the meeting to order. Would you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all. All right. Um, statement of adequate notice under the sunshine law. adequate notice in accordance with the open public meetings act was provided on January 16th, 2025 of this meeting's date, time, and location. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home
News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk. Roll call, please. Um, Miss Anderson's not here yet. Miss Albadawi, here. Mr. Giddings, here.
Miss Conram here. Mr. Mildenberg here. Mr. Mucelli is Al. Mr. Pulk here. Mr. Stewart is not here yet. And Mr. Whitman here. Thank you. We have a quorum. Very good. Um, before we go on to
approval of the minutes, I just have one switch in the agenda. We're going to move the application up before the consistency review of the two ordinances. So, we're going to move you you up in the in the agenda um right after the resolution on the um Grimray
Township master plan um historic preservation elements. So, first item on the agenda is the approval of the minutes from the June 5th meeting. Did everybody get a chance to look at those? Are there any corrections,
comments, or anything? Nothing. I move to uh accept. Okay. We have a motion to approve. We have a second. Second. Okay. Actually, you you All right.
All right. Roll call for the June 5th minutes. Um Miss Elbidawi. Yes. Mr. Giddings, yes. Mr. Mildenberg, yes. Mr. Pulk, yes. And Mr. Whittman,
yes. Sorry. Okay. Ne next item on the agenda is the approval of the June 5th close session um meeting minutes. Is there any additions, corrections to
those? Okay. Hearing none, I'm going to ask for a motion to approve. Motion to approve. I have a second. Second. Okay.
All right. Roll call. Um, Miss Elbidawi, yes. Mr. Giddings, yes. Mr. Mildenberg, yes. Mr. Pulk, yes. And Mr. Whitman, yes. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the June 20
24th 2025 special meeting that we had. The minutes for that, are there any addition there? There's a lot of minutes there, so hopefully you get to read through all that. Um, are there any additions, comments, questions on any of that?
Okay, hearing none. Can I have a motion to approve? I'll move. Can I have a second? I'll second. All right. Roll call. Uh, Miss Elbadawi. Yes. Mr. Giddings. Yes. Miss Conerum.
Yes. And Mr. Whitman? Yes. Thank you. Motion pass. Okay. Next item on the agenda is public comments for items not on the agenda. Hearing no public comments for nothing on the agenda. We're going to move that
along. So the first item on the agenda that we have tonight is um resolution amendments to the Cranberry Township Master Plan pertaining to the historic preservation element. And essentially this is just to codify
what we what we discussed. Do we have anything from that other than just what we discussed or comments back from the township or anybody else or nobody in nobody in general? I was I wasn't at the meeting but I read
everything that was in here. So thank you for that. So it looks good. So, with that in mind, and and again, I just um I'm not trying to glance over this. There was a lot of work that had gone into this. This has been on our plate and then it went off
our plate and then back on our plate. So, this has been um we actually started looking at this last uh oh, was it November? Something like that. So, it's now July. So, um it's been some time um that we've
been working on this. So, I would like to have a motion to approve that. Oh, so moved. Can I have a second, please? Second. Please call the role. Yep. All right. Roll call. Um, Miss Elbadawi. Yes.
Mr. Giddings, yes. Mr. Mildenberg, yes. Mr. Pulk, yes. And Mr. Whitman, yes. Thank you. Resolution pass. Now, where did that goes back to the township committee or is it just yet? Yes, that will go to the township
committee. Ball's back in your court now. And I think that's the last time we don't have to deal with this anymore now, which is not to say it that way, but unless they adopt some ordinances and then you they come back for consistency. That's all. Okay.
Okay. Uh the first um item on the new item on the agenda is the application PB 407-25 B properties LLC lot 26 lot block 26 lot
37 VHR zone 6 Ryan Ryan Road minor subdivision with bulk variance. Mr. Chair and I reviewed all the uh affidavit publication and such and everything's in order with respect to jurisdiction. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I'm just gonna push the button. So, you need a little red light to come on. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, board professionals, and public. Good evening all. My name is Kenneth Pape. I'm an attorney with Hyurn Pap. And this
evening, I have the responsibility and the privilege of representing your applicant BAF properties for with a request for a minor subdivision with a single bulk variance. um exactly as you read into the record, Mr. Chair. This and I thank you for acknowledging that
our proofs are in order. The presentation to the board will be made by two professionals. Peter Strong, professional engineer at Crest Engineering, prepared the plan that is before you and he'll take us through the elements of the plan. We'll go through your staff reports and then Mr. James
Kyle is our professional planner and he is prepared to identify the proofs that are required to justify the single bulk variance. Mr. the chair, with your permission, may I call the first witness? And just housekeeping, um, since we have all our professionals here, I'll just
swear everybody in at the same time. So, if you all raise your right hand, you swear that the testimony that you're about to give before this boards of truth, whole truth, nothing but the truth. I do. I do. Okay. Ready? Thank you, Mr. Strong. If you would come forward,
she need to qualify. Yeah, we got to we have to qualify. He's sworn but not qualified. Yeah. Part two. Part two. [Music] Yeah. Mr. Strong, if you would share with the
board your profession, professional and education background. Sure. Um, name is Peter Strong. I'm a uh graduate of Newark College of Engineering, now New Jersey Institute of Technology in 1971 with degree in civil
engineering. I received my uh engineering license from the state of New Jersey in 1975. Um my planner's license in 1978. I was also licensed in Pennsylvania and Florida. Still licensed in Florida, but I let my Pennsylvania
license go because I wasn't doing any work there anyway. Um I started uh working in the land development industry right after college in 1971. And 10 years later in 1981 I started Crest Engineering uh which is in in business
today doing land planning and engineering work for land development projects uh throughout the central New Jersey area. Two questions. Yes. Did you prepare the plans that will be presented tonight? I did. Is your license in good standing today? Yes, it is. Mr. Chairman, I ask that you accept Mr.
Strong credential. I do, but I do have one. Have you ever testified before this board before? I have. Okay. I think we're good. Not in a few years, but I have. Please proceed. Sure. Mr. Strong, I'm going to ask if you'd begin by identifying the exhibits
that you'll rely on this evening. So, Sure. There's a Is the mic on the P? There you go. Wow. How cool was that?
[Music] Okay, I have uh excuse me, I have three exhibits. Uh first is an aerial view of the site. What do we want to mark that as? Exhibit A1. A1. Yep.
You said it was an aerial view of the site with 200 and 500 foot radi shown on the area. We'll discuss this in more detail when we identify the other two. Yep. Um
this is A2. The next one is a copy of the minor subdivision plan. It was submitted to the board to which I've added some colors uh outlining the entire property and the subdivision line. And then and um is there a date on it? Sorry.
Is it re been redated or anything or just it's Yeah, it's stated 41525 the same submitted. Okay. Thank you. [Music] And the last one is a copy copy of the subdivision uh minor subdivision plat
that was also submitted. But I took the uh the key portion of of the project uh from that map and blew it up to bigger scale and again outlined the property and the uh the subdivision line on it. I assume it's going to be A3 cracks. Yeah.
And Peter, I'm going to ask if you would return to A1 and with A1 before the board, if you could identify the property and its location, its zone, and its size. Yes. The uh the property as identified
on the plan is known as lot 37 and block 26 commonly known as six Ryan Road which shown with my highlighter and it's shown in red on the uh map which is an aerial view of the
entire uh vicinity showing a 200 foot radius and a 500 foot radius around the site. Um, in addition to Ryan Road, it also has frontage on Maplewood Avenue. Uh, and it's just off of the Route 130 corridor. Um, so the property itself is
shown in the red uh shading and has a an existing dwelling fronting on Ryan Road in that particular location. if you could I think a either A1 or A2 I defer to you but I'm I'm going to ask
you to take us through the zoning and the compliance of the project with the zoning. Sure. The uh the property is in the uh see I think I identified it as lot 37 on block 26 already. It's in the
V HR Village Hamlet residential zone which requires 15,000 square foot lots 100 foot width. um 40 foot front and rear setbacks, 12 foot sideyards, and allows a 38 foot building height in that particular zone. Um the property that
we're concerned with has a lot area of 38,000 just over 38,000 square feet and got one single dwelling on it. Fronts on, as I said before, on Ryan Road, number six Ryan Road. Um
the uh move now to a two. Um and this this shows again the uh the outline of the property in yellow the 38,000 foot lot that it currently exists. The red or pink is the uh subdivision line that divides the lots
uh into a 16,000 foot vacant lot which would have frontage on Maplewood Avenue and a 22,000 foot remainder with the existing two-story dwelling that uh exists at 6 Ryan Road on the property.
Mr. Mr. Strong, could you confirm that but for the bulk bearings for the rear lot rear yard setback that Mr. Kyler will address that the remainder of the requirements of the zone for both lots are met? Yes. The the the
two lots conform in all ways except for the uh rear setback from the existing dwelling to the new lot line which is 21.7 ft. We're 40 feet normally be required.
Could you confirm that the total disturbance of this project is less than an acre? Well, since the entire lot is less than an acre. Yes, the project is much less than an acre. That would that would be disturbing. I I think that we're in agreement with
Mr. Hoder's statement that storm water management isn't required, but I know that you've added some storm water to the proposed residence. Would you share with the board what you've added? Yeah. Um there was something in the checklist that mentioned storm water
management and we're used to uh these days we need to get ultimately free soil conservation district approval disturbing over 5,000 square feet which would be in this case though it's much less than an acre. Um and what they what they require generally is that you
provide um some some storm water management that will reduce the flows from the new improved areas to equal to or less than what the current flows are so that none of the joining neighbors or
roadway systems are impacted negatively by the increase in area. So, we we added uh two sets of drywalls that would take the roof drainage to those drywalls as well as the uh runoff from the proposed
twocar driveway that goes out to Maplewood Avenue, puts that into drywalls and percolates it back into the ground. That's that's what that's for. As Mr. which technically didn't have to do that but ultimately whoever builds the house is going to
have to Peter there's a concern or brought to our attention that we need to demonstrate that there the drainage will not discharge water onto our adjacent residential neighbors could you confirm that that's true and I think that our
our plan does show that as I said before the the roof drainage is piped directly to the dry wells, the um grading and flow arrows that you've shown on the around
the house and uh along the driveway that we're going to propose to to build um directs all of the storm water to the drywalls and not onto any of the adjoining properties. Prior to coming to this board, the application was filed with the Middle Sex County Planning
Board. There's an exemption letter that was issued by the county planning board that's in your file. The um county and your professionals point out that the portion of maple wood in front of our property is under the DOT's jurisdiction
and it would be necessary for the applicant to secure a driveway permit from the DOT which we acknowledge would be a condition of any relief that this board considered. Mr. strong if you could also identify the driveway and the capacity of the driveway for parking
vehicles on our client's site. Yeah. Um we're proposing a uh 20 foot wide twocar wide driveway which uh would be set back 40t which is the front setback requirement in the zone. Uh so
we have a 20 by 40 foot driveway on the property itself which would be sufficient to uh park four cars. Uh we're also providing a K turnaround area uh which I'm
highlighting so that when the cars back up they can back into that space and turn around and come out frontways instead of backing out onto Maplewood Avenue. Um there's also another 10 or 12 feet or so of driveway that is in the
Maplewood Avenue right away and we're anticipating that the house will have a probably a twocar garage. And our client who is not with us this evening offer his apologies. He's out of the country, but our client has told us that he's proposing a home that would be a maximum
of five bedrooms and there will be a twocar garage. So the twocar garage plus Ford surface parking in the driveway, right? So potentially six. Let me What size house is he? That's a five five bedrooms is pretty big. Um so
what size house is that? The footprint that's shown is the maximum footprint and the max what's shown is a footprint of 40 by 60 or 2400 square ft. It could be one, one and a half or two.
So, Mr. Strong, you have before the meeting, you had the opportunity to review the staff reports. Staff reports from I did the planner, the engineer, from the traffic engineer and and then today from
the um shade tree. Are there any comments that require your further testimony or are you comfortable stating that you can and will address the technical requirements that are set forth in those reports? I feel comfortable that we can and will address the uh the reports from the township professionals.
Mr. Chair, I have nothing further on directive. Mr. Strong, we're prepared for the board's examination or your professionals examination. I would let I'm going to let our professionals go first and then we can have the Do you have planning on anybody else testing?
One more witness. Would you like to hear that? Yeah, why don't we do that and then and then we'll have our professionals. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Kyle, you're sworn. Yes. Please share with everyone your educational and professional background.
Sure. I have a Bachelor of Science in Environmental Planning and Design from Ruckers, which I received in 1996. I've been a practicing planner since that time. I was licensed by the state in 2001 as a professional planner. Maintain that license since then. It's current and in good standing. Um, our office
represents a number of municipal clients. So, Sharon and I do this together in East Amwell. Uh so overall our office I personally represent 10 towns as their planner. I've also testified before over 250
boards in the state. I've never appeared before the planning board here, but I've done a lot of work in front of the zoning board. So okay, the work on the school that's going on now. I worked with the school district on that. I worked with Bill on Mr. Greco's application for his barns. Um
and uh Robert Allen's subdivision on Maplewood Avenue not that long ago. Okay, I think we're good to go. We're good to go, chair. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to ask if in a narrative fashion if you could identify what you do to be prepared to make your presentation and take us through the
proofs that are necessary for this board to be empowered to grant the bulk variance relief that we're requesting. Sure. So, uh, the good thing about this project is I've been involved since the inception, which is unusual. Usually, I'm just called when there's a hearing scheduled and hey, we need a variance, we need a planner. So, I actually uh
Pete and I have been working on this together since the client came to us initially. Um I've reviewed all the plans that have been submitted. I've reviewed the application forms themselves. We've met as a team, talked with the applicant. I've also reviewed the professional reports, visited the site a number of times, also looked at
the ordinance and the master plan. So, this is a relatively simple minor subdivision application. Um, when we first started looking at this project, we knew that given the distance that we had between Maplewood and Ryan that there was going to be some point where we were going to need some type of
relief. Um, the thing that we talked about was that we want to make sure that the lots complied as to area and then we had this situation where we had this existing dwelling that we had to work around in in this proposal. So what we came up with was um the proposal that
you see in front of you, the only bulk variance that we need is for the rear yard for proposed lot 3701. So 40 ft is required. We're proposing 21.7. And the issue with um trying to increase that rear yard to the existing building
is the lot area out on Maplewood Avenue. Now the other unique thing, obviously you can see this this lot is fairly unique in shape. Uh there are a number of through lots along Ryan that either have frontage on Maplewood or Route 130, but this one also has a fair amount of
area you can see to the south along Ryan. So it has significant frontage along Ryan. And we when we talked about it, the trade-off was there is a significant yard space to the south of that dwelling that kind of helps compensate for the loss of of that rear
yard there. So that was really kind of the thought process as we went through this. obviously trying to minimize variances. We couldn't eliminate it, but we only have that one. So, I think when we look at this relief, we can look at it under the C2 standard, which would be
that the purposes of the MLU are promoted by the grant of the relief and the benefits outweigh the detriments. Um, here I think the board needs to think about the Polland case. So there's a case called Poland v Township of South Planefield where the board the court said there
look at the benefits of the project overall not just the benefit of the individual. So the benefits that we have here I don't know if many of you saw this property before our client the people that owned it. Okay. So it was the entire property was overgrown.
Um the house was in disrepair. So, since that time, my client's gone through. A lot of what was on the property was was brush. Um, and I actually didn't see it in that condition, but I looked at a street. I'm surprised you didn't take a bulldozer to the house. I am I'm I'm
actually shocked that they were able to save the house and they did a good job. So, it's been cleaned up very nicely. Um, they re, you know, took out all the brush, regraded the lot, put put new turf grass down, so that was good. Um, and then even on the Maplewood side, it was just a jungle
that kind of pushed all the way out into the out to the street. So, the benefit here is that we've taken um what I guess you could call was a blighted property and it's already been fixed up. And the benefit here too is that um as we look
at this and I'll talk about a few of these in terms of the positive criteria. Um so there's really two purposes of the MLO that would be promoted here. Purpose A to promote the general welfare. also purpose I to promote a desirable visual environment. So this is one of the
gateways that gets you off of Route 130 and into the village. So it's it's a prominent place where folks enter the enter the township and enter the village. The benefit here is that we're obviously going to have a lot of visual improvement. Um this kind of completes the development pattern on Maplewood. We
don't have this kind of overgrown vacant lot there as you come in. It'll be a dwelling that's going to be consistent with the pattern that we see along Maplewood. And the good part about that too on the on the general welfare side is now as people come off the road, if they're
going fast, all they see is a lot of vegetation. They don't really see that enclosure of the houses. Now, we're going to get rid of all that overgrowth and we'll have a dwelling there that is, you know, it's going to be 40t from the road. It helps with that sense of people coming off the highway and saying,
"Okay, I'm in a residential neighborhood now. I need to slow down." So, that's really the the one of the benefits that we see. Aside from the obvious benefit of the property's been cleaned up very well, it's a definite improvement for the neighbors and the neighborhood and
it helps improve the the visual of that gateway as folks come in off of Route 130. Um so that's really the the two positive criteria that purpose a general welfare and I to promote a desirable visual environment. We also have to demonstrate
that the negative criteria can be met. The first part of that is showing that there's no significant impact to adjacent properties. So when I look at this variance um the impact is really internal. So there's only going to be two dwellings that are impacted by this. The one that's there and the one that's
proposed. doesn't really impact the adjacent properties. Um, we do still have about 70 feet between these two dwellings. And then, as you can see on the the plot plan, since we're putting that dwelling parallel to Maplewood, it's actually going to angle away from
the dwelling that's there now. So, we have 70 ft as a minimum at the closest point, and then it gets greater as as we go on. So even even with that reduction in in the lot like just over half or just under half that rear yard set back,
we still do provide a a reasonable rear yard. And then we also have this yard space to the south that kind of helps offset that loss. So if anybody, you know, wanted to put a swing set in or have a shed or anything like that, we still have sufficient room for whoever
purchases that home to do that. But when I look at really this part of the negative criteria, there's not really any substantial impact to adjacent properties. This is really an internal impact just to those two funings. And we also have to show that the grant of the relief here will not impair the intent
purpose of the zone plan and zoning. So obviously I went through all the township's master plan documents. Uh not surprisingly, and Liz, you've seen many master plans too. None of them really talk about well why do we have a specific rear yard setback or you know a specific standard. It's more just a
general requirement to provide adequate light air and maintenance space which is perceived in this millennium. So that's really the goal of setbacks. And I think when you look at it here, the fact that we have this offsetting yard area to the south, even though we're reducing that rear yard, we're still providing plenty
of separation between those two dwellings and we're still providing adequate yard space for the eventual resident of of this house. So, I don't think there'll be any substantial impairment given the specifics that we have in this situation. So I think overall the benefits of granting the
relief here that I talked about initially far outweigh the potential detriments and the board would have the ability to grant the relief that's requested. Mr. Chair, board members, board professionals, I conclude the direct examination of Mr. Kyle and he's both
witnesses are available to you. I'm going to take chair prerogative here. I just have a very kind of a off-the cuff question, then we'll get into our professionals. Do you think that lot at one time was supposed to be a road into that development?
Because it's it serves no purpose. I didn't even know that lot was there until it was all cleared out. I mean I mean it it just seems like an odd way to do this whole that house with that with those with that property the way it is
especially since the rest of the development is all built out. It's the only property in that whole development that looks like that. Yeah. I I don't think either Peter or I really have an answer there. I mean it's possible but I don't know for sure.
Okay. All right. Um, I'm going to turn it over to our professionals. I guess I'll start. Dave Hoder, engineer for the board. Um, I did a review on the 8th of July and the first thing I'll start with is there were two checklist waiverss. One is going to be taken care
of as a temporary waiver. That's a lot in blocks. When it gets filed, if this happens, uh, item number 42 will uh, uh, will not be a need there will not be a need for a waiver. So, we don't have to worry about that. But the board should
grant if this application is approved uh a waiver from item number 60 I believe earthwork calculations. It's only a single family house. I don't think we need to have a calculation on earthwork. I can ask you is there going to be a basement?
Yeah. So that's the only earth work that'll happen and they'll either lose that soil on site or they have an easy uh fix for moving the soil out of town into or in out of out of the area onto Route 130 to wherever they wanted to move it to. Uh so that's the first item.
Uh most of the other items in my letter um uh were talked about tonight. I did make a mistake in that I called Maplewood a county road because it is county road down the way, but it was taken over by the DOT jurisdiction. Uh so they will need a permit for that uh
to have a driveway come on to uh the state. I'm assuming that uh Yeah, because that's Route 535, I believe. But that this little section is not. Oh, really? Part of the jug handle. The jug handle. Yes. The DFT considers that when there's a U-turn or turn
available that becomes part of the state highway. So I didn't realize that. All right. Um the only comment is I would I would assume uh Mr. strong uh that there will not be a dedication needed of any kind that the state is finished with building
their section of Maplewood. Okay. So, if that does happen and there's a dedication, they will have to come back to the board. I don't think it's going to happen. Okay. They did talk about uh storm drainage. I concur
with them. They talked about um parking, which I left blank in my letter because I didn't know what they were doing in terms of the house size. Now I know it's five bedrooms. Um so uh so that we have that information on the agenda, I mean on on the uh on the record. So that's good. And uh they said they have the
county approval. Um they did receive a note from the Shade Tree Commission, which is good. And they have to amend their plans for that. We probably should have something from the fire department eventually. Gina, you'll get that eventually.
I asked them, but nothing yet. Okay. Uh, and then the DOT. Um, so that's pretty much my letter. Um, uh, no other objections. And sewer and water is out in the street there. Yes, I did not check. Um, the town engineer
does Yeah, the town engineer does sewer connection work, so I didn't have to do that. Water is available. Yes. Okay. Uh DOT permit is required. Whatever um
the DOT requires of the site, that certainly would be part of any amendments plan. Um that's for Maplewood Avenue. Uh for Ryan Row, that's under the township jurisdiction. any work within the right of way certainly
require a permit from although it's an existing house so I don't know that you're making any connections it's just if the driveway gets I think it stays the same the existing and there's no no changes no okay I requested a sight distance line
for the Maplewood uh nav driveway do is going to want to see that on the ramp just to make sure that they can see coming out of the driveway but I do like that you have the bump out in there so vehicles can um get in there and turn around and drive head first out. So that's
going to help that rather than backing out into the um Maplewood A there. Um I have a comment about removing brush within the rightway. Obviously the site's been cleared, but that brush in the right way also includes brush to the right, to the left should it fall within
the sight triangle of leaving the driveway. So keep that in mind as you put that sight line on there. If there's adjacent property within the right of way, you can go on the property obviously, but keep that in mind. Um regulatory and guide signs. I know
there's one uh to the north of the driveway. Uh it's actually two signs on a post, I believe. Just make sure that that doesn't interfere with the site distance. If it does and has to be relocated, do that as part of the DOT permit so that you don't have to come back and ask them for something, make
sure that's on the plan so DOT sees that. Um, the street address for the uh site has to be agreed upon. It's a Maplewood address. I believe the house next to it is 21 or 23. Uh, so just confirm that with the township. I don't
know if it's the fire department that has to go through or township. Um I don't know tax collector when they reassign the lot. I'm not sure. Uh I also had a comment about sidewalk along Maplewood A. There is no sidewalk there
now. Uh I I know that. Um but it is a residential property and there is a sidewalk up at the intersectionsboro and Maplewood. And just for connectivity, again, this is something the state has
been looking to do is put sidewalk in to keep any resident potentially who is here and wants to come into the town to walk into the town to have a path. That would be an unconnected, disconnected path because there are two residents,
three residents. the resident to the if you're looking at this property from Maplewood, the residence to the left, there is no sidewalk there. There isn't. And there's trees there. I trees there trees there, too. So, I'm putting this out there. However, I
understand the difficulties in pulling that off. Um, yeah, it's a thought. Um the the state and this is just a heads up the state may require it no matter what the board does because it's in the DOT right ofway and
you may need need to be aware of that and take that into consideration or ask the DOT for a waiver on that. I don't I don't I don't have a problem having them ask for that waiver if that's the case because
I you know it doesn't connect I understand. Yeah, they don't connect. There's nothing to connect to. If there was a sidewalk right up to the property next door, that'd be a different story. And there is sidewalk along Ryan uh road, right? Correct. That's existing.
Yeah, that's that's not you know that property is not going to change. that that goes with the first property that's already built, right? So, and then my last comments regarding parking, you talked about the garage.
There is a garage there. Uh five um bedroom house would require by RSIS three parking spaces. The driveway is double wide and double long. So, that's four spaces plus the two garage spaces. You've got yourself well covered uh in the number of parking spaces. But do
remember that this property should it have visitors is on the DOT ramp and certainly they wouldn't want cars parked out along the road. And that probably goes for UPS, Amazon, and all the
others. Uh that that's not a good spot for this house to be uh blocking any road for any amount of time due to its um importance as part of the ramp. I believe those are my comments. Just to follow up on it.
Do we have no parking on that section of the street? I don't believe there are no parking signs. Again, it's state jurisdiction, right? So, I never even knew the state had that jug handled. I thought that was still part of Maplewood. I didn't know that. So,
that's that's actually very interesting. The county confirmed that in their letter. The county, right, the county probably, it probably comes from the county road starts next to the rescue squad building. That's where the That's where the county road
just past the intersection of Half because that's still part that part of Halfacre, right, is also part of the state highway. Across the way, Halfacre is township jurisdiction, right? because that part of the roadway is in effect a jug
handle, right? Because 535 is basically South River Road. South River Road comes down, cuts through and then it picks up back through town. All right.
Do you have any other comments or question? No, that was comments I had right off the bat, Liz. Yep. So I um had done a letter also on July 8th. It's pretty straightforward going through the C variance proce which um
Mr. Kyle provided my concerns related to what um Andy was talking about regarding the proximity of the proposed new driveway to the people kind of that's how I come into town usually. I know a lot of people do, but that that people
um be aware that there be drive that there's a driveway there, but I think the um the fact that there's a turnaround within the site which would allow people to drive straight out onto Maplewood is is a huge thing um which
will increase the safety. Um and also I guess the the driveway I may be correct or that the driveway location was also in part selected because of its alignment with the um gas station driveway across the street. Right. So um
those are my two questions or that was my question in my letter. The one question I have now, just looking at the um looking at the drawing, and I was just curious if you could provide testimony as to why you drove you um
drew the subdivision line separating the the through lot rather than um to the south of the existing house. Do do you know what I'm saying? So that like the the the line in red, Liz,
right? If you drew the line in red, if you ro if you rotated it um you know, whatever it is, uh 90 degrees to the left. So, it was it you know, you were essentially creating two lots fronting on Ryan rather than than the other what
you're proposing. So I was just curious if you investigated that and and why you chose to not pursue it. So when the client initially came to us with this, they wanted three lots here and there was a thought of of a house
here on Ryan. As you can see from the dash lines, your building envelope is incredibly narrow there. Um, you also have this house at number 75, which you can see on the aerial here is very close to the
rear lot line there. So, um, in my estimation, this was not something that was worth pursuing. And as I said, as we were doing this, we we really wanted to keep this a conforming lot. So the you know maybe the cleaner way to do this would have been to just go from the
corner and go straight across but it it was creating a lot area issue and we again the idea of trying to minimize the number of variances. Um so if you if you move that back that the current lot line where it's outlined in
red back up to meet with the corner there and cut it across then you'd have two non-conforming lots. Is that we would still have a rear yard variance and we might have a lot area variance. Um but but it but in this configuration you
the the new lot is a conforming lot. Correct. It's about 102. Yeah. That so if we did that it would put us just under the 15,000 that's required for the zone. I mean, honestly, if if the board felt that you would
rather not have that jog and you wanted to grant lot area variance, we could do that. Um, but it's it's it's really up to you. I we we felt it was better to not have the lot area variance and have
more of a rear yard variance here. Well, we'll get into that. Sure. I just sorry uh Jim if you had uh put an a lot there you know kept the existing through lot through lot and put
another lot on Ryan would that be um so like this yeah would that be conforming in terms of lot size? Not even close. Not even close. No, because we have um I'm not sure. 22,137
is what's remaining here. So it would not be we would need 45,000 square feet total to get three lots out of this. Right. But this this would be tremendously oversized and this would be undersized. Okay. And got it. I think the other thing is I just didn't
like the distance front to back plus the proximity of this. We just thought it was better to leave this yard area open and just have two lots. Okay, those are my only questions. Any
other questions from the professional or professionals? Okay, I'm going to open it up to the board. Who wants to go first? Any comments? Less, any comments? Jason, if you don't have any comments, then I
going to be a problem. But I always have a lot of comments. I know that. I do, too. Good. Go ahead. Okay. Um, I can ask questions or I can just tell you my conclusions and save a lot of time. So,
you're you're it's up to you. Whatever you feel comfortable with. So, just in the during this meeting, I just did some quick sketches and quick sketches. I'm not sure why any variance is needed. The footprint of the
house is much larger uh than the scale of the proposed house at 2400 square feet, two stories lease is going to be required to get five bedrooms and a twocar garage in it. It's going to be
a very large and massing especially given that the adjacent adjacent houses along Maplewood are one-story ranches. The the houses along Ryan are kind of one and a half story split level houses. So when they build
that big of a house, the floor is going to be three feet above the grade. You know, typically or two to three feet. They're going to want probably nine foot ceilings, one foot structure, nine foot ceilings. The the structure is much
deeper than the other massings of the adjacent houses, which means a lot larger gable roof. This thing is going to tower above all the other houses. Quite frankly, just doing a quick
sketch, if you came 40 feet off the back, did the property line 40t off the back. It seems to me a very quick sketch. You could put a twocar garage. You could put a shed or a lean two storage area, two and a half car garage
within that footprint and have a nice sizable house, a little bit narrower, more sizable to broken down in scale like the rest of the houses in the neighborhood. Um, and not even require the setbacks.
I'm concerned that the proposed 21.7 feet is 50% of the required setback. Um if if a you know unfortunately the size of this house is what's requiring the variances
which is not a requirement is not a hardship. There's no re it's not appropriate for the neighborhood. Um it just it's coming back. It's being reverse engineered. It needs to be it the house.
There needs to be a house designed to fit within the setbacks rather than us providing variances. That is my first very quick look. If you did need variances to do it, do a reasonable size house that fit into the scale of the property. I personally
would be very open to variances to do that. But it doesn't the h there is no house design yet. It's very generic. It seems overscaleed to the neighborhood and is what's kind of brought you here for the variances, my opinion. Um, other comments,
there's an existing patio in the rear of number six on Ryan that's not shown on property on this. I was out there today. All the all this earth is just draining right to the back of number six. Uh, your high point of 117 in terms of your
grade. A good portion of the new lot is is draining toward number six, which hasn't been dealt dealt with in terms of swailes and drainage. There's already it's all very wet back there and very flat. Uh and it's all draining into this patio that has no drains, not going
anywhere. So, there is a huge drainage problem that needs to be resolved. Uh there's also the memo from the shade commission about the trees that are being cut down are very nice mature trees. I would hope to see that if you did something and locate did a design
and located the driveway taking in consideration trying to save some of the mature trees it'll be nicer for the house. uh with the ordinance for for every inch caliber trees. You got to provide so many trees. There's no
landscape plan. Um you know, I'd love to see trees that you have to be replaced and make a new new streetscape which will be beneficial to this house. Do a nice treecape to Ryan because right now this is not pretty at all. You know,
it's it's it looks like a clip job that's done, you know. I don't see the benefit to the community yet in terms of planning in terms of what this I assume as a developer is doing quite honestly with what's been done so far. So I think there is a way
to do it. I don't see it in this proposal yet. Sorry Mr. Giddings could Andy do you have any concern with that driveway lining up with the BP gas station driveway? Do you really see that as a huge sticking point or would that little
offset be okay? Because I think what Mr. Giddings drew pushes that driveway farther to the south. I mean, it won't line up. I don't know if this is really a high volume driveway or not. So, maybe it's not even an issue, but I just want to make sure that's not a stumbling block.
I believe it's a lower volume driveway. Uh, most of that access is from other driveways to that site. With that being said, I know the DOT appreciates the fact that it's lined up. It's a residential driveway, so there's less volume from the residents. Um, if it
were offset, the DOT would look for a positive offset, and I think there's a slight positive offset where left turns would be made without conflicting with each other. So, it's offset in the right direction. Uh, if they crossed, if the
left turn into here crossed with the left turn into the site, that would be a negative offset. and that makes things a lot more difficult because it could be back up to the state highway. So, when I looked at it, I saw it's aligned but slightly offset in the right direction. Um, so as for the driveway, I think this
would be uh as a residential driveway acceptable to the DOT. Obviously, it's up to the DOT to review it and approve it. Um, I don't see a problem with that. One thing I don't like to redesign sites on the
fly. Um but it was mentioned about the condition of the existing house and if that existing house were shifted in that lot then maybe the um distance between the house uh and the
distance between the houses and whatever that variance is being created for the offset if houses slid more to the south and a new driveway were put in on Ryan. They have the property and the frontage to do that. Again, I I'm just throwing
that out there because of the condition of the house and because of the width of that property long Ryan, they have the ability to do something. But again, I know you worked hard to keep that house. So, I'm not, you know, I'm a traffic engineer. I'm not moving
the footprint of your building, the existing building for you. I'm just throwing out and I'm not saying to do this design. This was just a sketch to prove that you can make a home that fits better scale in the neighborhood. that doesn't need any setback requirements, works best for
both houses. I I think some design needs to be done to that right now. What's causing the variance is the size of the house which is already out of scale to the neighborhood. It won't and again this board has built an airplane as we're flying it down the
runway before. So this is not something unusual for us here. So, um, I'll get back to Mr. Giddings's comment. Any other comments or not? If you don't mind. Um, I spent a lot of
time on this site because last year uh Dr. Rogers and I were really looking at how to clean up this part of the road. There's a lot of signs that uh either were redundant or they were faded. And um, at the time the home had not sold and so it was it was very overgrown. So, we spent a lot of time on this vacant
lot sort of looking at it and what to do with it and it's, you know, it was a site that coyotes would bring their kill in just to devour. I mean, it was a really scary little place. Um, so I do appreciate that we're looking to clean it up and make it a little more medalable. One thing that
was very clear to us is the speed with which the cars come off that um come off 130. And I don't know that I'm comfortable with this. This is the first driveway that you meet as you come off. Um I'm looking at the I think it is. I think it's the first one. Um
and it gives me a little bit of concern there because it's uh I um even with the signs that were there and we could see existing signs that said, you know, stop ahead or slow, you know, reduce your speed and all those signs had been knocked down at some point and they were
like sitting within the brush and within the stuff. And so I don't know that we can change the behavior of people as they as they whip around that. Um, so that gives me a little bit of concern. The the driveway, I'm sorry, I kept missing it as you all were speaking. The driveway, it's a is it one entrance and then it expands to two? Is that what
we're talking about? Or is it double? It's a double wide drive. Double wide. Okay. Okay. Can you Can you Can you just put the the the No, just if you push push the button. I'm sorry. Oh, really?
I'm on. Mine is on. Is this work? This is working. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Um, so that was really the primary reason for the turnaround internal to the site. So, if a resident's here, they can back in and pull out at first and
not be backing out of the neighborhood. Yeah. But I'm I'm thinking more of like a utility vehicle. somebody of a delivery uh the you know the the postal truck you know as it stops right there and as as vehicles are coming right off 130 I think it's still a little fast and I I put that out not knowing that I have
a solution for that I'm just saying that I think it will be um a speed issue how how is it that we could slow cars down before they get to that driveway I think we have to maybe DOT can help us with that piece no thank you and I don't think the DOT
would be happy with either. Yeah, we're not capturing his testimony. We're not capturing it. I'm just going to try and talk loud. The DOT is going to review this. There are driveways on state highways. Some of
them have shoulders, some of them don't have shoulders. This is not uncommon in this location, but the will review that and they will take into account the potential for mail trucks or delivery trucks or landscape
trucks whatever that was stopping the road that something the house that's right next door the the driveway for that house is probably about 40 ft from this driveway that's yeah that's what I was wondering it looked about 60 it looked about 60 feet that was one of
my questions um and to to sort of u go off what Mr. Giddings was saying, um, I'm just remembering a home that was built on Evans Drive that also didn't really fit the feel of the homes around it and how it became sort of not necessarily a point of contention, but it was always
noticed. It was always remarked about and it just it it didn't leave a good taste in people's mouth. And I I see what you're saying that this doesn't necessarily fit like it it will tower over the homes next to it and behind it. Um, I I don't know why, to your point, I
don't know why there was never an entrance or was there supposed to be an entrance to this road. It looks like there was that when it's cleared out, it looks like that should have been the road out. That should have been because there's only one road in to that development. Yeah.
That whole development has one road and it's off of Plains Road. Yes. That's the only access into maybe at one time that was a proposed road into there. I don't know. Maybe standpoint.
Right. That's probably what e Yes, I won't comment on Bill G house and the size he knows more much more about architecture than I ever but uh on the two other items um the
changing commission if this application whatever way it is that plan can be submitted and approved by the changing commission at May subject to this approval And then then also the applicant can do a revised grading plan.
Uh that will take care of that patio area drainage and maybe other props are making the site. Normally minor subdivisions there aren't that many issues. Usually the board does requirements, but in this case, the board can require a proper rate plan,
knowing more about the house at the time, which means the going to have to do the court to figure out what kind of house they want to build to make sure that it works. Iman, did you have any other comments or Lisa? I'm just going to reiterate my
concerns are I even know my own behavior when I'm coming off of 130 and I'm entering into Cranberry. The same could be said just post die road coming in on North Main Street. You know what is do we know the actual speed limit on 25
Maple on Maple Gart there? Yeah, it's 25. You're not going 25, but that's what it is. I'm self-prescribing a ticket to myself as I sit here. Um, I would I would again that's in the DOT's hands to review that. I imagine
that they'll review that if there's more signage required earlier, you know, reduce speed to 25 ahead or whatever it is, but they've got to quell that. I'm happy to see the bump out like that makes me feel a lot better. And I would also reiterate like if there's got to be
no parking signs, there can't be cars being able to park on Maplewood there. they'll just get plowed. So that the way the driveway is like kind of curved out like that almost suggests that you're gonna be able to park a car on the left and the right out
there. And that maybe that's just the visual that I'm looking at, but that kind of made me a little bit nervous that right of way area. That's all I have. My turn. Um I in in looking at the plans before I
came here tonight um I guess Mr. Giddings was reading my mind tonight um because that was one of the first things I thought about too in that um it has been my preference
to have um an existing neighborhoods like this. This is an older development that's been wellestablished, you know, vintage, probably late 50s, early 60s, you know, split level ranches, all that kind of stuff. Um, to have if something
new was going to get built that it would be try to conform as best as possible to the existing houses. Um, I know that the the owner would like to maximize the the amount of of of square
footage to for a return, but it would be my preference to have a house that as best as possible could blend into the neighborhood. Now, it it's interesting Mr. Giddings's comments about, you know, we're asking for a variance to for the house when we can make the house fit on
the lot without a variance. So, it I don't know how you we can work that out. I mean, that would be something I would be, you know, amendable to um or looking at that. I would, you know, if we're going to be asking for variances, too. I
would like to see the backyard lot line from the existing house stretched out a little bit at least to the corner of that property if possible. and that may be another 10 feet, but it's 10 feet more that that backyard has. Um, I would
also like to see and and if there is drainage issues with the existing house that that needs to be addressed somehow before this is, you know, subdivided off. I'm not sure how that's going to be handled. Um, I think the property that you're proposing to build on, it slopes
down toward the road if I'm not I don't know. I don't know this the height elevations there. It's on the plans. It's both ways. The back the back quarter the less than quarter maybe less than quarter slopes toward
toward house. Oh, so the back of the the back quarter goes to Maplewood. Three quarter goes toward the back of the house, right? It's not being fixed. So that's going to have to be addressed somehow. You're going to have to, you know, put some kind of either
I guess swell line or something drainage line that drills the drain. I like the concept of of um you know dry wells. I don't know if if they're necessary though, but if if if you can incorporate that. Um I'd rather you know maybe see
more trees than, you know, an open dry well or something like that. I don't know if that, you know, that that could be done or not. Um, I would like to see I would like to see more of a design on the house with the landscape plan and everything. I think it would have been
it would have been helpful to see that. I'm not opposed to the the overall project. I think I think personally um given what was there um I think this is a marketable improvement. I'm not opposed to
subdividing this off and putting another property there. Um, I'm not opposed to leaving the the larger lot to the south and leaving the existing property with the larger lot to the south. I think that will make that house more sellable,
too, because I think I don't know if there was a tennis court out there at one time. I don't know. I mean, it was so overgrown with stuff. I know there was a large garden in there and and you're right, you know, animals drinking and dead other Yeah, it was it was bad.
Um, so I I think that makes that that whole lot sellable. And then especially with the existing people, um, and Ryan that I know a lot of them out there, I mean, they're they're actually happy that this house is being cleaned up. They might not be so happy to see this
big thing towering over that over the back of the other thing. And again, I think, and again, it's a suggestion. I can't force I don't know if I could say, you know, I don't want to say I could force you to to build a house the way the rest
of them look, but it would sure be nice if it could be closer to the way everything else looks there. Unfortunately, right now your variance is enabling a the way the design is. It's enabling a house to be built out of scale with the
rest of it because it's creating a deeper house as compared to a narrower house as compared with the with the all the adjacent houses which creates a smaller roof line. So I have a hard time with a variance that basically is
creating planning issues for the rest of the neighborhood in terms of the scale the house is being proposed. Yeah, the the comments are not unexpected. Um you know this was the client's idea and our idea. If if the board would like to see some
changes, I I think we're hearing that we need to take another crack at it and come back with an alternative plan and maybe maybe we'll get a little more detail on the house. Exactly. I think three points is moving the driveway further away from 130 I think helps that safety issue that
was brought up, which I think is, you know, very valid and moving that as far as possible down. you know, keeping the 40 foot and the 40 foot set back. Um, you know, if it's a two-foot variance or a three-foot variance, that's very
different than a 50% variance. And and it's just what it's doing to the existing house is not very nice, you know, to the backyard and a drainage issue with the patio that was added after this plan was surveyed. Um, keep as many trees as you can, the mature
trees. um tried to come up with a somehow an estimate of what trees were cut down and calipers and and give some goodwill to the Ryan neighborhood and to the Maplewood with the treecaped along
the streets. It will be good for your client's development and resale. It would look better. The neighbors will be happy. The buyers of this new house will be happier because they're just looking at 130 right now. you know, by flipping the driveway turn around toward the
other side, they now have a front yard that they can screen, you know, you know, by by flipping all that and moving it all down, not having that turnaround front of the house and now you can landscape that. So, you're the living space right now, the views, you're just
you see 130 entirely. So making a front yard that's not a driveway like all the other houses in the neighborhood. This will help this will I think these comments will address our concerns from a place and actually help your client
make a more salailable product there. Um and again I I think I think we're threequarters of the way there. I I I think we're, you know, I would like to see a a little bit more. I really would
like you to pay attention to Mr. Giddings detail and the rest of the board. Um, and also with the concern of of just being able to not back out on Route 1:30. So, whatever you need to do to configure it so people can turn around
and in the driveway so they can't because you're never going to I'm telling you rush hour in the morning and in the evening. That's tough there. That's a tough spot there. And um so that's two hours of the day, two to three hours of the day. That's and the rest of the time you
could probably lay in the street and take a nap. But but that you know those those few hours are going to be really a tough time. As far as the gas station across the street, I don't even know how they're in business because they're a dollar more a gallon than everybody else. So I I don't even know how they
they've been in business for 30 years like that. That's a whole another thing. Yeah, there's been all kinds of thing. We won't even get into that. But you know, there's hardly anybody that goes in and out of there to buy gas. Now, it doesn't mean that can't get flipped in the
future. Um, but as far as it going to a different type of business configuration, it it it would probably still be a gas station in the future or whatever. But I I think it should be noted though that uh a lot of this the way they portioned
the property, the smaller one, the 16,000 square feet was based on the 15,000 square foot minimum. So no matter what they do, if they they follow the direction that they're be that we're discussing tonight, that uh area might
fall below that minimum 15,000 as long as we're cognizant of some of the requests that we're making of because there's only so many ways you cut this cake. I I would feel more comfortable going with a variance on that with a house
that's proportionally with and addresses the drainage concerns of the other you're asking for variances all over the place here. So I mean and right now you have a thousand extra feet and that width is 100 feet. So you can very easily push that lot line back
10 feet and not require the variance. Yeah, it it's possible. We'll we'll take a look at it. I think um yeah, we've heard the comments. I think we we get the the general nature of the concerns and I think I understand the options that would be reasonable to you
all. So we'll we'll go back and make some changes and resubmit you come back. That would be fine. Um yes. How long Oh. How long before you could make those changes? The changes are good. I just asked Mr.
Strong. Um, would you have room in September? Yeah. Could you carry us to a September date? Could we carry them so we don't have to swear them back in all that? Okay. And what would that date be?
September 4th. September 4th. It's right after Labor Day. Do we have enough people that are going to be here? Everybody's back in school by then. Yeah. So, I'm I have no problem with that. If
you're if you're comfortable to come back on September the 4th, I think we'd be more than happy to host you that night. We think so. And so if I may on the record, to the extent that an extension of time for the board to act is required, it is so granted. I'll follow that with a letter to the and if the
board could announce that it is being carried without renotice or republication to that date, what would be the date? What would be the date? the latest that we could supply revised plans and leave you with a comfortable opportunity reviews.
Two weeks before so we're talking uh mid August August 20th. Yes, we'll know on August 20th we met that deadline and if we did we'll see on September 4th. If not we'll we'll have to come in and ask for further extension.
I'm just repeating that you're carrying to September 4th, right? with no notice. Okay. So, what we'll do is we will carry this applicant to September 4th with no additional notice. Um, just one last comment. Yes.
So, you know, your question about going smaller on the lot line on the lot size versus the setback. I think find the com comfortable medium. You know, I think the important thing is 80 feet between the houses. you know that gives you that
visual impression what what the lot line is whether it's you know 500 feet under thousand feet under I think the important thing is the spatial differential between the buildings is my opinion but I would say look at your
options and find find what works best for the intent of the planning and the massing of the homes the separation of the homes is my recommendation Well, I want to I sincerely want to thank you for coming in tonight. Um
I think we're I think we're like I said, we're more than 50% there. It's like not well 75 now. Uh we'll go with 50 and we'll leave it at that officially. But I think um it's nobody said no, you're not. You can't do this. So I think um
we're we're working in a positive direction that way. So, thank you very and thank you very much. I'm sincerely grateful. The people on Ryan are very happy this house was cleaned up and I know when it's all everything is all done, they will
welcome everybody into the neighborhood, you know, very grac graciously because it was it was an eyes sore before. So, thank you very much. [Music] I think leave it.
Yeah, it's fine. You can just leave it. Does anybody need to take a break or we Okay. Should we Should we take a five minute break? All right. We're going to take a five minute break. Please note that. That's what We're going to start in a minute. So,
Okay, calling the meeting back to order. Um, we have two items um on the agenda. I didn't even call Well, we didn't have to have public comment on that because we didn't finish anything. Um, two items
on the agenda. both uh ordinances. Um and this is related to the essentially changing the designation of the properties that we had identified um for
lower or for our affordable housing um um future affordable housing items. And it's essentially that we have to have a consistency review of these. And these two ordinances essentially are no different than the
ordinances that we have enacted in the past for other affordable housing sites in town. Every affordable housing site that we have had in town was part of another zone. It either was residential,
highway, commercial or whatever. So what we are doing here is not inconsistent with what we have done elsewhere in town. Um I know there's um and now when if if this does get passed
which it should um does it go back to the township committee for them to pass is that ordinance? Yeah the ordinance. So essentially, we're part of the we're part of the process here as we were with with passing the uh the the entire
resolution. Um I don't know if Liz or Sharon wants to explain anything else with it if you would like to. Sure. I'll I'll go through and I Okay. Um so I'll go through just the standards and then Sharon can can
augment what I'm uh talking about. But um pursuant to section 40 col55D-26 of the MLUL prior to the adoption of any development regulations the planning board shall review the reg regulation
and send the governing body a report identifying any provisions inconsistent with the master plan. This is somewhat um more clarified in the MLE later in the MLUL which is 40
col 55D62.8 which states that every zoning ordinance must either be substantially consistent with the land use element and the housing plan element of the master plan or designated to effectuate such plan.
So we have tonight as um Mr. chair uh uh described we've had the two ordinances that are the governing body has sent to the board to review for this consistency and both relate to the housing element which we adopted last uh time. So
ordinance 062508 applies to a portion of block 2.01 01 lot 1. This is um 1234 South River Road. And then ordinance 062509
applies to block 5, lot 16.01, that's 1274 South River Road. Um so the first one that is for 1234 South River Road. It's just a portion again of a parcel currently in the LI light industrial um
to this new residential Mount Laurel uh 4 zone which would permit up to 130 units of affordable housing. Uh the second ordinance would be reszoning a parcel that's in the HC highway commercial zone to a
residential Mount Laurel 5 permitting up to 60 units of housing, 55 senior rentals, and five special needs. Um, so I think it it goes without saying that these are substantially consistent with the housing element, um, which is of
course part of the master plan, um, and specifically referenced in MLUL at at, uh, subsection 62A um that, you know, it must be substantially consistent with the land use element and or um, the housing
element. So you know as these are intended to implement the housing element um and they are consistent with what is contemplated in the housing element uh I think that you can say uh that they are consistent with the master
plan. So, what I will just continue to talk about though because it was it was brought up to us was having to do with um other elements of the master plan and this goes back to 1993.
uh the master plan that was done at that time, HPAC had inventoried properties in the township outside of the village historic district and indicating these are historic sites um that are outside the historic district but they should
you know they're listed now in the master plan. This was 1993. uh in 2010 that list was reproduced um and um you know in the subsequent 15 years
they haven't been well I should say this they have not been inventoried since the early 90s all of those sites so to the to extent to what extent they still sort of qualify uh is unknown at this time the other thing um that I think is worth
pointing out is that these uh properties have not been locally designated as historic landmarks. Meaning that whole process that we've sort of gone through here where you have a survey uh and then you know we we sort of contemplated of
course it is already in the master plan but there'll be a survey and and a public hearing. Now you're off. Oh boy. I do have batteries. everything today. All right. So, so uh
so the with through the HPC um process which then of course goes uh through to the township committee and a public hearing at the township committee level. So I will say I don't think that this these ordinances are necessarily
inconsistent with the master plan. Um and and we have to be really clear too that we're talking about the master plan. We're not talking about ordinances. So it's really the standard is this consistent with um what's in the
master plan? And I think we can we can say yes it is and it's substantially consistent with the housing element. Right. And just to put some more I don't want to say spin to it. Um,
is there a ranking hierarchy of of these of these items? In other words, affordable housing is here and everything else is kind of down here and it and it's and it's and if the houses or the properties or whatever were
really not they could have been on a list but not like my house is on a list but I went out and I got a plaque on my front door. I got it registered. I mean, I went through the whole process to get my house, you know, listed. It's on a historic register.
These properties are not. And we should point out these two properties. I know the township committee looked into this before doing their housing element um and found that neither of these um structures were on
the national register or the state register of historic places. Um but they are they are listed in the master plan. I will acknowledge that. Um, well, so were a lot of other farm properties out there. I mean, I watched the bulldozer go through half a dozen
farm houses out in our industrial zone and and and they're gone. So, and I'll I'll just talk again. Um, and and really we're not uh concerned tonight with any ordinances. I mean any sorry any
existing ordinances you know what these ordinances what their relationship are to existing ordinances but I know one was was brought up which is in um section 150-40 it's it's in the site plan uh and subdivision standards and there is a
some language about in residential districts uh the design guidelines require that historic sites be retained and I leave this to my learned legal golly. But um that's perhaps not a legal
standard. You can't say that something shall be retained without any sort of uh without anything really to back it up. Yeah. Well, yeah. It would have to be gone through the process that you just described, right? You just can't just designate something and hold everyone to
it without going through that whole process of having it designated as so you can't really back something into it that hasn't been done yet. Right. The other thing to note is that applies to residential zones and and there's two parts to that answer. One is that neither of these properties is
currently in a residential zone. One is in the light industrial and one is in the HC highway commercial. So, um, that standard would not apply if those to to what's there now. If these sites were reszoned, and again, this is, um, what
I've been advised by, uh, legal counsel, that affordable housing is not quite, especially 100% affordable housing is not really in the same realm as market rate or even inclusionary
housing. And so, you know, we're not you're my understanding is it actually could even be considered almost in the non-residential category because it's Oh, go ahead. only because it's being rented out. You know, there's this there's a owner and
it's being rented out as rental property. So, everybody that lives in it's going to be it's almost I I don't want to say commercial, but it almost is because it's it's not single family ownership, you know, and like it's contemplated probably by the historic
preservation zone, you know, so uh it probably is not even applicable. Then the the final thing I just want to point out is the 1234 River Road. This ordinance does not actually involve the historic property,
right? And so we we should just be clear on that too. Um that that historic property is not actually being um contemplated to be reszoned and it will remain uh for now anyway in the light industrial zone where where it wouldn't
even be subject to these uh design guidelines. Now I I'll this is probably for Sharon and Liz. If for whatever reason something happened and we had to remove this, can we remove that designation
from those properties? In other words, if we if this ordinance says, "All right, now it's we're actually doing that right now with these ordinances because you're accept you're um exempting them from having to comply with those conditions in this ordinance, right? But if we had to if if if in the
future we never put affordable housing there for whatever reason amend them are right now are they included in the historic preservation element they just they are there they could be taken out right okay all right that boundary again okay so they will revert back to whatever the
pre-existing zoning was then oh right if if if if the moral zoning was not pursued then um that's what I'm that's what I'm getting Right. And I think that that would be my understanding is that it would be what's there currently would continue.
It would revert back to that then. Yes. Okay. All right. I'm sorry I didn't quite All right. Yeah, maybe I didn't articulate it correctly. Um or I tried to articulate it correctly and um
so I have no problem with doing this. Again, I don't, you know, I it's it's moving this process forward, which we have to do. How things evolve is going to be how it evolves. Um, but it's
moving the process forward, which what the township needs to do to move the process forward on their end. So, I have no problem in moving these both of these ordinances. I guess we could vote on them separately or bro them collectively. I don't know. I could
do one on them collectively unless someone has an objection to one or the other. But um can I just ask a question? Absolutely. What was the genesis of the conversation regarding HPC? We we've gotten a comment um that this
was not consistent with the uh historic preservation plan element. Okay. And so since we're talking about consistency and it we wanted to discuss it more more closely and even more specifically there was um comment that a
portion of the existing ordinance under the design guidelines sort of prohibited removal of these homes. Understood. Now that doesn't so that doesn't preclude the state process for evaluation of eligibility for historic
determination. It's just our HPC iss basically what you Yes, it was based on an inventory that was done in the early 90s and put in the master plan, but I I know that they're not listed on the state or national register. I don't know if
that's a cultural resource. No, we don't. I don't know. Okay. But I'm only asking because of the other stuff they brought up because but I think since both of these properties have been um and again correct me legally if I'm wrong. Both
these properties are under a condemnation notice right now. So trying to back feed back fit that in. I don't know if that could be if somebody can make a challenge and legally do that because we're already kind of frozen in
time right now. I think the right language is we have sight control, not that we're we're executing condemnation. That we have sight control by putting in that into our plan by the June 30th deadline, which means that
anything that you do, you can't retroactively implement it. So, so somebody can't come back and say, "Well, the old spa house was, you know, General Washington stayed there and we have proof." And it's like, that that comes up in a whole another
set of permitting concerns that are outside of our jurisdiction. Yes. So, I I hope that was No, no, no. It was very No, no. I I couldn't I couldn't even come close to articulating that way. So,
um I do have one more question. Yes, please. Is the next township committee meeting going to be held at the library? Yes, because we have a working session with our Cranberry Volunteer Fire Department and so we wanted the
opportunity to have more people and it was at their request. So, we're having it at the library. I'm only asking because it's in the ordinance and that seemed out of the ordinary. It's what? It's in the ordinance. On the second page, it mentions the location of the township committee meeting. And I didn't
know it was going to be at the library, so I was just making sure that Yeah. Open public's meeting act. So, we've already sent that out that it'll be at the library. So, this had to I'm just making sure we're not going to This is great. Send it forward and find out it's not really No, it needed to be consistent with the location. All right.
No attendant. Yeah. And the reason for the the meeting over there because it's it's a there'll be there probably be a lot of people. Yeah. At that meeting because of the fire districting questions or whatever that people are going to have about that.
Another fun one. Yeah, exactly. And just one final note, even if this board were to find that the ordinances were inconsistent, um the TC can still uh adopt the
ordinance um by Yes. by fiat. party two parts a super majority. So yeah, but um you know it would be if if it's easier just to find it inconsistent
because it actually is not inconsistent then that'd be the best way to go. Yeah. Well, I again I don't have any problem. It's not like we're It's not like this language has not been used for every other affordable housing zone that we've
done and we've had to change the language for each one of those sites that we have currently. So, and they're all identified on our on our um zoning maps as such. and it and it refers to the to the round of affordable housing
that it it pertained to, but the language is essentially the same for each one of them. So, um, any other questions from the board? one kind of detailed question or maybe
nuance question which probably maybe is not important but I was kind of surprised that the ordinance treated the sites differently in terms of heights and number of stories um just that because they're on the same road there our use the other R uses on
that road the ones in Monroe the Marriott courtyard's four stories the Um, other hotel is four stories. So, one is four stories, one is three stories. I was just curious
if there's any reason to keep them both four stories, but again, I think at this point we don't have preliminary site plans, so we're not at that point yet that we could determine one or the other. just terms of giving the flexibility once we create this ordinance
you're kind of locked in. What what he's saying is that one says three and one says four. Why wouldn't folks just say four if what we wanted was flexibility? And the reason why I'm asking that it may not even be feasible or plausible. But by allowing the ability to go up to
four stories, it's it's consistent from a planning perspective along River Road. And it may help. It may give the final designers a little more flexibility to give better buffers and do a better site plan. It might it might not be desired. It might not happen. I'm just kind of
raising the question. But again, so could we could we put up to four stories in each one as an amendment? Yes. Right here. And if you don't want to do it No, no, no. I think I think I think I think that's a good point. I'm just trying to give maximum flexibility to do
the best design to get the best then we should be consistent with both and put up would up to four stories be fine. Yeah. Jason, that all right with you two. Okay. Yeah, sounds good. Thank you. Will we modify that that way? Okay. Yeah, you can suggest it. That's
separate. How about a strong suggestion? Suggestion to the Okay. Any other comments from board members? All right. Um, with the suggested
changes to go back to the township committee, I'm going to move this as as a as a both of them together. Um, so can I have a motion for ordinance number 062508
and 062509. So moved. I'm asking for a motion. Yes. So I got a first. I have a second, please. Okay. All right. Um Okay. Roll call for the two ordinances.
Miss Eladawi. Yes. Mr. Giddings, yes. Miss Conram, yes. Mr. Mildenberg, yes. Mr. Pulk, yes. And Mr. Whitman, yes. Thank Thank you. I think the wording is
to go with 40 col 55D62 since it's a housing element um that we're pursuant to. So that will be substantially consistent. Okay. Substantially consistent. Substantially got that as opposed to inconsistent.
Not in. All right. Does anybody have any old and new business from the zoning subcommittee? No, we don't. Yep. We and we didn't since we're carrying it. Yes.
You're going to have project booming voice. and we met at least once since the last planning board meeting. Uh I think we are um are good with the revisions we made to the checklist uh which uh we'll have to eventually
then go to the mayor and the council uh tent committee uh to uh to to put into ordinance. And today I provided a a revised lighting uh ordinance to the members of the subcommittee that we're going to look at
and discuss at our next meeting probably next week. And I think that we were trying to be on the August planning board agenda as a subcommittee to review the design guidelines and the checklist. I think we
talked about that at our last meeting al together. So, we'd like to we'll get the checklist and the design guides guidelines out to everybody so you can review prior to that, but we'd like that to be a formalized agenda item so we can go through and highlight all that
phenomenal work. We also talked about u looking at uh buffer landscaping and revisions to that part of the or as part of this discussion. Okay.
Any other comments on um we do have we I would like to um go into close session to discuss um litigation items with reference to our
affordable housing. So you could ask for a motion to go into executive session and uh on for that purpose for litigation and um then uh information be disclosed at a later time. Yes. So I'd like to have a motion to go
into close session to discuss litigation on our affordable housing items that we have been go moving forward with um those discussions becoming public at a point in time in the future. So moved.
Can I have a second, please? Second. All right. Roll call for the close session. Miss Elbadawi? Yes. Mr. Giddings? Yes. Miss Conro? Yes. Mr. Mildenberg? Yes. Mr. Pulk? Yes.
And Mr. Whitman? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. We want to turn off the Yeah, there it is. Our uh this just came on. Mics just came on
because close session was announced. Perfect.