We're on. >> Okay. All right. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Uh it is February 19th, 2026. Uh we'll now call this meeting, the Delran Zoning Board, uh to order. All meetings of this board are held in compliance with the provisions of the
open public meetings act and a resolution adopted by the board's annual reorganization. Pursuant to the board's resolution, public notice of this meeting has been made in the following manner. Written notice filed with the secretary of the board, the clerk of Delran Township, and on the official Bolton board of the township. Written
notice has also been mailed to the official newspapers 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing. Written notice has also been mailed to all persons requesting a hearing before the board. Uh before we begin, would you all please uh 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. >> Okay. Uh would you please take >> Mr. Mormando?
>> Here. >> Mr. Moore, absent. Mrs. Prento >> here. >> Mr. Ellesiac >> here. >> Mrs. Kuster >> here. >> Mr. Biata, he is absent as well. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. The first on
the agenda this evening is to elect a remaining officer for the board, the nomination of the zoning board solicitor. Uh my understanding is that there have been two um applications for the position. The Plat Law Group PC attorneys at Law is the first and the
second is uh Raymond Coleman Heinhold LLP attorneys at Law. I believe there's a representative for the Plataw Group here in the galley. I don't see anyone from the Raymond Coleman Hinhold uh group. Uh we have been provided with packets of application for both firms.
Uh the um the request from Raymond Heinald, Coleman and Heinald came in on January 15th and the request from uh the Plataw Group came in on January 22nd, 2026. Uh I have reviewed both of these applications and I know the board
members sitting up here on the day this evening also have reviewed them. Uh and the packets do include uh the insurance information, the firm information, the attorney information uh for the firms um as well as as I mentioned insurance and
the u standard fee agreements for um these individual firms. Um so with regard to um the appointment or the election of the attorney for the zoning board. Um we
only have four members here, voting members here this evening. Um so what I think we'll do is uh any member of course can um move to nominate um uh any any any one of these two attorneys uh or
firms I should say. Uh so I'll start it off by saying I'll make a nomination um to make Raymond Coleman Hunting Board attorney. Uh and are there uh any other nomination? Well, I guess we should Yeah. Are there any other nominations by
any of the board members? >> I'd nominate Platt. >> Okay. So, we have one nomination for um the Raymond Coleman Hinold Group and one nomination for the Platt Law Group. So, um in reverse order, then what we'll do
is as to as to Mr. Leiac's nomination for the Plat Law Group, are there any seconds for um that nomination? >> Mary, I second for Platt. Okay. Uh and so then what we should do is vote on that particular uh nomination and second
at this time. Um um if you could call that um the role of votes. >> Mr. Mandanda. >> No. >> Mrs. Prento. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ellesiac. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Kuster.
>> Yes. >> Okay. All right. So obviously we just have to deal with the other motion. Uh so the motion that I made for the Raymond Coleman Heinhold firm. Uh obviously based on that vote, I'm assuming there are no seconds for that.
Is that fair to say? Okay. I don't see any hands or indications. Uh and so let's do a vote on my um motion for Raymond. Um Coen Heold. >> Mr. Miranda. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Parto. >> Yes.
>> No. That no, it would have to be the opposite. >> I'm sorry. No, >> I'm sorry, >> Mr. Leisiac. >> No. >> And Mrs. Kuster? Uh, no. Thank you. >> Okay. So, it's my understanding again that all the board members have reviewed all these items and have made their
votes um you know, as to their perspectives and so we congratulate the Plat Law Group and now there's a representative here. You can come on up and identify yourself to everyone and uh take a seat on the deis. And just as I is there anyone here from
Raymond Coleman Highold uh law firm. Okay. I don't see any responses. Okay. So, could you just tell us uh who you are on? >> Oh, you got you may have to hold it. >> Oh, no. The other side. >> Oh, there you go. >> There you go. Thank you very much.
>> Good evening everyone. My name is Justin Straer from the Plat Law Group. from my firm are me, Chris Norman, and Stuart Platt. And we uh appreciate the appointment and look forward to representing you this year. >> Okay, Mr. Trouser. Thank you very much.
Welcome to the Delran uh zoning board. Uh so we have more on the agenda this evening. The next is a resolution. This is resolution ZZ 2026-01. This is uh Hail H L E or Holly
Properties LLC America's Tire 2906 Route 130 North uh block 132 lot 8 again ZN 20225-04 preliminary and final site plans with variances. Uh it was approved previously and now a resolution has been circulated
for the board's review. Do I have a motion concerning that resolution? Mary, I motion to accept the resolution as written. >> And uh second Chris, >> Mr. Mirmanda, >> yes.
>> Mrs. Prento, >> yes. >> Mr. Ellesiac, >> yes. >> And Mrs. Kuster, >> yes. Thank you. >> All right. Next on the agenda is an applic are the applications for this evening. The first one listed was Len LLC, 2925, Route 130 South, Lock 9, lot
46.01. That's ZN 20225-02. This was an amendment to a minor site plan. It was a journ It was adjourned to the March 19th zoning board meeting and no further notice or publication is required. So that will not be heard
tonight and I don't see that anybody in the audience was here for that application anyway. But again, postponed to March 19th, 2026 without further notification. >> That would require a motion. A motion to carry. >> A motion to carry. Okay, great. Thank you, Mayor. >> No further notice. Okay. So, I would at
this point move to carry that to the March 19th, 2026 with no further motion. Is there a second? >> Mary, I second it. >> Okay. And then we'll vote. >> All in favor? >> I. >> Any nays?
>> Seeing no nays passes. >> Okay. Thank you, council. All right. Okay. Finally this evening we have the Hunter Glenn Burke and Burke Management LLC 30001 Route 130 South block 9 lots
44 and 45 ZZ 2017-01 final major site plan phase 4B section two uh council could you tell the board who you are >> very good thank you Mr. Chairman, board members, for the record, James Burns from the law firm of Dembo Brown and
Burns. On behalf of the applicant, Hunters Glenn, uh we are before you tonight uh at the request of your your engineer um to clarify for the board's benefit the phasing of existing approvals uh for the Hunter Hunter Glenn
development. So, that's the real purpose uh I have with >> mic. >> Oh, is your mic on? Let's see. >> Yeah, >> it is. >> Oh, you're not picking me up. I'm sorry. >> No, just Yeah, maybe. Yes, they're not the greatest, I suppose. >> That's all right. Um, so we're not really requesting any
approvals. We're really here just to explain to you uh a phasing of of of one of the development approved part of the development that we're going to move forward with. Uh, and we're happy, we were happy to provide that phasing plan uh for your engineers review. You may have a copy of it. Uh, and with your
permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to have our engineer, Ken Lever, sworn at this time, >> please. Thank you, council. So, Ken, I think we got a mic here for you. >> Go ahead. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to
provide is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So, help you. >> I do. >> Thank you. >> Gentlemen, if you wish, these mics may work. You can grab a seat. You don't have to stand if it's easier. >> Yeah. makes it a little easier. >> Make sure they light up.
>> And just for the record, can you state your name, occupation, and your relation to the application? >> Uh, yes. My name is Ken Levers. Um, I'm my firm is Environmental Consulting of Southern New Jersey. I'm a licensed professional engineer and planner in the
state of New Jersey. And I I represent Hunter Glenn on this project. that your license is in good standing. Correct. >> Correct. >> Uh and you have been accepted by this board as a professional engineer uh on all the hunters applications. Correct. >> Correct.
>> So if you could before we turn it over to to the board engineer, explain give the board an idea of why we're here tonight. >> Okay. Um if you go back in time, uh we received from this board uh final site plan approval from
>> I'm sorry. I'm sorry to interrupt. I I apologize. Um, just based on your credentials and having been accepted by the board before, we should at least just mention on the record that we accept you as an expert and I don't see any are there any objections by the board members? Seeing no objections that we accept that I'm sorry, please continue.
>> Thank um, as you saw, it's uh what we've entitled phase 4B section two. Um section one, just for a little history, those are the two buildings most recently that were built and they are named 101 and 102. For this section two,
there was three buildings, 103, 104, and 105. On the plan that you have before you that we did entitled a phasing plan, um all the development you see on there encompasses those three buildings. What is it on what is shown on there in red
is only the the site improvements and the construction uh to basically satisfy the needs for for building 103. Um the applicants Hunters Glenn decided that they wanted to do building 103 first that there's some economic decisions and
that and where everything is with the economy. um that and also the fact you can see it's almost immediately adjacent to the most recently constructed one which is building 10 102. Um so we provided final conformance
plans to that uh uh resolution of approval. Um that was goes back to February 2024. Uh just for building 103 addressed his comments in that uh JP Trungalow's
review letter as the planner. he's already signed off on all three uh 103, 104, and 105 improvements. U but that's that's basically the nuts and bolts of it. Um and we're here sort of maybe get
some clarification on the original resolution of approval for all three buildings, 103, 104, 105. And I think that that resolution, I believe, was executed in February 2024. >> That's correct. That's that's our understanding. We're we're happy to
discuss uh as recommended by your engineer uh how to maybe amend that resolution to address the phasing of the development. So with that, Mr. Chairman, we're happy to hear from from your engineer. >> Yeah. So ultimately our comment came
back because when we did our original uh review they they didn't address our comments related to buildings 104 105 and then Ken and I spoke and and due to the fact that they're proposing to only address 103 at this time I can't complete a full resolution compliance
and sign off on the plans unless there's a setup to where they're submitting plans specifically for this phase and then they would have a separate phase to where we would have plans on file at the township. Um so more or less before they could go and build building 104 105 they
would have to address any comments that are outstanding um from our original review letter and subsequent reviews um for the for the plan set that that's essentially it. It's just more of a um you know dot in the tees and or dot in
the eyes and crossing the tees um on our end. >> So how do you propose then Ed that that could be addressed this evening or is that something that there needs to be a followup? So I think it can be addressed this evening. Um we were speaking about
this uh previously of where like there's our comments are our comments. It's identified in their letter. Um but with the with the understanding that they can go ahead and complete our comments because what if Ken if you can actually explain a little bit the the
improvements for 103 more or less are already there. the site plan improvements that need to be completed based off our comments are pertaining to 104 and 105. That's correct. So if you want to just provide some clarification for >> Yeah. If you if you look at that exhibit, you you can see buildings 104
105 which are in the back and to get to those we have to extend Aelia Court, redo the court itself. Uh a lot of improvements. Building 103 where it sits, there's actually a parking lot
right there. Uh and it's in front of a open space area where 103 will be. So that's that's mostly why uh 103 is easy to build because the the site improvements are very minimal and the
street which is a quarters you can see on the plan is already complete to there. Uh like I said the parking lot's already there. So that once we want to go forward with 104 105 that's going to be extended as area court all the way to basically to the
far property line by the uh the uh recreation center which is going to be a whole whole different ball game for that site improvements. So ultimately I guess the question at
hand becomes um you know would would the board want to see them come back in front of the board to re provide additional testimony for stuff that was already provided I think at the end of 20122 if I'm remembering correctly was when this was from originally. um or if
there would be conditions set in in a modified resolution that would identify, hey, these are these conditions, but then there generally there's an expiration to to those. Um which which I think you guys can speak to more. Um I think it's just it seems to me that just
doesn't make sense for them at this time to complete all not just the physical improvements, but to address all the comments because they're a little bit more cumbersome comparatively to to the rest of it. And just as I'm as I'm absorbing that and my understanding then
in summary is we have three buildings 10 103 104 105 and the comments and suggestions that you would have for them to be in compliance on the buildings 104 and 105 are separate really from 103 and that we're here just to say at least the
application is that you'd like to start building 103 and really the the suggestions don't impact that as much. Is that fair to say? >> Yeah, it's just the way that it currently sits is they can't get a reszo comp set approved by me until they address those um comments on 104 and 105 unless it's
>> right >> basically separated within within. >> So, we were looking to phase that to allow us to finish three, get the comments that we need to get that done without having to worry about necessarily addressing four and five. We're happy to come back and and once three is done and address any additional
phasing that we may require. We have our approvals in in place. Uh, as you know, the approvals for final are good for for two years, but you get up to three one-year extensions um if requested and you can meet the the requirements for
that. Uh, we're happy to do that. Um, but, you know, the reality is that's really to protect uh from any changes in the zoning ordinance. I don't envision the town making any changes to to this area and
and based on the approvals that have been given. So, um you know, we're comfortable asking for extensions as we need it and not have to come back and re apply since we've already addressed the planning issues with M. Mr. Turk's office.
It's just a matter of working with that as we move forward for the other two and we're happy to do that. And my understanding is you've been working directly with our engineer and the engineer has acknowledged that you have no objection to working with him on his suggestions. Absolutely. Even though we're kind of topsyturvying this to
start with 103 at this point. Is that fair to say? >> That's fair to say. And this really was a an idea that Ed came up with that we were happy to comply. We thought it was a good idea. >> Okay. Uh do you have any other any witnesses or any other testimony that you need to present to us? >> Well, that's pretty much it. We're just
looking for the board to acknowledge maybe change in the resolution to acknowledge the phasing of three to allow us to proceed without having to address the conformance issues for four and five. >> Okay. >> How that gets phrased, we can >> and in compliance with prior approvals already >> in compliance with Yes, we are.
>> So, so really the only thing that we're changing is adding that you can proceed with 103. Um, and you will continue to work with compliance issues for four and five. 104. >> Absolutely. Are there any questions from any of the members of the board at this point? Can you have anything,
>> Chris? >> I do. So, uh, just to clarify, >> anything on your review letter, Ed, is stating that anywhere where it says not not applicable to building 103 would have to be rectified to build 104 and 105. >> Yeah. So ultimately what's going to happen, this is one of the things I was
going to say is that the plan set that I would recommend these revise to submit. So we're going to have signed versions um is going to you know show up like the actual phasing and then um we'll update our review letter but this will still be on the record of hey this is still tied
to X Y and Z. Um so >> okay you have anything? No >> questions. Stir. Anything? >> Sir. >> Okay. Um. All right. So, what I'll do then is let me open it up to the public. Uh there's only two other gentlemen
sitting and I think they may be with you, but uh I'm going to officially open it up to the public. Is there anybody here that uh would like to comment on this application? Please raise your hand. Come forward. Okay. Nobody's raising their hand or coming forward. So, I'm going to close to the public. uh
council advice, thoughts, ideas, impressions. Obviously, I don't have uh access to the previous resolution. Um I I think as as the applicant's attorney put it would
sound good. We're essentially amending that resolution to address the phasing in compliance with your previous review letter, the new review letter. And are you you issuing an addition? >> We'll we'll issue an updated review
letter when there's a revised resolution, but ultimately speaking, they've addressed our comments related to 103. It's just the 104 and 105 that are outstanding, which they're not willing to address at this time because it's not relevant to what they're trying to do. >> All right. So, what I what I would
suggest then is um I'll make a motion to approve the application. And that specifically is that the resolution that was previously issued approving this applicant's um plan um will be amended
to allow them to move forward with uh building 103 without the need to address the comments by our engineer about um building 104 and 105. uh with the full understanding that the applicant will of course continue to
work with our engineer on those specific recommendations and comments by our engineer to fall in line when they do proceed with 104 and 105 and all other conditions that were previously approved and or agreed upon will be active uh and
will be part of this new resolution. So councel with that that's my motion and I would of course ask that you work with our engineer to you know fine-tune that resolution should this board pass this in a in a moment >> might be the longest >> might be the long but that's the motion
so that we're clear um as is there any second on that motion >> and you have to you have to say the entire >> no repeat All right. There's a second, Chris. Okay. All right. And we'll do a roll call. Y >> Mr. Mando.
>> Yes. >> Mrs. Pento. >> Yes. >> Mr. Ellesiac. >> Yes. >> And Mrs. Kuster. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> All right. Congratulations. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board. Appreciate it. >> And we'll work council. I'll work with you and >> we'll get something done. Right.
>> Okay. >> Iron out a good a good writing. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Thank you for your time. I'll give you my >> um I've known Ste. >> Okay, perfect. >> So, just tell Bernie said hello and >> we'll do Okay, good. >> Good to see you. >> All right.
>> Okay. Uh so the final uh this back on. All right. So, we still have one more thing on the agenda. I'm going to open it up to the public in general. Anything related to anything else? I don't see anybody else in the public here. Nobody's coming forward, so I'm closing it to the public. And then finally, do I
have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjourn. Mary >> second. >> All in favor?