i call to order the I'm so pleased to be able to say that Call to order the uh Tuesday March 25th 2025 uh planning board zoning board of adjustment of Flemington meeting Uh please rise as you are able
to flag the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all This inerson and virtual meeting is called assurance to the provisions of
the open public meetings act Both adequate and electronic notice of this inperson and virtual meeting is provided by way of publication and the Hond County Democrat and Australian newspapers on or about January 23rd 2025
and January 18th 2025 2019 sorry In addition notice of the meeting was posted on the door of the Burough Flemington Municipal Building located at 38 Park Avenue and any handicap accessible entrances there too posted on the municipal website provided to the municipal clerk and distributed to all
persons if any requesting copies of the state This meeting is being recorded with both audio and video and may be rebroadcast This meeting is a judicial procedure Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board and consider in a decision and the claw of
appropriate judicial hearing must be maintained at all times Thank you Um Cara at home can we um can you do a roll call please yep absolutely I can take care of that Mayor Carol I'm here Council person Visaro
here Mr Campion here Uh Chairwoman Gifin here Miss Whitesman here Miss Swingle here Mr Scho Mr Schlang Schlanger is excused I understand Mr DNA here Mr
here Mr Hayne here Attorney Kazinski here Uh Mr Clerico here Miss McManis here Mr Troutman here And Mr Sordella here Thank you Um right before we get
into our agenda um I already have to change it Um so um I would like if somebody could um can I have a motion to change amend the agenda i make a motion to amend the agenda to add in nominations and election of a new vice chair since Jim
resigned few weeks ago Thank you Do I get a second on that we have to vote on that We do all in favor for that one Yep That's fine All in favor i make I make a motion to um nominate
Jeff Dashman as vice chair Second Sorry Everybody wants to second that I know right all right So we've got I've got mayor and councilwoman uh motion and second Uh Mr Dash do you accept the
nomination yes Okay Any other nominations okay Roll call Mayor Carol yes Counciloman Facero yes Mr Campion yes Chairman Gifin yes Miss Whitesman
yes Miss Wingle yes Mr Shob yes Mr Dashna yes And Mr Eckle yes Okay congratulations You're sitting in the right spot Thank you You want to say anything i'm good Okay Want
to give you the option all right Let's move along with the rest of the agenda then Next item is resolution 202506 which is appointment of conflict attorney to deal with um item 10 11 um Mr Sordillo I think everybody
on the board um received information about Mr Sordillo and um so does anybody have any concerns um before we move forward with a vote for resolution to appoint Mr this day for this purpose Questions comments
concerns All right Need a motion a second I make a motion Second Who was the second was that uh I call Okay Okay Mayor Carol yes Councilwoman Visero yes Mr Campion yes Chairman
McGiffen yes Miss Whitesman yes Miss Swingle yes Mr Shob yes Vice Chair Dasha yes And Mr Yes Okay All right You're in it Joe There's no
getting out of it now The window and see if you see cats in the cemetery Melissa did you want to share that with us or the car oh sorry Fascinating to know but it's in the
cemetery All right Okay All right our next item item three is a time for public comments As always this is a time for public comments for items not currently on the agenda There's anybody in person Oh I'm going to I don't see
any raised hands online Um well there's no other attendees other than the panel which would show up here Put that there Um being none we'll
move on to item four mayor comments please Um I just want to um bring everybody's attention to council meeting last night which will be on YouTube probably in another day or two Um the
council president announced during his comments that the um retail and service ordinance that Plain Bird put forward last year and the council
tabled indefinitely was going to be taken over by the council um specifically uh councilwoman Anglehar Councilman Levit and himself and that they would be working on that and then
submitting it back to the planning board Um I did respond to him that in 2023 when I put forward an ordinance to repeal an ordinance that the prior mayor
had put forward directly uh creating a housing overlay on Route 12 that the same council woman uh publicly objected to creating an ordinance from the council rather than
from the planning board And then a former member of our planning board showed up at the public hearing and likewise chimed in that all ordinances dealing with zoning should be coming only from the planning board And I did ask the question rhetorically what has changed
um the other thing that I brought that I'm not sure the entire planning board knows is that our chair of the planning board did request a meeting weeks and weeks and weeks ago with the council president to discuss that retail and service ordinance and he
not just declined but refused to meet with her Uh last night he said that that was his prerogative Um that he was going to choose who he meets with I think um elected officials have an obligation to meet with pretty much anybody who asks for a
meeting even our non-constituents but certainly a constituent and certainly a member of our board and certainly a chair of one of our boards So I am um I'm a little nonposted over all of this and I would urge all of the members of this body to
um watch the beginnings of that council meeting when it comes up through uh Councilwoman Fisaro's comments which followed uh that discussion for lack of a better word Um but you know I mean it's his
opinion my opinion Um you know I don't know how all of you feel about this but there was a lot of work done on that Um we were willing to go back to the table and take back their comments and continue plotting through it And he did start by saying he thought there was a lot of really good stuff in that
ordinance Um but he wouldn't go into any detail about what they objected to Um I think the lack of understanding about our town compared to a Lambertville or a Milford or a French town or Clinton is that we are not a
river town We are a county seat um that competes for on our main street uh with attorneys And I I don't mean that pjoratively at all but the business of the county is in town and you know we
have a lot of lawyers taking up a lot of valuable Main Street time and other and other offices and all of them roll up their sidewalks when the county closes at 4:30 So you know you can fill them all up You can have lots of vibrant attorneys offices and real estate
offices and architects and whatever but it's dark at night and they're not open on weekends And that's really the bottom line about what we were trying to address uh in the ordinance and and you know find places that were more that more conducive for that where
it wasn't going to affect you know you go walking at night on Main Street and there's lots of like lots of lights and then it's just dark because it's it's offices So I'm uh I'm you know we'll see what happens And I just wanted to just let the planning board know that occurred
last night And like I said I just uh urge you all to just check out the first little half an hour of the meeting I I appreciate your support mayor for the lack of meeting um from the council president Um I don't take that personally I just take it as a
chair item It's not to me It's a chair And also I take that um on behalf of the whole board like you say the committee that did the work at the time I I would also like to point out if uh if the council president or other council members are listening they can pass this on that in the spirit of what we were
trying to do there um a lot of them had had photos taken recently dark called Mr pops Um and I don't know if every everybody was remember that that came up last year for us that um they wanted to put something different there The the we
were almost threatened that um if we didn't allow that to go through there'd be a lawsuit against that but we stuck to um implementing the ordinances as they were written and as we understood them for the good of the town We didn't allow that to go through and then now we
have a retail we have a new retail business in what he was saying and that's the intention of where the ordinance was going But he was saying last night several times that we were going to be sued the town was going to be sued if we allow that ordinance to go through That's the first time I'd heard that Like people talk about suing the
planning board and suing the town all the time All the time and you know okay you know and uh well I mean I I I don't even know how to comment on that I hadn't heard anything Our attorney
hadn't heard anything um about being sued So um you know people can talk about it but but I I I will say on behalf of the board hopefully if anybody wants to say anything else please if I speak incorrectly for you but I'm totally still open And our job is to
work on zoning for the good of the time work on allies implement them as we um are able um and as we see fit Um and um but we're still open completely open to working with whatever the council wants to
achieve in town Um all of us are just here for the good of the town at the end of the day and want the best for our town and seeing Main Street also That's it And I I think uh Oh you know I did tell everybody that everybody got
moved up right that was last meeting Good Okay Thank you That's it All right Thank you Um item five council comments please Uh in addition to what the mayor has stated um level of disappointment as
I am a member of the council um I have not been privy to any of these discussions amongst the other council members Um I've deliberately taken myself out of it Um I'm all about transparency and people being able to see the sausage being made in public and
the public being able to see us have discussions and work through issues and define what's the best approach for the the bureau to take um and just generally disappointed Uh in addition to that the
the budget approval and introduction has been moved back that will now be handled over to special meetings Um we will be I will be working with the chair and vice chair to fine-tune what's in there for this planning board Um and
I really welcome and and hope that the community opens their eyes and gets engaged in what's going on and is asking for clarity for truth and for things to happen in sunlight And that's it
Um thank you Can I just add to your comment and I just mentioned that like the the the budget you mentioned we underspent our budget last month last year as a board just to let what was um what was allowed and we underspent that and um a lot of the things that this board has been trying to do with the
checklist and other items is with the intention of saving money for the town like making meetings go quicker having the checklist minimizes the amount of hours the engineering clerical has to spend doing those complete assignments so therefore that gets passed on to the applicants and
And we did that We did that underneath We we we did that last year and we still came in under budget So if you hear that anybody out there or anybody on the planning board please be aware We did not go over the budget We aren't out there spending on drunken There are
there are accusations being made from some of the council members that the budget is way over way overcharged Um so and you know personally now going and auditing several of our professionals bills because to make sure
that they were coded properly Um for example our planner is the only the only professional in the town hired by both the planning board and the council So you know she's been doing an awful lot of work on behalf of the council on the
Union Hotel project and that should be charged to the council and not the planning board And yet the council line item was only used I think I think you only charged $2,883 or something like that And that's just like tells me that it got taken out
of the wrong place So I am personally auditing the bills right now to make sure that um you know what what what should have gone where got there to like stop stop people from reading line items
and not really understanding what they're reading in the budget That that's it Okay Thank you All right We'll move to item six HPC comments Dennis you have you had a meeting since we last met I believe Yes So we had a meeting last week and uh two items I
wanted to mention One we are once again pursuing this state historic CLG certified local government designation based on John Hatch's conversation with the state historic preservation
commission We need to tweak our historic preservation ordinance um to get CLG approval They're minor tweaks Um John's going to work with Beth on the process and what's needed to draft the ordinance change which would
have to go through the burough council and the planning board So we we're trying to get that we're we have CLG designation you know as soon as we can this year but we're excited about that Um the other thing I want to mention uh
we are having the historic house tour on June 21st We're really excited We have five new homes this year on the tour We also have the historic courthouse and the jail cell block And we also got the old egg auction um for the tour this
year And we will have two trolleys We're always looking for volunteers Anyone that volunteers they get a free ticket So if you're interested let me know Or if there's anyone in the audience that's interested hpcistoricflemington.com That's it for me Can I just add one
thing to Dennis's report um this the Hunter County Historic Society will be opening um a they're going to start doing um exhibits They've had a permanent exhibit up for years and that is changing now So there is an an
exhibit opening on June 14th So it will be open for the house tours and it's uh basically things out of their archive collection that have to do with weddings including showing six historic wedding dresses um that go back most of them are
back into the 1800s um top hats and uh dowy items and travel items and calling cards and things like that So um I they'll be open also I don't know if they're part of the the list officially Dennis but um we've
notified them So I hopefully that sounds great Thank you It's exciting because they're going to start doing exhibitions like either two or three or four a year Uh changing that whole downstairs area So and having open hours every Saturday afternoon Great
sign of the of other entities in the town feeding off of what the HPC and the house tours are doing and opening up and seeing that it's a great time to be open and showcase the town I love it Excellent All right Dennis you have anything else no that's it for me
All right thank you All right we'll move on to item seven professional reports Um I don't think I have any uh new 22 specific information but I I would say things that are ongoing is working on the affordable housing plan
and I'll be here in the month of April to talk to you guys about how that will be structured and and then we'll be working on adoption of a plan prior to June 30th to make sure they can submit that to the state as as is required Um I if it hasn't happened already I I will
say that um your affordable housing obligation that was executed by the council via resolution that should be approved any day by the court Um I don't think that order has been issued yet or perhaps it just hasn't made its way to me yet Um and that that's sort of as
expected but I would say it's still a good thing Um so now that that phase for Flemington is over your obligation is confirmed we'll move forward and prepare the plans That's one thing The other aspect of state planning that is just ongoing is cross acceptance Um and I
think Hunter County is is leading that effort as well Um I haven't uh I haven't participated in that thus far but it's it's an ongoing process that um that's going to be up I did go to the
state planning commission's hearing at the county I think I was the only elected official there I don't think there were more than 25 people there Um some planning people some curious people you know people from different planning boards around the state It was a very
disappointing turnout U but you know again um they just keep talking about carrots It has no teeth Um no you know I mean I brought up the disconnects in my comments about the fact that the D will not allow
the RTMUA to grow at all as far as sewer capacity and yet are foring in this through the DCA 15 or,800 COA units on them and they have no capacity And you know the guy said well there's not much you can do
about it They said yeah you could recommend cutting both their budgets until they get along you know but uh that's you know I didn't even think about you know our conflict attorney is the attorney for township saying all this stuff but yeah
I got really snarky I mean everybody else was like "Oh this is let's protect the environment." And I'm like "Okay let's protect the environment." and you got to do like this whole co thing but to the safe and I'm just you know frustrated over the fact that nothing is
nothing is I mean that state plan is the state plan from 2001 Yeah There is no changes So I can tell it's a very it has not worked out to be a sub substantive change or a process that's going to result in a lot of but but people don't have their dander up like they used to
being called like urban something which we are now being called the urban fringe or something like that with part of Ron Township and you know 20 years ago we were all out with pitchforks for that Now it's like it's got no taste it's got no cloud nobody cares You promise us carrots and they're they're crappy
because we're so tiny right the carrots go to the big cities as they always do and we get the peelings So it's like not a baby carrot It's not even killings It's not worth anything worrying about I don't think All right
Um on another note we have a consistency review to do for council but Madam Chair if I could just really quickly um I just want to let everybody know I I know we're in a bit of a transition without Eileen here and and it's it's uh upsetting that we lost the other
potential but um I can keep dealing with the agenda um I can help with minutes and we can transcribe from the audio that's being um taken right now Um unfortunately I've had to do this for other towns before um because these
secretaries are few and far between at least good ones that's for sure Um so uh we might want to think about and we could talk offline but if anybody has any ideas uh we could reach out to uh the attorneys for the open applications make sure they know what's going on I
don't know where her emails are being forwarded to Um but so things they're not Eileen's emails are being bounced back with a message saying uh do not do not use this email address Call B call Burough Hall Okay All right So whatever
I can do to kind of help until we're there I just want to let you know And if it would help to reach out uh I know we have a list of open applications If it would help to reach out to the attorneys let them know what's going on I'm happy to do that So whatever you need just let me know Thank you I'd appreciate that It's very helpful Um in terms of this
consistency review Carla did tell me we have an ext We do have it ready I did forward the resolution Um we do have everyone here Be best here So it's really up to uh up to you Madam Chair as to how you want to proceed Did everybody I did as um as
Cara said I've been trying to catch the things and I don't and send them out Hopefully they all got out to people I'm sorry When you say the consistency review do you mean the statement no the ordinance that council Oh I'm sorry Okay So Okay It's a zoning ordinance for
a brewery and um it was part of part of the big part of pulled some stuff from the big ordinance that the ordinance we did last year I did believe I hope I sent it round and everybody everybody received this I sent round what we could
um did everybody have a chance to look at it did everybody feel they had to look at Carla did tell me today that we would be able to do it at the next meeting if people felt more comfortable and still be within the time for them to do it before their public hearing So if people don't feel comfortable going over
it the only question I would ask is there any is this this is coming out of the stuff that we put back to council yes Correct Has anything changed from in here from what we've recommended to council got literally pulled literally pulled out the brewery distillery
portion of that ordinance and created its own ordinance for in the HR in the HR Okay So yes it's it's it's as we wrote it just a small part of what we wrote last year So in terms of that it shouldn't it should be a no-brainer really There's nothing changed except
it's just smaller than we were originally going to do last year That's all Absolutely The master plan from 2022 the land use element recommended modernizing some permitted uses We recommended incorporating additional uses that would make the burrow more attractive such as restaurants and
entertainment generally Um I can if you give me a minute I can confirm the language for the brewery or the distillery specifically but um those changes that we had worked on previously were intended to facilitate uh the recommendations in the master plan Given that this is one piece of
that uh I do recommend that the board find that this is not inconsistent with the master plan Right It was section seven Yeah I mean all it seems is that we're adding under print permitted What they put in here was permitted principal
use adding brewery and then adding under accessory use the stuff that we put in about popup events and those kinds of things Absolutely not good But I don't know if anyone else I mean I looked at it before that's that was my only question was had it deviated
from what we had No it's literally check I would say cherrypicked but kind of like yeah it's our wording they didn't change that they just didn't include everything and the car did write as a resolution so we could do it and I could say we could send that on to them
Um have everybody feel Did anybody else on the board feel strongly about this and read it or not get a chance to read it and feel strongly they don't want to vote on this tonight anybody online dennis Melissa ready to vote I'm good Ready to vote Okay Okay I hear that All
right Then I'm going to make the motion that we find Hold on Ordinance 20 2025-09 uh not substantially inconsistent with the burough's master plan and did not have any and we do not have any recommendations
I'll second All right Dennis seconded that And this we need to address the agenda Oh well done I make a motion to amend the agenda to add that It's actually there We just kind of hopped around Yeah
we hopped around a little bit It's under nine I see car wash There was a couple amendments Unless I put one Might be the old one [Music] You got You've got it on yours You don't
have it on yours Oh you did do that and I didn't get to Okay It's okay Listen we're all doing our best right now We're We're a man down We changed this twice in 24 hours so I apologize This is going to be boring
It's gonna go down in history and it's not going to be the fastest way So I'm going to withdraw my motion right and well then we can do the amendment All right Well I made the motion to amend All right I'll second it Oh do all in favor all in favor i
Now I move that we find Hold on I want to make sure we get this right Um that's ordinance 20250 not substantially inconsistent with the burough's master plan that we do not have any recommendations to the governing body A second
Okay Mayor Carol Um yes Councilwoman Visero Yes Mr Campion Abstain Chairwoman Gifin Yes Miss Whitesman Yes Miss Wingle yes Mr Scho yes Vice
Chair Dashner yes Uh Mr Eckle yes All right Thank you We'll get that sent over to council um ready for your public hearing Um thank you Right Let's Oh professional reports I We We still
didn't come out professional reports officially did we i'm down You're done Well I don't think bother Although You don't have anything Um Jay do you have anything other than what's on the agenda nothing for me Perfect Then let's
move on Um to ask Cara Cara do you have a report link no it's okay Just what just my comment about whatever I can do to help Perfect Thank you Much appreciated Um then let's move on to what is now item nine approval of the minutes for February 25 2025 regular
meeting I did issue those Um Een was nice enough to write those for us before she left Um any questions comments amendments changes that need to be made to those that were sent around by anybody good Can we get a motion thank you Okay
Mo who made the motion jeff No Visaro second Okay All right Everyone is eligible but for Mr Eckle So Mayor Caro Yes Counciloman Visero Yes Chair Gifin yes
Mr Campion yes Miss Whitesman yes Miss Wingle yes Mr Shob yes Vice Chair Dashna yes Uh Mr Hayne yes Okay Right New item 10 is resolution 202507 which as is
already listed on the agenda is going to be finalized and adopted at the next meeting So that's that's table to the next meeting April 8th 2025 with no further notice Um item 11 Here we go Right let's get to some business Item 11 complete their
Spark Car Wash LLC application 202502 block 49 lots five and six Um application for preliminary preliminary and final major site plan with bulk variances Um engineer Clico has done a
wonderfully detailed report for us um on this completeness Can you summarize that for us please Bob um well yeah basically the you know the report outlines some elements of of the application There's some unique elements in that This involves essentially one principal
property and uh extending and proving to extend onto an adjoining property Um that's the lot six is the principal property and lot five is the very large property It includes the mattress store Uh it also includes parking It was previously leased to McDonald It also
from the information I have available is somewhat limited Includes part of the TD Bank and the access driveway in from Rael Avenue TB Bank So a lot of the the commentary here is really to have the gather up and present a plan right now
just had a plan to develop the lot six tear down the Redcraft car wash install uh a I'm sorry tear down the Red Crab restaurant install a car wash with exterior uh stations uh and have various access driveways and elements that
extend over onto lot five indicating just from a procedural standpoint they have to define if they're looking to merge those lots or if they're looking to adjust the boundary line or if they're looking to modify the plans or all the improvements end up on lot six which is where the restaurant currently
is Um they're common owners at the moment Um that may not be the case going forward but they at the moment they're the same owner owns both properties And again on lot five there's a lot of incumbrances from things that have happened in the past And our checklist requires if the lot's part of the
application they got to show us everything that's going on on the lot So this will be an opportunity for them for us for the ver to have a just a clear document as to exactly what's on that property what elements are left over for this applicant to use as part of this application They certainly have an
abundance of parking uh on there but um again there's no accounting of exactly who owns what what and where kind of thing So that's a a lot of what's going on here Uh there was I saw two other variants I didn't get a chance to talk to Beth about it but they're seeking a
variance to put a kiosk in the front of the building which is an accessory structure We don't permit accessory structures in the front yard But there's also if you look deep carefully at the plan uh there's actually two what I think are two additional uh accessory structures which are um ordering
stations that have canopies over them and would be there to qualify structure Um so I'm pointing out that they have to amend the application to seek additional variances relief for that and the rest of it is just sort of the meat and potato stuff of what's here and what's not here Somebody may qualify for
waiverss Uh they didn't request it so I didn't offer that as a recommendation Um the applicants certainly uh and they contacted my office actually want me to ask have some questions So they're going to kind of go through some of this stuff and believe they set that up for Friday
Um and there was two items on here One they were asking me to for a waiver from doing an environmental impact statement I didn't feel comfortable recommending it that way to be granted I said you probably should deny it until unless you get some recommendation from the environmental commission They don't need one Uh they have submitted a traffic
report They have submitted a storm water report but there could very well be other elements of the site the environmental commission might be interested in Don't know Uh so I'm recommending you deny that uh waiver Uh and there was one item they would need a partial waiver on They didn't ask for it
but it's one we typically grant Um they have all the documentation on the site in the area they're developing but some of the other data Oh no Is that Are we okay yeah Okay So we um extend out um 200 ft beyond the site and
I I recommend you weigh the 200 foot aspect of it So it's all it's all outlined in a report If you're if you're in agreement um then your action would be outlined on page three of the report which is to um uh grant a partial waiver
on item I 18 Um grant a temporary waiver on item uh 16 which is they're asking for preliminary final One of the checklist items for final is for them to submit an asphalt plan The presumption there is they don't apply for final until they built everything So officers
are applying up front which they're entitled to do um that item has to be would need to be waved and again recommending item T that it denied the waiver for the and then the last thing I listed are all the items if you want me to read them all but in the letter all
the items that would be incomplete I ask Melissa Sling who's chair of the environmental commission are you guys going to be reviewing this at your meeting next meeting yeah it's on the agenda for the next meeting okay I sent saying to her with God that
I don't feel comfortable waving an environmental statement on that property with particularly with the use that's proposed with the use of the water and I think that's something I need to person I think we need to move insist on any
comments from anybody else I must admit I I feel like I need more assistance I think is there anybody there on behalf of the applicant not No Okay I just had that one question earlier was
that when I think a year or two ago when McDonald's came before us when they put those turning lanes in I thought part of that was that they could exit through the back is when they were doing the turnaround and the pickup stuff that
part of that traffic flow I thought they were said in that application do a detail review and get it stuff like that My recollection is that their plan shows that there is a connection out the back Still have that or they're not work that's yeah let's not talk about the
application itself too much Uh we'll wait till it comes actually before us I think Mark's comment was just that we might have to pull the resolution for that to make make sure that there's nothing in that related to that lot or the access through that lot Wasn't there well they did submit some backup
documentation with the application Uh again I haven't reviewed that in detail I don't the particularness of this I can't tell you I'm just talking about the checklist requirements How does anybody else feel about the completeness well I don't think it's I don't think it's complete I mean it's not complete yet Well I'm confused about
exactly what they're doing and where So I feel that needs to be addressed before we can deem it complete But like Bob's comment about does do we need to provide do they need to do a subdivision here do we need to identify exactly where they are better before we can move forward i think is the I most concerned about that
lot issue Yes You don't win because and the reason I raised that is because we got into issues at the very last minute with Liberty Village with similar things about ownership and plot and lots Well I outlin four possibilities Um they need
to pick which one they're doing I think I think looking at the plan it's not exactly clear I think they're attempting to define another lease area on lot five that would be used for the car lot Um it doesn't appear from the plan that it's
exclusive So there's a there's a lot of minutia of detail here has to be so I mean my my thought at this point is that it feels like it's incomplete It feels like the applicants already reached out to Bob's office for a meeting on Friday The issues in his review letter could be
discussed these other issues you know the access question that Mark raised and some of these other questions can be raised with them and then they can you know and I think resubmit with everything they need We can then if necessary you know then that point them complete I I don't even know if we need
to um grant the waivers at this point We can handle the waiverss at the time of termination Yeah let's do it all at once We're trying to simplify and keep all action at one meeting So at this point I think the motion if everybody agrees would be to deem the application
incomplete uh stop the clock They'll have their meeting with Bob on Friday and then uh they can resubmit everything that's addressed in Bob's letter and hopefully be deemed completed the next you know whenever they resubmit indication that they're actually buying the
site or is it going to be another land lease like TGIF had well they're list the owner's listed here and they're listed as the applicant I don't know there was any representation that they were somehow purchasing this um
again I didn't get into the weeds are but I don't I don't I didn't nothing jumped off the page said they were you know they're just the applicant okay I'll move to team the application and complete sorry I'll second who was a second
thank you Mayor Carol yes Councilwoman Visaro yes Uh Mr Campion yes Chair Gifin yes Miss Whitesman yes Miss Wingle yes Mr Show
yes Vice Chair Dashna yes And Mr Eckle yes Since there was a request for a waiver just clarify that your your motion included denial of that request We're not going to grant any waivers until until and if they and if they want
for waivers then they'll ask you a chance to prior All right So will um will Bob's meeting car with them on Friday to suffice for passing on the information or do we need to contact them separately also to let them know i will reach out let them know it was
deemed incomplete I suspect they probably expected that since no one's here and since Bob had his letter and they have the meeting Friday but I could reach out to council and just let them know that's what happened and uh let them know we'd like to see everything come in one fell uh swoop of resubmission and then we'll deal with it
at that point Okay Thank you very much Thank you No problem All right let's get on to some other business Item 12 completeness public hearing over Domen LLC application 202501 block 45 lot 22 may car
So we'll let you know if anything exciting happens later before they leave Uhhuh Um there's an issue that the board might want to amend their agenda to address because in the interim before you have a
board secretary we have plans on another matter that needs signatures of a board secretary So I think we talked about the possibility of having a board member act as the recording secretary or interim
recording secretary so the plans can be signed And that's why mostly because we're women and we could be the secretaries No member because that's a planning revenue Let me just bring car up to date on that Cara
that is a set of plans here from another application that normally would be signed by Bob myself and um the secretary as we do not have an active secretary on the books right now [Music]
Um um Joe was suggesting that we could nominate somebody else on the board to be a second signature for those so that we can get them signed tonight for them Yep Yeah The MLUL provides for a recording secretary that's a board member as well So you could certainly
make a motion in a second and um appoint someone to act in that capacity Um not a bad idea to have anyway um in instances where things need to be done quickly Um and of course until we actually have a actual board secretary they have to be a
full voting member because we only have here in the room to sign anything full voting board members are Mr Josham is given Mr Saro myself u Mr Hayne and Mr Echo are alternates one and two So if it has to be a full voy member we're really
low here Um so it's it's I'll leave it up to the board if you want to wait Um or or in the alternative we could appoint someone that may not be there
and I don't know if uh Mr Mr Gunberg wanted to take the plans with him tonight but someone could come in and sign tomorrow and they could be picked up I mean you know it's really operational from all of your perspectives Chris Messer left the box here tonight Miss Winkle you're in your car Can you
come in i'm in I'm in a parking lot until 8 until Okay Oh you're waiting for one of your kids to get out of there You can't do it I mean I could I'm just I mean
it's almost 8 o'clock now Can you swingle and and do that yeah I could do that I could swing past It'll take me I'm in three bridges so it'll take me about 20 25 minutes to get to Burough Hall You'll be here for a
while and we can take you All right So do I need to um call for an amendment to the agenda to make that vote or can we just Yeah Right Can I have a a motion to amend the agenda to add in an item to make Mr
Mr Secretary i so move Sorry I'll second Can we do that all in favor yep All in favor make a motion to name Melissa Swingle as a temporary recording secretary I'll
second it Sorry Melissa Accept That's what you get not being in person Mayor Carol Yes Councilwoman Fisaro Yes Mr Campion Yes Chair Gifin Yes Miss Whitesman Yes Miss Wingle And
you have to say yes Mr Show Yes Vice Chair Dasha Yes Mr Eckle Yes All right Thank you all very much Appreciate it Well
because Mike is in here All right We'll definitely move on to what is now item 12 Well it may not 12 I added it in the wrong spot 13 catch up in the end um which as the
astute you may know is actually completeness/public hearing LLC application 202501 because we need to first address the completeness for the additional v dev variance that you now require Yeah
Want me to give a little spiel and then give us real as you can so we can all get out So funny thing happened after being complete at the last meeting that we were here Um we filed this application and there'll be testimony that my client
filed this application based upon the zoning map that was online that this was in the CB district The application was prepared based upon the zoning map that was online for the burough that it was the property was in the CB district It
was deemed complete with all of our understanding that the property was in the CB district And lo and behold when Miss Mcmanis's office did their planning review it's now in the TC district which required us to revise our application to request additional relief of a D1
variance rel4 variance relief Um Mr Clerico provided the updated completeness review We uh made submissions in response to that completeness review And I'm happy to report that he indicated in his most
recent report uh recommendation that the application be deemed complete because you already granted the one waiver uh dealing with the site easement in the state do right away which we can't even provide you So um I I think it's a
simple motion to deem the application complete based upon Mr Clerico's most recent correspondence Before we move ahead I want to make for the record um Cara Kazinski has recused herself on this and Mrs Silo is now our attorney
for this matter Yes I will take over Thank you Madam Chair And I will take over the duties that Carol was saying Thank you So having heard from the applicant on the completeness item um Barb amended report does that Mr Gber
stated what he said that's what the letter says Okay So um discussion for the board on whether to deem this complete for the additional varian anybody have any thoughts nay or
indifferent Okay so um I move that we deem it complete There we go Second Thank you Do we uh Okay Roll and I apologize on names I'm still just
So um we're going to Mr Campion Yes Miss Griffin Yes Miss Whitesman Yes Miss Swindle Yes Mr Sh Yes Mr Schwang Schlagger He's here Sorry Mr
Dona Uh here Yes And Mr Eckle Yes passes actually because we have uh it's Mr Schwen is missing So Oh okay Just thank you Absolutely Thank you Please call me
out Still learning who's ever who's You don't have people Great I thank you So with no further ado we'll move on to the public hearing for Navis LLC application 202501 block 45 lot
52 for use variance and to construct two family Thank you I provided proof of service of the of proof of service and of the notice of hearing and publication of the notice of hearing and as a board attorney confirmed that there's
jurisdiction Yes ma'am I reviewed the the public notice in the packet and in all is acceptable and the board has jurisdiction to hear this application Thank you So thank you This is our application to construct a two family uh
duplex on an existing vacant lot that is located in the TC zone And it's a unique piece of property because um it's right on Route 12 Although it's called Six Parker Avenue for some reason it's
really on State Highway Route 12 and it consists of 23 acres So it's actually already an undersized lot of 20,000 square ft Um there's a pre-existing lot width of 57.32 feet where 100 ft is required
Property is currently vacant except for existing foundation um which remains from a prior residential structure So we're proposing a a new 2,282 square foot two family dwelling on the premises using the existing driveway
opening from Route 12 um that is there Um it'll be served by public water and public sewer and we do need various relief uh which one is a D1 variance to allow a two family dwelling uh a single family dwelling and a two family
dwelling were permitted in the CB zone Now they're not Um the uh construction of the proposed two family dwelling will be in the TC zone We have additional relief of a D4 F variance I'm not going
to give you those numbers because we recalculated them and they're actually a little bit better than that but we still require a D4 variance and Mr Nuser will provide the details on that and various um pre-existing and proposed uh C variances Rather than me go on and on
why don't we get to the testimony i have three witnesses this evening Sarah Maldonado who is the principal of Novaomas LLC the applicant Um Chris Nuser will be our engineer and planner And what I plan to do is present him first for engineering then present Mr
Marian after him for architecture and then go back to Mr Nuser to finish on planning But I'll qualify him in the beginning both as engineer and planner And with that if you want everybody sworn at once or one at a time whatever you prefer I I defer to the chair We often do all at once that it's done We
know it's done and then everybody's cleared and then they can because often we have Absolutely So yeah Can you can make sure that you're visible on the screen there please um anybody giving testimony stand behind me perfect Thank you All right Would you
please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm the testimony you're going to give this evening is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth no I do Okay I I guess uh when we go through each witness we'll have them state their name for the record That's fine So first of all we'll have Miss
Council So um if you can please state your name Sarah Maldonado And what is your position with Novais LLC i am an owner together with my father Samuel Maldonado And what type of company is Yogaos LLC
we work with real estate Real estate What's been your experience how long have you been doing that business um we've just been doing it a couple years here in Flemington We have done um a couple of rehab projects taking
properties that were not in livable condition for example getting them up and being able to sell them again So this would be our first new build Okay So this is the first vacant piece of property that you've actually purchased So when did you actually purchase the property last year And when you did your
due diligence did you take a look at the zoning map online uh to make sure that you were going to be able to do what you could do yes Since we only plan to do residential we um looked online found the zoning map and found that this
property fit to be able to do um well was zoned for single family and duplex We knew that it might require a variance for the duplex um for for some of the sideard relief Correct And that's what we originally applied for Correct
Exactly Yeah Um and but we found out that it's actually been reszoned after well before you purchased it but um in 2023 to the TC district Correct Correct So um what is your intention with
respect to the property how what do you want to do in terms of the build so we um our intention is to build a duplex to make more uh housing for the Flemington area Um we are looking to either rent or
sell of course depending on what um offers we're able to to achieve there But So you haven't made up your mind yet whether it would be a a rental property or um just selling yet not completely No That's all the questions I have I mean
we can uh I'll probably be reaching back but that's all the questions I have basically Okay Well then we usually go to our professionals Questions for this witness please you have any i have no questions I don't
All right Then I go to members of the board Anybody on the board have um questions for this witness please okay Um I do I have a question Um you said that the to check the applicable zoning when you bought the
property you just check the online map Did you contact the zoning office at all in town no Okay All right That was a question Thanks Great There we go I like it Anybody online yeah Well Madam Chair that's what
I was going to ask Procedurally on this the board I don't know Some boards hold all public questions to the end Some ask each witness as they come up I'm not sure how this board proceeds right yeah we often because often if it's going to go over several we we ask the witnesses questions for each witness as we go just
in case we are pushing to the next one This might be quicker but yeah we usually that is a usual procedure Okay Yeah No absolutely And I did forget to check online because I'm doing this and watching but I don't see any other attendees I don't see anybody with a
raised hand If anybody online has a question for this witness please feel free to raise your hand now I don't see anything Okay that's what I was that I meant I meant members Oh members of the public in this
room No Okay seeing none we will I'm sorry I just let I'm sorry When did you say you bought the property again 2024 2034 Okay Thank you Mr Nasser Who are you affiliated with
it's Christopher Nesser Nu SS R with uh French and Pillo Associates You give the board the benefit of your qualifications as an engineer and planner Certainly Uh I am a licensed engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey Those licenses
are both in good standing Um I graduated from Ruckers University in 2006 with a bachelor's of science and civil engineering and have been practicing uh in land development um since so past
almost 20 years I've appeared before over 70 boards in the state of New Jersey including this one as been accepted as both a expert in planning and engineering for visitor Nesser is both an expert in both of
engineering and planning Sorry just you didn't say it What's your qualification in planning you mentioned your qualifications in engineering Just so we have it on the record Um I again a license I did not go to school for planning I do not have my ASI AICP I
am a um planner by um testing if you will my engineering license but um I have been practicing planning and and providing testimony
on quite a number of applications over the past licensed for 15 years now Okay You're a licensed planner in the state of New Jersey and your planning license is extending It is I just I you hadn't said anything I just wanted to make sure Oh that's okay Okay
Thank you Thank you All right So does anybody on the board have any other queries about um this um test this oh gosh Professional witness um credentials as
we've done being an engineer and a planner Okay See you acceptable to the board Thank you So um Mr Nasser why don't you orient the board to the site and tell them what our
plan is here if you're going to present a w an exhibit that has not been presented to the board let's identify it Yes you need to share screen on that Yes I will He wants to get it here first Well
you do have a good physical picture Physical copy I know I'll mark the physical copy so I can leave it behind and I will you know then do um we usually mark exhibits we usually
go through the current exhibits we in their application with like exhibit A the general application everything included in the application packet is that correct or usually right that's that's A1 is usually the the application A2 is usually proof of notice is um and
then this would be A3 if we're we're following what we usually do and that's fine Yes that works for me and I appreciate you letting me know have that mark as A1 and then and then if you really want to we also do oftentimes if you want to handle this now is we also
do the reportings from a professional it's P1 or whatever but we can handle those maybe when we get to them Okay So A3 is titled site plan exhibit prepared
by my office and dated today And a A3 is um the site plan showing the site features with an aerial photograph underway underneath it Okay I was going to say we need on a
screen or we need it on the share screen Is this um is this identical to something that's already been provided this is new today as well Can can you enable me to share so the carrot here next to share and let's
do I need to let him specifically should be able to do it now No I'm good Excellent Thank you Thank you So the people at home watching everybody have to see it in advance That's all that's Yeah I'm just trying
to make it I think that's as full screen as you can make it Take a look Looks pretty good Um All right then So I'm going to point on the
screen Oh that's going to be usable too Wait It's been a while I don't use much zoom anymore Here's the little pointer Is that a little better yeah Yeah A little laggy Too quick Just
unc Okay So again the property is 6 Parker Avenue which is also as Mr Roberg noted uh State Highway Route 12 We are located right at the entry uh to the
Main Street Circle as you can see kind of across the street maybe just slightly east of Brown on the same I don't
um it's known as lockers block 45 lot 22 and it is a 10,135 square foot lot uh with 57 uh 32 feet of width
57.33t of frontage is a little bit of an angle there uh The property has historically contains a single family dwelling on it though it is not in the historic district or south of
that Um there are remains of the old garage foundation on the east central portion of the site as I'm indicating about here as well as the driveway out onto
Parker exists when the state uh redid the circle when they did it but I don't remember the year Was it like 2005 2006 no it was over a long time ago because I had never seen construction on No you're
right Maybe 20 years ago Yeah something something around there Um you know they bump the curb line out where it used to extend consistent with the neighboring properties It now comes out There's almost no shoulder in front of this
property as you're entering into the circle And when they did that work they extended the driveway out to to the highway So it exists really only within the right of way Um so well otherwise the property is maintained lawn with
some mature trees on it which I know we'll discuss Um I you know did look at the trees I actually stopped by today on the property and quite a number of them are
um white pines along the edges that are um one is dead very dead uh noted on the plan as such Um a couple others are diseased and dying losing their leaves the needles are turning brown and
they're falling off Um but really these are older white pines and so the branches don't start until you're 25 feet up Um not in great condition Um there
are couple really nice trees on the property I think the nicest one is right at the at the front of the property the eastern front eastern corner That tree is being left alone thankfully It is a very nice deciduous tree as well as some
other trees around the property Surrounding the property we have the wiper office to the east which fronts on the circle really in South Main Street To the south we have a commercial property that I believe most recently
was the the bridal shop um and is currently vacant to my knowledge To the south of that is more residential properties Uh to our west we have a
number of residential properties Uh the immediate neighbor is a single family The next one over is a two family house Uh and then single family again Across Route 12 we have the auto repair
garage which is kind of just out of frame here as well as more uh residential properties along Brown Uh as we said the property or the project proposes to construct a two family dwelling on the property using
that existing access um off of Route 12 going to repeat a bit of uh what Mr Groomberg said so I'll be as quick as I can about it not bel too many points Uh the property again is located in the TC
transition commercial zone As we noted it was located in the CV community business zone until September 2023 when your zoning was updated Um
the properties that are contiguous on the same block here on Parker will all reszone concurrently So the Ward building uh these buildings to the commercial building to the south the residential buildings to the south
This at least it's vacant over here piece of property you you come around it's the WSville properties I believe is what extends all the way over here as well as the residential properties were all reszoned together
uh on the north side of Route 12 These properties remain in the CB zone The TC zone permits offices medical office child care indoor and outdoor recreation theaters higher education and training
community buildings club facilities animal hospital funeral homes research facilities health and fitness facilities residential uses existing as of the date of the adoption of the ordinance which may be expanded or enlarged without need
for a use variance Chris are we going to just deal with engineering now and then come back on the planning well just yes this isn't okay Planning per se so much as is just this is the zoning as it exists
Um there are a number of conditional uses that are permitted including a canvas retailer retail sales and service on 1acre lots multif family residential on 1acre lots which is really a mixed use because it requires a um commercial
component on their contractor use like industrial and repair facilities Um the so as proposed I can read the uh what's in front of me but it's a bit small so I
have to open my plan here Um so as proposed we have a 2,282 square footprint uh dwelling two family dwelling um that is separated is that technically vertically
I guess I'm sure the archite architect will speak better but it's one unit on one floor um the second unit is on the second floor um the the the property is actually located and Mr Clark makes a comment about it Uh the
building's located kind of a skew in the property It's not centered within the space It is you know slightly towards the wer facility and that's because at the time when we had prepared these planes initially and we thought this was in the CB district um the sideyard
setbacks were 7 ft to the commercial and 15 feet from a residential property And so um this was made to comply with that I don't think we would have any issue
with Mr Clarico's suggestion that we maybe center it up on the property to even up the um the setbacks That said there are a number of variances related to the proposed
dwelling Um specifically both sideyards because instead of a 7 and 15t sideyard we now have a 15t to the commercial and 35 foot to the residential side So that's 50 total feet of setback on a
57.33 foot lot In fact not planning Um the lot is undersized where 20,000 square feet is required Um this lot again is
slightly more than half that It requires Mr Gberg said earlier 100 ft lot width where we are currently 57.32 feet the floor area ratio before that those are all existing conditions that we can't change Correct The lot
area and width That's correct And the I mean the sideyards are what they are right those are the standards in the zone and the fact that we have a 7 foot wide building envelope is a it's just a a fact of the zoning
ordinance It's because based upon the zoning ordinance you would have to build a structure that was 7 feet wide in the middle of the struct of the lot Correct You could slightly skew but yes it would be seven seven feet wide Yeah to
comply Uh the floor area ratio there's the TC zone has a requirement of 0.25 We know on the plan it's 0.45 However um when we calculated it
we' use the floor area times two floors but really there's a section over top of the garage in front where there is not um there isn't a second floor there It's just one story in the in the front of it
So correcting for the fact that the um the second floor doesn't exist there including the garage within the gross floor area the total book gross floor area would be 3,681 square ft which is a floor area
ratio of 363 So slightly less than kind of meeting in the middle if you will of what the standard is and what was proposed or shown to be proposed So the
standard that's required is 0.25 We thought it was 0.45 but it's actually 363 That's correct So the the project is laid out um I think fairly typically for a two
family house where we are using reusing the entrance from the state highway As I said um we do have a letter of no interest from the DOT allowing us to reuse that driveway and not requiring a
new access permit So using that entrance in to the site providing two parking spaces one for each unit within a garage space within the building a space in front of each
garage and a third space located to the west on there for guests or just having an extra space It's not a location where you can park within the shoulder on Route 12 going a little bit west of the site but it'd be nice to have um the
additional space on the on the property here Uh and we are able to do that while staying at 41.6% on impervious coverage So we are still under the impervious coverage that is allowed
Uh so in total the parking we're required to have four spaces and we are providing five So we are in excess on on that Um behind these parking spaces we do provide a 24
foot aisle space typical for any parking where you would be able to uh back up and leave the site The spaces themselves are 10 by 20 where our rsis would only require 9 by 18 So they are a little bit
bigger uh than a typical stall and that is in part a function of the fact that the garage is 10 ft wide and um and you are parking into the garage So you don't want to have it to be just 18 as as it relates to the site distance
uh from the driveway leaving um here as Mr Troutman noted the sight distance is entirely within the state highway right ofway Uh this is a solid double yellow line across from the
driveway which means you can't cross that So no left in no left out You can only right turn in right turn out from that driveway Really the only sight distance that you're looking for then is to the
left And as this we noted earlier you're you're pushed forwards out into the highway Really when you get to that point and you look you're looking almost straight down that lane So you have uh excellent sight distance in that that left
direction the um tree removal on here It's not new on this sheet but she Yeah Is this a new sheet or is this um this is the submitted set Okay
Can we just know which page number it is of the submit set that you're referring to yes Uh sheet one of the plan set that was submitted and dated last revised March 7 So we have an
inset in here showing the the trees that are proposed to be removed Uh there are a total of eight trees shown on here along the eastern boundary here These are all the white pines The first
one is a rather large tree Again the branches start fairly high up on it As you as you come down the second tree is fairly diseased The third one is completely dead and has no bark on it Um
and then you have three more white pines where this one is the fourth one down is really has a lot of needle blade on it It's very brown And then again you have two more as you go down This one here in the
middle and the center of the site it's noted as a 10-in tree It's 10 inches more towards the base and it splits off into being a a double and that's like a a spruce tree that actually is browsed or limbmed or something along those
lines But again we're 8 ft up and there's like a little puff on top of it of a tree So again it's not in great shape Uh and then finally we have a tree that is right by the driveway entrance
It's actually it's not a very large tree but it is a a fairly nice tree But I will say when I pulled into the driveway it did scrape the side of my truck So um it is it's being removed because it's
it's growing into that into that space So most of those trees are are either dead or dying Is that fair to say or a good portion of them are yes And you know one of the things that we looked at here was the with Mr Clerico's
suggestion that we center the building We're pulling further away from this eastern property line And you know I I looked and I said "Oh well this is a 21 in tree the most northerly of it Can we can we keep that tree because we're
going to be moving further away uh from it?" and you know maybe there's an opportunity there to save the tree And I just to be honest when I went out there and I looked at it it it's it's not it's close to the house
It's a a dying white oak or white white pine Um that quite frankly is more of a nuisance to anything built on a house or even the neighboring property And quite frankly the neighbor on the other side because it is fairly tall tree
um and is certainly greater than 57 feet tall u would land on their property if it went the other way Um and that it'd be as nice as it might be as a thought to try and leave it
Um I I don't I don't think it's viable to do so Probably should have done it before I started talking Sorry I got a back problem So occasionally I'll have a muscle spasm that'll make me chair You need different No I'm good
Thanks It's just It'll happen Oh Marcus is A4 Yes Is this a packet of several drawings i just want it is a packet of it's two sheets with four total photos These photos were taken by me and they were
taken today Okay Um some better context of the site which is egg Oh okay The ones that I have up here it's Yeah the pictures are one two
three four So they're it's just set up Got it Um so first picture is from approximately the driveway area looking towards the white building You can see the white building here Here are the the
pines that we're speaking about Uh you can see here's the very dead one that is well bleached There is an existing hedge that runs along the property line um during the summer months that is
fairly full as it leaves out Obviously in its current state it is a bit more say translucent Um here's a picture looking to the rear of the property You can see some more of the the pine trees here where again it's
losing limbs and they're all fairly high up You can see the remains of the old garage here Uh here's a picture again a little bit further back in the site from in front of the old garage looking again towards
the white building And you can see this tree here is not dead yet Um but clearly is not green like that tree and is very sickly Um
still well it's not dead It is well on its way to Earth Um and the final picture is looking um looking north from the garage back
towards the towards Route 12 You see the auto repair across here Here's a dead tree Again this second tree in you can see it's fairly bare and it has a lot of um a lot of dead needles
on it And then this was that tree that I was speaking about that I thought maybe we could save Again it's limbmed up pretty high It's it's only a matter of time before it looks like it's its neighbors here
And then finally you can see uh here's the spruce tree in the middle that again is you're about 10 ft up before there's any branches on it It's gotten a bit scraggly And then you can kind of see the tree by the entrance
over here which is deciduous and it's right right next to the the driveway just to give you some some better context from within the site and about the trees I know there's comment from the shade tree commission about the trees and um you know we we took it
seriously when it comes to the trees It's just you know we look at it and it's not just trying to assess the the viability both now and in the future of them and um it just they're they're old
and they're they're on their way to to being being hazards if they aren't ready And go on to the reports or some more site Just a little bit more site stuff and then we can code the reports
Uh so from a grading perspective we're going to go to sheet three of the plan set Uh the site right now drains from 12 to the rear of the property and kind of goes it leaves kind
of the southwest corner of the property and then crosses onto if I go to sheet two comes through and actually aims for there's an inlet in the back of
behind the parking lot just kind of out in space over here that it all kind of directs towards and then would run past into the that vacant area beyond Um the proposal for the grading
is to really maintain those existing drainage patterns except for the fact that there's a building in the way and we are breaking the um we're breaking the drainage patterns around it So the water is being directed around the buildings and then continuing on in its
um current path in a we did some simple modeling on the site project It does not require any sort of management improvements is below the 15% uh threshold even of the ordinance and
involves an addition of about 3,900 square ft of impervious to the site that results in a 100year future storm as the D now has it
defined which is a about 12 uh inch rainfall event um as a increase of 0.15 cubic feet per second which is about a gallon every every second Um
it's I think the minimous amount of additional storm water This is a very um it's a small site We can't generate too much water to begin with and the increase is uh equally fairly small even in such a large rain
event Uh as far as utility connections we are reusing or connecting new depending on the the demands to the existing utility connections We do have uh the letter from the burl on the form
a submission on that we have availability for sewer and water for the um for the site We do also have uh electricity We got a JCPNL letter will serve letter say that
they can provide the site No response from the gas company as of yet Um as far as proposed landscaping you can see on this sheet we do have one sugar maple uh near the driveway further away so that it does
not scratch my truck as I go into it uh or anybody else's for that matter Um the the site will meet all the SEDD standards during construction Um we also submitted with the application a
traffic impact statement Uh just a couple things to note from within there Uh one as I mentioned before we do have a letter of no interest from the NJ DOT uh we have a dimminimous change in peak hour trips
over what the pre-existing use was which was single family and even over a being vacant over a single family it's it's more one or less trips um in the peak hour we did a comparison in there to other approved or permitted
uses within the the zone and it's an increase of anywhere from two to 10 peak hour trips over what is proposed the two family that is proposed Um the type of
traffic uh for this as opposed to um a permitted use of commercial use is slightly different This would be people's personal vehicles um and you know the trash trucks don't come onto the site You're bringing cans
out to the street where you're going to have larger delivery vehicles you know maybe a box truck if you had an office on this property you know the garbage truck coming on Um and we also noted within there that there's no change in the level of service to group 12 as a
result of the developments So um I went through the letters and I think we can address Mr Clerico's correspondence of March 21st 2025 on page floor 482 he asked for basement
floor elevation and that's something that we can provide Correct Yes If I may just stop because I I believe the board we marked the uh the report the reports exhibit So since we're talking about the Van Clee we'll mark that as was it P1 that the board us two
He's going to have two reports right from the original Did you just do this this is report number two Do we do we need to mark both or this is one device would this be the one just mark that one because it's an update The first one was when they were were doing the use varian
the one date original Um do you remember the date of the first one yeah First one is January 30th I think that would be P1 and then P2 could be the March 21st
Ping board Okay Well that's what car does I think I'd like to be consistent Yeah Don't want to change anything You you refer to something on the barrel water and sewer Is it something different from what I included in my report
you said you had an approval No we've we've got the letter from Remington and Vernick that says that there's um capacity and that they want some additional things It's not like a formal approval You the Rem the report that you
refer to Okay But I don't think there's there's nothing there that we can't comply with Right I was going to go through it right now Should we well I just want to clarify that it's fine Yeah from the water and sewer that
could not those as we go through them We might as well Yeah I want to capture them I want to make sure we capture them That's PB3 from burner Right Okay Um I think in my orders I will do um the shade tree commission as PB4 right the
environmental commission as PB5 right and um last but not least board planner Actually it wouldn't be the last but planner is PB6 right um traffic as PB7 Yes And I was wondering you say
you've got a letter of no interest from the DOT Did you submit that with anything or do you want to submit that as part that was submitted as part of the record okay that's an original set Okay good We got that Capture that So I'm referring to PB2 which is Mr
Clarif um March 21st report I believe on page four we asked for allegations on A2 which we can do That's correct Page five um on A6 he asked for that the board may
want to consider anyards Let's talk a little bit more about that The way we originally prepared this plan was based upon the CB zoning district wid which is why it was shifted more to the right but if if the
board was inclined to have us center the the structure a little bit more to even out the two variances we could do that Yes Yeah we could easily center it in there I think there are some benefits It we said it kind of keeps us away from that eastern property line um and the
hedge that is there We could there was a portion of it that we were proposing to um have to remove for some grading but if we move the building over it would be 12.65 ft each side if we were to center
the building uh we'd be able to maintain that hedge as it runs down the u the property line So we're proposing that have 12.6 six uh five sideyard setbacks on both sides
Yes Sorry So if if we were to center the building on the within the property instead of we have it shaded to the east right now towards the ward building If we were to just center it up so that it has even setbacks on both sides it would be 12.65
ft So it would move about 4ish feet to the west uh centering the building That allows us to preserve those hedges along the eastern property line Correct Right And then we out the two bearings that were required
Um it not really because it's the side the setbacks are again it's 15 feet from the commercial 35 ft from the residential So actually there is a a greater setback required from the
residential trying to stay away from that But um CL would you say that the ordinance setbacks were not on the premise that a residential is going to be on the slot that's about what I was about I was about to say that yes um
this is a residential use buting up to another residential use So I think that you know centering it is there's no detriment to to do with that I think you addressed B1 how where water will drain and any adverse effects on any other properties You want to
elaborate that at all on page five um I don't no I don't I don't think we need to I think there there's a comment in here about how the roof feeders run And maybe I'm getting I think that's B2 we're going to talk about on um page five about storm water
management suggestion about um Excuse me Do do you mind me interrupting with questions you want to wait go ahead Let's do that Is your plan was to indicate some of this water runs off to the east i was asking for more clarity on the plan as exactly where the water
from the lot is going Okay Yeah And we can certainly provide the clarity on it to make sure where is any of the water going off to the east um my understanding of it is that it's running across down and across the lot um to the to the out of that southwest corner And
your plan for proposing the roof leaders would be to do what discharge them at grade to just have them at grade My concern here is and I know you put a comment here about providing some storm water management You know it it's a small
amount My my biggest concern is I've dug enough test pits around here only to find the water goes nowhere that I'm going you know we're going to build a bathtub in the backyard and it's not going to serve to
mitigate anything because we're going to be able to document that water actually runs off this lot that it's not flat in the back Yeah the water does run off the back now Um and you're going to provide sufficient grading to show that that actually happens Yeah absolutely
Yeah No concerns about the water leaving the site in terms of storm water management which is where I was going with the request for porest pavement or um what are your thoughts or expert opinion with respect to whether porous pavement in
the front would be a good idea so right and and that's kind of the the issue here is the porest pavement is in would be in this front area which is on the high side of the lot Um maintain my
concern that there is limited permeability um especially in the the rock stratum um just generally in the area and so we'd be putting in porest pavement it'd be going down into a stone layer and the
natural direction for it to go is south towards the house And now we're taking this water putting it under the pavement and it doesn't have anywhere to go into the ground And now it's coming out the house And now we're just putting it into
there And you know I think there was a comment in here as well with this part of four with the roof leaders is you know are they going to have a foundation drain there'll be a foundation drain and a sump pump for any water that gets you know against the foundation because they're using they
have storage areas proposed within the basement And so now we're running more water My concern would be we'd be running out water into that system and just pumping it out of a sump pump It would be sending more water in into the basement Now given given the minimal
amount of storm water that is actually involved in here is it better for us to to flow across land where it's in the direction that it's going now than to then to try and do infiltration that can't can't actually happen yeah I mean at the end of the day this is a minor
project It doesn't require some management improvements in here Um it is again under the ordinances thresholds where you exceed 50% and you need to do so management measures um for within there you know for that it is a very
small amount um this isn't the spice back 30 which hopefully I have a sign plan behind you ready to sign I was I was just about to say normally I would wait for your testimony to end and I suggest we have a break at 9:00 but being as you wanted to
sign those things would it can I propose that we suggest that we have a break right now and come back to your testimony after the break and we'll do the sign in and then we can come back about that at all get signatures can I can I finish can I finish my
thought and then we take the break so my my point about the spice factory again this is that's a larger site right that's several acres and so when you're talking about exceeding the 50% you're talking about stormer on a on a larger scale you're doing it on you was more area more impervious This is a very
small site It's 10,000 foot site It's a very dimminimous increase in storm water and it doesn't run in a negative way to any building or property where it would impact somebody but to add a storm water management measure on here My concern is
that we'd be creating an impact on here I appreciate the the comment and the desire to not create issues and and to mitigate stormware where we can even if it is a minor project and you know if we can make it better let's make it better My
concern is that we wouldn't we wouldn't make it better that there's not you know there's there's not a way to get rid of that water Okay All right So we'll take a break for 575
minutes and we'll come back at 8:50 There we go I would usually like to do a roll call just to check everyone's back for the record Absolutely Uh Madam Chair um uh roll call please Mr Campion here
Miss Gifin here Miss Whitesman here Miss Swingle here M M Mr Shro Uh Mr Josha here Mr Eckle here and Mr H here
Everyone is Thank you Assuming that we're done with storm order I'd like to move on to page six B3 There's a comment about um sidewalk to that rear door We're not proposing a sidewalk Um if the board wants us to have a sidewalk we can
have a sidewalk but it's a residential property There's not really a reason to have a sidewalk Let the architect testifies whether that's a building code requirement or not Okay we'll deal with it that way If it's a building code requirement we'll provide a sidewalk But if we do provide a sidewalk are we still
underneath the impervious so yeah we would be it's another one and a half% maybe So we're still long with the 50% We're at 41.6 and I think it brings us up to
short of 43 So it's not a new if it's a building code requirement we'll provide a standard Okay Um B4 I don't know what it is but we'll do it You know what you're doing you agreeing to what's that oh showing the location
of the roof leaders Yeah we're showing the location um that means the methods for the foundation during for the basement So again some folks dispersing out and we will do that
Um on C1 the shade tree commission their request number two for screening to you just wait till we get the shade tree letter That's what I'm going to deal with right now Oh we're going to go to the sh Yeah
because that's what C3 is So going to PB4 correct yes The shade tree commission um again discusses the removal of the trees requesting uh
replanting of an equal number of replacement trees or a uh contribution in kind and noting okay with the species of the silver um silver maple sugar maple sorry silver maple they probably would have said no
sugar maple yes but why don't you show them what we originally proposed and what we can do so what we originally proposed here again we're looking at sheet three the plant set is the one tree along the street in the front here there is space in the rear of the
property where again if you look back at A4 in those pictures there some pine trees and it is a little bit shaded within that space but there is room to plant some additional trees in there We feel we can plant three trees within that space It's not the total of um
seven that is being requested It would be a total of four um for the seven trees Again I think you know even in in their count of seven trees they're discounting the dead tree within that And I think we have a number as you can
see of diseased trees within there I think it's a um you know there'll be a better quality of tree certainly than white pines that are just going to lose limbs and um so so we're proposing four trees a
replacement of four trees instead of the the seven that are requested Correct Correct Um and the environmental commission is referred to in the cleric coast reported on C3 and
they have a request They uh they talked about the impervious coverage with the perial papers which we already discussed Number one landscaping and trees They defer to the shapes or tree commission Um number three lighting
We haven't really discussed lighting but lighting There's no sight lighting proposed Again it's it's two family residential so it would be lights over the entryways you know little entry lights light over the garage um but no
no sight lighting no nothing bright just typical residential lighting And any of the fixtures that we do will be dark sky approved lighting fixtures on the house I I got to say that they will be typical res I don't
like I wouldn't I don't know that they make that's in caps dark sky approved residential lights I don't think that they exist in in that matter Um and if they do it's it's going to be something let's say something that is shielded
something that is downward facing something that would be um meet the intent of dark sky but without necessarily the official uh stamp and seal of approval So they'll be
shielded and we'll provide those details to satisfaction of the board professionals the the color of them you know a warmer color 2700 Kelvin something in that range Certainly that's the dark sky approved standard is number
number four on their report is they I don't get this one I got to be honest with you saying that we can't connect to natural gas Um it's something it's a utility and um you know I think
forcing property owners to only heat and their b their property by electric just doesn't make sense I don't know if that's been uh adopted but um it it it's something that I think that is really
inappropriate for a board to say you can't connect to natural gas when it's a utility It's available within the municipality Um I I don't know if you want to discuss that at all but we would we would like the opportunity to leave that open so
that if we want to connect to natural gas we connect to natural gas Um and moving on from there the last thing on Mr Clerico's report is on page seven outside agency approvals We will get all those to your
satisfaction I think that's it for Mr Clerico's report Moving on to Mr Troutman's report Um page two number one he asks whether we are going to require a highway occupancy permit Yeah I think again to
your point on what we what you said about outside agencies Mr Clark's letter any necessary DOT permits whether it's for utilities or not permit to replace the driveway and kind we received those permits
Hey Steve Yeah I I can comment on that further Um I did a little more research on that I found a a part in the NJ DOT access code that says a lot or site owner does not need a new access permit to perform maintenance or inind
replacement So um I don't know why the DOT put that in their letter They were just probably covering themselves but I don't see an occupancy permit needed to replace that sidewalk and that pavement Appreciate that Um number two peak uh the peak
hours for this use notes is uh two trips during weekday morning evening and weekend peak hours It's a peak of two things right uh yes So that that's not a lot of trips
No No Okay Number three Uh and I think he's sorry He's also noting that uh the rates that we used in our report are slightly more conservative and slightly higher than
than what those Then then those numbers right um number three I I think there's just a recognition of the level of service for A to the right and L at worst case level of C for the left And I don't know if Mr
Troutman wants to to comment on that any further Well I just wanted to comment on the testimony Um the the double yellow center line what that refers to in Title 39 is it just means it's a no passing
zone It it doesn't prohibit people from turning left So you you're allowed to turn out of your driveway across a double yellow center line and you're allowed to turn into your driveway across a double yellow center line So people will be able to make any turn they want at this driveway just like
they can at all the houses to the west Okay I I think is it fair to say though that functionally people aren't going to want to make that left-hand turn uh unless it's all clear and there's adequate sight distance for them to make
determination There is adequate sight distance but it's just a it's a bit of a difficult spot to make a left and they probably wouldn't want to do that Correct Yeah they they would have the option to go around the circle if they wanted to
go west Um number four confirmation at the site easements not necessary And five testimony regarding the likelihood of two-way traffic during the peak hours if there's only two
trips during that peak hour The likelihood of a conflict is pretty low Correct Yeah I mean I think we we have it as like one and a quarter trip in a in the evening It's one and a quarter trip coming in and three/4 trip leaving
the site So you know one one in and one out in across an hour So I think there's a in a peak in the evening peak hour So I think it's a not a very high likelihood that we would have um a complex because of that So from there we
go to Miss McManus's report um which is March 23rd 2025 And from an engineering perspective I think she uh asked them 4.2 additional window opening and garage more in line It might be an
architectural thing but can we do that uh we we could so the the request would be to extend kind of the the entryway forwards um depending on how we extend it forwards whether it's fully enclosed or
you know just the the entry roof over top and I will certainly leave that to the to the to discuss with the board their thoughts um it may increase the floor area a little bit um but as it is we went with the calculation it is down
a little bit but we we can it wouldn't increase the impervious coverage it would just be replacing the sidewalk that's there and making Yeah that's something we could work with on that Uh 4.3 lighting details I think we testified to that and 4.4 landscaping
unless there's anything you want to discuss about I think we talked about that No I I think it's uh generally been addressed I'm in favor of adding the additional trees to the to the rear of the property as discussed I'm in favor of uh of uh it's not plantings but also
providing some fencing so there's additional privacy uh should the board choose to approve the application um particularly along the the adjacent WER office property line just so there's visibility whether it's whether it's additional plant sorry whether it's
additional evergreen trees or and or solid fence just to provide that privacy we'd be happy to work with you on that but fencing would be appropriate and my client can you clarify you said the hedge is there on your was that hedge installed by white was that part of
their plan or is that something prior on It's not clear It kind of straddles the line and end up on this property So if you were to put a fence in it would be inside the hedge
inside So the hedge would be on the right side of maintaining that hedge I honestly think it was intended to be their hedge but it's not clear whether they just missed Well was
the previous owner of this So um want to clarify you agree to put fences where the fences are the the when this is going all the way back and I'm not testifying but um the when the WER
project happened a while back and it was two individual residential homes that were then joined to become single there two lots were two houses single family houses that were joined together with some with
a fair amount of testimony in front of this board about making sure that they still looked like two separate houses if they ever wanted to be two separate houses I think there was also testimony that part of that plan was the screening from a now commercial property to what
was a residential use next to it So it's it seems logical that their that that hedge row was in fact part of their site plan Um because it it would make sense to have requirement of the screening from a parking lot of a of a commercial
now commercial property to what was then still a house Yeah Um before it was demolished So it's probably on it's it's probably on the herb site is is what I would imagine it would be Yeah And what we can do is
because you are looking for a little bit of clarity um on the grading anyway So we can we'll clarify We'll just go we'll double check to make sure that we're we're we're giving a width to the the way that it was surveyed I just want to make sure that it's it's correct
to to where it is So we can we can go and reconfirm the location and we can put a fence along the line without disturbing the hedge row unless we can work out with biker that they uh they
put their hedges on our property with that I we we can provide that appropriate screen correct yes Um I think that's it for your report from an engineering perspective and that's all the testimony I have for Mr
Muster on the engineering I'll be able to planning later Okay Thank you Um so then we go to um like my professional I know we've made them as as the testimonies go along but it's a
good period for any other questions um this as an engineer right just for the engineering part for me to you no I have some comments later but no more questions okay Jay did you raise everything you wanted to raise yes I did
thank you okay thank you and um wasn't from Um okay So maybe just one more Have you been any Um I'm sorry you waved it [Laughter]
I'll say it No go ahead Go for it No no I'll say it again No you the you know the Have you done any We know from other applications that area has a very high groundwater table Have you done any testing to establish the depth of the groundwork table we have not Okay Thank
you All right So um having had that one let's go to members of the board with questions for this witness as engineering capacity please testimony Anybody the only we kind of asked this before if
I could just the so the intention is you're going to the intention for the runoff the storm water runoff from the structure is leaders over surface to the rear utilizing the existing
uh catch basin that is on the south to the southwest of the of the property It's on the next property to the south Right Is that not necessarily it's not necessarily utilizing it Yeah Um it it appears as though it runs to it Okay
If it if it does it would go in If otherwise it would just bypass but it's going in the same letting the water go in the same manner that it does now Right Right Okay Make sure and the intention is the routing of any downspouts and gutters to to to do that and not necessarily to point out towards
12 or towards the wider property No we wouldn't I I I'd love to be able to send it up to 12 but it's uphill right and the drain is a little bit to the east And I think Jay will tell you trying to connect and Bob I'm sure can
tell you as well trying to connect into the state's drainage system with water that isn't currently going there is pushing a boulder uphill No And that's why I'm asking the question So that the intent is to is the water the storm water runoff
what minimal it will be because this is a relatively small structure I understand is is to kind of flow as it's been flowing towards the south and west and where it goes it goes and okay correct um all right the other this is really silly little question on the the
page one of the plants um there was you put one of the insets that's colored that talks about the zoning map there's a 500 foot radius on There is there any reason why what was that for i understand the 200 foot Is there a reason why there's 500 marked out on that i don't I don't know
Okay I'm just I I'm just it was I am my you know full disclosure my property is just north of that 500 line and I wanted to make sure there was some re why reason why there wasn't going to be a problem for me over there in terms of like conflicts or anything like that 200
feet Definitely past 200 feet It was just it was just a question of it was reason Okay Just just making sure All right Thanks Yeah that's something Alex We usually do Anybody have a conflict of interest maybe we'll do it before we
discussion or something Um uh any of the board members online have any questions for this dennis or Melissa looks like Hannah does Oh Hannah does Oh yep Yep I love that Hi Sorry just uh two
quick questions Um so what will you be installing a sump pump is that or was that just kind of Yeah there would be a sump pump in the basement Okay And that will lead towards what you were just talking to about with Jeff right it'll just it would it would discharge just
like the roof now onto a slash block and then follow the existing drainage fast Okay But there definitely will be a sub Yeah Okay Um and then my other question is is it um and I I think this is a question for you Is there is that is it
going to be AC units sorry Yes And the AC units are shown They're in the I stop sharing So I'll share again really quickly So if you look
on sheet one let me zoom in a little at the rear of the house It's not going to let me pan Um you can see at the rear of the house Is it those yeah that's what I Okay Oh I see Now I totally missed that Sorry Okay
great Yeah that was my question I do have actually one If you do center the house so you're like 12 foot 6 I guess basically on each side Yeah The driveway would stay the same or but would you would that actually knock off
four inches it would it would Well you're going to take four feet right so the driveway would be you're going to the driveway location right on the plan here where it comes off of Route 12 would stay but the main part of the driveway the spaces and the backup area
that's all going to move over with it It's all coming with it 4T Yeah Four feet of impervious off Yeah Just something something to note Answer guest question earlier But 500 foot is a checklist requirement
documentation 500 Really i missed that when we updated the checklist We were trying to give you No I just didn't realize you put We're following the rules There you go You didn't realize there was It looks like Dennis has a
question too All right let's let Dennis go I'll go last Go on Dennis I just wanted to follow up on Hannah's question So given the sump pump the amount of water then is going to be more than if the building was not there Uh I know the
impervious changes also but if you have a basement there's going to be more water coming out of um that property Would you agree no No Because it's when you're when you're looking at it and you're modeling there is
additional runoff that would come as I testified to earlier right it's that 0.15 additional cubic feet per second in a 12 inch 24-hour storm That future 100year storm but the water that falls
is the water that falls So if there's there's water that falls and it and it comes along the foundation and it goes down into the drains and gets into the sump pump and is ejected that's water that's already part of that calculation It's just water that you know came off
the driveway and goes under the house and then it gets ejected out as opposed to um water that would be you know water that directly discharges off the say but but having a basement we all know the water tables
high and having a basement that some pump if the house wasn't there you're not going to have the water that is already from underground But by going down you're going to be bringing water up that would not have come up if the
property wasn't built Correct Well yes but the water sort of are are we talking about runoff storm no round just about ground water in general As Bob said and you said the the water table that in that area is quite high So
if you go into a basement you necessarily are basically collecting into the basement the water that would have been sitting and would have just sat there and not moved but now you have to clear it out because it's you're clearing it out from the basement and and that's that's less a that's not really
contributing to storm water one-off necessarily right would there be additional water that comes or gets discharged yes It's it's groundwater that's going to get pulled out It's not necessarily tied to yes it is tied to a storm because that was
going to incorporate into the ground but it's not my main concern with that to both and Dennis's point is the discharge for that sum if it's right because the house is the proposed dwelling is quite close to the property line of the adjacent house
if that basically discharges right into the center of this lot it's going to cause a nice little pond in that lot like I think that's a concern though that that some will necessarily be be producing a sprout of water that comes out the house A very fair comment Um and
I think we had agreed already to comply with Mr Clerico's letter We had a note about showing details Um note number four I'm correct Yeah Showing the means and
methods for the foundation drain which would be how it gets discharged So you know any revised plan we would show where that gets discharged how it gets discharged Make sure it's stable and make sure to your point that you know the applicant certainly doesn't you know
want to be a bad neighbor Nobody nobody says to do that So we want to make sure it goes in the right spot And you know we would have your engineer to review Let me interject what Mike was going to get the answer Um we don't have specific data here on ground conditions but we do know very extensive information on the
adjoining property that we're dealing with a high ground And this is a use variance If this was a commercial building we wouldn't have a basement And then all likely we have a lot of the adjoining project had a lot of residential units with no basements right um you once you put a basement in
you got to keep it dry Uh if you're in a high groundwater table you're basically pumping water out of the if if we have a high groundwater here which hasn't been established factually But I mean so could I just interject really quickly the when you say the adjacent project
which are you speaking about the one closer down to the next to the the sort of that large Yeah it's coming And as somebody who lives in a house that has an extremely
high wall table I know our stuff is going constantly So it's very important And ours is now connected to the main tour project for the road Previously it created a a marsh outside where so out
I'm only raising it would be dealt with under a building And I'm only raising the question because it's associated with a use that's affordable So if the commercial build then we wouldn't be talking about that So if I if I can very quickly rough rough old back of the
napkin math finish floor is at a 18450 say the basement floor elevation is a you know 10 ft below it's at a one make it die 9 ft down it's a
17550 the bottom of the stormwater basin in the middle of the circle is a 176 it's basically the same elevation So that is not like the one in the middle of the 202 circle where it just constantly fills up with water and then
floods everybody's cars out parking right Um this one stays dry Um the state would have had to get just like everybody else 2 ft from groundwater separation So you know yes down the road a little
bit it does get lower in elevation in that direction Um I understand they have an issue We obviously haven't done testing but you know right here on the circle we don't have the same issue So
um that's not me giving a high vote of confidence that we won't hit groundwater will hit groundwater Um but I think you know this is the circles a whole lot closer than the portsville property on the
street Right The circle is not trying to discharge next to a residence I'm sorry What the circle water is not trying to discharge onto a resident 12 feet away No but I think the point is I think the point is is that if the the basin in the
circle is generally dry then the depth of the basement which is about the same depth which should be generally dry I think we're using the we're going to qualify this because no one's done any test You're assuming where the water table is based on the circle being dry The circle
basin being dry I only raised the question So it's just five degrees If we're going to have we're going to have a usable basement and this is not this a basement that we're going to hear from the architect but this is a basement that they're proposing for use as part of the structure Right
And so to the to the point about the discharge certainly the discharge would be routed in a way where it wasn't if you look at myself a disservice Some discharge could cause this
the neighboring houses the neighboring houses are further forwards could cause a harm to his right right and so we'll make sure that we're not discharging directly onto his property that we're discharging down in
like I said in a safe manner that doesn't create um those issues Okay You also got to this is not a site plan So you know we're only dealing with these We're dealing with a use issue
But the notion that a commercial um building can't have a basement I didn't say it can Said it wouldn't necessarily need one It wouldn't necessarily need one but that doesn't mean that because this is a residential structure that it's that the need the uh
have the ability to have a basement is tied to the use I mean Bob was suggesting that you want you want a basement dry So we need to know where the water is being pumped to It's not what the statement was was that the
board can uh make a distinction between this use and a commercial use because a commercial use doesn't have a basement and therefore this is an issue of cons that can be addressed but it's not
because a commercial use can have a basement too It's not tied to the right Well we still have the problem with whichever use it was but it's going to be used No because because they could have easily proposed they could be asking for relief for residential use and not propose a basement There's
nothing there's nothing there's nothing in the residential side of proven standards that require them to have a basement They're choosing to put a basement in there But as Bob just said this is not a site plan application where the question about use is is is about a a two family residential
development in this particular spot as opposed to uh uh anything else and and it and it doesn't have mix and it doesn't have any again a commercial use can have a basement a residential use can have a basement It
doesn't it doesn't factor into our proposed use of having a residential use with the basement Well I I just jump in my hand just I I agree with you and disagree with you I agree that in general terms residential versus commercial you can't separate a base You
can have a base in either one So that alone is you know in a general term is not a factor But what the board is dealing with in this application is the specific application that is being asked for and that is part of what the use is being asked for which does include a basement And I think that's what the the board member was mentioning too is if
this application didn't have wasn't didn't include a basement it wouldn't be including that as part of the discussion as part of the use variance but that is what's being presented So that's why it's for this specific site not in the general term of I agree with you in the general term commercial versus residential you can't say a basement is
a a factor I think we're both I think we're saying the same I think for our point to add to that I feel the best but I'm I'm thinking about the adjacent land owner and thinking about what impacts this could have on that And so that's
why I'm asking and and I think and again I think that's a more than fair concern to have and if I was that neighbor I'd be very happy that you would have that concern Um and and that's where as I said before I think Mr clerical's letter kind of covers that already on where
that discharge ends up going to make sure that it's not going you know directly onto that person's lot that it goes in a safe manner that it goes in a stable manner it doesn't cause plumbing it doesn't cause erosion issues on our property or theirs And we're more than
happy to address that Like I said I think that's that's um I I don't think we could ever say that we wouldn't Okay we can provide this Yeah Yeah Um I think I have one thing and I don't know and I know you've got two hats but we're addressing your
other hat later and I this is for when it's planning but I have a question about the foundation has been mentioned and I think it's important um you mentioned that the foundation is existence on the plans here mentions it and your photographic evidence here
shows it on photo two on page one of your photo packet A4 Um does you your testimony on you said it was just the remaining foundation of the garage Mhm Is that correct that's correct There's
no remaining foundations of a house on that part Is that correct not that I observed Right So I don't know um if this we can do this for discussion but I'm just cropping on your head and if it comes up for planning to me that's is that's an important point whether
there's an existing No we're not we're not suggesting that there is I'm just I'm just prepping and just is that is that for planning question i think it's I think if it's your if you're asking in regard to reuse of the foundation that was used for residential use and your proposed residential use as part of this
application I do think that's going to be a planning question We'll leave that till I I'll ask that question I'm not asking you I I can indicate to you that we're not seeking to uh make an argument that this is a an existing foundation
that we have the right to rebuild on That's not what we're here for We're here for a use variance So the existence of the foundation uh or it not being there is not really into play We can tell you that previously there was a
single family residence there and I think that's been recognized by board members that there was a single family residence there but we're not seeking we're seeking we're here for you sir Thank you All right Any other questions
from the board or anybody before we come anybody in the public online anybody here with a question no Okay then let's move on to your next witness then please Okay State and spell your last name for
director Mark Marian Last name is M A R I O N And if you could please support the benefit of your qualifications I would say licensed architect in the state of New Jersey Good to have them here
Um I graduate of Pride Institute with a bach of architecture in 1982 I've been registered as an architect in the state of New Jersey since ' 89 Still in good standing Self-employed as a principal at Architecture Plus since 91 Operating out
of our current office in Raridan since 1997 License is good and current I offer Mr Marian as an expert architect Any questions from the board from Mr
So architectural uh renderings to the board as part of our application Um and they're on the screen here Do we have anything to do or not i know just this board which has also been submitted Okay So they're pretty this one Are you using
this big one the same one submitted also So these were in your original submission Correct Yes So if you could just overview and the original submission What what page number is this one just so people
One of one One of one Thank you Just for people who can't see the tiny fence Okay Thanks Correct Uh we're proposing a twostory two family uh residence uh on this property It's roughly 32 feet wide
and 72 ft deep The two units are split I would say horizontally There's one on the first floor There's another unit on the second floor Two garages in the front Each entrance is on either side of the garage so each resident can drive into
their garage and get directly into their unit via a door next to where the entry door is Uh unit B which is upstairs they can get into the hallway there that leads to a stair that goes up along the right side of the building and
gets them upstairs um to their unit Um the lower unit because of the stairs a little bit smaller than the upstairs unit It's 1,500 28 ft Unit B is 1,600 ft² That's
the second floor one And uh each unit is fairly similar They have all three bedrooms two baths There's a kitchen and a very large living room area And uh we are proposing a basement uh
which we're going to split up in proposing to split up into like three areas storage areas for the tenants an A and a B and then a small mechanical room which would have uh a furnace for the lower unit and hot
water heaters and typically the these kinds of setup the furnace for the upstairs unit would be in the attic And we already talked about skin over the back And from my parents' point of view
uh we have a siding and brick at the front The garages have a low base of siding It's referred to as a water table And we played some games with this the siding uh in the gables switching to a uh vinyl board batten but primarily the
the residence is a vinyl blackboard siding So um the one comment I think that we have with respect to the architecture is whether additional window opening um can be achieved and I'm actually going to
defer to Miss McManus maybe we can just do it that way about what what her thoughts were in terms of window openings and the garages being more to I think we could put a windows in the garage Well hold on it's not necessarily windows in the garage It's more of um
the on the second story there are two windows one window for each unit And that's really what I was looking to expand upon is there an option to do essentially you've got the along the rear of the build the rear elevation there's some double windows if uh maybe
those could be uh added rather than individual windows or maybe there's two separate windows Um I'm happy to to work with you on that if the board's inclined to grant an approval but I'm looking for uh a design that might have a little bit
more interest in the front and I think would just add a little bit more light into the unit from the from the Route 12 or Parker Avenue side We can double up the windows on the front easily for that would be just for the unit B the second floor unit Yeah it would Yeah of course
Yeah it would just be for them Um along the sides the bedrooms all have double units Uh the single windows that you see are in the bathrooms at the kitchen I think they're appropriate Uh but we did in the bed in the bedrooms we had double
windows The living room uh has a triple window next to the I think your only concern was with respect to the front Just Yeah it was just two comments in regard to the front facade One was the the windows Thank you very much on that And the other one I
was interested to see if we could talk about a design that had the garage either at the same elevation or having less of uh a difference between the garage elevation and the and the front
entry door We can't pull the front entry door forward I wouldn't we have to leave enough room for the stairs to not go into the driveway So that front and the front porch is also I think important Yeah So uh yeah I'm not suggesting getting rid of the porch I do think
that's the next feature and so we could pull that forward a little bit It will increase the F a little bit and and as engineer testified uh it won't change the impervious at all So I mean if the as I said if the
board's inclined to grant the to grant approval for the abuse variance I do think some of these uh changes to the front facade will be helpful It'll it'll improve the building clearance and I think it would I think it would just improve the building appearance for the
Are you looking for shutters too or not specifically um I mean I I wouldn't be opposed to them but basically I want to dress up the front of the building so that it's a little nicer It's a little interesting uh more interesting Um as I said I cited windows and the garage set back We're we're happy to work with you
on that Thank you That's all I have for architecture unless any of the board professionals have any that question but I think that is all we talked about You access to the basement Yeah Oh yeah access to the basement be
from the side Um going uh down underneath the stairs that are going up to the second floor unit I don't believe the building code requires uh a walkway to any exterior door It's pretty the
building code pretty much stops at how how large or what's currently designated as storage units for unit A and B I did not calculate that So I do not have those numbers But I know uh the basement has a similar square footage as the main
level You have a rather large town but that's only going to serve the um unit on the first floor Yeah Probably two hot water heaters there Um I'm anticipating from a drainage point of view the sump pump will be to the rear
of the building to aid in the discharge up the rear And what's the necessity of having a usable basement for use like this could this house like this be constructed so be on slab or crawl space
um short answer is yes What what would the impact be if uh we'd have to find a different spot for the mechanicals uh sometimes in crawl spaces they can do horizontal HVAC units So it's possible we could get an air handler in a crawl
space and hot water heaters are a little bit easier to uh move around We'd have to find some space with hot water heaters Is it is it safe to say that this is a relatively large footprint and you're basically just taking this large space
and dividing it up it knows the area storage unit is not necessarily a portion of what a a three-bedroom apartment might be You're just basically using the space you have available We are using whatever space you have available
I would um measure 1500 They're about 5600 square feet a piece The storage units Yeah Yeah What's the size of the apartment yeah Unit A is 1500 square f feet um for the building Yes So about it's
about a third of the size of the unit It's pretty good size storage It's a nice amenity but your only access to it is through how wide would the stairwell be it's a little bit over 3 ft 3T wide sir Yeah
And that at minimum would be three but I think I drew it in two Could somebody use it as habitable space no If I want if I bought one of these or if I was renting or bought what how the scenario here is going to be um could I
put a pool table down there can I put a wreck room in uh they're not connected directly to any other unit So it would be it's a I have access to it right they definitely would have access So each tenant would have a common door So each tenant would have the same key to the common door and then individual keys for
their correct generally No it would not be used as habitable space Would be prohibited from being used for hable space We surely we would have a condition if you wanted that I mean from a building code standpoint
um access to windows or anything else Yeah there's no I mean it doesn't a basement could be made without any windows or the building code New Jersey building but we would agree to a condition habitable space in the basement only for storage and
mechanicals I'm sorry Um and for both single family homes and duplexes is storage an important uh aspect of designing a home Yeah Um I'm
only going to comment on the uh quantity of storage units that are appearing all over New Jersey saying that apparently this you know I I actually had a conference today on a self- storage application and the joke was that
everybody fills up their garage Yes um and and they're parked their cars because there isn't enough storage space and however much space you have you always fill up Is that fair to say yes All right Questions Jen you have one
Just just real real quick I want to make sure I'm reading the the drawing correctly So access to the basement for is through a side door Is through the side that Okay Okay I missed I missed seeing the side door I I I see how the staircases were stacked and I was
concerned about unit A access they're going to come up from the So is um the the the stack staircases um unit B would also have to go outside to that door on the west side of the
property and then Okay got it Thank you You have to go outside walk through the grass to get the grass Got it Any other board members a question for this witness on this testimony yeah just on the the drawing that you show So off
the the back side the backyard I guess the backside there's no patio or anything for like we have not planned for that that because the bedrooms are in the back There's no direct access to the
rear from either unit So there's a front door And to follow up on that given the closeness that we are to the 50% wouldn't you have to have some sort of requirement that they nobody the tenants couldn't add something well they could
they couldn't add add something without coming back before I expressly because otherwise they'll testimonies That's where the bedrooms are right yeah I Well I guess
you could put it back on better Yeah Thought that there was like a patio or concrete patio I'm thinking of the impervious service area% We're close That's building It's a building right now But your impervious cover is you guys are at approximately
41.6% I believe right and the maximum permit is 70% in the 50 It's 70 It's 70 but if once you go over 50 you have to do some work Okay All right That's So any anything that
anybody wanted to do up to 50 they could do but up to over 50 they would need relief from the border But that's like Yeah It's not It's not a variance It's it's a storm water management
but it's not it's something that can be done under your ordinance without conditioning it in approval Well my only um concern to like address it right now is that if they not not providing a path
to the basement access door seems odd to me because people are going to want to they don't want to get money to go into their basement and so they're going to add to it and then they could necessarily What was Did we have testimony about what the percentage um impervious would be one and a half% they
could they could easily they could fit it but I'm just then they were getting sailing even closer to the window of that percent but just being realistic no I mean a pathway to that door yeah if you want a pathway to the door like a sidewalk to the door we can do it
that raises the impervious by one and a half% which is still much lower than the 70 and and lower than the 50 so it's not something that you know requires an additional
condition prohibiting any other improvement on a lot because your ordinance entitles us to be able to do that or deal with storm water without coming back before the board No I'm just But if you want but we just said we didn't plan for the walkway but if you
want it we you think it's a good idea and you want want us to do it we're happy to do it Well we'll see what we discusses when we discuss I guess been me Um Hannah you have your hand up You have a question for this witness Yeah And correct me if this is not the right
question to be asking for you guys but is there no intended space for a washerd dryer or is that is that the furnace center in there or That's a uh there is a room for a stackable washer dryer uh between the two mirror bedrooms Okay
Yeah I wasn't sure if that was furnace or Okay great Okay So that so that's because that was also a question of whether or not that would be used in the the basement or not But okay if that's what that means then perfect Thank you Thanks for bringing that up Right
Any other questions about I do but I don't know if it's given the location of the plan of the house and the right side elevation We have concerns about those are windows
that look directly over the opposite person's um the adjacent person's backyard I mean I did look carefully and those are bedroom windows if am I right those are bedroom windows on that right side not the lounge So I guess the lounge would be being sat in mostly I'm
just thinking the master bedroom windows the double windows Uh the windows two windows to the rear is a bathroom window right and the single window upstairs is uh in the living room but it's the top of the stairs right but the double one then was a
bedroom That's a the master bedroom with the private bath The master bedroom windows looks over the adjacent person's backyard like every other house in town Well yeah but not I know But normally the houses are like along and you got some But here it's literally right there aiming at it
You know what I'm saying like the the direction of the windows That's what my house is All right I'm just I'm just I know I'm just raising it All right Um I don't see any other raised hands Anybody else on the board got questions for this on the architecture of this
proposal not see Would you like to move on to your next if you allow us to go on to planning testimony you can do that You know even we do have to finish this tonight but I also cognizant of the board time We we we can't start new
business too late and then move along So go on to plan Yeah we have to Great I have otherwise you miss all two two meetings Appreciate it I have written testimony and I may do my best to stick to it So apologize if I'm staring down
at my paper as I do this Um but just the time that's what I'm doing So uh just summarizing again the relief that we are seeking again is a D1 use variance for proposed two family use is a D4 variance
for the floor area ratio uh at 0.363 where 0.25 25 is allowed We have bolt variances uh for the minimum lot area at
10,315 ft where 20,000 ft is required Minimum lot width of 57.32 or 100 ft is required Um the sideyard setbacks uh were either 8.69 69 ft to the White Office of Commercial
where 15 is required and 16.62 to the residential property to the west where 35 is required or we modified that 12.65 on both sides modified right 12.65 and centering the
building Um the bulk variances should be viewed in the context of a C1 hardship variance Um the relief that's requested is the result of the exceptional narrowness shallowess or shape of a specific piece of property As the um
MLWL states the property is only 57.32 feet wide is substandard in area for the zone Uh there's no additional width or property available to add to the site uh the adjacent properties are
uh built out and all undersized themselves The area and width cannot comply Uh and the conforming sideyard setback leaves a 7.32 foot wide area in which to
construct uh creating the hardship where we cannot build a building that would conform to the um the yard setbacks no matter what the use was As to the use variance uh the board
may grant use variances where special reasons exist These are the positive criteria There's generally two circumstances that satisfy special reasons Um a the typical one you have is where uh
the project carries out a purpose of zoning uh less typically but also uh within within the um within the law is that a refusal of the project would result in undue hardship on the
applicant Um the argument of an undue hardship is not a common argument in favor of use variance It's not one that think you've even you've ever heard Uh however it is my opinion that it applies in this particular instance And undue
hardship exists excuse me where property is not reasonably adapted to a component use when it results in economic inut It's basically that the site cannot be developed into use Assuming that variances from the
bulk standards the 7.32 foot wide um buildable area that relief could be granted from all sorts of um the standards the buffering requirements The property would ultimately allow for a
2533 square foot building square footage review of the permitted uses in the zone which we went through earlier really shows that there's there's only really two things that could that could fit within that profile That would be an office or a medical office that would be
viable at that size Certainly a theater or community building or funeral home would not be appropriate at 2533 square ft However a commercial use would require a
new driveway meeting DOT standards That requires a two-way driveway that would have to be in the center of the property 24 ft wide We would be required to have a 12t edge clearance from the edge of the property on with that constraint The parking can
only be really constructed as it is on the on the pto's plan where you would have the entry drive in an aisle way and parking in front of it There's not room to situate additional parking You couldn't go sideways within
the line and get it down one side um with the need for trash facilities um and access into the building you are still limited to three parking spaces This would then really permit an
850T office or 450T medical office put you in a 450T medical office with three parking spaces is not a viable use Um simply put you would have a doctor uh an assistant and a patient
parking there and when the next patient shows up they sit in the waiting room There's nowhere for them to park Um an 850T office with three parking spaces I think similarly um to go through the effort of constructing it would be
um would not be a viable use And while you may look at that and say well that is not total inutility on its own uh commercial use would require larger vehicles as we discussed earlier to access the site for deliveries and trash
pickup Due to the geometry of the road of Route 12 we talked about how it bumps out and we have kind of an awkward angle here where the road is is angling away from the site or the curve is angling away and as
the road's curving back um you you have um a requirement where you're going to need some wider radiuses to accommodate these vehicles And and so when you look at it as having a 24 foot
wide driveway and having 20 foot radiuses on on your curve entrances were suddenly 64 feet in width which is wider than what the property is It would extend beyond the limits it would not meet the DOT's requirements
uh for or the 12 foot edge clearance Certainly you could ask for relief from the DOT Uh but that relief wouldn't extend beyond the property line A negative edge clearance is um not something I've ever seen them
entertain Ultimately because of the specifics of this properties any conforming use on the site would require the construction of a new driveway that would not be permittable by the DOT Without access the property can't be
developed Without access the property is unable to be utilized and there is total inutility of the property So as part of an undue a hardship argument um the fact that this
property can't be developed in accordance with any of either the permitted uses or conditional uses makes it so that our proposed use of the residential use is actually the only use that is viable for this lot Correct
That's correct And if it's not allowed to be a residential use it's essentially been zoned into economic and utility That is correct In the alternative and the more common
standard is that the property is particularly suited to the proposed use and advances one or more purposes of zoning The property is particularly suited to the two family use The surrounding area again contains a number of residential homes
and was itself a residential lot Not saying that it it currently it is um but historically this has always been a residential lot with again a single family and then a two family single family So a mix of both single and two
family homes in the surrounding area The proximity to other residential properties the size of the lot and the access issues for non-residential uses makes this lot particularly suitable The project also advances several purposes of zoning Specifically
purposes I'm going to combine them here a little bit Purposes A um to promote the public health safety morals and general welfare and H to encourage the location and design of transportation routes which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging location
of such facilities and routes which result in congestion or blight by giving safe access to the property where conforming use could not Um the proposed use again also has a lower intensity of traffic as documented in the the traffic impact statement that was provided than
an otherwise permitted use and reduces the pre potential for traffic incidents at this particular um difficult location entering into the main street circle or exiting depending on which direction somebody's coming Um we are advancing
both of those both of those purposes of zoning Additionally it advances purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for a variety of uses including residential um by providing an opportunity for new
housing within the burrow um with um walking access both to the shops in the immediate vicinity and a little bit more of a walk downtown Um you you are providing an additional
location for new housing opportunities to the floor area ratio variance The standard for the floor area variance is based on if the site can accommodate the problems associated with the increased floor area So is the
increase you know the increased intensity associated with it This is a more typical zoning control for non-residential uses right because the greater the floor area you have the greater the intensity of the uses You
have more utility usage right sewer is based on square footage Water demands based on square footage The traffic generation is based on square footage The required parking is based on square footage So the more square footage you have the more intensity you have the more utility demand the more traffic the
more parking you need In our case the total floor area of the structure doesn't increase the intensity of use Um we have a number of bedrooms It has a required number of um of gallonage
Whether those bedrooms are slightly bigger slightly smaller it doesn't impact the intensity of use It doesn't change the traffic generation or the the parking requirements um required by the property
This site um as we already described provides more than adequate parking We meet the imper imperous coverage requirements We have u appropriate utility services We have water we have sewer we have electric All
confirmed We have a letter of no interest from the DOT We have a lower traffic generation and parking generation over a permitted use Overall the proposed two family home has a lower intensity to a permitted use and is more than capable of accommodating
the increased floor area The increased floor area is honestly a benefit as it provides a better unit for the tenants I mean if you look at the home that is can't do that because the rest of the board can't
see Do I have it still up i do Bear with me one second a lot of faffing for a point But so if we look at the house that is two over two lots to the west that that
house is a duplex it's much smaller footprint It's only a twotory home So we we end up with this you know smaller units it's um less accommodating to to a tenant and certainly making um making it
so that there's more than enough usable space within there and for storage Um I think that the basement is a benefit to the application is um the garage is to be used for parking space as was already testified to And so
providing a place for people to store their stuff that isn't a garage certainly certainly is a benefit As you know every variance needs to satisfy not only the positive but the negative criteria For the negative
criteria it must be found that the project does not create a substantial detriment to the public good or create a substantial detriment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance The proposed project will not result in a substantial detriment to the public good As we discussed it's less intense than a
permitted use There's really no features that would create a nuisance Certainly we've discussed the sump pump and the discharge to make sure that we put it in a in a place that is appropriate and doesn't create an issue Uh we've discussed um adding
additional trees putting in fencing to provide screening uh that would be appropriate for the property and have agreed to those conditions which um go to um to blanking for a second here uh the the
conditions that that go to uh address the concerns that the board had And um you know when we when we look at this as well from the zone plan and the zoning ordinance
when we first um had the the email come in that said this is in TC zone not the CB zone Um I was in my office in my basement It was like 9:00 at night and I had pure panic attack because the last thing you want to do is tell a client
hey guess what we're going for a use variance Um and so I tried to figure out how how did this happen you know what what was the path and as part of that I was looking at even at that point the 2003
um the master plan review And the reason as I read in the in that for taking this from the TC zone or out of the CV zone putting it through the TC zone is yes one you're looking to consolidate lots
and make some bigger tracks and and have a different style of use here but really it was to take the retail service businesses that are lab in the CV zone and keep them on Main Street keep them on Stangle keep them where they belong where people
are walking for service businesses and not have them in this location I think there was a little bit of discussion at the beginning of the meeting didn't follow up perfectly um about some of that about what um you know wanting wanting all of your attorneys that are on Main Street no
offense Steve um off of Main Street and this would be kind of the place where you would want to put them Um it wasn't about removing the residential The residential if it exists is
allowed to stay Um so really the the change and the reason for the change we're not impacting that right we're not we're not saying I want to put in a barber shop I'm not saying um you know I want to put in some sort
of retail sales um facility here This is you know it's a is it fair to say that residential uses are actually permitted as long as they're existing So that the fact that there's a residential use here
is uh is not residential use that's being proposed It's not so foreign or different to the zone Yeah And that gets into the enhanced quality of proof on on the use variance in the Medici standard right we need to reconcile that the the proposed use was
omitted from the ordinance that um you know a new residential two family house isn't permitted um in in this space but at the same time the ordinance allows for
residences within the zone We're surrounded by residences and they're they're allowed to remain I mean it's it's not that we're trying to put something industrial in a residential district or residential and industrial district This is a district that allows for residential to exist
within it And not calling this a conditional use in any way but you know it is conditionally permitted within within the zone that you could have a residence in here I think you know at the at the
end of the day I you know I understand the burrow's uh goals to try and consolidate lots and and make bigger tracks for the you know theaters and um
you know thing things like that This lot has a very particular location where it needs the house next door to say yes to it It needs the house next door to that to say yes to it Right you need you need a number of these existing
residential properties Um and quite frankly housing market the way it is Uh I don't think anybody's given up on a house that easily So in other words in order to consolidate these lots in order to have one of the permitted uses you need all of these property owners to
join in and agree um to consolidate their lots tear down all of their houses and put up a permitted use right so our ability to conform would require those lots to do that So in terms of the negative criteria do you
see any substantial detriment to the public good um if this variance was granted no Or or any of the variances were granted no And uh in terms of the zone plan and the zoning ordinance do you see a substantial impairment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance since
residential uses are actually permitted as long as they are already existing no I don't And um in fact the some of the burough's uh goals to protect and enhance the integrity of the existing residential districts within the burrow
Although this isn't a zone there are residential uses all around here that are complemented by our proposed use Correct That's correct um and employing strategies to encourage community and economic development within the bureau by having our ability
to have this type of use um that is mixing well both with the residential and business district Uh does that um enhance that goal i think it does I think the ability to have again more customers for the businesses and again integrating the residential and
commercial segments of Flemington Burough to benefit the entire community by making this vacant parcel actually capable of being developed Does that enhance that goal yeah it certainly does because again otherwise there's not a there's not a permitted use that we
could build upon the property I have no further questions Professionals specifically Uh yeah Um I have to say uh I think that the testimony addressed each of the variances The board will have to you guys will have to weigh as whether or
not the variance has been satisfied because they were satisfied But um but I think Mr addressed the the various the use the F the B variances um and went through the positive and negative criteria don't have any questions on this testimony but I'm happy to answer any questions from
the board very well my as your report states do yeah um two family residential uses not pay they had to come with the existing residential uses are yes are knew single
family residential use is allowed no In the in the zone that they thought they were in but didn't get the correct information Was is a single family use allowed was it allowed in that CV district and then no one put on the spot Yeah I believe I believe that's the case
I believe it allowed both one and two family Right Then exist then to me existing is an important point in does they're suggesting that this is an existing residential use because it used to be an residential I don't think I
have to come to I don't think they're saying it's an existing residential use and they have the right to continue it They're but they're I think accurately reflecting that the site was used as a residential use previously but that they're here for a use variance for the
two family use So we don't have to consider whether it was an existing use It's a it's a new to family residential use that they're asking for variance on I think the the former use is is relevant to the board's consideration just as you would consider the the surrounding uses and the context of the area but it's not but it's not relevant
from the perspective of giving them the right to residential use on site and they would need the same D1 variance for a single family home Although there would then the max floor area ratio and some other aspects and the basement concern could be addressed that way with a single family home on this level Is
that right um they would still have uh they would still have the the setback variances I'm certainly those would apply They would I think likely still have an F variance The the average size of new residential homes uh are I believe more than at least if not more
than 2500 square feet these days And so that would that would continue to generate an F variance if if the board makes the assumption that a new single family would be at or or greater than the uh the average new home size in the city Uh and and yes they would still
need to use variance So many of those variances would remain But to your point the board with one less unit perhaps there would be more flexibility that could be sought When you when you realize that you needed a D1 variance
did you did you consider not doing a two family residential use and and and reduce it down to a single family residential use honestly we think that the the two family usees is is the better use for this type of lot And it provides another uh opportunity for uh a
residential unit but this this had all been designed and um and prepared for a two family That's it was it was permitted in the CB zone So we didn't consider changing our whole plan to go to a single family We wanted to present
forward with the with the two family because we thought that's the better plan Guess that's all right Anybody else on the board um I presume have questions on this You don't question for car I'm just wondering about the minimum set yard back You you
compare commercial residential Was there on that chart so the it's the it's the adjoining use that that it's not it's not based on the use on the property It's based on your adjoining use I asked him the same question when I read her report
Anybody um from our board online have any questions for this witness on regard planning testimony Anybody in person have any questions we don't see any Hold on Anybody online have any questions um
for this witness no I don't see any hands So we'll move along with that then Then does that can you does that conclude your testimony uh it does I'd like to wrap up Um I want to do a count though One two
three Oh how many we have four Is on We have Anna and Dennis online And I saw Mr Campion wasn't on anymore so that he seems to have dropped off So um no that's it for my testimony I can
give a a very quick wrap up Yes Actually before you do madam chair we comment I know we've asked questions and I know there's no here but procedurally wise public comment generally I was I was for this witness but any comment
generally for this application before we wrap up and close the public hearing I don't see anybody with a raised hand online council don't see anybody so no we have thank you for reminding me thank you quickly permitted uses of Office of
Medical Child Care Indoor and outdoor recreation theater higher education and training community buildings clinic facilities animal hospital funeral homes research facilities health and fitness facilities and residential uses existing
at the date of the adoption of this ordinance um are permitted Um all of those can't be built on this site Um conditional uses can't be built on this site The only thing that really can be built on a site is a single family or duplex
residential use Um we think that this is an appropriate scaled project for a duplex It's not inconsistent with what's already on in the area in terms of a mix of single family residential uses and duplexes already there Um we know it's a
transition commercial district and the the goal of the the burrow was to transition the zoning into something different if possible The problem is that it's not possible for this very unique and uh peculiar lot in terms of
its shape size and location right next to Route 12 and on on the DOT Um this isn't something that anybody else can point and say you know you grant it to them you got to grant it to us too because this lot is what we call in legal parliament's funky Um and it's so
unique that it's appropriate for a use variance relief and the D4 variance relief The D4 variance relief as Miss McMahon has indicated would be um necessary whatever type of use that you put on this property The C variance
relief would be necessary for any type of use that you put on this property because our width is 7 feet on the building envelope That's what makes this property so very unique I know we're not asking for or hanging our hat on the
fact that it was a residential use previously We're not seeking that That's why we're seeking a use variance But it is important for the board to recognize that we're not proposing something that's completely foreign to what was already on that lot previously It was a residential use before It's residential
uses all around it Um we've agreed to all the conditions that we've discussed with the board's professionals And to think that this is an appropriate use variance D4 variance and C variance relief subject to the conditions that the board um would impose If you have
any questions or concerns or need any additional information from me before you deliberate I would like the opportunity to pro uh to try to address those concerns This isn't a major developer here coming in on an
application This is a mother a father and daughter who uh have an investment opportunity here Uh but this isn't a major developer and it's very expensive to keep coming back before boards Um we appreciate you staying late tonight to be able to hear this application too to
try and get it done in one evening But if you have any reservations about the application I'd like the opportunity to try and make you happy All right that being said do we have any questions or what before we close the
public and discuss anna yeah sorry I just had it just popped in my head right now and I just want just a quick clarification Did we have what was the um will there be an additional sidewalk on that side or did we were we waiting
for the building what we said we maybe waiting for something if you want it you got it If if it doesn't matter we'll will it comply to the building code My only thinking is that I do see like school buses over there and they do pick up kids and just having that little extra bit of sidewalk I think if there's
ever kids coming to get picked up from there would make that a little easier But actually well I don't know if it makes it easier but what we're talking about is on the side of the house The side Oh well I was talking about what's in front Is that because I know that I think there's
there's sidewalk to the residence to the left but not is it in the front too yes There is Okay then never mind That was my I got confused then Thank you Then that's my clarification More about a path really Hannah than a sidewalk The path Okay Got it Got it Got it Okay
Thank you That's perfect then Thank you Anybody else online i don't see any other hands raised Then I'll in person Yeah Um no We need to close I was going to make a motion to close public Thank you
Second We need to do a roll to close public All in favor all in favor should be Okay All in favor i Any anybody out of favor any oppose oppose Too late
Anyone want to say no all right So we'll close public hearing Yes Moving to board discussion time Jess ready to go first i I'm happy to go first I I mean I I mean um I I'm I move by the testimony of the
the plan testimony and and I think you laid it out very directly like if you were to build if we were if because of the setback on the commercial side and on the residential side and what we have in the ordinance and what's listed as permitted uses within the TC zone you can't build anything like I mean and so
I I'm I'm moved by the by the hardship argument about there needs to be something else um allowed for here I think that this is a I think this I'm I'm I think this is this is probably the best thing what what could do in this
vacant lot that's been sitting vacant for a little while now Um and you know as much as we want to over time have the the the TCO have these other kinds of uses Um and I know that we've talked in you know previously
about um especially you know Route 12 coming in from you know the French town part of skin into town as a gateway and wanting to see perhaps over time an intensification of uses um towards towards the the you know towards Main
Street Um you know there's just the given the the nature of this lot and then also just and I think this was also testified to the these series of skinny little lots there Those kinds of projects that we envisioned in
the TC zone in this part south of Route 12 I think is more appropriate for the parcels to the west where we've got larger lots or uh places where you know contiguous lots could be assembled perhaps a little bit easier than existing residential the residential
um uses that are to the west of here the five or six properties between the the the subject property and until you get to what's now the swing set factory that used to be the real estate office um
over there Um they've been residential you know use for as long as I've lived in this part of town Like they they're stable Um they're not tenants people have been living there people want to live there you know it
seems like it fits into the to to the um the character of that block you know in terms of of the use of of of residential being over there And yes right past this block this parcel we get into to the Wer building We have the circle We've got
the shopping center We definitely do have commercial you know to to even considering really that this lot would be a in the commercial aspect of this zone Yeah I see residential is the possibility Yeah However I feel that
this proposal fills the lot to its capacity We have the problem with the basement and the sump and spitting out onto somebody else's area That that's my concern that Yeah And I understand the timing of why they didn't then go back and think about just to put this single
family a smaller lot because even compared to the other ones and the lot the lots are a similar width the h the the the buildings that are proposed are smaller and I have real concerns about we're like maxing out what we can put on the lot and I no I some of those water
aspects and some of you know the the living aspects on on the plot I curious but I I als but I also looking at the dimensions of what the and Beth alluded with this before in terms of the size of what typical residential units tend to be Um they are built bigger and what the market is at the moment Like we've got
two units here that are you know one of them is about 2,000 square feet one's a little under 2,000 square feet I think it's less than that 1500 and something like that You know that's that's for a threebedroom 1500 square foot unit that's kind of typical of what gets
built nowadays as opposed to um um uh uh you know maybe what was built before you know and and I just I think that I hear what you're saying about the size I don't have a problem with the size I think that one of the things that I do appreciate is that they've cited the the
structure essentially behind the adjacent residential use and it kind of does provide even though they are very close to each other it does provide a buffer in sorts And I and I think you raised this question before about the the master bedroom window looking out
into the backyard It's better to be looking out into a backyard than looking out into your neighbor's bedroom I'm just saying that directly having experienced that because So it's a So I I think that if it was more I I so I think that there's a um
there's there is there is there does seem to be demonstrated an attention to that particular uh concern about the the proximity and the size Um and I think that again they've they've uh agreed to conditions around centering it Uh best
concerns about some of the aesthetics on the front elevation Um the commitment to that moving it and centering it would also per one one of my concerns was which I think was addressed in the testimony and screening against the commercial property the wer property which this
this seems to be able to preserve some of the existing landscape buffer and they've also pro provided testimony that they would do a fence if if you know it's in the satisfaction of our professionals I think you put all that together I think it makes sense So and that's that's that's where I'm that's where I'm at And I think that yeah in
the long term we might want the south side of 12 to look very different but I think that we can't hold we can't keep this lot vacant until someone decides to buy 12 of them and do something big you know i think that's what I'm that's where I'm at I just don't think they and
and I have real particular concerns with the water in that area especially as you're taking away trees that absorb the water and then you're adding in a basement that spits out water from the sump pumps that were going to create a
muddy mess for them either them that their use of the rest of the yard or the adjoining properties and I'm I'm it bother it always bothers me that we don't have the people local who are coming next to it whether I always worry that they didn't get noticed and they don't realize because they you know
there's not even a letter from them or anything about they don't mind it or I'd love to you know I mean I miss hearing from that but they had the opportunity but they're not here and we have we have had many applications where where where water's been an issue I'm not going to mention your names but we're the room is
full of neighbors who are deeply concerned about the water runoff and has not been we're not seeing anybody you know right but it doesn't necessarily mean those things won't become problems just because they're not here But sorry Mark you look like you look like you
were No I was letting Jeff finish I was just going to say my just my two cents I kind of agree with what Jeff said I I believe the proposal fits in the property given with the restrictions of what's there Uh I do believe the house
centering the house I think it would make it better Uh water drainage coming out the back even though the uh I don't like seeing it being directed to somebody else's property because my house was a newer house I dealt with
that of the neighbors dumping on mine and it it's it it just doesn't make good neighbors right uh the basement walkway which you said you would uh put in access and then agree with Beth's comments on the front aesthetics of the
windows So uh then the the only other thing is because it's a a rental or whatever and I don't really it's not our dis discussion is just that you guys have a good spot to put the trash cans so not seen from the road because a lot
of people have those even though it's not a commercial thing that's driving it but just this a good spot that you don't see it from the road because you're going to have a nice looking building and you don't want these ugly trash cans sitting out front Yeah because I probably going to put
them in that um driveway turn area and then screening maybe on that thing Yeah Anybody else have any comments Chris i do like to hear Paul online Oh sorry John You're in the Yeah I mean I'm I'm a little concerned about the the F ratio
with the temp with the short lot to begin with the fact that we don't have any factual information around where the water table is and the flow Notwithstanding I mean this is a TC district We weren't supposed to have two family dwellings or any residential
dwellings Um the idea well do we keep this lot vacant indefinitely maybe because it's bumped up against the corner lot maybe eventually things will change um you put a new rent you put a new structure there becomes more difficult to make that change down the
road Certainly um these things take a lot of time It takes years to shift um you know a a uh a particular zone in any any uh uh um urban planning or anything of that
nature Um so that's kind of where I'm at I'm a little concerned about size and and I still can't get over the fact that so we zoned a TC I understand this particular lot size but when you look at the adjacent lot sizes they're all single family right a much smaller
footprint It was 50s 60s whatever that original was So this does is it appropriate for that lot size i don't know I mean what standards do I use do I think about as a residential do I think about with the
just the TC zone so that's kind of our map Yeah Thanks Um any of our members online Hannah or Danny's just waving his hand physically yes I had a question when we were talking about the water Um someone made a comment This is not a site plan
Would that be a step after we decide if they move forward is there a site plan that would address the water issue or No No No Okay And and so um my concern is you know there was no
discussion about um putting some kind of retention for the water to keep it in the back of the They're not required They're not required to do that This is a very It's not It's not Yeah I I understand they're not required to
do it but if I was a neighbor and I was going to get water that was coming from that house that's a problem that it's not staying within their property So with the basement you know I think we all have it where we have some pumps
that run even when it's been dry for two weeks So that that's my only concern Um it's not a livable basement but um the concern about the water but regarding the the property
um I I think having something there versus nothing Uh the design looked good and I I don't see down the road having something else What our goal is for that area this property I don't think really
fits in the way it's you know next to other residential properties Um so my only concern is the water I would not want to be a neighbor next door to that Hannah did you any questions
um no I mean I I agree a little bit with Dennis in that maybe not necessarily a retention basin or anything or that extreme but if you know if because it is a concern and it keeps popping up If there's any form of landscaping that could also kind of be arranged for the area in which they're redirecting the
water that could you know there's certain plants that certainly are native that you know help drain or good with are good with watered areas Um because I I do agree and you know making sure it's undue stress towards neighbors and things and whatnot around that area as
well would be a concern for me Um but I do agree in that um you know it's a unique space It's a small space I'm not sure if it's the tipping point for anything else in terms of changing the the zone and and telling everyone else to sell and for someone to
buy So I'm not super concerned about that It's more just again you know making sure we're creating a good community with that with all the residents there I guess Yeah I mean considering it used to be part of a white lot I think people probably Oh
they they said it was they were previous owners but it wasn't a lot It was a single family house but it was Yeah but it was what I mean is people maybe people are imagining it as that one lot with the white I'm just It's irrelevant
It's just my comment Can I just suggest an additional condition while you're deliberating okay A condition that we will do a testing for the water table to confirm that the the elevation of the basement will be 1 foot above the water table So that would
not be an issue Oh so you're you're asking for a that's something that's going to go through the construction code official You're going to ask that you only have a basement If you could document your the bottom of the basement that we can document that
the water table is that the basement will be one foot above the water table and we'll provide you suggesting that you wouldn't have a sump pump No we'll have the sump pump but we're going to provide the documentation that um where the water table that's currently for
construction Yeah the building will require sump pump regardless even if it was a crawl space if there's open space below grade I don't want to get too far into it but we we'll have the sump pump but as a condition of this approval we'll we'll
establish where the water table is and that our foundation will be one foot above or the base is subject to the construction code officials approval that's always because it's not a site plan is so once the board votes they have no more jurisdiction over the application
Well be that's why I'm saying it's a condition of the approval so that we have to provide that documentation Right madam chair if I could I think it might address your question and I'm going to direct the well my question to you So what happens if it doesn't let's say the one your proof doesn't show then we'll
have to return to the board Okay So that that's what I think the concern was remove the basement or remove the base We don't have to jurisiction Well then we'll be retaining jurisdiction through the condition if
that's if that's how we're going to work That's why I was asking the question Okay So yes What is the plan if if if the crew is going to be one foot below do we did we establish what the um what
the I don't know what it is Benchmark is for the base They they they roughly 9T They generally testified that it would be at an elevation similar to the bottom of the DOT's basin in the middle of the circle We we didn't get a level for the bottom of the basement proposal So
therefore we can't put that one I've got testimony So we can't we can't impose something a foot below something We don't have to I think it's about it's not that the basement it's not about conditioning where the basement elevation is going to be It's about conditioning that the
basement must the bottom of the basement must be not less than one foot above the the water table And if that means that the basement can only be crawl space so be it And I believe that's what they do They're going to have to remove the basement If they if they fall short of
that one foot exactly because they're not seasonal one right is it So we're not But are we leaving it open that if that happens they raise the whole building up yes to put it in fact terms as on the record I mean actual terms as to what's on the
record right their plan says the first floor is 184.5 The architect said the basement will be 9 foot below that So it'll be one 17 um 5.5 That's that's the factual evidence
And as to Chris's testimony earlier their plans for the uh DOT stormwater basin in the middle of the circle the bottom of that at 176 176 So their basement has currently proposed is about a foot well half a
foot lower than the bottom of the DOT basin And the DOT basin can't it's got to be at least under current rules at two feet above the minimum two I really have no idea how But the but the point is we'll do the testing to establish the water table and
we'll be at least a foot above that or we'll have to adjust the basement But that that satisfies concerns regarding water Well let me if I may just to follow up on that just so we're very clear on what the condition is going to be It's I understand exactly what you're
saying but in the event that the the the testing does not approve and I know this you're very confident it will be and hopefully it will be the in the event it isn't does that mean and how we're going to word this condition that the board's retaining jurisdiction so that you have to come back before the board with
amended uh plans to show that you're coming in with a crawl space or are we saying that you can then just go to the construction official with a crawl space provided the crawl space is at least one foot the ladder members understand what that means and I
think we yeah I think we also have to stipulate that the the first floor level I stipulated on the plans doesn't change because that's otherwise they could lift the whole building up correctly right so this is pursuant to oh cognitive I don't know what the right word is
addit that that doesn't change too because they've all already said that they could effectively change it from a 9 foot clearance basement They could go to a eight right now You don't want what's the code what's the minimum on the code anyway they want their right to
shallow basement But so the only thing that would adjust would be the size of the basement not the height not the not the not the first floor as I'll essentially then they would conduct soil testing They would have an engineer certify the seasonal high groundwater
elevation that would go to the construction code official the board's new addition is the the this element of the the foundation the base but whatever it ends up to be crawl space has to be at least a foot above that elevation whether or not they put a sump pump in or not that's what I'm saying going to
put the sump well pick up Melissa yeah Melissa um yeah I just wanted to I'm just like well Okay if that's what they want to ac any any comments please or input please Everything I had pretty much
noted down has been covered already so I'm good Okay Thank you Thank you And are you happy as um with your environmental hat on with regards to the testimony that they had with the number of trees that we had
seven original from your report and we're coming we're going to they're going to put four back I believe we had deferred it to shade tree so oh sorry yours was impervious I apologize
all right I'll assume you're wonderfully happy with it then at this Um any other discussion if um if we are minded under that condition we did did we get to
um did we get to Joe any conditions that we would want to assist them have you been taking notes i haven't reminded what we might be and well we have the general condition of complying with the the professionals reports as as discussed in modified during the
testimony Uh one of them which we've discussed quite a bit is reentering the um the building on the site We have equal sideyard setbacks Uh they agreed to uh include additional uh trees or fencing along
the I I in my notes I have the WER property line I'm trying to remember if that was East Thank you Uh and as well as making sure that they um preserve the hedge working with WER uh and uh any um that that additional
fencing or uh and or landscaping they will reasonably work with our professionals on the final design they have that um they will work with um the board's planner on redesigning the
front facade uh of the building including uh increasing the front windows to double windows And we'll work with our uh as well as excuse me uh moving the uh the front door uh to be
more in line with the garage understanding the limitations of that but work reasonably working with the board's uh professionals on doing so to meet their um their requirements and approvals
Um they will uh condition that the uh basement will not be used for any inhabitable space and only for storage and mechanics Uh they agreed to add a pathway a walkway uh to the basement door in the side of the building
the very complicated condition that we just discussed regarding the water table uh which we'll have to work out the exact language of but it will essentially say that the basement they will conduct a water test uh to be certified by an engineer of the the
water the height of the water table of the elevation of the water table Uh and the results cannot have the basement or that must require the basement to be at least 1 foot above whatever that water table may be without increasing um the height overall height of the building or
I should say the elevation not just the heightwise but elevation from the ground floor the the ground and um if they don't they are able to convert that to a crawl space provided that the same
applies the crawl space is at least one foot above the water table and that would be um provided in connection with applying for construction permit Okay All those conditions are acceptable And
um did you want to add in something Mark when we were talking about the trash cans like at the front screen we don't have a suggestion then Okay All right I just wanted to make sure we grab that in Okay Um so with that being
said oh Hannah has something Just did we want to make a quick comment about like the trees that they'll be when they'll be adding more trees that they should you know did did the shade tree ever release a list of trees that they recommend for our area or native trees or they have the burrow has the burrow
has a list they do Okay So just making sure that it falls along those lines I would I would recommend that uh the uh any revised planting plan and like and also the light fixtures I think that was not included in the list Um uh we should just be reviewing approved by board
professionals Right Thank you That's fine All right Anybody got anything else everybody's made a comment now um with those conditions So um I guess does anybody feel comfortable raising the
I'll make a motion I will make a motion to grant B1 use variance D4 uh uh what's it called f variance and the associated C variances um subject to the conditions that we just rattled off
and I don't need to restate out loud Second All right Oh that's me So roll call Uh let me go through uh Mr Campion He's left I'm sorry Not eligible
to vote Okay Miss Gifin No Okay Miss Whitesman Yes Miss Swingle No Mr Schro yes
Mr uh Mr Da yes Mr Eckle no Mr Hay yes A vote of four to three does not like that got to tell you
folks that's that's extremely disappointing Um we've taken a property that can't be used for anything and voted no without articulating a reason why
after and agreeing to all the conditions Um that makes it very difficult for these property owners I think we establish that undue hardship and it's
the idea of leaving a piece of property vacant for as long as possible hoping that it's going to be zoned Thank you very much I got to express the way I feel I've come to report a lot I want to express the way I feel
All right Thank you Thank you everybody for your time and your work Um I appreciate the forge profession comments and along the way Thank you Listen can I just ask a question maybe I
missed it Wasn't the vote 43 yes it's it's a use requires a vote of five minimum vote of five Thank you Okay I didn't realize Okay Thank you If board members didn't realize that and want to review their their vote I would I would
request a uh a revote If that changes anybody's mind if they didn't realize that four in favor three against vote means a denial I would ask for a reconsideration That mand assumes that people voted at the end based on what other people have
done And I'd like to think that night vote members vote had they chose to vote on the call Well I'm just asking if any member if that changes their mind I would like an opportunity for there to be a revote if they didn't realize that that was a threshold for a vote
I think the silence will be next All right Item 14 chair items I'm just given the hour I'm just going to do it Next meeting is April 8 2025 Um and um committees I'm wanting to get going but as we had the discussion at the beginning committees issue I do want
to get going with some of those really talk about the ones that we'll get moving on those soon and I appreciate that All right So item 15 we don't have bills because of the issue with our secretary Um item 16 executive
discussion I'm going to assume we don't need to go to executive We do not Thank you So then item I think it's 16 or 17 if I'm not scratch Um again motion to adjurnn
All right Hold on Hold on Just for the record who was the motion who was the second move second Thank you Thanks Motion All in favor i thank you much See you next time Good night
everybody Bye [Music] That's not expansion Right I heard that What do you do with these just turn the pies off Otherwise you want to like for experience Answer