Good evening everyone. This is a regular meeting of the Fair Haven Planning Board. Adequate notice of this meeting has been given pursuant to provisions of the open open public meetings act. At the time of the board reorganization in January of this year, the board adopted its regular meeting schedule for the year. Notice of the schedule was sent to
and published in the Asbury Park Press on January 31st, 2025. The Two River Times on January 23rd, 2025. That notice was also posted on the bullet board in Burough Hall has remained continuously posted there as required by the statute. Copy of the notice is and has been available to the
public and is on file in the office of the burough clerk. Copy of the notice has also been sent to members of the public as have requested such information in accordance with the statute. Adequate notice having been given the board secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes of
the meeting. Uh roll call, please. Mrs. Bush, >> Mr. Olsen >> here, >> Mr. Newell >> here, >> Mr. Balo >> here, >> Mr. R. Mr. Na, >> Mr. Anderson
>> here, >> Mrs. Antinine >> here, Mr. Granetti >> here. You don't join me in a Sweden fight. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. To the republic for which stands one nation
under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. >> All right. Good evening everyone. Thank you all for being here. Um uh I am going to jump directly to the administrative items. Um, so veer those
off. Uh, first off, um, has everyone been able to review the minutes from the October 21st meeting? >> Yes. Any questions, comments, or concerns? >> Can I hear a motion? I'll make a motion to approve. >> Second.
>> Mr. Olsen? >> Yes. >> Mr. Newwell? >> Yes. >> Mr. Bow? >> Yes. >> Mr. Anderson? >> Yes. Yes, Mr. President. >> Yes. >> Great. Grant selected.
Um, next ad administrative item is um uh the review and discussion of the 2025 19 amendments to storm water management. I think I wanted to defer to Rich here to to kick us off on the subject. >> Yes. Good evening. Um,
in your packets you should have the ordinance which is 2025-9. As the chair had mentioned, we are we we we are looking to amend this ordinance. The governing body introduced the
ordinance and then reintroduced it at our last meeting. We had some comments that came back from Mon County. The basis of the ordinance is to tailor it more towards fair haven. If you recall, we did an adoption about a
year ago and we adopted the standard for D. So we we we are in compliance as it currently stands. However, most of what was in that ordinance is what's considered we call major development. And if you read the
definition of major development, most of the projects within Fair Haven, whether it's something that comes before this board, the zoning board, or even administratively through the land use office, doesn't necessarily get to that definition of major development.
Therefore, storm order was not a requirement of that, whether it be an applicant, a builder, a homeowner, whatever, somebody managing a project. So what we did internally is and working
with the governing body is look at other ways that we can get something implemented. So at the end of the day, what we're striving for is if you're doing a project, we just want something where you're going to manage
your storm water. Essentially, what it's doing is you're going to you soak up the rain. Whatever's created based on what you're building, whether you're you're doing a small addition, whether you're adding an outdoor kitchen, whether you're putting a detached garage, whether you put a swimming pool in, even
new construction. Now, up until now, we've basically um worked with a lot of the applicants for if you're building a new house, you got to give us something. And that something typically is a dry well. tie in your down spouts, have your
engineer design something, we go out and inspect it, and then it it complies. Same thing with a swimming pool. If you're going to add a swimming pool, provide a grading plan. We want to make sure that we're not running off to any neighbors or causing any um any adverse
effects. The next step we wanted to look at is what we define as minor development. So, I talked about the definition major development. There is a definition of minor development. we have implemented it into this ordinance. These are
specifics that we pulled from um the watershed institute which is a coalition uh that works uh through the D regs and they anticipate too that we're going to be
having to do this anyway at some point in time. It's just um for minor development. So they have some samples and some examples that we were able to to look at. We also looked at other uh municipalities of our type and character
and looked at what they did. So a lot of it has to do with what type of project you're doing. I mentioned new construction. We've been working with folks on that. More major renovations. Same. As you could see, even this even the times people bring um applications
for this board, we ask them you know you got to do something. Um swimming pools, same thing. What this does, it takes to the next step. So we added a piece for when you're adding
a certain square footage of imperous coverage. The reason we made it square footage is we want to make it simple. Um, what we try to do is if somebody calls Burough Hole and says, "Oh, I'm looking to do this project. Do I need small
motor management?" You can't expect them to say, "Well, what's your current lot coverage percentage and what's it going to be?" They may not, most likely they don't know that. So we said, "All right, let's take a look at the projects that that
have been done in the last 5 or 10 years with Fair Haven administratively." That could be adding onto your driveway. That could be putting a detached garage and extending driveway. That could be doing a a patio, things like that where you get
additional sheet flow and runoff. And obviously on some of these smaller lots, um, it could be a potential issue. So what we came up with was 400 square feet.
So 400 square ft of new and purpose. So, if you're going to redo your driveway and you're going to add so many square feet and maybe you're going to redo a walkway and add so many square feet and maybe do a a back
covered, you know, porch or something, if that all totals 400 square feet or more impervious than what you had, then you need to provide some type of storm water management. And when I say storm water management, I mean BMP. I
don't know if you're familiar with best management practice. That could be a small rain garden. That could be a vegetated buffer strip. There's there's all there in the ordinance. There's some examples. Um we we also provide
um the information where you can find information on the different types of BMTPS. And and the other thing too to add is these are all um projects and and uh ideas that we've worked through the green team and the
environmental commission as well. So what we're saying is it doesn't have to be some major engineered type structure. It could be a stone trench with some pipe just to allow the water to soak in back into the ground rather than out
into the street. It could be a rain garden, which in most cases landscaping is proposed anyway when you're doing some backyard activity or improvement and you can incorporate a small rain garden or such. The one thing too is
just to give you a perspective for every inch of rain, if we had rains tonight and we got an inch of rain, for every,000 square feet, that's 600 gallons. So that's 600. If you have a driveway
that's 1,000 square ft, you got an inch of rain tonight, that's 600 gallons of water that's flowing into the streets of Fair Haven, which then in turn ends up in our storm drain infrastructure system. So, our thought is maybe we can
work towards having folks manage some of this on their property. And that's done through the various definitions that we put in here. And the main definition is obviously um minor development.
And minor development means any development that results in an increase in or replacement of imperous surface of 400 square ft or more. >> That's on page like three or four. Yeah,
>> that's on page in the definition. And that has an increase of or replacement of So, so what if you're doing construction on a home that currently has or a lot that
currently has say 2,000 square feet of impervious. You're ripping it all out and redoing it. And you're coming up with 2,000 ft of impervious. >> You can move it around on your lot. water required to do storm water management.
>> But technically, if you're doing 2,000 square ft of something, it's probably a larger scale project depending on >> well house >> could be. But I guess if you're on some of the larger lots, yes, if
you're taking 2,000 square ft out and you're moving it around, >> yeah, >> it's a pre-existing condition. So you're not going to trigger the need. >> You're not going to trigger >> despite it being new construction >> if it's a new if it's new construction for a h if you're building. So there's
certain um and I didn't bring the the um the application. We created an application for >> for everybody. One of the items is the increase in pvious of 400 ft. But the if you're
doing a new house, it's required >> regardless of whether you are increasing or decreasing the impervious or metal on the site >> because it's a major project. That's standard. >> No, it will be a minor project. >> Major project will be defined by
>> a new house. >> Yeah, >> it's not it's not a major development. >> Major development will be an acre or more >> but it's required per the ordinance. So you're not bringing in a minor development which is an excess of >> right or Andrew brings up a good point.
It does say an increase or replacement >> right which is contradictory. So so that that implies if you're replacing 400 ft >> you have to do it >> then you have to do it. >> So um >> I could tell you the intent was additional
>> right. >> So we'll have to go back to the to the bur. >> Yeah. Maybe maybe verify that. >> Yeah. So, so if there are dimminimous changes, we can continue with Monday's meeting and adopt assuming it passes. If they're not dimminimous, then it'll
probably be next year. >> Yeah. >> This the latest word that I've heard would help. >> Well, you have a definition of replacement which says means removal and substitution. So it's removal and substitution of a
substantial portion of the framing and roofing of an existing building or structure or the removal and substitution of a substantial portion of the existing pavement or other imperous material. So I don't know that they
still address the concern. >> Yeah, I read that you rip up a sidewalk and put a new sidewalk. you you you're obligated to do storm water management per the code. And and my concern with that, regardless of intent, is if a professional is designing that
change, they're going to read that and tell the homeowner, you now have to do the storm water management, which I think is probably, >> you know, and and I think um >> it will go back because I could tell you the application that I prepared which is
in draft format which was circulated through our subcommittee committee and talked about at the governing body level. The following proposed work is what the intent is. A new dwelling. >> Pretty simple. A new dwelling on an
existing foundation. So if you take a house down from an existing foundation, you build a new house, you add smaller management. >> Sorry. >> Say, can I take a straw poll? What's the sense if do we want placement to so now that I understand it or we have got this
distinction do we are we inclined to want replacement to trigger or the intent of just >> if I could just on a point of order the board wouldn't draft it what the boards would do would be to highlight
the issue for American because they may want that they may the exact reason that Mr. Anderson's game. >> Exactly. That's what we want. >> What's the preference? >> I'm sorry. The the bottom line of this is and maybe we should have started there. I apologize for just letting go.
We're going to be reviewing this ordinance in our in our function as the planning board. We're going to highlight those things that are either of concern or we feel that something is simple to be addressed by baron council. If it is not substantive, then you're probably not going to have, you know, a
rebringing or excuse me, a rereading or modification. If, however, we're highlighting, look, the use of replacement in minor development and coupled it with what the definition of replacement is may resulted in the
increase in cost of development for for minor developments. If that is the intent council, fine, you're not going to say it. If that isn't the intent, then maybe there needs some additional refinement. And that's that's how you would normally address it. I as simple as that or something as simple as as I
was speaking before David. You know, in your you've got a definition of public roadway and public transportation entity. Definitions look great except they precede pollution.
I picked nets for a living. That's what the Ohio attorney to do. that should go after pollution because when I do my alphabet you alphabet something along those lines just just soup to nuts just highlight where we
where we see some concerns and this is why we have the discussion for say look this is our intent okay having that intent these are the concerns when we read it we just highlight that this is our review I we don't we don't publish the ordinance we don't we don't vote
vote on >> I'm not I'm not asking I'm sorry the >> yeah I'm not asking for that I'm glad you're clarifying when it comes up for debate this this will come up I imagine uh and the question will be what does the planning board think about this
particular question do we have a sense is that something that we that we think is appropriate for playing work for development do we want replacement to trigger or not >> my opinion is no it's not appropriate I mean it's clearly there to force compliance >> my opinion is no similar to The intent
is based on the application that we created imperous surface over 400 square ft. I put an asterct and the asterct is net increase of imper imperous surface measured on a cumulative basis. I don't want to presume that you know
when when it comes on Monday like I want to be able to say yeah the the general sense whether it's a straw poll or just comments or whatever or you want to email them later >> so that it's accurate reflecting what you guys spend a lot more time on this than the governing body does >> there well I mean look I think it would
just be a question for the for the for the governing body right is it an attempt to force compliance the same way that a new right so like if I'm building a new house and I'm replacing like kind the house that was there by making it
new and not changing the impervious coverage. I'm now obligated to increase in storm water management. Right? So it's it's the town's ability to force compliance when it was previously grandfathered out. Right? Or in so the question really is is that what the
intent of that is to to Doug's point. Is the intent there that it's it's nuanced so that if somebody replaces it, they're then forced to do it. If if that's not the case, it should be cleaned up. It's the case. I personally if it is the
case, how does the board feel? >> I have so I've been involved in the detailed negotiations that you have with Drew. So if if it wasn't the intent, >> it's not the intent. And >> the some of the other communities have
actually adopted 250 square feet and I and I kind of pushed back on that saying that's >> that's really, you know, I said you got to find a balance. >> If I may, dates of March, you know, 20 years ago, they took all the water off
the site, right? They took all the water off the site. We found out that we weren't recharging and in places like Fair Haven where you have pressure of salt water in a sense nature pours it back into two. I take that water out, I divert it, I'm slowly having more salt
water incursion which which causes total problems to the extent that you can put more back. That's good. And the extent that it makes it it places the burden on the homeowner to add that add to an additional cost that that's a genuine concern to have to for
the for the planning board to to address. >> But also h how about looking at things like and maybe it's not even for this but you know I was really frustrated building my house when I was putting a pravel driveway in and that's classified as impervious surface when the truth is
that's actually a drive well a drive well if I build it correctly. Right. So, so the town was assuming that I'm going to put an RCA base, which is not >> right. >> Um, you know, you can infiltrate, but the reality is I would have put, you know, 3/4 in cleaning for 6 to 12 in and
essentially it built us, you know, 800 square foot >> drywall >> drywall. And I was told that that counts against my coverage when I'm going, "Guys, what are you talking about? I'm actually recharging here and I'm doing it appropriately. I'm doing it in a huge area." And so what about where does
things like that fit? >> So the mayor and council, as you're aware, they created a um a subcommittee for land use. >> We've had a couple meetings. >> Yeah. >> And they do run conjunction with the downtown committee that we also have
>> and one of the topics that we're discussing is the current standards for some of this. And I brought up the term impervious coverage. the percentages are such where maybe they need to be looked at for certain zones
>> and then even from a definition standpoint to your point we're counting certain things that other towns don't count >> um like gravel >> yeah and some do but it's just a perfect opportunity to say hey as one mitigating factor >> a gravel drive
>> asphalt driveway when it's a benefit when >> you know what I mean like little things like that can help >> do you have a standard like that for now. Say so many inches of this material, so many inches of that material. So that it's someone like a homeowner saying, "Look, I I'm all for
recharging." But you don't have a standard for that. You're just saying because it looks like this. It looks like gravel. It looks like something over time and you it will come back, but if it's designed properly, it shouldn't. That would be that's going to be the next step off of the ordinance where we
could provide examples for the homeowners and for because we're really looking just to have low impact type stuff. >> And if you look at some of the examples, you know, a grass swale counts. >> Yeah. >> Simply putting, if you're going to build
a patio, do a little grass swale depression and that'll pick up the water instead of running it into the neighbor's yard or or out into the street. um you know, some of these other items, you know, like a vegetative filter strip. If you're going to do a
landscape area in the backyard, there's a way to design it in such a way to, you know, maybe pick plants and material that would soak up some of that water rather than have it just, you know, diverted around the back of your house
and onto your driveway. So, that's kind of the next step. And we do have some good examples. We don't have anything by ordinance, but when people call, and we we talk to these people every day, an engineer will call and email and say, "Hey, Rich, what are you really looking for?" Especially with the drywalls,
we're not looking for some $10,000 concrete structure to be dropped in the ground with a crane. It's like get your landscaper to put some perforated pipe and some 3/4 clean stone and you know
dig a test pit to see if it's you know and then and then it's then we're good and that's >> got to tell you they're big right now and they are 10 grand. I'm doing one and I >> if it's a manufactured treatment >> the the problem is you you can't get the
right infiltration rates with the stone given the regulations. I was actually surprised at how much I have to do right now in this town >> um for for a new build. >> Well, it's based off it's based on your soil. It's based on your water table
and you know your >> per table is >> super deep. >> Soil is great >> and they couldn't get the perk rate >> not not without having a huge huge literally like 20 by 50. It was crazy. So I did I did a structure
>> but um you know so that that's where my concern is is that I get the need for storm water management but I'm also very cognizant of the burden on the homeowner. So I think um
you know and I understand why you know why it's necessary when it hasn't been there. You know, my struggle is just what is the what is the right balance, >> right? And and it seems to me that we're probably out of balance, >> you know, just from just from a burden
in the home, >> you know. >> Who are you working with from the EC on this? Is this with Jesse and Kelly? >> Yes. Yeah. >> And Jesse's way like Jesse, this is kind of her. >> Yeah, she does more like compliance and and all that. So, we've we've had a
couple meetings with them and our and the administrator. >> Okay. Yeah. I don't disagree with it feels as a homeowner in this town like we continue to it's added to our plate the things that we have to manage that might
tend to be seen as a maybe a m municipality issue. So, there are some things that kind of trouble me with that as well. So as a planning board um >> are we I mean we just had you know 15 20
minute conversation about this. >> Well it sounds like the general direction is overall and and correct me if I'm wrong but my my job is certainly put this together because I'm going to write something you know board understands and appreciates the need to
have an ordinance which is tailor made for fair because we don't have large development. So it's a good to address minor development. The concern is once we address those things minor development, will it make it cost prohibitive? Use the example of the
replacement and say the way that can be read is that that's going to add an additional cost. What I hear Rich saying is that really isn't the intent. And what we say perhaps some refinement is needed there. uh if there are additional
concerns while we're on this you can raise those too that will be in another that will be in a subsection which is okay it wasn't in your order but we would like what we think while we're dealing with the things of the future to address >> I think encouraging the pvious
impervious stuff in the um the subcommittees you know nudging that >> yeah would be good >> standards for those types of >> well and and if Look, if you're putting in a driveway, right, you the cost isn't
that different. Then you can shoot the material. And you know, and I was saying this and and Nick, you know, Nick is like, I I just disagree with you. And I was like, Nick, I'm not I'm not using RCA. I'm going to do 12 inches of clean. It it it perks and you know, so you
know, that's an easy opportunity where the homeowner has to do that. And so maybe it's not that much more burdens. So maybe somebody doesn't want the people have a look and they don't they do it, right? I I got it. But like there are other little things. They But like the swailes, little rain gardens are beautiful and easy and you can work it
into a small spot and you can breathe to it and like those are easy things. My concern and and maybe I'm insensitive to it because I'm building a house now and I know what it's costing me to do the storm water management on a single lot. It's quite expensive. So um and and I
didn't have an easy solution to make it less costly for me. So, you know, that's a house that I'm building for profit. So, fine. I worked into my numbers. It it's fine, right? But as a homeowner who may not have that luxury, I think we need to be mindful of what the solutions
for that are. >> So, I haven't shot for a drywall in a while. I'm not very comfortable. How much are they? >> This is going to be about 10 grand what I'm doing on this side. >> What is that? 20 by 50 underground. >> No cover type. we are doing
>> and I'll stop you there just for a second. better think of that because generally what happens because we do this I would say almost we it's in the forefront of the zoning board of adjustments mind and where we where we will talk to the applicant to say you
know you're going to add this new you're going to add an addition we would like you know the roof of just this area because you're also creating new impervious surface we would like that captured dry well we don't set parameters ers because they're
particular ordinance quite frankly to do that to say what we would like you to do is work with our engineer. >> Yeah. >> To find number one, is there a location where this is best to be placed that's convenient to this location down?
>> Yeah. We've got something >> 400 400 yards away. But to do that and then then it gets worked out within here similar to what I'm assuming. Well, here's the thing, too. >> In the in the document towards the end, it talks about different BMPPS
and one of the asterisks that's added is the use of a dry weld. >> Last resort >> is last resort. >> Yeah. >> So, only if you know if a rain garden wouldn't work or >> But why why last resort? >> Then what happens if it's just easier
for me to have my landscape or make a hole, put a bunch of stone in, do whatever, do it. I have to do a regular >> I assume it's the most expensive is the drywall. >> No, I mean the drywall we have to buy some big thing expensive. >> What what Doug Bush is talking about is easy. You you run the you know the
leader into capture extra mount. But if you're talking about something large when you're building a new home you're not now have to tie in every liter. you have to run several hundred feet of perforated material, you know, perforated PVC pipe
to get to a dry well, right? And you know, so now you're tying everything in. So you just created, you know, 1,000 ft of piping that you wouldn't have otherwise needed, right? So >> 1,00t of piping plus depending on your topography. >> So plus plus the graving, plus all the
other things plus, you know, if if the soil isn't sufficient for stone, now you need the structure down there. you know, so it it you know, all of these things just add up. So that in the instance of an addition or taking a couple dry well, you know, taking a
couple liters and just dropping them down in running them five feet to get it away from the foundation and then putting it in a pit. Super easy particular if you got the guy with the shovel and throw myself >> but not super easy for this because you can only use it if you don't do these six other things >> because we're trying not we the the
intent is to try to promote green infrastructure. >> Yeah. through these other BMPs. >> I should say trying to create green more green infrastructure, >> not create create more green infrastructure. So if you're doing a patio, you can use a pvious paver and
have a proper stone bed and that will allow the water to to work into it. >> So there's products out there, there's there's technology out there, there's techniques out there to do it. So, just to kind of re reenter us um at the planning board, we're not going to
solve this tonight, right? So, I think we should probably we should probably figure out um what the message is to to the governing body. >> Well, sound like I thought you summarized it. >> I I before we get there, I got a question for you. So, in regards to site development um plan approvals and all
that, so that's anything an increase of 400, you're going to have to do a site development plan. Anything um increases 400 square feet of impervious coverage, you have to submit a a grading plan and show a BMP.
>> So you got to do this topographic base map site plans, soil borings, >> which you have but you have but think about the process when you submit. You have to go through zoning, >> right? >> You need a current survey. So,
you're going to have you have to show your professional, your architect or engineer is going to show whatever they're doing on that survey anyway. If it's a structure, if it's an addition, if it's a garage that you need architect, >> so there's a lot of that's already being
done. It's just a matter of going doing the next step. >> Yeah. You could put a 400 foot edition on and not need a variance or have to come in front of anybody because you're within all your setbacks on all your stuff. >> But that too, >> but but then we'd have to go do a site,
>> so theography and everything else. That seems like burden on for 400 ft. >> Yeah. >> Your average swimming pool plus your apron and a cabana area >> in excess. >> What do you think you're going to get? >> Oh, it's 8,000,000
ft. is a little bit bigger than a one spot for a one car garage, right? Three car garage is like 1,000 ft somewhere around there. So, so they're going to be doing all of those things for something that >> a twocar garage is usually like 22 by 22. So, >> yeah. >> Yeah. Yep.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you know, again, my concern is just the burden on but from our standpoint is you're doing a detached garage. Where's it going to go? It's going to typically go in the back corner. Who's it going to impact?
two or three neighbors that depends on something. >> So, if there's a way to capture some of that runoff off that roof and dump it into a rain garden, you know, a couple feet off that garage, there's a benefit there.
>> I I I don't disagree, but I think the guy who's putting that little shed in the back or whatever you got going on has to do a bunch of sight plants for it. that's being sold is he's going to put a little rain carved in, but in all reality, he's got to go through all this concepts. I agree with what you're saying. There's nothing wrong with putting there making the stuff go into a
dry well or some kind of vegetation area, but there's a lot of hoops to get through that. But would this be something that depending on the surface? Well, depending on particular project, because now I'm thinking of the process. Could there be something that be
substituted where you would be satisfied that a waiver would be required would be satisfied? Probably not. >> The waiver is at basically the description. >> Yeah. The one thing too to remember is
>> think most folks are already doing this. >> Yeah. >> When they come to us and they want to stick a twocar garage in the back corner, we said you got to you got to you got to give us something. And they do. They provide something to take even if it's to take half the water off the
garage. >> What about a new patio? Something smaller than a garage. No vertical. >> Well, what we're seeing too coming in right now is you're getting the swimming pool with the patio. That's what I'm saying. That's why >> structure or or >> you know these rear structures that are
adding a thousand square feet of roof and the water's just coming and and and those are things we're dealing with. So the solution isn't the expense, it's the the um getting there process of getting there, the testing and so on. >> Well, it's all part of the expense. Yeah.
>> It it just it you know the issue is you regulate on top of regulate on top of regulate is like it may seem insignificant here but we forgot about the 10 other regulations that came ahead of it that you know. So it just it's
super expensive to do anything right. the second you want to touch anything on your property is crazy expensive. So, it's just being mindful of, you know, and we're in a, you know, an affluence community, but there's there is still
plenty of financial >> diversity here and some of these people may it may be a burden for them to do that. And I I I personally don't love the thought of somebody wanting to be able to do something, you know, and is financially unable to do it because
regulations that, you know, they've been living in a certain condition, a certain way for 50 years and it's been okay. I get that it builds up over time. And I I understand that. I just think there needs to be thought given to >> the overall process, >> the overall process and call it. It's
easy to look at this in a vacuum and say this one piece of the puzzle is important, which I don't disagree, but when you're putting it on top of the zoning board, the potential planning board, all of the fees and the lawyers and the things that go into it, it dissuades
any type of move into your property. If you're a business owner, you don't have the deep pockets to be able to do these things. Like, I just think we need to look at this more. So the >> as a whole comprehensive situation >> I think the replacement I agree the replacement stuff seems dimminimous to
me the the pvious impervious could be handled by the subcommittee. This field is not dimminimous >> correct >> this concept. So um >> Doug you'll incorporate it there sounds like there's consensus on the concept >> to to be to be mindful of that. I mean,
I don't know there's a a place to clarify minor development or building of a new house. Yeah, maybe you got to go through all this because you're smitten plans and site plans and stuff. Anyway, you're building a house, you have an architect, you have all that stuff anyway to begin with,
>> but if you're whacking in a patio or a shed or some sort of outdoor barbecue area, have to do site plans and so borings and all that stuff seems a little segmented, right? like new construction, existing build like
>> well you you might refine something as simple as accessory >> well accessory structure versus >> new furniture structure >> partition of x number of square feet right yeah >> rich did this come up in the discussions this detail or this nuance this
distinction >> so at the council level the question was raised about the burden of cost or the process even even in such it's going to be additional work for burough staff because it's got to be
reviewed, >> it's got to be implemented, it's got to be inspected, it's got to be you have to ensure compliance and everything else. The challenge though is even this even the stuff that comes before this board all most of the applications we get are
minor site plans minor subdivisions >> there's no requirements for stormware and we I don't want to say we struggle with that every time but we're constantly like trying to encourage the applicant like the most recent one we had was like they're like we you know
we'll do a rain garden and that's what they show and they and it's taking like half the roof of the back of the existing building. And you know that that's that's a benefit. That's an improvement. And that's that's because especially in
our business district, most of what's out there is in >> so how issue is more management in town forgetting >> how much is what >> like colonial core like crazy Smith
Street like is the reality or or you know uh want a vista that has a super high water table or you know but like h how much of an issue do you guys have foresee I you know if if people aren't right there's limited impervious coverage so
you in theory you have quite a bit of grass most of the soil in fair haven is super high quality so it it percolates very well so h how much of an issue is it really like I guess the
>> most of the issues come up during construction it's the the perception of >> sure >> my neighbors building this and I'm afraid my basement's going to flood or I'm afraid my backyard's going to flood or I'm afraid the water's going to run
off into and it's we walk them through the process whoever's calling try to explain to them it's it's not final graded there's no established lawn it's not landscaped it's a construction site so it looks a bit intimidating
for that neighbor when they live next to something for 8 to 12 months and dealing with all the other um you know the the deliveries and the trucks and all the other it's the inconveniences. So a lot of it ends up
>> going towards the storm water question. Well, >> what's going to happen? Or they're putting in that swimming pool and they're raising up the grade. Well, you have to because you know you you can't have the water run into the pool. Even though they might only be bringing it up this much when it's 10 feet off your
property, the person next to them is saying, "Wait a minute, >> it's going to pitch towards me. >> This looks like it's going to really pitch towards me." But when that drop of rain falls from the sky and it's going to get soaked up in >> it's going to get soaked up 10 feet before it gets very long. >> So those are the types of things that we
deal with. But but you feel as an engineer and you know this certainly better than any of us that the as it like just just the concept of >> I can tell when I came here 18 years ago there was no process for new
construction. There was no process for these types of projects. So what I had implemented was a certificate of occupancy process and that that triggers a a review of what obviously at the zoning but then at the back end prior to co we go out and do a full walk through
of every you know of the property. I'll we'll call out and say listen that downspout can't be going this way. This needs to be rerouted or the grading along the sideyard. I had one the other day. This is not this is not sufficient.
And the builder met with me and he said, "All right, what if I do it this way?" And I had him pull up all the sod and reshape it and and you know, it was a couple hours worth of work for them to do, >> right? But but but if if you're building, you can get that right from the beginning if you know what you're
doing. But like my question is the the impervious restrictions are there to make sure that there's enough pvious ground so that you can recharge, so that you can absorb the water. So, so why on a minor?
>> I think the challenge we're having to do is needed. That's my question. >> The rainfall events we're having are more frequent >> for whatever reason. They're more intense. >> Yep. >> And they're quick. >> Mhm. >> And you get this flash event.
>> And then, you know, >> two weeks ago, >> we were out, you know, in kneeh high water cleaning off storm drains. Everything was just underwater. >> Yeah. We got much rain in such a quick amount of time. >> So
the other thing too is we we feel and we know that D is going in this direction. >> Yeah. >> Obviously they've adopted the major development. They're making all the towns comply with the new rules and rags and we felt as a burrow and with the amount of construction that's going
ongoing. Every street you turn down there's a dumpster. The permits are coming in all day every day. and there's no shortage of, you know, construction going on. Well, maybe we need to strike a balance to see what we can do to manage storm
water >> or at least I hate to use this term, but push the burden back on them to manage the storm water >> because that's really what we're looking to do. And when I go out and meet with if I go out and meet with somebody right now,
maybe they're maybe they are, maybe they're not causing an issue with the neighbor, I tell them, listen, you have to figure out a way to manage your storm water. And that could be through creative ways of putting a pop-up drain towards the center of your lawn and
letting that water perk out rather than have a down spout pointed onto your driveway that is pitched towards your neighbor. It's those little tweaks and balances that we try to figure out. >> Yeah. >> Um the 400 square f feet we thought was a
good resting spot because 250 I think is too strict. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> Um I mean 400 that's where at at that point in time if someone's adding 400 ft to their driveway that's a pretty considerable
that's like 40 by 10 you know. >> Yeah. >> Could be doubling the size of their driveway. And and to answer your question we talked about this at the council level. I mean at the when you guys when it was being formed like so the people closest
to it um was was this >> we talked about process we talked about the the cost and the burden but we we tried to we we felt confident in such a way that what we're looking
for is like low impact type you know >> BMPPS >> the solution >> not the $10,000 >> but like you're If a guy wants to add 10 ft to his driveway and make his driveway low water so his kids can get out of the driveway, they have to have a sight plan for that.
There there's a problem. My hangup is like it's okay. I agree with you. >> Catch the water. Let's do something about the water square feet, >> but let's do one of these things you say up here without all the other >> jump through hoops to get there. >> And when you're doing a house or whatever else might do all that stuff, right?
>> The guy's going to hit 10 feet through his driveway. He's going have to do all that and soil pourings and all that. >> Yeah. It's this the solution is what's fine with low cost. That's rain gardens, swale, whatever. >> Easy way to get there. Is there a way that we can get there quicker than
having to go through >> the challenge? And I've said this too, is there's no oneizefits-all. >> Every project's different and and the zones are different. We've got we've got a lot of different zones, you know, from R5 to R40. in the R5
zones, 50 foot lots, if you're doubling the size of your driveway, chances are you may be creating an adverse or something with with the neighboring property. So, that's that's the challenge, too. But we get it and we did talk about all
this. Yes. >> I mean, we're in plain English, it's somebody builds a a shed with a little patio, we want them doing soil, >> right? >> That's that's how I'm getting it. >> That's the part >> I agree on your R5 or whatever. the bigger driveway, smaller line or whatever, but still address the water
concern like you're talking about with all these solutions. I just don't know if you need to get plans and soil parts for it extreme. >> It seems very >> is there a way to but I guess the challenge is you need to quantify how much water you need to displace and and move or is it sufficient from the
council and town standpoint to say we know we're adding x amount of square footage. Let's just do a 10 x10 rain garden or whatever. Like can you I I don't know like like you said right if you're doing new construction you're doing all those things you need service you need the plot plan you need the
borings you need the things so >> can we live in a world where it can be a one-off scenario are we are we is it manageable for us to do >> modified otherwise none or what about the ratio of lot size to >> to square footage right so it's 400 is
is a one size fit all number but R5 versus R40 mean two very Right. So then if you're looking at percentage of overall lot size then it becomes a different conversation that sort of trigger >> if you're adding percent of impervious additional >> let me rephrase my question too. So in
in the original intent when you guys were putting this together was this kind of stuff percolating to the top and you couldn't come up with a good solution to solve all of the constraints or did it not did it not come up basically?
It it came up. It was discussed. The 400 square foot number rather than a percentage is it's it's easy to determine if if you and your family want to do an addition
instead of trying to figure out percentages because people people struggle with that. We see it even at at the board level. They're they're confused on what the lot coverage is and the building's coverage and all that. Like I I use the example of a phone call
to grow a hall. I'm looking to build a a you know a 10 x10 mud room. You're good. You don't need anything. But if you said, "Oh, we're putting in a 40x10, you know, family room off the back with a with a front porch over the back porch
and a patio." Yeah, they're going to want to see something. Um >> you know even even the bud you get into the discussion of your stairs into it. Are you how far above the you know the
the existing grade are you going to end up my reaction is 400 seems appropriate but well thought out. It's not a perfect solution but I I can't think of one that's better. Right. All the other alternatives have more problems. hard to
calculate, you know, etc. Um, so 400 seems fine. I I I I'm with you guys on the soil boarding for something small, >> right? I I I guess >> just just to talk about the other side.
Um, is the calculation difficult for the construction office to do for for smaller for R5 versus R4? I mean, it the It doesn't I actually don't think it would be that hard to calculate but it's
not the homeowner's responsibility. I think it probably else we have all that tax records and if somebody has is proposing the mud room then's process >> now you have to you have to do an as you have to measure everything on your
property so that compared to your lot area there >> who does the homeowner or the the applicant or the town. >> Yeah. Okay. The applicant. >> So my perspective is driven by a zoning board and it's very confusing for applicants and
>> yeah has to do push back on the applicant and it's and the person who's trying to do these >> rules, >> right? And we have offices that are dedicated to the difficulties
only twice. >> But the one thing you have to remember >> no I'm saying the process is different you know you don't maybe you don't have a department that
can do everything all at once. What you're usually doing is give me your current survey, give me your accurate development on that site and then from there just about everybody can go and then make your calculation. You know, if
you've got if you've got a, you know, a 50 by 100 lot and you've got x amount of impervious surface from the from the house, x amount of impervious surface from the pool, x amount of previous service from the shed, you're pretty you're pretty sure as to what your impervious coverage is, what your
building coverage is, without the planning department going out and taking those measurements and doing a survey. We rely we all rely upon I think all boards rely upon the accuracy and the certifications of those surveys but I I don't know if that's the issue that
you're getting to but you know that will give you what your your building coverages and your impervious coverages where people get a little confused is okay it's not a building but it still qualifies for impervious coverage. It's not a it's not a this but it still qualifies for and that's in your
definitional section. I think this goes be past that to now when you get so much of a disturbance where you didn't need relief before, you're going to need relief. I'm hearing two things. It's going to
increase the cost and in certain projects you really shouldn't have to go through all of those hoops >> to get there. >> Or to get there, yes. So, so if it's so you know and maybe maybe that's
something where you can refine it with again using existing tools not as we'll make this a design variance normally I would have to do this but you can be eligible to get a design variance if it is maybe we go back to percentages
maybe something like that you can do if but again the applicant's going to have to be able to establish that and and then you don't you don't have to go. You don't have to wait to drive up. If you're if if this is what you're doing, if it's an accessory structure, if it is not, as you said before, it's not walls
up. >> It's not vertical. >> If it's if it's the pool, if it's the patio and you do those things, it seems to me if you're putting a patio doing soil boardings seems a bit much. My
>> observation and like we're saying like between clarification and division. I mean, it could be like, hey, anything up to 399, you don't have to worry about this at all. Throw this thing in the garbage. 400 and above, you have to you have to address your water issue, but you don't
have to do plans. And anything a thousand or above because it's a giant addition or a new house or new construction, you have new plans. That's all I'm call >> I'm okay with capturing the water and doing whatever you're supposed to do. >> Well, this is an additional paragraph. The planning board struggled with
Well, I also think that it's going to be heard more in zoning than it'll be heard in planning. So, I I kind of concept of workshopping this with the the land use committee is appealing in my mind because I think that like the people that are going to deal with these residential applications should have
their I'm sure have their voice in this as well. So, >> Oh, without a rich 399 400 to 800 tier. What's your gut reaction
>> based on zone >> based on your either way? >> So we discussed a lot of this and we we we tried to think about a sliding scale with the percentages. The challenge is you've got multiple
zones. all the zones at different percentage maximums impervious whether it's lot coverage, building coverage, etc. Which by the way brings you to another point where like there's a difference if
you're adding 400 feet and that takes you to your max pvious versus if you have 1500 feet that you can add and you're adding 400 so you still have you know 1,100 available right so like it it gets very
>> yeah like the listening recently the governing body has had decades of opportunity to change the zoning code that we currently have and they've not changed Yeah, it is what it is. >> And so if it is a schedule that needs to be put into place based on square footage or based on percentages,
>> I I I see the logic in that. But yeah, it's not for us to decide here. I think it's for the governing body to continue to talk through and if you know, you can't really say it's burdensome to have all these different zones because that's the government chooses us and chooses
them. So >> Doug, do you have what you need to >> Well, clearly No, no. I mean, really, no. I think I think we we had a cost issue. We had a type of construction issue that's going to trigger additional planning that
otherwise you would never have done. Again, cost issue. I think it's I I I don't think I heard anybody on the board say no, we have to address, you know, water storm water runoff and if the D regulations are really geared toward
large development, then we're back to where there will be first a burough have said we didn't address it at all and we clearly see it being addressed in individual applications and selling more adjustment each and every application. Are you
amazed? It would it could it would be better if people knew what those standards were >> and came in with a plan or a request for a waiver or a request for a variance or a request for those things early on.
>> The difficulty and I' I've said this before, you don't really want to have lots of people come before boards, >> right? You know, the whole idea is to cut us out of the process because not
having Yeah. not having to do that to be able to come into the planning department and say, "Here's my survey. Here's my impervious. Here's my purpose. Here's what I want to build. >> Please give me my permit and be able to say, "Yep, >> you're good."
>> Yeah. >> So, Rich, despite the fact that we sort of drilled in on these couple of things, this is progress. >> Yeah. So part and off of what you just said if an applicant came before the planning or zoning board >> you can add a condition >> that you need to get a storm water
management. >> Yeah. >> Administratively we have no mechanism for that right now. >> So what's happened for the last how many years? >> Yeah. Nobody does it. >> We've encouraged applicants to give us something or we know the areas in town
or the properties >> that need something. Have we been challenged? Yes, absolutely. I've had people call and say I'm not required to do >> virtue in your show. >> And I'm like, okay, well, you know,
that's true, but just give us something. And then >> honestly, most people they want to do something, they want to manage it. >> If you explain the value to it's like you're not going to have something. It's not just, you know, you're not going to have to have something that's now
even if it's your own creation, you're not going to have to have that problem. >> The other piece of this too, and we talked a little bit about the process, is we're trying to take the burden off the zoning officer and put it back more on the engineering department and separate the two. So people can go see
the zoning officer, seek their approvals from zoning, and concurrently work through, and you mentioned the other regulations, >> street opening permits, tree removal permits, >> um, dumpster permits, I mean, the list
goes on and on where if we could pull that out of even historic preservation, all you know, all these other different layers, outside agency approval, city. >> Right now, that's all layered in the zone in the zoning
permit where this can all come off and now is going on the engineering review application and it allows us to track it better, monitor it, and and at the end of the day, and Nick Pinsky always said this,
is we're a clearing house. We we need to ensure compliance just like you guys do as board members. you're trying to ensure compliance and that's what we want to do. We want to ensure compliance. We want to be able to check the box that this is sound development and and you're doing
something. And the the other thing too, we did talk about at the council level. This is the first draft and if we introduce it and we've got some hiccups, we can go back and amend. And do I
anticipate this? Yes. But at least we've got something where these projects are coming in right now and we don't have anything and and a lot of it's happening at the board level especially the zoning board where
>> they're doing these projects and >> every I can't remember an application came before the zoning board recent vintage where that where the topic of how does your site drain >> and how much more you know improve your
surface you put have you thought about a drywall most of the folks are because they're there for some other reasons like yeah sure you know I've got the in those instances I've got the machinery there I'm going
to do it >> it makes sense to me >> as opposed to now creating a class where they would never be coming before and now for something like what I would consider an accessory structure, non-habitable dwelling.
You're going to create a a whole another layer of bureaucracy, which I don't think is the intent, >> right? >> But if you do have the standard and you have a check off, you're not going to need it. >> The question is how do you do it without all the red tape to get there, but still
have a codified. So there's a mechanism that adds zoning. >> We're not going to perfect that tonight. >> Yes. But but that that's what it needs to be. Everyone's saying these are good things to do to deal with water. Just >> maybe not not this burdensome in this instance. In this instance, it's okay.
Right. So that's we need it. >> All right. Do you think we have what we need here or do we need a motion for this or is it is it something that >> the motion is framed as follows? Doug, please put together a writing that reflects the thoughts of the board to share with
council concerning the ordinance. I don't think I heard anybody say our core responsibility is is this at odds with the development regulations for the master plan. I think everybody agrees that this is consistent with development regulations and master plan. Now it's a
matter of here's additional concerns >> if you're going forward on these that don't really affect our ultimate mission of yes it's consistent with plan development regulations. Here are some of the discussion points that the board raised. >> Can you repeat that? >> Sure. Here's what here's what happened.
They just not. >> Um well, do we need a motion for that or >> make that motion? >> Um remember that. >> So I got all she was the one that's got to put the
bouncing around. Okay. Mr. Olsen. >> Yes. >> Mr. Newell. >> Yes. >> Mr. B. >> Yes. Mr. Anderson, yes, Mr. Zen. >> Yes, Mr. >> Yes. From from a timing standpoint, uh
council, you need Doug's feedback. Uh >> oh, they're going to move it on the 24th, right? We'll get something out, >> you know, before the end of this week. >> So, we get our packets on Thursday. We have the meeting. >> I'll have it out tomorrow. >> Uh, all right. Back to the agenda. Um,
well, I'm looking forward to direction. Yeah, driving the bus. Um, go back to new business. Uh, there is none on the agenda. I did want to ask, uh, are there any applications coming for December?
>> Uh, there may be. There's, uh, going to be a technical design review committee meeting for Ronto application this Thursday. Um once that happens, I guess Rich will let me know if there's a budget.
>> Okay, good. Um we do have one line item here in old business. Uh continuation of the master plan readings and discussion. I have not seen much or heard much on the master plan since the last meeting. last meeting. I think Brad said he'd be
sending that um survey draft to the um the business administrator to get feedback, but I haven't heard anything of that. >> The last thing we talked about too is potentially for each of the committees
once they were approved having a meeting between now and the end of the year. My concern there is obviously it's >> almost over a year. So were the committees approved? Yeah, >> I said I don't know. I know. >> I we weren't looking for approve councils. Remember that last time we
should notification if you got your members to them, you've given them notification. >> That's that's my understanding. >> I gave them to >> I gave it to >> and I saw I was copying on something that went to I believe mayor on. So I do believe we're we're formed from a from a
from a committee standpoint, right? Should we meet with our sub to meet with the >> planner? >> I think it's the planner that would be reaching out to meet with the subcommittee. Is that >> Yeah, I thought that was my thing that
were that the planner would be engaging with them. Gota I mean that I thought we were doing the whole starting down meeting and then >> I think I think there have been more people I think there have been more people um
suggested than there are spots. So I think the mayor has to go through >> all of them and get that finalized. Um, can we ask the mayor? >> Actually, the mayor or or um the chair possibly. We figured there was some discussion about that if Fred does it or
if the mayor does it because we're we're we're separate. It's a little bit different animal than like the environmental commission. >> I thought that he was just he was just over he was >> not approving. >> No, we were submitting as courtesy. >> Courtesy. Yeah. There's no >> we get to decide who's on the committee.
>> Yeah, >> I think we planning the planning board decides he's on the committee. We were just passing them through to American council with the court. >> Yeah. >> So I guess if they hated somebody and came back this we could say okay fine. >> But but even we say no we're still keeping them.
>> We're still keeping them. >> So the last the last I saw I think some of the some of the committees subcommittees were formed and weren't over subscribed. Maybe there are some that aren't. So in the case that there we have a form subcommittee can we have
the planner reach out to for those >> or get that get that information to the planner we're ready we're ready to work to work with you >> yeah if our committees are ready to go let's have that conversation get going if not then individual committees can have the conversation with
>> this conflicts of the conversation I have with Fred I would just hold up table that He's he's not as talent as he >> I thought I had a work obligation. >> Um, anything else? Anybody wants to
contribute for the master plan? All right. I want to open it up to the public here. >> We'll go right. >> I do have a question. Um, because I I u I perked up when I heard about this 400 square ft thing.
it's going to trigger a mess for everybody. Um, how do you get a waiver? >> It's at the discretion of there. There's no waiver. There's no variance required. It's if you can't for whatever reason
do any of those types of BMBBS like you say I just can't build I we can't get a rain garden to work or we can't get this to work then it's at the discretion administratively for us to take a look at it. >> All right. Well, let me let me just explain my situation. I had always
wanted to put a standalone garage in with a pool. So, I kind of perked up when I heard this discussion at the council meeting, and both Rich and Brian have been through my backyard. All the water runs to my
backyard. All of it. There's nothing that goes any place other than my backyard. So, therefore, why would I have to do something like that in order to fulfill this requirement? because I don't have
water running off my property. I'm actually getting probably some of my neighbors. >> Right. So, your question is not how do you get a waiver from needing to do those if you're triggered? How do you specifically like could bridge come to your property and say you can have a
waiver from it all together because I see how it's running? >> Yeah. I don't want to go through holes and all that kind of stuff. to wave that. >> Well, it depends on the situation. >> You're going to still have to go through the per. >> Yeah. >> You would go through a permitting process and from that advise you
>> trust me, I'll go through a big process with the state of New Jersey >> because I have to go through the DP first >> because of the location of your property. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And you're most likely in a flood plane.
Yeah. >> In the back. >> Oh, yeah. So there it's it's a different process >> and their new raid the real rules are >> banas ban. >> Oh point taken. Thank you. We don't have
an answer. >> But I may not be the only unique situation like that. >> Yeah. Anybody that's woring the war the >> Well, I mean it actually sounds like you got wet wings. I mean what you're talking >> it's a flood plane. Definitely a flood plane. >> Yeah.
>> Those are those are as as Mr. Anderson alluded to. Those are people with stronger regulations than we have. >> Oh, absolutely. >> Absolutely. >> But I mean I'm going to have to do it. You don't have the ability to tell you
and I don't want to do any more samples or anything like that. cuz I'm probably going to have to put in an above ground pool. >> Okay, >> that's my Oh, and also when people cut
down trees, it releases a lot of water >> and that's not taken into consideration in either the tree ordinance or in this plan. >> That's sh I think that you know the example of like the the pool put in the back corner of the yard. I mean, when
you when you cut root structures, not only does this damage the impacts the water um absorption, but it also could force a tree to fall away from the pool that you just put in onto your neighbor's yard or house. So, that should be in the tree ordinance somewhere. But
>> the tree ordinance does try to replace a tree that's been taken down with new trees. So, it's a >> However, they never replaced with a size tree that was removed, right? other >> and there is going to be more water on a
property. >> Yes. >> A large tree is removed. >> Yeah. >> So that's not taken into consideration in this 400 foot. >> Yeah. The best one.
>> Yeah. Um anything else? Any other me? >> No. I'll probably say this at the council meeting. >> Uh, anyone online with a hand up? >> Anyone out there behind the column that I can't see? >> Um,
>> stop. >> Uh, any other questions, comments, comments, concerns from the planning board? Uh, can I get a motion to journal motion? Second. There we go. All approved. All All in favor? I. >> Any opposed?