond other use variance cases. They haven't done the full gamut yet and they haven't done the full engineering. So it still raises some
question here that this thing can get built the way it, you know, the way it's laid out on a colored rendering. Yeah, >> that's why we raise those questions. So I respect, you know, Rob's opinion that that come the site plan phase, this can be designed and storm water can be
managed properly. >> That's not a risk that that the board and the township can take based on recent history of the storm events that we're getting. And you both agree? >> I have those concerns. >> Thank you. And you both agree that there's substantial slopes on the site, including an area that has 30% slopes.
>> Yeah, there is. There's there's not a lot of steep slopes, but there definitely are steep slopes on this property. >> We heard there's 407 trees that are going to be removed. That that also has a big impact on storm water. And then when you talk, you know, F and
impervious coverage values that are proposed at three times what the ordinance currently allows, add all that stuff up and something's got to give. >> Thank you. So, >> um, Mr. Michello, uh, does D regulate storm water?
>> Yes, D is one of the reg is the regulating authority on storm water besides a local municipality. >> And would D scrutinize an application like this? Based on our experience with DP in the last two years, yes,
they would they would scrutinize it intensely. If they were to scrutinize it intensely and then we then have the results of their scrutiny, what weight does that carry compared to, let's say, the
township's assessment via its professional staff compared to the D? I think what you would see here and and to to Bill's points about the design and so forth. Um as I mentioned earlier on this this site it's 11 it's a little over 11
acres um of of the lot area. The disturbance is just over 10 acres. Um under the D rules they typically want you to have now 2 and a half acres to a basin for dis for runoff purposes. That's under their green infrastructure requirements. this current site the way
we have the storm water designed preliminarily right now and I will admit the fact that I've said that before this was preliminary um but it was preliminary in the sense that we designed it under the I'll call it the future 2100year 100red-year storm so we have to do two
two sets of precipitation calculations one for current precipitation in the current year and then one for the year 2100 and what that basically means is that the storm water system is designed for that 2100 100y year 100year storm which is a pretty intense storm event.
It it's one and a half times our current 100red-year storm intensity. Um and the and the system that you see on the plan which basically amounts to eight storm water basins that we show on there right now. Would they be tweaked slightly once we go through final calculations? Yes. Would one or two get slightly larger or
slightly smaller? That could certainly occur. But we show eight basins on the plan right now that are designed to attenuate and and and reduce that runoff to rates that are going to be equal to what the existing runoff is leaving the site >> under a wooded under a wooded condition
today. Um not to mention that under 2026 there's a culvert that does regulate some runoff underneath the highway and then you have and you have a stream that's on the side of the site here that then flows down towards the driveways that service those existing homes. So the intent of the rules is to make sure
that we don't generate any more runoff from the property than it would under current conditions today and and that's what the preliminary design here generally shows. And and to Mr. Burr's point, yes, there are some calculations that still need to be done. Um but but those calculations would further bolster
the design to make sure that it meets all those objectives of of the D and your township's requirements as well. So where I lost you in the sauce a little bit was the weight that the D has compared to the township itself. So the D comes in, makes an assessment or
recommendation. That recommendation is passed on to you. You then are obligated to incorporate it into your design and it still has to withstand the scrutiny of the township professionals. >> Correct. You have two layers of review at at the level. the DP which has their
scr scrutiny and review and it's not even a recommendation they're going to review it and tell us this is what if they don't agree with something they're going to tell us to make a change okay >> and if we want the permit we need to make those adjustments to that on top of that you Mr. Burr and his office also has the right to review those review the
storm water and comment on it as well. The timing of that will depend on how this application moves forward from here and who gets the first look at it. But ultimately before those plans are signed, both agencies and organizations will have looked at the plans and both will have commented on the stormwater
system and we will have it we will have um addressed all their concerns before the plans are signed. But at this moment in time, because of the nature of the application and the information you have available to you and we have available, you couldn't make that determination simply because all those things would
have to be um understood or explained in a site plan which has yet to be determined. I I will say this right now what we show on the plan today is at least it's conservative from my perspective because it's based on no infiltration and it's based on a certain
volume of water we needed to detain. It's it's it's still preliminary and the way we see these stormwater designs ultimately evolve is they become tweaked and modified once we start getting all those review comments and they ultimately becomes usually a little bit better than what you start with. But
right now, we feel that we've started with something that covers the initial impact of that 2100-year storm, which is your biggest concern about water leaving the site so that we're not impacting the downstream properties. >> D review of storm water doesn't occur in
normal case until site plan approval is granted. Is that correct? In in the normal cadence, we would request site plan approval and then we would go to the D and then we would take both the comments from your your your engineer and the D and and make that all work to satisfy everybody's everybody's
concerns. >> Thank you. Uh Rob, based on the soil analysis, in your opinion, will there need to be blasting done for the basins andor any of the dwellings >> the the soils out here? And I just looked up to confirm it was um GTA
geotechnology associates that that did the report. Um it didn't show anything that that mentioned heavy rock. You have your typical shell when you get start getting down to a certain depth. That's that's that's um excavatable um for this, but it didn't look like there was any need to to blast for any for any of
the any of the development. >> Mr. Kok, what are your thoughts about a stipulation? I know it might be premature because this isn't site plan approval, but to no blasting to protect the residents around this property. I have to have to think about that. Uh
sure, no problem. >> This is uh you know uh on the side I see uh all over the place proposed basin number one, two, three, total of eight of them. Is that for storm water drainage or >> Yes, it is. >> It is.
>> Okay. But, you know, some units don't have anything close to their the top. >> Ju just keep in mind that the site, you know, drains from this is the higher side of the property up here and the lower side is down here. So, you're not going to have a basin up at the very top. You're going to start placing them,
>> you know, where the water starts running in in in a, you know, that direction towards that stream that's closest to the the roadway. >> Okay. Thanks. Right. Um, moving on to firet trucks. You may have
touched on this, but is there adequate turning area for fire trucks on the site? >> Yes. So, there was some comments from the fire officials letter. I think he made a couple comments over the course of of of the last year. Um, we did provide a firetruck turning plan that showed that the site can accommodate your ladder truck um both coming in off
of um 202 and looping around the site. And then we would ultimately continue that and show it across the emergency access road as well just to make just to show that it all complies. There was also some comments in the letter about providing um fire hydrants. I think he was asking for a total of five. We don't
have the water system designed yet, but it would typically be a loop coming into the site and we would provide the hydrants wherever he needs them to be on the property and we'll work with him to make sure he's satisfied with that. In the course of your review, did you consider the disturbance that would be
embodied in in the plan that's on the easel? In other words, the the uh 13 and 51 site plan versus um uh a site plan um that would be involved if you did 12
residential homes in the alla the R40 zone. Did you cons consider the relative level of disturbance between the two plans? >> It it would be if you were to look at the underlying zoning of what's permitted, which I think is uh 40 48 40
40,000 square foot um lots in that zone. Um you would have similar you would have you wouldn't have as much disturbance, but you'd have similar disturbance clearing for roads, houses, driveways, backyards, and so forth on the property. I don't have the exact number of of of acreages or or trees
that would be cleared, but there would be there would be comparable. It would be it would be less because it would be a single family project as opposed to town houses, but it would be it would be still within within multiple acres of clearing required. Definitely north of six to seven acres at least of clearing for a single family project, you know,
of of that size on these lots. And I you may have mentioned this before, but did you move a lot line to create uh enough distance around the barn? >> Yeah, that was done at at the previous revision. We adjusted this red lot line
um that that runs parallel to um the barn housing structure here to make sure we had the right setback off of that. And we weren't right up against it. I think it originally was a foot and a half. Now we have 20 feet um set back to to to comply. >> Three acres to be conveyed to the JCC.
That's not in your uh density or F calculations. Is that >> does not count towards any of those numbers? >> All right. I don't have any further questions. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Kley. Uh Rob, I'm going to ask you the same question I asked you last August. Where would the
65th unit go? >> Well, actually, under this scenario, Mr. Chairman, we we do have some room still for units. >> Could you show me where we were? >> I took some units out. >> Okay. >> Over here. I say over here next to unit 64, next to unit 37, next to unit 51. Um
I did pull some units out of there. Actually, even next to unit 50. So because of going down to 51 townhouse units and putting 13 in the affordable building now, we do have some extra green space around the site. >> We would lose some trees and some plantings, etc.
>> You'd do some planting area, but again, I think that ultimately we'd like to enhance some of those additional areas with landscaping once the at the appropriate time. So you you you think you could add four more? >> I I think at least two to three more if push came to shove. But I we're not proposing that here. >> I I only asked that question because
we're at the same place we were a year ago. And every case, you know, despite the fights I have with the lawyers and the and the fights I have with professionals, I always want to find a yes. And if nothing else, Rob, you always do great work. You in a lot of cases, thank you for trying to help us
get to yes. I don't think tonight or this case is any different. We're always trying to get to yes. appreciate that. >> Thank you for my kind of sarcastic answer. I appreciate question. I appreciate your answer. >> You're welcome. >> Any other board members questions for Mr. Michello? All right. Board
professionals. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um Mr. Michella, just one question about the the new proposed affordable building. Um, are you aware of the um some of the
regulations surrounding how the the the units uh affordable units have to be or are encouraged to be integrated into the into the market rate as an inclusionary development? >> I'm not totally 100% up on that requirement. I know there's some talk
about inclusionary um integration, but Mr. Kley might be able to shed some more light on that. Yeah, I mean we we could incorporate these units in in some way so that they would be um all all uh within the the 64
units and spread out not not all together. That would be our plan. >> Would that have any impact on the setbacks, the floor ratio, the impervious coverage? >> No, it would be just placement of the units throughout the project and so that
they're assuming they're all sale. Now, now we could do the uh 13 affordable as rentals and and I think under the regulation separate them on that basis, but right now we're planning on sale and we would spread those units out so that
they're not all together. >> Okay, that was my only question. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Rob. Um, couple questions for you. So, we heard I think earlier from Mr. Kley that the project has evolved from 64
units to 60 to 52 and now we're back up at 64. Right. >> Yes. >> And I I assume how you got from 64 down to 52 was just taking some of the the end units or a
few units from each cluster off. >> So my question >> original 64 to 52, >> right? >> Yeah. Yeah. We reduced I think they were all eight packs originally and we reduced some of the Yes, we took the units off the ends to reduce um the the number of of units.
>> So then by adding the 13 unit building where it's currently situated, can you just describe for us what impact where you made up the additional units elsewhere on the site? Where did you add more units to the other building
clusters? I I did not I remember I started with eight I started with eight units maximum per building cluster at at the at the most. I don't have the original plan here in front of me, but that's what I started with. I didn't put any more than eight back on any one grouping of building units. So I have an
eight pack that's on the southern portion southeast. I have a seven-unit building on the southwest on the north side of road A. I have an eight-unit building. Then I have a seven-unit building behind that one. I have another seven-unit building to the left of of that unit. And then I have three
buildings along the northern property line where it's a five unit, a fourunit, and a five unit. So I broke that one up into three buildings as opposed to possibly doing that with two with two buildings. So, I sp I tried to spread it back out around the site, just adding basically like one unit back to certain buildings to to get back up to that
eight unit number. >> And to the northerly side of the property and the southerntherly side where you're closest to the nearest adjacent residences, did any additional units get added? Additional disturbance or grading in the future have to get
proposed in those areas? >> No, the grade No, no additional disturbance for grading. We actually did move um behind units uh 15 through 9 through 15, which is the southwest corner of this of the unit breakout breakdown. We did move one basin that
was the right right behind those units that was causing grading into the setback and closer to the property line. We shifted it off to the west. So this way we'd have keep more of that existing um buffer along that property line to those uh to that that southern those two southern homes that are there.
>> Okay. Um, you had testified about the emergency access exhibit and I think you acknowledged that the base map for that plan was based on a prior revision and it wasn't drawn to this
current plan. If you would superimpose the access driveway, are there any conflicts, any issues if it was to be laid onto the current plan set? No, because we because of the end of where the road is on road A, there's there's no conflict with any units over there. And it's designed to work around that
storm water basin number seven that that's on that lower corner there. >> And we we talked about the 407 plus or minus trees that need to be removed. If that access drive was to be installed, do you have any sense for how many more trees would have to get taken down in
that area? >> It's actually going through, it's running just to the um north of that existing tree line. So, it might just be a a few trees at most, if any, because that area is actually an open field in in this area here. We'll have to take down maybe two or three to get through
to the JCC driveway. And there might be, you know, two or three that get nipped by it. But I can make an adjustment if need be once we find out a survey of the trees over there. >> And from avoid that, >> from a grading perspective, is that area relatively flat or is there grade to it?
>> Yeah, it's relatively flat. So the the emergency access emergency access would be basically placed at grade. >> And last question on that to I think Mr. Kulak's question. Was that plan submitted to the fire marshall? Do you know has he had eyes on that?
>> I don't remember if that was submitted. There was a number of submissions bill that took place. I don't know if that emergency access plan was actually a formal submission at one time. >> Okay. But if there's any concerns about I'll say the width of that, if if if he has a concern about the width, we'd be happy to make adjustments to it.
>> Okay. Um, in terms of the amenities that are shown on your plan, you testified that there's a patio area currently shown and maybe maybe looks what looks like, you know, couple picnic benches, maybe a gazebo area. >> Yes.
>> In your opinion, is that common for a project like this with 64 senior units? It's not uncommon for a project like this that I will say this that that area is is somewhat of a a placeholder for what could ultimately be there when we
come to site plan. We we acknowledge that we want to have some type of outdoor passive amenity space where people can gather on the property. We picked that spot because it's sort of central to to the overall prop overall property. Um what it ultimately might end up being could be shaped a little
bit differently. could the seating could be reconfigured a little bit differently, but for a 60 unit 64 unit development, um, typically to see an outdoor gathering space like that is isn't uncommon. Um, you don't the project really isn't large enough to accommodate, you know, active recreational spaces like tennis courts
or or things like that on a site like this. So, more something passive such as this would would fit in with with with the uh with the type of project we have here. Would would there be demand for a clubhouse space, fitness center, swimming pool? Is something like that common for a project like this?
>> No, given the size of it, it's it's not >> like that. >> You were doing okay there. >> Could you switch to the microphone that's on the table? I would say given I say given the size of this project, the number of units, you really you might not you wouldn't see a clubhouse
or a pool because of the the fees associated with operating something like that for for this scale of a project. It's it's rare to see those types of amenities on a project this size because of the cost associated with them. >> Okay. And last question has to do with overall F and lock coverage on the
newest plan. Can you just give us a sense? I think the chairman may have asked this, but I miss see your answer. Give us a sense of what those numbers look like with the current proposal versus some of the prior proposals. >> George, give me a second to grab my
note. Thank you, Suzanne. So, if we go back to the original, I'll just call it the original 64 unit plan that we initially submitted to to to the board, the original lock coverage was 49.2% or 5.86
86 acres. So we're basically just slightly under that right now at 48.7% or 5.58 acres. So.3 delta roughly reduction in lot coverage going from a 64 unit townhouse project to a 64 unit
inclusionary um project with affordable housing. Um, as far as F goes, the F that we were looking at on the original project was 0.48 floor area ratio and we are now currently at, I believe it was 0.42
F. >> And I'm going to ask you to take it a step further. at the at the May I think it was the May meeting, although we we didn't hear testimony from you about the the actual plan revisions. I think Mr. Kley discussed a plan that was prepared
to show 52 units without the affordables. Do you have those numbers just to give us a sense of where this has gone and where it's back to? Just >> give me a second. I know I have him here. Just give me a second.
So that 51 unit plan, the lot coverage on that plan was 45%. And the F was 0.39. Very good. Thank you. >> Welcome. >> Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
>> Thank you, Bill. >> Good evening, Rob. I'm going to ask you some questions regarding uh traffic safety. Um, and my questions may seem too advanced for a use variance plan. However, if these questions cannot be
addressed, that could be a real issue during the final engineering plan. So, let me start uh with the truck circulation plan that you submitted. It is uh I believe sheet one of one and um
the uh the plan is called fire truck turning plan. Now, back in uh July of 2024, the fire marshall uh issued a letter requesting
that um you utilize a tower ladder truck in your analysis and you did your analysis, you did your plan and you have a ladder truck on your plan that is 41 ft in length.
Now generally um tower ladder trucks they go from 41 feet up to 63 feet. Did you consult with the fire department or did you choose the 41 foot truck independently?
>> We have we were familiar with the fire department's requirements. So I recall that we were we were going to use their ladder truck for the turning movements because I've used that one on other projects in town. So unless there was a discrepancy in in
in in how we trans transposed it into the program, that's what I thought was their was their truck. >> Okay. So you relied on your familiarity with the type of trucks that they use. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now if you look at the um turning
template and I'll give you some time to find it. >> Yeah, I've found it here. >> Okay. If you look at the exiting fire truck, uh you see that there is a solid line swinging around the turning
movement and a dash line. The solid line designates the uh path of the tires and the dash line designates the front of the overhang. So if you look at the dash line, it
looks like it is over or touching the curb on the far side and also touching a symbol that I'm not sure what it is. It's a it's a round symbol with an X. Is that a pole or a or a lightning fixture? >> Yeah, I I looking at the plan now. I I
would think it might be a either a sign or or a pole. It's on the curb line, which leads me to believe it might be a sign, which is >> normally it wouldn't be a sign. It would be a pole or a fixture. Normally, a sign is usually a blade with a dot >> usually. But >> yeah, uh I'm pointing this out because
it is very close to it. So, if the driver of the fire truck turns the wheel half an inch to the right or to the left, um that truck may u hit that pole or that fixture or the overhang may go
over the curb and impact where pedestrian may be. And I want to make sure you can correct this in your final design because right now this looks too close for comfort. Basically, >> I'm I'm looking at it and yeah, even though I'm looking at a small half-size print, I I agree. I think with some
minor modifications of the I'll say it's the the the tip of the um island so the truck can make the turn a you know pull that back a little bit. I think that we'll be able to make sure we can provide that that turning radius leaving the site. I I I I I agree with that.
>> I'll move on to side distance questions. So you did a side distance analysis and um I will go to uh sheet one of one also and it's entitled site distance plan and profile.
Uh do you recall what speed limit did you use for your site distance calculations? I know we worked with Mr. Keller's office on preparing this plan. I can't remember if it was 45 miles an hour on that strip of 2026.
Um, but he did provide us with the required distance of I think we got 542 to the north and um 500 to the uh to to the south. >> Right. Uh the speed limit based on Mr.
Keller's report is 50 miles an hour on route 206 and if we do a minimum analysis we use 50 which would u give us a required site distance of 555 ft and if we want to use
a conservative analysis spec specifically in this case being that this is an age restricted development we add 5 miles an hour to the speed limit so we take it from 50 to 55 and the 55 35 mph speed limit would require a u a
higher intersection um site distance 610 ft which based on the plans that is not uh achieved. >> Um well based on the plan we stopped at 542 based on Mr. Keller's original
recommendation. Um, I do know from visiting the site and and looking at the distances and the profile that I have there on the plan, if we were to extend that to 600 feet, we don't hit the crest of the high point on the north side at 2026. So, I I believe 600 could be
achieved um based on the topography that's out there. Now, on the other side, it shows that you have achieved a 500 foot clear side distance. And just to remind the board and and everyone else listening, you would need a minimum
of 555 ft and a desirable distance of 610 ft. Your plan shows 500 ft clear sight distance. Is that the maximum you can achieve or you're going to give us the same answer that this could be also
extended? >> There's additional distance to the south as well from being out there on the property. I I could say you can achieve at least an additional 100 more feet going looking to the south. >> And my last question regarding the profile uh and thank you for doing the
profile by the way. Many engineers do not do the profile. >> Welcome. >> This gives us an indication of exactly what the driver is seeing or not seeing. So in your profile, if you uh look in the center of it, you do show that you
have 300 3.5 viewing height at station 161, which is adequate. But then if you move to the right and you look approximately at station 181 or actually 178, you find that that viewing
distance has diminished. And you don't show it. And I want to make sure you don't have an obstruction due to the irregularity of uh the pavement or the burm area that would obstruct the visibility of the driver.
And also we need to pay attention to the ground cover. The ground itself may be 3 and 1/2 ft below the sight line but if you have vegetation that could be obstructed. >> Yeah. And looking at the the plan, I my
plan shows three and a half foot viewing height, you know, leaving the site for for the driver's eye, >> correct? >> And I'm actually showing three and a half foot for the object height um on this plan here. So I know based on the topography that that distance between the sight line and the grade varies a
little bit. Um but most of that for at least 300 plus feet of it is over pavement. So I'm not concerned about any obstructions on the pavement itself. Um the rest of it's by an existing driveway um and and lawn area. So I know that is from being out at the site there there wasn't any
major visual obstructions looking both in that north direction. Of course the south direction is over the majority of it is over the highway to begin with. So there's no obstructions there. But I do take into I I do recognize the point that yes if there's vegetation within that sight line you'd be hampered by it.
But looking at where this location is and being out there, I didn't see any major ve vegetation in that first 100 to 150 ft that would impair the uh the driver's eye looking up the uh looking up the highway. >> Okay, that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
>> You said aboutility. So to achieve safety at an intersection, you need to provide the driver with enough visibility at the stop sign. So when a driver is at a stop sign and driver is looking to the right or to the left, that driver needs to see clearly a
certain distance and that distance is dictated by the speed limit or the prevailing speed and in this case ideally you would want to provide about 600 ft of clear visibility to the
driver. Now the driver um is sitting in the vehicle and based on national criteria the eye level above the ground level is about 3 and 1/2 ft and the object that the driver is
looking at according to Rob's plan is also 3 and 1/2 ft. So that means if I'm looking to the right or to the left to make a turn, I need to see a three and a half foot object at 600 ft. Now if in
between there is an obstruction that is 3 and 1/2 ft or 3 feet that's going to obstruct my my uh vision even though on the plan I can show a straight line but in reality in my vehicle I'm looking to
the right and if there is a burm area or whatever it is that is obstructing that visibility then I don't have the sight distance and that's what I was questioning Rob about. >> So he So that we don't know. You need to do it
and you need to do a field check to verify this. U Rob said that >> just tell me what number >> we know that we have 500 >> and Rob responded and said he believes >> sorry I mean Sure.
>> We know we have 500. What do we need? >> Ideally, we need about 600. >> And they're saying we have what? 550. >> Uh Rob is saying he believes there is an additional 100 even more based on the geometry of the roadway, but that is not
reflected on the plan. >> That's what my question is. >> Yes, >> on the plan there is how much? 500 feet on one side and 52 >> 42 feet on the other side. >> Yep. Thank you,
>> Maurice. Based on your questioning, would less units create a better situation for traffic to traverse this project including emergency vehicles? >> That's a good question. Uh Mr. Chairman, absolutely not. The number of vehicle does not impact all these parameters
we're discussing. >> They're all physical parameters. They have to do with the geometry of the roadway, the position of the vehicle, whether there is 10 vehicles or one. If it fails, it fails. >> However, if you don't have the sight
distance and you have more vehicles, you increase the chances of a collision. >> Okay. Now, inside the property, inside the dimensions, I think it's 810 that Rob was was speaking to. If there was less physical units inside, would there
be more room for roadway? >> Potentially, >> I would have to say u no. The roadway is defined. Mhm. >> Um and if you widen the roadway toward
u their side, let's say, you may actually exacerbate the side distance and not help it because when you move back now, you have more obstruction and not less. So widening may not be the answer here. >> Now again, I'm talking about inside the
project, not the site outside. >> Okay. >> I'm worried about fire trucks hitting things. Oh yeah. >> If there were less units, would there be less likelihood of that happening? >> Yes. So they used a 41 ft fire truck and
if the fire truck is 45 or 50 or the largest one available 63, that may not be able to negotiate the site. So the site has to shrink to provide the proper geometry for a larger truck to negotiate the site. >> Gotcha. Thank you very much.
>> Sure. Anyone else? All right. Uh, members of the public, questions for Mr. Michello's testimony. Okay. Oh, there we go. We got one. Got a taker. Good evening, sir. Just your name and address, please.
>> Rob Espazito, 738 West Foothill. Um, so I have I have a question about the traffic as well and not sure if I'm going to be able to explain it clearly to the mic. >> All right. Um, >> oh, thank you.
So, um, I didn't fully follow the the discussion that we were just having on the the feet 550 ft 600, but I'm I'm trying to picture how it's going to impact the the traffic between there's there's West Foothill, Foothill on the
other side, and then the driveway for this this place, right? And you've got people coming 50 plus miles an hour over that hill coming southbound on on 2026. It's already difficult to pull out on
West Foothill. Either direction, north or south. You've got people coming out of Foothill and now you're going to have people coming out both directions out of this place. So traffic's heading northbound. You're trying to to pull out northbound in front of them. So, you got to floor it to get in front of the
traffic that's coming 50 miles an hour on your on your rear end. Meanwhile, foothills also pulling out on you. You're going to have to slam on your brakes if somebody pulls out on you. It's just it's a it's a cluster of of traffic already. And I think adding this I don't understand all the technical
details of the the stopping distance and all of that, but just driving this road constantly, I don't understand how this is going to work. And if unless you force people to make a right only out of it, making a left, like if you if you go to the farmers market that's there and you try to make a left out and head
northbound, it's you you either wait there or you take a risk and you pull out and somebody flies up behind you. I just trying to understand how this is going to work. >> Our our traffic engineer did give testimony as to the validity of the driveway and the trip generation and the
turning and so forth. Um, we were just discussing sight distances and given its location, you're actually further away from West Foothill, so you have more sight distance looking to the north. So, you have time to see that car coming over the crest, you know, before you pull out of your driveway. If you're coming out of West Foothill, you have
less of a distance to see that car coming over the crest coming southbound. And conversely, you have there's there's a lot of sight distance looking south on 2026. So, again, I mentioned 600 ft. We know the road dips down here. There's a slight low point here where there's a culvert. It comes up again a little bit,
but there's there's there's there's a lot of sight distance. And that farm driveway, which is located where my point my finger is here on the middle of the site, gives you less time to do that. With the driveway being up here, you have more time to see those cars before you pull out actually. So, >> sorry, the driveway is up higher up
there. >> The farm driveway is is is located my pointer here. >> Farm driveway is actually the middle of the site, right about here. >> So, this driveway is further to the north. So, you have more time to react to those cars coming northbound. And conversely, you're you have more distance away from that high point.
Whereas, if you're coming out of West Foothill, you have less time to see those cars coming over the coming over the uh the ridge. >> So, if I'm making a right out of West Foothill and you have a like a fraction of a second to see a car that's coming over that hill. So, now I'm making a
right. I see the car coming. I floor it to get up to 50 miles an hour. You got somebody coming out of that driveway. this this car this car could see you a lot easier to see you coming out and can see that car come over West Foothill than the time you have to make that same right turn and that's just conjecture I'm not a traffic engineer based on the
discussions of what you're have you're experiencing that's what we have there >> yeah and I I don't know I mean and in theory and and the technicals maybe that's true but I just sitting at West Foothill and Foothill and and going both directions daily I just I don't see it
Okay, >> understand. >> Um the other question was um so I I didn't follow how we got from 65 or whatever the number was down to why did we go from 65 to 52? What was the
reasoning? I'm not sure who to direct that to, but what what has changed between between those number changes? like why did we go down to 52 and then why was it okay to bump it back up to 64? >> We started at 64 on the original
project. We with discussions with with the with the board and the layout of the project and and the the townhouse units, we discussed possibly reducing those unit counts down to 60 and then we talked about going down to 52. We never actually presented the 52 unit plan. We were going to um and then based on back
and forth and hearing discussions with the with the board about an affordable component, we went down to 51 townhouse units and then added 13 affordables to meet the 20% set aside to bring us back up to the original number of 64. >> Rob, just for clarity, the the board didn't ask you to take the number back
up. The township uh affordable housing planner had discussions with Rich, with our planner, Katherine. Um, originally you wanted to build basically write a check instead of building affordable housing units. Is that correct? >> That is correct. Yes.
>> And our planner for the township said based on previous fair share housing settlements in the previous round that is not acceptable. We communicated that to the applicant and here we are. We did not ask them to go back up. They chose
to go back up. So let's let's not confuse that. I'm just confused as to why why did it go from 64 all the way down to 52. >> That was just based on conversations and discussions with the board and and the professionals over time about the the
the layout of the project and where certain units were located and just how that laid out on the site. It didn't affect the roadway network as much as it just had a certain um layout to it in terms of coverage and unit locations and things of that nature. So we ultimately
started at 64, worked our way down to to 52, and then because of the affordable component, we took it back up to 64 units. >> So what has changed between the 52 and the 64? Why?
I I'm sure there was a good reason to go down to 52. Like why why would you not want to build more units? So you compromised to go down to 52, but now you're back up to 64. the the difference is going back up to the 64 but doing it in an affordable building still leaves
some additional green space around the site to add the amenity space and not have and as I pointed out to Mr. as the chairman asked me before, could I fit some additional units on the property where on the prior plan, we we were maxed out at 64. In this instance, it's
not as max out as you would think because there's additional green space around the unit. So, it it it made for a a a better layout with the affordable building and the amenity space to allow for that for the residents while also allowing some additional green space around the site that was more tighter
under the prior applica under the prior 64 unit plan. >> Okay. And sorry, one more quick question. The the tree you said, I'm sorry, 48 trees or something coming down, right?
Um I from a previous meeting I overheard something about u like a tree has to be a certain size to be considered a tree in that in that context. Is that accurate or >> I I think it's six or eight inches is the minimum size that's used when counting um trees on a property per the
per the ordinance. >> So is there a count of total trees? Because I'm just concerned that you you look and you see nothing but trees and you say you're taking down 48, but really you're you're clearing the whole area between >> those any anything under 6 in you don't we don't typic it's not counted as a as
as a tree. It's a small it's a small um it's a small tree but it's not going to count the same as a you don't count anything anything 8 inches and greater is counted in the number. >> Okay. So the the whole thing's cleared out. We put up what was itund and something trees to replace it. Right. M
minimum of 185. We're we'll probably be north of 200 once we enhance some of the buffering both to the north and and to the south on on the project site. Yes. And in interior to the site as well with shade trees and and the like. >> Is that the only buffering? Like what happens? Because I I've seen other
developments go up where they throw some trees in the ground, they die within a year and now it's it's all wide open. So is there any guarantees that that buffer is going to actually be there? >> There's two things under site plans. One, you're a site plan application. And so and and I I'll leave the legality of
this to Mr. Kley, but you are obligated typ typically maintain that that buffer um in perpetuity as part of a site plan application. So if a tree dies, the builder or developer usually has a two-year guarantee on that tree. The town requires a two-year maintenance guarantee for any planting. So if
something dies in the first two years, the developer is required to replace it. If it dies after that, it's typically the requirement of the homeowners association to maintain that buffer. Um and and this is just because this is still coming in for just the use aspect of it. Some of the landscaping on here has not been fully worked out yet. There could be the opportunity for some
burming along some of the property lines um once we get into the final grading of the of the project site itself. So our goal is to even though you have residential to the north, residential to the south, we do want to be good neighbors. We want to provide the buffering and and that's something we're going to we would look at as part of site plan to to enhance those buffers
because of the amount of trees we're removing. We we want to plant as many back as we can on the site. >> Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Sorry for taking longer than expected. >> Thank you very much. >> Thanks. >> Hi there. >> Don Marinelli. I live at uh 809 Route
202 206. So I'm one of the homeowners that is about right a little bit. So I have a question. Um >> if you could just talk into the microphone. You said that you were going to move you moved the buffer uh the basin away from our property line,
>> right? >> Is is this your house here in the middle? >> Yes. >> Yes, there was a basin that was right right back here behind the units. It was I think it was it's closest to your house and we moved it over to the uh southwest um over here. >> How would that impact the flow of water to my property?
>> It's actually going to reduce the flow of water to your property. >> How does that work if it would be up there? Cuz right now there's a big >> um comes everything comes this way, right? Generally speaking with the topography flows in this direction and this direction towards the stream. So >> if it goes that way and the basin is up
there, how >> the basin is going to be piped down to the stream down here. So we'll collect the runoff both with the roofs, the roads, there'll be drainage systems within the road, the roofs will be collected um and that'll get piped into the basins and then those basins will be piped down to a discharge point adjacent
to the stream. So I it will reduce runoff to your property over time if it's built the if if the project is built because right now everything just flows just towards your property. >> Well, no, there's a big hill though. There's a big mound >> back here in this corner right here.
Yes. Yes. Actually, part of that part of that mound is staying. We're not removing that mound. >> And so you said also that there's going to be trees along the So there will be trees along the whole line >> ultimately. We will make sure >> now I think I see three trees. >> H there's probably about 25 trees we're
proposing here right now. And we we will add ultimately add some more to infill around those existing trees. >> And how big are those trees? >> Typically when you you're planting at site plan, the evergreens are 8 to 8 to 10 feet typically 6 to 8 8 to 10. And the deciduous trees are typically 2 and
12 inch caliber. So anywhere from 10 to 12 feet when they're initially planted. >> And you also mentioned that there's a stream in the front that grow that goes down. There is a stream and you said that helps collect the water. >> I don't know if you are aware that
whenever there's a storm there's a bridge that goes you have to go over a bridge to get to our property the properties. >> Yeah. Down over here, >> right? It floods. It floods the garbage pales just they float. And that's not even
with a big storm. So I' I'd like to know. I don't believe that this project is going to um help the condition, the flooding. I think it's going to make it worse. And I don't know if you're aware, the other house that um you access, it's
it's the first house up that not up the driveway, but it's the first house >> the on the property today. >> Yeah. >> There's an existing structure maybe right about here. And then the other house is back here. >> Uh oh, you mean the farmhouse? The farm stand? >> No. So there's three houses that run
>> on the southern property line. There's three houses. >> Oh, I'm sorry. These existing houses. Sorry. That the structures on site. >> So there was a storm and I don't know if you're aware, but the the bridge to um that first house was taken out by the
storm and the owner had to act exit through my property. >> So I don't you know there's a concern about this water. >> Yeah. At the end of this case, when we're done with all the witnesses, I'm going to let members of the audience speak for against the case and you could
bring all this up. You can show >> asking questions if he was aware of that. >> Fair enough. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> Robert Kerr, 775 West Foothill. I'm sure you've seen that they've relined or they repaved 2026.
Uh >> I don't know. I I'll Okay. I haven't been out there in a few weeks, but I'll I'll take this. >> Thought you would have been prepared for this then because the question I'm going to ask you is with their lining now, the sideline, usually I guess it's the white line is almost right at the edge of the
curbing. What is the process that you're going to keep cars from rolling down into the culvert or the uh stream area? Are you going to be putting up some sort of >> well along along the state highway? >> Yeah,
>> that's the perview of the state. That's not us. We don't control the state highway. >> So you're saying what? >> It's the state's jurisdiction, the highway. >> Right. I understand that. But are you going to be contacting the state saying, "Hey, we're going to be digging a culbert here." >> Uhuh. I'm not digging a covert on the
road here. I'm adding an entry point across from the existing driveway that's there today. >> Okay, I understand that. >> So, we're closing off the the driveway that's there today that goes to the farm stand. >> But what I'm asking is at one point the gentleman had said that there I don't
know whether the traffic planner or not said they would attempt or try to do a left turn into the new property. >> Yes. Yeah. There'll be a there'll be a left turn lane. There's striping there today if you're traveling northbound on 202.
>> Have you seen the striping since they just redid it? That's what I'm saying. >> No, I've not seen the striping since they just redid it. >> There is no room for a left turn lane. >> Well, I have not seen the striping that I have on my plan showed room for a left turn lane. So, if the state did something different than what we just currently have now, we'll need to take a look at that and see what they see what
they did. But that's a major issue is that the more you put traffic, three lanes of traffic there, it's a two-lane highway and coming south, there is a left turn lane to go on to Foothill Road. There is another left turn lane to go into the the uh the vets's office.
>> Yes. I designed that 15 years ago. >> Yeah. How we got it, I don't know. It's a private thing, but So, you're going to be applying to the state to put a left turn lane for northbound traffic into the property. Is that right? >> Yes. Yes. And I I can tell you I designed this
left turn lane into the vet 15 years ago. So we went to the DOT to get that approval. We worked with our traffic engineer to do that and the intent is to do the same thing on this side. If the DOT repaved the road and changed some of the striping, we'll have to deal with that as part of our application to adjust it. >> Okay. So that will be taken into
consideration. >> Absolutely. Yes. Yes. If they did something different from what was currently shown on that aerial right now, we'll have to take a look at that and address that with the dealer. >> All right. So from the driveway south to the as the driveway makes the turn like this. So from your driveway to the
highway that road or that grass area there is that going to be level or is that going to be sunken down as a like a catch base? >> You mean this road here? >> The intent would be >> in that area there where your hand is now. Just that whole green area down. >> I want it to be level or slightly raised. I I don't want to go down into a
hole and then come back up. >> No, I understand that. But I'm just ask I'm just wondering as cars are coming there that they're not going to be going off the edge of the roadway and >> No. No. The intent is not is not to do that. No. >> Okay. So, it is a level area. >> Yes. Yes, it is. >> But not not until you get to where the culvert across the highway is.
>> Well, the culvert >> then it becomes a >> culvert is down here where you start getting the steepness on the side of the slopes where that's that's the purview of of the state. But up here, we're going to create a flat level surface for cars to pull into the into the development. The road's going to the way that grading plan shows it now. starts
coming up away from 2026. The whole site slopes up from 2026. So, you're not going to go down to go back up. >> No, I understand going up into the development. I'm just concerned along the highway. >> Yeah. No, we we would want to make sure we have the adequate distance there for a car to uh to make that to make that turn into the site.
>> All right. Thank you. >> Bruce Leven, I have the veterary hospital that you're talking about. We have had from for the last 13 years issues with cars slamming on their brakes, not knowing whether they're going to turn into our driveway or
foothill. It has been an issue from day one. Um, seeing another driveway across and I spoke to Rob and I trust Rob. He did my site. But having three driveways right there because there's one h one
house just north of the entrance to this. Having those three right there together seems like a real issue plus a foothill. You know, I just wanted to make that clear. We've always had issues with it. This is adding another driveway. I thought the one reason I
came was to see if that driveway entrance could be south of of where it is proposed to be. So, >> Dr. Levenson, I I I'm a customer. >> Oh, yeah. >> For 10 plus years, I asked the same question, just so you know.
>> Yeah. As long as it's being addressed, I trust Rob, but it is a concern for me. >> So, so again, what your question is, can it be moved south because you've personally seen situations with traffic risks? >> Tons. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> It's always been proposed for the um foothill to have a light, you know, as long as as long as I've known you because I um that would help a lot. Do you want to ask Rob if a traffic light might help?
>> Yeah, we spoke earlier, you know, I told him my issue, my concern, um when that will happen, who knows? >> And we did speak about the potential about moving the driveway, but as I explained to explained to Dr. Levenson that closing off the one that's there
now and moving it up from a geometry standpoint made in talking to a traffic engineer, lining it up with your existing driveway makes sense. I know there were some issues for visibility to see your driveway because of the wetlands on the east side of 2026 and we
actually tried to clear some of that vegetation and we're unable to do that because of the state regulations on that on that um that that northbound side of of the highway. So it was always a quick coming up and then your driveway disappears and when we did your site we knew it was of all the locations to put
it, we couldn't go any closer to Foothill and we couldn't go out onto Foothill Road. So we we that was the the out of all the locations on the site that was the the best place for it for better or for or worse at the time because that that because of that northbound traffic flow.
>> Yeah. A lot of entries right there. So >> business is good. >> So thank you. Good. >> Thank you, sir. >> All right. We're going to take a break. If there's more questions, we can pick it up right after. It's 8:50. Let's come back at at 9:00 p.m. We're going to
adjourn for 10 minutes. Thank you. Miss You can do whatever you want. >> All right, Maria, if we could just have a roll call, please. >> Chairman Fouse, >> I'm here. >> Mr. Widelli, >> here. >> Mr. Sweeney,
>> here. >> Mrs. Amen. >> Mr. Bjouro, >> here. >> Mr. Gasi is absent. Mr. Fresco, >> yes. Here. >> Mr. CCAT is absent. Mr. Vesio is absent. Mr. Kulak >> here.
>> Mr. Gabbit >> here. >> Uh, Mr. Aller >> here. >> Mr. Burr >> here, >> Mr. Mod >> and Mr. Rashad. >> All right, we left off with questions from the public on Mr. Moshello's
testimony. If there's anyone else that would like to ask questions, please come forward. Ark Simon 807 route 20220 206 I abut this project and the JCC at the same time.
>> Um as far as the emergency vehicles you're talking about with a entrance into this property. Um, if our bridges get wiped out, one already has,
which was uh brought to your attention by my neighbor Dawn Marinelli. Um, we have no way getting out. These are two flag lots. Um, do we have access to this emergency vehicle uh
entrance? Okay. >> Sure. >> I'm sympathetic. Oh, I could see that uh there's there's going to be increased traffic that you know there's there's like five or six parking spaces for all
steeds farm stand down by the street. >> I I really want to accommodate you, but comments have to happen at the end of the case. I'll give you as much microphone time as you want to make comments for or against, but right now we have to have questions on Mr. Mochello's testimony. Okay.
>> Anything that he talked about, you can ask questions about. >> I see. >> Okay. >> So, you I'll sit down now then, right? >> You can ask more questions. It's just at the end, we have to follow a very strict policy guideline for how we conduct the meetings because it's quasi judicial.
>> Everything that happens here could potentially end up in front of the township council on appeal or in front of a judge. We just have to have this rigid structure. I apologize, but it's just the nature of the thing that we have to >> Is there any mention about a fence along the property line?
>> Ask Mr. Moello. >> So, as of right now, there's no fence proposed along the property line, but as I mentioned in my previous testimony, um we talked about enhanced buffering and screening both on the northern property line and the southern property line. So that's something we could we could
consider if if in addition to landscaping >> tall enough >> could be a six foot high privacy fence >> six feet >> six feet is typical you know solid we could consider that I have to check with my >> like I was telling you before the uh there's a rise between the back of my
house and what I could see it's 10t grade coming down six feet's not going to work and trees you have uh space kind of far apart where they g together where I you would block out what's back there and I only
get a what three or four be behind my house. >> Well, there's probably about 15 or so right now on the plan um in in the area behind behind the house here along your property line. But again, as I mentioned, we we would certainly be amendable to enhancing any buffering, you know, along the property line.
>> I also don't want to encroach there's existing trees there now that I want to take into account as well. So, we'd want to plant and infill both with the existing >> we can only go so far as the the We we could look at that. Yes. >> As I mentioned, we can look to enhance
that. Yes. >> We got to get you on the microphone, Mr. Kley. >> Mr. Fors Young would be happy to meet with all the neighbors and and where they could express their particular concerns and maybe they could be adjusted. We'll set up a meeting if that that's
you'd like. >> Okay. Well, >> thank you for that, Mr. Kok. Wonderful. >> Before or after you get approved, >> sir, I can tell you this application's only for the use variance aspect and what you're asking about would be site
plan related. So, if this application is approved for the use, they will have to come back to this board for a site plan application. And at that time or or between now and then, they would have time to sit and meet with you and the neighbors as to what it is you'd be looking for.
>> We'll meet with you now or then. We we like to work things out with people. >> What I brought up brought up about the uh our access to emergency >> as far as the the developer of the
townhouse units that that would be something we could work with. Mr. Cohen has different considerations. I I said as far as the 821, the the applicant for the townhouse units, making an adjustment with various
neighbors so that they could get emergency access would not be something we would resist. But you have different considerations. >> Like I said, if our bridges get knocked out, >> right? Absolutely. >> We can't get out. >> That's the purpose of this. >> Just to be clear, right? He has
Yeah, the JCC has safety issues and they have a whole host of issues that >> Thank you, Mr. Cohen. Lisa Ferrara, 788 West Foothill. >> Sorry, your last name again. >> Ferrara. Um, so I share the same traffic and water concerns, but I do have some
questions, some other questions. Uh, tree, the trees that we're talking about cutting out, anything less than it six inches in diameter is not a tree, right? >> Under the ordinance, it wasn't counted as as a tree. >> That's my question. So, the trees you're planting will all be at least 6 in in diameter. Now,
>> the trees we're planting will be typically 2 and 12 in to 3 inches in diameter is the typical planted size. And um typically for deciduous, they're as I mentioned between 10 and 12 feet, maybe 14 foot in height planted and then they, you know, they grow over time. Evergreen trees are between usually six
and eight or eight and 10 foot in height. Um they're evergreens are measured based on height, not diameter. But why does that count as a tree to if you're putting it in? It's less than six inches in diameter. But >> it counts as a as a new planted tree and eventually over time that tree grows and
that's you know the way it's looked at is as far as the ordinance goes and planting goes. >> Okay. So um regarding the water, you said that there's no basin. There's no basin in the northwest or north at all. Um, as
far as north goes, there's no basin on the northwestern portion of the project site. The basins start on the northeast side of the site and then on the inside of the loop road. We start with the basin over here, but there's no basins right up here along this property line. >> And which way does the water run?
>> The water runs basically in this direction from the north to the south flowing towards Route 2026. I know there might be a slight break um in in the topography towards the south, but it generally flows in this direction towards the highway. So, what about the water that's running from above in those
back homes? >> Say that again. >> So, if there's no basin above, the water that's coming from the northwest, like >> So, this water that comes onto the site, y >> we'll collect it and we'll put it into our storm water system. >> But you're not collecting it until it's already passed all those homes, right? >> Um, no. Because, yeah, we have to grade
out the plan. But typically speaking, in the rear yards of these homes, there would be some type of drainage that would collect that water and bring it into the drainage system. I can't bring the water right up against the structure. I have to drain away from the house 15 20 feet. I have to have drainage there to pick up that runoff and then I pipe it into the road network
or into a basin um depending on where I'm going to bring it on site. >> It's concerning because there's a lot of there's a lot of water issues. A lot of our basements have been flooded already. So >> yeah. So we're going to we're going to pick that we're going to pick up whatever's coming off your properties. We have to collect it.
I haven't heard any talk of noise pollution or light pollution. Just since I've lived here in the area, which is um over 10 years, the noise has gone up considerably. Uh as well as the light pollution, what is this going to do to
the level of noise and light? >> It's it's res it's a residential development, so it it the noise is a resident is typical to a residential development. You have homes residential homes there that are people living in them. So your noise is no it it's minimal based on a residential use. It's
not >> down those trees, aren't you increasing noise? And >> no, you're not increasing the noise. You're you're you have a use that's going to be residential to a residential use. Um you have people living in those homes. Your your rear yards of these units are abudding the rear yards of the
residential units. Um so you have minimal um noise generating structures behind those units. You have an air conditioning unit basically is what generates noise for those those units. Shouldn't there be a study on noise and light pollution? >> Under the under the residential standards, the project would comply with
the state noise standards at the property line. It's a residential project. You're not going to study noise from a single from a town home. It doesn't gen there's no noise generating from it. It's not a it's not an industrial facility. It's not a large HVAC unit that you might see on the top
of an office building or a cooling plant that generates noise. It's a it's a residential air conditioning unit that's in the back. He wouldn't do a study for that. >> 64 though, right? >> Yeah, but you only have 10 to 15 along that property line. 64 in, you know, the whole project.
>> Seems like there should be a study on that just because I'm I've already experienced that um with the moth and other development that's happened right around my my house. So, I wouldn't think that there should be a study on that.
Um, and I guess why why did we choose an area that's not zoned for this? So, you're increasing, right, from 12 to 64 or whatever, however many units should be on 12 acres to 64. Why not choose a zoning an area that's zoned appropriately because I think, you know,
we chose to live where we're living because of zoning laws. So, now to change that, you're changing the character. you would agree it's completely changing the character of that neighborhood right now. >> This is a different development than if there were 14 single family homes. But if there were 14 single family homes,
again, as I me I talked about earlier, if I did 14 single family lots, there would be nothing from stopping a homeowner on that single family lot from clearing every tree on that piece of property, >> right? But you're not cramming 64 units. >> No, but I I can if I was a single family home, I can cut down all the trees. I
can put a large pool in my backyard. I can do whatever. I can I can do different things in a single family home. Here you you what you see on the plan in terms of the development is what's going to be there as an HOA. The the area is is regulated. The screening and buffering here is actually regulated
under the site plan. Single family homeowner could clear right up to the property line and and and and that's what you would have. So you have you have different controls in place for a project like this as opposed to single family lots. as a single family home owner choosing this area for that
reason. I mean, I chose that because of the greenery and because of the character and this is changing that. Um, so why not pick an area that's already zoned for appropriately? >> Well, I can't speak to why my client chose the property. He he negotiated his deal with this landowner for developing
it with with this particular project. Okay. >> Okay. Those are my questions. Thanks. Thank you very much. Any other questions from the members of the public? >> All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Michelle.
>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh, I don't have any more witnesses tonight. I tried to have Mr. Keller come just to uh testify as to the issue that was raised by a report from uh Sergeant
Hennessy back on six months ago and uh but he did write a report um on that that that Hennessy report u remembering that Mr. Hennessy or Sergeant Hennessy had previously issued a report saying he
had no comment on the project and he had a second report which he had a comments on the project. Um, but we'd like to to hand up uh Mr. uh Keller's report from today addressing Mr. Hennessy's report
or Sergeant Hennessy's report and ask you to accept that report as if he testified to it. It's a signed report. >> Yeah. I I don't think we could, you know, for the same reason that we don't accept letters from the public. Um, we can't really accept that as his
testimony. We would really need him to come in. I I suppose Maurice might have some questions as to whatever this report says. We haven't seen it yet. If you wanted to hand it up, you certainly could. He would have to have some time to look at it and then Mr. Keller could come and testify.
Um in the in the alternative um we we uh make another suggestion and that that is that uh that the board go ahead based on the current record um without any further te evidence from Mr. Keller. Um
but in the event that the the approval is granted, it could be subject to Mr. Keller coming back to testify on site plan approval. All right. So, you're suggesting that the board vote and if approved, there'd be a condition.
Not sure what the condition would be. Condition >> condition would be that Mr. Mr. Keller would come back and testify on site plan approval about uh traffic any traffic issues that still uh are in the board's mind at that point. What if the
testimony wasn't satisfactory to satisfy the traffic concern at that point? >> Well, that would be this is a bifurcated application. So, uh unfortunately or fortunately, the the whole uh approval
process is subject to being relooked at essentially at the time of site plan approval. >> Yeah. But you're asking for approval up to 64 units, >> right? And that's based on what we see and know and hear and heard testimony on
with respect to the traffic that will be generated by the 64 units. So I don't know how the board votes to approve 64 units with traffic testimony to come with the site plan.
Well, they would have his report and and then if they I would I would think that this well anyhow they would have his report and and uh any approval would be subject to him coming back to testify on site plan. And under the statute, you
know, if you if a board gives a uh uh bifurcated use variance and the applicant comes in for site plan approval, basically every issue in the case is still is open on site plan approval. Except that you would have a
D1 for 64 units, right? Up to 64. So if if you want the board to vote on a D1 for up to 52, we could do that. And then if his testimony is satisfactory to get you to 64 at site plan, then we can maybe do it
that way. Let me confirm my client be it would be 11 20%. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's 20% of the total. So, you got to do a little math. But yeah, it's about that about right. I think we we would prefer to um
continue with our present safe plan for 64 units of which 13 are affordable. And um we would uh give an extension to another date uh where Mr. Keller would come back and and uh polish up his testimony.
>> Okay. Okay. And then that's your last witness, Mr. Keller. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Tell you, I got excited. 52 maybe 41 market and 11 affordable for a total of 52. >> Your your mathematician skills are un
unparalleled. >> Good attorney on my left. 12. But yeah, just putting it out there. >> You want to confirm one more time just to double check? >> We'll be back.
>> Okay, fair enough. Thank you. Understandable. >> We need another meeting date. >> Yeah. Mr. Cohen, do you have any witnesses for your component? No. I know you had a planter maybe in the rose. I thought he was on your on your dole
there, but okay, fair enough. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Cohen. >> All right, then. Uh, we're going to pick up a date for you, >> right? Mr. Keller in front of us and Mr. Kley, I can promise you I will attempt another special meeting for you.
They're very difficult because getting the room, getting the witnesses, I'm sure you know it's like hurting sheep. But I give you my word just like last time we spoke after the last meeting. Your time is valuable. The board's time is valuable. I want to make sure that we get this done in a timely manner. I'm trying for you.
>> And this >> Well, interesting enough, we happen to have the attorney for that case. >> Mr. Kley, we've we've carried the 1200 Route 22 land investors to September 9th. Is that >> that case will not be going? The the municipality has passed the
redevelopment plan for that property. >> Can we pull that off of our docket? >> Yes. >> Okay. Would you like that date? >> What? I didn't hear the date. >> September 9th. >> September 9th. >> I'm out of the country. >> Okay.
Then uh can you send somebody? >> We only have one meeting in September because of the holiday. So um October >> 28th is the next >> 28th. Yeah. 14th is full. >> We have another case on that night. But
if they shared the night >> Yeah. 20. The next available fully available date like completely clear night right now is November 25th. >> November 20th. >> 25th. >> Two days before Thanksgiving. >> Okay. >> We only have one November meeting because of election or Veterans Day, one
of those. >> Or it would be October 28th and you'd get half a meeting. >> October 28th. Are you available? Okay. Uh, then what's the full date? November. >> 25th. >> November 25th. When's Thanksgiving?
>> The 27th. >> 27th. >> 25th would work. >> 25th. Mr. Hopefully, >> I I'm about to say I'm not available, but I wouldn't I wouldn't do that. >> I'm not out of the country as much as others.
>> All right, that's good. >> November 25th announcement is carried. >> Okay, so just for members of the public, um this meeting is coming to a conclusion now. It will be carried to November 25th at 7 p.m. in this room and there will be no further notices from
the applicant. So again, November 25th at 7 p.m. in this room. >> Okay. >> All right. And for the board, our next meeting is August 26, 7 p.m. this room. Uh we have a residential two residentials that night. >> Uh one of them is not quite residential. >> Okay. Quasi residential.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> All right. Well, thank you everyone on the board for your help tonight. Um motion to adjurnn. I move. >> All right. Mr. Wedelli. Second. Mr. Bonjouro. Thank you everyone. Good night. like a few.
>> They were wise.